Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12-17; 35:1-3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective 9783666530913, 9783525530917

Citation preview

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben von Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Christopher Tuckett und Steven McKenzie

Band 227

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Daniel C. Timmer

Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-53091-7

© 2009, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Preface Preface Preface This book is the revised form of a doctoral dissertation written under Richard E. Averbeck at Trinity International University (Deerfield) and accepted in the spring of 2006. Drs. Averbeck and Willem VanGemeren both gave valuable advice at that time that has helped improve the current work. In particular, I have tried to anticipate objections to the work’s primary claims and to ensure that it engages respectfully and productively with various points of view and methodologies without becoming lost in equivocation or relativism. Because the work is one of biblical theology rather than historical theology, I do not have the luxury of simply describing the claims that others have advanced regarding the ways that the Jewish and Christian canons, as well as literature outside their boundaries, relate to one another in regards to this work’s subject. Still, in the discussion of methodology in particular, I have tried to courteously and honestly prepare the reader for an interpretative direction like the one I take without subsequently making her or him run a hermeneutical gauntlet. I remain thankful to God for the privilege of studying his word in a concentrated fashion, and for having sustained me throughout my doctoral studies and beyond. My time at Trinity was especially rich thanks to the men and women God graciously put there as my instructors, colleagues, and friends. In addition to those already mentioned, I owe a debt of gratitude to Drs. D. A. Carson, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, K. Lawson Younger, Jr., and Scott Manetsch for their teaching, advice, and kindness in things academic and beyond. Dr. Gerald M. Bilkes of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids) also played a seminal role in my academic formation and remains a model of humility and careful scholarship. I am also immeasurably indebted to my parents, whose faith continues to manifest itself in their generosity and faithfulness to those around them. The revision that produced this monograph took place in Montréal, a city blessed with numerous universities. The libraries of McGill University and the Université de Montréal were particularly helpful, as were Drs. Gerbern Oegema and Jean Duhaime (at the former and latter institutions, respectively) in all things related to the Dead Sea Scrolls and more. My teaching at Faculté de théologie réformée Farel has also given me numerous opportunities to reflect on and improve my understanding of this study’s subject,

6

Preface

not least in allowing me teach both Old and New Testaments. I am grateful to my students and colleagues there for the breadth and quality of our interaction, and to Dr. Jason Zuidema in particular for his expert networking on my behalf. I am happy to express my gratitude to Mr. Jörg Persch of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and to Dr. Steven McKenzie of Rhodes College (Memphis) for accepting this work in the series Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Dr. McKenzie merits special thanks for his patient, courteous, and incisive work as Old Testament editor. Whatever weaknesses in argumentation or infelicities in tone remain, they have been greatly reduced thanks to his efforts. I also thank Mrs. Tina Grummel and Mr. Philipp Mickat of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for their expert assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication. My time in Montréal has been made inestimably rich by the presence of my wife Andreea and, more recently, by the arrival of our son Nathan. In God’s grace I have experienced this side of Eden a joie de vivre with them that is a small foretaste of the eschatological consummation that this book examines. It is to them that I dedicate it. Soli Deo gloria! Daniel C. Timmer Montréal, September 2008

Table of Contents Contents Contents I. This study’s topic and themes in current discussion of Exodus and of biblical theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Review of studies relevant to the sabbath frame . . . . . . . . . . . 2 This study’s goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 This study’s methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The significance of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 12 18 18 26

II. Exegesis of the sabbath frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

1

2

The literary context of the sabbath frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The relation of Exodus 32–34 to Exodus 25–31; 35–40 . 1.2 Themes of Exodus 25–40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exegesis of the sabbath frame (Exod 31:12–17) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The sabbath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The meaning of šabbƗt šabbƗtôn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Sign and/or covenant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Seventh-day of creation motive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 32 32 43 44 47 51 56

3 4

Exegesis of the sabbath frame (Exod 35:1–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58 60

III. Hermeneutical and theological reflections on the sabbath frame . 1 Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Pentateuchal holiness prior to Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Divine rest elsewhere in the ANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Garden of Eden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Subsequent instances of holiness prior to Sinai . . .

61 62 63 74 79 86

2

Holiness at Sinai (Exod 19–Num 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Exegesis of Exodus 19:4–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Exegesis of Exodus 19:8c–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The relation of Exodus 19 to Exodus 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 This study’s findings vis-à-vis diachronic conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The meaning of Exod 31:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88 89 93 94 94 96

8

Contents

3

The rationale for the sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant 3.1 Rest, sanctification and the sabbath after Exodus . . . . . . 3.2 Rest, sanctification, and the sabbath at Sinai . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 99 100 101

IV. Exegesis of Exodus 32–34 with an emphasis on divine presence .

103 103 104 106 107 108 111 112 113 116 120 123

1

2

3

Introduction and context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The rationale for the calf (32:1–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 God threatens to annihilate Israel but relents (32:7–14) . 1.3 Moses punishes Israel (32:15–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Capital punishment of some offenders (32:21–29) . . . . . 1.5 Plague and divine absence (Exod 32:30–35) . . . . . . . . . . Exegesis of divine presence passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The angel replaces Yahweh and Israel repents (33:1–6) . 2.2 The tent of meeting (33:7–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Progressive restoration of presence (33:12–17) . . . . . . . . 2.4 The culminating theophany (33:18–34:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Request for Yahweh to fully restore covenant (34:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Covenant renewal (34:10–28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Divine presence via Moses’ shining face (34:29–35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. Hermeneutics, theology, and divine presence in Exodus 32–34 . . 1

2

3

Divine presence and forgiveness in Exodus 32–34 . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Intercession, non-cultic forgiveness and presence . . . . . . 1.2 Summary of the dynamics of forgiveness in Exodus 32–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The relation of forgiveness to sanctification . . . . . . . . . . Tabernacle and sabbath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The interrelation of sabbath and tabernacle in Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 126 128 130 132 132 133 137 138 149 149

Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145

VI. This study’s themes in subsequent Jewish and Christian literature 1 Creation, temple and sabbath in Isaiah 65–66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Full forgiveness and holiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Full divine presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The revelation of God’s rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146 146 148 149 150

Contents

2

Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Jewish Second Temple literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Damascus Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The relevance of non-canonical literature for this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 151 152 154 155 157

3

Rest, tabernacle, and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews . . . . . 3.1 Sacred space, the tabernacle and forgiveness in Hebrews 3.2 Sacred space, sacred time and rest in Hebrews . . . . . . . . 3.3 Sacred space and sacred time as rest in Hebrews . . . . . .

158 158 161 164

4

Is the creation-tabernacle-sabbath link absent from the Hebrew writing prophets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Relevant characteristics of the writing prophets . . . . . . . 4.2 Covenant consummation in the writing prophets . . . . . . 4.3 This study’s themes in the writing prophets . . . . . . . . . . .

165 166 167 173

VII. Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175

1 2

Summary of the study’s findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of the study’s findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 179

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

231

I. This study’s topic and themes in current discussion of Exodus and of biblical theology This study amid current discussion Review of relevant literature The sabbath frame (Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3) around the golden calf episode in Exodus 32–34 is one of several such literary devices in that section of the Pentateuch, and is a very significant link between the preceding and following sections.1 The frame’s first half follows immediately upon the tabernacle building instructions and calls Israel to refrain from the work of construction every seventh day, while its second half reiterates the sabbath command after the interruption of the golden calf at the beginning of the tabernacle building account. Because the sabbath is the sign of the Sinai covenant, the second part of the frame also affirms Israel’s continued covenant participation after the sin of the golden calf. Further, the frame’s use of the sabbath and of creation relates the tabernacle narrative to fundamental themes found in Genesis 1–2, making the frame theologically rich. Finally, the frame has a complex literary function, being transitional, resumptive, and demarcating.2 Despite its historical, literary and theological significance, however, the sabbath frame has not received commensurate scholarly attention. For convenience, the studies surveyed here will be categorized according to their predominant methodology as diachronic (i.e., stressing the historical development of the text itself, as in the Documentary Hypothesis [DH]), synchronic (i.e., stressing the literary unity of the text, and thus the meaning of its final form, as in the work of Robert Alter), or intertextual/contextual (respectively, exploring how the text relates to other texts in the Hebrew

1 I use the term “frame” or “sabbath frame” for Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 and mean an inclusion or bracket on the level of meaning or content. It is synonymous with “envelope” as defined by W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 282–3: “an incomplete chiasmus, only the extremes corresponding: ‘A … A’”. Elsewhere theophanies frame the tabernacle account (Exod 24:12 to Lev 1:2), and the two bodies of tabernacle material (Exod 25–31; 35–40) are themselves a frame around the golden calf pericope, while the term VY frames the first sabbath passage (cf. Exod 31:13, 17). 2 E.G. Newing, “Up and Down – In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai. The Literary Unity of Exodus 32–34”, ABR 41 (1993) 18–34, on p. 19, makes this observation. Its appearance in Exodus 35:1–3 is thus an instance of Wiederaufnahme.

12

This study amid current discussion

Bible or elsewhere in the ancient Near East [ANE]).3 These are only rough guides, however, as the categories sometimes overlap.4

1 Review of studies relevant to the sabbath frame Due to the prevalence of the DH, the majority of work done in the last century on the Pentateuch as a whole, and thus on the sabbath frame, has devoted its attention to the history and documents that may lie behind or within the final form of the text. Growing out of the historical criticism of the late Renaissance, the DH passed through various stages, finally receiving its classical formulation in Wellhausen’s Prolegomena.5 The persuasiveness of Wellhausen’s argument lay in its integration of the history of the text itself with the history of Israel’s religion, but this came at the expense of the text’s historical referentiality. The tabernacle, to note a point relevant to this study, was deemed a historical fiction.6 This recasting of the text’s relationship to the history it presents meant that the sabbath frame was taken to be a later addition to its literary context.7 In some cases, this means that the frame is simply not discussed, presumably because of its heterogeneous nature.8 When diachronic scholarship does attend to the frame, it normally proceeds in one of two ways. First, it may judge the frame to be in tension with its context. Thus Frank Michaeli thinks the frame elements “n’avaient rien à voir avec la question

3 Though the terms diachronic and synchronic derive from Saussurean linguistics, their meanings within biblical studies have come to approximate the brief explanations given above, as James Barr notes, “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?”, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1–14. 4 Note Marc Vervenne’s contention that given the complex nature of the biblical text, “diachrony and synchrony are not necessarily mutually exclusive”; “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 21–59, on pp. 28–9. 5 For a careful tracing of the development of views on the formation of the Pentateuch from the first century onward, see C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET 9; Kampen: Kok, 1994), 1–342. 6 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (foreword by D.A. Knight; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 38–45. 7 Here “literary context” is used in contrast to “ANE context” and refers to Exodus as we now have it. All agree on the high reliability of Exodus’s Hebrew text; see J.I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987), xxvi–xxix. 8 M. Noth does not even relate the two passages in his Exodus (OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 240–1, 275, nor does Scharbert in his Exodus (NEchtB 24; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), on 119, 133.

Review of relevant literature

13

du sanctuaire”.9 Second, it may see the two sides of the frame as being at odds with one another, as does Klaus Grünwaldt. Contending that the two sides of the frame are discrete überlieferungsgeschichtliche entities (thus not constituting a frame), he asks why, if 35:1–3 is earlier, it does not utilize the creation motivation found in 31:12–17.10 Thus most diachronic analyses of part or all of the frame are concerned with the competing voices in the text: disharmony rather than symphony is the interpretative mindset. Most works which explore themes of the passage synthetically reflect essentially the same state of affairs.11 A few works, though heeding source-critical conventions, nevertheless seek to connect the frame to its context: Arie Toeg’s Matan Torah be-Sinai shows that the frame passages “are part of a complex literary format, arranged in chiastic order, in which they serve as links between the Priestly material dealing with the tabernacle […] and the passages on the breaking and renewal of the covenant […]”.12 Nicola Negretti has also given close attention to the frame passages from a source-critical perspective, concluding that their priestly form represents the culmination of sabbath theology in the Pentateuch.13 Last, Helmut Utzschneider has suggested that Exod 35:1–3 “zusammen mit Ex 31,12–17 eine Art ‘Konklusion’ der beiden Hauptteile der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte über Ex 32–34 hinweg bildet”, but his study’s focus on Heiligtumstexte prevents him from exploring this further.14

9 F. Michaeli, Le livre de l’Exode (CAT 2; Neuchatel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1974), 267; he thinks the tension reflects the absence of a pre-exilic connection between covenant and sabbath (ibid.). 10 K. Grünwaldt does not consider the possibility of the frame’s literary and historical integrity; Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Athenäums Monografien, Theologie; BBB 85; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992), 186–93. G. Robinson takes this to extremes with his tradition-historical reconstruction of 35:1–3 as “an ancient cultic taboo of ‘strange fire’”, thus proscribing any relationship with 31:12–17; “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel”, VT 28 (1978) 301–17. 11 E.E. Elnes explores the relation of creation to the Tabernacle but does not consider the frame or its function in “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environment’”, HBT 16 (1994) 144–55; P.J. Kearney notes that 35:1–3 “echoes” 31:12–17 but does not pursue the topic in his “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40”, ZAW 89 (1977) 375–87. 12 As summarized by I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Toeg’s work is currently available only in Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977). Knohl himself is mainly concerned with relating the frame to the priorities of the Holiness School (Sanctuary, 16– 17). 13 N. Negretti, Il Settimo Giorno. Indagine critico-teologica delle tradizioni presacerdotali e sacerdotali circa il sabato biblico (AnBib 55; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), on 224–7 (on Exod 31:12–17) and 282–8 (on Exod 35:1–3). 14 See his Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9) (OBO 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 220.

14

This study amid current discussion

Within Old Testament theology, the prevalence of the DH has not gone unchallenged, however, and the closing decades of the twentieth century witnessed the emergence of literary criticism as an alternative method of interpretation.15 Motivated in part by dissatisfaction with the DH, in part by other developments, literary criticism chooses to bypass the conjectural documents and traditions behind the text and to approach it with attention to the meaning of its final form.16 Thus when treating the sabbath frame, literary studies, by virtue of their willingness to involve parts of the text usually omitted on historical-critical grounds, attempt to understand the function of the sabbath frame with reference not only to its immediate context, but also in relation to Exodus and beyond.17 Among such studies, those of R.W.L. Moberly, R.E. Hendrix, A.C. Leder, and E.G. Newing treat both sides of the frame, while van den Eynde and Newing have looked closely at the first side.18 The studies treating both sides of the frame generally limit themselves to suggestive observations on its literary placement and function, as with Leder’s observation that the passages form “a frame around the apostasy of Israel and the Lord’s renewal of the covenant […]”.19 15 “Literary criticism” here includes rhetorical, structuralist, formalist, narrative, and related approaches. 16 Particularly the methodology of the DH has received criticism as of late: see the critiques offered by R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987) and R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990). On a practical level, a long-standing element of the theory, namely the interrelationship of large narrative strands prior to P, is meeting with serious challenges; see T.B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (ed.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). 17 For example, E.G. Newing has argued that the Hexateuch and Genesis–2 Kings exhibit large-scale coherence and structure in “A Rhetorical and Theological Analysis of the Hexateuch”, Southeast Asia Journal of Theology 22 (1981) 1–15; idem, “The Rhetoric of Hope: A Rhetorical Analysis of Genesis–2 Kings”, Colloq 17 (1985) 1–15. 18 R.W.L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983). R.E. Hendrix, “A Literary Structural Overview of Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 123–38; Leder, “Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus”, CTJ 34 (1999) 11–35; Newing, “Rhetorical and Theological Analysis”; idem, “Up and Down”; S. van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath. ’wt and bryt (Exod 31,12–17)”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 501–11. Despite Moberly’s desire not to consider Exodus 32–34 “in complete isolation from other pentateuchal material” (At the Mountain of God, 186), he does not treat the relation between Exod 31:12–18 and what follows it, and the connection between Exodus 32–34 and the opening of chapters 35–40 is examined only briefly (idem, 109–11). 19 Leder, “Reading Exodus”, 29. Newing’s remarks are couched in theological terms, but equally brief: “keeping the sabbath day is a sign of YHWH’s eternal covenant with his people for all future generations because, made in the image of God, Israel as his chosen and sanctified people is to reflect YHWH’s holy character and manifest his glory by working and resting in the manner of YHWH himself” (“Up and Down”, 19).

Review of relevant literature

15

Studies which undertake exegesis of only one of the passages are also brief, and cannot take up the frame qua frame: van den Eynde’s work produces only the conclusion that “keeping the sabbath functions as a sign of recognition”.20 Thus their brevity and incompleteness limits their usefulness. Moreover, aside from these few works, the majority of recent treatments of Exodus fail to give the frame more than passing notice.21 This situation is ameliorated only slightly by several studies that deal with some of the frame’s secondary aspects.22 In addition to the diachronic and synchronic approaches to the sabbath frame, other studies have explored how elements or themes of Exodus relate to material elsewhere in the Bible (i.e., intertextually) or elsewhere in the ancient Near East (ANE, i.e., contextually). Within biblical studies, intertextuality has several meanings, each associated with different assumptions of what a “text” is. It may denote, on the one hand, an understanding of the Bible as intentionally self-referencing, self-focused, and self-contained. Such a view lies behind studies dedicated to pursuing how the Bible interconnects its various parts (often establishing certain connections between old and new), of which there are many.23 Intertextuality is more commonly connected, however, with the approach pioneered by Julia Kristeva, and is “less a name for a work’s relation to prior texts than a designation of its participation in the discursive space of a culture”.24 In biblical scholarship this latter approach often entails relocating meaning from its 20 Van den Eynde, “Keeping God’s Sabbath”, 511. 21 Making no reference to it are U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967); Michaeli, Le livre de l’Exode; and Noth, Exodus. Very limited attention is given it by W. Brueggemann, “The Book of Exodus”, in L.E. Keck et al. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vol.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1.675–981; B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974); Durham, Exodus; T.E. Fretheim, Exodus (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1991); C. Houtman, Exodus (3 vol.; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1993–1996); B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992); W.H. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006); and N. Sarna, Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1991). P. Enns’s treatment of the frame in Exodus (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 544–6, is the lengthiest of any commentator surveyed here. 22 On the tabernacle, see C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989); M.S. Suh, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003). 23 Regarding this phenomenon within the OT, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) and the spectrum of approaches to biblical intertextuality in A. Lemaire/M. Sæbø (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000). 24 J. Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 103.

16

This study amid current discussion

textual (in the non-Kristeva sense) home to one or more other locations, or erasing the distinction between texts altogether.25 For several reasons, this study will limit itself to works that are intertextual in the first sense.26 Relevant studies may be roughly classified by their focus on creation,27 tabernacle/temple,28 or sabbath,29 though many synthetic works treat more than one of these topics.30 Shimon Bakon’s “Creation, Tabernacle and Sabbath” 25 For an example of the former, see J.W. Voelz, “Multiple Signs, Levels of Meaning and Self as Text: Elements of Intertextuality”, Semeia 69–70 (1995) 149–64; of the latter, P.D. Miscall, “Texts, More Texts, a Textual Reader and a Textual Writer”, Semeia 69–70 (1995) 247–60. 26 This is bound up with this study’s hermeneutical approach that preserves the coherence and unity of textual meaning, something well defended by K.J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). 27 Recent studies of creation in the Hebrew Bible related to sabbath, tabernacle, or covenant include Y. Amit, “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness”, in M. Cogan et al. (ed.), Tehillah leMoshe (FS M. Greenberg; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) *13–*29; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004); W.J. Dumbrell, “Genesis 2:1–17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation”, in S.J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) 53–65; Elnes, “Creation and Tabernacle”; B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5 (1990) 37–69; and G.J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story”, in M. Goshen-Gottstein/D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 19–24. Eden imagery in the Bible is studied by E.W. Bolger, “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993); T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). 28 Recent studies of the tabernacle with a biblical focus include F.M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon”, in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 84–95; Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung”. Koester adds intertestamental literature in his The Dwelling of God. Still valuable is A.M. Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus”, AUSS 24 (1986) 127–45. For recent work on the ǀhel mô!Ɲd see R.E. Hendrix, “MiškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd: Etymology, Lexical Definitions, and Extra-biblical Usage”, AUSS 29 (1991) 213–24; I. Knohl, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting’”, in M. Cogan et al. (ed.), Tehillah le-Moshe (FS M. Greenberg; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 73–9; M.R. Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain. Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). 29 See H.R. Cole, “The Sabbath and Genesis 2:1–3”, AUSS 41 (2003) 5–12; J. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); G. Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (BBET 21; Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1988); and H.N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath”, Pacifica 1 (1988) 235–50. 30 S.E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); S. Bakon, “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath”, JBQ 25 (1997) 79–85; F.H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990); J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 21994); and P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337–85.

Review of relevant literature

17

draws attention to echoes of God’s successful work in Gen 2:1–2 in the reports of the tabernacle’s commissioning (Exod 31:16) and successful completion (Exod 39:32; 40:33), and argues that sacred time and sacred place are functions of divine and human agency alike.31 Another example of the intersection of history and intertextuality is J. Gerald Janzen’s view of the tabernacle as a full-fledged return to Eden.32 The different interpretations that these articles give of the relationship between Genesis 2 and Exodus 25–40 demonstrate the importance of methodological self-awareness when dealing with history as an element of intertextual study. Turning to contextual work, more precision is needed than that afforded by the categories of diachronic and synchronic, though they remain relevant. Materials from elsewhere in the ANE often share the same chronological distance from the Exodus material that biblical parallels to the tabernacle pericope possess. Furthermore, since they are not part of the literary corpus of the Bible, they have an inherent literary, cultural, and geographic distance from the tabernacle narratives.33 However, study of the HB/OT has recently made significant advances in developing a methodology which avoids yielding either too little or too much significance to extrabiblical materials. This has advanced our understanding of several topics that will contribute to this study, especially creation, tabernacle/temple, and sabbath.34 M. Weinfeld’s seminal contribution still merits attention: “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Gen 1:1–2:3”, 501–12 in A. Caquot/M. Delcor (ed.), Mélange bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de Henri Cazalles (AOAT 212; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 501–12. 31 Bakon, “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath”. 32 “The tabernacle is a miniature model of the cosmos as God would have it be”, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 269. 33 As used here, “chronological” and “literary-cultural-geographic” distance correspond to W.W. Hallo’s “vertical” and “horizontal” terminology, respectively. See Hallo’s programmatic essay “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach”, in C.D. Evans/ W.W. Hallo/J.B. White (ed.), Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method (PTMS 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980) 1–26. 34 Comparative studies of creation include B.F. Batto, “Paradise Reexamined”, in K.L. Younger, Jr./W.W. Hallo/B.F. Batto (ed.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Scripture in Context 4; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991) 33–66; R.J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994). Recent contextual approaches to temples and temple building include R.E. Averbeck, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Methodology: Historiography and Temple Building”, in M.W. Chavalas/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), Mesopotamia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 88–125; and A.C. Leder, “An Iconography of Order: Kingship in Exodus. A Study of the Structure of Exodus” (Th.D. diss.; Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto, 1992). V.A. Hurowitz deals with both contextual and Solomonic (1 Kings 5–9) material in his I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992); Egyptian comparative materials are marshaled by K.A. Kitchen, “The Tabernacle – A Bronze Age Artifact”,

18

This study amid current discussion

2 This study’s goals This study’s goals A survey of the literature shows a noticeable lack of scholarly reflection on the sabbath frame and a nearly complete absence of material exploring its function in Exodus. Furthermore, many of the extant studies are dominated by a single methodology, whether diachronic, synchronic, or contextual.35 This sharpens the need for a study that integrates what may be gained from each of these approaches into a holistic, textually-controlled study of the sabbath frame. This study, accordingly, will first explore the sabbath frame exegetically, asking why the sabbath command (rather than another) is chosen to frame the golden calf episode, and the sabbath frame passages will anchor the study. Next, exegesis of the golden calf episode will investigate how Exodus 32–34 itself coheres and how the frame relates the calf episode to its tabernacle context. Attention to the interplay of continuous and discontinuous elements in the text will prevent either from being overlooked. Intertextual and comparative evidence will also illuminate the study’s control passages; special attention will be given to the tabernaclebuilding section in Exodus 25–40 and to the sabbath material in the Pentateuch (Gen 2:1–3; Exod 16; 20:8–11; 23:10–12; Lev 23:3; Num 15:32–36; Deut 5:12–15), though the ANE’s pattern for temple building and the literary features of interruption and Wiederaufnahme in ancient Near Eastern accounts will also be noted. Finally, typological connections between the creation-tabernacle-sabbath complex in Exodus and related structures elsewhere in the Hebrew and Christian canons will be noted.

3 This study’s methodology This study’s methodology Most overviews of pentateuchal studies, including that presented above, classify works as either diachronic or synchronic, reflecting the author’s interest in either the prehistory of the text or in the meaning of its final form.36 But these labels are not without their own difficulties: what exactly separates a diachronic reading from a synchronic one, and is one preferable? ErIsr 24 (1993) 119–29. On the sabbath, see L. Laberge, “Sabbat: étymologie et origines. Étude bibliographique”, ScEs 44 (1992) 205–20. 35 M.S. Smith laments the fact that “diachronic analysis has rarely been joined to a discussion of the synchronic arrangement of the book”; “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation”, CBQ 58 (1996) 25–50, on p. 26. 36 G.J. Wenham, “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm”, in D.W. Baker/B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 116–44, and H. Utzschneider, “Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturewissenschaft und das Buch Exodus: Überlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung”, ZAW 106 (1994) 197–223, divide their surveys of the field this way.

This study’s methodology

19

Recently two scholars have reached opposite conclusions on this point, and interestingly both have started with the work of John Barton. Paul R. Noble has argued that the results of synchronic and diachronic approaches are exclusive: if one method shows that a passage “can be perceived as a well-integrated text […] does this not undermine the fundamental impulse that motivated source-criticism?”37 Conversely, V.P. Long has argued that “there is considerable common ground” between the two methods, since both types of reading begin with the text as a whole. This is patently the case for synchronic readings, but is no less necessary for diachronic readings, for it supplies the reference point by which deviations thought to indicate sources may be identified.38 The point at issue, in fact, is what type of explanation a reader seeks for a potential indicator of textual incoherence. Literary critics […] generally see themselves as having a duty to persist with a holistic approach until the whole text is in focus as a unified entity […]. Source critics on the other hand allow […] suspicions to have full rein, and are content when they have divided the text into sections each of which in itself has a coherent shape.39

This study will approach the text with the assumption that it is internally consistent within the chronological, theological, and literary controls it establishes. For this reason, and in view of the methodological difficulties inherent in source analysis, limited attention will be given to identifying sources or redactional activity as such, although the scholarly source-critical discussion and the related complexities in the biblical text will hardly be ignored.40 A careful balance will be sought between the resolution of apparent difficulties in the text on the one hand, and an appreciation of its genu37 P.R. Noble, “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation”, Literature and Theology 7 (1993) 130–48. 38 V.P. Long, “Historiography of the Old Testament”, in D.W. Baker/B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 145–75, on p. 162. 39 J. Barton, “Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common Ground?”, in S.E. Porter/P.M. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries (FS M.D. Goulder; Biblical Interpretation 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3–15, on p. 7. 40 Merely discerning sources does not in itself disintegrate the text if these sources are assumed to be consistent; indeed, the Pentateuch itself records such circumstances in its composition (e.g., the oral origin of the genealogies in Numbers 1, 26). But the sources posited by the Wellhausian school are identified largely by virtue of their purported incompatibility. T.B. Dozeman argues that “the ‘incomprehensible’ quality of the canonical Sinai Complex is really a necessary prerequisite for Wellhausen, which allows him to sort out the repetitious parallel sources at another level within the text”. God on the Mountain. A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (SBLMS 37; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 4. On the difficulties of identifying the work of a redactor, see J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (rev. and enl. edn; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 45–60; also, with some reservations, J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006).

20

This study amid current discussion

ine tensions on the other. The demand for external consistency, often seen in the demand for the text to proceed in chronological order or without repetition, is not an appropriate hermeneutical tool.41 This study’s presupposition that the biblical text is coherent when taken on its own terms is also closely related to the question of how one should construe the relationship between the history represented in the text and the actual state of affairs. In terms of the research problem, the DH, rather than seeing both sides of the sabbath frame as suited to the historical situation portrayed in the tabernacle narrative and thus having immediate relevance to the Israelites as they began to build the tabernacle, instead disconnects the sabbath in Exodus from the historical experience of Israel during its Sinai sojourn. This demands that one bypass the chronological and referential elements of the text in favor of seeing the sources’ religionsgeschichtliche diversity and incompatibility.42 Thus Wellhausen speaks of a “change in quality” vis-à-vis the sabbath from pre-exilic (i.e. JE, D) to post-exilic times (P). In the Priestly Code, on the contrary, the rest of the Sabbath has nothing at all of the nature of the joyous breathing-time from the load of life which a festival affords, but is a thing for itself, which […] approaches an ascetic exercise much more nearly than a restful manner.43

Not only does this distinguish P from the earlier documents, but on Wellhausen’s view the same discontinuity exists within the P material(s).44 Noth also draws into question “the connection of the sabbath rest with the creation”, since the command of Exod 31:12–17 demonstrates a development beyond the mere description in Gen 2:2.45 Here the study’s intertextual aspect, which allows for historical and theological development that is not opposed to the text’s internal consistency, permits the correlation rather than the opposition of the various pericopae. An intertextual approach also

41 M. Sternberg establishes this in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 39, listing as constituents of biblical Hebrew narrative temporal order (especially with deviations), changes in point of view (especially from narrator to subject), representational proportions (repetition, summary), and informational gapping and ambiguity. 42 W. Brueggemann notes this in his introduction to G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (with an introduction by W. Brueggemann; 2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), x. 43 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 114–15. 44 Without adducing any text critical support, Wellhausen states that Gen 1:1–2:3 was “amended” before its integration into Exod 31:17 so that God finished his work on the sixth (Exodus) rather than the seventh day (Genesis); Prolegomena, 115. 45 A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (introduction by B.W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 241–2.

This study’s methodology

21

accords with this study’s position on the inseparability of Historie and a Geschichte which roots itself in Heilsgeschichte.46 Typology is a particularly useful interpretative tool in this regard, since its illumination of intertextual connections illustrates how an element in Scripture functions within the flow of redemptive history.47 Whereas allegory and some definitions of typology function independently of the historical similarities and differences between the prototype (initial entity), type (corresponding, subsequent entity), and antitype (final, superlative entity), history is indispensable to typology in establishing both similarity and difference.48 Yet typology is not primarily historical: the advocacy of typological unity […] is not primarily concerned to find a unity of historical facts between [the entities] […]; it is more concerned to recognize the connection in terms of a structural similarity between type and antitype.49

46 I use the term “redemptive history” to describe the hermeneutical vantage point that explores the significance of the progressive accomplishment of God’s redemptive purposes across history. In this study I assume that this progression is organic, and so I use “biblical theology” in a way different from most who consider themselves to be in the line of J.P. Gabler (e.g., K. Stendahl). See further B.S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology”, in T.D. Alexander/B.S. Rosner (ed.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000) 3–11. Introducing a qualitative difference between Historie and Geschichte has allowed interpreters such as von Rad (Old Testament Theology, 1.105–15) to treat as meaningful a text that has no essential historical referentiality or truth value, but such an approach has serious weaknesses. First, the biblical materials know of no such distinction, as Sternberg has shown: “On the one hand, [biblical] history unfolds a theology in action – one distinctively grounded in God’s control and providence, enjoining a remembrance of his wonders from Creation onward, with the Exodus as focal point, and therefore inextricably bound to a sense of the past. As a record of God’s lordship and his people’s indebtedness, history-writing doubles as a sacred contract, uniquely explaining the processes of time by reference to a covenantal relation with divinity. On the other hand, this history makes a story and therefore not only accommodates but also co-determines the rules of narrative. For instance, its passion for the factual (no matter how assumed) so chimes in with objective storytelling as to render it impossible to disengage the historical from the aesthetic motivation for this strategy.” Sternberg, Poetics, 45. Second, theology without historical bases encounters epistemological problems: see V.P. Long, The Art of Biblical History (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 88–119. 47 See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 351, where he defines inner-biblical typologies as “a literary-historical phenomenon which isolates perceived correlations between specific events, persons or places early in time with their later correspondents”; his remark there that a “hermeneutical relationship” exists between type and prototype is especially perceptive. See also W. Glenny, “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion”, JETS 40 (1997) 627–38; F. Young, “Typology”, in S.E. Porter/P.M. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries (FS M.D. Goulder; Biblical Interpretation 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 29–48; and especially S.T. Yoshikawa, “The Prototypical Use of the Noahic Flood in the New Testament” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity International University, 2004), 1–34, for recent discussions of the issues involved. 48 A.C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids/London: Zondervan/HarperCollins, 1992), 163, 485. 49 G. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 41991), 180.

22

This study amid current discussion

The history of interpretation has amply demonstrated the need for careful controls on typological interpretation, so this study will adopt the following: defining the type by its relation to prototype and antitype; balancing the need for the antitype to transcend its type with the element of repetition inherent in their relationship; and limiting typological entities to those with an historical character.50 A final methodological issue concerns the comparative method. The redating of the Pentateuchal sources that was given supremacy by Wellhausen’s Prolegomena and the widening stream of discoveries from the ANE that began in the mid-nineteenth century were important factors in the production of sabbath studies that did not consider it a uniquely biblical, or originally Israelite, phenomenon.51 For the sabbath, this meant that it was variously linked to Babylonian, Canaanite, Kenite, or Ugaritic antecedents.52 Though the excesses of early comparative efforts are now evident, a survey of current literature will bear out Talmon’s claim that even at the present scholars often revert to a comparison with external ‘parallels’ without the prerequisite definition of a methodology and before examining the phenomena under consideration in their inner-biblical context.53

Two issues lie behind most divergent opinions on the nature of the biblical sabbath: how to make use of comparative data from outside the Bible, and how to construe the multiform sabbath material within the canon. The latter 50 For a fuller delineation of these controls, see D. Hagner, “When the Time Had Fully Come”, in C.E. Armerding/W.W. Gasque (ed.), Handbook of Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 89–99; O. Cullmann, Salvation in History (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 132– 5; and especially Yoshikawa, “Prototypical Use”, 14–26. 51 This was initially part of the “pan-Babylonian” school that conceived the “Babel versus Bibel” controversy articulated by F. Delitzsch; cf. G.F. Hasel, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology”, EQ 46 (1974) 81–102, on p. 81. 52 As G. Hasel notes (“Sabbath”, ABD, 5.849–56). On potential Babylonian parallels, G. Robinson recently defended in his Origin and Development the view, originating with J. Meinhold, that “the OT sabbath was originally a monthly full-moon day and as such was borrowed by Israel from ancient Babylon”; cf. J. Meinhold, Sabbat und Woche im Alten Testament: eine Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905). F. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), argued for Canaanite origins; H.H. Rowley, “Moses and the Decalogue”, BJRL 34 (1951–52) 81–118, for Kenite origins. J. Levenson has recently suggested a link between Ugaritic and Israelite sabbaths in his Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 79. 53 S. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation – Principles and Problems”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 320–56, on p. 342. Talmon’s “The ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method”, in L. Merrill/T.W. Overholt (ed.), Scripture in History and Theology (PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 243–68, gave earlier expression to his methodology. Hallo has most recently articulated the substance of his seminal “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting” as a synthesis of intertextual and contextual compare-and-contrast approaches in his “Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis”, in COS, 1.xxiii–xxviii.

This study’s methodology

23

point was addressed above, and can be summarized here: one’s presupposition vis-à-vis the biblical text’s trustworthiness largely determines whether the explanation of a given text seeks coherence within the limited scope of a particular source (e.g., Wellhausen’s Priestly source) or across the whole of the biblical witness.54 Thus Andreasen’s tradition-historical investigation proceeds in terms of the different sources’ theologies and their development, while Hasel’s moves chronologically through the biblical material, which he assumes is internally coherent.55 The role of comparative studies in biblical interpretation must be articulated in order to make proper use of the available ancient Near Eastern material, whether for the sabbath or any other topic. The field of biblical studies represents a wide spectrum of approaches to the problem which runs from structuralism (Lévi-Strauss and followers) to functional anthropology.56 The former assumes that individual items in chronologically and geographically distant cultures may be compared without a great deal of attention to their function within their unique setting. The latter, taking exception to structuralism’s conviction that a fundamental unity underlies human cultural expression, insists that geographical and (especially) temporal propinquity are necessary for there to be meaningful comparison, and that individual phenomena must not be considered “in isolation from their overall cultural and civilizational context”.57 When employed within biblical studies, the comparative method has four tenets: “proximity in time and place, the priority of inner biblical parallels, correspondence of social function, and the holistic approach to texts and comparisons”.58 The precise nuances of this approach continue to be refined, but the method has established itself as sound and will be employed in this study.59 54 Barton, “Historical Criticism”, 7. 55 N.-E. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation (SBLDS 7; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972); G.F. Hasel, “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 21–43. 56 Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’”. The priority of inner biblical parallels is a correlate of the contextual method’s holistic approach in that a biblical phenomenon must be examined in its historical (and thus biblical) setting, the Bible being the most extensive source on the period. It also reflects the conviction that biblical literature exhibits more propinquity to itself (especially culturally) than do other sources. 57 Ibid., 324. 58 As summarized by Averbeck, “Sumer”, 89. 59 Important refinements include K.L. Younger, Jr.’s delineation of four lines of propinquity (“linguistic, geographic, chronological, and cultural”) and J.H. Walton’s stress on the “cognitive environment” that is determinitive for the interpretation of a given text. K.L. Younger, Jr., “The ‘Contextual Method’: Some West Semitic Reflections”, in COS, 3.xxxv–xlii; J.H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).

24

This study amid current discussion

A comprehensive survey of even recent arguments for extra-biblical sabbath origins would take us too far afield, and in some cases would exhume theories which research has properly buried.60 In general, scholars see the sabbath as coming to Israel either as something borrowed wholesale from other ancient Near Eastern cultures, or as the product of significant influence from outside Israel. Gnana Robinson’s suggestion, already mentioned, has the OT sabbath coming into Israelite practice by way of Babylon, first as a monthly full-moon day and later, after the exile, as a weekly entity. Taking a different tack, Jon Levenson argues first for cosmogonic overtones to the Feast of Tabernacles, then from the association of that feast with Israelite sanctuary building to a link between cosmogony and sabbath.61 Bernard F. Batto, restricting himself to the motif of divine rest (rather than the sabbath), argues that Genesis shares the motif of divine rest after creation since it is one of many “versions of the Semitic Combat Myth”.62 In weighing the potential relevance of these sources for understanding the Pentateuchal Sabbath, it is notable that each of these proposals has very different chronological, social, and geographic matrices, so that their synergistic influence upon Israel is unlikely. Further, the avenues by which these sources are thought to have made their way into Israel’s sacred literature differ: Levenson’s argument begins outside Israel but develops within it, while Batto’s has Semitic origins and Robinson’s Mesopotamian. This disharmonious variety, when added to the difficulty of proving influence or dependence between the concepts and practices involved, validates Hasel’s claim that so far “the quest for the origin of the sabbath outside the OT cannot be pronounced to have been successful”.63 60 E.g., Jenni’s argument for a sociological origin of the sabbath as originally a market day, which founders for lack of evidence. E. Jenni, Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes im Alten Testament (ThSt [B] 46; Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956). For wider surveys, see Hasel, “Sabbath”; P.A. Barker, “Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, Jubilee”, in T.D. Alexander/D.W. Baker (ed.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003) 695–706; and esp. Robinson, Origin and Development, 27–43. 61 Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 66–120. Unfortunately, his arguments are occasionally gratuitous (the creation-sabbath motive in Exodus 20 is taken as “magical”, speaking principally of “re-creation” [101]), and frequently weave together disparate evidence without demonstrating that evidence’s warrant from the passages involved. He also overlooks the contrasts which inhere in his comparisons; thus the transfer of the lesser gods’ workload to humanity in Enuma Elish is taken as a parallel for the sabbath principle in Israel’s social life, although Yahweh is not interested in lessening his workload (102). See further J. Van Seters, review of J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, Int 44 (1990) 196–8. 62 B.F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 78–9. 63 Hasel, “Sabbath”, 5.851.

This study’s methodology

25

Moreover, studies informed by the compare-and-contrast contextual approach have demonstrated several important differences between the biblical sabbath and its supposed ancient Near Eastern counterparts.64 William W. Hallo has shown, after extensive review of comparative studies of the sabbath, that classical period Mesopotamia cannot have been the source of Israel’s weekly sabbath since Mesopotamia “organized its days of labor and rest by the month, not by the week”.65 Further, illustrating the biblical sabbath’s distinctive social function and literary characteristics, Hallo notes that in contrast to alleged parallels from Babylonia, Assyria, and Asia Minor, the sabbath command is “woven deeply into all Pentateuchal legislation”, reflecting Israel’s unique “intermingling of ethical and cultic prescriptions”.66 The literary setting of the sabbath material underlines the importance of paying attention to the literary genre of parallels, which, considering the character of Enuma Elish and the Baal Epic as apologies for the superiority of Marduk and Baal in their respective pantheons, has not always been done satisfactorily. The sabbath material in Exodus, apart from the narrative of Exodus 16, is covenantal law, set within the context of Exodus’s main theme, Yahweh’s gift of his special relationship and presence to Israel via covenant and tabernacle.67 These social and literary characteristics, as the contextual approach recognizes, must be respected in any investigation of sabbath origins. There is also an important confluence of methodology for this study in the complementarity of its presuppositions regarding the biblical text’s referentiality and the contextual method. By first investigating the sabbath in the unique context of the Sinai covenant in Exodus, and in the context of 64 E. Kutsch, “Der Sabbat – ursprünglich Vollmontag?”, in E. Kutsch/L. Schmidt/K. Eberlein (ed.), Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (FS K. Elliger; BZAW 168; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 1986) 71–7; H. Cazelles, “Les origines du Sabbat”, in idem, Autour de l’Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987) 125–30. 65 W.W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach”, HUCA 48 (1977) 1–18, on p. 12. See also the recent survey of J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB; 3 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1998–2001), 1959–62, which also finds the Israelite sabbath to be unique. 66 Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths”, 16. This point is nearly unanimously recognized; see J.J.M. Roberts, “The Bible and the Literature of the Ancient Near East”, in idem, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2002) 44–58; also P.D. Miller, “The Human Sabbath: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology”, PSB 6 (1985) 81–97. This scholarly consensus draws into question source- and tradition-critical schemes since the developmental process envisioned by the DH depends in part on a shift, over time, from warm concern over ethical issues like justice and mercy to a cold, dry fascination with the mechanisms of the cult. 67 In the Pentateuch the sabbath appears in narrative in Exodus 16; Numbers 15. “The concept of the commandment as the stipulations of a covenant between the gods and the people is simply unknown in Mesopotamia.” Roberts, “The Bible”, 46.

26

This study amid current discussion

Exodus as a book, one pursues a line of inquiry more likely than any other to be in harmony with the data itself. This is consonant with tenets of linguistic and comparative methodology, as Talmon explains: “The elucidation of difficult terms and ideas must be achieved from the biblical books themselves, since they are the only reliable first-hand evidence which mirrors, albeit fragmentarily, the conceptual horizon of ancient Israel and the linguistic and literary modes in which it found its expression.”68 Together with the inconclusive results of the search for the origins of Israel’s sabbath outside the HB, this methodological justification for privileging the biblical text impels us toward a close study of the Pentateuch’s sabbath material.69

4 The significance of this study The significance of this study This study contributes to biblical studies in at least three ways. First, it is hoped that the methodology described immediately above will show the benefit of integrating various types of insights so that they inform one another without undercutting or ignoring each other’s fundamental methodological tenets. This will help this study to move beyond the current methodological impasse which has paralyzed much of the field of OT studies. Second, not a few comparative studies have uncritically exhibited “parallelomania”, as when Jon D. Levenson, reflecting on Exod 35:1–3, avers The extinction of the flames on the seventh day of casting Baal’s temple is strangely reminiscent of the biblical prohibitions against kindling a fire, baking, or boiling on the Sabbath. It is possible, but far from demonstrable, that this Ugaritic passage witnesses to a Sabbath of sorts among the Canaanite antecedents of Israel. If so, then the fact that it should have taken exactly a week to cast Baal’s temple may suggest a connection of the week or Sabbath with cosmogony/temple building […].70 By giving priority to innerbiblical parallels, and guiding the discussion with the contextual method, this study seeks proper articulation of both the distinctive and comparable characteristics of Exodus vis-à-vis its ancient Near Eastern context.

This study further envisions making a contribution to the understanding of how Exodus, especially its tabernacle section (Exod 25–40), relates to the story line of the Pentateuch, and will underline the importance of rest as a 68 Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’”, 350. Hasel, “Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, and R.T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental, and Patristic Studies (AGJU 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 10–50, esp. 10–22, employ such a method, though Beckwith does not deal with the ancient Near Eastern material. 69 The sabbatical and jubilee years are obviously related to the concept of sabbath, but they may largely be left aside in this study; see A.G. Shead, “An Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee”, RTR 61 (2002) 19–33. 70 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 79.

The significance of this study

27

theme of the Sinai covenant. It will also contribute to several intersecting theological discussions, such as the relationship between sacred time and sacred space in Exodus and the relation of covenant to creation.71 Lastly, in view of Old Testament theology’s difficulty in deciding how best to relate theology and history, this study will advance an appreciation of the sabbath frame that does not sever its ties to the historical situation presented in Exodus. A study grounded in the history that the text presents should facilitate interpretation in ways that neither a Wellhausian nor a new literary approach can.

71 The relation between sacred time and sacred space is the subject of F.H. Gorman’s monograph (The Ideology of Ritual). Balentine (Torah’s Vision) and Knohl (Sanctuary) also deal with it in the context of their studies.

II. Exegesis of the sabbath frame Literary context of the sabbath frame Exegesis of the sabbath frame Exodus 31:12–17 is the seventh and final instance of a quotative frame in the tabernacle building instructions (cf. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), and serves as a formal and semantic close to that section.1 Its placement is also significant in light of YHWH’s subsequent giving of the two tablets of the testimony to Moses (31:18), which brings to a close the section that began with Moses’ forty-day sojourn in the theophanic cloud atop Sinai (24:18).2 This chapter will survey the context of the sabbath frame (Exodus 25–31; 35–40), then study the frame passages closely via literary exegesis. This exegesis will form the basis of reflections on the frame’s literary and theological relationship to its context in the following chapter. With the Sinai covenant established, first provisionally in Exodus 19 then officially in chapter 24, the narrative shifts in chapter 25 to the mode of YHWH’s presence with Israel.3 This, as Durham has shown, is a prominent theme in Exodus that exhibits significant developments and dynamics as the book unfolds.4 The strict focus on the tabernacle in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 reflects the unparalleled import of YHWH’s designating it as the exclusive means for him to dwell (_M) among his people (25:8).

1 Several other levels of literary arrangement are present; see, e.g., R.E. Hendrix, “A Literary Structural Overview of Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 123–38, and the discussion below. 2 While it might be suggested that the tablets form a frame around the golden calf as well, two points bear consideration. First, the inclusio of the tablets ends at 31:18, having begun at 24:12 (cf. G.C. Chirichigno, “The Narrative Structure of Exodus 19–24”, Bib 68 (1987) 457–79, esp. 472 n. 33). Second, if an inclusio begins at 31:18, its end is both indistinct (cf. the various references to the tablets in Exodus 34) and located within the golden calf episode, so that it is not in fact a frame. 3 For the legitimacy of the provisional-ratified covenant sequence, see F. Polak, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari”, in C. Cohen/A. Hurvitz/S.M. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe (FS M. Weinfeld; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 119–34. Despite voluminous opinion to the contrary, T.D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1–xxiv 11”, VT 49 (1999) 2–20, gives ample reasons to accept the coherence of Exod 19:1– 24:2. 4 J.I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987).

Literary context of the sabbath frame

29

1 The literary context of the sabbath frame Any attempt to describe the structure of Exodus must reckon with the book’s overall trajectory, which culminates in Yahweh’s glorious, theophanic coming to dwell among Israel in the completed tabernacle.5 But this is only one of its several thematic or structural features, and to adopt just one would be reductionism. Here we will briefly survey the most convincing thematic analyses, then turn to the frame itself. While studies of Exodus’s structure have often been cast in terms of the Priestly redaction and its arrangement, this requires disintegrating the book and prejudices the discussion in favor of historical-critical judgments which are increasingly called into question.6 It is better to take the text as it stands, as a number of recent interpreters have done.7 Robert E. Longacre’s text-linguistic study has emphasized the importance of 29:38–46 within Exodus 25–31.8 Taking chapters 25–31 as a unity within the larger unity of Exodus, Longacre identifies its genre as “instructional discourse” and explores how its genre, structure, and “discourseeffectiveness” interrelate.9 Keeping in mind the grand goal of the instruc5 J.L. Ska argues that Exod 29:43–46 makes it unmistakably clear that “le but de l’exode comme tel est de permettre au Dieu libérateur de venir installer sa demeure au milieu de son peuple (Ex 40,34–35)”. Ska, “La structure du Pentateuch dans sa forme canonique”, ZAW 113 (2001) 331–52, on p. 346. Thus pace B.J. Schwarz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”, in M.V. Fox/V.A. Hurowitz/A. Hurvitz/M.L. Klein/B.J. Schwartz/N. Shupak (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions (FS M. Haran; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 103–34 (cf. 122, 134), it is incorrect to suppose that the tabernacle material serves the larger aim of promulgating Priestly law; on the contrary, the laws serve to preserve Yahweh’s presence. This is all the more notable since Exod 29:43–46 is commonly thought to come from P. While B. Janowski may overstate his case in claiming that P has no interest in cult per se but in celebrating the exodus and making YHWH Israel’s God (139), he does help correct the misimpression that P has interest only in the cult. See his “‘Ich will in eurer Mitte Wohnen’: Struktur und Genese der priesterlichen Schekina-Theolgie”, in idem, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 119–47. 6 See J. Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P”, CBQ 38 (1976) 275–92; idem, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)”, in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content (FS G.W. Coats; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 109–25; P.J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40”, ZAW 89 (1977) 375–87; M.S. Smith, “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation”, CBQ 58 (1996) 25–50. 7 This is the case with V.A. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle”, JAOS 105 (1985) 21–30; R.E. Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10”, in W.R. Bodine (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 21–49; Ska, “La structure”. Smith, “The Literary Arrangement”, also offers a few non-diachronic observations at the end of his redaction-critical study, on pp. 49–50. 8 Longacre, “Building”. 9 The multivalent nature of his study is a significant methodological advantage, for it integrates more of the section’s elements than many other studies (cf. M. Sternberg’s literary, historical, and theological categories).

30

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

tions, Yahweh’s glorious dwelling with his people by means of a central sanctuary, Longacre identifies the section’s macrosegments by means of imperatives, cleft sentences, and explicit pronominal reference. These elements, present in the grammar and structure of the text itself, set off Exod 29:38–46 as the peak of the whole section. God’s dwelling among his people, who worship him especially by means of the continual daily offering, is the goal of the tabernacle’s construction.10 In a 1985 article Victor Hurowitz noted the temple-building pattern which spans Exodus 25–40.11 Elsewhere in the Bible, but especially in other ancient Near Eastern literature, this pattern is quite prevalent. The general pattern “dictates that the building be described after an account of the preparations and before the dedication ceremony”.12 The “B” inscription of Samsu-iluna of Babylon (1749–1712 BCE) is the closest to the tabernacle building narrative, possessing not only the general pattern but also (like the account in Exodus) both command and fulfillment sections for the building instructions. After a detailed study of its structure and meaning, Hurowitz concludes that the Babylonian example “incorporates most of the thematic and structural characteristics of the much longer Tabernacle story”.13 In his more extensive 1992 monograph on the same topic, Hurowitz studies numerous ancient Near Eastern building accounts, dating from the Sumerian to the Neo-Babylonian periods, and establishes a common six-part building pattern which underlies them: circumstances and decision to begin building; preparations; description of the building process; dedication rites and festivals; blessing/prayer of the king; (optionally) blessings and curses of later generations.14 This study further substantiates his earlier proposal, and reinforces the conclusion that the building pattern which influences the arrangement of Exodus 25–40 must be taken seriously. It is significant that this same structure spans Exod 25:2–40:38, a pericope commonly attributed to a number of different Pentateuchal sources. Another contribution to the literary study of Exodus 25–40 is found in Peter J. Kearney’s 1977 article, which focuses on chapters 25–31. Noting the unusual placement of the sabbath command at the end of the tabernacle instructions, he uses Exod 31:12–17 to explain the seven-fold use of the 10 Longacre, “Building”, acknowledges that the priests’ garments (ch. 28) and the material in 30:10–31:17 are related only indirectly to the objectives set out earlier. 11 Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account”; see also his later study, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). 12 Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account”, 26. 13 Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account”, 28. 14 There is some variation from this pattern in the massive corpus Hurowitz surveys, but the few exceptions do not detract from the pattern’s validity.

Literary context of the sabbath frame

31

introduction “The LORD said to Moses” in chapters 25–31.15 Kearney argues that a Priestly editor adapted the theme of “temple-building consequent upon the divine act of creation […], fashioning a unity of Ex 25–40 by way of the sequence: creation (ch. 25–31), fall (ch. 32–33) and restoration (ch. 34–40)”.16 The quotative frames introduce seven sections within chapters 25–31 which correspond to the seven days of creation as described in Genesis 1–2, reflecting what is thought to be typical Priestly theology in areas of delimitation, sacred space and sacred time.17 The use of seven as a structuring device and the creation-fall-restoration pattern are not the only cases in which a significant relation obtains between Genesis 1–2 and Exodus 25–40, as several other studies have shown. Arie C. Leder and others have noted the general pattern in which a king or deity builds a temple to celebrate a victory.18 With respect to Genesis, such an emphasis recalls the kingdom-establishment pattern found in the first creation account.19 Within Exodus, J.-L. Ska has demonstrated the strong emphasis in the first half of Exodus on Yahweh’s being glorified as the vanquisher of the Pharaoh, as well as his position as the suzerain/sovereign of Israel, and suggests that this theme accounts for the structure of Exodus as a whole.20 The recent monograph of Myung Soo Suh corroborates the Yahweh-versus-Egypt element of Ska’s study by elucidating the tabernacle’s role as Yahweh’s war tent (cf. Num 10:35–36).21 Coming at the end of Exodus, additional echoes of Genesis 2 in Exodus 40 raise the question of which pericope depends on the other.22 15 Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy”. 16 Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy”, 384. 17 Blenkinsopp’s “The Structure of P” suggests that the P material from Genesis to Joshua follows this overarching scheme: “creation of the world, construction of the sanctuary, and establishment of the sanctuary in the land and division of the land between the tribes” (278). 18 A.C. Leder, “An Iconography of Order: Kingship in Exodus. A Study of the Structure of Exodus” (Th.D. diss.; Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto, 1992); the presence of this pattern was hinted at by W.W. Hallo/J.J.A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 67–8. From elsewhere in the ANE, Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy”, refers to “Instruction for King Meri-ka-re” and Enuma Elish. 19 B.R. Reichenbach, “Genesis 1 as a Theological-Political Narrative of Kingdom Establishment”, BBR 13 (2003) 47–69. 20 Ska, “La structure”, esp. 344–6. T.W. Mann makes a very similar suggestion for reading Exodus in light of a “typology of exaltation”; The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 79. 21 M.S. Suh, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003), esp. 56–62. 22 Hurowitz contends that Exodus is not using creation motifs, but Genesis is using building motifs (I Have Built You an Exalted House, 242). As will be noted below, whether or not creation is seen as finished in Genesis 2 is important for settling this point. Wenham’s suggestion that a prototypical sacerdotalism is symbolically present in the Garden of Eden story would place the completion of creation in Genesis, not Exodus, and would advance the possibility that the building

32

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

1.1 The relation of Exodus 32–34 to Exodus 25–31; 35–40 While a number of different proposals have been made for the structure of Exodus 25–40, with correspondingly different warrants and arguments, every major theme in Exodus 25–40 can be said to serve one overarching purpose: resolving the question of how Yahweh is to dwell with his people.23 Longacre’s proposal addresses this directly via the role of the tabernacle and cult, Hurowitz adds the whole of Exodus 25–40 to the discussion, Kearney’s study stresses both the correlation between tabernacle-building and creation as well as the echo of Genesis’s creation-fall-redemption pattern, and Leder and others have highlighted the theocratic role that the tabernacle plays in allowing Yahweh and Israel to relate. To these observations must be added the role of Exodus 32–34. Many of the themes from the context appear within these three chapters, suggesting that Exodus 25–31; 35–40 and 32–34 explore the question of how Yahweh can relate to Israel from complementary vantage points. By virtue of Exodus’s literary structure the golden calf episode and its resolution are subsumed under the larger question of how God will dwell among Israel. The priority this gives to God’s ultimately successful commitment to dwell with his people, and thus to the themes that describe how that goal is realised, is very significant and will occupy us later in the study. 1.2 Themes of Exodus 25–40 In addition to the themes surveyed above, several fundamental concepts appear in Exodus 25–40 and call for some consideration. These are sacred space, sacred time, divine presence, and creation. 1.2.1 Sacred space Any discussion of sacred space must take account of the work of Mircea Eliade, which has been no less influential in biblical studies than in anthropology.24 Working from a structuralist perspective, Eliade begins with the account is borrowed by Genesis, rather than vice versa. G.J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story”, in M. Goshen-Gottstein/D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 19–24. 23 “The centerpiece of [Exodus’s theological] unity is the theology of Yahweh present with and in the midst of his people Israel.” Durham, Exodus, xxi. 24 See especially his The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959), 20–65, and Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York: World Publishing, 1958), 367–87.

Literary context of the sabbath frame

33

universally attested “kratophany” or “hierophany” by which previously profane places are, through a theophany, permanently transformed into sacred places. While this sacred space is not initially created by humans, its products are henceforward recognized as such by them and so become the site of an altar or sanctuary, the pattern of which is often divinely revealed. The symbolic function of these holy sites has three interrelated aspects, as they serve as the sacred mountain that connects heaven and earth, stand at the centre of the world, and become the nexus of earth, heaven, and hell. Further, primeval sacred space was the locus of humanity’s creation, and the creation of sacred space mimes that of the cosmos. For all these reasons sacred space is indispensable to human existence, being at once ardently desired and arduously reached. Sacred space is pandemic evidence of the quest for the transcendent, representing the most basic desire of “religious man”.25 Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane, appearing about a decade later, presented the same lines of evidence and argument. In determining whether we should assume with Eliade that the beliefs and practices he sees in other cultures accurately represent those of the Old Testament, it should first be noted that little of Eliade’s data is drawn from the biblical material itself: far more frequently he follows rabbinic interpretations.26 Further, it is not simply a question of what data is used, but of what method controls its use. As Jonathon Smith has observed in this connection, it is “a question of the comparative enterprise itself”.27 In evaluating Eliade’s work we are once again dealing with the question of methodology, and in light of the rationale given for the compare-and-contrast method in the opening chapter, his conclusions must examined critically.28 A departure from Eliade’s line of thought has implications for the understanding of sacred space in this study, especially since several scholars have adopted or echoed Eliade’s conclusions in various ways.29 The building of the tabernacle in Exodus has often been explained via recourse to Eliade’s work, including his assertions that “it is by virtue of the temple that the 25 This summary is drawn from Patterns, 367–85. 26 See his use of post-biblical Jewish or Christian tradition to define the biblical view in The Sacred, 38, 40, 41, 44, etc.; similarly in Patterns, 375, 377, 378, etc. 27 J.Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 13. 28 See the critiques of Eliade’s method and conclusions offered by Smith, To Take Place, 13–23; S. Talmon, “The ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method”, in L. Merrill/ T.W. Overholt (ed.), Scripture in History and Theology (PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 243–68; and S. Japhet, “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place”, in B.Z. Kedar/R.J.Z. Werblowsky (ed.), Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998) 55–72. 29 Levenson, Creation; F.H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990).

34

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

world is resanctified in every part”, that sacred space remains so for ever, that “the experience of sacred space makes possible the ‘founding of the world’”, and that by means of entering sacred space one re-experiences the pristine cosmos in an atemporal manner.30 Studies of sacred space that are grounded in the HB present a substantially different view. Sara Japhet’s study begins with a survey of the linguistic data (FS and its derivatives in the HB), noting that sacred places are those where God either dwells or reveals himself to humanity.31 These places are localized, finite, hierarchically holy both internally and externally, and mobile. In contrast with Eliade, Japhet notes that no place on earth is inherently sacred, but can become sacred (or, alternately, profane) simply by divine fiat. The impermanence of the divine presence, which alone creates sacred space, is a basic element of sacred space in the HB.32 Seth D. Kunin introduces a geographical distinction between sacred space that is static (better, “stationary”, e.g., the temple) and dynamic (better, “mobile”, e.g., the tabernacle).33 Jacobus Naudé’s lexical study clarifies further the status which inheres in the biblical label “holy”. He first establishes that there is a conceptual difference between the nom. and the adj., with the latter containing a dynamic quality, while the former merely denotes a state of belonging to the realm of the divine or, in a more concrete sense, to the temple/tabernacle complex.34

This highlights the divine initiative in establishing something as sacred, and gives a certain permanence to cultic or sacred space (and time), since “everything that belonged to the realm of the cult was typified by the nom.”.35 Finally, Philip P. Jenson’s studies of the concept broaden the semantic field beyond the FS word group, highlight the importance of syntagmatic relations in understanding the concept, and show gradation to be an impor-

30 Eliade, The Sacred, 59; Patterns, 367; The Sacred, 63, 65. 31 Japhet, “Some Biblical Concepts”. 32 Von Rad remarks that the priestly view of holiness “was not tied to that holiness of a place which was, as it were, absolutely holy, but it was a holiness that was always on the move”. Old Testament Theology (vol. 1; The Theology of Israel’s Traditions; with an introduction by Walter Brueggemann; OTL; [Louisville: WJK, 2001]), 278. 33 S.D. Kunin, God’s Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism (Cassell Religious Studies; London: Cassell, 1998), 11–45. There are also a number of studies that treat either the first temple or the tabernacle: see C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989); Suh, The Tabernacle; B.M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002). 34 J.A. Naudé, “FS”, NIDOTTE, 3.877–87. 35 Naudé, “FS”, 880.

Literary context of the sabbath frame

35

tant aspect of holiness in the priestly material.36 Taking as a basic definition of holiness “the divine relation to the world”, he shows that the tabernacle partakes of the holy quality of God’s dwelling. There is a complex overlap between the realms that allows a careful communication of that holiness, but at the same time preserves God’s realm from defilement.37

Jenson also introduces a distinction quite pertinent for this study, that between divine presence and holiness of space: “Holiness is a necessary but not an exhaustive precondition for God’s presence to be manifest.” Ultimately, as governed by the covenant stipulations for obedience and disobedience, neither divine presence nor the sanctuary’s holiness are “fully assured, although the implications of this are not fully worked out in the priestly writings”.38 The unfolding of this promising but precarious presence will be of central importance in the treatment of Exodus 32–34. 1.2.2 Sacred time As with our consideration of sacred space, so too a study of sacred time must take Eliade’s work into account. While a critique of his methodology may require that his conclusions be evaluated critically, it is still necessary to review his contribution in this area because of its considerable influence on biblical studies. One of his earliest works, The Myth of the Eternal Return, nearly received the subtitle “Introduction to a Philosophy of History” and so is an important source in addition to the two surveyed above.39 Espousing A.J. Wensinck’s claim of “symmetry between various mythico-ceremonial systems of the New Year throughout the Semitic world”, Eliade casts the Israelite view of the turning of the year in the mold of the Babylonian Akitu festival, with important ramifications for other instances of Israelite sacred time: it is cosmic (the victory of order over chaos), regenerative, and periodic. This basic point of departure underlies Eliade’s more systematic treatment of sacred time in Patterns in Comparative Religion.40 There he adds a 36 P.P. Jenson, “Holiness in the Priestly Writings of the Old Testament”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 93–121, on 96; see esp. idem, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). R.E. Averbeck, “Clean and Unclean”, NIDOTTE, 4.477–86, also explores the semantic field beyond the FS word group. 37 Jenson, Graded Holiness, 48. 38 Jenson “Holiness”, 106–9. 39 M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Bollingen 46; New York: Pantheon, 1954); see esp. the chapter on “The Regeneration of Time”, on pp. 51–92. 40 Patterns, 388–409, from which the following summary is drawn.

36

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

basic distinction between the primitive and modern mind to argue that the former’s heterogeneous approach to time allowed its division into two categories, sacred (“hierophanic”) and profane.41 Sacred time is thought to be a continuous entity, recurring periodically so as to make mythical time (primeval, theophanic, or otherwise transhistoric “time”) a present reality. Eliade reiterates his view that sacred time can achieve a “complete regeneration of time”, and connects this with the Babylonian new year festival noted a moment ago.42 He summarizes the human perspective on sacred time as follows: In the wish to start a new life in the midst of a new creation – an aspiration clearly present in all the ceremonies for beginning one year and ending another – there also enters the paradoxical desire to attain to an historic existence, to be able to live only in sacred time.43

Elsewhere Eliade adds another significant element in suggesting that “it is the irruption of the sacred into the world […] that establishes the world as reality”.44 While Eliade’s theories have had significant influence, the study of time in the biblical domain has enjoyed contributions from other directions over the past half-century as well. James Barr’s methodological critique will provide the context for a short study of the main facets of sacred time, with special attention given to the Pentateuch. The goal here is not to describe the OT view of time per se, but more specifically to determine to what extent Eliade’s concept of sacred time accords with the elements investigated here.45 41 J. Barr’s critique of this assumption, and others like it, have not received sufficient attention: see his Biblical Words for Time (SBT; London: SCM, 1962), on p. 104. 42 Patterns, 398. 43 Patterns, 402. It should be noted that he excepts Judaism and Christianity from this characterization, noting that “Judaeo-Christianity makes an innovation of the first importance. The End of the World will occur only once, just as the cosmogony occurred only once […]. Time is no longer the circular Time of the Eternal Return; it has become a linear and irreversible Time” (Myth, 64–5). This has not always been noticed by his followers. 44 The Sacred, 97. This view was quite popular in rabbinic Judaism’s relation of the tabernacle to creation’s completion; cf. A. Green, “Sabbath as Temple: Some Thoughts on Space and Time in Judaism”, in R. Jospe/S.Z. Fishman (ed.), Go and Study (FS A. Jospe; Washington: B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations, 1980) 287–305, on p. 296. 45 For a general introduction, see S.J. de Vries, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). See especially Barr, Biblical Words, 129–52, for justification of our restricted scope here. A frequently referenced OT study of time is that of H.W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), who follows the Documentary Hypothesis in distinguishing between the views of J and P on time. Of the sabbath Wolff states: “[In the OT] the sabbath becomes an eschatological event in the midst of man’s provisional life”, and it is through hope in God’s promise of the rest which his own prefigured that humanity can “remain radically hopeful” within its quotidian, temporal existence (idem, 142, 154).

Literary context of the sabbath frame

37

The opening narrative of the HB is often thought to contain the institution of sacred time, both in Gen 1:14 and 2:1–3. Prior even to Gen 1:14, God established time as “a basic structural element of the created order”.46 That point is hardly contested, but unanimity is lacking on the significance of Gen 1:14 and 2:1–3. It will be argued later that the seventh day there has to do primarily with God’s cessation of work and not humanity’s, so that the human-focused sacred time aspect of the seventh day within the first creation narrative should be reevaluated. Here that position will be tentatively adopted to introduce a distinction between sacred time that has humanity directly in view, as in the ][FYO of Gen 1:14, and sacred “time” of another sort, as in God’s blessing and consecrating of the seventh day. In the human sabbath of the Mosaic era we have an instance of sacred time which analogically reflects God’s rest upon the completion of his creation. This flows from the seventh day of Gen 2:1–3, which reflects on the perfect creation and its ramifications for human history. The seventh day was set apart from the beginning, but became sacred time (for humans) only from the time of Exodus 16. This yields three categories of “time”: chronological time, sacred time for humans, and analogical elements in the sphere of divine existence (e.g., God’s rest).47 Since this study is largely confined to the human sabbath and its relation to the category of time designated as sacred for humans, a brief summary of the Old Testament material on festivals is in order. The complex of chronologically defined times (by lunar calendar or otherwise), most often denoted as a type of feast (IZ) or festival (FYO, the largest category), was set apart in Israel’s life and so constituted her observation of sacred time.48 The festivals include the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover/Unleavened Bread; Weeks/Harvest/Pentecost; and Tabernacles/ Ingathering) as well as those of the New Moon, sabbath, New Year, Day of Atonement, and Year of Jubilee.49 While linked to a wide array of events

46 F.H. Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status”, in M.P. Graham/ W.P. Brown/J.K. Kuan (ed.), History and Interpretation (FS J.H. Mayes; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 47–64, on p. 52. 47 Gorman has suggested that all three of these are marked in later Pentateuchal legislation by “specifically prescribed rituals” (“Priestly Rituals”, 52–3); this grouping of sabbath and festivals is employed by I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 8–45; idem, “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, HUCA 58 (1987) 65– 117. The feasts and the sabbath are also grouped together in Leviticus 23 and Exod 23:10–19. 48 Since only a general survey is given here, complexities like the four kinds of time within Priestly ritual (as suggested by Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 226–7) and the distinction between ritual and non-ritual sacred time (cf. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 196) are bypassed. 49 H.L. Bosman, “FYO”, NIDOTTE, 2.871–3; W.A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 161; the full lists are in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29.

38

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

and having different emphases, the feasts have two elements in common: “the grateful and joyful commemoration of the redemptive acts of God, and care for the poor and the needy”.50 To the degree that this synthetic description is valid, sacred time in the life of Israel did not exist for itself, or even for the cult, but for the development of faith in God as redeemer and of compassion towards members of the covenant community. Lending additional credence to this view is the fact that Israel’s feasts were grounded both in history and creation (the different motives for the sabbath commandment in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are noteworthy in this regard). Not only does this prevent any dichotomy between the two categories, it suggests by way of typology (in which later events are patterned to some extent on former ones) that eschatology can have sources both in history and in creation.51 1.2.3 Divine presence As many have noted, the tabernacle cannot be treated in abstraction from the other elements which Exodus 25–31 establishes, specifically the priesthood and the sacrificial system, for the simple reason that all three are given in the same breath.52 The tabernacle is thus one element in the larger question of how God and Israel are to relate.53 Indeed, within the otherwise tabernacle-centred chapters 25–31, Yahweh states that the exodus itself served the purpose of establishing his presence in Israel: “And they shall know that I am the LORD their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God” (Exod 29:46).54 This is borne out by the fact that the majority of the items or categories involved in the tabernacle bear unmistakable relations to the system of atonement, as both the literary structure and semantics show:

50 Bosman, “FYO”, 2.872. 51 C.H.H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 577. 52 R.W. Klein, “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus”, Int 50 (1996) 264–76, on p. 273. 53 “The entire cultic paraphernalia and cultus was designed to express and overcome the problem of the holy, transcendent God visiting his pervasively sinful people.” F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 299. 54 So, among many, B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 540. On the importance of divine presence in Exodus, see B. Janowski, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), and T.W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Tradition: The Typology of Divine Exaltation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1977).

Literary context of the sabbath frame

39

[The daily offerings] shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. (Exod 29:42)55

In a response that connects the themes of covenant, mediation and forgiveness, the terrified petition that Yahweh not speak directly to Israel (Exod 20:19) is granted in Yahweh’s speaking with Moses from above the mercy seat in the tabernacle (Exod 25:22). The interpenetration of these themes, seeking to relate Yahweh’s holy presence to a people who at once desperately need it and are threatened by it, appears again in the dynamics of Exodus 32–34.56 Yahweh’s presence, in fact, is something of a dilemma, in that he freely chooses to manifest his special presence among Israel even though she is not qualified to experience this directly. This basic incompatibility is the raison d’être for the myriad provisions for accommodating Yahweh’s presence, and underlies Klein’s observation that Exodus is well aware of “the tension between immanence and transcendence in Israel’s theology”.57 The dilemma of how Yahweh in his holiness can dwell among Israel is the predominant concern in both Exod 25–31; 35–40 and 32–34. Its fulfillment constitutes the climax of the book, and establishes several suggestive links with creation which we will explore as the study progresses. 1.2.4 Creation The links in the ANE between creation and tabernacle, whether via templebuilding, paradisiacal imagery, or covenant, have received a good deal of attention.58 As concerns temples, there is no ANE culture in which temples and the cosmos do not bear a significant relation to one another. As Weinfeld has noted, this pairing often involves the decision to enthrone the deity in the temple, symbolizing his reign over his subjects.59 In the Ugaritic 55 W.W. Hallo notes that the connection of the sabbath with the tabernacle is unique in “Exodus and Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, in W.G. Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (5 vol.; New York: UAHC, 1983) 2.xxiii–xxxiii, on p. xxxiii. 56 Cf. esp. M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2/8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 57 Klein, “Back to the Future”, 267. 58 P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337–85; B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5 (1990) 37–69; H.N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath”, Pacifica 1 (1988) 235– 50; M. Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Gen 1:1–2:3”, 501–12 in A. Caquot/M. Delcor (ed.), Mélange bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de Henri Cazalles (AOAT 212; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). 59 Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement”, esp. 507–11.

40

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

Baal Myth Baal has a palace built for himself, and eventually achieves supremacy in the pantheon. Subsequently he is seated upon “his royal [throne], on [(his) resting-place, on the seat of] his dominion”.60 The Akkadian Enuma Elish recounts Marduk’s victory over Tiamat and her coconspirators, his creation of humanity to work that the gods might rest, and the construction of his temple as an expression of his newly attained supreme kingship.61 Hallo and others have noted that a similar pattern is found in Exodus.62 But it is interesting that the other ancient Near Eastern sources mentioned have more to do with the ascension of a deity to supremacy than with the creation of the world, and give little or no attention to the role of humanity in the divine goings-on. Moreover, Genesis-Exodus views Yahweh as the uncontested sovereign over Israel and the creator whose unprecedented creative work is referenced in chapters 25–40, something the polytheistic background of the other literature renders impossible.63 And while in vogue for many decades, the theory that Genesis depicts a Chaoskampf is becoming more suspect, making it less probable that the sharing of Genesis motifs by Exodus has to do with Yahweh’s victory over chaos. Consequently, another explanation for the prominence of creation elements in Exodus must be sought.64 Another approach that may shed light on the nature of Exodus’s use of the creation-tabernacle link is the correlation of creational/paradisiacal 60 See KTU 6:vi 30–36; see COS, 1.241–73 for the text and arrangement followed here. 61 I follow the text and translation in COS 1.390–402 and, for the omitted portions of tablets 6 and 7, B.R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1995), 43–50. 62 Hallo, “Exodus and Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, xxxiii; Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3”, also notes the pattern. 63 While one cannot claim that the cultures around Israel all understood the relation of their gods to the common concept of divinity the same way, the difficulties entailed by seeing gods existing in community (particularly in relation to each god’s will or the extent of his or her power) are not fully resolved in most ancient Near Eastern theology. See J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 10–11; J.C. de Moor, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit”, in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature (OtSt 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 1–20, and B.N. Porter (ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1; Casco Bay, Maine: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000). 64 See esp. D.T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2 (JSOTSup 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989); B.W. Anderson, “Biblical Perspectives on the Doctrine of Creation”, in idem (ed.), From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 19–41, esp. 21–2; R.E. Averbeck, “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as it Relates to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle”, in J.K. Hoffmeier/A.R. Millard (ed.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 328–56.

Literary context of the sabbath frame

41

imagery and temple imagery.65 In 1986 Gordon Wenham suggested that Eden was, on the basis of its symbolism, to be understood as the place where God was and where created humanity should be.66 More recently Gregory K. Beale has argued that Eden was the prototypical temple which the posterity of Adam and Eve were to extend throughout the world, a line of though Richard Averbeck has also explored.67 Though some of these arguments could be criticized at points, they elucidate an association between temples and paradise that makes comparison of the tabernacle to the Garden of Eden quite apt, as when Mann concludes that “the enthronement of the covenant lord of Israel in the tent of meeting provides a community of God and humankind that the world has not seen since the first man and woman were driven from Eden”.68 One additional avenue of approach to the question is the relation between creation and covenant, a relationship explicitly present in the first of the sabbath frame passages.69 P.D. Miller’s recent treatment of the question 65 Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy”; S. Bakon, “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath”, JBQ 25 (1997) 79–85; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004); E.W. Bolger, “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993); Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism”; Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord”; E. Bloch-Smith, “‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism”, in M. Coogan/C. Exum/L. Stager (ed.), Scripture and Other Artifacts (FS P.J. King; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 18–31. 66 Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism”. 67 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission; Averbeck, “Tabernacle”, in T.D. Alexander/ D.W. Baker (ed.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 807–27. 68 Mann, The Book, 112. For the plausibility of seeing the garden as a sanctuary in the ANE, see D.E. Callender, Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). One might ask of Wenham whether there is sanctuary symbolism in Eden, or Edenic imagery in later sanctuaries. Beale’s argument seems both to assume its thesis and to consider evidence from all directions as relevant without attention to warrant (e.g., his mixing of ancient Near Eastern, extra-canonical, NT, and rabbinic arguments at various points). Stordalen, though perhaps overly cautious (he notes no echoes of Genesis 2–3 in Exodus), still manages to establish the important role that Edenic imagery and themes play throughout the Old Testament. Bolger’s dissertation, dealing with the Pentateuch, may be insufficiently cautious but raises potential instances of intertextuality which must be reckoned with. 69 See Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung”; Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung”; P.D. Miller, “Creation and Covenant”, in S.J. Kraftchick/C.D. Myers/B.C. Ollenburger (ed.), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995) 155–68; W.J. Dumbrell, “Genesis 2:1–3: Biblical Theology of Creation Covenant”, Evangelical Review of Theology 25 (2001) 219–30; K.J. Dell, “Covenant and Creation in Relationship”, in D.H. Mayes/R.B. Salters (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 111–33; H.G. Reventlow, “Creation as a Topic in Biblical Theology”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 153–71.

42

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

surveys the contributions of W. Eichrodt, G.E. Wright, H.H. Schmid, W. Brueggemann, Jon Levenson, F.M. Cross and R. Rendtorff before underlining the importance of the Noahic covenant in this connection, a point echoed by B.H. Anderson.70 Our study will approach the question from the perspective of the Sinai covenant (and, insofar as the latter grows out of the former, the covenant with Abraham) and will also note ways in which the concepts of creation and covenant might have influenced each other.71 Finally, a relationship very similar to that between creation and covenant, and one that inheres to a certain degree in all the relationships surveyed above, is that between creation and eschatology. This includes latent eschatology in creation, also known as protology.72 Studies of this relationship often note that many elements of post-fall theology, such as priesthood, temple, and rest, are present in the context of Eden. While a minimalist position on this relationship would see the creation material as merely anticipating later developments, or as reflecting post facto on earlier literature, it is at least clear that the biblical material which presents itself as later purports to develop themes, concepts, and motifs that are only nascent in earlier biblical material. Protology-eschatology functions well as a summary category here by virtue of its consummating and comprehensive role, and is prominent in the study’s control texts as well as in their intertextual connections.

70 Miller, “Creation and Covenant”; B.W. Anderson, “Creation and the Noahic Covenant”, in idem, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 151–64. 71 Other recent contributions on this point include K. Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Athenäums Monografien, Theologie; BBB 85; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992); M.G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Baker Biblical Monographs; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), on pp. 34–43, 70–75, 109–15; E.H. Merrill, “Covenant and the Kingdom: Genesis 1–3 as Foundation for Biblical Theology”, CTR 1 (1987) 295–308; E.W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); R. Rendtorff, “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus”, JBL 108 (1989) 385–93; R. Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (OTS; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998). Levenson’s thought is conveniently summarized in his “Idioms of Creation and Covenant” in B.C. Ollenburger/E.A. Martens/G.F. Hasel (ed.), The Flowering of Old Testament Theology (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 429–44. E. Jenni’s study is something of a classic: Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes im Alten Testament (ThSt [B] 46; Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956), esp. pp. 25–30. The view found in various midrashim that Sinai was for Israel what Eden was for Adam and Eve is to be questioned on exegetical and methodological grounds; for a survey of the relevant materials, see J.S. Kaminsky, “Paradise Regained: Rabbinic Reflections on Israel at Sinai”, in A.O. Bellis/J.S. Kaminsky (ed.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 15–43. 72 Anderson, From Creation to New Creation; W.A. Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake: Carpenter, 1984).

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

43

These points lead us to ask, is creation tertiary as von Rad suggested, primary and foundational as H.H. Schmid suggested, or does it lie in between these two poles? And what is the relation between creation and eschatology? Does the latter portray merely the restoration of the former, or does the consummation surpass the original creation? And what drives the association of the two? A close study of the sabbath frame passages will shed light on some of these questions, and suggests new avenues for reflection on this portion of the HB.

2 Exegesis of the sabbath frame (Exod 31:12–17) Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17 After nearly seven demanding chapters detailing various aspects of the tabernacle, the abrupt shift to the sabbath in Exod 31:12–17 is remarkable.73 However, while many have noted the sudden change in topic, few have given sustained attention to its significance. If literary resumption is required after the golden calf episode, would not the shift in topic to the building of the tabernacle that follows in 35:4–39:31 be distinguishable without the addition of a frame?74 And once the author chose to employ a frame, why did he choose a sabbath frame?75 I will argue that the choice to employ a sabbath frame is theologically and historically motivated, drawing together the various areas explored above to give unique and profound expression to the events and concepts articulated in Exodus. The first half of the sabbath frame, Exod 31:13–17, follows the seventh quotative frame in chapters 25–31 and is presented as the direct speech of God to Moses. Negretti and Paran have noted its chiastic structure:76

73 Newing is thus correct when he states that the sabbath frame is “transitional, resumptive, and demarcating”. E.G. Newing, “Up and Down – In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai. The Literary Unity of Exodus 32–34”, ABR 41 (1993) 18–34, on p. 19. 74 On Wiederaufnahmen or resumptive repetition, cf. Chirichigno, “The Narrative Structure”, esp. 468–9 and the literature cited there; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 100–1. 75 Robinson’s suggestion that “[the commandment’s] present position in the Sinai account is probably the work of the final redactor of Exod 35:2–3 and Exod 31:12–17, who with EzekielR (20:12ff.) sees in Israel’s Golden Calf apostasy a profanation of the sabbath” is not supported by a corresponding stress on sabbath breaking in the golden calf episode. G. Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (BBET 21; Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 233–5. 76 N. Negretti, Il Settimo Giorno. Indagine critico-teologica delle tradizioni presacerdotali e sacerdotali circa il sabato biblico (AnBib 55; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), esp. 224–7 (on Exod 31:12–17) and 282–8 (on Exod 35:1–3); M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) [Hebrew].

44

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

A 13a My sabbath B 13bC Sign between me and you C 13bDaccording to your generations D 13c and that you may know … E 14a and keep the sabbath F 14c shall surely be put to death G 14d Everyone who does work on it H 15a Six days … on the seventh day G’ 15cC Everyone doing work on the sabbath F’ 15cDshall surely be put to death E’ 16a and the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath D’ 16b and … to do C’ 16c according to your generations B’ 17a between me and the Israelites a sign forever A’ 17c and on the seventh day he rested The chiasm centres on 31:15a (“Six days work shall be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath, a holy sabbath observance to YHWH”), and this structure coheres well with the legislative aspect of the passage.77 2.1 The sabbath The frame proper begins with an emphatic ? that introduces the first command to TO YHWH’s Sabbaths.78 The divine ownership of the sabbath is grammaticalized almost exclusively in contexts that deal with the seventh day sabbath.79 What exactly the term sabbath designates here is hardly agreed upon due to differing methodologies and assumptions. As seen ear77 Other ot passages are also chiastic (e.g., Gen 9:8–17; cf. M.V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly R¦W Etiologies”, RB 81 [1974] 557–96, esp. 571), as is the sabbath section of the calendar in Leviticus 25 (cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB; 3 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1998–2001]), 1952. Grünwaldt’s remarks are typical of historicalcritical approaches to this text: he sees it bearing “deutliche Spuren der Uneinheitlichkeit” and containing “eine Reihe von Spannungen” (Exil und Identität, 170). Since he considers it very late, it “ein aus Zitaten und Anspielungen bestehender Text ist” (idem, 177). 78 T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985). 79 The possessive is a suffix on the plural of VD (Exod 31:13; Lev 19:3, 30; 26:2; Ezek 20:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24; 22:8, 26; 23:38; 44:24); a suffix on another noun (e.g. Isa 58:13; Neh 9:14); or is designated by the phrase JYJ[NVD (Exod 16.23, 25; 20:10; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3, 16, 38; 25:2, 4 [both references in Leviticus 25 deal with the sabbath of the land]; Dt 5:14). Robinson, Origin and Development, 261, claims that the divine possessive on the sabbath occurs only in the time of P’s Holiness Code, but his view depends on the sabbath’s never being associated with Yahweh or the seventh day of the week, something difficult to sustain.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

45

lier, the search for sabbath origins outside the HB has proven inconclusive, and the wide variety of methods and conclusions in that search may well imply that it is misdirected. Other studies have confined themselves to the HB but have operated under the historical-critical paradigm, which has its own shortcomings. The approach followed here takes the dating of the biblical text at face value, allowing comparison with antecedent sabbath pericopae, and gives attention to literary context without specifying source divisions. Since they are chronologically prior to Exodus 31 on the basis of Exodus’s chronology, Gen 2:1–3; Exodus 16; and Exodus 20 must be addressed. Among the recent literature on sacred time in Genesis, David J. Rudolph makes the clearest case for “festivals” as the best gloss for ][FYO in Gen 1:14.80 In other studies this is often paired with the blessing and consecration of the seventh day in Gen 2:3, and the two are seen as corresponding institutions of festal and sabbatical sacred time for humanity. However, as suggested earlier, the finishing of work and ceasing from it as described in Genesis 2 have reference to God, and the blessing and consecration may have reference to something other than a human sabbath beginning with the creation week’s seventh day. In view of this possibility we will not treat the seventh day of the creation week as the first sabbath, that is, as being identical in all respects to the sabbath inculcated in the Sinai covenant. Exodus 16 is another passage of interest for a definition of the sabbath. There Yahweh institutes the provision of manna as a test of obedience in the wilderness (16:4). The sabbath that is commanded or instituted within this narrative (16:5, 22–30), which is bound up with the sending of the food, is primarily a means for Yahweh to cultivate Israel’s faith in his giving provision (note, among other elements, the word play with_VPin 16:29).81 This sabbath is to be a JYJ[NFSVD_YVD, which the text defines as a day free of any efforts to gather manna and characterized instead by waiting for Yahweh’s miraculous fulfillment of his word.82 It is plausi80 D.J. Rudolph, “Festivals in Genesis 1:14”, TynBul 54.2 (2003) 23–40. 81 G. Larsson, Bound For Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 116. 82 While most suppose that baking and boiling (JR , ND, 16:23) are also prohibited (with ramifications for the relationship [if any] between 16:5, 23 and 35:3), Beuken has made a good case for seeing them as permitted. He sees the focus of 16:22–30 to be the miracle of God’s making the manna that remained after the sixth day (whether prepared or raw) sufficient for the seventh, so that the Sabbath becomes a day on which faith in Yahweh’s provision is wonderfully validated. W.A.M. Beuken, “Ex 16.5,23: a Rule Regarding the Keeping of the Sabbath?”, JSOT 32 (1985) 3–14. As noted by J. Neusner, the Mishnah and Tosefta assume the prohibition of baking, boiling, etc., though their constructions as a rule are “not in Scripture at all”. J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part 1: Shabbat (SJLA 34; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 30; cf. also idem, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part 5: The Mishnaic System of

46

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

ble that the sabbath became a perpetual weekly feature at the time of Exodus 16, so the gentle punishment of its violation as well as its connection with Yahweh’s provision are relevant to our discussion of Exodus 31.83 To this it must be added that the Decalogue, coming between Exodus 16 and Exodus 31, is noticeably more strict than Exodus 16 in its prohibition of work, and introduces creation as a motive for sabbath observance. The connection with creation is especially important, and its recurrence in Exod 31:17 will be studied later. The reference to the sabbath in Exod 23:12 adds only a humanitarian element (cf. Deuteronomy 5). From this survey of the biblical text in its literary-chronological order it appears that its presentation of the sabbath develops chronologically from its inception in Exodus 16, through the references in the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant, and comes to full expression in Exodus 31. In contrast to this contextual information, etymology can only supply a limited amount of information on the sabbath’s meaning, particularly since it is not clear whether the verb is derived from the noun, the noun from the verb, or whether the two words came to exist rather independently.84 As far as the noun “sabbath” is concerned, its meaning as a day of rest, observed every seventh day, is a familiar enough sense, as the lexica show. The identification of sabbath as a _YVDVD (31:15), however, demands exploration.

Appointed Times (SJLA 34; Leiden: Brill, 1983), 32. The development of sabbath law within the Mishnah is beyond the scope of this study; see ibid. 55–105, 195–242; R.A. Robinson, “The Laws of Prohibited Labor on the Sabbath in Relation to the Book of Exodus: From Exodus through the Mishnah” (Ph.D. diss.; Westminster Theological Seminary, 1993). 83 Wenham, Genesis, 1.36; F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 300. Fox (“Sign”, 578) accounts for the absence of the common phrase “it shall be for a sign” in 31:13 by suggesting that the sabbath was given before the time of Exodus 31. 84 See TDOT, HALOT, TLOT, and NIDOTTE sub verbo. Laberge contends that the doubled D in the noun VD renders its reliance on the verb impossible; L. Laberge, “Sabbat: étymologie et origines. Étude bibliographique”, ScEs 44 (1992) 205–20, on p. 202. G. Robinson reasons that since the noun is clearly “seventh-day rest” and the verb is not, the verb could not have derived from the noun and that the nominal form cannot have derived from the verb by virtue of the former’s doubled D and doubled V in pronominal formations; G. Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of the Sabbath”, ZAW 92 (1980) 32–42, on p. 40.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

47

2.2 The meaning of šabbƗt šabbƗtôn Since the meaning of a word is determined finally by its use in a specific context, we will survey the uses of the term šabbƗt šabbƗtôn to see if its sense varies by context or if it has the status of a terminus technicus.85 2.2.1 Exodus 16:23 (JYJ[NFSVD_YVD) While the grammar here does not exactly match that of 31:15, the fact that this is the first sabbath material in Exodus makes the passage important.86 As shown above, the sabbath enjoined here is to be a day free of any forays for the purpose of gathering manna and characterized instead by waiting for Yahweh’s miraculous fulfillment of his word. A prohibition against baking or broiling is not explicitly stated, so that this _YVD is defined only with respect to manna, prohibiting its gathering as well as activities serving that purpose. 2.2.2 Exodus 20:8–11 (?[JN JYJ[NVD) Here again the grammar of the sabbath principle does not match that of Exod 31:15 exactly, but its designation of the seventh day as a sabbath makes clear that it deals with the weekly sabbath. The prohibition of any work (JM NONM) by any one on that day (20:10) shows a development over the command’s nascent formulation in Exodus 16, where only the gathering of food was prohibited.

85 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961); P. Cotterell/M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989); M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (rev. and exp. edn; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). See the excurses of Grünwaldt (Exil und Identität, 150–1) and Robinson (Origin and Development, 294–6) on the term. Grünwaldt attempts to demonstrate that šabbƗtôn is independent of the seventh-day sabbath: šabbƗtôn is indeed a day of rest with cultic connotations, but it does not always occur with reference to the seventh day of the week, so must be distinguished from the sabbath. His analysis is guided by several suppositions regarding how one is to identify secondary additions to a text, with Lev 23:24 serving as the basic text which links šabbƗtôn to the temple. Robinson identifies the texts in which the term occurs as post-exilic, and proceeds from the connection between the term and the number seven to his suggestion that it is a relatively early term, coined with the introduction of the seventh-day sabbath early in the post-exilic period. Over time, the term shortened to the more simple “sabbath.” 86 In Exod 16:23 _YVD is absolute, while FSVD (the next grapheme) has sabbath in construct with qǀdesh; the phrase is accordingly translated as “A day of sacred rest, a holy sabbath” (Childs, Exodus, 272) or “a day of solemn rest, a holy sabbath” (M. Noth, Exodus [OTL; London: SCM, 1962], 130). The other passages under review here all have the construction _YVDVD, with sabbath in construct state, which is translated as “a sabbath of solemn rest” (Childs, Exodus, 522) or “a sabbath of sabbath-rest” (Durham, Exodus, 411).

48

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

The addition of NM to JM NO is especially significant. The term JM NO by itself has a variety of meanings, referring most frequently in Exodus to the “skilled labor” connected with the tabernacle’s manufacture (e.g. Exod 31:3).87 The other senses are “general work”, “finished product”, and “mission, errand”.88 But as a prohibition of work, the phrase JM NONM occurs only in the context of three cultic days: Passover (Ex 12:16, with an exception clause for food preparation); the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:30; 23:31 [described as ]NYVSZ]; Num 29:7 [with FS TSO]); the sabbath (Exod 20:10; Lev 23:3 [with FS TSO]; Deut 5:14; Jer 17:24). Fabry, citing Milgrom’s study of Levitical terminology, notes that the prohibition against JM NONM on the sabbath and the Day of Atonement often coincides with their designation as _YVDVD.89 He summarizes the data thus: kol-mČlƗkâ proves to be more comprehensive than kol-mČleket !abǀdâ. From this study, mČlƗkâ is thus the inclusive word for work, and the prohibition against kolmČlƗkâ conveys the idea that on the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement there is to be “absolute rest” where “every conceivable kind of exertion, skilled and unskilled, heavy or light (physical or mental), is proscribed.” [With kol-mČleket !abǀdâ] not every kind of mČlƗkâ is proscribed, but only that which consists of physical labor (i.e., occupational work).90

Thus it is fair to say that the sabbath command comes to full expression first in Exodus 20, and the stringent prohibition against all kinds of work (JM NONM) is consistent with its description as a _YVDVDelsewhere. 2.2.3 Exodus 35:2 (JYJ[N_YVDVDFS) This passage echoes the syntax and grammar of 31:15 almost exactly. Both refer to the sabbath day as a _YVDVD and make its violation a capital offense. 87 This sense is usually indicated contextually (e.g. Exod 35:35b, [DZYJM NONM [ VDZO) or grammatically, with JM NO in construct with another noun (e.g. Ex 35:35a, JM NONMTZ). 88 H.-J. Fabry/J. Milgrom/D.P. Wright, “JM NO”, TDOT, 8.325–31; S.T. Hague, “JM NO”, NIDOTTE, 2.943–6, lists the noun’s semantic domains as “work, craftsmanship, administration, property, or deeds/acts” (943). 89 Milgrom has argued that the addition of !abǀdâ to the phrase kol-mČlƗkâ renders the restriction inclusive of only physical or occupational work. Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1: The Encroacher and the Levite: The Term 'Abodah (University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 14; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), §69. 90 Fabry/Milgrom/Wright, TDOT, 8.328.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

49

2.2.4 Leviticus 16:29–31 This section, dealing with the Day of Atonement, brings together the denomination VD_YVDand the prohibition against “all work”, JM NONM. The casting of this material as the first-person speech of God to Israel in the second person plural is typical of the passages studied here. 2.2.5 Leviticus 23:3, 32 Hartley has noted that “the special vocabulary in this instruction on the Sabbath gives additional evidence that it [the command] has been formulated for this speech […]”.91 As he explains, the weekly sabbath plays an important role in the chronology, tenor, and observance of the festivals, both here and elsewhere (note the close proximity of the sabbath and the festivals in Exodus 23; Exodus 34).92 There is no reason not to see the use of JM NO, _YVDVD, and]M[VDYONMD here as semantically consistent with their antecedent attestations. The terms _YVDand VD both occur as early as Exodus 16, as does a limited prohibition against work. Exodus 20 clarifies and intensifies the prohibition of work, and the concept of dwelling or home (]YSO in Exod 16:29; DYO in Exod 35:3) is also present prior to its reappearance in Leviticus 23. Leviticus 23 thus shows the sabbath’s importance by presenting it alongside the feast days.93 2.2.6 Leviticus 25:4 The sabbath principle appears in other contexts than the seventh-day cessation of work, as when Leviticus 25 adapts an ordinance originally prescribed for humans to non-animate soil.94 This rest, observed every seventh year, is also termed a _YVDVD, and has strong connotations of God’s miraculous supply of food once Israel is in the land (an echo of Exodus 16). Provided that Israel observes the seventh-year sabbatical year, God will supply enough food in the sixth year to supply food for the seventh and 91 J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1998), 372. Most of the issues regarding the sabbath in Leviticus 23, such as its identification as a miqrƗ qodeš and a mǀ!Ɲd¸ lie outside the range of our discussion here. 92 Cf. Robinson, Origin and Development, 325–9; N.-E. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation (SBLDS 7; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 111–13. 93 S. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law”, MAARAV 1/2 (1978–79) 105–58, esp. p. 131; P.D. Miller, “The Human Sabbath: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology”, PSB 6 (1985) 81–97; W.W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach”, HUCA 48 (1977) 1–18. 94 See now J.-F. Lefebvre, Le jubilé biblique: Lv 25 exégèse et théologie (OBO 194; Fribourg, Suisse/Göttingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003).

50

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

eighth years as well as seed for planting in the eighth year.95 The Israelites will experience no lack, and the sixth year’s produce will last until the ninth year’s harvest is brought in (Lev 25:18–22). It is important to note that the _YVDVDpertains to the land, not to the Israelites, in granting and commanding complete rest.96 The Israelites themselves need not cease from all work as on a _YVDVDfor humans; rather, the land experiences complete rest, and the Israelites exercise faith in eating rather than stockpiling that year’s crop. The Israelites were presumably free to go about any normal labor beside sowing and reaping in the seventh year. 2.2.7 Conclusion Having surveyed the passages in which the collocation _YVDVDoccurs, we are better prepared to gloss that phrase in Exod 31:15 as “a day of complete rest from all types of labor”.97 This sense was apparent in all the festival contexts surveyed, suggesting that it is a terminus technicus. The grammars corroborate our conclusion by suggesting that such a collocation (bringing together the noun and its abstract or adjectival derivative) reinforces the sense (in this case, of cessation).98 While there are days of rest (_YVD) which are not on the seventh day of the week, and which prohibit only occupational labor (JFDVM NONM, e.g., the Feast of Trumpets, Lev 23:23–25; Festival of Booths, Lev 23:39), _YVDVDin the Pentateuch denotes a day of complete rest from all types of work. This rest may or may not fall on the seventh day of the week, as _YVDVDis often descriptive of feast days. If we now return to the context of Exod 31:12–17, the identification of the sabbath as a _YVDVDhelps one appreciate the solemnity and stature of this day in early Israel’s religion. Its ownership by Yahweh, the command to abstain from all types of work, and the immediately appended call 95 It is thus a provisional suspension of the judgment on Adam and the related curse on the ground (Gen 3:17–19). “The land, like the people, presses toward a goal of untroubled fruitfulness and blessing, and […] its normal existence under the plow […] is not its ultimate destiny nor the purpose of its existence.” A.G. Shead, “An Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee”, RTR 61 (2002) 19–33, on p. 20. 96 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1963. 97 Similarly N. Sarna (Exodus [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1991], on pp. 90, 249 n. 31), Propp (Exodus 19–40, 493), Milgrom (Leviticus, 1959), Andreasen (The Old Testament Sabbath, 111–12). If it is insisted that not only the collocation, but even šabbƗtôn by itself is germane, very little would change, since such occurrences are limited to the day of trumpets (Lev 23:24) and the first and eighth days of the feast of Succot (Lev 23:39), both of which are very close to the feasts whose descriptions utilize the collocation. 98 In general, the addition of the –ôn suffix to a noun denotes an adjectival or abstract sense. GKC 86f; Joüon/Muraoka 1.262; pace Grünwaldt, this is not “ein deutlicher sekundärer Akt”, Exil und Identität, 150.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

51

for capital punishment upon offenders enshrine the Sinai covenant’s weekly sabbath as one of Israel’s most sacred times, and its importance can be further inferred from the requirement of its frequent observance. At the same time, it has a redemptive or celebratory aspect that is not found in the similarly sacred Day of Atonement, where the Israelites are to afflict their souls (Lev 16:31; Piel of JP with RP).99 It might even be said that the negative aspects of the sabbath, primarily the difficulty of its proper observance and the grave punishment allotted to its desecrators, do not belong to its essence but rather serve to protect and promote the elements of provision, creation, and covenant associated with it.100 It is to the last of these, the covenantal aspect of the human sabbath, that we now turn. 2.3 Sign and/or covenant? Immediately after the command to keep Yahweh’s sabbaths with all possible rigor in Exod 31:13b, they are identified as a “sign” (Exod 31:13c, 17a; also as a “covenant” in 31:16b).101 The primacy of Exod 31:13, the first passage to call the sabbath an VY , establishes the importance of its connection with the Sinai covenant. This element constitutes part of the sabbath’s uniqueness among its ancient Near Eastern counterparts: “Its distinctive trait lies in the fact that it is a day made holy because of its relation to the God of the Covenant; more, it is an element in that Covenant.”102 Exodus 31 is the third instance in which a sign is explicitly assigned to a covenant, the two prior being the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants with their respective signs of rainbow and circumcision. We will first survey the semantics of VY , then examine the sabbath’s role as sign of the Sinai covenant in the context of the other covenant signs.

99 On the distinctive character of the Day of Atonement in the Priestly material, see Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 221–4; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 195–7. 100 Jenson has pointed out that the sabbath does not share the cultic appurtenances that characterize most other holy days, suggesting that its focus is unique (Graded Holiness, 195–6). 101 Follingstad’s recent and exhaustive analysis of [M shows that the causal relation of the two clauses should not be attributed to the [M, but to their juxtaposed semantic content: “Though the clauses between which [M occurs may be causally related due to the juxtapositions of their respective semantic contents, it is not the specific function of the particle to explicitly mark this causality […]. [M functions on a different level than mere referential semantic content […]. It typically marks the informational salience of the semantic content between narrator/reader or speaker/hearer, and not logical relationships amongst the semantic contents of propositions within the text.” C.M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ki (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 45–6. 102 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 480.

52

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

2.3.1 The lexical background of “sign” (VY ) Keller’s 1946 monograph was the first significant contribution to the study of this term’s use in the Hebrew Bible.103 His linguistic study categorized the various appearances as covenant sign, prophetic sign, and so on. However, being written within the paradigm of Wellhausian source-criticism and following Wellhausen’s dismissal of the Sinai covenant, Keller’s study and its conclusions also reveal the influence of Wellhausen’s view of the development of the covenant concept, which was thought to become increasingly legal.104 Es ist allerdings zu betonen, daß der Sabbath nicht als oth berith betrachtet wird. Es ist ja kein Bund geschlossen worden, da am Sinai nur der alte Bund auseinandergelelgt worden war. Es ist aus der Bedeutungsentwicklung von berith zu “Gestez” zu verstehen, wenn V.16 das Halten des Sabbath als eine berith !olam bezeichnet wird […]. Der Sabbath dient in erster Linie dem erwählten Volk, dessen Erwählung aufs neue aktualisiert werden soll.105

Some years later Michael V. Fox produced a thorough and less idiosyncratic survey of the word, although he too treats the various covenantmaking ot-pericopae as P productions. His study classifies signs by analyzing “the ways in which the signs serve to convey meaning. This criterion gives us three main categories: (1) proof signs (2) symbol signs, and (3) cognition signs.”106 The sabbath, as all the signs in P, is found to be a cognition sign, specifically a mnemonic sign. Such signs do more than simply identify; they also “renew cognizance but do not create it”.107 Fox argues that “the sabbath recalls to Israel each week something that is not new knowledge – that it is Yahweh who sanctifies them”.108 Like others, Fox also suggests that observance of the sign would “actualize God’s grace in the life of the community”.109 103 C.A. Keller, Das Wort OTH als ‘Offenbarungszeichen Gottes’: Eine philologisch-theologische Begriffsuntersuchung zum Alten Testament (Basel: E. Hoenen, 1946). Notable subsequent studies include W.J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 28–31; Fox, “Sign”; W. Gross, “Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der Priesterschrift”, TTZ 87 (1978) 98–115; G.F. Hasel, “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 21–43, esp. 32–5; M. Kline, “Oath and Ordeal Signs”, WTJ 38 (1965) 115–39; Y. Muchiki, “Sabbath as a Sign (Exodus 31:13–17)”, Exegesis 6 (1995) 11–30; F.J. Helfmeyer, “VY ”, TDOT, 1.167–88. Fox’s article is the most thorough of these, and merits attention despite its age. 104 Nicholson, God and His People, 4. 105 Keller, Das Wort OTH, 140–1. Fox’s critique of Keller’s method is trenchant (Fox, “Sign”, 559–60), and should caution against seeking one Sitz im Leben behind all uses of the term. 106 Fox, “Sign”, 562. 107 Idem, 563. 108 Idem, 577. 109 Idem, 585; cf. Eliade’s stress on the function of sacred time.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

53

The chiastic structure which Fox sees in Exodus 31 (and indeed in all the covenantal ot etiologies) bears notice, and reinforces our working hypothesis that the Exodus passage has integrity as it stands. He suggests a. vs. 13bC: Identification of the ot (and reference to its eternality). b. vs. 13bD: Function of the ot – cognition (lƗda!at). c. vss. 14–17aC: Purpose of the ot – performance of command (elaborated). a’. vs. 17aDb: Identification of the ot.110 Lastly, Gerhard F. Hasel has also studied Exod 31:12–17 and suggests that the sign represents Israel’s separation, remembrance, and knowledge, as well as God’s commitment, ownership and authority.111 With these studies as background we can now consider the sabbath’s role as sign in the context of Exodus 31. 2.3.2 The sabbath as sign of the Sinai covenant The syntax of Exodus 31 presents some challenges as regards the nature and function of the sabbath as a sign.112 While the context and the previous VY etiologies in Genesis 9 and 17 favor seeing the sabbath as a covenant sign, their terminology differs from that of Exodus 31. Moreover, Genesis 9 clearly distinguishes between sign and covenant.113 Exodus 31, on the other hand, calls the sabbath a sign (31:13c) and a covenant (31:16), rendering the precise relation of the one to the other unclear. It is helpful to consider syntactially similar contexts, and Genesis 17 comes closest to the situation in Exodus 31. There, although the covenant is described in Gen 17:7, 13, 19 (cf. also 1 Chr 16:17 // Ps 105:10) as ]NYV[TD, circumcision in that context is called both a covenant (TM\NM]MNNYOJ … [V[TDV \, 17:10) and a covenant sign 110 Idem, 576. 111 Hasel, “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, esp. 33–6. 112 Witness the varying translations, and especially the addition of the adverbial “as”: “as a perpetual covenant” (Childs, Exodus, 522); “this will be a binding obligation for them for all time” (C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, Chapters 20–40 [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2000], 587); “as a covenant for all time” (Sarna, Exodus, 201); “to observe the sabbath throughout their generations as one keeps a perpetual covenant” (Cassuto, Exodus, 404); “by observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant” (B.T. Arnold/J.H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 73). 113 In Gen 9:12 the covenant sign concept is introduced (V[TDJVY V \), and is described as perpetual (]NYVTFN). In 9:13 the rainbow is established as the sign, and this arrangement is reiterated in the inclusio that closes the speech (9:16–17). Other references to a ]NYV[TD include Isa 24:15; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40.

54

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

(V[TDVY NJ[JY, 17:11).114 It is also noteworthy that failure to observe both circumcision and sabbath results in excommunication (Gen 17:14; Exod 31:14). This close connection between observance of the covenant sign and the covenant’s keeping lies behind the otherwise confusing overlap of sign and covenant language in the sabbath frame. If Exod 31:13 is read in this light, there is not complete identity between the sign and its corresponding covenant. The contexts of Genesis 17 and Exodus 31, for their part, make that plain. The covenants concerned are spelled out at length, and the signs are included in their establishment as something to remind of the covenant and as something that is part of it.115 Thus failure to observe the sign results in the offender’s breaking the covenant.116 What reasons might be suggested for assigning the sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant? The text itself raises three possibilities, relating to Yahweh as sanctifier (Exod 31:13), the sabbath as sanctified (31:14), and Yahweh as the satisfied creator at the end of his work (31:17). The latter will be explored in the next section, and the second is self-explanatory (inculcating observance by threatening punishment upon offenders), so here we will explore briefly the reference to Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier and return to it in chapter three. The fundamental reality behind the sanctifying of Israel is the holiness which Yahweh alone possesses.117 Yahweh brings this reality into Israel’s experience by sovereignly singling her out from among the nations and 114 In Gen 17:7 (and 17:19), the covenant as the object of the verb is “established” with Abraham’s descendants as/to be a perpetual covenant (]NYV[TDN). (In the next verse the land of Canaan is given as/to be a perpetual possession []NYV\Z N]). In 17:11 circumcision is explicitly called a covenant sign (VY NJ[JYV[TD), and the covenant is reaffirmed as a perpetual covenant (cf. 17:7) in 17:13 (V[TDN]MT DD[V[TDJV[JY]NY). The covenant cannot be maintained apart from circumcision’s administration (17:14). The references to ]NYV[TD in Ezek 16:60; 37:26 are also contextually identified as “covenants”. 115 Pace Robinson, Origin and Development, 261–2, this near equation is not a later tradition-historical development, in which the sabbath subsumes, or is at least equal with, the rest of the covenant. At the least, this would stand in tension with D’s elevating love for God and neighbor above the other commandments. 116 Cf. J. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach”, Studia Biblica et Theologica 11 (1981) 5–20. Lev 24:8 is also relevant to this question, for it specifies the presentation of the bread of presence every sabbath and asyndetically terms it ]NYV[TD. Fox uses this passage to argue that “in Ex., xxxi, 16, the Sabbath is not actually called a covenant. Rather, bČrit olƗm is an adverbial accusative describing the manner in which the Sabbath is to be kept, cf. Lev., xxiv, 8” (Fox, “Sign”, 588 n. 59). This, however, would be an unprecedented use of the phrase, and while not impossible on that account, a solution such as that advanced above is less unusual and preserves the integrity of the passage (which Fox seeks to do). It may be best in this case simply to gloss bČrit as “covenant obligation” (cf. Exod 25:30; 40:22– 23; Num 4:7; 18:19 [re. the priests as recipients of offerings as a “covenant of salt”]). 117 As J. Gammie notes, Holiness in Israel (OBT; Fortress: Minneapolis, 1989), 195.

Exegesis of Exod 31:12–17

55

bringing her to himself (Exod 19:6). Yet since Yahweh is holy, Israel cannot have direct access to him as manifest among her. As a result, Israel had to observe the purity laws, by which the priests were primarily responsible for distinguishing between holy and common and between clean and unclean (cf. Lev 10:10; 15:31).118 But in addition to these mechanisms, Yahweh continues to be Israel’s sanctifier, as Exod 31:13 makes clear. Of the ten times that the Piel participle is used to describe Yahweh as “sanctifier”, four have Israel as their object (Exod 31:13; Lev 20:8; Ezek 20:12; 37:28) and six refer specifically to the priests (Lev 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32). As noted above, however, this concept cannot be restricted to this use of the root, nor indeed to the FS word group more broadly. Yahweh set Israel apart in various ways, and simultaneously called them to be separate with regard to corruption around them; thus Yahweh’s grace in choosing Israel goes hand in hand with his lawgiving. In Exodus 31, the knowledge that Yahweh is Israel’s sanctifier flows from the sabbath’s function as a covenant sign, as the preposition on the infinitive makes clear (VFN, 31:13). If Fox is correct in stating that the weekly sabbaths “renew” Israel’s cognizance that Yahweh is the one who sets her apart “but do not create it”, what kind of sanctifying is Yahweh referring to?119 Given the covenant-sign nature of the sabbath here and the fact that sabbath observance was not the only way Israel would know Yahweh to be her sanctifier (Ezek 37:28), it is best to understand Israel’s sanctification as a result and ongoing process flowing from her covenanted relationship with Yahweh that began at Sinai. In contrast to the ceaseless servitude of Egypt, as well as the calendars of the nations around them, Israel’s sabbath was well suited to demonstrate her separateness and to remind her that her special standing had been made possible by Yahweh’s deliverance. The dynamics of Yahweh’s relation to Israel as her sanctifier will be considered further in the next chapter, especially in connection with the rest that he promises to Israel and the fate of the covenant underlying it.120 118 See Averbeck, “Clean and Unclean”, 481, where he summarizes the system with the triad “the presence of God […], the structures of clean and unclean, holy and common […], and the purification procedures for dealing with those structures.” 119 Fox, “Sign”, 563. 120 It is important to determine to what extent Israel is already sanctified in Exodus in order to evaluate Brueggemann’s stimulating insight: “[That YHWH sanctifies Israel] is an extraordinary claim; it asserts that Israel is fitted and qualified to enter the realm beyond realms, to participate in the joy, well-being, and power of God’s own life;” W. Brueggemann, “The Book of Exodus”, in L.E. Keck et al. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vol.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1.675–981, on p. 923. Contrast VanGemeren’s remarks on the seventh-day’s distinction from the sabbath: “If human beings are to enter into the sanctity of the [seventh] day, they too must be holy. To be holy requires divine approval, which individuals do not have merely because they were

56

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

2.4 Seventh-day of creation motive The creation motive in 31:17b is the final section of this half of the sabbath frame. Here the sabbath is again termed a sign, in fact a perpetual one, in connection with Yahweh’s rest. Noting the theological importance of this link, Childs states: “The sabbath as a sign is a reminder both to God and Israel of the eternal covenant relationship which was the ultimate purpose of creation.”121 But can such a grand claim be sustained? A more limited view would suggest that the sabbath-creation link has in view only Israel’s imitation of Yahweh’s example in creation (Rashbam on Exod 20:10), or that such observance reflects Israel’s election (Rashbam on Exod 31:13). But such a reading of the text is suspect in light of the deep connections with creation established in the tabernacle pericope. One need not exclude the patterning of Israel’s temporal order after Yahweh’s actions, but such an understanding does not exhaust the import of the creation reference here. In favor of Childs’s view is the fact that rest is made the goal of the Sinai covenant in many ways. Though not mentioned in the pre-ratification speech in Exodus 19, it is already present in a limited way prior to that in the deliverance from slavery in Egypt, and subsequently appears with increasing clarity in the fourth commandment, the seventh year agricultural sabbatical, and in the sabbath frame. As the Pentateuch moves beyond Exodus, it supplies the stipulations for how Yahweh dwells among his people in Leviticus 1–Number 10, and the land grows in prominence as one progresses through Numbers. After the unbelieving generation is left buried in the wilderness, Deuteronomy prepares the next generation of Israel for the behavior necessary to gain and keep the land, in which God promises to give them rest (Deut 3:20; 12:9–10; 25:19; negatively in 28:65). In fact, Exod 15:18 already hinted that restful life in the land was a goal of the exodus, to which it adds the goal of Yahweh dwelling among his people.122 “You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of your created in God’s image. A probation was required in which the humans had to demonstrate their absolute loyalty to their Creator-King […]. The seventh day concludes God’s creative activities and opens up the question regarding how individuals might enter into the rest from their activities” (Progress, 48; see also 46). 121 Childs, Exodus, 416. 122 Cf. esp. Dumbrell, Covenant, 100–4; F.M. Cross/D.N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (IBR; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 31–45. The semantic field for the good life that Yahweh will give obedient Israel in Canaan encompasses many concepts, as the lists of covenant blessing and cursing show (Leviticus 26–27; Deuteronomy 28). Here I mention only life (frequently with ][[Z), rest (frequently with the ZYP word group), and goodness (most frequently with DY). See Laansma’s treatment of the OT material on rest in the opening chapters of “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3– 4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

Exegesis of Exod 35:1–3

57

inheritance, the place, O LORD, which you have made for your dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established” (cf. also 33:14; Gen 49:15; Num 10:33–36). The climactic close of the Song of the Sea brings the possession of the land into connection with God’s rule and presence, aspects already seen in the tabernacle.123 These observations clarify why Exod 31:17 establishes a link between weekly sabbath observance and Yahweh’s rest upon his completion of creation. The sabbath, since it is a sign of the Sinai covenant, serves as shorthand for all the blessings promised in it (cf. Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1– 14). Thus the rest promised in the Sinai covenant comes to resemble that enjoyed by God upon the completion of his work in Genesis 1–2. While observing such a rest does involve a measure of imitatio Dei, as many interpreters have remarked, the creation motive for sabbath observance includes much more, not least a clear redemptive element.

3 Exegesis of the sabbath frame (Exod 35:1–3) Exegesis of Exod 35:1–3 The second half of the sabbath frame comes just before construction of the tabernacle begins. Its placement at the beginning of the report of the tabernacle’s construction is structurally prominent, but in comparison with the first half of the frame, it is very short and presents only one difficulty with the ambiguous command that the Israelites kindle no fire in their dwellings. The introduction to the second half of the sabbath frame (][TDFJJN ), at the same time being the beginning of the sanctuary’s construction, recalls the concluding phrase of the very first divine speech addressed to Israel at Sinai (Exod 19:6). As has been pointed out, the prohibition of verse two is largely identical to that of 31:15, with no significant changes.124 After the work prohibition a curious element is added: lighting of a fire in a domestic dwelling is forbidden. Though some have suggested that verse three means “the extension of the prohibition in private households in contrast to a central assembly of the entire people […]”, thus allowing fires in public settings, this would pre123 See also Lev 26:11, which does the same in the very suggestive context of covenant blessings. It is significant that both Priestly and Deuteronomistic portrayals of rest, though distinct, are both based on the Sinai covenant and that depend on various aspects of God’s presence. Their distinctives are probed further in the section of chapter 6 dealing with the prophets. 124 “Ex 35,2f gibt – syntaktisch modifiziert – das Stück Ex 31,15 wieder.” H. Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9) (OBO 77; Freiburg, Switzerland/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 220. The reasons for him to conclude “Es handelt sich also im ganzen um eine Art erweitertes Exzerpt aus Ex 31,12–17” are not convincing. The only notable addition in 35:2 is the 2mp pronoun ]MN; the only notable omission the infinitive from the VOY[VYO of 31:15.

58

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

sumably allow work on the tabernacle to continue on the sabbath, something that the sabbath’s identity as a šabbƗt šabbƗtôn renders impossible.125 In light of the succeeding context of tabernacle building, the prohibition may target any work done on the tabernacle on the sabbath, even if done in private, as Hendrix explains: Perhaps such a prohibition was necessary as a restraint against those, who in their overzealousness, were tempted to work seven days a week. According to the literary structure of this passage, this prohibition is parallel to the element detailing the provision of workmen: Bazalel, Oholiab, and their helpers, as if to indicated that there is no need to break the Sabbath, as YHWH has provided enough workers.126

Alternatively, the prohibition of fire-kindling may refer more broadly to activities proscribed on the sabbath regardless of their relation to the tabernacle’s construction.127 The strictest interpretation of this prohibition would be that understood by Janzen: cooking is a metonymy for all work, so Exod 35:3 is synonymous with 31:14, 15.128 Understood less stringently, this prohibition would be one of several in the Pentateuch which give some specificity to the sabbath’s work prohibition. Thus Propp suggests that ? qualifies the preceding command to build the tabernacle: “even though you are about to engage in the manufacture of the Tabernacle, you must still observe the Sabbath”.129

125 Only B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (with an introduction by W. Jacob; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992), 324, and Houtman (Exodus, 3.589) appear to hold this view. 126 Hendrix, “Literary Structural Overview”, 132. The prohibition sense is also adopted by M.I. Lockshin (ed.), Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation (BJS 310; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 425; R. Pelcovitz (ed.), Sforno: Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, Genesis, Exodus (Artscroll Mesorah 1; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah, 1987), 424; Cassuto (Exodus, 454– 55), and Jacobs (Exodus, 1013). Naudé suggests such work was unlawful because of “the excessive energy connected with the making of a fire” (“ ”, NIDOTTE, 1.533). Other rationales are less convincing, such as Jacobs’ suggestion that “the prohibition against kindling fire was singled out, as God’s work in the creation of the world had begun with light” (Exodus, 1013). 127 The suggestion that it specifically targets food preparation (e.g. J. Scharbert, Exodus [NEchtB 24; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989], 133) is not sufficiently grounded in Exodus 16 (cf. Beuken, “Ex 16.5,23”). 128 As suggested by W. Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Waterloo, Ontario: Herald, 2000), 417. P. Enns thinks similarly (Exodus [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 545), but his adoption of Levenson’s suggestion that it prohibits baking and broiling in food preparation based on a proposed parallel with the six days of fire before the completion of Baal’s temple is not convincing for two reasons: the presence of fire must be assumed in Exodus 16, and the parallel to the Baal Epic has been misunderstood. The fires that are extinguished on the seventh day are the metal-working fires that have been used in the temple’s production (cf. vi 16–40, “Voilà! The silver has turned into plaques, the gold is turned into bricks!”). 129 W.H. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 491.

Exegesis of Exod 35:1–3

59

Another possibility is that the prohibition here of all fires aims to prevent any syncretistic observance of festivals in the manner of other nations. The most daring argument for this is likely G. Robinson’s, which argues that the qualifier “strange” (zƗrƗh) was dropped out of the text before “fire” by a late redactor.130 But such a view can be neither proved nor disproved, and so should be adopted only if no other valid option exists. Cassuto’s presentation of the evidence is more representative of this line of interpretation: It is also possible that the expression implies opposition to the pagan custom of lighting a fire in the homes in honor of the festivals. In Mesopotamia a special festival was dedicated to fire, and in one of the texts it is stated: The people of the place shall make a fire in their dwelling places.131

While the context of the passage is the tabernacle’s construction, it is probably not wise to restrict its prohibition to work related to the tabernacle, for by this reasoning the same could be done with Exod 31:12–17, a passage that clearly envisions its application much more broadly. In favor of seeing an anti-syncretism element is the fact that after the debacle of the golden calf the first string of commandments inveighs against syncretistic practices (Exod 34:12–17). But it is difficult to demonstrate that this element is sufficiently prominent here to understand it as the command’s primary element. For these reasons it seems best to posit that the fire prohibition has as its primary purpose an elaboration on the command of 35:2, while simultaneously serving the secondary purpose of avoiding syncretistic sabbath observance.

4 Summary and conclusions In exploring Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3 we have found that the sabbath, whose identity is fully developed first in Exodus 20, has strong links to the Sinai covenant. Not merely a law among many, the observance of every seventh day as holy to Yahweh has close ties to the grand goal of the exodus, the dwelling of Yahweh among his liberated people. Further, there are hints 130 G. Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel”, VT 28 (1978) 301–17, esp. 309–10. In his later monograph on the sabbath he suggests an additional possibility, that a priestly redactor “‘sabbathized’ an ancient prohibition of fire which had originally nothing to do with the sabbath” (Robinson, Origin and Development, 234). 131 Cassuto, Exodus, 455. Since he does not provide a reference, I am unable to locate the source to which Cassuto refers. Somewhat outside the bounds of Mesopotamia, and certainly outside the domestic sphere, a set of Hittite cultic instructions from the thirteenth century commands, “If (there is) a festival in the temple, guard the fire well.” G. McMahon, “Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials”, COS, 1.83.

60

Exegesis of the sabbath frame

that the sabbath’s rest component is theologically significant, and the sabbath’s function as a reminder that Yahweh sanctifies Israel suggests that at some future time Yahweh would fully sanctify Israel.132 The following chapters will explore these themes further.

132 This thought appears in von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.207, where he states that P “regards the hitherto existing limitation of Jahweh’s holiness to a special cultic sphere as something temporary, which will be followed by the ultimate universalizing”.

III. Hermeneutical and theological reflections on the sabbath frame Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel Reflections on the sabbath frame In the preceding chapter, close examination of the sabbath frame underlined the importance of its tabernacle context for understanding the frame itself. The distance which the cult established between Israel and Yahweh, even as it accommodated his presence in her midst, highlights the complexities inherent in Yahweh’s special relationship with his newly constituted people. While Israel had been definitively sanctified by Yahweh in his calling her to himself (Exodus 19), there remained an immense difference between her status and that to which Yahweh called her in the Decalogue and the various other law pericopae. The context and content of the weekly human sabbath as the Sinai covenant’s sign hinted at the goal of this new relationship and demonstrated the centrality and necessity of Yahweh’s sanctifying and creating work in Israel’s experience. The single explicit purpose of the sabbath as instituted at Sinai is to renew in Israel the awareness that Yahweh is her sanctifier (Exod 31:13). The majority of the first half of the sabbath frame consists of guidelines for that day’s observance and penalties for its desecration. The only material in the frame that is not concerned with how to keep the sabbath deals with its nature as a covenant sign (31:16, 17), its relation to God’s work at creation (31:17), and knowledge of Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier as the goal of its keeping (31:13). Since the guidelines for its keeping are easily understood, in this chapter we will explore further the other elements just noted. An examination of the concept of holiness in the HB, with special attention to its nature and prominence in the Sinai covenant, will shed light on Yahweh’s role as the sanctifier of Israel. Subsequently we will try to uncover the rationale for selecting the sabbath as the sign of this covenant relationship, interrelating the elements of creation, divine presence, and rest that have already been noted. The way that these pieces fit together will clarify the place of the sabbath frame in the theology of Exodus.

62

Reflections on the sabbath frame

1 Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel An understanding of holiness, and thus of Yahweh’s role as Israel’s sanctifier, must be pursued not only by a study of the root FS and the other words in its semantic field, but also by a syntagmatic study of the phrases and pericopae which articulate the same concept.1 Our treatment of the concept will give special attention to its presence in the Pentateuch, since these books contain the fundamental articulation of the main elements which appear in the sabbath frame and its context (Israel and its tabernacle, priesthood, and cult). After a long reign, Otto’s classic work, which may be partially summed up as viewing holiness as “the experience of the numinous which is then filled up with ethical content”, has been dethroned by a spate of new contributions.2 These exhibit a welcome shift toward recognizing both the complexity and coherence of the biblical holiness material, and often seek to treat it in its own terms. Gammie’s recent study has shown the multifaceted nature of the biblical material, and more detailed studies have explored the complexities of the priestly and cultic material in the Pentateuch.3 The survey given here is necessarily selective, and gradually narrows its focus to Israel (whether her nature, cult, or behavior) as the object of God’s sanctifying actions (in various senses of that word). On the basis of its genre there is reason to treat the cultic material separately, although here this will be done in the context of the conceptual study.4 By definition cultic holiness will appear only from the time of Sinai onward.5

1 P. Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis”, in NIDOTTE, 1.134–60, on p. 152; P.P. Jenson, “Holiness in the Priestly Writings of the Old Testament”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 93–121, on pp. 96–7. 2 J. Rogerson summarizes Otto this way in the “Discussion” in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 79–83, on p. 82. 3 On the Pentateuch, see especially F.H. Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status”, in M.P. Graham/W.P. Brown/J.K. Kuan (ed.), History and Interpretation (FS J.H. Mayes; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 47–64; idem, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990); P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992); I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); S.E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 148–76; broader studies include J.G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel (OBT; Fortress: Minneapolis, 1989); J.B. Wells, God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (JSOTSup 305; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). 4 See Jenson, Graded Holiness, 41, and his claim that “abstraction of the cultic material from its role in the larger Pentateuchal context is a serious weakness”, on p. 211. 5 While the topic of clean-unclean is very closely connected to that of holiness, it is possible to treat the latter without entering into the details of the former. Cf. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 40.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

63

1.1 Pentateuchal holiness prior to Sinai While chapter two introduced the primary categories of sacred time and sacred space, it did not explore their relation to the theme of holiness in its various guises in the Pentateuch or elsewhere. There we saw that current scholarly discussion of sacred space recognizes that it is not an abstract or constant concept, but one characterized by development, nuance, and polysemism.6 The instances surveyed below show it to be sometimes more permanent, sometimes less; sometimes having a clear relation to Israel’s cult and sometimes not. It is, however, always closely connected to divine presence. Sacred time in the HB likewise showed significant variance from the synthetic definition accorded it by Eliade and others. Perhaps most notable is the HB’s insistence on the divine prerogative in establishing anything as holy, including sacred time. The distinctive emphases of the Hebrew scriptures on sacred time’s function as a prompt for faith and an opportunity to show kindness for others were also noted. One further point should be made regarding the following discussion of these categories. While the instances of sacred time and sacred space in Genesis 1–2 deal with issues of creation and humanity’s vocation, the subsequent instances, without exception, relate the content of those initial pericopae to redemptive actions, that is, to those actions which God undertakes after sin’s entry into the narrative in Genesis 3. God’s making the human sabbath the sign of the Sinai covenant is a particularly bright point in this constellation and draws together a number of these themes while extending them toward an eschatological horizon. 1.1.1 The seventh day Other than an intriguing reference to cultic time markers in Gen 1:14, the seventh day of the creation week is the first item that the HB places in the semantic field of holiness.7 Because this passage (by virtue of Exodus 20) 6 Hence B. Levine cautions “against generalizations regarding the nature of the holy” in “The Language of Holiness: Perceptions of the Sacred in the Hebrew Bible”, in M.P. O’Conner/ D.N. Freedman (ed.), Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 241–55, on p. 252. 7 In what follows I contend that the seventh day of the creation week has to do primarily with God’s cessation from work and not humanity’s. On that basis it may be useful to distinguish between sacred time that is to be recognized by human cultic observance, as in the ][FYO which anticipate and foreshadow the Israelite cult, and sacred “time” of another sort, which is not observed in the cult. See esp. D.J. Rudolph, “Festivals in Genesis 1:14”, TynBul 54.2 (2003) 23–40, for convincing arguments for seeing “festivals” in Genesis 1:14. Another solution to the question of how the seventh day of the creation week relates to humanity is to see Genesis 2 as making

64

Reflections on the sabbath frame

also speaks to questions of the sabbath’s origin and nature, we will look at it in detail. The overall movement of Gen 1:1–2:3 from non-order to order; the structuring of the account in seven paragraphs;8 the correspondence between days 1–3 and days 4–6, with the latter filling the categories of the former;9 and the consummating, comprehensive function of the seventh day vis-à-vis the preceding six have convinced practitioners of synchronic and diachronic approaches alike of the unity of Gen 1:1–2:3.10 The seventh day is noticeably different from its predecessors, perhaps most clearly because of the absence of divine creative activity, and so exhibits both similarity and difference when compared with the first six days. The text delineates several characteristics of the seventh day that we will concentrate on here: its ordinal position as the seventh day, Yahweh’s ceasing his work, his blessing and consecrating of the seventh day, and the assertion that all his creative work was finished. Work and an evening-morning conclusion are conspicuously absent, and the lack of divine creative action explains the absence of a divine speech, fulfillment statement, and pronouncement of the day’s work as good. 1.1.2 The significance of “seven”, “seven days”, and “the seventh day” Opinions vary widely as to the significance of the close of the first creation account. For some it is an expression of God’s cessation of work on the seventh day that expresses both divine otiositas and the deity’s rest “after his victory over the monster of chaos”.11 Others see it is a means for activating the seventh day of each week to achieve ritual renewal,12 and for still every seventh day sacred time (effectively a human sabbath), something beyond anticipating and foreshadowing. This would mean that the sabbath’s grounding in Genesis 2:1–3, though valid, was not made clear until Genesis was written. Reasons to doubt the weekly sabbath’s observance prior to the time of Moses are discussed below. 8 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 13. 9 For example, V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 129. 10 For example, D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 65. In light of these indications of unity, the diachronic view attributes the section entirely to P. While Robinson (Origin and Development, 226) asserts that the differences between the six days and the seventh, as well as repetition, establish the secondary nature of 2:1–3, none of the phenomena involved are reasonably clear evidence of literary disunity. 11 B.F. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty”, Bib 68 (1987) 153–77, on p. 165. 12 S.A. Meier, “The Sabbath and Purification Cycles”, in T.C. Eskenazi/D.J. Harrington/ W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 3–11.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

65

others it is a cipher for how Judahite exiles in Babylon dealt with cultural pressures there.13 First we will explore the formal significance of the day as “seventh”, then move on to material matters. In a variety of contexts in the ANE the number seven had connotations of completeness and totality and symbolized “‘completeness,’ ‘wholeness,’ ‘forgiveness’”.14 However, in the first creation account the unit of seven is modified somewhat in the six-plus-one pattern. When so formatted, “The literary pattern of six plus one […] is designed to highlight the seventh and culminating member in the seven-item arrangement.”15 Thus when applied to a sequence of days, the seventh day in a seven-day sequence has its own significance.16 For example, a seven day sequence occurs in the account of the construction of Baal’s temple, in which a casting process for the temple comes to completion on the seventh day (Baal Myth vi:16–40). But despite some hasty comparisons with Gen 1:1–2:3, such a sequence should not be too closely related to the six-plus-one pattern in Genesis. On the contrary, Loewenstamm notes that Genesis 1–2 “differs fundamentally” from other seven-day sequences in ancient Near Eastern literature in that a new event takes place on each of the six days of creation, and each day contains a narrative of its own. In the Genesis passage the seven-day plan has been combined with another scheme which treats six different subjects in detail and then proceeds to mention the principal subject in the last and seventh part.17

13 S.L. Jaki suggests that the exiles were “nauseated” by Babylonian pressure to forego any seventh day sabbath; “The Sabbath-Rest of the Maker of All”, AsJT 50 (1995) 37–49, on pp. 44–5. 14 Robinson, Origin and Development, 110. E.g. the “seven-ways” wind in Enuma Elish (iv:46); the “seven portions” of Motu’s boast against Baal in the Baal Epic (viii:57); and the seven blessings Gudea pronounces on the temple of Ningursu (Gudea Cylinders, Cyl. A xx.27–xxi.12). See the other examples cited by A.S. Kapelrud, “The Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts”, VT 18 (1968) 494–9. 15 K.A. Matthews, Genesis 1:1–11:26 (NAC 1A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 176; see the literature listed there and in E.C. Kingsbury, “A Seven Day Ritual in the Old Babylonian Cult at Larsa”, HUCA 34 (1963) 1–34, on p. 27. The ancient Near Eastern matrix of the HB draws into question Westermann’s supposition that the original account was only six days (C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary [OTL; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 168), and makes Niditch’s overlooking of the seventh day surprising (S. Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation [Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities 6; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985]). 16 C. Gordon, “The Seventh Day”, UF 11 (1980) 299–301, argues that “seventh” was meant to keep Israel from associating “Sabbath” with Saturn and thus polytheism, but he does not provide evidence that such a link would have been likely in the biblical period, nor does he account for the numerous statements which connect the sabbath to creation in one way or another. Other studies of the seven/th day motif include Kingsbury, “Seven Day Ritual”; Kapelrud, “The Number Seven”; Meier, “The Sabbath”; S.E. Loewenstamm, “The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature”, IEJ 15 (1965) 121–33. 17 Loewenstamm, “Seven Day-Unit”, 132 n. 33.

66

Reflections on the sabbath frame

Thus while some aspects of the seventh day are shared across the ANE (especially the fullness associated with seven), the seventh day in the Genesis account is distinct both for what comes before it (six differentiated days of creation) and for what is done on it (God ceases his work and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day). In sum, the seventh day may be said to be the goal of the whole creative process. 1.1.3 Structure The description of the seventh day forms an inclusio around everything in Genesis 1 (][OJ] DENMYLT JYin 2:1, cf. LT JV Y][OJ in 1:1). This structural indication of completeness is reinforced by the repetition of the verb JNM (“finished”), first with the product of God’s creative work as its subject (2:1, Pual) and immediately afterward with God as the subject and his JM NO as the object (2:2a).18 A close look at the passage shows that its syntactical and lexical aspects play an important semantic role. ] DENMYLT JY][OJYNM[Y2:1 J T YVM NO[[DJ]Y[D][JN NM[Y 2:2a J T YVM NONMO[[DJ]Y[DVD[Y 2:2b YV FS[Y[[DJ]Y[V ][JN ?TD[Y 2:3a VY N][JN  TDT YVM NONMOVDYD[M 2:3b

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 And by the seventh day God had completed His work which He had done; and He ceased on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He ceased from all His work which God had created and made. As Cassuto has noted, 2a, 2b, and 3a are bound together by the repetition of “seventh day” and have seven words each.19 Further, the threefold repetition of JM NO binds 2:2a, 2:2b, and 2:3b closely together. Together, the repetition of JNM,[[DJ, and JM NO binds the whole of 2:1–3 together.20

18 Pace J. Pearl, “From ‘Seventh Day’ to ‘Shabbat’: Dualities in Genesis 2:1–3”, JBQ 26 (1998) 52–6, the lexical and semantic evidence for taking JNM as “finish” and “destroy” (following C. Gordon’s 1982 suggestion of asymmetric Janus parallelism) is lacking. 19 Cassuto, Exodus, 61. 20 So concludes N.-E. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation (SBLDS 7; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972): “Gen 2:1–3 is,

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

67

The semantic connections between the lines are also essential to the passage’s meaning. Here the tradition-historical reconstruction of Westermann, for example, must be bypassed in order to follow the passage’s argument.21 The flow of thought moves from the primary assertion of God’s having finished his work on the seventh day (2:2a; cf. 2:1), to his ceasing from all his work (2:2b), and then to his blessing and consecrating of the day (2:3a), which is then explicitly based on God’s ceasing from all his work ([M, 2:3b).22 Thus finishing leads to cessation, and cessation to blessing and consecration. There are many reasons for taking 2:3a as central to the passage: it is framed by nearly synonymous statements in 2:2b and 2:3b, it uses two finite verbs rather than the usual one found in the other clauses, God’s blessing and consecration of the seventh day are unique, God abstains from work on that day, and 2:3a is the last non-subordinate clause of the first creation account. 1.1.4 Finishing By virtue of its threefold repetition, two instances of which are bound up in the definition of the seventh day, the use of JM NO language here emphasizes God’s complete cessation of his creative word and work. The “very good” of 1:31 in fact anticipates this, with the filled cosmos standing complete and approved by God. Gen 2:1–3 adds a note of finality to God’s creative work by underlining his cessation of it. This makes clear that “procreation and self-perpetuation” are the continuing status quo, while additional creation is not.23

therefore, a unified composition which does not let the reader bracket out any traditions within it with any degree of certainty” (191). 21 As H.N. Wallace suggests, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath”, Pacifica 1 (1988) 235– 50, on p. 237. Cf. Westermann, Genesis, 168, where he proposes an original order 2a, 3a, 2b, 3b. 22 Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3”, 237; Matthews, Genesis 1:1–11:26, 179. Follingstad’s recent and exhaustive analysis of [M shows that the causal relation of the two clauses should not be attributed solely to the [M, but to the juxtaposed semantic content of the two clauses. C.M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ki (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 46. 23 Hamilton, Genesis 1–11, 142. The cessation of the work described in Genesis 1 does not make later uses of creation language with God as the subject impossible. The question is rather one of the semantics of creation language; see S. Paas, Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets (OTS 47; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 54–81, who helpfully probes matters of definition.

68

Reflections on the sabbath frame

1.1.5 Cessation It is clear from the text that God ceased his creative activities on the seventh day.24 But what are we to make of this cessation? Is it the complete inactivity and withdrawal of otiositas, or a temporary rest, or something else? Notably, there is no rest language in Genesis 2, nor is the sabbath mentioned there (though absence of lexical evidence does not constitute evidence of semantic absence). The presence of the verb VD does not imply the presence of the sabbath either: An overview shows that the basic meaning of the verb šƗbat in the qal is ‘cease, come to an end’ […]. In no instance does the vb. šƗbat as such mean ‘rest (from work),’ and no evidence suggests that the vb. šƗbat itself derives from the noun šabbƗt.25

However, both the OT and NT refer in different ways to a rest of God that obtained in this very context (among other texts, Exod 20:11; 31:17; Heb 3–4).26 Exod 31:17 uses especially interesting language in stating that God “was refreshed” (Nif of RP).27 Even if the OT references in law contexts might be explained as etiologies validating the human sabbath, there is still a connection between creation and rest in the temple imagery of the two creation accounts, as discussed above. What are we to make of this tension?

24 Several versions read “sixth” in Gen 2:2a to avoid any hint of God’s working on the seventh day, but taking hlk as a pluperfect (as many do, e.g., Wenham, Genesis, 5; Matthews, Genesis, 176) is syntactically suitable and eliminates the rationale for the change. Andreasen’s assertion that God’s entering a state of rest “after making the world, but before making his people Israel, is to the Old Testament and to P a preposterous idea” (Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath, 185) reflects a common misperception of P’s worldview as holding that “the order of creation is not fully finished until Israelite society and the tabernacle cult are constructed” (Gorman, Ritual, 230). This view lacks sufficient nuance: first, Genesis 1–2 makes clear, to the point of redundancy, that God’s creative work is done. Second, the fact that the creation motif is deployed vis-à-vis Israel (e.g. Exodus passim; Ps 95) is not proof of identity, though it demands at least analogy. 25 E. Haag, “VD”, TDOT, 14.381–6, on p. 385. 26 On this point see esp. J. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 252–358. 27 The expression occurs elsewhere only in describing the benefits of sabbath observance for “the son of your bondmaid and the sojourner” (Exod 23:12) and the refreshment that resolves the weariness (X[) of David and his followers in fleeing Absolom (2 Sam 16:14). Interpreters have generally considered this either an anthropomorphism (tending to empty it of any semantic content), or to take it as a precise statement regarding the weakness of God’s very being. E. Fox exemplifies the former (Now These Are the Names [New York: Schocken, 1986], 175) and W. Brueggemann the latter in “The Book of Exodus”, in L.E. Keck et al. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vol.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1.675–981, on p. 924. As long as one recognizes the analogical nature of language, it is possible to appreciate the expression in light of the more univocal language elsewhere about God finishing his work, stopping his work, and declaring it good. The fact that Israel was to do on the sabbath something like what Yahweh did on the seventh day also contributes to the language here, as the phrase’s appearance in Exod 23:12 shows.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

69

The solution is not the simple dichotomy that von Rad established between the rest of Genesis 2 and that found elsewhere in the OT.28 Rather, Genesis 2:1–3 contains in nuce elements which await elucidation by later Scripture, so that the question becomes how to describe the intertextual relationship between this pericope and those which follow. Several elements within Gen 1:1–2:3 provide some orientation in this task. First, the relationships which this passage establishes between God, the created cosmos, and humanity show that God’s creative activity is complete and incapable of being improved upon (all of it together is pronounced “very good”) or added to (only God creates, and he has finished). Further, creation comes completely under his kingly dominion, and humanity as made in his image has a special role.29 Finally, although the first creation account does not explore it, the holy nature of the seventh day brings it into some sort of relationship with humanity. To understand better the relationship between humanity and God’s rest, it is helpful to note the element of moral testing or probation that the subsequent context of Genesis 2–3 introduces, consisting minimally of the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the sanction of death upon disobedience.30 Within the second creation account, this element comes to prominence in humanity’s response to the temptation to act contrary to God’s command. Prior to sin, the human story could have developed in one of two ways: either humanity obeys and enjoys life, or it disobeys and breaks its fellowship with God.31 This period of testing or probation, in which humanity could demonstrate its fidelity to its creator-sovereign, thus determines the horizon of the second creation narrative.32 28 G. von Rad, “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 94–102, esp. 101. 29 See B.R. Reichenbach’s argument for Genesis 1 as presenting a narrative of kingdom establishment. “Genesis 1 as a Theological-Political Narrative of Kingdom Establishment”, BBR 13 (2003) 47–69. M. Kline suggested this idea earlier (e.g., in Kingdom Prologue [South Hamilton, Mass.: M.G. Kline, 1981–1983]). 30 See among others R. Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 293–311, for the importance of taking the textual, redemptive-historical, and canonical horizons of a text into account. 31 Wenham (Genesis 1–15) notes several aspects of the second creation narrative that emphasize the determinative nature of humanity’s response to testing: Genesis 2:4–3:24 centres on the disobedience of Adam and Eve, where “the hierarchy of authority established [in 2:18–25] and reaffirmed [in 3:9–13] is overturned” (51); the closest biblical allusions to this pericope (Ezekiel 28; Ps 19) stress the contrast between human pride and autonomy and God’s authoritative law (63–4); and because fullness of life was found only in God’s presence, expulsion from the garden was “more catastrophic than physical death” (90). 32 Here it is necessary to establish only that “probation” or “testing” means that the Garden of Eden as described in Genesis 2:4ff. was not the final state for human existence, nor its eschato-

70

Reflections on the sabbath frame

It is noteworthy that Genesis juxtaposes these two creation narratives. While many reasons for its doing so could be suggested, in this discussion the juxtaposition is noteworthy because it suggests a connection between the seventh day as something that God has sanctified vis-à-vis humanity and humanity’s unsuccessful demonstration of obedience to God. This triad of the sanctified seventh day, humanity’s moral probation, and the telic character of the final day of the six-plus-one sequence forms a basic protological-eschatological paradigm, as VanGemeren explains: If human beings are to enter into the sanctity of the [seventh] day, they too must be holy. To be holy requires divine approval, which individuals do not have merely because they were created in God’s image. A probation was required in which the humans had to demonstrate their absolute loyalty to their Creator-King […]. The seventh day concludes God’s creative activities and opens up the question regarding how individuals might enter into the rest from their activities. 33

At this point something should be said about how this understanding of the seventh day relates to the OT sabbath as understood in Reformed theology. While a distinction between the sabbath and the seventh day of the creation week has not always been agreed upon by interpreters, several considerations recommend it. First, it addresses the difficulty of having an Edenic logical terminus. Shortly after Genesis 2:4–3:24, Noah receives his name in the hope that the rest that was not permanently enjoyed by Adam and Eve might be regained. Throughout the rest of the canon the drama of redemption reveals how this rest can be regained. The possibility of fracturing the close relationship with God is an important difference between the Garden and descriptions of the consummation of redemption from sin; in the latter case, the possibility of finally breaking fellowship with God by those so redeemed is removed (the classic shift from posse non peccare to non posse peccare). 33 W.A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 48 (see also 46). Put in the context of Reformed discussion, I am suggesting something close to, but different from, G. Vos’s idea that “the so-called ‘Covenant of Works’ was nothing but an embodiment of the Sabbatical principle. Had its probation been successful, then the sacramental Sabbath would have passed over into the reality it typified […]” (Biblical Theology [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975], 140). I take Vos’s sacramental view of the sabbath in a different direction, so that the sabbatical principle is indeed probationary, but in a more overt way: there was to be no human sabbath until probation was passed. Pre-fall eschatology was present in God’s rest, not in a pre-fall human sabbath. It is interesting to note Vos’s comment in the same context that “the institution [of the human sabbath] in its specific Old Testament form dates from the time of Moses” (139). Calvin made the same point; see John Calvin, Commentaries of the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (2 vols.; trans. John King; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1.107. Note also idem, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses (4 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 1.271, where he thinks it “questionable” whether the seventh day was sanctified by the patriarchs. This study’s focus does not allow us to enter into detailed discussion of the pre-fall state or of the covenant of works; a very helpful survey and analysis is given by R.S. Ward, God and Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003). Representative arguments for a creation-week human sabbath can be found in J. Murray, Principles of Conduct (with a foreword by J.I. Packer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 30–5.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

71

sabbath in which humanity partakes in some measure of God’s sanctified rest before having been sanctified themselves (a problem G. Vos addresses via sacramentalism).34 Second, while the absence of human sabbath observance prior to Exodus 16 cannot be taken as proof that such a sabbath did not exist, Deut 5:15, Neh 9:14, and Ezek 20:10–12 strongly suggest that the human sabbath commandment was given for the first time in the context of the wilderness and Sinai (cf. also 2 Chr 31:3; Jer 17:22). Third, Gen 2:1–3 makes no mention of humanity’s work, or of their abstention from it, so without ruling out some relation between the two (cf. Exodus 20) the emphasis in the first creation account lies on the cessation of God’s work visà-vis the creation of the cosmos rather than on his behavior as an example for humanity.35 This is affirmed by the threefold qualification of JM NO with J T (2:2a, 2:2b; modified as ][JN  TDT VY Nin 2:3b).36 1.1.6 Blessing and consecration This phrase has an extensive history of interpretation. Schenker’s survey of its recent exegesis finds it receiving one of two senses: (1) blessing and consecration are taken as synonyms. In its being sanctified the seventh day is reserved for God and the cult, and consequently blessing flows from it to humanity. Or, (2) blessing is gifting and benefaction which give humanity strength and well-being, with consecration prohibiting work.37 A closer look 34 Vos, Biblical Theology, 140. 35 Humanity’s creation in the image of God is often mentioned as a reason to conclude that the human sabbath was observed from the beginning. But the idea that sabbath observance was incumbent upon Adam and Eve by virtue of their being made in God’s image, and/or the related concept of imitatio Dei, needs to be balanced by an appreciation of their probationary pre-fall state. “The tight interrelationship of the first six days, from which the seventh is excluded by form, content and subsequent chapter divisions, provides a contrast of activity and purpose between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:1–3 […]. The seventh day thus acquires special status as the day that belongs to God alone.” W.J. Dumbrell, “Genesis 2:1–17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation”, in S.J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 53–65, on p. 54. Thus “The seventh day shows that work is not an end in itself, but has its proper place when it is consecrated to God as we subdue the earth in his name. The seventh day represents the goal of history when humanity’s work is done and God’s rest is entered” (Ward, God and Adam, 21–2). 36 Since JM NO always refers to work “involving skill” but is only rarely associated with God’s agency (indirectly in the commissioning of Bazalel [Ex 31:3; 35:31] and the rebuilding of the wall and temple [Neh 6:16; Hag 1:14]; directly in the deliverance of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked [Ps 73:28]), some have suggested that “the stress on the completion of the work in Genesis 2:1–3 is directed toward humans” (C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary [OTL; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 170). In view of the points mentioned here, this should be reconsidered. 37 A. Schenker, “Die Segnung des Siebten Schöpfungstages: Zum besonderen Segen in Gen 2,3”, in A.M. Altermatt/T.A. Schnitker (ed.), Der Sonntag: Anspruch  Wirklichkeit  Gestalt (Würzburg/Freiburg, Schweiz: Echter Verlag/Universitätsverlag, 1986) 19–29.

72

Reflections on the sabbath frame

at the text will bring into view the issues behind these divergent interpretations. In the HB, the collocation of ?TD (Piel) and FS (Piel) occurs only here and in Exod 20:11. While sacred time that involves cultic observance clearly inheres in the sabbath referred to in Exodus 20, as the explicit guidelines for its observance by Israel prove, the presence of such sacred time in Gen 2:1–3 is less certain. Given that the events of Exodus 16 precede those of Exodus 20, the sabbath in the Decalog looks back at least as far as the sabbath of Exodus 16.38 While the collocation of ?TD and FS draws a very close connection between the sabbath day ordained for Israel and God’s seventh day rest (that is, it links Genesis 2 with Exodus 20), the miraculous provision of food for Israel on the seventh day which God sanctified in Exodus 16 also shares semantic content with the “blessing” and “consecrating” of Genesis 2, making Exodus 16 an important text when discussing the relation of Genesis 2 and Exodus 20. Most interpretations of ?TD (Pi) take it to mean the giving of power or potency relating to well-being, on the basis of the Arabic baraka.39 However, Mitchell’s treatment of the root shows that this overlooks the illocutionary aspect of the word’s use (what the speaker intends to do with the utterance, as contrasted with what the speaker actually effects in speaking). God’s benedictions are always illocutionary utterances in which God makes known his feelings towards persons or things. The statements never effect blessing by the magical power of the spoken word. Instead, because the blessings are illocutionary utterances, the pronouncement of the benediction in itself is the act of blessing.40

This understanding of blessing supports Mitchell’s argument that God’s blessing of created life in Genesis 1–2 does not bestow fertility, since he had created them capable of reproduction. Similarly, on this line of reason38 The only chronological difficulty vis-à-vis Exodus 20 is in Exod 16:33–34, where the omer of manna is to be put “before Yahweh” (who has yet to establish his permanent presence among Israel) in the Testimony (which has yet to be fabricated). Cassuto, noting that each of the details provided in 16:30–36 lies outside the narrative timeline of chapter 16, suggests that 16:33– 34 took place “after the erection of the Tabernacle” (Exodus, 199); cf. J.I. Durham (Exodus [WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987], 224) and B.S. Childs (The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], 291–2). 39 Cf. C.A. Keller/G. Wehmeier, “?TD”, TLOT, 1.266–82; M.L. Brown, “?TD”, NIDOTTE, 1.755–67: “the life-infusing power of the divine word [… which …] actualizes and enables”; also P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337–85, esp. 367. 40 C.W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 62. This understanding builds on J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, in which there are locutionary acts (saying something), illocutionary acts (what one does in saying something, e.g., bless), and perlocutionary acts (what one brings about by saying something: encouraging, disappointing, etc.); see Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 21975).

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

73

ing, when God blessed the seventh day he did not bestow on it a special power in distinction from the other six days.41 In order to determine the positive content of the blessing of the seventh day we must take into account its companion verb FS. While ?TD (Piel) has appeared earlier in the first creation account, with God blessing the creatures he made on the fifth day (1:22) and the first human couple on the sixth (1:28), FS appears in 2:3 for the first and only time in Genesis. There are about 15 instances in the HB where Yahweh is the subject of the Piel of FS (human agents are also attested), and the objects of his action are varied: the seventh day (Gen 2:3); the sabbath day (Exod 20:8); the tabernacle, its contents and its priests (Exod 29:44); Israel (Exod 31.13; Lev 20:8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; Ezek 20:12; 37:28); destroyers of Judah and its monarchy (Jer 22:7); and Yahweh’s name (Ezek 36:23). These uses all reflect the factitive sense of “putting something into a state of holiness”.42 The salient question here is, for whom did Yahweh consecrate the seventh day? Not all God’s acts of consecration have a human audience, and as a result some do not produce entities which are to be considered holy by humans. Thus when Yahweh consecrates Judah’s destroyers (Jer 22:7), they are set apart for Yahweh’s punitive purposes but lack any cultic function or public recognition of their sacred status. Still, especially by virtue of their contextual proximity to Gen 2:1–3, the first human couple is the most natural audience for Yahweh’s blessing and consecrating of the seventh day.43 What did God intend for Adam and Eve by conveying to them that this day was consecrated? Since there was at that time no cult in the normal sense of the word, we must propose something other than the seventh day being cultic sacred time. It is evident that the seventh day serves in part to represent the perfection and purpose of God’s creation, which he regards as complete and very good. Further, its consecration brings it into connection with humanity, whom God has called to function as his representative servants.44 This close 41 Contrast G.F. Hasel’s view, which considers the sabbath (in Genesis 2 – he identifies the seventh day with the sabbath in Genesis 2) “full of power. This power makes this day fruitful and vital for man’s life. The seventh day receives through its blessing a beneficial and vitalizing power through which human existence is enriched and comes to fulfillment.” “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 21–43, on p. 25. A. Heschel’s view is quite similar; The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951). 42 J.A. Naudé, “FS”, NIDOTTE, 3.877–87, on p. 884. 43 In light of Exodus 20 a case could be made that Yahweh sanctified the seventh day with Israel’s sabbath in mind. However, while compatible with it, this does not satisfy the context of Gen 2:1–3. 44 “The first creation account is a carefully crafted narrative of an ordered series of acts by which God by royal decrees brings into being his territory and establishes all things with their proper function” (Reichenbach, “Genesis 1”, 56). Though the precise details of the pre-fall state

74

Reflections on the sabbath frame

association of creation’s purpose and humanity’s calling to obedience is congenial to an understanding of the seventh day as symbolizing the goal to which humans are directed as the terminus of their probation.45 This possibility will be investigated further in chapter six with reference to Hebrews 3–4. 1.2 Divine rest elsewhere in the ANE Because the concept of a deity’s rest after some sort of action is, as such, not uncommon in the ANE, we must also glean what we can on this point from the ancient Near Eastern milieu of Genesis.46 Here we will look at representative texts from across the ANE to see how the different cultures they represent understood divine rest before looking at other biblical passages. 1.2.1 The Baal Epic Toward the end of the Ugaritic Baal Epic, a composition concerned mainly with Baal’s prolonged but ultimately successful bid to establish his cosmic kingship against opposition from Yamm and Mot, Baal has a palace built for himself to indicate his supremacy in the pantheon.47 Subsequently he is are difficult to specify, some reckoning of its basic elements is unavoidable in theology. This has been true for centuries, as shown by its importance in the work of Johannes Cocceius (1603– 1669), a prominent Reformed theologian (see, e.g., W.J. Van Asselt, “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius”, CTJ 35 [2000] 76–104, esp. 81–2). Its continuing importance is reflected in numerous contemporary works as well: note the comments of P.E. Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 60: “The condition of goodness in which [humanity] was created was not one of static goodness; [humanity] was not made to sit still in the world to be passively good, but to be actively holy. In a very real sense [it] was to establish [its] holiness by faithful performance of the Creator’s will. Doing this, [humanity] would have actualized the potential with which [it] was by nature endowed and have known what it is to be authentically human.” 45 Cf. Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology, 94. Mitchell seems to lose sight of the context and so overstate his case: “As elsewhere in the primeval history, God’s blessing denotes pronouncement of a formula expressing God’s sentiments. Qiddeš specifies what type of pronouncement God made. The Piel of qdš is declarative; God designates the seventh day as a holy day, a day special to him. Here ‘holy’ means only that the day commemorates God’s activity; the relation of man to the day is out of the picture” (BRK, 64–5). 46 Representative surveys are given by W.G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis”, JTS 16 (1965) 287–300, esp. 297–8; J.N. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Library of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 35–8. 47 Questions regarding the text’s unity are addressed by M.S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle”, in S.B. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 81–180, esp.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

75

seated upon “[his] royal [throne], on [the resting place], [the throne] of his dominion”.48 The concept of (limited) supremacy within the Ugaritic pantheon relativizes the composition’s other themes, though “rest” (restored by Smith as l[nht.lkht], “on the resting place”) appears as only one facet of Baal’s experience as the supreme deity.49 The Baal Epic exemplifies the common ancient Near Eastern pattern of divine conflict leading to the god’s enthronement and rest. While the Genesis account likewise ends in rest, and is preceded by the potentially analogous element of work, it differs by removing the conflict motif and by setting up the divine rest as a goal for humanity. 1.2.2 Enuma Elish The Akkadian Enuma Elish, written toward the end of the second millennium, made Marduk and his city of Babylon completely independent of Enlil and the divine assembly of gods in Nippur in response to his successful protection of the younger gods.50 The myth recounts the threat posed by Tiamat to the noisy younger gods, Marduk’s victory complete destruction of her and her coconspirators when she threatened the younger gods, his creation of humanity to work that the gods might rest, and the building of his temple to express his newly attained supreme kingship.51 While Marduk’s rest is not grammaticalized, it is nonetheless present in his victory over Tiamat (cf. the similar consequence once Ea kills Apsu and imprisons Mummu, I:71–75), in his creation of humanity to do the gods’ work (VI:8, 35, 36), and in his dwelling in his temple, where the junior gods likewise find rest (VI:54).52 For Marduk, rest includes the elimination 81–6. The work dates to the latter half of the second millennium, although the Ugaritic form had a long prehistory; D. Pardee, “The Ba’lu Myth”, in COS, 1.241–74. 48 KTU 6:vi 30–36; see Smith, “Baal Cycle” for the text and arrangement followed here. 49 As recognized by B.F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 78. Despite the myth’s concern with the seasonal and agricultural cycle, Smith is correct in seeing those elements as secondary to Baal’s kingship, so that the text is theologically rather than agriculturally focused; Smith, “Baal Cycle”, and cf. Pardee, “The Ba’lu Myth”, 242. 50 For a discussion of the text’s date, see B.R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1995), 9. 51 Here I follow the text and translation in COS, 1.390–402 and, for the omitted portions of tablets 6 and 7, Foster, From Distant Days, 43–50. Divine rest is more than peripheral in Babylonian theology: note Marduk’s second name, MARUKKA, meaning “the god who created them (mankind), who granted (thereby) the Anunna-gods contentment, who let the Igigi-gods rest” (Foster, From Distant Days, 43) and his thirteenth name, TUTU, meaning “he shall purify their shrines that they may be at rest, he shall devise the spell that the gods may be calm” (idem, 45). 52 Marduk describes his palace as “the abode of my pleasure” (V:122), “my (holy) chambers [where] I shall establish my kingship” (V:124), and the place for joint divine festivals (V:130).

76

Reflections on the sabbath frame

of divine opposition, absence of work, and residence in his temple. With the exception of divine combat, these elements overlap conceptually with the first biblical creation account, although Marduk’s rest does not serve as a goal toward which humanity aspires and his residence in his temple is cast primarily in terms of his relationship with the other gods rather than with humanity. The benefits of Marduk’s kingship for humanity are that Marduk is capable of controlling chaos and that those who revere him by giving thought to his fifty names will be “safe” (VI:150). 1.2.3 The Atrahasis Epic In the Atrahasis Epic the sequence seen in Enuma Elish is reversed, so that the gods create humanity in order to obtain rest but immediately meet with unrest.53 Indeed, the divine dissatisfaction with the necessity of work that begins the epic is the crisis that sets events in motion. The wish that “[humanity] bear the yoke” and so be the unfortunate bearers of “clamor” (I:225) has an ironic fulfillment when the newly created humanity bellows like a bull and this “clamor” disrupts the gods’ repose (I:345–350).54 Enlil sends plague, famine (twice), and finally a flood to reduce humanity’s noise, but because Enki aids Atrahasis at various points the human race repeatedly avoids extinction, though the gods ultimately impose death, infant mortality, and selective sterility to prevent their being disturbed by humanity in the future. The emphasis of the epic lies not on a creative sequence and its consummation, but the management of the problems that the creation of humanity brought. Divine rest is again defined as freedom from an obligation to work, and Atrahasis adds the nuance of the elimination of human disturbance to the concept. Both these elements are foreign to the HB’s first creation narrative, and Atrahasis (like the other texts surveyed) does not describe a divine rest which is to be shared by humanity, whether in the present or in the future. Indeed, the relationship between deity and humanity is that of potential enemies who can coexist rather than of those who could share a common rest, and the arduous work of humanity in supplying the gods’ needs makes human rest quite difficult to obtain.

53 The Atrahasis Epic is preserved in manuscripts from the seventeenth century BCE (Foster, From Distant Days, 52); see further S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1–38. 54 From line j of a fragment that partially restores part of tablet I; see Foster, From Distant Days, 57–8.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

77

1.2.4 Egyptian sources Egyptian conceptions of the deity’s role in cosmology are more varied than in Mesopotamia.55 The Memphite Theology, thought to date from about the thirteenth century, recounts how Ptah, as the preeminent and original god, created all that is.56 The text concludes: “So has Ptah come to rest after his making everything and every divine speech as well, having given birth to the gods, having made their towns […].”57 Conversely, in one of the Coffin Text spells Atum is said to be “floating, very weary” prior to creation, before he evolves into “the multiplicity of life”.58 He first generates Shu, who serves to “enliven [his] heart when he has drawn together these very weary limbs of [his]”.59 Other Coffin Texts have Atum reuniting with Osiris at the end of the age, at which time he will sit down (#1130). 1.2.5 Comparison and contrast This short survey of the relevant extra-biblical material gives a fair representation of the similarities and differences that obtain between the articulation of the divine rest motif in Gen 1:1–2:3 and elsewhere in the ANE. Their shared elements include: The seven-day unit of time (in the Baal Myth, for Baal’s temple) Some kind of divine rest (in the Baal Myth, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the Memphite theology) An assertion that the god’s creative work was complete (Memphite theology)

55 H.-P. Hasenfratz identifies three general patterns of creation in Egyptian thought, with the Memphite Theology representing the tradition closest to the biblical conception; see his “Patterns of Creation in Ancient Egypt”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 174–8. J.P. Allen concludes that the Egyptian philosophies of creation “grew in complexity and detail throughout history”, though they are still “remarkably consistent throughout the 2300 years of history they span”; Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (Yale Egyptological Studies 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 13, 56. 56 The account may have existed much earlier in some form or other: cf. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature, 23, who thinks that the second half of the third millennium is possible. 57 J.P. Allen, “From the ‘Memphite Theology’”, COS, 1.21–23; Allen elsewhere translates similarly: “So has Ptah come to rest […]” (Genesis in Egypt, 44). ANET translates “And so Ptah was satisfied”, noting the possibility of “rested” in a footnote (ANET, 5). 58 J.P. Allen, “From Coffin Texts Spell 75”, COS, 1.8; note also J.P. Allen’s commentary on it (COS, 1.12 n. 17): “In creation accounts, weariness […] like inertness […], connotes the potentiality for activity – here, Atum’s potentiality for the evolution that will produce the created world.” 59 J.P. Allen, “Spell 75”, 8.

78

Reflections on the sabbath frame

The expectation that the god’s rest ensures a degree of future order and peace in the cosmos (in the Baal Myth, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the Memphite theology) Creation of humanity in the context of divine rest (Enuma Elish, less clearly in Atrahasis) Since Genesis reflects the ANE’s common understanding of the special nature of the seven day unit of time, one may conclude with Hurowitz that there was “a West-Semitic ‘iso-motif’”, and suggest that most of these texts reflect it. It is difficult to say more without going beyond the limits of the evidence.60 The differences between the texts should likewise be appreciated, employing Talmon’s four lines of comparison and appreciating the importance of the different world views that lie behind each text.61 Such a comparison reveals that while some formal similarities exist (seven days, rest, completion), and while the texts surveyed are often roughly contemporaneous with the biblical account, these compositions have different articulations and semantics (geographical propinquity, or lack thereof, is harder to demonstrate). Regarding the different articulations of the divine rest motif evident in these texts, only Genesis 2 and the Memphite Theology clearly have the creator enter his rest after completing his creative work. The other texts have the central god subdue chaos or other opposition en route to his repose, so that they are better seen as theomachies than cosmologies. Similarly, the absence of conflict or difficulty from Genesis 1–2 also requires that one distinguish the cessation attributed to God in Genesis 2 from the otiositas that defines the “divine rest” in the Baal Epic and similar literature, since the latter concept involves excessive effort in overcoming chaos or fabricating creation. Finally, Yahweh’s blessing and consecrating of the 60 See the examples from Babylon and Ugarit collected by Robinson, Origin and Development, 139–40. It is not evident, however, when, from where, or how this unit came to prominence, so that borrowing cannot be demonstrated in either direction, nor can semantic dependence be established. Walton’s observation demands attention: “The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected” (Ancient Israelite Literature, 37). 61 These are proximity in time and place, the priority of inner biblical parallels, correspondence of social function, and the holistic approach to texts and comparisons. See S. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation – Principles and Problems”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 320–56. On the world views or “cognitive environments” that constitute their primary interpretative context see especially J.H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

79

seventh day is unique to Genesis 1–2, where it plays a central role and figures largely in defining the relationship of that rest to God and humanity. In sum, while the concept of divine rest per se is fairly common in ancient Near Eastern accounts dealing with the origins of the gods and of humanity, rarely does it show significant conceptual overlap with the biblical concept. Furthermore, differences in the world view assumed or propagated by each text require that the interpreter take account of the significant differences on related points such as the relation of the created humanity to the creator god. 1.3 The Garden of Eden Returning to the Hebrew Bible, we now turn to other passages prior to Sinai where holiness is prominent. These have been selected for their proximity to, or intersection with, the major themes of the Sinai pericope, such as Israel’s election and covenant, the Garden of Eden and protology, the rest/sabbath field, and divine presence. The survey proceeds along the canon’s historical lines to emphasize both the organic and dynamic aspects of these themes.62 We will spend considerable time exploring the characteristics of the Garden of Eden principally because its priority in the HB, and the various aspects of holiness present in it, make it fertile ground for later biblical allusions, interpretations, and developments. The majority of arguments for seeing the Garden as holy are based on one of the following warrants: the presence of God as he walked there (Hit of ?NJ), the association of gardens with temples in the ANE, and the sacerdotal nature of the calling of humanity to tend and keep the garden.63 These will be examined in turn.

62 The majority of treatments of holiness in the Pentateuch approach the topic via the DH, e.g., J. Milgrom, “The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Priestly Codes with Emphasis on Lev 19”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 65–75 (see also his commentaries on Leviticus). But there is good reason to follow Scripture’s historical lines: see especially R. Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 70–80, and M. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 102–3. 63 See B.F. Batto, “Paradise Reexamined”, in K.L. Younger, Jr./W.W. Hallo/B.F. Batto (ed.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Scripture in Context 4; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991) 33–66; E.W. Bolger, “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993); L. Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden”, BAR 26.3 (2000) 36–47; T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); H.N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985); G.J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in

80

Reflections on the sabbath frame

1.3.1 The garden and God’s presence First, was the Garden sacred space by virtue of God’s presence there? Some have suggested this because the Hitpael of ?NJ in Gen 3:8 (with _ID) also appears in Lev 26:12 (with ]MMYVD) and Deut 23:15 (with ?PZODTSD), two texts describing Yahweh’s presence in the tabernacle.64 Further, several other passages use the same verb and stem with God as subject to speak of his presence in sanctuaries prior to Solomon’s temple (2 Sam 7:6 with _MODYNJ D; 2 Sam 7:7//1 Chr 17:6 with N T [[PDNMD) or of his presence or activity in other spheres (Job 22:14 with ][OIYZY; Job 38:16 with TSZD]YJV; possibly Ezek 1:13). In assessing this line of reasoning, it should be noted that equating the presence of God in the Garden with that in the tabernacle on a merely lexical basis makes the faulty assumption that two appearances of the same word must mean the same thing. While the continual presence of God in the tabernacle is explicitly affirmed (Exod 25:8; 29:43–46), the mode of his presence in the Garden is described only in Gen 3:8, and this solitary text should not be pressed too far.65 It is noteworthy that all the other uses of the verb employ syntagmatic modifiers other than _ID to define God’s presence vis-à-vis Israel. Furthermore, understanding the respective boundaries of Eden, the Garden, and the rest of the world in accord with ancient Near Eastern garden typologies suggests that “the garden is understood to be the antechamber of the Holy of Holies (Eden) in the cosmic temple complex”.66 But while Walton and others stress that Eden is described (in Gen 13:10; Ezek 28:13; 31:9; cf. Isa 51:3) as the “garden of God/the LORD”, none of these passages contain assertions that God took up his abode in the Garden of Eden or in the locales with which they compare it.67 What type of genitival relationship the Hebrew intends in such cases is a matter of interpretation, and the context in Genesis contains information which allows for more

the Garden of Eden Story”, in M. Goshen-Gottstein/D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 19–24. For a wider sampling, see G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 66–80. 64 Many have noted this, but most cite Wenham, “Symbolism”, 20. 65 Cf. G.J. Wenham, who notes a “relationship between the garden and the later shrines” but advances of Gen 3:8 only that “maybe a daily chat between the Almighty and his creatures was customary”. Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Dallas: Word, 1987), 76. 66 J.N. Walton, “Eden, Garden of”, DOTP, 202–6, on p. 203. D.T. Tsumura has illuminated the “threefold focusing of the geographical area [in Genesis 2] […]: (1) from eres̙ to adƗmâ, (2) from adƗmâ to !Ɲden, and (3) from !Ɲden to gan”. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2 (JSOTSup 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 163. 67 Ezekiel 28 may be drawing on mythic material rather than on Gen 2–3; cf. Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 96; idem, “Paradise Reexamined”, esp. 57–9.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

81

precision: “The garden of Gen 2 was created for the human race (Gen 2:8, 15), not for God, although he strolled through it (3:8).”68 Accordingly, in specifying the nature of God’s presence in the Garden, it is probably best to note the range of nuance that the Hitpael can have, and to articulate that in the context of Gen 3:8.69 Not every facet of this verb’s semantics is clear due to the possibility that it may be an Akkadianism.70 Still, given the nature of walking as an activity and the glosses possible for the Hitpael, an iterative sense seems most natural, and, as we have seen, is present in the other sanctuary references to which Wenham and others appeal.71 But an iterative sense does not establish semantic parity between the mode of divine presence referred to in Gen 3:8 and that in the tabernacle, nor does it justify importing cultic concepts into the Garden narrative (unless cultic is redefined to mean simply “interacting with divine presence” without introducing Levitical overtones). It is better simply to reflect on the implications of God’s presence in the Garden as the one who is uniquely holy. Even at this early point in the Bible’s story holiness is already the unique prerogative of God, who sanctified the seventh day (Gen 2:1–3). This is the pervasive assumption of priestly and non-priestly materials alike.72 It is likewise clear that “holiness is a necessary […] precondition for God’s presence to be manifest”.73 Thus for God’s presence to be manifest in the Garden, it must be (at least for the duration of his appearance) holy. Therefore the places at which God was present in the Garden, and perhaps the whole Garden by extension, should be seen as something between the type of holy ground produced by Yahweh’s presence in Exodus 3 (where the

68 Cornelius, “_I”, NIDOTTE, 1.875–8, on p. 876; so also Matthews, Genesis, 200 n. 54. 69 C.H.J. van der Merwe/J.A. Naudé/J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); GKC adds “a reflexive of the Piel” and “with regard to or for oneself” (149–50); B.T. Arnold/J.H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), add to these “iterative” and “denominative” meanings (48). 70 See B. Waltke/M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 427–9 for a discussion of this possibility. 71 J.J. Niehaus, following M.G. Kline, understands God’s appearance in the Garden as a storm-theophany, but his interpretation leans too heavily on Kline’s rather forced Spirit-theophany argumentation and on an unlikely gloss for ]Y[; see his God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 155–9; idem, “In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look at Genesis iii 8”, VT 44 (1994) 263–7; M.G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue; idem, Images of the Spirit (Baker Biblical Monographs; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). 72 “The P and non-P writings both consider God the ideal manifestation, indeed the source, of holiness. Holiness is not inherent in creation but comes by God’s dictates.” D.P. Wright, “Holiness (OT)”, ABD, 3.237–49, on p. 237. 73 Jenson, “Holiness”, 107.

82

Reflections on the sabbath frame

divine presence was also transitory) on the one hand, and God’s permanent presence in the tabernacle on the other.74 1.3.2 The garden as a temple garden A second line of argumentation maintains that the Garden of Eden bears some inherent degree of holiness since it was a cultic garden. This question must be probed not simply by investigating the use of paradise imagery in later temples, which admits of a certain ambiguity, but more specifically by determining the inherent characteristics and uses (denotations rather than connotations) of gardens inside and outside the Old Testament.75 Stordalen’s comprehensive study of the cult-symbolic potential of gardens in the ANE provides a good summary of the main issues. Faulting the assumption that all gardens have a cultic facet or characteristic, he surveys geographic, epigraphic and textual evidence from different parts of the ANE which places cultic activity near or in gardens.76 Stordalen demonstrates, however, that much of the association between gardens and cult in biblical interpretation has been unduly influenced by comparative materials. Consequently he eschews the “Garden of God” understanding and favors seeing ancient Near Eastern gardens, inside and outside the HB, as being at their core “symbols for human happiness and richness” where one experienced in a normal way “the numinous in the cosmos”. The garden’s imagecontent should be carefully distinguished from its “syntagmatic aspects”.77 This means that the Garden of Eden’s being a garden does not necessitate its being sacred space or its being holy. Such information must come from the context. 1.3.3 The garden as the place for humanity’s priestly work Lastly, still others base the holiness of the Garden of Eden on a sacerdotal aspect in humanity’s duties or position there.78 Most commonly, scholars 74 Jenson agrees that an attempt to define different grades of sacred space is necessary (Graded Holiness, 43). 75 Statements such as Hartley’s leave unstated the reasons for attributing to one element the properties of the other: “Parallels between the Garden of Eden and the sanctuary in the wilderness have been enumerated in some key studies. These parallels favor the assertion that the garden of Eden was holy.” J.E. Hartley, “Holy and Holiness, Clean and Unclean”, DOTP, 420–31, on p. 421. 76 Stordalen, Echoes, 105–38. 77 Stordalen, Echoes, 182. Contra, e.g., H. Wallace, who argues that since the “garden of God” theme is present in the garden’s narrative description, it “has been designated a divine dwelling” (The Eden Narrative, 88). 78 See the related articles by M. Hutter, “Adam als Gärter und König”, BZ 30 (1986) 258– 62; J. Van Seters, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King”, ZAW 101 (1989) 333–42,

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

83

begin by noting that the collocation of FD and TO in Gen 2:15 appears elsewhere in the HB only in the context of Levitical duties in the sanctuary (Num 3:7–8; 8:26; 18:5–6).79 Thus Meredith Kline suggests Eden was a temple-garden by virtue of God’s association with it and that it would “occupy man with the royal-cultural labor of cultivating its bounty and beauty. As a sanctuary of God it presented man with a cultic vocation of priestly guardianship.”80 There are also numerous midrashic interpretations to this effect, some of which are clearly anachronistic in seeing a full-fledged sanctuary in the Garden.81 Amid their variety, these arguments assume that the collocation of FD and TO functions as a terminus technicus for cultic service outside Genesis; consequently, it is also sacerdotal in Genesis 2.82 Walton has summarized the elements of the collocation argument well: (1) since there are several contexts in which TO is used for Levitical service along with FD (e.g., Num 3:8–9), (2) since the contextual use of TO here favors sacred service, (3) since FD is as likely to refer to sacred service as to agricultural tasks and (4) since there are other indications that the garden is being portrayed as sacred space, it is likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature: caring for sacred space.83

While many have found this argument persuasive, the data behind the claim needs fuller description, and the argument must be more careful articulated. As far as the collocation itself is concerned, while it appears in other cultic settings (Num 18:7), it also appears in contexts dealing with fidelity to

who argues that (his late) J adopted elements from two adjacent oracles in Ezekiel 28 to form the main lines of the plot in Genesis 2–3, though he has transformed numerous details from both oracles. 79 This is noted by Wenham, “Symbolism”, 21, among many others. 80 Kingdom Prologue, 48, 67. 81 E.g., Neusner states that the interpretations proffered in Gen. Rab. (cf. esp 16:5, which references Gen 2:15; Exod 3:21; Num 28:2) wish to “link the creation story to the holy life of Israel, both in the Sabbath and in the sacrifices”; J. Neusner (ed.), Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, a New American Translation (3 vol.; BJS 104–106; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 1.176. 82 Exegetes have given surprisingly little attention to how collocations convey meaning. See the brief remarks of M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (rev. and exp. edn; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 142–3 and 195–8; P. Cotterell/M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 155–60. Outside biblical studies the topic has received more attention, and the two discussions would benefit from dialogue; see H. van Jaarsveld/I. Draškovic, “Effects of Collocational Restrictions in the Interpretation of Adjective-Noun Combinations”, Language and Cognitive Processes 18/1 (2003) 47–60; T. Herbst, “What Are Collocations? Sandy Beaches or False Teeth?”, English Studies 77 (1996) 379–93. 83 Walton, “Eden, Garden of”, 203.

84

Reflections on the sabbath frame

Yahweh.84 Though it is not illegitimate to assign a specific meaning to a collocation (in fact, that is part of its semantic function), the collocation must be clearly defined and all its appearances accounted for in order for its sense as a terminus technicus to withstand scrutiny. In this case, the references dealing with fidelity to God may be excluded from consideration because their syntagmatic modifiers are God, his commandments, and so on. Once those texts have been omitted, there remain several that speak of a general “service of God”, but their contexts do not consistently describe the same type of service. It must also be kept in mind that the Levitical passages (Num 3:7–8; 8:26; 18:5–7; without the collocation, 4:23–24, 26) are distinguished from Gen 2:15 by their accusatives (frequently cognate accusatives; cf. also Mal 3:14). While the object of the verbs in Genesis 3 can be either the Garden or the ground, the Israelite priestly material consistently makes either a term for service or an object of service the object of TO (VTOO, NJ [NM, or JPJM). Likewise the Levitical passages use VFD as the object of FD (usually in construct with _MOJ). These differences hardly imply the mutual exclusiveness or independence of the texts involved, but they do show that care must be taken in treating the collocation of FD and TOas a terminus technicus in Genesis 2. It is not clear that it functions that way there, nor that it is should carry later, Levitical connotations.85 It is also important to consider how Adam’s work might have been priestly. Slippery terms like “divine service”, which usually go undefined, complicate this question. Again heeding the principle that syntagmatic and contextual factors should take primary place in determining the meaning of an utterance, the difficulties of a straight equation of the work in the Garden of Eden with priestly duties may be addressed, and the understanding of Gen 3:8 deepened at the same time, by determining how priestly functions relate to sacred space. We will take as a point of departure Walton’s suggestion that “caring for sacred space” is a task “of a priestly nature”.86 There is no difficulty in 84 Ignoring those that use the root TO Nifal as “take care” (Deut 11:16; 12:30), see Deut 13:5; Josh 22:5; 1 Kgs 9:6; Jer 16:11, as well as contexts describing service of God (e.g., Mal 3:14a, “You have said, ‘It is vain to serve [FD] God; and what profit is it that we have kept His charge’ [YPTOYVTOO]”). Some occurrences of the collocation are irrelevant since they deal with other matters (Hos 12:13; 2 Sam 22:44). 85 It is also problematic to assign a priestly nuance to FD in Gen 2:15 without reference to its prior appearance in 2:5 in the normal sense of “working the ground” (JOF JV FDN). If one of the collocation’s constituents has previously appeared in the context, one needs exceptionally strong reasons for adopting a different sense when it appears in a collocation. 86 Walton, “Eden, Garden of”, 203, but cf. J.B. Wells, God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (JSOTSup 305; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 106–7: “The essence of the role of priest is to draw near to Yhwh.”

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

85

saying that Adam cared for a type of sacred space, and that such a duty overlaps with what later Levitical priests did. However, this is not the same thing as saying that Adam was doing priestly work because the language used of it anticipates that of the Levitical priesthood. The fundamental point is the sacredness of the Garden’s space: Adam’s vocation is priestly if one adopts a limited understanding of that term as caring for sacred space. In other words, using a contextually defined concept of priesthood here prevents the importing of concepts from later texts into Genesis 1–2, but still allows later contexts to echo the paradisiacal element that properly belongs to them. Such an understanding shows the relation, both continuous and discontinuous, of the Garden to later sanctuaries, and refines our understanding of holiness articulated in Genesis 2. One more line of reasoning must be considered, which moves from Adam as king in the Garden of Eden to Adam as priest by virtue of the ancient Near Eastern practice of subsuming priestly duties under kingly ones. Henri Cazelles notes that in Ugarit and Canaan the king could participate in cultic rites, as Tabnit of Sidon is said to have done (KAI 13:1–2).87 This linking of offices or functions appears as early as the proto-Sumerian period, at Uruk.88 Manfred Hutter provides examples of a king-priest from several Sumerian and Akkadian sources, and having shown the existence of this association in the cultures around Israel at various times asks “ob diese metaphorische Sprechweise auch in Gen 2,8.15 angenommen werden darf”.89 After noting that in Neh 2:8 and Eccl 2:5 the LXX consistently translates UFTR with RCTCFGKUQL he turns to Gen 2:15 where the same Greek term is used to translate _F_I. This leads him to conclude that the translation “trifft er exakt jene Nuance und Metaphorik, die beim Wort ‘Garten’ mitschwingt”.90 While some of the arguments just cited could be questioned at points, the overall association of priestly duties with kingship in the ANE is well established, and allows us to speak of Adam as priest, again assuming a contex87 Cited by H. Cazelles, “Sacral Kingship”, ABD, 5.863–6, on p. 864; see further N. Wyatt, “The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit”, UF 37 (2005) 695–728; B.A. Levine/J.-M. de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day: Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87)”, RB 100 (1993) 76–115. 88 P. Amiet, “L’effigie royale aux origines de la civilisation mésopotamienne”, RB 112 (2005) 5–19. 89 Hutter, “Adam als Gärtner”, esp. 259–60. 90 Hutter, “Adam als Gärtner”, 261. Hutter also draws support for his case from E. Haag and W. Brueggemann; Haag argues from the semantics of installation in kingly contexts (2 Sam 7:8; Ps 78:70; 1 Kgs 11:37; Hag 2:23) to a kingly nuance in Gen 2:8; Der Mensch am Anfang: Die alttestamentliche Paradiesvorstellung nach Gen 2–3 (TThSt 24; Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1970), 24, 27, while Brueggemann, “From Dust to Kingship”, ZAW 84 (1972) 1–18, sees in the context of 1 Kgs 16:2 terminology reminiscent of Gen 2.

86

Reflections on the sabbath frame

tually limited understanding of “priest” and taking the Garden’s holiness as the source of his function’s priestly facet. 1.3.4 Conclusion: The Garden as “Sacred” Space We can conclude that the Garden was indeed a type of sacred space, and that as a result humanity’s vocation there did have a limited priestly aspect. This conclusion is relevant to the preceding discussion of the different types of holiness that the Sinai covenant includes, and points out the uniqueness of Genesis 1–2 as arguably the only instance prior to Sinai that definitional (the seventh day of the creation week), ethical (in the prohibition given to the first couple), and cultic holiness (the caring for sacred space) appear together.91 It is quite significant, therefore, that Exodus echoes Eden intentionally and in significant ways. 1.4 Subsequent instances of holiness prior to Sinai Most of the remaining instances of holiness prior to Sinai can be treated briefly since the manner in which they relate to major themes in that section is more evident. The singling out of Abram in Genesis 12, though lacking any cultic nuance, introduced a distinction within humanity that overlaps the semantic sphere of holiness as “set apart” and that will be operative from this point on as God affiliates himself in a special way with Abram and his descendants. Emile Nicole correctly notes that the theme of Israel’s election by God is grammaticalized by many words in addition to TZD (F[, NFD, ZSN, _YM, TS) and that “phrases also convey the concept: people of the LORD, treasured possession, holy nation, and covenant”.92 It is clear that we have such a concept in Genesis 12. After the establishment of the distinction between the two lines of humanity in Genesis 3, Abram is the first individual to whom the promises and purposes of God are exclusively attached, and who is called to serve a primary role in his plan. It could be said that the rest of Genesis deals with the many ways that God’s newly-elected people (Abram and his descendants through Isaac) are protected by him against a variety of threats. Indeed, Exodus begins with the gravely endangered Israelites being miraculously preserved and even multiplied in the face of the Pharaoh’s malice (Exod 1–2). Immediately after this, God’s commitment to deliver his people from Egypt, articulated in the theophany that Moses witnessed in the desert, introduces another 91 92

Here I use “cultic” in a proleptic or typological way. E. Nicole, “TZD”, NIDOTTE, 1.638–42.

Yahweh as the sanctifier of Israel

87

aspect of holiness occasionally hinted at in the patriarchal theophanies, that of God’s immediate presence.93 Exodus continues to develop the theme of God’s attachment to Israel with the appellative “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22), a position generally enjoying special privileges as well as sanctity (in relation to Yahweh; e.g., for cattle, Exod 13; for sons, Exod 22:29; together, 34:19).94 Israel’s special status as firstborn is grounded in the Passover, in which the sacrifice of the lamb protected the life of Israel’s firstborn during the tenth plague (Num 3:13).95 This status is then applied to every firstborn male child and domestic animal, as well as to the firstfruits of produce (Exodus 13; 22:29–30).96 But even substitution of another life for that of the firstborn does not fully express the implications of Israel’s primogeniture. In Numbers 3 the Levites and their livestock are shown to play a complementary role as substitutes for Israel’s firstborn children and livestock (11–13, 40–51), and Yahweh’s paternal right to Israel is most significantly concretized by his covenantal taking of Israel as his own nation at Sinai (Exod 19:5–6), which we will consider in a moment.97 A final element to note in this survey of holiness prior to Sinai is the sabbath day, introduced in Exodus 16. As chapter two has shown, this is quite possibly the record of the first human sabbath, a day on which Israel forewent attempts to win her necessary food and instead believingly waited for Yahweh to miraculously and abundantly supply her needs.

93 Though the theophanies were one-time events, the patriarchs did build altars permanently marking the spot, e.g., Jacob’s Bethel vision and response to it, Gen 28:10–22. 94 Primogeniture in Israel held the usual right to a double portion of the father’s inheritance. V.H. Matthews/D.C. Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 111. 95 See R.E. Watts, “Exodus”, in T.D. Alexander/B.S. Rosner (ed.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 478–87; A. Reichert, “Israel, the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology”, in A. Shinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1973 (3 vol.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 1.341–9. 96 J. Sprinkle notes that Exod 22:31 echoes 19:6, while 22:21 and 23:9 also base their claims partially on Israel’s experience in Egypt; “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24”, JETS 47 (2004) 235–52, on p. 246. 97 The difficulties surrounding the relation of the Levites to the Aaronide priesthood, and thus to Israel nationally, need not be rehearsed here. The understanding that all firstborn were originally priests, and later were replaced (in P) by the Levites, intersects this discussion only peripherally and may be left aside; cf. Milgrom, “Changing Concept”, 66, for its brief presentation. For a balanced view of the issue in detail, see M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 21985), 58–111.

88

Reflections on the sabbath frame

2 Holiness at Sinai (Exod 19–Num 10) Holiness at Sinai It is hardly surprising that the central section of the Pentateuch deals extensively with the important theme of holiness. Though it appears throughout Exodus 19–Numbers 10, here we will deal only with the introduction to the Sinai pericope (Exod 19:1–15), applying our findings to the discussion of Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier.98 Questions of coherence and criticism will be addressed as necessary.99 While Sinai’s relation to ancient Near Eastern covenants has been a subject of contention for nearly a century, several recent studies suggest that this relationship should not be ignored.100 After an introduction establishing the time and place of the following narrative, Exod 19:3b begins the account of the theophany’s antecedents.101 This section can be divided into two parts on the basis of content: 3b–8b (covenant proposal and acceptance) and 8c–15 (report of acceptance and instructions for preparation). The short but elegant preface to Yahweh’s speech to Israel (note the parallelism in 19:3b) is followed by a dense and highly significant summary of the covenant proposed.102 Coming to Israel as direct speech, God’s address recounts his destruction of the Egyptians and 98 D.G. Peterson is among those who recognize the salience of this passage for understanding the various facets of sanctification; see his Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (New Studies in Biblical Theology 1; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), esp. 15–25. 99 Childs has given a comprehensive survey of the approaches to the material in Exodus 19– 20 through the 1970s. E. Zenger gives an overview of more recent approaches to Exodus 19–34 in “Wie und wozu die Tora zum Sinai kam”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 265– 88. 100 See F. Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction  Reception  Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 113–47; J.A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T & T Clark, 2004); D. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of berith in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity International University, 2000); Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 134–44. 101 See the various articles devoted to the challenging syntax of Exodus 19 in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 102 F. Polak, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari”, in C. Cohen/ A. Hurvitz/S.M. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe (FS M. Weinfeld; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 119–34, discusses a parallel alliance in Mari texts, in which a small tablet is sent to the potential partner. Upon acceptance of the preliminary accord, a larger tablet with all the obligations was sent as part of the alliance’s finalization. Like Polak, E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990) stresses the importance of these verses as a brief exposition of “die ideale Gottesbeziehung” (47). J. Van Seters discounts this possibility, concluding that the priority of a preface (including paranesis) “creates havoc with the temporal sequence”. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 273.

Holiness at Sinai

89

his magnificent bringing of Israel to himself at Sinai. He then articulates the demand of genuine and absolute obedience with the contingent privilege of becoming Yahweh’s treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.103 In this momentous address God asserts both that his deliverance of Israel makes her his possession, and that the covenant relationship, should Israel accept it, confers the potential benefit of belonging to Yahweh in a still more special manner.104 The details of how Israel belongs to God under the Sinai covenant, and the protocol for her interaction with him, cover the span of the holiness spectrum and require a closer look at 19:4–6. 2.1 Exegesis of Exodus 19:4–6 At this point in the narrative of Exodus, Yahweh’s holiness has already been incontestably revealed, particularly in his defeat of the Egyptians that exhibited his complete distinction from them and their gods (Exod 15:11). With that act of deliverance Yahweh drew attention to his power and willingness to save, something he reminds the Israelites they had seen firsthand (]V ]V[ T).105 Since Yahweh is the source and preeminent instance of holiness, when he takes Israel as his unique possession he gives the newborn nation a relational or positional holiness that will endure as long as that relationship lasts.106 But consequent to this relational or positional holiness is the requirement that Israel’s behavior reflect the character and will of God in every aspect

103 Highlighting the present element, Dohmen stresses the newness of the covenantal entity “Israel” from the point of their preliminary acceptance of the covenant’s terms. C. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 60–1. Hauge, emphasizing the future element, describes the upshot of 19:4–6 as “the extraordinary position of Israel as, potentially, the holy and priestly people.” M.R. Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain. Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19– 40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 30. 104 “Die zentrale Aussage dieses ersten Redeabschnitts enthält dann V. 4B: ‘und ich habe euch zu mir gebracht.’” R. Rendtorff, “Der Text in seiner Endgestalt: Überlegungen zu Exodus 19”, in D.R. Daniels/U. Glessmer/M. Rösel (ed.), Ernten, was man sät (FS K. Koch; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) 459–70, on p. 465. Levenson notes the nearness of this covenant’s ethos to that of marriage, aptly stating that at Sinai “Israel is singled out by and for the love of God”. J.D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper San-Franciso, 1985), 77. 105 Dohmen, Exodus, 46; cf. A. Schenker, “Drei Mosaiksteinchen: ‘Königreich von Priestern’, ‘Und ihre Kinder gehen weg’, ‘Wir tun und wir hören’ (Exodus 19,6; 21,22; 24,7)”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 367–80. 106 Cf. H.D. Preuss, Old Testament Theology (2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995–1996), 1.45.

90

Reflections on the sabbath frame

of her life.107 That is to say, Israel is also called to be ethically holy.108 This is plainly expressed by the condition prefaced to God’s promise to make Israel his treasured possession, a nation of kingly priests, and a holy nation. The infinitive absolute before the finite verb underlines the absolute obedience that is required (YOVYO] ), something that is further stressed by the parallel line which follows. The covenant is thus contracted upon promised obedience to its terms. The people’s assent is sufficient for its ratification, even though very soon their ability to honour its terms would falter. As we will see, this need for full holiness within the enacted Sinai covenant helps to explain why the sabbath is chosen as this covenant’s sign. A number of studies have been devoted to the expressions used in 19:5–6 to describe Israel’s status as Yahweh’s covenant partner (][OJNMO J ҏ NIU,YFS[YI,][PJMVMNOO), a trio that is unique in its appearance here.109 The best understandings of these phrases recognize the importance of the literary context as well as the near-identity of the covenant ratification ceremony in Exod 24:1–11 and the priestly ordination of Exodus 29 (cf. Leviticus 8; 14).

107 Most critical readings of the Pentateuch stumble at this point, wishing to validate their point of departure by finding different views of holiness in each of the sources. But D itself, assuming it is coherent, has both relational/positional holiness (Deut 7:6) and ethical holiness (Deut 28:9), suggesting that such a one-dimensional view is too restricted for any source. P.P. Jenson’s caution against approaching the texts as one-dimensional, and with a method that is controlled by bare lexemes, is worthy of attention and guides the following analysis; “Holiness in the Priestly Writings of the Old Testament”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 93–121, esp. 93–4. 108 In this study I distinguish between relational/positional holiness (which might also be called definitional), ethical holiness (which refers to the sphere of human behavior in general), and cultic holiness, which refers to the status one has vis-à-vis the cult’s standards. While these may be distinguished, they cannot be separated in the context of OT Israel, and it can be particularly difficult to distinguish clearly between ethical and cultic norms, since the former category in some ways subsumes the latter. (Note that God’s holiness need not be confined to one or all of these categories.) Compare Hartley’s multifaceted understanding of Israel’s holiness: “Israel’s being holy meant: (1) they were in a covenant relationship with God; (2) God was present in their midst; (3) they were to promote justice throughout the community by keeping divine instructions; and (4) they were to observe the rules of ritual purity” (“Holy and Holiness”, 425). 109 On “kingdom of priests” see A.T.M. Cheung, “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-Theological Study of the Priesthood”, JETS 29 (1986) 265–75; Davies, A Royal Priesthood; A. Schenker, “Drei Mosaiksteinchen”; Wells, God’s Holy People; G. Barbiero, “Mamleket Kohanim (Es 19,6a) – I sacerdoti al potere?” RivB 37 (1989) 427–45; G. Steins, “Priesterherrschaft, Volk von Priester oder was sonst? Zur Interpretation von Ex 19,6”, BZ 45 (2001) 20–36. On “holy nation” see H.F. Fuhs, “Heiliges Volk Gottes”, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Unterwegs zu Kirche: alttestamentliche Konzeptionen (QD 110; Freiberg: Herder, 1987) 143–67; R. Mosis, “Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik”, BZ 22 (1978) 1–25. On the import of Exod 19:5–6 as a whole, see R.E. Averbeck, “Offerings and Sacrifices”, NIDOTTE, 4.996–1022; Balentine, Torah’s Vision, 79–176; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 30–1.

Holiness at Sinai

91

God’s unique relationship with Israel is to be formalized, first, in establishing her status as Yahweh’s segullâ, “special treasure”.110 This nuance of distinctiveness reappears in the emphatic personal pronoun that begins verse 6 (]V Y). Once again, it is important to note the promissory nature of Israel’s status as segullâ. Although she has been given a special relational status, soon to be confirmed by covenant, the unique standing with Yahweh that segullâ denotes is not yet a reality. In effect, by promising the status of segullâ Yahweh is promising an increase in his relational proximity to her upon Israel’s satisfactory maintenance of the covenant stipulations. This promissory facet, which one could call eschatological (although its future realization is uncertain), is key to understanding the functions of the various facets of the Sinai covenant. Durham’s extensive survey shows the wide range of understandings advanced for VMNOO ][PJMas of the 1980s, and since then still more have appeared.111 If the text is taken as is, with VMNOO as a noun in construct with ][PJM, the general sense is clear: Israel is a kingdom that is priestly in nature. If she fulfills the terms of the covenant, she will consequently become priestly in function. But what does it mean for Israel to be a priestly nation? Not every Israelite was a Levitical priest (cf. Numbers 16). But properly understood, “The Levitical priesthood as portrayed in Exodus is seen not as diminishing or supplanting the collective royal priesthood, but as providing a visual model of that vocation, and secondly as facilitating it.”112 R.K. Duke summarizes the priest’s functions as custodians of the cult (including teaching Torah and interpreting cultic boundaries in the spheres of time, space and status), agents of divine blessing, holiness and purity (as purifiers of sin and uncleanness, spokespersons for God, judges, and participants in warfare), and supervisors of cult objects (moving, guarding, and administrating cultic paraphernalia and practices).113 If one transfers those functions analogically to the national level, a picture like the following emerges. Although national Israel had no priestly function in matters of her cult, she could by her proper behavior convey through the imagery of the cult the essence of her religion. Further, her relation to the nations could include being agents of divine blessing (cf. Genesis 12) and judgment (Gen 15:16) and showing what life in proximity to Yahweh looks like.

110 See Durham, Exodus, 256; Eugene Carpenter, “J/IU”, NIDOTTE, 3.224; E. Lipinski, “JNIU”, TDOT, 10.144–48; M. Greenberg, “Hebrew segullâ: Akkadian sikiltu”, JAOS 71 (1951) 172–4. 111 See Davies, A Royal Priesthood; G. Steins, “Priesterherrschaft”. 112 J.A. Davies, “A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6”, TynBul 53 (2002) 157–9. 113 R.K. Duke, “Priests, Priesthood”, DOTP, 646–55.

92

Reflections on the sabbath frame

The sense of the last item in the triad, YFS[YI, depends on how one understands the adjective YFS.114 The working hypothesis of this section is that there are three options available, none mutually exclusive: relational, ethical, and cultic.115 All three have a common source and definition in Yahweh. Since the need for Israel’s cultic holiness at the forthcoming theophany is stressed in Exod 19:8c–15, it is difficult to exclude a cultic aspect from the holiness intended here. However, the protasis-apodasis construction in Exod 19:4 suggests that an ethical sense is primary in the expression YFS[YI. Obedience to Yahweh’s word includes proper observation of cultic regulations and practices, so that ethical holiness can be said to include cultic holiness.116 Similarly, ethical holiness cannot be disconnected from definitional holiness, especially since the latter anticipates the progressive ethical transformation of Israel. Israel’s newfound relational holiness as set apart by and for Yahweh is the basis for this call to conformity to his will. When a person is set apart for service of God (i.e., made the object of relational holiness), she or he is also invariably called to reflect the character of the God with and by whom this relationship has been initiated (i.e., called to ethical holiness). In fact, this two-sided holiness is inherent in any bilateral covenant that Yahweh enters. Abram is both set apart by God’s commitment to him and his descendants, and called to walk before him with integrity (Gen 12:1–3; 17:1). In the Sinai covenant, this same pairing is evident, especially in the grand chronology of the account, in which deliverance (producing relational holiness) precedes the call to obedience (ethical holiness) and Israel’s cultic sanctification.117 For these reasons it is best to leave all three senses of holiness together in the semantics of [YIYFS. 114 The dynamic aspect of the adjective could be seen as favoring the argument that Israel’s definitive sanctification was begun, but not fully realised, in Exodus 19–24; cf. Naudé, “FS”, 882. 115 A conceptual approach to holiness enables us to deal with different portions of the HB that use different vocabulary (e.g., the difficulties in describing how P’s use of FS differs from that of D). 116 It is difficult to establish the exact significance of the resemblance of Israel’s covenantentry ritual in Exodus 24 to the priestly ordination ritual. The rarity with which blood was applied to the bodies of people (elsewhere only in the consecration of the Aaronic priests [Exodus 29; Lev 8] and the ritual cleansing of skin-diseased persons [Leviticus 14]) certainly creates the possibility of a priestly nuance here; cf. Averbeck, “Offerings and Sacrifices”, 1002. In light of what was said above in the context of the ][PJMVMNOO, the ritual similarity may reflect the polysemy of the “priesthood” of Israel and the Aaronides; while they are not identical, they bear many important functional similarities. 117 At Sinai “Israel was admitted to God’s covenant and thus it was sanctified. By allowing Israel to enter in this Covenant God by no means gives up His holiness, but Israel is admitted to His holy sphere of life (cf. Leviticus 19).” T.C. Vriezen, Outline of Old Testament Theology (Newton, Mass.: Bradford, 21970), 168.

Holiness at Sinai

93

2.2 Exegesis of Exodus 19:8c–15 The second section of Exodus 19 begins with Moses’ ascent of Sinai to report the people’s acceptance of the covenant proposal, then focuses on the preparations for the theophany.118 These include: The people’s consecration by Moses (FS Piel) The washing of their clothes (UDM Piel) The establishment of boundaries around the mountain The prohibition against touching the mountain Guidelines for maintaining and enforcing the boundaries Directions for the commencement of the theophany While these verses have been attributed in many different ways to a number of putative sources, their semantic and grammatical-syntactic coherence needs to be reckoned with even if both aspects still pose difficulties.119 The thrust of the passage is certainly consistent with P as that source is commonly understood. On the presence of cultic categories here (i.e., sacred and common, clean and unclean), Vermeylen’s conclusion captures what is involved in the preparations, the distinctions in vertical space, and the granting of access to only a select few: “La symbolique mise en oeuvre est celle de la séparation du pur et de l’impur, du sacré et du profane.”120 Indeed, all the emphases here can be subsumed under the rubric of cultic holiness as defined above, with its four dimensions: the demarcation of the mountain’s zones (spatial); the requirements of bodily cleansing and sexual abstinence (personal); the implicit stipulation of the time at which the theophany will occur (time); and the sacrifice and consecration of the people and the elders’ meal (ritual; this element is implicit in Exodus 19, but explicit when the initial arrangement is ratified in Exodus 24).

118 The difficulties posed by the last clause of verse nine need not be resolved here. 119 The dates and relation of P and H, to take but one example, are still far from resolved and render any firm attribution of sources for the pericope tentative (cf. the work of I. Knohl). Blum’s call to judicious and open-minded evaluation of all hypotheses (diachronic, synchronic, etc.), should be heeded: there are various “Wahrnehmungen der Texte zur Debatte […], deren Voraussetzungen, Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und vor allem Korrelationen noch sorgfältig erörtert und abgeklärt werden müssen” (Blum, Studien, 3). 120 “Théophanie, purification et liturgie: à propos de Ex 19,10–25”, in R. Kuntzmann (ed.), Ce Dieu qui vient (FS B. Renaud; LD 159; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 113–30, on p. 127. On (vertical) gradations of holy space, see A.M. Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus”, AUSS 24 (1986) 127–45.

94

Reflections on the sabbath frame

2.3 The relation of Exodus 19 to Exodus 24 As was just suggested, in order to appreciate the multifaceted holiness described in Exodus 19 it is necessary to glance ahead to the covenant ratification ceremony in Exod 24:3–8. This ceremony ritually effects Israel’s national sanctification as the people of God and seals the covenant provisionally accepted in Exodus 19. This event also spans the full spectrum of holiness we have used here (relation, ethical, and cultic).121 Relational holiness is inherent in the covenant relationship, with an emphasis on Israel’s separation from the nations, and is represented in the further consecration of Israel by the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt and peace offerings. Ethical holiness, defined as conformity to those covenant stipulations which are not concerned with defining cultic status (holy-common, clean-unclean, etc.), might be described as the primary goal of the covenant in light of the protasis-apodasis introduction to its establishment in Exodus 19.122 Finally, the cultic aspect of Israel’s newly-defined life with Yahweh comes to preliminary expression in her cultic condition at the theophany, the offerings of sacrifices on her behalf, the inchoate priesthood of the young men, and the elders’ fellowship meal with Yahweh. 2.4 This study’s findings vis-à-vis diachronic conclusions These findings stand in contrast to those which see sharply opposed views of holiness in the various pentateuchal sources. Tension or contradiction is often seen between the four primary sources (J, E, D, P) or even within P. The Holiness Code (H, Lev 17–26) in particular is thought to be at odds with the rest of the Priestly material.123 But simply surveying the distribution of the different types of holiness in the two pericopae studied above (Exod 19:1–15; 24:3–8) reveals their interpenetration:124 121 Both ritual consecration and covenant ratification are effected by the ceremony; see E.W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3–8”, VT 32 (1982) 74–86; R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in Israel (SANT 9; Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1964), 118–25. 122 This type of holiness is given great stress in Lev 17–27 and expresses conformity to Yahweh’s character; cf. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vol.; OTL; London: SCM, 1961), 1.293. 123 Very recently Jacob Milgrom asserted that P and H differ sharply in terms of organization and terminology, and so cannot be compared systemically. “Systemic Differences in the Priestly Corpus: A Response to Jonathan Klawans”, RB 112 (2005) 321–9. 124 For argument’s sake I take Driver’s source identification as the point of comparison, but a consensus can hardly be said to exist on most of these divisions, which strengthens the point being made. See his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (International Theological Library; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 91913), 31.

Holiness at Sinai

95

Relational: J (19:3b–9), E (24:3–8) Ethical: J (19:3b–9), E (24:3–8) Cultic: E (19:10–11a, 14–17), J (19:11b–13), E (24:3–8) The fact that most still reckon (though this appears to be changing) J and E to be effectively a source-critical unity does not overturn this claim. Rather, the above data demonstrate that scholarship often has not adequately taken into account the fact that the non-Priestly sources share, or at least overlap, P’s (and H’s) understanding of holiness. The reverse is also true: P is hardly restricted to a view of holiness that is “just adhering to a regimen of prohibitive commandments”.125 P. Jenson’s argument from the final form of the text deserves attention: The priestly writings (including the Holiness Code) come in the middle of the reasonably coherent, overarching story that begins in Genesis and continues on past Sinai. Exodus sets the Priestly Torah’s exclusive definition of priestly holiness within a general exposition of Israel’s special status and a paradigmatic statement of its general holiness: ‘you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (Exod 19:6). From a canonical point of view priestly holiness is an exceptional outworking of this general holiness.126

This is particularly true if HS was the final redactor of the Pentateuch, as Knohl suggests.127 But in any case, more than one sense of holiness is necessary to understand what Israel is from the time of Sinai onward. And it is hermeneutically significant that this multiperspectival approach to holiness is evident in JE, D, and P[H] as they call for ethical holiness in order to enjoy the covenant’s promised definitional holiness. Source criticism, which typically expects each source to be entirely consistent in articulating its view, tends to create sources that are inflexible, one-dimensional, and incompatible with each other, something at odds with their joint presence in the HB.128 Moreover, what a source leaves unsaid is 125 Milgrom, “Changing Concept”, 67. 126 Jenson, “Holiness”, 112–13; cf. also Balentine, Torah’s Vision, 176. Averbeck presses this point further: “One section (Lev 1–16) focuses on the presence of God and holiness from the point of view of the sanctuary, while the other (Lev 17–26) focuses on the presence of God and holiness from a national communal point of view. They are complementary and contemporaneous, not mutually exclusive or chronologically sequential.” Averbeck, “Offerings and Sacrifices”, 1014. 127 Knohl, Sanctuary, 6. 128 While he does not draw out the implications, M. Vervenne candidly chronicles the shifting opinions on nearly every aspect of the DH when he states: “Current Pentateuchal criticism questions the validity of the classic ‘Four Source Hypothesis’ in general and its constituents in particular.” “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction  Reception  Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 21–59, on p. 43.

96

Reflections on the sabbath frame

often construed as being something that it opposes, which is to argue from silence. A less rigid view that recognizes linguistic realities such as polysemy will bear out Jenson’s claim that different parts of the priestly tradition show stronger and weaker developments of the moral dimension, but the affirmation of both moral and cultic aspects of holiness in the final form of the canonical text warns us against a sharp separation of these aspects.129

For its part, D too is often handled in an unbending manner. But D features both calls to ethical holiness (Deut 4:14 [covering the whole Sinai period], 20; 26:17–19; 28:9) and attestations that Israel is relationally holy by virtue of her covenant with Yahweh (Deut 7:6–8). Moreover, Israel’s relational holiness is conditional upon her ethical holiness (Deut 4:25–28 and passim). As noted above, this is characteristic of vassal covenants, of which the Sinai covenant is one.130 In the end, the panoply of holiness in the HB can not fairly be construed as merely being evidence of discordant sources. This is most clearly seen in the ways that the various types of holiness surveyed above interrelate. Gammie concludes similarly with respect to the Priestly material (including H), and his summary includes elements that are clearly important to the concept of holiness in J, E, and D as well: Underlying the priestly system of holiness was thus a vision of a creator, ordering God, transcendent and majestic in holiness, who required of his people an inner integrity (Gen 17:1), humanitarian conduct (Leviticus 19), as well as the maintenance of a ritual purity.131

2.5 The meaning of Exod 31:13 The study of holiness in Exodus just completed serves not only to illustrate the possible understandings of the phrase “I Yahweh sanctify you” but also sheds light on the context of the tabernacle material in Exodus 25–40. Yahweh has already sanctified Israel in the relational sense, called her to 129 Jenson, “Holiness”, 121. Allowing FS to reference more than one semantic field (i.e., more than one type of holiness) very quickly undercuts views which would distinguish sources based on their contradictory views of holiness. 130 Cf. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of berith”, 300–1, 311, and G.P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994), who suggests a similar understanding of covenant. 131 Gammie, Holiness in Israel, 44. W. Janzen’s study of ethics also recognized the interrelation of different types of holiness: Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 113.

Holiness at Sinai

97

ethical holiness, and given Moses directions for accommodating his presence among Israel, something that brings with it the cultic system and apparatus. The question then arises why Yahweh states in Exod 31:13 that it is he who sanctifies Israel – is Israel’s sanctification in every sense not a fait accompli? In answering this query the first issue to be resolved is the time reference and aspect of the participle. The participle’s immediate context is Yahweh’s direct speech commanding the sabbath’s observance as a sign “throughout your generations” (]M[VTFN). While this could simply mean that the sign is to be a perpetual reminder that Yahweh has sanctified Israel at one point in the past, several factors argue in favor of seeing a continual aspect to the participle.132 First, the use of the participle instead of a finite verb already suggests that a durative sense (i.e., a imperfective aspect) is in view since the participle can express the durative more powerfully than the imperfect.133 This is in fact the usual import of the active participles.134 Second, the link between relational and ethical holiness observed above, as well as the inclusion of cultic holiness at various aspects at several points in Exodus 19–24, argue against restricting the participle here to one type of holiness.135 On the contrary, both the prominence of ethical holiness in the Sinai covenant and the negative example contained in the immediately subsequent golden calf episode argue for a strong ethical nuance in the participle.136 Finally, since these words are addressed to all Israel, a strictly cultic sense would have intelligible only to the priestly functionaries within the original audience, while a broader cultic sense would be intelligible in light of the nation’s status. On these grounds we conclude that Yahweh’s statement that he is sanctifying Israel is to be understood as something that is ongoing and that has reference primarily to the ethical sphere of holiness. A cultic aspect appears 132 A participle’s context is determinative of its tense and aspect; cf. P. Joüon/T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vol.; SubBi 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), 409. Pace W. Brueggemann, it is not legitimate to assume the perfect aspect in this case, as he does in stating, “[That YHWH sanctifies Israel] is an extraordinary claim; it asserts that Israel is fitted and qualified to enter the realm beyond realms, to participate in the joy, well-being, and power of God’s own life” (“The Book of Exodus”, 923). 133 Cf. Joüon/Muraoka, Grammar, 412; Arnold/Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 78; Waltke/ O’Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 614. 134 Arnold/Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 77–8. 135 Propp does not clarify what kind(s) of sanctification is in view, but he finds this sanctification “recurrent” and focused on promoting Israel’s relationship with Yahweh (Exodus 19–40, 492). 136 Pace E. Bertola, “Le sacré dans les plus anciens livres de la Bible”, in E. Castelli (ed.), Le Sacré: Études et recherches (Paris: Aubier, 1974) 201–20, on p. 209, who argues for a relational sense.

98

Reflections on the sabbath frame

in the connection between Israel and her cult but leaves open the possibility for God to bring Israel into closer proximity to him in some other way, though this trajectory is not sketched in the Pentateuch. God’s bringing his people into a new type of cultic holiness would enable them to enjoy without interruption the divine proximity that was known only occasionally in Eden. As was argued above, it is also difficult to exclude definitional holiness from the semantics of the participle, since the covenant has presented definitional sanctification as the outcome of faithful observance of its stipulations. Despite Israel’s already having been brought by Yahweh to himself, there is potential for immense development of her positional holiness. There is an Edenic echo here as well: Yahweh’s full sanctification of Israel would be analogous to the first human pair having remained without sin during the period of probation and having attained full expression of their humanity in obedience to God. This leads to our consideration of how the sabbath and the Sinai covenant relate.

3 The rationale for the sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant Rationale for the sabbath sign What can be said of the rationale for making the weekly human sabbath the sign of the Sinai covenant? The connection that Exod 31:13 establishes between Israel’s sanctification by Yahweh and her rest on the sabbath day implies that these two entities sustain a significant relationship to one another. The complex, dynamic, and comprehensive holiness to which Yahweh calls Israel is the sine qua non for her immediate enjoyment of the covenant’s blessings and privileges as she lives as Yahweh’s holy people and priestly representatives in the world (Exod 19:4–6) and also outlines the main spheres in which her full compliance with the covenant’s terms would eventually bear fruit. The manner in which Israel experienced rest corresponds to this present and future dimension of holiness.137 Like holiness, rest has a present-tense component in the sabbath’s weekly observance, which gave Israel physical repose, fortified her trust in Yahweh’s provision, and encouraged a pattern of showing mercy to those who are powerless to obtain it themselves. But the concept of rest, even in the OT, also has a future component that stands, as synecdoche, for all the covenant’s promised benefits.138 The blessings of 137 The collocation of rest and holiness is notable; cf. Deut 28:1–14; Lev 26:1–13. 138 In the Sinai covenant as well as in the Noahic, Abrahamic, and new covenants, the sign has reference to the covenant’s ultimate goal. Cf. S. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 196–9; also J. Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 45–8.

Rationale for the sabbath sign

99

the Sinai covenant included, but were not limited to, physical prosperity and material abundance, peace and security, and proximate divine presence (cf. Leviticus 26).139 The climax of the covenant also had a relational facet, typically expressed as Yahweh being Israel’s God and they his people (e.g., Gen 17:7, 8; Exod 29:45; Lev 26:12).140 3.1 Rest, sanctification and the sabbath after Exodus The history of Israel under the covenant forged at Sinai constitutes a remarkable disappointment vis-à-vis its goal of rest. Rest was attained in Joshua’s day (cf. Josh 22:4; 23:1) and especially, after a long absence, in connection with Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:56). But after Solomon, rest was less frequently and more tenuously enjoyed; only in Chronicles does it appear with any regularity, in connection with some Davidic kings. The final impression left by the OT is that with the exile rest disappeared entirely from Israel’s experience, and the returns from exile did little to change that reality.141 Psalm 95 is a rare but notable treatment of Yahweh’s rest that sees it as entered by those who believe and obey.142 The psalm’s paranesis is set against the stark background of several failures on Israel’s part, especially those in Exodus 17 and Numbers 14. The background of Exod 17:1–7 is Israel’s worsening disobedience and unbelief, which assumes fearful proportions in the role-reversal seen in the people’s testing of Yahweh (contrast Exod 16:4). The themes of contending with (] + D[T) and complaining against (N + _YN) Moses, as well as testing Yahweh (JUP), form a prominent inclusio and generate the toponyms recalled in Psalm 95, Massah and Meribah (Exod 17:2–3, 7). The Israelites’ unbelief regarding Yahweh’s presence among them is central to the pericope (17:7). In Numbers 14, the people’s sin was so severe that Yahweh threatened to destroy the entire nation, but heard Moses’ intercessory prayer and relented. However, because of their unbelief and rebellion, all those who did not listen to Yahweh’s voice (Num 14:22) would not enter the land. 139 On the relation of the rest motif to the sabbath, see especially Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”, 61–76; on the rest motif more broadly, W. Brueggemann, “Weariness, Exile, and Chaos: A Motif in Royal Theology”, CBQ 34 (1972) 19–38. 140 This goal is shared by all the redemptive covenants (with Noah, Abram, Israel, David, and the new covenant). Cf. Murray, Baptism, 47; E.A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 18. 141 See Lam 1:3, 5:5; Jer 31:23–25; Isa 40:28, etc. 142 It is clear from Ps 95:10 that the wilderness period has come to an end, and the psalm implies that the rest Israel is to enter is not exclusively identified with the land (though it may include it).

100

Reflections on the sabbath frame

These are the dangers that the author of Psalm 95 points to in warning his audience some time after the exodus generation. It is essential to identify the referent of [VZYPO (95:11) in order to see how this psalm relates to our discussion of rest. It is undeniable that the land of Canaan bears a significant relation to God’s JZYPO, else the connection between failure to enter the land and God’s remarks upon that occasion falters (Numbers 14). But that is not all, since Psalm 95 cautions against a similar type of unbelief at a later date, speaking of a rest which is contemporary with its audience. Most salient is God’s calling this rest “mine”, which strongly suggests a connection with his cessation of creative work on the seventh day (cf. Exod 20:11 with God as the subject of ZYP [Qal]; 31:17, where he is the subject of RP [Nif]).143 In Psalm 95, as in Israel’s history, the link between the experience of rest and believing obedience to Yahweh establishes the latter as the way to the former.144 3.2 Rest, sanctification, and the sabbath at Sinai These intertextual links to the state of affairs in the Garden of Eden shed light on the suitability of the sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant. In making Israel keep sabbath “since in six days Yahweh God made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and everything in them, and rested on the seventh day”, Yahweh is encouraging them to experience, amid human existence in a fallen world, an analogue of his own rest. In the same way that created humanity was originally to enter God’s rest upon successful completion of its probation in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Israel led her from slavery to rest (Lev 26:13; Deut 5:15) and to the vocation to serve God without reservation (Exod 19:4–6). Furthermore, until Israel’s completion of this vocation, the Sinai covenant’s sabbath served as the symbol of her goal, just as the seventh day on which Yahweh rested represented the goal to which Adam and Eve were to aspire.145 Further, by blessing and consecrating the sabbath day God made every seventh day of Israel’s covenant life one on which he reminded them of 143 Cf. W.C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 170. 144 The eschatological facet of the rest motif means that it cannot be restricted to the present, as G. Braulik seems to do when he avers that when “today” Israel accepts in faith their status as God’s people and sheep, “dann wird Gott sie ‘zu seiner Ruhe kommen’ lassen”. “Gottes Ruhe: Das Land oder der Tempel?”, in E. Haag/F.-L. Hossfeld (ed.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn (FS H. Groß; SBB 13; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987) 33–44, on p. 44. 145 The distinction between observing the sabbath as the sign of covenant consummation and experiencing the consummation itself is extremely important, but overlooked by Levenson in his treatment of rest and re-creation (Creation, 103).

Rationale for the sabbath sign

101

their duty to obey his law and of his consequent promise to sanctify and bless them, both now and eschatologically.146 To this we must immediately add that Yahweh’s identity as Israel’s sanctifier adds a clear note of gracious provision alongside his requirement for wholehearted covenant fidelity. Echoing the note of complete dependence on Yahweh first sounded in Exodus 16, Israel’s full sanctification, and thus the realization of Yahweh’s call to be his holy people, were to come from Yahweh.147 In addition to echoes of Eden, numerous later biblical materials clarify the relation between rest and holiness by highlighting the partial realization of the Sinai covenant’s goals. Near the end of his final address to Israel, Moses implies that Israel’s future will see the imposition of the full spectrum of covenant curses and their recension if she repents (Deut 30:1–6). Notably, this sequence culminates (30:6) in the circumcision of Israel’s heart in order that she might fulfill the covenant’s requirements. Ezekiel 36–37 and Jeremiah 31 respond to the ultimate covenant sanction of exile by explaining how the problem of Israel’s chronic non-sanctification is to be resolved by a “new” covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36 passim).148 3.3 Conclusions These points lead to the following conclusions regarding the relation of rest and sanctification. The enjoyment of God’s rest by human beings requires that they be fully sanctified by God. But while atonement in the Sinai covenant was made by sacrifices (Lev 17:11), rest could not be fully enjoyed 146 For an insightful development of this line of thinking in Deuteronomy, see J.G. Janzen, “The Yoke That Gives Rest”, Int 41 (1987) 256–68. 147 “Only Yahweh’s decisive intervention or that of his royal regent can [bring rest].” Brueggemann, “Weariness”, 29. 148 A substantial parallel to this pairing of sanctification and rest that nonetheless remains distinct is found in the Christian concept of justification-righteousness. This concept, the right order between God and his world and creatures, is doubly interesting in the context of this study because of its close association with creation. Taking God’s creation of the world and especially humans as the initial state of right order (cf. the absence of sin and potential for entry of God’s rest after obedience), the biblical theme of righteousness moves (after Eden) from the divine contention with the unjust world (cf. the entry of sin and consequent absence of sanctification afterward) through the hope for the reestablishment of righteousness on a global scale (e.g., Pss 96; 98; Isa 45:8) to its accomplishment in the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Tim 3:16) and its application to the people of God in their forensic justification (Rom 4:25) and subjective eschatological transformation (Rom 8:10–11; 1 Cor 15:50–58). See R. Knierim, “Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology”, HBT 3 (1981) 59–123; H.H. Schmid, “Schöpfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil: ‘Schöpfungstheologie’ als Gesamthorizont biblischer Theologie”, ZTK 70 (1972) 1–19; M. Seifred, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992); and P. Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

102

Reflections on the sabbath frame

apart from God’s eschatological intervention, which would produce the full sanctification of its members.149 Since the goal of God’s redemptive actions is consistently put in terms of rest, the fact that the sabbath and not something else is made the sign of the covenant at Sinai implies that that covenant, despite the limitations that went with its administration, constituted part of God’s one redemptive purpose that culminates in the full resolution of sin’s consequences. It is significant that the sabbath, with its promise of sanctification and rest-giving, frames Israel’s horrible failure involving the golden calf, for in doing so the literary structure of Exodus subordinates the ravages of sin to Yahweh’s redemptive purpose and gracious forgiveness. Returning to Childs’ analysis of the sabbath’s sign function, this study has found it to be quite accurate: “The sabbath as the ‘ot (sign) is a reminder both to God and to Israel of the eternal covenantal relationship which was the ultimate purpose of creation.”150 Put otherwise, Yahweh will give his people rest. In terms of holiness, Yahweh will make his people, and even the whole cosmos, fully holy.151 And, as later parts of this study will show, this full holiness is the prerequisite for Yahweh’s unmediated presence among his people, the goal of the exodus (Exod 29:45). The consummation of their relation with Yahweh was the hope that was to animate the newly-constituted people of God as they kept sabbath in the Sinai covenant.152

149 Correspondingly a number of theological categories in the OT witness to this penultimate state of redemptive history: divine presence is proximate but not necessarily internal to the covenant member; the complexity of the sacrificial system made full peace of conscience difficult to obtain; and the enjoyment of rest, peace, and numerous other external covenant blessings was brief and fleeting. See further the discussion below and, on the topic of presence, J.M. Hamilton, Jr., “God with Men in the Torah”, WTJ 65 (2003) 113–33. 150 Childs, Exodus, 416. 151 Von Rad, for one, notes that P can foresee a time when all creation is sanctified. Old Testament Theology (with an introduction by W. Brueggemann; 2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1.207. 152 “[The sabbath is] a reminder of who God is and what his intentions are for his people.” P. Enns, Exodus (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 545. Though his identification of the creation-fall-restoration pattern is illuminating, Rendtorff apparently does not discern the redemptive and eschatological aspects of the Sinai covenant, restricting its scope to God’s promise to maintain creation in the covenant with Noah; R. Rendtorff, “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus”, JBL 108 (1989) 385–93, on p. 392.

IV. Exegesis of Exodus 32–34 with an emphasis on divine presence Exegesis of Exodus 32–34 Introduction and context In pursuing the links between creation, tabernacle and sabbath, this chapter will concentrate on the theme of divine presence.1 We are especially interested in this theme with respect to the nation of Israel, though that is intimately related to God’s presence with Moses as well. Beginning in the preceding context of chapter 32, the exegesis will follow the order of the text as it stands, and chapter five will reflect on divine presence and the mechanisms of covenant renewal on that basis.2

1 Introduction and context The transition from Exodus 31 to 32 could hardly be more abrupt. From the pinnacle of Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier, graciously working in her to create comprehensive holiness and to enable full enjoyment of the covenant’s blessings, we are taken down to a base, brash, idolatrous fracture of the covenant.3 Dohmen rightly notes that this places squarely before the reader the problem of divine presence: 1 R.W.L. Moberly states that “Exodus 33 is the most extended treatment of the issue of God’s presence in the OT” (At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 [JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983], 62). See on the pericope also L. Smolar/M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf in Postbiblical Literature”, HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116; K.R. Suomala, Moses and God in Dialogue: Exodus 32–34 in Postbiblical Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature 61; Peter Lang, 2004); I.J. Mandelbaum, “Tannaitic Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode”, in P.R. Davies et al. (ed.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature (JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990) 207–23. 2 The question of how Exodus 32 relates to its parallel account in Dt 9–10 thus lies outside our scope; see H.C. Schmitt, “Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb: Ex 32 und das Deuteronimistische Geschichtswerk”, in S. McKenzie et al. (ed.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (FS J. Van Seters; BZAW 294; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) 235–50; C.E. Hayes, “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9–10”, in H. Najma/J.H. Newman (ed.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation (FS J.L. Kugel; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 45– 93, is especially lucid and sober. 3 This is part of the up-down pattern that continues through these chapters; cf. inter alia E.G. Newing, “Up and Down – In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai. The Literary Unity of Exodus 32–34”, ABR 41 (1993) 18–34.

104

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

Die Unterbrechung, die durch den dritten Block der Sinaitheophanie (Ex 32–34) zwischen ‘Anordnung’ (Ex 25–31) und ‘Ausführung’ (Ex 35–40) geschieht, befähigt diese Heiligtumskonzeption dazu, die Ermöglichung der Gotesnähe im Horizont von (menschlicher) Sünde und (göttlicher) Vergebung zu konkretisieren.4

1.1 The rationale for the calf (32:1–6) We begin by examining the motives for Israel’s demand that Aaron fabricate “gods” for them. As Exodus 32 opens, the absence of Moses is so prolonged that the Israelites seek to go directly on to Canaan without him. Their reference to “this Moses” is dismissive and demonstrates that their obligation to hold Moses in perpetual regard as God’s spokesman (Exod 19:9; cf. 20:18–21) had been foiled by their fickleness.5 Their unwitting intention to absent themselves before the construction of the tabernacle also suggests that they feel no need for the kind of divine presence that Yahweh would have among them, and their desire to eliminate Moses manifests a failure to appreciate the necessity of his mediation. Still, they do not wish to go on to Canaan alone: “Up, make us gods who will go before us [YP[PRNYMN[ T ][JN ]; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”6 It is clear from this demand that the “gods” are to replace Moses, but one must also reckon with Aaron’s declaration upon his completion of it that “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” The calf replaces both Moses and Yahweh, and is to bring about some sort of divine presence. When they see the finished calf they declare that these are the gods that brought them up out of Egypt (with another plural verb, ?YNJ, in 33:4). This can hardly be called syncretism – it is apostasy from Yahweh, stripping him of the glory he deserves as their deliverer and possessor and giving it to an ox (Ps 106:19–22).7 While some have argued that the precise 4 C. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 282. 5 Israel’s disrespect also includes Aaron, against whom they militate (NJS Nif with N) and whom they order to do their bidding; Durham captures the tone of their demand well with “Get busy!” (J.I. Durham, Exodus [WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987], 415). 6 J.C. McCann, “Exodus 32:1–14”, Int 44 (1990) 277–81, on p. 277, notes that the people have not been addressed since saying “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do, and we will be obedient” in Exod 24:7. 7 Janzen’s critique of the assumption that a fertility cult lies behind the calf is well taken, but his identifying the calf as “an intended symbol of God the divine warrior and protector who leads his people to their restful habitation” founders on the stress the chapter lays on the antiYahwism elements in the people’s behavior. If Janzen were correct, God’s blanket condemnation of the worship in 32:8 would be overly sharp. See J.G. Janzen, “The Character of the Calf and Its Cult in Exodus 32”, CBQ 52 (1990) 597–607, on p. 600.

Introduction and context

105

function of the calf was not idolatrous since it did not represent Yahweh but was to be his pedestal, such an understanding is hard to reconcile with Yahweh’s very negative evaluation of the activities at the bottom of Sinai (32:8).8 Israel had not worshipped, sacrificed to, or lauded Yahweh, but had shifted her allegiance to the gods associated with the calf. The behavior of the Israelites at large may be contrasted to some degree with that of Aaron, which can properly be called syncretism. He forms the calf, which establishes his “active complicity” in the people’s sin.9 But evidently taken aback at the people’s wholesale apostasy, he attempts to convert the event into, or clarify its nature as, a Yahwistic feast (IZ) complete with burnt offerings and peace offerings brought on the altar he built (32:5–6; cf. 24:5). Dohmen captures the significance of the events clearly: Entsprechend wird die Einführung eines Festes durch Aaron am Sinai als weitere Freveltat gewertet werden müssen, denn die Anordnung und Einführung von Festen obliegt JHWH allein, und entsprechende Angaben sind ja schon vorausgegangen (vgl. Exod 23:14–19), so dass der Ausruf eines “Festes für JHWH” als Fortsetzung der Herstellung eines Gottes verstanden werden muss. Dazu passt, dass bei der nachfolgenden Darstellung dieses Festes JHWH nicht mehr begegnet und Moses bei der akustischen Wahrnehmung dieses Festes bei seiner Rückkehr (v. 17 f.) schon das Schlimmste befürchtet.10

In short, the whole of 32:1–6 portrays not only the breaking of the covenant’s stipulations, but the enacting of a religious scheme diametrically opposed to its essence.11 The motive for this apostasy runs contrary to honouring Yahweh as covenant suzerain and omnipotent sanctifier, and attempts to bring about his immediate “presence” in the image of the calf. Almost inexplicably, Israel by and large is driven by corrupt desires for a tangible “god” and a cult that is base and degrading.12 The stage is set for the horrible analysis and verdict of God in the following section. 8 E.g., L.R. Bailey, “The Golden Calf”, HUCA 42 (1971) 97–115, suggests that Canaanite influence, especially the Sîn astral cult, constituted a lunar-worship background. His argument is properly rejected by Hayes: “Scholarly attempts to rationalize the calf as simply an alternative vision of the legitimate worship of YHWH, whatever their historical merit, make no sense within the larger narrative context of our story. According to the narrative [Exod 20:3; 20:4–5; 20:20], God has already clearly told the people that the actions undertaken in Exod 32 are prohibited” (“Golden Calf Stories”, 54). 9 J. Krašovec, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 88. 10 Dohmen, Exodus, 299. 11 There are a number of ironic contrasts between the worship of the calf and the true worship of Yahweh; cf. D.R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34”, WTJ 44 (1982) 71–87, on p. 73, and Dohmen, who contrasts it with the song of Miriam (15:20) and Jethro’s sacrifices (18:12) (Exodus, 282–3). 12 “Almost” inexplicable except for the narrative’s focus on the sinfulness of the people, a theme which is developed throughout these chapters. No other motive seems sufficient to drive the

106

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

1.2 God threatens to annihilate Israel but relents (32:7–14) The next section of Exodus 32 also begins abruptly, transporting the reader to the top of Sinai only to hear the command to return to the bottom of the mountain.13 In an ironic reuse of the people’s language, Yahweh identifies Moses as Israel’s owner and as the one who brought her out of Egypt. Yahweh thereby establishes that though he had delivered them and identified himself with them by covenant, they will now be without him. The reason given is their corruption (Piel of VZ), explained in 32:8 as idolatry, since they made (J ), worshipped (JYZ), and sacrificed to (ZD\) an idol. This is a departure from the “way” in which Yahweh commanded them to walk, a common metaphor for his covenant’s demands.14 It is striking that Yahweh not only considers the covenant broken, but expresses his intention to destroy Israel for their sin. The death penalty is attached to various offenses in the laws given at Sinai, and here Yahweh makes clear that all Israel is guilty of sacrificing to other gods.15 The announcement of his intention to administer the death sentence himself brings into the present the ultimate effects of covenant breaking. Moses’ response to this threatened destruction begins the record of his unparalleled intercession on Israel’s behalf. Since we have limited ourselves to the main theme of divine presence, we will deal very selectively with these interchanges and the issues they raise. Here it suffices to draw attention to two of the three reasons Moses uses to persuade God: God’s ownership of Israel by virtue of his bringing them out of Egypt (32:11), and the promise he made to the patriarchs (32:13).16 Picking up on the possibility of not leaving God alone (32:10) and capitalizing on Yahweh’s allusion to the promise made to Abraham, Moses

people to this type of infidelity so soon after the theophany (cf. Exod 20:20, 23) and mere weeks after their stunning deliverance from Egypt. 13 The reason for which Moses must descend is not clear; perhaps he was to mete out the punishment, as he does on a smaller scale later in this passage (Exod 32:25–29; cf. his verbal discipline of the people in the earlier contexts of 16:28–29; 17:2). 14 T.D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1–xxiv 11”, VT 49 (1999) 2–20, notes a number of correspondences between the ratification of the covenant in Exod 24 and its breaking in Exod 31. 15 These are murder (21:12, 14, 15), kidnapping (21:16), cursing one’s father or mother (21:17), sorcery (22:17 [Eng 18]), bestiality (22:18 [Eng 19]), sacrificing to other gods (22:19 [Eng 20]; cf. 23:13 and note the sequence from prohibitions of idolatry to observation of YHWH’s feasts), and oppressing widows or orphans (22:22–24 [Eng 23–25], with the punishment being imposed by God). 16 The third is Yahweh’s reputation among the Egyptians (32:12); cf. M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2/8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 108–19.

Introduction and context

107

intercedes passionately, bravely, and selflessly on Israel’s behalf.17 His intercession has the effect of preventing the “immediate and total destruction of the Israelites”, but “we are very far from any kind of resolution at this point in the story”.18 1.3 Moses punishes Israel (32:15–20) Despite Yahweh’s relenting from his threat to annihilate the Israelites, there are consequences to their sin. This point is made several times in these chapters, beginning with Moses’ reaction to the people’s rebellion. The shattering of the tablets of the covenant (32:19) demonstrates a reality already contained in Yahweh’s words in 32:7–10 – Israel has broken the covenant so recently forged on that very spot. Moses’ breaking of the tablets is followed by a series of actions designed to put an end to the apostasy. The calf is destroyed, and the Israelites take into their very bodies its remnants. The significance of this action is multifaceted: drinking water laced with the powder of the disintegrated calf is clearly a punishment.19 While parallels to the water of cursing in Numbers 5 have often been suggested, the two have very different functions.20 In Numbers 5 the effects of the water establish the veracity or mendacity of the people involved; here, this is hardly at issue. Further, the water of cursing by itself brings punishment on the guilty; since no such punishment is said to follow here, this is at best an assumption, and while in Exodus the addition to the water is the pulverized remains of a decidedly unholy calf, the priest in Numbers 5 adds dust from the sanctuary floor. In view of the desire to have an overly proximate divine presence that drove the demand for the calf, it is possible that another function of the ingestion of the god’s remains is an ironic lesson on the impossibility of Israel’s ad hoc resolution of that problem, as Polak suggests: “The punishment of the Israelites is 17 The order of events sometimes suggests that Yahweh is encouraging Moses to appreciate his mercy: while Moses solicits Yahweh’s first relenting from judgment (32:7–14), the semantics of Yahweh’s character in 34:6–7 are put to immediate use by Moses in 34:9 (the text uses different signs but their semantic content is identical). See further Widmer’s comments on Yahweh’s participation in the intercession, Moses, 95–103. 18 Hayes, “Golden Calf Stories”, 56. 19 Note the judgment water Yahweh makes sinners drink in Jer 8:14; 9:14; 23:15 (all JS Hif). 20 Thus Noth’s judgment that the water of cursing stands in tension with the repeated (on his view) punishment by the Levites falters for lack of evidence. M. Noth, Exodus (OTL, London: SCM, 1962), 245. The thorough destruction of the calf may likewise reflect an ANE awareness of how gods are destroyed (cf. the actions Anat undertakes to destroy Mot in the Baal Epic, KTU 1.6 iii), but that sheds no light on the punishment. See the longrunning discussion’s most recent installment in H. Rand, “The Destruction of the Calf: A Reply”, JBQ 23 (1995) 242–7.

108

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

ironic: as they drink the water with the ashes the remains of the image penetrate their own body, heightening the nearness of the divinity to absurdity.”21 When Aaron is interrogated as to his role, he disingenuously attempts to shed all responsibility.22 In light of his having been designated as the high priest (Exodus 28–30), this signal failure on his part and his mendacious attempts to avoid culpability cast a pall over the Aaronic priesthood. It is significant that the remedying of the situation depends especially on Moses’ intercession and Yahweh’s grace and compassion, not on the priests. 1.4 Capital punishment of some offenders (32:21–29) The purge described in Exod 32:25–29 continues the process of divine judgment that began when Yahweh declared his relationship with Israel defunct. The idol is destroyed and the people made to drink water laced with its remains, but the sin is too serious to be sufficiently redressed by such indirect means.23 A grave sentence is now uttered against the people, with the result that some Israelites meet the full destruction threatened by God in 32:10. As before (cf. 32:19), Moses’ reaction is prompted by seeing the lurid sin of the people, described withTRand JEO in 32:25. Janzen gives a helpful summary of the uses and semantic range of TR, noting that it normally deals with “disregard for, or flouting of and rebellion against, structures and constraints considered (rightly or wrongly) to be foundational to true and life-giving order”.24 In our context the people are flouting the covenant requirements, and Aaron is responsible for leading them into such behavior. The sense of JEO is more difficult to establish since it is a hapax legomenon, but its syntactical relation to ]J[OSD is helpful. This suffixed Qal participle of ]YS refers without exception to one’s enemies (Exod 15:7; Deut 28:7; 33:11; etc.), so that the point at issue is Israel’s standing or

21 F. Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 113–47, on p. 142. 22 Childs shows clearly the selectivity and misrepresentation that characterize Aaron’s retelling of the calf’s construction; B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 570. 23 “The account of the judgment [in 32:25–29] is proof of how deeply the iniquity of apostasy was understood. Some kind of satisfaction was needed for the purification of the people to be achieved and for conciliation to become possible.” Krašovec, Reward, 92. 24 Janzen, “Character”, 604.

Introduction and context

109

reputation among her enemies.25 The suggestion that the nations would hear of Israel’s military exploits in paralyzed fear overlooks the fact that the reports they give routinely express fear based on God’s actions, not Israel’s, and that when Israel is disobedient she shamefully falls before her enemies (e.g. Num 14:39–45).26 In favor of a “shame” sense it is significant that Israel’s sin is often made the cause of her shame, and that idolatry figures prominently in such passages (Isa 42:17 and passim; Jer 2:26–27).27 The result of the Israelites’ behavior here, by showing them to be no different from the nations that opposed them, would cast into doubt her election and undermine her identity as the people of the God who would go before her in battle. Seeing the Israelites act like those who had never seen God nor heard his laws, and so were not his people, Moses enacts a divinely authorized judgment.28 Calling to him those who remain faithful to Yahweh, he commands the execution of those who had given themselves over to the sinful behavior taking place before their eyes. The Levites heed his summons and become the instrument of divine punishment among their fellow Israelites.29 25 The relation of JEO to LO in Job 4:12; 26:14 is uncertain. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads YTR[M]J[OYSDYEON_TJ ; A. Sadaqa/R. Sadaqa (ed.), Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch – With Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: A. and R. Sadaqa, 1964), 51. The LXX tradition witnesses a number of changes, but largely agrees with the sense of the MT as usually understood; see J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta 2.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); A. le Boulluec/P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie: l'Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 325–6; and C. Houtman, Exodus (3 vol.; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1993–1996), 3.663, for the textual evidence. 26 E.g., Josh 2:10; 9:9–10. Deut 2:25 connects God’s doings to Israel’s reputation. Janzen understands the NJPS translation “so that they were a menace to any who might oppose them” as implying the military might of the Israelites, not their likely resistance of any who might attempt to arrest their sinful behavior. Whether there was rampant sexual indulgence taking place or not, there is insufficient warrant in the text for seeing the Israelites as “advancing […] under the aegis of their God” (as Janzen suggests, “Character”, 603). It is much more likely that the people would oppose those who attempted to impose punishment or order upon them, as Hayes suggests, “Golden Calf Stories”, 59 n. 30. 27 References are too numerous to list; see P.J. Nel, “YD”, NIDOTTE, 1.621–7. 28 L. Brisman’s attempts to deprive this judgment of Yahweh’s backing are based on unnecessarily skeptical views regarding the independence of Moses in breaking the tablets and of Yahweh in plaguing the people (“Sacred Butchery: Exodus 32:25–29”, in C. Seitz/K. GreeneMcCreight [ed.], Theological Exegesis [FS B.S. Childs; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999] 162–81, on p. 65). Her commitment to “internal, textual irony” and her aversion to readings that privilege the unity of the text (163) reveal an interpretative ideology at odds with the text. To note two objections to Brisman’s interpretation, it is inconceivable that Moses would act as a false prophet by invoking God’s name for his own purposes without meeting retribution no less swiftly than the sinners around him. Further, God’s purpose throughout this narrative is to validate Moses (Exod 19:9; 34:29–35). See the analysis of such a hermeneutic by D.J.A. Clines/J.C. Exum, “The New Literary Criticism”, in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 11–25. 29 Source-critical diachronic readings of this text abound, and typically see behind it a struggle between a priestly caste related to the cultic centre of Bethel and their opponents around

110

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

The standing the Levites received on this occasion depends largely on the meaning of Y NO ]MF[in 32:29 (with the Qal of NO).30 This idiom with the Qal occurs very infrequently and in varied contexts (Ps 26:10; Isa 1:15), whereas the more frequent idiom for priestly consecration uses the Piel.31 But the semantics of the idiom and its verbal stem are not always in accord with this generalization, with the Qal used here of Levites, and the Piel occasionally used outside priestly ordination contexts (1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 29:31). Before deciding what exactly is going on here, other elements in the verse should also be considered. First is the repetition of ]Y[J, which attests “emphatically the day’s memorial event”.32 Second, the collocation of _VP with JMTD and an object marked by N occurs only here with this sense (regardless of the preposition that accompanies it, the pair JMTD + _VP occurs fewer than a dozen times, never with a priestly nuance).33 The fact that the MT attests an imperative also complicates the chronological relation of 32:27–28 to 32:29. If 32:29 is understood as an amplification of the preceding two verses, uttered at the commencement of the judgment, the whole issue of some type of ordination can be avoided by adopting the “military service” nuance of the F[ + NO idiom.34 If 32:39 is taken as chronologically the time of Jeroboam. Brisman helpfully reviews the spectrum of historical critical scholarship on the passage, “Butchery”, 174–8. As to why not all Israel excepting the Levites perished, there were likely degrees of perversity with which the rebellion was being pursued, and punishment was meted out accordingly. Thus it is quite possible that only the primary offenders perished in this purge (a possibility for which there is later precedent, Num 16:20–35; note the shift from the whole congregation to the 250 with their leaders, and the different types of judgment inflicted on the latter two groups there). 30 The reading of LXX at this point (followed by the Vulgate), with the aorist active indicative of RNJTQY+ ZGKT, appears in many of the places where MT uses the Piel (Judg 17:5, 12; 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Chr 29:31); it also occurs in Ps 128:7 (LXX 129:7) for the Hebrew Piel NO with XM, and in Sirach’s description of Aaron’s ordination (Sir 51:25). The discussion of L.A. Snijders, in L.A. Snijders/H.-J. Fabry, “ NO”, TDOT, 8.297–308 (esp. 301–6) is perhaps the best treatment of the idiom. 31 For the Piel, see Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3; Judg 17:5, 12; 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Kgs 9:24; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31; Ezek 43:26. Note also 2 Sam 23:7, where military action is described and “hand” is the implicit object of the Piel of NO. Most interpretations of Exodus 32:29 fail to question whether the idiom depends on a particular verbal stem, thus assuming that the Qal here is equivalent to the Piel elsewhere, e.g., Childs (Exodus, 571), G. Schmitt, “Der Ursprung des Levitentums”, ZAW 94 (1982) 575–99, S.E. Loewenstamm, “The Investiture of Levi”, in idem, From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) 55–65, M. Delcor, “ NO”, TLOT 2.664–66. A.S. van der Woude, “F[”, TLOT, 2.497–502, exceptionally counters that the Piel of NO with F[ “is restricted to the cultic realm and means the investiture of priests and Levites”, on p. 500. 32 P.A. Verhoef, “]Y[”, NIDOTTE, 2.419–24, on p. 423. 33 Gen 28:4; Deut 12:15; 16:17; 30:1, 19; Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15; Ezek 44:30. 34 See Snijders, TDOT, 8.305. The military service sense could, at least in the case under consideration, overlap with a general “consecration” sense.

Introduction and context

111

subsequent to 32:27–28, however, the military service understanding is redundant, and so one must view the event as identifying the Levites as special in some way.35 Interpreters who accept the integrity of the narrative generally see this incident as the beginning of the Levites’ special status (whether in the sense of origin or confirmation, depending on whether or not the Levites were a recognizable entity before Exodus 32, as the reference to “Aaron the Levite” in Exod 4:14 might imply).36 This is justified in light of the text’s stress on “today” as the beginning of a new period, the blessing the Levites receive, and the vague but unmistakable element of the Levites’ being set apart. But the precise nature of their standing as established in Exodus 32 remains elusive, and in light of the distinctive use of the Qal in the idiom we should limit ourselves to speaking of a “consecration” that is not identical to priestly ordination.37 1.5 Plague and divine absence (Exod 32:30–35) On the day after his descent and breaking of the tablets (32:30), Moses informs the people that their sin has not yet been forgiven, so he goes up to Yahweh to resolve the situation. This adds an additional element to the narrative: sin has consequences for one’s standing with God and can entail punishment that affects the offender’s life here and now. Though declaring beforehand that he would seek to TRM Israel’s sin, Moses’ actual petition to God is cast in terms of P. Should Yahweh refuse, Moses asks that he be blotted out of his book. Yahweh’s reply establishes that those who sin against him (N + Z) will be wiped out (JZO) of his book, probably one in which Yahweh recorded an individual’s evil and good deeds, judging them according to their records (especially regarding covenant obligations) and enacting the respective verdict, again per the covenant.38 35 Snijders distinguishes between consecration and “the actual taking of office” on the basis of Leviticus 8 and 9 in “ NO”, 303. 36 Duke sees this as the Levites’ origin in his “Priests, Priesthood”, in T.D. Alexander/D.W. Baker (ed.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 646–55 (hereafter DOTP); D.A. Garrett takes it as their confirmation in his “Levi, Levites”, DOTP, 519–22, while P.P. Jenson speaks of the Levites “ordaining themselves” in “[YN”, NIDOTTE, 2.772–8. 37 Cf. Dohmen, Exodus, 314: “v 29 diesen ‘priesterlichen’ Gedanken nur in Analogie adoptiert hat, und zwar in dem Sinn: ihr habt für JHWH geweiht”. 38 Widmer, Moses, 130. His suggestion (idem, 133) that in this context V Z+ P should be rendered “bearing/enduring sin” seeks to respect the nuances of the narrative (in not seeing forgiveness granted immediately) but is difficult to maintain. The meaning of the five collocations of that word pair are distinguished from “forgiveness” only with great difficulty (cf. Exod 10:17; 1

112

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

In 32:34 the rather surprising reference to the promised land is the first hint that some portion of God’s original plan for Israel will still be realised with the current Israel. This is immediately followed by the promise that Yahweh’s angel would go before Moses on the journey from Sinai to Canaan (cf. 23:20–23). But these two positive elements are coupled with a promise that Yahweh will also punish the guilty. The sense of 32:35 is most naturally taken in conjunction with this threat (note the waw-consecutiveimperfect with which it begins), though difficulties arise in fixing the precise time(s) of the plague it mentions.39 It is not necessary to posit a mélange of textual traditions in this connection: On the one hand v. 35 may be taken as the conclusion of the narrative recounting the calf and its immediate aftermath before the focus shifts in ch. 33 to a second problem caused by the calf, the forfeiting of Yahweh’s presence “in the midst” of the people. On the other hand, 32:34 introduces the theme of Israel’s departure from Sinai, a theme developed in 33:1, and 32:34 handles this theme in a way similar to 33:1ff. by linking the journeying with the expression of Yahweh’s disfavor. 32:35 can be seen then as a parenthetical note regarding the fulfillment of 32:34b within a developing sequence initiated by 32:34a and continued in 33:1ff.40

Since the expressions in 32:34 ([FSR]Y[DY) and 32:35 (XI[Y) can refer to more than one occurrence and so cover both periods mentioned by Moberly, it is both difficult and unnecessary to be more chronologically specific.

2 Exegesis of divine presence passages The above exegesis enables us to come to Exodus 33–34 with sensitivity for the themes that these chapters develop. We have seen both Israel’s sinfulness and Yahweh’s grace in not exterminating them. But the saga is far from over. First, the resolution of Israel’s sin is an open question as chapter 32 closes. Further, the full consequences of Israel’s idolatry include a withdrawal of Yahweh’s presence as it was to have been in the tabernacle, with the result that his angel will lead the nation to the promised land. This change is extremely serious given the focus of Exodus on God’s intention Sam 15:25; Psa 25:18; 32:5). Further, since the narrative gives rationale for a shift in Moses’ mission in 32:30–32, it is most convicing to gloss it in such a way that its semantics overlap with the Piel of TRM + direct object, since the latter’s meaning is clearly “forgive”. The chain of direct objects assigned to P in Exod 34:7 (_Y, R, and J Z) argues against an overly subtle distinction here. 39 Durham notes that “there may be reflections of [the plaguing of the Israelites in 32:35] in 32:9–10, 20, 34; Num 11:1–12:16; chap. 14; 21:4–9; and Deut 9:6–24” (Exodus, 427). 40 Moberly, Mountain of God, 57.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

113

to dwell among his people. And looking back to the goal envisaged for the Sinai covenant, the idea of rest is likewise pushed far from Israel’s experience: what she may expect from Yahweh is punishment of her sin, not the granting of rest or the effecting of full sanctification. These themes are taken up in Exodus 33–34, and will deepen our understanding of how presence and covenant interrelate. Exegesis of divine presence passages 2.1 The angel replaces Yahweh and Israel repents (33:1–6) Exodus 33 opens with Yahweh continuing his speech to Moses. First comes a command for Moses and his people to go from Sinai to the land Yahweh swore to the fathers (33:1); Yahweh will send an angel before them, and will drive out Canaan’s present inhabitants (33:2).41 The reason that Yahweh will not go up among (DTSD) the Israelites is given in 33:3 – since they are stiff-necked, he would consume them en route. This is an explicit denial of the possibility of constructing the tabernacle at this point, a horrific development possible given God’s original intention in Exod 25:8. Once Yahweh sends Moses away to lead the people to Canaan without his being in front of or among them, this news reaches the people’s ears and they mourn deeply (Hit of ND ) and refrain from putting on their ornaments. But how did the people hear this news? Is 33:5 an explanation in the pluperfect, as understood by most translations? Does 33:6 merely restate 33:4, or are two different instances in view? This question must be addressed on both verbal (sentence) and syntactical (text) levels. The latter perspective recognizes that grammar, while important, is not solely constitutive of biblical Hebrew literature. Due to the influence of linguistics (especially the shift from historical linguistics to structuralist linguistics) and dissatisfaction with historical-critical exegesis, those working in biblical Hebrew grammar have moved away from a focus on the sentence level to treat larger sections of text. This approach is known by many monikers: narrative syntax (Talstra), text grammar (Weinrich), text linguistics (Niccacci; common European usage), discourse analysis (Longacre; common American usage), and discourse grammar (Endo).42 Discourse analysis, as we shall term it here, recognizes and describes the significance of the basic text categories of narrative or discourse (i.e., direct 41 LXX “my” = Yahweh’s; in light of 23:20–23, there seems to be no difference between the two angels. 42 C.H.J. van der Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 133–56, on pp. 134–5 (hereafter Syntax).

114

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

speech) in its analysis of the verbal system, and thus aids sentence-level grammar.43 Since it works with grammaticalized systems of encoding continuity and discontinuity in a narrative, it also provides “a framework within which questions can be asked about textual consistency and possible redactional activity in its production”.44 When considering the internal relation of 33:4–6, their syntax is especially important. The verbal sequences themselves are normal: the narrative line is carried by wayyiqtol forms (interrupted by [x]-qatal, w-x-qatal and [x]-qotal forms),45 while the direct discourse uses qatal for the past, nonverbal clauses for the present, and yiqtol and weqatal for the future.46 As in 32:35, narrative follows directly upon the cessation of direct speech, but no chronological notice is given.47 It is nearly certain that 33:4 is subsequent to 33:1–3 since the demonstrative pronoun J\ in 33:4 follows a wayyiqtol in narrative and because 33:4 is preceded by a speech whose themes are bad news for Israel. But what are we to make of the apparent repetition in the following verses (33:5–6)?48 Bracketing the material related to leaving Sinai and entering Canaan (which further distinguishes them), the two passages compare as shown here (see Table 1).49

43 A. Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System”, in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 117–37, on pp. 117–21. 44 E. Talstra, “Workshop: Clause Types, Textual Hierarchy, Translation in Exodus 19, 20 and 24”, in Syntax, 119–32, on p. 123. 45 E.J. van Wolde, “Linguistic Motivation and Biblical Exegesis”, in Syntax, 21–50, on p. 39. 46 A. Niccacci, “Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24”, in Syntax, 203–28, on p. 214. 47 The same occurs in 32:31 as well, but information encoded in the text of 32:30–31 makes plain that Moses’ ascent there is subsequent to his speech to Israel in 32:30. 48 The LXX is not of help here, for it exhibits several notable differences which obviate this difficulty. Childs, Exodus, 589, sees a “later source or redaction” behind 33:5–6; Brichto thinks that the narrator’s “synoptic/resumptive technique” makes 33:5–6 antecedent to 33:4; H.C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 102. Michaeli intones: “Il semble bien qu’on ait affaire à plusieurs éléments rédactionnels qui ont été combinés et que les v. 1–4 aient été complétés et peut-être expliqués par les v. 5–6, d’une origine différente.” F. Michaeli, Le livre de l’Exode (CAT 2; Neuchatel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1974), 278. 49 The phenomenon of repetition is quite complex, and can be treated only cursorily here. See M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 365– 440.

115

Exegesis of divine presence passages Table 1: Repeated and New Elements in Exodus 33:1–6 Reference 33:1a1; 33:5a1

Exod 33:1–4 Quotative frame

35:5a2

Exod 33:5–6 Quotative frame Command to speak to people

33:2a1

Promise to send angel “in front of”

33:3b1

YHWH will not be “among”

33:3b2; 33:5a3

(Because) people are stiffnecked People are stiffnecked

33:3b3; 33:5a4–a5

YHWH’s absence prevents destruction en route

33:4a1

People hear the matter

33:4a2

People mourn

33:4b

People don’t put on ornaments

YHWH’s presence would entail immediate destruction

33:5b1

Command to jettison ornaments

33:5b2

YHWH ponders people’s fate

33:6

People jettison ornaments

Both episodes choose not to report that Moses spoke to the people between the close of Yahweh’s speech to him and the people’s response (that is, between verses 3–4 and verses 5–6).50 The mediator theme, established earlier by Moses’ ascent and descent as the people’s spokesman, needs no reiteration in 33:1–6, and is in fact developed. Moses’ mediation now has progressed from being a geographical enterprise to a verbally dominated intercessory endeavor that focuses on the people’s weakness, his identification with them, and Yahweh’s grace. Focus on geography at this point would be a retrogression. The differences between the two episodes are also noteworthy. In the first, Yahweh’s absence is the topic (?DTSDJN  N), and it is necessary lest he destroy them in the course of the journey. In the second, Yahweh’s presence is the topic (?DTSDJN , not negated), and it is equal to the Israelites’ being destroyed immediately. This shows that Yahweh’s two speeches escalate the threat of judgment. 50 Whether Moses was on the mountain or at the ǀhel mô!Ɲd for these conversations is not relevant to the narrator’s concerns here, and the omission of Moses’ location creates no difficulty in the passage. The author has chosen to leave aside logistics in order to focus on what Yahweh says to the people and how the people respond to his words.

116

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

Corresponding to this is a development in the people’s responses. In Yahweh’s first speech he gives no commands, and the people spontaneously abstain from donning their ornaments.51 His second speech commands the permanent jettisoning (Hif of FT[) of the people’s ornaments, and the people obey heartily (Hit of NEP, hapax legomenon) and remain obedient to that command from Horeb on.52 The mourning noted after the first speech (33:4) is intense, and it is reasonable to suppose that a similar disposition is continued or enhanced by the events described in the second response, since that involved long-term obedience to Yahweh (a rarity in this pericope!).53 The last noteworthy difference involves Yahweh’s pondering of Israel’s fate (33:6), also unique to the second speech. The suspense this creates is heightened by the narrative’s hiatus in 33:7–11, establishing this as a critical juncture in the golden calf episode.54 The tabernacle project has been canceled, and Yahweh’s presence among the people remains an impossibility. 2.2 The tent of meeting (33:7–11) Most interpreters, regardless of their methodology, see this passage as hopelessly misplaced.55 Further, on the basis of Wellhausen’s historicalcritical reconstruction, many think it represents an older, competing prophetic tradition (deriving from J) regarding the “tent of meeting”, such that 51 “In a setting of idol production, the non-use of the ornaments alludes to a general background of purification and renunciation.” Hauge, Descent, 77, with reference to Exod 19:10–15; Gen 35:1–4; Isa 3:18–26. 52 Thus, pace Van Seters, the command in 33:5 is not redundant (J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 320). On the temporal nature of TJODTYZ, see the similar senses when used without language of ascent of descent and the comments of B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (with an introduction by W. Jacob; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992), 960, on Gen 9:11, and note Num 10:33; 21:4; 23:7; 33:24, 41, 48; 34:8. 53 Noth judges it “sincere and lasting repentance” (Exodus, 254). See the occurrences of ND in the Hithpael in Gen 37:34; Exod 33:4; Num 14:39; 1 Sam 6:19; 15:35; 16:1; 2 Sam 13:37; 14:2; 19:2; 1 Chr 7:22; 2 Chr 35:24; Ezra 10:6; Neh 1:4; 8:9; Isa 66:10; Ezek 7:12, 27; Dan 10:2. Seeing some remnants or influences of Canaanite gods’ dying and rising, and their worshippers associated weeping and rejoicing in Exodus 33 is very difficult, for there Yahweh is far from dead, and the context clearly makes the loss of Yahweh’s presence the motive for the weeping (rather than, alternately, the weeping being caused by the calf’s destruction); pace F.F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 98– 146, esp. 135–7, 155–7. 54 Hauge, Descent, 72. 55 Durham, though convinced of the importance of reading Exodus as a continuous whole, deems it an “unfortunate” interruption added to the narrative (Exodus, 442). Exceptions to the majority view include Brichto, who sees it as “an integral part of the story” (Grammar of Biblical Poetics, 103).

Exegesis of divine presence passages

117

while there is only the tabernacle in the main strand of the Pentateuch, here and there (Num 11:16, 24, 26; 12:4–10; Deut 31:15) one finds traces of a tradition which preserves another tent used for cultic purposes.56 The older tradition, described here in 33:7–11, is deemed “older and very simple”, the other (the tabernacle completed in Exodus 40) “younger and well developed”.57 Further, there is thought to be a “profound theoretical and conceptual gap between the two concepts of the tent of meeting that have been preserved in the Torah”.58 It is worth pondering if the standard diachronic approach to this question has not adopted too simple a solution to the problem of these two clearly distinguished structures. Given the unsurpassed emphasis that Exodus puts on the tabernacle, if we assume the general competence of the final redactor of Exodus he must not have considered the ǀhel mô!Ɲd a threat to the tabernacle’s unique identity and function, an assumption quite different from the source-critical status quo.59 Ralph Hendrix, in a recent series of articles, attempts to make sense of the various terms used for Israel’s cultic structures in the Sinai period and to demonstrate the resultant coherence of the tabernacle section in Exodus 25–40.60 His studies succeed in highlighting the nuance that each term often possesses, even if their use remains puzzling at points: “whereas the literary context of miškƗn was about construction, the literary context of ǀhel mô!Ɲd appears to involve the function of the cult of YHWH”.61 But in contrast to a source-critical approach, Hendrix has overemphasized the similarity of the two structures to the point of seeing them as one, something that Exod 33:7–11 and Numbers 11, 12 do not allow.62

56 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (foreword by D.A. Knight; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 17–51, esp. 39–51. 57 As summarized by Jacob, Exodus, 962. 58 I. Knohl, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting’”, in M. Cogan et al. (ed.), Tehillah leMoshe (FS M. Greenberg; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 73–9, on p. 74. 59 M. Haran argues that the tabernacle and the tent of meeting served very different purposes, as their names (miškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd) imply. The former was “where God dwells”, the latter “the place to which he comes at an appointed time […] only to leave it when the communion […] is over”. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 21985), 269. 60 “A Literary Structural Overview of the Golden-Calf Episode in Exodus 32:1–33:6”, AUSS 28 (1990) 211–17; “MiškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd: Etymology, Lexical Definitions, and Extrabiblical Usage”, AUSS 29 (1991) 213–24; “The Use of miškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd in Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992): 3–13; “A Literary Structural Overview of Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 123– 38. 61 Hendrix, “Use”, 9. 62 Hendrix clearly states that Exodus is describing “a single physical reality” (“Use”, 13). The fusing of the two is also assumed by R.J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of

118

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

There is much to be said for a solution which explores how these two structures might have functioned simultaneously and without interference, and careful attention to the tent of meeting passage suggests that this is possible. Beginning with verbal syntax, 33:7–11 clearly sets itself off from its context, beginning with a w-x-yiqtol sequence which breaks the the wayyiqtol string of the previous section and continuing with several instances of J[JY.63 The interruptive quality of w-x-yiqtol can signal an “actualising presentation” which highlights the information presented without necessarily locating it chronologically, as suggested by Schneider.64 Thus the passage’s syntax draws attention to the tent of meeting even as it removes it from the sequence of events narrated around it. The question of when the tent of meeting came into being may be further clarified by defining it on its own terms as a tent located outside the camp for oracular purposes (33:7–11).65 This immediately distinguishes it from Moses’ personal tent (Exod 18:7, with the definite article), and the silence of Exodus regarding any tent with cultic or oracular functions prior to this point favors seeing the tent of meeting as first used some time between Exodus 19 and Exodus 33.66 Both the presence of the article and the frequentative verbal syntax point to a tent which antedated Exodus 33.

Meeting”, CBQ 33 (1971) 221–7, and C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989). 63 Niccacci has established that such constructions, with the verb second, are “emphatic” and serve to focus attention on what is new, namely, the “x” element (in this case, the actor, Moses). A. Niccacci, “Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose”, in Syntax, 167–202, on p. 171. 64 Cited in Talstra, “Workshop”, 129. 65 Other definitions of course exist, but cannot claim an equally clear basis in the text. Clifford, “Tent of El”, and A.M. Cooper/B.R. Goldstein, “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative”, JBL 116 (1997) 201–15, assert Canaanite influence on the presentation of the ǀhel mô!Ɲd. Strikingly, they make no reference to the contextual elements that cluster around the tent of meeting passage, especially the sinfulness of Israel. Clifford argues (without specifying the mechanism) that the Tent of El, an oracular site at which the god dwelt, influenced both P and JE in their presentations of the tents they describe. 66 Moses’ personal tent is mentioned in 18:7 (with the definite article), but the placement of that episode is thematic rather than chronological. See E. Carpenter, “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus”, in E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content (FS G.W. Coats; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 91–108, and D.A. Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS 139; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). It is possible that the presence of the article on the term NJ implies that the term’s referent was already known, though this is not the only possible understanding of the article’s function: C.H.J. van der Merwe/J.A. Naudé/J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 190, note that while anaphoric use of the definite article is less awkward, its cataphoric use is also attested (e.g., Gen 24:20).

Exegesis of divine presence passages

119

Several additional considerations merit notice: Moses pitched the tent for himself (YNJPY);67 it was at a good distance from the camp (JPZONLYZO, occurring three times in vv. 7–8); it was accessible to any Israelite who was seeking Yahweh (33:7); Moses’ trips to and sessions at the tent were publicly noticed and valued (33:8); the pillar of cloud would descend upon Moses’ reaching the tent, whereupon Yahweh would speak familiarly with him and the people would worship (33:9–11); and after each episode Moses (and any Israelite who may have accompanied him) would return to the camp, while Joshua would stay at the tent (33:11). The import of Exod 33:7–11 in the context of Exodus 32–34 can now be summarized. First, at this point divine presence is not (even temporarily) manifested inside the camp.68 However, whether Israelites were actually using the tent of meeting at this time or whether the text is recounting how things went prior to this time, Yahweh is shown to meet there with individual Israelites. Finally, Moses is shown to be indispensable for Israel’s relationship with Yahweh, since such meetings are possible only with his direct agency. Each of these points is important in the story that is unfolding in Exodus 32–34. The location of the tent of meeting traces, by representing the theme of divine presence in the pictorial language an oracular tent, the progress of Moses’ intercession, and comes between the accompaniment of Yahweh’s angel and Moses’ prayer that Yahweh himself be present “with” corporate Israel (33:16).69 As 33:1–6 has just stated, Yahweh cannot appear in Israel’s midst without breaking out in judgment against them.70 Thus the stress on the location of Moses’ oracular tent outside the limits of the camp very closely follows the narrative’s development.71 Second, the possibility of the good spiritual disposition of the Israelites is hinted at by the fact that some desired to meet with Yahweh, and that others esteemed these occasional theophanies important and appropriate for worship. Thus the restoration of divine presence, and the related reinstatement 67 Durham, following Beer, notes that it might also be “for him = Yahweh” (Exodus, 442). In light of Moses’ prominence as the primary user and the one who must accompany other users, “for himself” seems better. 68 Though Propp sees this possibility in connection with the tent’s being pitched for Yahweh, his observation that “God has just declined to travel in Israel’s midst” exhibits sensitivity to the narrative context (Exodus 19–40, 599). 69 Most source-critical analyses of the passage overlook this dynamic, but the role of the tent of meeting is critical in describing the period between the people’s being spared from annihilation and the gradual restoration of divine presence. 70 The sin problem in Exodus 32–34 is tied to the camp’s inhabitants; cf. Polak, “Theophany”, 143. 71 If the tent of meeting were moved outside the camp at this time, the narrative emphasis would also be a chronological development in the story.

120

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

of the covenant, are not without their subjective counterparts on the part of the Israelites. Lastly, the centrality of Moses as the only one by whom individual Israelites can approach Yahweh correlates with his indispensable role as corporate Israel’s mediator. While Israel still stands exposed to Yahweh’s wrath, and Yahweh will not come near them lest he destroy them for their stubbornness (cf. 33:3, 5), Moses’ relation to Yahweh has not been compromised by the people’s sin. This is emphasized in 33:11 and by the framing of 33:12–17 with references to Yahweh’s close relationship with Moses. There is no grave difficulty, on the view presented above, in having the tabernacle and the ǀhel mô!Ɲd function simultaneously.72 In its present context the tent of meeting defines a critical phase in the gradual restoration of the covenant relationship. The episode considered here emphasizes the consequences of the golden calf debacle and heightens the narrative tension by interposing itself between God’s statement that he will ponder the Israelites’ fate (33:6) and the following episodes that progressively reestablish Yahweh’s relationship with Israel.73 2.3 Progressive restoration of presence (33:12–17) While at this point in the narrative Israel’s apostasy has not had the dire effect first threatened by Yahweh, the subsequent account has very patiently spelled out its consequences in terms of the covenant (now fractured), sin (punished and yet not forgiven), and Yahweh’s presence among Israel (now a non est). Moses’ third prayer, to which we now turn, accelerates the pace of the story but retains the thematic complexity evident in earlier sections. It is concerned with the need for God’s presence, both among Israel (the prepositions in this section are critically important) and with respect to Moses.74 Moses first speaks in terms of “with me” (33:12) and “show me” (33:13), and in response God promises rest to Moses 72 So also Hauge (Descent, 74); Hendrix, “Use”, 9; J.H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 314; and D.E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 220. 73 The position adopted above raises the question of why the ǀhel mô!Ɲd remained outside the camp after the repair of the covenant breach. Recognizing the greater holiness of the tabernacle and the different functions of the two structures, immediate access to Yahweh inside the camp by means of the ǀhel mô!Ɲd would circumvent the tabernacle’s restrictions on such visual, personal access to God. 74 For a recent source-critical approach to the passage that includes helpful synopses of precritical interpretations, see R.M. Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus XXXIII 12–23”, VT 54 (2004) 427–44.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

121

(33:14). Subsequently Moses prays with regard both to Israel (“with us”, 33:16) and to himself (“show me”, 33:18), and at the end of the interchange God promises to pass before Moses alone while revealing more of his character (33:19–34:4). The initial part of Moses’ conversation with God refers to the promised presence of the angel (32:34; 33:2). While noting that the angel will go before Israel ([PRN), Moses requests that the divine presence go with (]) him.75 “There is no indication that the angel alleviates the threat posed by God’s absence.”76 Moses’ request assumes that his unique relationship with God (who knows him by name; cf. the closeness of the relationship witnessed by Exod 33:11) entails God’s sending someone with Moses and making his ways known to him. At this moment Moses’ expectations and hopes for Israel have been placed in severe jeopardy, and that by the actions of the same God whom Moses had come to know over a number of decades. Moses’ request has his own needs in view (albeit his needs as Israel’s representative and mediator) even as it culminates in a request that Yahweh graciously reconsider his withdrawal from Israel. The repetition in 33:13 of the imperative J T which began the prayer suggests that the last petition has been his goal.77 In requesting that Yahweh send someone with him, and that he show Moses his ways, Moses is moving toward asking Yahweh to fully restore his presence among Israel. Yahweh’s response to this first petition of the third prayer is directed exclusively to Moses.78 His presence (JPR) will go with Moses, and he will give Moses “rest” (33:14).79 While presence has been a consistent theme in 75 Widmer, assuming a direct connection between 33:12 and 32:34, suggests that Moses also finds the angel’s identity ambiguous (Moses, 145–6). Attention to the identity of the one who accompanies, as well as the prepositions that define the relation between him and Israel/Moses, obviates the difficulties that many see between the promise of the angel (32:34; 33:2) and Moses’ request here (e.g., Billings, “Problem”, 429). 76 G.W. Coats, “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32–34”, in G.W. Coats/B.O. Long (ed.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 91–109, on p. 100. 77 Widmer, Moses, 150. 78 In favor of seeing the rest promise addressed only to Moses, see Coats, “Loyal Opposition”, 102; Noth, Exodus, 257. Moberly (Mountain of God, 74) explains: “the promise of rest is given to Moses alone (lƗk, second person singular suffix), and Moses is seeking the divine favour not for himself alone but for the people too”. Against this Houtman contends (Exodus, 3.699) that “YHWH seems to point to the destination, Israel’s secure existence in Canaan […]. YHWH himself, not the messenger, will cause Israel to dwell in the promised land (cf. 33:1–3a).” The Targums evidence diversity in handling the phrase: “I will lead you” (Onqelos), “I will prepare a resting place for you” (Neofiti), “I will grant you rest” (Pseudo-Jonathan); see Suomala, Moses and God, 174–5. 79 I agree with Mann that a cultic sense for JPR here is forced (Divine Presence, 157; see also idem, 257–8). This would force us to ignore the development of the forgiveness trajectory on

122

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

these chapters, the concept of rest is unexpected here. As a result translations ancient and modern have rendered the Hebrew in a variety of ways. Perhaps most interesting is Dohmen’s suggestion of “be done with you”, which takes God’s reply as granting Moses’ request rather than giving Moses rest.80 It must be admitted that the unusual syntax makes the expression challenging, but its formulation here is not as unique as Dohmen suggests, making his interpretation less than convincing.81 It seems best to retain the common rendering of the phrase as “I will give you rest”, with that term signifying the full enjoyment of the covenant’s goals.82 But what does this add to the dialogue? God’s response in 33:14 is still not a full resolution of the situation. It merely deals with the ambiguity of who would accompany Moses, leaving aside entirely the issue of God’s presence among the people. It is to this, then, that Moses returns in 33:15–16. The increasing clarity and precision of his prayer confirms that his ultimate concern is Yahweh’s presence which the theophany and its preparation centre. But this is not to suggest that the statement is not significant: as has long been noted, JPR “indeed signifies Yahweh himself and is thus employed as synecdoche”; J. Muilenberg, “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator (Exodus 33:1a, 12–17)”, in P.R. Ackroyd/B. Lindars (ed.), Words and Meanings (FS D.W. Thomas; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 159–81, on p. 172 n. 3. 80 “Diese in Ex 32:10 so eröffnete Reaktion Gottes vermochte Mose abzuwenden. Nun lässt Gott Moses als Rekation auf dessen Fürbitte ‘gewähren’, damit lässt Gott sich auf die Fürbitte des Mose ein, er gewährt ihm, dass er das Volk mit einbezieht in die ihm selbst zugesagte Gnade. Dass in dieser Antwort Gottes ein Zugeständnis enthalten sein muss, lässt sich nicht zuletzt an der Fortführung des Gesprächs in Ex 33:17 erkennen, denn dort mach Gott ausdrücklich noch ein Zugeständnis – auch dies (J\JTDFJV ]I) – gegenüber Mose” (Dohmen, Exodus, 345). 81 For uses of Hif ZYP with N, cf. (with an additional object) Exod 16:23 (“set aside for yourselves all that remains”), Josh 6:23 (“and they set them outside the camp”), Ps 17:14 (“they leave their possessions for their children”). Instances of Hif ZYP with N marking the object are closest to the syntax of Exod 33:14; see Exod 32:10 (“let me be”; similarly 2 Sam 16:11; 2 Kgs 23:18; Hos 4:17), 1 Chr 16:21 (“allow anyone”), Eccl 5:11 (“allows him”). A large number of such occurrences concern Yahweh’s giving rest to Israel: Deut 3:20 (“Yahweh gives rest to your brothers”, so also Josh 1:15; 22:4; similarly Josh 1:13; 21:44; 2 Sam 7:1; 1 Kgs 5:18; 1 Chr 22:18; 14:5, 6; 15:15; 20:30; Isa 14:3). On occasion what God gives rest from is specified, as in Deut 12:10 (“and he gives you rest from your enemies”; similarly Deut 25:19; Josh 23:1; 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Chr 22:9). Instances without a N marking the object have rather distinct meanings: e.g., Exod 16:33 (“put it before Yahweh”; similarly Exod 16:34; Deut 26:4, 10; 1 Sam 10:25), Esth 3:8 (“to tolerate them”). 82 Given the importance of the covenant in the passage and its context, significant reasons must be found to justify a more restricted sense. The connection between the sabbath and the covenant’s goal, noted above, strongly suggests that like the sabbath, rest here serves as shorthand for all the covenant blessings. This is also the understanding of G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (with an introduction by W. Brueggemann; 2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1.288, an observation that may suggest he retreated slightly from his earlier, absolute separation of Genesis 2 from the pentateuchal treatment of rest and the Sinai covenant’s eschatology; cf. his “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 94–102, originally published in 1933.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

123

among Israel. In 33:15 Yahweh’s presence is ambiguously “going”, albeit in the context of Moses and the people leaving Sinai (note the first-person plural object on the verb YPNV). In 33:16 Moses introduces the gracious nature of Yahweh’s relationship with his people and with Moses before asking that he go with (]) them, again suing a first-person plural suffix that identifies Moses with Israel. The last element in this portion of the prayer ties Israel’s unique identity to Yahweh’s presence with Israel. In sum, Moses prays that the experience of Yahweh’s presence that he knows, and the rest that he will experience, would be granted to Israel. This request connects covenant rest and covenant presence in asking that Yahweh once again identify himself with Israel. Yahweh’s response in 33:17 to the petition of 33:15–16 is the clearest and most significant step forward in the restoration of his relationship with Israel since the breach occasioned by the golden calf idolatry. By affirming to Moses that he will grant “this thing you have mentioned”, Yahweh commits to going with Israel. But not all has been resolved, as attention to the prepositions describing the proximity of divine presence will show.83 No less significantly, “there is still no explicit word about forgiveness”.84 2.4 The culminating theophany (33:18–34:8) The preface to the theophany (Exod 33:18–34:4) and the account of God’s appearance contain several issues that are relevant to our discussion, especially the significance of the divine character for the contextual concerns of presence and forgiveness and the implicit renewal of the covenant in 34:1– 4. We begin by considering why Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory. If indeed the grand goals of a restored covenant and divine presence are present in nuce here, why should not Moses’ prayers end here? First, this would be to overlook the ambiguous nature of the divine response (and, often, of Moses’ requests). Further, Moberly, noting the root problem of Israel’s sinfulness, suggests that Moses asks for further revelation because “the fundamental fact of the sinfulness of Israel, which was the cause of all the trouble, remains unchanged”.85 In 33:19 “the removal of sin must come first, but this leads on inevitably to the question of what approach to, and relation with, God is possible once sin ceases to be the

83 Pace Moberly, Mountain of God, 75, who sees the “with” of 33:15–16 as “nothing less than the presence of Yahweh in the shrine in the midst of Israel”; also Coats, “Loyal Opposition”, 102–3. 84 Davis, “Rebellion”, 77. 85 Moberly, Mountain of God, 68.

124

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

problem”.86 Here Exodus again raises the relation of sanctification and divine presence, a problem that is resolved only in Yahweh’s somewhat oblique response to Moses’ last request in 34:9. Moses, for his part, puts the issues very plainly with the triad of forgiveness, covenant renewal and restoration of divine presence, which we will consider below.87 Yahweh’s definition of the forthcoming theophany describes how he will grant Moses’ request to see his glory (33:18). Notably, “the revelation of God is in terms of his attributes rather than his appearance”.88 This is important for understanding how God’s two self-revelations (33:19; 34:6–7) relate to their context. First, the order and selection of divine attributes in Exodus 34 exhibits differences with the descriptions of Yahweh earlier in Exodus. Widmer compares the self-disclosures of Exod 20:5–6 and 34:6–7, and shows that the latter, located at a strategic point in the narrative, is a deliberate reformulation of [Yahweh’s] previous pronouncement […]. In Exodus 34:6, YHWH commences with a fundamental statement about his nature. YHWH declares that He is basically merciful and gracious. Whereas [sic] in the Decalogue the “negative portion,” i.e. the warning of divine visitation, precedes YHWH’s merciful and gracious attributes. Moreover, in the first divine disclosure divine jealousy is given as the reason for judgment (20:5), while after the golden calf incident YHWH’s jealousy is no longer directly related to judgment, but comes only later to expression as a general warning regarding the worship of other gods (cf. 34:14).89

Second, the ordering and selection of the divine attributes point toward their role in resolving the crisis in Israel’s relation to Yahweh. The burden of 33:19 is God’s sovereignty in exercising his mercy toward whomever he will. This makes possible its application to Israel, despite their having demerited any divine favor. In 34:6–7 the predominance given to Yahweh’s compassionate and forgiving character “provides the basis for Moses to request a divine pardon for Israel in Exod 34:9”.90

86 Idem, 80. 87 While Coats (“Loyal Opposition”, 103) notes the order “presence of God, forgiveness, and renewed covenant”, the syntax of 34:9 need not be strictly sequential. The surrounding narrative supports the sequence I have suggested above: most clear is the fact that Yahweh takes up his abode among the Israelites only at the close of Exodus, after he has forgiven Israel and renewed the covenant several chapters earlier. 88 Childs, Exodus, 596. 89 Widmer, Moses, 184–5. 90 T.B. Dozeman, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character”, JBL 108 (1989) 207–23, on pp. 220–1.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

125

2.5 Request for Yahweh to fully restore covenant (34:9) Immediately after witnessing the theophany, Moses shows the relevance of the divine character just displayed by asking God to “go along in our midst, even though the people are so obstinate; and do pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as your own possession”. Moses’ request to see God’s glory is not, as Terrien colorfully puts it, libido theologica, since both before and after the event Moses’ ultimate concern is Israel’s preservation as the people of God.91 Historical critical understandings of Exodus 34 see it as a covenant ceremony that parallels that of Exodus 20 rather than as the latter’s renewal. Such interpretations typically take as their point of departure the understanding that in 34:27–28 “one thing is commanded, and another done”, as Driver put it a century ago.92 This was consonant with Wellhausen’s earlier suggestion that Exodus 34 was an older J account which was later developed in a more ethical direction by E in Exodus 20. This view retains its current adherents, though there exists no consensus on the origins of the chapter.93 While the lack of consensus cannot be construed as a denial that there are compositional features in Exodus 34, interpreters too often assume that such features require a source critical approach for resolution. But as argued earlier, once a genuine compositional feature has been identified, the problem of what is to be done with it remains. Solutions span the diachronic-synchronic spectrum, from the conclusion that the material contains tensions which cannot be resolved (à la Wellhausen) to a thoroughly synchronic reading which judges such tensions secondary with respect to the passage’s meaning. This study attempts to define and employ a via media in which legitimate compositional features are taken at face value and their significance is pursued in light of the passage as a whole. Seeing Exodus 34 as a covenant renewal ceremony should not be seen as obscurantism for a number of reasons.94 First, both the theological and narratival elements of the theophany connect directly to the final request of Moses in 34:9 and the subsequent re91 S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (Religious Perspectives 26; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 144. 92 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91911), cited in Childs, Exodus, 605. 93 See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 344–5, and the variety of more recent compositional theories that Durham assembles, Exodus, 450–2. 94 As Davis notes (“Rebellion”, 81–4), to deny that Exodus 34 is a covenant renewal makes it incumbent on the reader to remove from the chapter the material explicitly to that effect (esp. vv. 1, 4, 28b). The present location of chapter 34 likewise argues strongly for its being taken at face value, presenting the resolution to the crisis occasioned by the apostasty with the golden calf.

126

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

newal of the covenant in 34:10–28. In Moses’ last petition the preposition YPDTSD establishes that the account has finally reached the point of restored divine proximity and presence (assuming the response of 34:10–28). This is clear from the equivalent description of Yahweh’s dwelling among (?YVD) Israel in the tabernacle in 25:8; 29:45, and especially the denial that Yahweh could be DTSD Israel in 33:3, 5.95 Further, the problem of sin is not ignored. The repentance of the people (33:4–6) and Moses’ intercession incline God to forgive graciously Israel’s sin.96 Finally, the first indicators of the covenant’s fracture in 32:7, 19, Yahweh’s statement that Israel belonged to Moses and Moses’ breaking of the tablets, have likewise been addressed by Moses’ petition that Yahweh again take Israel as his inheritance and by Yahweh’s call for new tablets. 2.6 Covenant renewal (34:10–28) Moses’ request that Yahweh restore his presence among Israel, forgive her sin and reinstitute his special relationship with her meets with a lengthy reply from Yahweh. Its importance is indicated by the fact that it is the longest divine speech since the block spanning Exodus 25–31, which the golden calf apostasy interrupted. Further, whereas the former speech ended with the canceling of the tabernacle, here Yahweh’s speech moves almost immediately (except for the pericope dealing with Moses’ face, which is followed suggestively by another sabbath commandment) to the account of the tabernacle’s construction and Yahweh’s taking up his abode there. While a great deal of attention has been given to the commandments in 34:12–26 and the lack of any clear correlation with the “ten commandments” of 34:28 (and cf. 34:27), plausible solutions that respect the integrity of the narrative exist. Moberly questions the common assumption that 34:28 is the fulfillment of the command in 34:27 and urges five grammatical and syntactical considerations against it: (1) the terminology in 34:28 is different from that of 34:27 and, further, need not be identified with the contents of 34:11–26; (2) the writing in 34:27 need not be on stone tablets, while that of 34:28 must be; (3) the content of 34:28a naturally closes the preceding narrative, while 34:28b is more like “an additional note” than a 95 See S.S. Tuell, “?YV”, NIDOTTE, 4.279–80; S. Rattray/J. Milgrom, “DTS”, TDOT, 13.148–52. 96 Note that ZNU is not wiping clear the slate in every sense, but rather “preservation of the covenant relationship” (Widmer, Moses, 210, following Milgrom, Numbers [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1990], 392–6). See the similar conclusions of J.P.J. Olivier, “ZNU”, NIDOTTE, 3.259–64; J.J. Stamm, “ZNU”, TLOT, 2.797–803; Hausmann, “ZNU”, TDOT, 10.258–65; Houtman, Exodus, 3.711.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

127

“continuation and fulfillment of v27”; (4) the alternation of verbal subject in 34:28 is not without precedent, as 34:5 shows; and (5) there is stronger verbal parallelism between 34:1 and 34:28 than between 34:27 and 34:28, suggesting that the former pair is determinative (this simultaneously eliminates the problems some see in determining who wrote what in this chapter).97 This solution, despite its detail, is clearer than the immensely complicated paradigm assumed by source-critical proposals.98 More importantly, it not only preserves but integrates the emphases of the narrative from Exodus 20 forward. Since the contents of the first set of tablets were preserved in Exodus 20, their reiteration here would be repetitive. Further, seeing Exodus 34 as a recapitulation of Exodus 20 would remove the possibility of selecting and organizing the covenant stipulations to better address the people’s sinful penchants that Exodus 32–33 just recorded.99 Additionally, the identification of what God writes in 34:28b with what he had written in chapter 20 via the phrase “the ten commandments” (cf. Deut 10:1–4) makes clear the nature of chapter 34 as a covenant renewal.100 Given the gravity of the sin and God’s response to it, the status of the covenant is a pressing question that the narrative must resolve unambiguously. It is precisely this emphasis that the commands and statements of 34:10–26 manifest. Most significant in light of the progressive nature of Moses’ intercession is the fact that Yahweh’s words here assume his presence among Israel. This is expressed both in geographical terms with reference to the locus of cultic worship (34:20, 23–26) and in relational terms as Yahweh demands Israel’s absolute covenant allegiance and establishes his ownership of the firstborn and firstfruits.

97 Moberly, Mountain of God, 102–4. 98 E.g., Childs proposes that chapter 34 exhibits “three different stages of literary development” (Exodus, 616). 99 It is notable that the opening commands (34:13–17) allude to the first and second commandments, those most clearly transgressed in the golden calf debacle. Davis notes in the same connection that the emphasis on the legitimate feasts of Yahweh fully establishes the illegitimacy of Aaron’s calf-based feast (32:5); “Rebellion”, 82. 100 Houtman notes a number of parallels between the first and second institution of the covenant that makes the Exodus 34 a covenant renewal very clear; Exodus, 3.714.

128

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

2.7 Divine presence via Moses’ shining face (34:29–35) While the connection between Moses’ face and divine presence may not be immediately obvious, Noth is too hasty to judge the passage an insertion.101 Almost all interpreters agree that the episode functions to establish Moses’ authority, but this understanding does not exhaust the passage. Moses, in carrying some effect or remnant of his experience of divine presence, effectively brings something nearly akin to it into the camp. To this one must immediately add that the “presence” of this reality (whatever it was) is very soon superseded by Yahweh’s taking up his glorious residence in the tabernacle in Exodus 40. In other words, both the content and placement of the pericope make it transitional vis-à-vis divine presence. There are two difficulties associated with this passage, one concerning Moses’ veil and the other the nature of the change of his face compared with its appearance prior to this final, ultimate theophany.102 Interpretation of the veil often draws on the purportedly parallel function of cultic masks in other cultures, and this constitutes a good part of Dozeman’s recent treatment of the passage. But despite the suggestive function of masks in a variety of religious settings, he needlessly insists that the veil is more than a veil.103 To fully understand the function of the veil we must first decide what had happened to Moses’ face, that is, what the veil covered. Recently there have been a number of attempts to establish the meaning of the phrase Y[PR TY _TS, though none has yet commanded a consensus. Starting with the most unusual argument, Propp has suggested that Moses’ face was disfigured due to his close contact with the divine, although he notes that his argument does not have the support of linguistic examples contemporary with Exodus that use “‘horn’ to denote an abnormal skin condition”.104 Scolnic is correct in objecting to this proposal that a “skin ailment” caused by (over)exposure to Yahweh’s glory cannot account for the great weight

101 Noth, Exodus, 267; he is unwilling to assign it to P or J, considering it part of a “special tradition” (ibid.). For a thorough review of the interpretations offered of the passage, see Dozeman, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation”. 102 Scolnic overlooks the unique and superlative nature of the theophany in Exodus 34, and so does not relate the semantic (and even suprasemantic) content of the theophany to Moses’ change. B.E. Scolnic, “Moses and the Horns of Power”, Judaism 40 (1991) 569–79, on p. 573. 103 Dozeman’s argument for two “veils” also seems unnaturally complex; this is exacerbated by his desire to see “conflicting traditions concerning their meaning” even within this brief section (34:29–35). T.B. Dozeman, “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in the Torah”, JBL 119 (2000) 21–45, on p. 45. 104 W.H. Propp, “The Skin of Moses’ Face – Transfigured or Disfigured?”, CBQ 49 (1987) 375–86, esp. 384–6.

Exegesis of divine presence passages

129

put on Moses’ appearance in the pericope or satisfactorily integrate the contextual emphasis on God’s presence.105 More conventional interpretations that see some sort of transfiguration of Moses’ face usually struggle to choose between “horn” (MT) and “shine” (implied by Peshitta, LXX and Targums).106 Seth Sanders has shown that first-millennium Mesopotamian astronomical and lexical sources explicitly connect light and horns.107 Thus Moses’ face could, quite literally, radiate horns, and the need to translate the term as either divine radiance or physical protuberance is merely a side-effect of our conceptual categories, irrelevant to ancient Israelite ideas.108

Dozeman is also conventional in seeing Moses’ skin as the source of the radiance, with Moses representing the deity.109 Scolnic too contends, on the basis of Egyptian material, that horn and light are associated, and that Moses had a “horn-like radiance” that served at once to condemn the golden calf and to validate Moses as Yahweh’s sole legitimate representative.110 Considering the somewhat vague nature of the evidence, as well as the fact that the condition recurred with Moses’ regular sessions before Yahweh, it is best to conclude that Y[PR TY _TS denotes an effulgence of Yahweh’s glory visible on Moses’ face. Further specificity is not possible with the data currently at hand. While helpful, the light that the lexical discussion throws on Moses’ face is not decisive by itself in settling the semantics of the passage. The point at which the phenomenon originates is also significant, being Moses’ conversation with Yahweh in which he reinstituted the covenant while revealing himself in an unprecedented way. A similar sequence of close divine presence leading to a shining face is repeated whenever Moses “went in before Yahweh to speak with him”, whether in the tent of meeting or (after Exodus 40) the tabernacle (JYJ[[PRN in 34:34 allows both possibilities).111 Both the experience of the theophany and the later oracular sessions before Yahweh seem to make Moses’ face shine, implying that its glory decreased after 105 Scolnic, “Horns of Power”. 106 Propp gives the references in “Moses’ Face”, 375–6. 107 S.L. Sanders, “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face”, VT 52 (2002) 400–6. 108 Sanders, “Old Light”, 405; unfortunately he does not explore the theological implications of his proposal. 109 Dozeman, “Masking Moses”, 26–7. More specifically, Dozeman sees the pre-P tradition relating Moses to divine revelation and the P material relating him to the kƗbôd-YHWH (38, 44). 110 Scolnic, “Horns of Power”, 577. Widmer notes the contrast between Moses at this point and the “horned and shiny” idol of the calf (Moses, 223). 111 The introduction of 34:34–35 by the infinitive construct points to a repeated practice (GKC 159k; see GKC 112e on the verbal syntax in the same passage).

130

Exegesis of Exodus 32–34

each session (cf. 2 Corinthians 3).112 If the assumption that the glory faded after each oracular hearing and was renewed upon the next occasion is correct, the face of Moses is a transitional index of divine presence until the completion of the tabernacle. By subsequent revelations outside the camp (where the tent of meeting remained) Yahweh reaffirmed his presence with Israel while reminding them of the importance of his word and Moses as its mediator and prefiguring his glorious presence among them in the tabernacle.113 With the second half of the sabbath frame immediately following this passage, Exodus connects the restored covenant and its glory with the assertion that work, even on the tabernacle, may not be done on the sabbath. As the introduction to the tabernacle’s construction, emphasizing Yahweh’s holy presence and the sacrificial system which safeguards it, the sabbath frame is concerned with highlighting Yahweh’s provision of rest for Israel even over and above the manufacture of his dwelling. Thus the sabbath frame complements the emphasis of 34:29–35, in which Moses’ Godderived and transitory glory stands as an index of God’s presence between the covenant’s restoration and the tabernacle’s becoming Yahweh’s abode. Sharing an emphasis on divine law (respecting the sabbath) and divine guidance (the outcome of Moses’ time in Yahweh’s presence), these two passages simultaneously remind Israel that her existence depends on Yahweh’s mediated grace and his free commitment to sanctify her.114

3 Summary and conclusions Summary and conclusions The golden calf episode deals largely with the polar opposition of beneficent divine presence and human sin, a tension that is inevitable in any relation that God makes with humanity outside Eden. Within a covenant context this becomes nearly paradoxical, since “divine presence demands 112 The concept of fading or being annulled (MCVCTIGY) appears in 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13, 14 with various nuances. Verses 7 and 13 describe the events of Exodus 34 as a FQEC which was fading from Moses’ face (with significant semantic overlap for the whole Sinai dispensation), drawing on the phraseology of Exod 34:29, 30 (LXX) where “the appearance of the skin of his face” (JQ [KLVQWZTYOCVQLVQWRTQUYRQWCW VQW) was “glorified” (perfect passive indicative [29] and perfect passive participle [30] of FQEC\Y). See V.P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 202–34; P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 178–92. 113 This understanding corresponds well with the primary contextual theme of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel as manifested by his presence among her, as well as with the more specific need for Israel to recognize Moses’ authority and her dependence upon his mediatorial function. 114 The focus on Moses as mediator of the divine message is highlighted by the seven-fold use of the root TDF, as Childs notes (Exodus, 617).

Summary and conclusions

131

covenant obedience”.115 The use of the golden calf as an immediate form of Yahweh’s presence is resoundingly rejected, and that sinful experiment has terrible effects on Israel, both in various judgments and in the fracture of the covenant. It is only through Moses’ mediation and Yahweh’s gracious reception of it that the possibility of divine presence is gradually reintroduced, and this is accompanied by forgiveness from Yahweh’s side and by repentance on Israel’s part. The shining of Moses’ face is a transitional element that, together with the subsequent reiteration of the sabbath commandment, bridges the account of the covenant’s restoration and the construction of the tabernacle. It is only by means of Yahweh’s covenant with her that Israel can again hope to enjoy his proximate presence and the sanctification and rest he had committed to give her. Immediately after the covenant is restored, Exodus reintroduces the apogee of the covenantal sanctification trajectory by repeating the sabbath command. The relation between the sabbath and the tabernacle will receive further attention in the following chapter, which will also explore the similar patterns seen in the sabbath (which points to the regaining of rest after the effects of sin are dealt with) and in Exodus 32–34 (from fractured to restored covenant by means of intercession and forgiveness).

115 Mann, Divine Presence, 153.

V. Hermeneutics, theology, and divine presence in Exodus 32–34

On the basis of the exegesis in chapter four we will now explore the theme of divine presence from two overlapping vantage points. First, the relation between the restoration of divine presence and the granting of forgiveness of sin will be considered.1 This will illuminate a subsequent investigation of the way that the tabernacle as the locus of divine presence in the Sinai covenant relates to the sabbath as that covenant’s sign, with its bearing on Israel’s sanctification by Yahweh. Reflections on Exod 32–34 Divine presence and forgiveness

1 Divine presence and forgiveness in Exodus 32–34 The permanent presence of God among his people was perhaps the most important benefit of the Sinai covenant (Exod 25:8; 29:45).2 The literary ordering of Exodus, however, introduces with shocking directness a reality which puts this presence in constant jeopardy: the sinfulness of Israel.3 As the sabbath represented the full fruition of the covenant as restful life with Yahweh once fully sanctified by him, the idolatry of the golden calf represented and enacted the opposite: some offenders’ complete destruction and the impossibility of life with Yahweh as a consequence of their critical nonsanctification.

1 As D.R. Davis notes, this is “the basic problem” in Exodus 32–34; “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34”, WTJ 44 (1982) 71–87, on p. 76. Throughout this study “presence” refers to God’s manifesting himself among his people for their good (especially in covenantal contexts), whether temporarily in theophanies or more permanently in the tabernacle. Thus we will not take up the concepts of God’s general “presence” or “hiddenness”, which lie more in the area of general revelation; on that topic see J.S. Burnett, “The Question of Divine Absence in Israelite and West Semitic Religion”, CBQ 67 (2005) 215–35. 2 S. Terrien has explored divine presence in the Christian canon in The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (Religious Perspectives 26; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978). 3 Thus W. Brueggemann’s aptly titled “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel”, in P.D. Miller (ed.), Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 150–82. Brueggemann focuses on the paradox of God being “present in Israel but hidden from Israel” but does not integrate Israel’s forgiveness in his discussion (169, his emphasis).

Divine presence and forgiveness

133

1.1 Intercession, non-cultic forgiveness and presence After its introduction in Exodus 32, this same tension between divine presence and its endangerment by Israel’s sin continues in the following chapter. On the one hand stands the tabernacle, which was to be built expressly to establish Yahweh’s permanent presence among the people. On the other hand stand the golden calf and Israel’s apostasy and idolatry, which have rendered Yahweh’s beneficent presence impossible. As we have seen, the resolution of this tension is a primary theme in Exodus 32–34, and its gradual realization is seen in the careful choice of the prepositions that specify Yahweh’s proximity to Israel. After Yahweh agrees not to destroy Israel immediately after their making of the golden calf, Moses, and later the Levites too, execute judgment on the offenders. The next day Yahweh speaks of his presence vis-à-vis Israel only negatively, with the verb FSR, so that when he “visits” Israel he will punish their sin (32:33–34).4 But beginning in chapter 33, Yahweh’s proximity to Israel takes on increasingly positive aspects: first he sends his angel in front of Israel ([PRN), then himself agrees to go with Israel (]) and finally among them (DTSD). This movement is matched by progress on the path to covenant reestablishment (see Table 2).5

4 Vriezen understands redemption and judgment as converse elements of God’s “communion” with humanity; see T.C. Vriezen, Outline of Old Testament Theology (Newton, Mass.: Bradford, 21970), 270–6. 5 This is argued briefly by Davis, “Rebellion”, 78; G. Barbiero notes the progression vis-àvis presence, but focuses on chapter 33 in his “Ex xxxiii 7–11: Eine synchrone Lektüre”, VT 50 (2000) 152–66.

134

Reflections on Exod 32–34

Table 2: Intercession, Presence, and Covenant in Exodus 32–34 Reference

Action

31:12–18

Yahweh establishes the sabbath as the sign of the Sinai covenant

32:1–6

People sin, breaking covenant

32:7–14

Yahweh threatens destruction

32:15–29

Moses punishes people’s sin twice

32:30–34

Moses attempts to atone for people’s sin

Response

Moses intercedes and God relents (]ZP) Yahweh says his proximity (FSR) will involve punishment

Interruption 1: Yahweh XIP Israel (32:35) 33:1– 33:11

Moses prays that God would forgive Israel (J Z + P)

Yahweh says his angel will go [PRN Israel

Interruption 2: People mourn/repent (33:4) Interruption 3: People desist/repent (33:6) Interruption 4: ǀhel mô!Ɲd (33:7–11) 33:12– 34:3

Moses intercedes, asking God to go with (]) Israel

Yahweh will go ]Israel

34:4–9

Moses intercedes, asking God to go among (DTSD) Israel and to fully restore her (ZNU, NZP)

Yahweh implies he will go DTSD Israel and reestablishes covenant

35:1–3

Moses charges people to keep the sabbath

Tabernacle construction

Here we will determine whether there was progression with respect to forgiveness in Exodus 32–34. We begin with Exodus 32:30, just after the punishments that were enacted immediately after Moses’ descent. Our task is complicated somewhat by the fact that this first passage describes Moses’ actions in several ways. While he tells Israel that he will ascend to God to see if “perhaps I can make atonement on your behalf for your sin” (32:30, ]MV ZFDJTRM [NY ), two verses later he asks God to forgive their sin (God as subject of Qal of P + J Z).6 In cultic contexts it is clear that when the expressions “atone” and “forgive” are used together, atonement is a prerequisite for forgiveness.7 Here, 6 For the English glosses used here, see esp. R.E. Averbeck, “TRM”, NIDOTTE, 2.689–710; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1079–84. 7 Averbeck, “TRM”.

Divine presence and forgiveness

135

however, it is dangerous to assume such a nuance since the literary genre is narrative rather than procedural instruction and the priestly atonement ritual has not yet appeared in the biblical text.8 Further, nothing intervenes between Moses’ announced intention and his actual petition to Yahweh, suggesting that the two expressions are equivalent in this context.9 Finally, the end of the same section shows that little has changed in the terminology used to describe forgiveness, and the variety of objects paired with P in Exod 34:7 (_Y,R, and J Z) effectively closes the argument against such a subtle distinction in Exodus 32–34. The progression here regarding forgiveness, if there is one, is not to be found in the vocabulary that describes Israel’s sin and God’s reaction to it. There is, however, an increase in the clarity with which Israel is associated with God’s gracious forgiveness of her sin in this passage, and this is coupled with a significant shift in Israel’s dispositions toward her sin and toward God. To begin in Exodus 32:30–34, the concept of forgiveness is conspicuously absent from God’s response to Moses’ attempt to deal nonpunitively with the people’s sin. On the contrary, God affirms that the one who sins will be blotted out of his book (32:33) and that he will visit the people’s sin upon them (32:34). But it is important to note that it is a representative request for forgiveness that God rejects here: “Moses cannot atone by the sacrifice of himself for a disobedience of which he is not guilty […]. No one save Yahweh himself can undertake to do what Moses here wants to do […].”10 The people’s attitude also plays an important role in the current crisis. The day before only the Levites had reckoned themselves as being “on Yahweh’s side”, and there is no sign in Exodus 32 that Israel regrets her sin. Exodus 33:1–11 introduces several indications of a change in the people’s disposition toward their sin. As seen earlier, the people responded to 8 F. Stolz suggests that God as subject of the Qal of P + J Z is semantically equivalent to both ZNU and the Piel of TRM (F. Stolz, “ P”, TLOT, 2.769–74). Widmer’s suggestion (Moses, 133) that in this context J Z + P should be rendered “bearing/enduring sin” seeks to respect the narrative’s development (in not seeing forgiveness granted immediately) but is difficult to maintain. It is probably better to distinguish between forgiveness as restoration of relationship via removal of sin on the one hand, and the removal of sin’s necessary consequences on the other. Even from a more comprehensive theological angle, Eichrodt can state that nearly all expressions of forgiveness, metaphorical or not, mean remission of guilt and restoration of relationship; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vol.; OTL; London: SCM, 1961), 2.457–8. See further C. Göbel, “‘Denn bei dir ist die Vergebung’: slh im Alten Testament”, Theologische Versuche 8 (1977) 21–33; C.-H. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum (WUNT 2/57; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993). 9 B. Janowski also translates both expressions in Exodus 32 with vergeben or Vergebung; Sühne als Heilsgeschehen (WMANT 55; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 143–4. 10 J.I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987), 432.

136

Reflections on Exod 32–34

Yahweh’s first speech by spontaneously abstaining from donning their ornaments.11 Subsequently they heartily obey, and remain obedient to, Yahweh’s command to jettison their ornaments. This obedience shows that Israel is having a change of heart about her behavior in light of God’s threatened punishment.12 In the same passage, although it is hardly good news, Yahweh’s pondering of Israel’s fate in the context of their repentance is at least less negative than the plague and punitive visit promised at the end of Exodus 32. In the tent of meeting passage (33:7–11) more positive elements (past or present) are introduced: Yahweh meets individual Israelites who seek his presence at the tent of meeting, and other Israelites worship Yahweh while witnessing such sessions. The next passage relevant to Israel’s forgiveness is the description of God in 34:7 as PJ ZYRY_Y, something which Moses immediately employs in his final intercession in 34:9, where he asks God to forgive (ZNU) Israel’s guilt and sin (_Yand J Z).13 The fact that Yahweh responds by reestablishing the covenant indicates his granting of Moses’ request. The elements that constitute Israel’s shift from unforgiven to forgiven in Exodus 32–34 are, then, in their textual sequence, God’s grace (in not consuming Israel immediately), Moses’ intercession, the Israelites’ repentance, and God’s gracious forgiving of Israel’s sin per Moses’ request.14 The fact that the element of forgiveness in the narrative develops concurrently with the progressive restoration of divine presence suggests that there is a significant connection between the two elements.

11 “In a setting of idol production, the non-use of the ornaments alludes to a general background of purification and renunciation.” M.R. Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain. Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 77, with reference to Exod 19:10–15; Gen 35:1–4; Isa 3:18–26. 12 A.M. Rodriguez reaches similar conclusions on this passage in his “Jewelry in the Old Testament”, in D. Merling (ed.), To Understand the Scriptures (FS W.H. Shea; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997) 103–25, esp. 115, 118. As such it fits the biblical pattern for repentance preceding forgiveness; cf. A. Schenker, “Sühne statt Strafe und Strafe statt Sühne”, in J. Blank/J. Werbick (ed.), Sühne und Versöhnung (Theologie zur Zeit 1; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986) 10–20, on p. 19. 13 Those who see Exodus 32–34 as composed of different sources due to the differences between Moses’ prayers (e.g., S.E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999], 142 n. 57) demand that the narrative show no development, hardly a likely goal of the author. See, for an analysis that follows the text’s diachronic markers and appreciates the dynamic and progressive nature of the interchange between Moses and God, M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2/8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 14 Cf. R. Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (Tools for Biblical Study 7; Leiderdorp: Deo, 2005), 63.

Divine presence and forgiveness

137

1.2 Summary of the dynamics of forgiveness in Exodus 32–34 The dynamic interplay of forgiveness and presence in Exodus 32–34 constitutes part of an answer to a very basic question in the Pentateuch: how, in light of God’s holiness, is his presence among imperfect humans even possible?15 Plainly, if God’s holiness were fully expressed and enacted, it would obliterate all that is sinful (Exod 33:3). The drama of redemption reflects another state of affairs, in which God in patience and mercy pursues those very people who rebel against him and offers reconciliation. But since his holiness continues unabated, it is necessary (lest those who are not fully sanctified be destroyed) that his presence be limited to specific environments, and that those who enter it do so with their sins covered.16 Exodus affords a number of insights as to how a perfectly holy God can dwell among those who are not perfectly holy. The golden calf episode is a foil for the tabernacle presence of God, and one of the sharpest points of contrast between these two modes of divine presence is the atonement of the people’s sin in the tabernacle’s cult as a prerequisite for continued divine presence: the golden calf completely erased this element. While Aaron built an altar before the calf and ensured that offerings were made, the people simply demanded divine presence without any conditions. Seen from this perspective, the sabbath frame is more than interruptive in its context, though in literary terms it is that. What the sabbath signifies in the Sinai covenant is diametrically opposed to the movement seen in the construction of the golden calf. Rather than seeing access to God as achieved by thrusting oneself before a mere representation of him without having one’s sins covered (and, to the contrary, in a context of unbridled disobedience), the sabbath reminds the reader that access to God must come about by virtue of his sanctifying work on the individual’s behalf. Thus there is a deep-rooted relationship between the tabernacle, which represents divine presence and forgiveness, and the sabbath, which represents sanctification. But in order to connect our discussion of these two entities, we must first clarify the relation of forgiveness of sin to sanctification.17 15 Cf. J. Gladson, “Higher than the Heavens: Forgiveness in the Old Testament”, Journal of Psychology and Christianity 11 (1992) 125–35, on p. 128. 16 The comments of J. Krašovec, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 789, are helpful: “The teleological structure of the universe – and particularly of every human being – means that human beings have been called to perfection since the creation. This vision makes God’s intervention even more natural if human beings are in danger of going morally astray […]. One of the most important postulates of the Bible is that God is free to forgive his people and to liberate them from the way of destruction” (Reward, 762). 17 Longer works on atonement in the OT include M.E. Biddle, Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005); J. Blank/J. Werbick (ed.), Sühne

138

Reflections on Exod 32–34

1.3 The relation of forgiveness to sanctification Since realised moral holiness or full sanctification are sin’s opposite, “sin disrupts holiness […] and alienates human beings from God and from one another […]. Apart from God, human beings cannot experience the divine blessing, peace, or wholeness.”18 Within the OT cult, forgiveness of sin is “the end result of making atonement for doing ‘what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands’ in Leviticus 4–5”.19 But was forgiveness available apart from the cult? The most common response to this query is exemplified by Milgrom, who relates prophetic repentance (which he suggests saw no need for sacrificial expiation) and priestly repentance (in which he sees sacrificial expiation as essential) on chronological and historical-critical grounds: Thus remorse (!shm) for inadvertencies and remorse plus confession for deliberate sins constitute the Priestly doctrine of repentance. It is not, however, equivalent to prophetic repentance. The prophets taught that repentance alone suffices to obliterate sin whereas the priests insisted that sacrificial expiation is essential. The comparison of the priestly and prophetic terms for repentance leads to a historical conclusion […] [that the priestly texts on sacrificial expiation] were composed before the exile.20

Though entering this discussion would prove distracting here, such a view oversimplifies the prophetic position, which targets the externalization of cultic observance rather than the cult’s inherent legitimacy.21 Further, as Milgrom himself wrote earlier, God is the essential component in the equation of forgiveness:

und Versöhnung (Theologie zur Zeit 1; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986); Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen; and A. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne: Wege gewaltfreier Konfliktlösung im Alten Testament; Mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament (BibB 15; Zurich: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981). Noteworthy articles include F.-L. Hossfeld, “Versöhnung und Sühne”, BK 41 (1986) 54–60; E. Nicole, “Atonement in the Pentaeuch: ‘It Is the Blood That Makes Atonement for One’s Life’”, in C.E. Hill/F.A. James III/R.R. Nicole (ed.), The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004) 35–50; Averbeck, “TRM”. The lengthy sections on hamartiology in R.P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 416–63, and in Eichrodt, Theology, 2.380–495, also merit mention. 18 Gladson, “Higher than the Heavens”, 133. 19 Averbeck, “TRM”. Here I avoid distinguishing moral from ceremonial obedience, since both types were commanded, and violation of either was addressed by a sin offering; see Averbeck, “V Z”, NIDOTTE, 2.93–103. 20 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 124–25. 21 For a fuller discussion of the issue, see J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 75–100.

Divine presence and forgiveness

139

Rituals are not inherently efficacious. This point is underscored by the sacrificial formula of forgiveness. Whereas the required ritual is carried out by the priest, its desired end, forgiveness, is granted solely by God, e.g., “the priest shall make atonement for him and his sin shall be forgiven him,” i.e., by God (Lev 4:24 and passim).22

Thus in the OT forgiveness of sins is graciously granted by God alone and cannot be compelled.23 This is equally true of cultic and non-cultic avenues to forgiveness, both of which serve to restore a violated relationship.24 Further, forgiveness is granted to those who are penitent.25 These points shed light on the dynamics of Exod 33:1–6, where the same realities appear. Those who are graciously forgiven by God, apart from cultic sacrifice, also repent and manifest a change of heart.26 Since moral sanctification is the positive counterpart of forgiveness, this latter point moves us toward the 22 J. Milgrom/A. Unterman, “Forgiveness”, in EncJud, 6.1433–35 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971). Vriezen (Outline, 281–2), after arguing the cult exists “to enable [God’s people] to maintain communion with Him by means of the atonement (Lev 17:11)”, resists the historical separation of cultic and prophetic means of maintaining relationship with God: “Particularly in Israel a personal communion with God is also possible without these external forms, as is especially evident in the figures of the classical prophets […]. Like every cult the cult of Israel is the visible expression of the inner nature of Israel’s religion.” 23 Hossfeld, “Versöhnung”, 54, is representative: “Gegenuber der umgangssprachlichen Verengung auf die individuelle menschliche Leistung betont er das gnädige Handeln Gottes.” 24 For examples from the prophets, see, inter alia, Amos 7:2; Dan 9:19 (both with ZNU); Isa 33:24 (_Y+ P); Isa 27:9 (_Y+ TRM [Pual] // J Z + TYU [Hif]). For more examples, see Kselman, “Forgiveness (OT)”. Restoration of relationship is perhaps the most useful way to describe forgiveness, though it does not exhaust the term’s meaning. 25 J. Barton, “Forgiveness and Memory in the Old Testament”, in M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog (FS O. Kaiser; 2 vol.; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 2.987–95, on p. 993; Milgrom/Unterman, “Forgiveness”, 1433; J. Goldingay, Israel’s Gospel (vol. 1 of idem, Old Testament Theology; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 419. 26 Sedlmeier, “‘Bei dir, da ist die Vergebung’”. This relation and the fact that atonement has God as its agent brings this study within the orbit of current discussion of soteriological justification in the “New Perspective on Paul”. That discussion is too large to enter here, but cannot be passed by either. In the context of this study it suffices to note two points. First, the New Perspective’s claim that Second Temple Judaism never portrayed one’s final (eschatological) vindication as flowing from one’s performance of the “works of the law” cannot be sustained; see the various arguments to this effect in D.A. Carson/P.T. O’Brien/M.A. Siefred (ed.), The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; WUNT 2/140; Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Baker Academic/Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Second, this study’s recognition of Yahweh’s role as Israel’s eschatological sanctifier (not to the exclusion of his work in the here and now) points, unlike some Second Temple literature and unlike Paul’s interlocutor in Romans, toward an eschatological resolution of the sin problem on the basis of atonement, something corroborated by the close connection between the sabbath and the tabernacle explored here. On eschatological vindication before and in Paul’s day, see S.J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); on Paul’s argumentation itself see, in addition to the literature already mentioned, S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), and contrast J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), esp. 334–89.

140

Reflections on Exod 32–34

sabbath’s sign-function, which reminded Israel of her sanctified standing and of her obligation to pursue moral sanctification.27

2 Tabernacle and sabbath The concepts of forgiveness and sanctification are related points on the same continuum, and their prominence in Exodus reminds us that to fully understand that book they must be duly appreciated.28 This study’s exploration of Exodus will conclude by seeing how its themes of tabernacle and sabbath may be appreciated as they relate to the triad of forgivenesssanctification-presence. Tabernacle and sabbath 2.1 The interrelation of sabbath and tabernacle in Exodus We are now in a position to draw together the themes we have traced within the sabbath frame and its context. The earlier chapters of this study explored the significance of the tabernacle and the sabbath in light of their being joined by the sabbath commands in Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3. The tabernacle, on the one hand, is essential to establishing God’s dwelling with his people, and is one element in the larger question of how God and Israel are to relate. Consequently, within the context of the Sinai covenant’s structures, cultic holiness was a prerequisite for experiencing and maintaining God’s beneficent presence. The sabbath, on the other hand, is the sign of Yahweh’s commitment to sanctify Israel, and complements the tabernacle. All holiness has its origins in the uniquely and originally holy Yahweh. It is he who calls Israel to himself and confers upon them, by virtue of his relation with them, a holy status (Exodus 19). But in the speech which constituted national Israel, Yahweh also made clear that their holy status cannot be separated from their obedience (Exod 19:5). Significantly, Yahweh chooses the sabbath, with its connotations of protology and gracious divine provision, as the sign of his commitment to be Israel’s sanctifier. 27 “Cleansing from sin is essentially a negative concept, though it makes possible a positive consecration to God: ‘consecration requires as the beginning of its actual fulfillment cleansing’.” D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 149, citing O. Michel, “Die Lehre von der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach der Anschauung des Hebräerbriefs”, TSK 106 (1934–1935): 333–55, on p. 341, his translation). 28 W.A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 156.

Tabernacle and sabbath

141

2.1.1 The typology of the Sinai covenant Drawing on the principle of typology enunciated in chapter one, we can say that the Sinai covenant represented typologically all the elements necessary to reconcile a holy God with an unholy people.29 But even though the Sinai covenant was an effective instrument to portray the main lines of how forgiveness of sin was to come about, it also had limitations. The decreasing glory of Moses’ face in Exod 34:29–35, immediately following the covenant’s restoration, suggests that the whole covenant with which he was associated had limitations relating to the manifestation of divine presence, something that in turn intimates that the problem of sin is not fully resolved by it either. 2.1.2 The sabbath frame and typology This typological, eschatological understanding of the Sinai covenant and its constitutive elements is supported by the literary function of the sabbath frame. The literary disjunction between the golden calf account and its tabernacle context expresses the tension that arises when God’s holy presence comes into contact with sinful humanity. But by bracketing the golden calf episode with the sabbath, the gravest sin imaginable is set in the context of God’s unchanging commitment to sanctify Israel. Significantly, however, while pointing to the eschatological trajectory on which the full solution to this problem lies, the sabbath frame remains just that – an eschatological foreshadowing of how God will finally dwell in uncompromised proximity with a fully sanctified people. The rest to which the sabbath pointed, since it is dependent upon a complete resolution of the sin problem, is contingent upon a future, final act of Yahweh. 2.1.3 Holiness and the tabernacle-sabbath relation With these points in mind we can better appreciate Brevard Childs’ insight on the relation of the tabernacle and the sabbath:

29 Note Davies’ suggestion that “there may in fact be a future-oriented dimension built into the priestly ideology. The sabbatical cycle points to ‘rest’ or realization […]” (Royal Priesthood, 149). This suggests that the typical view of priestly eschatology as cyclical may need revision; see, e.g., E.S. Gerstenberger, Theologies in the Old Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2002), 303. Lohfink’s assertion that the priestly system is moving from dynamism to stability (N. Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994], 120–5) seems better to reflect the elements discussed here.

142

Reflections on Exod 32–34

The observance of the sabbath and the building of the tabernacle are two sides of the same reality. Just as the sabbath is a surety of Israel’s sanctity (31:13), so the meeting of God with his people in the tabernacle serves the selfsame end (29:43).30

Childs understands that the tabernacle and the sabbath play a vital role in relating God to Israel under the Sinai covenant. But while their complementary relationship should be appreciated, Childs’ insight can still be refined. Specifically, the differentiation between cultic and moral holiness established above can inform his description of Israel’s sanctity as ensured by the sabbath and achieved by the tabernacle. As earlier chapters of this study have shown, despite Israel’s having been brought into relationship with Yahweh, the need exists for immense development of her relational and moral holiness, goals to which the sabbath pointed. Related to this is the tabernacle’s role in maintaining forgiveness of sins and cultic holiness. Tabernacle and sabbath together represent the full spectrum of holiness to which Israel was called and which Yahweh was committed to producing in his people.31 2.1.4 Genesis 1–2 and the tabernacle-sabbath relation The final chapter of Exodus sees the fruition of all that has come before, not only in chapters 25–40 but from the very beginning of the book. But Yahweh’s taking up his abode in Israel’s midst, as significant and unprecedented as that is, is hardly the end of the story.32 Here the significance of the echoes of Genesis 1–2 in Exodus 39–40 are important hermeneutical signposts. Yahweh’s presence among Israel, coming after (and indeed requiring) the forgiveness of Israel’s sin and the restoration of the covenant (not to mention the consecration [Piel of FS] of every item and person involved in the tabernacle, Exod 40:9–16), is described in terms that establish an analogy between the completion of the tabernacle and that of the cosmos. A number of exegetes have reflected on the significance of the ties between Exodus 39–40 and the first creation narrative.33 While not an exhaus30 B.S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 541. 31 The collocation of tabernacle and sabbath in Lev 19:30; 26:2 is significant if cryptic in itself, especially their direct connection with the covenant in Leviticus 26. 32 See the arguments made by G.I. Davies against truncating the trajectory of Exodus in “The Theology of Exodus”, in E. Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom (FS R.E. Clements; JSOTSup 300; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 137–52, esp. 149–51. 33 In addition to commentaries, see E.E. Elnes, “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environment’”, HBT 16 (1994) 144–55; B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5 (1990) 37–69, esp. on pp. 60–67; Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy”; A.C. Leder,

Tabernacle and sabbath

143

tive list, the following points should be noted: coming just before Exodus 40, the collocation of “see”, “all the work”, and “blessing” in Exod 39:43, the first such collocation since Gen 1:31–2:3, shows that the creation narratives are prominent in the author’s mind and connects that chapter to God’s blessing of creation (Genesis 2) and of Israel (Exodus 1). Within Exodus 40, the erection of the tabernacle on the first day of the year intimates that a new era is dawning. Further, the sevenfold repetition of “as Yahweh commanded Moses” not only shows the perfection of the assembly process but suggests the completeness of the tabernacle as the locus of Yahweh’s presence.34 Finally, from a conceptual standpoint “the enthronement of the covenant lord of Israel in the tent of meeting provides a community of God and humankind that the world has not seen since the first man and woman were driven from Eden”.35 While it is true that the tabernacle represents the cosmos in miniature, this observation does not exhaust the significance of the relation that these intertextual links establish. Further, unless a view of the tabernacle as a fullfledged return to Eden is qualified further, it fails to reckon with God’s response to sin, a reality that figures prominently both in the history of the tabernacle’s construction (i.e., Exodus 32–34) and in the operation of the cult at whose centre it stood.36 In fact, the presence of sin is the principal difference between the completion of the world in Genesis 1–2 and the completion of the tabernacle in Exodus 40. Thus the echoes of Genesis 1–2 with which Exodus closes, by paralleling the completion of the unfallen world with the completion of the tabernacle, establish the latter as the means by which the sinlessness of the former might once again be attained. This understanding of the tabernacle’s function also bears on a final aspect of the theme of divine presence in Exodus 32–34 and its context: the relation between creation and temple-building.

“Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus”, CTJ 34 (1999) 11–35; J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 21994); H.N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath”, Pacifica 1 (1988) 235–50; P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337–85. 34 Compare the seven sections in Exodus 25–31 demarcated by “Yahweh spoke to Moses” and the discussion of seven and seven-day sequences above. The number seven, especially beginning with the cult’s institution and the sabbath’s placement in the cultic calendar of Leviticus 23, connotes sanctification; cf. P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 194. 35 T.W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 112. 36 Janzen advances this view when he claims that “the tabernacle is a miniature model of the cosmos as God would have it be”. J.G. Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 269.

144

Reflections on Exod 32–34

2.1.5 Creation-temple and tabernacle-sabbath relations A wide selection of literature from the ANE shows that the most common motivation for temple building is the victory or enthronement of the god concerned. But while Hallo and others have noted that a similar pattern is found in Exodus, it is quite difficult to establish that motive as the primary raison d’être of the tabernacle in Exodus.37 Exodus certainly celebrates Yahweh as warrior, victorious over the Egyptians (Exodus 15). Likewise there is evidence that the tabernacle functioned as Yahweh’s war tent.38 But the explicit rationales given in Exodus for the tabernacle emphasize Yahweh’s desire to dwell among his people as their saving, forgiving, and ruling God.39 The motive for the building of the tabernacle in Exodus thus departs, in its emphasis on divine proximity and divine-human relationship, from the usual emphases of ancient Near Eastern temple-building accounts. Like the sabbath, “this evocation of Genesis 1 and 2 [in Exodus 39–40] suggests that a proper understanding of the coherence of Exodus is linked to the exposition of the fundamental conflict between God and humanity depicted in Genesis 1–3”.40 This thought can be developed one step further. Wallace has argued that in the creation story of Genesis 1–2, the construction of the heavenly sanctuary is not implicit but has been replaced by the motif of the divine rest.41 But rather than seeing rest as replacing the temple, it is possible that both elements are present. The creator God has finished the construction of his domain (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27; Isa 66:1), and is in a sublime rest even as he rules.42 Tabernacle and sabbath are conceptually joined not only in the sabbath frame, but as early as the first creation account.43 37 W.W. Hallo, “Exodus and Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, in W.G. Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (5 vol.; New York: UAHC, 1983) 2.xxiii–xxxiii, on p. xxxiii. 38 M.S. Suh, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003). 39 I suggest a different emphasis in Exodus, not a jettisoning of the kingship element, which is securely anchored in Exodus by its portrayal of Yahweh as lawgiver, to mention but one point. Divine presence, however, emphazes covenant life with God (once sin is dealt with) as Israel’s goal. 40 Leder, “The Coherence of Exodus”, 267. 41 Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3”. 42 Note the related correlation of God’s resting in the temple at Jerusalem and Israel’s recognition that he was her king; J.T. Willis, “David and Zion in the Theology of the Deuteronomistic History: Theological Ideas in 2 Samuel 5–7”, in B.F. Batto/K.L. Roberts (ed.), David and Zion (FS J.J.M. Roberts; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 125–40. 43 Pace von Rad, whose overly literalistic analysis of the concept of rest in the OT concluded that the OT and NT conceptions of rest have almost nothing in common, and that Deuteronomy understood it to be exclusively the land. G. von Rad, “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 94–102, esp. 101. Weimar (“Sinai und Schöpfung”, 366) similarly thinks that God’s rest in Genesis 2 nowhere comes to expression

Summary and conclusions

145

2.1.6 Summary of the tabernacle-sabbath relation In the two entities of the tabernacle and the sabbath we see a refined, multilevel response to the question of how Yahweh can dwell with sinful human beings. God’s unobstructed communion and presence with humanity was the goal of creation, but the entrance of sin meant that this goal could not be achieved apart from the resolution of sin and its consequences. The tabernacle is an intermediate point on the spectrum of God’s presence with humanity, partially because the problem of sin is not fully resolved by the mechanisms of Sinai covenant of which it is a part. Its association with the sabbath accentuates the expectation that God will act eschatologically to resolve his people’s insurmountable lack of full sanctification and bring those whom he forgives and sanctifies into the full enjoyment of his rest.44

3 Summary and conclusions This chapter opened by exploring the relation between forgiveness or sanctification and divine presence. These two themes were seen to increase in clarity and importance in the course of the narrative of Exodus 32–34. This movement was also, in the textual order of Exodus, a move from the sabbath command of 31:12–17 through the subsequent fracture of the covenant and its reinstitution to the successful establishment of Yahweh’s dwelling among Israel. This progression suggested that the relation of forgiveness to divine presence was analogous to that of the tabernacle to the sabbath, an idea that was explored in the second half of the chapter. Taking special note of the echoes of Genesis 1–2 in Exodus 39–40, it was argued that the sabbath-tabernacle pair, while functioning significantly and legitimately within the Sinai covenant, also carried typological significance for the completion of the aspects of redemption that they portrayed. As a result, this chapter builds a case for seeing an eschatological aspect in these elements of priestly thought.45 The following chapter will trace these lines through later biblical and extra-biblical pericopae. Summary and conclusions in the Sinai narrative. The conjunction of tabernacle and rest imagery in Genesis 2 is also an argument against a radical separation of Priestly and Deuteronomic conceptions of rest. 44 Given the sabbath’s clearer eschatology, which foresees the completion of the tabernacle’s ceaseless purifying function, Heschel’s classic description of the sabbath as a “sanctuary in time” requires further nuance; A. Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951), passim. Note also, in light of the emphasis in Exodus 31 on Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier, Heschel’s remark that on the sabbath “we try to dominate the self” (idem, 1). For an evaluation of his view as a whole, see T. Watson, “Is Heschel’s Sabbath Biblical?”, AUSS 40 (2002) 265–72. 45 Weimar is among those who appreciate the protology and eschatology in Exodus 40 (“Sinai und Schöpfung”, esp. 383–5).

VI. This study’s themes in subsequent Jewish and Christian literature

While this study has focused on the sabbath frame texts and their immediate context, it has also interacted to a significant degree with the remainder of the Christian canon and with literature outside it.1 In this chapter we will first look at two sections of later Scripture that integrate and develop a number of the prominent elements in Exodus 31–35. Then we will turn to the question of why, if the study’s position on the early date of the Priestly material and its understanding of the sabbath frame are correct, the creation-tabernacle-sabbath triad does not appear with more frequency in the later biblical materials, the prophets in particular. Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

1 Creation, temple and sabbath in Isaiah 65–66 Given the foci of this study it is possible to limit ourselves to these chapters’ relation to the themes seen in Exodus, and so to largely exclude from consideration questions of the book’s unity, the dating of Isaiah 65–66, and Isaiah’s place among the prophets.2 These issues will be raised here only insofar as they are involved in understanding the portion of Isaiah’s theology that interests us, and the focus on the text as it stands (including any compositional features) will remain our method. Creation, temple and sabbath in Isaiah 65–66

1 Some of the reasons for adopting such a view of the canon are formulated by G. Goldsworthy, “‘Thus Says the Lord’: The Dogmatic Basis of Biblical Theology”, in P.T. O’Brien/D.G. Peterson (ed.), God Who Is Rich in Mercy (FS D. B. Knox; Homebush, Australia: Lancer, 1986) 25–40; K.J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), esp. 367–468. For a moderate example of such an approach to Isaiah, see R.F. Melugin, “Reading the Book of Isaiah as Christian Scripture”, SBLSP 35 (1996) 188–203. 2 Studies in these areas can be found in compilations of Isaianic studies such as R.F. Melugin/M.A. Sweeney (ed.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) and C.C. Broyles/C.A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997). See also the methodological survey and observations of R.R. Wilson, “Current Issues in the Study of Old Testament Prophecy”, in J. Kaltner/L. Stulman (ed.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (FS H.B. Huffman; JSOTSup 378; London: T & T Clark, 2004) 38–46.

Creation, temple and sabbath in Isaiah 65–66

147

The last two chapters of Isaiah constitute Yahweh’s reply to the prophet’s prayer in chapter 64.3 Without nullifying the correspondence between the beginning and end of the book, these chapters have a note of eschatological finality that is missing from Isaiah 1.4 After describing the refractory character of the majority to whom Yahweh’s word came, Isaiah 65 describes both the judgment that will come upon them and the vindication and deliverance that God will work for the faithful. Yahweh promises to carefully direct his eschatological actions so that those who are not guilty will not be punished but rather multiplied and blessed (esp. Isa 65:8). At the end of chapter 65 the description of the deliverance God will effect for his people is cast in terms of a new creation (65:17–25).5 This section is introduced by a phrase that occurs only here in Isaiah ([PPJ[M), and Oswalt rightly stresses the newness of this final deliverance with respect to all that came before.6 Isaiah 66 treats another aspect of Yahweh’s recreative work, the relation of his former dwelling in the temple to what will come afterward. The temple, which Isaiah sees as being in ruins (cf. 63:18), is contrasted with the cosmic scale of Yahweh’s throne. The interrogative force of 66:1 suggests that the locus of Yahweh’s rest neither was nor is (ultimately) in the temple. The subsequent critique of the hypocritical temple cult contrasts true and false worshippers of Yahweh, and false adherents are punished even as Yahweh simultaneously spreads his glory throughout the earth, attracting the Gentiles to the recreated temple (66:19–23).7 Even from this brief and unavoidably reductionistic summary it is clear that there is significant thematic overlap between the Exodus material explored above and the end of Isaiah. Extending lines begun in Exodus, Isaiah sketches in bolder strokes the final establishment of God’s dwelling with humanity and the renewal of the cosmos.

3 See the literature on the relation of 65–66 to their context in M.A. Sweeney, “Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66”, in C.C. Broyles/C.A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1.455–74. W.A.M. Beuken, “Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 204–21, explores some aspects of these chapters’ correspondence with the book as a whole. 4 See the comments of D. Carr, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah”, JSOT 57 (1993) 61–80. 5 See U. Berges, “Der neue Himmel und das Neue im Jesajabuch: Eine Auslegung zu Jesaja 65:17 und 66:22”, in F. Postma/K. Spronk/E. Talstra (ed.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy (FS H. Leene; Amsterdamse Cahiers, Supplement Series 3; Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2002) 9–15. 6 J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 655. 7 See A.E. Gardner, “The Nature of the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 66:22”, ABR 50 (2002) 10–27.

148

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

1.1 Full forgiveness and holiness Coming to expression through judgment upon the wicked and preservation of those whom God has made faithful, the connection between forgiveness and divine presence seen in Exodus 32–34 is fundamental to Isaiah’s message. Isaiah 40–55 has already introduced the resolution of the problem of sin, sometimes using SFE-language (Isa 53:11; cf. also 51:5; 62:1), but at the book’s end the sin problem and its resolution are still central: “Entrance to this heaven [of Isaiah 65] that Trito-Isaiah looks for comes about only through an act of God. That act is his act of forgiveness.”8 As we saw in Exodus, forgiveness and sanctification are complementary and related concepts. Therefore it is not surprising that a strong emphasis on Yahweh’s transformation of sinful men and women into faithful worshipers is integrated with the theme of forgiveness in Isaiah 56–66. Oswalt argues that in the sections 59:15b–21 and 63:1–6, Yahweh the divine warrior comes […] to defeat the persistent sinning that makes it impossible for the chosen servants to be a light to the nations […]. He intends to realize the promises of purity and holiness of 4:2–6 in order that the predictions of a mission to the world in 2:1–4 may become a reality.9

Oswalt also demonstrates the complex relation of the SFE-language in Isaiah 56–66 to that language earlier in the book. Whereas in chapters 1–39 “the overwhelming number of occurrences [of SFE-language] has to do with behavior which is according to moral standards”, chapters 40–55 introduce a strong emphasis on the righteousness of God, who in response to his people’s cries for deliverance “remembers his promise and acts rightly in regard to it”. Oswalt contends that in chapters 56–66 these two are brought together: righteous human conduct is shown to depend on and devolve from Yahweh’s righteous deliverance of his people (cf. esp. 56:1), and Yahweh shows himself to be the one who forgives and sanctifies his people.10

8 G.A.F. Knight, Isaiah 56–66: The New Israel (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 100. 9 J.N. Oswalt, “The Book of Isaiah: A Short Course on Biblical Theology”, CTJ 39 (2004) 54–71, on pp. 57–8. 10 J.N. Oswalt, “Righteousness in Isaiah: A Study of the Function of Chapters 56–66 in the Present Structure of the Book”, in C.C. Broyles/C.A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1.177–91.

Creation, temple and sabbath in Isaiah 65–66

149

1.2 Full divine presence In Isaiah 65–66 Yahweh’s forgiveness of his people’s sin and empowerment of their righteous behavior are part of a larger complex of salvific deeds. Prominent among them is the establishment of his cosmic temple.11 Recalling from our study of the Garden of Eden that locale’s unique combination of moral probity, divine proximity and the prospect of sharing God’s rest, it is indeed significant that Isaiah 65 echoes Genesis 1.12 But in contrast to both Eden and the sabbath frame material, the context for Isaiah’s oracles is the universality of Yahweh’s temple, something only hinted at in both of the earlier contexts.13 In Isaiah 66 God’s assertion that his dwelling place is not in the Jerusalem temple may seem to reverse the advances in divine proximity achieved by his taking up residence first in the tabernacle and later in the First Temple. But here localized modes of presence are not merely undone, but replaced and superseded. God’s presence with his people in the new heaven and new earth will be more pervasive and more proximate than was possible with any of the prior arrangements, be it Eden, the tabernacle or the temple. To note but one example, Isa 65:25 summarizes 11:6–9, itself a description of the fullness of life that will attend the establishment of Yahweh’s “mountain” throughout the earth.14 The influence of Isaiah upon the ending of John’s Apocalypse further demonstrates the significance of Isaiah’s development of eschatological divine dwelling theology.15

11 While there is abundant evidence in the ANE that earthly temples had “cosmic dimensions”, a striking element in Isaiah 65–66 is the merging of the heavenly and earthly temples. See V.A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 335–7. 12 D.M. Russell notes the presence of the hendiadys “heaven and earth” as well as the use of TD in both passages; The “New Heaven and New Earth”: Hope for the Creation in Jewish Apocalyptic and the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Apocalyptic Literature 1; Philadelphia: Visionary, 1996), 75. 13 On the cosmic scope of Yahweh’s actions, see W.M. Fanwar, “Creation in Isaiah” (Ph.D. diss.; Andrews University, 2001). 14 See J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6–9”, in F. García Martínez/A. Hilhorst/C.J. Labuschagne (ed.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls (FS A.S. van der Woude; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 31–42. 15 S.-J.T. Wu, “A Literary Study of Isaiah 63–65 and Its Echo in Revelation 17–22” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995), esp. ch. 5.

150

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

1.3 The revelation of God’s rest Consequent to the provision of full righteousness, Isaiah is able to collocate two concepts which Exodus kept somewhat separate: the enjoyment of rest and the establishment of the divine dwelling. Whereas in Exodus the sabbath is literarily joined to the tabernacle by concluding the instructions for its fabrication and assembly, the eschatological manner in which Yahweh breaks into time and space in Isaiah 65–66 sees God in his kingly rest (JZYPO) coming down to dwell among his people.16 This is particularly salient in light of the eschatological nature of the rest promised by the Sinai covenant. Whereas God had promised to give his people rest, their experience once in the land of Canaan proved to be cause for punishment, something Isaiah knew only too well (63:11–14, followed by a lament in 63:15– 18).17 But in Isaiah 65–66 the problem of sin that eventually saw Israel expelled from the land has been definitively dealt with by the new deeds of Yahweh (cf. 59:21; 61:8). Several points emerge from these brief forays into Isaiah’s closing chapters. First, the correspondences between the ways in which Exodus and Isaiah treat the problem of how God and his people can have fellowship demonstrate that there is a fundamental unity to their understandings of the human situation. God’s gracious commitment to his people sees him call them to himself, deal with their sin, and manifest his presence among them. 16 While in this context the enjoyment of Yahweh’s rest by his people is implicit, the intimation is still present that with the establishment of Yahweh’s cosmic temple, those who worship there will likewise share in his rest. The reference to the sabbath in 66:23 does not appear to be connected with the rest element described above. As elsewhere in Isaiah, the noun refers to the weekly day of rest that is to be properly observed per the Decalogue (cf. 1:13; 56:2, 4, 6; 58:13; Isaiah uses the verb only in the sense of “stop, cease”, and not “keep sabbath”). Thus its appearance in 66:23 (note also the collocation FZ + VD that frames the book, here and in 1:13) seems to be an instance of OT language in its normal sense (the weekly day of rest) describing the consummation. See further L. Ruszkowski, “Der Sabbat bei Tritojesaja”, in B. Huwyler/H.-P. Mathys/ B. Weber/K. Seybold (ed.), Prophetie und Psalmen (FS K. Seybold; AOAT 280; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2001) 61–74; B. Gosse, “Les rédactions liées à la mention du sabbat dans le Deutéronome et dans le livre d'ésaïe”, ETR 70 (1995) 581–5. This is not to say, however, that other aspects sabbath concept are absent from Isaiah 56–66; one need think only of the Jubilee passage in 61:1–9, which is carefully examined by J.A. Sanders in “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4”, in C.A. Evans/J.A. Sanders (ed.), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 46–69. Note also the collocation of the concepts of sabbath, the transformation of the temple and the establishment of God’s eschatological mountain in 56:1–8. More suggestively, B.D. Sommer has pointed out the intertextual links between 56:1–8 and Exodus 31:12–16 (involving the verb VTMP, the root DTS, and the word pair ]NYV[TD); see e his A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 150. 17 Oswalt’s reasons for maintaining a form of ZYP rather than JZP in 63:14 (in addition to the MT’s ZYP being attested by 1QIsa) are convincing; see The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, 603.

Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Second Temple literature

151

Second, together with these correspondences Isaiah manifests several developments beyond the perspective of Exodus. For example, insofar as the tabernacle in Exodus was to be a miniature of the cosmos, Isaiah sees the divine dwelling’s dimensions radically extended to comprehend the cosmos itself. Again, Isaiah sees the final resolution of the sin problem, the full enjoyment of divine presence, and the sharing of God’s rest as coming about through his eschatological provision of righteousness rather than by the continued operation of the cult. After a brief survey of Jewish literature during the Second Temple period, a short exploration of these themes in the book of Hebrews will confirm that they are also prominent trajectories in Christian biblical theology.

2 Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Jewish Second Temple literature The sabbath and the closely related concept of rest appear frequently in the non-canonical literature of Second Temple Judaism and are the object of significant and varied theological reflection and development.18 Though these documents lie outside the canonical bounds of this study, they remain historically relevant points of comparison and are invaluable in establishing the context for the development of biblical thought.19 Some of the most relevant sources predating the destruction of the Second Temple are the Book of Jubilees, the Qumran community’s Damascus Document, and some of Philo’s reflections.20 Even this small selection can not be treated in

18 The number of potential sources is enormous. Outside those to be considered here, some of the more relevant sources dating from the Second Temple period are 1 Enoch 45:3–6; T. Levi 18:9 (possibly an interpolation; see R.H. Charles, Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1908], xlviii–li); and 4QFlor 1:7–8. From after the Second Temple, note 2 Baruch 78–86, 4 Ezra 8:52 (which describes rest in terms of a new creation), Josephus Ant. 12.6:2, 14.4:2. It is quite possible that a good deal of the material underlying Mishnah Sabbat, Tosefta Shabbath, and Genesis Rabbah on Gen 2:1–3 (e.g. Gen Rab 17:5 sees the Sabbath as the antitype of the world to come; cf. 44:17) was extant during this period; for an introduction to the Mishnah’s understanding of rest and sabbath see J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part 5: The Mishnaic System of Appointed Times (SJLA 34; Leiden: Brill, 1983), esp. 15–18. 19 For a definition of this term and methodological reflection on its use in biblical studies, see G. Oegema, “Non-Canonical Writings and Biblical Theology”, in I.H. Henderson/G.S. Oegema (ed.), The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (JSHRZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher 2006) 491–512. 20 Though an important element in the discussion, the LXX will not be considered here since it follows the Hebrew Bible much more closely than the other documents noted here. See J. Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference

152

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

depth in this context, but a brief survey of these sources and their treatment of the rest-sabbath concept will provide helpful insight on the material in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles treated in this chapter.21 Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Second Temple literature

2.1 Jubilees The Book of Jubilees, which imaginatively retells Genesis 1–Exodus 19, accords the highest possible prominence to the sabbath.22 First of all, the topic frames the book.23 Further, in his opening discussion of the first creation account the author contends that God and his angels observed the first sabbath on the seventh day.24 On that same primordial sabbath God elected Israel, made the sabbath a sign of his relation with them (it is given only to Israel, 2:31), and enjoined Israel’s observance of it (Jubilees makes the sabbath law the first law God gives by omitting Gen 1:28). Genesis 2:1–3, which includes a description of God’s rest, and the sanctification and blessing of the day, was transformed in Jub. 2:24b–33 into a legal precedent obligating Israel in the observance of the Sabbath. The Sabbath of creation in Gen 2:1–3 was thus transformed from a universalistic day of rest into a particularistic day, reserved for Israel, as in Exod 20 and 31. The Sabbath of creation as a precedent for the earthly Sabbath is thus not the invention of Jubilees. Rather, its innovation lies in the retrojection of God’s covenant with Israel to the beginning of time.25

There is a high degree of correspondence between Jub 2:1, 17–33 and Exod 31:12–17, as van Ruiten has shown. In both the sabbath is to be “kept” as a “sign” which is “holy” and which has a bearing on the people’s sanctificato Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 77–101 for a helpful treatment of the topic. 21 An excellent survey focused on the theme of rest is found is Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”; on the sabbath in this period, see also S. Kubo, “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 57–69. 22 Probably dating between 168 and 140 BCE: it must have been written before the earliest copy of Jubilees from Qumran, before the Qumranite documents that refer to it, and before the Qumranites went to Qumran (since Jubilees does not reflect their stronger sectarianism), but after the commencement of the Maccabean revolt, of which the author clearly knows. 23 Cf. L. Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees”, in M. Albani/J. Frey/A. Lange (ed.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 179–205. 24 While the verb VD occurs here as well as in Genesis 2, Jubilees is a “rereading of the creation account in the perspective of the sabbath practice advocated” by its authors (Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath”, 192). Therefore VD in Jubilees most likely means “to keep sabbath”, unlike Genesis 2. 25 M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 282.

Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Second Temple literature

153

tion, while its breaking is to be punished by death.26 Jubilees develops the sabbath’s connection to creation in a novel way by making it a “sign” not only of the covenant with Israel but also of cosmological-calendrical order, as it shares the designation of “great sign” with the sun.27 This correspondence between earthly and cosmic phenomena and sabbaths lends credence to James M. Scott’s contention that Jubilees’ sabbath theology is represented under an “on earth as in heaven” theme.28 As God and the two highest classes of angels keep the Sabbath in heaven (2:18, 21), so the faithful observe it on earth.29 Jubilees also makes explicit God’s completion of his work on the sixth day rather than using the ambiguous language of Gen 2:1–3 (Jub 2:16, 25). Jubilees interacts aggressively with its milieux, whether Greek or Jewish. As Doering shows, the less polemical halakhic law lists upon which Jubilees draws are now part of a more polemical work that is determined to resist the intrusion of “Hellenism […] into cultic areas”.30 As regards other forms of Judaism around it, the participation in heaven’s cult via Israel’s sabbath observance is nothing less than a circumvention of the Temple as the locus of divine presence and atonement: Israel’s community with God on the sabbath is mediated through its celebrating the sabbath together with the higher angels: ‘and to be keeping sabbath together with us [i.e., the higher angels]” (4QJuba vii 13, corresponding to Jub 2:21). Accordingly, every sabbath keeper ‘will be holy and blessed throughout all times” like these angels (2:28). Thus, Israel’s holiness is realized in its cultic community with the angels on the sabbath.31

According to Jubilees, Israel can be where God is through the intermediary agency of the highest angels, and the question of sin is relegated to secondary status. This formulation of divine presence also shifts its locus from renewed creation and cosmos to an extra-cosmic heaven. With its angeli26 J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “The Relationship between Exod 31,12–17 and Jubilees 2,1.17– 33”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction  Reception  Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 567–75, on p. 572. 27 Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath”, 192. 28 J.M. Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 91; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 2–3. 29 Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath”, 185–6. Since God has delegated worldly affairs in part to the lower classes of angels, he and the higher angels can refrain from work on the Sabbath without the world falling into disorder. 30 Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath”, 202. Cf. O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees”, in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, 2.38: “The matter of vital importance about which the author of Jubilees wishes to instruct his contemporaries is the necessity of strictly obeying the Law in the critical age in which they are living.” This is quite plausible in view of its dating to the middle of the second century BCE. 31 Doering, “Concept of the Sabbath”, 187.

154

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

cally-enabled, supra-mundane experience of divine presence, Jubilees enunciates a theological system quite different from that of Exodus, Isaiah, or other books of the Hebrew Bible. 2.2 The Damascus Document Coming somewhat later than Jubilees, the Damascus Document shows a similar concern for the heavenly origin of the sabbath as one of the “hidden matters” which God revealed to the faithful remnant (3.14).32 It assumes that the temple is defiled (4.18, 6.12, etc.), though it still exerts a sanctifying influence on Jerusalem (12.1–2). The document establishes clear distinctions between its world view and that of Second Temple Judaism at large, as appears from its resolute description of the fate of apostates (8.1– 2, 5–9) and its articulation of a halakhah dependent on its own revelation: The laws governing the life of this group, then, are regarded as Mosaic torah, and a distinction is made between the written scriptural text which the New Covenanters share with historical Israel and its fuller explication in the laws of the group, which are called YTR (6:14). The scriptural torah is also called JNIP (‘revealed’) while the torah of the D sect is TVUP (‘hidden’).33

It likewise enjoins very strict observance of the sabbath day “in accordance with its regulation”, enumerated at length in 10.14–12.18. In light of Exodus’s emphasis on Yahweh as Israel’s sanctifier and the centrality of the tabernacle’s sacrificial cult in her relationship with him, CD’s gloss of Lev 18:5 is doubly interesting for connecting the observance of sabbath commands with eschatological life. But with those who remained steadfast in God’s precepts, 13with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel for ever, revealing to them 14hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray: his holy sabbaths and his 15 glorious feasts, his just stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of his will 32 CD cites Jubilees as authoritative (CD 16.3–4), and estimates for the date of its initial composition range from mid- to late-second century. See H.W.M. Rietz/J.M. Baumgarten/J.H. Charlesworth, “Damascus Document 4Q266–273”, in J.H. Charlesworth/H.W.M. Rietz (ed.), Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 3; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 2006), 2–3, for the former scenario and Wintermute, “Jubilees”, 42, for the latter. Though there are very possibly distinct strata in the document’s legal section (roughly 6.11b–14.17a), we can treat the document synchronically in this context. See C. Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 21 and passim, who suggests strata of halakah, community organization, miscellaneous halakhah, and miscellaneous traditions and redactional material 33 P.R. Davies, “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document”, in J.M. Baumgarten/ E.G. Chazon/A. Pinnick (ed.), The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 27–43, on p. 33.

Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Second Temple literature

155

which 16man must do in order to live by them. He disclosed (these matters) to them and they dug a well of plentiful water; 17and whoever spurns them shall not live. (CD 3.12b–17a)34

Simon J. Gathercole has highlighted the parallelism between the obedience “in order to live by them” (CD 3.16) and disobedience with the consequence that one “shall not live” (3.17) and properly points out that it establishes a contrast between those who will acquire “eternal life” and those who will not (3.20).35 While forgiveness of sins also plays a role in salvation (3.18), the element of obedience as a basis for one’s eschatological vindication stands in tension with atonement and forgiveness, and is an element not yet seen in the biblical formulations involving creation, tabernacle and sabbath.36 2.3 Philo Philo (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE) is perhaps the latest intertestamental voice which speaks to the question of the sabbath. Most characteristic of Philo is his penchant for mixing Judaism and Middle Platonism.37 When he applies himself to the sabbath, his argumentation makes reference to “the meaning of the number seven, to the universal significance of the Sabbath as the birthday of the world, to the philosophical meaning of resting, and to the equality and freedom to which it points”.38 Thus in On the Life of Moses 34 F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden/ Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 21996). 35 S.J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 100–2. 36 Jubilees gives its own interpretation of the human situation by reformulating the origin and effects of sin, especially by assigning a secondary role to human sin prior to Genesis 6. See J.C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees”, in E.G. Chazon/M.E. Stone (ed.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 151–70. 37 D. Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 72–3. Philo’s dependence on philosophy was not uniform, however: P. Borgen contends that “from the Platonic tradition he takes over the distinction between the ‘forms’ or ideas and the visible world, and between soul and body. From the Pythagoreans come speculations on numbers.” See his “Philo of Alexandria”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984) 233–82, on p. 256. For Philo’s relation to Middle Platonism see D.T. Runia/G.E. Sterling (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. IX (1997): Wisdom and Logos (BJS 312; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), esp. 95–155. 38 Kubo, “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period”, 67. See also J. Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), esp. 53–100. The sabbath is treated by Philo (the following is not an exhastive list) in De vita Mosis 1.37; 2.22, 39, 209, 211, 213–20, 263; De specialibus legibus 2.15, 16, 42, 48, 49, 56–60, 62–64, 66–67, 194,

156

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

2.210–11 Philo explains the cosmic role of the seventh day such that Moses “recognized in [the seventh day] the birthday of the world, a feast celebrated by heaven, celebrated by earth and things on earth as they rejoice and exult in the full harmony of the sacred number [seven]”.39 But Weiss demonstrates that Philo connects the symbolic and practical aspects of the Sabbath and makes use of arguments other than philosophy, especially the Tannaitic tradition and the importance of consistent practice of Jews vis-àvis their Hellenistic milieu. Indeed, Philo took the death penalty for sabbath violation quite literally.40 This pairing of practical and metaphysical concerns gives Philo’s sabbath position a bifocal character, so that while Philo holds that “the Seventh day is meant to teach the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings”, he can go on to argue that the Sabbath should still be kept as a joyful feast in full accord with the Mosaic legislation, without kindling fires, etc.41 Philo’s sabbath is a humanitarian observance that is simultaneously of cosmic significance as the day on which all creation, including even plants and animals, rests. It is a day which reveals the eternal in time. Philo’s practical treatments of the sabbath generally follow the biblical material via a literal hermeneutic, while his probing of its origin and significance reveal a more philosophically-normed interpretation which makes selective use of the Old Testament. Philo thought that God created the world of “forms” on the first day, and the visible world on the other five days of his creative work.42 However, Philo bypassed the covenant sign function of the sabbath, and its restriction to Israel, in favor of seeing its universal character and arguing on that basis for the superiority of the Mosaic law.43 Philo did not notably develop sabbath theology per se, but his thinking on the biblical theme of rest was significantly influenced by Platonic concepts, which in turn colors his understanding of the sabbath in

250–51; Legum allegoriae 1.2–6; De opificio mundi 30–31, 33–43, 89, 128; De fuga et inventione 31; De Abrahamo 5, 28–30; De cherubim; De decalogo 97–102, De somniis 2.123, 149; De migratione Abrahami 90–93; De agricultura 174–80; De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 111. 39 De vita Mosis 2.210. 40 H. Weiss, “Philo on the Sabbath”, Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991) 83–105. J. Milgrom has shown, in the context of Philo’s treatment of Leviticus, that Philo was certainly capable of sober, literal, and historically-situated exegesis, though he may not have practiced it often; “Philo the Biblical Exegete”, in D.T. Runia/G.E. Sterling (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. IX (1997): Wisdom and Logos (BJS 312; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 79–83. See at greater length P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 41 On the Migration of Abraham 89–93; On the Life of Moses 2.213–20. 42 See, e.g., On the Posterity of Cain, 64–65; cf. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria”. 43 Weiss, “Philo on the Sabbath”, 104.

Sabbath and rest in non-canonical Second Temple literature

157

some cases. This will be important in our evaluation of the use of some of the same themes in the Letter to the Hebrews.44 2.4 The relevance of non-canonical literature for this study This survey, necessarily brief, still succeeds in showing the diversity which characterized Second Temple Judaism, both on the systematic level and in connection with the themes of sabbath and rest more particularly. For fringe groups like the Essenes, sectarians like the Qumranites, and mainstream philosophers like Philo alike, the sabbath and the concept of rest proved fruitful as means for expressing their thought in a variety of connections. In a way that anticipates some facets of the thought of the epistle to the Hebrews, some of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha show movement toward an eschatological sabbath rest in a supramundane place.45 Yet as we have seen, the way that one gains entry to this rest varies widely, and in the case of Jubilees this movement cannot easily be termed salvation since sin has been displaced from the centre of anthropology. Still, whether one sees the Priestly literature of the Hebrew Bible as early or late, it is clear from the history of Early Judaism that the Sabbath gained an unprecedented standing with Palestinian Jews as a prominent part of religious observance and social identity.46 As a result, diversity also characterizes the relationship of these materials to their milieux. While sabbath conceptions were related to both quotidian matters of moral observance and sophisticated, transcendent understandings of the origin, salvation, and eschatology of the cosmos, each tradition established different links between these elements, and did so for different reasons. The epistle to the Hebrews is a classic example of a document that, while unshakably rooted in the Hebrew Bible, still differentiates its conception of rest, salvation, and the ultimate goal of the cosmos from the Judaisms around it. An investigation of that letter’s development of the creationtabernacle-sabbath triad will complete our tracing of the sabbath frame’s primary theological components in the biblical period.

44 Laansma concludes that Philo’s understanding of the concept of rest “appears to have been completely redefined and to have assumed as its conceptual center ideas taken over en bloc from Platonic philosophy” (“I Will Give You Rest”, 121). 45 Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”, 106, 111. 46 L.L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), 141.

158

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

3 Rest, tabernacle and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews To focus this discussion we will limit ourselves to the categories of sacred space and sacred time already discussed in chapter two and previously used in our study of the sabbath frame, since they are, mutatis mutandis, used extensively by Hebrews itself.47 This section will notice in particular the way that these two spheres are made to overlap, especially in Hebrews 3–4. Since Hebrews does not demand that we treat the topics of forgiveness, tabernacle, and rest in a particular order, we will take them in the general order that we have seen in Exodus, beginning with the forgiveness of sins and then considering God’s rest and the modes of his presence. 3.1 Sacred space, the tabernacle and forgiveness in Hebrews In Hebrews the OT tabernacle is a prior instantiation of sacred space that is now superseded by another sort of tabernacle or sacred space. This distinction between two tabernacles introduces Hebrews’ assumption that there are two spheres of reality, one consisting of this cosmos and another that is “not of this creation” (9:11). While a number of explanations have been given for this paradigm, tracing it to Merkabah mysticism, Philo, or Plato, the most satisfactory analyses recognize Hebrews as representing a recognizable form of Jewish apocalyptism.48 Correspondingly, the epistle’s conceptual framework is dualistic in both space and time.49 Hebrews gives special attention to the tabernacle as the locus of atonement, and its evaluation of the Levitical priesthood is inseparable from this discussion since the latter functioned within the tabernacle. Since the main points of Hebrews’ argument regarding the OT sacrificial system are well Rest, tabernacle and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews

47 M.E. Isaacs speaks of Hebrews’ “preoccupation with sacred space” in her Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), on p. 61; M. Rissi notes that in Hebrews “die Welt Gottes vor allem als himmlisches Heiligtum vorgestellt” in his Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs (WUNT 41; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 37. 48 The numerous proposals for Hebrews’ conceptual milieu are reviewed by G.H. Guthrie, “Hebrews in Its First-Century Contexts: Recent Research”, in S. McKnight/G.R. Osborne (ed.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Baker Academic/Apollos, 2004) 414–43, esp. 425–40; C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989), 170–81. 49 Guthrie, “Hebrews”, 429, notes that current research has established that Jewish apocalyptism was “highly spatial, focusing on the distinction between the heavenly and the earthly realms”. Isaacs similarly notes the distinction it made between the here and the hereafter, stressing the successive nature of the ages which underlies the dynamism of such Jewish eschatology (Sacred Space, 59–61).

Rest, tabernacle and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews

159

known, we can summarize them here: “the cultic priests and sacrifices are many (7:23), repeatedly the same, tainted by sin (7:27; cf. 5:3 and 9:7), impermanent, limited to this earth, and unable to deal with sin or offer access to God”.50 In the context of the epistle’s argument, the question of access to God’s presence cannot be fully settled by the Levitical system (or, of course, by the tabernacle in which it operated) per se. Thus the tabernacle, though it indeed granted access to God’s presence, did not ultimately open the way to him (9:8–9). In fact, says the author of Hebrews, its rituals testified to the fact that it was, by itself, unable to do so.51 The ultimate solution to the problem of sin, Hebrews argues, lies outside this cosmos in the “true” tabernacle, a tabernacle that is reflected in the Mosaic structure but which, both in location and function, is altogether on another plane.52 The effectiveness of the sacerdotal work accomplished in it distinguishes the true tabernacle from its predecessor: only in the true tabernacle did Christ sit down after having purified for sins (1:1–4; 9:11–15; etc.).53 The link between entry to the true sacred space and full forgiveness could not be closer in Hebrews, since Christ’s entering (G KUGTZQOCK) the heavenly tabernacle was made possible by his sacrifice.54 50 A.N. Chester, “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice”, in S.W. Sykes (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 57–72, on p. 63. Note R.E. Averbeck’s suggestive analysis of the OT cult on its own terms: “The Day of Atonement was, in essence, an annual decontamination and reinauguration of the tabernacle system for the nation, both the priests and the people alike”; “TRM”, NIDOTTE, 2.689–710. 51 Cf. his similar judgment of the message conveyed by the OT rituals, 10:1–4. But to deny that “the blood of bulls and goats” really forgave sins is not to deny that true forgiveness was available to those who came to God through the Levitical system, though Heb 9:15 (cf. 11:39–40) explains that this was granted on the basis of Christ’s as-yet-future work. 52 While the emphasis of Hebrews is on the superiority of the true tabernacle to its Sinai counterpart, it is important not to undervalue the Sinai tabernacle on that account. The pattern according to which the Mosaic tabernacle was constructed (V[PDV, Exod 25:9, 40; cf. also Exod 26:30; 27:8; Num 8:4; 1 Chr 28:19) was, per Heb 8:5 (cf. also 9:23), reflective of “the true heavenly tabernacle that was to come later with Christ and descend and eventually fill the whole earth”; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 295. 53 To look more closely at only one of these passages, the verbal syntax in the opening of the epistle (1:1–4) accentuates the fact that both the old and new orders come from God (the first finite verb G NCNJUGP in 1:2 echoing NCNJUCL, the cognate participle in 1:1) and the fact that the new order ushered in by Christ’s work is definitive and final, as the second finite verb shows (G MCSKUGP, 1:3). Both facets, expressing discontinuity within continuity, are necessary to properly appreciate the relation of the earthly and heavenly tabernacles. 54 “The cross, interpreted in sacrificial terms, was not merely prior in time to Christ’s heavenly exaltation; cultically it was the essential prerequisite of his entry into heaven’s sacred territory.” Isaacs, Sacred Space, 181. On the significance of G KUGTZQOCKin Hebrews, see P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/ Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993), 234–6. While to enter God’s rest is to enter the heavenly sanctuary, the tense and aspect of the verbs still is distinctive, so that Isaacs (Sacred Space, 218) can say “[RTQUGTZQOCK] remains the language of approach rather than attainment. Only Jesus has

160

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

By virtue of Christ’s work the way into God’s immediate presence is open for those who believe in him (6:20). The epistle sees in Christ’s entry into the heavenly tabernacle the resolution of the tension we noted at numerous points in this study between humanity’s need to be restored to God’s presence and the impediment its sin posed to that goal. “This death is the true and unique sacrifice once and for all, the true and unique effective or permanent atonement of sins, and […] the removal of the separation between earth and heaven.”55 Whereas the Sinai covenant and its cult provided an external cleanliness (9:13) and access to God’s carefully guarded presence in the tabernacle, the purification that devolves from Jesus’ death deals permanently with sin (10:2, 10, 14, 17–18) and opens the way into God’s very presence.56 As in the Sinai covenant “the kapporet [was] the point of intersection of heaven and earth in the sanctuary”, so in Hebrews the heavenly tabernacle as the locus of atonement becomes the path from earth to heaven.57 Reflection on the conceptual parallels between Exodus and Hebrews corroborates the suggestion in earlier chapters that the goals of the Sinai covenant, especially Israel’s full sanctification and entry into Yahweh’s rest, could not be attained by means of its own cult’s mechanisms without reference to something outside them. Here Hebrews’ emphasis on “perfection” is helpful, for that concept implies both the validity of the earlier system as well as its dependence upon something at once analogical but superior.58 This relationship is very closely related to the definition of typology articulated in chapter one, which stressed the need to relate the type to both the prototype and the antitype. In Hebrews, however, this must be modified somewhat when considering the tabernacle, since the contrast between the old and new is emphatically bipartite: the antitype is the prototype.59 It is entered (G KUGTZQOCK, 6:20; 9:12, 24, 25) the presence of God.” The use of the present tense form of G KUGTZQOCK in 4:3 should certainly be translated “are entering” in light of its paranetic context. 55 E.W. Stegemann/W. Stegemann, “Does the Cultic Lanugage of Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems”, in G. Gelardini (ed., with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 13–23, on p. 19. 56 “Hebrews 9:28 argues from the efficacy of Levitical atonement on the merely ritual level, providing ‘purity of the flesh,’ that the antitype does away with sin and makes it possible for us to receive the promised inheritance.” H. Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement”, JETS 47 (2004) 629–45, on p. 641. 57 I. Willi-Plein, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis”, in G. Gelardini (ed., with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 25–35, on p. 31. 58 Cf. D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 59 See Heb 8:5; cf. Exod 25:9, 40; also M. Wilcox, “‘According to the Pattern (tbnyt) …’: Exodus 25:40 in the New Testament and Early Jewish Thought”, RevQ 13 (1988) 647–56.

Rest, tabernacle and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews

161

striking that Hebrews’ concept of perfection works in concert with both typology and the relocation of sacred space in contrasting the two tabernacles. Isaacs’s comments are illuminating: It is with relocation that Hebrews is principally concerned. Working within a traditional Jewish framework of space, the author is not attempting to dispense with all ideas of associating the holy with locality; he is re-locating the holy.60

Put otherwise, when compared with the concept of sacred space as typically derived from Mircea Eliade, Hebrews largely transcends the concept. Whereas sacred space in religious studies is the entry into our world of the other, Hebrews stresses the movement in the other direction, toward the heavenly tabernacle which is not of this creation (the earlier construction of the earthly tabernacle per the pattern of the heavenly moved in the other direction). This is particularly effective rhetoric that enables the author to dispense once and for all with the earthly sacred space of the tabernacle/ temple. Further, whereas Eliade’s view of sacred space saw it as permanent, the OT tabernacle/temple could (and, in the removal of God’s presence prior to the exile, did) continue as sacred space even though its raison d’être, the divine presence, had departed.61 By contrast, the heavenly tabernacle is both perfectly holy and the locus of full divine presence, and is therefore incomparably superior. The same relocation is seen in Hebrews’ treatment of the theme of rest. The fact that Hebrews makes the cult’s sacred time and sacred space reflective of preexisting heavenly realities simultaneously increases our esteem for the types and facilitates understanding of their replacement by the proto/antitypes. 3.2 Sacred space, sacred time, and rest in Hebrews The rest which believers are called to enter in Hebrews 3–4 has been well explored in scholarship, and it is not necessary to retrace most of that discussion.62 Debate has often centred on whether MCVCRCWUKL denotes a place 60 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 82. 61 P.P. Jensen, “Holiness in the Priestly Writings of the Old Testament”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 93–121, on pp. 106–9. 62 See especially H.W. Attridge, “‘Let Us Strive to Enter the Rest’: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11”, HTR 73 (1980) 279–88; S. Bénétreau, “Le Repos du Pèlerin (Hébreux 3,7–4,11)”, ETR 78 (2003) 203–23; J. Brand, “Sabbath-Rest, Worship, and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Celebrating the Rule of Yahweh”, Did 1/2 (1990) 3–13; D.A. deSilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews”, TJ n.s., 21 (2000) 25–43; O. Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972); Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”; A.T. Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the

162

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

or a status, and on when believers enter this MCVCRCWUKL. Both these questions intersect the topic under consideration here, but they will be approached from the vantage point of how sacred space relates to rest and sacred time in Hebrews. As Hebrews understands it, rest preceded everything except the events of creation itself (Heb 4:3–4). Working from the LXX of Genesis 2, the author of Hebrews infers from MCVCRCWY (Gen 2:2) that there is a MCVCRCWUKL.63 But the connections between the texts involved here run deeper than this lexical link: Laansma notes that three terms are shared between Gen 2:2 and Psalm 95, and they also figure prominently in Hebrews 4: G TIC, JOGTC, and MCVCRCWUKL.64 No less importantly, there is ample evidence in the OT of links between sabbath, rest and temple, themes which are present to one degree or another in Gen 2:2. The divine rest of Genesis 2 intersects soteriology, and thus Hebrews’ hearers, by means of Psalm 95.65 This rest could have been entered by faith during the wilderness generation (3:8–11, 16–19; 4:2), at the time of the conquest (4:8), and at the time of Psalm 95’s composition.66 The striking element of Hebrews’ argument, building on the fact that God’s rest antedated all three of these eras, is the distinction that it makes between God’s true rest and its previous representations.67 This appears from the fact that Hebrews exhorts its readers, for whom entry of the land or the temple is a moot point, to enter God’s rest “today”, while Hebrews 4:4 equates the rest that the wilderness generation did not enter with God’s own rest. In effect, New Testament”, in D.A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 197–220; E. Lohse, “UCDDCVQP, UCDDCVKUOQL, RCTCUMGWJҡ”, TDNT, 5.1–35; J.H. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998). 63 Because the author to the Hebrews calls his believing readers to enter the divine rest as the ultimate goal, that same rest could also be seen as the goal for creation pre-fall, an idea explored by Beale, The Temple and the Church; G. Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (ed. J.T. Dennison, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2001), 73–76; and W.J. Dumbrell, “Genesis 2:1–17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation”, in S.J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) 53–65; W.A. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 42–51, esp. 46–8. 64 Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”, 261–4, 349–58. 65 See on this aspect of the discussion especially P.E. Enns, “Creation and Re-creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13”, WTJ 55 (1993) 255–80. 66 H.-F. Weiss thinks Exodus 17 and Numbers 14 the most important in the background of our pericope (Der Brief an die Hebräer [KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 151991], 260). Enns (“Creation”, 264–7) and Laansma (“I Will Give You Rest”, 259–64, following Hofius) conclude that Numbers 14:26–35 is more likely the background than Exodus 17 or Numbers 20. 67 “Thus in Hebrews Canaan is only a way station en route to the heavenly Jerusalem. This is noticeably different from Jewish apocalyptic writings which look forward to a heavenly renewal of the earth.” Isaacs, Sacred Space, 86.

Rest, tabernacle and forgiveness perfected in Hebrews

163

Hebrews claims that although God’s rest was symbolized and experienced by life in the land, this was not the true rest – that is only entered by faith. Once the identification of the rest of Genesis 2 and the promise of Psalm 95 has been made (Heb 4:1–8), the author of Hebrews tersely states his conclusion: “there remains therefore a UCDDCVKUOQL for the people of God” (4:9). Entrance to the divine rest remains a possibility until the end of “Today” – until such a time, the door to rest remains open, as it were (4:6). 6CDDCVKUOQL, occurring only here within the NT, has spawned a sizable literature, and several facets of its meaning require attention: what is it, who enters it, and when is it entered? Scholars have proposed a variety of opinions ranging from Ernst Käsemann’s claim that it refers to the Gnostic Pleroma to Buchanan’s view that it represents a narrow slice of Christian speculation.68 Laansma has argued carefully for defining UCDDCVKUOQLin terms of “festive worship and praise”, an understanding quite compatible with the epistle’s other portrayals of the same eschatological apogee (cf. 12:22), and we will adopt this sense here.69 The question of who enters this UCDDCVKUOQLand when remains difficult, however. Some spiritualize the rest spoken of here, due in part to speculation on the Psalm’s Sitz im Leben. Thus Georg Braulik avers that when “today” Israel accepts in faith their status as God’s people and sheep, “dann wird Gott sie ‘zu seiner Ruhe kommen’ lassen”.70 Others preserve a physical, eschatological aspect while maintaining that present enjoyment of the same is possible by faith.71 We have argued above, however, that the care that Hebrews exhibits in using RTQUGTZQOCK and G KUGTZQOCK strongly favors seeing believers as in the very process of entering that rest: in the very doorway, as it were.72 In the argument of Hebrews 3–4, then, 68 Drawing on H. Weiss, “Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews”, CBQ 58 (1996) 674–89. 69 Despite its apparent relevance, sacred time is not a useful category in understanding the contribution of Hebrews 3–4 since (as noted in chapter two, above) the HB (and NT) conceives of it in a way that differs markedly from Mircea Eliade’s, which sees most sacred time as cosmic, regenerative, and periodic. It must be remembered, however, that he excepts Christianity from his generalization: “Judaeo-Christianity makes an innovation of the first importance. The End of the World will occur only once, just as the cosmogony occurred only once […]. Time is no longer the circular Time of the Eternal Return; it has become a linear and irreversible Time” (The Myth of the Eternal Return [Bollingen 46; New York: Pantheon, 1954], 64–5). But that definition too fails to align with the perspective of Hebrews, which does in fact see the original rest as coming full circle at the end of time. 70 “Gottes Ruhe: Das Land oder der Tempel?”, in E. Haag/F.-L. Hossfeld (ed.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn (FS H. Groß; SBB 13; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987) 33–44, on p. 44. 71 S. Bénétreau, “Le Repos”. 72 See deSilva, “Entering God’s Rest”. Since an aspectual verbal theory is preferable, note that while the unbelieving Israelites did not enter (aorist denoting the bare fact), those to whom Hebrews is addressed have yet to fully enter (note the present tense-form MCVCNGKRQOGPJL in 4:1). The audience of Hebrews is portrayed as at a critical junction, in the very process of entering it – “they are moving across the very threshold, and need only move forward to enter” (deSilva, 32).

164

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

human experience of UCDDCVKUOQLis the equivalent of entering God’s MCVCRCWUKL. “Hebrews includes in God’s ‘rest’ far more than simply a notion of entry into the land. It is to be in the very presence of God – and hence located in heaven.”73 In this way the movement back to Eden hinted at in the first tabernacle is realised by means of the second.74 3.3 Sacred space and sacred time as rest in Hebrews From what has been said immediately above it is evident that in Hebrews there is, as in Isaiah, the development of ideas and relations that we earlier identified in Exodus (and, in some cases, in Genesis). But Isaiah and Hebrews, while both describing the consummation of God’s redemptive actions, remain distinct from one another in how they do so. Whereas Isaiah portrayed Israel’s full sanctification and the revelation of God’s full presence in her midst under the terminology of the cosmos recreated as a temple, Hebrews goes in another direction and speaks of the removal (OGVCSGUKL, Heb 12:27) of all that can be shaken (certainly including this cosmos as we know it) in order that the final, unshakable order of things might be established. For the purposes of this study perhaps the most striking facet of Hebrews’ theology is the way that it speaks of the final destination of believers as both the heavenly tabernacle and the UCDDCVKUOQLwhich overlaps with the rest of God.75 While in the OT cult sacred time and sacred space were well established and distinct categories, they were also part of an overarching cultic system that enabled Israel to relate to the presence of Yahweh in her midst.76 Thus it is not surprising to see them combined in Hebrews’ For a defense of verbal aspect theory in NT Greek, see S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages: Greek 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). 73 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 83. To these considerations could be added the “heavenly calling” mentioned in 3:1 and the fact that the land is contrasted with a “heavenly country” in 11:16 (as Isaacs points out, idem, 207). 74 Cf. W.J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 49. 75 This identification suitably explains the otherwise puzzling disappearance of rest terminology from Hebrews; the concept is simply described from other perspectives. Attridge’s evaluation is judicious, stating that “the general motif of the divine rest” does not reappear after chapters 3–4 (Hebrews, 131). This is not the same as saying that they bear no relation to the heavenly tabernacle, as when Wray contends that “‘rest’ remains an undeveloped and unsustained theological metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews because ‘entering into the rest’ has not become a part of the christology of the writer of Hebrews” (Rest, 91). 76 E.g., F.H. Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status”, in M.P. Graham/ W.P. Brown/J.K. Kuan (ed.), History and Interpretation (FS J.H. Mayes; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 47–64.

Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets

165

description of the cult’s consummation. As the echoes of Genesis 1–2 in Exodus 39–40 suggested, the eschatology of Exodus is informed by the protology of Genesis, which sees the initial creation prior to sin symbolizing and serving as the medium through which permanent enjoyment of creation’s purpose would be realised. This is a relation quite similar to Hebrews’ contention that the “sabbath celebration” of believers in heaven is identical to entry of God’s rest. Exodus has also suggestively, if only tentatively, connected human enjoyment of divine presence with that of rest (Exod 33:14; also the juxtaposition of sabbath and tabernacle generally).77 Hebrews has drawn these lines to their conclusion, and indeed wrapped them together into one reality: believers’ enjoyment of God’s rest in his heavenly sanctuary through the perfect atonement achieved by Christ.78

4 Is the creation-tabernacle-sabbath link absent from the Hebrew writing prophets? The passages from Isaiah and Hebrews treated above were chosen specifically because they took up the tabernacle-sabbath theme, so it was not surprising to observe close links between their developments of it and its origins in Exodus. But two challenges are sure to be raised against the interpretation of Isaiah advanced above and against the study’s orientation in general. First, the understanding of Isaiah as developing certain Priestly elements requires that the Priestly material antedate Isaiah 65–66, but it is quite common to see Isaiah as roughly contemporary with the Priestly circle’s activity.79 Likewise, the study has consistently taken the Sabbath frame as being near the beginning, not the end, of various canonical trajectories. Second, even if one grants for the sake of discussion that Exodus antedated the writing prophets, the rarity with which the creation-tabernacle-sabbath pattern reappears in biblical books dating between the writing

77 See “Weariness, Exile, and Chaos: A Motif in Royal Theology”, CBQ 34 (1972) 19–38, esp. 23–4. 78 “Der Ruheort ist im Hebr personal verstanden: er bedeutet die vollendete Gemeinschaft mit dem Gott, der mit den Seinen feiern wird” (Rissi, Die Theologie, 128). 79 E.g., P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1975), 45–6, suggests that Isaiah 56–66 includes material from immediately after the exile and later (chs. 60–62 being the earliest, chs. 65–66 among the latest), while J. Blenkinsopp is quite confident that at least Isaiah 65–66 comes from the century before Alexander’s conquests and has strong ties to those influenced by Ezra; A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and enl. edn; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 216, 220–1. P.R. Davies, Scribes and Schools (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), favors seeing most prophetic canonization as taking place during the Hellenistic period (70–3).

166

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

prophets and the exile seems to argue against the significance attached to it here.80 Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets While the same could be said for the Deuteronomistic History or “former” prophets, the absence of this study’s themes from that corpus is much less surprising given the increasing distance between Israel’s experience and covenant consummation. As a cursory reading of those books shows, the rest that made appropriate the construction of the Solomonic temple was as unambiguous as it was short-lived (1 Kgs 8:56). Conversely, the prophets’ frequent presentations of Israel’s eschatological future and the covenant consummation that would accompany it (given certain conditions) make that corpus a prime source for descriptions that would parallel or overlap the creation-sabbath-tabernacle link explored here. The question of the relevance of dating for articulating the relationship between the Priestly material and Isaiah will be treated as part of the exploration of the apparent absence of this study’s theme from the prophetic books. 4.1 Relevant characteristics of the writing prophets Whatever dates and motives might be assigned to the writing prophets, it is clear that they saw themselves as proclaiming the divine word to their contemporaries.81 And despite uncertainty regarding the manner in which the prophetic materials were committed to writing and entered the canon, the main lines of their message as covenant-based critique and proclamation of Yahweh’s eschatological saving and judging are plain.82 Both these facets of the prophetic message are relevant in evaluating the absence of the sabbath-tabernacle link from their writings. Their function as covenant prosecutors from the early eighth century until the exile means that the creationtabernacle-sabbath complex, so closely connected to the pristine purity of the initial creation and later manifestations of divine presence connected to 80 Apart from a number of references in Isaiah and Ezekiel (in Jeremiah, only ch. 17), the sabbath is mentioned only in Hos 2:11 and Amos 8:5. 81 P.D. Miller, “The World and Message of the Prophets: Biblical Prophecy in its Context”, in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 508–25, on p. 514. 82 For a survey of recent theories on the books’ formation, see R.R. Wilson, “Current Issues in the Study of Old Testament Prophecy”, in J. Kaltner/L. Stulman (ed.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (FS H.B. Huffman; JSOTSup 378; London: T & T Clark, 2004) 38– 46. For the main lines of the prophets’ theology, see R.E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon”, in G.W. Coats/B.O. Long (ed.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 42–55, who recognizes the diversity of the prophetic writings but argues that they still share a common emphasis on present judgment and future salvation.

Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets

167

rest, was not merely displaced by other emphases but quite simply removed from Israel’s present experience because of her covenant infidelity. The soberingly comprehensive lists of covenant curses that appear in the Pentateuch are unmistakable threats to remove these elements from her covenant live with Yahweh (Lev 26:14–39, and note the elements of creation, tabernacle, and sabbath in 26:1–13; Deut 28:15–68). As a result, unless Israel and Judah in and after the period of the divided monarchy were to manifest a change of heart (something only too rare in her experience, e.g., Isaiah 1), only divine intervention of a special sort could create the propensity for obedience and fidelity that would lead to full enjoyment of the covenant’s blessings. 4.2 Covenant consummation in the writing prophets Still, the sinfulness of the majority of Israelites and Judahites merely removed rest from their immediate horizon, not necessarily from their future. God’s gracious commitment to do his people good hardly removed his ability to punish their sin in sometimes drastic ways, but its dominant expression lay in the expectation of an eschatological work of (judgment and) salvation that would purify his people and see the covenant’s highest hopes realised. These two elements account for the presence of both judgment and salvation oracles throughout the prophetic corpus.83 With this in mind we are now in a position to compare the representations of the covenant’s fruition in the prophets with the Pentateuchal creation-tabernacle-sabbath complex noted in this study. This section will treat a variety of oracles given by different prophets at different points in Israelite history to ensure that the discussion is reasonably representative of the prophetic treatment of this subject.84

83 R.E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM, 1965), 25. 84 Cf. C. Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 14–18. For the reasons stated above, especially the location of the writing prophets in redemptive history, the oracles of salvation in the former prophets will not be considered; see Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation, 20–35, for a useful treatment of them. On writing prophets’ depictions of restoration, note the claim of K. Schmid and O.H. Steck that one can “recognize the essential aspects that unify the multiplicity of ideas about the expectation of salvation and the aspects that offer a coherent, comprehensive image of that which God’s people had experienced and that which lay before them.” “Restoration in the Prophetic Literature”, in J.M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 41–81, on pp. 47–8.

168

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

4.2.1 Amos 9:11–15 In discussing the redactional history of Amos we need concern ourselves only with the approximate date of its final oracle. While Blenkinsopp asserts that its content “matches the hopes entertained by different circles during the exilic and early Second Temple period and could not have been part of the book before that time”, he gives no other reason for this judgment than the similarity of the two corpora.85 In light of the book’s use of material from the assumed core of Deuteronomy, such a claim requires significant development before it can be accepted.86 It is therefore safer to place the book in the pre-exilic period on the basis of its self-description to that effect.87 As the last section of the book, the restoration described in 9:11–15 is particularly significant. Although zealously applying the covenant sanctions, especially that of exile (9:4), Yahweh also graciously preserves a remnant who did not reject his prerogative to purify and judge his people (9:8–10). Though Amos had previously used the oracle’s opening phrase ( YJJ]Y[D) only in the context of judgment, here the other side of God’s eschatological actions comes into view. The restoration is first described in terms of the Davidic monarchy, which will be reestablished and subsequently serve the purpose of making the Gentiles Yahweh’s people (9:11– 12).88 The echo of the promise to Abraham sounded by the verb T[ underlines this element’s redemptive historical background (cf. its frequent use throughout Deuteronomy and Joshua with reference to the conquest of Canaan) but also the role of the Davidic monarchy in its realization. The second and final promise of salvation is introduced with][ D][O[, also used only negatively in Amos until now. The contents of this promise, predicated upon the return from exile and the purification of the people (cf. 9:9–10), fall in two spheres: agricultural fecundity each year and permanent possession of the land (i.e., throughout the years).89 Both elements are grounded in the covenant: the phraseology of “planting and drinking” and “building and inhabiting” (9:14) inverts the covenant curses of Deut 28:30, 85 Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 77. 86 For convenience I follow Driver’s classic identification of the redaction history of Deuteronomy, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (International Theological Library; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 91913), 71–103. This evaluation is still quite common, as D.T. Olson shows, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 119–23. 87 See, for an extended argument for appreciating the historical setting of a biblical prophetic book “on the terms of its own biblical presentation”, C.R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), on p. 247. 88 J.J. Niehaus, “Amos”, in T.E. McComiskey (ed.), The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (3 vol.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 1.315–494, on p. 492. 89 J.L. Mays, Amos (OTL; Westminster: Philadelphia, 1969), 166. The phrase [VDYVYDV in 9:14 means “to end the exile of” (cf. Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; 30:3; Ezek 16:53; Hos 6:11; Joel 4:1; Zeph 3:20).

Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets

169

39, and the wording and sense of 9:13–14 closely resemble the covenant blessing of Lev 26:5. In light of the close ties between the land of Canaan and Eden as the centre of the newly created world it is safe to say that the element of creation from Exodus 31, 35 is here present under the guise of the fruitful land and is an essential element in the covenant’s consummation.90 While Amos 9:15 may at first glance seem simply to continue this line of thought, its connection with the promise of permanent, peaceful possession of the land under David makes it dependent upon the rest David enjoyed from his enemies (2 Sam 7:1, 10).91 While the Deuteronomic concept of rest is conceived of in especially spatial and national terms (divinely-procured absence of military opposition within Canaan, Deut 12:9–10, though this is clearly dependent upon fidelity to the covenant, as both Deuteronomy and Joshua make clear) and the Priestly concept is mapped especially with time and spiritual disposition (trust in divine provision obviates the need for human exertion one day in seven), the two presentations express a common dependence upon Yahweh to provide prominent covenant blessings. While more nuance could be added to both of these conceptual summaries, enough semantic overlap is present to allow us to state that Deuteronomic and Priestly rest are distinct motifs that have compatible and complementary content.92 While creation and rest are present in this oracle, an emphasis on divine presence in the Temple is notable for its absence. Amos’s negative evaluation of cult places generally, and of Bethel and Gilgal particularly (the former most likely being referred to in 9:1, cf. esp. 3:14; 5:5; 7:9, 13), may have led him to avoid language and conceptions tied to Israelite or Judahite cultic sites, but there is a more demonstrable reason for this: throughout Amos the theme of (legitimate) divine presence is not cultic but relational. The relational aspect is repeatedly expressed by reference to God’s past actions on Israel’s behalf (e.g., 2:9–11; 3:2), and the connection between the two appears in God’s call for Israel to abandon her high places and seek him (5:5–6).93 The book’s closing oracle, though it leaves the theme of divine presence in the background, does so only to a limited degree because of its understanding of divine presence as relational, and the relationship 90 In addition to the frequent description of the land as “flowing with milk and honey”, see esp. Deut 11:9–12; Exod 3:7; Num 14:7; perhaps Ezek 31:1–10. 91 Cf. Josh 21:44; 23:1 for earlier, provisional instances of this rest. Rest from enemies is also connected with centralized worship (Deut 12:10), the command to obliterate the Amalekites (Deut 25:19) and Solomon’s building of the temple (1 Chr 22:9, 10). 92 See J.G. McConville, “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature”, in J.M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 11–40. 93 Given Amos’s dour evaluation of Judah (e.g., 2:4–5; 6:1; etc.), this is not likely a call for Israelites to worship in Jerusalem.

170

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

described in 9:11–15 is healthy enough to accord well with parallel theological constructions involving more explicit divine presence elsewhere in the canon. 4.2.2 Zeph 3:9–20 Attempts to date Zephaniah tend to follow the Sitz im Leben suggested by the book’s superscription (1:1), locating it before or after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian empire according to their acceptance or rejection of predictive prophecy (cf. 2:13–15).94 The book’s scope includes Judah and Jerusalem as well as the nations, of which examples are taken from the west, east, south, and north of Judah (2:4, 8, 12, 13). All of them are affected by the Day of Yahweh, an eschatological event that includes both judgment and deliverance, and all of them will experience both its aspects.95 Appropriately, both salvation and deliverance are present in the book’s final oracle, which constitutes the last half of chapter three.96 Its content, which announces and builds on the return from exile, bears significant similarities to the sequence of divine presence–divine sanctification–covenant consummation seen above in Exodus 32–34 and its eschatological complement in the sabbath frame. First, Yahweh purifies his people, Jew and Gentile alike (3:9), by removing evildoers from her midst (3:11b) and by making her sinless (3:13).97 He settles his legal case against Israel (RO) and as king removes her enemies (3:15), then dwells with her (3:15, 17; cf. 2:7) as she worships him (3:10) and “grazes and lies down in perfect safety”, something very near the concepts of rest and life more familiar in cultic contexts (3:13).98 94 See Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 114; B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 458. 95 See J. Barton, “The Day of Yahweh in the Minor Prophets”, in C. McCarthy/J.F. Healey (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Essays (FS K.J. Cathcart; JSOTSup 375; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004) 68–79. 96 The transition from the oracle of judgment against the nations to the oracle of salvation for Judah is clear in 3:10, and unmistakable in 3:11 by virtue of the second-person pronouns. It should probably be seen as beginning in 3:9 (so D.H. Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 [Biblical Interpretation Series 13; Leiden: Brill, 1995]) on the basis of the \ -[M which heads that verse. 97 Purification in order to offer acceptable worship may be present in the nations’ “calling on YHWH’s name” and “serving him unanimously” (3:10) after they receive a purified lip (JR JTYTD) in 3:9. 98 “Die Metapher ‘Weiden’ (JT) und ‘Lagern’ (LDT) 13d–e spricht von einem gedeihlichen Leben der Gemeinde als ‘Herde’ Gottes ohne Existenznot, gewiss in wirtschaftlich-bescheidenen Verhältnissen, wie es das ländliche Bild von der weidenden Herde im Gegensatz zu den ehemals reichen Herren und Kaufleuten Jerusalems […] nahe legt.” H. Irsigler, Zefanja (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 398–9.

Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets

171

Still, as in Amos 9, the description of Judah’s future salvation is cast mainly in terms foreign to Pentateuch’s Priestly material, though the echo of Isaiah 6 in Zeph 3:9 is suggestive and the echo of the creation categories in describing the extent of the judgment of God is unmistakable (1:2–3). This non-Priestly orientation is understandable if one takes the book’s historical context at face value, particularly the book’s emphasis on the retribution soon to fall up Judah’s enemies and her deliverance from them. Thus oracles of judgment are delivered against the Philistine, (2:4–7), Moab and Ammon (2:8–11), the Ethiopians (2:12), and Assyria (2:13–15), from whom Judah will fear nothing in the future (3:13, 15).99 Descriptions of rest in Deuteronomic language are in some ways better suited to a small, oftenthreatened nation state in the turbulent seventh century BCE than would be Priestly emphases on time and God’s extra-cosmic rest. Still, fundamental tenets like the link between the removal of the people’s sin and God’s presence with them appear with equal clarity here and correspond to similarly prominent aspects of the relationship of creation, tabernacle, and sabbath. 4.2.3 Joel 3:18–21 The book of Joel is quite possibly one of the latest additions to the prophetic corpus, and is commonly dated to the end of the Persian period due to its use of earlier prophetic material (e.g., Isaiah 13; Obadiah 17) and, in some cases, to the reference to the “Greeks” in 4:6 (Eng. 3:6). Setting it in the Persian period does not require rejection of the predictive nature of its prophecies or attribution of various sections of the book to later redactors. Indeed, Wolff advances strong arguments for the book’s unity while dating it to the Persian period.100 The final paragraph in the book of Joel comes after a lengthy description of the consequences of the Day of Yahweh for the nations, and portrays at some length Israel’s future deliverance.101 In contrast to those of her archetypical enemies Egypt and Edom (4:19), whom God will reduce to complete aridity and emptiness (JOO), Israel will be established as the locus of God’s dwelling (4:20–21), which will irrigate and render fruitful even arid land (4:18; cf. Ezek 47:1–12).102 99 Gath may be omitted from the Pentapolis because of Uzziah’s campaign (2 Chr 26:6); J.A. Motyer, “Zephaniah”, in T.E. McComiskey (ed.), The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (3 vol.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 3.897–962, on p. 931. 100 H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (ed. S.D. McBride, Jr.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 4–8. 101 See Barton, “The Day of Yahweh”. 102 The location of Wadi Shittim remains unknown, but surely signifies an arid area given that the text sees it as otherwise unwatered.

172

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

Although similar to the oracle of salvation in Joel 2:18–27, which also focuses on the restoration of the land’s fruitfulness and God’s presence there (demonstrating the importance of creation’s renewal in Joel’s eschatology), this pericope has several unique elements. Despite its limited use of sacerdotal imagery, the oracle also makes use of Zion theology, and it is interesting to note how these various elements are woven together.103 While Zion was certainly the site of Yahweh’s abode and thus had unparalleled cultic significance as the centre of the renewal, Yahweh’s victorious warfare against the nations in the context of this oracle strengthens its nonPriestly aspect. Furthermore, the result of the divine saving actions are that “Judah will abide forever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation” (3:20). This declaration is followed by a closing phrase that, despite suppositions to the contrary, is an integral part of the oracle. While the bloodshed of Egypt and Edom is punished in 4:19, Judah’s comparable guilt (]F) is forgiven (note the contrast between [SP in 4:19 and JSP in 4:21). The sense of JSP (Piel) in 4:21 is “to acquit”, and it is notable that the verb is noncultic – it appears nowhere in Leviticus, while most of its occurrences are in books or contexts with a Deuteronomic penchant.104 The contrast between Judah and her stereotypic enemies underlines the full forgiveness of her sins, which is followed by a final assertion of Yahweh’s presence in Zion. Joel’s portrayal of the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation is complex. The concept of divine presence is expressed in terms that are equally Priestly (cf. the river which flows from the eschatological temple in Ezek 47:1–12) and Davidic (“Yahweh dwells in Zion”, Joel 4:21), and is coupled with the forgiveness of Israel’s sins in non-priestly terms (4:21). Similarly, the renewal of creation, a prominent theme in the Sinai covenant and its articulation in material attributed to D and P (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26) appears alongside the destruction of the nations who oppose Judah. Joel’s closing oracle is thus a presentation of the priestly triad of creation, tabernacle and sabbath in terms of Zion theology, albeit with occasional use of sacerdotal concepts and images.

103 See, on Zion theology, J.J.M. Roberts, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition”, JBL 92 (1973) 329–44. W.S. Prinsloo, The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW 163; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985) notes the presence of both elements (117, 126). 104 J.P.J. Olivier, “JSP”, NIDOTTE, 4.152–4; C. van Leeuwen, “JSP”, TLOT, 2.766.

Creation, tabernacle and sabbath in the writing prophets

173

4.3 This study’s themes in the writing prophets The most salient feature of these pericopae with respect to this study’s themes is the absence of the sabbath as the vehicle of rest. The oracles considered here, however, are hardly without rest language. Given their setting in and after the divided monarchy, the possession of the land and freedom from external threats are more appropriate expressions of the concept of rest than the Priestly sabbath.105 It is also evident, on a pragmatic level, that the sabbath was rarely properly observed; while this served as a strong motive for prophetic condemnation on that basis (e.g., Ezekiel 22 passim; 23:38), it also reduced the sabbath’s relevance as a social and religious institution that most Israelites and Judahites would readily understand and appreciate. Conversely, the Priestly sabbath was very well suited to express the concept of rest to a people recently rescued from centuries of slavery. As we saw in Exodus 16, the weekly day of rest was an ideal means for cultivating Israel’s faith in Yahweh’s miraculous, sustaining provision while enjoying the rest of which she had been deprived for so long. Indeed, Israel’s past servitude is explicitly the ground of the sabbath commandment in Deut 5:13–15. The two other elements on which this study focused, creation and tabernacle/temple, were more frequently in evidence in the oracles examined here. Significantly, this demonstrates that the horizon of prophetic eschatology was no less cosmic than that of the sabbath frame. Most notably, all three oracles maintained a close connection between the covenant’s objective consummation (God’s renewal of creation and dwelling among his people) and its subjective element (God’s people enjoying rest and being purified by him). The overlap between this conception and Exodus’s creation-tabernacle-sabbath complex is readily apparent and strongly suggests that the sabbath frame is, if not present in, surely based on theological foundations identical to those of the prophetic tradition. Taking into account the different historical, redemptive historical, and theological situations and interests of the literature examined here, the theological construct of creation-tabernacle-sabbath that is prominent in the sabbath frame is organically related to some of the main lines of prophetic eschatology from the eighth century until after the exile. While this means that arguments for P’s early date cannot be based on its development in later Israelite literature, it also means that P’s use of the sabbath cannot be dated later than the literature surveyed here solely on the basis of its pur105 Indeed, Israel and Judah’s place on the international scene largely accounts for the fact that the writing prophets predominantly address the nation as a whole audience rather than individuals, as did the former prophets; cf. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy, 73.

174

Trajectories in later Jewish and Christian literature

ported introduction, refinement, or amplification of the sabbath as a moral or theological centrepiece.106 Perhaps most significantly, it shows that the absence of the creation-tabernacle-sabbath triad from the writing prophets is only superficial, and that the main lines of its eschatology run parallel to those of prophets. Widening our frame of reference to include all the material surveyed in this chapter, we conclude that the canonical material constitutes a multiform, diverse, but coherent response to fundamental anthropological realities, above all the reality of human sinfulness and the need for its resolution. The biblical corpus attributes the salvific process that remedies this problem to divine grace and sees it as effecting not merely forgiveness of sins but the complete removal of sin’s consequences from God’s people and the cosmos as a whole. The terminus of this redemptive trajectory transcends its Edenic beginnings, and the tabernacle and sabbath of Exodus reflect the protology of the universe’s creation and the eschatology which perfects it.

106 This renders tenuous the following suggestion of Blenkinsopp: “One of the most important aspects of the transformation of Israelite prophecy after the loss of national independence was its reabsorption into the cult. The Priestly source (P), which comes from this period of transition and reflects a concern for the reestablishment of genuine worship, provides some interesting clues to this process” (A History of Prophecy, 223). On the sabbath itself as an element in this transformation, see J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (foreword by D.A. Knight; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 112–16.

VII. Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies

This study has examined the background and significance of the sabbath frame around the golden calf episode in Exodus (Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3) especially in terms of the OT literature itself, but also in recognition of the fact that the OT reflects, often in complex ways, elements of its ancient Near Eastern milieu. While the study’s methodology chose a via media between traditional, diachronic historical-criticism and newer, synchronic literary methods, it has remained in dialogue with approaches from every direction. Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies

1 Summary of the study’s findings The rationale for examining the sabbath frame was given in chapter one. Despite its literary prominence and theological potential, the frame receives almost no notice from the majority of interpreters, regardless of their methodology. Likewise a significant comparative-studies discussion has treated connections between temples, creation, and rest in the ANE and elsewhere in the OT, but has not frequently probed these passages. Comparative studies of these elements also manifest a methodological diversity that makes synthesis of their findings elusive, so this study employed the welldeveloped compare-and-contrast approach of S. Talmon and W. Hallo. Innerbiblical parallels, being an element in the comparative method followed here, were also explored via inner-biblical typology, an approach that until recently had fallen out of favor with many interpreters. By giving attention to the diachronic elements that come to expression in the sabbath frame and its context, as well as to the typological relations between our passage and those elsewhere in the canon, this study was able to appreciate the development and dynamism as well as the coherence of both the Exodus material and related biblical passages. The study based its theological reflection on exegesis of the control texts, considering the sabbath frame and golden calf passages first via literary exegesis, and subsequently dedicating a chapter to more sustained theological reflection on each of these passages in light of that exegesis. Summary of the study’s findings Chapter two thus took up an exegetical exploration of the sabbath frame passages themselves, illuminated by the structure and themes of Exodus

176

Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies

25–40. It argued that the central concern of Exodus 25–40 is how God was to dwell among Israel. The sabbath frame intersected the contextual elements of cult, creation, and fall-redemption. The elements of sabbath and tabernacle were themselves approached first through the comparative-religions lenses of sacred time and sacred space, concepts which are helpful in understanding the relation of God to Israel but also in need of being controlled by the textual data themselves. The heart of chapter two sought to determine what particular elements of the sabbath made the author of Exodus use it to frame the golden calf account. Special attention was paid to the designation of the sabbath as_YVDVDin Exod 31:15, which reminded Israel of Yahweh’s commitment to provide for her and to maintain his covenant with her. The sabbath’s unique status as the sign of the Sinai covenant was approached in the context of other biblical covenant signs. This sign’s particular significance was initially identified as involving Yahweh’s commitment to sanctify Israel, both in terms of his relationship with her and as concerns her moral behavior vis-à-vis his laws. The echo of the seventh day of the creation week in the opening sabbath frame was seen to express the eschatological or anticipatory nature of Yahweh’s commitment to sanctify Israel, a trajectory which intersects the consummation of the Sinai covenant itself. The second half of the sabbath frame was dealt with much more briefly, focusing on the nature of its prohibition against fires on the weekly day of rest. The fire prohibition was seen to involve both an amplification of the sabbath’s work prohibition and a preventative against syncretism. Chapter three reflected on the theological significance of the sabbath frame, particularly Yahweh’s function as Israel’s sanctifier, the sole explicit purpose of the sabbath given in Exod 31:12–17. A survey of the concept of holiness in the biblical text prior to our passage began with the seventh day of Gen 2:1–3, then considered the Garden of Eden at length, concluding that the seventh day of the creation week symbolized the goal toward which the first human couple was to press in fidelity to Yahweh. The Garden of Eden, for its part, was seen as a prototypical instance of sacred space, since God’s presence was occasionally manifested there. In an attempt to understand the Garden of Eden and later situations more precisely, the study defined several different (albeit related) types of holiness: relational or positional holiness, which might also be called definitive, when an entity is declared holy; ethical holiness, which refers to the sphere of human behavior in general; and cultic holiness, which refers to the status one has vis-à-vis the cult’s standards (especially for maintaining holy-common and clean-unclean distinctions). The balance of chapter three considered holiness within Exodus 19–40. Exegesis of portions of Exodus 19 determined the precise nature of Yahweh’s

Summary of the study’s findings

177

relationship with Israel. Attention was drawn to the fact that although God had brought Israel into a special relationship with him through the exodus and the covenant, his promise to make Israel his special treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation was simultaneously conditional upon her fulfillment of the covenant conditions. In other words, definitional holiness was to lead to ethical holiness, which would then elevate and confirm Israel’s definitional holiness. In preparation for the theophany of Exodus 24 Israel’s cultic holiness (in a proleptic form, given the cult’s later commencement) was added to this holiness complex. In light of the various ways that holiness comes to expression in Exodus 19–40, chapter three concluded that Yahweh’s commitment to be Israel’s sanctifier in Exod 31:13 was an ongoing commitment that had reference primarily to the ethical sphere of holiness, though neither definitional nor cultic holiness can be excluded from the scope of that activity. Chapter three closed by continuing reflection on why the sabbath was made the sign of the Sinai covenant. Just as Israel’s holiness was present (definitional) and future (her anticipated ethical comportment per the covenant’s conditions), so her experience of rest had present (in the sabbath) and future components (a rest of the magnitude hinted at in the sabbath command’s echoes of Gen 2:1–3). The means by which Israel was to attain this ethical holiness, and so enjoy the covenant’s consummation, was Yahweh’s gracious sanctifying work on her behalf. Chapters four and five turned to the topic of divine presence, an aspect of Exodus 25–40 with which the sabbath frame is closely connected by its literary placement. The pericope’s contextual emphases were established in light of Exodus 32, especially Israel’s idolatry and apostasy that had fractured the covenant so recently contracted and thereby removed the possibility of divine presence. Chapter four then turned to exegesis of sections of Exodus 33–34 in which divine presence is prominent. Whereas sin had excluded divine presence in Exodus 32, the following two chapters were seen to move progressively from forgiveness to restored divine presence. This movement began with Israel’s repentance in Exod 33:1–6 and culminated in the full restoration of the covenant and Yahweh’s commitment to be in Israel’s midst. The argument for this development was based on the prepositions used to describe Yahweh’s relationship with Israel in terms of spatial proximity. The restoration of covenant (i.e., the text’s semantics) was found to correlate closely with the shift in prepositions (i.e., the text’s grammar). Within this progression, the tent of meeting pericope in Exod 33:7–11 heightened the narrative’s tension prior to Israel’s forgiveness by virtue of its syntactical and thematic relations to its context and its vague chronological placement. God’s free forgiveness of Israel’s sin, in response to Moses’ intercession, brought this movement toward restored divine pres-

178

Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies

ence to its goal. The theme of divine presence was carried from the renewed covenant to the construction of the tabernacle by the intervening section describing the shining of Moses’ face (Exod 34:29–35). Chapter five explored the relation between forgiveness and divine presence that chapter four had identified. First these topics themselves were considered across the spectrum of Exodus 32–34, where, in addition to the progressive restoration of divine presence as indicated by the careful use of prepositions, there is a shift in Israel’s status from unforgiven to forgiven. This shift also followed very closely the tenor of the prepositions, as did the theme of covenant renewal. The relationship between forgiveness and sanctification was found to be one in which sanctification is the positive counterpart of forgiveness, with forgiveness being a prerequisite for ethical sanctification or holiness. This opened several avenues by which the relation between sabbath and tabernacle could be illuminated, including the tabernacle as the locus for obtaining forgiveness and the sabbath as the sign of Yahweh’s promise to provide sanctification. Chapter five concluded the main portion of the study by exploring the relationship of the Sinai covenant and its constitutive components to earlier and later biblical covenants. The realization of Yahweh’s promise to fully sanctify Israel was shown to lie on the eschatological trajectory in which the sabbath figured prominently. The echoes of Genesis 1–2 in Exodus 39– 40 likewise suggest that a return to Edenic conditions could happen only through a mechanism that dealt fully with Israel’s sin. Whereas most temples in the ANE were built to celebrate the victory of the god concerned, Exodus emphasizes Yahweh’s desire to dwell among his properly sanctified people. The integrated tabernacle-sabbath complex clearly outlines an eschatological facet in the theology of Exodus which anticipates Yahweh’s eschatological resolution of the problem of sin, restoring the right relationship that existed between him and his creation at the beginning. The study concluded first, by noting two points lying further along this redemptive trajectory in Isaiah 65–66 and Hebrews (especially chapters 3– 4). While these two pericopae develop a number of themes found in the sabbath frame and its context in different ways, their contributions to the discussion both confirmed the general understanding of the sabbath and tabernacle advanced in this study and demonstrated the prominence of those themes in biblical theology. A brief exploration of the development of the sabbath-rest theme in Jewish extra-biblical literature of the Second Temple period illuminated comparisons and contrasts with the earlier and later biblical materials treated in the study, and showed the significant diversity in religious world views that existed among Palestinian Jews at that time. Second, given the study’s working hypothesis that the priestly material has

Importance of the study’s findings

179

a Mosaic origin and thus antedates the writing prophets, it grappled with the question of why, if the study’s conclusions are correct in the main, the creation-tabernacle-sabbath triad does not appear more frequently in the later biblical materials as a description of the covenant’s fruition. Exploration of several pericopae in the writing prophets from the eighth to the fifth centuries showed that this corpus does in fact manifest a consistent interest in the themes of rest, divine presence, and the eschatological enjoyment of the cosmos’s intended fruitfulness as manifestations of a restored and consummated covenant relationship with God, though these themes are often articulated in language, and with theological constructs, different from but compatible with the material of the sabbath frame and its immediate context.

2 Importance of the study’s findings This exploration of the sabbath frame has stressed the importance of methodology in biblical studies generally, and has also sought to advance the understanding of this portion of Exodus in particular. Accordingly its contributions fall mainly into these two areas. Importance of the study’s findings To begin with methodology, its importance was noted in chapter one’s survey of treatments of the sabbath frame. While some ignore the frame as an intrusion (in one or both of its occurrences), others downplay the frame’s historical setting at Sinai and the correspondingly close link to the tabernacle.1 This study sought to appreciate the text’s historical connections in concert with a sober evaluation of the difficult textual features which arise from time to time. In doing so it has demonstrated that such an investigation is possible, and that an appreciation of both these facets in the text aids interpretation. This suggests that the diachronic-synchronic opposition, descriptive of much current methodological reflection in Pentateuchal studies particularly, is not the best solution to the current methodological quandary. Another point at which methodology demonstrated its importance was in our evaluation of the sabbath’s origins. In handling extra-biblical comparative materials and relating them to the sabbath material in Exodus and elsewhere in the Bible, the compare-and-contrast method advocated by Hallo and others demonstrated its ability to uncover a text’s distinctive elements 1 K. Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Athenäums Monografien, Theologie; BBB 85; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992) is an example of former the tendency, R.W.L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983) of the latter (see esp. 109–11).

180

Conclusions and contributions to biblical studies

while still appreciating how it relates to its cultural, extra-textual milieu. Evaluating the categories of comparative religions from the perspective of the compare-and-contrast method showed that when applied to a particular phenomenon or entity the former categories can result in oversimplification and overly hasty comparisons.2 Above and beyond methodological concerns, this study offers the following specific conclusions. First, it has advanced a number of proposals regarding the sabbath: its role as representing the culmination of the Sinai covenant, the significance of its designated function as promoting remembrance of Yahweh’s being Israel’s sanctifier, and its eschatological orientation. These elements are also important considerations in seeking to advance understanding of the Sinai covenant.3 Second, the connections that this study has explored between Genesis 1–2 and Exodus 19–40 are important for understanding later developments in the Hebrew and Christian canons, and underline the importance of the doctrine of creation in particular.4 While biblical scholarship may not currently represent the pessimism of von Rad on this point, the need exists for more reflection on how and why so many elements from the creation accounts reappear throughout both Testaments.5 2 See, e.g., R. Patai, Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (New York: Ktav, 1967) on the relation of creation and temple; G. Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (BBET 21; Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1988), on the sabbath. 3 See S. Hahn, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994– 2004)”, Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005) 263–92; R. Vasholz, “The Character of Israel’s Future in Light of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants”, TJ n.s. 25 (2004) 39–59; M.W. Karlberg, “Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant”, WTJ 43 (1980) 1–57; D. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of berith in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity International University, 2000). 4 See K.J. Dell, “Covenant and Creation in Relationship”, in D.H. Mayes/R.B. Salters (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 111–33; P.D. Miller, “Creation and Covenant”, in S.J. Kraftchick/C.D. Myers/B.C. Ollenburger (ed.), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995) 155–68; H.G. Reventlow, “Creation as a Topic in Biblical Theology”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 153–71; H.H. Schmid, “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology”, in B.W. Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament (IRT 6; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 102–17. 5 Von Rad saw the doctrine of creation, as expressed by his Yahwist, as always dependent and subordinate. This study has, on the contrary, confirmed B. Anderson’s suggestion that “creation anticipates consummation, and the consummation is the fulfillment of the beginning”. B.W. Anderson, “Biblical Perspectives on the Doctrine of Creation”, in idem (ed.), From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 19–41, on p. 38. A similar conclusion is reached by J.D. Levenson (“eschatology is like protology”; see his “The Temple and the World”, JR 64 [1984] 275–98, on p. 298) and H.H. Schmid (“creation […] is plainly the fundamental theme [of biblical theology]”; “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation”, 111). 2

Importance of the study’s findings

181

Finally, by exploring the canonical connections made to our pericopae this study has demonstrated the value of exegesis and interpretation that respect the unity and diversity of the Hebrew and Christian canons. This was seen especially via typology and intertextuality, though other avenues such as promise and fulfillment were also evident, and our conclusions corroborated Hasel’s caution that methodological nuance is necessary when attempting to interpret biblical literature in a way consistent with its own assumptions regarding its “unity in diversity”.6 While Jewish and Christian interpretative trajectories will of course draw the theological lines presented here to different end points, the sabbath frame and its context constitute an important part of Exodus itself and contain numerous elements and themes which both Testaments recognize and develop.7 In relating its interpretation of Scripture to the issues of canonical unity and diversity, this study has given some proof that it is possible not only for these two poles to coexist, but for unity and diversity to mutually facilitate each other’s articulation and role in the theological enterprise.

6 G. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 41991), 187; see 194–208 for his methodological proposal. 7 “Jewish theology” or “Jewish biblical theology” has recently shown promise as a way to relate the contents of the Hebrew Bible’s “texts to post-biblical ideas”, as B.D. Sommer describes one of its primary functions in “Functional Interpretation and Biblical Theology: Reflections on Judaism as a Civilization in Relation to Scriptural Hermeneutics”, Jewish Social Studies n.s. 12 (2006) 143–57, on p. 148. Though the validity of the enterprise was challenged in the early 1990s by J. Levenson’s “Why Jews are Not Interested in Biblical Theology,” in idem, The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1987) 33–61, 165–70, the rejoinder to his position has been quite optimistic. Representative views can be found in M. Sweeney, “The Emerging Field of Jewish Biblical Theology”, in Z. Garder (ed.), Academic Approaches to Teaching Jewish Studies (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2000) 83–105, T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Emergence of Jewish Biblical Theologies”, in A.O. Bellis/ J.S. Kaminsky (ed.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 109–21, who notes some of the ideological reasons for the discipline’s dynamic development, M.Z. Brettler, “Biblical History and Jewish Biblical Theology”, JR 77 (1997) 563–83, who emphasizes the need to preserve the HB’s heterogeneous and diverse elements from flattening, and B.D. Sommer, “Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The Case of the Oral and Written Torahs”, in C. Helmer/C. Landmesser (ed.), One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 108–50, who also addresses the question of how the discipline should be named.

Bibliography

Abegg, M.G., Jr./Flint, P./Ulrich, E. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time Into English (San Francisco: Harper, 1999). Aberbach, M., “Golden Calf”, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (16 vol.; Jerusalem, 1972) 7.709–13. Aejmelaeus, A., “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?” ZAW 99 (1987) 58–89. Aichele, G./Phillips, G.A. (ed.), “Intertextuality and the Bible”, Semeia 69–70 (1995) 1–305. Alexander, T.D./Baker, D.W. (ed.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003). Alexander, T.D./Rosner, B.S. (ed.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Leicester/Downers Grove: Inter-varsity/InterVarsity, 2000). Alexander, T.D., Abraham in the Negev: A Source-critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1–22:19 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997). __________, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix 1–xxiv 11”, VT 49 (1999) 2– 20. __________, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 22002). Allen, D., Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985). Allen, J.P., Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (Yale Egyptological Studies 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988). Allen, L.C., Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29B; Dallas: Word, 1990). Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981). Amiet, P., “L’effigie royale aux origines de la civilisation mésopotamienne”, RB 112 (2005) 5–19. Amit, Y., “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness”, in M. Cogan et al. (ed.), Tehillah le-Moshe (FS M. Greenberg; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) *13–*29. Anderson, B.W., “Biblical Perspectives on the Doctrine of Creation”, in idem (ed.), From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 19–41. __________, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). __________, “Creation and New Creation”, in idem, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 233–45. __________, “Creation and the Noahic Covenant”, in idem, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 151–64. __________, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). Anderson, F.I., The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBL Monograph Series 14; Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1970). Andreasen, N.-E., “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament”, in A.V. Wallenkampf/ W.R. Lesher (ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981) 67–86. __________, Rest and Redemption: A Study of the Biblical Sabbath (Andrews University Monographs 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1978). __________, The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation (SBLDS 7; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972). Arnold, B.T./Choi, J.H., A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Assmann, J., The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001).

184

Bibliography

Attridge, H.W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). __________, “‘Let Us Strive to Enter the Rest’: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11”, HTR 73 (1980) 279–88. Auld, A.G., “Leviticus: After Exodus and Before Numbers”, in R. Rendtorff/R.A. Kugler (ed.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; Formation and Interpretation of OT Literature 3; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 41–54. Austin, J.L., How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2 1975). __________, “Sabbath, Work, and Creation: JM NO Reconsidered”, Henoch 8 (1986) 273–80. Averbeck, R.E., “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as it Relates to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle”, in J.K. Hoffmeier/A.R. Millard (ed.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 328–56. __________, “The Form Critical, Literary, and Ritual Unity of Exodus 19:3–24:11”, paper presented to the Biblical Law Group at the annual meeting of Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 20 Nov 1995. __________, “Ritual Formula, Textual Frame, and Thematic Echo in the Cylinders of Gudea”, in G.D. Young/M.W. Chavalas/R.E. Averbeck (ed.), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons (FS M.C. Astour; Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1997) 37–93. __________, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Methodology: Historiography and Temple Building”, in M.W. Chavalas/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), Mesopotamia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 88–125. Bacchiocchi, S., Du Sabbat au Dimanche: Une recherche historique sur les origines du dimanche chrétien (Paris: Lethielleux, 1984). __________, “John 5:17: Negation or Clarification of the Sabbath”, AUSS 19 (1981) 3–19. __________, “Matthew 11:28–30: Jesus’ Rest and the Sabbath”, AUSS 22 (1984) 289–316. __________, “Remembering the Sabbath: The Creation-Sabbath in Jewish and Christian History”, in T.C. Eskenazi/D.J. Harrington/W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 69–97. __________, “Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption”, JSJ 17 (1986) 153–76. Bailey, L.R., “The Golden Calf”, HUCA 42 (1971) 97–115. Baillet, M., “Les divers états du Pentateuque samaritain”, RevQ 13 (1988) 531–45. Baillet, M./Milik, J.T./de Vaux, R., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962). Bakon, S., “Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath”, JBQ 25 (1997) 79–85. Balentine, S.E., The Torah’s Vision of Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). Barack, N.A., A History of the Sabbath (New York: J. David, 1965). Barbiero, G., “Ex xxxiii 7–11: Eine synchrone Lektüre”, VT 50 (2000) 152–66. __________, “Mamleket Kohanim (Es 19,6a)––I sacerdoti al potere?” RivB 37 (1989) 427–45. Barmash, P., “The Narrative Quandary: Cases of Law in Literature”, VT 54 (2004) 1–16. Barnett, P., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Barr, J., “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?”, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1–14. __________, Biblical Words for Time (SBT; London: SCM, 1962). __________, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). Bartelmus, R., “Mk 2,27 und die ältesten Fassungen des Arbeitsruhegebotes im AT”, BibNot 41 (1988) 41–64. Barton, J., “Covenant in Old Testament Theology”, in A.D.H. Mayes/R.B. Salters (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 23–38. __________, “The Day of Yahweh in the Minor Prophets”, in C. McCarthy/J.F. Healey (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Essays (FS K.J. Cathcart; JSOTSup 375; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004) 68–79.

Bibliography

185

__________, “Forgiveness and Memory in the Old Testament”, in M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog (FS O. Kaiser; 2 vol.; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 2.987– 95. __________, “Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common Ground?”, in S.E. Porter/P.M. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries (FS M.D. Goulder; Biblical Interpretation 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3–15. __________, “Intertextuality and the ‘Final Form’ of the Text”, in A. Lemaire/M. Sæbø (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 33–38. __________, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (rev. and enl. edn; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). Batto, B.F., “Paradise Reexamined”, in K.L. Younger, Jr./W.W. Hallo/B.F. Batto (ed.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Scripture in Context 4; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991) 33–66. __________, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty”, Bib 68 (1987) 153–77. __________, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1992). Bauks, M., “Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg)”, in A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001) 333–45. Beale, G.K., The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). __________, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004). Beckwith, R.T., Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental, and Patristic Studies (AGJU 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Bellis, A.O./Kaminsky, J.S. (ed.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). Bénétreau, S., “Le Repos du Pèlerin (Hébreux 3,7–4,11)”, ETR 78 (2003) 203–23. Berges, U., “Der neue Himmel und das Neue im Jesajabuch: Eine Auslegung zu Jesaja 65:17 und 66:22”, in F. Postma/K. Spronk/E. Talstra (ed.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy (FS H. Leene; Amsterdamse Cahiers, Supplement Series 3; Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2002) 9–15. Bertola, E., “Le sacré dans les plus anciens livres de la Bible”, in E. Castelli (ed.), Le Sacré: Études et recherches (Paris: Aubier, 1974) 201–20. Beuken, W.A.M., “Ex 16.5,23: a Rule Regarding the Keeping of the Sabbath?”, JSOT 32 (1985) 3–14. __________, “Isaiah Chapters LXV–LXVI: Trito-Isaiah and the Closure of the Book of Isaiah”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 204–21. Beyerlin, W. (ed.), Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978). Bidaut, B., “Le travail et la sabbat dans la Bible”, LumVie 220 (1994) 37–46. Biddle, M.E., Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). Biggs, C.R., “Exposition and Adaptation of the Sabbath Commandment in the OT”, ABR 23 (1975) 13–23. Billings, R.M., “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus XXXIII 12–23”, VT 54 (2004) 427–44. Biran, A., et al. (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981). Blackman, P., Mashnayoth (vol. 2, Order Moed; New York: Judaica, 1963). Blank, J./Werbick, J. (ed.), Sühne und Versöhnung (Theologie zur Zeit 1; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986).

186

Bibliography

Blank, J., “Weißt du, was Versöhnung heißt? Der Kreuztod Jesu als Sühne und Versöhnung”, in J. Blank/J. Werbick (ed.), Sühne und Versöhnung (Theologie zur Zeit 1; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986) 21–91. Blenkinsopp, J., “The Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble”, in H. Minkoff (ed.), Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review (2 vol.; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995) 1.10–21. __________, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and enl. edn; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). __________, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)”, in E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content (FS G.W. Coast; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 109–25. __________, “The Structure of P”, CBQ 38 (1976) 275–92. __________, “What Happened at Sinai? Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)”, in idem (ed.), Treasures Old and New: Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 155–74. Bloch-Smith, E., “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space”, in B.M. Gittlen (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 83–94. __________, “‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism”, in M. Coogan/C. Exum/L. Stager (ed.), Scripture and Other Artifacts (FS P.J. King; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 18–31. Blocher, H., “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement”, JETS 47 (2004) 629–45. Block, D.I., “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy”, JETS 44 (2001) 385–408. Blokland, F. den Exter, “Clause-Analysis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative – An Explanation and a Manual for Compilation”, TJ n.s. 11 (1990) 73–102. Bloom, H. (ed.), Modern Critical Interpretations: Exodus (New York: Chelsea House, 1987). Blum, E., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990). Blumenthal, D.R., “Repentance and Forgiveness”, Cross Currents 48 (1998) 75–82. Boccaccini, G., “Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic Analysis”, in D.R.G. Beattie/M.J. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 254–63. Bockmuehl, M., Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Bogaert, P.-M., “Montaigne sainte, jardin d’Eden et sanctuaire (hiérosolymitain) dans un oracle d’Ezéchiel contre le prince de Tyre (Ez. 28:11–19)”, Homo Religiosus 9 (1983) 131–53. Bolger, E.W., “The Compositional Role of the Eden Narrative in the Pentateuch” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993). Borgen, P., “Philo of Alexandria”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984) 233–82. __________, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Bosman, H.L., “The Absence and Presence of God in the Book of Exodus as Theological Synthesis”, Scriptura 85 (2004) 1–13. Botterweck, G.J./Ringgren, H. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (15 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–). Boulluec, A. le/Sandevoir, P. (ed.), La Bible d’Alexandrie: l’Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989). Bowker, J., The Targums and Rabbinic Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Brakenhielm, C.R., Forgiveness (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Brand, J., “Sabbath-Rest, Worship, and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Celebrating the Rule of Yahweh”, Did 1/2 (1990) 3–13.

Bibliography

187

Braulik, G., “Gottes Ruhe: Das Land oder der Tempel?”, in E. Haag/F.-L. Hossfeld (ed.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn (FS H. Groß; SBB 13; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987) 33–44. __________, “Zur deuteronomistichen Konzeption von Freiheit und Frieden”, in idem (ed.), Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 219–30. Brettler, M.Z., “Biblical History and Jewish Biblical Theology”, JR 77 (1997) 563–83. Brichto, H.C., Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Brisman, L., “On the Divine Presence in Exodus”, in H. Bloom (ed.), Exodus (New York: Chelsea House, 1987) 105–21. __________, “Sacred Butchery: Exodus 32:25–29”, in C. Seitz/K. Greene-McCreight (ed.), Theological Exegesis (FS B.S. Childs; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 162–81. Brown, C., History and Faith: A Personal Exploration (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987). Brown, W.P., Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1–2:3 (SBLDS 132; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Broyles, C.C./Evans, C.A. (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Brueggemann, W., “The Book of Exodus”, in L.E. Keck et al. (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vol.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1.675–981. __________, “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel”, in P.D. Miller (ed.), Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 150–82. __________, “Crisis-Evoked, Crisis-Resolving Speech”, BTB 24 (1994) 95–105. __________, “From Dust to Kingship”, ZAW 84 (1972) 1–18. __________, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta: John Know, 1982). __________, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). __________, “Weariness, Exile, and Chaos: A Motif in Royal Theology”, CBQ 34 (1972) 19–38. Büchner, D.L., “Exegetical Variants in the LXX of Exodus: An Evaluation”, JNSL 22 (1996) 35–58. Budd, P.J., “Holiness and Cult”, in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 275–98. Burer, M.H., “The Historical and Hultural Background of Divine Sabbath Work and its Relationship to Key Controversy Passages in the Gospels” (Ph.D. diss.; Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004). Burnett, J.S., “The Question of Divine Absence in Israelite and West Semitic Religion”, CBQ 67 (2005) 215–35. Cairus, A.E., “Sabbath and Covenant in the Epistle of Barnabas”, AUSS 39 (2001) 117–23. Callender, D.E., Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Calvin, J., Commentaries of the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (2 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948). __________, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses (4 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950). Campbell, A.F./O’Brien, M.A., Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Carpenter, E., “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus”, in E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content (FS G.W. Coats; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 91–108. Carr, D.M., Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996). __________, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah”, JSOT 57 (1993) 61–80. __________, “Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–66): Multiple Modern Possibilities”, in R.F. Melugin/M.A. Sweeney (ed.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 188–218.

188

Bibliography

Carson, D.A./Williamson, H.G.M. (ed.), Scripture Citing Scripture (FS B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Carson, D.A./O’Brien, P.T./Siefred, M.A. (ed.), The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; WUNT 2/140; Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Baker Academic/Mohr Siebeck, 2001). __________. The Paradoxes of Paul (vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Baker Academic/Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967). __________, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 1: Genesis I–VI 8 (Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961). Castelli, E. (ed.), Le Sacré: Études et recherches (Paris: Aubier, 1974). Cazelles, H., “Alliance du Sinai, alliance de l’Horeb et renouvellement de l’alliance”, in H. Von Donner/R. Hanhart/R. Smend (ed.), Beiträge zum alttestamentlichen Theologie (FS W. Zimmerli; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 69–79. __________, Autour de l'Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987). __________, “Ex XXXIV,21 traite-t-il du sabbat”, in idem, Autour de l’Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987) 295–8. __________, “L’alliance de sinaï en Ex. XXXIV, 10–27”, in idem, Autour de l’Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987) 175–85 __________, “Le mystère de la présence de Dieu dans l'Ancien Testament”, in A.M. Triacca/ A. Pistoia (ed.), Mystagogie: pensée liturgique d’aujourd’hui et liturgie ancienne: Conférences Saint-Serge XXXIXe Semaine d'Études Liturgiques, Paris, 30 juin–3 juillet 1992 (Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” Subsidia 70; Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1993) 67–72. __________, “Les origines du Sabbat”, in idem, Autour de l'Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987) 125–30. __________, “Royaume de prêtres et nation consacrée (Exode XIX,6)”, in idem, Autour de l’Exode (SB; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1987) 289–94. Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985). Charlesworth, J.H./Rietz, H.W.M. (ed.), Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 3; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 2006). Charlesworth, J.H./Evans, C.A. (ed.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSup 14; SSEJC 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). Chester, A.N., “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice”, in S.W. Sykes (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 57–72. Cheung, A.T.M., “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-Theological Study of the Priesthood”, JETS 29 (1986) 265–75. Childs, B.S., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (London: SCM, 1992). __________, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974). __________, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). __________, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Chirichigno, G.C., “The Narrative Structure of Exodus 19–24”, Bib 68 (1987) 457–79. Clayton, J./Rothstein, E. (ed.), Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991). Clements, R.E., God and Temple (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965). __________, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM, 1965). __________, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975). __________, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon”, in G.W. Coats/B.O. Long (ed.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 42–55.

Bibliography

189

Clifford, R.J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972). __________, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994). __________, “The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation”, TS 46 (1985) 508–12. __________, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting”, CBQ 33 (1971) 221–7. Clifford, R.J./Collins, J.J. (ed), Creation in the Biblical Traditions (CBQMS 24; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992). Clines, D.J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2 1996). Clines, D.J.A./Exum, J.C. (ed.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993). Coats, G.W., “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32–34”, in G.W. Coats/B.O. Long (ed.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 91–109. __________, Exodus 1–18 (FOTL 2A; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). __________, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Abingdon, 1968). Cole, H.R., “The Sabbath and Genesis 2:1–3”, AUSS 41 (2003) 5–12. __________, “The Sabbath and the Alien”, AUSS 38 (2000) 223–9. Collins, J.J., “The Exodus and Biblical Theology”, BTB 25 (1995) 152–60. Cooper, A.M./Goldstein, B.R., “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative”, JBL 116 (1997) 201–15. Cornelius, I., “The Garden in the Iconography of the Ancient Near East”, JSS 1 (1989) 204–28. Cotterell, P., “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis”, in W.A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vol.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 1.134–60. Cotterell, P./Turner, M., Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989). Cross, F.M., “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon”, in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 84–95. __________, “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Modern Research” in A. Biran et al. (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981) 169–80. __________, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1973). Cross, F.M./Freedman, D.N., Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (IBR; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Crüsemann, F., The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996). Cuddon, J.A., A Dictionary of Literary Terms (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977). Culler, J., The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981). Cullmann, O., Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950). __________, Salvation in History (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). Curtis, E.M., “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study”, in W.W. Hallo/ B.W. Jones/G.L. Mattingly (ed.), The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature (Scripture in Context 3; Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990) 31–56. Dalley, S., Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). Davies, G.F., Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1–2 (JSOTSup 135; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

190

Bibliography

Davies, G.I., “The Composition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses of Erhard Blum”, in M.V. Fox/V.A. Hurowitz/A. Hurvitz/M.L. Klein/B.J. Schwartz/N. Shupak (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions (FS M. Haran; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 71–85. __________, “The Presence of God in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Doctrine”, in J.A. Emerton/ W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae (FS E. Bammel; JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 32–6. __________, “The Theology of Exodus”, in E. Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom (FS R.E. Clements; JSOTSup 300; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 137–52. Davies, J.A., “A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6”, TynBul 53 (2002) 157–9. __________, “A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6” (Ph.D. diss.; University of Sydney, 2000). __________, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T & T Clark, 2004). Davies, P.R., “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document”, in J.M. Baumgarten/E.G. Chazon/ A. Pinnick (ed.), The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 27–43. __________, Scribes and Schools (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). Davis, D.R., “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34”, WTJ 44 (1982) 71– 87. Day, J., “Why Does God ‘Establish’ rather than ‘Cut’ Covenants in the Priestly Source?”, in D.H. Mayes/R.B. Salters (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 91–109. Delitzsch, F., Babel und Bibel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). Dell, K.J., “Covenant and Creation in Relationship”, in D.H. Mayes/R.B. Salters (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 111–33. Dempster, S.G., Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (New Studies in Biblical Theology 15; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003). Dennison, J.T., Jr., “Vos on the Sabbath: A Close Reading”, Kerux 16 (2001) 61–70. deSilva, D.A., “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews”, TJ n.s., 21 (2000) 25–43. Dimant, D., “Qumran Sectarian Literature”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984) 483–550. Dinan, S.A., “The Tantalizing Absence of God”, in T.-A. Druart/M. Rasevic (ed.), Religions and the Virtue of Religion (Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 65; Washington, D.C.: American Catholic Philosophical Association, 1992) 87–98. Doering, L., “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees”, in M. Albani/J. Frey/A. Lange (ed.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 179–205. Dohmen, C., Exodus 19–40 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004). Dozeman, T.B., “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character”, JBL 108 (1989) 207–23. __________, “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in the Torah”, JBL 119 (2000) 21–45. __________, “Spatial Form in Exodus 19:1–8a and in the Larger Sinai Narrative”, Semeia 46 (1989) 87–101. __________, “The Priestly Vocation”, Int 59 (2005) 117–28. __________, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). __________, God on the Mountain. A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (SBLMS 37; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989). Dozeman, T.B./Schmid, K., (ed.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006).

Bibliography

191

Draisma, S. (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (FS B. Van Iersel; Kampen, Netherlands: J.H. Kok, 1989). Drazin, I., Targum Onkelos to Exodus (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1990). Driver, S.R., The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9 1911). __________, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (International Theological Library; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 91913). Dumbrell, W.J., Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). __________, “Genesis 2:1–17: A Foreshadowing of the New Creation”, in S.J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) 53–65. __________, “Genesis 2:1–3: Biblical Theology of Creation Covenant”, Evangelical Review of Theology 25 (2001) 219–30. __________, The Faith of Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 22002). __________, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). Dunn, J.D.G., The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Durham, J.I., Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987). Eberhart, C.A., “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews”, in G. Gelardini (ed., with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 37–63. Ego, B., “Heilige Zeit – heiliger Raum – heileger Mensch: Beobachtungen zur Struktur der Gesetzesbegründung in der Schöpfungs- und Paradiesgeschichte des Jubiläensbuchs”, in M. Albani/ J. Frey/A. Lange (ed.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 207–19. Ehlen, A., “Old Testament Theology as Heilsgeschichte”, Concordia 35 (1964) 517–44. Eichrodt, W., Theology of the Old Testament (2 vol.; OTL; London: SCM, 1961). Eliade, M., Myth and Reality (World Perspectives 31; New York: Harper & Row, 1963). __________, Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York: World Publishing, 1958). __________, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Bollingen 46; New York: Pantheon, 1954). __________, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959). Ellingworth, P., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/ Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993). Ellul, J., “Loi et sacré, droit et divin”, in E. Castelli (ed.), Le Sacré: Études et recherches (Paris: Aubier, 1974) 179–99. Elnes, E.E., “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environment’”, HBT 16 (1994) 144– 55. Elsinger, L., “Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category”, VT 42 (1992) 47–58. Enns, P.E., “Creation and Re-creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13”, WTJ 55 (1993) 255–80. __________, Exodus (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). Eskenazi, T.C./D.J. Harrington/W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Tradition (New York: Crossroad, 1991). Evans, C.A./Sanders, J.A., (ed.), The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSNTSup 154; SSEJC 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). Evans, C.A./Talmon, S. (ed.), The Quest for Context and Meaning (FS J.A. Sanders; Biblical Interpretation 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Exum, J.C./Clines, D.J.A. (ed.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993; reprint, Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1994). Eynde, S. van den, “Keeping God’s Sabbath. ’wt and bryt (Exod 31,12–17)”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 501–11.

192

Bibliography

Fanwar, W.M., “Creation in Isaiah” (Ph.D. diss.; Andrews University, 2001). Ferguson, S., The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996). Fewell, D.N. (ed.), Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). Fishbane, M., “Inner-Biblical Exegesis”, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 33–48. __________, “The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible”, in M. Fishbane/ P.A. Flohr (ed.), Texts and Responses (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 24–43. __________, “Types of Biblical Intertextuality”, in A. Lemaire/M. Sæbø (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 39–44. __________, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). __________, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979). Fitzgerald, C.W., “A Rhetorical Analysis of Isa 56–66” (Ph.D. diss.; Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003). Fokkelman, J.P., “Exodus”, in R. Alter/F. Kermode (ed.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987) 56–65. __________, “Genesis”, in R. Alter/F. Kermode (ed.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987) 36–55. __________, “Structural Reading between Synchrony and Diachrony”, JEOL 30 (1989) 123–36. Follingstad, C.M., Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ki (Dallas: SIL International, 2001). Ford, D., The Forgotten Day (Newcastle, Calif.: Desmond Ford, 1981). Foster, B.R., “Epic of Creation (Enuma Elish)”, in W.W. Hallo/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) 390–402. __________, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1995). Fox, E., The Five Books of Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary and Notes (New York: Schocken, 1995). __________, Now These Are the Names (New York: Schocken, 1986). Fox, M.V., “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly R¦W Etiologies”, RB 81 (1974) 557–96. Fox, M.V. (ed.), The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore (VTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 2002). __________, Temple and Society (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988). __________ (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions (FS M. Haran; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996). Franz, M., Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede von Sinai (Exodus 34, 6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BWANT 160; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003). Freedman, D.N. (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1992). Freedman, H./Simon, M. (ed.), Midrash Rabbah: Exodus (London: Soncino, 1939). Fretheim, T.E., Exodus (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1991). __________, The Pentateuch (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). __________, “Where in the World Is God: Reflections on Divine Presence in the Old Testament”, Lutheran Theological Journal 26 (1992) 6–13. Friedman, E., “The Tabernacle in the Temple”, BA 43 (1980) 241–8. Friedman, T., “The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption”, Judaism 16 (1967) 443–52. Fritz, V., Tempel und Zelt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Preisterschrift (WMANT 47; Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977).

Bibliography

193

Frymer-Kensky, T., “The Emergence of Jewish Biblical Theologies”, in A.O. Bellis/J.S. Kaminsky (ed.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 109–21. Fuhs, H.F., “Heiliges Volk Gottes”, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Unterwegs zu Kirche: alttestamentliche Konzeptionen (QD 110; Freiberg: Herder, 1987) 143–67. Furnish, V.P. II Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984). Gage, W.A., The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Carpenter, 1984). Gammie, J.G., Holiness in Israel (OBT; Fortress: Minneapolis, 1989). García Martínez, F., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden/ Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 21996). Gardner, A.E., “The Nature of the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 66:22”, ABR 50 (2002) 10–27. Garrett, D.A., Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). Gathercole, S.J., Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Gelardini, G. (ed.), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge; Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Geller, S.A., “Manna and Sabbath: A Literary-Theological Reading of Exodus 16”, Int 59 (2005) 5–50. Gentry, P.J., “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew”, HS 39 (1998) 7–39. Gerstenberger, E.S., Theologies in the Old Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2002). Gittlen, B.M. (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002). Gladson, J., “Higher than the Heavens: Forgiveness in the Old Testament”, Journal of Psychology and Christianity 11 (1992) 125–35. Glatt, D.A., Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS 139; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Glenny, W., “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion”, JETS 40 (1997) 627–38. Göbel, C., “‘Denn bei dir ist die Vergebung’: slh im Alten Testament”, Theologische Versuche 8 (1977) 21–33. Goldenberg, G., “On Direct Speech and the Hebrew Bible”, in K. Jongeling (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 79–96. __________, “The Sabbath in Rabbinic Judaism”, in T.C. Eskenazi/D.J. Harrington/W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 31–44. __________, The Sabbath-Law of Rabbi Meir (BJS 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978). Goldingay, J., Israel’s Gospel (vol. 1 of idem, Old Testament Theology; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003). Goldsworthy, G., “‘Thus Says the Lord’: The Dogmatic Basis of Biblical Theology”, in P.T. O’Brien/D.G. Peterson (ed.), God Who Is Rich in Mercy (FS D. B. Knox; Homebush, Australia: Lancer, 1986) 25–40. Goppelt, L., Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Gordon, C.H., “The Seventh Day”, UF 11 (1980) 299–301. Gorman, F.H., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990). __________, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status”, in M.P. Graham/W.P. Brown/J.K. Kuan (ed.), History and Interpretation (FS J.H. Mayes; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 47–64. Gosse, B., “Les rédactions liées à la mention du sabbat dans le Deutéronome et dans le livre d’ésaïe”, ETR 70 (1995) 581–5.

194

Bibliography

Gowan, D.E., Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994). __________, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). Grabbe, L.L., Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000). Grappe, C., “Jean 1,14(–18) dans son contexte et à la lumière de la littérature intertestamentaire”, RHPR 80 (2000) 153–69. Graupner, A., “Zum Verständnis der beiden Dekalogfassungen Ex 20 und Dtn 5: Ein Gespräch mit Frank-Lother Hossfeld”, ZAW 99 (1987) 308–29. Green, A., “Sabbath as Temple: Some Thoughts on Space and Time in Judaism”, in R. Jospe/S.Z. Fishman (ed.), Go and Study (FS A. Jospe; Washington: B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations, 1980) 287–305. Greenberg, M., “Hebrew segullâ: Akkadian sikiltu”, JAOS 71 (1951) 172–4. __________, Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House, 1969). Greiner, M. (ed.), “Die Vergebung der Sünden”, Comm 18 (1989) 1–60. Griffith, R.J., “The Eschatological Significance of the Sabbath” (Th.D. diss.; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1990). Groningen, G. Van, “Interpretation of Genesis”, JETS 13 (1970) 199–218. __________, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). Gross, W., “Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der Priesterschrift”, TTZ 87 (1978) 98–115. Grossfeld, B., “Targum Onqelos, Halakha and the Halakhic Midrashim”, in D.R.G. Beattie/ M.J. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 228–46. Grünwaldt, K., Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Athenäums Monografien, Theologie; BBB 85; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1992). Guthrie, G.H., “Hebrews in Its First-Century Contexts: Recent Research”, in S. McKnight/ G.R. Osborne (ed.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Baker Academic/Apollos, 2004) 414–43. Haag, E., Der Mensch am Anfang: Die alttestamentliche Paradiesvorstellung nach Gen 2–3 (TThSt 24; Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1970). __________, Vom Sabbat zum Sonntag: eine bibeltheologische Studie (TThSt 52; Trier: PaulinusVerlag, 1991). Hagner, D., “When the Time Had Fully Come”, in C.E. Armerding/W.W. Gasque (ed.), Handbook of Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 89–99. Hahn, S., “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004)”, Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005) 263–92. Halevi, Z. ben Shimon, Kabbalah and Exodus (Boulder, Colo.: Shambhala Publications, 1980). Hallo, W.W., “Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis”, in W.W. Hallo/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) xxiii–xxviii. __________, “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach”, in C.D. Evans/W.W. Hallo/J.B. White (ed.), Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method (PTMS 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980) 1–26. __________, “Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature”, in W.W. Hallo/B.W. Jones/G.L. Mattingly (ed.), The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature (Scripture in Context 3; Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990) 1–30. __________, “Exodus and Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, in W.G. Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (5 vol.; New York: UAHC, 1983) 2.xxiii–xxxiii. __________, “The Limits of Skepticism”, JAOS 110 (1990) 187–99. __________, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-Study in the Contrastive Approach”, HUCA 48 (1977) 1–18.

Bibliography

195

__________, “Sumer and the Bible: A Matter of Proportion”, in W.W. Hallo/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), Archival Documents from the Biblical World (vol. 3 of The Context of Scripture; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) xlix–liv. W.W. Hallo/Younger, K.L. Jr. (ed.), Archival Documents from the Biblical World (vol. 3 of The Context of Scripture; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002). __________ (ed.), Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002). __________ (ed.), Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (vol. 2 of The Context of Scripture; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002). Hallo, W.W./van Dijk, J.J.A., The Exaltation of Inanna (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968). Halpren, B., First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). Hamilton, J.M., Jr., “God with Men in the Torah”, WTJ 65 (2003) 113–33. Hamilton, V.P., The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Hanson, A.T., “John I.14–18 and Exodus XXXIV”, NTS 23 (1976) 90–101. Hanson, K.C., “Sin, Purification, and Group Process”, 167–91 in H.T.C. Sun/K.L. Eades (ed.), Problems in Biblical Theology (FS R. Knierim; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Hanson, P.D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1975). __________, Old Testament Apocalyptic (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1987). Haran, M., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 21985). Hartley, J.E., Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1998). Hasel, G.F., Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 41991). __________, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology”, EQ 46 (1974) 81–102. __________, “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 21–43. Hasel, G.F./Murdoch, W.G.C., “The Sabbath in the Prophetic and Historical Literature of the Old Testament”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 44–56. Hasenfratz, H.-P., “Patterns of Creation in Ancient Egypt”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 174–8. Hauge, M.R., The Descent from the Mountain. Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSup 323; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). Hayes, C.E., “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9–10”, in H. Najma/J.H. Newman (ed.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation (FS J.L. Kugel; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 45–93. Hayes, J.H./Preussner, F., Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985). Hayward, R., “The Sanctification of Time in the Second Temple Period: Case Studies in the Septuagint and Jubilees”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 141–67. Heike, T., “Das Alte Testament und die Todesstrafe”, Bib 85 (2004) 349–74. Helmer, C., “Biblical Theology: Bridge Over Many Waters”, Currents in Biblical Research 3 (2005) 169–96. Hempel, C., The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Henderson, I.H./Oegema, G.S. (ed.), The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (JSHRZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher 2006). Hendrix, R.E., “A Literary Structural Overview of Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 123–38.

196

Bibliography

__________, “A Literary Structural Overview of the Golden-Calf Episode in Exodus 32:1–33:6”, AUSS 28 (1990) 211–17. __________, “MiškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd: Etymology, Lexical Definitions, and Extra-biblical Usage”, AUSS 29 (1991) 213–24. __________, “The Use of miškƗn and ǀhel mô!Ɲd in Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992): 3–13. Hengel, M., “The Scriptures and their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism”, in D.R.G. Beattie/M.J. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 158–75. Herbst, T., “What Are Collocations? Sandy Beaches or False Teeth?”, English Studies 77 (1996) 379–93. Herczeg, Y. (ed.), Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated (Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1998). Herrmann, W., “Ex 17,7bB und die Frage nach der Gegenwart JHWHs in Israel”, in J. Hausmann/H.-J. Zobel (ed.), Alttestamentlicher Glaube und biblische Theologie (FS H.D. Preuss; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992) 46–55. Heschel, A.J., The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951). Hess, R.S./Tsumura, D.T. (ed.), I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994). Hill, C.E./James, F.A. III/Nicole, R.R. (ed.), The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004). Hoffman, Y., “The First Creation Story: Canonical and Diachronic Aspects”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London/New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 32–53. Hoffmeier, J.K., Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). __________, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Hofius, O., “Das ‘erste’ und das ‘zweite’ Zelt. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Hebr 9,1–10”, in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT 132; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 203–9. __________, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972). Hoftijzer, J., “Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem”, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 98–114. Hollander, J., The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1981). Honeycutt, R.L., Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf”, RevExp 74 (1977) 523–35. Horn, B., “Prologue at Sinai”, Shofar 11 (1993) 81–96. Horton, M.S., Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002). Hoskins, P., “Jesus as the Replacement of the Temple in John” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2002). Hossfeld, F.-L., “Das Privilegrecht Ex 34,11–26 in der Diskussion”, in S. Beyerle/G. Mayerant/ H. Straub (ed.), Recht und Ethos in Altem Testament – Gestalt und Wirkung (FS H. Seebass; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 39–59. __________, “Versöhnung und Sühne”, BK 41 (1986) 54–60. House, P.R., “The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testament”, in P.R. House (ed.), Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 3–22. __________ (ed.), Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992).

Bibliography

197

Houtman, A./Poorthuis, M.J.H.M./Schwartz, J. (ed.), Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (Jewish and Christian Perspectives 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Houtman, C., Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET 9; Kampen: Kok, 1994). __________, Exodus (3 vol.; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1993– 1996). __________, “Het verheerlijkte gezicht van Mozes”, NedTT 43 (1989) 1–10. __________, “Wie fiktiv ist das Zeltheiligtum von Exodus 25–40?”, ZAW 106 (1994) 107–13. Howard, D.M., Jr./M.A. Grisanti (ed.), Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003). Hudson, D.M., “From Chaos to Cosmos: Sacred Space in Genesis”, ZAW 108 (1996) 87–97. Hugenberger, G.P., “Introductory Notes on Typology”, in G. Beale (ed.), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 331–41. __________, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Hughes, P.E., The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). __________, “The Truth of Scripture and the Problem of Historical Relativity”, in D.A. Carson/ J.D. Woodbridge (ed.), Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 173–94. Hummel, H., “The Old Testament Basis of Typological Interpretation”, BR 9 (1964) 40–3. Hurowitz, V.A., “The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal”, JQR 86 (1995) 127–51. __________, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). __________, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle”, JAOS 105 (1985) 21–30. Hurvitz, A., “Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew”, in A. Lemaire/M. Sæbø (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 143–60. Hutter, M., “Adam als Gärtner und König”, BZ 30 (1986) 258–62. Hvidberg, F.F., Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1962). Hyatt, J.P., Exodus (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). Ibn Ezra, A. ben Meer, Perush ha-Torah. The commentary of Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch. (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1986). Irsigler, H., Zefanja (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2002). Irwin, W.H., “The Course of the Dialogue between Moses and YHWH in Exodus 33:12–17”, CBQ 59 (1997) 629–36. Isaacs, M.E., Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). Jaarsveld, H. van/Draškovic, I., “Effects of Collocational Restrictions in the Interpretation of Adjective-Noun Combinations”, Language and Cognitive Processes 18/1 (2003) 47–60. Jacob, B., The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (with an introduction by W. Jacob; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992). Jaki, S.L., “The Sabbath-Rest of the Maker of All”, AsJT 50 (1995) 37–49. Janowski, B., “Der Tempel als Kosmos – zur Kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt Israels”, in S. Meyer (ed.), Egypt – Temple of the Whole World (FS J. Assmann; Numen Books 97; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 163–89. __________, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993). __________, “‘Ich will in eurer Mitte Wohnen’: Struktur und Genese der priesterlichen SchekinaTheolgie”, in idem, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 119–47. __________, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen (WMANT 55; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982).

198

Bibliography

__________, “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5 (1990) 37–69. Janzen, J.G., “The Character of the Calf and Its Cult in Exodus 32”, CBQ 52 (1990) 597–607. __________, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997). __________, “The Yoke That Gives Rest”, Int 41 (1987) 256–68. Janzen, W., Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Waterloo, Ontario: Herald, 2000). __________, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Japhet, S., “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place”, in B.Z. Kedar/R.J.Z. Werblowsky (ed.), Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998) 55–72. Jenni, E., Die theologische Begründung des Sabbatgebotes im Alten Testament (ThSt [B] 46; Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956). Jenson, P.P., “Holiness in the Priestly Writings of the Old Testament”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 93–121. __________, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992). Jobes, K.H./Silva, M., Invitation to the Septuagint (Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Baker, 2000). Johnson, R.W., Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209; London: Sheffield Academic, 2001). Johnson, S., Jr., The Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980). Johnston, R.M., “Patriarchs, Rabbis, and Sabbath”, AUSS 12 (1974) 94–102. __________, “The Rabbinic Sabbath”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 70–91. Jones, D.R., “Sacrifice and Holiness”, in S.W. Sykes (ed.), Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 9–21. Joüon, P./Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vol.; SubBi 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991). Juel, D., Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). Kadushin, M., A Conceptual Approach to the Mekilta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969). Kaiser, W.C., Jr., Exodus (Expositor’s Bible Commentary; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1990). __________, “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest”, BSac 130/518 (1973) 135–50. __________, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985). Kaminsky, J.S., “Paradise Regained: Rabbinic Reflections on Israel at Sinai”, in A.O. Bellis/ J.S. Kaminsky (ed.), Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 15–43. Kapelrud, A.S., “The Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts”, VT 18 (1968) 494–9. Karlberg, M.W., “Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant”, WTJ 43 (1980) 1–57. Kaufman, S., “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law”, MAARAV 1/2 (1978–79) 105–58. Kearney, P.J., “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40”, ZAW 89 (1977) 375–87. Kedar, B.Z./Werblowsky, R.J.Z. (ed.), Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998). Keel, O., The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York: Seabury, 1978). Keel, O./Shroer, S., Creation: Biblical Theology in the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Religion (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004). Keller, C.A., Das Wort OTH als ‘Offenbarungszeichen Gottes’: Eine philologisch-theologische Begriffsuntersuchung zum Alten Testament (Basel: E. Hoenen, 1946). Kim, E.C., “The Purpose of the Book of Exodus: A Narrative Criticism”, AJT 18 (2004) 3–13. Kingsbury, E.C., “A Seven Day Ritual in the Old Babylonian Cult at Larsa”, HUCA 34 (1963) 1–34.

Bibliography

199

Kitchen, K.A., “The Desert Tabernacle: Pure Fiction or Plausible Account?”, BRev 16 (December 2000) 14–21. __________, “The Tabernacle – A Bronze Age Artifact”, ErIsr 24 (1993) 119–29. Kittel, G./Friedrich, G. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976). Klawans, J., Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Klein, M.L., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Klein, R.W., “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus”, Int 50 (1996) 264–76. Kline, M.G., Images of the Spirit (Baker Biblical Monographs; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). __________, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, Kans.: Two Age Press, 2000). __________, Kingdom Prologue (South Hamilton, Mass.: M.G. Kline, 1981–1983). __________, “Oath and Ordeal Signs”, WTJ 38 (1965) 115–39. __________, “Oath and Ordeal Signs: Second Article”, WTJ 39 (1966) 1–37. __________, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (1996) 2–15. __________, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). Klingbeil, G.A., A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369 (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998). __________, “Ritual Time in Leviticus 8 with Special Reference to the Seven Day Period in the Old Testament”, ZAW 109 (1997) 500–13. Knauf, E.A., “‘Seine Arbeit, die Gott geschaffen hatte, um sie auszuführen’: Syntax und Theologie in Gen 2,3”, BN 111 (2002) 24–7. Knierim, R.P., “Conceptual Aspects in Exodus 25:1–9”, in D.P. Wright/D.N. Freedman/A. Hurvitz (ed.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (FS J. Milgrom; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 113–23. __________, “Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology”, HBT 3 (1981) 59–123. __________, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Knight, D.A., “Pentateuch”, in D.A. Knight/G.M. Tucker (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia/Chico, Calif.: Fortress/Scholars, 1985) 263–96. Knight, D.A./Tucker, G.M. (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia/Chico, Calif.: Fortress/Scholars, 1985). Knight, G.A.F., Isaiah 56–66: The New Israel (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). __________, Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). Knohl, I., “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, HUCA 58 (1987) 65–117. __________, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). __________, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting’”, in M. Cogan et al. (ed.), Tehillah le-Moshe (FS M. Greenberg; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 73–9. Koch, T., “Strafe und Schuld im Horizont von Reue und Vergebung”, ZEE 42 (1998) 110–21. Koester, C.R., The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989). Koster, M.D., The Peshitta of Exodus: The Development of Its Text in the Course of Fifteen Centuries (SSN 18; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977). Krašovec, J., “The Breaking and Renewing of the Covenant in Ex 32–34”, Bogoslovskii Vestnik 50 (1990) 197–216. __________, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

200

Bibliography

__________, “Vergebung und neuer Bund nach Jer 31,31–34”, ZAW 105 (1993) 428–44. Kubo, S., “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period”, in K.A. Strand (ed.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982) 57–69. Kunin, S.D., God’s Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism (Cassell Religious Studies; London: Cassell, 1998). Kutsch, E. “Der Sabbat – ursprünglich Vollmontag?”, in E. Kutsch/L. Schmidt/K. Eberlein (ed.), Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (FS K. Elliger; BZAW 168; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 1986) 71–7. Kutsko, J.F., Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies 7; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Laansma, J., “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Laberge, L., “Sabbat: étymologie et origines. Étude bibliographique”, ScEs 44 (1992) 205–20. Labuschange, C.J., “The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch”, VT 32 (1982) 268–98. Lambert, W.G., “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis”, JTS 16 (1965) 287– 300. Lane, D., “The Meaning and Use of berith in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity International University, 2000). Lane, W.L., Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Dallas: Word, 1991). __________, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas: Word, 1991). Laney, J.C., “God’s Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6–8”, BSac 158 (2001) 36–51. Larsson, G., Bound For Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). __________, “The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX”, JBL 102 (1983) 401–9. Leder, A.C., “The Coherence of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning”, CTJ 36 (2001) 251–69. __________, “An Iconography of Order: Kingship in Exodus. A Study of the Structure of Exodus” (Th.D. diss.; Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto, 1992). __________, “Reading Exodus to Learn and Learning to Read Exodus”, CTJ 34 (1999) 11–35. Lee, J.A., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBLSCS 14; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983). Lee, W.W., Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Lefebvre, J.-F., Le jubilé biblique: Lv 25 exégèse et théologie (OBO 194; Fribourg, Suisse/ Göttingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). Leibowitz, N., Studies in Shemot: The Book of Exodus (2 vol.; Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1976). Leithart, P.J., “Making and Mis-making: Poiesis in Exodus 25–40”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 2.3 (2000) 307–18. Lemaire, A./Sæbø, M. (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Leonhardt, J., Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Levenson, J.D., “Idioms of Creation and Covenant”, in B.C. Ollenburger/E.A. Martens/G.F. Hasel (ed.), The Flowering of Old Testament Theology (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 429–44. __________, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 21994). __________, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper San-Franciso, 1985). __________, “The Temple and the World”, JR 64 (1984) 275–98. __________, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976).

Bibliography

201

__________, “Why Jews are Not Interested in Biblical Theology,” in idem, The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1987) 33– 61, 165–70 Levine, B.A., “The Language of Holiness: Perceptions of the Sacred in the Hebrew Bible”, in M.P. O’Conner/D.N. Freedman (ed.), Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 241–55. __________, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text With the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary 3; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996). Levine, B.A./de Tarragon, J.-M., “The King Proclaims the Day: Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87)”, RB 100 (1993) 76–115. Levine, E., The Aramaic Version of the Bible (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988). Levine, M., The Tabernacle. Its Structures and Utensils (ed. J. Shaked; introduction by Y. Elitzur; New York: Socino, 1969). Levinson, B.M., Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). __________ (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994). Lienhard, J.T. (ed.), Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament 3; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001). Lillback, P.A., The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). Lim, J.T.K., Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1–11 (BZAW 314; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). Lincoln, A.T., “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament”, in D.A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 197–220. Lints, R., The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). Lochman, J.M., Versöhnung und Befreiung: Absage an ein eindimensionales Heilsverständnis (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1977). Lockshin, M.I. (ed.), Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation (BJS 310; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997). Loewenstamm, S.E., “The Investiture of Levi”, in idem, From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) 55–65. __________, “Review of A. Toeg, Lawgiving at Sinai”, in idem, From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992) 424–42. __________, “The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature”, IEJ 15 (1965) 121–33. Lohfink, N., “Creation and Salvation in Priestly Theology”, TDE 30 (1982) 3–6. __________, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). Long, V.P., The Art of Biblical History (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). __________, “Historiography of the Old Testament”, in D.W. Baker/B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 145–75. __________, “Reading the Old Testament as Literature”, in C.C. Broyles (ed.), Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001) 85–123. Longacre, R.E., “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10”, in W.R. Bodine (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 21–49. __________, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 22003).

202

Bibliography

Longenecker, R.N., Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids/Vancouver: Eerdmans/Regent College Publishing, 21999). Longman, T. III, “Literary Approaches to Old Testament Study”, in D.W. Baker/B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 97–115. Louth, A. (ed.), Genesis 1–11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament 1; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001). Lu, J.S., “Called to Proclaim Covenantal Transformation: A Text Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 59:21–63:6” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1999). Lust, J./Eynikel, E./Hauspie, K., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–). MacDonald, P.J., “Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation”, in W.R. Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 153–75. MacRae, G.W., “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews”, Semeia 12 (1978) 179–99. Malul, M., The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). Mandelbaum, I.J., “Tannaitic Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode”, in P.R. Davies et al. (ed.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990) 207–23. Mann, T.W., The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988). __________, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Tradition: The Typology of Divine Exaltation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1977). Margaliot, M., “The Theology of Exodus 32–34”, in R. Margolin (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Divison A: The Bible and Its World (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994) 43–50. Marquet, J.-F., “Sacré et profonation”, in E. Castelli (ed.), Le Sacré: Études et recherches (Paris: Aubier, 1974) 121–31. Martens, E.A., God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981). __________, “The Oscillating Fortunes of ‘History’ within Old Testament Theology”, in A.R. Millard/J.K. Hoffmeier/D.W. Baker (ed.), Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 313–40. Master, J., “Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism”, JETS 45 (2002) 585–98. Matthews, K.A., Genesis 1:1–11:26 (NAC 1A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996). Matthews, V.H./Benjamin, D.C., Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (rev. and exp. edn; New York: Paulist, 1997). __________, The Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993). May, H.G., “The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel 28:12–19”, in B.W. Anderson (ed.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper, 1962) 166–76. Mayes, A.D.H./Salters, R.B. (ed.), Covenant as Context (FS. E.W. Nicholson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Mays, J.L., Amos (OTL; Westminster: Philadelphia, 1969). McCann, J.C., “Exodus 32:1–14”, Int 44 (1990) 277–81. McCarthy, D.J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (new ed.; AnBib 21A; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). McComisky, T.E., The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985). McConville, J.G., Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). __________, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).

Bibliography

203

__________, “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature”, in J.M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 11–40. McCorkick, C.M., Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons (BZAW 313; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). McCrory, J.H., “The Composition of Exodus 35–40” (Ph.D. diss.; Claremont Graduate University, 1989). __________, “Up, Up, Up, and Up: Exodus 24:9–18 as the Narrative Context for the Tabernacle Instructions of Exodus 25–31”, in D.J. Lull (ed.), SBL 1990 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 570–82. McEvenue, S.E., Interpreting the Pentateuch (OTS 4; Collegeville: Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990). __________, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib 50; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971). __________, “The Old Testament, Scripture or Theology”, Int 35 (1981) 229–42. McIntyre, J., The Shape of Soteriology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992). McKay, H.A., “New Moon or Sabbath?”, in T.C. Eskenazi/D.J. Harrington/W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 12–27. __________, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath in Ancient Judaism (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 112; Leiden: Brill, 1994). McKim, D.K. (ed.), Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). McNamara, M./Hayward, R./Maher, M. (ed.), Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus; Targum PseudoJonathon: Exodus (Collegeville: Minn./Edinburgh: Liturgical Press/T & T Clark, 1994). Meier, S.A., “The Sabbath and Purification Cycles”, in T.C. Eskenazi/D.J. Harrington/W.H. Shea (ed.), The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Crossroad, 1991) 3–11. __________, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Meinhold, J., Sabbat und Woche im Alten Testament: eine Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905). Melugin, R.F., “Reading the Book of Isaiah as Christian Scripture”, SBLSP 35 (1996) 188–203. Melugin, R.F./Sweeney, M.A. (ed.), New Visions of Isaiah (JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996). Mendenhall, G.E., Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955). Merling, D. (ed.), To Understand the Scriptures (FS W.H. Shea; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997). Merrill, E.H., “Covenant and the Kingdom: Genesis 1–3 as Foundation for Biblical Theology”, CTR 1 (1987) 295–308. Merwe, C.H.J. van der, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 133–56. __________, “An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1–20. __________, “Some Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: A Few Pointers Towards a More Comprehensive Model of Language Use”, HS 44 (2003) 7–24. Merwe, C.H.J. van der/Naudé, J.A./Kroeze, J.H., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). Meyers, C.L., The Tabernacle Menorah (ASOR Research Dissertation Series 2; Missoula: Scholars, 1976.

204

Bibliography

__________, “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus”, in M.V. Fox/V.A. Hurowitz/A. Hurvitz/M.L. Klein/B.J. Schwartz/N. Shupak (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions (FS M. Haran; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 33–46. __________, Exodus (New CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Michaeli, F., Le livre de l’Exode (CAT 2; Neuchatel/Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1974). Michel, O., “Die Lehre von der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach der Anschauung des Hebräerbriefs”, TSK 106 (1934–1935) 333–55. __________, “Philo the Biblical Exegete”, in D.T. Runia/G.E. Sterling (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. IX (1997): Wisdom and Logos (BJS 312; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 79–83. Milgrom J., “The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Priestly Codes with Emphasis on Lev 19”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 65–75. __________, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976). __________, Leviticus 1–16 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991). __________, Leviticus (AB; 3 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1998–2001). __________, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1: The Encroacher and the Levite: The Term ‘Abodah (University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 14; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970). __________, “Systemic Differences in the Priestly Corpus: A Response to Jonathan Klawans”, RB 112 (2005) 321–9. Millard, A.R., “The Etymology of Eden”, VT 34 (1984) 103–6. __________, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis’ Story”, TynBul 18 (1967) 3–18. __________, “Story, History, and Theology”, in A.R. Millard/J.K. Hoffmeier/D.W. Baker (ed.), Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 37–64. Miller, C.L., “Discourse Functions of Quotative Frames in Biblical Hebrew Narrative”, in W.R. Bodine (ed.), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 155–82. __________, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause”, in idem (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 3–17. __________, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM 55; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996). __________ (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999). Miller, P.D., “Creation and Covenant”, in S.J. Kraftchick/C.D. Myers/B.C. Ollenburger (ed.), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995) 155–68. __________, “The Human Sabbath: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology”, PSB 6 (1985) 81–97. __________, “Wellhausen and the History of Israel’s Religion”, in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 182–96. __________, “The World and Message of the Prophets: Biblical Prophecy in its Context”, in idem, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 508–25. Minear, P.S., Christians and the New Creation: Genesis Motifs in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Miscall, P.D., “Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book”, in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 41–56. __________, “Texts, More Texts, a Textual Reader and a Textual Writer”, Semeia 69–70 (1995) 247–60.

Bibliography

205

Mitchell, C.W., The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987). Moberly, R.W.L., At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983). __________, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Momvley, H., “John 1:14–18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7–34:35”, ExpTim 95 (1984) 135–7. Moor, J.C. de, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit”, in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature (OtSt 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 1–20. Mosis, R., “Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik”, BZ 22 (1978) 1–25. Motyer, J.A., “Zephaniah”, in T.E. McComiskey (ed.), The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (3 vol.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 3.897–962. Muchiki, Y., “Sabbath as a Sign (Exodus 31:13–17)”, Exegesis 6 (1995) 11–30. Muffs, Y., Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (repr. ed.; Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1995). Muilenberg, J., “Form Criticism and Beyond”, JBL 88 (1969) 1–16. __________, “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator (Exodus 33:1a, 12–17)”, in P.R. Ackroyd/ B. Lindars (ed.), Words and Meanings (FS D.W. Thomas; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 159–81. Mulal, M., The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). Mulder, M.J. (ed.), Miqra: Translation and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT 2:1; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984). Muraoka, T., “Workshop: Notes on the Use of Hebrew Tenses in Exodus 19–24”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 42–50. __________, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985). Murray, J., Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). __________, Principles of Conduct (with a foreword by J.I. Packer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Negretti, N., Il Settimo Giorno. Indagine critico-teologica delle tradizioni presacerdotali e sacerdotali circa il sabato biblico (AnBib 55; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973). Nelson, R.D., Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). Neusner, J. (ed.), Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, a New American Translation (vol. 1; BJS 104; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985). __________, Handbook of Rabbinic Theology: Language, System, Structure (Leiden: Brill, 2002). __________, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part 1: Shabbat (SJLA 34; Leiden: Brill, 1981). __________, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part 5: The Mishnaic System of Appointed Times (SJLA 34; Leiden: Brill, 1983). __________, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (ABRL; Doubleday: New York, 1994). __________, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2, Amalek, Bahodesh, Neziqin, Kaspa and Shabbata (BJS 154; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). __________, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Introduction to Judaism’s First Scriptural Encyclopedia (BJS 152; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). __________, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). __________, A Midrash Reader (Fortress: Minneapolis, 1990). __________, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1988). __________, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism: A Systematic Account (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 95; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994).

206

Bibliography

__________, The Tosefta: An Introduction (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 47; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992). __________, The Tosefta: Second Division; Moed (New York: Ktav, 1981). Newing, E.G., “A Rhetorical and Theological Analysis of the Hexateuch”, Southeast Asia Journal of Theology 22 (1981) 1–15. __________, “The Rhetoric of Hope: A Rhetorical Analysis of Genesis–2 Kings”, Colloq 17 (1985) 1–15. __________, “Up and Down – In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai. The Literary Unity of Exodus 32–34”, ABR 41 (1993) 18–34. Niccacci, A., “Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 167–202. __________, “On the Hebrew Verbal System”, in R.D. Bergen (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 117–37. __________, “Types and Functions of the Nominal Sentence”, in C.L. Miller (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 215–48. __________, “Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 203–28. Nicholson, E.W., “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3–8”, VT 32 (1982) 74–86. __________, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986). __________, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Nicole, E., “Atonement in the Pentateuch: ‘It Is the Blood That Makes Atonement for One’s Life’”, in C.E. Hill/F.A. James III/R.R. Nicole (ed.), The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004) 35–50. Niditch, S., “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context”, CBQ 48 (1986) 208–48. __________, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation (Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities 6; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985). __________, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). __________, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). Niehaus, J.J., “Amos”, in T.E. McComiskey (ed.), The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (3 vol.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 1.315–494. __________, God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). __________, “In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look at Genesis iii 8”, VT 44 (1994) 263–7. Nielsen, K., “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible”, 17–32 in A. Lemaire/M. Sæbø (ed.), Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 17–32. Ninow, F., Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif (Friedensauer Schriftenreihe, Reihe A, Theologie 4; New York: Peter Lang, 2001). Nixon, R.E., “The Biblical Idea of a Holy Nation”, Chm 83 (1969) 9–20. Noble, P.R., “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation”, Literature and Theology 7 (1993) 130–48. Noth, M., Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966). __________, Exodus (OTL, London: SCM, 1962). __________, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (introduction by B.W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972). O’Conner, M., “Discourse Linguistics and the Study of Biblical Hebrew”, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume, Basel 2001 (VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 17–42.

Bibliography

207

Oegema, G., “Non-Canonical Writings and Biblical Theology”, in I.H. Henderson/G.S. Oegema (ed.), The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (JSHRZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher 2006) 491–512. Oeming, M., Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart: das Verhaltnis von AT und NT in der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von Rad (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985). Ollenburger, B.C. (ed.), The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in TwentiethCentury Old Testament Theology, 1930–1990 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004). Olofsson, S., The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (ConBOT 30; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990). Olson, D.T., Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994). Ostella, R., “Honoring Jesus as Sabbath King: Historical Redemptive Arguments for a SundaySabbath”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, Ga., 20 November 2003. Oswalt, J.N., “The Book of Isaiah: A Short Course on Biblical Theology”, CTJ 39 (2004) 54–71. __________, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). __________, “Righteousness in Isaiah: A Study of the Function of Chapters 56–66 in the Present Structure of the Book”, in C.C. Broyles/C.A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1.177– 91. Otto, E., “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch”, TRu 67 (2002) 125–55. Otto, R., The Idea of the Holy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1959). Oudersluys, R.C., “Exodus in the Letter to the Hebrews”, in J.I. Cook (ed.), Grace upon Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 143–52. Paas, S., Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets (OTS 47; Leiden: Brill, 2003). Paran, M., Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) [Hebrew]. Pardee, D., “The Ba’lu Myth”, in W.W. Hallo/K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), The Context of Scripture (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) 1.241–74. Parker, S.B., Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Patai, R., Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (New York: Ktav, 21967). Patrick, D., Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985). Paulien, J., “Elusive Allusions”, BR 33 (1988) 37–53. Pearl, J., “From ‘Seventh Day’ to ‘Shabbat’: Dualities in Genesis 2:1–3”, JBQ 26 (1998) 52–6. Pelcovitz, R. (ed.), Sforno: Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, Genesis, Exodus (Artscroll Mesorah 1; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah, 1987). Perdue, L.G., The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). Peterson, D., Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). __________, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (New Studies in Biblical Theology 1; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001). Phillips, A., “A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope”, VT 34 (1984) 32–52, 282–94. Plastaras, J., The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1966). Plaut, W.G., The Torah: A Modern Commentary, vol. 2, Exodus (New York: UAHC, 1983). Polak, F., “Poetic Style and Parallelism in the Creation Account (Genesis 1.1–2.3)”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 2–31.

208

Bibliography

__________, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari”, in C. Cohen/ A. Hurvitz/S.M. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe (FS M. Weinfeld; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 119–34. __________, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 113–47. Porter, B.N., (ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1; Casco Bay, Maine: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000). Porter, S.E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages: Greek 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Poythress, V.S., “Christ the Only Savior of Interpretation”, WTJ 50 (1988) 305–21. __________, “God’s Lordship in Interpretation”, WTJ 50 (1988) 27–64. Preminger, A./Greenstein, E.L. (ed.), The Hebrew Bible in Literary Criticism (New York: Ungar, 1986). Preuss, H.D., Old Testament Theology (2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995– 1996). Prinsloo, W.S., The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW 163; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985). Propp, W.H., “The Skin of Moses’ Face – Transfigured or Disfigured?”, CBQ 49 (1987) 375–86. __________, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1998). __________, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006). Pury, A. de (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livers de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989). Rad, G. Von, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 1–78. __________, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972). __________, Old Testament Theology (with an introduction by W. Brueggemann; 2 vol.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). __________, “The Tent and the Ark”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 103–24. __________, “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 131–43. __________, “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception”, in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966) 94–102. Raitt, T.M., “Why Does God Forgive?”, HBT 13 (1991) 38–58. Rand, H., “The Destruction of the Calf: A Reply”, JBQ 23 (1995) 242–7. Regt, L.J./de Waard, J./Fokkelman, J.P. (ed.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996). Reichenbach, B.R., “Genesis 1 as a Theological-Political Narrative of Kingdom Establishment”, BBR 13 (2003) 47–69. Reichert, A., “Israel, the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology”, in A. Shinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1973 (3 vol.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 1.341–9. Rietz, H.W.M./Baumgarten, J.M./Charlesworth, J.H., “Damascus Document 4Q266–273”, in J.H. Charlesworth/H.W.M. Rietz (ed.), Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah and Related Documents (PTSDSSP 3; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/ Westminster John Knox, 2006).

Bibliography

209

Renaud, B, “La formation de Ex 19–40. Quelques points de repère”, in P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque. Débats et recherches. XIVe Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers 1991 (Paris: Cerf, 1992) 101–33. __________, L’alliance un mystère de misércorde: Une lecture de Ex 32–34 (LD 169; Paris: Cerf, 1998). __________, La theophanie du Sinaï. Exode 19–24: Exégèse et Théologie (CahRB; Paris: Gabalda, 1991). Rendtorff, R., “Between Historical Criticism and Holistic Interpretation”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup 40; Ledien: Brill, 1988) 298–303. __________, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (Tools for Biblical Study 7; Leiderdorp: Deo, 2005). __________, “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus”, JBL 108 (1989) 385– 93. __________, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (OTS; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998). __________, “Der Text in seiner Endgestalt: Überlegungen zu Exodus 19”, in D.R. Daniels/ U. Glessmer/M. Rösel (ed.), Ernten, was man sät (FS K. Koch; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) 459–70. __________, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies”, CurBS 5 (1997) 48–58. __________, “The Paradigm Is Changing: Hopes – And Fears”, BibInt 1 (1993) 34–53. __________, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990). Reventlow, H.G., “Creation as a Topic in Biblical Theology”, in H.G. Reventlow/Y. Hoffman (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 153–71. __________, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). __________, Problems of OT Theology in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Reventlow, H.G./Hoffman, Y. (ed.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup 319; London and New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002). Ribera, J., “The Targum: From Translation to Interpretation”, in D.R.G. Beattie/M.J. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 218–25. Rissi, M., Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs (WUNT 41; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987). Roberts, J.J.M., “The Bible and the Literature of the Ancient Near East”, in idem, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2002) 44–58. __________, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2002). __________, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition”, JBL 92 (1973) 329–44. Robertson, O.P., The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). Robinson, G., “The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic Character of the Sabbath”, ZAW 92 (1980) 32–42. __________, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach (BBET 21; Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1988). __________, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel”, VT 28 (1978) 301–17. Robinson, R.A., “The Laws of Prohibited Labor on the Sabbath in Relation to the Book of Exodus: From Exodus through the Mishnah” (Ph.D. diss.; Westminster Theological Seminary, 1993). Rodriguez, A.M., “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus”, AUSS 24 (1986) 127–45. __________, “Jewelry in the Old Testament”, in D. Merling (ed.), To Understand the Scriptures (FS W.H. Shea; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997) 103–25.

210

Bibliography

Rofé, A., Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). Rogerson, J.W., Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, England and Germany (London: SPCK, 1984). __________, “Response to Jacob Milgrom’s Concept of Holiness”, in J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 76–8. __________, “What Is Holiness?”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Holiness Past and Present (London: T & T Clark, 2003) 3–21. Rosner, B.S., “Biblical Theology”, in T.D. Alexander/B.S. Rosner (ed.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 3–11 Roth, W., “The Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction Critical Study”, BR 21 (1976) 5–14. Rowley, H.H., The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950). __________, “Moses and the Decalogue”, BJRL 34 (1951–52) 81–118. Rudolph, D.J., “Festivals in Genesis 1:14”, TynBul 54.2 (2003) 23–40. __________, “The Meaning of ][FYO in Genesis 1:14” (M.A. thesis; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2002). Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah 11,6–9”, in F. García Martínez/A. Hilhorst/C.J. Labuschagne (ed.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls (FS A.S. van der Woude; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 31–42. __________, “The Relationship between Exod 31,12–17 and Jubilees 2,1.17–33”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 567–75. Runia, D.T. (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. IX (1997) (BJS 287; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Russell, D.M., The “New Heaven and New Earth”: Hope for the Creation in Jewish Apocalyptic and the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Apocalyptic Literature 1; Philadelphia: Visionary, 1996). Ruszkowski, L., “Der Sabbat bei Tritojesaja”, in B. Huwyler/H.-P. Mathys/B. Weber/K. Seybold (ed.), Prophetie und Psalmen (FS K. Seybold; AOAT 280; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001) 61–74. Ruwe, A., “The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10)”, in R. Rendtorff/R.A. Kugler (ed.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; Formation and Interpretation of OT Literature 3; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 55–78. Ryou, D.H., Zephaniah’s Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Biblical Interpretation Series 13; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Sadaqa, A./Sadaqa, R. (ed.), Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch – With Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv: A. and R. Sadaqa, 1964). Safrai, S. (ed.) The Literature of the Sages. First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (CRINT 2:3; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1987). __________ (ed.), The Literature of the Sages: Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud (CRINT 2:3; Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984). Sailhamer, J.H., The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). __________, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996). Sales, M., “The Fulfillment of the Sabbath: From the Holiness of the Seventh Day to God's Resting in God”, trans. Mark Sebanc, Comm 21 (1994) 27–48. Samuelson, N.M., The First Seven Days: A Philosophical Commentary on the Creation of Genesis (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 61; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Sanders, J.A., Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).

Bibliography

211

__________, “Intertextuality and Canon”, in S.L. Cook/S.C. Winter (ed.), On the Way to Nineveh (FS G.M. Landes; ASOR Research Books 4; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999) 316–33. __________, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4”, in C.A. Evans/J.A. Sanders (ed.), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 46–69. Sanders, S.L., “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face”, VT 52 (2002) 400–6. Sanderson, J.E., “The Contribution of 4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism”, RevQ 13 (1988) 547–60. __________, “The Old Greek of Exodus in the Light of 4QpaleoExodm”, Textus 14 (1988) 87–104. __________, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986). Sarna, N., Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1991). __________, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken, 1986). Scharbert, J., Exodus (NEchtB 24; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989). Schenker, A., “Die Segnung des Siebten Schöpfungstages: Zum besonderen Segen in Gen 2,3”, in A.M. Altermatt/T.A. Schnitker (ed.), Der Sonntag: Anspruch  Wirklichkeit  Gestalt (Würzburg/Freiburg, Schweiz: Echter Verlag/Universitätsverlag, 1986) 19–29. __________, “Drei Mosaiksteinchen: ‘Königreich von Priestern’, ‘Und ihre Kinder gehen weg’, ‘Wir tun und wir hören’ (Exodus 19,6; 21,22; 24,7)”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 367–80. __________, “Sühne statt Strafe und Strafe statt Sühne”, in J. Blank/J. Werbick (ed.), Sühne und Versöhnung (Theologie zur Zeit 1; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986) 10–20. __________, Versöhnung und Sühne: Wege gewaltfreier Konfliktlösung im Alten Testament; Mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament (BibB 15; Zurich: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981). Schmitt, G., “Der Ursprung des Levitentums”, ZAW 94 (1982) 575–99. Schmid, H.H., “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology”, in B.W. Anderson (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament (IRT 6; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 102–17. __________, “Schöpfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil: ‘Schöpfungstheologie’ als Gesamthorizont biblischer Theologie”, ZTK 70 (1972) 1–19. Schmid, K./Steck, O.H. (ed.), “Restoration in the Prophetic Literature”, in J.M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 41–81. Schmid, R., Das Bundesopfer in Israel (SANT 9; Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1964). Schmitt, H.C., “Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb: Ex 32 und das Deuteronimistische Geschichtswerk”, in S. McKenzie et al. (ed.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (FS J. Van Seters; BZAW 294; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) 235–50. Schökel, L.A., “Of Methods and Models”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983 (VTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 3–13. Scholer, J.M., Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). Schröger, F., Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs als Schriftausleger (Biblische Untersuchungen 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968). Schüngel-Straumann, H., “Das Geschenk des Sabbat im Alten Testament”, BK 52 (1997) 119–23. Schwartz, R.M., The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990). Schwarz, B.J., “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”, in M.V. Fox/V.A. Hurowitz/A. Hurvitz/M.L. Klein/B.J. Schwartz/N. Shupak (ed.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions (FS M. Haran; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 103–34. Scobie, C.H.H., The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

212

Bibliography

Scolnic, B.E., “Moses and the Horns of Power”, Judaism 40 (1991) 569–79. Scott, J.M., On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 91; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Scullion, J.J., Genesis 1–11 (London: SPCK, 1984). Sedlmeier, F., “‘Bei dir, da ist die Vergebung, damit du gefürchtet werdest’: Uberlegungen zu Psalm 130”, Bib 73 (1992) 473–95. Seely, P., “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10”, WTJ 59 (1997) 231–55. Segal, M., The Book of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Seifred, M.A., Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Seitz, C.R., Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). Shaw, H., Dictionary of Literary Terms (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972). Shea, W.H., “New Light on the Exodus and on Construction of the Tabernacle: Gerster’s Protosinaitic Inscription No. 1”, AUSS 25 (1987) 73–96. Shead, A.G., “An Old Testament Theology of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee”, RTR 61 (2002) 19–33. Siker-Gieseler, J., “The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach”, Studia Biblica et Theologica 11 (1981) 5–20. Silva, M., Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (rev. and exp. edn; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). Ska, J.L., “Exode 19,3b–6 et l'identité de l'Israël post-exilique”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 289–317. __________, “La structure du Pentateuch dans sa forme canonique”, ZAW 113 (2001) 331–52. Skehan, P.W./E. Ulrich/J.E. Sanderson (ed.), Qumran Cave IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). Smith, J.Z., To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Smith, M.S., “The Baal Cycle”, in S.B. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 81–180. __________, “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation”, CBQ 58 (1996) 25–50. __________, “Matters of Space and Time in Exodus and Numbers”, in C. Seitz/K. GreeneMcCreight (ed.), Theological Exegesis (FS B.S. Childs; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 183– 207. Smolar, L./Aberbach, M., “The Golden Calf in Postbiblical Literature”, HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116. Sommer, B.D., “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle”, BibInt 9.1 (2001) 41–63. __________, “Functional Interpretation and Biblical Theology: Reflections on Judaism as a Civilization in Relation to Scriptural Hermeneutics”, Jewish Social Studies n.s. 12 (2006) 143–57. __________, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). __________, “Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The Case of the Oral and Written Torahs”, in C. Helmer/C. Landmesser (ed.), One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 108–50. Sonsino, R., Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels (SBLDS 45; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1980). Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic, IV.B: The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973). Sprinkle, J.M., ‘The Book of the Covenant’: A Literary Approach (JSOTSup 174; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994). __________, “Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24”, JETS 47 (2004) 235–52.

Bibliography

213

Stager, L., “Jerusalem as Eden”, BAR 26.3 (2000) 36–47. Steck, O.H., “Die Aufnahme von Gen 1 in Jubiläen 2 und 4. Esra 6”, JSJ 8 (1977) 154–82. Stegemann, E.W./Stegemann, W., “Does the Cultic Lanugage of Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems”, in G. Gelardini (ed., with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge) Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 13–23. Steinman, A.E., “FZ as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5”, JETS 45 (2002) 577–84. Steins, G., “Priesterherrschaft, Volk von Priester oder was sonst? Zur Interpretation von Ex 19,6”, BZ 45 (2001) 20–36. __________, “‘Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum machen’: Zur Struktur und Entstehung von Ex 24,12– 31,18”, in F.-L. Hossfeld (ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb. Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte (Würzburg: Echter, 1989) 145–67. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Stock, K., “Befreiende Wahrheit: Gedanken zur Vergebung der Sünden”, in W. Härle/M. Heesch/ R. Preul (ed.), Befreiende Wahrheit (FS E. Herms; Marburger Theologische Studien 60; Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 2000) 427–35. Stone, M.E., “Apocalyptic Literature”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984) 383–441. __________ (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/ Fortress, 1984). Stordalen, T., “Man, Soil, Garden: Basic Plot in Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered”, JSOT 53 (1992) 3–26. __________, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). Streibert, C., Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift (BEATAJ 8; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993). Stuhlmacher, P., Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). Stuhlmueller, C., Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970). Suh, M.S., The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Sung, C.-H., Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum (WUNT 2/57; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993). Suomala, K.R., Moses and God in Dialogue: Exodus 32–34 in Postbiblical Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature 61; Peter Lang, 2004). Sweeney, M.A., “The Emerging Field of Jewish Biblical Theology”, in Z. Garder (ed.), Academic Approaches to Teaching Jewish Studies (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2000) 83–105. __________, “Prophetic Exegesis in Isaiah 65–66”, in C.C. Broyles/C.A. Evans (ed.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (2 vol.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1.455–74. Tal, A. (ed.), The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited according to MS 6 (C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School, 1994). __________ (ed.), The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, Part 1, Genesis, Exodus (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980). Talmon, S., “The ‘Desert Motif’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature”, in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966) 31–63.

214

Bibliography

__________, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation – Principles and Problems”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 320–56. __________, “The ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method”, in L. Merrill/T.W. Overholt (ed.), Scripture in History and Theology (PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 243–68. Talstra, E., “A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 85–118. __________, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations”, in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 187–210. __________, “Workshop: Clause Types, Textual Hierarchy, Translation in Exodus 19, 20 and 24”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 119–32. __________, Solomon's Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61 (CBET 3; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992). Terrien, S., The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (Religious Perspectives 26; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978). Thiselton, A.C., New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids/London: Zondervan/HarperCollins, 1992). __________, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (foreword by J.B. Torrance; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1980). Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf (VTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Tigay, J. (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). __________, “The Presence of God in the Coherence of Exodus 20:22–26”, in C. Cohen/ A. Hurvitz/S.M. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe (FS M. Weinfeld; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 195–211. Toeg, A., Matan Torah be-Sinai (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977). Toews, B.G., “Genesis 1–4: The Genesis of Old Testament Instruction”, S.J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) 38–52. Tomasino, A.J., “Isaiah 1.1–2.4 and 63–66, and the Composition of the Isainic Corpus”, JSOT 57 (1993) 81–98. Toorn, K. van den, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (SSN 22; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985). Tov, E., “The Exodus Section of 4Q422”, DSD 1 (1994) 197–209. __________, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Townsend, J.T., Midrash Tanhuma: Translated into English with Indices and Brief Notes, vol. 2, Exodus and Leviticus (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1997). Tsevat, M., “The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath”, ZAW 84 (1972) 447–59. Tsumura, D.T., “The Earth in Genesis 1”, in Hess, R.S./D.T. Tsumura (ed.), I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 310–28. __________, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2 (JSOTSup 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989). Ulrich, D.W., “Exodus 33:12–23”, Int 56 (2000) 410–12. Ulrich, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1999). Ulrich, E./Cross, F.M./Davila, J.R./Jastram, N./Sanderson, J.E./Tov, E./Strugnell, J. (ed.), Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7, Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Utzschneider, H., “Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturewissenschaft und das Buch Exodus: Überlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung”, ZAW 106 (1994) 197– 223.

Bibliography

215

__________, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9) (OBO 77; Freiburg, Switzerland/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). Van Asselt, W.J., “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius”, CTJ 35 (2000) 76–104. Van Seters, J., “‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’: Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24”, in G.M. Tucker (ed.), Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 111–30. __________, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King”, ZAW 101 (1989) 333–42. __________, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006). __________, “An Ironic Circle: Wellhausen and the Rise of Redaction Criticism”, ZAW 115 (2003) 487–500. __________, “Is There Evidence of a Dtr Redactor in the Sinai Pericope (Exodus 19–24, 32– 34)?”, in L.S. Schearing/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 160–70. __________, “Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32”, in D.J. Lull (ed.), SBL 1990 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 29; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 583–91. __________, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). __________, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). __________, “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism”, JNSL 29 (2003) 1–19. __________, review of J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, Int 44 (1990) 196–8. VanderKam, J.C., “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees”, in E.G. Chazon/M.E. Stone (ed.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 151–70. __________, “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees”, in J.H. Charlesworth/C.A. Evans (ed.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSup 14; SSEJC 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 96–125. __________, “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2”, DSD 1 (1994) 300–21. __________, The Book of Jubilees (2 vol.; CSCO 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989). VanGemeren, W.A. (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vol.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997). __________, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988). Vanhoozer, K.J., Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). Vasholz, R., “The Character of Israel’s Future in Light of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants”, TJ n.s. 25 (2004) 39–59. Vaux, R. de, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Vermeylen, J., “L’affaire de veau d’or (Ex 32:34): Une clé pour la ‘question deutéronomist’?”, ZAW 97 (1985) 1–23. __________, “Théophanie, purification et liturgie: à propos de Ex 19,10–25”, in R. Kuntzmann (ed.), Ce Dieu qui vient (FS B. Renaud; LD 159; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 113–30. Vervenne, M., “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction  Reception  Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 21–59.

216

Bibliography

__________, “Genesis 1,1–2,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch”, in A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001) 35–79. __________ (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996). Voelz, J.W., “Multiple Signs, Levels of Meaning and Self as Text: Elements of Intertextuality”, Semeia 69–70 (1995) 149–64. Vogels, W., “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen 1,14b)”, SJOT 11 (1997) 163–80. Vos, G., Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975). __________, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (ed. J.T. Dennison, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2001). Vries, S.J. de, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). Vriezen, T.C., Outline of Old Testament Theology (Newton, Mass.: Bradford, 21970). Waaler, E., “A Revised Date for Pentateuchal Texts? Evidence from Ketef Hinnom”, TynBul 53.1 (2002) 29–56. Wade, M.L., Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek (SBLSCS 49; Atlanta: SBL, 2003). Wallace, H.N., “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath”, Pacifica 1 (1988) 235–50. __________, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985). Waltke, B., with C.J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001). Walton, J.N., Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Library of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). __________, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). __________, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001). __________, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity”, EQ 45 (1974) 13–20. Waltke, B./O’Conner, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Wang, T., “On the Theology of the Pentateuch”, in W. Kim (ed.), Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium (2 vol.; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000) 2.276–95. Ward, R.S., God and Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003). Watson, T., “Is Heschel’s Sabbath Biblical?”, AUSS 40 (2002) 265–72. Watson, W.G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986). Watts, J.W., Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 59; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). Weimar, P., “Sinai und Schöpfung. Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte”, RB 95 (1988) 337–85. Weinfeld, M., “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Gen 1:1–2:3”, 501–12 in A. Caquot/M. Delcor (ed.), Mélange bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de Henri Cazalles (AOAT 212; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). Weippert, M., “Schöpfung am Anfang oder Anfang der Schöpfung? Noch einmal au Syntax und Semantik von Gen 1,1–3”, TZ 60 (2004) 5–22. Weiss, H., A Day of Gladness: The Sabbath Among Jews and Christians in Antiquity Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003). __________, “Philo on the Sabbath”, Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991) 83–105. __________, “Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews”, CBQ 58 (1996) 674–89. Weiss, H.-F., Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 15 1991).

Bibliography

217

Weitzman, M., “The Interpretative Character of the Syriac Old Testament”, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 587–611. Welch, J.W., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981). Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel (foreword by D.A. Knight; Scholars Press Reprints and Translations; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994). Wells, J.B., God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (JSOTSup 305; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). Wenham, G.J., “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linchpin of Old Testament Criticism (Part 1)”, Them 10 (1985) 15–20. __________, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linchpin of Old Testament Criticism (Part 2)”, Them 11 (1985) 15–18. __________, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Dallas: Word, 1987). __________, “Method in Pentateuchal Source Criticism”, VT 41 (1991) 84–109. __________, “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm”, in D.W. Baker/ B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) 116–44. __________, “The Priority of P”, VT 49 (1999) 240–58. __________, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story”, in M. Goshen-Gottstein/ D. Assaf (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 19–24. Wénin, A., “La théophanie au Sinaï: Structures littéraires et narration en Ex 19,10–20,21”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction  Reception  Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 471–80. Westerholm, S., Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Westermann, C., Elements of Old Testament Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982). __________, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (OTL; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). __________, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; London: SCM, 1969). __________, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991). __________, What Does the Old Testament Say about God? (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979). Wevers, J.W., “The Building of the Tabernacle”, JNSL 19 (1993) 123–31. __________ (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta 2.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). __________, Notes on Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). __________, “A Study in the Narrative Portions of the Greek Exodus”, in H.L.J. Vanstiphout (ed.), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East (Groningen: E. Forsten, 1986) 295–303. __________, Text History of the Greek Exodus (MSU 21; Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3/192; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Whybray, R.N., The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987). Widmer, M., Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2/8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Wilcox, M., “‘According to the Pattern (tbnyt) …’: Exodus 25:40 in the New Testament and Early Jewish Thought”, RevQ 13 (1988) 647–56. Williams, A.J., “The Mythological Background of Ezekiel 28:12–19?”, BTB 6 (1976) 49–61. Willi-Plein, I., Das Buch vom Auszug 2. Mose (Exodus) (Kleine Biblische Bibliothek; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988). __________, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis”, in G. Gelardini (ed., with a foreword by Harold W. Attridge) Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (Biblical Interpretation 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 25–35.

218

Bibliography

Willis, J.T., “David and Zion in the Theology of the Deuteronomistic History: Theological Ideas in 2 Samuel 5–7”, in B.F. Batto/K.L. Roberts (ed.), David and Zion (FS J.J.M. Roberts; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 125–40. Wilson, E.J., ‘Holiness’ and ‘Purity’ in Mesopotamia (AOAT 237; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994). Wilson, I., “Divine Presence in Deuteronomy”, TynBul 43 (1992) 403–6. Wilson, R.R., “Current Issues in the Study of Old Testament Prophecy”, in J. Kaltner/L. Stulman (ed.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (FS H.B. Huffman; JSOTSup 378; London: T & T Clark, 2004) 38–46. Wintermute, O.S., “Jubilees” in J. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985) 1.135–142. Witsius, H., The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity (1677; repr., Kingsbury, Calif.: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990). Wolde, E.J. van, “Linguistic Motivation and Biblical Exegesis”, in E.J. van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 21–50. __________ (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997). __________, “The Text as an Eloquent Guide: Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary Features in Genesis 1”, in L.J. de Regt/J. de Waard/J.P. Fokkelman (ed.), Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996) 134–51. __________, “The Verbless Clause and Its Textual Function”, 321–36 in C.L. Miller (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 321–36. __________, Words Become Worlds. Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11 (Biblical Interpretation 6; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Wolff, H.W., Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). __________, “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament”, in C. Westermann (ed.), Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics (Richmond: John Knox, 1963) 160–99. __________, Joel and Amos (ed. S.D. McBride, Jr.; Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). Wray, J.H., Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998). Wu, S.-J.T., “A Literary Study of Isaiah 63–65 and Its Echo in Revelation 17–22” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995). Wyatt, N., “The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit”, UF 37 (2005) 695–728. Yamauchi, E., “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography”, in A.R. Millard/J.K. Hoffmeier/D.W. Baker (ed.), Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 1–36. Yeo, K.-K., “The Meaning and Usage of the Theology of ‘Rest’ in Hebrews 3:7–4:13”, AJT 5 (1991) 2–33. Yonge, C.D. (ed.), The Works of Philo Judaeus (London: H. G. Bohn, 1854). Yoshikawa, S.T., “The Prototypical Use of the Noahic Flood in the New Testament” (Ph.D. diss.; Trinity International University, 2004). Young, F., “Typology”, in in S.E. Porter/P.M. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries (FS M.D. Goulder; Biblical Interpretation 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 29–48. Young, I. (ed.), Biblical Hebrew Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003). Younger, K.L., Jr., “The ‘Contextual Method’: Some West Semitic Reflections”, in W.W. Hallo/ K.L. Younger, Jr. (ed.), The Context of Scripture (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) 3.xxxv– xlii. Zenger, E., “Wie und wozu die Tora zum Sinai kam”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 265–88.

Bibliography

219

__________, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschiftlichen Urgeschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983). __________, Israel am Sinai. Analysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17–34 (Altenberge: CISVerlag, 1982). Zevit, Z., “Preamble to a Temple Tour”, in M. Coogan/C. Exum/L. Stager (ed.), Scripture and Other Artifacts (FS P.J. King; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 72–81. Zimmerli, W., I Am Yahweh (ed. with an introduction by W. Brueggemann; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982). __________, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978).

Index of Ancient Sources

Scripture Genesis 1 1–2

67, 68 n. 23, 69 n. 29, 152 11, 31, 58, 64, 66, 68 n. 24, 74, 80, 86, 87, 144, 145, 146, 148, 168, 181, 183 1:1–2:3 20 n. 44, 65, 66, 70, 79 1–3 146 1:14 37, 45, 64 1:28 155 1:31–2:3 145 2 17, 31, 45, 63 n. 7, 69, 70, 73, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 124 n. 32, 145, 146 n. 43, 152 n. 24, 165, 166 2–3 41 n. 68, 70, 81 n. 67, 83 n. 78 2:1–2 17 2:1–3 18, 37, 45, 63 n. 7, 68, 72, 73, 74, 83, 155, 156, 179, 180, 2:2 20, 68 n. 24, 165 2:3 45, 74 2:4–3:24 69 n. 31, 70 n. 32 2:8 82, 86 n. 90, 87 2:15 82, 83 n. 81, 84, 85, 87 3 64, 85, 88 3:8 80 n. 65, 81, 82, 86 3:17–19 50 n. 95 6 157 n. 36 9 54 9:8–17 44 n. 77 9:11 117 n. 52 9:12 54 n. 113 12 87, 88, 93 12:1–3 94 13:10 82 15:16 93 17 54, 55 17:1 94, 98 17:7 54, 100 17:8 100 17:13 54 17:14 54 17:19 54 24:20 120 n. 66 28 :4 111 n. 33

28:10–22 35:1–4 37:34 49:15 Exodus 1 1–2 3 3:7 3:21 10:17 13 15 16

87 n. 93 117 n. 51, 137 n. 11 117 n. 53 57

145 88 83 171 n. 90 83 n. 81 113 n. 38 88 146 25, 37, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 58 n. 127, 59 n. 128, 72, 73, 89, 102, 176 16:23 44 n. 79, 47, 123 n. 81 16:25 44 n. 79 16:33–34 72 n. 38, 123 n. 81 17 101, 164 n. 66 19 28, 57, 62, 88 n. 101, 94, 95, 121, 179 19–24 28 n. 3, 92 n. 114, 99, 143 19–40 179, 180, 183 19:4–6 87 n. 96, 90, 91 n. 109 19:8–15 94, 117 n. 51, 137 n. 11 20 24 n. 61, 38, 45, 49, 60, 72, 73, 74 n. 43, 127, 129 20:8–11 47 20:10 44 n. 79 20:20 107 n. 12 20:23 107 n. 12 22:21 87 n. 96 22:29–30 88 22:31 87 n. 96 23 49 23:9 87 n. 96 23:10–19 37 n. 47 23:12 68 n. 27 24 92 n. 116, 95, 180 24:7 105 n. 6 25–31 11 n. 1, 28, 29, 32, 38, 128, 144 n. 34 25–40 17, 18, 30, 31, 32, 40, 98, 120, 144, 178, 180

222

Index of Ancient Sources

25:9 25:30 25:40 26:30 27:8 28–30 28:41 29 29:9 29:29 29:33 29:35 29:38–46 31

161 n. 52, 162 n. 59 54 n. 116, 161 n. 52, 162 n. 59 161 n. 52 161 n. 52 110 111 n. 31 92 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 111 n. 31 29 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 105, 146 n. 44, 172 31–35 149 31:12–18 11 n. 1, 14 n. 18, 28, 43 n. 75, 152 n. 16 31:13 11 n. 1, 44 n. 79, 33:14 123 n. 81 31:15 44 n. 79 31:17 11 n. 1, 20 n. 44, 46 32 104 n. 2, 105, 106, 108, 113, 135, 138, 180 32–33 129 32–34 11, 18, 32, 35, 39, 105, 121, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 145, 146, 147, 151, 173, 181 32:10 123 n. 81 32:25–29 107 n. 13 32:29 111 n. 31 33 115, 117 n. 53, 121 33–34 115, 180 33:1–6 117 33:7–11 120 34 28 n. 2, 49, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131 n. 112 34:6 126 34:7 113 n. 38 34:29–30 131 n. 112 35 172 35–40 11 n. 1, 28, 32 35:1–3 11 nn. 1, 2, 43 n. 75 35:2 44 n. 79, 49 35:35 48 n. 87, 39–40 144, 145, 146, 148, 168, 181 40 31, 119, 130, 132, 145, 147 n. 45 Leviticus 1–16 4–5 4:24 8

95 n. 126 140 140 92

8:33 9 10:10 14 15:31 16:29–31 16:31 16:32 17–27 17:11 18:5 19 19:13 19:30 20:8 21:8 21:10 21:15 21:23 22:9 22:16 22:32 23 23:3 23:16 23:23–25 23:30 23:31 23:32 23:38 23:39 24:8 25 25:2 25:4 25:18–22 26 26–27 26:1–13 26:2 26:3–13 26:5 26:11 26:12 26:13 26:14–39

111 n. 31, 112 n. 35 112 n. 35 55 92 55 49 51 111 n. 31 94 n. 122, 95 102, 140 n. 22 156 93 n. 117, 98 44 n. 79 143 n. 31 55, 73 55, 73 111 n. 31 55, 73 55, 73 55, 73 55, 73 55, 73 37 nn. 47, 49, 49, 144 n. 34, 18, 48, 49 44 n. 79 47 n. 85, 50 48 48 49 44 n. 79 50 n. 97, 51 54 n. 116 44 nn. 77, 79, 50 44 n. 79 44 n. 79, 50 50 100, 143 n. 31, 175 57 n. 122 99 n. 137, 169 143 n. 31 57 171 57 n. 123 80, 99 101 169

Numbers 1 2 3:3 3:7–8 3:8–9

19 n. 40 87 111 n. 31 83, 84 84

223

Index of Ancient Sources 3:13 4:7 4:23–24 4:26 5 8:4 8:26 10:1–4 10:33 10:33–36 11 11:1–12:16 11:16 11:24 11:26 12 12:4–10 14 14:7 14:22 14:26–35 14:39 14:39–35 15 15:32–36 16 16:20–35 18:5–6 18:7 18:19 20 21:4 21:4–9 23:7 26 28–29 28:2 29:7 33:24 33:41 33:48 34:8

87 54 n. 116 84 84 108 161 n. 52 83, 84 128 117 n. 52 31, 57 119 113 n. 39 118 118 118 119 118 100, 113 n. 39, 164 n. 66 171 n. 90 100 164 n. 66 117 n. 53 110 25 n. 67 18 91 111 n. 29 83, 84 84 54 n. 116 164 n. 66 113 n. 39 113 n. 39 117 n. 52 19 n. 40 37 n. 49 83 n. 81 48 117 n. 52 117 n. 52 117 n. 52 117 n. 52

Deuteronomy 2:25 110 n. 26 3:20 57, 123 n. 81 4:14 96 4:20 96 4:25–28 96 5 38, 46, 5:12–15 18, 175 5:14 48 5:15 71, 101

7:6 7:6–8 9:6–24 11:9–12 11:16 12:9–10 12:15 12:30 13:5 16:17 23:15 25:19 26:4 26:10 26:17–19 28 28:1–14 28:7 28:9 28:15–68 28:30 28:39 28:65 30:1 30:1–6 30:3 30:19 31:15 33:11

90 n. 107 96 113 n. 39 171 n. 90 84 n. 84 57, 123 n. 81, 171 111 n. 33 84 n. 84 84 n. 84 111 n. 33 80 57, 123 n. 81, 171 n. 91 123 n. 81 123 n. 81 96 57 n. 122, 174 57, 99 n. 137 109 90 n. 107, 96 169 171 171 57 111 n. 33 101 170 n. 89 111 n. 33 118 109

Joshua 1:13 1:15 2:10 6:23 9:9–10 15:19 21:44 22:4 22:5 23:1

123 n. 81 123 n. 81 110 n. 26 123 n. 81 110 n. 26 111 n. 33 123 n. 81, 171 n. 91 99, 123 n. 81 84 n. 84 99, 123 n. 81, 171 n. 91

Judges 1:15 17:5 17:12

111 n. 33 111 nn. 30, 31 111 nn. 30, 31

1 Samuel 6:19 10:25 15:25 15:35 16:1

117 n. 53 123 n. 81 113 n. 38 117 n. 53 117 n. 53

224

Index of Ancient Sources

2 Samuel 7:1 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:10 7:11 13:37 14:2 16:11 16:14 19:2 22:44 23:7

123 n. 81, 171 80 80 85 n. 90 171 123 n. 81 117 n. 53 117 n. 53 123 n. 81 68 n. 27 117 n. 53 84 n. 84 111 n. 31

1 Kings 5–9 5:18 8:27 8:56 9:6 11:37 13:33 16:2

17 n. 34 123 n. 81 145 99, 168 84 n. 84 85 n. 90 111 nn. 30, 31 86 n. 90

2 Kings 9:24 23:18

111 n. 31 123 n. 81

1 Chronicles 7:22 117 n. 53 16:17 54 16:21 123 n. 81 17:6 80 22:9–10 123 n. 81, 171 n. 91 22:18 123 n. 81 28:19 161 n. 52 29:5 111 2 Chronicles 13:9 111 n. 31 26:6 173 n. 99 29:31 111 31:3 71 35:24 117 n. 53 Ezra 10:6

117 n. 53

Nehemiah 1:4 2:8 6:16

117 n. 53 85 71 n. 36

8:9 9:14

117 n. 53 44 n. 79, 71

Job 4:12 22:14 26:14 38:16

110 n. 25 80 110 n. 25 80

Psalms 17:14 19 26:10 73:28 78:70 95 95:10 96 98 105:10 106:19–22 128:7

123 n. 81 69 n. 31 111 71 n. 36 85 n. 90 68 n. 24, 99, 100, 164, 165, 99 n. 142 101 n. 48 101 n. 48 54 105 111 n. 30

Ecclesiastes 2:5 85 5:11 123 n. 81 Isaiah 1 1–39 1:13 1:15 3:18–26 6 11:6–9 13 14:3 24:15 27:9 33:24 40–55 40:28 42:17 45:8 51:3 51:5 53:11 55:3 56–66 56:1 56:2 56:4 56:6

149, 169 150 152 n. 16 111 117 n. 51, 137 n. 11 173 151 173 123 n. 81 54 n. 113 140 n. 24 140 n. 24 150 99 n. 141 110 101 n. 148 80 151 151 54 n. 113 150, 152 n. 16, 167 150 152 n. 16 152 n. 16 152 n. 16

225

Index of Ancient Sources 58:13 59:15–21 59:21 60–62 61:8 62:1 63:1–6 63:11–14 63:15–18 63:18 65 65–66 65:8 65:17–25 65:25 66:1 66:10 66:19–23 66:23

44 n. 79, 152 n. 16 150 152 167 n. 79 54 n. 113, 152 151 150 152 152 149 148–53 148–53, 167 n. 79, 180 149 149 151 146 117 n. 53 149 152 n. 16

Jeremiah 2:26–27 8:14 9:14 16:11 17 17:22 17:24 22:7 23:15 29:14 31 31:23–25 31:31–34 32:40

110 108 n. 19 108 n. 19 84 n. 84 168 n. 80 71 48 73 108 n. 19 170 n. 89 101 99 n. 141 101 54 n. 113

Lamentations 1:3 99 n. 141 5:5 99 n. 141 Ezekiel 1:13 7:12 7:27 16:53 16:60 20:10–12 20:12 20:13 20:16 20:20 20:21 20:24

80 117 n. 53 117 n. 53 170 n. 89 54 n. 114 71 44 n. 79, 55, 73 44 n. 79 44 n. 79 44 n. 79 44 n. 79 44 n. 79

22 22:8 22:26 23:38 28 28:13 31:1–10 36–37 36:23 37:26 37:28 43:26 44:24 44:30 47:1–12

175 44 n. 79 44 n. 79 44 n. 79 69 n. 31, 81 n. 67, 83 n. 78 80 80, 171 n. 90 101 73 54 n. 114 55, 73 111 n. 31 44 n. 79 111 n. 33 173, 174

Daniel 9:19 10:2

140 117 n. 53

Hosea 2:11 4:17 6:11 12:13

168 n. 80 123 n. 81 170 n. 89 84 n. 84

Joel 2:18–27 3:18–21 4:1 4:6 4:18 4:19 4:20–21 4:21

174 173–74 170 n. 89 173 173 173, 174 173 174

Amos 2:4–5 2:9–11 3:2 3:14 5:5 5:5–6 6:1 7:2 7:9 7:13 8:5 9:4 9:8–10 9:11–12 9:11–15

171 n. 93 171 171 171 171 171 171 n. 93 140 n. 24 171 171 168 n. 80 170 170 170 170–72

226

Index of Ancient Sources

Obadiah 17

173

Zephaniah 1:1 1:2–3 2:4 2:4–7 2:7 2:8 2:8–11 2:12 2:13 2:13–15 3:9 3:9–20 3:10 3:11 3:13 3:15 3:17

172 173 172 173 172 172 173 172, 173 172 172, 173 172, 173 172–73 172 172 172, 173 172, 173 172

Haggai 1:14 2:23

71 n. 36 85 n. 90

Malachi 3:14

84 n. 84

4:9 5:3 6:20 7:23 7:27 8:5 9:7 9:8–9 9:11 9:11–15 9:13 9:15 9:23 9:28 10:2 10:10 10:14 10:17–18 12:22 12:27

165 161 162 161 161 161 n. 52, 162 n. 59 161 161 160 161 162 161 n. 51 161 n. 52 162 n. 56 162 162 162 162 165 166

Ancient Near Eastern Literature

1 Corinthians 15:50–58 102 n. 148 2 Corinthians 3 131 3:7 131 3:11 131 3:13 131 3:14 131 1 Timothy 3:16

101 n. 148

Hebrews 1:1–4 3–4 3:8–11 3:16–19 4 4:1–8 4:2 4:3–4 4:6 4:8

161 68, 160, 165 n. 69, 180 164 164 164 165 164 164 165 164

Atrahasis Epic I:225 76 I:345–50 76 Baal Epic VI:3 VI:16–40 VIII:57

108 n. 20 59 n. 128, 65 65 n. 14

Coffin Texts 75 77 1130 77 Enuma Elish I:71–75 76 IV:46 65 n. 14 V:122 76 n. 52 V:124 76 n. 52 V:130 76 n. 52 VI:8 76 VI:35 76 VI:36 76 VI:150 76 Gudea Cylinders A.xx.27 65 n. 14 A.xxi.12 65 n. 14

227

Index of Ancient Sources Early Jewish Literature Damascus Document (CD) 3.12–17 156–57 3.14 156 3.16 157 3.17 157 3.18 157 3.20 157 4.18 156 6.11–14.17 156 6.12 156 6.14 156 10.14–12.18 156 12.1–2 156 16.3–4 156

Philo De Vita Mosis 1.37 157–58 2.22 157–58 2.39 157–58 2.209 157–58 2.210–11 158 2.211 157–58 2.213–20 157–58 2.263 157–58 De specialibus legibus 2.15 157–58 2.16 157–58 2.42 157–58 2.48 157–58 2.49 157–58 2.56–60 157–58 2.62–64 157–58 2.66–67 157–58 2.194 157–58 2.250–51 157–58 Legum allegoriae 1.2–6 157–58

De opificio mundi 30–31 157–58 33–43 157–58 89 157–58 128 157–58 De fuga et inventione 31 157–58 De Abrahamo 5 157–58 28–30 157–58 De decalogo 97–102 157–58 De somniis 2.123 157–58 2.149 157–58 De migratione Abrahami 90–93 157–58 De agricultura 174–80 157–58 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 111 157–58 Jubilees 2:1 2:16 2:17–33 2:18 2:21 2:24–31 2:25 2:28 2:31

154 155 154 155 155, 156 154 155 156 154

Index of Subjects

Abraham, covenant with 42, 51, 91, 99, 107, 162, 168 Adam, covenant with 41, 50 n. 95, 70–74, 100 Amos (book) 169–71 Atonement 39, 102, 135, 138–40, 154, 156, 159, 161, 166 Atonement, Day of 38, 48, 49, 51, 160 n. 50 Atrahasis Epic 76–78 Baal Epic 25, 26, 40, 59 n. 128, 65, 75, 78– 79, 108 n. 20 Biblical theology 21 n. 46, 152, 179, 180– 81 Biblical theology, Jewish 180–81 Blessing 71–74, 92, 144 Blessings, covenant 57, 98–99, 104, 168, 170 Coffin texts (Egyptian) 77 Covenant, consummation of 41, 77, 103, 165–74, 177–78 Covenant, fracture of 103–106, 121, 127, 132, 146, 178 Covenant, new 99, 102, 160, 165, 167 Covenant, restoration of 3, 43, 121, 124–128, 131–32, 140–43, 169, 178–80 Covenant signs 11, 15, 44, 51–57, 61, 63, 90, 97–103, 133, 135, 141, 152–54, 157, 177– 80 Creation 11, 13, 16–18, 20, 24, 27, 31–33, 39–43, 46, 51, 56–58, 63, 68–74, 76–79, 103, 146, 148, 153–54, 157, 163, 166–75, 181 Creation, tabernacle and sabbath 16–17, 104, 147–152, 156, 158, 168–75, 180 Curses, covenant 69, 101, 168–70 D (pentateuchal source) 20, 90 n. 107, 95–97, 170, 173, Damascus Document 155–56 David 99, 169, 170, 173 Day of Yahweh 170–71 Deuteronomy 169, 170 Divine absence 112–117

Divine presence 25, 28, 33–35, 38–39, 57, 61, 63, 79–82, 87, 97, 99–100, 103, 104– 32, 133–46, 150, 154, 155, 159–66, 170– 75, 177–80 E (pentateuchal source) 95–97, 126 Eden, garden of 17, 41, 43, 79–86, 98, 101, 131, 144, 150, 165, 170, 177 Election, of Israel 57, 79, 86–87, 110 Election, of Abram 86–87, 93 Enuma Elish 25, 40, 75–78 Exile 24, 65 n. 13, 99, 101, 139, 150, 162, 167–75 Exodus (event) 39, 57, 60, 87, 103, 178 Faith 38, 45, 50, 63, 100, 163, 164, 174 Festivals (cultic) 20, 30, 35–38, 45, 49, 51, 59, 60 n. 131, 76 n. 52 Forgiveness 39, 102, 124, 125, 132–41, 143, 146, 149–50, 154, 159–66, 173, 175, 178– 80 Golden calf 11, 18, 32, 43, 60, 98, 102, 105– 113, 117, 121, 124–25, 127, 131–32, 134, 138, 142, 176–77 H (pentateuchal source) 95–97 History, in text 12, 20–21, 25–27, 46, 116– 20 Holiness 34–35, 53, 61–103, 104, 138–39, 141–43, 149, 154, 177–80 Holiness, cultic 62, 86, 92–98, 141, 143, 177–80 Holiness, ethical 62, 92–98, 177–80 Holiness, definitional 62, 90, 92–98, 177–80 Intertextuality 11, 15–17, 18, 20, 21, 41 n. 68, 48, 69, 101, 143, 150 n. 16, 182 J (pentateuchal source) 36 n. 45, 82 n. 78, 95–97, 118, 126, 129 n. 101 JE (pentateuchal source) 20, 96, 119 n. 65 Joel (book) 172–74 Joshua (book) 169, 170 Justification 102 n. 148, 140 n. 26 Jubilees 152–55, 158

230

Index of Subjects

Levites 87, 110–112, 134, 136 Manna, provison of 45–51, 72, 99, 101, 174 Memphite Theology 77–79 Methodology, comparative 17, 18, 22–26, 33–34, 77–79, 80, 82, 144, 179–80 Methodology, diachronic 11–13, 18–20, 26, 125–27, 165–66, 173–74, 176, 179–80 Methodology, synchronic 11, 14–15, 18–20, 26, 125–27, 165–66, 173–74, 176, 179–80 New Perspective on Paul 140 n. 26 Noah, covenant with 42, 51, 99, 103 n. 52 P (pentateuchal source) 13, 20, 23, 29, 31, 35, 36 n. 45, 53, 60 n. 132, 62, 68 n. 24, 81, 84, 93–97, 103 n. 151, 119 n. 65, 129 n. 101, 130 n. 109, 138, 145, 146, 157, 165–66, 169, 171–74 Paradise 41, 82 Passover 38, 48, 87 Philo 156–58 Probation (moral) 56 n. 120, 69–71, 74, 98, 101 Remnant 110, 155, 169 Rest, divine 24, 37, 40, 56, 57, 64, 68–72, 74–79, 99–101, 144–45, 148, 150–80 Rest, human 20, 27, 43–51, 56–60, 61, 68– 71, 98–103, 114, 122–24, 131–32, 142, 145, 152–80 Rest, in the land 56–57, 100, 114, 151, 163– 65, 169–175 Resumptive repetition 11, 18, 43 n. 73, 43 n. 74, 115 n. 48 Sabbath, origins 24–25, 44–51, 64, 155, 157 Sabbath, as covenant sign 11, 15, 51–57, 61, 63, 97–99, 101–03, 133, 135–36, 141, 153–54, 157, 177–80.

Sabbath, and rest 152–158, 174 Sabbath, and tabernacle 140–46, 168–75 Sabbath frame, context 29–32 Sabbath frame, structure 11, 44, 57 Sabbath sabbaton 47–51 Sabbatical year 49–50, 57 Sacred space 27, 31–35, 63, 80–86, 159–66, 177–80 Sacred time 17, 27, 31, 32, 35–38, 45, 63, 72, 74, 79–86, 162–66, Sanctification 34–35, 56, 61–103, 114, 125, 132, 133, 138, 140, 141, 146, 149, 153, 154, 161, 165, 170, 177–80 Sin 63, 69, 98, 100, 102, 106–32, 133–47, 149, 154, 158, 160, 161, 166, 172, 175, 177–80 Source criticism 19, 20, 23, 45 ,93, 95–97, 126 Tabernacle 12, 13, 16–18, 28–30, 32–35, 38– 39, 41, 43, 57, 60–62, 73, 80–82, 97, 104– 05, 114, 116–20, 126, 130–45, 149–51, 154–55, 157–65, 166–74, 175–79 Tabernacle, and sabbath 141–146, 168–75 Temple 16–18, 26, 30–35, 39, 40–42, 65, 68, 74–77, 79, 82, 99, 143–45, 147–51, 153– 54, 161–64, 166, 169, 172, 174, 175–79 Temple-building pattern 18, 30, 144 Tent of Meeting 41, 116–20, 129, 136, 143, 175–79 Typology 21–22, 31 n. 20, 38, 141, 160–61, 175, 181 Work 11, 17, 37, 40, 45, 47–51, 54, 57–60, 64, 67–79, 82–86, 100, 130, 147, 153, 156, 176–77 Zephaniah (book) 170–71 Zion theology 145 n. 42, 168, 169, 172

Index of Authors

Aberbach, M. 104 n. 1 Alexander, T.D. 28 n. 3, 107 n. 14 Allen, D. 156 n. 37 Allen, J.P. 77 nn. 55, 57, 58, 59 Alter, R. 11, 43 n. 74 Amiet, P. 85 n. 88 Amit, Y. 16n27 Anderson, B.W. 41 n. 64, 42 n. 70, 43 n. 72, 181 n. 5 Andreasen, N.-E. 23 n. 55, 49 n. 92, 50 n. 97, 67 n. 20, 68 n. 24 Arnold, B.T. 54 n. 112, 81 n. 69, 97 nn. 133, 134 Assmann, J. 40 n. 63 Attridge, H.W. 162 n. 62, 165 n. 75 Austin, J.L. 73 n. 40 Averbeck, R.E. 17 n. 34, 23 n. 58, 35 n. 36, 41 n. 64, 41 n. 67, 55 n. 118, 91 n. 109, 92 n. 116, 95 n. 126, 135 n. 6, 135 n. 7, 139 n. 17, 137 n. 19, 160 n. 50

Blenkinsopp, J. 29 n. 6, 31 n. 17, 167 n. 79, 170 n. 85, 172 n. 94, 175 n. 105, 176 n. 106 Bloch-Smith, E. 41 n. 65 Blocher, H. 162 n. 56 Blum, E. 89 n. 102, 93 n. 119 Bolger, E.W. 16 n. 27, 41 n. 65, 80 n. 63 Borgen, P. 157 n. 37, 158 n. 40, 158 n. 42 Bosman, H.L. 38 n. 49, 38 n. 50 Boulluec, A. le, P. 110 n. 25 Brand, J. 163 n. 62 Braulik, G. 100 n. 144 Brettler, M.Z. 183 n. 7 Brichto, H.C. 115 n. 48, 118 n. 55 Brisman, L. 110 n. 28, 111 n. 29 Brown, M.L. 72 n. 39 Broyles, C.C. 148 n. 2 Brueggemann, W. 15 n. 21, 20 n. 42, 56 n. 120, 69 n. 27, 86 n. 90, 97 n. 132, 99 n. 139, 101 n. 147, 133 n. 3 Burnett, J.S. 133 n. 1

Bailey, L.R. 106 n. 8 Bakon, S. 16 n. 30, 17 n. 31, 41 n. 65 Balentine, S.E. 16 n. 30, 27 n. 71, 62 n. 3, 91 n. 109, 95 n. 126, 137 n. 13 Barbiero, G. 91 n. 109, 134 n. 5 Barnett, P. 131 n. 112 Barr, J. 12 n. 3, 36 n. 41, 37 n. 45, 47 n. 85 Barton, J. 19 n. 39, 19 n. 40, 23 n. 54, 140 n. 25, 171 n. 95, 172 n. 101 Batto, B.F. 17 n. 34, 24 n. 62, 64 n. 11, 75 n. 49, 80 n. 63, 81 n. 67 Baumgarten, J.M. 155 n. 32 Beale, G.K. 16 n. 27, 41 n. 65, 41 n. 67, 80 n. 63, 161 n. 52, 164 n. 63 Beckwith, R.T. 26 n. 68 Bénétreau, S. 163 n. 62, 165 n. 71 Benjamin, D.C. 87 n. 94 Berges, U. 149 n. 5 Bertola, E. 98 n. 136 Beuken 46 n. 82, 59 n. 127, 149 n. 3 Biddle, M.E. 139 n. 17 Billings, R.M. 122 n. 74, 122 n. 75 Blank, J. 139 n. 17

Callender, D.E. 41 n. 68 Calvin, J. 70 n. 33 Carpenter, E. 119 n. 66, 91 n. 110 Carr, D.M. 64 n. 10, 149 n. 4 Carson, D.A. 140 n. 26, 164 n. 62 Cassuto, U. 15 n. 21, 54 n. 112, 59 n. 126, 60 n. 131, 64 n. 8, 67 n. 19, 72 n. 38 Cazelles, H. 25 n. 64, 85 n. 87 Charlesworth, J.H. 155 n. 32 Chester, A.N. 161 n. 50 Cheung, A.T.M. 91 n. 109 Childs, B.S. 15 n. 21, 39 n. 54, 47 n. 86, 54 n. 112, 56 n. 121, 72 n. 38, 88 n. 99, 103 n. 150, 109 n. 22, 111 n. 31, 115 n. 48, 125 n. 88, 126 n. 92, 128 n. 98, 131 n. 114, 143 n. 30, 172 n. 94 Chirichigno, G.C. 28 n. 2, 43 n. 74 Choi, J.H. 54 n. 112, 81 n. 69, 97 nn. 133, 134 Clements, R.E. 168 n. 82, 169 n. 83 Clifford, R.J. 17 n. 34, 119 n. 62, 119 n. 65 Clines, D.J.A. J.C. 110 n. 28 Coats, G.W. 122 n. 76, 122 n. 78, 124 n. 83, 125 n. 87

232

Index of Authors

Cole, H.R. 16 n. 29 Cooper, A.M. 119 n. 65 Cornelius, I. 81 n. 68 Cotterell, P. 47 n. 85, 62 n. 1, 83 n. 82 Cross, F.M. 16 n. 28, 38 n. 53, 57 n. 122 Crüsemann, F. 46 n. 83 Culler, J. 15 n. 24 Cullmann, O. 22 n. 50 Dalley, S. 76 n. 53 Davies, G.I. 143 n. 32 Davies, J.A. 88 n. 100, 91 n. 109, 91 n. 111, 91 n. 112, 142 n. 29 Davies, P.R. 155 n. 33, 166 n. 70 Davis, D.R. 106 n. 11, 124 n. 84, 126 n. 94, 128 n. 99, 133 n. 1, 134 n. 5 Delitzsch, F. 22 n. 52 Dell, K.J. 42 n. 69, 181 n. 4 Dennison, J.T. Jr. 163 n. 63 deSilva, D.A. 162,62 Dijk, J.J.A. van 31 n. 18 Doering, L. 153 n. 23, 153 n. 24, 154 nn. 27, 29, 30, 33 Dohmen, C. 89 n. 103, 90 n. 105, 105 n. 4, 106 n. 10, 106 n. 11, 112 n. 37, 123 n. 80 Dozeman, T.B. 14 n. 16, 19 n. 40, 125 n. 90, 129 n. 101, 129 n. 103, 129 n. 104, 130 n. 104 Draškovic, I. 83 n. 82 Driver, S.R. 95 n. 124, 126 n. 92, 169 n. 86 Dumbrell, W.J. 16 n. 27, 42 n. 69, 52 n. 103, 57 n. 132, 71 n. 35, 163 n. 63, 165 n. 74 Dunn, J.D.G. 140 n. 26 Durham, J.I. 12 n. 7, 15 n. 21, 28 n. 4, 32 n. 23, 47 n. 86, 72 n. 38, 91 n. 110, 105 n. 5, 113 n. 39, 117 n. 55, 120 n. 67, 126 n. 93, 136 n. 10 Eichrodt, W. 94 n. 122, 136 n. 8, 139 n. 17 Eliade, M. 34 n. 30, 35 n. 39, 53 n. 109, 164 n. 69 Ellingworth, P.,160 n. 54 Elnes, E.E. 13 n. 11, 16 n. 27, 143 n. 33 Enns, P.E. 15 n. 21, 59 n. 128, 103 n. 152, 163 n. 65, 163 n. 66 Evans, C.A. J.A. 148 n. 2, 151 n. 16 Exum, J.C. 110 n. 28 Eynde, S. van den 14 n. 18, 15 n. 20 Fanwar, W.M. 150 n. 13 Ferguson, S. 99 n. 138 Fishbane, M. 15 n. 23, 21 n. 47 Follingstad, C.M. 52 n. 101, 67 n. 22

Foster, B.R. 40 n. 61, 75 n. 50, 76 n. 51, 76 n. 53, 76 n54 Fox, E. 69 n. 27 Fox, M.V. 44 n. 77, 46 n. 83, 52 n. 103, 52 nn. 105–110, 55 n. 116, 55 n. 119 Freedman, D.N. 57 n. 122 Fretheim, T.E. 15 n. 21 Frymer-Kensky, T. 182 n. 7 Fuhs, H.F. 91 n 109 Furnish, V.P. 131 n. 112 Gage, W.A. 42 n. 72 Gammie, J.G. 55 n. 117, 62 n. 3, 97 n. 131 García Martínez, F. 156 n. 34 Gardner, A.E. 148 n. 7 Garrett, D.A. 112 n. 36 Gathercole, S.J. 140 n. 26, 156 n. 35 Gelardini, G. 161 n. 57 Gerstenberger, E.S. 142 n. 29 Gittlen, B.M. 34 n. 33 Gladson, J. 138 n. 15, 139 n. 18 Glatt, D.A. 119 n. 66 Glenny, W. 21 n. 47 Göbel, C. 136 n. 8 Goldingay, J. 140 n. 25 Goldstein, B.R. 119 n. 65 Goldsworthy, G. 147 n. 1 Gordon, C.H. 65 n. 16 Gorman, F.H. 16 n. 30, 27 n. 71, 34 n. 29, 37 n. 46, 37 n. 47, 38 n. 48, 51 n. 99, 62 n. 3, 68 n. 24, 166 n. 76 Gosse, B. 151 n. 16 Gowan, D.E. 121 n. 72 Grabbe, L.L. 158 n. 46 Green, A. 36 n. 44 Greenberg, M. 91 n. 110 Gross, W. 52 n. 103 Grünwaldt, K. 13 n. 10, 42 n. 71, 44 n. 77, 47 n. 85, 51 n. 98, 180 n. 1 Guthrie, G.H. 159 n. 48, 159 n. 49 Haag, E. 68 n. 25, 86 n. 90 Hagner, D. 22 n. 50 Hahn, S. 181 n. 3 Hallo, W.W. 17 n. 33, 22 n. 53, 25 n. 65, 25 n. 66, 39 n. 55, 40 n. 62, 50 n. 93, 145 n. 37 Hallo, W.W. 31 n. 18 Hamilton, J.M. Jr. 102 n. 49 Hamilton, V.P. 64 n. 9, 68 n. 23 Hanson, P.D. 166 n. 79 Haran, M. 88 n. 97, 118 n. 59 Hartley, J.E. 49 n. 91, 82 n. 75, 90 n. 108

Index of Authors Hasel, G.F. 22 n. 49, 22 n. 51, 22 n. 52, 23 n. 55, 24 n. 60, 25 n. 63, 26 n. 68, 52 n. 103, 53 n. 111, 73 n. 41, 182 n. 6 Hasenfratz, H.-P. 77 n. 55 Hauge, M.R. 16 n. 28, 89 n. 103, 117 n. 51, 117 n. 54, 121 n. 72, 137 n. 11 Hayes, C.E. 104 n. 2, 106 n. 8, 108 n. 18, 110 n. 26 Hempel, C. 155 n. 32 Hendrix, R.E. 14 n. 18, 16 n. 28, 28 n. 1, 58 n. 126, 118 n. 61, 119 n. 62, 121 n. 72 Herbst, T. 84 n. 82 Heschel, A.J. 73 n. 41, 146 n. 44 Hofius, O. 162 n. 62 Horton, M.S. 79 n. 62 Hossfeld, F.-L. 139 n. 17, 140 n. 23 Houtman, C. 12 n. 5, 15 n. 21, 54 n. 112, 58 n. 125, 110 n. 25, 122 n. 78, 127 n. 96, 128 n. 100 Hugenberger, G.P. 96 n. 130 Hughes, P.E. 74 n. 44 Hurowitz, V.A. 17 n. 34, 29 n. 7, 30 n. 11, 30 n. 12, 30 n. 13, 30 n. 14, 32 n. 22, 150 n. 11 Hutter, M. 83 n. 78, 86 n. 89, 86 n. 90 Hvidberg, F.F. 117 n. 53

233

Karlberg, M.W. 181 n. 3 Kaufman, S. 50 n. 93 Kearney, P.J. 13 n. 11, 29 n. 6, 31 n. 15, 31 n. 16, 31 n. 18, 41 n. 65, 143 n. 33 Keller, C.A. 52 n. 103, 53 n. 105, 72 n. 39 Kingsbury, E.C. 65 n. 15, 65 n. 16 Kitchen, K.A. 17 n. 34 Klawans, J. 139 n. 21 Klein, R.W. 38 n. 52, 39 n. 57 Kline, M.G. 42 n. 71, 52 n. 103, 69 n. 29, 81 n. 71 Knierim, R.P. 102 n. 148, 139 n. 17 Knight, G.A.F. 149 n. 8 Knohl, I. 13 n. 12, 16 n. 28, 27 n. 71, 37 n. 47, 62 n. 3, 96 n. 127, 118 n. 58 Koester, C.R. 15 n. 22, 16 n. 28, 34 n. 33, 119 n. 62, 159 n. 48 Krašovec, J. 106 n. 9, 109 n. 23, 138 n. 10 Kroeze, J.H. 81 n. 69, 119 n. 66 Kubo, S. 153 n. 21, 156 n. 38 Kunin, S.D. 34 n. 33 Kutsch, E. 25 n. 64

Jaarsveld, H. van, I. 83 n. 82 Jacob, B. 15 n. 21, 58 n. 125, 58 n. 126, 117 n. 52, 118 n. 57 Jaki, S.L. 65 n. 13 Janowski, B. 16 n. 27, 16 n. 28, 29 n. 5, 39 n. 54, 40 n. 58, 42 n. 69, 136 n. 9, 139 n. 17, 143 n. 33 Janzen, J.G. 101 n. 146, 105 n. 7, 109 n. 24, 110 n. 26, 144 n. 36 Janzen, W. 59 n. 128, 97 n. 131 Japhet, S. 33 n. 28, 34 n. 31 Jenni, E. 24 n. 60, 42 n. 71 Jenson, P.P. 35 n. 36, 35 n. 37, 35 n. 38, 38 n. 48, 51 n. 99, 51 n. 100, 62 n. 1, 62 n. 3, 62 n. 4, 62 n. 5, 82 n. 73, 82 n. 74, 90 n. 107, 95 n. 126, 96 n. 129, 112 n. 36, 144 n. 34 Joüon, P. 51 n. 98, 97 n. 132, 97 n. 133

Laansma, J. 16 n. 29, 57 n. 122, 68 n. 26, 99 n. 139, 152 n. 20, 153 n. 21, 158 n. 44, 158 n. 45, 162 n. 62, 163 n. 64, 163 n. 66 Laberge, L. 18 n. 34, 46 n. 84 Lambert, W.G. 74 n. 46 Lane, D. 88 n. 100, 96 n. 130, 181 n. 3 Larsson, G. 46 n. 81 Leder, A.C. 14 n. 18, 14 n. 19, 17 n. 34, 31 n. 18, 144 n. 33, 145 n. 40 Lefebvre, J.-F. 50 n. 94 Lemaire, A./Sæbø, M. 15 n. 23 Leonhardt, J. 156 n. 38 Levenson, J.D. 16 n. 30, 22 n. 52, 24 n. 64, 26 n. 70, 34 n. 29, 42 n. 71, 89 n. 104, 91 n. 109, 101 n. 145, 144 n. 33, 181 n. 5, 182 n. 7 Levine, B.A. 63 n. 6 Levine, B.A. 85 n. 87 Lincoln, A.T. 162 n. 62 Lints, R. 69 n. 30, 79 n. 62 Lockshin, M.I. 58 n. 126 Loewenstamm, S.E. 65 n. 16, 65 n. 17, 111 n. 31 Lohfink, n. 142 n. 29 Long, V.P. 19 n. 38, 21 n. 46 Longacre, R.E. 29 n. 7, 29 n. 8, 30 n. 10

Kaiser, W.C. Jr. 100 n. 143 Kaminsky, J.S. 42 n. 71 Kapelrud, A.S. 65 n. 14, 65 n. 16

Mandelbaum, I.J. 104 n. 1 Mann, T.W. 31 n. 20, 39 n. 54, 41 n. 68, 123 n. 79, 132 n. 115, 144 n. 35

Irsigler, H. 172 n. 98 Isaacs, M.E. 159 n. 47, 159 n. 49, 160 n. 54, 162 n. 60, 163 n. 67, 165 n. 73

234

Index of Authors

Martens, E.A. 99 n. 140 Matthews, K.A. 65 n. 15, 67 n. 22, 68 n24, 81 n. 68 Matthews, V.H. 87 n. 94 Mays, J.L. 170 n. 89 McConville, J.G. 170 n. 92 Meier, S.A. 64 n. 12, 65 n. 16 Meinhold, J. 22 n. 52 Melugin, R.F. 147 n. 1 Melugin, R.F. M.A. 147 n. 2 Merrill, E.H. 42 n. 71 Merwe, C.H.J. van der 81 n. 69, 115 n. 42, 119 n. 66 Michaeli, F. 13 n. 9, 15 n. 21, 115 n. 48 Michel, O. 141 n. 27 Milgrom J. 25 n. 65, 44 n. 77, 48 n. 88, 44 n. 89, 49 n. 90, 51 n. 96, 50 n. 97, 79 n. 62, 88 n. 97, 95 n. 123, 95 n. 125, 127 n. 95, 127 n. 96, 135 n. 6, 139 n. 20, 140 n. 22, 140 n. 25, 157 n. 40 Miller, P.D. 25 n. 66, 42 n. 69, 42 n. 70, 50 n. 93, 133 n. 3, 167 n. 81, 181 n. 4 Miscall, P.D. 16 n. 25 Mitchell, C.W. 73 n. 40, 74 n. 45 Moberly, R.W.L. 14 n. 18, 104 n. 1, 113 n. 40, 122 n. 78, 124 n. 83, 125 n. 85, 128 n. 97, 180 n. 1 Moor, J.C. de 40 n. 63 Mosis, R. 90 n. 109 Motyer, J.A. 172 n. 99 Muchiki, Y. 52 n. 103 Muilenberg, J. 123 n. 79 Muraoka, T. 51 n. 98, 97 n. 132, 97 n. 133 Murray, J. 71 n. 33, 99 n. 138, 99 n. 140 Naudé, J.A. 81 n. 69, 119 n. 66 Negretti, n. 13 n. 13, 44 n. 76 Neusner, J. 46 n. 82, 83 n. 81, 152 n. 18 Newing, E.G. 11 n. 2, 14 n. 17, 14 n. 18, 14 n. 19, 43 n. 73, 104 n. 3 Niccacci, A. 115 n. 43, 114 n. 46, 119 n. 63 Nicholson, E.W. 42 n. 71, 52 n. 104, 94 n. 121 Nicole, E. 87 n. 92, 139 n. 17 Niditch, S. 65 n. 15 Niehaus, J.J. 81 n. 71, 169 n. 88 Noble, P.R. 19 n. 37 Noth, M. 12 n. 8, 15 n. 21, 43 n. 86, 108 n. 20, 117 n. 53, 122 n. 78, 129 n. 101 O’Brien, P.T. 140 n. 26, 164 n. 62 O’Conner, M. 81 n. 70, 97 n. 133 Oegema, G. 152 n. 19

Olson, D.T. 169 n. 86 Oswalt, J.N. 148 n. 6, 149 n. 9, 149 n. 10, 151 n. 17 Otto, R. 62 n. 2 Paas, S. 68 n. 23 Paran, M. 44 n. 76 Pardee, D. 75 n. 47, 75 n. 49 Parker, S.B. 75 n. 47 Patai, R. 181 n. 2 Pearl, J. 66 n. 18 Pelcovitz, R. 59 n. 136 Peterson, D. 88 n. 98, 141 n. 27, 147 n. 1, 161 n. 58 Polak, F. 28 n. 3, 88 n. 100, 89 n. 102, 109 n. 21, 120 n. 70 Porter, B.N. 40 n. 63 Porter, S.E. 165 n. 72 Preuss, H.D. 90 n. 106 Prinsloo, W.S. 173 n. 103 Propp, W.H. 15 n. 21, 50 n. 97, 59 n. 129, 98 n. 135, 120 n. 68, 129 n. 104, 130 n. 106 Rad, G. Von 21 n. 46, 34 n. 32, 60 n. 132, 69 n. 28, 103 n. 151, 123 n. 82, 145 n. 43, 181 n. 5 Rand, H. 108 n. 20 Reichenbach, B.R. 31 n. 19, 69 n. 29, 74 n. 44 Reichert, A. 87 n. 95 Rietz, H.W.M. 155 n. 32 Rendtorff, R. 14 n. 16, 42 n. 71, 89 n. 104, 103 n. 152, 137 n. 14 Reventlow, H.G. 42 n. 69, 181 n. 4 Rissi, M. 166 n. 78 Roberts, J.J.M. 25 n. 66, 25 n. 67, 173 n. 103 Robinson, G. 13 n. 10, 16 n. 29, 22 n. 52, 24 n. 60, 43 n. 75, 45 n. 79, 46 n. 84, 47 n. 84, 47 n. 85, 49 n. 92, 55 n. 115n 59 n. 130, 64 n. 10, 65 n. 14, 78 n. 60, 181 n. 2 Robinson, R.A. 46 n. 82 Rodriguez, A.M. 16 n. 28, 94 n. 20, 137 n. 12 Rogerson, J.W. 6 2 n2 Rosner, B.S. 21 n. 46 Rowley, H.H. 22 n. 52 Rudolph, D.J. 45 n. 80, 63 n. 7 Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van 150 n. 14, 154 n. 26 Runia, D.T. 156 n. 37, 157 n. 40 Russell, D.M. 150 n. 12 Ruszkowski, L. 151 n. 16 Ryou, D.H. 171 n. 96

Index of Authors Sadaqa, A. 110 n. 25 Sadaqa, R. 110 n. 25 Sailhamer, J.H. 121 n. 72 Sanders, J.A. 151 n. 16 Sanders, S.L. 130 n. 107, 130 n. 108 Sandevoir, P. 110 n. 25 Sarna, N. 15 n. 21, 50 n. 97, 54 n. 112, 88 n. 100 Scharbert, J. 12 n. 8 , 59 n. 127 Schenker, A. 72 n. 37, 90 n. 105, 91 n. 104, 137 n. 12, 139 n. 17 Schmid, H.H. 102 n. 148, 181 n. 4, 181 n. 5 Schmid, K. 14 n. 16, 168 n. 84 Schmid, R. 94 n. 121 Schmitt, G. 104 n. 2, 111 n. 31 Scobie, C.H.H. 38 n. 51 Scolnic, B.E. 129 n. 102, 130 n. 105, 130 n. 110 Scott, J.M. 154 n. 28 Sedlmeier, F. 140 n. 26 Segal, M. 153 n. 25 Seifred, M.A. 103 n. 148, 140 n. 26, 164 n. 62 Seitz, C.R. 169 n. 87 Shead, A.G. 26 n. 69, 50 n. 95 Siker-Gieseler, J. 55 n. 116 Silva, M. 47 n. 85, 83 n. 82 Ska, J.L. 29 n. 5, 29 n. 7, 31 n. 20 Smith, J.Z. 33 n. 27, 33 n. 28 Smith, M.S. 18 n. 35, 29 n. 6, 29 n. 7, 75 n. 47, 75 n. 48, 75 n. 49 Smolar, L. 104 n. 1 Sommer, B.D. 151 n. 16, 182 n. 7 Sprinkle, J.M. 87 n. 96 Stager, L. 80 n. 63 Steck, O.H. 14 n. 16, 168 n. 84 Stegemann, E.W. 161 n. 55 Stegemann, W. 161 n. 55 Steins, G. 91 n. 109, 91 n. 111 Sterling, G.E. 157 n. 40 Sternberg, M. 20 n. 41, 21 n. 46, 115 n. 49 Stordalen, T. 16 n. 27, 41 n. 68, 80 n. 63, 82 n. 76, 83 n. 77 Stuhlmacher, P. 102 n. 148 Suh, M.S. 15 n. 22, 31 n. 21, 34 n. 33, 145 n. 38 Sung, C.-H. 136 n. 8 Suomala, K.R. 104 n. 1, 123 n. 78 Sweeney, M.A. 147 n. 2, 148 n. 3, 182 n. 7 Talmon, S. 22 n. 53, 23 n. 56, 26 n. 68, 33 n. 28, 78 n. 61 Talstra, E. 115 n. 44, 119 n. 64

235

Tarragon, J.-M. de 85 n. 87 Terrien, S. 126 n. 91, 173 n. 2 Thiselton, A.C. 21 n. 48 Toeg, A. 13 n. 12 Tsumura, D.T. 41 n. 64, 81 n. 66 Turner, M. 47 n. 85, 83 n. 82 Utzschneider, H. 18 n. 36, 58 n. 124 Van Asselt, W.J. 74 n. 44 Van Seters, J. 20 n. 40, 24 n. 61, 83 n. 78, 89 n. 102, 117 n. 52 VanderKam, J.C. 156 n. 36 VanGemeren, W.A. 38 n. 49, 56 n. 120, 70 n. 33, 141 n. 28, 163 n. 63 Vanhoozer, K.J. 16 n. 26, 147 n. 1 Vasholz, R. 181 n. 3 Vaux, R. de 52 n. 102 Vervenne, M. 12 n. 4, 96 n. 128 Voelz, J.W. 16 n. 25 Vos, G. 70 n. 33, 71 n. 34, 163 n. 63 Vries, S.J. de 37 n. 45 Vriezen, T.C. 93 n. 117, 134 n. 4, 140 n. 22 Wallace, H.N. 16 n. 29, 40 n. 58, 40n62, 67 n. 21, 67 n. 22, 80 n. 63, 83 n. 77, 144 n. 33, 145 n. 41 Waltke, B. 81 n. 70, 97 n. 133 Walton, J.N. 24 n. 59, 74 n. 46, 77 n. 56, 78 n. 60, 78 n. 61, 81 n. 66, 84 n. 83, 85 n. 86 Ward, R.S. 71 n. 33, 71 n. 35 Watson, T. 146 n. 44 Watson, W.G.E. 11 n. 1 Watts, R.E. 87 n. 95 Weimar, P. 16 n. 30, 40 n. 58, 42 n. 69, 72 n. 39, 144 n. 33, 145 n. 43, 146 n. 45 Weinfeld, M. 17 n. 30, 40 n. 58, 40 n. 59, 41 n. 65 Weiss, H. 157 n. 40, 157 n. 43, 164 n. 68 Weiss, H.-F. 163 n. 66 Wellhausen, J. 12 n. 6, 20 n. 43, 20 n. 44, 118 n. 56, 126 n. 93, 175 n. 106 Wells, J.B. 62 n. 3, 85 n. 86, 91 n. 109 Wenham, G.J. 16 n. 27, 18 n. 36, 32 n. 22, 41 n. 65, 41 n. 66, 46 n. 83, 68 n. 24, 70 n. 31, 80 n. 63, 80 n. 64, 80 n. 65, 83 n. 79 Werbick, J. 139 n. 17 Westerholm, S. 140 n. 26 Westermann, C. 65 n. 15, 67 n. 21, 71 n. 36, 74 n. 45, 168 n. 84 Wevers, J.W. 110 n. 25

236

Index of Authors

Whybray, R.N. 14 n. 16 Widmer, M. 39 n. 56, 107 n. 16, 108 n. 17, 113 n. 38, 122 n. 75, 122 n. 77, 125 n. 89, 127 n. 96, 130 n. 110, 136 n. 8, 137 n. 13 Wilcox, M. 161 n. 59 Willi-Plein, I. 161 n. 57 Willis, J.T. 145 n. 42 Wilson, R.R. 147 n. 2, 167 n. 82 Wintermute, O.S. 154 n. 30, 155 n. 32 Wolde, E.J. van 88 n. 101, 115 n. 42, 155 n. 45

Wolff, H.W. 37 n. 45, 172 n. 100 Wray, J.H. 163 n. 62, 165 n. 75 Wu, S.-J.T. 150 n. 15 Wyatt, N. 85 n. 87 Yoshikawa, S.T. 21 n. 47, 22 n. 50 Young, F. 21 n. 47 Younger, K.L. Jr. 24 n. 59 Zenger, E. 88 n. 99