REVIEW ESSAY ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT IN HISTORY, …

REVIEW ESSAY

ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT IN

HISTORY, TRADITION, AND INTERPRETATION

by

VICTOR AVIGDOR HUROWITZ

Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. Doubleday: New York, 1991. xx, 1163 pp.

Background

As its Greco-Latin name, Leviticus, and its rabbinic appellation, Torat Kohanim, imply, the book known in Hebrew as Wayyiqrff is a manual for specialists—priests, to be exact. Substantial parts of it are addressed explicitly to Aaron and his sons. Its central concerns—sacrifice, ritual purity, qualifications of priests and sacrificial animals, the cultic calendar, Temple property—are largely clerical; and its language, style, and world-views are of interest to sacerdotal circles. As for composition, it is a major pillar in the literary productivity of two priestly schools commonly designated Ρ and H.

Jewish tradition recommends Leviticus as study material for children begining their education (Leviticus Rabbah 7:3). The reason ostensibly offered is that "children are pure and sacrifices are pure; so let the pure come and engage in study of the pure." This touching explanation notwithstanding, the statements leading up to it indicate a more significant motive. After the destruction of the Temple, pedagogic involvement with cultic activities such as sacrifice or scooping out incense was deemed a suitable surrogate for actually performing them. Moreover, studying sacrifices served as ideal

AJS Review 19/2 (1994): 213-236 213

214 VICTOR AVIGDOR HUROWITZ

preparation for their eventual reinstitution on the rebuilding of the Temple. Through academic immersion in sacrifices from their very first days in school, the children of Israel—in its entirety a kingdom of priests and a holy nation—were initiated as pirhê kfhunnäh, simultaneously performing the ancestral cult and embodying the national hope for its imminent renewal.

The Temple and its cult no longer exist in reality and have been anathema to the religious aspirations of most Gentiles and more of a nightmare than a dream to non-traditional Jews. As a result, the Book of Leviticus has been largely ignored and unappreciated in scholarly circles, which over the years have been dominated by Gentiles and by Jews who have consciously or unconsciously absorbed their anti-cultic disposition. Indicative of the once-regnant attitude toward Leviticus is the statement of N. Micklem in The Interpreters Bible: "How, it may be asked, has such a book any place in the Christian Bible? No one can deny that the book is, as a matter of fact, in the Scripture of the church: but it has been neglected or repudiated as if it were not. . . . In what sense, then, can it be claimed that Leviticus is part of the Word of God to us Christians in the twentieth century?"1

Given this widespread negative attitude toward the Bible's third book, it is most fortunate that the English language's first significant scientific commentary on Leviticus has been presented by Jacob Milgrom.2 He is a Jewish scholar who was trained at the Jewish Theological Seminary and served briefly as a Conservative rabbi. More important, he is an experienced specialist who has devoted three decades of a productive academic career to elucidating the cult of ancient Israel in general, and Leviticus, Numbers, and the cult-related material from Qumran in particular.

Milgrom's commentary on the first sixteen chapters of Leviticus is the pinnacle of an illustrious career; it is an important and welcome contribution to biblical scholarship and should spark a revitalization of interest in this important book. It is extremely informative and illuminating, and is written with sympathy for the literary, ethical, and theological values of the priestly authors—a sympathy born out of years of intimate involvement with all

1. N. Micklem, in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 2 (Nashville, 1953), p. 4. 2. The commentary of Baruch Levine, another eminent authority on the Book of Leviticus

and ancient Israelite cult, is also written to high scholarly standards, but is aimed at a less scholarly and specifically Jewish audience. It is therefore much narrower in scope and far less detailed. It also touches more directly on issues of contemporary Jewish interest. See B. A. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia, 1989). Since Levine and Milgrom often disagree, the serious reader will certainly want to refer to both volumes.

ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT 215

aspects of the book, from the major themes down to the minutest details. Although Baruch Levine, author of the rival Jewish Publication Society commentary, emphasizes the contribution of Leviticus mostly in its influence on traditional Jewish ritual praxis,3, Milgrom finds in the Priestly laws relevance to the humanistic and ecologically oriented agenda of modern liberals of all faiths.

Content

Keeping with the Anchor Bible format, Milgrom's commentary contains an introduction, a completely new translation, verse-by-verse philological and exegetical notes, and synthetic comments on the structure, content, and major issues of each pericope. Since, as the author informs us, the Masoretic text is in excellent condition, there is no need for a special section given to textual comments, a feature found in some Anchor volumes (e.g., P. K. McCarter, / Samuel and // Samuel), but not others.

Milgrom's major conclusions relating to the literary history of Ρ and H, the development of Israelite cult, as well as the basic beliefs of the cult and its literary embodiments, are laid out before us in the introduction. This section contains no outline or synopsis of the book's overall thematic structure, although the table of contents is somewhat descriptive and the sequence of material is touched upon in the comments to the individual chapters. In general the introduction focuses on the first sixteen chapters. Certain essential topics, such as the extent of H, are discussed only briefly in lieu of a more extensive treatment promised for the second volume. On the other hand, there is a detailed discussion of the parameters, date, and provenance of P, the literary stratum making up the bulk of Leviticus. Since Leviticus is only a segment of two larger compositions, the discussion of its theology relates to Ρ (and H) as a whole.

Milgrom's commentary is the first to enthusiastically accept and apply (with revisions and modifications of his own) the revolutionary thesis set forward by Israel Knohl that the Pentateuchal document commonly known as the P(riestly) source is not a single source, but is in fact composed of a Priestly source and a later, quite extensive Holiness School, distinct from

3. See Levine, Leviticus, pp. 215-238.


Ρ in both language and ideology. 4 In fact, Milgrom discerns in Leviticus three levels of the Priestly source ( P p P2, P3) and at least one of the Holiness School (H). The division is partially summarized in tabular form on p. 63, but it would have been useful had it been indicated somehow in the translation. Although the pyrotechnics of the polychrome Bible5 or the motley array of typesets used by K. Elliger6 are not recommended, the sigla and slanted lines employed by E. A. Speiser for indicating J, E, and Ρ in the Anchor Bible Genesis would certainly be adequate. It would also be useful if a synoptic table comparing Milgrom's division with those of other authorities had been provided.

Following such scholars as Y. Kaufmann and M. Haran, Milgrom dates Ρ in its entirety to the pre-exilic period. However, for Milgrom this determination is based primarily on linguistic grounds, following and supplementing the work of Israeli scholars Avi Hurwitz and Meir Paran. The arguments from language are bolstered by additional evidence of Milgrom's own from the realm of religious customs and social institutions. The case for Ρ preceding D hinges in part on the development of the attitude toward profane slaughter—Ρ provides for it, Η prohibits it, and D polemicizes against H, demanding its reinstitution. In other matters as well, such as the laws concerning forbidden animals or scale disease, Milgrom advocates that Ρ precedes D and that D even explicitly states its dependence on laws now found in P.

P's roots are alleged to go back to the pre-Jerusalem temple at Shiloh (a claim presented previously, but for totally different reasons, by Klaus Koch),7 while it reached its final literary formulation in the second half of the eighth century. Η follows Ρ chronologically, but its latest elements are no later than the exilic period. Milgrom rejects the linguistic evidence for late dating adduced by Levine. Ironically, by relentlessly pursuing the linguistic criterion as the sole reliable method of absolute dating, some scholars seem to have reduced the heated and venerated controversy over P's chronological setting to a dispute over the date of a single lexeme—mishäh, meaning "measure"—a term found twice in Lev 7:35 (employed there so as to pun

4. See now I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: A Study of the Priestly Strata in the Pentateuch, [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992).

5. S. R. Driver, The Book of Leviticus (Leipzig, 1894). 6. Leviticus, Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4 (Tübingen, 1966). 7. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche

und literariesche Untersuchung, Forschongen zur Religion und literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 71 (Göttingen, 1959).


on mosho, "his anointing" in the next verse) and once again in Num. 18:8. If such weighty mountains are suspended now by such fragile hairs, it appears the time has come for the late daters to pursue other lines of argumentation. For example, they might date the priestly garments on the basis of the textile technology employed (see especially Exod. 39:3) or their fashion.

Although Ρ is externally a legislator of cultic practices, his laws are governed by a clear theology which Milgrom sets about to define. The purpose of the cult is to protect YHWH's presence in Israel expressed by the Divine "Majesty" (Moshe Greenberg's term for kaböd) which "tabernacles" (F. M. Cross's term) in the Sanctuary. Unlike pagan temples, where a struggle with demons was constantly waged, the only threats Ρ perceives to God's residence in the Israelite camp are (a) intentional human sin not confessed and atoned for, and (b) physical impurity not eliminated expeditiously by the prescribed rituals. Ρ intentionally restructures old rituals such as the Red Heifer, the Scapegoat, and the birds for purification from scale disease with the intent of emphasizing that the impurity is neither of a demonic nature nor dangerous. Moreover, the only sources of human defilement are death-related phenomena: corpses, loss of life-engendering semen, loss of menstrual blood, genital discharges, and scale diseases bearing physical likeness to dead flesh. Purification is accomplished by the application of life-related detergents, such as blood, red substances, and running ("living") water, or banishment to outside the human domain. The sanctity of life is at the heart of the dietary laws, which on the one hand forbid ingestion of blood, and on the other severely limit the number of animal species which may be consumed. The Priestly cult thus portrays an ongoing symbolic struggle between the natural forces of death and YHWH, the creator and symbol of life. On the ethical plane, P's sacrificial system demonstrates and emphasizes reverence for life, the precedence of man over God, compassion for the poor, and the necessity of purging the human heart of evil.

All of these important ideas and a host of other issues, such as the meaning of numerous cult-related terms, the functions of the various sacrifices, the Priestly doctrine of repentance, the distinction between the terms seqes and fame?, the prohibition on eating pigs, concepts of contagious holiness, defilement by overhang, literary stuctures, etc., are illuminated in great detail and with much originality at the appropriate places throughout the commentary. The book is a treasuure trove of raw information about such subjects as eating pork in the ancient Near East, and attitudes toward menstruants throughout


the world (pp. 763-765). It is spattered with fascinating tidbits, such as a picture of a sheep with a tail so laden with fat that it needs a wagon to haul it around (p. 212), an attempt to locate the priestly privy (pp. 535-536 on 8:33), or a discussion of the dearth of fish in the western Mediterranean and its influence on the biblical dietary laws (p. 660). There are also numerous digressions comparing biblical and rabbinic laws with those known from Qumran. As an added bonus, Milgrom's sorties into the Dead Sea Scrolls are often accompanied by citations from some unpublished (now just unedited!) material.

A glance at the bibliography reveals that Milgrom investigated many of the major topics previously in some seventy-nine articles of his own. In such cases, he does not just rehash or summarize his positions, but presents new arguments in their favor, examines them from new angles, and defends them or modifies them in accordance with new evidence and studies which have appeared since his earlier contributions. Although he seldom retreats, he takes seriously his scholarly responsibility to remain up to date and constantly to reevaluate his own accomplishments in light of new material and new suggestions, whether made by senior colleagues or by newcomers to academia. He also does not hesitate to admit at the end of an extended discussion that the investigation can proceed no further and that definitive answers may not presently be attained (e.g., p. 207 in his discussion about why hëleb is reserved for the Deity).

Milgrom is to be congratulated for the openness with which he acknowledges the contributions of others to his own work. He cites conversations and written communications with the editor of the series and others, consults with scholars outside the narrow field of biblical studies, and incorporates verbatim and with full accreditation contributions of his students. Especially prominent among the collaborators is David Wright, who has provided new or updated translations of numerous Hittite and Akkadian texts as well as lengthy discussions and charts relating to the laws of purity. Also to be mentioned is Susan Rattray,, who is credited with having demonstrated (contra Levine) a significant distinction between nalfläh and "ahuzzäli, a lucid (even if not entirely convincing) discussion of the ancient Israelite system of weights and measures, as well as some comments about matters of realia and biology (including some personal female topics).


Methodology

The third book of the Pentateuch was hardly ever meant to be merely a piece of literature. It is a book of instructions for cultic practitioners and grew out of the ongoing performance of the cult. Accordingly, explication of the book must be more than a close reading or limited commentary on a single canonical writing. Although attention must be given to examining every linguistic and textual detail of the book as well as illuminating certain literary devices employed by Ρ and H, a commentary on the whole must contextualize the Book of Leviticus within the framework of the cult. Milgrom's Leviticus is true to this task, and as a result it is tantamount to an introduction to the cult of ancient Israel and its historical development.

If we read between the lines, going beyond what is explicitly stated by the author, we find that this commentary presents a two-dimensional synthetic view of the Israelite cult. The first dimension is a diachronic one. Israelite cult as prescribed and described by Ρ and Η is a single, well-defined organism which underwent constant metamorphosis. As it passed through a series of developmental stages it changed its external form but always stayed the same identifiable entity. This creature's earliest manifestations are visible in the ancient cult of Shiloh, but it attains its most distinct form in the Jerusalem Temple. Although it suffered a midlife, near-terminal coma in 586 B.C.E., the cult emerged from it, as if from a cocoon, and survived with certain radically new features as late as the cult practiced in the Herodian Temple of Jerusalem. The second dimension is a synchronic one. This organism itself is but a single species in the broader genus of contemporary ancient Near Eastern cults.

These two dimensions dictate two major aspects of Milgrom's approach to the Book of Leviticus.

1. Since the cult involved is one of many ancient Near Eastern cultic systems, Milgrom's commentary has a broad comparative base. The rich archaeological and epigraphic finds from ancient Israel, Egypt, Phoenicia, Ugarit, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, many of which are related to temples and cult, are used extensively as sources of raw comparative information. As a service to the reader, translations of passages—often rather lengthy—are frequently provided. It should be noted, however, that the available extra-biblical material has by no means been exhausted. So, for instance, the bountiful collection of cultic texts from Emar (Meskene) from the thirteenth century B.C.E. are of extreme importance to Israelite cultic practices, literature,


and terminology, but were published too recently (1986) to make any impact on the commentary.8 Other long-known texts, such as the Nabu-apla-idinna grant document (BBSt 36), and some more recently published items, such as an Old Babylonian manual of sacrificial procedure,9 are not mentioned despite their obvious significance for the Book of Leviticus.

Milgrom's use of extrabiblical sources reveals the complex relationship between the Priestly cult and cults of neighboring cultures. At times Ρ and Η follow or approximate common ancient Near Eastern norms, in which case information from an extrabiblical text can fill in a gap in our understanding of the Bible. But in many instances, the extrabiblical texts present practices and views intentionally rejected by the ancient Israelite cult. In such cases, contrast with the foreign text can bring the uniqueness of the biblical views into sharper focus. Finally, there are certain characteristics of cult which are universal, and they may be illuminated with the methods and resources available to cultural anthropologists and comparative religionists. In this vein, Milgrom exploits material from noncontiguous areas, such as the ancient Aegean, India, and Africa.

2. Since the cult described by Ρ and Η is only a stage in an extended developmental continuum, Milgrom's commentary utilizes postbiblical Jewish sources and traditional Jewish commentaries to a far greater extent than any previous modern commentary. This is undoubtedly one of its major contributions, both in the information conveyed as well as in the methodological implications.

The author never makes a comprehensive pronouncement about the value of postbiblical material, but his basic attitude becomes clear if certain key remarks are examined. On p. 56 Milgrom cites a statement by Joshua Eilberg-Schwartz claiming that it was the Mishnah which prescribed for the first time a working partnership between the priest and the layman. This supposed reform was, according to Milgrom, not new at all, but quite true to the attitude and laws of P. On pp. 1004-1009, Milgrom fires a blistering, extended salvo at Jacob Neusner, whose numerous studies of the mishnaic laws of purity point to what he perceives as innovations of the rabbis of the

8. D. Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d'AStata Emar VI. 1-4. Textes sumériens et accadiens (Paris, 1985-87).

9. D. A. Foxvog, "A Manual of Sacrificial Procedure," in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjòberg, éd. H. Behrens et al. (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 167-176.


second century CE.1 0 Once again, Milgrom claims that what is construed as new, revolutionary, and molded for and by Judaism's post-Temple existence was actually integral to the thought of the biblical Priestly and Holiness schools.

Neusner and Eilberg-Schwartz have, in effect, done from the rabbinic end of the spectrum what classical biblical scholars had done for years from the other side. The new students of rabbinic Judaism have joined hands with generations of biblical critics in denying the continuity of the tradition from the biblical to the postbiblical period and from the Second Temple to the post-destruction age. Milgrom, who brackets his commentary by assailing this position, is making a programmatic methodological statement which he supports with the bulk of the commentary. He declares emphatically that the worlds of biblical Israel and postbiblical Judaism are not to be torn asunder and analyzed as two distinct, unrelated, unlinked entities. Quite to the contrary, they are organically bound together and therefore may be mutually illuminating. His conviction regarding this principle is demonstrated on nearly every page of the commentary.

In practice, since the Temple and cult continued their existence past the end of the biblical period, the evidence of the Bible may be supplemented by early postbiblical literature, such as the Temple Scroll and other cultic material from Qumran (upon which Milgrom comments profusely throughout the book), the writings of Hellenistic and Roman authorities, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius, and rabbinic writings, including the Mishnah and various Midrashim. Since both the Bible and the rabbinic statements about the Temple and cult were subjects of exegesis throughout the ages, exegetical insights, and perhaps reliable historical memories as well, are to be found in the writings of Jewish, Samaritan, and Karaite authorities through the ages down to most recent times (see pp. 63-66).

However, matters are not so simple. It is obvious that not every postbiblical statement faithfully reflects biblical attitudes and more ancient customs. There are places where rabbinic or sectarian views accurately echo those of the Bible. This may be because the rabbis or sectaries were heirs to authentic, reliable interpretive traditions (a "genetic" relationship) or because the biblical text was unambiguous and also compatible with the later views. There are also cases where the postbiblical authorities develop latent tendencies inherent to the biblical world. In contrast, there are other

10. See also p. 789 on Lev. 13:22.


instances still where the Bible is lacking in information, and the heirs to the Bible, saddled with the task of making the biblical ritual operable in a functioning or a visionary temple, were forced to fill in gaps. In such a case, the rabbis or sectarians may have produced or preserved what the biblical author would have had in mind. On the other hand, they may have engaged in pure guesswork, landing far afield from the original intent. Alongside these cases, there are places where the later view contradicts what modern scholars take to be the plain meaning of Scripture. Such blatant divergences may stem from misunderstanding a biblical text, but they may also result from the imposition on the biblical text of a practice or belief which developed after the biblical text received its canonical formulation. All of these possibilities exist not only in theory but in practice. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that an extrabiblical practice confirms a postbiblical interpretation or addition.

Milgrom is quite aware of these possibilities and lets us know on numerous occasions that he does not view the entire corpus of extrabiblical sources and exegesis as monolithic, and of equal value and relevance to the biblical exegete. In other words, he qualifies his own programmatic statement and applies it with called-for discretion. Unfortunately he does not indicate his views in every case so that the reader is at times forced to wonder exactly what type of relationship he has in mind. Also, in certain instances even Milgrom is not immune to harmonizing, and he does not always distinguish sufficiently between the plain, historical original intent of the text and its later interpretations.

Critique

'Milgrom has given us an extremely important and authoritative commentary on the Book of Leviticus, a virtual encyclopedia of cultic issues, and a strong methodological statement about the continuity of the cult and the exegetical significance of this continuity. For all this he is to be thanked and given a hearty dannütka User!

Inevitably, there are several unfortunate blemishes in the form and presentation of the book (see items 1-3 below). There are also certain matters of substance both major and minor which in my opinion call for further discussion and elaboration (item 4). By now humbly offering some words of critique and proposals of my own, it is not my wish to diminish the book's value or question its quality. I hope only to advance the friendly


scholarly debate and constant introspection which themselves are hallmarks of every page of this fine commentary. The reader should bear in mind that the commentary is extremely long and detailed, and the list of corrections quite small in proportion to the dimensions of the book.

Form and Presentation

1. Milgrom uses a talmudic form of discourse, discussing issues by asking a question or stating a proposition and then investigating all possible anwers. This has the advantage of drawing readers into the discussion, leading them along, and helping them join in the author's thought process. Nonetheless, it makes reading an exhausting experience and not the most suitable one for a commentary. Moreover, Milgrom often presents his own positions within the framework of extended arguments with other opinions, some already stated by previous scholars and others only anticipated by Milgrom himself. The resultant jumping back and forth between the rival sides of the debate, which is exacerbated by the frequent need to refer to other parts of the book, leads to great confusion, obscuring at times the author's own suggestions.

2. There are no chapter-and-verse headers for the first ten chapters of the book. Chapter headers finally appear on p. 643, and even then they are totally inadequate, referring as they do only to quite large units of text. Since there are numerous cross-references on every page of the work, and since many discussions are dispersed over large areas, the lack of adequate headers makes it extremely difficult to follow an argument or exploit the wealth of information offered on any given topic.

3. There are several technical errors—unfelicitous language, faulty citation, contradictions between the citation in the text and the bibliography, misplaced passages, and typographical errors, especially in the transliteration of Hebrew and Akkadian words. Here are some examples:

p. 19, para. 2, and p. 24, para. 2: Hatti is referred to as Hattia. p. 116 under Rupprecht: what is "Sefer Rendtorff"? p. 142, para. 4: Milgrom writes 'That the epic tradition concerning the

Sinaitic theophany was compatible with Ρ and, hence, incorporated by it • . . was astutely recognized by Ramban, whose comment merits citation in full." This statement is worded extremely ineffectually and anachronistically, implying that Ramban knew about "epic traditions" and P.

p. 183, para. 3, line 12: add the word "poor" before "people."


p. 184, three lines from bottom: add "was" after "cross." p. 243, para. 4: "Moreover, Akk. hattfu 'sinner', a D formation (cor

responding to Hebrew piël) also retains the LXX (corresponding to qal) meaning . . ." makes no sense.

p. 285: What is Moran 1962? p. 350, bottom para.: What is Text 98 (Kh. 1935,8)? p. 355, line 2: "following table" should be "table on facing page." p. 368, line 10: Laesse should be Laess0e. p. 444, para. 4, line 2: Isa. 45:5 should be Isa. 65:5. p. 539, para. 1, line 20: mil kätisunu should be mil qätisunu. p. 547, nine lines from bottom, and p. 548, line 1: "Hittite" should be

"Mesopotamian" (Samsu-iluna reigned in Babylon and not in Hattusha). p. 567, para. 2, line 4: "or the Nedembu" should be "of the Ndembu." p. 579, para. 2, line 4: "ovines" should be "bovines." p. 609, line 7: perasà should be përassa. pp. 643-645: In the translation of chap. 11, the verses are all misnumbered

(not so in the commentary on pp. 645-691). The verse numbers given simply pick up at v. 21 following chap. 10! vv. 21-67 should be 1-47.

p. 754, para. 3, line 6: Horowitz 1970 should be Horowitz 1890. p. 807, para. 2: Referring to the bet hahopsit Milgrom writes: "Unfortu

nately, no etymology can be made to determine the location of this house, in particular, whether it was located inside or outside the city." This statement is unclear.

p. 808, para. 1, end: "Uzziah's fate, that he had to abdicate his throne . . . and leave the palace, was anticipated in a kudumC is a strange phraseology.

p. 840, on v. 8, line 2: "priestly" should be "practical." p. 865, bottom para., to p. 866, top, is out of place. There is no discussion

in the area of references to camp and tent. p. 959: What is printed as the second paragraph is actually a caption

accompanying the "tree" at the top of the page. It should be printed in smaller type and placed directly under the tree. The other paragraph is the main text which continues the discussion from the previous page.

p. 1072, para. 2, line 7: Enbidu should be Enkidu. p. 1081, line 3: MF§ should be ME§; line 5: MPS TFR should be MES

TER. p. 1082, para. 2, line 4: ÍDSÜ[B-¿ / / ] should be ID SU[B-di].


p. 1084, para. 2, lines 4-7 do not belong to the discussion in which they are imbedded.

Content and Substance

p. 3: Milgrom states that P's historical references are totally confined to the wilderness period, for which there are no extra-biblical sources. This is true as far as explicit references are concerned, but it ignores P's hidden allusions to later historical situations. For example, Exod. 6:23 relates Aaron through marriage to Nahshon ben Amminadab, the nasi of Judah. This certainly reflects familial ties between the Priestly families and the Davidic house and must therefore be of monarchic date at the earliest. Numbers 34:19-29 designates the tribal leaders as nesfim, with the exception of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Simeon. This dichotomy also is to be related to the split in the kingdom.

p. 30: Milgrom tries to refute Knohl's support of the generally accepted view that the Tabernacle was based on Solomon's Temple. In the course of this rebuttal he seems to accept Y. Aharoni's attempt to compare the one-room Arad temple with the Tabernacle. This is flawed on two counts. Firstly, Aharoni's description of the Arad temple as a single room is questionable, and any definitive discussion of the Arad temple and use of its evidence for biblical matters should await a final site report. Secondly, the Tabernacle was clearly a two-room structure. The fact that the inner and outer sancta were divided by a veil rather than a solid wall does not change the basic architectural conception or, for that matter, the way in which the space was utilized.

In his attempt to sever the Tabernacle from the Solomonic Temple, Milgrom points to the undeniable fact that the Temple's height was three times that of the Tabernacle, while the Temple's length and width were only twice that of the Tabernacle. He uses this to deny that the two structures shared a common plan. However, this discrepancy is irrelevant. The fact is that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple was only 20 cubits high and therefore also twice as high as the Tabernacle, and it is this dimension rather than the total dimension which is crucial. The ceiling of the Solomonic Debir was lowered 10 cubits below the roof. Such an architectural feature would have been impractical in a portable Tabernacle, so the author of the


Tabernacle description, whose sense of what was possible and realistic is quite admirable, disregarded it.

p. 31: Milgrom states that "At Shiloh, the Tabernacle may have existed alongside the temple or even with it," citing R. Friedman for the second possibility.11 Friedman suggested in fact that the Tabernacle stood within the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, clearly in contradiction to Milgrom's view placing it in Shiloh. Moreover, even though Friedman has repeated his position in numerous publications, it is based on a reconstruction of the Tabernacle's architecture which is absolutely wrong factually and methodologically.12

Both the novel plan and the derived suggestion about the whereabouts of the Tabernacle may be safely ignored.

p. 34: Milgrom cites 1 Chron. 24:3 as "one tradition" supporting the Aaronide lineage of Eli. Is not this testimony simply a product of the Chronicler's harmonistic bent and therefore unacceptable as historical evidence? In general the Chronicler's testimony should be exploited more than it has been in the past for understanding the Israelite cult of the early Second Temple period, but it must be considered highly unreliable in relationship to the cult of the First Temple.

pp. 38-42 The use of introversion and chiastically arranged inclusions characteristic of Ρ and Η has parallels in Akkadian texts, including legal documents.13 By the way, more attention should be given to the number of elements in any given introverted structure. There seems to be a preponderance of sevenfold structures, which is only to be expected in cultic texts. Lev 14:21-32 (discussed on pp. 859-860) has the seventh element as the pivotal one, and 14:51-52 (discussed on p. 880) has a total of seven elements. The sevenfold structure of 15:1-33 (p. 905) supports the analysis of James Randolph (a student of Milgrom) over that of G. J. Wenham. See also Lev. 16:29-31 (p. 1057). Admittedly, the introversion in 15:11-20 does not have seven elements.14

p. 60: Clear evidence for musical instruments in Solomon's Temple is

11. Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980): 241-247. 12. See for now my discussion in Israel Exploration Journal, 1984, pp. 68-69. A more

detailed refutation will appear shortly in the Jewish Quarterly Review. 13. See my "Some Literary Observations on the Sitti-Marduk Kudurru (BBSt. 6),"

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 82 (1992): 39-59, esp. p. 40, n. 7. 14. For an additional introverted, seven-limbed text in a cultic context found outside the

Pentateuch in 1 Sam. 3:17-18, see my "Eli's Aduration of Samuel (1 Sam. iii 17-18) in Light of a 'Diviner's Protocol' From Mari (AEM 1/1,1)." Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994).


provided by 1 Kings 7:50, which attributes to Solomon the manufacture of gold mezammeroty which are not "snuffers" or "scissors," as commonly assumed, but musical instruments, as suggested by Rashi.15

p. 140: Milgrom cites M. Haran as following rabbinic tradition that there were two tents. This is, to the best of my understanding, a misstatement of Haran's position. According to Haran, there was historically only one tent, but it is conceived of by Ρ as a portable temple which stood in the camp, while E considered it an oraculum which stood outside the camp. No individual pentateuchal source, according to Haran, knows of two tents.

p. 140, bottom para.: Milgrom accepts R. de Vaux's contention that the tent outside the camp held the Ark. This is not convincing. Joshua stays permanently in the tent not in order to guard the Ark, but because he is constantly in wait for revelations. Moses, as national leader, cannot, so to speak, be tied up on the phone!

p. 144, para. 3: Milgrom states, "In any event, the 'Priests' manual," Israelite version, is not an esoteric doctrine, the zealously guarded secret of the priestly guild, but an open book or, more accurately, a school textbook for all Israel." He thereby rejects (probably with justification) the positions of M. Haran, who views Ρ as esoteric Priestly doctrine not published until the time of Ezra, and of S. E. McEvenue, who considered it didactic material for children of the Priestly caste. These discarded positions should be alluded to at least with the word contra.

pp. 199-200: Milgrom speaks of minhäh and lebônah as combined offerings in Jer. 41:5, Mai. 1:11, and Cowley 30:25, but on pp. 629 ff. he uses the same passages as evidence of an independent incense offering.

p. 213: Milgrom says that hecäseh perhaps is related to Akkadian esettu, esemtu, esenseru. These words are simply Akkadian cognates of Hebrew eesem with assimilation of the labial. They do nothing to explain the Hebrew word or its strange form.

p. 214, on v. 16: Milgrom recommends moving the "atnahtä to the word nihöah but in the next paragraph he suggests that in any case kol hëleb laYHWH begins a new paragraph which is from H. Why then even bother recommending the change in cantillation?

p. 223, para. 2: Milgrom, following scholarly consensus, relates Hebrew

15. For details, see my contribution to the upcoming J. Milgrom Festschrift.


liskäh to Greek leschë. It probably should be related, however, to Akkadian aslukkatulasrukkatu, meaning a storeroom in a temple.16

p. 224, para. 1: Milgrom claims that the sacrificial meal probably was preceded by a table blessing, citing 1 Sam 9:13 and following rabbinic eisegeses. This passage, however, may refer to performing extispicy and reciting an extispicy prayer, a practice referred to in Akkadian texts as puhädam karäbum (lit. "to bless the sacrificial sheep").

p. 252: Milgrom asks, "Why is the female, the more valuable animal, required of the commoner, whereas the male, of less worth, is required of the chieftain?" He goes on to propose an answer, apparently contributed by his student Rattray, " . . . a commoner, particularly a poor one, is likely to keep only female animals, which provide sustenance, and only if he could afford it would he retain a single male for breeding. The chieftain, by contrast, could well afford to keep several males in his flock." This solution is as unfair to poor people as the rich man of Nathan's parable. The chieftain, who has many sheep, gets away with a cheap sacrifice, while the pauper must sacrifice all he has! Why not let the pauper sell his she-goat, buy a male, and at least be able to keep the change? This economic rationale is untrue to P's alleged concern for the poor. More likely, there is probably a cultic superiority to the male (cf. Lev. 27:3-5) which Milgrom hesitates to admit.

p. 272: Milgrom reproduces his study of the law of the Red Heifer in which he tried to explain why the ashes of the cow defiled those who handled it. His proposal is that it defiles because it is a hattet, which always defiles because it has absorbed the impurity it is intended to purge. However, the ashes of the Red Heifer defile before they are used for purification. Milgrom addresses this crucial problem only at the end of his discussion (p. 277), as if in an afterthought and not in a clear and convincing manner.17

p. 279: Milgrom admits that the purification offering originally may have served a dual purpose: expurgation and protection. He thereby is stepping back slightly from his often-stated position that the hatta't sacrifice is only purificatory. One may ask, are not the two functions essentially the same? Any material which would prevent a malady could potentially cure it, and vice versa. Taking an example from modern medicine, penicillin is not only an antibiotic, but it is used for prophylaxis before surgery lest sensitive patients

16. See A. Hurowitz, Shnaton 7-8 (1984): 57 n. 18. 17. For a critique of Milgrom's explanation of the Red Heifer, see now A. I. Baumgarten,

"The Paradox of the Red Heifer," Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 442-451.


contract infection. Assuming that the sacrifice has a preventative effect may solve the problem of why the Nazirite must offer one when terminating his vow. Since he will now be able to subject himself to impurities which were strictly prohibited during the period of his vow, he poses a new threat to the sanctuary. He therefore is required to offer a prophylactic purification offering. The assumption certainly explains the function of the priests' purification offerings at their initiation (Exodus 29).

p. 301 : Add to the list of confessions using the root wdh Josh. 7:19, where Achan is told v^ten-lo tödäh, to be translated "confess to him," just as in Ezra 10:11.

p. 311, para. 3, end: Milgrom states that Sabean expiation "possibly" required confession. It is quite obvious that the very inscription which so details the offense is tantamount to confession and in itself fulfills the expected requirement.

p. 355: Milgrom mentions the Korah and the Nadab and Abihu incidents as examples of divine punishment for encroachment on sancta. He undoubtedly is right. It is curious, however, that the key terms macal and ^äsani le- are not used, nor is a reparation offering required in either case.

pp. 363-364: Milgrom tries to explain why a victim of scale disease needs to bring an *äsäm. The evidence from the Nabonidus prayer and the Mesopotamian treaties is irrelevant. Scaly-skin disease (saharsubbu) is, along with roaming the steppe like a wild ass, the traditional malediction attributed to the moon god Sin, regardless of the violation. It appears in the epilogue to Codex Hammurabi as well as the neo-Assyrian vassal treaties. There is no specific connection between this curse and treaty or sanctum violation.

p. 364: Nabonidus' defection from Marduk in favor of Sin could hardly "have been viewed by Marduk's priests as a violation of a loyalty oath to Marduk," since there are no known examples of "loyalty oaths" taken by kings to gods.

In general it would be better to look for an inner-biblical rationale for the reparation offering by the victim of scaly-skin disease. If all of the nation of Israel is considered holy, as indeed Korah asserts, then a period of exclusion from the cultic community because of a disease would ipso facto be a case of ma'al and require an *ä$äm. Alternatively, there may simply be an underlying assumption that anyone afflicted with scaly-skin disease is guilty of ma*al. Miriam is punished for speaking against God's most faithful servant, Moses, while Gehazi is afflicted for having appropriated to himself


a present intended for Elisha (called "man of God" in 2 Kings 5:8) in thanks for YHWH's miraculous healing of Naaman's disease. In other words, both of them are punished for encroaching on God's prophets—no less sancta than priests. Uzziah contracts skin disease because he has usurped the priestly prerogative of offering incense.

pp. 388-389, 590-591: Milgrom discusses the fire on the altar and seems to be of the opinion that the fire which came out of the Tabernacle at its inauguration burnt continuously and perpetually, proofs being mustered from later sources and comparative material alike. However, nowhere does he explain what was done with the fire when the Tabernacle was disassembled and transported. Num. 4:14 states that the altar was cleaned and covered but makes no mention of the fire. It should be remembered that tämid as used in Lev. 6:6 does not mean "non-stop" but "over and over," "time after time," while lo* tikbeh is simply hyperbole and refers only to when the Tabernacle is standing.

p. 447: Concerning sanctification by contagion, and in particular Exod. 30:30, Milgrom states that "P is engaged in a polemic; it is deliberately opposing a varied tradition such as is found in the book of Ezekiel." Does this not indicate a possibility that P, or parts of it, is later than Ezekiel and in opposition to Ezekiel's laws themselves? There are other examples as well where Ezekiel seems to accept laws clearly earlier than those of Ρ (see especially pp. 453-454).

p. 449: Milgrom states, "Because the priestly garments have been aspersed by sacred oil he [Ezekiel] holds that they are imbued with sacred holiness." This is unlikely, for Ezekiel says not a word about sacred oil, and it is doubtful whether priests were anointed during the Second Temple period.

p. 509: Milgrom questions my explanation of the Urim and Thummim and their relationship to the Assyrian psephomancy ritual prescribed in LKA 137.18 His principal objection is that the Urim and Thummim are not binary devices, because in five cases where the questions posed are actually spelled out, the answers are not of the "yes-no" type. He seems to have rejected my statement (which I also explained to him privately) that in four cases the Urim and Thummim are called upon to select something, and that this can be done by a well-known method of continuous dichotomy—narrowing down a set continually by half until one item remains. As for the remaining question,

18. See W. Horowitz and V. (A.) Hurowitz, "Urim and Thummim in Light of a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137)," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 21 (1992): 95-115.


in which a military strategy is laid out in detail, I would suggest comparison with the so called neo-Assyrian Samas Anfrage in which military questions are posed and an annu kenn ("reliable yes") is asked for19 The Bible has simply turned the question into the answer.

Not only has Milgrom disregarded the explanations I offered him in defense of my own theory, but on p. 510 he cites verbatim and without criticism a lengthy written communication of Anchor Bible general editor D. N. Freedman which also explains the Urim and Thummim as a binary device. Although Milgrom leaves the question as a "riddle" which "still awaits resolution," he sees as "worthy of consideration" and "an attractive speculation" the strange and unsubstantiated theory of E. Robertson, and apparently only because this particular theory can dovetail with Qumran material and rabbinic explanations.

p. 512: Milgrom discusses the deleterious effects of flawed rituals. Illustrations are brought from Greek, Roman, and Indian rituals. More to the point and also closer to the biblical Kulturkreis would be the ezib ("disregard cultic infraction x") clausse in the Shamash Anfrage.20

p. 554: Milgrom mentions the Mesopotamian pasFsu priests as an example of anointed priests in Mesopotamia. However, as T. Jacobsen has pointed out, the anointing of these priests was done for purposes of delousing them rather than sanctification and can therefore can hardly be compared with biblical anointing. Significantly, in the dedication of the Enlil priests (specifically the nesakku and the pasîsu) published by R. Borger, the priests are not anointed.21

Anointing priestesses is now attested in the entu induction ritual from Emar. pp. 566-569: Milgrom compares the sanctification of priests with various

rites of passage, citing as particularly significant for Israel the Ndembu, Swazi, and Gabbon rites. However, what is conspicuously missing in the Bible is humiliation of the candidates. The parallels to this particular aspect of the foreign ritual come in the rabbinic prescriptions for the Yom Kippur ritual and the Babylonian akltu. Milgrom is certainly correct in his claim that the biblical ritual begs for anthropological analysis. He is also right to view this ceremony as a rite de passage. However, it seems that he has pressed

19. See now I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria, State Archives of Assyria IV (Helsinki, 1990).

20. Cf. Starr. Queries to the Sun God, pp. xxii-xxvii. 21. Bibliotheca Orientalis 30 (1973): 163 (= Römer, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten

Testament 2:171-175).


the analogies too far by attempting to impose upon or uncover in the biblical material signs of deprecation of the initiate. They are simply not there. The difference is real, and rather than covering it up it should be explained.

p. 571: Milgrom claims that 'The Tabernacle took nearly one year in construction, the same period ascribed to the building of Eninnu, Ningirsu's temple in Lagash." This statement is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the Tabernacle probably was erected in seven months. According to the present pentateuchal chronology (that imposed upon it by P), the comand to build the Tabernacle was delivered to Moses during the third month. Moses was on the mountain for forty days, coming down in the middle of the fourth month. He went up again for another forty days and came down, therefore, at the end of the fifth month. The building then would have commenced. Since the Tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year after the Exodus, seven months would have intervened between the time when the building process got underway (beginning of the sixth month) and its completion. The seven-month period corresponds with the seven years in which Solomon built the Jerusalem Temple and the seven days in which the fire from which Baal's palace emerged burned, according to the Ugaritic Baal Epic.

pp. 624-625 Milgrom cites an Akkadian incantation text as a parallel to the priest ingesting hattet in order to eliminate sin. However, in this text it is the afflicted man himself who does the eating—if we follow Milgrom's reading of the partially broken text. In such a case, the two rituals are hardly analogous. Moreover, it is not even clear that it is the sick man who eats. He is rubbed (kuppuru) with a mixture of remedial grains, but it is quite possible that the subject of the verb lîkul ("he should eat") is something else, such as a bird or a fish.

p. 629: Milgrom cites Jer. 41:5 as positive evidence for an independent incense offering. However, it is just as likely that the frankincense mentioned here is to accompany the vegetable offering (as Milgrom himself seems to imply on p. 199). The same is true of Cowley 33:10-11, according to which the restored temple at Elephantine had vegetable offerings along with frankincense. Note also Mai. 1:11, which speaks of moqtar and minhäh.

pp. 628-633: Even though the Nadab and Abihu story may have a religious or cultic point to make, as Milgrom claims, the names of the two central characters beg for a political-historical explanation within the context of anti-Northern sentiments, be the explanation what it may.


p. 631: Milgrom claims that by declaring criminal fire from outside the sanctuary the story of Nadab and Abihu invalidates all incense offerings outside the sanctuary. This is a strange conclusion. The story has nothing to do with what occurs outside the sanctuary and is not concerned with private cults. It seems more reasonable to conclude that it invalidates offering inside the sanctuary (note that the expression "before YHWH" appears twice) incense materials brought from outside. The cult must be hermetically sealed and even something incidental like fire may not get into the incense.

p. 717: Milgrom claims that slaughtering techniques had the purpose "to render the animal unconscious with a minimum of suffering." On p. 718 he speaks of "concern for humaneness/' The claim that rabbinic slaughtering methods "enhanced its original ethical motivation . . . that the slaughterer's sense of reverence for life will never be blunted" strikes me as one of several places where Milgrom—usually cautious—has fallen into the pit of apologetics. Is the rabbinic restriction aimed at preventing suffering or making sure that the slaughtered animal does not become a terëpâh in the act?

p. 737: Milgrom claims that the dietary laws have the purpose of limiting Israel's access to animal life and prohibiting access to blood, which is life itself. He also states that in any case, for economic reasons, access to animals and blood was severely restricted to rare, ceremonial occasions. Nonetheless, at the end of his discusión he comments about the ritual of sacrifice: "So frequent? Yes, if it is to sanctify the home. So tedious? Persistent rain makes holes in rocks." He seems to be thinking in these comments (which are preceded by a discussion of Albert Schweitzer and the decimation of plumed birds in 1914 London) about much more recent social situations rather than the socioeconomic realities of the biblical world. Milgrom's explanation assumes a diet heavy on meat. Is this assumption based on the true dietary habits of ancient Israel?

pp. 739-740: Milgrom presents and rejects J. Soler 's interpretation as meaning "You shall not put an animal and her son in the same pot any more than in the same bed." However, he rejects this theory on trivial linguistic grounds even though much more weighty reasons exist for dismissing it out of hand. If the suggestion were right, it would be the only example of what amounts to an "allegorical," "metaphoric" formulation of a law in the entire Book of the Covenant and, for that matter, the entire ancient Near Eastern legal corpus. Sexual laws in the Bible are expressed quite explicitly and not in roundabout, euphemistic fashion (cf. Ibn Ezra on Exod. 34:21).


p. 747, para 4: Milgrom follows R. David Freedman, who suggests that the circumcised penis is a substitute for the presence of God as the divine witness who will punish oath violators.22 However, oaths taken by holding genitals are mentioned in Akkadian texts in which there is no evidence of covenant-related circumcision.23

p. 759, para. 3: Milgrom wonders why Hannah does not reappear at Shiloh to bring a sacrifice for the birth of Sanuel. He raises as a second possibility that Hannah brought her sacrifice to a local bämäh. Does he imply by entertaining this possibility that high places would have been magnets for impurity from a distance in the same way that the Shiloh temple altar would have been?

p. 765: Milgrom attributes the near-universal practice of regarding genital discharges as defiling to "the human psyche." Certainly there must be psychological studies of the phenomenon. It should be noted that in the United States, where sexual taboos have all but disappeared, this one too has fallen by the wayside. The once-popular guide The Joy of Sex even recommends sexual relations during a woman's period, eschewing it only for reasons of personal cleanliness or not soiling the bedsheets.

p. 794, bottom: Milgrom states that "Sumerians refer to non-Sumerians, presumably Semites, as blackheads." This is inaccurate. The Sumerians referred to themselves as an SAG.GI (=Akkadian salmät qaqqadim).24 According to the Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago (Chicago and Glückstadt, 1956 ff.) [henceforth CAD], p. 76, the expression is a poetic term referring to mankind as a totality, created by the gods and kept in safe pastures by the kings.

p. 814: phtt hy* bqrhtw 5vv bgbhtw in Lev. 13:55, which has no relevance to the fabric inflictions and which also contains a yet-to-be-explained hapax is best explained as a horizontal dittography and deleted. Somehow prht hw" bqrhtw V bgbhtw from 13:42 was copied with a slight error (switching het for the graphically similar rës) in the column to its left as phtt hy* bqrhtw V bgbhtw. The hapax should be considered, therefore, a ghost word, product of scribal error.

22. Biblical Atvhaeology Review 2 (1976): 3-4, 42. 23. See M. Malul, Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 491-492. 24. Cf. S. Ν. Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago,

1963), pp. 285-286. _ —


pp. 823-824: The lengthy statement of D. Wright, quoted verbatim, seems out of place in a philological-historical commentary.

p. 833: Milgrom asks why the birds for purifying the cured sufferer from scaly-skin disease must be wild rather than pigeons or turtle-doves. The fact is that the birds are not for sacrificial purposes, so they need not comply with sacrificial requirements. Also, since the birds are used to carry away the impurity, a bird which would have a homing instinct, such as a dove (see the Flood story), would be totally inappropriate because it would come back carrying the defilement with it!

p. 855: Milgrom cites a restored Ugaritic text and then an oral communication from D. Pardee that the restoration is no longer considered likely. Would it not be prudent, then, to delete the entire passage as well as the remark on p. 856 which is dependent on this text?

871 : miqtu is not a term for "red." The Akkadian text reads, katarru sämu sa sumsu miqtu, "a red (samu) ¿-fungus which is called miqtu.'"

p. 941: Milgrom resorts to an anthropological parallel to explain why a man having intercourse with a menstruant is defiled for seven days rather that one (as he would be if he only touched her). He claims that it is because of the horror derived from the combination of loss of semen with loss of blood—both life-symbolizing fluids. It is more likely, in my opinion, that it is the intensity of contact which makes the difference. By entering the woman, the man is coming into immediate contact with the very source of the impurity and actually immersing in it. This is a more intense contact than any other contact with any other source of impurity.

pp. 948-953: This is an excellent demonstration of how lenient Priestly and later rabbinic law is concerning menstruant women, and how it is intent on permitting the woman to carry on normal activity in home, society, and cult. This should do much to dampen claims that all biblical legislation—assumedly authored by men—is inherently misogynist.

p. 951, para 2: The Mesopotamian texts cited have nothing to do with menstruation but only with ritual bathing in general.

p. 962: Milgrom states that "it is not without significance that in Akk. mû, the word for water, is also the word for semen." But, CAD M/2, pp. 149-156 s.v. mû A lists no evidence supporting this claim. Milgrom undoubtedly has in mind Sumerian A, which has Akkadian equivalents mû (water), abu (father), märu (son), aplu (heir), sumu (name, son), rehu (engender, inseminate).

p. 1004: Milgrom views as "very favorable" a suggestion by P. Kyle


McCarter that a biblical scroll was declared a source of defilement because "if it is blemished or corrupted, it transmits uncleanness." But this contradicts Milgrom's own correct statement (p. 1001 contra Mary Douglas) that in the case of priests or sacrificial animals blemishes do not render the bearer impure {tame") but only unsuitable for performing their duties. Only the sectarians hold a defective person to be impure. Were the rabbis of Yavneh sectarians in their treatment of biblical scrolls?

p. 1071: Milgrom suggests that 10 Tishri was an occasion for annually purging the Temple even in pre-exilic times. In explaining why it is not mentioned in 1 Kings 8 (and 2 Chronicles 7) he says, "the dedication rites need not suspend Yom Kippur." However, it should be quite obvious that a new temple should not need a Yom Kippur-like day of purification because, as we may learn from the Gudea Cylinders, a temple would be built in purity and numerous purification rites would be performed in any event as part of the temple's dedication. The annual event would be totally superfluous. It is, of course, possible that by connecting the emergency purgation rite with the events of the Tabernacle dedication ceremonies, the Priestly writer is telling us that the rite recommended for emergency use derived from an original dedicatory rite.

Milgrom's commentary should be received warmly and enthusiastically by the scholarly community and by everyone interested in what the book of Leviticus has to say to ancient as well as modern audiences. He has throughout his work asked important questions and provided answers which must be reckoned with. Even where he has not said the final word, the material he adduces and the interpretive possibilities he discusses must be considered seriously. He has made quantum leaps towards understanding countless aspects of the Book of Leviticus, but even where he has not gone the entire way, he has provided material with which to continue. It is hoped that this new commentary will inspire revived interest in the Book of Leviticus and the ancient cult which it prescribes.

I wish Professor Milgrom sayya^ta* dì iPmayya* baryüt gupa* unito rä" maeälyä\ with which he may bring his monumental work to a speedy and successful conclusion. The final volume is eagerly awaited.

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beersheva, Israel

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Date post:	16-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

REVIEW ESSAY ANCIENT ISRAELITE CULT IN HISTORY, …

Documents