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

BBRSup
Sacred
Sacred Ritual
Sacred Ritual
Israelite festival calendar texts (Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16;
and Ezek 45) share many features; however, there are also differences. Some
of the most-often-cited differences are the following: festival dates, festival
Ritual
locations, date of the New Year, festival timing, and festival names. Scholars
have explored these distinctions, and many have concluded that different
sources (authors/redactors) wrote the various calendars at different times in
Israelite history. Scholars use these dissimilarities to argue that Lev 23 was
written in the exilic or postexilic era. Babcock offers a new translation and
analysis of a second-millennium B.C. multimonth ritual calendar text from
Emar (Emar 446) to challenge the late dating of Lev 23. Babcock argues that
Lev 23 preserves an early (2nd-millennium) West Semitic ritual tradition.
Building on the recent work of Klingbeil and Sparks, this book presents a
new comparative methodology for exploring potential textual relationships.
A Study of the West Semitic
Babcock investigates the attributes of sacred ritual through the lens of sacred
time, sacred space and movement, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual
Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23
sound. The author begins with a study of ancient Near Eastern festival texts
from the 3rd millennium through the 1st millennium. This analysis focuses on and the
festival cycles, common festival attributes, and the role of time and space in
Akkadian Text Emar 446
Babcock
ritual. Babcock then moves on to an intertextual study of biblical festival texts
before completing a thorough investigation of both Lev 23 and Emar 446. The
result is a compelling argument that Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic
Bryan C. Babcock
festival tradition and does not date to the exilic era—refuting the scholarly
consensus.
This illuminating reading stands as a model for future research in the field of
ritual and comparative textual studies.
Eisenbrauns
POB 275
Winona Lake, IN 46590 Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 9
www.eisenbrauns.com
EISENBRAUNS
Sacred Ritual
Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements
Editor
Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary
Associate Editor
Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary
Advisory Board
Leslie C. Allen I. Howard Marshall
Fuller Theological Seminary University of Aberdeen
Donald A. Carson Elmer A. Martens
Trinity Evangelical Divinity Mennonite Brethren Biblical
School Seminary
Donald A. Hagner Bruce K. Waltke
Fuller Theological Seminary Knox Theological Seminary
Karen H. Jobes Edwin M. Yamauchi
Wheaton College Miami University
1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil
2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by
Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens
3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess,
Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.
4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry,
by Knut Martin Heim
5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer
6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation,
by Ralph K. Hawkins
7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern
Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery
8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of
Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews
9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and
the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock
Sacred Ritual
A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in
Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446
Bryan C. Babcock
Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2014
© Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns
All rights reserved.

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

Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Symbols xi
General xi
Reference Works xii
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction 1
The Comparative Method 2
Sacred Aspect of Ritual 13
Research Objectives 18
2. Overview of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Introduction 20
Overview of Ritual Development
in the Ancient Near East 20
Overview of Leviticus 23 Research
in Light of Related Biblical Texts 41
Critique of Jan Wagenaar 54
Summary 78
3. Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Introduction to the Study of Leviticus 23 79
Original Translation and
Text-Critical Notes of Leviticus 23 80
Structure, Outline, and Literary Features 89
Sacred Time 101
Sacred Space 121
Sacred Objects 125
Ritual Roles of Participants 131
Ritual Sound 134
Summary 137
4. Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Introduction to Emar 141
Translation and Commentary:
Emar 446 (Msk. 74280a + 74291a) 151
v
vi Contents
Structure, Outline, and Literary Features 168

Sacred Time in Emar 446 180
The Emar Yearly Calendar and New Year 182
Sacred Space 185
Sacred Objects 194
Ritual Participants 198
Ritual Sound 208
Summary 208
Appendix 212
5. Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Introduction 214
Intrabiblical Findings 215
History of Transmission 216
Context, Purpose, and Analytical Genre 217
Structure and Literary Features 218
Sacred Time 225
Sacred Space 231
Sacred Objects 235
Ritual Roles of Participants 237
Ritual Sound 238
Connection between the Texts 238
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Index of Authors 258
Index of Scripture 261
Index of Other Ancient Sources 267
Index of Festivals 271
List of Tables
Table 1 Akītu Festival Rites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 2 Wellhausen’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 3 Noth’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 4 Knohl’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 5 Milgrom’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 6 Wagenaar’s Festival Text Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 7 Features Distinguishing P from H in Leviticus 23
(according to Wagenaar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 8 Shared Linguistic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 9 Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 10 References to Time in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 11 Relationship of Festival Dates to
Lunar Phases in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 12 Rites Associated with Named Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 13 Use of Space and Movement within Space
in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Table 14 Uses of Sacred Objects in Ritual Activities
Contained in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Table 15 Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table 16 Aspects of Ritual Sound in Leviticus 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 17 Responsibilities of and Payments to the
Diviner in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Table 18 Allocation of Space to Rituals in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Table 19 Relationship of Festival Dates to
Lunar Phases in Emar 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Table 20 Months of the Emarite Half-Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Table 21 Sacred Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Table 22 Introductory Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table 23 Standard Date Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Table 24 Temporal Subdivision Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
vii
Preface, Dedication, and
Acknowledgments
This book is a revision of my 2011 dissertation and represents the sup-

port and guidance of many people. The idea for the project grew out of dis-
cussions with Richard S. Hess (Denver Seminary) as I was completing my
training in Akkadian and exploring Ph.D. programs. I am thankful for his
continuous encouragement and training, which helped to make this project
a reality. In addition, I am obliged to him for acting as cosupervisor, spend-
ing numerous hours reviewing the material at various stages. Gordon Wen-
ham (Trinity College, University of Bristol), who was also a cosupervisor,
made observations that helped to move the writing from research to schol-
arship. I am grateful that he shared not only his vast knowledge but also his
time, home, family, and gardens. I hope to emulate his gracious character
with students in the future. My sincere desire is that all my future work will
honor their training and guidance.
I also want specifically to thank my examiners for their comments and
suggestions. Knut M. Heim and John Bimson (Trinity College, University
of Bristol), as internal examiners furnished an insightful review, emphasiz-
ing the need for a careful analysis of ritual aspects and intrabiblical context.
Similarly, I appreciate Alan Millard (University of Liverpool) and Philip
Jenson (Cambridge), who as external examiners assessed the Akkadian and
mentored me on a host of research topics. Their comments and guidance
were essential to the research that culminated in this book.
I thank my wife, Betsy, and daughter, Lindsey, for believing in me with-
out reservation. They sacrificed time, energy, money, and emotional sup-
port so I could pursue a lifelong dream. Because of their unselfishness, this
book is ready for publication and is dedicated to them. My love and appre-
ciation for them are beyond measure.
ix
Abbreviations
Symbols
[ ] Completely lost
⸢ ⸣ Partially lost
⟨ ⟩ Omitted by scribe
⟨⟨ ⟩⟩ Pleonastically written by scribe
! Emended sign
X Illegible sign
x Lost sign
. . . Lost sign(s), number uncertain
[( )] Reconstruction uncertain
? Reading uncertain
General
A Tablets in the collections of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
Akk. Akkadian
AO Museum siglum, Louvre
BLMJ Museum siglum of the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem
BM Tablets in the collections of the British Museum
c common
col(s). column(s)
D Deuteronomist
DT Tablets in the collections of the British Museum
E Elohistic writer/source
f feminine
H Holiness Code
HR H Redaction
HS H Source
Hoe and Plow Lit. comp. ms M. Civil
ITT Inventaire des tablettes de Tello
J Jahwistic writer/source
Jos. Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
jps Jewish Publication Society version of the Bible
LXX Septuagint
m masculine
MB Middle Babylonian
MNB Monuments of Nineveh and Babylon, Louvre Museum
Msk. Tablet siglum of texts from Meskene
MT Masoretic Text
MVN Materiali per il vocabulario neosumerico
neb New English Bible
NV noun – verb order of sentence structure
OAkk Old Akkadian
p plural
P Priestly writer/source
PN Personal name
PT Priestly Torah
xi
xii Abbreviations
Pesh. Peshiṭta
RS Field numbers of tablets excavated at Ras Shamra
s singular
VSO verb – subject – object order of sentence structure
WS West Semitic
YBC Tablets in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University Library
Reference Works
AAAS Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes
AARSR American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992
AbrN Abr-Nahrain
AcS Acta Sumerologica
AEPHER Annuaire. École pratique des hautes études: V e section—sciences religieuses
AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1965–81
AIIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature
AION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli
AnBib Analecta Biblica
ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies
ANESSup Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplements
ANET James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AoF Altorientalische Forschugen
AOS American Oriental Series
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ARMT Archives royales de Mari Texts
AS Assyriological Studies
ATLA American Theological Library Association
BaghM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BLH Biblical Languages: Hebrew
BMes Bibliotheca mesopotamica
BO Bibliotheca Orientalis
BRLJ The Brill Reference Library of Judaism
BS The Biblical Seminar
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
21 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–2011
CahRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique
CM Cuneiform Monographs
ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series
COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill,
1997–2003
Abbreviations xiii
DP M. F. Allotte de la Fuÿe. Documents présargoniques. Paris: Leroux, 1908–20

EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. 12 vols.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976–91
ER The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York:
MacMillan, 1987
ErIsr Eretz-Israel
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FRLANT Forshungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
GDNES Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E.
Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910
HACL History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HE Historia Einzelschriften
Holma-Salonen H. Holma and A. Salonen. Some Cuneiform Tablets from the Time of the
Third Ur Dynasty. Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica, 1940
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEOL Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. www.jhsonline.org/jhs
Joüon P. Joüon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by
T. Muroaka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1991
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRitSt Journal of Ritual Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
KAR E. Ebeling, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. 2 vols. Leipzig:
Hinrich, 1919–23
KC Kamper Cahier
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen
Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. 2nd ed.: M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and
J. Sanmartín, eds. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani,
and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
LAI Library in Ancient Israel
LB Linguistica Biblica
LLJC The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization
Maarav Maarav
MARI Mari annals de recherches interdiscplinaires
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires
NAC The New American Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDOTTE W. A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997
OBT S. Dalley, C. B. F. Walker, and J. D. Hawkins. Old Babylonian Texts from Tell
al-Rimah. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1976
xiv Abbreviations
OEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E. M.
Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997
OEBB The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Edited by Michael Coogan.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2011
OLA Orientalia lovaniensia analecta
OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia, new series
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Old Testament Studies
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
RB Revue Biblique
RBL Review of Biblical Literature. www.bookreviews.org
RE G. Wissowa, ed. Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Druckenmuller, 1859–1931
RMA R. Thompson, ed. The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and
Babylon in the British Museum. London: Luzac, 1900
SA C.-F. Jean. Šumer et Akkad: Contribution a l’histoire de la civilisation dans la
Basse-Mésopotamie. Paris: Geuthner, 1923
Sauren NYPL H. Sauren. Les Tablettes cunéiformes de l’époque d’Ur des collections de la New
York Public Library. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain,
Institut orientaliste, 1978
SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World
SH Slavica Hiersosolymitana
SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East
SPRTS Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series
SR Studies in Religion
STI Studies in Theological Interpretation
SSSA Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology
SubBi Subsidia biblica
Syria Syria
TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Paris: Geuthner, 1910–
TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources
Tello A. Parrot. Tello, vingt campagnes de fouilles (1877–1933). Paris: Michel, 1948
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. 37 vols.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–
TSJTSA Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America
TUAT O. Kaiser et al., eds. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh:
Mohn, 1982–97
TWAT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testamen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–
UET Ur Excavations: Texts
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
Chapter 1
Introduction
Introduction
The Bible records several versions of the Israelite festival calendar in
Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45. While the calendars
are unique, in general they include: Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
Firstfruits, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost/Harvest), the Feast of Trumpets
(Rosh Hashanah), the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and the Feast of
Tabernacles (Booths/Ingathering). The festivals share many features; how-
ever, there are also differences. Some of the most often cited variations in
the festival calendar texts concern the following:
• The festival dates. Some dates are fixed, while others vary according
to agricultural conditions.
• The festival locations. Some festival calendars allude to offerings
made at local or regional sanctuaries, while other texts point to
offerings made at the Jerusalem temple.
• The date of the New Year. Some festival texts appear to show the
New Year in the spring, and others place the New Year in the fall.
Some allude to both.
• The festival timing. Many festivals are associated with the harvest,
but some festivals seem to occur before the harvest is ripe.
• The festival names. Festivals are named in some texts and are
unnamed in others.
Scholars have explored these distinctions and concluded that different
Israelite history. 1 Jan Wagenaar, in his 2005 work Origin and Transformation
of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, examines the development of each
festival calendar text and makes the case for a late date of authorship.
Wagenaar develops an argument for the origin and redaction of the bibli-
cal festival texts. When studying the origin of Lev 23, he identifies parallels
with the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival texts (a composite of
four text fragments). Based on these findings, he concludes that a Priestly
source wrote Lev 23 during the exile (when Israel was in Babylon), with a
1. For a discussion of recent scholarship, see Jeffrey Stackert, “Leviticus,” OEBB 1:
573–81; T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the
Pentateuch (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 1–63.
1
2 Chapter 1
Priestly redactor adding portions after the exile. Four criteria are neces-
sary to validate his argument: (1) Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival texts must
share significant features (see discussion on the comparative method be-
low); (2) he must establish which form of connection exists between Israel-
ite and Babylonian cultures in the 1st millennium; (3) Lev 23 and the Akītu
Festival must belong to the same analytical genre (see discussion under the
comparative method); (4) no earlier Semitic festival calendar may exist with
comparative similarities with Lev 23.
Where Wagenaar compares Lev 23 and the Babylonian Akītu Festival
texts, I explore the potential similarities and differences between Lev 23 and
the 2nd-millennium multimonth festival calendar from Emar (Emar 446,
written in Akkadian). If a comparative analysis finds a connection between
Lev 23 and Emar 446, then Lev 23 may preserve an early West Semitic mul-
timonth festival calendar tradition—bringing into question the late dating
of Lev 23 and a direct connection with the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival.
The selection of Lev 23 for comparison is rooted in Wagenaar’s choice
to compare it with the Akītu Festival texts. A similar comparison could be
conducted of Num 28–29 and Emar 446, or of Lev 23 and the Hittite and
Ugaritic festival texts (see chap. 2). And, while such studies might yield in-
teresting results, they are beyond the scope of this study. 2 Finally, I chose
Emar 446 as the comparative text because it is the only ritual calendar that
records the festivals held throughout a six-month period (something the
Hittite and Ugaritic texts do not do).
The Comparative Method

In 1902, Friedrich Delitzsch began the inaugural lecture for the German
Oriental Society entitled “Babel und Bibel” with these words:
To what end this toil and trouble in distant, inhospitable, and danger-ridden
lands? Why all this expense in ransacking to their utmost depth the rubbish
heaps of forgotten centuries, where we know neither treasures of gold nor of
silver exist? Why this zealous emulation on the part of the nations to secure
the greatest possible number of mounds for excavation? And whence, too,
that constantly increasing interest, that burning enthusiasm, born of gener-
ous sacrifice, now being bestowed on both sides of the Atlantic on the excava-
tions of Babylonia and Assyria?
One answer echoes to all these questions,—one answer, which, if not abso-
lutely adequate, is yet largely the reason and consummation of it all: the Bible. 3
2. For instance, both Num 28–29 and Emar 446 contain verbs in the third person,
while Lev 23 includes both the second and third person. Yitzhaq Feder gives insight into
the possible role of blood in expiation rites in Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual:
Origins, Context, and Meaning (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011).
3. Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyrio-
logical Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies
(trans. Thomas J. McCormack; Chicago: Open Court, 1906), 1.
Introduction 3
For the past century and a half, the disciplines of Assyriology, Egyptol-
ogy, and biblical studies have struggled to determine their appropriate re-
lationship. Is Assyriology an intrusion on biblical studies? Or should As-
syriology be considered primary and any comparative study between the
two a hazardous affair? 4 Is the biblical text of any use to the study of early
Israelite history? 5
To conduct a comparative study between the ritual calendars in Lev 23
and Emar 446, or the Babylonian Akītu Festival texts, we must develop a
methodology for analyzing ritual. In this section, I explore several compara-
tive methods employed by scholars and outline the method I am adopting to
compare Lev 23 with Emar 446. The first subsection provides an overview
of four comparative models. The second subsection looks at the application
of the comparative method by four scholars, including: William W. Hallo,
Meir Malul, Gerald Klingbeil, and Kenton Sparks. The third subsection
criticizes these applications, determining their strengths and weaknesses.
Malul defines the goal of comparative studies as determining whether a
historical connection exists between a certain biblical passage and its an-
cient Near Eastern parallel. 6 Hallo cautions that these studies cannot ex-
plain every event in the biblical text. Further, Hallo insists that the analysis
of two texts should include an exploration of differences as well as simi-
larities. For both Hallo and Malul, the goal is to determine the extent to
which the cultural and literary traditions of Israel’s neighbors influenced
the biblical text. 7 Malul highlights the importance of comparing texts
whose cultures share a common historical connection, cultural heritage, or
other textual relationship. 8 Some scholars have highlighted the presence
of similarities without an equal analysis of differences between the texts.
This practice can lead to overstated conclusions and the overemphasis of
superficial conclusions. The extensive use of parallels with occasional over-
reaching comparisons led Samuel Sandmel to caution that biblical studies
4. Karel van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (Assen: Van Gor-
cum, 1985), 1–8.
5. Several works exemplify this position, including: Niels P. Lemche, Prelude to
Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (trans. E. F. Manis-
calco; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradi-
tion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975); Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity
of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133; New York:
de Gruyter, 1974); idem, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel ( JSOTSup 55; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1987); idem, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New
York: Basic Books, 1999).
6. Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal
Studies (AOAT 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), v.
7. William W. Hallo, “Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Bibli-
cal Literature,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed.
William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly; ANETS 8; Lewiston,
NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990), 3.
8. Malul, The Comparative Method, 13.
4 Chapter 1
risked “parallelomania.” 9 Sandmel’s caution led to the exploration of new

comparative methodologies. I now turn to exploring a few of the recent
scholars who have advanced the comparative method.
Comparative Method: Four Applications 10

Hallo
Hallo argues for the combination of William F. Albright’s comparative
approach with the contrastive approach used by Yehezkel Kaufmann and
Frank Cross—creating the contextual approach. 11 The contrastive ap-
proach explores discrepancies between two compared texts, giving atten-
tion to differences in content, culture, and various literary aspects. Hallo
balances the two approaches with the goal of providing a deeper contex-
tual awareness for the development of texts in the ancient Near East. He
argues that the Bible results from a long developmental process and that
several Akkadian and Mesopotamian canons underwent a similar develop-
ment. Therefore, understanding the formation and content of ancient Near
Eastern texts may provide a contextual understanding for the development
of the biblical text. Hallo recommends the contextual method for multiple
levels of analysis, including: linguistic (lexicographic, grammatical, and sty-
listic), graphic (writing system), literary, and genre.
Malul
Malul adopts most of Hallo’s contextual approach, while criticizing the
method because it too often assumes a relationship between texts that has
not been verified. Malul moves the discussion forward by proposing a con-
nection axiom, which states that one must first determine if a connection
exists between two texts.
He separates the connections between related texts into two categories:
nature and type. The nature of a connection may have been the direct bor-
rowing by an author from an existing written or literary tradition. Alter-
natively, an author may have become aware of the cultural practices of
another society and then later manifested this influence in his text. Malul
9. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13.

10. Although this study summarizes the work of only four scholars, others have
made significant contributions to the comparative methodology.
11. William W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive
Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18; Hallo, “Biblical History,” 1–5. D. R. Hiller, “Analyzing
the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion,” JQR 75 (1985): 256–69 dis-
cusses both Kaufmann and Cross when defining the contrastive approach. For a discus-
sion on the contrastive approach see: Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960); Frank M. Cross, “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel:
Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions,” in The Poet and the
Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. Richard Elliot Friedman;
HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 13–39.
Introduction 5
argues that the biblical authors, as educated scribes, were probably aware of
other Akkadian texts and thus may have drawn upon and been influenced
by Mesopotamian literature and religious texts.
The type of connection is one of four categories: direct, mediated, com-
mon source, or common tradition. A direct connection is the direct depen-
dence of one text on another. This category of connection requires that the
two cultures have contact during the period of the development of the later
source. In addition, the text must demonstrate a flow of information from
source A to source B. The mediated connection finds that the two texts
are not directly linked. However, source A influenced an outside source (C)
which, in turn, influenced source B. In this case, the outside source is usu-
ally not in evidence and is often hypothetical. The third category, common
source, is the hypothetical reliance by two texts under study (texts A and
B) on a third source C, which may not be in evidence. It is not necessary to
show that the society of text A and the society of text B held a concurrent
historical association. The common source categorization only requires
that both texts held a relationship with the society of source C. The final
category, common tradition, comes into play when two sources that exhibit
similar traits, after careful scrutiny, are found to be connected by a common
tradition: literary, religious, legal, historiographic, or any other. The com-
mon tradition type of connection resembles the common source type, but
the difference between a common source and a common tradition is parallel
to the distinction made above between connections of different natures. 12
A second enhancement by Malul over Hallo’s contextual approach is the
inclusion of a test for coincidence versus uniqueness. According to Malul,
identifying similarities between two sources is insufficient; the scholar must
determine if the similarities are based on parallel or unique developments.
J. Alberto Soggin also cautions that the mere presence of similarities does
not ensure a connection between the sources. Rather, it establishes the pos-
sibility of a connection, which must be confirmed through additional argu-
mentation. 13 According to both Soggin and Malul, a higher probability for a
connection exists when two texts exhibit a unique or unexpected similarity.
Malul, following Zeʾev Falk’s criticism, introduces a final methodological
enhancement to the contextual approach—corroboration. 14 Corroboration
requires the scholar to demonstrate a direct or indirect connection between
the sources. The two factors for corroboration are time gap and place gap,

13. J. Alberto Soggin, “The History of Ancient Israel: A Study in Some Questions
of Method,” ErIsr 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume; 1978): 45–46; idem, “Ancient Israel: An
Attempt at a Social and Economic Analysis of the Available Data,” in Text and Context:
Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (ed. W. Claassen; JSOTSup 48; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 201–8.
14. Zeʾev W. Falk, “Review of Reuven Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna,” Bib 51 (1970):
130–33.
6 Chapter 1
which separate the biblical text from the text under study. Time gap is the
distance in time between the writing of the two texts under study. Argu-
ments regarding time gap explore the appropriateness for studying two
texts that date to different eras. Place gap is the geographical distance be-
tween the two cultures. Arguments regarding place gap explore whether
two texts that originate from different locations,are comparable.
In response to the time and place gaps between Canaan and the cultures
of Mesopotamia, Malul explores epigraphic and archaeological evidence in-
side Bronze Age Canaan, concluding:
The best and safest solution to the problem of the time and place gap lies in
the effort to find clear external evidence attesting to the actual cultural con-
tacts between the ancient Near East and Canaan already in the Bronze Age.
Such evidence exists in the form of archaeological and epigraphic finds from
Israel and the vicinity which, though not rich, seem to be sufficient for un-
equivocally proving the existence of direct cultural contacts between Canaan
and the surrounding states, especially the cultures of Mesopotamia, already
in the early 2nd millennium b.c. We have in mind in particular the few cu-
neiform tablets unearthed in Israel, covering a wide range of written genres,
from literary texts, such as the fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic discovered
at Megiddo, through written clay liver models from the Old Babylonian Pe-
riod discovered at Hazor, to letters from Aphek and Shechem, and an Old
Babylonian legal document from Hazor. There are also lexical texts, some of
which at least are from the Old Babylonian period, which clearly attest to the
existence in Canaan—already at the early 2nd millennium—of the tradition
of schools for training cuneiform scribes and scholars like the Mesopotamian
models. A similar conclusion may be reached on the basis of the El-Amarna
letters. . . . To this should be added the diverse internal biblical evidence, and
the way is open to a judicious comparison of the Old Testament with 2nd-
millennium evidence. The basic postulate of the contextual approach is, then,
valid. 15
Malul cautions that the goal of corroboration is to demonstrate the pos-

sibility of a connection, not to prove a connection.
Klingbeil
Klingbeil builds on the prior work of Hallo and Malul by adopting what
he names the “pragmatic approach.” Heeding the warning of S. Talmon re-
garding increased scrutiny of potential parallels, and acknowledging Fred-
erick Greenspahn’s concern about objective evaluation and interpretive
bias, Klingbeil focuses on the following six methodological features: 16
15. Malul, The Comparative Method, 108–10.

16. S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Look,” in Qumran and the His-
tory of the Biblical Text (ed. Frank M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1975); idem, “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and
Problems,” in Congress Volume: Gottingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Frederick
Introduction 7
1. Research should carefully study each phenomenon in the context of the

source. In addition, arguments should not make grand generalizations
based on one or two minor similarities. 17
2. Following Ake Viberg and Robert Wilson, the most important point of
reference is the biblical text, which includes an understanding of the in-
tentions of the author(s) or editor(s). 18
3. Both the similarities and differences identified in the compared sources
must be considered.
4. If one determines a connection (in time and place) between the two com-
pared sources, then the form of connection should be argued following
Malul’s connection axiom (see above). 19 In cases where the connection is
either difficult or doubtful, Klingbeil argues for the adoption of a typo-
logical approach. 20
5. Following Malul, Klingbeil contends that one must determine whether
the identified similarities in the text are attributable to coincidence or
uniqueness.
6. Following Hallo, Kenneth Kitchen, and Malul, Klingbeil argues for cor-
roborating the comparative evidence through both an internal and an ex-
ternal examination. 21
While Klingbeil does not propose a new methodology, he adopts Hallo’s

use of both similarity and difference to analyze the text. In addition, he
incorporates Malul’s focus on connection, corroboration, and testing for
coincidence versus uniqueness. Therefore, he advances a methodology in-
corporating the best of both prior methodologies.
Sparks
Sparks, in his work Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible, out-
lines an updated methodology for the comparison of ancient Near Eastern
E. Greenspahn, “Introduction,” in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed.
Frederick E. Greenspahn; New York: New York University Press, 1991), 1–14.
17. Gerald Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Le-
viticus 8 and Emar 369: Ritual Times, Space, Objects and Action (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen, 1998), 338.
18. Ake Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old
Testament (ConBOT 34; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992), 5–8; Robert R. Wilson,
Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 16.
19. Klingbeil argues that establishing a direct connection is often difficult, “in light
of questions regarding the date, sources, and traditions of biblical (and also extra-bibli-
cal) textual material” (A Comparative Study, 340).
20. Ibid., 339.
21. William W. Hallo, “Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives in Jew-
ish Learning (ed. Byron L. Sherwin; 5 vols.; Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica, 1973), 5.4.
Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), 125. Kling-
beil, A Comparative Study, 340.
8 Chapter 1
texts. 22 While he adopts Hallo’s contextual approach, his comparative

method finds expression through multiple perspectives, including: cultural,
psychological, sociological, and historical. 23
Following Malul, Sparks identifies a key basis for similarity in cultural dif-
fusion, arguing that information and practices are passed from one culture
to another through both direct and indirect means. He adds that the re-
searcher must provide an explanation for how the information transferred
from one culture to another. Important questions include: how did one cul-
ture influence the other; when did the influence occur; and which culture
influenced the other. 24
Sparks’s real advance in comparative methodology lies in his classifica-
tion of texts under study. He argues that “classification is central to com-
parison because choices must be made about what should be included in,
and excluded from, our comparative considerations. These choices are nec-
essary because even the best minds cannot manage the practically infinite
world of our experience without dissecting it into finite pieces and cross
sections.” 25 The successful classification of the texts occurs through the use
of modern generic theory and genre/form criticism.
While he finds the exploration of genre and form criticism critical for
the comparative method, he disagrees with Hermann Gunkel’s understand-
ing of genre on two essential points. First, Sparks asserts that there may be
many different ways to define a literary category. Second, he argues that
Gunkel’s threefold criterion (mood, form, Sitz im Leben) is too restrictive,
and other criteria may assist in classification. Despite these changes, the
identification and classification of texts into genres is essential, because this
classification establishes a framework for writers and audiences in creating
and understanding literature. For Sparks, the classification of a genre is dy-
namic because the categories may be combined and used in new contexts. 26
To study genre and texts further, he outlines the distinction between
three related terms: generic matrix, intrinsic genre, and analytical genre. He
presumes that each text exhibits certain traits unique to both the author
and the situation. The generic matrix comprises all the guidelines under-
stood by the author when developing the text. The distinctive set of factors
and pieces of evidence create the intrinsic genre that is characteristic of each
text. While each text is unique, for the purpose of study, similar texts are
grouped together. The grouping of similar texts for the purpose of study
defines an analytical genre.
22. Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the
Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 1–25.
23. Ibid., 4.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 5.
26. Ibid., 3–21.
Introduction 9
The formation of an analytical genre helps to provide a structure for the

comparison of potentially similar texts. Sparks argues that the use of genre
is valid because scribes from Israel were formally educated and culturally
aware of Israel’s neighbors. This knowledge probably impacted the devel-
opment of biblical texts. Therefore, to understand biblical literature, one
must appreciate the social, linguistic, historical, and literary context of the
contemporary literature. He adds that studying comparisons within the
biblical text takes priority in the comparative analysis. 27
Sparks goes on to identify the following eight primary categories for
comparative investigation that illuminate the analytical genre and provide a
phenomenological understanding of the studied cultures:
1. Content and theme
2. Language, including linguistic and stylistic features
3. Context (Sitz im Leben)
4. Function 28
5. Form and structure
6. Material attributes of texts
7. Mode of composition 29 and reception
8. Genre and tradition
Method Employed in This Study

We now turn our attention to the approach employed in this study. Us-
ing a comparative method with a systematic approach is essential for the
production of sound arguments. The methodology employed in this book
most closely follows Klingbeil’s “pragmatic approach,” combining aspects
of Hallo’s contextual approach as implemented by Malul. 30 The following
subsections highlight the more important aspects of the methodology used
in this study.
Intrabiblical before Extrabiblical
Talmon argues that, to understand a biblical text best, one must conduct
an intrabiblical investigation prior to an extrabiblical study. In addition,
he maintains that the results of the intrabiblical investigation hold prior
ity. 31 Richard Averbeck advances this argument, adding that the researcher
27. Ibid., 12.

28. Following Longman’s argument for taxonomies that recognize many functional
categories: Tremper Longman III, “Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,” in
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (ed. Moises Silva; Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van, 1996).
29. Defined as “the controlling thoughts, purposes, and processes that regulate the
text’s composition by the author and its reception by readers or hearers” (Sparks, Ancient
Texts, 17).
30. See discussion above.
31. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method,’” 415.
10 Chapter 1
should judge both texts under study within their own literary, intracultural
tradition before performing an extratextual analysis. In this book, I fol-
low Talmon and Averbeck, examining the related intracultural (biblical and
Emarite) textual evidence before conducting an intertextual study.
Identification and Analysis of Similarities and Differences
Hallo contends that the exploration of either similarities or differ-
ences—without the other—may lead to overstated conclusions. Scholars
who look only to similarities are likely to overstate the relationship between
the texts, while scholars using only the contrastive approach may overstate
the unique aspects of the biblical text. John Walton adds that the presence
of similarities requires a deeper investigation before one can conclude that
the sources are connected. Walton contends that similarities between texts
do not necessarily point to a textual relationship; nor do differences ne-
gate a potential relationship, because diverse cultures understand practices
differently. 32 Therefore, I explore both similarities and differences and con-
textualize them in order to understand their use in each culture better.
Context
Context in comparative methodology finds expression in two ways. First,
we must examine the source/text within its own society. Second, we need to
explore the original authors’ intentions for these texts.
The first application of context, as argued by Talmon, calls for the review
of related biblical material prior to the exploration of external sources (see
above). 33 By reviewing related intrabiblical texts, scholars avoid the meth-
odological error that Talmon labels the atomistic approach (seeking simi-
larities isolated from the broader context). Averbeck, following the work
of Mario Liverani, argues that the “holistic” methodology requires both a
top-down and bottom-up investigation in addition to an internal-versus-
external study. Averbeck explains that scholars should begin by considering
each text at the sentence level (including word studies), moving through
ever-larger units (paragraph, section, and text). Once each text is analyzed,
scholars should use a top-down comparative approach, exploring higher-
level analytical features. 34
A related contextual error occurs when scholars compare two texts that
share neither purpose nor context. This category of error may lead to find-
32. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing
the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 23.
33. Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 415.
34. Richard E. Averbeck, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method,” in Meso-
potamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations (ed. Mark W. Chavals and K. Lawson
Younger; JSOTSup 341; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 114–15; Mario Li
verani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts,” Or 42 (1973): 178–94;
especially pp. 178–82.
Introduction 11
ing false or superficial similarities. Samuel Loewenstamm asserts that a meth-

odological error occurs when one compares isolated details apart from the
general context. Thus, a scholar may mistakenly conclude that there is a ba-
sic ideological difference between the societies when none exists. 35 There-
fore, I explore the context of each text, using these controlling questions: 36
• Do the compared texts share a common role and “place in life” (Sitz
im Leben) that will lead to similarities that reflect common cultural
expression?
• Or are the similarities in form only, which may lead to a superficial
connection?
Purpose and Audience
A topic related to the question of context is the purpose and intent of
the texts. Were the compared texts written for the same purpose? Were
they intended to address a comparable audience and to produce analogous
results? The answer to these questions will provide a deeper connection be-
tween the texts than a simple list of similarities or differences.
Two texts with similarities in content but written for different purposes
or for different audiences may manifest connections on a superficial level.
A stronger connection is exhibited when two compared sources written for
comparable audiences and related purposes depict similar characteristics.
My goal is to explore these shared characteristics and to determine how the
expression of content was intended within the culture. In addition, study-
ing the differences may illuminate unique aspects of each culture’s religious
practice.
Analytical Genre
Talmon criticizes the comparative method if scholars attempt to find a
comparison or contrast between two sources that do not share a common
“social function” (or genre). 37 Klingbeil identifies the same pitfall (especially
when comparing religious writing with archival material) as “comparing
incomparables.” 38 Sparks addresses the issue by arguing that we must first
classify the texts under study and then compare texts only with a similar
35. Discussed in Malul, The Comparative Method, 50–51; Samuel E. Loewenstamm,

“The Law of Adultery and the Law of Murder in Biblical Law and in Mesopotamian Law,”
in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literature (ed. Samuel E. Loewen-
stamm; AOAT 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980).
36. For the importance of context in comparative studies, see: Alan R. Millard,
“The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology for Understanding the His-
tory of Israel: Some Examples,” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (ed. Daniel
I. Block; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 9–25; John M. Monson, “Contextual
Criticism as a Framework for Biblical Interpretation,” in ibid., 25–55.
37. Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 381–92.
38. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 335.
12 Chapter 1
classification. The goal is to identify which features in the text are relevant
and which are not relevant to the particular study. 39
This book compares texts exhibiting a similar analytical genre. When
comparing similarities and differences between texts with the same analyt-
ical genre, we may find the similarities helpful to illuminate the character-
istics and parameters of the genre in addition to the similarities in cultural
expression. The differences may highlight the individual development and
self-expression of each society. In either case, understanding the functional
genre of each text assists in the comparative investigation.
Cultural Diffusion: Common Tradition
Following Malul and Sparks, I compare texts from the same “historic and
cultural stream.” Malul asserts that, to minimize the possibility of basing
comparative results on coincidence, the study should establish a connec-
tion between the two sources. In addition, we will discuss the types of con-
nections possible between the texts and in what direction the information
flowed.
Tradition of Transmission
Alan Millard, in his article “History and Legend in Early Babylonia,” ex-
plores the transmission of the accounts of early Babylonian kings (3rd mil-
lennium) into later 2nd- and 1st-millennium texts. Based on his conclusion
that many ancient Near Eastern documents had a long period of reproduc-
tion and revision, he argues that the historical books of the biblical text may
contain a similar history of transmission. 40
Following Millard’s methodology, I find it important to consider the pos-
sible history of transmission for the texts under study. The essential issue
is that a text, while dated to one period, may exhibit earlier oral or written
traditions that were preserved in the course of textual transmission.
Form and Structure
The form and structure of the compared sources may help to illustrate:
the writing conventions within the time and place of the societies, the mode
of composition, the analytical genre, and/or accepted structural patterns. I
acknowledge that, in order to understand the relationship of the content
best, it is essential to analyze the form and structure of each text. As with
the genre analysis, similarities may point to a common understanding of
writing systems (in time and place) between the two texts and cultures. And
differences may illuminate the unique aspects of the societies or the unique
development of form and structure from a common heritage.
39. Sparks, Ancient Texts, 5.

40. Alan Millard, “History and Legend in Early Babylonia,” in Windows into Old Tes-
tament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel” (ed. V. Philips Long,
David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 103–10.
Introduction 13
Prescriptive versus Descriptive Function

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

Comparing the sacred components of ritual in the festival calendars of
Lev 23 and Emar 446 provides us with the necessary framework for explor-
ing these texts. Before analyzing the ritual elements, we must first define
the meaning of the term ritual. Over the past century, the disciplines of an-
thropology, sociology, and religious studies have attempted to understand
various aspects of ritual better. 43
41. Baruch Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85

(1965): 310; idem, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” JCS 17 (1963): 105–11.
42. Baruch Levine, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Features and
Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor
of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and
M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 469.
43. For a thorough modern discussion of the development of ritual studies, see Ger-
ald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup 1; Winona
14 Chapter 1
Modern arguments find that action is central to ritual and that ideas are
the key to religion. 44 Recent discussions include the work of Catherine
Bell, David Parkin, Ronald Grimes, Jan Platvoet, and Gerald Klingbeil. Ac-
cording to Bell, ritual is action, without thought, that has been formalized
into routine, habitual, obsessive, or mimetic action. Bell contends that rit-
ual is secondary to religion (thought) and is merely the physical expression
of prior ideas. Parkin emphasizes four aspects of ritual: identified space for
ritual action, structured action, prescriptive nature (mandatory repetition),
and a conscious participation of the community. 45 Grimes advances the dis-
cussion by stating that ritual includes animated (exaggerated) action and
gestures during a meaningful time period. 46 Contra to Parkin, he argues
that a ritual act is an unconscious endeavor, containing meaning. 47 Plat-
voet, following a more phenomenological position, adopts a secular social
definition of ritual. 48 Klingbeil adopts Platvoet’s definition of ritual, add-
ing useful distinctions between: morphology, syntax, semantics, and prag-
matics. He goes on to outline nine elements of ritual semantics that should
be studied: 49
• Required situation and context triggering the ritual
• Structure of the ritual
• Form, order, and sequence
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 27–29; Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 13–18.
44. Ibid., 19.
45. Parkin defines ritual as “a formulaic spatiality carried out by groups of people
who are conscious of its imperative or compulsory nature and who may or may not fur-
ther inform this spatiality with spoken words” (David Parkin, “Ritual as Spatial Direction
and Bodily Division,” in Understanding Rituals [ed. Daniel de Coppet; London: Routledge,
1992], 18).
46. Ronald L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (3rd ed.; Waterloo, ON: Ritual
Studies, 2010), 62. Animated behavior is also highlighted by Richard Schechner, who
contends that “in ritual ordinary behavior is condensed, exaggerated, repeated, made
into rhythms or pulses (often faster or slower than usual) or frozen into poses” (Richard
Schechner, “The Future of Ritual,” JRitSt 1/1 [1987]: 5).
47. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 55.
48. Jan Platvoet, “Ritual in Plural and Pluralist Societies,” in Pluralism and Identity:
Studies in Ritual Behavior (ed. Jan Platvoet and Karel van der Toorn; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1998), 41. Like Grimes before him, Platvoet highlights the aspects of time,
place, stylized behavior, and participants in ritual. Similar to Durkheim, the definition
focuses on the social role of ritual and the general community’s awareness and accep-
tance of ritual activity—acknowledging that the ritual may hold special meaning for one
group (i.e., the congregation) while not holding meaning for other groups. Finally, Plat-
voet mentions that a sequence of activities (structure) may be important to ritual and,
by inference, to ritual prescriptive texts. Also discussed in Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 18.
49. Ibid., 128.
Introduction 15
• Ritual space
• Ritual time
• Involved objects
• Ritual actions
• Ritual participants and their roles
• Ritual sound and language
I am not proposing a new definition of ritual in this book but am opting
instead to endorse the work of Bell, Grimes, and Platvoet. Because the
scholar of ancient cultures is forced to examine only texts concerning ritual
and is not able to view the “ritual in action,” in this book I propose to review
the elements of ritual included in the definitions above. Following Kling-
beil’s suggestion, I use these semantic elements, in addition to an intertex-
tual analysis, and explore the ritual syntax and pragmatics (where possible)
in a comparative framework. 50 Below, I provide a brief working definition
for each ritual aspect.
Form, Order, and Structure

In reviewing form and structure, I adopt a bottom-up approach, explor-
ing the smallest units of the text (beginning with the verbal forms, vocabu-
lary, clauses, and sentence structures) before moving up to define text types,
syntactical specifics, and genre. 51 I begin with a review of verbal- and clause-
level forms in order to identify the microstructures in the text. I then move
to macrostructures, reviewing the overall literary structure. 52
Sacred Time
Sacred time often provides a context for understanding reality. 53 Thus,
sacred time is both circular (eternal and unchanging) and linear (ever
50. For a full discussion of Klingbeil’s comparative framework, see his Bridging the
Gap, 127–46.
51. Based on the discussion in Alviero Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” in
Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics, 1994), 117–18.
52. Klingbeil, relying on the work of Amit and Long, argues that “literary and syn-
tactic design did not ‘just occur’ but that the author or editor employed well-considered
patterns that provide clues for the interpretation of the relevant section. Thus literary
and syntactic patterns help us to understand the performance of ritual texts” (Klingbeil,
Bridging the Gap, 148); Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary Criticism and the He-
brew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1–21; V. Phillips Long, “Reading
the Old Testament as Literature,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis (ed.
Craig C. Broyles; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 85–123; Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals
and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (BRLJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 30.
53. Barbara C. Sproul, “Sacred Time,” ER 12:535. Also quoted in Klingbeil, A Com-
parative Study, 50.
16 Chapter 1
changing). In addition, ritual divides into absolute time and relative time. 54
Absolute time includes calendar-based rituals and rituals contingent on the
annual cycle. These often include New Year’s festivals and rituals of plant-
ing or harvest. 55 Relative time is the time allotted for successfully perform-
ing the ritual (duration). 56
Sacred Space and Movement

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

sacred space is both physical and conceptual.
The goal for exploring sacred space is to understand better the role and
function of the rites included in each text. The study of sacred space may
also give a glimpse into the way that each text understands its deity and the
interplay between ritual act and societal effect.
Sacred Objects
According to Klingbeil, an object used in ritual may have multiple as-
pects or orientations. Often ritual participants wear or carry sacred objects.
In addition, some objects move during rites while others remain fixed. 60
This book divides the use of sacred objects into two categories: sacred
objects and sacred offerings. Sacred objects are physical items mentioned
in the texts that aid the ritual process. Sacred offerings are specific objects
given to a deity during the course of the ritual. This category includes ani-
mals, raw harvest items, processed food items, liquids, items of value, and
incense. In some rites, fire may consume the sacred offerings; in others, the
offering is ceremonially consecrated to the deity and given to specified in-
dividuals. I explore and compare both the type of item and its process of
disposition. The goal is to give insight into the context of ritual and the
values expressed in both texts.
Ritual Participants
Frank Gorman identifies three primary roles for ritual participants: spe-
cialist, sponsor, and recipient. 61 The specialist, often a priest or diviner, is
responsible for both the knowledge and administration of the ritual perfor-
mance. The sponsor is the person whose situation has initiated the ritual.
This may be the king, city leader(s), or a deity. The third category is the re-
cipient: the person or group for whom the ritual is conducted. 62 A recipient
may also participate in ritual action but is not charged with the responsibil-
ity of administering the rite. 63 In this book, I use Gorman’s categories as a
framework to explore ritual.
60. Klingbeil argues that “objects used in ritual generally cannot be interpreted at
face value. Mysteriously, they become changed and take on different meanings. A rough
rock suddenly becomes part of an altar (Exod 20:25; 24:4) or a memorial stele (Gen 28:18;
31:45–54; 35:14; Josh 4:5; 24:26). All of a sudden, this rock is more than just a particular
chemical formula and is treated accordingly. While nothing physical changes the nature
of the innate object, its integration into the ritual process gives it new dimensions, a
changed status, and an altered perception” (Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 174).
61. Frank H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual Space, Time and Status in the Priestly The-
ology ( JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 34–36.
62. Also discussed in Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 51.
63. Blenkinsopp, following Durkheim, understands the roles of ritual partici-
pants in the context of the society, arguing that “a role may be defined as a more or less
18 Chapter 1
The book divides ritual participants into two groups: humans and dei-
ties. We discuss the roles of human participants as they administer, sponsor,
and participate in rites. And we identify and discuss the role of each deity as
the recipient or the sponsor of rites. The goal is to illuminate the role that
participants played in ritual for the cultic calendars at Emar and Israel. In
addition, we endeavor to identify the potential relationship between the
hierarchy and social structure for ritual participants in each society.
Ritual Sound
The aspects of ritual sound and speech acts occurring during the ritual
process are often overlooked. When reviewing ritual sound and speech,
Klingbeil concludes that: (1) sound is often poorly described in ritual texts;
(2) despite the difficulty in determining the extent that sound was involved,
it is apparent that sound played an important role; and (3) ritual speech acts
varied depending on the type and context of the ritual; some were extempo-
raneous (free), others formulaic, while others were abbreviated. 64
Adopting the general methodology developed by Klingbeil in his review
of Lev 8 and the ritual ordination text of Emar 369, I investigate each as-
pect of ritual independently within its immediate situation. I then analyze
the evidence from each ritual aspect, creating a broad contextual under-
standing of each ritual text. Once each text is understood in its own con-
text, I compare the two ritual calendars (using the methodology in the prior
section) and determine whether the two texts share a common tradition.
Through the exploration of context and intent, I attempt to move beyond
the mere listing of superficial similarities and differences to a deeper con-
textual understanding of the compared rituals.
Research Objectives
In this research project, I aim to explore West Semitic ritual through a
comparative analysis of Lev 23 and Emar 446. To achieve this end, I criti-
cize both Wagenaar’s comparative method of Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium
Akītu Festival, and his resulting conclusions.
The book begins in chap. 2 with a brief review of scholarship on the
ritual calendars of the ancient Near East from the 3rd through 1st millen-
nia—including a summary of the 2nd-millennium and 1st-millennium Baby-
lonian Akītu Festival observances. The chapter continues with a review of
standardized social position corresponding to the expectations of the society, or a seg-

ment of society, in which the role player is situated. It therefore involves certain rights
and obligations and calls for the kind of performance that the society in question has
come to expect from the position in question and which to that extent can be considered
normative and prescriptive.” ( Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intel-
lectual Leadership in Ancient Israel [LAI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995], 3–4.)
64. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 202–3.
Introduction 19
scholarship for the dating of Lev 23 and related festival passages (Exod 23;
34; Num 28–29; Deut 16; Ezek 45). The chapter concludes with a detailed
review of Wagenaar’s work Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite
Festival Calendar. Chapter 3 provides a linguistic, form, and structural exam-
ination of Lev 23, including a study of ritual attributes identified in the text.
Chapter 4 conducts a similar examination of the 2nd-millennium Akkadian
multimonth festival calendar at Emar: Emar 446. Next, in chap. 5, I argue
what linguistic, form, and structural similarities and differences exist be-
tween Lev 23 and Emar 446.
I aim to demonstrate that Lev 23 preserves an early (2nd-millennium)
West Semitic ritual tradition. A secondary goal of my investigation is to
explore the role that sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and partici-
pants play in West Semitic ritual. In the process, I offer an example of a
comparative analysis between ancient Near Eastern texts.
Chapter 2
Overview of Research
Introduction
The multimonth ritual calendars prescribed in Lev 23 and Emar 446 are
each part of a broader cultural context. Leviticus 23, as a festival calendar,
shares information with the festival texts in Exod 23; 34; Num 28–29; Deut
16; and Ezek 45. As mentioned in the comparative methodology section
(see chap. 1), we will first attempt to understand Lev 23 through an intra
biblical study before looking outside the Bible for comparison. Similarly, we
will explore other ancient Near Eastern rituals before beginning a specific
discussion of Emar 446.
This chapter lays the contextual groundwork for the in-depth considera-
tion of Lev 23 in chap. 3 and of Emar 446 in chap. 4 by first surveying previ-
ous research. Chapter 2 is divided into three major sections, beginning with
an overview of ritual texts in the ancient Near East from the 3rd to the 1st
millennium. The discussion of these rituals concludes with an evaluation of
the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival text. The second major sec-
tion provides a summary of research by notable scholars who have explored
Lev 23 in the context of other biblical festival texts. The third major section
evaluates Wagenaar’s Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival
Calendar, comparing Lev 23 with the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival texts.
Overview of Ritual Development

in the Ancient Near East
The goal of this section is to provide a contextual understanding of ritual
in the ancient Near East. In addition to offering a general overview of ritual,
I am interested in answering the following questions:
• Which festivals were the primary rituals during the year, and when
did they occur?
• Were ritual activities linked to agriculture, deities, or both?
• Which festivals or ritual activities were common across cultures?
• Were festival activities common to certain months? If so, are reasons
given in the text?
• Did the rituals (especially agrarian festivals) occur on fixed dates?
• Did the rites (especially agrarian festivals) have fixed central
locations?
20
Overview of Research 21
Overview of Third- and Second-Millennium Ritual Texts

Textual evidence for festival activity in the 3rd millennium has been
found at Ebla, Adab, Lagaš, Nippur, and Ur, while textual evidence from
the 2nd millennium has been identified at Sippar, Mari, and Ugarit. 1 This
evidence demonstrates that ritual festivals throughout the 3rd and 2nd mil-
lennia shared three common themes: agriculture, ancestor worship, and
care of the local deity and temple.
Agricultural rituals generally included rites for plowing, seeding, rain,
firstfruits, and harvest. 2 These festivals were held in months appropriate
to the agricultural activity. For instance, firstfruit and harvest festivals (e.g.,
šekinku 3 and akītu) were usually observed in the 1st or 7th month and occa-
sionally in the 2nd or 12th month (calendar in which the year began in the
spring). 4 While associated with the harvest, the rituals were occasionally
conducted at specified times of the month (new moon at Ur and the full
moon at Nippur). 5 Another example is a festival for the harvest of grapes
(reš yani) observed at Ugarit on set dates in the middle of the month. Simi-
larly, the Akītu planting and harvesting festival at Ur, Nippur, Adab, and
Uruk was held in both the 1st (spring) and the 7th months (fall). 6 Festivals
involving the preparation of the soil were often observed between the 2nd
and 5th months. For instance, the gusisu Festival at Ur and Nippur occurred
from the 20th to the 22nd days of the 2nd month. 7 And Nippur’s šunumun
1. Mark Cohen provides a thorough survey of cultic calendars and festival activity
in these cultures during the 3rd and 2nd millennia, in his work (Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic
Calendars of the Ancient Near East [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993]).
2. ITT 5280 describes a 7-day Festival of Malt and Barley during the Ur III period.
For plowing rites, see the šunumun Festival at Nippur—preparing the fields for seeding in
the middle of the 4th month (Hoe and Plow 23, manuscript Civil). Also see Cohen, Cultic
Calendars, 96.
3. This is the Barley Harvest Festival held in the middle of the 1st month of the year
at Nippur, Umma, and later Drehem.
4. Another example is the Festival of Baba, at Lagaš (during the Gudean period), in
the 7th month (autumn), which constituted the “New Year.”
5. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 140–52 relies upon Sauren NY Public Library 374; UET 3
190; Dhorme, RA 9 (1912); SA 217; and Holma-Salonen Cuneiform Tablets, 27. Cohen ar-
gues that the descriptive evidence from disbursement texts points to the observance of
a harvest festival in the middle of the 12th month (Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 119–24). The
descriptive nature of the texts opens the possibility that the observance was dependent
on the harvest’s occurring around the middle of the month and was not specifically tied
to the full moon and the 14th day of the month.
6. The festival at Ur was held on the 1st of the month. In Nippur and Adab, the
festival was held in the 4th and 12th months (eight months apart) and held in the middle
of the month around the full moon.
7. TCL 2; AO 5501; MVN 15 146; M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 83–91.The gusisu
festival, held in the later part of the 2d month for three days (20th–22nd), represented
the beginning of the agricultural year. The second day of the festival recorded the high-
est level of offerings—with the greatest value received by Ninlil and the sacred mound.
22 Chapter 2
Festival was celebrated in the 4th month. Therefore, texts tend to aggregate
the observance of these agricultural festivals in the first half of the year on
specified dates. 8
The second type of festival concerned ancestor worship and the care,
feeding, and honoring of the dead. The Nippur calendar preserves several
festivals during the fall and winter (generally during months 5–10) that may
have had a relationship to the cult of the dead. During the 5th month, the
EZEN-ne-IZI-gar Festival, a mid-month festival, participants offered
sheep and cattle for the Great Offering at the moon phase termed the
“House of the 15th Day.” Samuel Kramer associates this festival with the
cult of the dead based on a line from “The Death of Gilgameš”: “Let . . . ,
the child of the sun-god Utu, light up for him the netherworld. . . . With-
out him no light would be there during the month ne-IZI-gar, during the
The value of offerings appeared to be (from highest to lowest): ewe, lamb, goat. The fes-
tival marked the beginning of readying the fields for planting: clearing the fields, prepar-
ing the plow, and checking the irrigation system. Therefore, the festival was not about
seeding but about preparing for the seeding that would occur in the autumn. One text
from the Isin period (1934–1924 b.c.e.) called “Lipit-Ištar and the Plow” recounts how the
deities ready the plow for planting as part of the festival.
8. Fleming views the evidence of fixed dates for agricultural festivals as problem-
atic. The use of a lunar year composed of 354 days requires the addition of an occasional
intercalary month to maintain the alignment of the seasons. In addition, the ripening of
the harvest is variable from year to year. These two factors combine to support a logical
conclusion that the dates of agricultural festivals, which are dependent on the harvest,
must have been flexible (and not fixed; D. E. Fleming, Time at Emar: Cultic Calendar and
the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive [Mesopotamian Civilizations 11; Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2000], 141, 211–21).
Jacob Milgrom theorizes that the use of fixed dates for agricultural festivals was in-
corporated as the Priestly cult centralized its power ( Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3B; New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 2001], 1981–96, 2054–80). Support for this thesis comes from only one extant
tablet, which is the case with many theories about ancient festivals and therefore raises
the possibility that these texts are descriptive of only one occurrence of the festival and
not prescriptive of an annual event.
However, the evidence from the 3rd and 2nd millennia does not corroborate Mil-
grom’s argument that ritual activities (with variable dates based on the ripening of the
harvest) began with the local farmer and evolved into centralized rituals (with fixed dates
and locations). The reviewed cultures exhibit all the signs of a fully developed, central-
ized priesthood, and the offering texts usually record activities occurring on fixed dates
at fixed locations (a centralized temple). Therefore, Milgrom’s theories for the first three
stages of development are not supported but cannot be eliminated. His fourth stage—
agricultural festivals in societies with a developed centralized Priestly cult that occurred
on fixed dates and at fixed centralized locations—is supported by the textual evidence on
the 3rd and 2nd millennia.
festi[val of the gh]osts.” 9 In addition, scholars associate the EZEN-duku

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

attributes to the month ab in his translation.
10. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 460 (translation is Cohen’s).
11. Ibid., 159.
24 Chapter 2
include: EZEN-kin-dInanna (during the full moon of the 6th month),

EZEN-dŠhul-gi (a festival added to several regional calendars in the 8th
month following Shulgi’s 30th-year jubilee), dDa gan (8th month at Mari),
and EZEN-maḫ-dNin-é-gal (Great Festival of the god Ninegal).
Festival Cycles
The festival texts of the 3rd and 2nd millennia share many attributes.
One striking similarity is the prominence of cultic festivals in both the 1st
and 7th months of the year. In some locations, the festivals during these
months bore the same name (see discussion on the Akītu Festival below).
The festivals of these months also often described activities as a “New Year’s
celebration” for the area. This supports the proposal that at least some city-
states in Mesopotamia viewed the larger year in terms of two six-month
units—perhaps associated with the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. 12 In ad-
dition, texts often link New Year’s celebrations with agricultural rites. The
festivals of the 1st month celebrated the harvest and firstfruits (e.g., za g-
mu at Nippur and še-kin-ku-rá at Ur and Lagaš). The festivals of the 7th
month represented the end of the fall harvest (grapes [reš yani Festival at
Ugarit] and some late fruits) or the beginning of preparing the ground for
planting (e.g, á-ki- ti-šu-numun at Ur). These festival texts, while agri-
culturally based, also occurred on fixed dates (usually centered on the new
moon and full moon) and fixed locations (usually the temple for the lead
regional deity). An early example is found at Lagaš, ITT 5280, where the
12. The Near Eastern calendars of the 3rd and 2nd millennia were likely based on a
luni-solar calendar. The beginning of the month, in each attested location except Egypt,
was determined by the appearance of the moon. Verderame finds that the Enūma Anu
Enlil celestial omen series is dependent on the appearance of the new-moon crescent
and identifies “the first visibility of the moon” as the 1st day of the month (L. Verderame,
“Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 1–13,” in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the An-
cient Near East [ed. J. M. Steele and A. Imhausen; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002], 447–57).
The Old Babylonian Epic text Enūma Eliš also identifies the moon, and its phases, as the
marker for the month (5:12–22):
[Marduk] made Nannaru [the moon] appear, entrusted (to him) the night. He assigned
to him the crown jewel of nighttime to mark the day (of the month): Every month,
without ceasing, he exalted him with a crown. At the beginning of the month, waxing
over the land, you shine with horns to mark six days, on the seventh day, the disk as
[ha]lf. At the fifteenth day, you shall be in opposition, at the midpoint of each [month].
When the sun f[ac]es you from the horizon of heaven, wane at the same pace and form
a reverse. At the day of di[sappeara]nce, approach the sun’s course, On the [. . .] of the
thirtieth day, you shall be in conjunction with the sun a second time. (“Epic of Creation
[Enūma Elish],” translated by Benjamin R. Foster, COS 1.111:399)
This text describes the month in terms of lunar phases. The first lunar crescent depicts
the beginning of the month, moving through the 7th day (half-moon) and waxing to full
on the 15th. The second half of the month receives less focus, only noting the moon wan-
ing until it disappears to begin a new month.
Festival of Malt and Barley was held in the month of bur ux-maš (month 1)
on specific dates over three specific locations.
Festival durations differed from festival to festival and from location to
location. In fact, even festivals by the same name might vary in duration
at different city-states. Despite this contrast, some preliminary patterns
emerge from the data. First, festivals tended to occur at the changes of the
lunar cycle. Many festivals either began or climaxed on the 1st (new moon),
7th (first quarter-moon), 15th (full moon), or occasionally on the 21st (last
quarter-moon) of each month. The most common festival dates revolved
around the new moon (e.g., še-kin-ku-rá at Nippur and Ur, EZEN-dLi9-
si4 at Lagaš, za g-m u, reš yani Festival at Ugarit), and full moon (e.g., EZEN-
ne-IZI-gar at Nippur, Dīrītu Festival at Mari, reš yani Festival at Ugarit). 13
Occasionally, festivals associated with the cult of the dead occurred during
off phases of the moon—at the end of the month when the moon is disap-
pearing (e.g., ab/pu the EZEN-duku Festival at Nippur).
Second, festival texts depict rites with various durations. Festivals most
often occurred over one, two, three, or seven days. Generally, festivals held
on the 1st of the month lasted only one day. For example, DP 44 depicts
the one-day še-kin-ku Festival at the new moon with offerings of flour,
sheep, and fish (Lagaš). The festivals that occurred at the quarter-moon
(7th and 21st) tended to be one to three days in duration (e.g., the one-day
ibʿlt Festival at Ugarit, the two-day EZEN-duku Festival at Nippur). Fes-
tivals celebrated at the middle of the month (full moon) were usually the
longest—often seven days (e.g., Elūnu Festival of Šamaš at Sippar, the reš
yani Festival at Ugarit).
Third, multiday festivals occasionally began with or included,a second,
named, one-day festival ceremony. One example is the za g-mu Festival at
Ur, which held overlapping ceremonies with the Akītu Festival. Another
example is the nabrû ceremony, which occurred during the kinūnu Festival
at Tell Rimah (OBT 110). Combining the celebration of unrelated ritual fes-
tivals did not appear to concern the local priesthood.
Common Festivals
Ritual texts in the 3rd and 2nd millennia record the observance of simi-
larly named festivals in multiple cultures. These festivals share the follow-
ing characteristics: a long period of development, a common observance
at the change in lunar cycles, and parallels in rites and purposes. And these
sorts of resemblances support the conclusion that the knowledge of rites
probably crossed cultural boundaries. In addition, different ancient Near
Eastern cultures may have shared an understanding of ritual observance.
In this context, three named festivals common in the ancient Near East
13. References place this festival at the beginning of the month (for one day) and
again at the middle of the month (for seven days).
26 Chapter 2
deserve a brief discussion: the Akītu Festival, the nabrû Festival, and the
kinūnu Festival.
Akītu Festival
The cultic calendars for Ur’s 3rd and 2nd millennia outline rites for the
biannual Akītu Festival. The festival held in the 1st month was á-ki- ti -še-
kin-ku5, “the Akītu of the harvest.” The Akītu of the 7th month was known
by a different name, á-ki- ti-šu-numun, meaning “the Akītu of seeding.”
The festival held in the 7th month was the more important ritual because
this month carried the name of the festival. Each Akītu Festival may have
marked the beginning of the “equinox year”—six months in duration. 14
The Mesopotamians assigned a date to each festival based on the lunar
cycle. In addition to the regular offerings of the Akītu in the 1st month,
a Great Offering occurred during the Akītu of the 7th month. One tab-
let from Drehem (Holma-Salonen Cuneiform Tablets 27) for the 7th-month
Akītu Festival reads: 1 gu4-niga dNanna sízkur-gu-la šà Uríki-ma u4-8-
kam, “The 8th day: 1 grain fed ox (for) Nanna, the Great Offering in Ur.” 15
This text reveals that the agricultural Akītu Festival occurred on specific
dates and included meat offerings associated with the city. While meat is
the offering most frequently mentioned in the Akītu Festival texts at Ur,
the festival includes non-meat offerings (UET 3 186) and votive offerings of
cloth (UET 3 1504). In addition, two texts (YBC 16828 [AS 8]; MVN 8 221
[AS 8]) depict a royal banquet with the king in attendance.
The festival in the 1st month began on the 1st day of the month (the new
moon) with rites lasting at least five days and possibly as many as seven days.
In the 7th month, the festival was longer, lasting from 10 to 12 days. Festi-
val offerings were prescribed at three primary locations: (1) Gaʾeš temple;
(2) Ekišnugal temple to Nanna; and (3) the primordial mound of Ur (du6-
úr). The offerings for each location took place several times during the day.
Some occurred at midnight (á-gi6-sa9-a), others at sunrise, and still others
during the day. This excerpt from text UET 3 193 is an example:
2 lambs for the d u6-ú r-mound and 1 ox, 2 lambs and 1 goat for the temple
of Nanna. . . . in Ur. 1 sheep and 1 lamb as the midnight offering to Nanna;
2 lambs as the daybreak offering to Nanna; 1 two-year old cow, 1 sheep and
1 lamb from the. . . . building (?) and 1 reed-fed pig from the preserve as the
nightly Great Offering for Nanna at the á- k i - ti. 16
Nanna, the moon god, is often symbolized as a boat—after the moon’s

boat-like shape when it transitions from new moon to full moon. During
the Akītu Festival, the moon, on his sacred boat, went in a procession from
14. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 400.

15. Ibid., 151.
16. (UET 3 193); translated by Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 151.
the Ekišnugal temple to Nanna to the Gaʾeš temple (Akītu-house) complex

outside Ur. A highlight of the festival was the triumphant procession of the
sacred boat of Nanna returning to Ur on the 3rd day of the 1st month (on
a later day in the 7th month) to take his rightful position in the Temple of
Nanna. T. M. Sharlach argues that in the 7th month the king, to ensure a
successful agricultural season, would plow the first field while Nanna made
his journey. 17
Texts describe the Akītu Festival observances at Nippur, Adab, and
Uruk—in addition to Ur. While the festival occurred at multiple locations,
the timing and duration was unique to each. Uruk texts convey Akītu Fes-
tival rites in the 8th month, while Nippur and Uruk hold the festival at the
full moon of the 4th and 12th months. The festival has pre-Sargonic textual
evidence at both Ur and Nippur. However the mention of á-ki- ti Uríki-
ma šà Nibr uki 18 in ITT 6756 and Tello 29 from Girsu suggests that Ur is
the founding location for the festival. 19
Our discussion of the Akītu Festival only encompasses the adoption of
the festival in cultures up to the middle of the 2nd millennium. The festival
has a long history beyond this period including significant textual represen-
tation at Aššur in the Middle Assyrian period. In addition, BM 121206 and
A 125, 126 outline the Akītu Festival to Marduk. We will discuss these 1st-
millennium texts at the end of this chapter in conjunction with Wagenaar’s
work.
Nabrû Festival
Texts from the 3rd millennium attest the nabrû Festival at Ur in the 8th
month, 3rd-millennium Uruk in the 9th month, and 2nd-millennium Mari
in an unnamed month (probably 9th month). ARMT 19 311 reads a-mu-
wa- tim sá na-ab-ri-i, “omina for the nabrû (festival).” ARMT 19 324
mentions a meat offering: 1 UDU in na-ab-ri-i[m] PN [ta] mḫur, “PN
received one sheep for the nabrû festival.” 20 References to the festival con-
tinue into the 2nd millennium at Mari, Kish, Sippar, Tell Rimah, Šaduppum,
Šubat-Enlil, and Nērebtum—all observed in the late fall or winter months.
Stephen Langdon links the festival with the winter solstice and the res-
urrection of the sun god. For Langdon, the root of nabrû is barû with the
meaning “manifestation.” 21 While “manifestation” is within the range of
meaning for barû, M. E. Cohen argues that a more likely translation, based
17. T. M. Sharlach, “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court,” JCS
57 (2005), 22.
18. “The Akītu of Ur at Nippur.”
19. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 404–5.
20. Ibid., 394.
21. Stephen H. Langdon, Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars (London:
Oxford University Press, 1935), 30.
28 Chapter 2
on the context, is “to divine” (to observe omens). 22 The Mari text linking
amuwatu with the nabrû Festival further supports this meaning.
The primary nabrû Festival occurred in the early winter, perhaps with the
reading of omens for the upcoming agricultural season. At several locations,
it appears that some portions of the ritual were repeated in later months.
M. E. Cohen postulates that the purpose of the repetition was to update
the prior months’ predictions. 23
Kinūnu Festival
Several locations attest the winter kinūnu Festival. The kinūnu, or brazier,
was a ceremonial torch often used in temple-lighting ceremonies. The fes-
tival, by the same name, was held during the winter months (months 7–10).
Rites may have been associated with the netherworld (lighting the way for
ancestors) or the winter solstice, or may have marked the beginning of the
use of torches and fires for heating in the winter.
The kinūnu Festival is poorly documented in the 3rd millennium, with
only a possible reference (Gi/Kí-nu-na) in the Ur III period and a possible
month name at Ebla (NE.GAR). By the 2nd millennium, especially in the
northern regions, the month name and festival are frequently identified.
The 9th month at Nunzi and 7th month at Mari, Eshnunna, and Tell Rimah
are all named kinūnu with references to the festival held in the month. Two
occurrences of the festival include references to other ritual celebrations
either before or during the kinūnu Festival. At Mari, ARM 3 72 records the
festival beginning on the 8th of the month and continuing for several days.
The same text records oil for the kinūnu Festival on the 12th. Dominique
Charpin identifies a ritual on the 7th day of the 7th month (šibût šebîm). 24
This indicates that another named festival occurred the day before the
kinūnu Festival. Similarly, OBT Tell Rimah 110, records the presence of the
nabrû ritual during the kinūnu Festival: “On the 20+[x]th day of this month,
for the occasion of the nabrû of the kinūnu (Festival).”
This section demonstrates two points that may inform our understand-
ing of Lev 23 (chap. 3) and Emar 446 (chap. 4). First, different cultures in the
ancient Near East shared a ritual tradition in the 3rd and 2nd millennia. This
is supported by the resemblances between the festivals: their names, rites,
and times of celebration. And second, while the texts often illustrate simi-
larities, each culture expressed these common traditions uniquely.

23. Ibid., 395.
24. Dominique Charpin, “Mari et le calendrier d’Ebla,” RA 76 (1982): 1–6.
Leviticus 23 and Hittite Festivals

David Stewart finds parallels between the Israelite festival calendar and
festival rites contained in Hittite texts. 25 He notes that two Hittite festi-
vals occur in the spring: EZEN AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR and EZEN purulliyaš; 26
while other texts attest two festivals in the fall: EZEN nuntarriyašḫaš and
EZEN KI.LAM. 27 The occurrence of coincident spring and fall festivals
is not sufficient, however, to conclude that there was a similarity. Stewart
goes on to argue for three organizational components of the Hittite fes-
tivals that have an impact on the interpretation of the Israelite festivals.
First, both contained a complex pattern of formation including multiday
festivals with local rites adopted from other cultures. Second, both inte-
grated multiple festivals into festival complexes with the procession of
individuals through multiple locations. Third, both joined the spring and
autumn by manipulating cereal grain. Stewart concludes that the extended
length of the Hittite festivals explains the equally lengthy, 50-day period
for the Festival of Weeks and the merging of maṣṣôt and pesaḥ into one fes-
tival complex. 28 After review, he identifies the following additional points
of similarity: 29
• Great assemblies
• Open-air cultic sites (some near mountains)
25. David T. Stewart, “A Brief Comparison of the Israelite and Hittite Festival Cal-
endars,” in Lev 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ed. Jacob Mil-
grom; AB 3B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 2076–80.
26. For additional discussion of Hittite rites, see the following works: Moshe Wein-
feld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near
Eastern Background,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, panel
sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language ( Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Stud-
ies, 1983), 95–129; Volkert Haas, Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religions
geschichte (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); idem, Hethitische Berggotter und
hurritische Steindämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 10;
Mainz: von Zabern, 1982); idem, “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstruction des hethithischen
Frühjahrfestes,” ZA 78 (1988): 284–98; Galina Kellerman, “Towards the Fuller Interpreta-
tion of the Purulli-Festival,” SH 5–6 (1981): 35–46.
27. H. G. Güterbock, “Religion and Kultus der Hethiter,” in Neuere Hethiterforsc-
hung (ed. G. Walser; Historia Einzelschriften 7; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964), 54–73;
Volkert Haas, Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970); S. Košak, “The Hittite Nuntarrijashas-Festival (CTH
626),” Linguistica 16 (1976): 55–64; Harry A. Hoffner, Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production
in Hittite Asia Minor (AOS 55; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974); Moshe
Weinfeld, “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shilo, Bethel and in Jerusalem,” in Religionsgeschicht
liche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten Testament (ed. B. Janowski
et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 455–72.
28. Stewart, “A Brief Comparison,” 2077.
29. Ibid., 2077–80.
30 Chapter 2
• Use of cult objects at procession sites

• Use of tents
• Celebrations as part of the cultic rites
Many of these elements are shared with Emar 446 and, although they are
beyond the scope of this book, they are worthy of future research.
Ugaritic Festival Calendar

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

home of a ṯāʿiyu-priest. The festivals begin and end with purification ritu-
als for the king. Offerings are primarily meat offerings (oxen/cows, donkey,
birds, and lamb). However, the text also mentions an offering of oil and a
libation offering. The multiday festival incorporates shorter-named rites.
These named rites include: a ṯaʿû-sacrifice, burnt offerings, libation offer-
ings, peace offerings, a flame-sacrifice, and a presentation-offering—each
with possible biblical correlations.
In the month of Ḫiyyāru, KTU 1.105 (RS 24.249) presents offerings to
Baʿalu that begin at the new moon. The text describes an unnamed festival
on the 1st and 14th days of the month (lines 15–18):
yrḫ . ḫyr. b ym ḥdṯ In the month of Ḫiyyāru, on the day of the
new moon:
alp . w š . l bʿlt bhtm a bull and a ram for Baʿlatu-Bahatīma.
b arbʿt ʿšrt . bʿl On the fourteenth day, for Baʿalu,
ʿrkm offering from the ʿRK-taxes. 33
The text continues, describing the following activities on the 18th and 19th
of the month: a ritual washing of the king, making payments of gold, fash-
ioning silver into objects, and sacrificing two rams, two ewes, a bull, and
three birds.
The month of Raʾšu yêni included two cultic festivals. A one-day ritual
began on the 1st day of the month with a cutting of the grapes and a peace
offering to ʾIlu. The second festival, the Festival of Wine (riš yn), began in
the middle of the month, with the full moon (KTU 1.41; 1.87 = RS 1.003;
056). Before the beginning of the festival, the king performed a ritual wash-
ing on the 13th, followed by a votive offering of “the best of the tribute”
(riš argmn) on the 14th. 34 Multiple deities received offerings of meat, grain,
oil, wine, perfumed oil, silver, and a recitation. The festival officially began
with the king (or someone) entering the temple and pouring a liquid (wine?).
In addition, he offered two ewes, a bull, and a city-dove offering for Ilu. 35
Johannes de Moor finds that people were able to drink until satisfied on the
first day of the festival. 36 Offerings to multiple deities continued through-
out the seven days. On the fifth day of the festival, the text notes a named
ceremony within the larger festival. Lines 38b–41 (KTU 1.41) depict a dabḥu-
33. Translation following Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 41–44. Also discussed in Loren R.
Fischer, “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” HTR 63 (1970): 485–86.
34. Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 63–64.
35. Following Pardee, ibid., 63.
36. De Moor, Seasonal Patterns, 59. De Moor notes, regarding the conversation be-
tween Hannah and Eli the priest, “[T]hus it becomes fully understandable why Eli took
it for granted that Hannah was drunk at the festival (1 Sam 1:13)!”
32 Chapter 2
sacrifice taking place on the fifth day of the wine festival. 37 Levine interprets
this ceremony as occurring on the 5th day of the month of Raʾšu yêni and
not on the fifth day of the festival. If Levine is correct, then the festival text
includes three named festivals on the following days of the month—Day 1;
Days 5–7; and Days 13–14. The text does not clarify whether the terms fifth,
sixth, and seventh are “days of the month” or “days of the festival.” Because
lines 38b–48a directly follow the festival activities of the beginning of the
month, and because the section begins with the purification of the king and
ends (lines 47–48) with the king’s becoming profane, these three days are
probably a continuation of the riš yn Festival—occurring over seven days. If
this interpretation is correct, then ceremonies by unique names are attested
as taking place within other festivals. The festival concludes at sundown on
the seventh day, with the king leaving a state of holiness (KTU 1.41:47–48):
“When the sun sets, the king will [be free (of cultic obligations)]” (ḥl mlk).
A study of the riš yn festival reveals that Ugarit celebrated an agricultural
festival during the fall. Offerings lasted for seven days, and the festival, al-
though agricultural, happened on specific dates. As with the festival in the
month of ʾIbʿaltu, there is minimal reference to Priestly involvement. Fi-
nally, the riš yn festival identifies rituals within the larger festival, including:
a peace offering, a burnt offering, and the dabḥu-sacrifice.
The text goes on to describe rites in the month after Raʾšu yêni. Although
the text does not name the month, it presumably intends Nql (September–
October, the month of the fall equinox and New Year). The text prescribes
a one-day ritual occurring at the new moon. The king makes a sacrifice on
the roof (KTU 1.41 = RS 1.003:50–51) b. gg ʾar[bʿ .] ʾarbʿ . mṯbt ʾazmr . bh, “on
the roof, where there will be dwellings of branches, fo[ur] on one side, four
on the other.” 38 The king offered a ram as a burnt offering and a bull and
a ram as a peace offering seven times. The ritual concluded with the king
speaking from his heart. After the setting of the sun, the king was again free
of cultic obligation. 39
37. De Moor reads the kubādu ceremony, known at Emar (ibid.). In either case, a
named rite is included within a larger festival complex (Pardee, Ritual and Cult, 64).
38. Translation following Pardee, ibid., 54. Levine translates: “When the king offers
sacrifice to PRGL.ṢQRN on the roof, there are f[our] and four stands bearing azmr fruit
[placed] on it” (“Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage [KTU 1.41//1.87],” translated by Baruch A.
Levine, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Anne Robertson, COS 1.95:301).
39. De Moor concludes that this is a clear allusion to the later Hebrew Festival of
Sukkot. In linking the Hebrew Feast of Sukkot to riš yn, de Moor contends that Sukkot
included the prognostication of rain for the coming year. De Moor states that
[o]fficial Judaism celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles at this time of year. According to
Zech. 14:17 it depended on the celebration of this Feast whether people might expect
enough rain in the following agricultural year. Thus prayers for rain occupy a promi-
nent place in the liturgy and the Mishna states the libations of water and wine should
be poured on each day of the Feast (Sukka IV.9). Because this rite was designed to
The evidence at Ugarit shows both similarities to and differences from

the ritual texts from neighboring cultures. 40 Similar to other cultures, the
Ugaritic year was likely based upon the lunar cycle. Month names are not
fully understood, but the meanings appear to represent agricultural activ-
ities with no apparent theophoric connections. Major festivals were cen-
tered at the new moon and the full moon of the month. Festivals occurring
at the new moon (1st of the month) typically lasted one day, while festivals
in the middle of the month lasted seven days.
In Ugaritic texts several multiday festivals included a number of shorter-
named rites and sacrifices. This gives textual evidence that at least two
named ritual events could have occurred within the same festival series of
dates (forming a festival complex). The texts also demonstrate that an agri-
cultural festival took place on a fixed date, at a fixed location, while not spe-
cifically tied to the harvest. KTU 1.41 and KTU 1.87 depict a festival of the
grape harvest—riš yn meaning first of the wine. Clearly the actual harvest
season would have fluctuated from year to year based upon the movement
of the calendar and varying seasonal factors (rain and heat). Despite these
fluctuations, the festival occurred on fixed dates and was linked to the grape
harvest.
While an in-depth analysis of Lev 23 in light of the festival calendar at
Ugarit is outside the limits of this study, we should consider a few shared
features. However, before listing similarities, a word of caution is needed.
Ugaritic ritual texts may not be comparable to Lev 23 due to the differences
between a prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar (Lev 23) and descriptive
ritual texts (Ugarit). Therefore, any similarities will require further investi-
gation prior to drawing formal conclusions. A better analysis might be the
comparison of the Ugaritic ritual texts with Lev 16, relating the rites for
the Day of Atonement. With this word of warning in mind, the similarities
include:
• Both texts combine named festivals into a larger festival complex.
• Both texts hold festivals related to agriculture on fixed dates.
promote rainfall, it may originally have been a rite of sympathetic magic. (de Moor,
Seasonal, 59–99)
40. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit,” in Ancient Israelite Reli
gion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and
S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 61–62. Miller is referring to KTU 1.14 ii
20–32, “go up to the top of the tower, mount up to the summit of the wall. Lift up your
hands to heaven, sacrifice to Bull your father El/Ilu. Serve Baal with your sacrifices, the
Son of Dagan with your food. Then come down, Keret, from the roof, prepare food for
the city, wheat for the house of Khabur; let bread of the 5th month(’s harvest) be cooked,
food of the sixth month’s.” Translation from Wyatt, Religious, 188–89. The Keret text sup-
ports placing riš yn as the 7th month which follows the mention of the harvest of months
5 and 6.
34 Chapter 2
• Both texts muffle the role of the priesthood.

• Both texts specify rituals ending in the evening.
In addition to similarities, the two texts depict several differences, including:
• Leviticus 23 is a multimonth festival calendar, while the Ugaritic
evidence includes ritual texts covering only one or possibly two
months.
• The king plays a prominent role at Ugarit but not in Lev 23.
• The festivals at Ugarit include ritual cleansings not mentioned in
Lev 23. 41
• The festivals at Ugarit include a rite of passage not found in Lev 23.
Overview of the Akītu Festival in First-Millennium Babylon

The 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival compilation is a fascinat-
ing and complex set of texts deserving much more space than is possible
in this book. Julye Bidmead’s Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal
Legitimation in Mesopotamia offers a thorough modern treatment. 42 In ad-
dition, M. E. Cohen provides an analysis of the festival compilation text in
The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Only a few central features of
the text are outlined below, including: the annual observance of the text,
purpose, key participants, role of the king (rite of passage), use of recita-
tion (speech), role of figurines (sacred objects), emphasis on the night, lack
of a role for the community, and political rejuvenation of the king. These
features are used later in this chapter to evaluate Wagenaar’s argument that
Lev 23 is substantially similar to the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu text
compilation.
The Babylonian New Year’s Festival is not described in one text from one
point in time but in a compilation and transformation of multiple festival
texts developed over at least two millennia in multiple ancient Near Eastern
cultures (see the section above for a summary of the 3rd- and 2nd-millennia
history of the festival). In addition, the festival compilation is not a festival
calendar, covering multiple festivals over multiple months but a text (or set
of texts) covering only one festival during one month. The first mention of
an Akītu Festival appears in early Sumerian times (see above) and continues,
almost continuously, until the 3rd century c.e. The 1st-millennium Baby-
lonian New Year’s Akītu Festival is the reconstructed compilation of four
Seleucid-period texts: DT 15; 109; 114; MNB 1848. 43 While the Seleucid
41. While not mentioned in Lev 23, a ritual bath is referred to in Lev 16.
42. Julye Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in
Mesopotamia (GDNES 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002).
43. For transliterations and translations, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens
(Paris: Leroux, 1921), 127–54 (tablet sketch, transliteration, and translation [French]);
Abraham J. Sachs, “Akkadian Rituals,” ANET 331–34 (translation); Galip Çagirgan, Baby-
lonian Festivals (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 1976), 2–49 (transliteration and
Table 1. Akītu Festival Ritesa
Day Activities
Festival Preparation
1 A priest opens the gate of the Esagil courtyard of the Temple of Marduk.
2 A priest offers prayers to Marduk for his blessing on the city and the people
before the gate is opened for temple personnel.
3 Craftsmen create two figurines for the upcoming festival.
Festival Activities
4 The king goes to the Temple of Nabû and receives the scepter of kingship. Then,
the king travels on to Borsippa (home of the god Nabû) and brings the god to
Babylon in a procession. In the evening, the king reads Enūma Eliš.b
5 Purification of the Temple of Marduk;c the king appears before Marduk and
is humbled before the god by being: (1) relieved of his crown and scepter;
(2) slapped by the priest (as an accusation); (3) dragged to his knees by the priest’s
pulling on his ear. The king then pleads his innocence to Marduk, who vows
(through an oracle) to protect the king in the coming year. The priest then re-
turns the king’s signs of office (crown and scepter) and again slaps the king. Tears
of the king would confirm the oracle of Marduk.
6 The statue of Nabû processes to the Temple of Ninurta at Ehursagtila. The god
then slays the two figurines that were made on Day 3. The figurines are decapi-
tated and bound. They accompany Nabû to Esagil, where the god Nabû joins the
gods of the surrounding cities—receiving a warm welcome.
7 No activities identified.
8 All the gods gather in the courtyard of Esagil and process to the Akītu-house
outside the walls of Babylon. The gods split the offerings made by the king and
questions could be asked about upcoming military campaigns. The gods remain
in the Akītu-house until Day 11.
12 All the gods return to their respective temples.
a. The data for table 1 are taken from the compilation of DT 15, 114, 109; MNB 1848; as
compiled by Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 127–54.
b. The reading of Enūma Eliš may have been a monthly occurrence and may not be unique
to this New Year Festival; see discussion in van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,”
337.
c. The purification of the temple required the following steps: ritual bath of the priest
in the river before sunrise, prayers, opening the doors of the temple, summoning the priests
to conduct the ritual cleansing, sprinkling the water, smearing cedar tree resin on the doors
of the temple, placing incense in the temple, slaughtering and decapitating a lamb, which is
then dragged through the temple sanctuary, and removing the incense. The priests who
conducted the ritual cleansing then discard the carcass of the offering in the river and remain
outside the city until the 12th day of the festival (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 127–54;
Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 109–10).
36 Chapter 2
period postdates the Babylonian kings, scholars believethat “the liturgical

texts must refer to the events of a much earlier celebration, probably during
the Neo-Babylonian Empire when the Akītu observance was at its zenith.
Under Seleucid domination, the priests of Marduk recorded the texts to
preserve the last vestige of Babylonian culture.” 44 Table 1 outlines the activ-
ities of the 12-day festival. While the 3rd-millennium origins of the Akītu
Festival clearly demonstrate a biannual festival, Bidmead asserts that the
1st-millennium ritual was probably an annual celebration. 45
Bidmead contends that the purpose of the festival was likely political—
that is, designed to ensure the power of both the king and priesthood. 46 As
such, the New Year’s Akītu Festival included a prominent role for the high
priest (šešgallu). On the first five mornings of the festival, the high priest
was obliged to rise before sunrise, take a ritual bath in water from both the
Tigris and Euphrates rivers, recite a prayer to Bēl, and open the doors of
the temple. On each successive morning, the ritual bath occurred earlier,
with the day 1 ritual occurring at 6 a.m. (dawn), and the ritual on the 5th
day occurring at 2 a.m. (two double hours before dawn). In addition to the
early morning cleansing ritual, the high priest conducted most of the rites.
The priest was responsible for reciting prayers, reciting the literary texts,
and conducting rituals with the king. The prominent role of the priest in
translation); Walter Farber, “Kultische Rituale,” in TUAT, vol. 2: Orakel Rituale, Bau- und
Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete, 212–22 (translation); M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars,
437–50 (translation).
44. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 107.
45. Texts from Uruk continue to chronicle two Akītu Festivals in the 1st millennium
(Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 86–111). Bidmead maintains that
[t]he early Sumerian Akītu was celebrated according to the vegetation cycle at harvest
and sowing seasons, both marking the start of the year. In Ur during the Ur III and the
Isin-larsa periods, an Akītu Festival took place twice per year: in the seventh month,
and in the first month. Eventually there was a change in the beginning of the calendar
year from autumn to the spring, resulting in two Akītu Festivals: ‘Akītu of the spring
(season)’ and the ‘Akītu of the harvest (season).’ Since both were celebrated at equinoc-
tial times, when the days and nights were in perfect balance, they were also probably
symbolically important to the ’perfect balance‘ of the sowing or harvest of the crop. It
was always crucial to perform some sort of ritual as a request to the gods to ensure a
healthy crop, or to thank the gods and celebrate the reaping of another successful har-
vest . . . The Akītu and New Year’s festival may have begun as separate events, but by
the late first millennium the Babylonians celebrated one Akītu—the one at the begin-
ning of Nisannu. It would appear, then, that the Akītu and the Babylonian New Year’s
festival are one and the same. (Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 41–45)
This sentiment is echoed by Bidmead when she argues elsewhere that “the festival de-
veloped from a semiannual agricultural celebration to an annual Nisannu (spring) New
Year’s national festival, celebrated in the capital city with the participation of the king
and royal priesthood” (ibid., 1).
46. Ibid.
the text led Bidmead to conclude that the priesthood held religious, socio
economic, and political power. 47
Another key role in the Akītu Festival involved the king’s demonstrat-
ing divine support for his kingship by holding the hand of the god. On the
eighth day of the festival, as the gods gathered in Esagil to accompany Mar-
duk to the Akītu-chapel, the king took the hand of the image of Bēl. Karel
van der Toorn asserts that the handholding was a significant feature of the
tie between the cult and the monarchy. In taking the hand of the god, the
king entered into an agreement with both the priesthood and people of
Babylon, pledging to protect them and to uphold the duties of kingship. 48
F. Thureau-Dangin agrees, stating that Marduk symbolically passed author-
ity to the king through the king’s gesture. 49
The Akītu Festival also included the public reading of an epic text. The
high priest recited Enūma eliš (the Babylonian creation account) on the
fourth day of the festival. This text recounts a struggle for power among the
gods that resulted in the supremacy of Marduk, who then created both hu-
mans and the city of Babylon. Bidmead argues that the reading of this text
on the 4th day of Nissanu 50 may have had both a theological and a political
purpose. 51
Another component of the festival involved the creation and use of ritual
figurines. On the morning of the third day, the high priest hired craftsmen
(qurqurru) to create two figurines for use on the sixth day. The craftsmen
constructed the two figurines—one out of cedar 52 and another out of tam-
arisk—each seven fingers high. The figurines were designed in different
poses; however, both figurines had their right hands raised in prayer. In its
47. Ibid., 168.

48. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 233.
49. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 146.
50. The text may have been read on the 4th day of each month.
51. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 67–68:
The Enūma eliš functions on at least two levels during the Akītu festival—the theological
and the political. On a theological level, the Enūma eliš acts as a ‘sacred book,’ insomuch
as it is recited during the New Year festival. The recounting of the creation epic func-
tions within the rituals of the Akītu to reconnect the worshiper with primordial power
while offering a religious interpretation for the creation and cosmic order of the world,
the hierarchy of the deities, and the supremacy of Marduk and his chosen earthly rep-
resentative. . . . the myth acted on a political level as yet another means of strengthen-
ing the social order—the supremacy of Babylon was affirmed and the monarchical and
priestly order maintained for another year. As a text of political propaganda, the cre-
ation epic also reveals the elevation of Marduk to the top of the Babylonian pantheon
and establishes Babylon as the city par excellence of ancient Mesopotamia.
52. Cedar, when burned, makes a sweet smell and is used extensively throughout the
ancient Near East in ritual fires. Likewise, tamarisk is a common wood used in rites (ibid.,
56–68).
38 Chapter 2
left hand, one figurine held a scorpion; and in the left hand of the other was a
snake. The two were dressed in red-brown garments adorned with precious
stones and gold from the treasury of Marduk. While making the figurines,
the craftsmen ate a portion of the daily ritual meal. When completed, the
figurines were moved to the Temple of Madānu, the patron god of judges.
Once Nabû arrived at the Eḫursagtila (on the sixth day) the figurines were
struck (maḫāṣu) and burned before Nabû. 53 The purpose of the interaction
between Nabû and the images is debated. Galip Çagirgan argues that the
scorpion and snake represented evil intentions, which the god overcame
by burning the figurines. 54 Although it’s possible, this solution ignores the
clothing and the location of the statues in the temple of the judge. Bidmead
agrees that the figurines symbolized evil, adding that the judge found them
guilty, and they were then “purified” by the fire. 55 Andrew George advances
the argument by adding that the clothing referred to the red clay that makes
humans, and that the judge found humanity guilty of sin. The ritual then
atoned for sins when the fire purified the images. 56 Van der Toorn sees the
figurines as deities posing a danger to the Babylonian society. Their burning
illustrated Nabû’s victory over the rival deities, ensuring his place as the god
of Babylon. 57 Although the purpose for the figurines is uncertain, they were
clearly important to the ritual observance.
The Akītu Festival contained a procession that may have represented a
rite of passage. The text records a meeting of the gods in the courtyard of
Esagil on the 8th day of Nissanu. The gods traveled to hail Marduk as king
of the gods and to present him gifts. After the meeting, the gods processed
to the Akītu-house (at the edge of the city), where they remained until the
11th day of the month. On the 11th day, they returned to their respective
temples. 58
Another key feature of the Akītu ritual was the focus on activities that
occur during the night. The high priest began each morning by rising before
sunrise and conducting a ritual purification bath (see table 1 above). Bid-
53. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 132. See lines 190–215.

54. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 209.
55. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 56–58.
56. Andrew R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (OLA 40; Leuven: Peeters,
1992), 413.
57. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 335.
58. Ibid., 338–39. Other scholars argue that the time at the Akītu-house represented
the death and resurrection of Marduk (W. von Soden, “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, dass die
Babylonier an die Wiederauferstehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” ZA 51 [1955]: 130–66);
a cosmic battle (Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious
Year: The Conflict in the Akitu House,” Iraq 25 [1963]: 189–90); and heiros gamos (Edwin
O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962], 87). Bidmead
and van der Toorn argue that scholars have rejected each theory (see Bidmead, The Akītu
Festival, 1–38; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 336–37).
mead finds significance in these early morning hours before sunrise. “The
murky period between midnight and early dawn has always been considered
a liminal period. By rising when it is still dark, the šešgallu (high priest) can
gain command of the rising sun and will have better control on the events
of the day.” 59
The Akītu Festival preserved a minor role for the general population
while the upper class maintained a central position in ritual activity. The
general community functioned mainly as observers of the processions and
occasionally as recipients of a portion of the ritual meal. Meanwhile, the
role of the privileged class (the kidinnu) was emphasized on multiple oc-
casions. On day two, line 32, the prayer appeals to Bēl to establish the pro-
tected citizens (lúṣâb kidinni šukun šubarrušunu). On the fifth day, amidst the
negative confessions, the king confirmed that he had not struck the face
of a kidinnu—meaning the king had not disrespected the political and eco-
nomic well-being of the privileged class. The prominence of the kidinnu
was further supported in prayers throughout the festival. This leads Bid-
mead to conclude that one function of the festival was to preserve class
distinctions. 60
A final element of the Akītu Festival was the political rejuvenation of
the king. The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival included a
ritual humiliation of the king, leading to a renewal of his power. During this
ritual, the high priest removed the king’s trappings of office (mace, loop,
and scepter) and dragged the king by his ears before Bēl. The king knelt
on the ground and recited his negative confessions, saying that he had not:
sinned before the god, neglected the god’s divinity, destroyed Babylon, for-
gotten rituals, or “struck the cheek” of the privileged class. After the king’s
confession, the high priest recited a blessing from Bēl upon the king and
restored the trappings of office. The ritual came to a close when the high
priest slapped the king’s cheek. If tears flowed from the king’s eyes, then the
blessing was confirmed. If the king did not have tears, then Bēl was angry,
and the king would be overthrown. Van der Toorn maintains that the text
illustrates the theme of renewal by describing the king’s undergoing several
rites of passage. The king pledged his allegiance (to the god) through these
rites and thus renewed his power. This renewal, unlike the renewal of sea-
sons in agricultural festivals, celebrated the validation of the political, so-
cial, and religious order of the Babylonian community. 61 Bidmead adds that
the confession was a promise to maintain the political and socioeconomic
order for the coming year. 62
59. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 110.

60. Ibid., 5.
61. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 333; Karel van der Toorn,
“Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” Phoenix (1990): 16.
62. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 81–82.
40 Chapter 2
Summary
Rituals in the ancient Near East were often oriented around a six-month
cycle, with major events occurring in the 1st and 7th months. These festivals
shared three common themes: agriculture, ancestor worship, and care of
the local deity and temple. Agricultural rites (harvesting or planting) were
often held on specified dates at specified central locations. During these
months, rituals were clustered around the 1st day of the month (New Year’s
celebrations) for a short duration of one to three days and again around
the full moon (14th or 15th of the month) for a longer period—often seven
days. In addition, these celebrations sometimes incorporated a second,
named ritual, either the day before or during the primary festival. Finally,
while the festivals generally had names, occasionally they were anonymous
(unnamed).
Focusing specifically on the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival,
we have highlighted the following aspects of the festival:
• The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival was annual.
• The Akītu Festival text is a descriptive text discussing the events of
one festival over one month of the year.
• The purpose of the text is political with the high priest and king as
the primary actors.
• The Babylonian festival emphasized the role of the high priest and
the priesthood.
• The king used a handholding ritual with the god to promote
politically the god’s support for both the king’s office and the current
king.
• The Babylonian festival included the public reading of an epic
creation account for both theological and political reasons.
• The Akītu text incorporated a procession and rite of passage during
which the god had to prove its superiority.
• Figurines were constructed to effect the renewal of the god’s
protection of the people.
• The high priest conducted rituals in the early hours before sunrise—
perhaps to gain command of the rising sun in the Babylonian festival.
• The role of the community and general population was confined to
watching processions and eating the occasional festival meal. The
privileged citizens, by contrast, played a central role and received
prayers and oaths of support.
• The Babylonian New Year’s Festival included a political rejuvenation
ceremony during which the king was first humbled, and then his
support was renewed by the god.
We have reviewed ritual calendars in Mesopotamia and the northern Le-
vant from the 3rd through 1st millennia to identify major trends in festival
development and to highlight shared ritual experiences. We return to this

material later to provide a context for the comparative study of Lev 23 and
Emar 446. In addition, some of this evidence is used in a critique of Wage-
naar’s comparative method at the end of this chapter.
Overview of Leviticus 23 Research in

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

Development
Order of
Text Source Comments

1 Exod 23:14–19; J The noun ‫( חג‬feast) is identified as a marker for J/D.
34:18–26 The use of ‫( אסיף‬ingathering) is a marker for J. Local
agricultural offerings are by the individual or clan.
2 Deut 16:1–17. D The noun ‫( חג‬feast) is identified as a marker for J/D.
The process of centralization begins with D. However,
most feast days are still local and agriculturally moti-
vated (7th century b.c.e.).
3 Ezek 45:18–25 Forerunner of the Priestly legislator.
4 Lev 23:9–22, P Marked by ritualization. Movement toward histori-
39–44; Num calization as a motive and away from agricultural
28–29 motives. Adds dates for centralized community dues
and diminishes the role of individual offerings (late
5th century b.c.e.—exilic and postexilic).
centuries, these analyses led scholars to various conclusions about the fol-
lowing questions:
• Who wrote Lev 23, or which sources or redactors were involved?
• What features characterize each source?
• What explains the unity of Lev 23, considering the diversity of
sources?
• Why was Lev 23 written?
• When was Lev 23 written?
Wagenaar, who offers some of the most recent scholarship, concludes that
Lev 23 is the compilation of a Priestly author and a post-Priestly author.
Both authors operated in the exilic or postexilic era expressing a festival
calendar view: beginning in the spring; using fixed dates; and severing an
earlier tie to an agrarian calendar. Before discussing Wagenaar’s arguments,
however, I explore the flow of historical-critical scholarship (for a few select
scholars) over the past 200 years.
Wellhausen
Julius Wellhausen built on the work of Baruch Spinoza to answer the
question: How can we explain the unity of the Pentateuch—considering
not summarized here, many of their advancements to the discussion are included in the
discussion of Lev 23 in chap. 3.
the diversity of sources? 64 Wellhausen advanced the earlier identification

of sources, arguing a comprehensive plan for the development of the Penta-
teuch, called the Documentary Hypothesis. In this plan, he identified three
authorial traditions in the development of the festival calendar texts: J, D,
and P. Table 2 summarizes his theory of the development of the text. In
Prolegomena, Wellhausen devotes a chapter to the discussion of Israel’s sa-
cred feasts. He defines a sacred feast as “regularly recurring occasions for
sacrifice.” 65 The earliest recorded rituals of the festival cycle are based in
agriculture and include the feasts found in Exod 23 and 34. The use of the
noun ‫( חג‬feast) and the autumn ingathering festival using the term ‫( אסיף‬in-
gathering) identify these early festivals, including unleavened bread (‫)מצות‬,
harvest (‫)קציר‬, and ingathering (‫)אסיף‬. Wellhausen goes on to associate these
festivals with the J source. He identifies ingathering (‫ )אסיף‬as the wording of
J in place of ‫( סכות‬booths/tabernacles), which D uses for the same festival. 66
The festival cycle begins in the spring with Passover (‫ )פסח‬and the Feast
of Unleavened Bread (‫)מצות‬. 67 Unlike the agricultural festivals, these are
given a historical motive associated with the exodus. 68 The J version of the
festival season (Exod 23; 34) depicts an as-yet unfixed festival season.The
‫ פסח‬and ‫ מצות‬are celebrated when the harvest of barley begins, ‫ קציר‬follows
with the wheat harvest, and ‫ אסיף‬brings the festival cycle to completion
with the harvest of the vineyards and olives. Wellhausen finds J’s temporal
identification “rather vague and shifting.” 69
The D author centralizes festival activities and identifies fixed intervals
for rites. The Deuteronomist does not call for one general offering by the
community. Instead, individuals make private offerings. 70 Wellhausen goes
on to argue that before the Hebrews entered the land they were nomadic
64. Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise (2nd ed.; trans. Samuel Shirley; In-
dianapolis: Hackett, 2001).
65. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (SPRTS; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1994), 83.
66. The Festival of Booths, according to Wellhausen, finds its origin in the vineyard
harvest, when the entire household relocated to the fields, living in improvised shelters,
to complete the harvest (cf. Isa 1:8). Similarly, Wellhausen concludes that the harvest fes-
tival in J (‫ )קציר‬and the Feast of Weeks (‫ )שבעת‬in D refer to the same feast of the wheat
reaping, occurring in the early summer. Wellhausen finds a natural agricultural origin for
both of these harvest festivals.
67. For both the J and D text.
68. Wellhausen notes that the term “feast” (‫ )חג‬in the earliest references is only as-
sociated with ‫ מצות‬and only later becomes associated with ‫פסח‬. He concludes that the
festival complex, known as the month of corn ears (‫)חדש האביב‬, begins with the barley
harvest and ends with the wheat harvest.
69. Ibid., 90.
70. Ibid. Wellhausen asserts that the D author, while adding a historical motive,
focuses on the gift of the land and entry into Canaan.
44 Chapter 2
and had no need for agricultural feasts. 71 The unifying feature for each of
these festivals is the “land.” The people give offerings to Yhwh in deference
for the bounty he has provided 72 (i.e., Hos 2; 9).
The Priestly Code (P) of Lev 23 and Num 28–29 shows a marked contrast
to the local agrarian festivals focused on the land. Wellhausen maintains
that the focus of these celebrations is now “ritualized” and place-centered.
Prescribed offerings are the norm and individual voluntary offerings are
of secondary importance. The only vestige of the earlier J and D family-
centered feasts is the local celebration of the Passover meal. The firstfruits
aspect of the festivals is played down in favor of ritualistic dues. 73 For Well-
hausen, the feasts of the Priestly Code have lost the motive behind the pro-
cess, leaving only a symbolic remnant of the old custom. 74 In both Lev 23
and Num 28–29 the ritualization of the process becomes fixed, while the
connection to the land and offerings to Yhwh are silenced.
As the festivals lost their connection to the land and became increas-
ingly centralized—moving away from a local family observance—it became
necessary to fix dates for the feasts. Wellhausen finds that the use of dates is
unique to P and was first set for the autumn vintage festival at the full moon
of the 7th month. The festivals during the first of the year were entirely
dependent on the regional ripening of the wheat and barley (which ripens
in different regions at different times). Therefore, these festivals were more
difficult to convert to a fixed date. He contends that the Passover, as a lunar-
based annual feast was the first to be fixed. The dates of the balance of the
spring festivals were subsequently set following the Passover celebration. 75
The duration of the feasts was also refined when the festival rites were
edited by Yahwistic author, then by the Deuteronomist, and ultimately by
the author of the Priestly Code. In J, the duration of each feast is loosely de-
fined. The Deuteronomist sets out a day for the Passover (‫ )פסח‬and a week
for both the feasts of Ingathering (‫ )אסיף‬and Booths (‫)סכות‬. The Priestly
author of Lev 23 and Num 28 further refines these time frames. As with D,
71. Ibid., 93. While the Canaanites gave tribute to Baal for his bounty, the Israelites,
as a profession of faith, similarly gave tribute to Yhwh for his provision. According to
Wellhausen, the earliest example of Hebrew assimilation of Canaanite festal activities
is evident in the autumn vintage celebrations at Shechem (i.e., Judg 9:27; 21:19; 1 Sam 1).
72. Ibid., 97.
73. Ibid., 100.
74. Ibid.
75. Wellhausen asserts that, once the original agricultural linkage with the celebra-
tions was severed, new meanings could be created according to the desires of the lo-
cal leadership (ibid., 102). Similarly, the Passover Feast was no longer just a memorial to
Yhwh for striking down the firstborn of Egypt but now represented the salvation of
the firstborn of Israel. Wellhausen observes that some festival calendars emphasize the
role of the individual and family, while others focus on the role of the priest. This point
is central to the distinction between the festival calendars and will be discussed in the
section on Lev 23.
the ‫ פסח‬is set to the 14th of the 1st month (full moon). However, the Priestly
Code clarifies that ‫ מצות‬begins on the next day (15th) and does not overlap
with the Passover celebration—thus the two represent an eight-day cele-
bration ending on the 21st day of the 1st month. Wellhausen asserts that this
change creates an extraordinary feast day after the Passover. Similarly, the
Priestly Codes of Leviticus and Numbers add an eighth day for the celebra-
tion of the Feast of Tabernacles. He concludes that “from all this it is indis-
putable that the Priestly Code has its nearest relations with Deuteronomy,
but goes beyond it in the same direction as that in which Deuteronomy
itself goes beyond the Jehovistic legislation.” 76
Wellhausen goes on to argue the exilic Priestly Code makes other altera-
tions in the festival cycle. The festival cycle is extended and interrupted
adding a New Year’s Festival on the 1st day and Day of Atonement on the
10th day of the 7th month. In addition, he finds two calendar year systems
in P. The first, an ecclesiastical year, is autumnal—similar to that contained
in D and J. This yearly cycle falls on the first new moon of autumn and is dis-
tinct from the civil New Year, which was transferred to spring in the exilic
period. The transfer from a calendar that begins in the autumn to one that
begins in the spring, according to Wellhausen, is initiated through a Baby-
lonian influence during the exile.
Noth
Martin Noth builds upon the earlier work of Wellhausen adopting some
arguments from Klostermann and von Rad. He advances the discussion by
adding that the formation of the Pentateuch relied not on authors, but on
the thematic confessions preserved through an oral tradition recited during
cultic celebrations. 77
Table 3 shows Noth’s view of the development of the biblical festival
texts below. Noth argues that Lev 17:1–26:46 constitutes a separate literary
complex known as the Holiness Code. The code, originally proposed by
August Klostermann, exhibits the shared belief that the holiness of Yhwh
76. Ibid., 105. Wellhausen sees the contrast between the seven-day festival in 1 Kgs
8:66 and that in 2 Chr 7:9 (which holds a sacred assembly on the eighth day) as evidence
of a shift between D (dated to the monarchy) and P (dated to the exile).
77. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with an introduction by
Bernhard W. Anderson; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 2. Like von Rad, Noth finds
that a study of these individual traditions is essential for understanding the development
of the Pentateuch. Unlike von Rad, Noth argues against the conclusion that the initial
work included six books (Hexateuch). Instead, Noth maintains that the Pentateuch in-
cluded Genesis–Numbers with a highly abbreviated Deuteronomy. Noth concludes that
“there was never a ‘Hexateuch’ in the customary sense, . . . . before it was united with the
Deuteronomistic History, [the Pentateuch] comprised in its final form only the books
from Genesis through Numbers, and in addition several passages within Deut 31–34”
(ibid., 6).
46 Chapter 2
Table 3. Noth’s Festival Text Developmenta

Development
Order of

1 Exod 34:18, J Recognizes a threefold group of feasts. Tied to the
22, 23 natural annual cycle of agriculture and harvest.
Pre-Israelite cultic tradition. This text shows signs
of later redaction with the use of newer feast names
(Feast of Weeks for Feast of Ingathering) and refer-
ence to the wheat harvest as the most important
aspect of the of the grain harvest.b Preserves an
early oral tradition and was recorded in the monar-
chic period.
2 Exod 23:14–17 Book Apodictic in style and still associated with agricul-
of the ture and local sanctuaries. Uses the oldest extant
Covenant names for the three feasts. Book of the Covenant is
(RJE) identified as a self-contained book of law inserted
into the pentateuchal narrative.c Predeutero-
nomic but after settlement in an agricultural land
(Canaan).
3 Deut 16:1–17 D Connects the Passover and Feast of Unleavened
Bread.
4 Lev 23 H Similar to Ezekiel in that both contain a twofold
list of feasts. The dissimilarities between the two
show that both date to an earlier cultic tradition.
The similarity in dating scheme points to a writing
no earlier than late preexilic times (more likely
exilic); however, its material may be older.
5 Ezek 45:21–25
6 Num 28–29 RP Postexilic expansion of P.
a. The framework for the Pentateuch consists of the Priestly narrative. This narrative
begins with Gen 1 and concludes in Deuteronomy with the death of Moses. The objective of P
is illuminated by its focus on Sinai and not the later occupation on the land.
b. Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster, 1962), 264.
c. Ibid., 173.
requires the holiness of Israel. 78 While sections of H may be very old, Noth
finds that the “Holiness Code might be placed in the period between the
later days and end of the pre-exilic cultus and its new development in the
78. August Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem verständnis und seiner

entstehungschichte (Leipzig: Deichert, 1907), 368–419.
postexilic Jerusalem sanctuary—a process taking place perhaps in several

stages.” 79
Noth closely associates the festival calendar of Lev 23 with the feasts of
Deut 16. He contends that the pericope does not exhibit a unity because
the passages contain both first- and third-person references (vv. 2, 4). For
Noth, this mixing of references points to the later addition of the Sab-
bath observance of v. 3. Furthermore, the concluding passage in vv. 37–38
followed by additional information about the Feast of Booths in vv. 39–43
disrupts the unity of the passage. He concludes that this apparent disrup-
tion in the flow of the passage is evidence of disunity and possible later re-
daction, dividing the whole into two primary sections. 80 The first contains
short regulations outlining dates and activities for yearly rites (vv. 5–8, 23ff.).
The second includes more-detailed ritual formulas for conducting festivals
that are not specifically dated (vv. 9–21, 40ff.). He finds that these two dis-
tinct units indicate a nonliterary origin to the festival calendar that hinders
the assignment of sources and redactors to the material. He goes on to dis-
cuss the conflicting two- and threefold rhythm of the festival cycle, finding
the threefold cycle exhibited in the older Book of the Covenant (Exod 23),
which is tied to the agricultural and harvest cycle. This agriculturally based
threefold cycle was already present in the land—before the Hebrew occu-
pation—and was adopted and devoted to Yhwh after the people settled in
Canaan. The cultic celebrations developed, as evident in Deut 16 and Ezek
45, into a twofold cycle by the end of the exile, with Passover/Feast of Un-
leavened Bread in the 1st month and “The Feast” in the 7th month. Noth
contends that Lev 23 has knowledge of both traditions and endeavors to
reconcile these twofold and threefold festival cycles. 81
Noth exemplifies how German scholars of the early and mid-20th cen-
tury interpreted and elaborated on Wellhausen’s theories. While accepting
79. Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977),

128. In The Laws in the Pentateuch, Noth expresses the difficulty in dating H and presents
a potentially earlier date for the formation of H.
The dating of the Code of Holiness is a particularly difficult problem, since grounds
may plausibly be adduced for a pre-exilic as well as an exilic or post-exilic, a pre-deu-
teronomic as well as a post-deuteronomic attribution. The probability seems to be that
the Code of Holiness should be brought down to about the time of Deuteronomy, with
which it shares the closest affinities in its basic ideas, except that these are given a
special priestly slant. In the matter of the unity of cult centers alone does the Code of
Holiness appear to contradict Deuteronomy. The earliest possible date for the Code of
Holiness would be the very end of the Judean monarchy. (The Laws on the Pentateuch and
Other Studies [London: SCM, 1984], 8 n. 11)
80. I argue below that this style of adding information about a festival is attested in
other ancient Near Eastern festival texts and does not necessarily indicate a later redac-
tion of the text.
81. Ibid., 167.
48 Chapter 2
Table 4. Knohl’s Festival Text Development

Development
Order of

1 Exod 23:14–19; JE Knohl only specifically mentions Exod 34 as a
34:18–26 JE text.a
2 Num 28:1–2a, PTb PT dates to between the mid-10th and mid-8th
3–5, 7–21, 24–29, centuries b.c.e.c
31b–29:4, 7–10, 12–15,
17–8, 20–21, 23–24,
26–27, 29–30, 32–33,
35–37, 39
3 Lev 23:1–2a, 4–8, PT PT holds faith as the primary consideration.
26–8aα, 33–38 The popular experience of faith is at a prelimi-
nary level, while the Priestly faith experience is
viewed at a higher level.
4 Num 28:2b, 6, 22–23, HS The HS text is intended to correct three
30–31a; 29:5–6, 11, developments in Israelite society: the spread of
16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, idolatrous practices, including worship of other
34, 38 gods and divination; the polarization of social
classes; and separation of ethical conduct from
the practice of religion.d
5 Lev 23:2b–3, 9–25, HS HS incorporates the community’s experience
28aβ–32, 39–43 and rejects PT’s bifurcation between Genesis
and Moses.e
6 Deut 16:1–17 D Dates to the 7th century b.c.e. under Josiah.f
7 Ezek 45:21–25
a. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 16.
b. PT distinguishes between two expressions of faith: the first is the faith presented in
Genesis, which is correlated with the rational moral aspects of the divinity; and the second is
the faith of Moses. Ibid., 197.
c. Ibid., 220.
d. Ibid., 205.
e. Milgrom (Leviticus 23–27, 2056) argues against Knohl’s “priestly-popular” theory.
Knohl argues that HS is influenced by popular tradition. As such, HS includes impersonal de-
scriptions of God and his actions, along with anthropomorphic imagery and expressions of a
direct and close relation between God and the people Israel. Therefore, HS expresses both the
nation’s and individuals’ view of God’s work and blessing (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 197–98).
f. Ibid., 207–8. Knohl goes on to argue that one of the significant changes in expression
between HS and D is the different view of Josiah’s and Hezekiah’s reforms. HS highlights how
Hezekiah removed the high places and the altars while allowing the cult places outside Jerusa-
lem to retain their sanctuary. D emphasizes Josiah’s destruction of these cult sites.
that several sources compiled the Pentateuch (explaining the diversity in

the text), Noth finds that those sources developed from older oral tradition
(moving the origin of the text to a time earlier than the time determined by
Wellhausen). Moreover, he expands these sources, adopting Klostermann’s
H (Holiness Code) and identifying a common precursor to JE—which was
G. H is separate from P and dates, perhaps, to the end of the Judean monar-
chy (resulting in G-JE-D-H-P).
Knohl
Israel Knohl views the formation of the Pentateuch as the compilation
of various schools of theology (often overlapping in time). These schools
developed over several hundred years and were compiled by a redactor
(identified as HS) during the Babylonian Exile or during the Persian period
after the return. Knohl advances the discussion by separating the Priestly
corpus into two groups (PT [Priestly Torah] and HS [Holiness School]) and
by usng a detailed literary and morphological methodology. His analysis
concludes that the P source (PT) and the H source (HS) predate D, with HS
active from the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah (8th century b.c.e.), through
the exile and return. 82 Therefore, each of the major sources was active prior
to the exile (contra Wellhausen). The fundamental distinction between PT
and HS lies in the desire of the authors. Specifically, HS seeks the attain-
ment of holiness for the nation. 83
HS is concerned with both the Priestly and popular (community) expres-
sion of faith, applying the call for holiness to both. Holiness is no longer
limited to the narrow confines of the temple and the priesthood. Instead, it
expands to all areas of social life, enveloping the entire nation. The author
challenges the Israelites to accept a holy lifestyle in all areas of their lives
(diet, family, friends, and work). 84
Knohl draws distinctions between the PT and the HS corpus (based on
the diversity in vocabulary, morphology, and syntax), arguing that HS grew
out of the PT narrative. 85 Leviticus 23 and Num 28–29 are examples of texts
that originated with PT and were later augmented and redacted by HS to
reflect HS’s theology. The early Priestly authors had two festival lists, Lev 23
and Num 28–29. While both PT texts used similar language, one text (Lev
23) included a list of “sacred occasions” and a summary of the obligations
and themes. The other (Num 28–29) detailed the sacrificial activities at each
82. Knohl argues that the core of PT was composed between the 10th and 8th cen-
turies b.c.e.; however, he allows for the preservation of PT theology in later times. “The
halakah of Qumran and the Sadducees. . . . preserve the hard core of the cultic concep-
tion prevalent in PT” (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 224). In a final paragraph, Knohl postu-
lates that the theology of HS may be a precursor to the Pharisees, while the theology of
the Sadducees may find a connection with the theology of PT (ibid., 224).
83. Ibid., 198.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid., 200.
50 Chapter 2
festival. 86 Knohl theorizes that the HS author, whose theology addressed

the entire nation and included popular customs, chose to adapt Lev 23 be-
cause it dealt only with the general aspects of ritual. 87 During this process
of adaptation to HS’s practices, the later author introduced the ritual of
the wave offering of the sheaf, the wave offering of the two loaves, and the
taking of the “Four Kinds” with the accompanying rejoicing before Yhwh.
The HS information regarding the Feast of Tabernacles was appended to
the end of the PT text, but the remaining editions required redaction of
the PT text to allow for the addition of the new HS information. Generally,
because HS augmented and usually agreed with PT, the core of the PT text
was allowed to stand. Therefore, the PT phrase “[a]nd you shall bring an
offering by fire to the Lord” was retained to point the reader to Num 28–29
for detailed offering protocols. HS only added detailed offerings to Lev 23
when the indicated offerings were not discussed in Num 28–29—i.e., the
ritual of the day on which the wave offering of the sheaf was performed.
Knohl advances the discussion of Lev 23 in several significant ways. First,
he employs a detailed linguistic methodology to analyze the passage. Using
linguistic words, phrases, and morphology, he breaks the Priestly writings
into PT and HS (explaining the diversity). Second, he concludes that the
HS corpus is much larger than maintained by earlier scholars. Third, he ar-
gues that PT is earlier than HS and that both are earlier than D—dating PT
between the 10th and 8th centuries b.c.e. and HS beginning in the 8th cen-
tury and active through the exile. At the same time Knohl was employing a
linguistic method to analyze the text, another scholar ( Jacob Milgrom) was
actively using a similar methodology to explore the Priestly writings.
Milgrom
While Knohl finds substantial evidence for H and H redactor (HR) across
the Pentateuch, Milgrom limits his analysis to the Priestly text. 88 He, like
86. Knohl’s conclusion will be supported by my analysis of the features shared by

Emar 446 and Lev 23, which include a summary of obligations and themes for multiple
cultic festivals.
87. Ibid., 11.
88. Consistent with prior scholars, Milgrom identifies the termini and extent of
the H corpus as Lev 17–27. Chapter 17 exhibits similarities with both the H material in
the latter chapters and the P material in chaps. 1–16. For this reason, he concludes that
chap. 17 was likely an attempt by the H redactor to connect the two blocks of Levitical
material. The second terminus for the corpus is set at chap. 27, which links to both chaps.
25 and 26 (linked by the law of jubilee to chap. 25 and the same votive context found in
chap. 26) and chap. 1. While chap. 26 holds the traditional blessings and combinations
that close the law corpora in Exodus and Deuteronomy, Milgrom argues that chap. 27 was
placed at the end of the corpus by HR to supplement and revise the “relevant” P material
in the first half of Leviticus (Leviticus 23–27, 1333). Milgrom agrees that the H redactor
(HR) worked on material outside the Levitical H corpus (in Exodus and Numbers) but
only in passages with established H criteria (formulas, style, vocabulary, and ideology)
Table 5. Milgrom’s Festival Text Development

Development
Order of

1 Exod 23:14–19; 34:18–26 JE
2 Num 28–29 P
3 Lev 23:1–2aα, 4–41 H Eighth century b.c.e. (including older work
and later redaction).
4 Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8 D Seventh century b.c.e.
5 Exod 34:18–26 Ed Milgrom follows Ginsberg’s conclusion that
Exod 34 is a Deuteronomistic revision of
Exod 23 (preexilic).a
6 Lev 23:2aβ–3, 42–43 HR Composed during the Babylonian Exile.
a. Milgrom states that Ginsberg “convincingly demonstrates that the calendar of Exod 34
is a Deuteronomistic revision of the calendar of Exod 23. . . . Differing with its D prototype,
Exod 34:22a restores the firstfruits offering of wheat (an indication that Ed is aware of Pre-H1)”
(Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1996). H. L. Ginsberg, “The Grain Harvest Laws of Lev. 9–22 and
Num. 28:26–31,” PAAJR 46–47 (1979–80): 141–53; idem, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982).
Knohl, argues for the JE-P-H-D order of sources. However, he advances

the discussion by: (1) consolidating Num 28–29 to P and moving the date of
authorship earlier; (2) attributing a portion of Exodus to a Deuteronomistic
redactor (maintaining a preexilic date); (3) generally reducing the scope of
the work by the H redactor; and (4) assigning the majority of Lev 23 to H. In
addition, he segments the H text into multiple traditions.
that served as transitions between P and non-P texts, which could be removed without
disruption to the underlying P passages.
Milgrom does address some of the corpus attributed to H by Knohl in Numbers,
finding only Num 3:11–13 attributable to H. Contra Knohl, Milgrom assigns the balance
(1:48–5:10; 6:22–10:28; chaps. 17–18) to P or P2 and not to H or HR. Other passages that
Milgrom attributes to H (or HR) include: Exod 29:38–46; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 3:16b–17;
6:12–16; 7:22–27, 38b (?); 8:35; 9:17b (?); 10:10–11; 11:43–45; 12:8 (?); 14:34–53 (?), 54–57 (?);
15:31; 16:2bβ, 29–34a; Num 3:11–13; 8:1–4, 14, 15b–19; 15. Additional passages that he ten-
tatively assigns to H are: Exod 6:2–8; 12:17–20, 43–50; Num 3:40–51; 5:1–3; 9:9–14; 10:10;
15; 19:10b–13; 28:2b; 29:39; 33:50–56; 35:1–36:13. Because HR passages tend to join P and
non-P texts and because they occasionally bind JE and P material, Milgrom concludes
that “there is a strong possibility that it [HR] is the redactor of Exodus and Numbers as
well as Leviticus” (ibid., 1334–44).
52 Chapter 2
Milgrom divides the H corpus into four strata: Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and
HR. Pre-H1 is pre-Hezekian and prescribes rites for the individual. Pre-H2
focuses on the local sanctuary and establishes the notion of ‫ שבת‬as a Sab-
bath week. Milgrom finds that Pre-H2 preserves a group of early pre-H1
glosses. 89 H comprises roughly 95 percent of the corpus and is a product of
the 8th century b.c.e. 90 While Knohl identifies H as a “school,” Milgrom
maintains that H was active over a short, finite period and was not a school
but a generation of progressive priests who effected significant change. 91
The final stratum of the H corpus is in HR, who probably operated dur-
ing the Babylonian Exile. HR was responsible for editing the P material and
possibly for the redaction of P and JE in Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus.
Because D is preexilic (7th century), Milgrom orders the source develop-
ment broadly as JE, P (in its two strata—P1 and P2), H (first three strata—
Pre-H1, Pre-H2, and H), D, and HR—with all but HR comprising preexilic
material.
The Priestly sources of P and H are differentiated by their literary struc-
ture, vocabulary, style, and theology. 92 Literary structures typical of H’s
89. Ibid., 1345.

90. Milgrom insists on the preexilic nature of H, giving 11 points of evidence and
citing vocabulary, theological, liturgical, and historical references that are consistent
with a preexilic composition (ibid., 1361–64).
91. Ibid.
92. Milgrom asserts that the vocabulary found in H is often different from that of
P. Building on Knohl’s findings, Milgrom suggests refinements in the vocabulary of H.
First, H uses a distinctive terminology. This terminology is often found in a unique vocab-
ulary. However, a distinction can also be identified in H’s nuance of meaning. Examples
include P’s expression “that person will be cut off [in the Niphal] from his people” (Lev
7:20), which is nuanced in H to “I will cut him off from among his people” (using the Hi-
phil form of the verb; Lev 17:10). H’s alteration of P points to the shift from third person
to first person in H’s writing of Yhwh’s direct speech. Another nuance is found in H’s
metaphoric use of P’s terms.
Both H and P use the term ‫טמא‬, which Milgrom contends means “ritual impurity” in
P and “moral impurity” in H. He goes on to argue that H blurs the meaning of many of
P’s words and expands their range of meaning. Examples of these expansions include ‫מעל‬
(“sanctum desecration” in P and any “rebellion or treachery” in H); ‫“( משכן‬inner curtains
of the Tabernacle” in P expanded to include “divine presence” in H); in P ‫( חקה‬in the
feminine) means “statute” and ‫( חק‬in the masculine) means “dues or assigned portion,”
while in H the two are interchangeable. Finally, Milgrom states that H occasionally re-
verses the precision of P’s meaning. In Lev 23:10, 17, H identifies the raw barley offering
of firstfruits as ‫ ראשית‬and the cooked loaves offering during the festival of first wheat as
‫בכורים‬. P uses the opposite meanings with ‫ בכורים‬referring to raw produce and ‫ ראשית‬to
cooked or processed products. Milgrom goes on to give 12 examples of P’s terms that H
either expands or conflates.
In addition to structure and vocabulary, he offers 19 examples of ways in which H’s
style differs from P’s. Building on Paran, Knohl, and Schwartz, Milgrom illuminates H’s
propensity to redact and invert P’s prior work. In Lev 19:3, H inverts P’s order of father
corpus include large chiasms, small chiasms, inclusions, and the use of the
number seven. Structurally, H includes large chiasms (introversions) and
parallel panels that identify key theological propositions at the chiastic cen-
ter (X). I discuss these features further in chap. 3.
Milgrom, contra Knohl, identifies Lev 23 as entirely the work of the vari-
ous H authors and not partially the work of P that was then revised and elab-
orated upon by H. The focus of the chapter is not the priests, as in chap. 22,
but the Israelites. 93 While Milgrom notes that the priests were inextricably
involved in the rites, their role is minimized in the text, showing that Israel
is responsible for maintaining the public cult. 94 As noted in table 5, differ-
ent linguistic features break the chapter into component parts attributed to
Pre-H1, Pre-H2, H, and HR. Milgrom argues that all but the final redactor
are preexilic, and all four strands are post-P. The key to his assertion is the
frequent phrase (vv. 25, 27, 36 [bis], 37) ‫“( והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬you shall pres-
ent the food gift to Yhwh”), which points to Num 28–29 (attributed to P)
for specifics of the offering. That Lev 23 only specifies the components of
the sacrifices where Num 28–29 is silent (the barley offerings of vv. 12–13) or
where H chooses to change the offering (the wheat offerings of vv. 18–19)
supports the argument that the author of Lev 23 depended on Num 28–29. 95
and mother in the Decalogue (similarly, in vv. 3–4, H inverts commandments 1, 2, 4, and

5). According to Milgrom, in 19:5–8 H simplifies and shortens P’s parallel passage. In the
same way, 23:8 simplifies Num 28:18–25. Other stylistic hallmarks of H are altering word
order for emphasis (Lev 19:9; 24:15), using verbal inclusions, increasing clause lengths, and
employing ‫ אשר‬in laws (see chap. 3 for details).
93. Ibid., 2054.
94. Ibid., 1951. Milgrom points to Yhwh’s repeated address to Israel, ‫והקרבתם‬
‫אשה ליהוה‬, “you will make an offering by fire to Yhwh” (vv. 8, 25, 27, 36) as key to the con-
cept that Yhwh is urging the people of Israel to establish and maintain the public cult.
95. Milgrom identifies each of the four strands of H as expressing a shift in the
patterns and expectations of worship. Pre-H1 is identified as dating to the pre-Hezekian
period and is characterized by worship at the local level. In this stratum, the individual
farmer brings the firstfruit offerings from the field to the local sanctuary as the individual
crops become ripe (vv. 10aβ–11, 14a). Fifty days later, the firstfruits of the wheat crop (two
loaves and two lambs) are brought by the individual farmer to the local sanctuary for a
well-being offering and priestly prebend. These offerings differ for each farmer as each
agricultural field ripens at a different time in the region. Then, during the 7th month on
the 15th day, all the famers of the nation gather to celebrate the completion of the harvest
(Festival of Ingathering), to thank Yhwh for the year’s harvest, and to beseech Yhwh for
appropriate rains to ensure the success of next year’s crop. The key to the Pre-H1 stratum
is the local observance of the festival rites.
The Pre-H2 stratum continues the local nature of the festivals, establishing “a Hag
at each local sanctuary for its devotees by declaring that the barley offering be brought
on the first Sunday after the harvesting has begun” (ibid., 2055). Because local regions
experience the onset of harvest at roughly the same time, the festivals could begin to
form a regionally observed pilgrimage festival by shifting all the offerings to a Sunday.
54 Chapter 2
Milgrom advances the discussion of Lev 23 through a literary, morpho-

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

Overview
Wagenaar, in Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Cal-
endar, asserts that, although Lev 23 preserves an earlier tradition, the doc-
umentation of the Pentateuch was much later than previously argued by
Milgrom and Knohl. In addition, he uses a comparative analysis between
Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite text as
evidence for dating Lev 23 to the exilic or postexilic era. I begin this section
by summarizing Wagenaar’s broad argument, giving special attention to his
Furthermore, by adding the Sunday observance of festival rites, this stratum introduces
the idea of ‫ שבת‬as the Sabbath week.
The majority of the chapter consists of H, who introduces the worship of Yhwh at
the Jerusalem temple. Priestly led rites at the central sanctuary replace the pilgrimage
festivals observed at local sanctuaries. The farmer is freed from the need to travel to local
or regional sanctuaries and may remain in the local area to tend to the harvest. During
the 7th month, the individual farmer is encouraged to make a pilgrimage to the central Je-
rusalem sanctuary (living in booths), where thanks and supplication to Yhwh take place
with a procession around the altar with specified branches.
The last of the four strata, HR, redacted P and revised the earlier three H strata into
the final document. Written during the Babylonian Exile, “its purpose [was] to salvage as
much of the cultic calendar so that Israel might retain its ethnic and religious identity
in the exile. . . . It focuses expressly on the Sabbath and the Festival of Booths. . . . The
observance of Booths is now enjoined on all Israelites, and a rationale is supplied, rooting
it in Israel’s exodus tradition” (ibid., 2055–56).
contention that the composition of Lev 23 dates to the exilic period. At the
end of the section, I critique his use of the comparative method and his
conclusions.
Wagenaar, relying on the work of David Clines, Ernst Kutsch, and
Gustof Dalman, argues that the ancient Israelite cult (prior to a written
text) held festivals three times per year based on the agricultural harvest
of wheat, barley, and summer fruits. 96 The dates for the festival rites were
based locally on the ripening of the crops and not on a specific date during
any given month. This meant that a festival in the valley region occurred at a
slightly different time from festivals held on the coastal plains or hillsides. 97
The ancient annual calendar was lunisolar, with the phases of the moon
determining the months. 98 To maintain the seasons in their appropri-
ate month, an intercalary month was probably added after the 6th or 12th
month (though the exact mechanism for this is unattested in preexilic Is-
rael). Wagenaar raises the possibility that Israel followed an Egyptian style
calendar and contends the ancient calendar year begins in the fall (following
96. Wagenaar’s analysis begins by identifying the dates and purpose for each of the
three pilgrimage festivals. These festivals constitute an ancient Israelite cultic tradition
that ties each festival to the agricultural seasons. The first ancient festival tradition, ‫מצות‬
(Exod 23:15; 34:18), during the time of the barley harvest, conveys the meaning unleav-
ened barley bread (Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar [Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 2005], 8). Wagenaar argues for a relationship between the Hebrew
‫ מצות‬and Greek μαζα, stating that ‫“ מצות‬has no cognates in the Semitic languages, [and]
may be derived from Greek μαζα, ‘barley dough’, ‘barley bread.’” While the two words
may have a relationship, the priority of the Hebrew over the Greek is more likely based
on the development of the text. The second festival tradition, ‫( שבעת‬Deut 16:9–10a),
is held seven weeks after the beginning of the barley harvest and is linked to the wheat
harvest (Exod 34:22a). Wagenaar finds that Exod 23:16a refers to a festival of the cereal
harvest and “may have been the occasion on which the first fruits of the combined barley
and wheat harvests were offered” (ibid.). He maintains that the article preceding “har-
vest” (‫ )הקציר‬is not the genitive attribute but an adverbial accusative. This interpretation
renders the translation “(you shall observe) the festival of the cereal harvest when you
offer the first fruits of your produce that you sow in the field”). The third ancient festival
group includes two festivals, ‫( סכת‬Deut 16:13) and ‫( אסיף‬Exod 23:16b), which are related to
the end of the grain and grape harvests, when the harvests had been stored after thresh-
ing. (Wagenaar notes that ‫ אסיף‬is always used to denote the harvest of grapes, olives, and
summer fruits.)
97. Wagenaar reasons that the Israelite cultic calendar begins with an ancient ritual
tradition that is not preserved in writing and must be inferred from the extant text. This
early practice depicts a cultic tradition steeped in agricultural rites. The early rituals in-
cluded local and regional offerings held upon the ripening of the harvest. The early cal-
endar was lunar, using the term ‫ירח‬, and added a 13th intercalary month when the lunar
month became out of sync with the solar year (seasons). The indication for an intercalary
month was probably the equinox, which prompted the “new year” at both the 1st and 7th
months.
98. Before the surviving written accounts.
56 Chapter 2
the Gezer calendar), with the 1st and 7th months marked by the autumnal
and vernal equinoxes. 99
Deuteronomy 16, the earliest surviving written festival text, dates to the
time of Josiah and was designed to centralize the ancient festival rituals at
the Jerusalem temple. Wagenaar argues that the elimination of the portions
of Deut 16 that reference ‫ מצות‬results in three passages—one for each fes-
tival—of approximately equal lengths (Deut 16:1aβ, 2, 5–6aβα, and 7 for ‫;פסח‬
9b–11 for ‫ ;שבעת‬and 13–15 for ‫)סכת‬. He concludes that the original text (D)
preserves a tripartite festival schedule including the feasts of ‫פסח‬, ‫שבעת‬,
and ‫סכת‬. Wagenaar concludes that the portion of text presenting the ‫מצות‬
rites (Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, and 8) was a later redaction (DR).
The Deuteronomist maintained the agricultural focus of the festivals but
moved the celebrations to the Temple of Yhwh. 100 The first festival (‫)פסח‬
was a one-day ritual conducted at sunset on an unpreserved day. 101 The Fes-
99. The festival calendar, in the ancient calendar tradition, is not merely oriented
to the agricultural harvest but also to the “end of the year,” ‫( בצאת השנה‬Exod 23:16b) and
‫( תקופת השנה‬Exod 34:22b). Following Kutsch and de Moor, Wagenaar believes that ‫השנה‬
‫ בצאת‬should be translated “the end of the year,” which implies the end of a calendrical
cycle (Ernst Kutsch, “‘Am Ende des Jahres’: Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbst-
festes in Ex 23 16,” ZAW 83 [1971]: 15–21; Johannes C. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites
and Israelites [KC 21–22; Kampen: Kok, 1972], 22). This conclusion is based on the range of
meaning for ‫יצא‬, “to go out, set or end,” juxtaposed with ‫בוא‬, “to come in, rise or begin.”
Wagenaar finds support in the Ugaritic yṣʾ/ʿrb and the Akkadian acû/erēbu parings with
similar meaning.
While “end of the year” is a possible translation, the range of meaning for ‫ יצא‬also
includes to “pass by” or to “go by,” and the range of meaning for the Akkadian term aṣû
includes “to come out” or “to rise”—especially in temporal relationships involving the
sun or celestial bodies (CAD A 367, aṣû, definition 2.2′). Using the Akkadian meaning as a
guide, the translation could be rendered either “coming” or “going,” with the basic mean-
ing being “change.” A better translation of ‫ בצאת השנה‬is the “turn of the year” (not “end
of the year”), which was associated with the vernal equinox.
100. Wagenaar explains that the use of ‫ חדש האביב‬in Exod 23:15; 34:18; and Deut 16:1,
which is usually translated “in the month of Abib,” does not indicate a month name but
is an agricultural term for “season of fresh ears.” This allows Wagenaar to associate the
festivals with seasons rather than fixed dates (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 25–32).
101. Wagenaar begins by exploring the origin of ‫פסח‬. While the precentralization
history of ‫ פסח‬is obscured, Wagenaar argues (based on G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in
Palästina, vol. 7: Das haus, hühnerzucht, taubenzucht, bienenzucht (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann,
1939], 160–66; G. Dahl and A. Hjort, Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household
Economy [SSSA 2; Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 1976], 33–37, 90–91, 142–53) that
the origin of the festival is probably not associated with the firstborn of the flock (con-
tra Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 84–85; and John Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora:
Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code [New York: Oxford University Press, 2002], 167)
because cattle, sheep, and goats do not deliver at just one time of the year (Wagenaar
fails to consider that, while lambs and goats are born at multiple times throughout the
year, they are normally weaned in the spring, allowing the lambs [born over the winter]
tival of ‫ פסח‬was not a pilgrimage festival and finds its earliest origin as an
apotropaic ritual conducted at the city-gate sanctuaries. The ‫ שבעת‬Festival
was centralized and held for one day at the conclusion of the grain harvest. 102
During this period, the ‫ סכת‬Festival was consolidated to the temple and
held for seven days after the conclusion of the harvest season. 103
The Yahwist revised the festival text of the Deuteronomist in Exod 23
and 34. These revisions replaced the one-day rite of ‫ פסח‬with the seven-
day celebration of ‫מצות‬. The pilgrimage Festival of Unleavened Bread
(‫ )חג המצות‬was an invention of J and added the pilgrimage festival (‫ )חג‬title
to keep the celebration congruent with the other two pilgrimage festivals
(‫חג הקציר‬, ‫)חג האסף‬. 104 To accommodate the time constraints of the harvest,
the festival was held for six days at home and a seventh day at the Temple of
Yhwh. For Wagenaar, the added exodus narrative provides the etiology for
the festival, while the duration is determined to match the other two annual
festivals, including a provision to bring gifts to Yhwh. Exodus 34 elaborates
on Exod 23 by including the dedication of the firstborn son and the redemp-
tion of the firstborn animals, thus clarifying what the Israelites should bring
to eat fresh grasses. In addition, as Dalman observed, the main lambing season extends
from December through January, which supports a firstfruits celebration in the spring,
when the season ends and the lambs are ready for weaning. Finally, ovines (and bovines)
giving birth throughout the year does not preclude a firstfruits celebration at an agreed-
upon time. For these reasons, Wagenaar’s conclusion that the Pesach sacrifice cannot be
linked to an animal firstfruits celebration is questionable. The possibility of a connection
between the Pesach and an animal firstfruits celebration will be further addressed in the
analysis of Lev 23 (chap. 3), and the possibility of a connection must remain open.
102. The ‫ שבעת‬pilgrimage festival originally represented the festival for the cereal
harvest—including both wheat and barley. The ancient celebration was conducted at re-
gional sanctuaries, and the Deuteronomist moved it to the temple in Jerusalem, where it
was celebrated seven weeks after the beginning of the cereal harvest (Origin and Transfor-
mation, 60). Wagenaar contends that during the busy harvest season a single day was all
farmers could spare from the fields and threshing floors.
103. The observance of ‫סכת‬, another pilgrimage festival, celebrated the conclusion
of the harvest season in the fall (following the harvest of grapes and olives). The festival
lasted seven days and took place at the autumn equinox, which was probably the date of
the Israelite New Year. Wagenaar finds the origin for ‫ סכת‬in the Ugaritic custom of build-
ing huts for the gods on the roofs of temples. While maintaining the name, D eliminates
any association with Ugaritic ritual (ibid., 60–61).
104. Wagenaar next explores the early origin of the ‫ מצות‬festival, finding that the fes-
tival reflects the agricultural circumstances of the barley harvest. (This is the traditional
view. Wagenaar relies on J. Halbe, “Erwägungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massot-
festes,” ZAW 87 [1975]: 325–26; John Van Seters, “The Place of the Yahwist in the History
of Passover and Massot,” ZAW 95 [1983]: 171.) While upholding an agricultural connec-
tion, Wagenaar questions whether the festival was originally a harvest festival because:
(1) large portions of the population could not stop for seven days at the beginning of the
harvest; and (2) eating unleavened barley bread is “not really a feast.”
58 Chapter 2
as an offering when they appear before Yhwh (as left undefined in Exod 23). 105
The goal of the change was to distinguish Massot, observed at the begin-
ning of the barley harvest, from Shabuot, which occurred at the conclusion
of the wheat harvest. 106
During the late period of the monarchy, a Deuteronomistic redactor
(DR) added text to Deut 16 in accordance with the J text. This editor added
references to the exodus narrative, an obligation to appear three times be-
fore Yhwh, and a prohibition against appearing empty-handed. The editor
also combined the ‫ פסח‬celebration with the ‫ מצות‬celebration, creating one
festival. Wagenaar contends that Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8 were Deuteronomic
redactions in response to the J calendar in Exod 23; 34. The ‫ פסח‬celebration
is placed during the early barley harvest (“season of ears,” ‫)את־חדש האביב‬
and cannot be dated to an exact month or day (as compared to the later P
text of Lev 23). In addition, the influence of J is shown through the refer-
ences of “by night” (v. 1b) and “as soon as the sun sets, the time that you
came out of Egypt” (v. 6bβ), which comply with the exodus narrative in
Exod 12. The summary statement of the festival calendar (Deut 16:16–17)
is attributed to the same editor. Wagenaar argues that this statement listing
‫מצות‬, ‫שבעת‬, and ‫ סכת‬and omitting ‫ פסח‬presupposes the conflation of ‫פסח‬
and ‫מצות‬, giving priority to ‫מצות‬.
Wagenaar next turns to the festival texts in Ezek 45 and Lev 23, finding
that they reflect an exilic point of view (tied to fixed dates) while preserv-
ing an earlier agricultural format. The texts follow the 1st-millennium Baby-
lonian practice of clustering festivals in the 1st and 7th months. During the
1st month, ‫ פסח‬and ‫ מצות‬are celebrated on the 14th (‫ )פסח‬and the 15th–21st
(‫)מצות‬. In the 7th month, the Festival of Horn Blowing is celebrated on the
1st day, the Day of Atonement on the 10th day, and ‫ סכת‬on the 15th through
the 21st or 22nd. Wagenaar notes that the only festival not associated with a
fixed date is the “unnamed” festival held seven Sabbaths after the presenta-
tion of the first ʿomer of the new harvest. This festival is similar to ‫ שבעת‬in
Deut 16:9–10, a celebration held 50 days following the beginning of the har-
vest and based on agricultural conditions, not a fixed date. He finds several
similarities to the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival: (1) the pu-
rification of the Temple of Marduk probably influenced the rituals for the
purification of the Temple of Yhwh; (2) the Israelite rituals and the Baby-
105. The festival calendar in Exod 34:18–26 is argued to elaborate on the earlier cal-
endar of Exod 23:14–19. (Wagenaar [contra Halbe, Otto, Schmitt] follows Kutsch, Blum,
and Bar-On in arguing that the festival calendar in Exod 34:18–26 expands on Exod 23:14–
19 [Origin and Transformation, 69].) In addition, the title of the second festival (‫הקציר‬
‫“ )חג‬Festival of the Cereal Harvest” in Exod 23:16a is replaced by (‫“ )חג שבעת‬Festival of
Weeks” in Exod 34:22a to distinguish between the festivals (ibid., 71). Wagenaar argues
that ‫חג האסף‬, the “Festival of Ingathering,” is maintained because the mystic origins of
‫ סכת‬may have led to the avoidance of the name (ibid., 72–73).
106. Ibid., 71.
lonian rituals both had agrarian origins; (3) both festivals held processions;
(4) the return of the Ark, similar to the return of the image of Marduk,
may have affirmed the kingship of Yhwh; and (5) the ritual performed by
the king (in both texts) may have contributed to his religious confirmation.
Wagenaar’s primary argument is that Ezek 45 and Lev 23 share similarities
with the 1st-millennium Babylonian festival calendar, and these similarities
are directly adopted by the biblical text. He then uses this direct connection
to date Lev 23 to the exilic era.
Wagenaar moves on to discuss postexilic revisions to the festival cal-
endars. Through an assimilation of the Babylonian festival calendar, the
Israelite exiles lost the meaning of Pesach-Massot, Shabuot, and Sukkot.
These festivals lost their association with the agricultural seasons, adopting
a New Year’s Festival with rites of political and religious renewal. Because
the New Year’s celebrations were in the 1st and 7th months, the Shabuot
Festival of the 2nd month was eliminated. Further, because the Babylonian
New Year’s Festival names were not congruent with the earlier Israelite fes-
tival names, Ezek 45 deletes any reference to the festival names and adopts
only a date as reference. 107
Wagenaar hypothesizes that “upon returning to Jerusalem the priestly
circles who were responsible for the festival calendar in Exod 12:1–13*; Lev
23:4–8, 23–28a, 33–37abα had to contend with the people who stayed behind
(in Israel). . . . who had remained faithful to the traditional tripartite festival
calendar in Deut 16:1–17.” 108 Out of this power struggle, the post-Priestly
editor reintroduced the Shabuot celebration with dating that was indepen-
dent from the Pesach-Massot Festival. The Shabuot ritual took place seven
107. Ibid., 129. The semiannual format of the festivals in Ezek 45 is then preserved
in the postexilic Priestly calendar of Lev 23 (and Exod 12:1–13). Wagenaar argues that the
Priestly calendar firmly adopts the vernal equinox as the marker for the 1st month of
the year, using a lunar calendar for the month. In addition, he finds that Gen 6:5–9:17
preserves an older, 30-day month—365-day/year Egyptian civil calendar. The postexilic
Priestly calendar of Gen 12 and Lev 23 revises the earlier Ezekiel text. First, the two
New Year’s celebrations are reduced to one. Second, the semiannual purification of the
people and the sanctuary (as in the Babylonian text) is replaced by a single purification
rite held on the 10th day of the 7th month during the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1–28;
23:27). Third, the purification rite is shifted from the 1st day of the month to the 10th
day of the month. Wagenaar suggests that this shift may have been associated with the
determination of adding a 13th intercalary month. Fourth, the Priestly Pesach Festival
incorporates multiple alterations from prior versions: (a) an etiology for the festival is
added, (b) the choice of sacrifice is restricted to a sheep or goat, and (c) the method of
preparing the sacrifice is specified as roasting (contra Deut 16:7, which specifies boiling).
Fifth, the unnamed festivals in Ezek 45 are reversed to reinstate the older festival names,
Massot and Sukkot—with Sukkot extended by a full day to balance the eight-day celebra-
tion of Pesach-Massot. Sixth, while the linkage to agricultural activities is not restored,
the named festivals lose their link to the Babylonian New Year’s Festival.
108. Ibid., 134.
60 Chapter 2
weeks after the offering of the first ʿomer, representing a new addition to
the calendar structure (which may find its origin in Deut 26:1–4). Wagenaar
has determined that the firstfruits offering (which is unconnected to the
Pesach-Massot festival) is a later addition because he believes that agrarian-
based festivals and fixed-date festivals cannot coexist in original festival
calendars. Furthermore, Wagenaar asserts that, because the Pesach-Massot
festival lost its original agricultural ties, the post-Priestly editor required a
new dating scheme to determine the new date for the Shabuot Festival. 109
The post-Priestly editor was also responsible for changing the recogni-
tion of a day from “sunrise to sunrise” to “sunset to sunset.” 110 Wagenaar
maintains that Israel initially followed an Egyptian-styled “civil” calendar, in
which the day begins at sunrise and the 12 months have 30 days each (with 5
epagomenal days). The early Israelite months may have followed the Gezer
calendar, beginning in the fall with numbered months. 111 In the late preex-
ilic era, the Israelites adopted the Babylonian calendar, the 1st month of
which began near the vernal equinox. This shift from the Egyptian to the
Babylonian calendar required moving festivals that occurred on the 1st of
the month to the 10th to account for the “uncertainty” of the month 112 (this
“uncertainty” arose because the 1st month of the year was not determined
until approximately the 10th of that month). Wagenaar goes on to argue
that at this time the day was changed to begin at sunset. 113
109. Jan Wagenaar, “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years
Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year,” in The Old
Testament in Its World (ed. R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor; OtSt 52; Leiden: Brill, 2005),
250.
110. Idem, “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the
Priestly Festival Calendar” VT 54 (2004): 262–66.
111. Idem, Origin and Transformation, 145.
112. “The transition from the 365-day ‘civil’ year to a 354/5 day lunar year admittedly
required the intercalation of an additional 13th month every two or three years and gave
rise to the introduction of the observance of the ten ‘days of uncertainty’ in the priestly
festival calendar” (ibid., 146). Wagenaar erroneously uses the flood story of Gen 6:5–9:17
as a basis for his conclusions—citing the use of a 30-day month. I contend that the flood
narrative in Genesis depicts an “ideal” month, which was used extensively in the ancient
Near East and does not require the adoption of a 30-day Egyptian civil calendar.
113. Ibid., 143. Wagenaar summarizes his position by stating that
the priestly and post-priestly festival legislation regarding (Pesach-)Massot and the Day
of Atonement attest to a change in the way the beginning of the day was calculated. The
priestly traditions which separate the nocturnal Pesach meal on the fourteenth day of
the month from the beginning of Massot on the fifteenth still presuppose a day that
lasts from sunrise to sunrise. The custom of eating unleavened bread with the Pesach
meal on the night beginning the fifteenth day of the month in the post-priestly addi-
tions assumes a day stretching in accordance with later Jewish practice from sunset to
sunset. . . . The change in the way the days were calculated may be an inevitable conse-
quence of the adoption of the Babylonian custom of numbering the months from the
vernal equinox a century or so earlier (605 b.c.e.). (Ibid., 144)
He bases his conclusions on four assumptions. One, the festival text in

Lev 23 preserves two traditions—one in which the day begins at sunrise
(vv. 5–8, 23–25, 26–28aα, 33–36) and the other in which the day begins at sun-
set (v. 32). Two, the adoption of a Babylonian lunar calendar is inconsistent
with a sunrise-to-sunrise daily schedule. Three, the Israelites adopted the
Babylonian lunar calendar during the exile. And four, this shift led the post-
Priestly editor to alter the festival calendar to a calendar that was based on
a sunset-to-sunset day.
For Wagenaar, the final stage in the evolution of the Israelite calendar
was the postexilic adoption of Num 28–29. The Numbers text presupposes
Lev 23, adding and clarifying the text as necessary to reflect current ritual
practices. He finds that both Num 28–29 and Lev 23 are so similar in form
and content that one must revise the other. 114 He presents the following ev-
idence to support his case that Numbers grew from the earlier, post-Priestly
Lev 23 and thus requires a late dating:
• Omission of first ʿomer offering of the new harvest from Lev 23
presupposes knowledge of Lev 23. 115
• Celebration of Pesach-Massot in the 1st month is taken for granted.
• Numbers 28:26 references a “new” cereal offering, which presupposes
an “old” cereal offering not mentioned in the text (presupposing
Lev 23).
• Numbers 28–29 provides festival lists for daily, weekly, and monthly
offerings.
• Numbers 28:3b–8 specifies two daily offerings (morning and
evening), which reflects the postexilic rituals in Exod 29:38–42. This
However, there is no basis for arguing that the hosting of one festival from sunrise
to sunrise and another from sunset to sunset necessitates a change in the accounting
of days. The fourteenth-century b.c.e. Emar text depicts a day that runs from sundown
to sundown and yet specifies offerings at different times of the day. For further biblical
arguments against a 1st-millennium shift in the day from sunrise-sunrise to sunset-sunset
(see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1966–70).
114. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 149.
115. Wagenaar repeatedly uses a circular argument to conclude that Num 28–29 is
later than Lev 23. Whenever the Numbers text has more information than Leviticus, it
is evidence that Num 28–29 “elaborates upon” Lev 23. And whenever Num 28–29 omits
information found in Lev 23, it is evidence that Num 28–29 “presupposes” Lev 23. Using
this form of simplistic comparative analysis without a third point of comparison (either
biblical or extrabiblical) is useless, because the opposite argument is equally true—that
is, the Leviticus text’s having information in addition to the Numbers text is evidence
that Lev 23 “elaborates upon” Num 28–29. And Lev 23’s omitting information found in
Num 28–29 is evidence that Lev 23 “presupposes” Num 28–29. This circular argumenta-
tion is central to Wagenaar’s relocation of the dating of Num 28–29 (to follow Lev 23) and
should be rejected.
62 Chapter 2
Table 6. Wagenaar’s Festival Text Development

Development
Order of

1 Deut 16:1aβ, 2, 5–6aβα, D “Centralization act.”
7, 9b–11, 13–15a
2 Exod 23:14–19; J—Revision of Still based on the harvest and not
34:18–26 the D text dates.
3 Deut 16:1aα, b, 3–4, 8, D redactor— Added references to the exodus
16–17 DR narrative, an obligation to appear three
times before Yhwh, and a prohibition
against appearing empty-handed.
Combined ‫ פסח‬and ‫מצות‬, giving prior-
ity to ‫מצות‬
4 Ezek 45:18–20, 21a, P—Exilic Following the Babylonian influence,
22–25 clustered festivals in the first and 7th
months.
Calendar now follows the Babylonian
calendar, using dates for festivals.
Shabuot eliminated, creating a two-
date (semiannual) calendar.
5 Lev 23:4–8, 23–25, P—Exilic Names and historical traditions
26–28aα, 33–37aβα restored.
Preserves a compromise between the
tripartite calendar in Deuteronomy and
the semiannual calendar in Ezekiel—
not an H text (Holiness Code).
6 Lev 23:2–3, 9–21, Post-Priestly A post-Priestly redactor reinserted
39–43 ‫( שבעת‬postexilic).
Follows the “Sabbath principle.”
7 Num 28–29 Postexilic Elaborates on Lev 23.
a. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 58.
replaces the preexilic single morning offering found in 2 Kgs 16:15

and the later practice in Ezek 46:13–15. 116
116. Contra Knohl and Milgrom, who believe that Exod 29:28–32 is based on Num
28:3b–8. Second Kings 16:15 does appear to specify a single morning burnt offering; how-
ever, the reference is not definitive of a preexilic or postexilic distinction for the burnt
offering.
• Numbers 28:9–10 provide details on the Sabbath offerings missing

in Lev 23:2–3. Again this is a circular argument in which it is just as
likely that Lev 23:2–3 presupposes Num 28:9–10. 117
• Numbers 28:11–15 refers to the new moon as ‫ראשי חדשיכם‬, where
Ezek 46:6 identifies the new moon as ‫יום החדש‬. Wagenaar declares
that the reference in Num 28 is postexilic because it is “the result
of the change in the calculation of the beginning of the day and
month which is reflected in the post-priestly revision of the Day of
Atonement legislation in Lev 23:26–32.” 118
• Numbers 28:17–19a, 25 quote Lev 23:6–8; however, Num 28:19b-24
revise Ezek 45:23–24. 119
Based upon the above evidence and following Corinna Körting, Wagenaar
concludes that “the list of festivals in Num 28–29 presents an elaboration of
the festival calendar in Lev 23 and the list of festival sacrifices in Ezek 45:17–
46:15. Num 28–29 is the last comprehensive list of ancient Israelite festivals
preserved in the Old Testament.” 120 Table 6 summarizes Wagenaar’s argu-
ment regarding the order of sources. 121
117. Where Lev 23 and Ezek 46 agree against Num 28–29, Wagenaar reasons that
Num 28–29 is a later revision because Num 28–29 “is a list of festival sacrifices in which
the Sabbath offerings had to be supplemented” (faulty circular argument).
118. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 151. Wagenaar goes on to assert that
in Ezek 46:6–7 the term ‫ חדש‬may have caused some confusion. In the pre-exilic era
‫ חדש‬referred to the days of obscuration following the disappearance of the old moon
in the morning sky which consequently fell at the beginning of the month (see 1 Sam
20:24–27). Once the beginning of the month was calculated from the reappearance of
the lunar crescent in the evening sky ‫ חדש‬gained a new meaning. The term ‫ראש חדש‬,
‘the beginning of the month,’ seems to have been chosen in order to avoid any mis-
understanding with regard to the exact day the monthly sacrifices have to be offered.
The same evidence that he cites negates his own conclusion. First, the phrase ‫ יום החדש‬is
used in both preexilic (1 Sam 20:24–27) and exilic (Ezek 46:6–7) texts. Second, the phrase
‫ ראשי חדשיכם‬cannot be dated against the use of ‫יום החדש‬, because the phrase is plural
construct and includes the plural personal pronoun in Num 28, whereas the other two
references depict a singular absolute. Exodus 12:2 records a similar use of ‫ ראש‬with ‫חדש‬,
where ‫ חדש‬appears in the plural: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months.”
119. While it is clear that Ezek 45:23–24 preserves distinctions, it is not possible to
conclude that one is a revision of the other.
120. Unfortunately, Wagenaar overreaches his evidence. It is just as likely that Num
28–29 predates the festival rites in Lev 23 and Ezek 45–46 as it is likely that it presupposes
them. We must conclude, given the stated evidence, that Num 28–29 and Lev 23 have
similar contents and that each includes some information lacking in the other. Further,
on several occasions, Ezek 45–46 agrees with Lev 23 against Num 28–29. This agreement
supports the conclusion that: (1) Lev 23 revises Num 28–29; (2) Num 28–29 revises Ezek
45–46; or (3) the different purposes of Lev 23 and Num 28–29 require different informa-
tion be included (which is a possible reason, as I argue below).
121. Table 6 consists of my own compilation and formatting but is based on conclu-
sions by Wagenaar that are contained in Origin and Transformation.
64 Chapter 2
Table 7. Features Distinguishing P from H in Leviticus 23

(according to Wagenaar)
Distinguishing Features
Pesach (Lev 23:5), Massot (vv. 6–8), Horn
Blowing (vv. 23–25), Day of Atonement Nameless Festival of Shabuot (Lev 23:9–22),
(26–28a), Sukkot (vv. 33–36) appendix about Sukkot (vv. 39–43)
Exact date Flexible date dependent on agricultural
conditions
Named festival Unnamed
‫( מקרא־קדש‬holy convocation) ‫( שבתון‬Sabbath rest)
A general instruction to bring a gift to Detailed instruction for festival offerings
Yhwh
Prohibition on performing work ‫לדריכם עולם חקת בכל־מושבתיכם‬
(“an eternal statute in all your settlements
throughout your generations”)
Yhwh speaks in the first person
Wagenaar advances the discussion by reordering the source material—

moving the sources to much later dates than Milgrom, Knohl, and Well-
hausen. He accepts an early oral tradition but considers the Deuteronomist
to be the first author of the written festival texts. The J text added infor-
mation (Exod 23; 34) that a Deuteronomistic redactor then revised. And,
during the exile, P further consolidated the information, added fixed dates,
and modifies the text into a bipartite structure. Finally, after the exile, a P
source modifies Lev 23, creating Num 28–29. The resulting order of sources
for Wagenaar is D—J—DR—P—H/PR. Armed with a better understanding
of Wagenaar’s overall theory, we now turn back to explore his argument on
Lev 23 in detail. 122
Influence of the Babylonian Cultic New Year’s Calendar

Wagenaar finds that the festivals discussed in Lev 23:4–44 reflect an ex-
ilic point of view (tied to fixed dates) while preserving an earlier agricultural
format. The text follows the 1st-millennium Babylonian practice of cluster-
ing festivals in the 1st and 7th months. 123 During the 1st month, ‫ פסח‬and
122. The lack of critical interaction with the arguments of either Milgrom or Knohl
leads to a general weakness in Wagenaar’s argument.
123. Wagenaar’s conclusions are discussed later in light of 2nd-millennium Mesopo-
tamian texts. This study argues that the clustering of ritual activities in the 1st and 7th
months is an early phenomenological feature of ritual in the ancient Near East and is
evident at Emar in the fourteenth century b.c.e. In addition, the 1st-millennium Baby-
lonian ritual may have only occurred once per year.
‫ מצות‬are celebrated on the 14th (‫ )פסח‬and from the 15th through the 21st
(‫ )מצות‬days of the month. In the 7th month, the Festival of Horn Blowing
is celebrated on the 1st day, the Day of Atonement on the 10th day, and ‫סכת‬
on the 15th–21st or 22nd. He notes that the only festival not associated with
a fixed date is the “unnamed” festival that is held seven Sabbaths after the
presentation of the first ʿomer of the new harvest. This festival is similar to
‫ שבעת‬in Deut 16:9–10, the celebration held 50 days after the beginning of
the harvest and based on agricultural conditions, not a fixed date. Wagenaar
concludes that:
As the priestly festival calendar counts months—in accordance with the
Babylonian calendar—from the vernal equinox, the 7th month of the year
equals the 1st month of the year after the autumnal equinox. The priestly
festival calendar, therefore, envisages the celebration of Sukkot just as the
pre-priestly festival calendars in the period following the grape harvest. . . .
The same does not hold true for the date specified for Pesach-Massot . . . As
the barley harvest did not start before the beginning of May, the pre-priestly
festival calendars obviously date Pesach-Massot—in accordance with the
Gezer calendar—to the 8th month of an autumnal year. The priestly festi-
val calendar dates Pesach-Massot to the 1st month of the spring year . . . As
the 8th month of an autumnal year equals the 2nd month of the spring year,
the priestly festival calendar has fixed a particular date for the celebration
of Pesach-Massot, but also severed the link between Pesach-Massot and the
agricultural seasons. 124
Following Ernst Kutsch and Karl Elliger, Wagenaar finds that the festival
rites contained in Lev 23:5–8, 23–28a, and 33–36 are from a different period
from Lev 23:9–22, 39–43. 125 He argues that the passages exhibit their own
form and phraseology, supporting the conclusion that one is a Priestly cre-
ation and the other a post-Priestly addition (see table 7).
I demonstrated at the beginning of chap. 2 that ancient Near Eastern
ritual texts from the 3rd and 2nd millennia reflect a number of variations;
for instance: some festivals have fixed dates and others imply flexible dates;
some rituals are unnamed while others are named; and some festivals texts
describe ritual activities in detail while others only provide a general over-
view of gifts offered to the god. Therefore, while Wagenaar correctly rea-
sons that the two sets of passages exhibit different forms and phraseology,
his conclusion that these distinctions prove that the passages come from
different times or that one must be a later redaction is incorrect.
124. Ibid., 77. This position is fundamental to Wagenaar’s thesis that the Lev 23 festi-
val calendar is both exilic and based upon the Neo-Babylonian festival calendar. We will
examine this conclusion in chapters 3–5.
125. Wagenaar does not account for vv. 28b-32. Kutsch, Erwägungen, 14–15; Elliger,
Leviticus 304–23; Wagenaar, “Priestly Festival Calendar,” 233–38. This conclusion will be
explored in chapters 3–5.
66 Chapter 2
Table 8. Shared Linguistic Markers
Festivals Shared Linguistic Markers

Pesach (Lev 23:5), Massot (vv. 6–8), ‫“( מקרא־קדש‬holiday”); ‫“( מלאכת עבדה‬prohibit day-to-
blowing of a horn (vv. 23–25), Day day work”); ‫“( אשה ליהוה‬gift to Yhwh”)
of Atonement (vv. 26–28aα), Sukkot
(vv. 33–36)
Anonymous Shabuot (vv. 9–21), ap- ‫“( מקרא־קדש‬holiday”); ‫“( מלאכת עבדה‬prohibit day-to-
pendix on Sukkot (vv. 39–43) day work”); ‫בכל־מושבתיכם לדריכם חקת עולם‬
(“an eternal statute in all your settlements through-
out your generations” [v. 43 deletes “in all your
settlements”]); and an aversion to calling the festival
by name
Wagenaar then turns to analyzing the linguistic markers for each festival
mentioned in Lev 23. He divides the festivals into two groups based on sev-
eral linguistic phrases. 126 He argues that the phrase ‫בכל־מושבתיכם‬, “an eter-
nal statute in all your settlements throughout your generations,” is found
not only in the anonymous Shabuot Festival (vv. 9–21) and the appendix to
Sukkot (vv. 39–43) but also in the prologue introducing the weekly Sabbath
in v. 3 (given an exilic or postexilic date of authorship) and in v. 31 of the
Day of Atonement rite. 127 He concludes that this phrase points to a post-
Priestly authorship for the Sabbath prologue, unnamed Shabuot Festival,
appendix to the Sukkot Festival, and vv. 28aβ–32 of the Day of Atonement.
While these sections are later additions (post-Priestly), vv. 9–21 (Shabuot
legislation) and vv. 39–43 (Sukkot) may preserve an earlier oral tradition. 128
He continues, finding the hand of the post-Priestly editor in the phrase “on
this same day,” which appears in vv. 28aβ, 29aβ, and 30aβ. Following Knohl,
Körting, and Milgrom, Wagenaar concludes the term is a “stylistic flourish
of H” and should be considered a late addition. 129
Focusing on the earlier Priestly festivals (Pesach, Massot, Horn Blowing,
Day of Atonement, and Sukkot), he argues a link with the Priestly passage
of the exodus in Exod 12:1–13. Without the exodus passage, the festival texts
of the 1st month (Pesach-Massot) are much shorter in length than the festi-
val texts of the 7th month. If one restores the Pesach text, then a balance of

127. Wagenaar finds support for this evidence in Knohl, Sanctuary, 46–55; K. Elliger,
Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 310–11; C. Körting, Der Schall des Schofar: Israels
Fests im Herbst (BZAW 285; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 101—who argue for a link between
the phrase and a late Priestly or post-Priestly authorship.
129. Knohl, Sanctuary, 13; Korting, Schall des Schofar, 116; and Milgrom, Leviticus,
2024. This conclusion will be evaluated in chaps. 3–5 below.
text length appears. 130 When taken together, the 1st and 7th months share
activities on the 1st day of the month (New Year’s celebration [implied] ver-
sus blowing a horn), the 10th day of the month (select Passover lamb ver-
sus Day of Atonement), and the 15th–21st days of the month (Massot ver-
sus Sukkot). 131 He concludes that “the omission of the dates leading up to
Pesach and the very concise instructions for its celebration in Lev 23:5 sug-
gest that Exod 12:1–13 and Lev 23:4, 5–8, 23–25, 26–28aα, 33–36, 37aβα were
from the outset intended as comprehensive parts of a single priestly festival
calendar.” 132 This combined festival depiction follows a “Priestly” version
of the exodus story: the Israelites postpone leaving after the plagues—stay-
ing in their houses until morning—and depart from Egypt the following
morning.
Wagenaar, relying on the work of van der Toorn, finds similarities be-
tween the Babylonian Akītu New Year Festival compilation text, Ezek 45,
and Lev 23 and then concludes a direct relationship. 133 The New Year’s cel-
ebrations in the 1st and 7th months divide the Babylonian festival year into
two six-month segments.
In examining the Babylonian festival text, Wagenaar finds that it shares
five significant similarities with the Israelite pre-Priestly activities of the 1st
and 7th months. First, he concludes that the purification of the Temple of
Marduk probably influenced the rituals for the purification of the Temple
of Yhwh. The purification of both temples required blood, affecting the
participants by making them “unclean.” And the ritual purification may
have opened and concluded the festivals. 134
130. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 90. I will argue that the length and/or activ-
ities of festival texts do not require balance (cf. Emar 446). Therefore, a conclusion that
Exod 12:1–13 is required to balance Lev 23:5–8 with Lev 23:23–25, 26–28aα, and 33–36 is
unwarranted.
131. Wagenaar does not identify a correlation on the 14th between the Pesach sacri-
fice and any festival activities during the 7th month. Despite this important omission,
Wagenaar concludes that the two months convey an entirely parallel structure.
132. Ibid., 91.
133. Ibid., 108; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 340–43.
134. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 110. Wagenaar further argues that
[t]he purification of the sanctuary by means of the blood of a bull smeared on the door-
posts of the temple, the rim of the altar and the posts of the gate to the inner court, on
the first day of the first and seventh months of the year in Ezek 45:18–20 may likewise
be understood as part of the New Year ritual. The ritual seems to combine elements
from the smearing of the cedar tree resin on the doors and the dragging of the bloody
sheep’s carcass through the temple precinct. The sacrifices for the purification of the
people offered in the course of Pesach and the anonymous seven-day festivals later in
the first and seventh months seem to complement the purification rituals performed
on the first day of the first and seventh months and may thus represent the conclusion
of the two new year rituals. The list of festival sacrifices in Ezek 45:18–25 thus trans-
forms Pesach-Massot and Sukkot into unnamed new year festivals celebrated exactly
six months apart.
68 Chapter 2
Second, the Israelite rituals and the Babylonian New Year’s Festival both
had agrarian origins. Wagenaar asserts that both the Israelite festival calen-
dar and the Babylonian New Year’s rituals originated with an agrarian as-
sociation and transformed into set-date New Year’s rituals. The Babylonian
New Year’s Festival evolved from the Sumerian Akītu Festival. The early
version of the festival is known to have occurred twice a year at Ur under
the names “Akītu-festival of the barley harvest” (in the spring) and “Akītu-
festival of the sowing season” (in the fall). The two festivals were held six
months apart—in the 6th and 12th months of the year before Šu-Sin, and in
the 1st and 7th months of the year after Šu-Sin. This shift aligned the two
festivals with the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. 135
According to Wagenaar, when the festival celebrations shifted from har-
vest time to the equinoxes, they gained a new role as New Year’s ceremo-
nies. Throughout the ancient Near East, festival calendars attest these par-
allel major festivals that were celebrated in the 1st and 7th months. There-
fore, each festival marked the beginning of a New Year; neither held prior-
ity, making both “mid-year” celebrations. 136 Wagenaar concludes that the
Babylonian Akītu Festival was the impetus for the transformation of the
Israelite calendar. 137 While he only mentions Ezek 45:18–25, the revisions
to Lev 23 (according to Wagenaar) are also exilic and should be included. 138
135. Ibid., 113. Following A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead
Civilization (rev. ed.; completed by Erica Reiner; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1977), 41; and Robert McC. Adams, Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the
Diyala Plains (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 13–20, Wagenaar (Origin and
Transformation, 112) argues that the vernal equinox (March/April) was too early in the
year for the barley harvest—which would have occurred in May (approximately the 2nd
month of the year).
136. Ibid., 118.
137. Ibid., 119.
138. Wagenaar’s observation that both the Babylonian and Israelite ritual calendars
include festivals in the 1st and 7th months is accurate; however, he wrongly dates this
event to the 1st millennium. He identifies the calendar shift regarding the Akītu Festival
to Šin, which would have occurred early in the 2nd millennium—likely during the 20th
century b.c.e. Second, the tendency to cluster festival activities in the 1st and 7th months
is evident much earlier than the 1st millennium, as New Year’s festivals in the 1st and 7th
months are already evident in the 2nd millennium (see the discussion above in this chap-
ter). In some locations, the festivals during these months bear the same name (the akītu
Festival). Third, the festivals of these months also often describe activities in terms of a
“New Year” for the area. This supports the conclusion that many 2nd-millennium city-
states in Mesopotamia and the Levant viewed the larger year in terms of two six-month
units—perhaps, as discussed above, associated with the vernal and autumnal equinoxes.
Fourth, in addition to being associated with the New Year, these festivals are most often
associated with agricultural rites on fixed dates. The festivals of the 1st month celebrate
the harvest and firstfruits (e.g., zag-mu at Nippur [M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 81] and
še-kin-ku5-rá at Ur [ibid., 125–40] and Lagaš [DP 44]). The festivals of the 7th month rep-
resent the last of the fall harvest (grapes–reš yani Festival at Ugarit [KTU 1.119]–and some
Third, Wagenaar argues that probably both the 1st-millennium Baby-

lonian festival and the Israelite festivals included processions. 139 Further,
he indicates that, while the processions were later removed from the text,
processions from other parts of the biblical texts point to a vestige of pro-
cessional activity. 140
Wagenaar raises an interesting point. The Babylonian Akītu Festival
clearly included processions. And, at some early date, processional activity
may have occurred in ancient Israel. However, its existence, without tex-
tual support, is pure speculation. Thus the inference that the Babylonian
1st-millennium New Year’s Festival texts had an impact on Israel’s practice
is unfounded. Above in this chapter, we saw the ancient Near Eastern ev-
idence from the 2nd millennium that demonstrated that this processional
activity was an integral part of cultic festival rites—meaning that any link
could be either early or late. We will explore the use of processions in our
study of the 14th-century b.c.e. multimonth festival calendar at Emar (see
chap. 4).
Fourth, Wagenaar sees a connection between the return of the idol of
Marduk and the return of the Ark (in the hypothetical Israelite procession).
His conclusion is built on a faulty premise, however, because processions
to affirm kingship are present in several 2nd-millennium texts (see above).
Moreover, if a procession of Yhwh was part of the early Israelite cultic
ritual, the affirmation of kingship was not the likely reason for celebrating
upon the god’s return (discussed later in chap. 3).
late fruits) or the beginning of preparing the ground for planting (e.g., á-ki-ti-šu-numun at
Ur). In spite of the festivals’ origins as an agricultural celebration, the festival texts pres-
ent fixed dates (usually centered on the new moon and the full moon) and fixed locations
(usually the temple for the lead regional deity) for festival activities. Lagaš, ITT 5280,
provides an early example: the Festival of Malt and Barley held in the month of burux-maš
(month 1) on specific dates in three specific locations. Therefore, Wagenaar’s theory that
the 1st-millennium New Year’s Festival “transformed” the Israelite festival calendar lacks
corroboration.
139. Wagenaar finds biblical support for processions in 2 Sam 6:12–19 and 1 Kgs 8:1–9
(Origin and Transformation, 111).
140. A solemn procession is an important part of the story of the transfer of the Ark
from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem by David in 2 Sam 6:12–19. The same holds
true for the procession of the Ark during the dedication of the temple of Solomon in
1 Kgs 8:1–19. Admittedly, the accounts of the procession of the Ark in the course of the
transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem and the dedication of the temple present the proces-
sion as a one-off event, but such processions may have been a regular part of the ancient
Israelite cult in the late preexilic era. In any case, the story of the construction of the
temple in 1 Kgs 6–8 seems to presuppose the cult centralization by King Josiah, as may
be clear from the note that on three occasions a year Solomon offered sacrifices on the
altar he had constructed (1 Kgs 9:25). The solemn processions of the Ark in 2 Sam 6:12–19
and 1 Kgs 8:1–9 may well have been modeled after contemporary processions (see also
2 Chr 35:3; ibid.).
70 Chapter 2
Fifth, Wagenaar maintains that the involvement of the king in the festi-
val activities of both Israel and Babylon may have contributed to the king’s
legitimization. Using 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Kgs 8:15–16, and 65 as evidence, he finds
that the Israelite king legitimized his rule through performing and adminis-
tering sacrifices, processions, and oracles, as well as providing and distribut-
ing offerings. Through these activities, the ritual participant validated the
king’s reign. 141 According to Wagenaar, the desire to confirm the rule of
the king may have played a role in Israel’s adopting the festival rites of the
Babylonian festival. 142
If these five similarities are confirmed for the 7th month, Wagenaar ar-
gues, then the Pesach-Massot celebrations of the 1st month were altered
(based on the Babylonian New Year’s Festival text) to become a New Year’s
celebration held around the vernal equinox. This change necessitated sev-
ering the new festival complex from its earlier agricultural ties. 143 In addi-
tion, the new festival was moved forward by about a month. 144 Although he
acknowledges the existence of 2nd- and 3rd-millennia Akītu celebrations in
the 1st and 7th months of the year, he concludes that these festivals did not
have an impact on the Israelite calendar until the time of the exile. 145
In this section, I summarized Wagenaar’s theory for the late dating of
Lev 23 based on similarities with the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Fes-
tival composite text. In the next section, I evaluate his argument in light of
141. Ibid.
142. This point fails for lack of evidence in the biblical record. Wagenaar cites 2 Sam
19, which does depict the king (David) as a form of priest who conducts the offering to
Yhwh and shares the food with the people. Neither in 2 Samuel or 1 Kings does an un-
derstanding of the text support the notion that this participation legitimizes the role of
king. In addition, the festival calendar of Lev 23 (given an exilic date by Wagenaar) does
not emphasize the role of the king in ritual activities, thereby refuting Wagenaar’s own
point. The lack of involvement by the king in Lev 23 will be discussed below.
143. Wagenaar argues that the ancient Israelite agricultural year, like the agricultural
year in Mesopotamia, began in October and November with field preparation, followed
in November and December by the sowing of barley and wheat, and then in March and
April by the planting of summer crops. The harvest season began in May with barley, fol-
lowed in late May and June by wheat. Personnel hiring records provide confirmation for
these dates, recording an increase in the number of field hands in the first half of May—
from the normal 2–3 people per hectare to 14 people per hectare at the beginning of May
and 25 people by the end of May. This higher number is maintained through the end of
the harvest season (Adams, Land behind Baghdad, 16). Adams actually finds that the barley
harvest begins in late April, which will be discussed here in chap. 3.
145. Ibid., 119–20; idem, “The Priestly Festival Calendar,” 247. Wagenaar incorrectly
infers that the year was not divided into two six-month units until the 1st millennium.
Textual evidence (discussed above and in chaps. 3 and 4) demonstrates that the dual six-
month festival calendar was evident by the mid-2nd millennium. Therefore, a connection
to the Babylonian calendar and a late date for Lev 23 is unnecessary.
the comparative methodology outlined in chap. 1 and a discussion of 3rd-

and 2nd-millennia ancient Near Eastern festival texts.
Analysis of Wagenaar’s Comparative Argument

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

72 Chapter 2
conclusions. Therefore, in this book, I use a comparative method, exploring

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

genaar could demonstrate a biannual structure for the 1st-millennium Akītu
Festival, a compelling precedent exists in the 2nd millennium.
Second, a direct correlation between two texts requires a shared purpose
or intent (see comparative method in chap. 1). Wagenaar does not address
this point directly, perhaps assuming that both texts are festival texts and
thus would have sufficient grounds for a connection. However, the intents
of the Levitical festival calendar and the 1st-millennium Babylonian New
Year Festival texts are quite different.
The purpose of the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival text is political—en-
suring the power of both the king and the priesthood. However, the intent
of the multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 is the care of Yhwh. Leviticus
23 is a prescriptive speech between Yhwh and Moses, including the actions
required of the general population. 149 In contrast, the Akītu Festival text
is a descriptive list of activities for the king and high priest. In Lev 23, the
political agenda of the priesthood or the monarchy is probably secondary
to the care of Yhwh.
Wagenaar maintains that the Babylonian festival text directly influenced
revisions in Lev 23 and Ezek 45. If true, then these revisions should adopt
the ideology of the Babylonian text. One would expect the text to uphold
an ideological agenda promoting a prominent leadership role in ritual activ-
ities for both the priesthood and the king. Furthermore, the rituals should
maintain an institutional prominence and descriptive tone—none of which
are present in the biblical text. Therefore, based on a comparison of ideolo-
gies in the two texts, Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium New Year’s Festival do
not exhibit a direct connection.
Third, the two differ in the role of the high priest. The high priest
(šešgallu) takes a prominent role in the New Year’s Akītu Festival, perform-
ing ritual baths, prayers, public readings, and conducting rituals with the
king. But where the high priest is the primary actor in the Babylonian text,
the people of Israel are the actors in Lev 23. In the Babylonian text, the high
priest rises before sunrise, conducts a ritual cleansing, and reads prayers to
the god. In Lev 23, the general population contributes offerings and typi-
cally abstains from work. While the priest is clearly in view, both he and the
temple are in the background and are not the focus of the biblical text. Be-
cause the primary actors in the two texts are different, a direct correlation
between the two texts is unwarranted.
Fourth, the two differ in the connection between the king and the god.
On the eighth day of the festival, as the gods gather in Esagil to accompany
Marduk to the Akītu-chapel, the king takes the hand of the image of Bēl.
Van der Toorn argues that the handholding is a significant feature of the
149. Jenson notes that the Lev 23 is directed to the lay Israelites, while Numbers 28–
29 provides the priest with details about sacrifice ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 186).
74 Chapter 2
tie between the cult and the monarchy. In taking the hand of the god, the
king enters into a legal contract with both the priesthood and the people of
Babylon to care for and protect them.
Leviticus 23 shows no sign that a direct correlation existed between the
cult and the monarchy. In addition, it is unclear that the supplications of
the general population create a covenant or legal contract of protection di-
rectly with Yhwh. Because Lev 23 lacks this ideological “handholding”—a
significant aspect of the Babylonian ritual—the likelihood of a direct con-
nection between the texts diminishes.
Fifth, the two texts differ in the role of literary recitation. The high priest
recites Enūma eliš (the Babylonian creation account) on the 4th day of the
festival. As discussed above, Bidmead asserts that the reading of this text
on the 4th day of Nissanu may have had both a theological and a political
purpose.
The biblical text records occasions when the priest or leader read publi-
cally to the community of Israel (Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11; Josh 8:35; Neh 8:3,
8, 18; 9:3; 13:1). However, there is no record in Lev 23 for such readings. Ne-
hemiah 8 does specify that the festivals after the exile included public read-
ings (similar to the contemporary Babylonian New Year’s text). However,
this practice is not recorded in Lev 23. While the absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence, if the 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s text
directly affected Lev 23, then Lev 23 should show signs of this influence by
mentioning the reading of texts. The absence of a specific account of recit-
ing texts at the festival further reduces the likelihood of a direct connection
between the texts.
Sixth, the two texts differ regarding the inclusion of figurines and a rite
of passage. As discussed above, van der Toorn argues that the Akītu Festival
includes elements of a rite of passage for the god—consisting of a liminal
stage, reemergence as the primary god, and the introduction of the New
Year. The Israelite festival calendar of Lev 23 makes no mention of images;
nor does it record any rite of passage in which Yhwh must overcome an-
other god or cosmic force to maintain prominence among the Israelites.
Yhwh never needs to prove himself worthy of being the God of Israel.
The concept that a god must defeat other powers is a point of difference
between the two texts and again reduces the likelihood of a direct correla-
tion in the transmission of the 1st-millennium Babylonian text tradition to
Lev 23.
Seventh, the two texts view rites of the night in different ways. The high
priest began each morning by rising before sunrise and conducting a ritual
purification bath (see above). This preference for performing ritual activ-
ities during the early morning hours, before sunrise, is not present in Lev
23. The Israelite festival rites typically occurred between sunrise and sunset
with a few festival meals taking place in the evening after sundown. There
are no ritual activities specified in the early morning hours before sunrise.
The two festival cultures differ in their preference for the timing of ritual
activity, thereby lessening the possibility of a direct connection between
the two texts.
Eighth, the role of the community in ritual celebrations is expressed in
different ways between the two texts. The general population did not play
a primary role in the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival. The role
for the general community was confined to observing processions and oc-
casionally receiving portions of the ritual meal. Meanwhile, the text empha-
sizes the role of the privileged class (the kidinnu) on several occasions (see
earlier discussion of the Akītu Festival).
The ideology represented in the Akītu Festival is designed to segregate
classes of the populations. However, the ideology of Lev 23 is designed to
bring classes together. On multiple occasions, Yhwh instructs Moses to
speak to the “Israelites” (‫ )בני ישראל‬and not to any special social group. In
the festivals of Leviticus, all the people are mentioned, and no one is ex-
cluded. If a bias exists, it is created to protect the rights of the poor and
needy (Lev 23:22) and not the privileged class. For these reasons, I argue that
the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival and Lev 23 exhibit different ideologies,
reducing the likelihood of a direct connection between the texts.
Finally, ninth, the expression of a political rejuvenation ceremony is dif-
ferent in each text. The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival in-
cludes a ritual humiliation of the king. Van der Toorn contends that the text
supports the theme of renewal through a series of rites of passage during
which the king must renew his power through the pledge of allegiance to
the god.
Leviticus 23 may preserve the renewal of the agricultural seasons; how-
ever, the theme of political renewal is absent. Leviticus 23 does not dem-
onstrate core values based on politics or express the need to solidify power
outside the religious community. No participants were stripped of their
symbols of office, nor were “negative confessions” part of the festival rites.
This lack of similar themes and core values raises the question of whether a
direct connection may be concluded between the texts.
Conclusion
Wagenaar reviews the similarities between the biblical texts (Ezek 45
and Lev 23) and the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festival composite
text and finds that they display a direct connection. That is, he theorizes
that the Babylonian festival rites directly influenced changes to the early
biblical festival, resulting in the cultic rites in Lev 23. While the two texts
show some similarities, the errors in methodology and the significant dif-
ferences call a direct connection into question. The following points dem-
onstrate that Lev 23 and the Babylonian New Year’s Festival texts exhibit
considerable variations in theme and ideology:
76 Chapter 2
Major Arguments 150
• The 1st-millennium Babylonian New Year’s Festival text is a
descriptive text for an annual festival, while the festival calendar
text in Lev 23 comprises a prescriptive, multimonth, multifestival
calendar. This is not merely a difference between the texts; it may
reveal a methodological error in the comparative method, negating
Wagenaar’s findings.
• Wagenaar fails to include a discussion of textual differences and
context.
• Wagenaar omits the analysis of earlier comparative texts, creating a
circular argument for the late dating of Lev 23.
• The purpose of the Babylonian text is political, with the high priest
and king as the primary actors. The purpose of Lev 23 is theological,
with the Israelites (community) as the primary actor.
• The Babylonian festival emphasizes the role of the high priest and
the priesthood, while the Levitical text minimizes the discussion
of the role of the priesthood, emphasizing instead the role of the
community of Israelites.
• In the Babylonian text, the privileged citizens play a central role
and receive prayers and oaths of support. By contrast, the central
participants of the Israelite festival calendar in Lev 23 are the
general population. In addition, the lower classes are given special
protection.
• The Babylonian New Year’s Festival includes a political rejuvenation
ceremony during which the king is humbled, and his support by the
god is subsequently renewed. The Israelite festival calendar of Lev 23
lacks the theme of political renewal.
Minor Arguments
• The king politically promotes divine support of both his office and
himself by performing a handholding ritual with the god. In contrast,
Lev 23 does not exhibit a concern for the administrative leadership
of Israel. 151
150. Three reviews of Wagenaar’s work were studied. Each was generally favorable to
Wagenaar’s work, and none references any of the items discussed in this section (Thomas
Hieke, “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival
Calendar,” RBL 9 (2006), www.bookreviews.org; William K. Gilders, “Review of Jan Wa-
genaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar,” JHS 6 (2006),
www.jhsonline.org/jhs; E. Hayes, “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of
the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar,” JSOT 31 (2007): 204.
151. One exception is Yhwh’s support of Moses as conveyer of information.
• The Babylonian festival includes the public reading of an epic

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

theme and ideology between Lev 23 and the Babylonian Akītu New Year’s
Festival are significant enough to raise doubt concerning a direct connec-
tion between the texts.
Summary
In this chapter, I laid the groundwork for an in-depth discussion of Lev
23 in chap. 3 and Emar 446 in chap. 4. I explored prior research into the rela-
tionship between Lev 23 and related passages (intratextual analysis). More-
over, I gave a brief summary of festival calendar texts throughout the 3rd-
and 2nd-millennium ancient Near East (providing a context for both Lev 23
and Emar 446). The analysis revealed that these texts often held a common
view of ritual as evidenced by the sharing of: festival names, months of ob-
servance, purpose, and duration of celebrations. The discussion of these
rituals concluded with an overview of the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu
Festival text.
I also reviewed the research by notable scholars who have explored Lev
23 in the context of other biblical festival texts. I concluded with an over-
view and evaluation of Wagenaar’s comparative analysis, according to which
Lev 23 was directly affected by the 1st-millennium Babylonian Akītu Festi-
val compilation text.
The balance of this book (chaps. 3–6) conducts a comparative analysis
of Lev 23 and the 2nd-millennium Akkadian multimonth festival calendar
found at Emar (in Syria).
Chapter 3
Leviticus 23
Introduction to the Study of Leviticus 23

In chap. 2, we explored Wagenaar’s theory that the 1st-millennium Baby-
lonian New Year’s Akītu Festival texts directly influenced the exilic Israelite
priests. According to Wagenaar, this relationship facilitated the changes to
Lev 23, which occurred during the mid-1st millennium. In chap. 2, I ques-
tioned his conclusions primarily because of his faulty comparative meth-
odology: comparing two texts from different analytical genres, failing to
include an analysis of significant textual differences, ignoring earlier textual
evidence (leading to a circular argument), and disregarding the Akītu Festi-
val’s long history of development in the ancient Near East.
I devote the balance of this work to implementing the comparative
methodology outlined in chap. 1, comparing Lev 23 and Emar 446. As dis-
cussed in chap. 1, a successful comparative analysis should undertake the
following: (1) perform an intratextual analysis prior to an extratextual anal-
ysis; (2) conduct an analysis of similarities and differences; (3) consider the
broader context of the text by going beyond a list of similarities; (4) iden-
tify the purpose and audience of the text; (5) compare texts with similar
analytical genres; (6) consider the texts’ history of transmission and textual
tradition; (7) compare texts with a similar prescriptive or descriptive nature;
and (8) compare the ritual aspects of ritual texts. Texts from different cul-
tures show variation in the expression of ritual. However, if two texts share
significant similarities across these broad categories, it is possible to argue
for some type of connection (direct, mediated, common source, or com-
mon tradition).
This chapter lays the groundwork for a comparative analysis by examin-
ing the multimonth ritual calendar in Lev 23. 1 In preparation for the com-
parative analysis in chap. 5, I begin investigating Lev 23 by creating a new
translation with text-critical notes (addressing intrabiblical issues). We will
study this information, determining the form, outline, and literary struc-
tures evident in the text. We will then analyze the text for the following
ritual aspects: sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants,
1. When considering the methodological points above, I partially addressed the
intratextual analysis of Lev 23 and related biblical passages in chap. 2. The discussion is
expanded in this chapter. Similarly, a portion of the contextual analysis is found in chap. 2
in the section on festivals in the ancient Near East.
79
80 Chapter 3
and ritual sound. When possible, I provide insights to the text by illuminat-
ing the analytical genre, broader context, purpose, audience, and evidence of
textual tradition. In chap. 5, I use these features to determine whether Lev
23 preserves an early West Semitic multimonth festival calendar tradition.
Original Translation and

Text-Critical Notes of Leviticus 23
Understanding the text in its context requires translating the biblical
text and demonstrating an awareness of the textual issues. Thus I present
an original translation of Lev 23 with textual and exegetical notes.
Leviticus 23
1Yhwh spoke again to Moses, saying: 2Speak to the Israelites and say to
them: The appointed times of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim as sacred as-
semblies; these are my appointed times. 2 3(For) six days, work may be done,
2. This study includes an analysis of the entire 23rd chap. of Leviticus. Verses 1–3
appear to review Sabbath law and not festival activity; therefore, the first verses may not
be part of the multimonth festival calendar. Despite this possible lack of relationship,
vv. 1 and 4 include a common introductory formula that warrants further investigation
in this chapter.
Yhwh spoke again to Moses, saying. Formulaic phrase used as a major section divider.
Compare with vv. 9, 23, 26, 33.
times. Following Wenham, Jenson, and Milgrom, who note that the noun môʿēd is
derived from the verb yʿd (2 Sam 20:5)—meaning “to appoint or fix” (Gordon Wenham,
The Book of Leviticus [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979], 300; Milgrom, Le-
viticus, 1955; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 186). Hartley translates this as “appointed feasts,”
indicating that the set times (plural) hold a special significance and may be translated
“feasts,” because those are the special times included in the passage ( John E. Hartley,
Leviticus [WBC; Dallas: Word, 1992], 375). Hartley notes that the genitive use “of Yhwh”
may be either objective “appointed feasts/times of Yhwh” or subjective “feasts/times set
by Yhwh” (ibid., 375). The noun is also associated in Lev 1:1 with the “Tent of Meeting.”
as sacred assemblies. The Cairo Genizah and targum read singular—“as a sacred as-
sembly.” The noun miqrāʾ meaning “calling” or “assembly,” following NIDOTTE #7924
from the verb qrʾ, “to call” or “to proclaim,” is translated here following Rooker and Mil-
grom as “sacred assemblies.” The paired miqrāʾ qōdeš is found 19 times in the text, mostly
in Lev23 (11 times) or Num 28–29 (6 times). The one exception, in the festival text of Exod
12:16 (2 times) refers to the first and seventh days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread
(Richard S. Hess, Leviticus [ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; EBC; Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008], 783; Wenham, Leviticus, 301; Hartley, Leviticus, 365). In
later biblical times, the term was associated with the public reading of Scripture (Neh
8:8). Wenham translates the term “holy conventions,” arguing, based on Num 10:2; Isa
1:13; and 4:5 that it includes elements of being summoned to a national gathering of pub-
lic worship (Wenham, Leviticus, 301). Hartley notes that the term is variously translated
as: “sacred day of celebration” (Noordtzij, 227), “sacred convocation” (neb), and “sacred
occasion” (jps). Jenson renders it “holy proclamations” ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 187).
these. Hartley notes that ‫ הם‬functions as a copula (Hartley, Leviticus, 366).
Leviticus 23 81
but the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, a sacred assembly. Do no

work; it is a Sabbath to Yhwh throughout your settlements. 3 4These are
the appointed times of Yhwh, the sacred assemblies, which you shall pro-
claim at their fixed times. 4 5In the first month, on the fourteenth (day) of
the month, at twilight, a Passover offering to Yhwh, 5 6and on the fifteenth
day of that month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread to Yhwh. Seven days
appointed times. The intended audience for the chapter is the general population—
“the Israelites.” Yhwh talks to Moses (as facilitator) in the second person and addresses
the intended audience (broadly, the general population) in the third person. The combi-
nation of the phrases “appointed times” and “sacred assemblies” is used as an introduc-
tory formula in the chapter.
3. six days. Accusative of time (GKC §118i).
may be done. The MT reads Niphal imperfect 3fs. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads
Niphal imperfect 3ms and the Septuagint reads a second-person “you may do”—harmo-
nizing the verbs in the passage.
Sabbath of complete rest. Jenson notes the unique nature of the Sabbath week in the
ancient Near East ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 12). Hartley and Wenham translate this “a
Sabbath of solemn rest.” Hartley finds the phrase is used to stress that the day includes
total rest in honor of Yhwh. Hess and Rooker translate this “Sabbath of rest.” Hess
asserts that the expression is unusual, “as it designates the Sabbath at the end of the
week. . . . it demands the absence of all work on such days, with the penalty of capital
punishment for disobedience” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). The translation here follows Mil-
grom, who argues that šabbātôn is transformed from a noun to an adjective with the con-
struct chain (šabbat šabbātôn) indicating a superlative literal meaning, “the most restful
rest” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1959). The better English translation of “the most restful rest”
becomes “complete rest.”
sacred assembly. The Septuagint adds “to the Lord.”
Do no work. The MT reads Qal imperfect 2mp, while the Septuagint reads singular.
Loʾ + imperfect = negative imperative.
to Yhwh. The lamed may be understood as “of ” or “to” Yhwh. The translation here
follows Wenham and Rooker, who translate this “to Yhwh,” following the translations
of lamed in vv. 6, 41: ḥag la Yhwh, “a pilgrimage-festival to Yhwh.” Milgrom affirms the
other option, “the Sabbath in priestly sources is part of God’s creation and the day on
which he rested (Gen 2:2–3; cf. Exod 20:11; 31:17). Therefore, the Sabbath, by right of
ownership, is ‘of Yhwh,’ the Lord’s” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1962).
4. These. The Samaritan Pentateuch and some manuscripts of the Septuagint
read with a waw conjunctive: “and these.”
sacred assemblies. The Cairo Genizah and manuscripts of the targum read as a singu-
lar, “a sacred assembly,” similar to v. 2.
which you shall proclaim at their fixed times. A second introduction formula for the
annual festivals.
5. on the fourteenth. The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Vulgate add “day,”
which is assumed in the MT (cf. v. 6 and Num 28:16). The form is the periphrastic geni-
tive, which is used even when the form is not present (Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor,
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 158).
at twilight. The phrase ben hāʿarbāyim literally means “between the two evenings.”
Milgrom observes that the rabbinic interpretation is “from the time that the sun sets
(and) as long as the face of the east is red” (b. Šabb. 34b; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1969).
82 Chapter 3
you are to eat unleavened bread. 6 7On the first day shall be for you a sacred
occasion: do no heavy labor. 7 8Thus, for seven days you shall offer food of-
ferings to Yhwh. On the seventh day is a sacred assembly: you shall do no
heavy labor. 8 9Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 10Speak to the Israelites and
a Passover. Levine proposes that the root ‫ פסח‬may relate to the Qal in 1 Kgs 18:21,
meaning “straddle, hedge” (Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus [ JPS Torah Commentary; New
York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 159). Hess associates it with the verb in Exod
12:13, 23, 27; and Isa 31:5, meaning “to pass over” (Hess, Leviticus, 784). Milgrom insists
that the origin of the word is “to protect,” which may find support in the notion that the
Israelites find protection in Yhwh (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1970–71).
offering to Yhwh. Levine remarks that the Passover is a sacrifice and not a festival.
The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372).
6. Feast. The term ḥag, from the verb ḥāgag, means “to turn, twist, dance out of
happiness.” The noun is translated “feast” here—following Wenham, Hess, and Hartley;
however, the term may include the meaning “pilgrimage,” as shown in the meaning of the
Arabic ḥaĝĝ. Hartley adds that the term implies a festival for a religious purpose (Hartley,
Leviticus, 384).
Unleavened Bread. Milgrom maintains that the Feast of Unleavened Bread occurred
on the 1st day of the festival in Lev 23; Exod 12; Num 28; and Deut 16. In Exod 13:6 (which
Milgrom assigns to the earlier JE author), the pilgrimage was held on the last (seventh)
day of the festival. The later exilic writers imply that the pilgrimage lasted for all seven
days (Ezek 45:21; Ezra 6:22; 2 Chr 8:12–13; 30:13; 35:17). Milgrom continues: “Exod 13:6, the
epic source ( JE), is the oldest. . . . There can be only one reason why the pilgrimage takes
place on the seventh day: the pesaḥ is observed at home, in keeping with the regulations
of Exod 12:1–13, 22–27a, 28—all probably P (cf. Bar-On 1995)—which reflects the evidence
of local altars and regional sanctuaries.” According to Milgrom, the pesaḥ is offered at a
local sanctuary and the blood brought home to spread on the entrance to the home. The
shift of the pilgrimage to the first day may have occurred in Num 28 (P), which posits a
regional sanctuary for the ritual in conjunction with the pesaḥ celebration. The shift to
the 1st day was finalized with H, as was the centralization of the festival at the temple and
the assimilation of both pesaḥ and maṣṣot into one unit (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1976; Shimon
Bar-On, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27,” ZAW 107 [1995]: 107–31).
Verse 6. The Festival of Unleavened Bread occurs in the middle of the month.
7. On. Hartley notes that the Septuagint reads a conjunctive (και) “and,” omitting
the bet preposition (Hartley, Leviticus, 367).
no heavy labor. Translated variously by different commentators. Here following Wen-
ham, who translates this as “no heavy work,” remarking: “the adjective heavy is not ap-
plied to work forbidden on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement” (Wenham, Leviticus,
303). Hartley offers the phrase “no unusual labor” (Hartley, Leviticus, 384). Milgrom trans-
lates “no laborious work,” reasoning that kol-mĕleʾket ʿabōdâ entails any activity requiring
heavy labor—thus light work is not forbidden (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1978).
8. for seven days. Another example of the accusative of time.
food offerings. The MT reads “food offerings,” collective plural. The Septuagint reads
“whole-burnt-offerings,” as in v. 12, and the Cairo Genizah reads ‫עולה‬, “a whole-burnt
offering.” Wenham perceives that the term is probably intended to include “all the ap-
propriate sacrifices” that are described in detail in Num 28–29. These would include meat
(burnt offering), cereal, and drink offerings (Wenham, Leviticus, 303). Milgrom agrees
with Wenham’s translation, reading “food gifts.” Hartley similarly translates the term
Leviticus 23 83
say to them: When you enter the land I am giving to you and you reap its
harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest. 9 11He
shall elevate the sheaf before Yhwh. 10 For acceptance on your behalf from
the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall elevate it. 11 12On the day that you
elevate the sheaf, you shall sacrifice an unblemished male lamb in its first
year as a burnt offering to Yhwh. 13Its accompanying grain offering shall
be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to
Yhwh, a pleasing aroma; and its drink offering shall be one-fourth of a hin
of wine. 12 14Do not partake (from the new crop) of any bread or parched or
fresh grain until the very day you bring the offering of your God, a law for
“gifts.” Hess renders it “offerings by fire,” recognizing that the term is found 7 times in
Lev 23 and 32 times in Leviticus (of the47 total occurrences; Hess, Leviticus, 784).
On. One Hebrew medieval manuscript, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint,
and the Syriac read with a waw, “and.”
sacred assembly. The Septuagint reads similarly to vv. 7, 21, 27, and 36, adding “you will
have” (Hess, Leviticus, 784).
9. first sheaf. The Samaritan Pentateuch and TargumJ add a direct article.
10. He shall elevate. Following Milgrom, who translates this “elevate or lift.” He in-
dicates that one of two factors leads to elevating an offering: (1) when the offering is in
the owner’s possession just before being offered on the altar; or (2) when the mechanism
of offering most sacred gifts differs from the norm, requiring additional sanctification.
For a detailed discussion, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 461–73, 1984.
11. for acceptance. Hartley notes that “acceptance” means that the offering achieves
the purpose for which it is presented (Hartley, Leviticus, 385).
from the day after the Sabbath. The use of ‫ממחרת השבת‬, “on the day after Sabbath,” in
vv. 11b, 15a, 16a presents an interpretive challenge (Nahum M. Sarna, “The Interchange
of the Prepositions Beth and Mem in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 78 [1959]: 310–16). Milgrom
observes that the interpreters of this phrase are split into two general camps: those who
identify ‫ שבת‬as meaning a weekly Sabbath, and those who find that ‫ שבת‬is a day of rest
only associated with a day during the festival. The weekly Sabbath position is further
subdivided into two positions: those who find the Sabbath during the week of the Festi-
val of Unleavened Bread (Karaites and Samaritans) and the Qumran texts that place the
Sabbath after the festival (cf. Boethusians). Those who conclude that the term “Sabbath”
does not mean a weekly date but merely a day of rest during the festival are also divided
into two subgroups. The first group (Pharisees, LXX [v. 11], Jos. Ant. 3.250) contends that
the day of rest is observed on the first day of the festival, while the second group (Pesh.
E. S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 344)
holds that the day of rest is observed on the day after the Sabbath—that is, the 1st day
of the week (Sunday; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2059–61). The textual interpretation remains
ambiguous, a point that I explore later, in chap. 4, during the study of Emar 446.
12. two-tenths of an ephah. Hartley notes that two-tenths of an ephah correlates to
about 7 quarts or 7.28 liters, which is twice the normal offering mentioned in Num 28:13
(Hartley, Leviticus, 385).
a pleasing aroma. The Septuagint adds “to the Lord.”
its drink offering. The Kethiv reads “its drink offering,” while the Qere and Samaritan
Pentateuch read “the drink offering with it.”
Verse 13. The verse is written in the impersonal style, similar to Emar 446 (Hartley,
Leviticus, 372).
84 Chapter 3
all time, throughout your generations, in all your settlements. 13 15And from
the day after the Sabbath, from the day on which you brought the elevation
offering of the sheaf, you shall count for yourselves seven full weeks. 14 16You
shall count until the day after the seventh Sabbath—fifty days. 15 Then you
shall present a new grain offering to Yhwh. 16 17You shall bring from your
settlements an elevation offering of two bread (loaves), comprising two-
tenths (of an ephah) of fine flour and baked after leavening, as a firstfruits
for Yhwh. 17 18With the bread, you shall offer seven unblemished yearling
lambs, one bull of the herd, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to
Yhwh, and with their grain offerings and drink offerings, a food offering of
pleasant aroma to Yhwh. 18 19You shall sacrifice one male goat as a purifica-
tion offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. 19 20And
the priest shall elevate them with the bread of firstfruits as an elevation
13. Verse 14. Similar to Emar 446, where there is a prohibition against an activity
until the completion of the ritual ceremony.
14. for yourselves. Omitted in the Septuagint.
seven full weeks. Following Hartley and Wenham, the festival occurs “on a Sunday,
seven weeks after the waving of the barley harvest and fifty days after the last day of
the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” Milgrom translates this “seven full Sabbath-weeks.
They must be complete,” translating šabbātôn as “Sabbath-weeks” and the balance of the
sentence literally. Other possibilities for the translation exist. J. van Goudoever (Biblical
Calendars [Leiden: Brill, 1959], 18–29), outlines four possibilities: (1) ‫ שבת‬means a solemn
day of rest and not the 7th day of the week (15th of Nisan); (2) ‫ שבת‬is the Sabbath during
the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the Boethusians, the Samaritans, and the Karaites fol-
low this interpretation); (3) the day after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 22nd of Nisan);
and (4) the Sabbath immediately following the Feast of Unleavened Bread (discussed in
Hartley, Leviticus, 385–86).
15. the day. Hartley translates this word “morning.”
fifty days. The feast, unnamed here, probably refers to the Feast of Weeks found in
Exod 34:22 and Deut 16:10. The practice of naming a feast in one text and leaving it un-
named in another will be explored further in chap. 4. Wenham finds that the Pentecost of
Acts 2:1 is derived from the Greek word meaning “fiftieth” (pēntekostos).
16. Verses 15–16a demonstrate an AXA′ chiasm. The inner structure of the chiasm
yields AB[C]XB′A′; the C addition defines when the counting of the 50 days should
begin. The word ‫ שבת‬unifies the entire structure, with ‫ שבע‬modifying ‫( שבת‬Milgrom,
Leviticus, 1990–96).
17. from your settlements. The Vulgate reads “from all your settlements”—adding
“all.” Wenham (Leviticus) translates this “homes.” Hess (Leviticus) renders it “wherever
you live.”
two bread. The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac, and targums add “loaves.”
comprising. The Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate read with the preposition έκ δύο
leading to the translation (adopted here), which is “comprising.”
18. seven. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum read the absolute form, while the
MT reads construct.
rams. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint add “unblemished.”
19. You shall sacrifice. The Septuagint reads a third-person plural in place of the
MT’s second-person plural.
Leviticus 23 85
offering to Yhwh with the two lambs; they shall be holy to Yhwh for the
priest. 20 21On that day, you shall proclaim: It shall be for you a sacred occa-
sion; do no heavy labor, a law for all time, in all your settlements, through-
out your generations. 21 22And when you reap the harvest of your land, do
not complete (it) to the edge of your field, or gather the gleanings of your
harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien; I am Yhwh your
God. 22 23Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying: 24Speak to the Israelites thus: In
the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a rest, a
sacred occasion, commemorated with trumpet blasts. 25Do no heavy labor;
and you shall present a food offering to Yhwh. 23 26Yhwh spoke to Mo-
ses, saying: 24 27However, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day
of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you; you shall afflict your-
selves, and you shall offer a food offering to Yhwh; 25 28do no work on that
day. For it is the Day of Atonement, to effect atonement on your behalf
before Yhwh your God. 29Indeed, any person who does not deny himself
purification offering. The Cairo Genizah substitutes “to Yhwh” for the purification
offering.
a sacrifice of well-being. The Samaritan Pentateuch uses the direct article, “the sac-
rifice of well-being.” The Septuagint adds “with the bread of the firstfruits,” mirroring
v. 20.
20. the two lambs. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint add the direct article.
for the priest. The Septuagint adds “it is to be for him who presents them,” clarifying
the payment to the priest. As with several verses above, the verse is written in the imper-
sonal style and will be analyzed as a potential point of similarity with Emar 446 (Hartley,
Leviticus, 372).
21. On that day. The Septuagint reads, “(You will call) this day a convocation.”
it shall be for you. The Syriac omits “it shall be for you.”
do no heavy labor. The Septuagint adds “on it.”
22. when you reap. Temporal clause with the bet + infinitive construct.
gleanings. Milgrom insists that the verse was “appended to the pericope on the first-
fruits of the grain (vv. 9–21) in order to underline God’s sovereignty over the land: Israel
may farm God’s land (25:23) only if it brings its firstfruits to Yhwh and provides these
specified gifts to the poor” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2011; Moshe Greenberg, On the Bible and
Judaism: A Collection of Writings [Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1985], 115).
of your harvest. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads “to harvest” in place of “in/of your
harvest.”
23. food offering. The Septuagint changes “food offering” to “whole burnt offering.”
24. saying. The Syriac adds, “Speak to the Israelites, saying to them” (similar to
vv. 2, 10, 24, 34).
25. the Day of Atonement. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint omit the
direct article.
Leviticus 23:27–32 adds a significant amount of text from Lev 16, fitting the text into an
ABCDD′C′B′A′ introversion, where the DD′ center emphasizes abstention from work
and the consequences for noncompliance. In addition to the center, the outer AA′ flank
illuminates the idea that a ritual may be held from sundown on the ninth day until the
evening of the tenth.
86 Chapter 3
on that day will be cut off from his kin; 26 30and any person who does any
work on that day, I will cause that soul to perish among his people. 27 31Do
no work; it is a law for all time, throughout your generations, in all your
settlements. 28 32It shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall
afflict yourselves; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening
to evening, you shall observe your Sabbath. 29 33Yhwh spoke to Moses, say-
ing: 34Say to the Israelites thus: On the fifteenth day of this seventh month,
there shall be the Feast of Tabernacles, for seven days to Yhwh. 30 35The first
day shall be a sacred occasion; do no heavy labor. 31 36Seven days you shall
present food offerings to Yhwh. On the eighth day, you shall observe a sa-
cred occasion and present a food offering to Yhwh. It is a solemn assembly;
do no heavy labor. 32 37These are the appointed times of Yhwh, which you
shall proclaim as sacred assemblies, to present food offerings to Yhwh:
26. deny himself. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor (An Introduction to Biblical He-
brew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 423) find that the form conveys a re-
flexive meaning. Wenham translates this “afflict,” which would include “fasting and other
penitential exercises” (Wenham, Leviticus, 305).
Verse 29. The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372).
27. I will cause. The Septuagint reads the passive “(That soul) will perish” in place
of the first person found in the MT: “I will. . . .”
among his people. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads a plural, as in v. 29.
28. Do no work. A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch,
and the Syriac read with the waw, “And.”
29. “At evening” is omitted in some Hebrew medieval manuscripts, the Septuagint,
and the Vulgate.
you shall observe. The MT reads a Qal, while the Samaritan Pentateuch reads a Hiphil.
30. tabernacles. The meaning of ‫ סכת‬and the role of “booths” are not clarified in the
text. Hess indicates that the practice of living in huts had probably ended by the time of
the writing of Lev 23. According to Hess, the meaning may be associated with the prior
practice of living in huts in Egypt (the location of sukkot—meaning “tabernacles”) in
Exod 12:37–13:20, or with the practice of living in huts near the sanctuary in Jerusalem
during festivals (Hess, Leviticus, 790–91; also discussed in Daniel Fleming, “The Israelite
Festival Calendar and Emar’s Ritual Archive,” RB 106 [1999]: 8–34).
Verse 34. The verse is written in the impersonal style (Hartley, Leviticus, 372).
31. The first day shall be. The Septuagint begins the clause with a waw.
a sacred occasion. One version of the Septuagint adds “it will be for you.” This reading
is supported by the Syriac (cf. v. 27).
32. Verse 36. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds a waw, distinguishing the break in
the clause.
On the eighth day. Leviticus 23 and Num 29 both refer to the eighth day of the Feast
of Booths and identify it as the day on which participants will “not do any work.” The
chronicler (2 Chr 7:9–10) supports this prescription, but the writer of 1 Kgs 8:66 con-
tradicts it when he describes King Solomon’s sending home the festival participants on
the eighth day. Several scholars (cf. Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into
the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch [trans. P. H. Wicksteed; London: Macmillan,
1886], 282; William R. Scott, The Booths of Ancient Israel’s Autumn Festival [Ph.D. diss.,
Johns Hopkins University, 1993], 110–11) use this seeming contradiction to argue that the
Leviticus 23 87
burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices, and drink offerings, as pre-
scribed for each day 33—38apart from the Sabbath offerings of Yhwh, and
apart from your offerings, and apart from your votive offerings, and apart
from your freewill offerings that you give to Yhwh. 34 39However, on the
fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered the crops of
the land, you shall celebrate the Feast of Yhwh seven days: on the first day,
rest, and on the eighth day, rest. 35 40On the first day, you shall take for your-
selves fruit of splendid trees: fronds of palms, branches of leafy trees, and
willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before Yhwh your God seven
days. 36 41You shall celebrate it as a Feast of Yhwh for seven days in the year
prescription on the eighth day is a postexilic insertion. Milgrom states, contra Kuenen
and Scott, that
[a]ll of 1 Kgs 8 is a Deuteronomistic composition, which follows D’s prescription for a
seven-day pilgrimage-festival (ḥag) in the autumn (Deut 16:13–15). Leviticus 23, however,
incorporates the equally old tradition of P prescribing an ʿăṣeret on the eighth day. That
Dtr may have had Lev 23 before it, including the supplement, vv. 39–43, is possibly dem-
onstrated by its claim that Solomon celebrated the Festival of Booths (v. 39) as an addi-
tional period. . . . Scott stakes his claim for the lateness of the eighth day on his general
assumption of the lateness of the priestly texts. He asks: If P (and H) preceded D, why
didn’t the latter include the ʿăṣeret of the Festival of Booths, as it did for the ʿăṣeret of
the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Deut 16:8)? The answer. . . . [is that] the eighth day is
not a Hag; hence D does not mention it, whereas D’s ʿăṣeret for the seventh day of the
Festival of Unleavened Bread is its replacement for the ḥag of its source (Exod 13:6b
[E]). (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2032)
33. burnt offerings . . . drink offerings. The Septuagint simplifies the list of offerings
to “whole offerings and their sacrifices and their drink offerings.”
as prescribed for each day. Translation following Hartley with the literal meaning “each
day’s matter on its day.”
34. apart from your offerings. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds “all.”
35. On the first day, rest, and on the eighth day, rest. The pericope, for Milgrom, points
to a continuing development of the word ‫( חג‬festival). Milgrom insists that the early
meaning of ‫ חג‬was a “communal pilgrimage to and celebration at a sanctuary,” which be-
came generalized during the exile as any holiday (at home or at a sanctuary). In addition,
he maintains that, in the preexilic festival, ‫ סכת‬was an incidental feature in connection
with which some of the festival pilgrims erected shelters. In exilic times, the custom be-
came a “divine imperative to all Israelites to construct them (booths) and dwell in them
at home.” Milgrom concludes that this exilic imperative led Ezra to mandate (Neh 8:16)
that all Israelites assemble booths whether they were at home or at the temple (Milgrom,
Leviticus, 2037).
36. splendid trees. The referenced tree has been variously identified as: citron ( Jos.
Ant. 13.372; targums; Peshiṭta; y. Sukkah 3.5); olive (Alexander Rofé, “Methodological As-
pects of the Study of Biblical Law, in Jewish Law Association Studies [ed. B. S. Jackson; At-
lanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 12, who bases the identification on Jer 11:16 and Hos 14:7); the
dar tree (Shaul Tolkovsky, The Fruit of the Hadar Tree [ Jerusalem: Bialik Insititute, 1966]
[Hebrew] argues for an identification with the Himalayan cedar called the divdar in San-
skrit—from Milgrom, Leviticus, 2041); the fruit of any majestic tree (K. Elliger, Leviticus
[Tübingen: Mohr, 1966]; Hess, Leviticus, 972); or branches of majestic trees (Milgrom
[Leviticus, 2042] contends that ‫פרי‬, in this instance, refers to branches—following Neh
88 Chapter 3
as a lasting ordinance, throughout your generations. You shall celebrate it in

the seventh month. 37 42In booths, you shall live seven days; all citizens in
8:15, which does not mention “fruit”). See Milgrom, Leviticus, 2041–42, for a full discus-
sion of the options.
branches. Translated here in the plural, reading the Hebrew as collective, and follow-
ing the Samaritan Pentateuch.
leafy trees. Two interpretations are possible. The rabbinic interpretation is the
“myrtle,” which grows in damp plains such as the Jordan River, Dan Valley (Golan and
Upper Galilee), and Mt. Carmel (Sipra Emor 16:6; b. Sukkah 32b; Michael A. Zohary, Plants
of the Bible [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982]; and discussed in Milgrom,
Leviticus, 2041). A second option, which I’ve adopted here, is “leafy,” which is supported
by Ezek 6:13 and adopted by Greenberg (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 136) and Milgrom (Milgrom adds that “Nehemiah mentions
both ʿălê hădās ‘myrtle leaves’ and ʿălē ʿēṣ ʿābōt ‘leaves of a leafy tree’ [Neh 8:15], which in-
dicates the possibility that both interpretations were already current in the fifth century”
[Milgrom, Leviticus, 2042]).
willows of the brook. Milgrom proposes a poplar tree, based on rabbinic texts.
He identifies the poplar branch as being longer than palm fronds, quoting the rabbis:
“[T]here was a place below Jerusalem called Motsa. They (the gatherers) went down
thither and collected thence young willow-branches, and they came and set them upright
along the sides of the altar with their tops bent over the top of the altar” (m. Sukkah 4:5;
Milgrom, Leviticus, 2042).
you shall rejoice. Milgrom finds a special meaning in the phrase “you will rejoice be-
fore Yhwh your God.” First, he reasons that to rejoice (in this instance) implies a proces-
sion around the altar in the sanctuary with the branches of the festival. Citing m. Sukkah
4:5; 39, which discusses the activities of the priests during the Festival of Booths: “Each
day they walked in procession (with the branches) round the altar and recited, ‘We be-
seech you, O Eternal, save we pray; we beseech you, O Eternal, send prosperity, we pray.’
But on that day (the seventh day) they walked in procession round the altar seven times”
(Milgrom, Leviticus, 2043). The branches would be elevated, following Ps 118, at “Praise
the Lord” and “We beseech you, O Eternal, save us.” If this is correct, the festival included
a procession in which the priests carried the branches and invoked blessings from Yhwh.
Second, Milgrom suggests that the purpose of the celebration was supplication for rain.
Relying on rabbinic texts, he argues that the water libation of the festival included “water
brought from the Pool of Shiloah through the Water Gate ‘because through it the water
pitcher was brought for the libation on the Festival of Booths’ (t. Sukkah 3:3)” (Milgrom,
Leviticus, 2044). This water “could be only for one purpose: ‘so that the rain would be
blessed on its account’ (t. Sukkah 3:18)” (rabbinic support for this conclusion is also found
in b. Roš Haš. 16a, “Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on the Booths Festi-
val? The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: Pour our water before me on the Booths Festival,
so that your rains this year may be blessed”). Thus Milgrom infers that the Festival of
Booths included a procession, waving of branches, and water offerings, all designed to
supplicate Yhwh for successful rains during the coming agricultural season.
37. Verse 41. The Septuagint omits the phrase “You shall celebrate it as a Feast of
Yhwh for seven days.”
lasting ordinance. Following Rooker, Wenham (Leviticus) translates this as “a perma-
nent rule”; Hartley (Leviticus) renders it “perpetual decree”; Milgrom (Leviticus) reads “a
law for all time.”
Leviticus 23 89
Israel shall live in booths, 38 43in order that your generations may know that
I made the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of the land of
Egypt; I am Yhwh your God. 44Thus Moses declared the appointed times
of Yhwh to the Israelites.
Structure, Outline, and Literary Features

As discussed in chap. 1, a comparative analysis requires an understanding
of the form, order, and structure of the text. Klingbeil, relying on the work
of Yairah Amit and V. Phillips Long, argues that a text’s syntax and literary
structures are the thoughtful, well-constructed work of an author or edi-
tor. As such, these patterns provide clues to the performance and purpose
of ritual. 39
The literary analysis of the texts, according to Klingbeil, should at a min-
imum investigate the following aspects of structure:
• Frequent words or phrases
• Organizing phrases
• Chiastic structures
38. in booths. Following GKC §126q, r. According to Hartley, using the direct article
with the preposition denotes “a special type of booth constructed for the feast” (Hartley,
Leviticus, 368). Various scholars have interpreted the function and date of the practice.
J. Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the History of Israel [SPRTS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994],
91–105) argued that the booths referred to the temporary shelter constructed in the fields
during the harvest. This is unlikely because the harvest was already completed (Deut
16:13), and the purpose of the festival was thanks for the completed harvest and supplica-
tion for the fall planting (Scott, The Booths, 23–25; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2049).
Knohl maintains that the command to live in booths is “based on a hermeneutic etiol-
ogy of the name of the first station of the Israelites in the exodus from Egypt” (Knohl,
Sanctuary, 38–39). Milgrom responds that “post hoc historical etiologies and allegorical
interpretations of customs and practices. . . . do not penetrate to their origins” (Milgrom,
Leviticus, 2049).
A third option for the purpose of the “booths” comes from Milgrom, who believes
that “the sukkâ refers to the shelter built by pilgrims to the Jerusalem Temple for one
festival during which there were too many of them to be accommodated in the city” (Mil-
grom, Leviticus, 2049; H. L. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism [Texts and Studies
of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24; New York: Jewish Theological Semi-
nary, 1982], 60).
all citizens of Israel shall live. The plural verb confirms the use of the collective inten-
tion with the singular noun.
Verse 42. Hartley notes the ABCDB′A′ chiastic structure to the verse. The emphasis
falls on the A portion of the structure—“in booths” (Hartley, Leviticus, 368).
39. G. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup 1; Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 148; Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary
Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1–21; V. Phil-
lips Long, “Reading the Old Testament as Literature,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A
Guide for Exegesis (ed. Craig C. Broyles; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 85–123.
90 Chapter 3
• Parallel language: word pairs

• Disjunctive elements
• Prescriptive or descriptive nature of the rituals
Following the work of Klingbeil, Amit, and Long, I begin the analysis of
Lev 23 with a “bottom-up” exploration of the text. The goal is to emphasize
the organization of the text in order to understand the context, purpose,
audience, genre, and descriptive or prescriptive nature of the text.
Verbal Analysis
Verbs are a fundamental unit within a text, organizing the participants
and moving the action forward. An understanding of the type and function
of different verbal structures may give the reader an insight into the pur-
pose, prescriptive/descriptive nature, and intent of the author(s). This sec-
tion explores the verbal choices made in the text and highlights how these
choices may reveal a deeper understanding of Israelite ritual.
Leviticus 23 depicts ritual instructions organized as direct speech by
Yhwh through Moses to the people of Israel. The text overlays the direct
discourse of the narrative backbone with the phrase “Yhwh spoke to Mo-
ses, saying: Speak to the Israelites thus. . . . ,” which occurs five times (vv. 1,
9, 23, 26, 33) and includes a third-person wayyqtl, infinitive construct, and
imperative chain. The imperative is continued on each occasion by means
of wqtl, “say to them. . . .” At first glance, the insertion of the narrative (way
yqtl) markers appears to provide an outline for the speech. While this is of-
ten true, I show in the next section that temporal markers provide a better
organizational tool than verbal markers in Lev 23. 40
Direct discourse relies on the wqtl (wāw + perfect) and imperfect verbal
forms to move the dialogue forward. Robert Longacre argues that discourse
used to depict instruction (prescriptive) is best described as “Procedural/
Instructional Discourse.” 41 In this form of discourse, the wqtl marks the
mainline of the speech in a VSO clause, while the imperfect marks an action
relative to a noun occurring only in NV clauses. According to Longacre, the
discourse is goal oriented and not agent oriented. Therefore, prescriptive
discourse uses the wāw-consecutive perfect and the noun + imperfect as the
primary verbal markers. The author then uses participles, “be” clauses, and
nominal clauses to relay background activities and setting. 42 His instruc-
tional discourse matches the verbal forms and organization of the material.
40. A temporal marker is a word or phrase that denotes a period of time. These
markers may include the following: day, month, on that day, on the same day, in the morn-
ing, in the evening, etc. This organizing principle of Lev 23 will be analyzed in relation-
ship to the multimonth festival calendar at Emar.
41. Robert E. Longacre, “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb,” in Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 183–86.
42. Ibid., 183.
Leviticus 23 91
Table 9 outlines the verbal forms contained in the text. The aspect of the
wqtl is identified using the classifications in A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 43
According to Paul Joüon, the forms of the wqtl (found in this text) are clas-
sified as: succession (future action subsequent to another action), consecu-
tion (result), continuation (continue a future indicative), volitive (adopting
the mood of the prior imperative—usually with the idea of succession), and
adoption (continuation of a participle or an infinitive construct—usually
with the idea of succession and a future meaning).
As shown in this verbal analysis, Lev 23 represents a direct speech from
Yhwh through Moses to the people of Israel. Nearly half of the verbal
forms are in the imperfect (45 percent), with one-quarter of the verbs in
the wqtl (wāw + perfect). The text primarily exhibits verbs in the second
person (Yhwh to Moses, with the people of Israel normally identified as
the object) and occasionally in the third person (in vv. 7, 11, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27,
36, 42, 43; and in nominal clauses, i.e., v. 5).
Rolf Rendtorff asserts that the language in Leviticus points to the ex-
istence of a ritual genre. The genre is characterized by short instructions
(prescriptive) for the performance of offerings using impersonal perfect
verbs with an introduction and concluding formula. 44 Klaus Koch modi-
fied Rendtorff ’s work noting the presence of the wāw + perfect verbal form
(converted perfect) in addition to the imperfect (similar to Lev 23). 45 For
both Koch and Rendtorff, the ritual genre is based in an oral liturgy because
of the formulaic repetition and stylized language. 46 Their argument for the
existence of a ritual genre has not gained support because it lacks evidence
for an original setting. 47
43. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax,
Paradigms and Indices (SubBi 14/2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003), 396–406. See
also Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard Hess; BLH 3; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2002), 168–70; Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction, 519–42.
44. Rolf Rendtorff, Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift: Eine gattungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung (FRLANT 44; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 12–34.
45. Klaus Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungs
geschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 53; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1959), 46–76.
46. This is similar to Levine’s conclusions in relation to a descriptive ritual genre
when comparing Leviticus and Ugaritic ritual texts. Baruch A. Levine, “The Descriptive
Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Features and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The
Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His
Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1983), 467–75.
47. James W. Watts, “The Rhetoric of Ritual Instruction,” in The Book of Leviticus:
Composition and Reception (ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2003), 82; Elliger, Leviticus, 30–31.
92 Chapter 3
Table 9. Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis

Infinitive
Verse wayyqtl wqtl wqtl Form Imperfect Perfect Imperative Participle Construct
Introductory Formula
1 ‫וידבר‬ ‫לאמר‬
2 ‫ ואמרת‬Volitive ‫תקראו‬ ‫דבר‬
Weekly Ritual of the Sabbath
3 ‫תעשה‬
‫תעשו‬a
Introductory Formula for the Multimonth Festival Calendar
4 ‫תקראו‬
Festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread
5
6 ‫תאכלו‬
7 ‫יהיה‬
‫תעשו‬
8 ‫ והקרבתם‬Consecution ‫תעשו‬
Festivals of the Firstfruits of the Harvest
10 ‫ ואמרת‬Volitive ‫תבאו‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫נתן‬
‫ וקצרתם‬Succession
‫ והבאתם‬Succession
11 ‫ והניף‬Succession ‫יניפנו‬
12 ‫ ועשיתם‬Consecution ‫הניפכם‬
b
13 ‫בלולה‬
14 ‫תאכלו‬ ‫הביאכם‬
15 ‫ וספרתם‬Succession ‫תהיינה‬ ‫הביאכם‬
16 ‫ והקרבתם‬Succession ‫תספרו‬
17 ‫’תביאו‬
‫תהיינה תאפינה‬
18 ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation ‫יהיו‬
19 ‫ ועשיתם‬Continuation
20 ‫ והניף‬Succession ‫יהיו‬
21 ‫ וקראתם‬Continuation ‫יהיה‬
‫תעשו‬
22 ‫תכלה‬ ‫ובקצרכם‬
‫תלקט‬ ‫בקצרך‬
‫תעזב‬
a. Loʾ + imperfect = a negative imperative.

b. Nominal and participial clauses giving background information.
Leviticus 23 93
Table 9. Leviticus 23 Verbal Analysis (cont.)

Infinitive
Verse wayyqtl wqtl wqtl Form Imperfect Perfect Imperative Participle Construct
Festival of Trumpet Blasts
24 ‫יהיה‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫לאמר‬
25 ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuationc ‫תעשו‬
Festival of the Day of Atonement
27 ‫ ועניתם‬Continuation ‫יהיה‬
‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation
28 ‫תעשו‬ ‫לכפר‬
29 ‫ ונכרתה‬Consecution ‫תענה‬
30 ‫ והאבדתי‬Consecution ‫תעשה‬
31 ‫תעשו‬
32 ‫ ועניתם‬Continuation ‫תשבתו‬
Festival of Tabernacles
34 ‫דבר‬ ‫לאמר‬
35 ‫תעשו‬
36 ‫ והקרבתם‬Continuation ‫תקריבו‬
‫יהיה‬
‫תעשו‬
Festival Clarification
37 ‫תקראו‬ ‫להקריב‬
38 ‫תתנו‬
Festival of Yhwh
39 ‫תחנו‬ ‫באספכם‬
40 ‫ ולקחתם‬Continuation
‫ ושמחתם‬Succession
41 ‫ וחגתם‬Consecution ‫תחגו‬
42 ‫תשבו‬
‫ישבו‬
43 ‫ידעו‬ ‫הושבתי‬ ‫בהוציאי‬
Conclusion Statement
44 ‫וידבר‬
Total 6 23 — 42 1 4 2 16
% of 6% 25% — 45% 1% 4% 2% 17%
Total
c. With adversative force.

94 Chapter 3
In contrast to Rendtorff and Koch, John Hartley proposed that the mix-
ture of second- and third-person verbs shows that Lev 23 includes an ancient
calendar in the third person that was redacted over time to second-person
speech. 48 Hartley attributes the following features to the ancient calendar:
• Divided into five speeches (by the introductory formula in vv. 1, 9, 23,
26, 33) in order to place the regulations for each of the feasts in self-
contained speech units
• Included the introduction and conclusion formula “these are the
appointed times of Yhwh” (vv. 4, 37)
• Characterized by short, crisp sentences in an impersonal legalistic
style
• Formulaic phrases may have included:
◦◦ Date, feast name, and the phrase “for Yhwh”
◦◦ “on the day is a sacred occasion”
◦◦ “Do no heavy labor”
◦◦ “and he will offer food gifts to Yhwh” 49
Based on these criteria for the ancient calendar, Hartley found that only
vv. 5, 13, 20, 29, and 34 remained unaltered from the archaic, impersonal
style. Redaction altered the text, formulating it as direct address. In addi-
tion to reformulating the text into a speech, the redactor added four supple-
ments. Following Elliger and Noth, Hartley argued for the addition of the
following sections: 50
• Instruction on observing the Sabbath
• Special instructions for the Feast of Booths (Feast of Yhwh),
vv. 39–43
• Extended treatment of the Feast of Weeks
• The end of the Feast of Weeks, v. 22
Hartley attempts to reconcile the mix of verbal forms by constructing this
redaction history for the text: an ancient calendar in the third person with
texts added by an editor to form a second-person speech.
James Watts argues that similar language in Lev 1–7 represents rhetorical
ritual instruction. He maintains that the text’s framework repeatedly em-
phasizes that the speaker is Yhwh, who is claiming divine and royal author-
ity for the ritual instructions (prescriptive). The text identifies all of Israel
as the intended audience and makes the general population responsible for
performing all the rituals. The frequent second-person forms of address
48. Hartley, Leviticus, 371.

49. Also discussed in Alfred Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine
vergleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976), 82–83.
50. Elliger, Leviticus, 311; Noth, Leviticus, 168.
Leviticus 23 95
make clear the direct application to its intended audience. These features
lead Watts to conclude that the texts in Leviticus were designed as an oral
recitation, the reading of which was intended as a rhetorical device to em-
phasize the authority of the Torah in Israel. The text not only instructs the
reader or hearer on the performance of rites but aims to persuade them that
these instructions must be normative. 51
In chap. 1, Sparks was shown to have argued that compared texts must
exhibit a similar analytical genre. An analytical genre is defined in this book
as the grouping of similar texts serving a comparative purpose by helping
to adjust generic expectations. These expectations are broadened or nar-
rowed, depending on the situation. 52 Building on the work of Rendtorff
and analysis of Hartley, I contend that the analytical genre for Lev 23 is a
prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar. First, as discussed above, the ver-
bal structure of the text points to a prescriptive nature. Second, the text
(following Rendtorff ) holds ritual as the central purpose. Third, morpho-
logical markers (following Hartley) divide the text into multiple months
that compose a larger ritual calendar.
An exploration of the choice and frequency of verbs in Lev 23 finds that
6 of the 29 (21 percent) verbal roots comprise 57 percent of the identified
verbal structures. The most frequently used verbs involve the following ac-
tions: to do (usually as a prohibition), to speak, to say, to be (always in the
third person), to present an offering, and to bring. 53 If, as discussed above,
the chapter represents a direct speech in the second person, then the ac-
tions identified in the perfect with the wāw consecutive should mark the
primary actions involved in the rituals.
Organization and Outline

As noted in the methodology section in chap. 1, comparative studies
should explore the organization of each text under study. In this section,
therefore, I examine the underlying principle that best organizes the ritual
text of Lev 23. In chap. 5, I compare the organization of Lev 23 with the
organization of the ritual text found at Emar.
The structure of Lev 23 is based on both morphology and temporal mark-
ers. By analyzing linguistic markers, we find that Lev 23 is divided by the
phrase “Yhwh spoke t o Moses, saying.” This phr a se is r epeat ed five
times (vv. 1, 9, 23, 26, 33), representing the major divisions in the text.
Each of these verses and the final verse (v. 44) use the wayyqtl preterite Piel of
51. Watts, “The Rhetoric,” 100.

52. Following Sparks, Ancient Texts, 10.
53. Other, less frequent ritual actions in the passage are: to offer (twice); to perform
an elevation offering (twice); to say (twice); to be humbled (twice); to harvest (once); to
celebrate a pilgrimage feast (once); to bring (once); to proclaim (once); to count (once); to
cut off (once); to perish (once); to take (once); to rejoice (once).
96 Chapter 3
‫ דבר‬in the third person, indicating a division in the narrative. The presence of
these markers led Hartley to divide the text into five sections plus a sixth sum-
mary statement. 54 Wenham finds that the text is divided into two sections—a
group of spring festivals (vv. 4–22) and a group of fall festivals (vv. 23–43)—
by the phrase “I am Yhwh your God.” 55 Wenham continues, proposing sub-
divisions in the text marked by the phrase “a law for all time throughout your
generations” (vv. 14, 21, 31, 41). 56
While there are clear linguistic markers in the text, a different organi-
zational structure emerges when viewing temporal markers. These mark-
ers illuminate two opening summary statements—one in v. 2 and another
in v. 4—and two closing summary statements—one in v. 37 and another in
v. 44—each identified by the temporal marker “appointed times of Yhwh.” 57
In this way, the term is used as a temporal marker indicating a summary
(opening and closing) formula for the text. The summary statement identi-
fies the audience as the Israelites and the text as containing the appointed
times of Yhwh. The verbal structure in three of the four (vv. 2, 4, 36) sum-
mary statements is the qal imperfect 2mp of the verb ‫ קרא‬meaning “to call”
or “proclaim.”
Moving to the body of the text—temporal markers are also useful in
identifying divisions in the text. Major divisions in the text usually occur
with the formula “in the x month on the x (day) of the month.” These ma-
jor temporal divisions are found in v. 5 (Passover and Feast of Unleavened
Bread), v. 24 (Festival of Trumpet Blasts), v. 27 (Day of Atonement), v. 34
(Festival of Tabernacles), and v. 39 (Festival of Yhwh). The only annual fes-
tival not marked by this date formula is the Festival of Firstfruits, which is
designated by the temporal marker “harvest (time).” 58 Henning Reventlow
and Alfred Cholewiński each attribute the temporal formula to an ancient
54. Hartley, Leviticus, 369–70.

55. Wenham, Leviticus, 300. Adopted by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1950.
56. Wenham, Leviticus, 300. Wenham notes other key phrases, including “Yhwh’s
appointed seasons” (vv. 2, 4, 37, 44); “holy convocations” (vv. 2, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 37); and
“you shall do no heavy work” (vv. 7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 30–31, 36).
57. Hess notes that ‫ מועד‬is found in Gen 1:14 and describes “the annual and monthly
‘seasons’ marked by the sun and moon” (Hess, Leviticus, 783).
58. Harvest (time) [‫ ]קציר‬is identified as pertaining to a specific time of the year on
several occasions. In Gen 30:14, the temporal period when Reuben finds mandrakes is
identified as “the days of the harvest”; in Josh 3:15, the temporal period when the Jordan
overflows its banks is “all the days of the harvest”; in Judg 15:1, Samson visits his wife “at
the time of the harvest”; in 2 Sam 21:9, the Gibeonites are avenged “at harvest time.”
Each of these illustrations demonstrates that the temporal period of “the harvest” was
understood as a temporal marker.
Leviticus 23 97
calendrical tradition. 59 Donn Morgan places this phrase in the genre he re-
fers to as ‘calendrical fixation’. 60
Subdivisions in the text may also be identified through temporal markers
including “x days” or “x day” (vv. 3, 5, 6, 31, 35, 36a, 36b, 39b, 40, 42); “harvest
(time)” (vv. 10aβ, 22); “on the day” 61 (vv. 12, 14, 15, 21, 28, 29, 30). An outline
based on these markers is presented below (p. 98). A second point that
is evident from the outline is the variable number of words/verses given to
each festival. Wagenaar argued (see chap. 2) that this variable length is a sign
of later redaction. At this point, his argument stands unanswered. However,
the evidence for a lack of symmetry is noted as a feature of Lev 23.
Literary Structure
Leviticus 23 is located in the Holiness Code—typically identified as
chaps. 17–26. Milgrom distinguishes the Holiness Code of Leviticus from
earlier chapters (1–16) by its literary structure, vocabulary, style, and the-
ology. 62 Like other chapters in the Holiness Code, Lev 23 exhibits several
literary features, including: large chiasms, small chiasms (parallelism), in-
clusio, and word repetition. The ultimate goal here is to determine whether
these literary devices are expressed in both Lev 23 and Emar 446. 63
Large Chiasms
The Holiness Code of Lev 17–27 is differentiated from the earlier chap-
ters of Leviticus by the presence of introversions (large chiastic structures)
that encompass several verses. Important for both their artistry and theol-
ogy, these chiasms appear twice in Lev 23 (vv. 1–4 and vv. 27–32).
Milgrom identifies vv. 1–4 as a large chiastic structure (A B C D E X E′ D′
C′ B′ A′) linking the Sabbath to the annual festival calendar. The chiasm’s
center highlights the fact that each Sabbath is a sacred occasion, requir-
ing complete rest, because it is the day of Yhwh. 64 The passage may be
diagramed as on p. 99. A second large chiasm appears in vv. 27–32 in the
form A B C D X D′ C′ B′ A′. Milgrom argues that these verses compose one
59. H. G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Formgeschichtlichuntersucht (WMANT 6;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), 105; Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und
Deuteronomium, 82–83.
60. Donn F. Morgan, The So-Called Cultic Calendars in the Pentateuch: A Morphological
and Typological Study (Ph.D. diss., Claremont University, 1974), 67.
61. Variants include “on that day” and “until the very day.”
62. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1321–1443.
63. Although they are important, we should not overplay the presence of these liter-
ary devices, because they are common literary structures throughout the ancient Near
East. Therefore, although I explore this feature in relation to the multimonth ritual cal-
endar at Emar, the presence or absence of these structures is considered a weak point of
comparison.
64. Ibid., 1320.
98 Chapter 3
Leviticus 23 Outline
Verses Topic (Temporal Division)
1–2 Introductory formula for the entire festival calendar:
weekly and multimonth (appointed times of Yhwh)
3 Weekly ritual—The Sabbath (six days)
4 Introductory formula for the multimonth festival calen-
dar (appointed times of Yhwh)
5–8 Festival during the first month: Passover and Unleavened
Bread (first month on the fourteenth day of the month)
5 The ritual offering of Passover (fourteenth day)
6–8 The Festival of Unleavened Bread (fifteenth day)
9–22 Festivals for firstfruits of the harvest (harvest time)
9–10 aα Introductory formula (verbal marker and harvest time)
10aβ-14 Festival for firstfruit of barley (harvest time)
10aβ-11 Elevation offering (harvest time)
12–13 Burnt, grain, and drink offerings (on the day)
14 Prohibition against eating grain until the offering is
complete (until the very day)
15–21 Festival for firstfruit of wheat (the day after)
15–20 Elevation offering burnt, grain, drink, purification, and
well-being offerings (the day after)
21 Prohibition against work during ritual (on that day)
22 Provision to care for the poor (harvest time)
23–25 Festival of Trumpet Blasts (seventh month on the first day of
the month)
23–25 Introductory formula, food offering, and prohibition from
work (verbal marker and seventh month)
26–32 The Day of Atonement (tenth day of the seventh month)
26–27 Introductory formula, self-denial, and food offering (verbal
marker and tenth day of the 7th month)
28 Prohibition from work (on that day)
29 Consequence for disobedience—denying oneself (on that
day)
30 Consequence for disobedience–work (on that day)
31–32 Restatement of the prohibition on work (ninth day)
33–36 Festival of Tabernacles (fifteenth day of the 7th month)
33–34 Introductory formula (verbal marker and fifteenth day of the
seventh month)
35 Prohibition on work (the first day)
Leviticus 23 99
Leviticus 23 Outline (cont.)

Verses Topic (Temporal Division)
36a Food offerings for seven days (seven days)
36b Eighth day is a sacred occasion (on the eighth day)
37–38 Festival clarification (appointed times)
39–43 Festival of Yhwh (fifteenth day of the 7th month)
39a Introductory formula (fifteenth day of the 7th month)
39b Call for rest on the first and eighth days (first day)
40–41 Ritual of the four species (first day)
42–43 Living in booths (seven days)
44 Conclusion statement (appointed times)
Diagram of Large Chiasm (Lev 23:1–4)
A the appointed times of Yhwh, which you shall proclaim

B as sacred assemblies;
C these are my appointed times
D (For) six days
E work may be done,
X but the 7th day is a Sabbath of complete rest,
a sacred assembly.
E′ Do no work;
D′ it is a Sabbath to Yhwh throughout your settlements.
C′ These are the appointed times of Yhwh,
B′ the sacred assemblies,
A′ which you shall proclaim at their fixed times.
unit around the central themes of self-denial and cessation of all work dur-
ing the Festival of the Day of Atonement. 65
Small Chiasms
In addition to large chiastic structures covering multiple verses, Lev 23
includes smaller parallel structures within a single verse. Milgrom identifies
examples in vv. 11, 41, 42. The first example occurs in v. 11 which depicts a
65. Ibid., 1320–21.

100 Chapter 3
A He shall elevate the sheaf

B before Yhwh.
X For acceptance on your behalf from the day after the Sabbath,
B′ the priest
A′ shall elevate it.
chiasm written in an A B X B′ A′ structure with the thematic center “for you

to be accepted.” 66
Another example of a small chiasm occurs in v. 42 surrounding the re-
peated instruction to live in booths (A A′). This A X A′ structure stresses
that the statute applies to all native-born Israelites (X). 67
Inclusio
An inclusio is the literary device that segregates material by using sym-
metrical language to “bracket” or “envelop” the text. The structure may be
as small as a word or clause or as large as an entire chapter. Milgrom finds
that the clause “these are the appointed times of Yhwh” in vv. 4 and 37a
separates the original ancient festival calendar from the subsequent addi-
tions in vv. 1–3 and 39–43a. 68 A similar divider may occur with the phrase
“speak/spoke to the Israelites” found in vv. 2, 10, 24, 34, 44.
The analysis in this section noted the following features in the ritual cal-
endar of Lev 23:
• Leviticus 23 is instructional discourse (prescriptive).
• The analytical genre (see discussion on Sparks in chap. 1) is a
prescriptive multimonth ritual calendar.
• The text is organized using temporal markers to segment summary
and title statements, major divisions (months), and subdivisions
(between different rites).
◦◦ A standard date formula is used to identify major divisions in the
text. The general formula is “month x on the x day” (one major
section uses a different temporal divider).
◦◦ Subdivisions within these larger sections are marked by phrases,
including “on or for x day(s),” “on that day,” “the next day.”
• The number of lines for each festival and month demonstrates a lack
of symmetry.
• The verbs are typically in the second person (direct speech) from
Yhwh to Moses with the general population as the object of the
action.
66. Milgrom notes that “on the day after the Sabbath” must be removed to restore
the original chiastic structure (ibid., 1322).
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid., 1323.
Leviticus 23 101
• Occasionally verbs change to third-person narrative—still oriented

toward the general population.
• The text includes an introductory statement.
• The audience is identified in the introduction as the general
population (Israelites). In addition, while not emphasized, the priests
are clearly involved.
• The author uses large chiastic structures in the narrative.
• The text exhibits parallel language and small chiastic structures.
We will compare each of these features to those we find in a similar study
of Emar 446 to determine whether the two texts share a common linguistic
orientation to ritual.
Sacred Time
As discussed in chap. 1, understanding sacred time as expressed in the
performance of ritual can help us better comprehend the context of rit
ual. 69 Sproul argues that sacred time is both circular (eternal and unchang-
ing) and linear (ever changing). Klingbeil adds that linear time applies to
prescriptive ritual calendars, while circular time or relative time applies to
the ritual duration. 70
Grimes aids in the analysis of sacred time by providing some useful ques-
tions that we will use to explore Lev 23. Some of the key questions include:
What time of day does the ritual occur—night, dawn, dusk, midday? On
what date? In which season? Are lunar cycles significant for the timing of
the ritual? How does ritual time coincide or conflict with ordinary times
(stopping work or changing sleep cycles)? Does the rite commemorate his-
torical eras or recall paradigmatic events? What is the duration of the rite?
Does it have phases, interludes, breaks? What preparations are necessary? 71
These questions, among others, will guide our exploration of sacred time
in Lev 23.
Table 10 below outlines each time reference in Lev 23. As I discuss above,
the use of temporal references provides an outline for the multimonth cal-
endar. Therefore, the data may also act as a simplified outline of the text.
Data
A final note on sacred time involves the disruption of the daily cycle.
Time references include the disruption of the work cycle calling for periods
69. Jenson argues that, “in the Priestly system, the number and character of public
sacrifices play an important role in ordering and grading days, particularly the Sabbath
in the week, the New Moon in the month, and the festivals in the year” ( Jenson, Graded
Holiness, 209).
70. Sproul, “Sacred Time,” 50; Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 157.
71. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 24–25.
102 Chapter 3
Table 10. References to Time in Leviticus 23

V. Temporal Phrase Month Day Specification Actions
3 “(For) six days” Every The allowance for working 6 days Work activity may be done
and the specification for rest on for 6 days.
the 7th day may correspond to
the four phases of the lunar cycle,
which last for approximately 7 days
each. Because the lunar cycle lasts
29–30 days, the 7-day cycle would
not correspond to a specific day
of the month but, rather, float
through the months.
3 “but the seventh Every The verse includes a positive and The 7th day is a day of com-
day” a negative prohibition of work, plete rest and is considered a
including: a positive call for “com- sacred assembly.
plete rest” and the lōʾ + imperfect,
“do no work” (ABCB′A′).
5 “In the first 1 14 The day of the full moon in the A ritual meal occurring in
month, on the lunar calendar. the evening—the day before
fourteenth (day) This verse uses formulaic lan- another named festival.
of the month, at guage: “X month, on the x day of
twilight” the month, at (morning/twilight).”a
6 “On the 1 15 After a 1-day ritual on Day 14, the Begins the 7-day Feast of
fifteenth day of calendar identifies a named 7-day Unleavened Bread.
the month” festival beginning in the middle of
the month.
7 “On the first 1 15 A sacred occasion with no
day” work.
8 “seven days” 1 15–21 Lasting from the full moon until Offering of food offerings for
the second quarter-moon. each day.
8 “seventh day” 1 21 Date of the second quarter-moon. A sacred assembly on the last
day of the festival, including
a prohibition on work.
10 “harvest time” ? ? Festival timed to the harvest of The first sheaf of barley is
barley. brought to the priest as an
elevation offering.
11 “day after the ? ? Specifies that the elevation offer- Elevation offering.
Sabbath” ing is for acceptance.
12 “on that day” ? Day Standard temporal division.b Sacrifice a one-year-old
of the male lamb as a burnt offer-
elevation ing, grain offering, food of-
offering fering, and a drink offering.c
Prohibition on eating
of the new grain until the
offering.d
a. I explore potential similarities with Emar 446 in chap. 4.

b. This division for significant ritual activities is explored further in chap. 4.
c. The potential similarity of these offerings to Emar 446 is discussed in the section on
ritual objects (offerings) in chap. 4.
d. Both Emar 446 and Lev 23 record the prohibition against an action until the completion
of the ritual offering. I discuss this similarity in chap. 5.
Leviticus 23 103
Table 10. References to Time in Leviticus 23 (cont.)

15 “seven Sab- ? ? Temporal divider heading
baths”
16 “The day after ? ? Specifies the time from the barley New grain offering for
the seventh Sab- firstfruits offering until the ripen- Yhwh consisting of two
bath, fifty days” ing of the wheat loaves of wheat bread
comprising two-tenths of
an ephah of fine flour and
baked with leavening—in an
elevation offering.
The offering also includes
seven yearling lambs, one
bull, and two rams—all as a
burnt offering.
The offering also includes
a standard grain, drink, and
food offering for Yhwh.
The purification offering
is a male goat.
The sacrifice of well-being
is two yearling lambs—in an
elevation offering.
21 “on that day” ? Day Standard temporal division Proclamation of a sacred
of the occasion with a prohibition
wheat against work
first-
fruits
offering
22 “harvest time” ? ? Temporal division Prohibition against com-
pletely harvesting a field in
order to leave the gleaning to
the poor and aliens
24 “in the seventh 7 1 The day of the new moon in the Feast of Trumpet Blasts.
month, on the lunar calendar. Positive and negative
first day of the This verse uses formulaic lan- prohibitions on work.
month” guage: “X month, on the x day of Sacred occasion.
the month, at (morning/twilight).” Food offerings to Yhwh.
27 Tenth day of the 7 10 Standard temporal division. Day of Atonement.
7th month Sacred occasion.
Humble oneself before
Yhwh.
Food offerings to Yhwh.
Negative prohibition
against work.
29 “on that day” 7 10 Standard temporal division to Anyone not humbling
highlight significant aspects of a himself will be cut off from
ritual occurring on the same day as his people.
other ritual events.
104 Chapter 3
Table 10. References to Time in Leviticus 23 (cont.)

30 “on that day” 7 10 Standard temporal division to Anyone working on the Day
highlight significant aspects of a of Atonement will perish.
ritual occurring on the same day as
other ritual events.
32 “on the ninth 7 9–10 From evening on the 9th day to Sabbath of complete rest.
day of the evening on the 10th day. Humble oneself.
month at Used as a temporal divider and
evening, from clarification about moving from
evening to the 10th day back to the 9th day.
evening”
34 “on the fifteenth 7 15 The day of the full moon in the Feast of Booths heading.
day of the sev- lunar calendar.
enth month” Formulaic temporal language
34 “for seven days” 7 15–21 The length of one lunar cycle— This festival lasts for 7 days
from full moon to second quarter- and is dedicated to Yhwh.
moon.e
35 “on the first day” 7 15 Standard temporal division. A sacred occasion with a
negative prohibition on
work.
36 “seven days” 7 15–21 See v. 34 above. Food offerings to Yhwh for
each of 7 days.
36 “on eighth day” 7 22 Standard temporal division. A sacred occasion with a
food offering to Yhwh, a sol-
emn assembly, and a negative
prohibition on work.
39 On the fifteenth 7 15 The day of the full moon in the Feast of Yhwh heading.
day of the sev- lunar calendar.
enth month” Formulaic temporal language.
39 “seven days” 7 15–21 See v. 34 above. Temporal description of the
duration of the festival with-
out detail for activities.
39 “on the first day” 7 15 Standard temporal division. Rest—perhaps a shortened
form of the activities de-
scribed in v. 35 above.
39 “on the eighth 7 22 Standard temporal division. Rest—perhaps a shortened
day” form of the activities de-
scribed in v. 36 above.
40 “on the first day” 7 15 Standard temporal division. Take fruit of splendid trees:
fronds of palms, branches
of leafy trees, and willows of
the brook.
40 “seven days” 7 15–21 See v. 34 above. Seven days of rejoicing.
41 “seven days” 7 15–21 See v. 34 above. Feast duration.
42 “seven days” 7 15–21 See v. 34 above. Live in booths.
e. This is a potential point of similarity with the zukru Festival at Emar and is discussed
in chap. 4.
Leviticus 23 105
of rest and complete rest—perhaps to focus on Yhwh. In addition, the twi-

light or evenings are considered important for some ritual activities.
The Levitical Day and References to Time of Day

To determine when the day began for Israel is difficult, due to conflicting
evidence in the biblical text. Four traditional options exist for the begin-
ning of a day, including: sunset, midnight, sunrise, and midday. The options
midnight and midday find little support in the text. 72 However, seeming
support for a day’s beginning at evening or morning is found in every seg-
ment of biblical literature, including the Pentateuch, Historical Books,
Wisdom Literature, and the Prophets. The evidence for each beginning of
the day is divided into three categories. First are direct statements in which
the day begins or ends at a specified point (evening or morning). Second are
statements of relative order in which morning follows evening on the same
day, or evening follows morning on the same day. Third are relative expres-
sions, including “the same day,” “tomorrow,” “yesterday,” “today,” and “the
next day,” that we may use to deduce the relative position of the beginning
of the day. 73 Based on these criteria, the biblical text provides evidence that
the day may have begun either at sunset or sunrise.
Evidence that the day began at sunset is found throughout the Old Tes-
tament. Exodus 12:18 relates that the Festival of Unleavened Bread begins
at sundown on the 14th of Nisan and concludes at sundown on the 21st of
Nisan. As shown above, Lev 23:32 indicates that the Day of Atonement
lasts from evening to evening. Another illustration is the advent of the Sab-
bath, which begins and ends at sunset. Beckwith discovers evidence for the
Sabbath’s beginning in the evening in the Prophets and in later Jewish and
Christian texts. 74 The Mishnah also provides evidence that confirms that
the 1st day of the month may have begun in the evening with the spotting
of the new moon (m. Roš Haš. 3:1).
72. Midnight is possibly eliminated by 1 Sam 19:11 and Jdt 6:21–7:1, where activities
take place “all night” without a day change until the morning.
73. Beckwith performs analyzes the relevant texts and finds four categories. In his
analysis, the second category is split into two, with one category’s reflecting language
“order in which ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ occur within the limits of the day,” and the other
reflecting “the order in which ‘day’ and ‘night’ occur within the same limits.” For the
purpose of this book, however, the two are combined into one “relative order” category
(Roger T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental
and Patristic Studies [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 3).
74. According to Beckwith, “[T]he Old Testament seems to give a hint of it (eve-
ning beginning of the Sabbath) in Neh 13:19, and the New Testament gives clear indica-
tions of it in the references to the time of Jesus’ burial in Luke 23:54 and John 19:31, 42.
Intertestamental evidence is supplied by 2 Macc 8:25f and Damascus, CD, 10:14ff, and
Josephus evidence from the first two centuries a.d. is to be found in Josephus (War 4:9:12,
or 4:582; Antiquities 16:6:2, or 16:163; Life 32, or 159–161) and in the tractate Sabbath of
the Mishnah” (ibid., 4).
106 Chapter 3
Several texts give the relative order of evening before morning or night
before day on the same day. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 recount the cre-
ation of the world with the phrase “and there was evening and there was
morning, day x.” This example places evening before morning—all on
day x. 75 Daniel 8:14 reads that a continual offering will be made for 2,300
“evenings and mornings” until the restoration of the Holy Place. A second
relative example, Ps 55:17–18, presents the order as “evening, morning, and
at noon,” when the psalmist will call on Yhwh. Deuteronomy 1:33 places
the fire of God at night before the cloud of God during the day; 1 Sam 25:16
places night before day when discussing the protection of shepherds; and in
1 Kgs 8:29, Yhwh’s eyes are said to be open “night and day.” In addition to
these references, Esth 4:16; Ps 91:5; Isa 27:3; 34:10; and Jer 14:17 all present
the order of references to time as night before day.
A final group of texts may imply that the day begins in the evening. In
Leviticus, ceremonial uncleanness ends at evening/sunset. Leviticus 11:24–
25, 27–28, 31–32, 39–40; 14:46; 15:5–8, 10–11, 16–19, 21–23, 27; and 22:6 specify
that anyone who becomes unclean will remain unclean and located outside
the camp until evening—perhaps implying the beginning of a new day. Ex-
amples outside Leviticus include Num 19 and Deut 23:11, which echo the
end of uncleanness at sunset. Each of these examples is used to support the
conclusion that the Israelite day, at some point, was reckoned from evening
to evening.
Evidence also exists that the Israelite day began in the morning at sun-
rise. Evidence depicting day before night and sunrise before sunset signifi-
cantly outweighs the alternative. A few examples referenced by Beckwith
include: Gen 1:14, 16, 18; 8:22; 41:40; Num 14:14; 2 Sam 21:10; 1 Kgs 8:59;
1 Chr 9:33; Neh 1:6; 4:9; 9:12; Pss 22:2; 42:3, 8; 55:10; 74:16; 78:14; 88:1; 136:7–
9; Isa 28:19; 38:12; 60:11; 62:6; Jer 9:1; 16:13; 31:35; 33:20, 25; 36:30; Lam 2:18.
These examples range from the Pentateuch, Historical Books, and Wisdom
Literature to the Prophets, leading to a possible conclusion that the day
began with the sunrise.
Furthermore, we see relative time references (“the next day,” “tomorrow,”
and “the same day”) combined with specific references—such as night, day,
morning, and evening—that point to sunrise as the beginning of the day.
One illustration, in Gen 19:34, concerns Lot’s daughters’ stating that “[T]he
next day, the older daughter said to the younger, ‘Last night I lay with my
father. . . .’” In this text, the combination of relative and absolute time ref-
erences indicate that the day began in the morning. Leviticus 7:15 specifies
that, on the day when an offering is to be eaten, it should not be held over
75. This example is misleading because the sequence of events began earlier in the
day, which concludes with evening, and “early” morning before a new day beginning per-
haps at sunrise. Therefore, this example is perhaps evidence for a sunrise as the beginning
of the day.
Leviticus 23 107
until morning (i.e., a new day). Leviticus 22:30 (a traditional H text similar
to Lev 23) quotes Lev 7:15 by declaring that an offering “must be eaten that
same day; leave none of it till morning.” Judges 19:9 clearly demonstrates an
intent for the day to begin in the morning with the reading, “[T]he day is
coming to an end; spend the night here that your heart may be merry. Then
tomorrow you may arise early for your journey so that you may go home.”
Additional references that combine relative and absolute time to support
sunrise as the beginning of the day include: 1 Sam 19:11; 28:8, 19.
A final example supporting sunrise as the beginning of the day is a pas-
sage by Josephus regarding the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened
Bread. Beckwith argues that:
It is hardly conceivable that Josephus was ignorant of the fact that, according
to the Pentateuch, the dividing line between the Passover and the feast of Un-
leavened Bread, and between the seven days of the latter, falls in the evening.
Josephus is very clear that the Sabbath begins and ends in the evening, and, if
the tractate Pesahim in the Mishnah is anything to judge by, Pharisaic tradi-
tion (which Josephus, as a self-confessed Pharisee, would have accepted) was
equally clear that the same is true of the Passover. Yet when Josephus comes
to record the law that the flesh of the Passover lamb is to be wholly consumed
during the night, and none of it left till morning (Exod 12:8–10; 34:25; Deut
16:4), the way he puts it is that none is left “till the next day” (Jewish Antiquities
3:10:5, or 3:248). 76
Josephus points to the possibility that the day begins in the morning, even
though the ritual spans a timeframe from evening to evening.
Turning to Lev 23, two verses give specific references to a time of day—
vv. 5 and 32. Verse 5 specifies that the Passover offering to Yhwh occurs in
the evening at twilight. Similarly, v. 32 specifies that the Day of Atonement
runs from evening to evening. Both these passages may imply that the day
began in the evening. Levenson asserts, based on the evidence in Gen 1 and
Lev 23, that the day began in the evening. 77 Wagenaar reviews the bibli-
cal evidence, finding that Israel’s early tradition reckons the day like the
Egyptian day—sunrise to sunrise. The post-Priestly editor was responsible
for changing the recognition of a day from “sunrise-sunrise” to “sunset-
sunset.” 78 Milgrom argues that the reference identifies an exception and
not the rule. 79
No scholarly consensus exists, and it is impossible to determine a defini-
tive answer with the current textual evidence. While neither theory is con-
clusive, I tend to agree with Milgrom’s contention that the normal Israelite
76. Ibid., 7.
77. J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Om-
nipotence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1994), 123.
78. Wagenaar, “Passover and the First Day,” 262–66.
79. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2026.
108 Chapter 3
day, as referenced in Lev 23, lasted from sunrise to sunrise. This normal day
was occasionally interrupted for the calculation of various cultic rituals
that occurred from evening to evening—that is, the Festival of Unleavened
Bread, Day of Atonement, and Sabbath. Because these festivals represented
a break in the normal calculation of the day, special care was taken by the
scribe to identify the shift with specific reference to evening-evening.
The Levitical Month and Ritual Activity Dates

The month in ancient Israel was probably based on the lunar cycle, with
an intercalary month to maintain congruence with the solar year. 80 Sacha
Stern explores the calendar during the ancient and rabbinic periods in Israel
and insists that its structure (month and year) was not necessarily a “time-
measuring scheme.” Instead, he believes the calendar’s purpose was to as-
sist in organizing events and to determine the duration of activities and
processes. 81 He goes on to argue that the calendar was not dependent on
a “time-dimension” but, rather, used the moon and sun because they are
universally known and have regular appearances. 82
If, as Stern suggests, the ancient calendar in Israel used the lunar and
solar cycles as standard reference scales, then the phases of the lunar cycle
may have played a role in the beginning and duration of festival activities.
The lunar month began with the identification of the “new moon” or first
lunar crescent. The moon then moved through the 7th day (half-moon)
and waxed to full on the 15th. The second half of the month included two
phases: the moon waned for 7 days until the second half-moon and then
continued until it disappeared to begin a new month. The month was as-
sumed to be 30 days long unless the new moon was spotted on the 30th day.
This appearance of the new crescent moon shifted the date to the 1st of the
next month.
Evidence from the broader ancient Near East in the 3rd and 2nd mil-
lennia supports the association of festival activities with lunar phases (see
discussion in chap. 2 for more details). First, festivals tend to occur at the
changes of the lunar cycle. The four lunar phases are: (1) new moon (day 1);
(2) first half-moon (Days 7–8); (3) full moon (Days 14–15); and (4) second
half-moon (Days 21–22). Many festivals either begin or climax at the phase
change of the moon. Second, although festivals vary in length, they most
frequently last one, two, three, or seven days. Third, multiday festivals occa-
sionally begin with or include a second, named, one-day festival ceremony.
80. Jenson finds evidence for the use of a lunar month outside P, concluding that the
Priestly calendar was based on the lunar month ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 184).
81. Sacha Stern, Time and Process in Ancient Judaism (LLJC; Portland: Littman Library
of Jewish Civilization, 2007), 59–60.
82. Ibid., 60. See also Norbert Elias and Edmund Jephcott, Time: An Essay (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1992), 10.
Leviticus 23 109
Similar to other ancient Near Eastern festival schedules, the festival

calendar in Lev 23 follows a lunar month, with significant ritual activities
occurring at the changes in the lunar cycle. Table 11 organizes the festival
activities in Lev 23 with the lunar cycle. It demonstrates that five of the
eight rituals (63 percent) contained in Lev 23 begin at a change in the lunar
phase. One festival begins with the new moon of the 7th month (Trumpet
Blasts) and four begin at the full moon: Pesach, Unleavened Bread, Taber-
nacles, and the Feast of Yhwh. Three rituals (the two firstfruit celebrations
and the Day of Atonement) are seemingly unrelated to the lunar cycle.
The majority of the named ritual activities occur during the full moon,
including 80 percent (4 of 5) of the dated celebrations and 50 percent (4
of 8) of the total celebrations in the text. In addition, festivals occurring
during the full moon last longer than those occurring at the new moon or
at the harvest. Three of the 4 full-moon celebrations last for 7 days. 83 Ritu-
als at other times of the month typically last for 1–2 days: Trumpet Blasts,
Firstfruit of Wheat and Barley (1 day), and the Day of Atonement (perhaps
2 days).
The Levitical Yearly Calendar and New Year

According to the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23, the Israelite
year began in the spring, perhaps at the vernal equinox (see discussion in
chap. 2), around the time of the barley harvest. 84 The mentioned festivals
83. Jenson finds that the seven-day festivals occurred at “strategic points” in the fes-
tival year ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 189).
84. The 2nd-millennium ANE ritual year was often divided into two six-month cultic
units—the first beginning in the spring (harvest) and the second beginning in the autumn
(seeding). The same time periods are marked by the appearance of the equinoxes—the
vernal equinox usually occurring in month 1 (spring) and the autumnal equinox usually
occurring in month 7 (fall). This raises the possibility that this six-month ritual/festival
cycle was based on the ebb and flow of the amount of daylight and night over the land.
An understanding of the Akītu Festival’s importance at Ur lies in the patron god of the
city. Nanna, the moon-god, was the chief god at Ur, competing against the sun-god (Utu)
for control of the celestial heavens. Throughout the year, their sovereignty shifted, re-
flected in the varying lengths of time that each celestial body appeared over the earth.
At the spring equinox, the sun and moon held equal time over the earth. After the vernal
(spring) equinox, the sun appeared for longer periods at the expense of the moon. There-
fore, the vernal equinox—celebrated in the 1st month at the Akītu Festival—marked the
transfer of dominance to the sun. In the 7th month, at the autumnal equinox, the sun and
moon were again equal. The Akītu Festival in the 7th month was more important at Ur
because the moon (as the patron god of Ur) regained dominance over the sun for the next
six months, until the harvest. This interplay between Utu and Nanna and the two agricul-
turally based Akītu Festivals in the same months as the equinoxes points to the possibil-
ity of a connection between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes and the six-month cultic
cycle The bond between months and the equinoxes is verifiable by the 1st millennium in
the text RMA 16:5, which reads: itiŠE itiKIN SAG MU.AN.NA ki-i ša itiBÁR itiDU6, “(this
year) the months Addaru and Ululu begin the equinox-year, what the months Nisannu
110 Chapter 3
Table 11. Relationship of Festival Dates

to Lunar Phases in Leviticus 23
Lunar Phases Lev 23 Festival
and Dates Ritual Dates Name Month General Activities
New moon (1st 1st Trumpet 7—fall Sacred occasion
and 2nd days of Blasts Prohibition on work
the month) Food offering to Yhwh
First half-moon None
(7th and 8th
days of the
month)
Full Moon (14th 14th Pesach 1— Unspecified in Lev 23 other than an
and 15th days of spring evening ceremony/meal
the month)
15th—21st Unleavened 1— Eat unleavened bread for seven days
Bread spring (full lunar phase)
15th is a sacred occasion—with no
work
Food offerings for seven days
21st (half-moon) is a sacred occasion
with no work.
15th—22nd Feast of 7—fall Live in booths for seven days (full
Tabernacles lunar phase)
15th is a sacred occasion—with no
work
Food offerings for seven days
22nd (half-moon) is a sacred occasion
with no work and food offerings
15th—22nd Feast of 7—fall Live in booths for seven days
Yhwh 15th is a sacred occasion—with no
work
15th, take four species of tree
branches and rejoice before Yhwh
22nd (half-moon) is a sacred occasion
with no work and food offerings
Last half-moon None
(21st and 22nd of
the month)
Dates not Barley harvest Firstfruit of Unspec- Bring first sheaf of barley harvest to
directly associ- barley ified the priest
ated with lunar The priest will elevate the offering
phases before Yhwh—for acceptance of the
people
Sacrifice an unblemished yearling
lamb as a burnt offering
Grain and drink offerings
Prohibition against eating the new
harvest until the offering is complete
Leviticus 23 111
Lunar Phases Lev 23 Festival

and Dates Ritual Dates Name Month General Activities
Wheat har- Firstfruit of Unspec- Bring two bread loaves, mixed with
vest—counted wheat ified leavening to the priest
50 days from The priest will elevate the offering
the barley before Yhwh—for acceptance of the
firstfruits people
offering Sacrifice seven unblemished yearling
lambs, one bull, and two rams as a
burnt offerings
Grain and drink food offerings
One male goat as a purification
offering
Two yearling lambs as a well-being
sacrifice
It is a sacred occasion with no work
9th–10th Day of 7th Sacred occasion

Atonement Prohibition on work, with conse-
quences
Prescription for self-denial, with
consequences
contain both harvest and nonharvest rites with varied dates during the
month and with varied durations (this point is elaborated upon below,
in this chapter). The text groups dated ritual activities in the 1st and 7th
months with similar monthly ritual structures. 85
Following the analysis in chap. 2, and as highlighted in the work of M. E.
Cohen 86 and Francesca Rochberg-Halton, 87 I understand the Israelite fes-
tival calendar to contain similarities to the 2nd-millennium Mesopotamian
calendar (introduced by Samšuiluna ca. 1750 b.c.e.). The Samšuiluna cal-
endar divided the year into two segments, with the 1st month beginning
around the vernal equinox (during the spring—ummātu or umšu) and the 7th
month beginning around the autumnal equinox (during the cold season—
and Tasritu (normally) do” (M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 400). While the correlation
between the months and the equinoxes is evident at Ur, expressions of a connection with
the equinoxes also appear in writing throughout the region. In the 1st and 7th months in
Lagaš (Barley and Malt Festival and the Festival of Baba) and the Tummal Temple New
Year’s festivals at Nippur are examples of this expression in regional cultures. I explore
this connection during the discussion about the Hebrew and Emar ritual calendars.
85. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1964–65.
86. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 239–305.
87. Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Calendars, Ancient Near East,” ABD 1.810–14.
112 Chapter 3
kuṣṣu). Milgrom interprets Exod 34:22 (‫ )תקופת השנה‬and 2 Sam 11:1 (‫לתשובת‬
‫ )השנה‬as preserving an Israelite knowledge of the equinox division of the
lunar year into two parts—beginning months 1 and 7. 88
The Israelite festival year was therefore divided into lunar months
marked by môʿădîm. This conclusion is further supported by Ps 104:19
(‫)עשה ירח למועדים‬, “He made the moon to mark the fixed times” (see also
Gen 1:14); and “[t]he moon, too, that marks the changing times, governing
the seasons, their lasting sign, by which we know the feast days and fixed
days” (Sir 43:6–7a). 89
The textual evidence from Lev 23 regarding the calendar year supports
the conclusion that the ritual year (at a minimum) began in the spring
around the time of the barley harvest. Further, the text appears to divide
the year into two six-month segments, with the 1st and 7th months oriented
to the time of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Finally, both the 1st and
7th months were primary months for ritual activities, with each being con-
sidered a “new year.” In chap. 2, I showed that these three points were com-
mon throughout the ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium. In chaps. 4
and 5, I will evaluate how each point compares to the 2nd-millennium mul-
timonth ritual calendar at Emar (Emar 446).
Named Rituals in the Lev 23 Calendar

Leviticus 23 mentions some ritual ceremonies by name while leaving
others unnamed (anonymous). In general, festival and ritual ceremonies in
the 1st and 7th months are named, while the agricultural ceremonies in the
spring (1st and 3rd months) are unnamed. The purpose of this practice is
unclear. Moreover, some rituals named in Lev 23 are left unnamed in related
biblical texts. The reason for identifying a text in one passage and leaving
it unnamed in others is also unknown. Table 12 outlines the ritual activities
contained in Lev 23, separating the activities into festivals, ceremonies, and
rituals. Although the table is long and the footnotes complex, the infor-
mation is essential to understanding the multimonth festival calendar of
Lev 23 for a number of reasons. (Text continues on p. 120.)
88. Milgrom continues,

The priestly calendar clearly reflects this bipartite division of the year by its concentra-
tion of festivals in the first and seventh months that largely parallel one another. For
example, both these two months contain a seven-day festival beginning on the fifteenth
day of the month to which an additional day was added: the pesaḥ before the seven-day
festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:5–8) and the eighth day after the seven-day fes-
tival of Booths (v. 36). This symmetry is accentuated in the Septuagint of Ezek 45:20:
“You shall do the same (as the 1st day of the 1st month) in the 7th month.” (Milgrom,
Leviticus, 1965)
Milgrom postulates that the môʿēd (fixed time) may imply times fixed by humans, while
Sabbath may mean times fixed by Yhwh (see also pp. 1953–55).
89. Translation from ibid., 1965.
Leviticus 23 113
Table 12. Rites Associated with Named Rituals

Named / Described in Other
Ritual Unnamed Verse(s) Festival Passagesa Involved Activities and Comments
Feastsb
Feast of Unleavened Named 6 Named in: Exod 23:13; Feast.
Bread 34:18; Deut 16:16c Eat unleavened bread for 7 days.
(‫)גח המצות‬ On the 1st and 7th days are sacred assemblies—
with a prohibition against work.d
Harvest firstfruits Unnamede 10–14, Named in: Exod Two festivals: the first is presumably for the
(Festival of the Har- 15–22 23:16 Feast of the Har- barley harvest occurring on the day after a Sab-
vest / Feast of Weeks) vest (‫ ;)חג הקציר‬34:22 bath, and the second (50 days later) for the wheat
Feast of Weeks (‫שבעת‬ harvest.
‫ ;)חג‬Num 28:26–31 The “day after the Sabbath” (discussed above in
(Weeks). this chapter) is somewhat ambiguous.f
The named feasts For the first ritual: bring the first sheaf of the
in Exod 23; 34; and (barley) harvest to the priest; for the second
Num 28 are unnamed ritual: a new grain (wheat) offering.
in Lev 23. Priest will elevate the firstfruit offering (sheaf/
bread loaves) before Yhwh.
The first firstfruit celebration includes a pro-
hibition on eating the new harvest until the ritual
complex is completed.
Sacrifice an unblemished male yearling lamb as
a burnt offering in the first ritual and 7 unblem-
ished yearling lambs, 1 bull, and 2 rams as a burnt
offering.
Includes a grain offering of two-tenths of an
ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering,
and drink offering (one-quarter of a hin of wine).
The second firstfruits festival involves a male
goat as a purification offering, a prohibition
on work, and 2 yearling lambs as a well-being
offering.
The second firstfruit festival is identified as a
sacred occasion with a prohibition on work. The
festival also includes an ethical call to leave the
gleanings of the fields to the poor and the alien.
a. Note that the discussion of passages external to Lev 23 is limited to other biblical festival
calendars, including: Exod 23:10–19; 34:18–26; Num 28:16–29:40; Deut 16:1–17; Ezek 45:18–25.
b. Festival identified in Lev 23 or related festival calendar as a (‫ )חג‬feast.
c. The festival is referenced outside the festival calendars in Exod 12:17; 2 Chr 8:13; 30:13,
21; 35:17; Ezra 6:2. Wenham notes that Exod 12:14–17 ties the festival to the exodus, when the
Israelites left Egypt without enough time to leaven the bread (Wenham, Leviticus, 303).
d. See discussion below on “sacred assemblies.”
e. This aspect may be a point of similarity with Emar 446, which names some festivals and
leaves others unnamed (discussed in chap. 5).
f. Chapters 4 and 5 below explore the date ambiguity in relation to Emar 446.
g. Known as the Feast of Ingathering (‫ )חג האסיף‬in Exod 23:16; 34:22.
h. The unnamed festival in Num 29 gives additional information about the specific offer-
ings for each day. Numbers 29 specifies that the festival includes the following rituals: Day 1:
a burnt offering of 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corre-
sponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 2: a burnt
offering of 12 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding
grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 3: a burnt offering
of 11 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink
offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 4: a burnt offering of 10 bulls, 2 rams,
114 Chapter 3
Table 12. Rites Associated with Named Rituals (cont.)

Festival of Tabernacles Named 33–36 Exod 23:16; 34:22;g Fifteenth day of the 7th month (full moon).
(‫)הסכות חג‬ Num 29:12–34;h Deut Similar to the multiday zukru Festival in the
16:13–15i middle of the fall at Emar.
The 1st day is a sacred occasion with a prohibi-
tion against work.
Present food offerings for seven days to Yhwh.
The 8th day is also a sacred occasion with
food offerings, a prohibition against work, and a
solemn assembly.j
The timing of the festival corresponds to the
end of the grape harvest and the preparation for
planting and the rainy season.
and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male
goat as a purification offering; Day 5: a burnt offering of 9 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling
lambs, each with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purifica-
tion offering; Day 6: a burnt offering of 8 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with
the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 7:
a burnt offering of 7 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male yearling lambs, each with the corresponding
grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering; Day 8: sacred assembly, no
regular work, food offering, a burnt offering of 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 male yearling lambs, each
with the corresponding grain and drink offerings, and a male goat as a purification offering.
i. Deuteronomy 31:10–11 alludes to a public reading of the Law, when all Israel gathers for
the Festival of Tabernacles. Second Chronicles 8:13 lists the Feast of Tabernacles as one of the
three primary annual festivals. Zechariah 14:16–19 gives a penalty of drought to anyone not
participating in the Feast of Tabernacles, raising the possibility that the purpose of the festival
is, in part, the supplication of Yhwh to give sufficient rain for the coming agricultural season.
j. Milgrom argues that this celebration on the eighth day is best translated “solemn assem-
bly” (see also Jer 9:1; 2 Kgs 10:21–22) and represents an assembly at the sanctuary (though Mil-
grom notes that Deut 16:8 attests that a celebration at home is possible) where all the Israelites
prayed for a successful agricultural season in the coming year. He contends that, because the
spring season was fraught with hazards for crops—unseasonable rainstorms, locust invasions,
and the dreaded sirocco—prayer for the new season would probably have been the topic of the
eighth day. “Let it be considered that on the last day before the Israelite landowner returns home
(or while he is doing so), his thoughts and concerns would be focused on the prospects of his
forthcoming plowing and sowing being blessed with an adequate supply of rain. Prayer would
have been in his heart and verbalized communally at the ʿăṣeret ” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2031).
k. The festival may be intended in Neh 8. Hess notes that Exod 10:9 mentions ‫חג־יהוה‬
when Moses requests that Pharaoh allow the Israelites to go into the wilderness to celebrate.
The term is also found in Judg 21:9 and Hos 9:5 with an unclear meaning (Hess, Leviticus, 792).
Exodus 12:14; 13:6; 32:5; and Num 29:12 use the phrase “Feast of Yhwh” as a general term.
l. I analyze the overlap of two named festivals on the same days as a potential point of simi-
larity with Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5.
m. Noth, Leviticus, 166; Hartley, Leviticus, 372–73; Wenham, Leviticus, 305; Erhard S. Ger-
stenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. Douglas W. Stott; OTL; Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1996), 348; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2036.
n. Defined here as a one-day feast or ritual not identified by the term (‫“ )חג‬feast.”
o. The phrase is found in Exod 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:31; 25:4. Hess finds that the references in
Exodus designate the Sabbath at the end of the week; and that Lev 16:1 is associated with the
Day of Atonement and Lev 25:4 with the Sabbatical Year. The association of the Sabbath in
Lev 23:3 and the Sabbatical Year in Lev 25:4 leads Hess to conclude that the festival calendar
is ordered by the “sequence of their appearance: the Sabbath that occurs every week (23:2–3),
Leviticus 23 115

Festival of Yhwh Named 39–43 Not identified in Fifteenth to 21st days of the 7th month.l
(‫)חג־יהוה‬ other related festival First and 8th days are days of rest.
calendars.k On the 1st day take branches of four kinds of
trees and rejoice before Yhwh.
All native-born Israelites should live in booths
for seven days (to remind the Israelites that they
lived in booths when Yhwh brought them out
of Egypt).
The festival is frequently identified as an ad-
dendum to the Festival of Tabernacles.m
Ceremoniesn
Sabbath of complete Named 3, 32, Sab- Not identified in other Identified as a sacred assembly in 23:3.p
rest bath in festival calendars.o Complete rest.
(‫)שבתון שבת‬ 11, 15, 16 Held every seven days.
Pesaḥ Named 5 Named in Num 28:16;q Held at twilight on the 14th day (full moon) of
(‫)פסח‬ Deut 16:1–2.r the 1st month in the spring.s
the annual festivals (23:4–43), and those yearlong festivals that are celebrated in cycles of seven
years (ch. 25)” (Hess, Leviticus, 783).
p. Milgrom maintains that the section is the product of both H and HR, who worked the
verses into a large chiastic structure (ABCDEXE′D′C′B′A′) with v. 3b as the chiastic center.
The redactor, HR, uses the repetition of ‫ מקראי קדש‬and ‫ שבת‬to strengthen the claim that the
Sabbath is one of the sacred occasions in the cultic calendar.
q. Knohl notes that Lev 23:4–8 is very similar in style, language, and structure to Num
28:16–25. Knohl attributes the entirety to PT. HS expresses a tendency to “fuse” proximate
festivals, where PT keeps proximate festivals distinct. In both the Numbers and the Leviticus
pericopes, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are distinct, with the Passover on the
14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread beginning on the 15th of the 1st month. Knohl points
to Exod 12 as an example of HS’s fusing these festivals—here the phrase “evening to evening”
is attributed to HS. In addition, Exod 12 displays the HS trademark of equality for foreigners
and strangers. Another HS passage dealing with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is
Num 9:9–14. Knohl identifies other features that point to PT as the origin of this passage: only
a brief mention of the Passover without a mention of rituals, a command to eat unleavened
bread for seven days but no command not to eat leaven, no historicalization of either feast
with the exodus. In the related HS passages (Exod 12; Num 9), the author stresses the historical
dimension of the feasts, delineates the requirements, forbids leaven, and punishes disobedi-
ence by “cutting off ” the offending party from the community (Knohl, Sanctuary, 19–24).
r. Milgrom finds that pesaḥ and maṣṣôt are discrete in “early” sources, including: Exod 12:1–
28, 40–51; 13:3–10; Num 29:16–23; and are fused in “later” sources, including: Deut 16:1–7; Ezek
45:21; Ezra 6:20–22; 2 Chr 30:2, 5, 13, 15; 35:17–18 (he omits the mention in Num 9:10, 14). Based
on this evidence, he argues that the two “originated as first-fruit festivals, the former observed
by shepherds and the latter, by farmers, to ensure the fertility of their respective flocks and
crops.” Thus the Israelite transhumant pastoralists combined their observance of the pesaḥ (cf.
Exod 5:1; 10:9) and the maṣṣôt festivals after they had abandoned their wilderness wandering
and had settled permanently in Canaan. While this is possible, I contend that a holding of two
rituals on adjacent days does not necessitate a discrete development that was later fused—see
chaps. 4 and 5 for a discussion of this point in relation to Emar 446.
s. Milgrom, following Ginsberg, concludes that D shifted the observance of the ḥag from
E’s observance on the 7th day (Exod 13:6) to the 1st day—“thus allowing for the previous eve-
ning’s pesaḥ to be observed by the pilgrims at the central sanctuary” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2071).
116 Chapter 3

Trumpet Blasts Named 24–25t Num 29:1–6u A remembrance celebrationv and a sacred occa-
(‫)תרועה‬ sion including a prohibition from work.
Psalm 27:6 associates the ‫ תרועה‬with rejoicing
during sacrifices in the “tent of Yhwh” celebrat-
ing the protection given by Yhwh.
Held on the first day of the 7th month.
Includes a food offering to Yhwh
t. Leviticus 25:9 reads the ‫ שופר‬with ‫ תרועה‬as being blown on the 10th day of the 7th
month at the Day of Atonement. Psalm 27:6 depicts ‫ תרועה‬associated with sacrifices. Second
Chronicles 13:12 combines the idea of an alarm for war with ritual, accusing the Israelites of
declaring war on Yhwh. Second Chronicles 15:14 associates the ‫ תרועה‬with the making of an
oath. The term translates as an “alarm blast” as part of a battle announcement in Num 10:5–6;
31:6; Josh 6:5, 20; Job 39:25; Ezek 21:22; Amos 1:14; 2:2; Jer 20:16; Zeph 1:16. The term (‫)תרועה‬
denotes a large noise in a ritual context in 1 Sam 4:5; 2 Sam 6:15; 1 Chr 15:28 (arrival of the Ark);
Ezra 3:11–13 (foundation of the temple completed); Job 8:21; 33:26; Pss 33:3; 47:6; 150:5 (praising
God); Ps 89:16 (the sound of Yhwh’s righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and truth).
u. The Num 29:1–2 passage elaborates that the festival includes: a burnt offering of 1 bull,
1 ram, and 7 unblemished yearling lambs; a grain offering of flour mixed with oil (three-tenths
of an ephah per bull, two-tenths ephah per ram, and one-tenth ephah per lamb); 1 male goat as
a purification offering of atonement—all in addition to the regular new-moon burnt offering,
grain offering, and drink offering.
v. Leviticus 23 reads a qualifier, not found in Num 29, noting that the trumpet blast is a
commemoration or reminder (‫)זכרון‬.
w. Jenson argues that the Day of Atonement was the most important day of the priestly
year (although less important to the general population). While similar to other festivals, it
possessed a unique character ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 198, 209).
x. We will explore rituals having names in one calendar and remaining unnamed in another
in chaps. 4 and 5. The Day of Atonement is mentioned in Lev 25:9 as a marker in the sabbatical
year with horn-blowing.
y. Hess notes that the practice of being “‘cut off from his people’ describes a divine pun-
ishment already required for various acts of uncleanness, consumption of blood, and practices
associated with worship of other deities (Lev 7:20–27; 17:4, 9–14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3–6, 17–18; 22:3,
24). As elsewhere it implies the end of one’s name or remembrance among his people” (Hess,
Leviticus, 790).
z. This study defines this term as a named ritual component of another ceremony or
festival.
aa. Numbers 9:2, 3, 7, 13 consider the concept of an appointed time to be associated with the
Pesach. Hess notes that in Gen 1:14 the term describes the “annual and monthly ‘seasons’ marked
by the sun and the moon” (Hess, Leviticus, 783). The same form is found in Ezra 3:5; Ps 74:8; Ezek
44:24; 47:17. In Gen 18:14; 21:2; Exod 13:10; Num 15:3; 1 Sam 9:24; 13:8; 2 Sam 20:5; 24:15; Esth 9:27;
Ps 102:13; Jer 46:17; Neh 10:33; Lam 1:15; Dan 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35; Hab 2:3, the term, usually found
with ‫ל‬, refers to a specific point in history usually prescribed by Yhwh for a specific event. Mil-
grom argues that ‫ מועד‬applies to a time fixed by a human, while ‫ שבת‬refers to a time fixed by
God. This conclusion may reach too far because several occurrences of ‫ מועד‬specifically refer-
ence an appointment by Yhwh, including Lev 23:2, 4, 37, 44 (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1965).
ab. May also be translated “sacred proclamations” because miqrāʾ is the cognate accusative
of qārāʾ (ibid., 1957).
ac. Numbers 28–29 record six sacred assemblies, changing the eighth day of the festival of
Yhwh to a solemn assembly (‫ )עצרה‬in place of the sacred assembly. This distinction separates
the H author of Lev 23 from the P author of Num 28–29 because “the sabbatical pattern (re-
peating a word seven times) is not as significant for P” (ibid., 1958). The term is also identified
twice in Exod 12:16.
Leviticus 23 117

Day of Atonementw Named 26–32 Unnamed in Num From the evening on the 9th day to the evening
(‫)כפר יום‬ 29:7–11.x on the 10th day of the 7th month.
A sacred occasion with a prohibition against
work and a food offering to Yhwh.
Practice “self affliction” to effect atonement for
the people.
Consequences for lack of obedience: lack of
self-denial results in being cut off from one’s kin;y
working results in the death penalty.
Rituals/Offeringsz
Appointed times/festi- Named 2 (2×), Named in: Exod Referring to a specific time, usually prescribed
vals (‫)מועד‬ 4, 37 23:15; 34:18; Num 28:2; by Yhwh, for a specific event. Some appointed
29:39.aa times recur annually, and others (outside the
festival texts) refer to one event (or possible
event) in history.
Verse 37 supports the idea that several ritual
offerings are combined to form the appointed
festivals (which are sacred occasions). These
offerings are composed of food offerings, burnt
offerings, grain offerings, unnamed sacrifices, and
drink offerings.
Sacred assembliesab Named 2, 3, 4, Named in: Num 28:18, Seven days are described as sacred assemblies:
(‫)מקרא־קדש‬ 7, 8, 21, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12.ac first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened
24, 27, Bread, the day of the firstfruit elevation offering,
35, 36 1st day of the 7th month, Day of Atonement, first
and eighth days of Tabernacles.ad
The ritual assembly is characterized by a prohi-
bition against work.ae
Food giftsaf Named 8, 13, 18, Named in: Num 28:6, Unspecified food gifts in Lev 23.ai
(‫)אשה‬ 25, 27, 36 8, 13, 19, 24; 29:6, 13,
(2×), 37ag 36.ah
ad. Wenham, Leviticus, 301.

ae. Hess, Leviticus, 782. Milgrom comments that work stops because the days are holy, and
such holiness mandates this cessation (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1978).
af. Also translated “offerings by fire.”
ag. Hess notes that 32 of the 47 occurrences appear in Leviticus. Eight of these occurring
in Lev 23 points to the importance of the “food gift” to festival rituals (Hess, Leviticus, 784).
ah. Milgrom argues that Lev 23 (H) condenses the material contained in Num 28–29 (P).
Milgrom goes on to use the brevity in Lev 23 as evidence that Num 28–29 is older and that the
H author relied on Num 28–29 when writing the festival calendar in Lev 23 (Milgrom, Leviticus,
1979).
ai. Wenham identifies the offering as “probably a shorthand for ‘all the appropriate sacri-
fices’” (Wenham, Leviticus, 303).
aj. Some of the references above use the verbal form and not the noun; however, the ele-
vation offering is seemingly in view when the verb “to elevate” is used in the passage. There-
fore, the references are included.
ak. The breast is associated with the elevation offering and is the property of the priests
in Exod 29:26–27; Lev 7:30–34; 8:29; 9:21; 10:14; Num 6:20; 18:18. This point will be explored in
relation to Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5.
118 Chapter 3

Elevation offering Named 11 (2×), Not mentioned in Bring a sheaf (v. 11)/bread (v. 17) of the firstfruit
(‫)תנופה‬ 12, 15, 17, other festival calen- to the priest.
20 (2×)aj dars.ak Priest will elevate the firstfruit offering before
Yhwh so that the people may be accepted.al
The firstfruit elevation offering is on the day
after the Sabbath.am
The elevation offering, burnt offering, grain
offering, food offering, and drink offering are per-
formed on the same day and part of a larger ritual
complex that makes a pleasant aroma to Yhwh.
The second firstfruit offering (wheat) includes
2 lambs as part of the elevation offering. In addi-
tion, the ritual complex includes a sin offering and
a peace offering.
Burnt offering to Named 12, 18, 37 Named in: Num 28:19, The elevation offering, burnt offering, grain
Yhwh 23 (2×), 24, 27, 31; 29:2, offering, food offering, and drink offering are
(‫)עלה‬ 6 (2×), 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, performed on the same day (during the firstfruit
22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 36, 38, ceremony) and seemingly part of a larger ritual
39; Ezek 45:23, 25. complex that makes a pleasant aroma to Yhwh.an
Sacrifice an unblemished male yearling lamb.
al. The location is unspecified in this passage. The offerings in Deut 26:1–11 may refer to
a local sanctuary with an individual offering, while Deut 16:9–12 may point to a more central
celebration.
am. In v. 15, only the elevation offering is used as a temporal reference when calculating the
“seven Sabbaths,” while the other offerings are absent. Specifically mentioning the elevation
offering and omitting any mention of other ritual offerings may denote a position of promi-
nence for the elevation offering or may merely be a shortened reference.
an. Jenson notes that the number of bulls offered gradually decreases through the Festival
of Booths and may indicate a gradual decrease of joy at the end of the year ( Jenson, Graded
Holiness, 191).
ao. The pairing of grain and drink offerings is common in the Pentateuch and Prophets
with at least two references in the Historical Books (cf. Exod 29:40, 41; Num 6:15, 17; 15:4–5, 24;
28:8, 9; 29:6, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39; 2 Kgs 16:13, 15 [with meal
offering]; Ezra 7:17; Isa 57:6; Ezek 45:17; Joel 1:9, 13; 2:14).
ap. Exodus 29:40; Num 15:5; 28:7 read a similar one-quarter hin of wine per lamb offer-
ing. The drink offering may vary as identified in Num 15:7 (one-third hin), 10 (one-half hin);
28:14 (one-half hin). Second Kings 16:13 depicts pouring some of the drink offering on the
altar. Psalm 16:4 reads a “drink offering of blood” in place of wine. Jeremiah 7:18; 19:13; 32:29;
44:17–19, 25 acknowledges that drink offerings were an item offered to “other gods,” showing
the potential commonality between Israelite and other ancient Near Eastern ritual practices.
Jeremiah 52:19 mentions specific bowls used for drink offerings.
aq. Leviticus 2:13 adds salt to the grain offering. Leviticus 2:1; Num 5:15; Neh 13:5 and 9 add
frankincense. Leviticus 2:15; 6:15 adds incense to the offering.
ar. Reviewing the occurrences of units of measure and grain offerings—the conversion in
Leviticus and Numbers may be: one-tenth of an ephah per lamb, two-tenths per ram, and three-
tenths of an ephah per bull—each in association with the corresponding burnt offering. Two-
tenths of an ephah is a common reference in the grain offering (Num 15:6; 28:9; 28:12, 20 [for
each ram], 28 [for each ram]; 29:9 [ram], 14 [ram]); however, other amounts are identified with
the grain offering: (three-tenths) Lev 14:10; Num 15:9; 28:12, 20 (for each bull), 28 (for each bull);
29:3 (bull), 9 (bull), 14 (bull); (one-tenth) Lev 14:21; Num 5:15; 15:4; 28:5, 13 (for a lamb). Ezekiel
45:24; 46:5, 7, 11 increases the grain offering to a full ephah for a ram or a bull plus a hin of oil;
however, Ezek 46:14 may reduce the amount of a daily grain offering to one-sixth of an ephah.
Leviticus 23 119

Drink offering Named 13, 18, 37 Named in: Num 28:24, Paired with the grain offering in Lev 23:13, 18,
(‫)נסף‬ 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 18–19, 37.ao
21–22, 24–25, 27–28, In the Firstfruits Festival, the drink offering is
30–31, 33–34, 37–39; one-fourth of a hin of wine.ap
Ezek 45:17.
Grain offering Named 13, 16, Named in: Num 28:20, In the first Firstfruit Festival complex, the grain
(‫)מנחה‬ 18, 37 26, 28, 31; 29:3, 6 (2×), offering is two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour
9, 11, 14, 16, 18–19, mixed with oil. In the second firstfruits, the grain
21–22, 24–25, 27–28, offering is baked with leaven into two loaves.
30–31, 33–34, 37–39; Two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour—mixed
Ezek 45:24–25. with oilaq in the first firstfruits ritual and baked
into two leavened loaves in the second firstfruits
ritual.ar
In v. 37, the grain offering is mentioned as
part of each “appointed feast” (‫ )מועד‬and may be
included, without mention, in other festivals.
New grain offering Named 16 Num 28:26 Associated with the beginning of the Feast
(‫)חדשה מנחה‬ of Weeks (Num 28:26) and the beginning of the
second unnamed firstfruits celebration.
In Lev 23:16, the calendar omits specifics
(including the day of the month).as
Includes two loaves of bread as an elevation
offering made with two-tenths of an ephah of fine
flour baked with leaven as a firstfruits offering to
Yhwh.
The ritual is part of a larger complex including
a burnt offering, drink offering, and food offering.
Numbers 28 reads this ritual as part of a sacred
assembly and draws a distinction between the
“new grain offering” and the “grain offering” that
is mentioned separately in Num 28:28.
Purification offering Named 19 Num 28:22; 29:5, 11 Part of the second firstfruits (wheat) ritual
(‫)חטאת‬ (2×), 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, complex.at
31, 34, 38; Ezek 45:19, One male goat.au
22, 23, 25
Fellowship offering Named 19 Num 29:39av Part of the second firstfruits (wheat) ritual
(‫)שלמים זבח‬ complex.
Two male yearling lambs.aw
as. Chapters 4 and 5 will explore this aspect in relation to Emar 446.
at. Numbers 28:22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 add a reference to a purification offer-
ing during the Pesach, Feast of Trumpet Blasts, Day of Atonement (for atonement).
au. Numbers 28:22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 agree with a goat as the purification
offering. Outside the festival calendar, a goat (Lev 4:24; 5:6; 9:3, 15; 10:16; 16:5, 9, 15; Num 7:16,
22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 82, 87; 15:24, 27; 28:15, 22; 29:5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38;
2 Chr 29:23; Ezra 6:17; Ezek 43:22, 25; 45:23) and other animals are referenced with the purifica-
tion offering: (bull) Exod 29:14, 36; Lev 4:8, 14, 20; 8:14; 9:2; 16:3, 6, 11, 27; Num 8:8, 12; Ezek
43:19, 21; 45:22; (lamb) Lev 4:32; 5:6; Num 6:14; (birds) Lev 5:7; 12:6, 8; 14:22; Num 6:11; (flour)
Lev 5:11; 6:17; (calf ) Lev 9:8; (multiple amounts and types) 2 Chr 29:21; Ezra 8:35.
av. Not mentioned in relation to a specific festival.
aw. The fellowship offering may be made with: lambs, bulls, or birds, depending on the
occasion and economic status of the person offering the sacrifice (see Lev 3).
120 Chapter 3
• According to the methodology in chap. 1, it is important to explore

intratextual relationships prior to extratextual relationships. Table 12
outlines valuable information for understanding the festivals and
ritual components in Lev 23 and related biblical passages.
• To conduct a comparative analysis between Lev 23 and Emar 446, the
reader must understand the components of ritual activity contained
in feasts, ceremonies, and offerings. Table 12 outlines what rites
compose each category of ritual and which offerings are frequently
expected.
• The table outlines which named and unnamed occasions are
combined to form larger festivals and ceremonies. In addition, the
table demonstrates what may have constituted the “food offerings.”
• Finally, chaps. 4 and 5 will compare the information in table 12 with
the understanding of ritual at Emar as depicted in Emar 446. We will
attempt to determine if the two texts demonstrate similarities or
differences in their expression of ritual.
This section explored the use and purpose of sacred time in Lev 23. The
text offers clear evidence that time played a vital role in both Israelite ritual
and the organization of this multimonth festival calendar. We will use some
of the following key findings later as we compare Lev 23 and Emar 446:
• The text is organized using temporal dividers.
• The normal work schedule is interrupted for ritual activities—
including a call for rest or complete rest on specific days.
• According to the text, rituals often last seven days.
• A one-day ritual meal is held the day before a primary festival with a
yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice (on one occasion).
• Some ritual activities are tied to the agricultural calendar while other
ritual activities are tied to the monthly fixed calendar in the same
text.
• The text is a multimonth ritual calendar.
• Ritual activities seem clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes.
• The calendar highlights activities on specific days while remaining
silent about activities on other days.
• The time of the offerings and activities that occur during the day are
usually unspecified.
• The text occasionally records an activity that occurs in the evening.
• The text may depict a lunisolar calendar determining the month.
• Ritual celebrations often begin at lunar-phase breaks (63 percent in
Lev 23).
• When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, the
festival length is limited to one or two days.
• The longer festivals begin on the full moon (15th of the month) and
last for seven days (21st of the month).
Leviticus 23 121
• Festivals include both named and unnamed rituals (named festivals

are occasionally unnamed in related texts; similarly, named festivals
in related texts are occasionally unnamed in Lev 23).
• Rites are often combined to form a ritual complex.
• Drink offerings and grain offerings are typically paired.
• Rites creating an aroma pleasant to Yhwh include the combination
of burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings.
• Sacred assemblies always include a prohibition on work.
• While the role of the priest is usually “assumed,” it is rarely specified.
• The group of people required to bring offerings is typically identified
as “you” and assumed to be the general population.
Sacred Space
Chapter 1 identified several aspects of ritual that aid in the understand-
ing of ritual activity. One of these aspects of ritual is sacred space. Space
plays a significant role in ritual, often acting as the structuring aspect. 90
Eliade analyzes sacred space and its role in ritual, finding that:
For religious man, space is not homogeneous; he experiences interruptions,
breaks in it; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others. “Do
not come near here,” says the Lord to Moses; “remove your sandals from
your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” [transla-
tion updated] (Exod 3:5). There is, then, a sacred space, and hence a strong,
significant space; there are other spaces that are not sacred and so are without
structure or consistency, amorphous. Nor is this all. For religious man, this
special nonhomogeneity finds expression in the experience of an opposition
between space that is sacred—the only real and real-ly existing space—and all
other space, the formless expanse surrounding it. 91
As discussed in chap. 1, sacred space may represent a place of communica-

tion with the deity, a space from which the deity may act and derive power,
and a place that orders reality. 92 In addition, Klingbeil argues that sacred
space includes movement of people and objects (suggesting priority and
sequence), general orientation (worshipers in relation objects), and proces-
sional movement. 93 Turner adds that sacred space may also include an as-
pect of liminality, where the affected person is “betwixt and between” two
states. 94 As we examine sacred space in Lev 23, we will be guided by the
following questions: Where does the ritual enactment occur? Are specified
90. While not specifically addressing Lev 23, Jenson provides a thorough analysis
of sacred space in the Priestly text, exploring the gradation of space, materials, and the
senses ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 89–114).
91. Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 20.
92. Joel P. Brereton, “Sacred Space,” 528–32.
93. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 161–68.
94. Turner, The Ritual Process, 95.
122 Chapter 3
Table 13. Use of Space, and Movement

within Space in Leviticus 23
Ritual/
Month Day Festival Activity Direction Location
Every 7th Sabbath Sacred occasion with In Wherever the Israelites
no work live
1 15th Feast of Sacred occasion with None Unspecified
Unleavened no work
Bread
1 15th— Feast of Eat unleavened bread Unspecified Unspecified
21st Unleavened
Bread
1 15th— Feast of Present food offer- To Unspecified
21st Unleavened ings to Yhwh
Bread
1 21st Feast of Sacred assembly with None Unspecified
Unleavened no work
Bread
Unspeci- Harvest Firstfruits Enter the land and Into The land
fied reap its harvest
Unspeci- Harvest Firstfruits Bring the first sheaf To The location of the
fied of the harvest priest—unspecified
Unspeci- Day Firstfruits Priest will elevate the Elevate Before Yhwh—un-
fied after the sheaf before specified
Sabbath
Unspeci- Day Firstfruits Offer a male yearling To To Yhwh as a burnt of-
fied after the lamb without defect fering at an unspecified
Sabbath location
Unspeci- Day Firstfruits Prohibition against In Wherever the Israelites
fied after the eating new grain live
Sabbath from the harvest
until completion of
the offering
Unspeci- + 50 Second Bring from your From From Israelite settle-
fied days firstfruits settlements ments to an unspecified
location of Yhwh and
the priest
Unspeci- + 50 Second New grain offering To To Yhwh at an unspeci-
fied days firstfruits including a burnt of- fied location
fering, grain offering,
drink offering, food
offering, sin offering,
and peace offering
Unspeci- + 50 Second Elevation offering of Elevate To the priest who
fied days firstfruits the offerings above elevates the offerings
before Yhwh—“they
shall be holy to Yhwh
for the priest.”
Leviticus 23 123
Table 13. Use of Space, and Movement

within Space in Leviticus 23 (cont.)
Ritual/
Month Day Festival Activity Direction Location
Unspeci- + 50 Second Sacred occasion with In Wherever the Israelites
fied days firstfruits no work live
7 1st Trumpet Sacred occasion with Unspecified Unspecified
Blasts no work, trumpet
blasts, food offering
to Yhwh
7 10th Day of Sacred occasion Before Offering before Yhwh
Atonement with no work, afflict to effect atonement—
oneself, food offering location unspecified
to Yhwh
7 10th Day of Consequence for Cut off The guilty party will be
Atonement noncompliance cut off from the com-
munitya
7 15th Festival of Feast with a sacred Unspecified Unspecified
Tabernacles occasion with food
offerings and no work
7 15th— Festival of Present food offer- To Offerings to Yhwh at
21st Tabernacles ings an unspecified location
7 21st Festival of Feast with a sacred Unspecified Unspecified
Tabernacles occasion, with no
work, and food of-
ferings
Summary Multiple Multiple Verses 37–38 sum- To Offerings to Yhwh at
marize offerings an unspecified location
7 15th and Festival of Feast with a sacred Unspecified Unspecified
21st Yhwh occasion, including
no work, and food
offerings
7 15th— Festival of Take branches of Before Rejoice before Yhwh
21st Yhwh four types of tree and at an unspecified loca-
rejoice tion
7 15th— Festival of Live in booths—in Unspecified Unspecified
21st Yhwh order to remember
that Yhwh made
the Israelites live in
booths when they
came out of Egypt
a. Being cut off from the community may imply removal from access to sacred space.
124 Chapter 3
locations fixed or temporary, high or low? What rites transition from sacred
to profane space and back? What is the history of use for the space? What is
the shape of the space? Is the shape of the space symbolic? How are bound-
aries and thresholds marked?
This section reviews the references to space in Lev 23 and attempts to
determine their intended significance within Israelite ritual. Table 13 out-
lines the use of space and movement within space in Lev 23.
The multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 offers more details about
ritual actions than about the spaces in which these rituals occur. We should
not necessarily conclude, however, that sacred space is less important: the
space may simply be assumed to be common knowledge, or the text may
rely on other texts with broader descriptions. Regardless of the reason, the
lack of information concerning sacred space in Lev 23 is notable. The fol-
lowing specifics are omitted from the text:
• The identity of the temple and/or the tabernacle

• The specific locations for the various rituals, festivals, and
ceremonies
• Any mention of an altar, gate, or sacrificial area
• The location of ritual meals
• The location of any administrative areas or royal residence
• The justification (except rarely) for offerings
When sacred space is mentioned, it is in connection to Yhwh, the priest,

and the offering itself. The focus of the text moves “from” the people—
“to” Yhwh and the priest. Verse 17 reads that the people should “bring from
your settlements an elevation offering. . . . as firstfruits to Yhwh.” The pas-
sage goes on to clarify that the priest acts as an intermediary (v. 20) tak-
ing the elevation offering from the people and consecrating the offering “to
Yhwh for the priest” (v. 21). When the priest elevates this profane crop of
the people in the presence of Yhwh, the state of the grain alters from pro-
fane to sacred. The implication may be that sacred space is any space proxi-
mate to the presence of Yhwh (as indicated in Exod 3:5). Therefore, the use
of the word “from” may denote a profane space, with “to” representing a
sacred space.
A second use of the word “from” is found in vv. 29–30. These verses may
also describe a profane location. Verse 29 reads, “Any person who does not
deny himself on that day will be cut off from his kin.” Verse 30 continues,
“Any person who does any work on that day, I will cause that person to per-
ish from among his people.” In both cases, violation of the prohibition re-
sults in removal of the person from the group (family or loss of life). This
may imply a movement from the sacred space of the community to the pro-
fane space outside the community.
Leviticus 23 125
A final use of the term “from” is found in v. 43. This verse presents the
justification for living in booths during the Festival of Yhwh: “in order
that your generations may know that I made the Israelites live in booths
when I brought them out from the land of Egypt.” Cohn argues that be-
ing brought out from Egypt through the wilderness (i.e., living in booths)
may point to a liminal state, where the Israelites are moving from a profane
space (Egypt) to a sacred space (Israel). Cohn states that “wilderness. . . . is
a typical metaphor for the liminal phase of rites of passage. Participants
in initiation rituals are often actually or metaphorically in the wilderness,
secluded from society.” 95
The idea that all Israel is in some way sacred space is echoed in vv. 1–3,
14, 17, 31, where the Israelites are commanded to perform various rites and
festivals “in all your settlements.” 96 This may imply that anywhere that the
Israelites settle is considered sacred space. This conclusion is based on the
idea that wherever Yhwh dwells is sacred space. Therefore, if Yhwh dwells
within the community of the Israelites, wherever the Israelites live is con-
sidered sacred space. It would then follow that a specific location for sacred
space is “unspecified,” because Yhwh is present throughout the Israelite
community. 97 This is true even of the weekly Sabbath that occurs through-
out the land and is marked by a lack of work.
In this section, I explored the references to sacred space in Lev 23 and
noted that the text offers scant information about this particular ritual as-
pect. There are no descriptions or references to a temple, or specific loca-
tions for offerings, an altar, or gates. The text mentions no locations for rit-
ual meals, sacrifices, or ceremonies. Furthermore, the distinction between
sacred and profane space remains vague. I argue that any space proximate
to Yhwh is sacred space. If this is correct, then the references “from” the
people and “to” Yhwh may demonstrate the movement of an object from
profane to sacred space. And finally, it is uncertain whether sacred space
exists only near Yhwh or incorporates all of Israel.
Sacred Objects
Chapter 1 discusses the importance of understanding the presence and
role of sacred objects in ritual. The goal of this section is to identify and
95. Cohn, Shape of Sacred Space, 13. Also referenced in Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap,
168.
96. Variously translated “wherever you live.”
97. Possible support may be found in Exod 25:8, where a sanctuary allows Yhwh
to dwell with the people; Exod 25:9, “I will dwell among the Israelites”; and Exod 29:46,
“dwell among them.” Numbers 5:3 distinguishes between Yhwh’s presence inside the
camp and profane space outside the camp of the Israelites. Numbers 35:34 places Yhwh
in the land of Israel. Deuteronomy 12:29 describes Yhwh as living in the entire land
of Israel.
126 Chapter 3
explore the ritual objects in Lev 23, and I analyze their significance within
the greater ritual complex. Klingbeil believes that several points of inter-
pretation are crucial to understanding the use of objects in ritual.
First, even common elements such as bread and wine require a careful con-
textual interpretation. Past usage is not always the best indicator of present
meaning, although it should be considered. Second, ritual objects are often
employed in innovative ways to create new meaning. Third, careful attention
needs to be given to the explanation(s) that are part of the texts describing
the ritual. While these explanations may not always be complete or satisfac-
tory to the modern reader, they must provide the point of departure for an
understanding of the rituals. Fourth, combinations of objects may be relevant
and may point beyond the sum of the meaning of the individual objects. 98
According to Klingbeil, attention to these elements related to the ritual

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

Leviticus 23 127
Table 14. Uses of Sacred Objects in Ritual

Activities Contained in Leviticus 23
Verse Hebrew Translation Context
10 (2×), ‫קציר‬ Harvest a
Verse 10 mentions the first grain harvest of the year
22 (2×) (barley).b The land belonged to Yhwh,c and the harvest was
Yhwh’s provision for the Israelites—after they completed
the firstfruit offering.d
Verse 22 involves the second grain harvest (wheat), adding
an ethical provision for the poor and alien.
22 ‫לקט‬ Gleanings Defined by Milgrom as the items that fall during the harvest.e
24 ‫תרועה זכרון‬ Remembrance of Milgrom asserts that the trumpet blasts are conducted on the
trumpet blasts shofar on the 1st, 10th, and 15th days of the 7th month. He
goes on to argue that all three festivals of the 7th month—the
terûʿâ call on the 1st day, the fast day on the 10th, and the
circumambulation of the altar with waving fronds and other
vegetation for 7 days, from the 15th through the 22nd—as
well as the tradition of a water libation offered during these
days combine into a single-minded goal: to beseech God for
adequate rain in the forthcoming agricultural year.f
39 ‫הארץ תבואת‬ Yield of the land Synonym for harvest; however, noting that the source of the
harvest is “the land,” which belongs to Yhwh.g
40 ‫הדר עץ פרי‬ Fruit of splendid treesh Following Hess, who defines this as the fruit of any splendid
tree (see discussion in the translation section of this chapter).
40 ‫תמרים כפת‬ Fronds of palms Milgrom identifies the plural as one frond that has many
branches.i
40 ‫עץ־עבת ענף‬ Branches of leafy trees
40 ‫ערבי־נחל‬ Willows of the brook
34, 42, ‫סכה‬ Booths The context of the “booths” is a temporary shelter where the
43 Israelites would reside for 7 days—from the 15th to the 21st of
the 7th month. According to the text, this act is intended to
remind the Israelites that Yhwh brought them out of Egypt,
and they lived in booths during their desert wanderings.
a. For a description, see Isa 17:5; Ps 129:7.

b. Exodus 9:31–32; Ruth 1:22; 2:23; Jos. Ant. 3.250–51.
c. Leviticus 25:23.
d. Greenberg, On the Bible and Judaism, 115. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2011.
e. Ibid., 1626. Based on m. Peʾah 4:10. See also Deut 24:19. Similar to Lev 19:9–10 with the
omission of the vineyard harvest (fitting the context of a spring harvest; Wenham, Leviticus,
305; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2010).
f. Milgrom finds a procession in the phrase “you will rejoice before Yhwh your God” (Lev
23:40)—see discussion on processions above (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2016–18, 2043). The use of
ritual offerings and activities to solicit a deity’s support for the agricultural year is discussed
further in relation to Emar 446 in chaps. 4 and 5. Milgrom provides an outline of relevant argu-
ments related to the “alarm blasts” (ibid., 2014–19).
g. A similar phrase, “yield of the field,” is found in 2 Kgs 8:6 and 2 Chr 31:35—both of which
convey a ritual association between the harvest, the people, and the cult.
h. Milgrom translates “boughs of majestic trees” (Milgrom, Leviticus, 2040).
i. “The leaves would have been thought of as branches because of their stiffness and sharp-
ness. The rabbinic requirement to close and bind the leaves (b. Sukkah 32a) may stem from their
prickly nature, rendered especially hazardous during festival processions” (ibid., 2042).
128 Chapter 3
Table 15. Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23

Verse(s) Hebrew Translation Context
6 ‫ מצות‬Unleavened Part of the spring feast by the same name. The
bread Israelites are to eat unleavened bread for 7 days—
from the 15th to the 21st of the 1st month of the
year.
8, 13, 18, ‫ אשה‬Food offerings Milgrom and Hess maintain that “food gifts”
25, 27, represent a condensation of offerings contained in
36 (2×), Num 28:19–24—arguing that the author of Lev 23
37 had access to Num 28.a
10, 11, ‫ עמר‬Sheaf b (barley, The term is identified in Lev 23 with: firstfruit,
12, 15 wheat) part of the elevation offering, payment to the
priest, allowing for acceptance by Yhwh.
The first ripened and processed fruit belonged to
Yhwh (Exod 22:28; 23:19; 34:26; Deut 26:1–11), so
“a blessing may rest on your home” (Ezek 44:30;
cf. Lev 19:24–25). Note also Prov 3:9–10, “Honor
Yhwh with your substance and with the firstfruits
of all your produce; then your barns will be filled
with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with
wine.”c
13, 16, ‫ מנחה‬Grain offering See prior discussion on the “grain offering.” Flour
18, 37 mixed with oil as a food gift to Yhwh, including a
soothing aroma.
12, 18, ‫ כבש‬Male lamb Unblemished yearling as part of the burnt
19, 20 offering
Verse 18, including seven lambs as part of the
burnt offering.
Verse 19, two lambs as part of the well-being
sacrifice.
Verse 20, two lambs perhaps part of the ele-
vation offering. Mentioned as holy to Yhwh for
the priest.
13, 17 ‫ סלת‬Flour Reviewing the occurrences of units of measure
and grain offerings—the conversion in Leviticus
and Numbers may be: one-tenth of an ephah per
lamb, two-tenths of an ephah per ram, and three-
tenths of an ephah per bull—each in association
with the corresponding burnt offering.
Verse 13 prescribes a double portion.
a. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1979; Hess, Leviticus, 786.

b. The Septuagint reads “handful.”
c. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1984.
d. Ibid., 1988.
Leviticus 23 129
Table 15. Aspects of Sacred Offerings in Leviticus 23 (cont.)

Verse(s) Hebrew Translation Context
13 ‫ שמן‬Oil Mixed with the flour and baked into bread.
13 ‫ יין‬Wine This is the singular reference to wine as part of
the drink offering in Lev 23. The drink offering
is usually one-fourth of a hin of wine per lamb
offering; however, the other two references to the
drink offering in Lev 23 do not reference the type
of drink.
Milgrom notes that wine (drink offering) and
grain (cereal offering) are found in tandem for the
burnt and well-being offerings in Leviticus, Num
15:1–16; 2 Kgs 16:13, 15.d
14, 17, ‫ לחם‬Bread Unspecified amount in Lev 23:14.
18, 20 Two loaves in v. 17—using two-tenths of an
ephah with leavening (‫)חמץ‬.
Verse 20 is identified as part of the firstfruits
elevation offering.
Referring to barley that has been milled into
flour and baked.
14 ‫ קלי‬Parched grain Fresh grain.
14 ‫ כרמל‬Fresh grain Waxy and yellow in color. Milgrom notes that it
is in the state between soft and dry and may be
eaten fresh or made into porridge.e
16 ‫ חדשה מנחה‬New grain An offering of wheat in comparison with the “old”
cereal offering of barley.
18 ‫ בן־בקר פר‬Bull of the One as part of the burnt offering.
heard
18 ‫ איל‬Ram Two as part of the burnt offering.
19 ‫ שעיר‬Male goat One goat as a purification offering.
e. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1989; Matt 12:1; Mark 2:23; y. Šabb. 1.2.
quantities of the offerings, who shares the offering with the deity, and which
parts of the offering are shared. 99
A review of the sacred offerings in Lev 23 reveals that primary offerings
fall into three classifications: meat, cereals, and liquid. The most frequently
mentioned sacrificial offering is the male lamb 100 (three times). However,
other meat sacrifices include the ram (male sheep), bull (male bovine), and
99. Jenson contends that “the varying number of public sacrifices offered on differ-
ent days constituted a sacrificial code which unified the festal system, as well as graded
the festal days in importance” ( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 188).
100. The use of the male lamb in the sacrifice stands to reason because the male
lambs are less valuable than females. Females would have been used to build the herd.
130 Chapter 3
male goat. The offerings of lambs are found in connection with the burnt
offering, well-being offering, and elevation offering. A portion of the lamb
is retained as payment for the priest. The remainder of the sacrificial meat
offerings is identified with the burnt offering. The provider of the meat for
the offerings is the impersonal “you,” which implies that the general popu-
lation is responsible for providing the sacred offerings.
Cereal offerings include unleavened bread, sheaves of barley and wheat,
flour, bread, parched grain, fresh grain, new grain, and a grain offering. Ce-
real offerings are detailed in the festivals held in the spring and left unspeci-
fied or assumed in the festivals of the 7th month. These offerings include
both barley and wheat in different phases of ripening and processing. In
addition, the cereals used as offerings are unleavened, leavened, mixed with
oil, mixed with fragrance, baked, unbaked, or left on the stalk. Once given
to the priest, the cereals are elevated, baked, burned to Yhwh as a pleasing
aroma, or given to the priest as payment. As mentioned above, the provider
of the offerings is probably the general population.
The final category of offering is a drink offering given to Yhwh. The
drink offering is identified in vv. 13, 18, and 37, but the identification of the
drink as wine is only made in the first mention (v. 13) of the text. Drink
offerings and grain offerings are usually mentioned in tandem in this text
(vv. 13, 18, 37) and the Pentateuch.
In this section, I examine sacred items in the multimonth festival calen-
dar of Lev 23. In evaluating their role in the text, I found that these objects
form two categories: sacred items and sacred offerings. The following list
summarizes the key aspects of these ritual objects:
• Agricultural objects are used to petition Yhwh for a successful
agricultural season.
• The owner of the harvest is Yhwh.
• Ritual objects are occasionally temporary (huts and branches) and
associated with the remembrance of a significant event.
• Meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings are often
combined into a festival complex.
• Sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and cattle.
• Grain offerings and drink offerings are found in tandem.
• Ritual offerings are identified as both an offering to Yhwh and a
payment to the priests who act as officiants.
• The text includes an ethical prescription to aid the less fortunate in
the society.
Only one ram is necessary to service a flock; therefore, male lambs were used for food.
See also Jenson, Graded Holiness, 189.
Leviticus 23 131
Ritual Roles of Participants

As mentioned in chap. 1, individuals are an essential part of ritual, par-
ticipating through the performance of specific roles. Gorman identifies
three primary roles for ritual participants: specialist, sponsor, and recipi-
ent. 101 The specialist, often a priest or diviner, is responsible for both the
knowledge and the administration of the ritual performance. The sponsor
is the person whose situation has initiated the ritual. This may be the king,
city leaders, or a deity. And the third category is the recipient (the person
or group), for whom the ritual is conducted. 102 Leviticus 23 frequently iden-
tifies ritual participants associated with the activities during each month
of the festival calendar. We now explore these mentioned participants and
analyze the potential significance of the participant within the festival
structure and purpose. 103
The goal is to understand better the role played by identified partici-
pants in the multimonth festival calendar of Lev 23 and to answer the fol-
lowing questions: What roles and offices are operative in ritual? Do some
figures have a larger, longer, or more important role than others? How—if
at all—do participants and sacred space interact? And who participates ac-
tively, and who participates passively?
Yhwh
Yhwh is identified 37 times in Lev 23—once as God (v. 14), 4 times as
“Yhwh your God” (22, 28, 40, 43), and 32 times as Yhwh. Five formulaic,
third-person statements are used to divide the text into festival segments
(see prior discussion). The balance of the text is written as first-person di-
rect speech. Yhwh is seemingly behind the text, speaking to Moses. The
text is written from the point of view of Moses, who is speaking to the Is-
raelites (with “you” implying the Israelites). Occasionally, Yhwh speaks in
first person directly to either Moses or the Israelites (v. 2, “My appointed
times”; vv. 22, 43, “I am Yhwh your God”). The balance of the text is written
as direct speech (from the point of view of Moses), and Yhwh is the recipi-
ent of the action or offerings.
Moses (‫)משה‬
Moses is mentioned six times in Lev 23. Each mention is in a section-
division formula using Moses to convey information from Yhwh to the
101. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual Space, 34–36.

102. Also discussed in Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 51.
103. While not specifically addressing Lev 23, Jenson provides a thorough analysis
of ritual participants in the Priestly text, exploring the gradation of ritual participants,
including the priestly hierarchy, garments, and other participants. Jenson argues for a
gradation of people based on their distance from the temple/tabernacle and their status
( Jenson, Graded Holiness, 115–48).
132 Chapter 3
Israelites. 104 Moses neither adds nor interprets information but merely re-
peats the words as directed.
Israelites (‫ )בני ישראל‬and Native-Born of Israel (‫)האזרח בישראל‬

The Israelites—not the priest—are the focus and intended audience
of Lev 23. The text mentions the Israelites directly on six occasions—five
times in formulaic statements and once in a purpose statement. A variant,
“all citizens of Israel,” is found in the Festival of Yhwh, where all Israelites
are commanded to live in booths for seven days.
The majority of references to the Israelites are personal pronouns or the
verbal subject “you,” occurring in the text 53 times. The general population
is the primary subject of the text, thus demonstrating that the identified
audience is not priestly.
The identified audience of Lev 23 is the Israelites, who appear most of-
ten as the implied “you.” In the text, Yhwh speaks through Moses, convey-
ing the appointed times when the Israelites are either to perform an action
or offering or to abstain from work. While the role of the priest is present,
the onus is clearly on the general population to provide offerings and par-
ticipate in rites.
Priest (‫)כהן‬
The priests are only identified on five occasions in the text—four times
as a priest (vv. 10–11, 20 [2×]) and once as a third-person singular personal
pronoun, “he” (v. 11). Each occurrence is connected with the elevation of-
fering (i.e., the elevation offering is first consecrated to Yhwh and then
given to the priest)—first, the firstfruits offering of the barley harvest and,
second, the firstfruits offering of the wheat harvest. The text for the wheat
harvest clarifies that the elevation offering is first consecrated to Yhwh
and then given to the priest. Presumably the priest receives the offering
as payment for conducting the offerings to Yhwh. In comparison with the
Israelites, the priest plays a diminished role in the festival text.
Poor (‫ )עני‬and Alien (‫)גר‬

References to poor and alien individuals are found once in the text as
deserving the gleanings of the field after the harvest. While the inclusion
of the “poor” and the “alien” is unexpected in a festival text, it may serve
as a reminder of the ethical injunction in Lev 19:9–10 (rendered here by
104. The role of Moses as intermediary between Yhwh and the people of Israel led
Gerstenberger to conclude that Moses and the “Torah-office” represent a higher author-
ity than the “priestly-office” (Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das dritte Buch Mose Leviticus
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993], 103).
Leviticus 23 133
omitting reference to the grape harvest, which would not yet be completed
in Lev 23:22). Hess observes that the command to care for the poor and alien
reminds the Israelites that they do not work for themselves, but for God.
God’s concern for the poor must be respected and his ability to provide for
the farmers must be trusted, even though this may require missing a valuable
day of work during the harvest season and refusing to take advantage of the
whole harvest. For the Israelite farmers, this teaches the dangers of greed and
extols the principle of a generous spirit—generous toward God and toward
one’s needy fellows. 105
Greenberg argues that the passage emphasizes Yhwh’s sovereignty over the
land. The Israelites may use the land (which belongs to Yhwh) only if they
share the harvest with the less fortunate people of society. 106
Person (‫)נפש‬
The term ‫ נפש‬is found five times in Lev 23—each time in relationship
to the Day of Atonement. The term is translated three times as “people”
(vv. 29, 30 [2×]) and associated with the consequences of not following the
ritual’s commands. In v. 29, “[A]ny person who does not deny himself will be
cut off from his people.” Hess notes that the command to be “cut off ” from
the community “describes a divine punishment already required for various
acts of uncleanness, consumption of blood, and practices associated with
worship of other deities (7:20–27; 17:4, 9–14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3–6, 17–18; 22:3,
24). As elsewhere it implies the end of one’s name or remembrance among
the people of God.” 107 In v. 30, the punishment for any person who per-
forms work on the Day of Atonement is that Yhwh will “cause that person
to perish.” Milgrom notes that there is a slight difference between the two
penalties. “I will cause that person to perish” “implies the Deity’s immedi-
ate intervention (Ibn Ezra), perhaps because working is a public violation,
whereas not fasting (i.e., eating) is done in privacy of one’s home. This is
another reason. . . . why the gēr may be liable for punishment only for work-
ing, but not for eating.” 108 Karl Weyde responds,
It seems, however, to be more to the point to understand the form as express-
ing the severity of violating this law, which corresponds to the severity of the
law itself: since the prohibition against working on the Day of Atonement is
all-embracing, including every kind of work, the penalty for its violation is
105. Hess, Leviticus, 788.

106. Greenberg, On the Bible, 115.
134 Chapter 3
most severe: Yhwh will react, and he will destroy, exterminate from the midst
of the people anyone who works during that entire day. 109
The final two occurrences (vv. 27, 32) are translated “yourselves” in the con-
text of Yhwh’s demand that the Israelites afflict themselves on the Day of
Atonement. The idiom may mean both fasting and taking oaths, as Mil-
grom identifies it in Lev 16:29, 31; Num 30:13; Ps 35:13; Dan 10:12; Isa 58:3. 110
People (‫)עם‬
Similar to the discussion on the word “person,” the term for “people” (‫ )עם‬is
identified twice (vv. 29, 30) in relationship to consequences for disobedience.
In v. 29, “[A]ny person who does not deny himself will be cut off from his
people.” In v. 30, the punishment (Yhwh will “cause that person to perish from
among his people”) is for any person who performs work on the Day of Atone-
ment. In both instances, the consequence is to remove the offending Israelite
from the community—either by banishment or by death. Being removed from
the community is also being removed from the presence of Yhwh.
Generations (‫)דר‬
Israelites are identified as “your generations” five times in Lev 23. The
group is found four times in the context of a “perpetual statute” (which of
course applies throughout time, vv. 14, 21, 31, 41). The fifth reference (v. 43)
involves the purpose clause for living in booths. The context of each refer-
ence is the Israelites throughout future time in a ritual setting. In this way,
Yhwh’s command for ritual observance is everlasting for the Israelites.
This section explored the role of ritual participants and concluded the
following:
• The role of the general population is prominent.
• The involvement of the poor and alien is unexpected and emphasizes
an ethical call to care for the less fortunate in society.,
• Portions of offerings are given as payment to priests.
• The roles of the priests and king are less prominent.
Ritual Sound
A less frequently discussed aspect of ritual is the use and role of sound.
Interpreting ritual sound is difficult because biblical rituals are presented
only in written form. Grimes proposes several questions for understanding
better the sound component of ritual: Does the rite employ nonlinguistic
sounds, such as animal calls, shouting, or moaning? Are these sounds inter-
109. Karl W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of Yhwh: The Festival Calendar in Leviti-
cus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2004), 99.
Leviticus 23 135
Table 16. Aspects of Ritual Sound in Leviticus 23
Month Day Verse Sound Offerings Comment

Unspecified Unspecified 2 Proclaim Sacred The Israelites are to proclaim
(‫)קרא‬ assembly the beginning of the sacred assem-
blies as prescribed by Yhwh.
This reference is a general sum-
mary statement.
Unspecified Unspecified 4 Proclaim Sacred Similar to v. 2 above.
(‫)קרא‬ assembly
Harvest Beginning 21 Proclaim Sacred This passage clarifies that the
of the wheat (‫)קרא‬ assembly sacred occasion includes a prohibi-
harvest tion against work. This prohibition
is incumbent upon the Israelites for
all time, wherever they may live.
7 1st 24 Trumpet None A remembrance celebration
blasts and a sacred occasion, including a
(‫)תרועה‬ prohibition on work.
Psalm 27:6 associates the ‫תרועה‬
with rejoicing during sacrifices in
the “Tent of Yhwh”
Unspecified Unspecified 37 Proclaim Sacred The Israelites are to proclaim
(‫)קרא‬ assembly the beginning of the sacred assem-
blies as prescribed by Yhwh.
This passage includes food
offerings, burnt offerings, grain
offerings, sacrifices, and drink
offerings.
7 15th 40 Rejoice None After the harvest is complete,
(‫)שמח‬ the Israelites celebrate the Feast
before of Yhwh, including days of rest,
Yhwh rejoicing with four species of leafy
branches, and living in booths.
preted and, if so, by whom? Are instrumental and vocal sounds present?
What musical sounds and instruments predominate? What moods do the
sounds most often evoke? Is there a distinction between sacred and secular
music? Does the rite include the recitation of literary texts? If so, does the
reading describe reality or actually affect it? 111
Ritual sound is identified in three portions of Lev 23: the proclamation
of sacred assemblies, the blowing of trumpets, and rejoicing. The first rit-
ual sound occurs during the “proclamation” of sacred assemblies. Scholars
111. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, 26.

136 Chapter 3
translate the term as “invite,” “set a time,” “single out,” “call together,” and
“proclaim.” 112 Milgrom argues:
The meaning “proclaim” fits the context best, particularly in view of its ob-
ject miqrāʾ, as in qĕrōʾ miqrāʾ “proclaiming of solemnities” (Isa 1:13). When
qārāʾ appears with the qdš, the meaning “proclaim” is particularly in evidence:
qaddĕšû ʿăṣārâ labbaʿal wayyiqrāʾû “‘sanctify a solemn assembly to Baal’ and it
was proclaimed” (2 Kgs 10:20); qaddĕšû-ṣôm qirʾû ʿăṣārâ “sanctify a fast, pro-
claim a solemn assembly” ( Joel 1:14). Perhaps it is no mere coincidence that
the Hittite king was expected, through an “overseer” to officially “proclaim”
the onset of a festival. 113
If Milgrom is correct, the priests were responsible for determining the date
of the sacred assemblies and audibly announcing the beginning of the fes-
tival to the Israelites.
The second mention of sound is in the context of the 7th month (fall)
and involves the blowing of a trumpet as part of a remembrance celebration.
For Finesinger, the object of the reminder is found in Num 10:10, “And on
the day of your joyous occasions and on your appointed times, and on the
new moon days, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and
over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder to
you before your God. I am Yhwh your God.” 114 Numbers 10 also indicates
that the trumpet blast was not unique to the 1st day of the 7th month but
was blown to commemorate each new moon celebration during the year.
Milgrom notes that Num 10 specifies an instrument (‫)חצצרה‬, while Lev
23 does not. The verb for blowing in Num 10 is ‫( תקע‬blow/blast), which is
also unrelated to the word ‫( תרועה‬shout or blast) found in Lev 23. He finds
additional evidence in Ps 81:4, which specifies that the shofar was blown
on the day of the new moon, reading, “[B]low the shofar on the new moon,
on the full moon, on our feast day.” Relying on the Psalm text, references
in Neh 8 to the joyous nature of the festival, and rabbinic analysis, he con-
cludes that the blast of the trumpet (shofar) in Lev 23 is used to alert Yhwh
of Israel’s pressing need for the winter rains to water the new crops. Mil-
grom summarizes his position:
Thus the rabbis credit the shofar as an instrument of prayer, one that alerts
God to Israel’s needs. . . . The twenty mishnayot that compose m. Taʿan. 1:1–3:3
deal with the sounding of the shofar at the assembly of a community en-
gaged in a fast to implore God for rain. . . . [A]ll three festivals of the sev-
112. Invite: Ramban, based on Num 1:6; 1 Sam 9:13. Set a time: Rashbam, based on Lam
1:15. Single out: Naphtali H. Wessely, Netivot Ha-Shalom, vol. 3: Leviticus (ed. M. Mendels-
sohn; Vienna: von Schmid and Busch, 1846), based on Exod 35:30. Call together: Elliger,
Leviticus; based on Num 10:2. Proclaim: Milgrom, Leviticus, 1957; Tg. Onqelos.
113. Milgrom, Leviticus, 1957. Milgrom relies, in part, on Volkert Haas, Der Kult von
Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1970), 43–50.
114. Finesinger, “The Shofar,” 193–228.
Leviticus 23 137
enth month—the terûʿâ call on the first day, the fast day on the tenth, and
the circumambulation of the altar with waving fronds and other vegetation
for seven days, from the fifteenth through the twenty-second—as well as the
tradition of a water libation offered during these days combine into a single-
minded goal: to beseech God for adequate and timely rain in the forthcoming
agricultural year. 115
If he is correct, then the fall festival was an agricultural festival—with a
fixed date—intended to solicit the deity’s support for the upcoming agri-
cultural year.
The third occurrence of ritual sound is in association with “rejoicing.”
Milgrom finds a special meaning in the phrase “you will rejoice before
Yhwh your God.” First, he notes that to rejoice (in this instance) implies a
procession around the altar in the sanctuary with the branches of the festi-
val (discussed above). If this is accurate, the festival included a procession
in which the priests carried the branches and chanted invocations to Yhwh
for blessing.
Second, Milgrom identifies the purpose of the celebration as a suppli-
cation for rain. Again relying on rabbinic texts, he argues that the water
libation of the festival included water brought from the Pool of Shiloah
through the Water Gate. 116 Thus he reasons that the Festival of Yhwh
included a procession, waving of branches, and water offerings—on a set
date—all designed to supplicate Yhwh for successful rains during the com-
ing agricultural season.
Therefore, based on this investigation of sound’s ritual use and function
in Lev 23, one may argue that sound played a role in Israelite festivals.
Summary
This chapter set out to analyze Lev 23 by illuminating the role that liter-
ary structure and aspects of ritual play in its multimonth festival calendar.
A few significant findings are highlighted below:
Structure and Literary Form

• Leviticus 23 is instructional discourse (prescriptive).
• The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive,
multimonth ritual calendar.
• The text is organized using temporal markers to segment summary
and title statements, major divisions (months), and subdivisions
(between different rites).

116. Ibid., 2044. Rabbinic support for this conclusion is also found in b. Roš Haš. 16a:
“Why did the Torah enjoin on us to pour out water on the Booths Festival? The Holy
One, Blessed Be He, said: Pour out water before me on the Booths Festival, so that your
rains this year may be blessed.”
138 Chapter 3
◦◦ A standard date formula is used to identify major divisions in the

text. The general formula is “month x on the x day” (one major
section uses a different temporal divider).
◦◦ Subdivisions within these larger sections are marked by phrases,
including: on/for x day(s), on that day, the next day.
• The number of lines for each festival and month demonstrates a lack
of symmetry.
• The verbs are typically in the second person (direct speech) from
Yhwh to Moses, with the general population as the object of the
action.
• Occasionally verbs change to third-person narrative—still oriented
toward the general population.
• The text includes an introductory statement.
• The audience is identified in the introduction as the general
population (Israelites). In addition, although they are not
emphasized, the priests are clearly involved.
• The author uses large chiastic structures in the narrative.
• The text exhibits parallel language and small chiastic structures.
Sacred Time
• The text is organized using temporal dividers.
• The normal work schedule is interrupted for ritual activities—
including a call for rest or complete rest on specific days.
• The text often uses a seven-day ritual period.
• A one-day ritual meal is held the day before a primary festival with a
yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice (on one occasion).
• Within the same text, some ritual activities are tied to the
agricultural calendar and others to the monthly fixed calendar.
• The text is a multimonth ritual calendar.
• Ritual activities seem clustered around the spring and fall equinoxes.
• The calendar highlights activities on specific days while leaving
activities on other days unmentioned.
• The calendar offers little information on the time of the offerings
and activities that occur during the day.
• The text occasionally records an activity that occurs in the evening.
• The text may depict a lunisolar calendar in determining the month.
• Ritual celebrations often begin at lunar-phase breaks (63 percent in
Lev 23).
festival is limited to one or two days.
• The longer festivals begin on the full moon (15th of the month) and
last for seven days (until the 21st).
Leviticus 23 139
• Festivals included both named and unnamed rituals (named festivals

are occasionally unnamed in related texts; similarly, named festivals
in related texts are occasionally unnamed in Lev 23).
• Named rites are often combined to form a ritual complex.
• Drink offerings and grain offerings are typically paired.
• Rites creating an aroma pleasant to Yhwh include the combination
of burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings.
• Sacred assemblies always include a prohibition on work.
• While the role of the priest is usually “assumed,” it is rarely specified.
• The group of people required to bring offerings is typically identified
as “you” and assumed to be the general population.
Sacred Space
• The text usually leaves the space for ritual activities unspecified.
• The text specifies what is to be done more often than where it is to
be done.
• Sacred space seems to include the area near the deity with references
“from” and “to” possibly indicating a shift from profane to sacred
space.
• The text does not mention the specifics of the sacred space (e.g.,
altar, sacrificial table, or offering protocols).
Sacred Objects
• Agricultural objects may have been used to petition Yhwh for a
successful agricultural season.
• The owner of the harvest is Yhwh.
• Ritual objects were occasionally temporary (huts and branches) and
tied to the remembrance of a significant event.
• Meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink offerings were combined
into a festival complex.
• Sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and cattle.
• Grain offerings and drink offerings are found in tandem.
• Ritual offerings are identified as both an offering to Yhwh and a
payment to the priests who act as officiants.
• The text includes an ethical prescription to aid the less fortunate in
the society.
Ritual Participants
• The role of the general population is prominent.
• The involvement of the poor and alien is unexpected and emphasizes
an ethical call to care for the less fortunate in society.
• Portions of offerings are given as payment to priests.
• The roles of the priests and king are muted.
140 Chapter 3
Ritual Sound and Smell

• The beginning of the sacred assemblies is “proclaimed” as prescribed
by Yhwh.
• Ritual feasts are accompanied by noisy rejoicing.
• A “pleasing aroma” may have indicated an accepted offering and
supplication to Yhwh.
Chapter 4 analyzes Emar 446, using the same ritual methodology we ap-
plied to the study of Lev 23. The information gleaned from the analysis of
Lev 23 and Emar 446 is then analyzed and compared in chap. 5 to determine
whether Lev 23 exhibits elements of a West Semitic festival tradition dating
back to the 2nd millennium.
Chapter 4
Emar 446:
A Multimonth Ritual Calendar
Introduction to Emar
In the chap. 3, we explored the ritual aspects of Lev 23, including: form,
literary structure, sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual partici-
pants, and ritual sound. In chap. 4, I begin with a brief review of the archae-
ological and geopolitical context for Emar in the 14th century b.c.e. After
presenting a new transliteration, normalization, and translation of Emar
446, I assess the form, outline, and literary structures. Finally, I evaluate
the aspects of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and participants
involved in the rituals at Emar.
Location
Emar (modern Meskene) is located in Syria on the west bank of the great
bend in the Euphrates River at a significant crossroad for economic trade
routes across the land (east–west and north–south) and along the Euphrates
River (northwest–southeast). 1 Documents from Ebla and Mari show that
Emar existed from at least the 3rd millennium until its destruction in the
12th century b.c.e. This location between Babylon, Mari, Ḫatti, the Medi-
terranean Sea, and Egypt made Emar a vital economic center and exposed it
and its citizens to the cultures of many civilizations. 2
In the early 1970s, the Syrian government developed the Tabqa Dam and
created Lake Assad. This threatened to flood several potential archaeolog-
ical sites. Jean-Claude Margueron (1972) conducted a preliminary survey
of the location to salvage any relevant artifacts. The initial survey was so
successful that he conducted five additional campaigns between 1972 and
1. Barry J. Beitzel, “From Harran to Imar along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The
Evidence from the Archives royales de Mari,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays
in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. G. A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),
209–19; Daniel E. Fleming, “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron,” in Mesopota-
mia and the Bible (ed. M. W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2002), 222–50; W. W. Hallo, “The Road to Emar,” JCS 18 (1964): 57–88.
2. Gary Beckman, “Emar and Its Archives,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Cul-
ture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL,
1996), 1–4.
141
142 Chapter 4
1978. 3 He concluded that the Emar he explored did not reveal the city dis-
cussed in the Ebla and Mari archive but was instead a newer city founded
in the 14th century and thought to have been destroyed in the 12th century
(1187 b.c.e.). 4 He hypothesized that the earlier (3rd and early 2nd millen-
nium) site was located on a mound next to the Euphrates River several hun-
dred yards from its current location.
According to this theory, a possible change in the river’s course necessi-
tated the relocation of the city. The original city disappeared into the river
and a new city was built, with Hittite support, on the plateau overlooking
the river valley. 5 Margueron argues that either the Hittite King Suppilu-
liuma (ca. 1380–1346 b.c.e.) or his son King Mursili II (1345–1315 b.c.e.) com-
missioned the new city as a vassal outpost to monitor activities in Babylon
(to the south) and Assyria (to the northwest).
In 1992, the Syrian Antiquities Department secured the location and
renewed excavations under the leadership of Shawki Shaath and Farouk
Ismail. Four years later, in 1996, the University of Tübingen formed a part-
nership with the Syrian Antiquities Department for five seasons under the
direction of Uwe Finkbeiner. During these five years, the team identified, in
addition to the Late Bronze Age remains, earlier occupation levels from the
Middle and Early Bronze Ages. Clearly, based on the work of Finkbeiner
and the joint Syrian-German excavations, the Late Bronze Age location of
Emar was not a new city built by the Hittites but, rather, a location under
continuous occupation from the later portion of the 3rd millennium on,
and probably earlier. This means that the Emar mentioned in the archives
at Ebla, Ugarit, Nuzi, and Mari is the location under study. It follows that
the texts found at Emar may preserve information and religious traditions
from, not only the Late Bronze Age, but also earlier periods of the Middle
and Early Bronze Ages. 6
3. Four additional years at Emar (1973–76) and one additional year at Tell Faqʾous
on a bluff overlooking Emar ( Jean-Claude Margueron, “Emar,” ABD 2.488–89).
4. Daniel Arnaud, “Les texts d’Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze Récent,”
Syria 52 (1975): 88–89; Jean-Claude Margueron, “Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Emar
(1972–1974),” Syria 52 (1975): 84–85; Beckman associates the destruction with the “inva-
sion of the sea peoples” (“Emar and Its Archives,” 5).
5. Jean-Claude Margueron, “Rapport préliminaire sur les deux premières cam-
pagnes de fouille à Meskéné-Emar (1972–1973),” AAAS 25 (1975), 76–77; idem and Marcel
Sigrist, “Emar,” OEANE 2.237; B. Geyer, “Une ville aujourd’hui engloutie—Emar: Contri-
bution géomorphologique à la localization de la cité,” MARI 6 (1990): 107–19.
6. Uwe Finkbeiner, “Emar 1999: Bericht über die 3 Kampagne der syrisch-
deutschen Ausgrabungen mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura, Betina Faist, Uta König, Fer-
han Sakal und Frank Starke,” BaghM 32 (2001): 41–120; idem, “Emar 2001: Bericht über
die 4 Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen—Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura
und Wendy Eixler und unter Mitarbeit von Ferhan Sakal,” BaghM 33 (2002): 109–46;
idem, “Emar 2002: Bericht über die 5 Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen,”
BaghM 34 (2003): 9–117; idem, The Archaeological Park Emar-Bali (Aleppo, 2010).
Emar 446: A Multimonth Ritual Calendar 143
Four temples are located at the site. Two of them sit side by side on a
plateau at the highest point in Emar, making them visible from anywhere
in the city. A path separating them leads to an open area. Textual evidence
from these temples indicates that the northern one is the Temple of Aštarte
and the southern one is the Temple of dBaʿal. These identifications come
from three texts (Emar 42, 45, 52) discovered in the southern temple that
reference the Temple of dBaʿal or dBaʿal himself. 7 The deity or deities as-
sociated with the third temple (M2), located in a central portion of the city
(Area M), is/are unknown. 8 M2 appears to have a decorative design of ce-
ramic cones or spikes on the front façade similar to those found in 2nd-
millennium Nuzi and Elam. These indicate a possible eastern influence. 9
The central area of the city also accommodates the fourth temple (M1),
which is dedicated to all the gods. Its archive, headed by a person called
“the Diviner” (lúḫal), 10 provides significant information on the religion and
rituals of the area. Margueron and Arnaud designate this fourth temple the
“House of the Diviner.”
All four temples exhibit the same general layout. Based on the megaron
style, each temple had a rectangular sanctuary with a single door opening
onto a two-columned porch. The sanctuary included a podium (for the im-
age of the god), a raised offering table, and various seats and decorations.
An elevated terrace and a second raised altar where additional sacrifices
may have been conducted completed the temple complex.
In his 2009 work The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late
Bronze Age, Yoram Cohen argues that “Temple M1” is not a temple. Explor-
ing the location and the archive, he finds that: (1) the site-plan resembles
private houses more than communal gathering places; (2) the central hearth
is common in private locations; (3) the wall thickness does not match other
temples in the area; and (4) the central axis of the building is SW to NE,
which does not match the more common, west–east alignment for temples.
7. Wayne T. Pitard, “The Archaeology of Emar,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and
Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age (ed. M. W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL,
1996), 18–19.
8. Fleming (Time at Emar, 42 n. 103) raises the possibility that M2 may be identified
as the Temple of dNIN.URTA and bīt tukli. While this association is tentative, Emar 373
and Emar 369 appear to place the House of the Diviner in proximity to the Temple of
d
NIN.URTA. This matches the archaeological evidence.
9. Ibid., 21.
10. Several texts found at M1 mention a city god named dNIN.URTA, which leads
W. F. Leemans (“Aperçu sur les texts juridiques d’Emar,” JESHO 31 [1988]: 216) to identify
M1 as the “Temple of dNIN.URTA.” Daniel E. Fleming (“The Riutals from Emar: Evolu-
tion of an Indigenous Tradition in Second-Millennium Syria,” in New Horizons in the Study
of Ancient Syria [ed. Mark W. Chavalas and John Hayes; BMes 25; Malibu, CA: Undena,
1992], 53 n. 8) argues that texts mentioning dNIN.URTA are found in other excavated
areas, and there is no “particular association” between M1 and dNIN.URTA.
144 Chapter 4
These discrepencies led Cohen to conclude that the location served as a

scribal school (EDUBBA), library, and archive. 11
Archive Dates
Much scholarly debate still surrounds the chronological range of the ar-
chive located in M1. Daniel Arnaud argues for the early consensus opinion
that the terminus ad quem for the archive is ca. 1187 b.c.e. (cited in EMAR
26), the second regnal year of Melišihu of Babylon. The references to vari-
ous Emarite kings are then dated back to ca. 1310 b.c.e., during the reign of
the Hittite King Mursili II. 12 After a comprehensive study of the relevant
evidence, Murray Adamthwaite modifies Arnaud’s dates for the occupation
of Emar and concludes that Emar’s texts (and those of the Diviner) date
exclusively to the 13th century b.c.e. He bases this conclusion on his find-
ing that two major events—the weakening of the city through a coup d’état
by the impoverished social class (the ḫupšu) followed by the destruction of
the city by either the Hurrians or the Arameans—occurred in the late 13th,
rather than the early 12th century b.c.e. 13 For the terminus a quo of the texts,
Adamthwaite argues that the Emar site was a virgin location built by the
Hittites in the 13th century, and thus the texts cannot date earlier. He then
places the six identified kings of Emar into the conjectured 80-year period
that fits this assumption.
I accept Adamthwaite’s position for the terminus ad quem of the archive in
the 13th century but reject the terminus a quo in favor of a 14th-century date.
Adamthwaite establishes his position for the terminus a quo primarily on Ar-
naud’s and Margueron’s deduction that the Emar site dates exclusively to
the 13th-century Hittite occupation. However, as mentioned above, Fink-
beiner effectively overturned this argument with his discovery of Middle
Bronze Age walls, Early Bronze Age ceramic vessels and rooms, and a 3rd-
millennium residential quarter.
Finkbeiner’s findings that Emar existed in this location from the 3rd mil-
lennium on support my conclusion that the archives at Emar probably date
to at least the 14th century b.c.e. and continued until the city’s destruction
in the later years of the 13th century. 14 If the dates of the material in the ar-
11. Yoram Cohen, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age
(HSS 59; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 54–56.
12. Arnaud, “Les texts d’Emar,” 89–92.
13. Murray R. Adamthwaite, Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms, and
Socio-Political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town (ANESSup 8; Louvain: Peeters,
2001), 233–60.
14. The terminus a quo in the 14th century is supported in the recent studies by
Yoram Cohen and Daniel Fleming; however, both scholars argue for a terminus ad quem ca.
1175 (Yoram Cohen and Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “The Duration of the Emar Archives and the
Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City,” in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze
chive are correct, the festival rituals may represent traditions from the 13th
or 14th century, or from earlier in the 2nd millennium.
The Diviner and His Archive

In the center of the city (Section M) is a building labeled M1, which re-
sembles in structure the other three temples found at Emar (megaron
design). 15 The entrance and sanctuary follow the main access of the rectan-
gular building, and, along the western wall, a path leads behind the building
to an open terrace and possible external offering area. The internal sanctu-
ary and external terrace (offering area) validate the theory that this place
functioned as a site for ritual ceremonies and offerings. 16 Moreover, the
textual evidence found at M1 identifies a “Divine House” and refers to an É
DINGIR-lī (“house of the gods,” plural) as the supplier of items for every
major festival and offering. 17 The most likely deduction, therefore, is that
M1 is this location. 18 If this conclusion is correct, then the structure served
not just as a temple to one god but as the residence of the “Diviner of the
gods” and the cultic temple for the pantheon of area deities. Because there
Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society—Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference
25.–26.04.2006 (ed. Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen; AOAT
349; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 3–25; Daniel Fleming, “Reading Emar’s Scribal Tradi-
tions against the Chronology of Late Bronze History,” in ibid., 27–43.
15. Peter Werner (Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordysrien und Südostklein
asien vom Neolithikum bis in das I. Jt. V. Chr. [Munich: Profil, 1994], 70–71) argues that M1
should be identified as a “house” and not a “temple” because the walls are thinner than
the normal in antis temples (an in antis temple has an architectural style that includes a
small, rectangular cella with a porch protruding in front of the cella). Werner finds that
the three extra rooms adjacent to M1 and the floorplan more closely resemble religious
houses at Ekalte, which include private altars and similar entryway locations. Y. Cohen
(Scribes and Scholars, 10–12) also adopts this conclusion. Fleming (Time at Emar, 5) notes
that M1 exhibits similarities to the in antis temples that are not found in houses at Ekalte,
including: the long temple-like hall is in the in antis shape and includes a porch entrance;
the entrance is centered with the porch on one axis; and the altar is in the standard loca-
tion for a temple.
16. Fleming (Time at Emar, 37 n. 80) discusses the likely Akkadian plural ī which is
further supported by two duplicate texts (Emar 369:12): text A reads É DINGIR-lī, and
text C reads É DINGIRmeš, confirming an intended plural.
17. Multiple texts (Emar 369; 370; 371; 385; 387; 388) record offerings to some combi-
nation of dDagan, the storm-god (dBaʿal), dNIN.URTA, and a final category, “the gods.”
Fleming postulates that “it makes sense that ‘the Diviner of the Gods’ would inhabit ‘the
House of the Gods’” (ibid., 38).
18. This conclusion is based on the structure’s having a cella and offering area similar
to the in antis temple. In addition, like the other temples at Emar, the structure, located
along a single axis, includes a main entrance flanked by two porches in the center of the
short wall. Finally, several religious texts discovered in the structure appear to identify
the location as a temple. The accumulation of this evidence outweighs the presence of
three extra rooms and thinner walls.
146 Chapter 4
are no other examples of a temple’s also serving as an official’s residence,

this conclusion remains tentative.
The texts found at M1 are the Diviner’s archive and include over 1,000
pieces written in Sumerian, Hurrian, and Akkadian (both in the Syrian and
the Syro-Hittite style). The texts show a remarkable breadth of interest,
including legal-economic texts, letters, cult administration texts, rituals,
lexical texts, divination guides, and incantations. 19 A second cache of texts
was discovered in “room three” of the rooms adjacent to the temple cella.
This room was probably a storage area for private documents and included
the majority of the legal texts, approximately half the religious/ritual texts,
and a few lexical and divination texts. Despite its small size, room three
housed an important ritual archive including: 369—NIN.DINGIR instal-
lation; 370—mašʾartu installation; 373, 374, 376—zukru Festival; 395—kissu
Festival; 20 and the text under study here—446. In order to fulfill the meth-
odological goal for an intertextual study before an extratextual study, each
of the ritual texts identified above was reviewed and compared with Emar
446. While I cannot afford space for a full exposition of the reviewed texts,
the analysis below discusses the pertinent findings. Daniel Fleming notes
that “the two religious interests [cultic care for the gods and divination]
meet only in storage, because the archive includes no evidence for actual
practice of Mesopotamian divination. There, identification of the col-
lection as a diviner’s archive begins by noting the joint storage of these
tablets.” 21
19. These texts show that the religious cult may have operated with some indepen-
dence from the monarchy. One text, Emar 268, is a direct correspondence between a
religious official at Carchemish (Agal-Šimegi) and the Diviner (Zu-Baʿla) regarding the
installation of a priest at Ninkur. Emar 268 reveals that religious communication chan-
nels were independent of the secular administration and pointed to a priestly hierarchy
or, at a minimum, an alliance. In addition, several of the texts found in the house of the
diviner depict the Diviner as an affluent member of the Emarite society who was involved
in several major economic transactions, including loans, slave buying, and the sale of real
estate. While the collapse of M1 has significantly scattered the texts, some trends are dis-
cernible in their locations. Two-thirds of the texts were found in the temple cella (Area
III). This group of texts, found along the western portion of the temple cella, includes
the bulk of the texts associated with correspondence, lexical texts, literature, and the
scribal arts. In addition, over half of the ritual and cultic administration texts were found
in this area. These texts may have originated in the temple cella or, more likely, were
stored in a workspace above the cella, dropping to the cella when the floor collapsed.
20. Gallagher provides a translation of the zukru and kissu texts from Emar with a
full discussion of these rituals. Jan Gallagher, Emar: Study of a Crossroads City (Ph.D. diss.,
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1998), 29–120, 151–86. Gallagher ar-
gues the zukru ritual is similar in form to a treaty celebration.
21. Fleming, Time at Emar, 20–21.
The texts of the M1 archive portray the Diviner as an individual or of-

ficial connected to multiple facets of Emarite society. 22 The Diviner acted
as a cultic functionary, an overseer of local temples, and a landowner. He
participated in scribal education, legal activities, and sales transactions. 23
Texts divide the roles of a cultic functionary into two categories. The first
category consisted of incantations, rituals, and divination acts detailed in
texts that were often written in Sumerian and Hurrian in addition to Ak-
kadian. This group includes the minority of the texts and seems to reveal a
foreign influence. 24
Local rituals constituted the second category of cultic functionary du-
ties, and we find these recorded in texts written in Akkadian. Fleming fur-
ther separates these texts into four subdivisions: (1) festival (EZEN) texts;
(2) calendar rituals; (3) offering lists; and (4) rites for the gods of Ḫatti. 25
Each of these texts identifies the Diviner as the primary administrator over
a wide variety of public cultic rituals. The Diviner facilitates “consecrat-
ing” the gods and apportioning the payment of offering meats to various
officials. The named officals include the king, the scribes, and himself in
the ritual text Emar 394 and in the kissu Festival texts for Ea (Emar 386)
and dDagan (Emar 385). In Emar 369, the Diviner conducts a part of the
NIN.DINGIR priestess installation, receiving portions of the offering as
22. The word Diviner is written lúḪAL or lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD, both normalized

bārû.
23. In the archive under study, the Diviner is often unnamed. However, the posi-
tion appears in other texts associated with the PN Zū-Baʿla. The Diviner inherited his
office, and texts show that the title passed to Zū-Baʿla’s son and grandson. The diviners
did not call themselves scribes. However, numerous lexical and divination texts contain
references to the diviner or diviner-in-training (Ì.ZU TUR TUR), attesting their ability
to read and write. In addition to scribal activity, Zū-Baʿla’s family was active in the stor-
ing and writing of both administrative and legal texts. These texts depict the Diviner as
a religious official with connections to the highest levels of Hittite society. Emar 201 and
202 express support for Zū-Baʿla by Ini-teššub (as witness) at the court of Carchemish in
cases regarding land rights. These texts indicate that the Diviner held substantial politi-
cal influence in the Hittite Empire.
24. We find no direct evidence that the Diviners practiced divination. However,
they undoubtedly understood the concept because diviners-in-training used several
divination guides in writing practice. One text yielding indirect evidence of divination
activity outlines a land grant given by Pilsu-Dagan to Mašruḫe as a reward for a suc-
cessful divination. Astour translates the relevant portion as: “When the Hurrian troops
surrounded the wall of Emar (i-nu-ma ERÍNmeš Ḫur-ri BÀD uruE-marki il-mi), and the
divination of Mašruḫe, the diviner of the king of the city, was victorious (ù ba-ru-tu4-šu
ik-šu-du4-ma), and Pilsu-Dagan the king gave him this field as a present” (Michael C. As-
tour, “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” in Emar: The
History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age [ed. Mark W. Chavalas;
Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996], 25–56).
25. Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on An-
cient Syrian Religion (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 200–201; idem, “Rituals from Emar,” 53.
148 Chapter 4
Table 17. Responsibilities of and Payments to

the Diviner in Emar 446
Diviner (lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD)
Deity Diviner’s
Line Month Day Involved Action Itema Comment
d
[26] SAG.MU 15 NIN. Received Right Restored based on its pres-
URTA by breast ence in line 28.
Part of the procession
complex festival meal.
The breast is identified in
Lev 7:30, 31, 34; 10:14–15 as part
of the wave offering and given
to the priests as payment.
d
28 SAG.MU 15 NIN. Received Hide and Part of the procession
URTA by head complex festival meal.
The hide is a frequent
payment to the Diviner, while
Exod 29:14; Lev 4:11; 8:17;
Num 19:5 include the hide
as part of the burnt offering
consumed in fire.
d
39 SAG.MU 15 Išḫara Received Head Part of the procession
by complex festival meal.
Leviticus 9:13 specifies that
the head is consumed in the
burnt offerings. During the
sin offering of Lev 4:11–12, the
head is taken to a clean place
outside the camp and burned.
44 SAG.MU 15 ? damaged Received Hides of Part of the procession
text by the complex.
offerings
d
51 SAG.MU 15 Dagan / Throws Seed The Diviner is an active par-
d
Baʿal down ticipant, performing the seed
ceremony.
a. Some of the items offered and paid to the Diviner are similar to Levitical offerings and
payments to the priests (the hide, head, and seed are not mentioned in Levitical text).
a payment. In Emar 446, the Diviner appears as the chief administrator of

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

the Diviner in Emar 446 (cont.)
Diviner (lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD)
Deity Diviner’s
Line Month Day Involved Action Itema Comment
d
53 SAG.MU 15 Dagan / Received Bread, Payment for conducting
d
Baʿal by cups of the seed ceremony.
drink, Bread is given to the
right Levitical priests as part of the
breast payment for conducting the
peace offering (Lev 7:13) and
wave offering (Lev 23:17)—dis-
cussed further in chap. 5.
Wine and “strong drink”
(‫ )שכר‬are prohibited for
Levitical priests when enter-
ing the Tent of Meeting (Lev
10:9) and for anyone taking a
special vow (Num 6:2–4).
d d
64– NIN. 18 NIN. [Received ? dam- Part of the procession com-
65 KUR.RA KUR.RA by] aged plex—probably identifies the
hide and head belonging to
the Diviner.
d d
82 Anna 1? Adam- Received Hides Offerings to the official of
matera by the House of the Gods, the
Temple of dDagan, and the
town of Emar.
d
95 Marzaḫāni 17 Baʿal Received Half Part of an offering at the Hur-
by of one rian temple.
sheep
d d
102 Ḫalma 3 Dagan Received Hide Part of the Day of Renewal of
d
by Dagan.
d d
116 Ḫalma 9 Dagan Received Hides, Part of the procession
by intes- complex.
tines, fat The fat is burned in peace
offering (Lev 3), sin offering
(Lev 4), burnt offering (Lev 6),
and the guilt offering (Lev 7).
In fact, Lev 7:23–25 prohibits
the eating of fat from an
offering.
drink offerings, and meat offerings (including the right breast, the hide, and
the head of sacrificial animals). While his payments likely depend on the
ritual activity, the most frequent payment (six times) to the Diviner is for
services performed as part of the festival complex and consists of the hides
of the offered sheep and occasionally the head, right breast, intestines, and/
150 Chapter 4
or fat. A second category is a payment for conducting the ritual planting

ceremony. For this service, the Diviner receives his largest compensation
of bread offerings, drink offerings, and the right breast. A third payment
category follows the offerings (or offering ceremony?) to the official of the
House of the Gods, the Temple of dDagan, and the town. This payment in-
cludes the hides of the offered animals, indicating that the services may be
similar to those involved in the procession complex. The Diviner receives a
fourth type of payment (half of one sheep) for his role in the burnt offering
ceremony at the Hurrian temple. And finally, the fifth payment category
derives from the Diviner’s contribution to the Day of Renewal of dDagan,
which, again, includes the hides.
Line Transliteration
Column I (obverse) 26
27
1 [ṭup-pu i pár-ṣ]i 28 ša URU.KI
2 [ SAG.MU i-na ] 29 U4.8 x [(4–5 signs)] 30
iti
3 [(4–5 signs)] x 1 UDU [(4–5 signs) 31]

4 [(3–4 signs) iš(?)]-tu [(5–6 signs)]
5 [(2–4 signs) ú]-sa 32-x [(5–6 signs)]
26. Line numbering generally follows Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata:
Emar VI, vol. 3: Textes sumériens et accadiens planches (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Ci-
vilisations, 1985), 420–22. However, Arnaud double-counts line 79, leaving the balance of
the transliteration one line off-count. This error is corrected. In addition, neither Flem-
ing nor Arnaud follows the line numbering of the original sketch in vol. 2.
27. Arnaud reconstructs this as “[iti Zag.mu x ud]u. . . . ,” which does not fit the
form of other Diviner festival texts. Fleming’s form is adopted here.
28. In 446, the ṣi sign appears with one final vertical (lines 24, 86, 107) in place of
the usual two. Lines 57, 59, and 102 read ṣi with the final vertical “pulled forward so that it
would not be visible where this break occurs” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 276). The restora-
tion is based on similar first lines of Diviner texts 369; 385; 392.
29. For discussion of Fleming’s reconstruction of this phrase, see appendix (p.
212).
30. Estimated missing signs are based on a column spacing that allows for approxi-
mately 1.06 signs per cm (2.67 signs per line inch). We calculated this number by averag-
ing the number of signs present on the two undamaged lines (lines 38, 39) in the column
and extrapolating line spacing for the column. Corrections to Fleming’s missing sign esti-
mates are based on this calculation for column I. A similar methodology is used for each
column.
31. Fleming estimates five to six missing signs.
32. Arnaud reads this as É.
Translation and Commentary:

Emar 446 (Msk. 74280a + 74291a)
I am presenting here a new transliteration and translation of Emar 446.
I include notes on translation choices that I hope will inform the reader not
only about Emar 446 but also about the broader context of ritual texts. As
mentioned above, Margueron discovered Emar 446 at Tell Meskene during
the excavations conducted in the mid-1970s. The text was part of a cache dis-
covered in “room three” of the three rooms adjacent to the temple cella (M1),
which he and Arnaud identified as the House of the Diviner.
Normalization Translation
[ṭuppu parṣ]ī ša äli Tablet of the rites of the city 33

[warḫu 34 SAG.MU ina] 35 ūmi 8 [. . .] Month of SAG.MU(?) 36 on the 8th day 37 [. . .]
[. . .t] x 1 immeru [. . .] [. . .] one sheep [. . .]
[. . .] ištu [. . .] [. . .] from out of 38 [. . .]
[. . . u]šax 39 [. . .] [. . .] they 40 [. . .]
33. Uses an introductory formula to identify the cultic rituals.

34. Meaning “new moon” or “month.” Conveys the concept of a month that is based
on the lunar calendar.
35. With the exception of the festival in the 3rd month, the month name is followed
by i-na U4 or i-na U4-mi and the number of the day of the festival—lines 2, 58, 84, 87, 96
(this feature’s similarity to Lev 23 is noted by Richard S. Hess, “Multiple-Month Ritual
Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23,” in The Future of Biblical
Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions [ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan
Millard; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004], 237).
36. SAG.MU is the month of “the head of the year” and is the logical first month
for the multimonth festival calendar. Fleming reconstructs this as Zarati, which may be
associated with zēru, “barley seed.” If this association is correct, the 1st month of the year
has to do with the planting of the barley crop.
37. After the introduction, the month name and date are given; this is the normal
formula for beginning a festival text at Emar. Yoram Cohen (The Scribes and Scholars of the
City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age [HSS 59; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009], 33)
concludes that Emar 446 follows an early Syrian format, which “employed month-names
matching the ones used in the Syrian documents of the ‘First Dynasty,’ thus suggesting
that these compositions were older than the rest of the ritual materials.” The month
name is the primary literary divider between festivals, with the use of the date and the
phrase “on the very same day” (ina ūmi šuwatuma) as subsequent literary dividers.
38. Translated here “from out of,” a preposition of space. Likely similar to line 52,
where an item is taken “from out of (ištu) the House of the Gods.” Other options are a
preposition of time (“since,” “after,” “as soon as”); duration (“from x until y”); or causal
(“because,” “since”).
39. Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the scribe uses sa in place of ša in verbal
forms after an -a (cf. lines 17, 40, 92, 99, 101, 119).
40. Translated as a third-person plural verbal form to agree with upaḫḫarū.
152 Chapter 4
6 [ú-pa(?)]-ḫa-ru AŠ ⸢U4⸣.[14(?) SILA4(?) i-na(?) dKUR(?)]

7 [(1–2 sings)] ⸢i-pa⸣ -a-du ga- 41[ma-ru (3–4 signs)]
8 AŠ U4.15 dKUR [ú-ṣi (3–4 signs)]
9 UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-⸢nu⸣ 42 [(5–6 signs)]

10 i-na 43-din 44-nu LÚme[š (2–3 signs) i-ka-lu(?)]
11 i-na U4 šu-wa-[tu-ma dNIN.URTA (ša) KÁ]
12 a 45-mi-it ú-ṣi [(5–7 signs) ša(?)]

13 É DINGIR-lì i-na 46-d[in-nu (3–4 signs)]
14 UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-ni [a-na pa-ni-šu(?) i-la-ak(?)]
15 ḫa-ṣí-in-nu š[a DINGIR EGIR-šu(?) i-la-ak(?)]

16 LÚmeš ga-ma-ru [(4–6 signs)]
41. Fleming reads this as ta and does not attempt a reconstruction. While ta is pos-
sible, Arnaud’s reconstruction is attractive because gamāru is found elsewhere in the text,
meaning “entire.”
42. Arnaud reconstructs the partial sign as ni.
43. Arnaud corrects the sign to ša, which is not necessary.
44. Arnaud incorrectly reads this as ka4; Fleming’s reading is correct, fitting both the
context and form of the text.
45. Arnaud corrects to ṣa, reading ṣa-mi-id.
46. Arnaud corrects the sign to ša, rendering i-ša-k[a-nu, so the reading would change
to “le temple des dieux on pl[ace ].”
[upa]ḫarū ina ūmi [14 puḫāda ina dDagani] they gather. On the [14th] day 47
ipaʾʾadū ga[māru. . . .] they offer 48 [a lamb for dDagan]. 49
ina ūmi 15 dDagan u[ṣṣi. . . .] On the 15th day, dDagan goes [out in
procession. . . .]
immeru ša nuppuḫannī 50 [. . .] nuppuḫannū a sheep that the men give [. . .]
inaddinū 51 awilū [. . . ikkalū] the [. . .]-men [eat(?)].
ina ūmi šuwa[tuma dNIN.URTA (ša) bābi] On that [sa]me day, 52 [dNIN.URTA through
the] Amit [Gate]
amit uṣṣi [. . .] goes out in procession [. . .] 53
bīt ilī inaddinū [. . .]‑ they give [. . . (to someone, some provision)
provided by (?)] the House of the Gods.
immeru ša nuppuḫannī [ana pānišu(?) 54 [. . . (and)] a sheep provided by the nuppuḫannū
illak(?)] men [precede him],
ḫaṣṣinnu [ša ili warkišu(?) illak(?)] the [divine] axe 55 [follows him], and
56
awilū gamārū [. . .] the entire population [. . .]
47. Notes: (1) The offering occurs on one day; (2) the third-person (s/p) verbal form
is present throughout the ritual text; (3) the durative form is the dominant form used to
move the narrative forward; (4) the third-person plural subject is rarely specified in the
text.
48. Although Fleming translates this “set aside,” I translate it here as “offer,” follow-
ing CAD P 1. Compare with Emar 373:9, 13, 38, 39.
49. “A lamb for dDagan” from the restored line 6. This restoration adopts Arnaud’s
translation of Emar 373:9, which follows the same formula. The text mentions no altar in
connection with these offerings. This lack of an altar for the named sacrifices and the lack
of priestly involvement in Emar 446 (despite Emar’s developed urbanized cult) along with
the reference to lambs roasted on a fire have parallels in Lev 23 that I will address later.
50. Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the expected final sign is nī (genitive plu-
ral in agreement with ša) and not nū (nominative plural). These men are probably cultic
functionaries. If the word is related to the root napāḫu, “to blow” or “to hiss” (CAD N
1263–70), then the D-stem nuppuḫu, “to light fires,” may imply that the nuppuḫannū men
were the “ones who light the fire” (Eugen J. Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akka-
dian Texts from Emar [HSS 49; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 136) notes that the
D infinitive and verbal adjective of the purrus-pattern is not found in agent nouns, mak-
ing this translation less likely. Pentiuc associates the -ann- ending with a Hittite origin
for the word.
51. Arnaud reads the verb as šakānu, similar to lines 17 and 40; however, Fleming
identifies it as nadānu.
52. Uses šuwatuma to denote action occurring on the same day as other action—
lines 11, 18, 22, 106. This represents a literary divider.
53. Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that the end of the line should describe an of-
fering. The procession begins with the offering animals, followed by the image of the god,
followed by the divine axe, and finally any groups of people involved in the procession.
54. Fleming (Time at Emar, 269) translates “precede him,” following CAD A/1 317,
which notes that alāku in prepositional constructions with pani should be translated “to
precede (in time)” + 3ms pronominal suffix.
55. The divine axe may convey some kind of evil intent. The divine axe is present in
processions in lines 15, 43, 88, and 103. In addition, the divine axe resides in the temple
in line 101.
56. Pentiuc (West Semitic, 95) reads awilū kamārū, “priests,” based on the Hebrew cog
nate kōmer, “priest,” Postbiblical Hebrew kūmār, Aramaic kumrā. The translation “priests”
154 Chapter 4
17 i-sa-ka-nu i-[na(?) (3–5 signs) SILA4(?) 57]

18 58i-pa-a-du i-na U4 [šu-wa-tu-ma (1–3 signs)]
19 i-na KÁ.GAL É d[(4–5 signs)]
20 i-la-ak 2 UDU ⸢AŠ⸣ [É 59 (4–5 signs)]

21 NINDA! KAŠ iš-tu É [DINGIR-lì(?) (3–5 signs)]
22 i-ka-lu i-na u4-mi [šu-wa-tu-ma(?) SILA4(?) i-na(?)]
23 É dNIN.URTA i-pa-a-[du dNIN.URTA(?) i-na(?)]
24 KÁ.GAL ú-ṣi GUD [6 UDUḪI.A(?) 60 (1–2 signs)]
25 a-na pa-ni-šu i-la-[ku (4–5 signs)]

26 SAG uzuGAB a-na d(?)[(1–2 signs?)
27 i-la-qí KUŠ SAG(?) [(4–6 signs)]

28 GIBIL(?) 61 ša lúMÁS.⟨ŠU.⟩GÍD.G[ÍD (3–5 signs)]
29 LÚ GAL LÚmeš EDIN i-[ka-lu i-ša-tu(?)]
30 AŠ 62 É ⟨⟨É a-na É⟩⟩ das[(4–6 signs)]
31 GUD i-na-ka-su 63-ma [(3–4 signs) a-na(?)]
32 dNIN.URTA É dIš-ḫa-[ra (3–4 signs)]
or “priestly attendants” is very attractive. However, the reading gamārū is equally sup-
ported, following CAD G 24–25’s meaning of “entire” or “complete,” used in reference to
an entire population. Therefore, the translation by Fleming is supported here.
57. I follow Fleming’s reconstruction.
58. Fleming notes that, in other festival months, the activities here occur on the day
after the paʾādu offering (i.e., the 16th of the month); however, the surviving text does not
preserve the temporal change.
59. Arnaud reconstructs this as “U4,” indicating a change in the day as opposed to a
change in location. Either is a possible reconstruction.
60. Reconstruction is based on line 11 of BLMJ 1137, which contains a similar offer-
ing formula (GUD 4 UDUḪI.A) ( Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions in the
Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets [CM 13; Groningen: Styx,
2000], 76–77).
61. Arnaud reads KA x NE. However, Fleming’s transliteration of GIBIL, despite
the problem with the translation, matches the sign more closely.
62. Arnaud reads this as AŠ.
63. Stefano Seminara (L’accadico di Emar [Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma, “La
Sapienza,” 1998], 202) reads this as šux and not ŠU. I follow Fleming (Time at Emar, 277),
who leaves “the representation of the sibilants with their known value, because we do not
know what sound was actually pronounced.”
išakkanū i[na(?). . . . puḫāda 64(?)] they place [the. . . . lamb(?)]

ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi [šuwatuma. . . .] On [(that day? . . .)], 65 they offer [a lamb(?)].
ina abulli bīti d[. . .] On [that] day, [. . .] proceeds 66 into the
primary gate of [(some god’s)] temple,
illak 2 immerū ina bīti two sheep in the temple. [. . .]
akala šikara ištu bīti [ilī. . . .] [(Some participants)] consume the bread and
beer 67 from out of the House [of the Gods].
ikkalū ina umi [šuwatuma(?) puḫāda(?) On the [that] day, 68
ina(?)]
bīti dNIN.URTA ipaʾʾa[dū they offer[ a lamb(?) at] the Temple of
d
NIN.URTA(?) ina(?)] NIN.URTA. [dNIN.URTA]
abullu uṣṣi alpu [6 immerū (?). . . .] goes out in procession 69 [to] the main gate.
An ox [and six sheep(?). . . .]
ana pānišu illa[kū. . . .] precede him. [. . .]
imitta šīra irta ana [. . . bāri] 70 [The Diviner] receives [. . . (and)] the right
breast for lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD(?)] [. . .]
illaqi mašku rēšu(?) [. . .] the hide, the head(?), [(and). . . .]
edēšu(?)ša bā[r]i[. . .] become new (?) belong to the Diviner.
awilu rabû awilū ṣēri i[kkalū išattû(?)] The leader and the people of the country-
side 71 eat [and drink] [(some food)]
ina bīti [. . .] in the Temple of [(dNIN.URTA or dIšḫara).
. . .]
alpa 72 inakkasūma 73[. . . ana(?)] They slaughter the ox, and [they give 74 (some
parts) to]
d
NIN.URTA bīt dIšḫa[ra . . .] d
NIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple.
64. Fleming (Time at Emar, 276) notes that a puḫādu offering (lamb) occurs on the
day before each procession. This is generally true; however, some processions use UDU
in place of SILA4.
65. A possible reading based on the text in line 17. Uses šuwatuma to denote action
occurring on the same day as other action—lines 11, 18, 22, 106. This represents a literary
divider.
66. While the offering is made by a group of people (3mp), the movement (illak) is
made by a single (3cs) person—the image of the god.
67. Note that bread and beer are paired.
68. Uses šuwatuma to denote action occurring on the same day as other action—
lines 11, 18, 22, 106.
69. The procession begins with the offering animals, followed first by the image of
the god, and then by the divine axe, and ends with the people and priests.
70. The current reconstruction is based on similar language in lines 52–53. However,
a similar line appears in BLMJ 1137, lines 12–14, that points to “the gods” ([a-n]a DIN-
GIR.MEŠ) possibly receiving the breast meat. The lines read: “They place the [shoulders
and] the breast before the gods” (Westenholz, Cuneiform Inscriptions, 76–77).
71. Everyone eats and drinks at the festival (‫ סכה‬in Deut 16:13–15 includes a call to be
joyful at a celebration).
72. Probably the ox (GUD) mentioned in line 24 that went out in procession; the
sheep appear as the subject of the offerings in lines 33–34.
73. Here, following Seminara (L’Accadico di Emar, 202), who renders the verb nakāsu
and not nakāšu, “to set aside.”
74. Fleming (Time at Emar, 277) reads nadānu as being likely in line 32.
156 Chapter 4
33 LAM(?)-TI 75 ú-na-qú UZU x [(2–3 signs) uzu(?)]

34 kab-bar-tu4 a-na LÚ GAL [UZU(?) (2–3 signs)]
35 a-na lúza-bi-ḫi i-na-an-din-[nu (2–3 signs)]

36 lú.mešaḫḫi.a ša É dUd-ḫa [(3–4 signs)]
37 i-la-qú-ú uzuGAB a-na pa-ni dIš-(ḫa) ⸢ra!⸣ 76
38 LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš ga-ma-ri Ì.KÚ SAG É 77 [DINGIR(?)]
39 lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD i-la-qí iš-bi-ṭa

40 i-sa-ka-nu ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR
41′ [ ]x
42′ [ ] ba/pá 78
lú
43′ [ MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.]GÍD-a(?)
44′ [ ] x ḪI
45′ [ ] ITI
46′ [ i(?)-l]a(?)-qú
47′ [ ] LÚ(?)
48′ [ -n]a
49′ [ ]x
d
50′ [ NIN(?).]⸢KUR⸣.RA
51′ [ ] ti-x
52′ [ ] EN
53′ [ ] x-ḫu(?)
41 ⟨⟨UDU⟩⟩ UDUḫi.a 79 an-nu-ti i-ṭa-ba-ḫu
75. Arnaud reads this as (né)-qé-ti. Fleming suggests u-de-ti, LAM, or NIM, none of
which fits the context. The sign most resembles the Babylonian rendering of LAM.
76. Reconstruction follows Fleming.
77. Arnaud reads this as MAR Ú, which would normalize marru, meaning a “spade”
or “shovel.” Arnaud translates “les grands, les. . . . mangent.”
78. Fleming reads this as xmeš; however, the sign appears to be a ba.
79. Following Fleming, ⟨⟨UDU⟩⟩ is read with line 89. Transliterated following Flem-
ing as a ba, which matches the context. The form is different from the standard ba. How-
ever, this atypical form of the ba sign is consistently used by the scribe of Emar 446.
(?) unaqqū šīra [. . .] They sacrifice a piece of meat [. . . ;]

kabbartu 80 ana awili rabi [šīri. . . .] the [. . .]-meat and the hocks (are) for the
leader, and they gave [the. . . .-meat]
ana zabbiḫi 81 inandi[nū. . . .] to the slaughterer.
aḫū 82 ša bīt dUdḫa [. . .] The kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple [(and). . . .]
they receive [(some part)].
illaqqû šīru irtu ana pani dIšḫa⸢ra⸣ The leaders and the whole populace consume
the breast before dIšḫara. 83
awilū rabû awilī gamārī ikkalū rēšu bītū The House of the Gods(?) (and) the Diviner
[ilū] receive the head.
bāru illaqi išbiṭa 84 They inflict the strike;
išakkanū ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili the divine axe [. . . ,]
immerī annûti iṭabbaḫū (. . .) they slaughter 85 these sheep.
80. Possibly from kabbartu, “part of the foot, leg, or ankle.”

81. Taken from a personnel list in 275:1–4 that mentions the na lúza-bi-ḫu of dNIN.
URTA (Fleming, Time at Emar, 154 n.45).
82. Ibid., 277. Fleming reads this as “kinsman,” following Emar 156:8; 109:20. “It ap-
pears that the irregular plural ḪI.A is attracted to identification of kinsmen by -ḫ in the
root, especially when doubled in the plural. Emar Akkadian already shows the tendency
toward final frozen -a, which might reflect deterioration of the case system in the local
dialect; compare dAn-na in 446:77; Il-li-la in 446:84; and dNIN.URTA KÁ A-mi-ta in
274:6.” Fleming goes on to distinguish between aḫ- (which refers to the wider clan) and
ŠEŠ (which is used for the immediate family unit). John Huehnergard (“Five Tablets from
the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 [1983]: 36) reads lú.mešŠEŠḫi.a (cf. Alalah Idrimi, line 75).
83. This is the meal during which the entire population shares the offering in the
proximity of the temple.
84. Fleming (Time at Emar, 278) identifies the root as šbṭ in an ipris-formation noun
form in the accusative case. According to Fleming, this form represents a “concrete ex-
pression of the verbal action to which it is related.” Relying on the Hebrew cognate,
Fleming translates this “they place the staff.” While Fleming may be correct, I propose
that the divine axe in line 40 fits well with the verbal root šbṭ–šabāṭu, meaning “to sweep
away” or “to strike.”
85. Uses a different verbal root for “slaughter.”
158 Chapter 4
42 ni 86-bi-šu-nu ⸢qà⸣-du GABmeš ú-na-q[í] 87
43 ḫa-ṣi-nu ša DINGIR EGIR-šu-nu i-la-ak

44 ù KUŠḫi.a ma-qí-ia-ti lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.[GÍD] 88
45 i-na U4.15 dḪAR ⸢a⸣-na É GUDmeš ú-še-ra-du-[u] 89
46 i-ṭa-(ba?)-ḫu I UDU a-na É ANŠE.KUR.RA i-ṭa-
47 ba-ḫu i-na ITI šu-wa-tu-ma ⟨i-na⟩nu-ba-te
86. Arnaud unnecessarily corrects to in.

87. Arnaud reads this as qu, which changes the verb to the 3mp.
88. Fleming recognizes the scribal error, reading the second GÍD, which is not pres-
ent in Arnaud’s sketch of the text.
89. Fleming reads this as ú-še-ra-du-u with a final u that is not present in Arnaud’s
sketch of the text.
nibīšunu 90 [qa]du irtū unaqqi He sacrifices 91 their portions. . . . , together

with the breast-meats.
ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili warkišunu illak The divine axe follows them; 92
u maškū maqqiātī 93 bāri also, the hides of the offerings belong to the
Diviner.
ina ūmi 15 ḫašu 94 ana bīt alpī ušerradū On the 15th day, they bring dŠaggar down to
the cattle barn and (perform) the
slaughter. 95
iṭabbaḫū 1 immera ana bīt wūti 96 iṭabbaḫū 97 they slaughter one sheep at the horse
stable. 98
ina warḫi šuwatuma nubātte During that month, 99 during the evening 100
ceremony, 101
90. nību + 3mp pronoun = “their portion (amount).” Following CAD N 204–6, defi-
nition A1, which finds nību + personal pronouns meaning either “their name” or “their
amount.” Contra Fleming, who translates after CAD definition B, “small piece,” which is
not found elsewhere conjoined to a personal pronoun.
91. Uses a different verbal root for “offer.”
92. A repetition of line 15 with a 3mp versus 3cs personal pronoun.
93. Likely a noun form associated with naqû, “to offer” or “to sacrifice.” Following
Arnaud’s translation: “les peaux des offrandes (reviennent au) devin.”
94. Following Fleming, who translates dŠaggar.
95. AB:A′B′ parallel structure. While lines 45–46 may tie the offerings to an agricul-
tural intent (offerings to prepare the draft animals for plowing and planting), a specific
date is identified for the offering.
96. Normalized following R. Labat (Manuel d’Épigraphie Akkadienne [Paris: Geuth-
ner, 1988]), ANŠE.KUR.RA wūtu jument, sign #208.
97. Fleming identifies this duplicate as probably a scribal error.
98. Scholars debate the use of horses as draft animals. The inclusion of horses as
draft animals is based on a Hittite royal funerary text (KUB 39:14 i 12–16), in which horses
and oxen are burned with a plow, denoting the possible intent that they may follow the
deceased into the afterlife. “They dismantle a plow and burn it up on the same spot. The
ashes an old woman takes up and dumps them out where the heads of the horses (ANŠE.
KUR.RA) and the heads of the oxen have been burning.” Based on this text, Hoffner
concludes: “[H]ere is an attempt to convert livestock and plow into a form in which they
can follow the deceased into the after-life. In the same way as his body is transformed by
burning, so also were his possessions” (Harry A. Hoffner, Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Pro-
duction in Hittite Asia Minor [AOS 55; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974],
44–45). Additional support is found in KUB 28:88 ii 17–18, which hints that a horse may
draw a plow. Following (Fleming, Time at Emar, 155 n. 56), who identifies these animals as
“draft horses.”
99. The text expresses an intentional ambiguity with regard to the date of the ritual.
This feature will be further explored in chap. 5. Hess (“Multi-Month,” 243 n. 29) argues
that “perhaps the waving of the sheaf is intentionally ambiguous to allow for a date as
close as possible to the harvest. If so, this would parallel the ambiguity of the Emar text
where, despite the custom of specific dating procedures for most feasts, at least one re-
mains open.”
100. Reference to activities occurring at a specific time of day—here in the “evening”
or “at sunset.”
101. CAD N 308 3 uses the same form to denote “the eve of a feast” or “evening
ceremonies.”
160 Chapter 4
48 ú-še-ṣú I UDU i-na! lúnu-pu-ḫa-an-ni I-en
49 UDU a-na KIRI6 102 ša bi 103-ri-ki ša dIM
50 ⸢UDU⸣ a-⸢na⸣ dDa-gan be-el NUMUNmeš i-ṭi-⟨ba(?)⟩-ḫu

51 lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD NUMUNmeš i-na KI i-na-di nindax
52 iš-tu É ⸢DINGIR(?)⸣ ka4-sà-tu4 UZU SAG GAB
53 ša lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD i-na ša-ni U4 še- 104

54 er-tam-ma x (-x) x-AM a-na KUR i-ṭa-ba-ḫu-ma
55 ku-ba-di a-na ⸢ta(?)⸣-ma da-ri-ia u a-na da-na x 105-[(-x?)]
56 ú-ka-ba-du a-di ku-ba-di4 ú-ga-ma-ru

57 ma-am-ma e-ri-ši! ú-ul! 106 ú-ṣi
58 iti dNIN.KUR.RA i-na U4.17 SILA4 i-na dNIN.KUR
59 i-pa-a-du i-⸢na⸣ U4.18 dNIN.KUR.RA tu-ṣi
102. Following Fleming.
103. Arnaud reads this as pi.
104. Arnaud read this as KÁM = erēšu, “to desire” and begins line 54 with IR UD. De-
spite this reading, Arnaud translates lines 53 and 54 as “provenant du temple, les coupes
(et) la droite de la poitrine reviennent au devin. Le jour suivant.”
105. Arnaud reads a partial sign tu4 and reconstructs da-na-tu, translating it
“forteresse.”
106. Following Fleming, who reads the GU sign as an error for the intended UL sign.
ušeṣṣû 1 immera nupuḫaannī I-en they bring out (a procession). They slaughter
one sheep for the nuppuḫanū men, one
immera ana kiri ša biriki 107 ša dBaʿali sheep for the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred
pool, 108
[immera] a[na] dDagani bēl zērī iṭibbaḫū 109 and a sheep for dDagan, Lord of the Seed. 110
bāru zērī ina erṣeti inaddi nindax The Diviner 111 throws seed onto the ground.
The. . . . bread (item)
ištu bit [ilī] kāsātī šira imitta irta from the House of the Gods(?), cups (of
drink), and the meat of the right breast
ša bāri ina šani ūmi belong to the Diviner. On the next day, 112
šērtamma. . . . ana šadi iṭabbaḫū In the morning. . . . they slaughter (a sacrifice)
for dDagan and 113
kubāti ana [ta(?)]ma daria u ana dana [. . .] perform an honorific ceremony by lasting
oath(?) and by. . . .
ukabkatū adi kubāti ugammarū Until they finish the honorific ceremony,
mamma eriši ul 114 uṣṣi no one may go out to plant. 115
warḫu dNIN.KUR.RA ina ūmi 17 The month of dNIN.KUR.RA: on the 17th
puḫāda ina NIN.KUR day, 116 they offer a lamb for dNIN.KUR.
d
ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi dNIN.KUR.RA tuṣṣi On the 18th day, dNIN.KUR.RA goes out in
procession;
107. Following Durand (ARMT 21 34:3), who translates from a Mari text—“un lac
sacré.” Pentiuc (West Semitic, 41) argues that all other references to “ponds” at Emar are
feminine and associated with Ištar—casting this use into doubt. While Pentiuc makes a
solid point, we cannot exclude “sacred pond” simply because its use is not yet attested in
other documents. Huehnergard (AOS 1988) argues for the root b-r-q and a normalization
birrīqu, translating “lightning”; although I have not adopted this reading here, the asso-
ciation between the storm-god and lightning is attractive.
108. The location of dBaʿal’s Temple lacks sufficient space for a large pool or pond.
However, a small sacred pool could have been located in front of the temple.
109. Fleming identifies this duplicate as probably being a scribal error.
110. Lines 50–57 show a clear association between agriculture and the festival of the
1st month. The subsequent festivals in each of the next five months do not show a simi-
lar agricultural association. Amultimonth ritual calendar including both agricultural and
nonagricultural festivals is a point of similarity with Leviticus and demonstrates that
agrarian and nonagrarian festivals coexisted in the 2nd millennium (contra Wagenaar).
111. One of the few occasions where the subject of the action is specified—here, “the
Diviner.”
112. The temporal phrase ša bāru acts as a divider in the text.
113. “On the next day, at dawn” is a possible reference to the day beginning in the
morning and not in the evening. In addition, cultic sacrifices are held at sunrise and at
sunset.
114. Seminara (L’Accadio di Emar, 407–8) correctly identifies the prohibition in the
statement, contra Fleming (Time at Emar, 279), who argues that the statement is gram-
matically descriptive.
115. Festival rites consist of: (1) performing an honorific ceremony; (2) offering meat,
drink, and grain to the god; and (3) prohibiting agricultural activity until the festival ends.
116. The festival text begins with a formulaic “The month of x on x day they offer x
animal for x god (usually the god associated with the month name).”
162 Chapter 4
60 I UDU SIG5 BABBAR ša n[u-pu]-ḫa-an-ni NINDA KAŠ ša ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ 117
61 LÚ ša qí-da-š[i i-ka-lu i]-sa-tu
62 nindaḫu-ug-gu x [ . . . ]-na Ì.NUN(?)

63 i-na nindaḫ[u(?)-ug(?)-gu(?) dD]a(?)-gan(?) 118
64 lúMÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍ[D.GÍD ] x [. . . ]
65 lúMÁS. [ŠU.GÍD.GÍD . . . ]
66 SILA4 x [ . . . i-na(?) U4(?)]
67 19 ⸢d⸣[ . . . ú-ṣi. . . .]
68 a-na pa-[ni-šu/-ši(?) i-la-ak/ku (?) —a-ṣí-(in-)nu ša DINGIR(?)]

69 EGI[R- ši i-[la-ak ]
69*
70 [ . . . ] x [ . . . ]
71 UDU a-na d[ ]
72 UDU a-na d[NIN(?)].[URTA/KUR(?)]
73 x bar(?)-ma(?) 119 x I(?) ⸢UDU⸣ ⸢a ⸣ -[na ]
74 [ ] x x [ ] x
77 [it]i dAn-na I UDU a-na dA-dadama-te-ri UDU 120
78 [NINDA(?)] KAŠ(?) lú.meš nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni it-ti ḫa-am-ša-i
117. Arnaud (Recherches au pays d’Aštata, 420–22) corrects to 4 UDU, “four sheep,”
which is not necessary but does match the context of the text and is therefore possible.
Fleming (Time at Emar, 265–75) attributes the ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ sign to duplication by the scribe.
However, there appears to be the beginning of another sign after LÚ. Therefore, while I
follow Fleming, there may be a missing word in the translation.
118. My reconstruction follows Fleming.
119. Fleming postulates ra. However, the vertical after the three horizontals makes
that sign unlikely.
120. Following Fleming (Time at Emar, 272), who reads this sign with line 89 (Fleming,
line 77)—contra Arnaud, who reads the sign on col. III, line 54.
1 immeru damāqu pūsu ša nuppuḫannī akala one good quality white sheep (is) provided by
šikara ša ⟨⟨awilī ⟩⟩ the men. Bread and beer by
awilū ša qidaš[i 121 i]kkalū(?)[i]šattû the men of the consecration-gift [. . .] eat and
drink
akalu ḫūgu 122. . . . ḫimʾatu(?) 123 flat bread loaf [. . .] ghee
ina akali ḫūgi. . . . dDagan(?) 124 in the flat bread loaf [. . .]dDagan (?)
bā[ru] the Diviner [. . .]
b[āru] the Diviner [. . .]
puḫādu x[ ina ūmi(?)] a lamb [. . . on the]
19 ilu [. . . uṣṣi. . . .] 19th [day (some god goes out in procession?)
. . .]
ana pā[niši(?) illak(?) ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili [. . .] precedes [her]. [The divine axe (?)]
war[kiši illak] follows [her]
. . . x. . . . [. . .] x [. . .]

immera ana ili. . . . [. . .] a sheep to [(some god). . . .] 125
immera ana [dNIN.URA (?). . . .] [. . . .] a sheep to (another god) [. . . .]
x bara(?) x 1 immera ana ili [. . . .] one sheep to [. . . .]
. . . x x. . . . x [. . . .] xx [. . . .]x.
warḫu dAnna 1 immeru ana The month of Anna: 126 One sheep is

d 127
Adammateri immeru provided for dAdammatera.
128
[akalu(?)] šikaru nuppuḫannū itti The nuppuḫannū men along with the ḫamšaʾū
ḫamšaʾū ḫamšaʾū men give a sheep, [bread,] and beer
121. Fleming (Time at Emar, 279) correctly notes that the text is ambiguous about
whether the “men of the consecration-gift” are providing or receiving the offering.
122. Following W. Mayer (“Eine Urkunde uber Grundstuckskaufe aus Ekalte/Tall
Munbaqa,” UF 24 [1992]: 270), who contends that the form is found in Mari economic
texts. Ran Zadok (“Notes on the West Semitic Material from Emar,” AION 51 [1991]:
114) proposes the cognate kukku, “type of bread or cake of characteristic shape.” Pentiuc
(West Semitic, 75) argues for the West Semitic root ḫ-n-k because the “Emarite word might
be considered a noun of qutl- formation (abstract meaning), showing both assimilation
and nonassimilation of the medial -n-. The meaning ‘consecrated (bread),’ fits well with
the cultic context, in which this form occurs.” While Pentiuc’s option is possible, Mayer’s
argument fits the form of the noun and the context of the passage. There is no need to
look for the “consecration” of the loaf of bread as the “men of consecration” make the
offering.
123. Ì.NUN (and its variants Ì.NUN.NUN, A.NUN.NUN) is the name of an inter-
calary month for the 6th month in early Semitic calendars and may mean “ghee” (M. E.
Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 31).
124. Fleming (Time at Emar, 279) notes that dDagan is unexpected because dNIN.
KUR.RA should be the focus of her own festival.
125. Lines 71–74 appear to be a list of sheep offerings to different deities or officials
and are similar to the ending lines (78–80) of the festival.
126. Following the pronunciation in Emar 369: B (31–36)a.
127. Possibly associated with the Mesopotamian sky-god Anu. Does not follow the
standard entry formula but does follow the standard offering formula “x sheep for god x.”
128. Arnaud reads this as [gáb]-bi, but this idiom is not present elsewhere in the text.
Fleming, whom I follow here, reads [akalu(?)] šikaru, which fits the context and agrees
with prior festival rites.
164 Chapter 4
79 [i-n]a-din-nu I UDU a-na a-bi É DINGIR I UDU a-na
80 ⸢É(?)⸣ 129 dDa-gan UDU a-na URU.KI UDUmeš an 130-nu-tu4
81 [š]a nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni KUŠmeš a-nu-tu4 131 ša 132

82 [lú]MÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍD.GÍD i-⟨la-⟩aq-qí
83 iti dA-dama i-na u4-mi 7 tù-ur-tu4 133
84 ša Il-li-la i-na U4.8 tù-ur-tu4
85 ⸢a⸣ -na DINGIRmeš ga-bu-ma
86 itiMar-za-ḫa-ni 134 i-na U4.14 bu-Ga-ra-tu4
87 ⸢i⸣ -na U4.16 Aš-tar-ṣa-ar-ba 135 ú-ṣi 136
88 UDU ša URU.KI ù ḫa-ṣí-nu ša DINGIR (erasure)
89 EGIR dAš! !-tar-ṣa-ar-⟨ba⟩ 137 i-la-ak i-na

90 ⟨U4⟩ šu-wa-tu-ma ṣa-du ša dIš8 138-tár i-na
91 U4.17 ṣa-du ša dIM I UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-an-ni
92 É ḫu(?)-ri-ti 139 i-sa-ra-pu lú.meš
93 mar 140-za-ḫu ša mi-di nindana-ap-ta-na

94 i-na DINGIRmeš ú-ba-lu 141 mi-iš-li I UDU
129. Arnaud reads this as [a-n]a.

130. Fleming incorrectly reads a in place of an—possibly a typo.
131. Lines 92 and 93 use the same word spelled in different ways.
132. Sign is omitted by Fleming.
133. Arnaud reads this incorrectly as tu in place of tu4.
134. Arnaud reads a final nu sign. The -ān- suffix points to a gathering of a select
group of individuals like the marzaḫū. Fleming notes that this could point to one group
among several.
135. Arnaud reads SILA.LÍM ar-ba, translating il “sort dans la rue.” SILA.LÍM may
mean sūq erbetti (see Labat, Manuel, 47).
136. The reading of Belmonte is adopted here, following Fleming ( J. A. Belmonte,
“Zur Lesung und Deutung von ina sila.lím ar-ba in Emar-Texten,” NABU [1997], 82–83).
137. As above, Arnaud reads SILA.LÍM ar-ba, translating the line “vont dans la rue
derrière.”
138. Following Fleming.
139. Arnaud corrects the reading to maš-ar-ti and translates it “on brûle ⟨dans⟩ la mai-
son de la prêtresse-mašʾartu,” which is not necessary when the text reads well without
correction.
140. Arnaud corrects to NINDA, rendering NINDAza-ri.
141. The text could also be translated “and 1 sheep” (u 1 immera).
inaddinū 1 immera ana abi bīt ilī 1 one sheep for the abû shrine 142 of the gods,
immera ana one sheep for
[bītu(?)] dDagan immeru ana āli ašri the Temple of dDagan, and a sheep for the
immerū annûtū town—these sheep
ša nuppuḫannū maškī annûtī ša are provided by the nuppuḫannū men;
bāru illaqi the Diviner receives these hides.
warḫu dAdamma ina ūmi 7 tūrtu 143 The month of dAdamma: the circuit
ša Illila 144 ina ūmi 8 tūrtu of Illila 145 on the 7th day. The circuit
ana ilī gabbīma for all the gods falls on the 8th day.
warḫu Marzaḫāni ina ūmi 14 bugarātu 146 The month of Marzaḫāni: the Bugarātu is on
the 14th day.
ina ūmi 16 Aštarṣaarba uṣṣi On the 16th day, Aštarṣarba goes out in
procession;
immeru ša āli u ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili a sheep provided by the city and the divine
axe
warki Aš !tarṣar⟨ba⟩ follow dAštarṣarba.
d
u šuwatuma ṣadu ša Ištar ina Aštart makes her rounds on that ⟨day⟩.
d d
ūmi 17 ṣadu ša Baʿali 1 immera ša Baʿal makes his rounds on the 17th day;
nuppuḫanni
bīti ḫu(?)riti išarrapū awīlû they burn at the Hurrian(?) temple one sheep
from the nuppuḫannū men;
marzaḫū ša midi 147 akala naptana 148 the marzaḫū wise men(?)
ina ilī ubbalū mišli 1 immera carry a standard loaf to the gods. Half of the
one sheep
142. Fleming leaves abu untranslated. CAD A 76 points to abu bīti ’s being the official
of the temple. Although the form in the CAD-referenced text is a-bu and not a-bi, the
form can be explained by considering the preposition ana to be converting the noun to
the genitive case. I adopt the abû shrine of the gods here because the context for the
three offerings is sacred space, not individuals. For a detailed argument about the transla-
tion of abu, see Fleming, Time at Emar, 184–89.
143. CAD T 491: tūrtu meaning “circuit,” “return.” Arnaud translates in 373:205 “a cir-
cuit to (the shrines of?) all the gods.” If this is the case, then the “circuit” is a procession
of the image or priest to a location and back again. Fleming translates this as a “return-
ceremony.” However, Fleming’s translation does not capture the idea of a procession
with a return.
144. Arnaud reads this as il-li-ka!. The reading here follows Fleming, who correctly
identifies the sign as la and not the corrected ka.
145. Likely represents Enlil.
146. Unknown word. Fleming suggests a relationship to “lightning bolts” (bi-ri-qá-ti),
following Zadok, “Notes,” 115; however, this would require a scribal error. A connection
to the Hebrew cognate bāqār, “cattle,” which is attested at Mari (bu-GA-ru in ARM 2
131:39) provides a better solution. Fleming (Time at Emar, 165) identifies this with Bu-uK-
Ku-ra-tu4 in Emar 406:5, which refers to a personal attendant of the prophetess of Išḫara.
Although it is similar, the link to a named attendant is rejected here because: (1) the con-
text of the 14th day is a festival or ceremony and not a person or class of people; and (2) a
connection to the prophetess of Išḫara is not part of this text.
147. The form midi is unattested, and therefore the meaning is uncertain. Translated
here following CAD M/2 163, mudû, where the marzaḫū men were perhaps either wise
men or “friends of the king,” as in OAkk texts.
148. The standard allotment for one meal.
166 Chapter 4
95 lúMÁS⟨.ḪU⟩.GÍD.GÍD
96 iti dḪAL-ma 2 i-na U4 ku-ba-dì
97 i-na É dDa-gan ú-ka-ba-du
98 [i]-na nu-ba-ti KAŠ.GEŠTIN ta-še-ia-ti

99 [ú(?)]-ma-lu MUŠEN i-sa-ra-pu
100 ⸢i-na⸣ U4.3 ḫi-da-aš dKUR I UDU ša URU.KI 149
101 ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR a-na É ú-sa-ab

102 KUŠ UDU ša lúMÁS⟨.ŠU⟩.GÍD.GÍD i-na U4.8
103 dḪal-ma ú-ṣi ḫa-ṣí-in-nu ša DINGIR
104 EGIR-šu ⸢i⸣ -la-ak I UDU ša URU.KI
105 LÚmeš ša qí-⸢da⸣ -ši KÚ NINDA KAŠ ša LÚ GAL 150
106 i-na U4 šu-wa-tu-ma SILA4 i-na É
107 dIM i-pa-a-du i-na U4.9 151 dIM

108 ša ki-na-i 152 ú-ṣi GUD 6 UDU a-[na]
109 ⸢É⸣ -šu⸣ i-la-ak i-na ŠÀ-šu-nu I (DIŠ?) [ ]
110 ⸢É⸣ dDa-[g]an(?) 153 be-[el(?)]⟨(?)⟩ i-⟨la-⟩aq?!-qí [a(?)-na(?)]

111 lúka-wa(?)-ni(?) x x (x)-na-šu(?)
112 i-⟨la(?)-⟩aq 154-qí x [a(?)]-na ŠÀ-šu x x
113 [ ] x [ ] x
149. Lines 100, 104, 112, and 116 all end in the phrase “I UDU ša URU.KI,” which may
indicate a dividing mechanism in the text.
150. Fleming and Arnaud read this as lúMÁS.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD. However, this reading
would require a minimum of 3.5 cm and only 1.5 cm (at the maximum) is available. There-
fore, the reading LÚ GAL or LÚmeš is more likely. Because the line assigns offerings to
someone, LÚ GAL is adopted here. See also lines 29 and 34.
151. Arnaud incorrectly reads this as 8.
152. Following Fleming, who argues that the form should be translated “Canaan”:
“The writing ki-na-i is not known elsewhere but is appropriate in the Emar setting: a
second -n- is frequently omitted, and Emar joins the most common practice at Ugarit,
where ʿayin is frequently transcribed by Akkadian -ʾ- or with broken writing. The spelling
ki-na-i represents a natural alternative to the spelling kurki-na-ḫi at Ugarit. Although the
Emar reference lacks any topographical marker, one Amarna letter from Cyprus provides
an appropriate comparison, both in setting and form: x-ḫa-ti ša ki-na-ḫi ” (Fleming, Time
at Emar, 169–70). Richard S. Hess provides a thorough treatment of the uses of Canaan
in West Semitic texts in “Occurrences of Canaan in Late Bronze Age Archives of the
West Semitic World,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near
East (ed. S. Izre'el, I. Singer, and R. Zadok; IOS 18; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998),
365–72.
153. Arnaud reads the partial sign as IM (dBaʿal).
154. Fleming (Time at Emar, 281) corrects the second sign from -aq- to -la-, which may
reflect a West Semitic pronunciation resulting in the misspelling.
bāri belongs to the Diviner.

warḫu Ḫalma 2 ina ūmi kubāti The month of dḪalma: on the 2nd day,
ina bit dDagani ukabkatū they perform the honorific ceremony at the
Temple of dDagan.
ina nubātti šikarī karānī tašeiati (?) In the evening, 155
[u]mallū iṣṣuri išarrapū they fill a goblet with wine and burn 156 a bird.
157 158 d
ina ūmi 3 ḫidaš Dagani 1 immeru ša The Day of Renewal of dDagan falls on the
āli 3rd. One sheep is provided by the city;
ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili ana bīti uššab the divine axe remains in the temple.
mašku immeri ša bāri ina ūmi 8 The sheep’s hide belongs to the Diviner. On
the 8th day.
d d
Ḫalma uṣṣi ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili Ḫalma goes out in procession. The divine
axe
warkišu illak 1 immeru ša āli follows him. One sheep is provided by the
city.
awilū ša qi[da]ši akālu šikaru ša awili rabi The men of the consecration-gift (?) feast.
The bread and beer belong to the leader.
ina ūmi šuwatuma puḫāda ina bīti On that day, they offer a lamb at the
temple 159
ili dBaʿali ipaʾʾadū ina ūmi 9 ilu dBaʿalu of dBaʿal. On the 9th day, dBaʿal
ša kinani uṣṣi alpu 6 immerū ana of Canaan goes out in procession. An ox and
six sheep
bītišu illak 160 ina libbišunu 1 (ginâ?) proceed to his temple. Among them [. . .
from(?)]
bīt dDagan 161 bē[l] illaqi [ana] the Temple of dDagan (?) the Lord ⟨(of. . . . ?)⟩
kawanī he receives. For(?) the servers. . . .
illaqi. . . . [a]na libbišu. . . . he receives. . . . into it(?). . . .
. . . . . . x. . . . x
155. Emar 463:4–10 describes the same events attributed to an unnamed month. Dur-
ing the evening of the 2nd day, the participants fill the goblets with wine and present a
bird as a burnt offering.
156. Tablet BLMJ 1137, line 10 uses this same verb (i-šar-ra-pu) to present a goat offer-
ing at the evening watch (similar to the “evening” offering depicted here; Westenholz,
Cuneiform Inscriptions, 76–77).
157. Not transliterated by Arnaud.
158. Pentiuc (West Semitic, 65) argues for “renewal”or “inauguration” (adopted here)
based on a West Semitic origin. “The presence of initial ḫi-/ḫu- for /*ḥ/ points to a WS
origin, since in Akk. initial /*ḥ/ dropped, accompanied by a change in the vowel register,
a ⟩ e; note Akk. edēšu ‘to be new’ (AHw 186–87) comes from *ḥadāšu.” Fleming translates
this as “New Moon (Celebration)” which is interesting; however, holding the celebration
on the 3rd day of the month points to renewal (which may be a part of the new moon
celebration) but not the official new moon celebration.
159. Lines 106–19 discuss a festival to dBaʿal in which the offerings and the payment
to the Diviner and king are the same as those given to dBaʿal during the NIN.DINGIR
priestess installation. This similarity is noted by Hess, “Multi-Month,” 238.
160. Fleming notes that a singular verb is used in Emar 446 with a plural noun.
161. Fleming notes that the appearance of dDagan in a festival to dBaʿal is unex-
pected. In addition, the syllabic spelling of Da-gan is less frequent.
168 Chapter 4
113* 162[ ] a [ ]
114 [ LÚ ]meš na-di(?)-nu qí(?) x [ ]
115 [ ] KUŠ ŠÀ(?) uzuir(?)-[ri ]

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

163. Fleming corrects the reading to GUD to agree with earlier pairings of GUD and
UDU in place of AMAR, which would be out of place in the reading. The correction as-
sumes a third vertical wedge in place of the angled wedge in the text.
Structure, Outline, and Literary Features

As discussed in chap. 1, a comparative analysis must explore the struc-
ture, outline, and literary features of the texts under review. These features
provide insight into each ritual’s expression and author’s intent. Thus I now
examine Emar 446’s verbal construction, organizing structures, prescrip-
tive or descriptive nature, and analytical genre to lay the groundwork for
comparing it with Lev 23 in the chap. 5 below.
Structure and Outline

Emar 446 has four columns, with significant damage in col. II and mod-
erate damage to col. I. The translation contains 119 numbered and trans-
lated lines. However, the original (undamaged) text probably contained
approximately 162 lines. Despite this damage, we see several signs of orga-
nization, including markings on the tablet and language designed to struc-
ture the content. Double lines drawn across col. IV create the first level of
organization. These marks divide col. IV as follows:
. . . . . . a. . . .

awilū nadinū(?) qi[daši](?) [. . . the men] who give(?) 164 the consecration-
gift(?) [. . .]
maškū libbū(?) šīrū errū(?). . . . the hides, the intestines, the fat [. . .]
ša bār[i] belong to the Diviner. [. . .]
šīrū giššū 165. . . . šarri šadi the hip [. . .] belongs to the king of the land.
[in]a [ūmi] 18 ḫiyaru [ša] dBaʿali The ḫiyaru of dBaʿal is on the 18th day.
alpa 2 immerī iṭabbaḫū awilū ša qidaši They slaughter an ox and two sheep. The
ikkalū išattû men of the consecration-gift(?) eat and
drink.
164. See line 105 for similar text.

165. Fleming translates this as geššu based on his work in Installations, 153. This reading
is not necessary because MB texts about literature, medicine, and omens all reference
gilšu, “hip or flank,” as gi-iš-šu, a reading that is similar to uzugi5-iš-še.
The phrases below follow each double-lined divider (and the additional di-
vision at the top of col. IV):
Line 77: [it]i dAn-na I UDU a-na dA-dadama-te-ri
Line 83: iti dA-dama i-na u4-mi 7
Line 86: itiMar-za-ḫa-ni i-na U4.14
Line 96: iti dḪAL-ma 2 i-na U4
Clearly, the information following the double-line markers of col. IV indi-

cates the scribe’s attempt to identify the divisions between the months in
which festivals took place (using temporal markers). After each division, the
first word in the next line designates the month name for the succeeding
rites. In three of the four sections (lines 83, 86, 96) the reference after this
month name is an identification of the day for the first rite: Days 7, 14, and
2, respectively. (We have no explanation for the author’s omitting the day
of the month for the month of dAnna. One possibility is that the festival
activities began on the 1st day of the month, which made the date reference
unnecessary.) 166 Despite the absence of double-line dividers in the first
three columns, the evidence from col. IV points to temporal markers as the
basis of the entire text’s organization—specifically, the mention of month
names and festival dates. Using this general principle, we can outline the
order of the complete text as follows:
166. Hess, “Multi-Month,” 239.

170 Chapter 4
Emar 446 Outline

Lines Topic
1 Heading
2–57 Festivals in the month of SAG.MU
2–5 General offerings—fragmented text (Day 8)
6–7 Offerings to dDagan (Day 14?)
d
8–10 Dagan goes out in procession (Day 15)
d
11–18a NIN.URTA(?) goes out in procession (That day)
18b–22a X god goes out in procession (That day)
d
22b–44 NIN.URTA goes out in procession (That day)
d
45–47a Šaggar ceremony at the cattle barn and horse stable (Day 15)
47b–53a The Diviner’s seed ceremony (for the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred pool
and dDagan, Lord of the Seed) (That month)
53b–57 The Diviner performs an honorific (kubādu) ceremony (Day 16—“on
the next day”)
58–76 Festivals in the month of dNIN.KU.RA
58 Offerings to dNIN.KU.RA (Day 17)
d
59–66 NIN.KUR.RA goes out in procession (Day 18)
67–74 X god goes out in procession and general offerings (Day 19)
77–82 Festivals in the month of dAnna
77–82 Offerings to dAdammatera, “abû shrine of the House of the Gods,”
Temple of dDagan, “the town,” and allotment to the Diviner
83–85 Festivals in the month of dAdamma
83–84a The circuit of Illila (Day 7)
84b–85 The circuit for DINGIRmeš (Day 8)
86–95 Festivals in the month of Marzaḫāni
86 The Bugarātu Festival (Day 14)
87–90 Aštar-ṣarba goes out in procession (Day 16)
d
91–95 Baʿal goes out in procession (Day 17)
96–119 Festivals in the month of dḪalma
96–99 Perform the honorific ceremony at the Temple of dDagan (Day 2)
100–102a The Day of Renewal of dDagan (Day 3)
d
102b–107a Ḫalma goes out in procession (Day 8)
d
107b–117 Baʿal goes out in procession (Day 9)
118–119 The ḫiyaru of dBaʿal (Day 18)
The outline shows agreement with the major divisions of Fleming’s outline.
However, the use of temporal dividers alters his outline at various subdivi-
sion points—separating or combining some rites. 167
Form
Emar 446 begins with an introductory heading similar to others in the
Diviner’s archive—notably, Emar 369, which begins, “Tablet of the rites for
the NIN.DINGIR of dIM of Emar.” The introductory formula in Emar
446 makes clear that the multimonth festival calendar is not attributed to
one god or goddess or one temple but is a tablet for “the rites of the city.”
This introductory phrase explains that the rituals broadly apply to all the
residents of Emar and probably to the wider region controlled by Emar.
The text comprises six primary sections. Each section consists of the
rites in one month and begins with the mention of the month name. Most
sections also begin with an introductory formula that reads, “x month, on
the x day, at x time of day, x performs some primary activity on the first
day of the festival.” The primary activity may include an offering (lines 3,
58, and 77), a procession (line 84), or a specific activity central to the festi-
val (the Bugarātu in line 86 or the honorific ceremony in line 97). Temporal
markers subdivide the sections by noting a change in the date of the activ-
ities. They further divide these subsections by describing an action con-
tinuing “on that day” (U4 šuwatuma), “in the morning” (šērtamma), “in the
evening” (nubātte), “in that month” (ITI šuwatuma). Of these subdividers,
U4 šuwatuma is the most common; it appears five times, mainly in the 1st
month (three times). 168
Because the text includes sections with significant damage, it is difficult
to identify a standard format for each festival. Acknowledging this limita-
tion, I submit that the Bugarātu Festival in the month of Marzaḫāni in lines
86–95 provides an example of what is probably the standard format, includ-
ing: the month, the day, and the time of day. 169 The first activity usually
includes a procession ceremony of the primary god/goddess associated with
167. We find one example in Fleming’s outline of lines 2–10, where he separates the
activities of Day 8 in lines 2–7 from the rites of dDagan in lines 8–10 (as a subdivision of
Day 15). I argue (based on temporal markers) that lines 2–10 are all part of the festivals
of SAG.MU and are divided into three subsections: general offerings (2–5), offering to
d
Dagan (6–7), and procession of dDagan (8–10). In another example, Fleming breaks lines
22b–44 into three subsections based on his premise they may concern rites to three dif-
ferent gods. However, because these lines contain no evident temporal markers, I main-
tain that the entire section may be one ritual involving three gods. Unfortunately, even
though using temporal markers seems to be the best method for determining the outline,
the broken nature of the text makes a conclusive argument impossible (Fleming, Time at
Emar, 148–49).
168. We will explore the format for the introduction to festival activities and the use
of temporal markers to subdivide sections in relation to Lev 23 in chap. 5.
169. A point not previously explored.
172 Chapter 4
the festival (included in four of the six months). 170 In addition, the proces-
sion is the most frequent festival event; it occurs at least 12 times over the
six months. These procession ceremonies are often preceded by an offering
(cf. lines 7, 18, 23) but occasionally occur without a prior offering (cf. lines
11, 87). The text relates the order of the procession, including the offerings
(identifying the giver of the offering), which always precede the image of the
god, the divine axe (ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili), and the entire population (awilū gamārū).
The text gives more detail about the processions in the 1st month. It is pos-
sible that the order and content given for processions in the 1st month are
also standard for processions in the later months. Once the text identifies
the normal process early in the text, only alterations to the normal pattern
are presented later in the text. 171 The procession out of the temple is fol-
lowed by a return ceremony, which includes offerings (presumably the of-
ferings that preceded the god/goddess in the procession) and a festival meal
consisting of meat, bread, and drink offerings. 172 The officant consecrates
the offerings to the gods, and then the offering is consumed by a broader
population (cf. lines 21, 29, 37, 61, 119). 173 The text identifies population seg-
ments as: the leader of the people (awilu rabû) and/or the general population
(awilū ṣēri). Individuals who contribute the meat offering and sacrifices may
or may not profit from the contribution. The procession sections conclude
with the assignment of payments to the Diviner, who usually receives the
right breast, hide, head, intestine, and fat, while the leader/king occasion-
ally receives the hip, hocks, unspecified meat items, bread, and beer.
Literary and Verbal Analysis

We continue to explore the literary and structural features of ritual in
Emar 446 by analyzing the use of the literary elements of chiasms, inclusio,
and word pairs. In addition, I examine the use of verbs to convey the nature
of the text.
170. In four of the six months, a procession of the primary god/goddess is the first
festival activity. In the remaining two festival months, an honorific ceremony and an of-
fering without a procession are first. The 1st month appears to contain five different pro-
cessions for different god/goddesses, and the information contained in those processions
is combined to determine the “standard” order of events—the procession complex.
171. On a few occasions (lines 12, 19, 23), the gate for the procession out of the temple/
city or return to the temple/city is identified (abullu, bābi Amit). No gates were identified
by Margueron in his analysis of the site. When I visited the site in 2010, it was apparent
that the extensive looting of Emar and the water level of the lake made it unlikely that
any gates will be identified in the future.
172. The consistency of offering types (meat, bread, alcohol) and the consecration
to the gods/goddesses, with consumption by a broader population will be discussed as a
similarity to Lev 23 in chap. 5 below.
173. For the “consecration,” see line 44, which identifies the portion given to the Di-
viner as part of the “the offerings.”
Literary Structures
Emar 446 is a ritual text primarily focused on the activities, offerings,
and payments for services that occur in the six-month ritual calendar begin-
ning in the fall and continuing until spring. Despite its focus on activities
and lists, the text contains the following literary structures: organizational
dividers, parallelism, word pairs, and symmetry.
As mentioned above, temporal markers organize the text by dividing the
calendar into months. And “continuation markers” (standard phrases such
as “on that day,” “in that month,” “on the next day,” “in the evening,” and
“in the morning”) further subdivide the text by day of the month. These
phrases are intentional literary structures separating the rites associated
with different deities. A second organizational divider is the heading at the
beginning of the text that declares the text is a “tablet of the rites of the
city”—indicating the audience is the general population.
While Emar 446 is not intended to be a poetic text, the tablet contains
three doublets that yield poetic parallelism. The first appears in lines 45–46,
where the god Šaggar is brought to the cattle barn and horse stable to per-
form the ritual slaughter of one sheep (possibly meant to ritually prepare the
plowing and planting draft animals for the upcoming planting season). 174
The two lines show an ellipsis through the duplicate use of vocabulary and
word order. The lines read:
ḫašu ana bītī alpī ušerradū iṭabbaḫū
1 immera ana biti wūti iṭabbaḫū
They bring dŠaggar down to the cattle barn, and they perform the slaughter,
they slaughter one sheep at the horse stable.
The form of the Akkadian yields an AB:A′B′ parallelism between the cattle
barn (A) and horse stable (A′). Further, the repetition of the verb (iṭabbaḫū)
constitutes B and B′. The use of an ellipsis may convey that the lamb in
the second part of the doublet should be repeated in the first line so that
one lamb is slaughtered at the cattle barn and a second at the horse stable.
The poetic structure also allows for the duplication of “[t]hey bring Šaggar
down” as the subject of the text without the need to duplicate the words.
In this way, the use of poetic structures in a narrative text creates brevity of
language yet conveys fullness of meaning.
A second example of parallelism occurs in lines 60 and 61. In this sec-
tion, a procession is completed for the god dNIN.KUR.RA in the month
174. This point is debated. It is also possible that the ritual was intended to support
the breeding season. However, the context of the ritual involves the planting of the fall
crop and not the spring birthing season. For more information, see the discussion on
lines 45–46 of the translation. For an argument against the use of horses in agriculture,
see Deborah O’Daniel Cantrell, The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic
Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.) (HACL 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011).
174 Chapter 4
Table 18. Allocation of Space to

Rituals in Emar 446
Number
Month Name of Lines
iti
SAG.MU 99a
iti d
NIN.KUR.RA 48b
iti d
Anna 6
iti d
Adamma 3
iti
Marzaḫāni 10
iti d
Ḫalma 25
a. While there are 69 numbered lines in the translation associated with this month,
the tablet appears to contain 99 lines associated with the month of SAG.MU.
b. The numbered translation counts 18 lines. However, the tablet shows 48 possible
lines associated with this month.
of dNIN.KUR.RA on Day 18. After the procession, a festival meal is con-

sumed, consisting of the meat, bread, and beer provided by various con-
stituents and consecrated to the god. The passage normalizes as follows:
1 immeru damāqu pūsu ša nuppuḫannī
akala šikara ša awilū ša qidaši ikkalū išattû
One good quality white sheep (is) provided by the nuppuḫannū men.
They eat and drink the bread and beer from the men of the consecration-gift.
As above, this section of the text yields an AB:A′B′ parallel structure. The A
and A′ portions of the parallelism represent the offering (one good-quality
white sheep : bread and beer). The B and B′ sections pair two different clas-
sifications of religious constituents (nuppuḫannū men : men of the consecra-
tion-gift). Because the lines are parallel, we understand that the verbs apply
to both the men of the consecration-gift and the nuppuḫannū men who eat
and drink at the ritual meal.
Lines 83–85 provide a third example of parallel language in the text. This
section is the shortest text of the ritual calendar and comprises only three
lines. The three lines, arranged as ABC:A′B′C′, describe the procession of
two groups of deities: 175
i-na u4-mi 7 tù-ur-tu4 ša Il-li-la
i-na U4.8 tù-ur-tu4 a-na DINGIRmeš ga-bu-ma
On the 7th day is the circuit of Illila.
On the 8th day is the circuit for all the gods.
175. The three lines are organized as two lines for clarity.
The structure begins with an A–A′ portion that includes the date of the ac-
tions, although the form of the date is different. The B–B′ section consists
of the double use of “a circuit or a return” (tūrtu). The C–C′ section of the
text identifies the two objects involved in the circuit: “Illila” and “all the
gods.” This section is unique in that the parallel lines comprise the entirety
of the rites in the month of dAdamma. 176
In addition to examples of parallel structure, one word pair is identified
in the text. Every time the term “bread” (NINDA) appears in the text, it
is paired with the term “beer” (KAŠ). The text mentions the word pair in
three separate months: SAG.MU (line 21), dNIN.KUR.RA (line 60), and
d
Anna (line 78). Line 21 uses the word pair as part of a ritual meal consumed
on the 15th day of the month by someone who is unnamed (due to damage
in the text). In the festival calendar, this is the second day of the festival,
which began on the 14th day of the month. Line 60 records the nuppuḫannū
men and the men of the consecration-gift eating and drinking a festival
meal on the 18th day of the month. Once again, this festival meal takes place
on the second day of the festival, which began on the 17th of the month.
Finally, line 78 records the word pair as part of an offering list provided by
the nuppuḫannū men and ḫamšaʾū men on an undated festival in the month
of dAnna (line 78 does not identify the word pair as part of a ritual meal).
The three uses of the word pair show an explicit connection between bread
and beer in the ritual context. In two of the three instances, this pairing
is associated with the nuppuḫannū men. Because the only location (line 21)
that does not associate the word pair with the nuppuḫannū men occurs in a
broken text, the damaged text could be restored to read “the nuppuḫannū
men consume the bread and beer from out of the House of the Gods.” In all
three occurrences, bread and beer are sacred items given as offerings to the
gods and shared with select ritual participants.
We end our discussion of literary structure with a consideration of the
scribe’s use of space in this text. Table 18 presents the number of lines de-
voted to each month in the ritual calendar. This table demonstrates the
considerably different spaces that have been allotted to the rituals recorded
in the various months. The month of itiSAG.MU probably contains 99 lines
of text, while the rites in the month of iti.dAdamma only contain 3 lines of
text. 177 Despite these differences, the Emarite multimonth ritual calendar
shows no sign of redaction or space constraints. The varying numbers of
lines, therefore, must be a consequence of the scribe’s literary decisions and
not a basis for redaction analysis. Once the scribe fully articulated a rite, he
176. We will explore the use of parallelism in ritual narrative in chap. 5 as a possible
point of similarity with Lev 23.
177. Arnaud argues that the ritual descriptions’ unequal lengths are the result of an
inexperienced scribe whose poor planning led to insufficient space at the end of the
tablet. However, there is no evidence of unnecessarily compressed material in the final
months. In fact, the final two months contain a considerable amount of detail.
176 Chapter 4
probably omitted the information in later references unless he required it

either for emphasis or to indicate a change in the standard procedure.
Verb Analysis
The point of view of the text is third person—both singular and plural.
The text never discloses who the scribe is representing, and there are no
first- or second-person verbal forms. Even though the activities and respon-
sibilities of the Diviner are probably the focus of the text, all references to
the Diviner are in the third person. The point of view is flat in that it merely
presents a list of actions, offerings, responsibilities, and payments. The text
may assume that the reader already understands the intent and purpose
for the actions and only needs a reminder regarding the date of the action,
numbers and types of offerings, location for the offerings and processions,
and a list of deities involved.
Emar 446 includes 65 discernible verbs (though damage possibly de-
stroyed several verbal forms). Of these verbs, most are finite verbal forms;
only 2 infinitives exist (lines 90 and 91), both for the verb ṣâdu, “to prowl” or
“to make one’s rounds.” The dominant verbal form is the durative, occurring
55 times—46 times in the G durative, 7 times in the D durative, and 2 times
in the Š durative. 178 The use of the durative form implies a continuing ac-
tion (imperfective) pointing to a prescriptive force in the text. The verb leqû
(“to take, accept, receive”) occurs 6 times, all in the N preterite. The verb
nadānu (“to give”) occurs once as a participle and once as a G perfect. 179
Festival Names
The multimonth ritual calendar at Emar, as mentioned above, organizes
festival activities by month and date. While the festival details are specified,
the text usually omits the festival names. In fact, the term EZEN, “festival,”
is not found in the text. While the term “festival” is not found in the text,
178. A review of other ritual texts from Emar supports the finding that the use of
the third person, as well as the durative, is typical at Emar. For a systematic study of the
verbal usage at Emar see Jun Ikeda, A Linguistic Analysis of the Akkadian Texts from Emar:
The Administrative Texts (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 1995).
179. An analysis of the verb choices shows that the scribe may have had a preference
for verbs representing an action. For instance, we find waṣû, “a procession” of a god, nine
times, ṭabāḫu, “to slaughter,” six times, and paʾādu, “to offer” or “to sacrifice,” four times.
Because Emar 446 probably depicts the work of one scribe rather than the evolution of a
festival tradition, the scribe was not confined to choosing a single term for a given action.
For instance, while waṣû is the dominant verb for a procession, the scribe uses ṣâdu twice
in the text with the same meaning. (While the two are similar in meaning, the author may
associate each with a different form of procession. The first [waṣû] may intend a proces-
sion complex while the second [ṣâdu] may imply the search for another god or goddess.)
Similarly, the scribe uses both ṭabāḫu and nakāsu for “slaughter.” And finally, the scribe
writes both paʾādu (five times) and naqû (two times) meaning “to sacrifice” or “to offer.”
This diversity in verb choice does not represent a developmental process or redaction to
the text but instead reveals an explicit choice by the author to vary the vocabulary.
several ceremonies and festival names are identified. In the month of SAG.
MU on the 15th day, line 47 mentions the nubāttu ceremony (evening cere-
mony). Other Emarite texts identify this ceremony as an evening feast. 180 A
second named ceremony in Emar 446 is the kubādu ceremony, which occurs
at the end of the festivals in the month of SAG.MU. This ceremony may be
an honorific ceremony and may include the taking of an oath of fidelity to
d
Dagan in support of the upcoming agricultural year. The kubādu ceremony
holds significance because no one may begin planting until the completion
of the ceremony. The text mentions a second kubādu ceremony in conjunc-
tion with dDagan on the 2nd day of the month of dḪalma. A third named
celebration is the ḫidaš ili Dagani, “Renewal of dDagan,” held on the 3rd day
of dḪalma. This ceremony occurs at the Temple of dDagan and includes a
sheep offering where the divine axe remains in the temple. The final ex-
ample of a named celebration is the Bugarātu, which is held on the 14th day
of Marzaḫāni. Little is known about the Bugarātu. However, the name may
imply a connection with a cattle festival at the full moon of the month. An
analysis of the festival activities presented in Emar 446 shows that some
ceremonies/festivals are named while others are unnamed/anonymous. 181
Agrarian and Nonagrarian Festivals
Emar 446 contains the cultic rituals conducted over a six-month period.
On the 15th day (full moon) of the month of SAG.MU, the text specifies a
planting ceremony, presumably to solicit the gods for a successful upcom-
ing wheat and barley crop. This agricultural festival begins with a plowing
rite that involves dŠaggar and offerings at the cattle barn (É GUDmeš) and
horse stable (É ANŠE.KUR.RA). 182 These offerings are probably intended
to prepare the draft animals for plowing and planting. The festival contin-
ues with an evening feast, a procession (including offerings to the nuppuḫanū
men), offerings at the garden of dBaʿal’s sacred pool and dDagan, Lord of
the Seed. The ceremony concludes with the Diviner’s throwing seed onto
the ground in a ritual of planting. On the next day (16th of the month),
there is an honorific ceremony and the taking of oaths. After the comple-
tion of the oaths, everyone may go out to plant. These agrarian-based rites
are performed on set dates, despite the lunar calendar’s drift in its relation-
ship to the solar year. 183
180. CAD N 308.

181. This mixing of named and anonymous ritual celebrations is a possible point of
similarity with Lev 23 and will be discussed further in chap. 5. Contra Wagenaar, who
argues for a direct connection between Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian festival
texts, I contend that the multimonth calendar at Emar demonstrates that this feature of
named and nameless celebrations existed by the later 2nd millennium b.c.e. and should
not be used to argue a late date for Lev 23 (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 78–90).
182. Scholars debate the agricultural use of horses (see prior discussion).
183. Fleming argues that, while the text is prescriptive in nature, the set dates may
refer to only one year. Fleming states that, “although the scribe has chosen verbal forms
178 Chapter 4
While the above activities on the 15th and 16th of SAG.MU are identi-
fied with agriculture, the remaining rites of the multimonth calendar con-
tain nonagrarian offerings made to various gods. These festivals typically
begin with the offering of a lamb at the temple, followed by a procession
of other animals walking in front of the image of the deity. The sacred axe
follows the god’s image and various groups of people bring up the rear of the
procession. The festival concludes with the image of the god returning to
the temple, where the animals are slaughtered and offered along with bread
and alcoholic items to the god or goddess. In none of the rites over the five
remaining months is there any specific correlation between the festival rites
and the agrarian cycle.
In this section, I analyzed the form, structure, and literary aspects exhib-
ited in Emar 446 and discussed the following findings:
• Temporal markers organize the text using several literary features,
such as:
◦◦ a one-line introductory phrase,
◦◦ parallelism,
◦◦ word pairs, and
◦◦ a consistent third-person point of view.
• The introduction points to an audience, which includes the general
population.
• The text includes:
◦◦ both agricultural and nonagricultural rites, 184
◦◦ some agricultural rites that occur on fixed dates,
◦◦ both named and unnamed or anonymous rituals, and
◦◦ a lack of symmetry in the number of lines devoted to each month
or ritual.
• The durative represents a repetitive customary action with
prescriptive force.
• The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive
multimonth ritual calendar. 185
that imply that regular repetition of the ritual is to be expected, it is possible that the
specific date applies only to one observance” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 141). I argue against
Fleming for a fixed date because the occurrence fits the practice found in other ancient
Near Eastern cultures of hosting rituals at the full-moon phase of the 1st and 7th months.
If Fleming were correct, the rituals would not align closely to the changes of the moon
but would occur on random dates.
184. Both of these features are present in Lev 23 and will be discussed in chap. 5.
Contra Wagenaar, who argues that this combination is a late development, I show that
Emar 446 demonstrates the coexistence of dated agrarian and nonagrarian festivals in
the same festival calendar (Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 78–90, 112–20).
185. This book shows that the analytical genre for Emar 446 is a prescriptive multi-
month ritual calendar because: (1) the verbal structure of the text points to a prescriptive
nature; (2) the text holds ritual as a central purpose; and (3) temporal markers divide the
text into multiple months that compose the larger ritual calendar.
Table 19. Relationship of Festival Dates

to Lunar Phases in Emar 446
Lunar Phases and Emar Ritual
Dates Date Month General Activities
d
New moon (1st 1? Anna This ritual is undated and may have
and 2nd days of occurred on the 1st of the month.
the month) Activities include the offering of
multiple sheep to various deities.
d
2, 3 Ḫalma kubādu ceremony.
Burnt offering and wine offering.
Renewal of dDagan.
First quarter-moon 8 SAG.MU Damaged text—contains an offer-
(7th and 8th days ing and probably a procession.
of the month)
d
7, 8 Adamma Procession of Illila and “all the
gods.”
d
8, 9 Ḫalma Procession of dḪalma with a
feast of bread, beer, and meat.
Procession of dBaʿal with ritual
sacrifice of an ox and six sheep.
Full moon (14th, 14, 15, 16a SAG.MU Offering for dDagan.
15th, and 16th days Procession of dDagan, dNIN.
of the month) URTA and festival offerings and
meal.
Ritual sacrifice of sheep to
d
Šaggar at the cattle barn and
horse stable. Evening seed ritual
with sacrifice to dBaʿal and dDagan.
kubādu ceremony.
14, 16, 17 Marzaḫāni Bugarātu ceremony
Processions of Aštarṣarba and
d
Baʿal with burnt offerings and
bread offerings.
Last quarter-moon None None
(21st and 22nd of
the month)
d
Dates not directly 17, 18, 19 NIN.KUR.RA Processions, ritual sacrifice, and
associated with festival meals.
lunar phases
d
18 Ḫalma Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal, including
the ritual slaughter of an ox and
two sheep plus a festival meal of
food (presumably meat and bread)
and drink.
a. The missing text in col. II of the tablet probably outlines the remaining four days
of the zukru Festival held in this month, and the mention of the “15th day” in col. III
probably returns to a parallel festival discussion.
180 Chapter 4
Sacred Time in Emar 446

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

potamian Astronomy,” in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East
[ed. John M. Steele; Oxford: Oxbow, 2007], 115), who argues that the day in Mesopotamia
began at sunset because the new month began with the sighting of a new moon, Emar
446 provides direct evidence showing that the day could not have begun at sunset.
The Emar Month and Ritual Activity Dates

The month at Emar was based on the lunar cycle, with a possible inter-
calary month maintaining congruence between the solar seasons. To un-
derstand the context of the lunisolar calendar at Emar, we need to under-
stand the month in the broader ancient Near East during the 3rd and 2nd
millennia. 187
Similar to other ancient Near Eastern calendars, Emar’s ritual calendar
was probably based on a lunar month, with significant rites occurring at the
changes in lunar phases. Table 19 shows how rites mentioned in Emar 446
correspond to lunar phases. Seven of the nine date groups found in Emar
446 begin at a change in the lunar phase. Two rituals begin with the new
moon, three at the first quarter-moon, and two at the full moon. 188 There
are no rites attested at the last quarter-moon. The text identifies two ritu-
als as beginning just after the full moon, on the 17th or 18th of the month.
Possibly these rituals are associated with the full-moon phase, and the dates
shifted for some reason beyond the official full moon; or the dates may be
unrelated to the lunar cycle.
The rites associated with the full moon receive the most attention in
the text, including at least 55 lines for the month of SAG.MU and 10 lines
for the month of Marzaḫāni. This means that (at a minimum) the readable
text devotes 54 percent of the lines to the discussion of rites during the
full moon. In addition, the rituals held during the middle of the month oc-
cur for the longest periods of time. Full-moon festivals last between three
and four days and usually begin with a ceremonial offering meal on the
evening of the 14th of the month before the processional activities on the
15th. 189 In contrast, the cultic ceremonies occurring on the new moon and
first quarter-moon usually last only one or two days. Despite this priority
given to the rituals of the full moon, three rituals take place during the first
quarter-moon, representing the highest frequency of ritual activity in the
ritual calendar. 190
187. See chap. 2 for a general discussion on the early ancient Near Eastern calendar.
188. Fleming, quoting Nilsson, contends that “the new moon and the full moon are
most often celebrated in cultures manifesting ‘primitive’ time reckoning and that reli-
gious festivals are often reserved for the full moon. This is due not only to the full light of
the moon but also to the world-wide idea that everything which is to prosper belongs to
the time of the waxing moon, and above all to the days when it has reached its complete
phase” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 159; Martin P. Nilsson, Primitive Time-Reckoning [Lund:
C.W.K. Gleerup, 1920], 154–55).
189. The zukru Festival texts (Emar 373 and 375) attest a longer (seven-day) zukru Fes-
tival during the month of SAG.MU or Zurati, which may indicate that only portions of
the actual festival rites are preserved in Emar 446.
190. The propensity for beginning rites at the change of lunar phases is a hallmark
of the Emar ritual calendar. We will discuss this feature in relation to the festival calen-
dar in Lev 23 in chap. 5. In addition, as discussed in chap. 2, Wagenaar argues that the
182 Chapter 4
The Emar Yearly Calendar and New Year

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

Month
Number Month Name
1 SAG.MU
d
2 NIN.KUR.RA
d
3 Anna
d
4 Adamma
5 Marzaḫāni
d
6 Ḫalma
Named Festivals in the Calendar

The Emar ritual text mentions some festivals by name yet leaves most
festivals and ceremonies unnamed. (Although we have no explanation for
the practice, festivals recorded without names in one calendar may be
named in another text from the same period. For example, during the 1st
month of the six-month cycle [SAG.MU], Emar 446 omits the name of the
primary festival rite. However, the description of this anonymous ritual
corresponds to the zukru Festival named in Emar 375.) 195 But, while most of
its rites remain anonymous, Emar 446 does identify four: the kubādu cere-
mony, Bugarātu ceremony, Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal, and the Day of Renewal
of dDagan.
Emar 446 mentions the kubādu ceremony three times. The first two oc-
casions take place in the 1st month (SAG.MU), the morning after the Divin-
er’s seed-planting ritual. On the 16th day of the month, there is a sacrifice
to dDagan during the ceremony and the taking of oaths. The rite includes a
prohibition against planting until the completion of the ceremony. Because
this kubādu ceremony is part of the zukru Festival complex (also happening
over the middle of the 1st month), the reference to the kubādu ceremony
demonstrates that a named ceremony (or named festival meal) can occur
during a larger festival complex.
We find the third reference to the kubādu ceremony in the 6th month
and again in connection with the god dDagan at his temple on the 2nd day
of the month. The ceremony, associated with the highest-ranking deity in
the local pantheon, therefore, acts to both open and close the ritual calen-
dar (in the 1st and 6th months).
One Ugaritic text from the Late Bronze Age also identifies a kubādu cer-
emony. Lines 38b–41 of KTU 1.41 depict the kubādu ceremony’s taking place
195. Hess notes that the zukru Festival is a memorial festival similar to the festivals of
Passover and Unleavened Bread (Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and
Biblical Survey [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007], 116–17).
184 Chapter 4
on the fifth day of the Wine Festival. Because lines 38b–48a directly follow
the festival activities of the beginning of the month and because the sec-
tion begins with the purification of the king and ends (lines 47–48) with
the king’s becoming profane, I conclude that these three days should be
viewed as a continuation of the Wine Festival—which thus occurred over
seven days. If this interpretation is correct, it confirms that ceremonies
with unique names occurred during other festivals. The festival concludes
at sundown on the 7th day, with the king’s leaving a state of holiness (KTU
1.41:47): “At the setting of the sun, the king is profane” (ḥl mlk). The reading
from KTU 1.41 supports the conclusion based on Emar 446 that a named
festival ceremony can take place during a larger festival celebration.
Little is known about the Bugarātu ceremony, which occurs as part of a
larger four-day festival in the 5th month of the year (Marzaḫāni) and includes
processions by dAštart and dBaʿal and offerings at the Hurrian temple.
The Day of Renewal (ḫidaš) of dDagan is held on the 2nd and 3rd days of
the 6th month (dḪalma). Eugen Pentiuc argues for “renewal, inauguration”
(adopted here) based on a West Semitic (WS) origin. “The presence of ini-
tial ḫi-/ḫu- for /*ḥ/ points to a WS origin, since in Akk. initial /*ḥ/ dropped,
accompanied by a change in the vowel register, a ⟩ e; note Akk. edēšu ‘to be
new’ (AHw 186–87) comes from *ḥadāšu.” 196 Fleming translates this “New
Moon (Celebration),” which is interesting. However, observing the festival
on the 3rd day of the month points to renewal (which may be a part of the
new moon celebration) but not the official new moon celebration.
The Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal occurs in the 6th month (dḪalma). Festi-
val texts and month names throughout Mesopotamia attest this name. The
autumn planting ceremony at Ugarit takes place in the 12th month (Ḫyr)—
counting from the spring (holding the same position at Emar). Nuzi names
the 2nd month of the year Ḫiyaru (spring—beginning of year). Durand finds
evidence that the Ḫiyaru Festival celebrated multiple deities throughout the
region, including: dAddu at Aleppo, dAddu at Ugarit, and dEštar at Alala. 197
At Ugarit, the Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal is attested on the same day (18th).
Fleming concludes that the presence of the Ḫiyaru Festival of dBaʿal at Emar
confirms Emar’s participation in the cult traditions of the broader region. 198
196. Pentiuc, West Semitic, 65.

197. Jean-Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari,” in Florilegium
marianum III (ed. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand; Paris: SEPOA, 1997), 38.
Jean-Marie Durand, Texts administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari (ARMT 21;
Paris: Geuthner, 1983), 61–74.
198. Fleming, Time at Emar, 173:
The city-sponsored ritual of the text for six months is native in the sense that it is
neither imposed recently by an outside power such as Ḫatti nor imported wholesale
under local initiative. Such “native” religion proves its independence by its diversity. It
takes form through accumulated influences from varied places and times according to
the ebb and flow of populations and outside contacts. Novelties mingle with custom
observed for centuries. The storm-god’s ḫiyaru was shared across a broad domain, both
We have explored the use and presence of sacred time in Emar 446 and
have noted several aspects of sacred time, including the following:
• The text uses temporal dividers for organization.
• Emar 446 uses a temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month) as
the header for rituals. However, the text includes variations of the
standard formula.
• The text includes the phrase “on that day” as a standard temporal
division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual that occurs on the
same day as other ritual events.
• Primary festival activities are held at the full-moon phase of the
lunar calendar.
• A one-day ritual meal is occasionally held the day before a primary
festival, with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice.
• Some rites are tied to the agricultural calendar and other rites to the
monthly fixed calendar in the same text.
• Some rituals are named and others unnamed in the same text. In
addition, an unnamed ritual in Emar 446 is named in another text.
activities on other days unspecified.
• The longer festivals (7 days) begin on the full moon (15th of the
month) and last until the 21st of the month.
• The calendar depicts a day that begins in the morning with the
sunrise.
• The calendar primarily “assumes” the time of the offerings and
activities that occur during the day.
• The text occasionally specifies that an activity occurs in the evening.
• The text depicts a lunisolar calendar with rites clustered around the
spring and fall equinoxes.
• Ritual celebrations begin at lunar-phase breaks—although this is not
exclusively true.
festival length is limited to one or two days.
Sacred Space
Chapters 1 and 3 discussed how an analysis of sacred space might provide
insight into ritual activity, thus assisting in the comparative study of two
texts. Here, we explore the use of sacred space in Emar 446. As we noted
in chaps. 1 and 3, some of the guiding questions for sacred space include:
Where does the ritual enactment occur? Are specified locations fixed or
to the west and to the east. Celebration of the storm-god with a Canaanite title sug-
gests western contacts, while Illila (if not Anna) appears to come from Mesopotamia to
the east. All these cults in time came to be supported by the city, and all fell under the
supervision of Emar’s diviner of the gods.
186 Chapter 4
temporary, high or low? What rites transition from sacred to profane space
and back? What is the history of use for the space? What is the shape of the
space? Is the shape of the space symbolic? How are boundaries and thresh-
olds marked? These questions will remain in the background as we explore
the use of sacred space in Emar 446.
Space plays a significant role in ritual activity at Emar. Cultic activities
are often only relevant when they are conducted in a specific place (e.g., al-
tar, temple, gate, etc.). Klingbeil argues that “space in religious ritual action
is sacred space and distinguished from other spaces. A sacred place focuses
attention on the forms, objects, and actions in it and reveals them as bear-
ers of religious meaning.” 199 Klingbeil goes on to identify three major func-
tions of sacred space:
1. a place of communication with a deity,
2. a place of divine power—from which the deity is said to act, and
3. a place of symbolic recreation and the ordering of reality.
Month of SAG.MU
The first three columns of Emar 446 outline the rituals in the month of
SAG.MU. Column II of the text is severely damaged, resulting in a disrup-
tion of the flow of the text from col. I to col. III. Lines 1–40 (col. I) focus
on dDagan and dNIN.URTA and depict the ritual activities associated with
the zukru Festival (detailed in Emar 375). Following the break in the text,
lines 41–57 (col. III) recount rites related to agriculture and the fall planting.
Rites during the month of SAG.MU take place at a range of speci-
fied locations around Emar and at several unspecified locations. The five
primary deity locations are the Temple of dDagan, the Temple of dNIN.
URTA, dNIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple, dUdḫa’s Temple, and dBaʿal’s sa-
cred pool. 200 In addition to these locations, the images of the deities visit
two other sacred places: the Amit Gate and the Main Gate. A third cate-
gory of sacred spaces include the specified locations where the participants
associated with the location contribute meat, bread, or wine/beer for a rite
but do not host the ritual activity. The House of the Gods is the only spon-
soring sacred space named in the month of SAG.MU.
199. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 50–51.

200. Fleming demonstrates that the pool was probably not part of dBaal’s Temple at
the highpoint of the city of Emar (the space between the city wall and the temple is in-
sufficient). Instead, the pool was probably part of a larger agricultural complex—similar
to the apsû in Mesopotamian temples. Fleming, following Durand, concludes that “the
storm god’s pool would not be located at his temple but at the site of his garden, prob-
ably outside the city” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 157). However, Beyer argues that the area
between the city wall and the rear of Baal’s Temple could accommodate a ceremonial
pool and garden (Dominique Beyer, “Jardins sacrés d’Emar au Bronze Récent,” in Nature
et paysage dans la pensée et l’environnement des civilizations antiques [ed. Gérard Siebert; Paris:
de Boccard, 1996], 11–19). Unfortunately, the lack of archaeological evidence precludes
our reaching a definite conclusion about the location of Baal’s sacred pool.
I find it significant that, although the text refers to several locations as

sacred spaces, the author provides no details about these individual spaces.
For example, during the month of SAG.MU, the text never mentions any
location of importance inside the temples. Ritual slaughters are conducted
and sacred meals consumed without the mention of an altar, sacrificial table,
or any other place within the temple cella. In addition, in several instances,
a slaughter ceremony or meal occurs for a deity, but the author does not
mention the location. Lines 54–55 read, “In the morning. . . . they slaughter
(a sacrifice) for dDagan and perform an honorific ceremony by lasting oath
and by. . . .” These lines emphasize the rites of (1) a slaughter, (2) an honorific
ceremony, and (3) a lasting oath. The subject of these rites is identified as
d
Dagan. However, the text assumes that either the reader knows the loca-
tion or the location has little significance. Line 37 echoes this anonymous
nature of sacred space: “[T]he leaders and the whole populace consume the
breast before dIšḫ-ara.” As before, the text stresses (1) the rite (feast), (2) the
participants (leaders and entire population), and (3) the deity (dIšḫara). The
sacred space is once again either assumed or insignificant, as long as the de-
ity’s image remains proximate to the ritual activity. 201
A sacred space, as depicted in Emar 446, is primarily determined by the
location of the god. If the god is present at a location, then the location is
a sacred space. In addition, when the deity’s image processes, the location
of the image of the god and the proximate space become sacred space. It is
unclear whether the temple for the deity is still a sacred space (or becomes
profane) when the god leaves the location.
Month of dNIN.KUR.RA
The 2nd month of the ritual calendar outlines rites for the primary god,
d
NIN.KUR.RA. The scribe uses at least 18 lines of text in col. III (lines
58–76) to describe the month, although the severe damage to the column
hampers translations and limits the available analysis. Identified rites occur
over a three-day period in the middle of the month just after the full moon.
Cultic activities begin as they did in the previous month, with an offering
of a lamb on the day prior to the primary festival (here on the 17th of the
month). On the 18th of the month, the deity goes out in procession from an
unspecified location to an unspecified location. After the procession, ritual
participants share a festival meal including a “good quality white” sheep,
beer, and bread. 202
201. If the rites of this month relate to the zukru Festival, then the location of the
activities regarding dDagan would have been held outside the city at the shrine of up-
right stones (see Emar 375:1–25). This would explain why the author does not mention
the temple and corroborates the conclusion that sacred space is largely dependent on the
presence of the god.
202. Damage to the text prohibits a full interpretation of the meal contents and
participants.
188 Chapter 4
On the 19th of the month, some god (damaged text) goes out in proces-
sion from an unspecified location to an unspecified location. The damage
to the text detailing the activities on the 19th day makes further analysis
impossible. 203
As with the discussion of rites in SAG.MU, the location of the begin-
ning and end of the procession, the offerings, and the festival meals is ob-
scured. The text concerns itself with proximity to the deity, not with a fixed
location.
Month of dAnna
The IVth column of the text contains the final four months’ rituals.
Double horizontal lines separate the rites for each month. The month of
d
Anna (lines 77–82) consists of activities during one unnumbered day. The
lack of a number for the day, which is unique in the text, may mean that the
activities are conducted on the 1st day of the month—at the new moon. 204
The text recording the festival day in dAnna concentrates primarily on
ritual activities, mentioning the type of offering and the individuals in-
volved. This month does specify that the abû shrine of the gods and the
Temple of dDagan are sacred spaces worthy of an offering—unique thus
far in the text. However, the text does not indicate who should conduct
the offering, where to perform the offering in the temple (e.g., an altar),
or how to make the offering. Similarly, the festival meal occurs at an un-
named location, although the text does identify the individuals who provide
the meal and the festival meal’s contents. In this month the text gives more
203. Fleming links the rites of dNIN.KUR.RA with the kissu Festival because both
include the men of the consecration-gift (awilū ša qidaši) and the flat bread loaf (ḫūgu).
d
NIN.KUR.RA’s activities and those of the kissu Festival “are associated with further
rites that suggest awareness of death: the setting of tables divided between heavenly and
underworld deities and the wailing of a certain nugagtu” (Fleming, Time at Emar, 161). This
connection also seems likely and matches the season of the year with the festival activ-
ities as well. The 2nd month of the year is a winter month (when the agricultural crop is
dormant), a season associated elsewhere in the ancient Near East with festivals giving
care and food to the dead. One example is the EZEN-duku Festival held at Nippur in the
Tummal, late in the month (27th and 28th). These days had possible associations with
the cult of the dead (“Their laments were [like] laments that Enlil’s ancestors perform in
the awe-inspiring duku,” Curse of Akkad). This festival was celebrated in the 7th month
of a spring calendar, which corresponds to the 2nd month of the Emar festival calendar.
Another example, the kinūnu Brazier Festival from Mari was held in the 7th month of a
spring calendar. The kinūnu Brazier Festival is a cold-weather festival (during the period
when daylight is limited) using torches (ARM 3 72 records the festival as lasting from the
8th to the 18th of the month).
204. Fleming argues, based on Sasson’s work at Mari, that the date may have been
flexible, with rites celebrated on different dates during different years. Both theories are
possible; however, Hess’s suggestion of the 1st day of the month seems more likely than
a floating date, which would probably have been so identified in the text (Fleming, Time
at Emar, 162; Hess, Leviticus, 785).
prominence to the sacred spaces than to the gods, perhaps because these
rituals concern the cult of the dead and the mourning of ancestors in a sa-
cred space.
Month of dAdamma
A double horizontal mark separates the rituals in the month of dAdamma
from the other months and comprises only three lines of text (lines 83–85).
The month’s events begin at the first quarter-moon (the 7th day of the
month) with a circuit ceremony of Illila. The rite continues on the 8th day
with a circuit ceremony to all the gods. As with prior months, the text does
not specify the sacred space, supporting my conclusion that sacred space is
proximate to the god or gods.
Month of Marzaḫāni
The month of Marzaḫāni is poorly attested in Emarite literature, with
only one other possible mention (467:5). Marked before and after by double
horizontal lines, this month’s rites comprise 10 lines (lines 86–95).
The rituals of the 5th month begin at the full moon on the 14th day of
the month with the Bugarātu ceremony and continue to at least the 17th of
the month with the marzaḫū wise men. Little is known about the Bugarātu
ceremony, which occurs as part of a larger, four-day festival. 205 Following
the trend of earlier months, the ceremony entails an offering in the evening
that serves to begin the multiday ritual. At a minimum, the rite serves as an
example of a distinct, named ritual that occurs on one day and is also part
of a larger, multiday ritual.
On the 16th and 17th days of the month, there are ritual processions for
Aštarṣarba, dAštart, and dBaʿal. The description of the first procession, for
Aštarṣarba, follows the normal pattern: the scribe uses the verb uṣṣi, and the
sheep offering begins the procession, followed by the image of the god and
then the divine axe. In sharp contrast, the text concerning the rounds for
the goddess dAštart and the god dBaʿal omits the usual discussion of a divine
object or offering. In addition, a new verb describes the type of wandering:
ṣadu. 206 The verb translates here as the equivalent of a procession in which
the image of the god wanders through the streets of Emar.
In one of the few clear references to a sacred space, the text next de-
scribes the offering of a sheep at the Hurrian temple (I UDU ša nu-pu-ḫa-
an-ni É ḫu(?)-ri-ti). 207 Perhaps the Hurrian concept of sacred space finds
205. The text doesn’t describe the specific activities, participants, or sacred spaces
associated with the Bugarātu ceremony.
206. G infinitive of ṣadu, “to prowl,” “to make one’s rounds,” “to turn about.”
207. Arnaud corrects the reading to maš-ar-ti and translates “on brûle ⟨dans⟩ la mai-
son de la prêtresse-mašʾartu,” which is not necessary because the text reads well without
correction.
190 Chapter 4
expression here, because the Emarite text records a burnt offering, not to
any god present at the location, but to a sacred temple space.
The final rite in the month of Marzaḫāni involves the marzaḫū wise men,
who are probably connected to the month’s name. The marzaḫū are attested
in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.21–22), Phoenician inscriptions, Mari texts, 208
and in biblical texts (Amos 6:7, ‫ ;מרזח‬Jer 16:5, ‫)בית מרזח‬. Ugaritic administra-
tive texts also used this term to refer to a group associated with land owner-
ship and wealth. 209 The literary references, while not conclusive, point to a
connection with the cult of the dead. 210 The noun is modified by the adjec-
tive ša mi-di (midi). The form midi is unattested and the meaning uncertain.
I translate it here following CAD M/2 163, “mudû,” where the marzaḫū men
were perhaps wise men or “friends of the king,” as in OAkk texts. This trans-
lation is preferred because it fits the affluence attributed to the marzaḫū in
Ugaritic. If the term also preserves an association with the cult of the dead,
then this early spring month and the marzaḫū were part of a cultic spring
awakening, as found in similar rituals in the parallel month of Abî. 211
Despite the role and status of the marzaḫū, the text seems more con-
cerned with detailing individual participants, contents of the offering, and
recipients (gods) than the sacred space (which may be presupposed). Fur-
thermore, while the text specifies the name of the offerer (marzaḫū wise
men), it leaves the identity of the recipient vague, citing only “gods” and not
any particular god or goddess.
Month of dḪalma
The 6th month in the Emar 446 festival calendar is the month of dḪalma,
comprising 25 lines and completing the IVth column of the tablet. The rites
208. From the 4th century b.c.e. (Hess, Israelite Religions, 292–93).
209. John L. McLaughlin, “The marzēaḫ at Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study,”
UF 23 (1991): 265–81; Karel van der Toorn, “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in
Ugarit Texts and in the Bible,” BiO 48 (1991): 54; Marvin H. Pope, “The Cult of the Dead
at Ugarit,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. Gordon D. Young;
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 176.
210. Hess finds that the marzēaḥ was
a banquet or feast. . . . celebrated to mark events in the course of life such as marrying
and burying, but it could also take place for other reasons. Assuming the Septuagint of
verse 7, then the “bread” is broken for the dead. Retaining the Masoretic Text, then the
“bread” is for comfort. If the rites of this festival served an apotropaic purpose, then
Jeremiah would have been forbidden to enter because such rites would not prevent the
judgment God planned for Israel. (Hess, Israelite Religions, 262–63)
Johnston argues that associating marzēaḥ with more than funerary rite and mourning (as
explicitly mentioned) may overreach the evidence (Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol:
Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002], 184–85).
211. Ezen-ne-IZI-gar—a mid-month festival at Nippur offering sheep and cattle for
the Great Offering at the moon phase termed the “House of the 15th day.” For further
discussion, see chap. 2, p. 22.
in this month are well preserved and provide an insight into sacred space.
In fact, descriptions of this month’s rituals give more information about
the concept of sacred space than do those of most other months. The text
records rites celebrated at three phases of the month’s lunar cycle, identify-
ing and elaborating on the sacred spaces involved in each.
At the new moon, activities are identified on the 2nd and 3rd of the
month. On both days, cultic rites are conducted for the god dDagan, who
remains in his temple. The kubādu ceremony takes place on the 2nd day at
the Temple of dDagan. The rites also include a renewal ceremony to dDagan
with the divine axe staying in the temple. The dual mention of the Temple
of dDagan is unusual for the multimonth calendar and supports my conclu-
sion that sacred space is proximate to the god’s location—here staying in
the temple.
The second ritual of the month occurs at the first quarter-moon and
involves rites for both dḪalma and dBaʿal. On the 8th day of the month,
d
Ḫalma (for whom the month is named) goes out in procession from an
unnamed location. This formulaic and unspecified procession follows the
expected pattern of the multimonth calendar. The same day, the men of
the consecration-gift (qidāšu) offer a lamb and eat a meal at the Temple of
d
Baʿal. Based on prior rites, the offering of a lamb or sheep is common on
the day before the primary god’s procession—which occurs on the 9th day
of the month. (While the text identifies the offering, it usually refers to the
sacred space for the offering and meal as simply “to [ana] dBaʿal” or “to [ana]
d
Dagan.”) On the 9th day, the procession of dBaʿal also returns to a speci-
fied location, where an ox and six sheep go into the Temple of dBaʿal; the
text usually relates only the outbound portion of the procession.
The third cultic ceremony, which includes the Ḫiyaru ceremony of dBaʿal
and a festival meal attended by the men of the consecration-gift (qidāšu),
occurs on the 18th day of the month. The text offers no details about the
location of the ceremony or the meal, though they are probably located at
the Temple of dBaʿal.
In each of these three rituals, the sacred activities occur in a temple
devoted to the god presiding over the rite and in a space proximate to the
physical location of the god. As before, while the fixed location is important,
the text places a higher priority on naming the ritual participants, sacred ob-
jects, and ritual offerings than on identifying the sacred space, which is often
“assumed.” When discussing ritual participants, the text does not mention
the presence or participation of priests or kingly figures during the month.
The Procession Complex

The most frequent (and perhaps the central) rite in the Emar multimonth
calendar, occurring at least 12 times, is the procession complex honoring
the god or goddess of the festival. Because each complex generally includes
and omits various components, an authoritative pattern for the procession
192 Chapter 4
complex does not exist. However, by combining the descriptions recorded

throughout the text, we may determine a “standard” order of ritual events:
offerings the day before the procession, the procession, and a festival meal
after the procession.
A procession of the primary god or goddess is the first festival activity
of the procession complex in four of the six months. 212 In the remaining
two festival months (dAnna and dḪalma), an honorific ceremony and an of-
fering without a procession are first. Five of the six months include at least
one procession complex—only dAnna (month 3) excludes any mention of
the complex. The 1st month (SAG.MU) appears to celebrate five distinct
processions for different gods or goddesses, which is the largest number
held in any month. 213
In researching the procession complex, I found that the scribe used three
verbs to describe the movement of a god or goddess out of the temple. Only
one of the verbs seems associated with the procession complex (waṣû), and
the other two verbs (tūrtu and ṣadu) may represent another form of rite. 214
The complex identified with the verb waṣû has three primary rites. The first
activity is a ritual slaughter and offering of one sheep to the god or goddess
associated with the offering (see also lines 7, 18, 23). While the text does not
identify the time of day, it is possible that the offering is held at sundown.
On the next day (Day 2 of the complex), the god processes in a ceremony
out of the temple and often to, or through, a notable gate of the city. The
text indicates that the offerings (identifying the giver of the offering) go
before the image of the god. The divine axe (ḫaṣṣinnu ša ili) and entire popu-
lation (awilū gamārū) follow the image of the god. Because the text provides
more details about the processions in the 1st month, the order and content
of those processions may be standard for the later months. Perhaps once
the text identifies the normal process early in the text, only alterations to
this pattern are required later.
The third rite in the processional complex is a return ceremony includ-
ing offerings (presumably the offerings that preceded the god or goddess
in the procession). The festival meal includes meat, bread, and drink of-
ferings that are consecrated to the gods. These consecrated items are then
consumed by a broader population (cf. lines 21, 29, 37, 61, 119), which is oc-
casionally identified as the leader of the people (awilu rabû) and/or the gen-
eral population (awilū ṣēri). The procession complex concludes with the as-
signment of payments to the Diviner, who usually receives the right breast,
212. The four are: SAG.MU (month 1), dNIN.KU.RA (month 2), dAdamma (month
4), Marzaḫāni (month 5).
213. The severe damage to this section of text may obscure additional information
about the procession complex and may hide additional processions.
214. Usually rendered uṣṣi—G durative 3cs of waṣû (“to go out, go forth, depart,
leave”). The form could also be translated as a G preterite.
hide, head, intestine, and fat, while the leader or king occasionally receives
the hip, hocks, unspecified meat items, bread, and beer.
As mentioned above, two additional verbs convey the notion of a pro-
cession (tūrtu and ṣadu). The verb tūrtu appears twice in the month of
d
Adamma (month 4) at the first quarter-moon. No rites are given, and the
ceremony is said to apply to Illila on the 7th day of the month and to all
the gods on the 8th day of the month. The verb ṣadu appears in the month
of Marzaḫāni (month 5) at the full moon. The verb again appears twice
(16th–17th days), when dAštart and dBaʿal make a procession around the
city. Little detail is given in the text, and the reader is left wondering what
activities are associated with the verb. While each of these two verbs im-
plies a procession-like event, only waṣû appears associated with the larger
procession complex.
Role of Sacred Space in Rites

As I mentioned at the opening of this section, sacred space plays an
important role in Emarite rituals. By investigating this role, we can gain
insights into Emar’s ritual activity, which in turn assists our comparative
analysis of Emar 446 and Lev 23. Offerings occur in specific locations, and
the text identifies gods within a ritual space (temple). During each month,
sacred activities often take place in a temple devoted to the god who is pre-
siding over the rite, frequently near the physical location of the god. When
the god leaves the temple and goes out in a procession, the primary sacred
space becomes a gate or set of standing stones (see Emar 375). The signifi-
cance of the gates is unclear; however, the gods may perform a blessing of
protection on the city by anointing the gates during the procession. The
anointing occurs in the rituals of the 1st month of the calendar, supporting
a blessing of protection, and may indicate a New Year renewal and blessing.
A second possibility, predicated on the significance of the “upright stones”
(KÁna4.mešsi-ka-na-ti) in the zukru text of Emar 375 and 373 and their simi-
larity to maṣṣebot, is that the rites surrounding the gates and upright stones
served the cult of the dead. That the specific mention of gates and stones
only happens in the winter months lends support to this conclusion. Finally,
although the fixed location is important, the scribe specifies the ritual par-
ticipants, sacred objects, and ritual offerings while often presupposing the
sacred space.
In discussions of sacred space, references omitted by the scribe are as
important as those he includes. The text mentions no details about the in-
teriors of the temple spaces, nor does it mention any altars or sacrificial
slaughtering tables connected to ritual activities. In addition, the sacred
space associated with the ritual meals is assumed and not specified. Because
the text lacks references to a royal residence or any administrative palace,
I conclude that the king (noted only once) and the palace probably play a
minimal role in the concept of sacred space at Emar.
194 Chapter 4
Sacred Objects
Chapters 1 and 3 discussed the importance of sacred objects in ritual.
The goal of this section is to identify ritual objects involved in Emar 446
and to explore their significance within the greater ritual complex. Through
this exploration, we continue to lay the groundwork for our comparative
analysis of Emar 446 and Lev 23 in chap. 5. As in chap. 3, the following ques-
tions guide the investigation: What and how many objects are associated
with the rite? Is the size and shape important to the ritual process? Of what
material are they made? Is the construction of the objects ritualized? Who
is responsible for the object? How are the objects stored or discarded?
What uses would defile the object? How does the object become special?
Does the object have a significant history? Does the object combine with
other objects to create a stronger significance? Is the object inanimate or
personified? What status accrues to the owner or keeper?
Emar 446 often associates ritual objects with the activities of particu-
lar months. We turn to exploring these objects and analyzing the potential
significance of the objects to the cult of specific gods, specific months or
festivals, and the general cult at Emar as found in Emar 446. I divide objects
into two primary categories: sacred items and sacred offerings.
Sacred Items
The multimonth festival calendar identifies only two nonoffering ob-
jects: the divine axe and ritual seed. The divine axe is present when the god
is present—usually in the processions and once in a ceremony that occurs
at the Temple of dDagan. The axe appears to represent the power and pres-
ence of the god.
The text reflects a cult that is uninterested in ceremonial artifacts or
ritualistic clothing, because none are mentioned (beyond the divine axe).
The scribe does not use space in the text to describe the clothing of the
individuals involved in the rituals, the objects involved in transporting the
image of the god during the procession, the trappings of the deity, or the
objects associated with the ritual preparation and slaughter of the offerings.
Furthermore, his exclusions hold as much significance as what he records.
By presenting a much more abbreviated cultic representation than that as-
sociated with either the zukru Festival (Emar 373 and 375) or the installation
of the priestess (Emar 369), the scribe provides greater insight into the tan-
gible sacred objects involved in Emarite ritual.
Sacred Offerings
An analysis of the sacrificial offerings during the multimonth ritual cal-
endar identifies the primary sacrificial offerings as the lamb, the sheep, and
the ox.
The lamb (SILA4) is usually identified with the processional com-

plex that takes place the day before the procession. The most frequently
occurring offering is the sheep, which is associated with the procession
(walking before the image of the god), the festival meal after the procession,
and the payment to specified ritual participants. The source of the sheep
is often unspecified. However, when mentioned, the source is usually the
nuppuḫannū men (the first five months of the calendar) or “the city” (the 6th
month). The text mentions an ox on three occasions in conjunction with a
multiple sheep offering in the 1st and 6th months of the year (see above).
Sacred offerings occasionally include drink and bread offerings in addi-
tion to the specified meat offerings. The most frequent of these are bread
and beer, which occur paired in this text and are read as collective nouns.
The word pair is twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the conse-
cration-gift), once as a gift from the House of the Gods, and once from the
ḫamašaʾū men. Although consecrated to the gods, the bread, beer, and oc-
casional wine offerings are intended to be part of the festival meal. 215 The
final offering, made in the 6th month, during the evening, is a burnt offering
of a bird in conjunction with a drink offering. While the text details the
contents of the offerings and festival meals, it does not include the mechan-
ics of the preparation and sacrifice (slaughter). Clearly, the multimonth cal-
endar seems more concerned with what is given, by whom, and to whom
than with providing an instruction manual for the ritual.
The final category of sacred offerings is the payment made to festival
participants. The text relates that different individuals and groups receive
several portions of the meat offerings. In addition, portions of the meat
offerings, drink offerings, and bread offerings are consumed during com-
munal meals.
This section explored the identification and role of sacred objects in
Emar 446, separating the objects into two types: sacred items and sacred
offerings (see table 21). The text identifies only two sacred items, the divine
axe and the ritual seed. Sacred offerings consist mainly of meat, though the
festival participants also present cereals, wine, and beer to various deities.
Besides being consecrated to the gods, these offerings form the commu-
nal festival meal and are used as payments to certain individuals or groups
taking part in the rituals. In chap. 5, we will compare the most significant
aspects of sacred objects in Emar 446 with Lev 23 to determine whether the
two texts share a common tradition.
215. See also Emar 446:37–38: uzuGAB a-na pa-ni dIš-(ḫa) ⸢ra!⸣ LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš ga-
ma-ri Ì.KÚ, “The leaders and the whole populace consume the breast before Išḫara”;
446:60–61: I UDU SIG5 BABBAR ša n[u-pu]-ḫa-an-ni NINDA KAŠ ša ⟨⟨LÚ⟩⟩ LÚ ša qí-
da-š[i i-ka-lu i]-sa-tu, “One good quality white sheep (is) provided by the nuppuḫannū men.
Bread and beer by the men of the consecration-gift [. . .] eat and drink.”
196 Chapter 4
Table 21. Sacred Offerings

Transliteration/
Lines Normalization Translation Context
3, 9, 14, 1 UDU, Sheep Sheep are used in two contexts. First, the pro-
[18,] 20, 2 UDU (2×), cession of a god typically has a sheep-offering
41, 46, 6 UDUḪI.A (once), walk before the image of the god in the proces-
48, 49, 6 UDU (once), sion column. Second, the sheep is used as the
50, 60, I UDU SIG5 primary offering after the procession, with por-
71, 72, 73, BABBAR (once), tions of the sheep being consumed during the
77 (2×), UDUmeš (once), mi- festival meal and portions paid to the Diviner,
79 (2×), iš-li I UDU (once) leader, king, and others as payment for services.
80 (2×), immeru Sheep are said to be provided by several differ-
88, 91, immeru damāqu pūsu ent groups, including: the nuppuḫannū men, the
94, 100, mišli 1 immeri ḫamšaʾū men, and the city. The nuppuḫannū men
104, 108, are the most frequent provider.
119 The scribe writes 6 sheep once, using the col-
lective 6 UDU, and once using the plural form
(ḪI.A). This shows that the same meaning can
be written in different ways and use different
spellings at various points in the text without
indicating a different scribe or textual tradition.
21, 60, NINDA Bread Bread and beer always occur paired in this text
78, 105 akala and are read as collective nouns. The word pair is
twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the
consecration-gift), once as a gift from the House
of the Gods, and once from the ḫamašaʾū men.
21, 60, KAŠ Beer See Bread (above) for more information.
78, 105 šikara Wine KAŠ = šikaru- (beer, intoxicating liquid);
98 KAŠ.GEŠTIN GEŠTIN = karānu (grapes, vineyard, wine).
šikarī karānī When used together, these typically mean
“wine.”
[6,] 17, SILA4 Lamb Fleming notes that a puḫādu offering (lamb)
[22,] 58, puḫādu occurs on the day before each procession. This is
66, 106 generally true; however, one procession complex
uses UDU in place of SILA4 (e.g., line 3).a It
seems that the evening offering before the pro-
cession is usually a “lamb” and not a “sheep”—
which is part of the procession and festival meal
(cf. Num 28:4, which offers a lamb at sunrise and
another at sunset).
24, 31, GUD Ox The ox is mentioned in the context of three
108, 119 alpu rituals, one to dNIN.URTA, one to dDagan,
and one to Baʿal. The mention of an ox is twice
associated with 6 sheep and once with 2 sheep.
The rites are centered in the 1st and 6th months
during a primary festival, which suggests that
the ox signifies a dominant offering to a primary
deity (an ox is mentioned in Lev 9:4, 18, 19 as
part of a peace offering to Yhwh).
a. Fleming, Time at Emar, 276.

Table 21. Sacred Offerings (cont.)
Transliteration/
26, 37, SAG uzuGAB, The right This word is found in both the singular and
uzu
42, 52 GAB, GABmeš breast, plural and is associated with an offering, a
UZU SAG GAB breast meat festival meal, and the payment for services. All
imitta šīra irta references to the breast meat appear in the 1st
month of the year.
27, 44, KUŠ, KUŠḫi.a, Hide The hide is read in multiple months, always as a
81, 102, KUŠmeš KUŠ UDU payment for services and always to the Diviner.
115 Mašku
27, 38 SAG Head The head is read in 1st month, always as a pay-
rēšu ment for services and always to the Diviner.
33 (2×), UZU Piece of The determinative UZU is found on one oc-
[34] šīra meat casion and hypothesized on two others as a
sacrifice and payment to the leader.
34 kab-bar-tu4 Foot/leg/ Read as a payment to the leader in the 1st month
kabbartu ankle during a festival to dNIN.URTA.
42 ni-bi-šu-nu Their por- Nību + 3mp pronoun = “their portion (amount).”
nibīšunu tions/small Following CAD N 204–6, definition A1. Flem-
piece ing translates after definition B, “small piece.”
52 ka4-sà-tu4 Cups (of Given from the House of the Gods to the Di-
kāsātī drink) viner as payment for the seed ceremony.
ninda
62, 63 ḫu-ug-gu Flat bread Following Mayer, who contends that the
akalu
ḫūgu loaf form is found in Mari economic texts.b Zadok
argues for the cognate kukku, “type of bread or
cake of characteristic shape.”c Pentiuc argues
for the West Semitic root ḫ-n-k because the
“Emarite word might be considered a noun of
qutl-formation (abstract meaning), showing both
assimilation and nonassimilation of the medial
-n-. The meaning ‘consecrated (bread),’ fits
well with the cultic context, in which this form
occurs.”d While Pentiuc’s option is possible,
Mayer’s translation fits the form of the noun and
the context of the passage. There is no need to
look for “consecration” of the loaf of bread since
the “men of consecration” make the offering (cf.
Lev 2:4–10, which discusses “unleavened cakes
of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wa-
fers spread with oil” as part of the grain offering,
some of which is paid to the priests.)
b. Mayer, “Eine Urkunde uber Grundstuckskaufe,” 270.

c. Zadok, “Notes on the West Semitic Material,” 114.
d. Pentiuc, West Semitic, 75.
198 Chapter 4
Table 21. Sacred Offerings (cont.)

Transliteration/
62 Ì.NUN(?) Ghee Ì.NUN (and its variants Ì.NUN.NUN, A.NUN.
ḫimʾatu NUN) is the name of an intercalary month after
the 6th month in early Semitic calendars and
may mean “ghee.”e
ninda
93 na-ap-ta-na Standard The standard allotment for one meal. The
naptana loaf marzaḫū wise men carry this item to the gods
(ina DINGIRmeš).
99 MUŠEN Bird Accusative plural (direct object). MUŠEN = bird.
iṣṣurī Occurs as a burnt offering in the 6th month (cf.
Lev 1:14–17, which discloses the burnt offering
regulations for a bird [‫)]עוף‬.
115 ŠÀ (?) Intestines Identified in the 6th month during a cultic ritual
libbū to dDagan and paid to the Diviner for services
(cf. Lev 1:9, 13; 3:3, 9, 14; 4:8, 11; 7:3; 8:16, 21; 9:14,
which present the “entrails” as part of the burnt
offering and peace offering to be completely
burned for Yhwh).
uzu
115 ir-ri(?) Fat Identified in the 6th month during a cultic ritual
šīrū errū to dDagan and paid to the Diviner for services.
(As discussed earlier, the fat is used as a burnt
offering in Leviticus and prohibited from con-
sumption by the priests.)
uzu
117 gi5-iš-še Hip Identified in the 6th month during a cultic
šīrū giššū ritual to dDagan and probably paid to the King
of the Land (LUGAL.KUR). If this identifica-
tion is correct, it is the only mention in the text
of the king at Emar.
Fleming translates this as geššu based on his
work in Installations, 153. This reading is not
necessary because MB texts from literature,
medicine, and omen texts reference gilšu, “hip
or flank,” as gi-iš-šu (see examples in CAD G 73,
definitions from literature in section a, from
medicine in section b, and from omen texts in
section c); a reading similar to uzugi5-iš-še.
e. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 31.
Ritual Participants
As mentioned in chap. 1, individuals are an essential part of ritual, par-

ticipating through the performance of specific roles. This section examines
the role of ritual participants to prepare for a comparative analysis with Lev
23 in chap. 5 below. As with the analysis of Lev 23 in chap. 3, the controlling
questions for this section include: What roles and offices are operative in
ritual? Do some figures have a larger, longer, or more important role than
others? How—if at all—do participants and sacred space interact? Who
participates actively, and who participates passively? The goal is to under-
stand better the role played by identified participants in the multimonth
ritual calendar of Emar 446.
We will look at the ritual participants identified in Emar 446 and as-
sesses their potential significance to the cultic rituals. The participants in
the multimonth ritual calendar are divided into two primary groups: gods
(and goddesses) and individuals.
Gods and Goddesses

The rituals at Emar typically center on the care and feeding of the gods
associated with the region. These rituals occur in the procession complex,
which consists of (1) an offering to the god; (2) a procession of the god out
of the temple—often to a city gate or standing stones; and (3) a return cer-
emony at the temple with a sacrificial slaughter of meat offerings, a festival
meal including bread and beer, and a payment of a portion of the offering to
various individuals (see above, “Procession Complex,” p. 191). In addition
to these procession complexes, the text relates one agricultural ritual involv-
ing a god and the Diviner and two additional unique processions. Below, we
consider the gods and goddesses associated with these rites. However, due
to tablet damage, several activities involving deities at Emar are lost, and so
only the gods or goddesses that may be reasonably identified are discussed.
d
Dagan
Because the text outlines more ritual offerings to dDagan than to any
other deity in the Emar multimonth cultic calendar, dDagan unquestionably
played a major role in the regional cult. The only other god identified in more
than one month is dBaʿal, who is mentioned in months 1 and 6. The text
identifies dDagan by both the name dDagan and the title dDagan, Lord of
the Seed. Offerings to dDagan are most numerous in the 1st and 6th months
of the year—at the time of planting and near the time of the harvest.
References to dDagan in the 1st month associate him with: a procession
complex, the kubādu ceremony, and the ceremony to bless the upcoming
planting season. The god receives offerings over the winter months (2nd
and 3rd months), which may have a relationship to the cult of the dead as
elaborated in Emar 452:34–35. Lluís Feliu finds that, although dDagan is not
directly identified as a deity of the dead, multiple Middle Euphrates cul-
tures connect him with the abu Festival and consistently mention dDagan
in cultic ancestor rituals. 216 dDagan is again mentioned in three ceremonies
of the 6th month, beginning with another kubādu ceremony and followed
216. Lluís Feliu, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (trans. Wilifred G. E. Watson;
Leiden: Brill, 2003), 65–73, 305–6. See also M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 259–61; Wayne
200 Chapter 4
by the Renewal of dDagan—both at the new moon and again at the first
quarter-moon. The god’s position of prominence at Emar in ancestor ritu-
als, the cult of the dead, and perhaps in blessing the upcoming harvest led
Fleming to conclude that:
d
Dagan is god of the people themselves, it seems, where the people in turn
identify themselves by their people, their ancestors. The living and the dead
together define the community, with dDagan the divine point of reference. So
far as the hypothesis succeeds, then dDagan was essential to the integration
of household and public religion at Emar. dDagan bound the people as an or-
ganic whole consisting of household cells, these joined by the idea of a shared
community of the living and the dead. 217
d
NIN.URTA
While dDagan enjoys the prominence of being the god mentioned most
frequently in association with a ritual, dNIN.URTA receives the largest
number of offerings in the 1st month of the year. Emar celebrates the god
d
NIN.URTA at this time with two processions on the same day and at least
one festival meal. Fleming finds that dNIN.URTA is probably the patron
god of Emar. 218 Arnaud proposes that dNIN.URTA may be the equivalent
of Aštar, but Fleming discounts this possibility because of the reference to
d
NIN.URTA in the same list as dAštar MUL. 219 He suggests that a more
likely connection for dNIN.URTA may be Išḫara, who is associated with
d
Dagan at Mari and Mesopotamia. 220 If Fleming is correct, dDagan and his
consort Išḫara share the offerings of the 1st month.
d
Šaggar
Emar 446 and other Mesopotamian texts associate the moon-god
d
Šaggar with the New Year, agriculture, and the planting ritual on the 15th
day of SAG.MU. Although the text does not specify the purpose of the of-
ferings made at the cattle barn and horse stable, this portion of the text
does describe an agricultural offering for planting. Thus we might conclude
that the offerings to the god dŠaggar are intended to bring protection and
blessing on the draft animals involved in preparing the soil and planting the
wheat and barley crops that will be harvested the next spring. 221
Pitard, “Care of the Dead at Emar,” in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian
Town in the Late Bronze Age (ed. Mark W. Chavalas; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996), 136.
217. Daniel E. Fleming, “Household and Community Religion in Syria,” in Household
and Family Religion in Antiquity (ed. John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan; Malden, MA: Black-
well, 2008), 45.
218. Idem, Installation, 248–49.
219. Daniel Arnaud, “Religion assyro-babylonienne,” AEPHER 96 (1987–88): 175.
220. Fleming, Installation, 249–51.
221. Fleming (Time at Emar, 155–58) gives more context to the full moon–god dŠaggar
throughout Mesopotamia.
d
Baʿal
Ritual offerings to dBaʿal (dIM) occur in the 1st, 5th, and 6th months of
the year—second only to dDagan in frequency. In addition, dBaʿal receives
the highest number of offerings. Indeed, dBaʿal’s total offerings are twice
the total of dDagan’s because dBaʿal receives a total of two oxen and ten
sheep.
The text identifies the storm-god at Emar simply as dIM. At no point
does the text (or others at Emar) spell the name out syllabically, which led
Manfried Dietrich to propose dAddu as the referenced storm god. 222 Flem-
ing argues for an association with dBaʿal based on his analysis of personal
names. 223 Fleming translates dIM as “Storm-God” (rather than dBaʿal), de-
spite having found a connection between dIM and dBaʿal. I use the trans-
lation “dBaʿal,” following Finkbeiner and Y. Cohen, who assert that the
temples located on the western promontory of the archaeological site are,
in fact, the temples of dBaʿal and dAštart. 224 Finkbeiner supports this con-
clusion based on the following circumstantial evidence: (1) paired references
to the wandering rituals of both dIM and dAštart, and (2) the paired loca-
tion of the temples of dIM and dAštart. All the names commonly written as
derivations of dBaʿal at Emar are found as dIM and not written syllabically.
Therefore, I tentatively adopt the translation “dBaʿal.”
d
NIN.KUR
The 2nd month, dNIN.KU.RA, is named for dNIN.KUR, goddess of
the ceremony on the 17th–18th of the month. The goddess participates in
a standard processional complex: a lamb offering, procession, and a festival
meal. The text associates dNIN.KUR.RA with the kissu Festival and the
installation of the NIN.DINGIR priestess, both of which open and close
with rites dedicated to dNIN.KUR.RA. The description of her activities
assumes an awareness of death and a participation in the renewal of the
throne. Fleming argues that the association with enthronement may shed
light on the rites of this month:
d
NIN.KUR is the most frequently attested month in the Emar legal docu-
ments, with the variant “dNIN.KUR of the throne.” The throne in the title
may reflect the larger role of the goddess rather than her own or any single
enthronement. In the rite that gives the month its name, dNIN.KUR perhaps
was celebrated for her office, with its responsibility for the throne. 225
222. Manfried Dietrich, “Das Einsetzungsritual der Entu von Emar (Emar VI/3,
369),” UF 21 (1989): 47–100.
224. Finkbeiner, “Emar 2002,” 9–117; “Emar 2001,” 109–46; Y. Cohen, Scribes and
Scholars, 12.
225. Fleming, Time at Emar, 162. See idem, Installation, 169–72 for a further discussion
of the goddess.
202 Chapter 4
If Fleming is correct, then the processional complex in the 3rd month

points to a renewal of the throne ceremony at Emar.
d
Adammatera
The god dAdammatera receives one sheep offering in the 3rd month of
the year, which is dAnna. The text leaves the date of the festival unspeci-
fied, which led Fleming to conclude that the rite may have been celebrated
at various times during the month. Although this is possible, a better solu-
tion is that the festival occurred at the new moon of the month, because a
celebration at the new moon could be assumed without being stated, but
the text would probably record a floating day. 226
The name of the god is likely derived from dAdamma, which is the name
of the next month. During the installation of Emar’s NIN.DINGIR priest-
ess, Emar 369 identifies dAdammatera as a member of dBaʿal’s ritual circle.
Fleming observes that an Eblaite text positions dAdamma as the consort of
Rašap at Ebla, which may denote an association of the god or goddess with
the cult of the dead. 227
d
Illila
The 4th month, dAdamma, contains only three lines of text, which refer
to a “circuit” (tūrtu) conducted by an dIllila on the 7th day of the month and
by “all the gods” on the 8th day (the text mentions no procession complexes,
offerings, or distributions to any participants). Fleming translates the verb
“to return” and determines that the ritual is a return ceremony. 228
d
Aštarṣarba
The 5th month, Marzaḫāni, includes a standard procession complex on
the 16th day of the month involving the god dAštarṣarba. The text omits the
normal lamb offering, which probably took place on the 15th of the month
(a day that has been omitted in the text). A burgarātu ceremony precedes the
procession complex, and the “rounds” of dBaʿal and dAštart follow it.
d
Aštarṣarba appears only here and in Emar 452, regarding the month
of Abî. In both texts, the deity conducts a procession on the 16th, fol-
lowed by the “rounds” of dAštart. For this reason, the two months may be
synonymous. 229
d
Aštart
The goddess dAštart (dIš8-tár) appears on the 16th day of the 5th month,
making her rounds (ṣadu) following the procession of dAštarṣarba. On the
next day, the 17th, dBaʿal (her consort) makes his rounds. The dual use of
226. Following Hess, “Multi-Month,” 239.

227. Fleming, Time at Emar, 163.
228. Ibid., 164.
229. Ibid., 166.
the verb ṣadu suggests a link between the two rituals. dAštart and dBaʿal also
share a geographical connection: at the archaeological site, the temples of
d
Baʿal and dAštart sit next to each other, facing the sunrise, on the western
edge of a promontory overlooking the city. 230
d
Ḫalma
The god dḪalma is identified in a procession complex on the 8th day of
the 6th month, which bears his name. Although the text omits the lamb
offering (assumed to take place on the 7th), this sort of offering would be
consistent with both the procession complex and a ritual beginning on the
first quarter-moon. The expected sheep, which precedes the image of the
god, and the divine axe, which follows, are both identified. References to
the bread and beer provided by the qidašu men (men of the consecration-
gift) and the payment to the leader indicate a festival meal.
Individuals
The multimonth ritual calendar (Emar 446) mentions 14 specific indi-
viduals or groups. A summary of their involvement follows.
Nuppuḫannū Men
The text frequently mentions the nuppuḫannū men in the context of
ritual activity. The nuppuḫannū men are possibly cultic functionaries and
are specifically mentioned in rites occurring in four of the six months. The
damage to the text obscures other expected references, especially in the 1st
month. The references depict the nuppuḫannū men as providers of the one
sheep preceding the god in the procession. This sheep then becomes part
of the ritual slaughter, festival meal, and ultimately the payment to other
individuals. A second reference, in the month of SAG.MU, identifies the
nuppuḫannū men as recipients of a sheep at an evening ceremony. The third
reference to the nuppuḫannū men appears in the 3rd month (dAnna), when
the nuppuḫannū men give three sheep for rites involving a sacred space or
individuals instead of a sacred deity. In this month, the nuppuḫannū men
give sheep for the official of the House of the Gods, the Temple of dDagan,
and the town. Possibly this winter ritual forms part of the cult of the dead
discussed above.
Fleming notes that the expected final sign is nī (genitive plural in agree-
ment with ša) and not nū (nominative plural). 231 If the word is related to the
root napāḫu, “to blow” or “to hiss,” 232 then the D-stem nuppuḫu, “to light
fires,” may imply that the nuppuḫannū men were the “ones who light the fire.”
Pentiuc notes that the D infinitive and verbal adjective of the purrus-pattern
230. Finkbeiner, The Archaeological Park, 1–16; “Emar 2002,” 9–117; “Emar 2001,”
109–46.
232. CAD N 1263–70.
204 Chapter 4
are not found in agent nouns, making this translation less likely. Pentiuc as-
sociates the -ann- ending with a Hittite origin to the word. 233 And, while he
makes a strong case for a Hittite origin, the Semitic origin may explain the
involvement of the nuppuḫannū men in the rituals of the month of dAnna.
This reference from the 3rd month resembles the lighting of braziers at the
kinūnu Festival (with torches to light the way to and from the netherworld)
performed at Sippar in the 8th month (spring calendar) and at Mari in the
7th month (spring calendar).
Groups of the Population (LÚmeš ga-ma-ru, LÚmeš EDIN)
Emar 446 mentions several groups of the general population—the entire
population (LÚmeš ga-ma-ru), the people of the countryside (LÚmeš EDIN),
and the people of the city (LÚmeš GAL)—on three occasions, all in relation
to the procession complex in the 1st month (SAG.MU).
The text mentions the entire population twice. On the first occasion, it
refers to a procession of dNIN.URTA in the 1st month (SAG.MU), when
the entire population (awilū gamārū) follows behind the procession. Then,
after the procession, the population participates in an offering. The second
mention occurs in the description of a ritual meal after a second proces-
sion of dNIN.URTA. Pentiuc reads kamārū, “priests,” based on the Hebrew
cognate kōmer, “priest,” Postbiblical Hebrew kūmār, and Aramaic kumrā. 234
The translation “priests” or “priestly attendants” is very attractive. How-
ever, Fleming argues that the Syrian Akkadian texts provide no evidence to
substantiate Pentiuc’s translation. Further, lines 37–38 confirm the context
for the term, supporting the identification with the leaders and populace of
the town (LÚmeš GAL LÚmeš ga-ma-ri). 235
The third reference to the population is to the people of the countryside
(LÚmeš EDIN), who participate in a festival meal to dNIN.URTA. Labat
identifies EDIN as the Sumerian equivalent of ṣēru. 236 The CAD clarifies
the meaning as hinterland, backcountry, open country, or steppeland—all
of which support my translation here. 237
That all three references to the populace occur in the 1st month of the
year (the New Year) and in connection to the god dNIN.URTA validates the
identification of dNIN.URTA as the god of the people of Emar.
233. Pentiuc, West Semitic, 136.

234. Ibid., 95. Compare with Num 15, which pertains to offerings for both the native-
born Israelite and the resident alien.
235. Fleming, Time at Emar, 154. During this ceremony, all the people are called to a
pilgrimage/procession—similar to the call for all the ‫ בני ישראל‬to take part in the festivals
in Lev 23.
236. Labat, Manuel d’Épigraphie, #168.
237. CAD Ṣ 138–39.
Diviner ( lúMÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD)
For a detailed discussion of the Diviner and his role, see previous section.
Leader(s) (LÚmešGAL, LÚGAL)
Emar 446 mentions the leaders of the city four times. They are identi-
fied three times in the 1st month and once in the 6th month. The identifica-
tion in the first and last months of the calendar indicates a possible connec-
tion between the leaders and the change in seasons—in the 1st month with
the fall planting and in the 6th month with the approaching harvest. The
leaders appear twice in the singular (1st and 6th month) and twice in the
plural. The plural attestations always accompany a reference to the entire
population (once the rural population and once the general population) and
always linked with a festival meal.
The zukru text, Emar 375:35, also contains a reference to the people and
the leader that reads LÚmeš ù GALḫi.a. The identity of the “leader” is uncer-
tain, and the occurrence in both the singular and the plural eliminates the
king as a possibility. Bunnens argues for the “great ones,” who are associ-
ated with the king. 238 Fleming insists on the “elders,” based on RE 34:14–15,
which uses GAL in the context of elders. 239 Undoubtedly, the city elders are
visible. However, their relationship to the king will remain unresolved until
the discovery of additional texts.
Slaughterer ( lúzabiḫi)
On the 15th day of the 1st month, during an offering to dNIN.URTA of
d
Išḫara’s Temple, an ox and six sheep are slaughtered in a ritual that includes
a festival meal. At the end of the meal, the leader receives a portion of the
meat and the hocks and another portion of meat is given to the lúzabiḫi.
This name is poorly attested in the archive, occurring only in 275:1–4, where
probably the intended meaning is “the one who performs the ritual slaugh-
ter of the sacrifice.”
Kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple ( lú.mešaḫḫi.a ša É dUd-ḫa)
The text makes only one reference to these kinsmen, in line 36, dur-
ing rites of the 15th day of the 1st month. They appear in an offering to
d
NIN.URTA of dIšḫara’s Temple, when the kinsmen of dUdḫa’s Temple
lú.meš ḫi.a
( aḫ ša É dUd-ḫa) receive a portion of the meat sacrifice. 240 The term
“kinsmen” (lú.mešaḫḫi.a) probably denotes a very broad clan or group in place
238. Guy Bunnens, “Emar on the Euphrates in the 13th Century b.c.: Some Thoughts
about Newly Published Cuneiform Texts,” AbrN 27 (1989): 31–32.
240. The type of meat is unreadable due to damage to the text.
206 Chapter 4
of the more selective ŠEŠ, which is not indicated here. 241 dUdḫa is a poorly
attested minor deity in the local Emarite pantheon.
Qidašu Men (Men of the Consecration Offering) (LÚ ša qí-da-ši)
The text identifies the Qidašu men on three occasions (lines 61, 105, 119)
with a possible fourth reference in line 114. Commonly cited in the Diviner’s
archive, these individuals are the most frequently mentioned in the NIN.
DINGIR installation (Emar 369). Fleming argues that:
At Emar, the verb qādašu (D) means “to sanctify with offerings.” . . . Unlike
the usual Akkadian quddušu, it has nothing to do with one-time purification
as initiation into cultic service (i.e., “consecration”). Rather it seems to refer
to offerings that prepare the gods or human personnel for participation in
a single festival or rite. The noun qidašu has some association with the in-
stallation as a whole. We should look for a concrete referent especially with
the verb nadānu; perhaps the qidašu is an offering—one that initiates festi-
vals at Emar. . . . In sum, our ritual staff might be “the officials who give the
sanctification-offering.” 242
The Qidašu men may be associated with the consecration offerings and
responsible for the rites that provide for the sanctification of the god of
the ritual. The three references in Emar 446 identify the individuals with
the festival meal after the offering. In two attestations, the Qidašu men eat
(ikkalū) and drink (išattû), and in the third it is implied that they feast. The
partial reading and reconstruction of Qidašu men occurs in line 114 in rela-
tionship to nadānu, which would imply that the Qidašu men give or perform
the consecration. This reference is similar to those in Emar 369, which con-
firm the reconstruction. Unlike the occurrences in Emar 369, the references
in Emar 446 do not begin but, rather, end the ritual ceremony.
Ḫamšaʾū Men (ḫa-am-ša-i)
The ḫamšaʾū men are identified on line 78 in the month dAnna (3rd
month) as giving a sheep, [bread], and beer in honor of dAdammatera. 243
The text does not date the offering, and I argued above that the rite might
occur on the 1st day of the month at the new moon. 244 The ḫamšaʾū men
are known nowhere outside of these three Emarite texts: Emar 369:13, 53–
54; 370:30, 45–68; and 371:16. These three texts associate the ḫamšaʾū men
with the phrase “seven and seven.” In Emar 369:13, “[T]he ḫamšaʾū men, and
seven [and seven] will eat and drink.” The text continues in line 53: “[T]he 7
241. Arnaud incorrectly reads ŠEŠ; see note above, in the translation. See also Emar
156:10; 180:12.
243. The meaning of ḫamšaʾū is debated. Arnaud translates it “qinquanteniers,” as
does Dietrich.
244. See discussion on line 78 of the translation and in the section above on the
Month of dAnna ( begins on p. 188).
and 7 ḫamšaʾū men will eat and drink for two days.” 245 This association led
Dietrich to translate the term as “50er” in conjunction with the meaning of
ḫamšātu (unit of 50). 246 In Emar 371, the group is again linked with a seven-
day feast. 247 Fleming maintains that in the context of Emar 369 and 371 the
ḫamšaʾū men seem to be mourning the previous priests. 248 If this is correct,
then the reference to the ḫamšaʾū men in the winter month of dAnna lends
support to the hypothesis that the rituals of the 3rd month pertain to the
cult of the dead.
The Marzaḫū Wise Men
The marzaḫū are attested in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.21–22) and in the
biblical text (Amos 6:7—‫ ;מרזח‬Jer 16:5—‫)בית מרזח‬. Ugaritic administrative
texts also use this term for a group associated with land ownership and
wealth. 249 The literary references, while not conclusive, point to a relation-
ship with the cult of the dead. The noun is modified by the adjective ša
mi-di (midi). The form midi is unattested, and therefore the meaning is un-
certain. I translate it here following CAD M/2 163 as “mudû,” meaning that
the marzaḫū men were perhaps either wise men or “friends of the king,”
as in OAkk texts. This translation is preferred because it fits the affluence
attributed to the marzaḫū in Ugaritic. If the term also preserves an associa-
tion with the cult of the dead, then this early spring month and the marzaḫū
were part of a cultic spring awakening found in similar rituals in the parallel
month of Abî. 250
Servers ( lúkawanu)
The lúkawani, “servers,” appear only once in Emar 446, on line 111, in the
6th month (dḪalma). On the 8th and 9th days of the month, a procession
complex to dBaʿal takes place. During the festival meal on the second day of
this complex, the servers receive some portion of the offering (the sacrifi-
cial offering remains unidentified because of damage to the text).
Fleming, noting the term in Emar 369, determines that the lúkawanu
are probably functionaries of the qidašu men and ḫussu men. 251 And thus
the word “servers” is a job description rather than a category of individu-
als. Dietrich translates the word “Gäste,” finding that the category included
245. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 350–52.

246. Dietrich, “Das Einsetzungsritual,” 83; CAD Ḫ 70.
247. Emar 370 shows damage in these lines, and the ḫamšaʾū men are restored based
on a partial reading in line 30 and the reference to “seven and seven” in line 55.
248. Fleming, Installation, 105.
249. McLaughlin, “The marzēaḫ at Ugarit,” 265–81; van der Toorn, “Funerary Ritu-
als,” 54; Pope, “The Cult of the Dead,” 176.
250. See the previous discussion of the marzēaḫ in the section on the month of
Marzaḫāni (begins on p. 189).
251. Fleming, Installation, 102.
208 Chapter 4
guests of the celebration. Klingbeil associates it with the Hebrew k-w-n,

“to be established, ready, prepared.” If this connection is adopted, then the
meaning lies in the service of preparing the festival meal.
King of the Land (LUGAL KUR)
The “king of the land” (LUGAL KUR) is restored on line 117 in the 6th
month of dḪalma. If this restoration is correct, the king receives the hip of
an offering as payment at the end of a procession complex involving dBaʿal
and the Temple of dDagan. While the king’s receiving a portion of the offer-
ing comes as no surprise, what does surprise us is that the text has not previ-
ously mentioned the king (or priests). Apparently, from the Diviner’s per-
spective, the deities and mentioned groups of individuals, not the priests or
the king, possess the power to administer the rites of the six-month calen-
dar. The king’s minimal participation in ritual at Emar prompted Fleming
to conclude that
[t]his minor ritual role contrasts with the practice of various neighboring
cultures. The king serves as the central human player in the cults at Ugarit,
Hatti, and Assyria. Perhaps we should understand the absence of the king
from Emar ritual activity to be a sign that Emar religion taps cultural sources
outside the major urban areas. 252
Ritual Sound
A less frequently discussed aspect of ritual is sound. Analyzing its pur-
pose presents obvious difficulties in the study of ancient Near Eastern
ritual, because only written evidence exists. Our assessment of this cere-
monial element in Emar 446 is further hindered because the text lacks any
reference to sound. However, we cannot conclude from this omission that
sound had no purpose in the rites but only that the textual remains do not
preserve any indication of this sort of activity.
Summary
Discovered in room three of the House of the Diviner, Emar 446 dates
to the 13th century b.c.e. and outlines the cultic activities during six months
of the year—SAG.MU, dNIN.KUR.RA, dAnna, dAdamma, Marzaḫāni, and
d
Ḫalma—beginning in the fall during the planting season. In this chapter,
we analyzed the multimonth ritual calendar, exploring the literary struc-
ture, sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, and ritual participants. The
following list summarizes my conclusions.
252. Ibid., 100.

Literary Structure
• Temporal markers organize the text by using several literary features,
including:
◦◦ A one-line introductory phrase
◦◦ Parallelism
◦◦ Word pairs
◦◦ Consistent third-person point of view
• The introduction identifies the general population as the audience.
• The text includes:
• Both agricultural and nonagricultural rites
◦◦ Some agricultural rites that occur on fixed dates
◦◦ Both named rituals and anonymous or unnamed rituals
◦◦ A lack of symmetry in the number of lines devoted to each month
or ritual
• The durative represents a repetitive customary action with
prescriptive force.
• The analytical genre (see Sparks in chap. 1) is a prescriptive,
multimonth ritual calendar.
Sacred Time
• The text uses temporal dividers for organization.
• Emar 446 uses a temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month)
as the header for rituals; however, the text includes variations of the
standard formula.
• The text includes the phrase “on that day” as a standard temporal
division to highlight significant aspects of a ritual occurring on the
same day as other ritual events.
• The calendar depicts a day that begins in the morning with the
sunrise.
• One text may name some rituals and leave others unnamed. In
addition, an unnamed ritual in Emar 446 may be named in another
text.
activities on other days unspecified.
• The calendar primarily “assumes” the time of the offerings and
activities that occur during the day.
• The text occasionally specifies that an activity occurs in the evening.
• Some rites are tied to the agricultural calendar and other rites to the
monthly fixed calendar in the same text.
• The text depicts a lunisolar calendar with rites clustered around the
spring and fall equinoxes.
• Ritual celebrations usually begin at lunar-phase breaks.
210 Chapter 4
• Primary festival activities are held at the full-moon phase of the

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

• The multimonth festival calendar identifies only two nonoffering
objects: the divine axe and ritual seed.
• The divine axe, which may represent the power and presence of the
god, is present when the god is present—usually in the processions
and once at a ceremony occurring at the Temple of dDagan.
• The scribe does not allocate space in the text for describing the
clothing of those involved in the rituals, the objects involved
in transporting the image of the god during the procession, the
trappings of the deity, or the objects associated with the ritual
preparation and slaughter of the offerings.
• The ritual calendar presents a much more abbreviated cultic
representation than the text associated with the zukru Festival (Emar
373 and 375) or the text of the installation of the priestess (Emar 369),
which gives greater insight into the tangible sacred objects involved
in Emarite ritual.
• The primary sacrificial offerings are lambs, sheep, and oxen.
◦◦ The lamb (SILA4) is almost always identified with the procession
complex occurring the day before the procession.
◦◦ The most frequently occurring offering is the sheep, which is
associated with the procession (walking before the image of the
god), the festival meal after the procession, and the payment to
specified ritual participants.
• The text often leaves the source of the sheep unidentified; however,
when mentioned, the source is usually the nuppuḫannū men (first five
months of the calendar) and “the city” (6th month).
• On three occasions, the text mentions an ox in conjunction with a
multiple sheep offering in the 1st and 6th months of the year.
• Sacred offerings occasionally include drink and bread offerings.
Bread and beer are the most frequent offerings and always occur
paired in this text. The two are read as collective nouns.
◦◦ The word pair is twice associated with the qidašu men (men of the
consecration-gift), once as a gift from the House of the Gods, and
once from the ḫamašaʾū men.
◦◦ The bread, beer, and occasionally wine offerings are consecrated
to the gods, and the stated role of these offerings is as part of the
festival meal.
• The final offering mentioned is the burnt offering of a bird in
conjunction with a drink offering, made in the 6th month, in the
evening. While the contents of the offerings and festival meals are
specified, the mechanics of the preparation and sacrifice (slaughter)
are not. The multimonth calendar is more concerned with what is
given, by whom, and to whom than with providing an instruction
manual for the ritual.
• The text relates that different individuals and groups receive several
portions of the meat offerings. In addition, portions of the meat
212 Chapter 4
offerings, drink offerings, and bread offerings are consumed during

communal meals.
Ritual Participants
• The rituals at Emar are typically focused on the gods associated with
the region.
• The general population is involved in processions and rituals.
• Ritual officials receive portions of offerings as payment.
• The roles of priest and king are minimized.
With an understanding of the ritual cult as described in Emar 446, we now
turn our attention (in chap. 5) to the comparison of the multimonth festival
calendar in Lev 23 and the multimonth festival calendar at Emar to under-
stand the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the two texts.
Appendix
iti
Fleming reconstructs Za-ra-ti i-na based on the festival’s similarity to the
annual zukru Festival outlined in Emar 375. In Emar 375, on line 3 of variant C,
the text identifies the zukru Festival as occurring in itiZa-ra-tì. In addition,
Fleming observes that both Emar 375 and the first month of rituals in Emar 446
involve the god Šaggar and deal with planting. Fleming notes that these are the
only two months that identify Šaggar as the subject of offerings on a central day
of the ritual. Fleming concludes that “[t]he conjunction of dates, Šaggar, and
the concern for planting suggest a time for these events in the same month,
which the zukru tablet specifies as Zarati” (Fleming, Time, 103).
Fleming provides a thorough argument. However, I think that SAG.MU is
the unidentified month, based in part on the following challenges to his conclu-
sions: (1) Fleming bases his argument on variant C, line 4, of Emar 375, which is
a severely damaged fragment and does not always agree with variants A and B.
Therefore, the month name identified in the variant cannot be used as a reliable
indicator without other evidence. (2) Fleming assigns the sole mention of S̆aggar
to the month of Zariti, which is inaccurate. Emar 373 assigns rites to S̆aggar in
the month of SAG.MU on two occasions: the first in lines 38–44, which read,
“During the month of SAG.MU. . . . on the next day, 15th S̆aggar day”; lines 186–
87 also refer to S̆aggar, reading, “in the month of SAG.MU. . . . the 15th day (of )
S̆aggar.” These two occurrences demonstrate an association between S̆aggar
and the month SAG.MU, contrary to Fleming’s argument. (3) SAG.MU (as well
as Zarati) is associated with the planting months. At Ur, the SAG.MU Festival
is held in conjunction with the Akītu Festival in the 7th month (calendar begin-
ning in the spring), when the associated agricultural activities involve planting.
But simply calling Fleming’s findings into question cannot establish the as-
sociation of this month with SAG.MU; we must also review the positive ev-
idence. (1) One translation of SAG.MU is “the head of the year,” making it a
logical 1st month for a multimonth festival calendar. (2) The Emar texts suggest
SAG.MU as the probable 1st month of the year that begins in the fall. Emar 364
associates the month with the wine harvest, which occurs in the fall. Emar 373,
discussed above, depicts SAG.MU in connection with the 1st month of the year.
(3) Emar texts identify SAG.MU as a month for ritual activity. Emar 454 and 455
mention the month in relation to cultic offerings. Emar 373, as shown above,
associates the zukru Festival and the 1st month of the year with SAG.MU.
(4) itiSAG.MU i-na fits the available line space, which allows for a maximum
of 5 signs (itiZa-ra-ti i-na probably requires too much space). (5) As discussed
above, Emar 373 connects the god Šaggar with rites in the month of SAG.MU.
For these reasons, I adopt SAG.MU in my translation as the 1st month of the
ritual calendar in Emar 446.
Arnaud agrees that SAG.MU is the 1st month of the ritual calendar in
Emar 446; however, Arnaud incorrectly argues that the calendar represents a
12-month schedule with SAG.MU located in the spring (Daniel Arnaud, “Re-
ligion assyro-babylonienne,” Annuaire. École pratique des hautes études; Ve sec-
tion—sciences religieuses 96 [1987–88]: 213–33). SAG.MU is identified with the 1st
month of the year, but there is no mandate that the month must be located in
the spring. Indeed, the agricultural references in the text indicate that the cal-
endar begins in the fall.
Chapter 5
Leviticus 23 in the Context

of Emar 446
Introduction
As discussed in chap. 1, for us to prove a connection between two texts
demands more than just the identification of a laundry list of similarities.
As Hallo argues, scholars who use the comparative method must give suf-
ficient attention to both similarities and differences. Malul and Klingbeil
add that a textual comparison requires performing an intrabiblical analysis
before an extrabiblical analysis as well as exploring the context, purpose,
audience, time and place gaps, force (prescriptive or descriptive), verbal
structure, literary construction, and the history of the text’s transmission.
Sparks advances the methodology by adding that one should only compare
texts from the same analytical genre. And if the compared works are ritual
texts, Klingbeil and Grimes contend, we must also compare the ritual ele-
ments of sacred time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and
ritual sound. Only by conducting these evaluations may the researcher com-
plete a thorough comparative analysis.
In chaps. 3–4, I established a base for a comparative study by explor-
ing the critical characteristics of Lev 23 and Emar 446. 1 First, I outlined
in each text the essential elements mentioned by Malul and Klingbeil.
Next, because both texts concern ritual, I also considered the significant
ritual features laid out by Klingbeil and Grimes. Finally, in chaps. 2 and 3, I
conducted an intrabiblical study of Lev 23 in light of related biblical texts,
including Exod 23 and 34, Num 28–29, Deut 16, and Ezek 45. This intra
biblical analysis illuminated the context of Lev 23, the possible history of its
transmission, and the lingering questions that remained unanswered after
we reviewed the related biblical passages. These lingering questions are the
focus of my analysis in chap. 5.
I also observed in previous chapters that a comparative analysis should
determine the nature and type of connection existing between two texts (for
1. For a thorough recent discussion of these texts, see Richard S. Hess, “Multiple-
Month Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446 and Leviticus 23,” in The
Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reasessing Methodologies and Assumptions (ed. James K. Hoff-
meier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 233–53. Hess’s article in-
spired my current study, and I am greatly appreciative to him for his insightful guidance
and support.
214
Leviticus 23 in the Context of Emar 446 215
a more complete discussion of connection, see chap. 1). Malul reasons that

nature may refer to borrowing from an existing written text or literary tradi-
tion. Nature may also indicate the influence of foreign cultural practices on
an author. Type of connection consists of four categories: direct, mediated,
common source, and common tradition. Using the comparative method de-
scribed in chap. 1, I will judge in this chapter whether a connection exists
between Lev 23 and Emar 446. If it does, what might the nature and type
of connection be? As with other chapters above, I begin by discussing the
structure and literary features of the texts and then examine sacred time,
sacred space, ritual objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound.
Before beginning this study of the specific similarities and differences
between Emar 446 and Lev 23, I note again that both of these texts share
similarities with several 3rd- and 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern
texts discussed in chap. 2, a fact that lends support to the argument that
these texts share a common tradition.
Intrabiblical Findings
In this book, we explored the related intratextual evidence (biblical and
Emarite) before conducting an extratextual appraisal. In chap. 2, we identi-
fied five biblical passages with information similar to Lev 23: Exod 23 and 34,
Num 28–29, Deut 16, and Ezek 45. Our analysis of Lev 23, in light of these
related texts, raises several questions about apparent discrepancies between
the passages: Why do some texts describe festivals tied to the harvest, while
others demonstrate fixed dates? Why do some texts allude to offerings at
local sanctuaries, while others specify a centralized offering location? Why
do some festival texts show a New Year in the spring and others in the fall?
Why do some texts describe festivals held before the ripening of the har-
vest, creating a possible hardship on working farmers? Why do some texts
name a festival, while others leave the same festival unnamed? Why do some
harvest festivals seem to occur at a central location on a fixed date when
the agricultural fields in Israel’s hills and valleys ripen at different times?
And why, even though a farmer might be busy with his harvest, would the
text require him to take seven days away from his fields to celebrate at the
Temple of Yhwh?
Jan Wagenaar, in a recent study, reconciles the seeming inconsistencies
by reordering the source material. He accepts an early oral tradition but
considers the first written text to have been in Deuteronomy; it was suc-
ceeded first by the J text and then by the writing of the Priestly authors
and redactors during and after the exile. With regard to Lev 23, Wagenaar
concludes that the text originated during the exile, when Babylonian ritual
(specifically, the Akītu ritual) influenced the priesthood. To confirm his
theory, however, one must determine whether the similarities that Wage-
naar identifies between Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival occurred at any earlier
216 Chapter 5
time. If earlier texts with similar features exist, then Lev 23 may preserve a
common West Semitic ritual tradition, not a direct connection to the 1st-
millennium Akītu Festival.
I set out to answer the questions about the apparent incongruities by
making a thorough comparative study of Lev 23 and the 2nd-millennium
multimonth West Semitic ritual calendar from Emar. Emar 446 was discov-
ered at the temple identified as M1, in a small storage room (room three)
filled with private documents, legal texts, and ritual texts. This ritual archive
also contained several notable texts, including 369, the NIN.DINGIR in-
stallation; 370, the mašʾartu installation; 373, 374, 376, the zukru Festival; and
395, the kissu Festival. We reviewed and compared each of these texts with
Emar 446 as a contextual study for this analysis, and where appropriate, we
discussed the pertinent results in chap. 4.
History of Transmission
Although scholars widely agree that the Pentateuch in general and
Lev 23 in particular have a long history of transmission that culminated in
the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (as well as other versions), some view
it as a history of multiple sources evolving over more than a thousand years,
and others limit the sources and time frames. At a minimum, Lev 23’s his-
tory consists of some period of oral tradition, an initial writing, and later
redaction.
As we saw in chap. 2, scholars such as Wellhausen, Noth, Knohl, Mil-
grom, and Wagenaar argue for various dates, authors, and traditions in-
volved in the construction of the final text. Moreover, they attribute to
these elements the apparent discrepancies within the text. However, I
disagree that many of the internal textual inconsistencies require multiple
authors or late/exilic redaction. Many of the features that scholars use to es-
tablish a late dating of the text are already demonstrated in 2nd-millennium
ritual and in the Emar 446 text. A few examples of these features that I
am contesting in this book are the presence of named and unnamed festi-
vals in the same text, the hosting of agricultural festivals on fixed dates, the
combining of multiple named rituals into larger festivals, and variations in
the section-divider formula. Wagenaar points to each of these examples as
proof of redaction during the exilic period. But in this study, I insist that all
these features were present in Emar during the 2nd millennium and there-
fore should not be used to corroborate a 1st-millennium redaction.
That the archive at Emar contains no other versions of Emar 446 sup-
ports a claim for a limited transmission history. 2 However, because the ab-
sence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the prescriptive multimonth
ritual calendar at Emar may have experienced a revision similar to Lev 23’s.
Based on remains excavated in the 1990s, we know that the Late Bronze
2. Hess notes the stand-alone nature of Emar 446 (ibid., 240).
Age location of Emar was not a new city but was an area under continuous
occupation from at least the latter portion of the 3rd millennium, and prob-
ably earlier. It follows that the texts found there may preserve information
and religious traditions from, not only the Late Bronze Age, but also the
earlier periods of the Middle and Early Bronze Ages. 3 Thus, the text may
have had an oral foundation, initial writing, and then a later redaction as rit-
ual practices changed. Emar 446 would thus preserve earlier customs with
potential modifications up to the 13th century b.c.e. Currently, we have no
evidence for or against this conclusion, so we must consider this theory
speculative until further proof is found. Unfortunately, however, during my
exploration of Emar in 2010, I realized how much the extensive looting of
the site had diminished the potential for discovering any sizable archive in
the near future; consequently, the question may remain open.
Context, Purpose, and Analytical Genre

The context of a written text is difficult to specify, because one must
assess each text within its own immediate cultural and literary milieu. To
determine context necessitates our first studying each source or text within
its own society, and then evaluating the original author’s intended purpose
for each source. Thus, I first examined the form, structure, literary aspects,
and verbal usage in both the Lev 23 and the Emar 446 text to ensure a ho-
listic analysis of each one. This literary approach to the contextual analysis
produced significant findings: both texts use verb tenses pointing to a pre-
scriptive force, both texts are organized through temporal markers, both
texts identify the general population as the audience, and both texts devote
different amounts of space to different rituals. 4
In evaluating the original authors’ intentions, I concluded that Emar 446
and Lev 23 share a common purpose: both are prescriptive multimonth rit-
ual calendars designed to guide the general population in community rites
and offerings. 5 By contrast, the 1st-millennium Akītu Festival, according
to Bidmead, was intended to support the power and authority of both the
king and the priesthood. Clearly, as we noted in chap. 2, this shows that the
Babylonian Akītu Festival and Lev 23 hold quite different purposes, a fact
that diminishes Wagenaar’s findings. Therefore, any comparative analysis
of Lev 23 and the Akītu Festival would need to account for this discrepancy
(see chap. 2 for more discussion).
Sparks addresses a related point when he insists on the need to compare
texts within the same analytical genre (see chap. 1). He defines the analytical
3. Finkbeiner, “Emar 1999”; idem, “Emar 2001”; idem, “Emar 2002”; idem, The
Archaeological Park.
4. Hess identifies many of these points in his “Multi-Month Ritual,” 233–53.
5. Hess highlights the fact that the two texts differ: Emar 446 is developed for a
polytheistic urban culture (ibid., 240).
218 Chapter 5
genre as the grouping of similar texts serving a comparable function. 6 In

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

Verbal Analysis
Comparing the verbal structure of Lev 23 and Emar 446 reveals sev-
eral prominent features. Emar 446 is a narrative list of activities and of-
ferings written in the third person, while Lev 23 is a direct speech written
predominantly in the second person. 10 Leviticus 23 does, however, include
portions of text that appear in third person. 11 And if Hartley is correct,
6. Sparks, Ancient Texts, 10.

7. Talmon, “The Comparative Method,” 381–92.
8. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study, 335.
9. R. E. Averbeck, “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method,” in Mesopotamia
and the Bible: Comparative Explorations ( JSOTSup 341; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2002), 96.
10. As I mentioned previously, Num 28–29 is written in the third person, and a study
of the relationship between Num 28–29 and Emar 446 (although it is beyond the scope of
this book) would probably yield interesting results.
11. Hess observes that 17 of the 41 verses in Lev 23 preserve a third-person narrative.
Hess observes that,
if Lev 23 is addressed to the people of Israel, while Emar 446 has as its purpose a re-
cord for an official concerned with performing or supplying the sacrifices, then it is no
surprise that there is a difference in person. Nevertheless, the strong presence of third
person forms in Lev 23 demonstrates the importance of this means of recording West
Semitic ritual calendars.” (Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 241)
Table 22. Introductory Formula

Lev 23:2 Lev 23:4 Emar 446
Speak to the Israelites and say to them: These are the appointed Tablet of the
The appointed feasts of Yhwh, which feasts of Yhwh, the sacred rites of the city
you shall proclaim as sacred assemblies; assemblies, which you shall
these are my appointed feasts. proclaim at their fixed times.
these portions of the text (in a format similar to Emar 446’s) preserve an
ancient form of an Israelite festival calendar, which was redacted over time
into a second-person direct dialogue. 12 Therefore, both Lev 23 and Emar
446 may preserve a common use of the third person and nominative clauses
to convey ritual action, which is a point of similarity between the texts. At
the same time, the second-person backbone of Lev 23 distinguishes it from
Emar 446.
A second point of comparison lies in a similar use of verb tenses. In
Lev 23, the imperfect is the most frequent tense/aspect, representing a re-
petitive customary action. 13 This use of the Hebrew imperfect resembles
the Akkadian durative, the dominant verb form in Emar 446, which also
denotes a repetitive customary action. 14 These two points of similarity
demonstrate that Lev 23 and Emar 446 share a similar verbal structure, rep-
resenting a prescriptive ritual instruction.
Organization and Outline

Another significant parallel between the two texts is that both use sum-
mary statements and temporal markers for organization. Emar 446 employs
an introductory statement similar to Lev 23, which is shown in table 22.
Although the language of the introductory statements differs, we can see
the following similarities: (1) both texts include an introductory statement;
(2) both texts identify the audience in the introduction (Israelites and the
city of Emar); (3) both texts specify a focus on ritual activity; (4) both texts
address a similar audience, the general population. 15
12. Hartley, Leviticus, 371.

13. Joüon, A Grammar, 366–67.
14. Huehnergard proposes that the “Durative describes action that takes place over
a period of time (duration; thus, non-punctual or imperfective), or action that has not yet
taken place. Thus, it may be translated by a wide range of tenses and nuances.” The trans-
lation of the durative may be categorized roughly as follows: (a) simple future, (b) present
tense, (c) durative/circumstantial, (d) habitual/customary, and (e) modal. J. Huehnergard,
A Grammar of Akkadian (HSS 45; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 98.
15. Not just the priesthood or ruling class.
220 Chapter 5
Table 23. Standard Date Formula

Date Formula in Leviticus 23
Verse/Line Translation Comment
5 In the 1st month, on the 14th Begins the major section on the Passover
(day) offering and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
24 In the 7th month on the 1st Begins the major section on the Festival of
day of the month Trumpet Blasts
27 The 10th day of this 7th Begins the major section on the Day of
month Atonement
34 On the 15th day of this 7th Begins the major section on the Festival of
month Tabernacles
39 On the 15th day of the 7th Begins the major section on the Festival of
month Yhwh
Date Formula in Emar 446
2 Month of SAG.MU on the Begins the major section for the festivals in
8th day the 1st month
58 Month of dNIN.KU.RA on Begins the major section for the festivals in
the 17th day the 2nd month
84 Month of dAdamma on the Begins the major section for the festivals in
7th day the 4th month
87 Month of Marzaḫāni on the Begins the major section for the festivals in
14th day the 5th month
96 Month of dḪalma on the 2nd Begins the major section for the festivals in
day the 6th month
In addition, Emar 446 and Lev 23 both use a standard date formula to
identify major divisions in the text. 16 A comparison of this formula in the
two texts is shown in table 23. The general formula is “month x on the y
day,” although each calendar also exhibits variations on the general formula.
In fact, in both texts, one major section uses an entirely different tempo-
ral divider. In the Emar text, the 3rd month in the calendar mentions the
month name but does not give a date. In Lev 23, the second festival division
is recorded without noting the date. Instead, the division is indicated by
the ripening of the harvest. 17 Hess reasons that these deviations from the
general theme at Emar demonstrate that variations in the formula should
not be used to designate editorial layers. Hess argues that:
16. Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 243–44. Hess notes that both calendars “prefer a
designation of the month as the primary means of identifying periods of time within the
annual cycle.”
17. Ibid.
it seems unlikely that a single standard formula can be identified for intro-
ducing calendar festivals. Certainly, suggestions that each of the biblical cal-
endar’s lead sentences originally began with the date, the feast’s name, the
expression “for Yhwh,” and additional items do not find support in exist-
ing calendars, whether from the Bible or Emar. In all cases, the structure of
leading sentences appears to vary within each calendar, although that for the
first and last months appears consistent and dominant. The Emar calendar
demonstrates that such variation by itself does not prove a later editorial
innovation. 18
Finally, the texts from Emar and Lev 23 may both be further divided into
subsections through the use of temporal markers, including: “on that day,” 19
“x day,” and “for x days.” The use of these markers is shown in table 24.
The analysis in this section highlights the following points of organiza-
tional and structural similarity between Lev 23 and Emar:
• Both texts use introductory statements. 20
• Both texts have similar audiences (general population), and neither
text focuses on just the priesthood or upper class/rulers.
• Both texts share a ritual orientation.
• Both texts typically use the temporal formula “month x on the x day”
to separate major sections. 21 However, both texts are inconsistent
in the use of the formula—varying the wording or omitting some
information.
• Both texts use temporal language to subdivide the text, including “on
that day,” “x day,” and “for x days.” 22
• Leviticus 23 uses both the second and third person, while Emar 446
is written in the third person alone. This feature may be either a
point of similarity or a point of difference.
Literary Structure
Both Lev 23 and Emar 446 exhibit several similar literary features, in-
cluding large chiasms, small chiasms (parallelism), and word repetition.
Large Chiasms
The presence of introversions (large chiastic structures) that encompass
several verses differentiates the Holiness Code of Lev 17–27 from the earlier
chapters of Leviticus. These chiasms are important for both their artistry
18. Ibid., 244.

19. “On that day” (‫ )בעצם היום הזה‬as a temporal divider may also be used in the Pass-
over discussion in Exod 17:17, 41, 51; and in the circumcision of Abraham and Isaac in Gen
17:23, 26.
20. Noted in Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 237–38.
21. Ibid., 237–38, 244.
22. Hess observes that rites in all but the 3rd month in Emar 446 include activities
on multiple days (ibid., 243).
222 Chapter 5
Table 24. Temporal Subdivision Markers

Temporal Subdivision Markers in Leviticus 23
Verse/
Line Translation Comment
5 On the 14th day Subdivision for the Passover offering
6 On the 15th day Subdivision for the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 On the day Subdivision for the wave offerings
14 Until the very day Subdivision for the prohibition on eating grain until
the offering is complete
15 From the day Subdivision for the wheat wave offering
21 On that day Subdivision for the prohibition on work during the
ritual
27 10th day Subdivision for the Day of Atonement
28 On that day Subdivision for the prohibition of work on the Day of
Atonement
29 On that day Subdivision for the consequence of disobedience
30 On that day Subdivision for the consequence of disobedience
32 On the 9th day Subdivision for the prohibition on work
34 On the 15th day Subdivision for the Festival of Tabernacles
35 The 1st day Subdivision for the prohibition on work
36a Seven days Subdivision for the food offerings
36b On the 8th day Subdivision for a sacred occasion
39a On the 15th day Subdivision for the Festival of Yhwh
39b On the 1st day. . . . on Subdivision for the call to rest
the 8th day
40 On the 1st day Subdivision for the ritual of the four species
42 Seven days Subdivision for living in booths
Temporal Subdivision Markers in Emar 446
Verse/
2 On the 8th day Subdivision for general offerings
6 On the 14th day Subdivision for the offerings to Dagan
11 On that day Subdivision for the procession
18b On x day Subdivision for the procession
22b On that day Subdivision for the procession of dNIN.URTA
45 On the 15th day Subdivision for the dŠaggar ceremony
47b On that day Subdivision for the Diviner’s seed ceremony
53b On the next day Subdivision for the honorific ceremony
Table 24. Temporal Subdivision Markers (cont.)

Temporal Subdivision Markers in Emar 446 (cont.)
Verse/
58 On the 17th day Subdivision for the offerings to dNIN.KU.RA
59 On the 18th day Subdivision for the procession of dNIN.KU.RA
67 On the 19th day Subdivision for the procession
84 On the 7th day Subdivision for the circuit of Illila
84b On the 8th day Subdivision for the circuit of DINGERmeš
86 On the 14th day Subdivision for the Bugarātu Festival
87 On the 16th day Subdivision for the procession of dAštar-ṣarba
91 On the 17th day Subdivision for the procession of dBaʿal
96 On the 2nd day Subdivision for the honorific ceremony
100 On the 3rd day Subdivision for the Renewal of dDagan
102b On the 8th day Subdivision for procession of dḪalma
107b On the 9th day Subdivision for the procession of dBaʿal
118 On the 18th day Subdivision for the ḫiyaru of dBaʿal
and their theology. Leviticus 23 includes two examples, vv. 1–4 and 27–32,
which were detailed in chap. 3. Verses 1–4 have a large chiastic structure
(A B C D E X E′ D′ C′ B′ A′) linking the Sabbath to the annual festival calen-
dar. The chiasm’s center highlights the Sabbath as a sacred occasion, requir-
ing complete rest because it is the day of Yhwh. 23 A second large chiasm
occurs in vv. 27–32 in the form A B C D X D′ C′ B′ A′ with a central theme
of self-denial and a cessation from all work on the Day of Atonement.
Emar 446 includes a similar form of a large, multiline chiasm in lines
54–57. This passage explains the agricultural ritual prior to planting, with
the center featuring the lasting oath made to dDagan. The form of the chi-
asm is A B X B′ A′, as detailed below:
A They slaughter (a sacrifice) for dDagan (ritual activity)
B Perform an honorific ceremony
X By lasting oath
B′ Until they finish the honorific ceremony
A′ No one may go out to plant (ritual activity)
As shown in the lines above, the AA′ portions link activities with a ritual
connection. In A, the sacrifice is made to dDagan for the A′ activity of
planting. B and B′ are the honorific ceremony. The X center highlights the

224 Chapter 5
ritual activity of a lasting oath. The appearance of large chiastic structures

in both Lev 23 and Emar 446 corroborates the use of chiasms in ritual texts
by the 2nd millennium b.c.e. A study of other 2nd-millennium ancient Near
Eastern ritual texts (chap. 2) reveals chiasms as a common literary device.
Therefore, this similarity is considered a minor comparative point.
Small Chiasms
In addition to large chiasms covering multiple verses, Lev 23 includes
smaller parallel structures that appear within a single verse. As discussed
in chap. 3, these structures are identified in vv. 11, 41, 42. Similar to Lev 23,
Emar 446 contains parallel structures and small chiasms. Lines 45–46
exhibit a small A B B′ A chiasm depicting cattle barns and horse stables
written in parallelism (AA′). The text continues with the performance of
the slaughter prescribed in the BB′ positions. Lines 60–61 reveal a second
example, with AA′ referring to the offering (white sheep : bread and beer).
The BB′ sections pair two different constituents of the festival rites into a
parallel structure (nuppuḫannū men : men of the consecration-gift). A third
example occurs in lines 83–85 with an A B C A′ B′ C′ structure. AA′ refers
to the date (7th day : 8th day), BB′ repeats the word for circuit, and CC′
pairs two sets of gods (Illila : all the gods). This three-line parallel struc-
ture encompasses the entire ritual activity for the 4th month of the year
(dAdamma).
The analysis of Emar 446 supports the premise that both the Israelite
(Lev 23) and the Emarite multimonth festival calendars exhibit parallel lan-
guage and small chiastic structures within a ritual narrative format. While
parallel language and small chiastic structures are a shared feature, their
use is common in the ancient Near East, and their presence is unsurprising.
Therefore, the similarity is considered minor. The presence of chiasms and
parallel literary structures in Lev 23, Emar 446, and other 2nd-millennium
ancient Near Eastern texts confirms the deduction that chiasms should not
be used to support a late dating for Lev 23.
Inclusios and Refrains
While Lev 23 exhibits an inclusio in vv. 4 and 37 and a string of refrains
in vv. 2, 10, 24, 34, and 44, Emar 446 does not contain any equivalent struc-
tures. The lack of inclusios or refrains in Emar 446 is a possible point of
difference between the two texts. It is important to note that one of the
four columns of Emar 446 is missing, and other parts of the text are broken,
including lines at both the beginning and the end of the text. Therefore,
a definite conclusion about the omission of these features is not possible.
Diverse Lengths for Ritual Descriptions
A final similarity in textual structure is the length of the ritual descrip-
tions. Emar 446 allots vastly differing amounts of space to rituals in differ-
ent months. Ritual activities in the 1st month (SAG.MU) cover more than
99 lines, while activities in the 4th month (dAdamma) occupy only 3 lines.
Likewise, 1 rite to NIN.URTA in the 1st month encompasses at least 19
lines, while a rite for Adamma comprises a single line. Leviticus 23 also de-
votes unequal space to various festivals. Hess notes that the text takes 12
verses to record the Feast of Weeks while devoting only 2 verses (19 total
words) to the Feast of Trumpets. 24 Clearly, the length of ritual descriptions
varied by the 2nd millennium in West Semitic ritual texts. Furthermore, Lev
23’s use of diverse amounts of space to describe rituals preserves an early
West Semitic ritual tradition and should not be used as evidence of later
redaction. 25
Based on the similarities in the verbal analysis, organization, and liter-
ary structures, I contend that Lev 23 preserves an early, 2nd-millennium,
West Semitic festival tradition with regard to form and structure. While
I acknowledge that the two texts vary in their use of second- and third-
person point of view, I consider this difference to be less significant than
their similarities and believe that it may point to a later redaction.
Sacred Time
The discussion of ritual time is here divided into five sections: temporal
orientation, the day, the month, the year, and named and unnamed activ-
ities. Chapters 3 and 4 explored the ritual aspects of sacred time, and we can
now compare the texts with regard to these points.
Temporal Orientation
The texts’ most significant points of similarity in temporal orientation
are their use of temporal dividers and their use of the phrase “on that day”
as a standard temporal division (highlighting important aspects of a ritual
occurring on the same day as other ritual events). 26 Both texts also use a
similar general temporal formula (x month, on x day of the month) as a
header for festivals. However, both texts alter this formula occasionally.
The Day and References to Time of Day

The Israelite day depicted in the festival calendar of Lev 23 and the
Emarite day depicted in the festival calendar of Emar 446 portray the fol-
lowing comparable approaches to ritual time:
24. Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 246–47.

25. The diversity in line length was noted by Wagenaar and Wellhausen in chap. 2 as
justification for the redaction of Lev 23 in relation to similar biblical texts.
26. Ibid., 243. Hess notes that while both texts generally use the month to identify
time periods, Lev 23:15–16 references a relative time marker using an “earlier cultic time.”
226 Chapter 5
• Emar 446 depicts a day that begins in the morning with the sunrise.
The beginning of the day in Lev 23 is undetermined.
• Both calendars leave the time of the offerings and activities that
occur during the day unspecified—resulting in a minor similarity
between the texts.
• Both texts occasionally identify an activity that takes place in the
evening—when the ritual time calls for a deviation from the norm
(e.g., Emar 446, lines 47 and 98).
• Line 47 of Emar 446 records an evening ceremony in the middle of
the 1st month of a calendar that begins in the fall. Similarly, Lev 23
calls for a special ceremony (Day of Atonement) in the middle of the
7th month of a calendar that begins in the spring (beginning in the
evening). Thus, both cultures hold special evening ceremonies in the
middle of a fall month (minor point of similarity). 27
• The Emar calendar specifies an honorific ceremony in the evening
before a Festival to dDagan in the spring (line 98). Leviticus 23
specifies a Pesach ritual in the evening of the day before the Festival
of Unleavened Bread in the spring. While these two spring months
may not correlate exactly, both texts demonstrate the use of ritual
celebrations specific to the “evening.” Further, these evening rituals
were contiguous to separate, named festivals beginning the next
morning.
As discussed in chap. 2, Wagenaar argues that the reference to festivals that
begin in both the evening and the morning supports the conclusion that
Lev 23 exhibits a redactional history. According to Wagenaar, this history
started when the Israelite day began in the morning and continued through
an exilic time, when the day began in the evening. While some ritual activ-
ities in Lev 23 undoubtedly show a morning-to-morning orientation and
others an evening-to-evening, I reasoned in chap. 3 that the evening-evening
references constituted a break from the normal day and required a specific
mention. Likewise, Emar 446, while exhibiting a morning-morning orienta-
tion, includes the specific mention of evening-beginning rituals on the 15th
day of the 1st month and on the 2nd day of the month of Ḫalma. In addi-
tion, these evening-beginning rituals were often part of a festival complex—
combining multiple named rituals into a larger ritual (similar to Pesach and
the Festival of Unleavened Bread). The similarities between Lev 23 and
Emar 446 counter Wagenaar’s claim, and thus, I argue that: (1) the mention
of evening ritual activities and sacred time do not, in themselves, necessar-
ily indicate a redaction to the text or a change in temporal accounting of the
day from sunrise-sunrise to evening-evening; and (2) the temporal features
found in Lev 23 were already present in other West Semitic cultures by the
27. Ibid., n. 29. Hess discusses the indefinite dates used in the texts.
2nd millennium b.c.e. Therefore, dating Lev 23 to a 1st-millennium exilic

period based on the temporal orientation is unwarranted.
The Month and Ritual Activity Dates

When one examines Lev 23 in the context of the 2nd-millennium
Emarite multimonth festival calendar, the following similarities in festival
time appear:
• Both texts use a lunisolar calendar to determine the month. 28
• Both texts are multimonth ritual calendars—a significant finding,
because no other extant multimonth ritual calendars cover more
than two months. 29
• Both calendars tend to begin ritual celebrations at lunar-phase
breaks (63 percent in Lev 23 and 78 percent in Emar 446), although
this is not exclusively true in either calendar. 30
• Both texts hold their longest festivals during the full-moon phase of
the month (middle of the month).
• When a festival occurs at the new-moon phase of the month, both
calendars tend to limit its length to one or two days.
• Both texts occasionally record a one-day ritual meal on the day
before a primary festival, with a yearling lamb as the ritual sacrifice. 31
• Both texts tie some ritual activities to the agricultural calendar and
other ritual activities to the monthly fixed calendar within the same
text. 32
• Both calendars hold agriculturally based rituals on fixed dates. 33
• Both calendars describe, in different locations in the text, major rites
taking place on the same day. 34
With regard to an intratextual analysis of agriculturally based rites, Wage-
naar asserts (as shown in chap. 2) that the hosting of agricultural activities
on fixed dates points to the conclusion that Lev 23 experienced a history
28. This is a common occurrence in ancient Near Eastern rites and should be con-
sidered a minor comparative point.
29. The Ugaritic ritual text may be a second multimonth text (KTU 1.119). See our
earlier discussion in chap. 2 (p. 30).
30. This is a common feature of 2nd-millennium ritual texts in the ancient Near
East and discussed in chap. 2.
31. Hess agrees that Lev 23 and Emar 446 demonstrate adjoined rituals, which in-
clude elements tied to pastoral and settled cultures. Therefore, the presence of both
meat (pastoral) and grain (settled) offerings in a settled culture does not necessitate an
“evolutionary development for the biblical festival” (ibid., 249–50).
32. Hess notes that both calendars include ritual activities that occur on fixed dates
and on agriculturally dependent dates—within the same text (ibid., 243).
33. Ibid., 248.
34. Ibid., 245.
228 Chapter 5
of redaction. According to Wagenaar, the transformation began with a lo-

cal harvest festival held when crops ripened. Because the ripening of crops
occurred at different times in different areas, the community hosted these
local rituals at harvesttime and not on specific dates. As the society became
increasingly urbanized, the harvest connection diminished, and the ritual
dates became fixed. Wagenaar concludes that Lev 23 preserves an exilic-
urbanized version of the ritual celebration in which the tie to agriculture
was lost in favor of centralized locations and fixed dates (see chap. 2 for
more information). The evidence in Emar 446 challenges Wagenaar’s as-
sumption that celebrating agricultural rituals on fixed dates requires an ex-
ilic date (late). On the 15th day of the 1st month (fall) of the year, the text
prescribes an agricultural ritual for dŠaggar and dDagan. The rites involved
an offering for the draft animals and a planting ceremony that included
throwing seed onto the ground. While this ritual maintains an association
to agriculture, it occurs on a fixed date. Therefore, observing agricultural
rites on fixed dates does not demand a later redaction to the text or an exilic
origin. 35
Leviticus 23:34–36 and 39–43 relate rites beginning on the 15th day of the
7th month. The first festival is identified as the Feast of Booths and the sec-
ond as the Feast of Yhwh. However, both include many of the same rites.
That these festivals begin on the same day and yet are described in differ-
ent locations in the text has led most scholars to conclude that vv. 39–43
are a later redaction to the original text. Emar 446 (lines 8 and 45) also de-
scribes simultaneous festivals. Celebrations that included similar rites took
place on the 15th day of the same month for dDagan and dŠaggar. 36 These
examples from Lev 23 and Emar 446 lead Hess to propose that “a second
description of a ritual occurring on the same day or days as the first, and
positioned soon after the first description in a text, does not by itself neces-
sitate an editorial addition. Instead, this practice is now known and attested
in more than one West Semitic ritual calendar.” 37
The Yearly Calendar and New Year

The yearly calendars described in Emar 446 and Lev 23 share features
with other 2nd-millennium ancient Near Eastern texts. Both Lev 23 and
Emar 446 record the ritual activities of roughly a half-year period, support-
ing the finding that ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed the annual calen-
dar as two six-month units. Both texts also begin at or near the time of an
equinox (autumnal equinox for Emar and vernal equinox for Lev 23) with
35. Hess comes to the same conclusion (ibid., 248).

36. From Ugarit comes another example of rites described in various parts of the
same text (though seemingly out of chronological order). KTU 1.41 relates activities on
the 13th and 14th days of the month prior to a discussion of activities on the 6th day of
the month. Also discussed by Hess (ibid., 245).
37. Ibid., 246.
dominant agricultural festivals. 38 While Emar 446 does not use the term
“New Year” or “Head of the Year” (which may be lost due to the severe dam-
age to the first column of the text), the text gives prominent position to the
rites conducted in the 1st month. Both calendars maintain a dual six-month
ritual structure with rites, including agricultural and nonagricultural festi-
vals on fixed dates, clustered around the equinoxes.
Wagenaar argues that the dual six-month structure of the Babylonian
festival calendar and Lev 23 substantiates the late dating of Lev 23. However
I have shown that the dual six-month festival calendar was already present
in the 2nd-millennium calendar at Emar. Thus its presence in Lev 23 sup-
ports a 2nd-millennium West Semitic ritual tradition and not a late dating. 39
Named and Unnamed Rituals

The multimonth festival calendars of Lev 23 and Emar 446 refer to both
named and unnamed rites, and we see resemblances in the texts’ treatment
of these rituals as well as in the rituals themselves. These similarities, pre-
sented in chaps. 3–4 above, include the following:
• Both texts include named and unnamed rituals and festivals.
◦◦ Some unnamed rituals in both texts appear named in other texts.
◦◦ Some named rituals in both texts appear unnamed in other texts.
• Both texts preserve some ambiguity regarding dates.
• Both texts record similar rites occurring on the same day of the same
month (overlapping rituals).
• Both texts depict named rituals combined into larger ceremonies or
festival complexes.
• Both texts note that some ceremonies pair grain and drink offerings
into one rite.
The first similarity between the depiction of rites in Emar 446 and Lev 23 is
the naming of the festivals. Although many festivals, ceremonies, and ritu-
als in Lev 23 are named, the agricultural festivals in the 1st and 3rd month
remain unnamed. In the 1st month, the text records an anonymous agri-
cultural firstfruit celebration for the barley harvest on “the day after the
Sabbath-week” (v. 11). Exodus 23:16, however, identifies this first festival as
the “Festival of the Harvest” (‫)חג הקציר‬. A second unnamed firstfruits festival
38. Hess concludes, “[T]he important point for comparison is that the spring and
autumn provide the beginning and ending points for both Emar and Israel” (Multi-
Month Ritual,” 242). Hess also notes a similar practice in Hittite ritual texts (ibid., 237).
The presence of the equinoctial orientation in other 2nd-millennium ancient Near East-
ern texts may support a common ritual tradition for West Semitic texts. Furthermore,
the link between Emar and the Hittites may support a direct connection and should be
explored in later research.
39. In addition, the Akītu Festival was probably annual only during the 1st
millennium.
230 Chapter 5
is held seven weeks later for the wheat harvest. Again, Exodus (34:22) and
Numbers (28:26–31) identify this festival by the name “Festival of Weeks”
(‫)חג שבעת‬. The reverse practice is also apparent; Lev 23:26–32 names the
Day of Atonement, but the same ritual is nameless in Num 29:7–11.
The 2nd-millennium b.c.e. ritual text from Emar demonstrates a similar
practice. In Emar 446, a festival beginning on the 15th of the 1st month is
described but left unnamed. A contemporary text from Emar, Emar 375, de-
scribes the same festival with the name “Zukru Festival.” Thus we see that
the naming of a festival in one text while leaving the festival anonymous in
another preserves an early West Semitic practice and does not demonstrate
later redaction or authorial traditions.
A second point of similarity is that both texts preserve some aspect of
ambiguity in festival dates. In Lev 23:10–14, the anonymous firstfruit festi-
val of the barley harvest begins on the “day after the Sabbath-week.” Hess
argues that Emar 446 also contains an ambiguity in the date for the rite of
the 1st month. He concludes that in both Lev 23 and Emar 446 the ambigu-
ity is related to the uncertainty of the time of the harvest. 40
In comparing the rites in the texts, we find a third point of congruence—
the practice of overlapping similar rituals on the same day of the month.
Lines 11–21 and 22–40 in Emar 446 relate a procession complex of rituals for
d
NIN.URTA on the 15th day of the 1st month that includes a lamb offering,
a procession, a festival meal of bread and beer, the use of the divine axe, and
the sacrifice of a sheep. Line 22 divides the two passages with the temporal
marker “on that day.” The two Emar rituals on the 15th day are not identi-
cal: in the first, the entire population processes through the Amit gate and
then reenters the temple through the “primary gate.” The second ritual has
a procession, including an ox and six sheep (but not the general population),
that moves through the “main gate.” There follows a feast for the leader of
the people.
The performance of similar rituals for the same god resembles Lev 23:33–
36, 39–43, where the Festival of Tabernacles and Festival of Yhwh both in-
corporate living in booths, rest, and honoring Yhwh. Just as in Emar 446,
the festivals in Lev 23 differ slightly. The Festival of Yhwh gives a rationale
for living in booths and a specific call for native Israelites to do so; and its
participants rejoice with four species of leafy trees. The Festival of Taber-
nacles has a different name and includes a sacred assembly.
Most scholars argue that the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of
Yhwh are, in fact, the same festival. This conclusion derives from the no-
tion that two festivals cannot occur over the same time frame for the same
deity. Additionally, some scholars suggest that the description of overlap-
ping festivals should not be recorded in different parts of the same text.
The evidence from Emar refutes these points. First, Emar 446 includes two

examples of festivals by different names occurring at the same time for the
same deity. Second, Emar 446 narrates these overlapping festivals in differ-
ent places in the text. Based on the inclusion of overlapping rites in both
Lev 23 and Emar 446 and the internal differences between the Festival of
Tabernacles and the Festival of Yhwh in Lev 23, Hess argues that the coin-
cidence of these two rituals is not sufficient evidence (by itself ) to conclude
that the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Yhwh reveal a redac-
tional process. 41
As a fourth point of similarity, both Lev 23 and Emar 446 depict named
ritual activities that are combined into larger ceremonies or festival com-
plexes. In Lev 23:6–8, the Festival of Unleavened Bread includes the named
sacred assembly and food offerings. Leviticus 23:15–22 preserves the un-
named “Festival of Weeks” with its new grain offerings, wave offering,
burnt offering, drink offering, food offering, purification offering, sacrifice
of well-being, and sacred occasion. In Emar 446:47–57, the unnamed agri-
cultural ritual includes a named evening ceremony, an honorific ceremony
(kubādu), a grain offering, and a drink offering. Emar 446:86–94 describes
the following named rituals in the month of Marzaḫāni: the Bugarātu cer-
emony, a procession, a burnt offering, and the carrying of loaves. We find a
final example in Emar 446:96–119, during the month of dḪalma, detailing
the following named rituals: an honorific ceremony (kubādu), a drink offer-
ing, a burnt offering, the Day of Renewal of dDagan, and a procession. The
combining of named rituals into both named and unnamed festival com-
plexes does not by itself necessarily indicate textual redaction and/or a late
dating of the text—as Wagenaar maintains (see chap. 2 above). Therefore, I
contend that, based on the similarity in both texts, the combining of named
rituals into larger ceremonies and festivals represents an early West Semitic
practice.
The final similarity concerns the texts’ tendency to group grain and drink
offerings into parallel phrases for ritual activities—a practice common in
Lev 23 (vv. 13, 18, 37). Like Lev 23, Emar 446 pairs “bread and beer” as ritual
gifts in lines 21, 60, and 78. The specified type of drink contained in the
offering in the biblical text is usually wine, while the ritual gift at Emar is
usually beer. Despite these variations, which all fall within the range of
meanings for ‫שכר‬, the uses of grain and drink offerings are parallel in both
cultures and may support the conclusion that the pairing of grain and drink
offerings is an early West Semitic ritual practice.
Sacred Space
A comparison of depictions of sacred space in Lev 23 and Emar 446 re-
veals that the two texts shared a similar attitude. In chaps. 3–4, I identified
the following notable similarities:
41. Hess, Leviticus, 792; idem., “Multi-Month Ritual,” 245–46.

232 Chapter 5
• Both texts often leave the location of ritual activities unspecified.

• Both texts emphasize ritual activities over space.
• In both texts, sacred space is proximate to the deity.
• Neither text mentions details about the sacred space, such as altars,
sacrificial tables, or offering protocols.
One substantial difference concerns the stark contrast between the promi-
nence of processions in Emar 446 and their absence from Lev 23.
The first similarity regarding ritual space in Emar 446 and Lev 23 is that
the texts rarely identify the sacred space. In Emar 446, on the 15th day
of the 1st month the Diviner performs a ritual—throwing seed onto the
ground—in a location left unidentified (446:51–3). On the morning of the
next day, a complex of rituals is performed for dDagan that includes a ritual
slaughter, a kubādu ceremony/oath, and meat and cups of drink given to
the Diviner—all at an unnamed location (446:54–57). On the 8th day of
the 2nd month, dNIN.KUR conducts a procession, including a ritual meal
at an unnamed location (446:59–63). During the 3rd month, offerings of
meat, bread, and beer are given to dAdammatera at an indeterminate loca-
tion (446:77–78). On the 7th day of the 4th month, Illila conducts a proces-
sion at an unnamed place. On the next day, “all the gods” conduct a similar
procession at an unspecified location (446:83–85). During the middle of the
5th month, processions for dBaʿal, dAštarcarba, and dAštart occur at undes-
ignated areas. In addition, the Bugarātu ceremony occurs at an unspecified
place (446:86–91). Finally, in the 6th month, the Day of Renewal of dDagan
and the procession of dḪalma occur at undesignated locations (446:100,
104–5).
As discussed in chap. 3, many ritual activities in Lev 23 also occur at un-
specified locations. In the 1st month, the Feast of Unleavened Bread occurs
in the presence of Yhwh and the priest at an undesignated location. The
first and second firstfruit offerings are conducted at unidentified locations
before Yhwh. In the 7th month, the Feast of Tabernacles is conducted at an
area left unspecified. While this list is not exhaustive, it demonstrates that
both these multimonth ritual texts frequently leave the location of ritual
activities and the definition of sacred space unspecified.
Wagenaar (chap. 2) contends that the absence of information in Lev 23
regarding sacred space supports the conclusion that Lev 23 is a late creation
that relies on earlier festival texts. 42 The evidence from Emar, however,
demonstrates that a 2nd-millennium, stand-alone text also exhibits these
features. Therefore, the unspecified location of ritual activities should not
be used, on its own, to argue for a late dating of Lev 23 or for its dependence
on other festival or ritual texts.
42. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 90–100, 146–55.

A second point of similarity is that both texts allocate more space to re-
lating ritual activities and offerings than to describing the location of sa-
cred space (possibly because the early reader already knew the location).
Although the texts share this practice, we should be cautious about arguing
for a similarity based on a textual omission. Therefore, we must consider
this a minor point of similarity and give it less comparative weight.
A third point of similarity is that both texts may consider sacred any
space that was proximate to the deity. Emar 446 depicts several ritual activ-
ities throughout the six-month ritual calendar, and all are conducted in a
space near the image of the deity. This proximate sacred space often moves
with the image of the deity during a processional complex. Additionally, the
ritual activity occasionally occurs in the presence of the image of the deity
in a temple. Finally, the activity may occur in an unspecified location but in
the presence of the image of the deity. The common thread is that sacred
space is any space near the image of the deity.
Like Emar 446, Lev 23 may correlate the presence of Yhwh and sacred
space. Verse 17 reads that the people should “bring from your settlements an
elevation offering. . . . as firstfruits to Yhwh.” The passage goes on to clarify
that the priest acts as intermediary (v. 20) taking the wave offering from the
people and consecrating the offering “to Yhwh for the priest” (v. 21). This
example may imply a movement from the profane to the sacred: when the
priest waves the people’s profane crop in the presence of Yhwh, his action
alters the state of the grain from profane to sacred. The author prioritizes
the description of the action in these verses over the location. I propose
that sacred space in Lev 23 is any space that is near the presence of Yhwh
(as implied in Exod 3:5). We found an analogous concept of sacred space in
Emar 446. Because this similarity is attested throughout the ancient Near
East and is expected, it is given less analytical weight.
One possible dissimilarity between Emar 446 and Lev 23 centers on the
importance of processions in ritual complexes. The most frequent ritual
activity in the Emar multimonth calendar (and perhaps the central ritual),
occurring at least 12 times, is the procession complex for the god or goddess
of the festival. A review (discussed in the preceding chapter) of processional
activity reveals that in four of the six months the first festival activity is a
procession complex of the primary god or goddess. In the remaining two
festival months (dAnna and dḪalma), an honorific ceremony and an offer-
ing without a procession are first. Five of the six months include at least
one procession complex; dAnna (month 3) is the only month that does not
mention the complex. The 1st month (SAG.MU) appears to contain 5 pro-
cessions for different gods or goddesses, the largest number of procession
complexes in any month.
Leviticus 23 does not mention a procession as a part of any festival activ-
ity. However, the text does include four references to pilgrimage festivals
(‫)חג‬. In each description, the people of Israel conduct a pilgrimage to Yhwh
234 Chapter 5
(vv. 6, 34, 39, 41). The text identifies the pilgrimage festivals as the Feast
of Unleavened Bread (v. 6), the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 34), and the Feast
of Yhwh (vv. 39, 41). At the conclusion of each pilgrimage, the Israelites
provide offerings and conduct sacred assemblies. Similar to the procession
at Lagaš (see chap. 2), festivals in the 1st and 7th months of the year may
have included a procession of the people to Yhwh in order to conduct rit-
ual activities. Therefore, Lev 23 may indeed describe a procession, with the
people moving to the festival location rather than the god’s moving from
the temple to the people.
A second possible reason for the omission of a procession in Lev 23 is
the Israelite prohibition on making an image of Yhwh. A central aspect
of the procession in Emar 446 is the movement of the god’s image. Possi-
bly because the Israelites were commanded not to make an image of Yhwh
(Exod 20:4), the concept of a procession that included an image of Yhwh
was impractical.
The omission of a procession in Lev 23 may well constitute a difference
between the texts. While the possible dissimilarity regarding processions is
troubling, it is insufficient in itself to prove a lack of connection between
the two compared texts. Wagenaar argues that the recording of proces-
sions in the Babylonian festival calendar and Lev 23 supports a late dating of
Lev 23. However, I argue, based on the appearance of processions at Emar,
that the use of processions in the festival calendar already existed in the
2nd-millennium calendar and does not, by itself, support a late dating of
Lev 23.
In a discussion about sacred space, the omitted references are just as im-
portant as those that are included. The text at Emar does not specify any
items within the temple space. No altar or sacrificial slaughtering tables are
noted in conjunction with any ritual activity. In addition, the text assumes
the reader’s knowledge of the sacred space associated with the ritual meals
and leaves it unidentified.
Hess finds it significant that neither text refers to an altar. As discussed
in chap. 2, many commentators argue that the Passover celebration and the
Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate rituals (with the Pass-
over originating when Israel was a pastoral society and the Feast of Unleav-
ened Bread originating with the settled society). Typically, scholars endorse
this position because the lamb offering is burned by fire, with no indica-
tion of an altar. The evidence from Emar calls this conclusion into question.
Emar 446, like Lev 23, observes the roasting of a lamb (446:6, 22, 66) and the
offering of bread but makes no reference to an altar. Hess reasons that “the
combination of these elements in a festival celebrated by a settled West
Semitic people in the Late Bronze Age raises additional questions about
the degree of certainty that can be ascribed to the posited evolutionary de-
velopment of the biblical festival.” 43
43. Hess, “Multi-Month Ritual,” 249–50.

Finally, the text mentions neither the royal residence nor any administra-
tive palace. 44 Perhaps the king (appearing only once—Emar 446:117) and
the palace play only minimal roles in the concept of sacred space at Emar.
Leviticus 23 also mentions no altar, sacrificial slaughtering table, royal pal-
ace, administrative area, or specifics about any element contained within
sacred space. This similarity between the texts may point to the relative
lack of importance of such space or may assume that the reader already
knew those details. In either case, the parallels in the texts show that a West
Semitic multimonth calendar text about ritual activity existed by the 13th
century b.c.e. that left many aspects of sacred space unspecified. 45
Sacred Objects
The notable similarities between Lev 23 and Emar 446 that are identified
in chaps. 3 and 4 include:
• Both texts use agricultural objects to petition the gods/Yhwh for a
successful agricultural season. 46
• Both texts include meat offerings, cereal offerings, and drink
offerings—often combined into a festival complex.
• In both texts, the sacrificial meat offerings include lamb, sheep, and
cattle.
• In both texts, grain offerings and drink offerings are presented in
tandem.
• Both texts use ritual offerings as an offering to the god/Yhwh and as
a payment to festival officiants.
Both Lev 23 and Emar 446 use agricultural objects to petition the gods/
Yhwh for a successful agricultural season. Milgrom asserts that ritual ob-
jects like the four species of tree branches and the first grain of the harvest
are used to solicit Yhwh for adequate rain to support the upcoming agricul-
tural season (in addition to offering thanks for the current season). In the
Emar cult, using seed grain in a ritual may also have been intended to so-
licit support from dDagan for the upcoming agricultural year. 47 Hess finds
that the use of grain (and other similar ritual offerings) and warnings about
completing the ritual before proceeding to the next agricultural process are
44. Mentioning these locations may or may not be a significant similarity. How-
ever, the absence is noted despite an advanced urban society at Emar at the time of
composition.
45. This is not true of other ritual texts from Emar or in Leviticus.
46. Hess notes that, “while Emar’s focus on the period of sowing and planting may
suggest concern for divine support in guaranteeing the crop of that particular season,
Israel’s focus on the period of harvesting points in a different direction. It would suggest
that Israel recognized the harvest as given by God and emphasized divine ownership of
it” (ibid., 242).
47. Hess notes that both cultures emphasize agriculture and grain in ritual activities
(ibid.).
236 Chapter 5
significant. He concludes that this practice “betrays a common heritage re-

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

Ritual Roles of Participants

In considering the roles of deities and individuals in the multimonth fes-
tival calendars of both Lev 23 and Emar 446, we find the following points
of similarity:
• Both texts involve the general population in rituals and meals.
• Both texts refer to portions of offerings to be given as payments to
ritual officiants.
• Both texts minimize the role of the priesthood and king.
In both Lev 23 and the multimonth festival calendar at Emar, the general
population provides offerings and conducts rites. Examples from Lev 23 in-
clude the pilgrimage procession for the three pilgrimage festivals (Festival
of Unleavened Bread, Festival of Tabernacles, and Festival of Yhwh). In
addition, the Israelites are required to provide offerings to the deity (vv. 8,
11–14, 16–17, 25, 36, 40). While numerous illustrations exist, a sampling of
examples includes 23:12, where the Israelites supply a male lamb as a burnt
offering to Yhwh, and 23:19, where the Israelites arrange for a goat as a
purification offering. Finally, in 23:36, the Israelites prepare food offerings
for Yhwh for seven days. Similarly, in Emar 446, portions of the general
population are charged with furnishing offerings for ritual activities. In the
1st month (fall), the general population participates in the procession of
d
NIN.URTA, the ritual meal, and offerings (446:11–18). Emar 446:14 notes
that the nuppuḫannū men present a sheep for the offering. In line 78, the
nuppuḫannū men also contribute a sheep, bread, and beer as part of the rit-
ual and festival meal. Both texts focus on the role of the general population
and not the leadership or priesthood.
A second point of similarity exists in that both Lev 23 and Emar 446 de-
scribe a portion of offerings given to the officiant as payment for his ser-
vices. Emar 446:26, 28, 39, 44, 53, 64, 65, 82, 95, 102, and 116 depict the pay-
ment of ritual offerings to the Diviner. Ritual payments consist of meat,
bread, and cups of drink. The meat offerings include the breast, hide, head,
intestines, and fat. Similarly, Lev 23 mentions the priest’s receiving a portion
of the ritual offerings consecrated to Yhwh. Leviticus 23:10, 11, 20 refer-
ences the payment to the priest after he conducts the wave offering. Like
Emar 446, Lev 23:10, 11 notes that the wave offering brought to the priest
comprises meat, bread, and drink. Verse 20 further specifies that the meat
and bread (at a minimum) are “for the priest.” While not identical, the two
texts reflect, in their use of offerings in ritual sacrifice, a similar cultural
value regarding the role and rights of the priesthood.
A final point of comparison exists in that both texts downplay the roles
of the city leaders and the king. Emar 446 does not describe a central role for
either the leaders of the city or the king. Emar 446:29, 34, 38, 105 portrays
the city leadership as eating a meal (lines 29 and 38) and receiving payments
(lines 34, 105). But the text offers no illustrations of leaders’ participating
238 Chapter 5
in ritual activities or providing substantial sacrifices. Moreover, the text re-

fers to the king only once, in connection with receiving a payment (line 117).
Similarly, Lev 23 does not describe a role for the community leadership or
the king. In fact, the text remains silent on any potential involvement of the
leadership or the king and minimizes the described role of the priest.
Ritual Sound
When comparing the roles of ritual sound in the multimonth festival
calendars of Emar 466 and Lev 23, we find no significant points of similarity.
Leviticus 23 preserves two components related to ritual sound (trumpet
blasts and rejoicing) that occurred in the autumn. According to Milgrom
(chap. 3), both were intended to petition Yhwh for support during the com-
ing agricultural year. The reading of Emar 446, however, offers only one
possible example: the reciting of an oath during a seed ceremony, prior to
planting. As in the illustrations from Lev 23, the rite apparently functioned
as an appeal to the deity for support in the upcoming agricultural year.
These ritual elements reveal a point of difference between the two texts.
Connection between the Texts

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

equinoxes.
• Both texts tend to have longer festivals in the middle of the month
(full moon), with a seven-day duration being the most common.
• Both calendars describe, in different locations within the text, major
rites taking place on the same day.
Although we identified many other similarities (and several differences),
these nine points of comparison are significant because they are unex-
pected, and they represent aspects of ritual less frequently attested in other
ancient Near Eastern texts that were reviewed in chap. 2. Based on the
combined strength of these nine points and the substantive comparative
analysis, I conclude that a connection exists between Emar 446 and Lev 23.
The question then becomes, what is the nature of the connection? Again,
I refer to chap. 1, in which I cited Malul as proposing that the nature of a
connection can occur in two ways. First, the connection may be that the
author of one source relied on an earlier tradition. In the second option, the
author of a text is influenced by his awareness of another society’s cultural
practices, and he subsequently incorporates this life experience into the
later text. Because Emar was located along the Euphrates River (in modern
Syria), it seems unlikely that an Israelite author would have had direct ac-
cess to Emarite texts, which makes the second option more likely. 49
A related question arises with regard to the type of connection between
the texts. Above, we examined Malul’s four possible types of connection:
direct, mediated, common source, and common tradition (for a detailed
definition of each, see chap. 1). Because the two cultures probably did not
have direct contact with one another, we can eliminate a direct connection.
Similarly, because we cannot identify a common text known to both cul-
tures, we must also reject the common source type. This leaves a mediated
connection or common tradition as being the most feasible types of con-
nection. Because of a possible time gap between the two texts and because
of several West Semitic textual similarities dating to the 2nd millennium, I
reason that the texts probably share a common tradition—defined by Malul as
“two sources exhibiting similar traits which, after careful scrutiny, could be
attributed to a common tradition: literary, religious, legal, historiographic,
or any other.” 50
49. The distance between Jerusalem and Emar is approximately 375 miles.
Chapter 6
Conclusion
I set out to determine whether Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic

ritual tradition by using a comparative methodology to explore its poten-
tial relationship to Emar 446, a 2nd-millennium Akkadian text from Syria.
In this book, I considered several biblical texts (Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num
28–29; Deut 16; and Ezek 45) that describe the Israelite festival calendar.
The festivals depicted in these calendars share many features. However,
there are also differences. Some of the most frequently cited contrasts in
the Israelite festival calendars are fixed dates versus dates based on the har-
vest, local versus regional offering locations, and spring versus fall as the be-
ginning of the year. In addition, some accounts record agricultural offerings
prior to the ripening of the harvest; some texts mention two named rites
combined into a larger ritual complex; some calendars refer to the celebra-
tion of simultaneous rites in different parts of the same text; and some texts
name festivals that other texts leave unnamed. Some scholars explain these
textual differences as emerging from the different sources (authors/redac-
tors) that wrote the various calendars at different times in Israelite history.
The multimonth festival calendar in Lev 23 prescribes the ritual activ-
ities for the general population during the first seven months of the Israel-
ite spring calendar. Beyond the differences between biblical texts, Lev 23
contains several internal variations. For instance, even though the major-
ity of the text is written as a second-person direct dialogue, portions of
the text preserve third-person narrative. While the formula “x month on
x day” generally organizes the text, occasionally the word order varies, and
one example has no formula at all. And its literary structure allots varying
amounts of space to its ritual descriptions. As with the differences between
biblical texts, the internal tension in Lev 23 has led scholars to conclude
that the text underwent a long period of development, culminating in late
authorship.
In this book, I critique a recent attempt by Wagenaar to resolve these
points of tension. 1 Wagenaar argues that the biblical text, after a period of
oral tradition, was first written down by the Deuteronomist. A period of
transformation followed, resulting in the later Priestly writing and redac-
tion of Lev 23 that was directly influenced, during the Israelites’ exile, by
1. See chap. 2, pp. 55–78.
240
Conclusion 241
the 1st-millennium akītu Festival texts. I contest Wagenaar’s conclusion

that Lev 23 and the 1st-millennium Babylonian akītu Festival texts are sub-
stantially similar. Although the two texts do share a few similarities, the
purpose, ritual organization, and content exhibit multiple differences.
Moreover, I contend that Wagenaar may have made methodological errors
such as omitting the analysis of earlier comparative texts (thus creating a
circular argument for the late dating of Lev 23), failing to include a discus-
sion of textual differences and context, and comparing “incomparables.”
This book begins with a contextual analysis of 3rd- and 2nd-millennium
ritual texts (chap. 2). In my evaluation, I note that these early ritual calen-
dars held festivals in the 1st and 7th months (around the equinoxes), sup-
porting a two New Year’s Festivals. I found that these festivals most fre-
quently began in the middle of the month (full moon) and lasted for seven
days. And I observed the following characteristics, commonly mentioned
in 2nd-millennium ritual texts: early rituals combined named festivals into
larger festival complexes; festivals related to agriculture take place on both
fixed and variable dates; calendars usually begin in the spring with the cereal
harvest; and, though the time of day is often unspecified, the rites occasion-
ally end in the evening.
After reviewing the evidence from Lev 23 (chap. 3) and Emar 446 (chap. 4),
I found multiple points of similarity (and several differences) between the
texts with regard to structure and literary form as well as the roles of sacred
time, sacred space, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual sound. In
chap. 5, I subdivide these points of similarity into major points and minor
points. Major points are unexpected and therefore more significant in the
comparative analysis. Minor points, while expected, aid in confirming that
the features found in Lev 23 preserve an early West Semitic ritual tradition.
But despite the similarities determined in this book, we must remember
that two distinct cultures produced Emar 446 and Lev 23, and as a result,
their rituals originate from unique contexts. Consequently, incongruities
are not simply understandable but are to be expected. The two cultures un-
derstood deities in different ways—one monotheistically, the other poly-
theistically. Theologically, Emar used the image of the god in ritual, while
Israel’s god, Yhwh, had no image. The two cultures practiced procession in
different ways. Regardless of these specific contextual differences, essential
aspects of both texts share concepts and praxis of form, structure, sacred
time, sacred space, sacred objects, and ritual participants.
I have found that many of the points identified by scholars as internal
discrepancies in Lev 23 and used as evidence of later redaction are actually
evident in a 2nd-millennium ritual calendar at Emar. Therefore, I argue that
Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic ritual tradition from the Late Bronze
Age.
In addition to the primary argument, this book makes the following
contributions:
242 Chapter 6
• The investigation of Lev 23 expands on Klingbeil’s ritual

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

3. See chap. 2 above (pp. 55–78).
4. Hess, “Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars,” 233–53.
Conclusion 243
a form of contextual comparison. With these two methodologies in mind, I

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

Bibliography
Adams, Robert McC. Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Adamthwaite, Murray R. Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms, and Socio-
Political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town. ANESSup 8. Louvain:
Peeters, 2001.
Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narrative: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Trans-
lated by Y. Lotan. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
Arnaud, Daniel. Recherches au pays d’Aštata: Emar VI. Textes sumériens et accadiens
planches 2. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985.
_______. “Religion assyro-babylonienne.” Annuaire: École pratique des hautes études; Ve
section—sciences religieuses 96 (1987–88): 174–78.
_______. “Les texts d’Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze Récent.” Syria 52
(1975): 87–92.
Astour, Michael C. “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu.” UF 11 (1979): 13–28.
_______. “Who Was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?” Pages
25–56 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late
Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
Averbeck, Richard E. “Sumer, the Bible, and Comparative Method.” Pages 88–125
in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark W.
Chavals and K. Lawson Younger. JSOTSup 341. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2002.
Bar-On, Shimon. “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–
26.” VT 48 (1998): 161–95.
_______. “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27.” ZAW 107 (1995): 107–31.
Beckman, Gary. “Emar and Its Archive.” Pages 1–12 in Emar: The History, Religion,
and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by M. W. Chavalas.
Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Inter
testamental and Patristic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Beitzel, Barry J. “From Ḫarran to Imar along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The
Evidence from the Archives Royales de Mari.” Pages 209–19 in Biblical and Near
Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by G. A. Tuttle.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.
Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009.
Belmonte, J. A. “Zur Lesung und Deutung von ina sila.lím ar-ba in Emar-Texten.”
NABU (1997): 82–83.
Berger, Klaus. Manna, Mehl und Sauerteig: Korn und Brot im Alltag der frühen Christen.
Stuttgart: Evangelische Gesellschaft, 1999.
Besters, A. “‘Israel’ et ‘Fils d’Israel’ dans les livres historiques (Genèse–II Rois),” RB
74 (1967): 5–23
Beyer, Dominique. “Jardins sacrés d’Emar au Bronze Récent.” Pages 11–19. in Nature
et paysage dans la pensée et l’environnement des civilizations antiques. Edited by Gé-
rard Siebert. Paris: de Boccard, 1996.
244
Bibliography 245
Bidmead, Julye. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in
Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias, 2002.
Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akka-
dian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible.
New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_______. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Li-
brary of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.
Block, Dan. “‘Israel’ – ‘Sons of Israel’: A Study in Hebrew Eponymic Usage.” SR 13
(1984): 301–26.
Blum, E. “Das sog. ‘Privilegrecht’ in Exodus 34:11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches?” Pages 347–66 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-
Reception-Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Peeters,
1996.
Brereton, Joel P. “Sacred Space.” Pp. 526–35 in vol. 12 of ER.
Britton, John P. “Calendars, Intercalations and Year-Lengths in Mesopotamian As-
tronomy.” Pages 115–32 in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient
Near East. Edited by John M. Steele. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007.
Bunnens, Guy. “Emar on the Euphrates in the 13th Century b.c.: Some Thoughts
about Newly Published Cuneiform Texts.” AbrN 27 (1989): 23–36.
Çagirgan, Galip. Babylonian Festivals. Ph.D. Dissertation. Birmingham: University
of Birmingham, 1976.
Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introduc-
tions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Cantrell, Deborah O’Daniel. The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic
Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.). HACL 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2011.
Charpin, Dominique. “Mari et le calendrier d’Ebla.” RA 76 (1982): 1–6.
Chavalas, Mark W. “Ancient Syria: A Historical Sketch.” Pages 1–22 in New Horizons
in the Study of Ancient Syria. Edited by Mark Chavalas and John Hayes. BMes
25. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1992.
_______. “Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A Century and a Half of Tension.” Pages
21–67 in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark
W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002.
Cholewiński, Alfred. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Einevergleichende Studie.
Analecta Biblica 66. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976.
Clines, David J. A. “The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel
Reconstructed.” JBL 93 (1974): 22–40.
Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MD: CDL,
1993.
Cohen, Yoram. The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. HSS
59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Cohen, Yoram, and Lorenzo d’Alfonso. “The Duration of the Emar Archives and
the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the City.” Pages 3–25 in The City
of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society: Pro-
ceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.–26.04.2006. Edited by Lorenzo
d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Sürenhagen. AOAT 349. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2008.
246 Bibliography
Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. AARSR 23. Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
Cross, Frank M. “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the Re-
construction of Early Israelite Institutions.” Pages 13–39 in The Poet and the
Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism. Edited by Richard
Elliot Friedman. HSS 26. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Der Exodus als Heiligung: Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeu-
tung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Pages 117–29 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited
by E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
ener Verlag, 1990.
Dahl, Gudrun, and A. Hjort. Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Econ-
omy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2. Stockholm: University of
Stockholm, 1976.
Dalman, Gustof. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, vol. 7: Das haus, hühnerzucht, taubenzucht,
bienenzucht. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1939.
Daube, David. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. All Souls Studies 2. London: Green-
wood, 1979.
Davies, Philip R. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” JSOTSup 148. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1992.
Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological
Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s
Replies. Translated by Thomas J. McCormack. Chicago: Open Court, 1906.
Dietrich, Manfried. “Das Einsetzungsritual der Entu von Emar (Emar VI/3, 369).”
UF 21 (1989): 47–100.
Durand, Jean-Marie. “Review of Daniel Arnaud, Emar VI: 1–3.” RA 83 (1989): 163–91.
_______. Texts administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari. ARMT 21. Paris:
Geuthner, 1983.
Durand, Jean-Marie, and Michaël Guichard. “Les rituels de Mari.” Pages 19–78 in
Florilegium marianum III. Edited by Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Du-
rand. Paris: SEPOA, 1997.
Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Carol Cos-
man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Wil-
lard R. Trask. New York: Harvest, 1987.
Elias, Norbert, and Edmund Jephcott. Time: An Essay. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966.
Engnell, Ivan. A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament. Translated and ed.
J. T. Willis and H. Ringgren. Nashville: University of Vanderbilt Press, 1969.
Evans, Carl D. “Judah’s Foreign Policy from Hezekiah to Josiah.” Pages 157–78 in
Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans,
William W. Hallo, and John B. White. PTMS 34. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.
Falk, Zeʾev W. “Review of Reuven Yaron, The Laws of Eshnunna.” Bib 51 (1970): 130–
33.
Farber, Walter. “Kultische Rituale.” Pages 212–22 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten
Testaments: Orakel Rituale, Bau- und Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete. Edited
by O. Kaiser et al. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1991.
Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and
Meaning. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Bibliography 247
Feliu, Lluís. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Translated by Wilifred G. E. Watson.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Finesinger, Sol B. “The Shofar.” HUCA 8 (1931–2): 193–228.
Finkbeiner, Uwe. The Archaeological Park Emar-Bali. Aleppo, 2010.
_______. “Emar 1999: Bericht über die 3. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Aus-
grabungen: Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura, Betina Faist, Uta König, Ferhan
Sakal und Frank Starke.”BaghM 32 (2001): 41–120. 
grabungen: Mit Beiträgen von Hala Attoura und Wendy Eixler und unter Mi-
tarbeit von Ferhan Sakal.” BaghM 33 (2002): 109–46. 
grabungen.” BaghM 34 (2003): 9–117. 
Fischer, Loren R. “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit.” HTR 63 (1970): 485–86.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Fleming, Daniel E. “The Emar Festivals: City Unity and Syrian Identity.” Pages 81–
121 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze
Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
_______. “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron.” Pages 222–50 in Mesopota-
mia and the Bible. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
_______. “Household and Community Religion in Syria.” Pages 37–59 in Household
and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. Mal-
den, MA: Blackwell, 2008.
_______. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian
Religion. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
_______. “The Israelite Festival Calendar and Emar’s Ritual Archive.” RB 106 (1999):
8–34.
_______. “Reading Emar’s Scribal Traditions against the Chronology of Late Bronze
History.” Pages 27–43 in The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires:
History, Landscape, and Society: Proceedings of the Konstanz Emar Conference 25.–
26.04.2006. Edited by Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Yoram Cohen, and Dietrich Süren-
hagen. AOAT 349. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008.
_______. “The Rituals from Emar: Evolution of an Indigenous Tradition in Second-
Millennium Syria.” Pages 51–62 in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria.
Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and John Hayes. BMes 25. Malibu, CA: Undena,
1992.
_______. Time at Emar: Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive. Mes-
opotamian Civilizations 11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Frazer, James. The Golden Bough. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1935.
Gallagher, Jan. Emar: A Study of a Crossroads City. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew Union
College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1998.
Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L.
Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
George, Andrew R. Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.
George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 2.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das dritte Buch Mose Leviticus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993.
_______. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1996.
248 Bibliography
Geyer, B. “Une ville aujourd’hui engloutie: Emar. Contribution géomorphologique à

la localization de la cite.” MARI 6 (1990): 107–19.
Gilders, William K. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient
Israelite Festival Calendar.” JHS 6 (2006). www.jhsonline.org/jhs.
Ginsberg, Harold L. “The Grain Harvest Laws of Lev. 9–22 and Num. 28:26–31.”
Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 46–47 (1979–80): 141–53.
_______. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theolog-
ical Seminary of America 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982.
Gorman, Frank H. The Ideology of Ritual Space: Time and Status in the Priestly Theology.
JSOTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Götze, A., ed. Die Annalen des Muršiliš. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933.
Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old
Testament. VTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS. Locust Valley, NY:
Augustin, 1975.
_______. “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival.” Pages 160–70 in Actes de la XVIIe Ren-
contre Assyriologique Internationale. Edited by André Finet. Hamsur-Heure:
Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970.
Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
_______. On the Bible and Judaism: A Collection of Writings. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1985.
[Hebrew]
Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Introduction.” Pages 1–14 in Essential Papers on Israel and
the Ancient Near East. Edited by F. E. Greenspahn. New York: New York Uni-
versity Press, 1991.
Grimes, Ronald L. Beginnings in Ritual Studies. 3d ed. Waterloo, ON: Ritual Studies
International, 2010.
_______. Research in Ritual Studies: A Programmatic Essay and Bibliography. ATLA Bib-
liography Series 14 London: Scarecrow, 1985.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. BRL J 10. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Güterbock, Hans G. “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II.”
JCS 10 (1956): 41–68, 75–98, 107–30.
_______. “Religion and Kultus der Hethiter.” Pages 54–73 in Neuere Hethiterforschung.
Edited by G. Walser. Historia Einzelschriften 7. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner,
1964.
Haas, Volkert. “Betrachtungen zur Rekonstruction des hethithischen Frujahr
festes.” ZA 78 (1988): 284–98.
_______. Hethitische Berggotter und hurritische Steindämonen: Riten, Kulte und Mythen.
Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 10. Mainz: von Zabern, 1982.
_______. Der Kult von Nerik: Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.
Halbe, J. “Erwägungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massotfestes.” ZAW 87 (1975):
324–46.
Hallo, William W. “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual
Approach.” Pages 1–26 in Scripture in Context, vol. 1: Essays on the Comparative
Method. Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White. PTMS
34. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.
_______. “Compare and Contrast: the Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature.”
Pages 1–29 in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context
Bibliography 249
III. Edited by William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mat-
tingly. ANETS 8. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990.
_______. COS, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
_______. “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach,”
HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18.
_______. “Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics.” Pages 1–12 in Perspectives in Jewish
Learning 5. Edited by Byron L. Sherwin. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica,
1973.
_______. “The Road to Emar.” JCS 18 (1964): 57–88.
Hanson, P. D. “Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Near Eastern Environment.” RB 78
(1971): 31–58.
Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.
Hayes, E. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite
Festival Calendar.” JSOT 31 (2007): 204.
Herrmann Siegfried. “Exodusmotiv: I Altes Testament.” Pp. 732–37 in vol. 10 of
TRE.
Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Baker, 2007.
_______. Leviticus. Rev. ed. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland.
EBC 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
_______. “Multiple-Month Ritual Calendars in the West Semitic World: Emar 446
and Leviticus 23.” Pages 233–53 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reasessing
Methodologies and Assumptions. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Mil-
lard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
_______. “Occurences of Canaan in Late Bronze Age Archives of the West Semitic
World.” Pages 365–372 in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the
Ancient Near East. Edited by S. Izre'el, I. Singer, and R. Zadok. IOS 18. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998.
Hieke, Thomas. “Review of Jan Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient
Israelite Festival Calendar.” RBL 9 (2006). www.bookreviews.org.
Hiller, D. R. “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Reli-
gion.” JQR 75 (1985): 256–69.
Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tra-
dition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hoffner, Harry A. Alimenta Hethaeorum: Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. AOS
55. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1974.
Huehnergard, John. “Emar Texts.” Pages 239–40 in vol. 2 of OEANE.
_______. “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar.” RA 77 (1983): 11–43.
_______. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
_______. “Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts from Emar.” Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Oriental Society, Chicago.
March 1988.
Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the
Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: Gabalda,
1982.
Ikeda, Jun. A Linguistic Analysis of the Akkadian Texts from Emar: The Administrative
Texts. Ph.D. dissertation. Tel-Aviv University, 1995.
Imparati, F. “‘Signori’ e ‘figli del re.’” Or 44 (1975): 80–95.
James, Edwin O. Seasonal Feasts and Festivals. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962.
Jaubert, A. La date de la cène. Paris: Gabalda, 1957.
250 Bibliography
Jenson, Phillip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World.
JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.
Jong, T. de, and W. H. van Soldt. “Redating an Early Solar Eclipse Record (KTU
1.78): Implications for the Ugaritic Calendar and for the Secular Accelerations
of the Earth and Moon.” JEOL 30 (1987–88): 65–77.
Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational
Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. New York: Brill, 1996.
Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax, Para-
digms and Indices. SubBi 14/2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003.
Košak, S. “The Hittite Nuntarrijashas-Festival (CTH 626).” LB 16 (1976): 55–64.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile.
Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Jerusalem: Sefer veSefel, 2003.
Kellerman, Galina. “Towards the Fuller Interpretation of the Purulli-Festival.”
Slavica Hiersosolymitana 5–6 (1981): 35–46.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966.
_______. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. Liver-
pool: Liverpool University Press, 1962.
Klengel, H. “Die Keilschrifttexte von Meskene und die Geschichte von Aštarte/
Emar.” OLZ 83 (1988): cols. 645–53.
Klingbeil, Gerald A. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRSup 1.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
_______. A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and
Emar 369: Ritual Times, Space, Objects and Action. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen,
1998.
Klostermann, August. Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entste
hungschichte. Leipzig: Deichert, 1907.
Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Koch, Klaus. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungs
geschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. FRLANT 53. Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
Körting, Corinna. Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Fests im Herbst. BZAW 285. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1999.
Kramer, Samuel N. “The Death of Gilgamesh.” BASOR 94 (1944): 2–12.
Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the
Hexateuch. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886.
Kutsch, Ernst. “‘Am Ende des Jahres’: Zur Datierung des israelitischen Herbstfestes
in Ex 23 16.” ZAW 83 (1971): 15–21.
_______. “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes.” ZTK
55 (1958): 1–35.
Labat, Rene. Manuel d’Épigraphie Akkadienne: Signs, Syllabaire, Idéogrammes. Paris:
Geuthner, 1988.
Lambert, Wilfred G. “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The
Conflict in the Akitu House.” Iraq 25 (1963): 189–90.
Langdon, Stephen H. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars. London: Ox-
ford University Press, 1935.
Leemans, W. F. “Aperçu sur les texts juridiques d’Emar.” JESHO 31 (1988): 207–42.
Bibliography 251
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith.

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

Meskéné-Emar (1972–1973).” AAAS 25 (1975): 73–93.
Margueron, Jean-Claude, and Marcel Sigrist. “Emar.” Pages 236–39 in vol 2 of
OEANE.
Mayer, W. “Eine Urkunde über Grundstuckskaufe aus Ekalte/Tall Munbaqa.” UF 24
(1992): 263–74.
McClellan, Thomas L. “Houses and Households in North Syria during the Late
Bronze Age.” Pages 29–59 in Les maisons dans la Syrie antique du IIIe millénaire
aux débuts de l’Islam. Edited by Corinne Castel, Michel al-Maqdissi, and Fran-
çois Villeneuve. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archeologie du Proche-Orient,
1997.
McLaughlin, John L. “The marzēaḫat Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study.” UF
23 (1991): 265–81.
Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Richard Hess. Biblical
Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Millard, Alan R. “History and Legend in Early Babylonia.” Pages 103–10 in Windows
into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel.”
Edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
_______. “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Texts.” Pages 43–58 in
Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and D. J. Wise-
man. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980. [Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Ei-
senbrauns, 1983.]
_______. “The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology for Understand
ing the History of Israel: Some Examples.” Pages 9–25 in Israel: Ancient King-
dom or Late Invention? Edited by Daniel I. Block. Nashville: Broadman & Hol-
man, 2008.
Miller, Patrick D., Jr. “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit.” Pages 53–66 in Ancient Is-
raelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller
Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Monson, John M. “Contextual Criticism as a Framework for Biblical Interpreta-
tion.” Pages 25–55 in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Edited by Daniel
I. Block. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008.
Moor, Johannes C. de. New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Kamper Cahier 21–22.
Kampen: Kok, 1972.
________. The Seasonal Patterns in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu according to the Verson of
Ilimilku. AOAT 16. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: But-
zon & Bercker, 1971.
Morgan, Donn F. The So-Called Cultic Calendars in the Pentateuch: A Morphological and
Typological Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Claremont University, 1974.
Morgenstern, Julian. “The Book of the Covenant.” HUCA 33 (1962): 59–105.
Muntingh, L. M. “Second Thoughts on Ebla and the Old Testament.” Pages 157–75
in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham. Edited by
W. Claassen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Niccacci, Alviero. “On the Hebrew Verbal System.” Pages 117–37 in Biblical Hebrew
and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: Summer Insti-
tute of Linguistics, 1994.
Bibliography 253
Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Well-
hausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Nilsson, Martin P. Primitive Time-Reckoning. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1920.
Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadel-
phia: Westminster, 1962.
_______. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated with an introduction by
Bernhard W. Anderson. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
_______. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. London: SCM, 1984.
_______. Leviticus: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Translated by J. E. Anderson. OTL. Phil-
adelphia: Westminster, 1977.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Rev. ed. by
Erica Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea
of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 1958.
Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syn-
tactic Structures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989.
Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBLWAW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2002.
Parker, Richard A. Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1950.
Parker, Simon B. “Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology.” Maarav
2 (1980): 7–41.
Parkin, David. “Ritual as Spatial Direction and Bodily Division.” Pages 11–25 in Un-
derstanding Rituals. Edited by Daniel de Cooper. London: Routledge, 1992.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. HSS 49.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Pitard, Wayne T. “The Archaeology of Emar.” Pages 13–23 in Emar: The History,
Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W.
Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
_______. “Care for the Dead at Emar.” Pages 123–40 in Emar: The History, Religion,
and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas.
Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
Platvoet, Jan. “Ritual in Plural and Pluralist Societies.” Pages 25–51 in Pluralism and
Identity: Studies in Ritual Behavior. Edited by Jan Platvoet and Karel van der
Toorn. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.
Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in
Assyrian politics.” Pages 245–52 in Assyria 95: Proceedings of the 10th Anniver-
sary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Edited by Simo Parpola
and Robert Whiting. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997.
Pope, Marvin H. “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit.” Pages 159–79 in Ugarit in Ret-
rospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Edited by Gordon D. Young. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Rad, Gerhard von. “Verheiseneß Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch,” ZDPV 66
(1943): 191–204.
Reed, S. A. “Bread.” Pages 777–80 in vol. 1 of ABD.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift: Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuch
ung. FRLANT44. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Formgeschichtlichuntersucht. WMANT
6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961.
254 Bibliography
Ringgren, Helmer. “Israel’s Place among the Religions of the Ancient Near East.”
Pages 1–8 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Roberts, J. J. M. “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” Pages 89–96 in The
Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Douglas Knight and Gene
Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Rochberg-Halton, Francesca. “Calendars, Ancient Near East.” Pages 810–14 in vol. 1
of ABD.
Rofé, Alexander. “Methodological Aspects of the Study of Biblical Law.” Pages 1–16
in Jewish Law Association Studies. Edited by B. S. Jackson. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986.
Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000.
Sachs, Abraham J. “Akkadian Rituals.” Pages 331–45 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Re-
lating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969.
Sallaberger, W. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit: Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie
und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993.
Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13.
Sarna, Nahum M. “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Mem in Biblical
Hebrew.” JBL 78 (1959): 310–16.
Sasson, Jack M. “The Calendar and Festivals of Mari during the Reign of Zimri
Lim.” Pages 119–41 in Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones. Edited by Makvin A.
Powell Jr. and Ronald H. Sack. AOAT 203. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1979.
Schechner, Richard. “The Future of Ritual.” JRitSt 1/1 (1987): 5–33.
Schmidt, Brian B. “The Gods and the Dead of the Domestic Cult at Emar.” Pages
141–63 in Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in Late Bronze
Age. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996.
Schmitt, H. C. “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Kom-
position der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages
157–71 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten
Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2002.
Scott, William R. The Booths of Ancient Israel’s Autumn Festival. Ph.D. dissertation.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Selman, Martin J. “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age.” Pages 93–128 in
Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and D. J. Wise-
man. Leicester: IVP, 1980. [Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.]
Seminara, Stefano. L’accadico di Emar. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma, “La Sa-
pienza,” 1998.
Sharlach, T. M. “Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court.” JCS 57
(2005): 17–30.
Singer, Itamar. “Towards the Image of Dagon the God of the Philistines.” Syria 69
(1992): 431–50.
Skaist, Aaron. “The Chronology of the Legal Texts from Emar.” ZA 88 (1998): 45–71.
Smith, Morton. “East Mediterranean Law-Codes of the Early Iron Age.” ErIsr 14
(1978; Ginsberg Volume) 38–43.
Smith, Robertson W. The Religion of the Semites. New York: Schocken, 1972.
Soden, W. von. “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, dass die Babylonier an die Wiederaufer-
stehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” ZA 51 (1955): 130–66.
Bibliography 255
Soggin, J. A. “Ancient Israel: An Attempt at a Social and Economic Analysis of the

Available Data.” Pages 201–8 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic
Studies for F. C. Fensham. Edited by W. Claassen. JSOTSup 48. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1988.
_______. “The History of Ancient Israel: A Study in Some Questions of Method.”
ErIsr 14 (1978; Ginsberg Volume) 44–55.
Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Back-
ground Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.
Sproul, Barbara C. “Sacred Time.” Pages 535–44 in vol. 12 of ER.
Stackert, Jeffrey. “Leviticus.” Pages 573–81 in vol. 1 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the
Books of the Bible. Edited by Michael Coogan. 2 vols. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2011.
Steele, John M. “The Length of the Month in Mesopotamian Calendars of the First
Millennium bc.” Pages 133–48 in Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the
Ancient Near East. Edited by John M. Steele. Oxford: Oxbow, 2007.
Stern, Sacha. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. LLJC. Portland: Littman Library of
Jewish Civilization, 2007.
Stewart, David T. “A Brief Comparison of the Israelite and Hittite Festival Calen-
dars.” Pages 2076–80 in Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, by Jacob Milgrom. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation:
Principles and Problems.” Pages 320–56 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977.
VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
_______. Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content—Collected Studies. Jeru-
salem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill, 1993.
_______. “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Look.” Pages 321–40 in Qumran
and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank M. Cross and S. Talmon.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Ar-
chaeological Sources. SHANE 4. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
_______. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. BZAW 133. New York: de Gruy
ter, 1974.
_______. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic
Books, 1999.
_______. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 55. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1987.
Thureau-Dangin, F. Ritual Accadiens. Paris: Leroux, 1921.
Tolkovsky, Shaul. The Fruit of the Hadar Tree. Jerusalem: Bialik Insititute, 1966. [He-
brew]
Toorn, Karel van der. “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the
Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” Pages 331–44
in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Boston:
Brill, 1991.
_______. “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest.” Phoenix 36 (1990): 10–29.
_______. “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugarit Texts and in the Bible.”
BO 48 (1991): 40–66.
_______. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.
Tsukimoto, Akio. “Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collection (I).”AcS 12 (1990):
177–259.
256 Bibliography
Turner, Victor W. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1974.
_______. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1957.
Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1975.
_______. “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot.” ZAW
95 (1983): 167–82.
_______. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Verderame, L. “Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 1–13.” Pages 447–57 in Under One Sky: As-
tronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Steele and
A. Imhausen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.
Viberg, Ake. Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old
Testament. ConBOT 34. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992.
Wagenaar, Jan. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
_______. “Passover and the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread in the
Priestly Festival Calendar.” VT 54 (2004): 250–68.
_______. “Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations: The First Month of the Year and the
Date of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” ZAW 115 (2003):
3–24.
_______. “The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Years Festivals:
Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year.” Pages 218–
52 in The Old Testament in Its World. Edited by R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor.
OtSt 52. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006.
Watts, James W. “The Rhetoric of Ritual Instruction.” Pages 79–100 in The Book of
Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A.
Kugler. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Scholars Press Reprints and
Translations Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the
Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
_______. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient
Near Eastern Background.” Pages 95–129 in Proceedings of the Eighth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Session A: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language.
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983.
_______. “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shilo, Bethel and in Jerusalem.” Pages 455–72 in
Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten
Testament. Edited by B. Janowski et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1990.
Wenham, Gordon. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1979.
_______. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. Studies in Theological Inter-
pretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012.
Bibliography 257
Werner, Peter. Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nordysrien und Südostkleinasien

vom Neolithikum bis in das I. Jt. V. Chr. Munich: Profil, 1994.
Wessely, Naphtali H. Netivot Ha-Shalom, vol. 3: Leviticus. Edited by M. Mendels-
sohn. Vienna: von Schmid and Busch, 1846.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands
Museum, Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets. CM 13. Groningen: Styx, 2000.
Weyde, Karl W. The Appointed Festivals of Yhwh: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23
and the Sukkot Festival in Other Biblical Texts. FAT 2/4. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2004.
Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Wright, David P. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retali-
ation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Wyatt, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. The Bib-
lical Seminar 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Yamada, Masamichi. “Division of a Field and Ninurta’s Seal: An Aspect of the Hit-
tite Administration in Emar.” UF 25 (1993): 453–60.
Zadok, Ran. “Notes on the West Semitic Material from Emar.” AION 51 (1991):
113–37.
Zohary, Michael A. Plants of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Zimmerli, Walther. “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezekiel: Ein Beitrag
zum Problem an Hand von Ex. 14: 1–11.” ZAW 66 (1954): 1–26.
Index of Authors
Adams, R. McC. 68, 70 Durand, J.-M. 161, 184, 186

Adamthwaite, M. R. 144 Durkheim, É. 14, 17
Albright, W. F. 4
Alexander, T. D. 1 Eliade, M. 16, 17, 121
Amit, Y. 15, 89, 90 Elias, N. 108
Arnaud, D. 142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 152, Elliger, K. 65, 66, 87, 91, 94, 136
153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162,
163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 175, 189, Falk, Z. 5
200, 206, 213 Farber, W. 36
Astour, M. C. 147 Feder, Y. 2
Averbeck, R. E. 9, 10, 218, 242 Feliu, L. 199
Finesinger, S. B. 136
Bar-On, S. 58, 82 Finkbeiner, U. 142, 144, 201, 203, 217
Beckman, G. 141, 142 Fischer, L. R. 31
Beckwith, R. T. 105, 106, 107 Fleming, D. E. 22, 86, 141, 143, 144,
Beitzel, B. J. 141 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153,
Bell, C. 14, 15 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,
Belmonte, J. A. 164 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
Beyer, D. 186 168, 169, 171, 177, 178, 181, 182,
Bidmead, J. 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 72, 74, 184, 186, 188, 196, 200, 201, 202,
217 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212
Blenkinsopp, J. 17, 18
Blum, E. 58 Gallagher, J. 146
Brereton, J. P. 121 George, A. 38
Bunnens, G. 205 George, M. K. 16, 17
Gerstenberger, E. S. 41, 83, 114, 132
Çagirgan, G. 34, 38 Geyer, B. 142
Cantrell, D. O. 173 Gilders, W. K. 76
Charpin, D. 28 Ginsberg, H. L. 51, 89, 115
Childs, B. S. 41 Gorman, F. H. 17, 131
Cholewiński, A. 94, 96, 97 Goudoever, J. van 84
Clines, D. 55 Greenberg, M. 85, 88, 127, 133
Cohen, M. E. 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, Greenspahn, F. 6, 7
68, 111, 163, 182, 198, 199 Grimes, R. L. 14, 15, 16, 101, 134, 135,
Cohen, Y. 143, 144, 145, 151, 201 214
Cohn, R. L. 16, 125 Gruenwald, I. 15
Cross, F. 4 Guichard, M. 184
Güterbock, H. G. 29
Dahl, G. 56
D’Alfonso, L. 144 Haas, V. 29, 136
Dalman, G. 55, 56, 57 Halbe, J. 57, 58
Delitzsch, F. 2 Hallo, W. W. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 72, 77,
Dietrich, M. 201, 206, 207 141, 214, 242, 243
258
Index of Authors 259
Hartley, J. E. 41, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, Levenson, J. D. 107
86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 114, Levine, B. 13, 32, 82, 91
218, 219 Liverani, M. 10
Hayes, E. 76 Loewenstamm, S. E. 11
Hess, R. S. 41, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, Long, V. P. 15, 89, 90
96, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127, 128, 133, Longacre, R. E. 90
151, 159, 166, 167, 169, 183, 188, Longman, T., III 9
190, 202, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220,
221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, Malul, M. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 77,
231, 234, 235, 242 214, 215, 238, 239
Hieke, T. 76 Margueron, J.-C. 141, 142, 143, 144,
Hiller, D. R. 4 151, 172
Hjort, A. 56 Mayer, W. 163, 197
Hoffner, H. A. 29, 159 McLaughlin, J. L. 190, 207
Huehnergard, J. 157, 161, 219 Merwe, C. H. J. van der 91
Milgrom, J. 22, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61,
Ikeda, J. 176 63, 64, 66, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
87, 88, 89, 96, 97, 99, 100, 107,
James, E. O. 38 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127, 128,
Jenson, P. P. 16, 73, 80, 81, 101, 108, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 216, 223,
109, 116, 118, 121, 129, 130, 235, 238
131 Millard, A. R. 11, 12, 242
Jephcott, E. 108 Miller, P. D., Jr. 33
Johnston, P. S. 190 Monson, J. M. 11
Joosten, J. 41 Moor, J. C. de 30, 31, 32, 33, 56
Joüon, P. 91, 219 Morgan, D. F. 97
Muraoka, T. 91
Kaufmann, Y. 4
Kellerman, G. 29 Naudé, J. A. 91
Kitchen, K. 7 Niccacci, A. 15
Klingbeil, G. 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, Noth, M. 45, 46, 47, 48, 94, 114, 216
17, 18, 89, 90, 101, 121, 125, 126,
131, 186, 207, 208, 214, 218, 242 O’Connor, M. 81, 86, 91
Klostermann, A. 45, 46, 49 Oppenheim, A. L. 68
Knohl, I. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, Otto, R. 58
61, 63, 64, 66, 89, 115, 216
Koch, K. 91, 94 Paran, M. 52
Körting, C. 63, 66 Pardee, D. 30, 31, 32
Košak, S. 29 Parkin, D. 14
Kramer, S. N. 22, 23 Pentiuc, E. J. 153, 161, 163, 167, 184, 197,
Kroeze, J. H. 91 203, 204
Kuenen, A. 86, 87 Pitard, W. T. 143, 200
Kutsch, E. 55, 56, 58, 65 Platvoet, J. 14, 15
Pope, M. H. 190, 207
Labat, R. 159, 164, 204
Lambert, W. G. 38 Rad, G. von 45
Langdon, S. H. 23, 27 Radner, E. 41
Leemans, W. F. 143 Ramban, Rabbi Moses ben
Lefebvre, H. 16 Nachman 136
Lemche, N. P. 3 Rashbam, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir 136
260 Index of Authors
Rendtorff, R. 41, 91, 94, 95 Turner, V. W. 16, 121

Reventlow, H. 96, 97
Rochberg-Halton, F. 111 Van Seters, J. 3, 56, 57
Rofé, A. 87 Verderame, L. 24
Rooker, M. F. 41, 80, 81, 88 Viberg, A. 7
Sachs, A. J. 34 Wagenaar, J. 1, 2, 18, 19, 20, 27, 34, 35,
Sandmel, S. 3, 4 41, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
Sarna, N. M. 83 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
Schechner, R. 14 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,
Schmitt, H. C. 58 97, 107, 161, 177, 178, 181, 182, 215,
Schwartz, B. J. 52 216, 217, 218, 225, 226, 227, 228,
Scott, W. R. 86, 87, 89 229, 231, 232, 234, 240, 241, 242
Seminara, S. 154, 155, 161 Waltke, B. K. 81, 86, 91
Sharlach, T. M. 27 Walton, J. H. 10
Sigrist, M. 142 Watts, J. W. 41, 91, 94, 95
Soden, W. von 38 Weinfeld, M. 29
Soggin, J. A. 5, 238 Wellhausen, J. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49,
Sparks, K. 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 72, 77, 95, 54, 56, 63, 89, 216, 225
100, 137, 178, 209, 214, 217, 218 Wenham, G. 41, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88,
Spinoza, B. 42, 43 96, 113, 114, 117, 127
Sproul, B. C. 15, 101 Werner, P. 145
Stackert, J. 1 Wessely, N. H. 136
Stern, S. 108 Westenholz, J. G. 154, 155, 167
Stewart, D. T. 29 Weyde, K. 133, 134
Wilson, R. 7
Talmon, S. 6, 9, 10, 11, 218 Wyatt, N. 30, 33
Thompson, T. L. 3
Thureau-Dangin, F. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Zadok, R. 163, 165, 197
Tolkovsky, S. 87 Zohary, M. A. 88
Toorn, K. van der 3, 35, 37, 38, 39, 67,
73, 74, 75, 190, 207
Index of Scripture
Genesis Exodus (cont.) Exodus (cont.)

1:5 106 12:18 105 31:15 114
1:8 106 12:22–28 82 31:17 81
1:13 106 12:23 82 32:5 114
1:14 96, 106, 112, 116 12:27 82 34 1, 19, 41, 43, 54, 57,
1:16 106 12:37–13:20 86 58, 63, 113, 214,
1:18 106 12:40–51 115 215, 240
1:19 106 12:43–50 51 34:18 55, 56, 113, 117
1:23 106 13:3–10 115 34:18–26 58, 113
1:31 106 13:6 82, 87, 114, 115 34:22 51, 55, 56, 58, 84,
2:2–3 81 13:10 116 112, 113, 114, 229
6:5–9:17 59, 60 17:17 221 34:25 107
8:22 106 17:41 221 34:26 128
12 59 17:51 221 35:1–3 51
17:23 221 20:4 234 35:2 114
17:26 221 20:11 81 35:30 136
18:14 116 20:25 17
19:34 106 22:28 128 Leviticus
21:2 116 23 1, 19, 20, 41, 43, 47, 1–7 94
28:18 17 51, 54, 57, 58, 63, 1:1 80
30:14 96 113, 214, 215, 240 2:1 118
31:45–54 17 23:10–19 113 2:13 118
35:14 17 23:13 113 2:15 118
41:40 106 23:14–19 58 3 119
23:15 55, 56, 117 3:16–17 51
Exodus 23:16 55, 56, 58, 113, 4:8 119
3:5 121, 124, 233 114, 229 4:14 119
5:1 115 23:19 128 4:20 119
6:2–8 51 24:4 17 4:24 119
9:31–32 127 24:7 74 4:32 119
10:9 114, 115 25:8 125 5:6 119
12 58, 82, 115 25:9 125 5:7 119
12:1–13 59, 66, 67, 82 29:14 119 5:11 119
12:1–28 115 29:26–27 117 6:12–16 51
12:2 63 29:28–32 61 6:15 118
12:8–10 107 29:36 119 6:17 119
12:13 82 29:38–42 61 7:15 106, 107
12:14 114 29:38–46 51 7:20 52
12:14–17 113 29:40 118 7:20–27 116, 133
12:16 80, 116 29:41 118 7:22–27 51
12:17 113 29:46 125 7:30–34 117
12:17–20 51 31:12–17 51 7:38 51
261
262 Index of Scripture
Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.) Leviticus (cont.)

8 18 17:9–14 116, 133 23:11 115, 118, 128, 132
8:14 119 17:10 52 23:12 118, 128, 222, 237
8:29 117 18:29 116, 133 23:13 117, 119, 128, 129
8:35 51 19:3 52 23:14 129, 222
9:2 119 19:5–8 53 23:15 115, 118, 128, 222
9:3 119 19:8 116, 133 23:15–16 225
9:8 119 19:9 53 23:15–22 113, 231
9:15 119 19:9–10 132, 133 23:16 115, 119, 128, 129
9:17 51 19:24–25 128 23:17 52, 118, 128, 129
9:21 117 20:3–6 116, 133 23:18 117–19, 128–29
10:10–11 51 20:17–18 116, 133 23:19 119, 128, 129, 237
10:14 117 22:3 116, 133 23:20 118, 128, 129, 132,
10:16 119 22:6 106 236, 237
11:24–25 106 22:24 116, 133 23:21 117, 222
11:27–28 106 22:30 107 23:22 75, 127, 133
11:31–32 106 23 1–3, 13, 16, 18–20, 23:23–28 59, 65, 66, 67
11:39–40 106 28–29, 33–34, 23:24 117, 127, 220
11:43–45 51 41–42, 44, 47, 23:24–25 116
12:6 119 49–51, 53–55, 23:25 117, 128
12:8 51, 119 57–59, 61–65, 23:26–32 63, 117, 230
14:10 118 67–68, 70–80, 23:27 59, 117, 128, 220,
14:21 118 82–83, 86–87, 222
14:22 119 90–95, 97–104, 23:27–32 85
14:34–53 51 107–110, 112–13, 23:28 222
14:46 106 116–17, 120–32, 23:29 133, 222
14:54–57 51 134–37, 139–41, 23:30 133, 222
15:5–8 106 151, 153, 168, 23:32 105, 115, 222
15:10–11 106 171–72, 175, 23:33–36 65, 66, 114,
15:16–19 106 177–78, 181–82, 230
15:21–23 106 193–95, 198, 204, 23:33–37 59, 67
15:27 106 212, 214–43 23:34 127, 220
15:31 51 23:1–4 99 23:34–36 228
16 33, 34, 85 23:2 116, 117, 219 23:35 117, 222
16:1 114 23:2–3 62, 114 23:36 112, 117, 128, 222,
16:1–28 59 23:3 114, 115, 117 237
16:2 51 23:4 116, 117, 219 23:37 116, 117, 118, 119,
16:3 119 23:4–8 59, 67, 115 128
16:5 119 23:4–43 115 23:39 127, 220, 222
16:6 119 23:4–44 64 23:39–43 65, 115, 228,
16:9 119 23:5 67, 220, 222 230
16:11 119 23:5–8 65, 66, 112 23:40 127, 222
16:15 119 23:6 113, 128, 222 23:42 127, 222
16:27 119 23:6–8 63, 231 23:43 127
16:29 134 23:7 117 23:44 116
16:29–34 51 23:8 53, 117, 128 24:15 53
16:31 114, 134 23:9–22 65 25 115
17–27 50, 54, 97, 221 23:10 52, 127, 128 25:4 114
17:1–26:46 45 23:10–11 132, 237 25:9 116
17:4 116, 133 23:10–14 113, 230 25:23 85, 127
Numbers Numbers (cont.) Numbers (cont.)

1:6 136 15:7 118 28:28 118, 119
1:48–5:10 51 15:9 118 28:31 118, 119
3:11–13 51 15:10 118 28:34 118
3:40–51 51 15:24 118, 119 28:36 118
5:1–3 51 15:27 119 28:38 118
5:3 125 17–18 51 28:39 118
5:15 118 18:18 117 29 86, 113
6:11 119 19 106 29:1 117
6:14 119 19:10–13 51 29:1–2 116
6:15 118 19:38 119 29:1–6 116
6:17 118 23:19 117 29:2 118
6:20 117 28 44, 63, 82, 113, 119, 29:3 118, 119
6:22–10:28 51 128 29:5 119
7:16 119 28–29 1–2, 19–20, 41, 29:6 117, 118, 119
7:22 119 44, 49–51, 53–54, 29:7 117
7:28 119 61–64, 73, 80, 82, 29:7–11 117, 230
7:34 119 116–17, 214–15, 29:9 118, 119
7:40 119 218, 240, 242–43 29:11 118, 119
7:46 119 28:2 51, 117 29:12 114, 117
7:52 119 28:3–8 61 29:12–34 114
7:58 119 28:5 118 29:14 118, 119
7:64 119 28:6 117 29:16 118, 119
7:70 119 28:7 118 29:16–23 115
7:76 119 28:8 117, 118 29:18 118
7:82 119 28:9 118 29:18–19 119
7:87 119 28:9–10 62 29:19 118, 119
8:1–19 51 28:11 118 29:21 118
8:8 119 28:11–15 63 29:21–22 119
8:12 119 28:12 118 29:22 118, 119
9 115 28:13 83, 117, 118 29:24 118
9:2 116 28:14 118 29:24–25 119
9:3 116 28:15 119 29:25 118, 119
9:7 116 28:16 81, 115, 118, 119 29:27 118
9:9–14 51, 115 28:16–25 115 29:27–28 119
9:10 115 28:16–29:40 113 29:28 118, 119
9:13 116 28:17–19 63 29:30 118
9:14 115 28:18 117 29:30–31 119
10 136 28:18–19 119 29:31 118, 119
10:2 80, 136 28:18–25 53 29:33 118
10:5–6 116 28:19–24 63, 128 29:33–34 119
10:10 51, 136 28:20 118, 119 29:34 118, 119
14:14 106 28:22 118, 119 29:36 117
15 51, 204 28:23 118 29:37 118
15:1–16 129 28:24 117, 118, 119 29:37–39 119
15:3 116 28:25 63, 117, 118 29:38 118, 119
15:4 118 28:26 61, 117, 119 29:39 51, 117, 118, 119
15:4–5 118 28:26–31 113, 230 30:13 134
15:5 118 28:27 118 31:6 116
15:6 118 28:27–28 119 33:50–56 51
Numbers (cont.) Ruth 1 Chronicles

35:1–36:13 51 1:22 127 9:33 106
35:34 125 2:23 127 15:28 116
Deuteronomy 1 Samuel 2 Chronicles

1:33 106 1 44 7:9 45
12:29 125 1:13 31 7:9–10 86
16 1, 19, 20, 41, 47, 54, 4:5 116 8:12–13 82
56, 58, 82, 214, 215, 9:13 136 8:13 113, 114
240 9:24 116 13:12 116
16:1 56, 58 13:8 116 15:14 116
16:1–2 56, 115 19:11 105, 107 29:21 119
16:1–7 115 20:24–27 63 29:23 119
16:1–17 59, 113 25:16 106 30:2 115
16:3–4 56, 58 28:8 107 30:5 115
16:4 107 28:19 107 30:13 82, 113, 115
16:5–7 56 30:15 115
16:7 59 2 Samuel 30:21 113
16:8 56, 58, 87, 114 6:12–19 69 31:35 127
16:9–10 55, 58, 65 6:15 116 35:3 69
16:9–11 56 6:19 69 35:17 82, 113
16:9–12 118 11:1 112 35:17–18 115
16:10 84 19 70
16:13 55, 89 20:5 80, 116 Ezra
16:13–15 56, 87, 114, 155 21:9 96 3:5 116
16:16 113 21:10 106 3:11–13 116
16:16–17 58 24:15 116 6:2 113
23:11 106 6:17 119
24:19 127 1 Kings 6:20–22 115
26:1–4 60 6–8 69 6:22 82
26:1–11 118, 128 8 87 7:17 118
31–34 45 8:1–9 69 8:35 119
31:10–11 114 8:1–19 69
31:11 74 8:15–16 69 Nehemiah
8:29 106 1:6 106
Joshua 8:59 106 4:9 106
3:15 96 8:65 69 8 74, 114, 136
4:5 17 8:66 45, 86 8:3 74
6:5 116 9:25 69 8:8 74, 80
6:20 116 18:21 82 8:15 88
8:35 74 8:16 87
24:26 17 2 Kings 8:18 74
8:6 127 9:3 74
Judges 10:20 136 9:12 106
9:27 44 10:21–22 114 10:33 116
15:1 96 16:13 118, 129 13:1 74
19:9 107 16:15 61, 118, 129 13:5 118
21:9 114 13:9 118
21:19 44 13:19 105
Esther Isaiah (cont.) Ezekiel (cont.)

4:16 106 62:6 106 45:23–24 63
9:27 116 45:24 118
Jeremiah 45:24–25 119
Job 7:18 118 45:25 118, 119
8:21 116 9:1 106, 114 46 62
33:26 116 11:16 87 46:5 118
39:25 116 14:17 106 46:6 63
16:5 190, 207 46:6–7 63
Psalms 16:13 106 46:7 118
16:4 118 19:13 118 46:11 118
22:2 106 20:16 116 46:13–15 61
27:6 116 31:35 106 46:14 118
33:3 116 32:29 118 47:17 116
35:13 134 33:20 106
42:3 106 33:25 106 Daniel
42:8 106 36:30 106 8:14 106
47:6 116 44:17–19 118 8:19 116
55:10 106 44:25 118 10:12 134
55:17–18 106 46:17 116 11:27 116
74:8 116 52:19 118 11:29 116
74:16 106 11:35 116
78:14 106 Lamentations
81:4 136 1:15 116, 136 Hosea
88:1 106 2:18 106 2 44
89:16 116 9 44
91:5 106 Ezekiel 9:5 114
102:13 116 6:13 88 14:7 87
104:19 112 21:22 116
118 88 43:19 119 Joel
129:7 127 43:21 119 1:9 118
136:7–9 106 43:22 119 1:13 118
150:5 116 43:25 119 1:14 136
44:24 116 2:14 118
Proverbs 44:30 128
3:9–10 128 45 1, 19, 20, 41, 47, 54, Amos
58, 59, 67, 71, 72, 1:14 116
Isaiah 73, 75, 214, 215, 2:2 116
1:8 43 240 6:7 190, 207
1:13 80, 136 45–46 63
4:5 80 45:17 118, 119 Habakkuk
17:5 127 45:17–46:15 63 2:3 116
27:3 106 45:18–20 67
28:19 106 45:18–25 67, 68, 113 Zephaniah
31:5 82 45:19 119 1:16 116
34:10 106 45:20 112
38:12 106 45:21 82, 115 Zechariah
57:6 118 45:22 119 14:16–19 114
58:3 134 45:23 118, 119 14:17 32
60:11 106
Deuterocanonical Books
Judith 2 Maccabees Sirach
6:21–7:1 105 8:25 105 43:6–7 112
New Testament
Matthew Luke Acts
12:1 129 23:54 105 2:1 84
Mark John
2:23 129 19:31 105
19:42 105
Index of Other Ancient Sources
Cuneiform Sources
A Emar (cont.) Emar (cont.)

125 27 202 147 n. 23 376 146, 216
126 27 268 146 n. 19 385 145 n. 17, 147, 150
274:6 157 n. 82 n. 28
AO 275:1–4 205 386 147
5501 21 364 212 387 145 n. 17
369 18, 143 n. 8, 145 388 145 n. 17
ARM n. 17, 146, 147, 150 392 150 n. 28
3 72 28, 189 n. 203 n. 28, 171, 194, 394 147
202, 206, 207, 211, 395 146, 216
ARMT 216 452:34–35 196
19 311 27 369:12 145 n. 16 446 2, 3, 13, 18, 19, 20,
19 324 27 369:13 206 28, 41, 78, 79, 83
21 34:3 161 n. 107 369:31–36 163 n. 125 n. 11, n. 12, 84 n. 13,
369:53 206 101, 102, 114, 120,
BLMJ 369:53–54 206 127, 140, 141, 146,
1137:10 167 n. 156 370 145 n. 17, 146, 208 148, 149, 150, 151,
1137:11 154 n. 60 n. 247, 216 153, 168, 171, 173,
1137:12–14 155 n. 70 370:30 207, 208 n. 247 174, 176 n. 179, 177,
370:45–68 206 178, 180, 181, 182,
BM 370:55 207 n. 247 183, 185, 186, 187,
121206 27 371 145 n. 17, 208 190, 193, 194, 195,
371:16 206 196, 197, 203, 204,
DP 373 143 n. 8, 146, 181 205, 206, 208,
44 24, 25, 69 n. 189, 193–194, 209, 212, 213, 214,
211, 212, 216 215, 216, 217, 218,
DT 373:9 153 n. 48, n. 49 219, 220, 221, 223,
15 35–36 373:13 153 n. 48 224, 225, 227, 228,
109 35–36 373:38 153 n. 48 229, 230, 231, 232,
114 35–36 373:38–44 212 233, 234, 235, 236,
373:39 153 n. 48 237, 238, 239, 240,
Emar 373:186–187 212 241, 242, 243
42 143 374 146, 216 446:1 170
45 143 375 181 n. 189, 183, 186, 446:1–40 186
52 143 193–194, 210, 211, 446:2 151 n. 35, 220,
109:20 157 n. 82 212, 230 222
156:8 157 n. 82 375:1–25 187 n. 201 446:2–5 170
156:10 205 n. 241 375:3 212 446:2–7 171 n. 167
180:12 205 n. 241 375:4 212 446:2–10 171 n. 167
201 147 n. 23 375:35 205 446:2–57 170
267
268 Index of Other Ancient Sources
Emar (cont.) Emar (cont.) Emar (cont.)

446:3 171, 198 446:37–38 195 n. 215, 446:65 237
446:6 153 n. 49, 198, 204 446:66 198, 234
222, 234 446:38 199, 236, 237 446:67 223
446:6–7 170, 171 446:39 148, 237 446:67–74 170
n. 167 446:40 151 n. 39, 153 446:71 198
446:7 172, 192 n. 51 446:71–74 163 n. 125
446:8 228 446:41 198 446:72 198
446:8–10 170, 171 446:41–57 186 446:73 198
n. 167 446:42 199 446:77 157 n. 82, 169,
446:9 198 446:43 153 n. 55 171, 198
446:11 153 n. 52, 172, 446:44 148, 172 n. 173, 446:77–78 232
222 199, 236, 237 446:77–82 168, 170,
446:11–18 237 446:45 222, 228 188
446:11–18a 170 446:45–46 173, 224 446:78 175, 198, 206,
446:11–21 230 446:45–47a 170 231, 236, 237
446:12 172 n. 171 446:45–53 180 446:78–80 163 n. 125
446:14 198, 237 446:46 198 446:79 198
446:15 153 n. 55 446:47 177, 226 446:80 198
446:17 151 n. 39, 153 446:47b 222 446:81 199
n. 51, 198 446:47b–53a 170 446:82 149, 236, 237
446:18 153 n. 52, 172, 446:47–57 231 446:83 169
192, 198 446:48 198 446:83–85 168, 170,
446:18b–22a 170, 222 446:49 198 174–175, 189, 223,
446:19 172 n. 171 446:50 198 232
446:20 198 446:51 148 446:83–84a 170
446:21 172, 175, 192, 446:51–53 232, 236 446:84 151 n. 35, 157
198, 231, 236 446:52 151 n. 38, 199 n. 82, 171, 220, 223
446:22 153 n. 52, 198, 446:53 149, 237 446:84b–85 170
230, 234 44653b 222 446:86 150 n. 28, 166,
446:22b 222 446:53b–57 170 170, 171, 223
446:22–40 230 446:53–54 180 446:86–91 232
446:22b–44 170, 171 446:54–55 187 446:86–94 231
n. 167 446:54–57 223, 232 446:86–95 168, 170,
446:23 172, n. 171, 192 446:57 150 n. 28 171, 189
446:23–35 236 446:58 151 n. 35, 170, 446:87 151 n. 35, 172,
446:24 150 n. 28, 198 171, 198, 220, 223 220, 223
446:26 148, 199, 237 446:58–76 170, 187 446:87–90 170
446:26–28 236 446:59 150 n. 28, 223 446:88 153 n. 55, 198
446:27 199 446:59–63 232 446:90 176
446:28 148, 237 446:59–66 170 446:91 176, 198, 223
446:29 166 n. 150, 172, 446:60 175, 198, 231, 446:91–95 170
192, 237 236 446:92 151 n. 39
446:31 198 446:60–61 173–174, 446:93 199
446:33 199 195 n. 215, 223 446:94 198
446:34 166 n. 150, 199, 446:61 172, 192, 206 446:95 149, 236, 237
237 446:62 199 446:96 151 n. 35, 166,
446:36 205 446:63 199 220, 223
446:37 172, 187, 192, 446:64 237 446:96–99 170
199, 237 446:64–65 149, 236 446:96–100 180
Index of Other Ancient Sources 269
Emar (cont.) Emar (cont.) MVN

446:96–117 168 446:118–119 170 8 221 26
446:96–119 170, 231 446:119 151 n. 39, 172, 15 146 21
446:97 171 192, 198, 206
446:98 180, 198, 226 452 202 OAkk 207
446:99 151 n. 39, 199 454 212
446:100 166 n. 149, 455 212 OBT Tell Rimah
180, 198, 223, 232 463:4–10 167 n. 155 110 25, 28
446:100–102a 170 467:5 189
446:101 151 n. 39, 153 RE
n. 55 ITT 34:14–15 205
446:102 149, 150 n. 28, 5280 21, 24, 69
199, 236, 237 6756 27 RS
446:102b 223 1.056 31
446:102–105 236 KAR 1.003 31
446:102b–107a 170 146 23 1.003:50–51 32
446:103 153 n. 55 146 rev. 1–2 23 24.249 31
446:104 166 n. 149, 24.266 30
198 KTU
446:104–105 232 1.14 ii:20–32 33 n. 40 RMA
446:105 169 n. 164, 1.21–22 190, 207 16:5 109 n. 84
198, 206. 236, 237 1.41 31, 32 n. 38, 33, 228
446:106 153 n. 52, 198 n. 36 TCL
446:107 150 n. 28 1.41:38b–41 31, 2 21
446:107b 223 183–184
446:107b–117 170 1.41:38b–48a 32 Tello
446:108 198 1.41:47 184 29 27
446:111 208 1.41:47–48 32, 184
446:112 166 n. 149 1.87 31, 32 n. 38, 33 UET
446:114 206 1.105:15–18 31 3 186 26
446:115 199 1.119 30, 69, 227 n. 29 3 193 26
446:115–116 236 3 1504 26
446:116 166 n. 149, KUB
149, 237 28:88 ii 17–18 159 n. 98 YBC
446:117 199, 234, 237 39:14 i 12–16 159 n. 98 16828 26
446:109–19 167 n. 159
446:117 208 MNB
446:118 223 1848 35–36
Talmudic and Other Jewish Sources
Babylonian Talmud Josephus Jewish War (J.W.)

b. Roš Haš. 16a 88 Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) 4.9.12 105 n. 74
n. 36, 137 n. 116 3.10.5 107 Life
b. Šabb. 34b 81 n. 5 3.250–51 83 n. 11, 127 32 105 n. 74
b. Sukkah n. b
32a 127 n. i 13.372 87 n. 36 Mishnah
32b 88 n. 36 16.6.2 105 n. 74 m. Peʾah 4:10 127 n. e
m. Roš Haš. 3:1 105
270 Index of Other Ancient Sources
Mishnah (cont.) Sipra Tosepta

m. Sukkah Emor 16:6 88 n. 36 t. Sukkah
4:5 88 n. 36 3:3 88 n. 36
39 88 n. 36 Talmud Yerushalmi 3:18 88 n. 36
m. Taʿan. 1:1–3:3 136 y. Šabb. 1.2 129 n. e
y. Sukkah 3.5 87 n. 36
Index of Festivals
Named Emarite Festivals and Rites

Bugarātu 165, 170, 171, 177, 179, 183, Mašʾartu 146, 164 n. 139, 189, 216
184, 189, 189 n. 205, 231, 232 NIN.DINGIR 146, 147, 167 n. 159,
Diviner’s seed ceremony 148, 149, 170, 171, 201, 202, 206, 216
197, 222, 238 Nubāttu 177
Festival of dBaʿal 179, 183, 184 Renewal of dDagan 149, 150, 167, 170,
Festival to dDagan 226 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 200, 223,
Ḫiyaru 169, 170, 179, 183, 184, 191, 223 231, 232
Kissu 146, 146 n. 20, 147, 188, 188 Zukru 104 n. e, 114, 146, 146 n. 20, 181
n. 203, 201, 216 n. 189, 183, 183 n. 195, 186, 187
Kubādu 32 n. 37, 170, 177, 179, 180, 183, n. 201, 193, 194, 205, 211, 212, 213
191, 199
Other Ancient Near Eastern Festivals and Rites

Ab/pum 23 EZEN nuntarriyašḫaš 29
apu 23 EZEN purulliyaš 29
Akītu 1–3, 16 n. 55, 18, 20–21, 23–27, EZEN-dŠ h u l-g i 24
34–40, 68, 70–75, 77–79, 109 Festival of Malt and Barley 21 n. 2, 25,
n. 84, 212, 215–18, 229 n. 39 29 n. 138
á - k i - t i - še- k i n- k u5 26 gusisu 20, 20 n. 7
á - k i - t i- š u - n u m u n 24, 26, 69 n. 138 Ḫubur 23
Dabḥu 31, 32 ibʿlt 25
d d
Dagan 24, 145 n. 47, 147, 150, 153, 153 IGI.KUR 23
n. 49, 161, 163, 165, 167, 170, 171 Kinūnu (Brazier Festival) 23, 25, 26, 28,
n. 167, 177, 180, 182–83, 186–88, 188 n. 203, 204
191, 194, 199–200, 203, 208, 211, kispum 23
223, 228, 232, 235 nabrû 25, 26, 27, 28
Dīrītu 23, 25 Nisannu 36 n. 45, 109 n. 84
Elūnu 25 Purulli 29 n. 26
EZEN AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR 29 reš yani (also riš yn) 21, 24, 25, 31, 32, 32
EZEN-du k u 23, 25, 188 n. 203 n. 9, 33, 33 n 40, 68 n. 138
EZEN-ki n-dIna n n a 24 riš argmn 31
EZEN KI.LAM 29 šekinku 21
EZEN-dL i9-si4 25 š e - k in - ku -rá 24, 25
EZEN-ma ḫ-dNi n - é - g al 24 šunumun 21, 21 n. 2
EZEN-ne-IZI-gar 22, 25, 190 n. 211 ṯaʿû 30, 31
EZEN-dNi n- a -z u 23 z a g - m u 24, 25, 68 n. 138
271
BBRSup
Sacred
Sacred Ritual
Sacred Ritual
Israelite festival calendar texts (Exod 23; 34; Lev 23; Num 28–29; Deut 16;
and Ezek 45) share many features; however, there are also differences. Some
of the most-often-cited differences are the following: festival dates, festival
Ritual
locations, date of the New Year, festival timing, and festival names. Scholars
have explored these distinctions, and many have concluded that different
Israelite history. Scholars use these dissimilarities to argue that Lev 23 was
written in the exilic or postexilic era. Babcock offers a new translation and
analysis of a second-millennium B.C. multimonth ritual calendar text from
Emar (Emar 446) to challenge the late dating of Lev 23. Babcock argues that
Lev 23 preserves an early (2nd-millennium) West Semitic ritual tradition.
Building on the recent work of Klingbeil and Sparks, this book presents a
new comparative methodology for exploring potential textual relationships.
A Study of the West Semitic
Babcock investigates the attributes of sacred ritual through the lens of sacred
time, sacred space and movement, sacred objects, ritual participants, and ritual
Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23
sound. The author begins with a study of ancient Near Eastern festival texts
from the 3rd millennium through the 1st millennium. This analysis focuses on and the
festival cycles, common festival attributes, and the role of time and space in
Akkadian Text Emar 446
Babcock
ritual. Babcock then moves on to an intertextual study of biblical festival texts
before completing a thorough investigation of both Lev 23 and Emar 446. The
result is a compelling argument that Lev 23 preserves an early West Semitic
Bryan C. Babcock
festival tradition and does not date to the exilic era—refuting the scholarly
consensus.
This illuminating reading stands as a model for future research in the field of
ritual and comparative textual studies.
Eisenbrauns
POB 275
Winona Lake, IN 46590 Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 9
www.eisenbrauns.com
EISENBRAUNS

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

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

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

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BBRSup

Winona Lake, Indiana

All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Structure, Outline, and Literary Features 168

Table 1 Akītu Festival Rites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

This book is a revision of my 2011 dissertation and represents the sup-

DP M. F. Allotte de la Fuÿe. Documents présargoniques. Paris: Leroux, 1908–20

The Comparative Method

risked “parallelomania.” 9 Sandmel’s caution led to the exploration of new

Comparative Method: Four Applications 10

9. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13.

12. Malul, The Comparative Method, 91.

Malul cautions that the goal of corroboration is to demonstrate the pos-

15. Malul, The Comparative Method, 108–10.

1. Research should carefully study each phenomenon in the context of the

While Klingbeil does not propose a new methodology, he adopts Hallo’s

texts. 22 While he adopts Hallo’s contextual approach, his comparative

The formation of an analytical genre helps to provide a structure for the

Method Employed in This Study

27. Ibid., 12.

ing false or superficial similarities. Samuel Loewenstamm asserts that a meth-

35. Discussed in Malul, The Comparative Method, 50–51; Samuel E. Loewenstamm,

39. Sparks, Ancient Texts, 5.

Prescriptive versus Descriptive Function

Sacred Aspect of Ritual

41. Baruch Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85

Form, Order, and Structure

Sacred Space and Movement

on the work of Eliade, Klingbeil, and George, scholars acknowledge that

standardized social position corresponding to the expectations of the society, or a seg-

Overview of Ritual Development

Overview of Third- and Second-Millennium Ritual Texts

festi[val of the gh]osts.” 9 In addition, scholars associate the EZEN-duku

9. Samuel N. Kramer, “The Death of Gilgamesh,” BASOR 94 (1944): 7, 9. Kramer

include: EZEN-kin-dInanna (during the full moon of the 6th month),

Nanna, the moon god, is often symbolized as a boat—after the moon’s

14. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 400.

the Ekišnugal temple to Nanna to the Gaʾeš temple (Akītu-house) complex

22. M. E. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 394.

Leviticus 23 and Hittite Festivals

• Use of cult objects at procession sites

Ugaritic Festival Calendar

role of the priest is muffled (ambiguous), only mentioning a sacrifice at the

The evidence at Ugarit shows both similarities to and differences from

• Both texts muffle the role of the priesthood.

Overview of the Akītu Festival in First-Millennium Babylon

Table 1. Akītu Festival Ritesa

period postdates the Babylonian kings, scholars believethat “the liturgical

47. Ibid., 168.

53. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 132. See lines 190–215.

59. Bidmead, The Akītu Festival, 110.

development and to highlight shared ritual experiences. We return to this

Overview of Leviticus 23 Research in

Table 2. Wellhausen’s Festival Text Development

Text Source Comments

the diversity of sources? 64 Wellhausen advanced the earlier identification

Table 3. Noth’s Festival Text Developmenta

Text Source Comments

78. August Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem verständnis und seiner

postexilic Jerusalem sanctuary—a process taking place perhaps in several

79. Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977),

and mother in the Decalogue (similarly, in vv. 3–4, H inverts commandments 1, 2, 4, and

the comparative methodology outlined in chap. 1 and a discussion of 3rd-

59. H. G. Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Formgeschichtlichuntersucht (WMANT 6;

a. I explore potential similarities with Emar 446 in chap. 4.