Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T06:32:17.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Biblical Priestly Literature: A Linguistic Reconsideration*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2010

Noam Mizrahi
Noam Mizrahi*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, a liturgical composition whose fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, comprises thirteen songs that describe the heavenly temple and the angels who serve in it as priests and whose main ritual duty is to praise and glorify God.1 These topics are taken commonly to indicate that the Songs was composed in priestly circles, stems from classical priestly traditions, and reflects a priestly agenda and worldview. Thus, for instance, a priestly provenance of the Songs was entertained by Johann Maier.2 Israel Knohl also detected a continuation of priestly traditions and conceptions in the Songs.3 The prominent proponent of this view is Rachel Elior, who presented a sweeping synthesis according to which a direct and continuous tradition leads from biblical priestly literature, through sectarian writings from Qumran—and the Songs in particular—to Hekhalot literature. In her view, these texts exhibit numerous thematic, ideological, and terminological affinities that prove that they are parts of a single, well-defined stream of tradition, nurtured by priestly circles.4

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 33 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, a liturgical composition whose fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, comprises thirteen songs that describe the heavenly temple and the angels who serve in it as priests and whose main ritual duty is to praise and glorify God.Footnote 1 These topics are taken commonly to indicate that the Songs was composed in priestly circles, stems from classical priestly traditions, and reflects a priestly agenda and worldview. Thus, for instance, a priestly provenance of the Songs was entertained by Johann Maier.Footnote 2 Israel Knohl also detected a continuation of priestly traditions and conceptions in the Songs.Footnote 3 The prominent proponent of this view is Rachel Elior, who presented a sweeping synthesis according to which a direct and continuous tradition leads from biblical priestly literature, through sectarian writings from Qumran—and the Songs in particular—to Hekhalot literature. In her view, these texts exhibit numerous thematic, ideological, and terminological affinities that prove that they are parts of a single, well-defined stream of tradition, nurtured by priestly circles.Footnote 4

To be sure, in this respect the Songs is in no way exceptional, since a priestly provenance has been suggested for other texts of the Second Temple period, such as the book of Jubilees and especially the sectarian texts from Qumran. Nevertheless, such an identification has significant implications for the cultural and religious history of Jewish society during the Greco-Roman period and its potential links with preexilic Israel; as such, it must be analyzed carefully.Footnote 5 Moreover, each individual text needs to be scrutinized in its own right before an overall synthesis and a general conclusion may be offered.

The purpose of this paper is to review the pertinent linguistic and stylistic evidence in the Songs by focusing on three specific case studies. I shall examine the usage and history of three expressions relating to various aspects of the temple and the cult and compare the evidence of the Songs to that of the priestly texts now embedded in the Hebrew Bible.Footnote 6

“inner sanctum”

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The first case study concerns an architectural term relating to the structure of the temple, the word , which denotes the shrine, or more specifically the inner sanctum, the holiest part of the temple. This lexeme is one of the characteristic items in the lexicon of the Songs. It is attested about thirty times in the work (including partial restorations), while in the rest of the Dead Sea scrolls it is documented in a single attestation, which may in fact be read differently.Footnote 7 The many occurrences of in the Songs include four construct phrases that are repeated in various parts of the composition: “glorious shrine,”Footnote 8 “royal shrine,”Footnote 9 “wondrous shrines,”Footnote 10 and “holy shrine.”Footnote 11 In these cases, the nomen rectum is a word that refers to God either explicitly or metonymically. In addition, one finds in the work at least five other construct phrases that occur only once in the preserved fragments of the Songs, mostly in the remains of Song VII. These phrases, those appearing once and those that are repeated, are unique to the Songs and are not documented in other Hebrew sources from antiquity, with the sole exception of the phrase , which is rooted in a biblical verse (Ps 28:2). The significance of this datum is discussed below.

The Evidence from Classical Hebrew

The lexeme is well known in biblical Hebrew, and from a diachronic point of view it belongs to the classical stratum of the language.Footnote 12 It occurs in the description of Solomon's temple where one also finds two construct phrases, each attested only once: “the shrine's entrance” (1 Kgs 6:31) and “the shrine of the house” (1 Kgs 8:6 // 2 Chr 5:7; see also 1 Kgs 6:16; 7:50). These phrases denote spatial features of the inner sanctum and testify to the technical nature of as an architectural term. A third construct phrase is the aforementioned found in only one attestation outside the historical books, in the poetic diction of biblical psalmody (Ps 28:2).Footnote 13

Although falls in the field of priestly interest, it is not a priestly term from a stylistic point of view. It is found nowhere in P's detailed descriptions of the tabernacle or in the specifications of Ezekiel's temple. In priestly literature, both early and late, the innermost part of the shrine is termed “the holy of holies.”Footnote 14 What is more, is used in the book of Kings specifically to gloss the nonpriestly (1 Kgs 6:16; 8:6 // 2 Chr 5:7; see also 1 Kgs 7:50 // 2 Chr 4:22).Footnote 15

One can argue, of course, that if is an architectural term referring to a permanent building, it may have been deemed unsuitable for the priestly tabernacle, which is a tent. But this argument does not apply to Ezekiel's temple, which is portrayed as a building like the one erected by Solomon. Furthermore, according to a plausible etymology, Hebrew is cognate of Arabic dub(u)r, which means “back” or “hinder part,”Footnote 16 and as such it would be appropriate for referring to the holiest part of the tabernacle as well.Footnote 17

It is therefore safe to conclude that classical biblical Hebrew knows more than one term denoting the innermost part of the sanctuary. Priestly sources refer to it as , while nonpriestly sources call it .Footnote 18 The nonpriestly term describes this space in respect to its physical properties, while the priestly term—when utilized to denote that space—does so by investing it with ideological import and encoding two notions of prime importance for ancient priestly circles: the idea of separation, embedded in the use of a lexeme derived from q-d-ŝ, and the idea of hierarchy, expressed by a syntactic construction that conveys the notion of the superlative.Footnote 19 By calling this space “the holy of holies,” it is distinguished automatically from both “the holy,” that is, the rest of the tabernacle or the temple, as well as from “the unholy,” which pertains to the realm outside the compound of the sanctuary.

The Evidence from Postclassical Hebrew

A change in this state of affairs is perceptible in postexilic literature in which the classical, nonpriestly term was deemed obsolete and was replaced gradually by an alternative term, , “the house (or: the place) of the holy of holies.”Footnote 20

When viewed from a diachronic point of view, the evidence of the Songs poses a conspicuous problem. How can it be that the obsolete term —otherwise extremely rare in other Hebrew texts of the Second Temple period—is being used so extensively and that the number of its occurrences far exceeds the sum of its biblical attestations? Admittedly, this issue requires us to digress from our current discussion, yet it is worthwhile to pursue it because it will allow us to gain an insight into one of the fundamental factors that were operative in shaping the language of the Songs.

Against the overwhelming absence of from both biblical and extrabiblical Hebrew sources of the Second Temple period, its occurrence in Sir 45:9 (according to MS B) as part of a description of Aaron's priestly garments stands out. As already noted by commentators, this passage alludes to Exod 28:33–35 (see also v. 29; 39:24–26).Footnote 21 The mentioned by Ben Sira, thus, parallels the “holy” mentioned in Exodus (which refers to the main hall of the tabernacle) rather than the innermost “holy of holies” into which the High Priest was allowed to enter only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. It is, therefore, clear that Ben Sira uses the term in a sense different from its usual denotation in classical biblical Hebrew.Footnote 22 This semantic discrepancy may indicate that he used the word as part of his archaistic style, while in reality it was absent from his vernacular.Footnote 23

May the same explanation be applied to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice? While the assumption of an archaistic usage is an appropriate interpretation of the very use of the word, it does not adequately explain why was used so extensively in the Songs.Footnote 24 By the same token, one cannot be completely satisfied with the argument that the use of the term is reminiscent of the literary dependence of the author of the Songs on the book of Kings.Footnote 25 While this argument, again, is reasonable, it does not offer a real explanation for the great phraseological variation typical of the Songs.Footnote 26 Furthermore, the only phrase shared by the two corpora is the poetic , and not the more technical phrases attested in the book of Kings. One may therefore conclude that the language of the Songs is conditioned by another factor, which sets it apart from both preceding and contemporary sources.

The nature of this factor is best illuminated by a typological comparison with later linguistic strata. As already said, is almost never used in Tannaitic literature but is attested sporadically in Amoraic literature, which was produced when Hebrew was no longer spoken, and its usage was restricted to liturgical and scholastic contexts. Being mainly a literary medium, Amoraic literature was susceptible to the influence of biblical Hebrew, as the Hebrew Bible was central to Jewish spiritual and intellectual life. Indeed, ample evidence exists that classical words and forms found their way back to the lexis and grammar of late rabbinic Hebrew.Footnote 27

While is only sparsely used in the prose sections of rabbinic literature or even totally absent from its early strata, it is well attested in the language of rabbinic prayers and poetry,Footnote 28 including the famous Song of the Kine.Footnote 29 The latter belongs to a larger corpus of short (perhaps fragmentary) poetic texts quoted in Amoraic literature, which are characterized by their unique linguistic texture.Footnote 30 It is a mixture of both biblical and rabbinic elements, which are then fused together into innovative constructions.Footnote 31

This linguistic profile of rabbinic poetry also fits its continuation, the liturgical poetry composed in Palestine during the Byzantine period known as Piyyu⃛,Footnote 32 in which one finds dozens of occurrences of both in the absolute state and as part of various phrases and collocations. Some of these are biblical, while others are totally new. The most common collocation in Piyyu⃛ Hebrew is ,Footnote 33 which goes back to a single occurrence in the biblical psalmody. This fact suggests that it is the rarity of the biblical phrase, as well as its affiliation with biblical poetic diction, which were appealing to the rabbis who composed the liturgical poems.

It is acknowledged that Piyyu⃛ literature preserves some traits of the living language spoken by earlier sages,Footnote 34 and in some respects its language can be perceived as a direct continuation and further development of Rabbinic Hebrew.Footnote 35 But on the whole, the piyyu⃛ im are highly stylized literary products of skilful poets of the Byzantine period,Footnote 36 during which Hebrew was no longer spoken, and the vernaculars were Greek and a branch of Late Western Aramaic. As such, it is saturated with biblicisms, borrowed intentionally from Scripture, and with the creative poets’ own neologisms. In their attempt to present innovative poetic substitutes for institutionalized prayers and bound by the rigid stylistic restriction of using only Hebrew (or Hebraized) wordsFootnote 37—a principle that had a decisive role in shaping the language of Piyyu⃛ Footnote 38—they made use of whatever linguistic resource to which they had access. The Hebrew Bible in general and its poetic books in particular naturally took pride of place in this regard. A mechanical linguistic survey of the vocabulary of Piyyu⃛ might look to the uninitiated as a hopeless conglomerate of elements of various sources, corpora, and chronolects, but when viewed from a stylistic perspective all these varied materials find their proper place in the ambitious and imaginative literary effort of rabbinic poets of Late Antiquity to shape a language that would fit its spiritually charged function of praying to God.

When comparing the patterns of usage of the lexeme in the various Hebrew corpora, it is evident that even though the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is a product of the Second Temple period, its language exhibits the greatest similarity to Piyyu⃛ over against any other Hebrew corpus from a typological point of view. The similarity extends to all aspects of the unique phraseological behavior of in the Songs: (a) the intensified use of the word in quantitative terms far beyond the biblical statistics; (b) its use as part of various nonbiblical phrases and collocations; and (c) its special link to biblical poetic diction as embodied in the borrowing of the psalmodic phrase . This affinity suggests that as the Piyyu⃛ Hebrew is a product of literary stylization, so is the language of the Songs.Footnote 39

Conclusion

When viewed from a stylistic point of view, the extensive use of the the term in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is incompatible with the Songs' presumed priestly provenance, since the term never was part of priestly terminology but rather was characteristic of the nonpriestly descriptions of Solomon's temple in the book of Kings. Another noteworthy fact is that of the construct phrases attested in biblical Hebrew, the only one shared by the Songs is the psalmodic . Thus the author of the Songs is dependent upon biblical sources that are nonpriestly in nature.

X “The Smell of X”

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

Let us move now to another realm of the cultic terminology employed in the Songs, focusing attention on a fragmentary passage from Song XIII (11Q17 IX [= frgs. 21a–b, 22] 3–5):

Even though the textual evidence does not enable us to gain a full understanding of the passage, its general theme is clear enough. Since “holy ones” is a standard designation of the angels both in the Songs and elsewhere, the phrase “sacrifices of the holy ones” (line 3) may refer to the role of the angels in performing the ritual of heavenly sacrificing.Footnote 40 The text then goes on to utilize two expressions that are formulated in a similar manner: “the smell of their offerings” (line 3) and , “the smell of their libations” (line 4). These expressions merit closer attention.

The Evidence from Classical Hebrew

The word , “smell” or “aroma,” appears in the Hebrew Bible in various strata and genres,Footnote 41 but its use in cultic contexts is restricted. From a phraseological point of view, it appears in the collocation when referring to sacrificial worship. One might add that the lexeme is attested in biblical Hebrew only as part of this collocation. From a stylistic point of view, almost all the occurrences of are found in priestly literature.Footnote 42

The only exception to this rule is ascribed to J, as part of its version of the flood story, but this one is nevertheless found in a description of a sacrifice:

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD. He took ritually clean beasts and birds of every kind and offered whole-offerings on the altar. When the LORD smelt the soothing odour (), he said within himself: Never again will I curse the ground because of man (Gen 8:20–21 NEB).

This passage is distinguished from P's style in two ways. First, the collocation is governed by the verb “and He smelled,” which depicts God in a corporeal way that is almost unattested in P. Secondly, the collocation as a whole is determinate, having the definite article attached to the nomen rectum, while in P the collocation is often indeterminate—a fact that reveals its nature as a frozen expression.

Of the dozens of occurrences of in P, only two (Lev 26:31; Num 28:2) do not exhibit these two characteristics, and both of them were assigned on other grounds to a distinctive stratum within P.Footnote 43 But from a formal linguistic perspective, they still differ from the form found in the nonpriestly J source, since in both cases the collocation is determinate by virtue of a pronominal suffix, while in J it is determinate by the definite article.

Scholars have already noted that the linguistic differences between the Pentateuchal sources reflect a profound theological disagreement between them. Admittedly, J and P share an ancient corporeal concept, according to which God draws concrete satisfaction from offerings by inhaling the smoke produced by their burning. This concept is embodied in the very use of the word , which may be derived from the root Footnote 44 and denotes the effect of calming the raging (or at least capricious) god.Footnote 45 But while J presents this basic theological concept, P takes great pain to sublimate and repress it (Lev 26:31 notwithstanding).Footnote 46 As a rule, in P, God is not said to smell the odor of the burnt offerings; rather, indirect formulations are preferred, which define the offering as a (e.g., Lev 1:9)Footnote 47 or denote the offering as in a nominal clause that makes no mention of either the agent or an action (e.g., Num 28:13).

P's reservations regarding the content of the phrase did not prevent its utilization in this literary document. As said, this collocation is so common in P that it was recognized long ago as one of the distinctive markers of the priestly style.Footnote 48 The frozen nature of this bound expression is therefore indicative of the linguistic conservatism of P, which continued to use fossilized expressions even when the concepts encoded in them were no longer a vital part of its worldview.

This ambivalence characterizes priestly literature even in its late manifestations. Ezekiel, the prophet and priest, refrains from using the phrase in neutral cultic contexts, such as are found in P, and usually applies it to idolatrous rituals that he condemns aggressively (Ezek 6:13; 16:17–19; 20:28; contrast 20:41). From an ideological point of view, this usage may stem from an intensification of the trend that was at least partially operative in certain strata of priestly literature to depict God in less corporeal terms, but it is nevertheless instructive that the phrase itself is still being employed.

From a stylistic point of view, then, this is a second case of contrast between two modes of expression. Biblical priestly texts utilize the lexeme in a restricted way, as part of the collocation , while the free usage of the lexeme is characteristic of nonpriestly sources. Typologically speaking, the usage found in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice belongs to the second group, and this fact reveals its nonpriestly provenance.

The Evidence from Postclassical Hebrew

With due caution, I would like to propose that in this case one can advance beyond a mere typological classification of the Songs. Scrutiny of the linguistic evidence furnished by postexilic sources allows one to suggest that the usage of found in the Songs is based, in fact, on a misunderstanding of the original priestly term.

In order to clarify this statement, I return to the book of Ezekiel. In one verse of this book, the lexeme is used in a way that differs from what one finds in the classical portions of the Hebrew Bible but is comparable to a feature of postexilic texts: “When I brought them to the land which I had sworn to give them, and they saw any high hill or any leafy tree, they slaughtered their sacrifices there and presented their offensive offerings there; there they produced their pleasing odors () and poured out their libations” (Ezek 20:28 JPS). Unlike other attestations of in biblical Hebrew, the word is used here in the plural. Such a phenomenon is otherwise found in the Bible only in Aramaic texts of the Persian period (Dan 2:46; Ezra 6:10).Footnote 49 These Aramaic texts are characterized by yet another lexical peculiarity. They use as an independent lexeme, without recourse to the bound expression . I propose that these phenomena are related, being products of a semantic change in .

Several commentators and lexicographers have recognized that at least in the Aramaic text of Dan 2:46 the context requires one to render as “offerings”: “and he worshiped Daniel and commanded to offer him a (grain) offering and nîḥoḥîn ().”Footnote 50 This recognition can be confirmed by comparing Dan 2:46 to verses in P where minḥâ appears alongside various terms for offerings, for example: “You shall not offer alien incense on it or a burnt offering or a grain offering; and you shall not pour a libation on it ()” (Exod 30:9). Evidently of Dan 2:46 parallels of Exod 30:9, demonstrating that is synonymous with terms denoting offerings, such as .

This explanation may at first glance be invalid for Ezra 6:10, which looks as if it is in harmony with classical formulations found in P:

A closer inspection reveals, however, that the opposite is true. In P the real direct object of the verb , “you shall sacrifice,” is represented explicitly in the beginning of the sentence. The formula is therefore an appositive of this object which explicates its ritual purpose. By contrast, in Ezra 6:10 is the sole element in the sentence that is capable of functioning as the direct object of the verb, and it should be interpreted as referring concretely to the offering itself.Footnote 51

That the same concrete meaning might have been operative in Ezek 20:28 is demonstrated by the synonymous parallelism between and the terms denoting various kinds of offerings: , ,Footnote 52 and :

The semantic shift is responsible for the plural form; once the word was interpreted as denoting “an offering,” it became susceptible to the influence of an analogy to the grammatical form of other terms from the same semantic domain, such as (the so-called “peace-offerings”) and (offerings of “first fruits”).Footnote 53

The same features are attested in Qumran Hebrew, in which can be used freely as an independent wordFootnote 54 and can also be integrated into new construct phrases.Footnote 55

A marked difference thus distinguishes classical from late texts. In the older stratum the term , which appears only as part of the collocation , denotes the purpose of the ritual act of offering a sacrifice. In contradistinction, in postclassical sources the term underwent a process of relexicalization. It is no longer bound in the old cultic formula but could be used as an independent lexeme denoting the offering itself.

What is the reason for this semantic change? A possible answer is suggested by the wording of Dan 2:46, which couples with , “gift, offering.” This may hint that both terms were understood—by way of folk etymology—as being derived from the same root. According to this hypothesis, the old and obscure , whose real etymology was no longer transparent, was erroneously equated with the more familiar ,Footnote 56 and the two terms were eventually used as by-forms.Footnote 57

That the same semantic shift is reflected in both postexilic Hebrew and biblical Aramaic does not necessarily mean that it originated in Aramaic. In fact, in this case the opposite is more probable, namely, that the Aramaic usage is a Hebraism. This is indicated by two details. First, the lexeme is attested only in Aramaic texts whose authors were also familiar with Hebrew and were therefore exposed to its influence. Secondly, a grammatical trait betrays Hebrew influence. According to Bauer and Leander, the original nominal pattern of this word is *qatlāl.Footnote 58 According to the sound change known as the Canaanite Shift, the reflexes of the accented ā vowel in the second syllable are expected to be [ɔ] in Aramaic and [O] in Hebrew, but in this instance the Aramaic form is vocalized with an [O] vowel, as in Hebrew.Footnote 59 Therefore, the Aramaic usage may be a calque of a Hebrew development that occurred during the transition period between classical and late biblical Hebrew.

In order to keep my discussion focused on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, I shall not discuss here in detail the occurrences of in Qumran Hebrew in general but shall limit myself to one observation. The Qumran texts reflect two contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, they manifest late lexical and phraseological traits, which are best explained as resulting from the semantic change recorded in late biblical texts. On the other hand, there is a recognizable effort to model contemporary diction on classical biblical style. Thus, for instance, there is an instructive correction in the Community Rule: , “and to offer (the) smell of niḥoaḥ” (1QS 8:9). The scribe originally used the word alone, as common in Second Temple Hebrew, but a later hand added to make it conform to classical biblical usage.Footnote 60 The shorter version is obviously the original one, not only because it is attested in another textual witness of the work (4Q259) but also because the term in question is governed by the verb , “to offer” (with the syncope of the consonant hê of the H stem).Footnote 61

Conclusion

One can now reassess the phrases “the smell of their offerings” and “the smell of their libations” in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Newsom correctly noted that these formulations digress from the biblical collocation of , but her explanation of this fact is basically theological. She believes that the Songs alters the biblical expression deliberately. It alludes to a cultic context by utilizing the word but omits in order to distance the cult performed in the heavenly shrine from the one taking place in the earthly temple.Footnote 62 This explanation, however, is quite unlikely given the tendency reflected in other contemporary works—which Newsom herself pointed out—to describe the rituals of both heavenly and earthly temples using the same terms and figures of speech.

By contrast, the usage attested in the Songs is easily explicable by the linguistic evidence presented above. For a Hebrew author of the Greco-Roman period, was equivalent to and . In other words, for such an author, a direct line leads from in Ezekiel to and in the Songs. These two phrases are secondary appropriations of the old cultic term in which the late—and ultimately incorrect—understanding of is realized by means of lexical substitution.

Rather than representing a direct continuation of the classical usage, the Songs' adaptation of the collocation is therefore another piece of evidence for a fundamental discontinuity between the genuinely archaic terminology pertaining to the cult (as preserved in priestly literature) and the archaistic and pseudoclassical employment of the same lexemes (as reflected in the Songs).

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The third and final case is the expression , which is another term that typifies the distinct phraseology of the Songs. The expression is never mentioned in other Dead Sea scrolls, but it recurs in the Songs four times in three songs:

The workmanship of the spi[rits] of the wondrous firmament (is) mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, the [spi]rits of knowledge, truth and righteousness (are) in the holy of [h]olies (4Q405 L 20–21 [= frg. 19 3'–4'] // 11Q17 VI [= frg. 12–15] 4–5).

And the workmanship of [l]ight with glorious embroidery, wondrous colors, mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, the spirits of living [d]ivine beings always accompany the glory of [the] wondrous chariots (4Q405 J 20–21 [= frg. 20 ii–22 10'–12']).

In their wondrous station are spirits of embroidery like the workmanship of a weaver & spirits of [pure] colors are in the midst of the appearance of whiteness & and all their designs are mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, an artistry like the workmanship of a weaver; these are the chiefs of those who are wondrously dressed for service (4Q405 L 18–21 [= frg. 23 ii 7'–10']).

Splendid [th]reads[&] embroidery like the wo[rkmanship of a weaver &], mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, colors of [& and sp]lendor and] majesty” (11Q17 IX [= frg. 21–22] 7–8).

Newsom correctly noted that the lack of grammatical agreement at least in the third quotation (and perhaps also in the second one) indicates that the collocation is already a frozen expression in the language of the Songs.Footnote 63 Indeed there is no doubt that it is borrowed from a specific biblical verse, for the participle is documented in biblical Hebrew in a single place, the priestly recipe of the “spice incense,” designated for use within the tabernacle, as opposed to the regular, unqualified “incense,” which is used in the outer court (Exod 30:34–38):Footnote 64

(34) And the LORD said to Moses: Take spices—stacte, onycha, and galbanum—spices and pure frankincense; let there be an equal part of each (). (35) Make them into incense, a compound expertly blended, salted, pure, sacred ().(36) Beat some of it into powder, and put some before the Pact in the Tent of Meeting, where I shall meet with you; it shall be most holy to you. (37) But when you make this incense, you must not make any in the same proportion for yourselves; it shall be held by you sacred to the LORD. (38) Whoever makes any like it, to smell of it, shall be cut off from his kin.

The Evidence from Classical Hebrew

There are two significant differences between the biblical form of the phrase and its appropriation in the Songs.Footnote 65 Syntactically, the cantillation marks make it clear that in the biblical text the three words are three independent modifiers of “the product of an expert blender.”Footnote 66 Semantically, the word refers to the use of salt as one of the ingredients of the incense and may thus be rendered as “salted.”Footnote 67

It is obvious, however, that these two features of the biblical usage do not apply to the Songs. The passages quoted above present no connection with the incense and its ingredients; rather they seem to refer to the visual aspect of certain objects found in the heavenly temple. Semantically, then, it is difficult to interpret the expression the same way it is functioning in Exodus, and it is virtually impossible to connect the two usages by assuming standard semantic changes (such as by way of figurative use). Syntactically, the words and are taken as a single unit (perhaps as a construct phrase), and their relation is therefore different from the way that they are construed in the biblical verse. The inescapable conclusion is that the usage documented in the Songs represents a specific interpretation of the biblical text, not a linguistic continuation of it.

While the exact nature of this interpretation and the identification of its source and motivation remain a matter of speculation, the evidence indicates an insurmountable gap between the original sense of the term as employed in P and its application in the Songs, and no direct and continuous relation between the two can be entertained. The collocation is therefore added to the previous examples that demonstrate the difference in usage and meaning of certain expressions as found in genuine priestly texts on the one hand and their secondary employment in the Songs on the other—a difference that marks a fundamental discontinuity between the two literary corpora.

The Proposed Development in Postclassical Hebrew

The above conclusion stands in its own right and needs no further corroboration. Nevertheless, one cannot end the discussion of without attempting to explain its perplexing usage in the Songs. It may be stressed at the outset, however, that the main conclusion—namely, that there is no essential relation between the Songs and priestly literature—is not dependent upon the results of the interpretative attempt that follows. Furthermore, the linguistic and exegetical problems raised by this case are so complicated that no solution can be offered with certainty. Rather than presenting a single, firm solution, I therefore propose two tentative reconstructions of the development of the tantalizing usage attested in the Songs.Footnote 68

The gap between the literal meaning of in Exodus and its application in the Songs is in fact reflected in other sources stemming from the Greco-Roman period, notably the ancient versions, which render the word in Exod 30:35 as “mixed” rather than “salted.”Footnote 69 This rendition is surprising, since there is no obvious semantic or grammatical difficulty in that would justify such a translation.Footnote 70 In addition, that the versions basically reflect the same interpretation does not allow one to assume that the ancient translators followed the well-known procedure of etymological rendition of an obscure Hebrew word, since in such cases each version reflects its own unique derivation. One can also discount the possibility that the versions were influenced by another common phenomenon, that is, confusion with homonyms. While is a denominative from (with a pharyngeal ḥ), the other found in Hebrew is with a velar ḫ, and it denotes attrition and grinding (see e.g., Jer 38:11–12)—two features that render it irrelevant for the explanation of the ancient versions (and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice).Footnote 71

The versions of Exod 30:35 can be joined with Sir 49:1 (MS B): “Josiah's name is like spice incense, which is mǝmullāḥ (as) a product of an expert blender.” This verse is a transparent allusion to Exod 30:35, and its theme is clear enough. It compares the name of Josiah (that is, his reputation) to a fragrant perfume (compare Eccl 7:1a), suggesting that he is rightly famous for his lawful deeds.Footnote 72 But this theme is not served by rendering as “salted,”Footnote 73 and the word order makes it reasonable to interpret the word as “mixed.” In fact, this is exactly the way in which it was understood by the Syriac translator: , “Josiah's name is like spice incense, which is mixed of many spices.”Footnote 74

The consensus of both direct and indirect witnesses indicates that the interpretation of as “mixed” is rooted already in the early Hellenistic period (or perhaps even earlier than that), but it does not offer us a clue about its source and original motivation. Hurowitz suggested tentatively that it reflects a theological concern. Perhaps at some point during the Second Temple period, adding salt to the incense was perceived as a pagan rite, and from that point on the priests of the Jerusalem temple ceased doing so. The explicit biblical instruction was then reinterpreted in a way that would obscure the original intent of the text. But this is a conjecture that has no substantiation.

Now, already in the initial publication of some Songs fragments, John Strugnell felt that the meaning “mixed” or “blended” is appropriate for the occurrences of in the Songs,Footnote 75 and his insight was embraced by Carol Newsom.Footnote 76 But neither scholar knew how to interpret the word in its actual contexts. I would like to propose that since they searched for literal parallels, that is, comparable verbatim usages, they did not notice that interpreting as “mixed” establishes an essential link between it and a specific legal realm: the laws forbidding “admixtures” (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9–11).

In the Pentateuch in general, and in P in particular, admixtures were taken as markers of holiness. This is why such admixtures were forbidden in daily life, while they characterize the fabrics and textiles used for the tabernacle and priestly garments, especially those relating to the innermost cultic sphere, such as the garments of the High Priest.Footnote 77

The obvious question is: What can the connection be between the recipe of the spice incense and the laws of admixtures? From a legal point of view, the instructions are not as unrelated as they seem to be at first glance. There is a basic structural similarity in the conceptualizations embedded in these instructions. Both etymologically and morphologically the Hebrew term encodes the notion of joining two species, such as two kinds of yarn or two kinds of animals. The same principle is applied to the spice incense. This incense is distinguished from the regular one by being produced from two basic components: “spices and pure frankincense,” and it can be defined accordingly as an “admixture.”Footnote 78

Ancient Jewish interpreters, then, could have identified a conceptual analogy between the spice incense and sacred textiles such as the veil, the garments of the High Priest, and other objects that were in use the closer one gets to the “holy of holies.” By representing the word in translational equivalents meaning “mixed,” the translators gave lexical expression to such a legal interpretation, which expanded the notion of to include not only fabrics made of two types of yarn but also the incense produced from two kinds of ingredients.

In both cases the mixture produces something that is holy, and for this reason the product may not be used in daily life. The restriction on the use of the spice incense is stated in Exod 30:37: “But when you make this incense, you must not make any in the same proportion for yourselves; it shall be held by you sacred to the LORD” (JPS). Similarly, the forbidding of mixture is explained in Deut 22:9 in the following manner: , “You shall not sow your vineyard with by an admixture, lest what ripens becomes sacred.”

This legal conceptualization may underlie the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as well, and by assuming it, one is able to explain the syntactic peculiarity of the expression in this work. While in the biblical text the words and are two independent syntactic units, they are taken as a single unit in the Songs. This joining is easily explained, however, on the assumption that P's instruction concerning the spice incense was understood as conveying the notion that an admixture () is sacred ().Footnote 79 I therefore propose that the meaning of as employed in the Songs was determined on conceptual analogy with the notion of admixtures in general and with the holy fabrics used for the tabernacle and priestly garments in particular.

Some support for this hypothesis may be found in an additional detail. The holy fabrics just mentioned are never termed , but their mixed nature is evident from their description as being woven from various kinds of thread. They are classified in P in three categories, designated respectively by three technical terms: “the product of a skilled workman,” “the product of an embroiderer,” and “the product of a weaver.”Footnote 80 These fabrics are also characterized by their colorful appearance, the natural outcome of using various textiles. Surely it is no coincidence that in the passages of the Songs the collocation is often used in conjunction with these and other terms pertaining to textiles:

And the workmanship of [l]ight with glorious embroidery, wondrous colors, mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar (4Q405 J 20–21 [= frg. 20 ii–22 11'–12']).

And their designs are mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, an artistry like the workmanship of a weaver; these are the chiefs of those who are wondrously clothed for service (4Q405 L 21 [= frg. 23 ii 10']).

Splendid [th]reads[&] embroidery like the wo[rkmanship of a weaver &] mǝmullaḥ ⃛ ohar, colors of [& and sp]lendor and] majesty (11Q17 IX [= frg. 21–22] 7–8).

The last two passages are taken from Song XIII, which may describe the wondrous garments of the angels who serve as High Priests in the heavenly temple.

This association indicates that a linkage between the priestly garments and the spice incense was indeed established in the exegetical consciousness of author of the Songs. Furthermore, it may be taken as an indication that the phrase was understood not merely in a general way as meaning “mixed” but as having the more specific sense of being “mixed in color,” that is, “colorful.”Footnote 81

This conclusion, if correct, is suggestive in its own right. It allows one to entertain the possibility that the link between the spice incense and the priestly garments is not only the result of an abstract conceptual analogy but is rather anchored in a lexical interpretation of a specific term. The original context of the phrase is an instruction about how to prepare , but in Rabbinic Hebrew the lexeme acquired the meaning “pigment, color, dye.”Footnote 82 Given this fact, I am inclined to propose that the semantic shift in the meaning of ultimately results from an anachronistic and atomistic interpretation of Exod 30:35. The term was understood by the author of the Songs as referring to “colors” in accordance with a meaning of that lexeme that was current in his vernacular.Footnote 83

Be that as it may, one may acknowledge that there is no real semantic continuity between the biblical usage and the one attested in the Songs. The latter is nothing but a secondary and incorrect interpretation of the former.

Conclusion

The literal meaning of the word , “salted,” in Exod 30:35 is not represented in the ancient versions, which render it instead as “mixed.” This exegetical tradition is also reflected in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, but its usage there is restricted, both semantically (by being applied specifically to mixed colors) and idiomatically (by taking as a bound expression). I have suggested two possible explanations for this situation. According to the first, this usage is a product of a conceptual analogy between the priestly instruction concerning the spice incense and the legal notion of . According to the second, it is a result of an atomistic lexical interpretation of the word as “colors.” These two explanations are not mutually exclusive, and they may be taken as complementary ways in which the author of the Songs could have attributed such a divergent meaning to the biblical expression. But even if both proposals are rejected, it is evident that the usage attested in the Songs does not represent an outgrowth of the original priestly usage of the expression discussed above. Rather, it derives from a nonliteral exegesis that manipulates the biblical words in a way that reflects disregard for the original meaning and context of the terms in question.

General Conclusion

The common denominator of the three examples discussed above—as well as many others not mentionedFootnote 84—is the marked linguistic and stylistic difference between the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and biblical priestly literature. It is no surprise that numerous linguistic elements in the Songs betray a late linguistic background, for there is no doubt that this work was composed during the Second Temple period. But anyone who claims that the Songs is affiliated with ancient priestly literature needs to explain why the author of the Songs refrains from using the classical priestly stock of expressions (as in the case of ) and prefers to use nonpriestly terms (as in the case of ). If he was a descendent or an heir of ancient priestly circles, how could he transform and obscure the transparent wording of technical instructions (as in the case of ) in such a radical way that its relation to the original context can hardly be recovered?

Such queries are dulled if one recognizes that the assumption underlying the problem is in fact anachronistic. The author of the Songs had no special relation to the priestly literature because no such literature—as a distinct and recognizable body of texts—was ever available to him. He was influenced by biblical literature, and this influence extends to various strata and sections of the Hebrew Bible. His work bears clear marks of the impression made by the Pentateuch and the book of Ezekiel, but it was also inspired by the books of Kings and Psalms and by other biblical books and exegetical traditions (some of which can no longer be recovered).Footnote 85 One of the characteristic features of the Songs is its eclecticism; it is a mosaic of vocables and locutions, building blocks collected from various biblical sources (whose original connection is often weak or even nonexistent). This is one of the many respects in which this composition is a typical product of the Second Temple period.

Was the author of the Songs a priest? We shall perhaps never know the answer to this question, but even if he was, there is no indication in the language and style of his work that he had direct access to authentic priestly sources, other than those embedded in biblical literature.Footnote 86

This conclusion can be interpreted in two ways. One possibility is to deny the priestly provenance of the Songs completely; the author's preoccupation with themes pertaining to the temple, the heavenly priesthood and the cult may then be interpreted as reflecting another spiritual trend, which has nothing to do with “real” priestly circles and worldview. An alternative possibility is to maintain the argument that the Songs stems from a priestly provenance, but this would entail a profound and far-reaching change of the definition of this notion as applied to the Second Temple period. If the Songs is a priestly work, then it represents a cultural phenomenon and a social circle that are divorced from a special connection to the communities underlying biblical priestly literature. A decision on this matter cannot be made on the basis of linguistic evidence alone, and it is up to historians to integrate the above conclusions into a comprehensive understanding of the intricate cultural and social reality of the Second Temple period.

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Professors Avi Hurvitz and Simeon Chavel and to the anonymous HTR reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. It was prepared in part while I was Jean Matlow Scholar at the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and I thank the Orion Center and its staff for their support and encouragement.

References

1 The many fragments were sorted to ten copies of the work, published in an admirable preliminary edition by Newsom, Carol, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1985)Google Scholar. Quotations from the Songs are taken from the following official publications of the various manuscripts (4Q400–407, Mas, 11Q17): Newsom, Carol, “Shirot ‘Olat HaShabbat,” in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 173–401Google Scholar, plates xvi–xxxi; eadem and Yadin, Yigael, “The Masada Fragment of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Masada: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, VI: Hebrew Fragments from Masada (ed. Talmon, Shemaryahu; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999) 120–32Google Scholar; García-Martínez, Florentino, Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., and van der Woude, Adam S., “11QShirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat,” in Qumran Cave 11, II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 259–304Google Scholar, plates xxx–xxxiv.

2 Maier, Johann, Vom Kultus zur Gnosis. Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der “jüdischen Gnosis” (Kairos 1; Saltzburg: Müller, 1964) 132–35Google Scholar; idem, “Zu Kult und Liturgie der Qumrangemeinde,” RevQ 56 (1990) 545–86, at 572–74. See also Alexander, Philip S., The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts (JSPSupp 61; Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 7; London: Continuum, 2006) 129.Google Scholar

3 Knohl, Israel, “Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult,” JBL 115 (1996) 17–30Google Scholar.

4 Elior, Rachel, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism (trans. Louvish, David; Portland, Ore.: Littman, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, “The ‘Merkavah’ Tradition and the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism: From Temple to ‘Merkavah’, From ‘Hekhal’ to ‘Hekhalot,’ From Priestly Opposition to Gazing upon the ‘Merkavah’,” in Sino-Judaica: Jews and Chinese in Historical Dialogue (ed. Aaron Oppenheimer; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999) 101–58; eadem, “The Emergence of the Mystical Traditions of the ‘Merkabah’,” in Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (ed. April D. DeConick; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2006) 83–103.

5 The supposed relationship of priestly literature to the Songs on the one hand and to Hekhalot literature on the other is a subject that requires a separate discussion. For a balanced and nuanced reassessment of the alleged priestly nature of Hekhalot literature, see Ra‘anan S. Boustan, “Rabbi Ishmael's Priestly Genealogy in Hekhalot Literature,” in DeConick, Paradise Now, 127–41. For a linguistic reconsideration of the alleged relation between the Songs and Hekhalot literature, see Noam Mizrahi, “The Supposed Relationship between the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hekhalot Literature: Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects,” Meghillot 7 (2009) 263–98 [in Hebrew].

6 The following discussion presupposes—in accordance with a broad consensus—that biblical priestly literature is a well-defined body of texts from a source-critical point of view; it comprises mainly the Priestly Source of the Pentateuch—known as P—and the book of Ezekiel. For the present purposes, it is sufficient to take P en bloc without subdividing it into various strata.

7 4Q392 1 9: [, translated by its final editor as follows: “[For on] high [he made w]inds and lightnings [his messengers and s]ervants of an inner sanctu[ary.] From his presence go forth the lu[minaries].” See Falk, Daniel, “392. 4QWorks of God,” in Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) 25–44Google Scholar, at 29. As noted by Falk (ibid., 28, 31, line 9), the original editor of the text, John Strugnell, deciphered the traces as , “s]ervants of [His] word,” rather than . Falk based his reading on a similar formulation in the Songs: (4Q400 I [= frg. 1 i] 4; Song I).

8 Song I (4Q400 I [= frg. 1 i] 4); Song IX (4Q405 G 21–22 [= frg. 14–15 i 6'–7']); Song XI (11Q17 VII 4 [= frg. 17 3'] // 4Q405 J 12 [= frg. 20 ii–22 2']).

9 Song V (4Q402 2 4); Song IX (4Q405 G 21–22 [= frg. 14–15 i 6'–7']); Song X (4Q405 H 18 [= frg. 15 ii–16 3'] // 11Q17 V 3 [= frg. 9 1']).

10 In the plural: Song X (4Q405 H 20 [= frg. 15 ii–16 5'] // 11Q17 V 4 [= frg. 10 1']); Song XI (4Q405 I 18–19, 23 [= frg. 19 2'–3', 7'] // 11Q17 VI 3–4, 7 [= frg. 12 1'; 15 6']).

11 Song VII (4Q403 1 ii 16); Song X (4Q405 H 14 [= frg. 17 6']); Song XIII (11Q17 × 7 [= frg. 24 6']).

12 Hurvitz, Avi, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (CahRB 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982) 138–41Google Scholar; idem, “Terms and Epithets Relating to the Jerusalem Temple Compound in the Book of Chronicles: The Linguistic Aspect,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 165–83, at 171–74.

13 There is a single attestation of in the nonsynoptic portions of Chronicles (2 Chr 3:16; contrast 1 Kgs 7:17), but critical commentators are unanimous in taking the text of the verse as corrupted, and many emend the word to ; see for instance Curtis, Edward L. and Madsen, Albert A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC 11; New York: Scribner, 1910) 329.Google Scholar

14 Exod 26:33, 34; Num 4:4, 19; Ezek 41:4. Note that when the expression is indeterminate, P applies it to various other sacred objects: the altar (Exod 29:37; 30:10, 29; 40:10), the incense (Exod 30:36; see also 1 Chr 6:34), various kinds of offerings (Lev 2:3; 6:10, 18, 22; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17; 14:13; 24:9; Num 18:9; see further below, n. 53); in Ezekiel it extends to the entire temple complex (Ezek 43:12; 45:3; see also 48:12). In late biblical books, it is also applied to the priests (Dan 9:24; 1 Chr 23:13).

15 For a discussion of priestly terms employed in the book of Kings (or, more precisely, in the “temple chronicles” now embedded in Kings), see Paran, Meir, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usage, Syntactic Structures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) 309–29Google Scholar, esp. 325–26 [in Hebrew].

16 Lane, Edward W., An Arabic-English Lexicon (8 vols.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1863–1893)Google Scholar 3:846a–b.

17 According to an alternative view, Hebrew is borrowed from Egyptian in which its putative origin can be defined by its accompanying determinatives “house” and “wood”; see Schult, Hermann, “Der Debir im salomonischen Tempel,” ZDPV 80 (1964) 46–54Google Scholar; Tvedtnes, John A., “Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia,” in Egyptological Studies (ed. Israelit-Groll, Sara; ScrHier 28; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 215–21Google Scholar, at 217; Ouellette, Jean, “The Solomonic Debîr according to the Hebrew Text of 1 Kings 6,” JBL 89 (1970) 338–43Google Scholar. However, the Egyptian word alleged to be the source of the Hebrew term is now taken to be a West Semitic loan into Egyptian; see Sivan, Daniel and Cochavi-Rainey, Zipora, West Semitic Vocabulary in Egyptian Script of the 14th to the 10th Centuries BCE (Beer Sheva 6; Beer Sheba: University Press, 1992) 32Google Scholar (§ 2.1.2.1), 87 (no. 301).

18 That this terminological distinction is strictly kept throughout classical biblical Hebrew suggests that it reflects a certain cultural reality in which priestly texts were produced and circulated within a limited group and that their distinctive style was therefore characteristic to a specific scribal school.

19 Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. Emil Kautzsch; trans. Arthur E. Cowley; 2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) 431 § 133i; Joüon, Paul and Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006) 491Google Scholar § 141l.

20 Thus, of eleven occurrences of in the book of Kings, only three were left intact in the book of Chronicles. In other cases, the Chronicler either omitted the entire passage (1 Kgs 6:5, 16, 21, 22, 31), or replaced the term in question with its late equivalent (1 Kgs 6:19, 23 // 2 Chr 3:8, 10). The phrase also prevails in early rabbinic literature, where is practically nonexistent. The late phrase is based on the priestly term, but the construction bêt X (“the place of X”) is not used in classical priestly texts to designate parts of the tabernacle and its surroundings. On the other hand, it is widely used in postexilic and rabbinic Hebrew to denote various parts and sections of the temple (see Hurvitz, “Terms and Epithets”). The compound term is thus a clear marker of the postclassical period in which old terms are used as building blocks in otherwise new constructions.

21 Segal, Moshe H., The Complete Book of Ben Sira (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958) 313–14Google Scholar [in Hebrew] (vv. 13–15 according to his numeration); Smend, Rudolph, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (3 vols.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906) 2:431–32Google Scholar. See also Skehan, Patrick W. and Di Lella, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987) 511–12Google Scholar.

22 The word may be attested in another passage of Sirach: , which might be rendered as: “(like) the sun (that) shines in the height of heaven, (so is) a woman beautiful in a man's private chamber” (Sir 26:16 according to MS C; trans. and italics mine). But in this case the LXX is quite different, and no safe conclusion can be drawn from the Hebrew text. Even if the Hebrew reading is original, the meaning of does not correspond to its technical usage in classical biblical Hebrew; see Kister, Menahem, “Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira,” in The Cambridge Genizah Collections: Their Contents and Significance (ed. Reif, Stephan C.; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 36–46Google Scholar, at 41–42.

23 The classical component has a central role in the language of Ben Sira, although some refrain from describing it as an “archaistic” usage and prefer to highlight the creative application (sometimes exegetically motivated) of biblical lexemes and expressions. See, for instance, Kister, Menahem, “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages (ed. Muraoka, Takamitsu and Elwolde, John F.; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 160–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aitken, James K., “Hebrew Study in Ben Sira's Beth Midrash,” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben Yehuda (ed. Horbury, William; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999) 27–37Google Scholar.

24 As noted above, is found about thirty times in the Songs. For the sake of comparison, the total sum of its occurrences in biblical Hebrew is only sixteen.

25 Dimant, Devorah, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser (ed. Gruenwald, Itamar, Shaked, Shaul, and Stroumsa, Gedalyahu G.; Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 42Google Scholar n. 43.

26 No less than nine phrases are used in the Songs, four of which are in recurring collocations. By comparison only three phrases are found in biblical Hebrew, each attested only once.

27 Sokoloff, Michael, “The Hebrew of Bӗréŝit Rabba according to MS. Vat. Ebr. 30,” Leŝ 33 (1968–1969) 25–42Google Scholar, 135–49, 270–79, at 276–77 [in Hebrew]. Some rabbis were quite aware of this process as demonstrated by famous episodes in Talmudic literature dealing with the problem explicitly in relation to both lexis (b. Avodah Zarah 58b) and morphology (b. Ḥullin 137b). Seen in this light, it is little wonder that there are several occurrences of in Amoraic literature. Even so, however, these occurrences are restricted to only four contexts, and in two of them the word functions as an allusion to biblical texts. See, for instance, the rabbinic discussion of various epithets of the temple in y. Berakhot 4:5 8c (ed. Academy of Hebrew Language, 41) // GenR 54:7 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, 2.591) // CantR 4.4.9. Each of the terms discussed in this homily ( “established place,” “Mount Moriya,” “ark,” “shrine”) is presented explicitly as a biblical appellation that requires a homiletic clarification.

28 See e.g., the seventeenth benediction of the ‘Amida prayer: , “O LORD our God, acknowledge Your people and their prayer, and restore worship to the shrine of Your house” [trans. and italics mine]. Because of the problematic textual basis of printed editions of rabbinic literature, all quotations from rabbinic sources—including this one—are taken from Ma'agarim, the database of the Historical Dictionary of the Academy of Hebrew language (http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il/), which uses reliable manuscripts.

29 See b. Avodah Zarah 24b // GenR 54:4 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, 2.581–82) // Seder Eliyahu Rabba 11 (ed. Friedmann, 58): , “Sing, sing (or: rise, rise), O acacia wood / Move, move to and fro in your many adornments // Girdled in gilded embroideries / Praised in shrine and palace (or: shrine of palace).” For a recent treatment of the poem in its rabbinic contexts, see Adiel Kadari, “On Singing Cows and the Sanctity of the Ark,” Tarbiz 72 (2002–2003) 177–96 [in Hebrew].

30 Aaron Mirsky, “Poetry during the Talmudic Period,” in idem, Piyu⃛ : hitpatḥuto be-Erets-Yiśra<el uva-golah (HaPiyyu⃛: The Development of Post-Biblical Poetry in Eretz Israel and the Diaspora) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990) 57–81, esp. 68–70; originally published in Jerusalem 2 (1967) 161–79 [in Hebrew].

31 Note that, at least according to one version of the poem, the two classical lexemes and are combined into the novel phrase “a shrine of palace.”

32 As Mirsky has shown, these poems are forerunners of Byzantine Piyyu⃛. But while the talmudic poems were used for various random functions, the piyyuŧim were used as fixed poetic substitutes for specific institutional liturgies and prayers; see Fleischer, Ezra, “Piyyut,” in The Literature of the Sages, Second Part (ed. Safrai, Shmuel et al.; 2 vols.; Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section 2, Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and Talmud; 3b; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006) 363–74Google Scholar, at 363–64.

33 The Ma'agarim database records eight occurrences of this collocation in poems antedating Rav Saadiah Gaon (ninth–tenth cent. C.E.), whose influential poetics transformed Piyyu⃛.

34 See e.g., Yahalom, Joseph, Poetic Language in the Early Piyyu⃛ (Jeursalem: Magnes, 1985) 162–76Google Scholar [in Hebrew]; Israel Yeivin, “The Contribution of the Piyyu⃛ Language to the Mishnaic Language,” Massorot 9–11 (1997) 77–90 [in Hebrew].

35 See especially Yeivin, Israel, “Characteristic Linguistic Features of Piyyu⃛,” in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages: Presented to Shelomo Morag (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996) 105–18Google Scholar [in Hebrew]. For a recent grammatical description of Piyyu⃛ Hebrew, from a selection of poems by Rabbi Elazar Qillir (presumably sixth cent. C.E.), see Rand, Michael, Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006).Google Scholar

36 The implications of this characterization were emphasized by Fleischer, Ezra, “The Cultural Profile of Eastern Jewry in the Early Middle Ages as Reflected by the Payyetanic Texts of the Geniza,” in A Centuary of Geniza Research (ed. Friedman, Mordechai A.; Te‘uda 15; Tel Aviv: University Press, 1999) 1–22Google Scholar, at 11–14 [in Hebrew].

37 Aramaic presents a more complicated case, since it is found within the Bible itself; as a result, lexemes of biblical Aramaic were considered to be a legitimate component of Piyyu⃛ lexis; see Shulamit Elitzur, “The Incorporation of Aramaic Elements in Ancient Palestinian Piyyu⃛ im,” Leŝ 70 (2008) 331–48 [in Hebrew].

38 Compare the conspicuous absence of Greek words from Qumran Hebrew (including the Songs) noted by Kutscher, Eduard Y., A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) § 162Google Scholar.

39 See further my forthcoming paper, “Aspects of Poetic Stylization in Second Temple Hebrew: A Comparison of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with Ancient Piyyu⃛” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher, Steven E. Fassberg, and Ruth Clements; STDJ; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). The similarity between the language of the Songs and Piyyu⃛ is restricted to the typological realm alone without extending it to the historical realm. The phraseological analysis of demonstrates that no direct link can be established between the two corpora. Rather than being historically linked, they seem to stem from a comparable literary effort to make intensive use of biblical-like Hebrew as a medium of liturgical devotion, since the Hebrew Bible—particularly its poetic sections—was perceived as a central source of spiritual inspiration. This literary effort may be part of a larger cultural construct that emerged among certain circles in the Second Temple period concerning the unique status of Hebrew as a “holy tongue” (4Q464 3 i 8); see Steven Weitzman, “Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” JAOS 119 (1999) 35–45.

40 This expression reflects, perhaps, angelological exegesis of the biblical phrase (see especially Ps 51:17–21), interpreted as “sacrifices of (i.e., offered by) divine beings.” For the meaning of the entire passage see also the opposing views of Nitzan, Bilhah, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 289–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 359–61Google Scholar.

41 Gen 27:27; Exod 5:21; Jer 48:11; Hos 14:7; Job 14:9; see also Dan 3:27 [in Aramaic]. The lexeme is especially common in Canticles: 1:3, 12; 2:13; 4:10, 11; 7:9, 14. For its occurrences in P, see the following note.

42 Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 16; 4:31; 6:8, 14; 8:21, 28; 17:6; 23:13, 18; 26:31; Num 15:3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 24; 18:17; 28:2, 6, 8, 13, 24, 27; 29:2, 6, 8, 13, 36.

43 Lev 26:31 is part of the Holiness Code. According to the classical view, which takes this literary document as an old source embedded in P, Lev 26:31 echoes an ancient anthropomorphic conceptualization, which was repressed in later strata of priestly literature (for this tendency see further below). See Kuenen, Abraham, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. Wicksteed, Philip H.; London: Macmillan, 1886) 87–91Google Scholar. According to the currently prevailing view, the Holiness Code belongs to a later stratum of priestly literature (which includes Num 28:2 as well) whose authors were not as reluctant to depict God in anthropomorphic terms, since they were trying to combine elite priestly conceptions with old popular traditions. see Knohl, Israel, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis, Min.: Fortress, 1995) 170–72Google Scholar. For the assignment of Num 28:2b to the stratum labeled by Knohl as “the Holiness School,” see ibid., 30.

44 For the formation of this word, see Barth, Jakob, Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1894Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) § 142; Hans Bauer and Leander, Pontus, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965) § 61tβ–wβ. For an analysis of the cultic meaning of the term, see Gray, George B., Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925Google Scholar; repr. with prolegomenon by Baruch A. Levine; New York: Ktav, 1971) 76–81. For another approach, see Levine, Baruch A., In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 6.

45 As recognized by the Sages: —, “niḥoaḥ—for pleasing the mind.” Sifra, Vayyiqra / Dibbura DiNedavah 5 (ed. Isaac H. Weiss; New York: Om, 1946) 7c. See also Ibn Ezra on Gen 8:21 in Miqra'ot Gedolot ‘HaKeter’: Genesis (ed. Menahem Cohen; 2 vols.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1997–1999) 1:96. Compare the picture portrayed in 1 Sam 26:19: “Now let my lord the king hear his servant out. If the LORD has incited you against me, let Him smell an offering ()” [trans. and italics mine]. The JPS rendered the last words aptly as “let Him be appeased by an offering” [italics mine].

46 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 132–35.

47 The verbs used in such contexts are (e.g., Exod 29:25), (e.g., Num 15:3), and rarely (e.g., Num 15:7). It has been argued that in the formula , the preposition has a genitive force, that is, that the “soothing odor” belongs to God (rather than the dative force, which would imply that it is addressed to God). Thus de Boer, Pieter A. H., “An Aspect of Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSupp 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 47. But this argument is not compelling.

48 See, e.g., Carpenter, Joseph E. and Harford, George, The Composition of the Hexateuch (London: Longmans, 1902) 420Google Scholar n. 158.

49 This feature was noted by Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 53–58.

50 See, e.g., HALOT 1930b, .

51 The offerings themselves are specified in v. 9a, but this list forms an independent clause, and v. 10 does not constitute a direct continuation of Ezra 6:9a. The subject of the verb in v. 10 refers to “the priests” mentioned in v. 9b (or, less likely, to “these men” mentioned in v. 8) but not to the offerings specified in v. 9a.

52 The phrase may to be interpreted as an inversion of , i.e., “their anger-offering” (compare Priestly terms such as “guilt-offering” and “sin-offering”), as suggested by Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel: A NewTranslation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vols.; AB 22; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1997) 1:370. Note, however, that the whole stich is missing in the LXX, and it was taken to be a late interpolation by Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel (trans. Ronald E. Clements and James D. Martin; 2 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1979–1983) 1:402.

53 Similarly, the general word is appropriated in biblical Hebrew to denote “offerings” by being used in the plural form (see HALOT 1077, , § 3). By the same token, when the superlative construction appears in the plural as it also denotes “offerings” (Lev 21:22; Ezek 42:13; see also Ezra 2:63 // Neh 7:65; 2 Chr 31:14); see above, n. 14.

54 See e.g., “[& the glor]y of our grandeur, and there is no nîḥoa ḥ in the hous[e &]” (4Q179 1 i 6); [& , “and to serve the nîḥoaḥ []” (4Q419 1 6).

55 See e.g., , “Then he will be accepted by God, (offering) atonements of nîḥoaḥ (1QS 3:11); , “and prayer (lit.: offering of the lips) for justice is like a nîḥoaḥ of righteousness, and pure way is like a pleasing free-will offering” (1QS 9:4–5); , “These shall take their stand at the burnt offerings and sacrifices to arrange the burning of nîḥoaḥ for pleasing God, to atone for all His congregations” (1QM 2:5).

56 For analysis of this term, see Anderson, Gary A., Sacrifice and Offering in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance (HSM 41; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1987) 27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 One should not overlook the socio-linguistic implication of this change. It can be explained as being rooted in a literary and cultural process by which old priestly material, originally confined to a limited and conservative circle, eventually became accessible to a larger, less pedantic audience. The antiquated priestly terminology was then submitted to new appropriations, which eventually blurred its original semantics and restricted range of usage.

58 Bauer, Hans and Leander, Pontus, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Niemeyer, 1927Google Scholar; Hildesheim: Olms, 1969) 193 § 51l'''.

59 Note that this is indicated not only by the diacritical vocalization—which arguably reflects an oral tradition submitted to writing only at a relatively late period—but also by the use of plene spelling in Ezra 6:10.

60 See Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 58 n. 11.

61 This kind of archaizing may be responsible for several occurrences of the classical collocation in Second Temple literature; see especially Sir 45:16 (MS B); Aramaic Levi Document 8:6 (MS Bodleian, fol. d).

62 Newsom, Songs, 372–73.

63 Newsom, Songs, 298; eadem, “4QShirot,” 342. Both and are in the singular, yet in the third quotation the collocation functions as the modifier of , which is in the plural. Similarly, in the second quotation, it may be the modifier of , but it can also be taken as referring to , in which may in fact be a phonetic spelling of the singular form. For the latter point, see Qimron, Elisha, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar § 100.34, 137 addendum to § 100.34; idem, “A Review Article of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices: A Critical Edition by Carol Newsom,” HTR 79 (1986) 349–71, at § 1.1.1.2.

64 For P's distinction between these two kinds of incense, see Haran, Menahem, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel⃛ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978Google Scholar; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 241–45. The English translation of the passage follows JPS with some alterations in v. 34a.

65 I disregard the conspicuous difference, which is misleading. In the biblical text, the form used is seemingly the adjective , while in the Songs the form looks like a noun. However, this may not be a grammatical difference but rather a purely orthographical one. The Dead Sea scrolls testify to a considerable weakening in the pronunciation of [h], and in fact the phonetic realization of both forms in Qumran Hebrew was perhaps identical; see Qimron, Hebrew, § 200.11;addendum to § 200.11; idem, “Review Article,” § 1.1.2.1; § 3.12. See also Newsom, Songs, 298; eadem, “4QShirot,” 342. Hence, no formal distinction between these two forms can be established on the basis of spelling.

66 Rashi, Compare, Miqra’ot Gedolot ‘HaKeter’: Exodus (ed. Cohen, Menahem; 2 vols; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007) 2:130Google Scholar.

67 This interpretation is corroborated by Akkadian parallels adduced from ritual texts and incantations; see Hurowitz, Victor A., “Salted Incense: Exodus 30,35; MaqlÛ VI 111–13; IX 118–20,” Biblica 68 (1987) 178–94Google Scholar.

68 Some of the sources discussed below were already survey by Carmignac, Jean, “Le sens de la racine MLḤ II dans la Bible et a Qumran,” in Studi sull' Oriente e la Bibbia. Offerti al p. Giovani Rinaldi (Genova: Studio e Vita, 1967) 77–81Google Scholar, who concludes that needs to be interpreted as “vapor, aroma.” But his discussion follows inaccurate or even wrong data and cannot be relied upon. For instance, he asserts in passing that mallāḥ “sailor” is derived from meœlaḥ “salt,” even though the former is not a Semitic word but rather a loanword from Sumerian (maœ.laḫ 4/5) via Akkadian (malāḫu, malaḫḫu).

69 LXX: μεμιγμένον, Vulg: mixtum diligenter, Pesh: , Targ. Onq.: , Neoph.: , Ps-Jon.: . See Hurowitz, “Salted Incense.”

70 Admittedly, the passive D stem is in decline in Second Temple Hebrew, but the opposite is true for its nominal derivation, namely, the participle. The m#quttāl pattern is productive in postclassical Hebrew, especially in adjectives; see Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 27–30. See also Ze'ev Ben-Ḥayyim, “The Samaritan Tradition and Its Relation to the Linguistic Tradition of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Hebrew,” Leŝ 22 (1958) 223–45, at 236–42 [in Hebrew].

71 Jonah Ibn Janaḥ considered the possibility to interpret in Exod 30:35 according to Arabic “beauty” and “beautiful” in Sepher Haschoraschim. Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ḡanâh (R. Jona)—Aus dem Arabischen in's Hebräische übersetzt von Jehuda Ibn Tibbon (ed. Wilhelm Bacher; Berlin: Itzkowski, 1896) 263. Admittedly, this interpretation is not impossible, since figurative usages of words denoting tastes and flavors are well documented in various languages; see, for instance, Perrichet-Thomas, Christiane, “La symbolique du sel dans les textes anciens,” in Mélanges Pierre Lévêque (ed. Mactoux, Marie-Madeleine and Geny, Evelyne; 9 vols.; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1993) 7:287–96Google Scholar. The reverse development is also attested in the Semitic languages: the Akkadian word for “salt,” ⃛ ābtu, is derived from ⃛ ābu “good” (cf. CAD, Ṭ, 15a). Nevertheless, Ibn Janaḥ's explanation does not seem to fit in this specific case, since the meaning “beauty” may be an inner-Arabic development (as demonstrated by the Arabic proverb quoted by Ibn Janaḥ himself); hence it cannot be applied to Hebrew. In later strata of Hebrew, is indeed used figuratively, but it means “smart, clever,” not “beautiful” or “pleasant” as in Arabic. See for instance b. Qiddushin 29b: . , “Our Rabbis taught: If he has himself to study and his son to study, he takes precedence over his son. R. Judah said: If his son is agile and clever [alternative reading: full (of Torah)]&, his son takes precedence over him”; see also Kallah Rabbati 3:1. Masekhtot Kalah (ed. Michael Higger; New York: Hotsa<at “De-be Rabanan,” 1936; repr. Soncino, 1965) 212–15. The word (or ) is not found in the older, Tannaitic formulation of the dictum (t. Bekhorot 6:3)—a fact that suggests that this figurative use developed in Hebrew only at a very late date.

72 The form may stand in grammatical agreement with , “Josiah's name” (both being in the masculine singular), but if it is a frozen expression (as in the Songs), it may be a modifier of the feminine “spice incense.”

73 Nevertheless, it was mechanically understood in this way by some scholars, such as Núria Calduch-Benages, “Aromas, perfumes y fragancias en el libro de Ben Sira,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom—Festschrift M. Gilbert (ed. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 15–30, at 25 (I thank Dr. Ronnie Goldstein for assisting me in reading this Spanish paper).

74 In this case the Greek version (Μνημόσυνον Iωσίου εἰϛ σύνθεσιν θυμιάματοϛ ἐσκευασμένον ἔργῳ μυρεψοῦ) is not helpful, since it may not render but rather may offer a double rendition of . Note that in Ezek 24:10, the Hebrew word seems to be rendered as σκευασία by Theodotion; see Field, Frederick, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875) 2.834Google Scholar.

75 Strugnell, John, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran: 4Q Serek Šîrôt ‘Ôlat Haŝŝabbāt,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTSupp 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 318–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at § 17. This understanding was unjustifiably rejected by Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 364–65 and n. 20.

76 Newsom, “Shirot ‘Olat HaShabbat,” 342.

77 Haran, Temples, 160–63, 210–12; Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.; AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001) 2:1656–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a different view of this issue, see Schwartz, Baruch J., The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 324–28Google Scholar [in Hebrew]; following Cornelis Houtman, “Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures,” VT 34 (1984) 226–28. Jenson, Philip P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSupp 106; Sheffield: Academic, 1992) 85–87Google Scholar mixes different explanations uncritically and assumes a systematic conceptualization that is quite alien to the biblical texts themselves.

78 Exod 30:34 enumerates three spices as ingredients of the incense ( ), but they are considered together as a single component, namely, “spices.” This is indeed indicated by the syntax of the verse. By repeating the word “spices,” the list of is taken as a parenthetic clause, which is an appositional specification of ; compare the keen observation of the medieval commentator R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) in Martin I. Lockshin, Rashbam's Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1997) 388–89. See also Blau, Joshua, “On Markers of Species and Numbers in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” in Teshurah Le-‘Amos: Collected Studies in Biblical Exegesis Presented to ‘Amos Hakham (ed. Bar-Asher, Moshe, Hakham, Noah, and Offer, Yoseph; Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 2007) 445–48Google Scholar.

79 While holiness (q-d-ŝ) and purity (⃛ -h-r) are not identical, they do overlap in ritual contexts. Compare, for instance, the following parallel formulations found in P and Ezekiel: “Seven days you shall purge the alter and sanctify it” (Exod 29:37); “Seven days they shall purge the alter and purify it” (Ezek 43:26) [trans. and italics mine].

80 For , see Exod 26:1, 31; 28:6, 15; 36:8, 35; 39:3, 8. For , see Exod 26:36; 27:16; 28:39; 36:36; 38:18; 39:29; see also 35:35; 38:23. For , see Exod 28:32; 39:22, 27; see also 35:35.

81 Since the collocation is applied in the Songs to the visual aspect of certain cultic objects in the heavenly realm, it may also connote “brightness, shiny appearance” (see Exod 24:10)—this sense may be metonymically related to the notion of purity and could also be interpreted as related to . Note that 4Q403 1 i 42 could attest to a confusion of the two nouns. The scribe began to write (perhaps having in mind , “shiny firmament”) but then erased the last two letters and wrote instead , “most pure firmament” (compare the overlapping text of 4Q405 C 16 [= frg. 6 3']).

82 For instance: (m. Nega‘im 2:1) “Painters have colours wherewith they depict figures in black and white and in the intermediate shade. A man should bring paint of an intermediate shade and encompass the leprosy-sign therewith, and it will then appear as on one [whose skin is] of the intermediate shade.” The Mishnah (trans. Herbert Danby; Oxford: Clarendon, 1933; italics mine) 678.

83 Such a phenomenon is not uncommon in Qumran Hebrew, and a comparable semantic development can be traced in another phrase taken from the same priestly recipe for the spice incense. The dualistic Treatise of the Two Spirits included in the Community Rule describes the two spirits that govern the world, the Spirits of Truth and Injustice, and makes the following statement: “For God set them bad bəbad until the final period and established eternal enmity between their parties” (1QS 4:16; see also line 25). Jacob Licht noted that the adverbial expression is directly borrowed from Exod 30:34, but it is used there in a different sense. Licht, , The Rule Scroll (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965) 102Google Scholar [in Hebrew]. In Exodus the phrase is best taken as meaning “part by part,” that is, “in equal parts,” while in the Community Rule, it means “one alongside the other”; the latter meaning, however, is not taken out of the blue but rather reflects a usage documented in Rabbinic Hebrew: “What is (the meaning of what is) written, ‘A sword is upon the baddîm and they shall become fools' [Jer 50:36]? A sword is upon the enemies of the disciples of the wise who sit bad bəbad and study the Torah” (b. Berakhot 63b; see also b. Makkot 10a; Ta‘anit 7a).

84 For analysis of many other such examples, see Noam Mizrahi, “The Lexicon and Phraseology of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (Ph.D. diss.; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008).

85 A similar conclusion was reached by Alexander, Mystical Texts, 59–61, although his general approach to the issue discussed here is quite different.

86 In this respect the Songs can be contrasted to the book of Ezekiel, which draws from authentic—yet independent—priestly traditions and style and may therefore be seen as a late outgrowth of priestly literature; see Menahem Haran, “The Law-Code of Ezekiel XL–XLVIII and Its Relation to the Priestly School,” HUCA 50 (1979) 45–71, at 59–71; idem, “Ezekiel, P, and the Priestly School,” VT 58 (2008) 211–18.