No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Biblical Priestly Literature: A Linguistic Reconsideration*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2010
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
- Type
- ARTICLES
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010
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.