[750Γ32 (1985) 3-14]

EXODUS 16:5, 23
A RULE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF THE SABBATH?

W.A.M. Beuken
Katholieke Theologische Hogeschool D Bruinvis Keizergracht 105
postbus 1948, Amsterdam 1000 G, Netherlands

In the account of the institution of the manna and the sabbath (Exod.
16), Pentateuchal criticism has generally ascribed v. 5 and v. 23 to
differing sources.1 In v. 23, which seems to belong to the basic layer
of the chapter, the hand of the Priestly writer has nearly always been
recognized.2 But v. 5 has been ascribed variously to the Yahwist,3
the Deuteronomic Editor,4 a redactor5 or a glossator,6 or even,
exceptionally, to Ρ (in which case v. 23 is considered to be a very late
adaptation).7
It is remarkable that while the well-known arguments of source
criticism play a part in the discussion, one hardly ever penetrates
further into the difficulties that arisefromthe linguistic interpretation
of these verses. If one looks at present-day translations, there appear
to be great differences. These are the result of an interplay between
lexical and syntactical difficulties on the one hand, and on the other
hand ideas about the function of these verses in the progress of the
story. These differences include the question whether or not both v. 5
and v. 23 comprise a rule for the keeping of the sabbath, or only one
of them. The rule in question stipulates that one must prepare the
meal for the sabbath the day before. But if this holds only for v. 5 and
not for v. 23, then there is a contradiction between the two verses.
We imagine that this contradiction has also contributed to the
ascription of these verses to different sources.
It is not our intention to undertake a linguistic research in order to
ascribe vv. 5 and 23 once more to certain sources. We will let this
issue rest. We merely ask of each verse separately, whether the
aforementioned rule regarding the keeping of the sabbath is stated or
implied. Following this investigation, the reciprocal relationship of
these verses can be considered.
4 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

I. Exodus 16.5
A Commandment or the Announcement of a Miracle?
1. A survey of the interpretations
The Masoretic text is as follows:
wvn DTD ΓΡΠ1
Ί Ν ^ - Ί Ρ Ν ΠΝ iraní
Dì" DV IBp^-Ί^Μ *?ï> Î W D ¡Till

There are three explanations for this verse:

(a) Some translations and commentators read this as an explicit
commandment. This commandment can be twofold: on the sixth day
Israel must gather and prepare a double portion (e.g. the Dutch
Willibrord Translation).8 But it can also be a single commandment:
one must prepare a double portion of what one has (previously)
gathered (the New American Bible: 'On the sixth day, however, when
they prepare what they bring in, let it be twice as much as they gather
on the other days').9
(b) Others see the text as the announcement of a miracle. The
following explanation goes the furthest: only when the Israelites have
prepared the manna which has been gathered on the sixth day do
they realize that they have a double portion.10 A miracle is also
thought of by those translators who imagine that the Israelites
discover a double portion when, on the sixth day, they begin to
prepare the gathered manna (the New Translation of the Jewish
Publication Society of America: 'But on the sixth day, when they
prepare what they have brought in, it shall prove to be double the
amount they gather each day'). According to some commentators the
text of v. 5 leaves it unclear whether the amount for the sabbath is
prepared at once or must still be prepared.11
(c) These first two interpretations are brought together in a third
explanation: the Israelites must prepare all the manna that has been
brought in. While preparing it, they notice that it is a double amount.
And so they become aware of the miracle and at the same time they
fulfil the commandment to prepare the meal for the sabbath the day
before (the Revised Standard Version: 'On the sixth day, when they
prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather
daily').12
The answer to the question of the relationship in the original
version of the chapter between manna and sabbath, miracle and
commandment, determines the interpretation of v. 5.
 BEUKEN The Keeping of the Sabbath 5

2. The ancient translations

The Versions differ in their interpretation of v. 5. LXX translates
according to the third explanation given above: 'They shall prepare
whatsoever they have brought in, and it shall be double... ' (έτοιμάσ-
ουσιν ö έάν είσενέγκωσιν, και εσται διπλούν). The Samaritan and
Syriac translations, as well as Targum Onkelos (TgO), stay so close
13
to the Masoretic text that they retain its ambiguity. But Targum
Neofiti (TgN) translates: 'But on the sixth day, they shall retain what
they have brought, and this will be double what they have gathered
14
as a daily quantity' (VM instead of the jpn in TgO). Docs this
Targum imply that the manna kept for the sabbath is prepared only
on the sabbath? If so, it has explicated MT in a manner opposed to
that of subsequent Jewish legislation. Targum Yerushalmi I (TgYerl)
testifies to this legislation with a real halachic explanation: 'But on
the sixth day, they shall prepare what they have brought for them to
eat on the sabbath; they shall make a common vessel in the houses and
combine their areas so as to be able to move (an object) from one
(house) to another. And they shall obtain double what they have
gathered day by day' (cf. the erub legislation).15
Finally, the Vulgate (Vg) also translates the verse as a command­
ment (coniunctivi): Die autem sexto parent quod inférant, et sit
duplum. We perceive, then, that already at an early stage the
tradition shows an inclination to interpret v. 5 simply as a command-
ment. The immediately preceding text (v. 4b) certainly has something
to do with this: 'that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my
law or not'.

3. Terminology and context

Those who feel the need to interpret v. 5 in such a way that there is at
least some announcement of a miracle naturally point to the whole of
v. 4: 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people
shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove
them, whether they will walk in my law or not'. Not only this
immediate context, but also the rest of the story—the experiences
with the gathering of the manna on ordinary days and on the sixth
day (w. 17f., 22)—requires that in v. 5 a special miraculous event
should also be announced.
Commentators holding this view have also raised the question of
the exact meaning of nwo mm iN-:r ΊΡΚ n« iram. Here Ehrlich
remarks: 'It would be contrary to the usual sense if the doubling of
6 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)
16
the portion should be made dependent upon the preparation'. He
and others after him then try to give the meaning 'to measure', 'to
measure off for ρ hiphil. (Already at an earlier stage Wellhausen
felt the need of such a meaning and proposed changing ΗΌΠ into
17
Vron. ) Yet the dictionaries do not register such a meaning of the
18
root ρ for the hiphil; some do, however, for the qal (Is. 40.12). The
really important fact is that ρ hiphil with food as object does not
always mean 'to prepare', but also 'to procure, to care for', sometimes
with a special meal in view (especially in Jos. 1.11; Ps. 78.20; Job
38.41; Prov. 6.8; 30.25; 1 Chron. 12.39; Neh. 8.10; and, according to
19
some, also in Gen. 43.16; Ps. 68.11).
4
If, furthermore, we note that v. 5 does not say 'to gather' (op ?), but
'to bring in' (ΝΠ hiphil), then the place where it dawns that a double
portion of manna has fallen, or where one must get a double amount
(i.e. miracle or commandment), is not the camp, but the tent. We
now discover a carefully set up model of verbs in w . 4f. On an
ordinary day the people will 'go out' (XT) and 'gather' (βρ4?); on the
sixth day they will 'bring in' («n hiphil) and 'prepare' or 'procure'
( p ) . But the sequence in which these corresponding verbs occur is
chiastic: to go out—to gather / to prepare or to procure—to bring in.
Both pairs are followed by corresponding objects: 'a day's portion
every day' (IDIO or Ί:Π) and 'twice as much as they gather daily'
(DI- or l&p'r ΊΡΝ ÏV T\WÙ). Then, in the middle of the series we find:
'that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not'.
Viewed stylistically, this testing of Israel is the centre of the events of
the ordinary days and of the sixth day (schematically: a-b c d b'-a' c').
In view of this structure, it is improbable that the text refers to a
miracle on ordinary days and a commandment on the sixth day. For
both, a testing is intended of Israel's faithfulness regarding the law.
The rest of the story proceeds according to this announcement, but
somewhat differently. On ordinary days this testing lies not in the
gathering of the manna, but in not keeping it for the next day
(vv. 19f), whereas on the sixth day one must keep it for the sabbath,
trusting that it will not spoil, and with the consequence that one does
not gather on the sabbath (vv. 26£).
Looked at in the light of the rest of the story, v. 5 appears not
merely to announce the miracle of the sixth day, but also to
anticipate the keeping of a commandment regarding the sabbath. But
the question remains, whether this commandment also stipulates
that on the sixth day the manna must be prepared for the sabbath. As
 BEUKEN The Keeping of the Sabbath 1

we saw, ρ hiphil does not necessarily mean 'to prepare'; one can also
take it as 'to procure, taking care that it is there, keeping it ready for
the meal'.20 Therefore an aspea of'to measure' lies in the meaning.21
On ordinary days 'to gather a day's portion' contains at the same
time an order 'to gather as much of it, every man of you, as he can
eat, an omer apiece, according to the number of the persons whom
each of you has in his tent' (v. 16), and a miracle: 'they gathered some
more, some less', but no person had too much or too little (w. 17£).
On the sixth day it also appears that 'to prepare what they bring in' is
at the same time a miracle and an order: 'they gathered twice as
much bread, two omers apiece' (v. 22), and: they had to prepare what
was necessary and keep what was left (v. 23). We need not interpret
the verb 'to prepare' in v. 5 as being strictly halachic in the sense of
'to prepare the food on the sixth day in order not to violate the
sabbath rest'. A broader meaning is more suitable in the scope of the
whole tale: 'to make the manna that was brought in available and to
determine the measure thereof.

II. Exodus 16.23b

Directive for the sabbath
1. A survey of the interpretations
The Masoretic text is as follows:
ISN ίΟΠ-Ί^Ν η «

npnrrnï? mD^D1? οΛ irnn ηη^π-^ nw

We find two, maybe three, explanations of this verse. They differ as
to whether the later legislation, i.e. that one should prepare the
sabbath meal on the preceding day, is implied.
(a) Some scholars do not see such a commandment here. They
describe the order thus: bake and boil as much as you need; you can
keep for tomorrow the amount of manna not prepared today.
Unboiled or unbaked, tommorrow it will not be spoilt (v. 24). Here
the supposition is that the unused manna must be prepared on the
sabbath itself.22
(b) Others find here the well-known rule of the sabbath: on the
sixth day, the Israelites must bake and boil what they think they will
need for two days. The amount remaining after the meal of the sixth
day can be kept for the sabbath. It will not spoil.23 This interpretation
8 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

can be found in some translations (Authorized Version: 'Bake that

which ye will bake today... '; New English Bible: 'So bake what you
want to bake now . . . ' ) .
(c) Perhaps there is still a third explanation, if we understand
rightly Childs's exegesis (p. 290): 'In anticipation for this special day
(the sabbath), Israel is encouraged to be prepared. The manna can be
baked or boiled—its properties are indeed wonderful—and kept in
any form desired. When the people took Moses' advice, it did not
spoil or become rancid. There is a festive ring in Moses' speech which
continues in v. 25. The sabbath is not a day to go hungry and mourn.
Rather Israel is to eat, for "today" is God's special day.' On the one
hand Childs stresses the fact that Israel should prepare the meal of
the sabbath on the sixth day. On the other hand, it does not seem to
matter if the manna is kept baked, boiled or raw: it will not spoil. So
for him the sabbath legislation is certainly the background, but that
is not why the order is given. The aim seems to be to let Israel
experience the resources of the manna.

2. The ancient translations

It is uncertain whether the LXX attributes a specific interpretation to
the Hebrew text: οσα έαν πέσσητε πέσσετε, και οσα έαν έψητε
εψετε* και πάν το πλεονάζον καταλίπετε αυτό εις άποθήκην εις το
πρωί. One can say that the indetermined character of the object in
Hebrew is elaborated quantitatively by LXX; the LXX understands by
'everything that remains', everything that is not baked or boiled.
Hence the later sabbath legislation would not play a part. But in the
Syriac translation it is: 'What you ought to knead, knead, and what
you ought to cook, cook: and from what is left over keep for
yourselves cold until the next day'. The addition 'cold' makes clear
what is meant here: that which remains of the meal of the sixth
day.24
As for the Targumim, TgO and TgN follow closely the MT.25 But
TgYerl rewrites v. 23 as positively as possible in the light of the
sabbath commandment: 'Bake today what^ow will need to be baked
tomorrow and boil today what you will need to be boiled tomorrow,
and all that remains from what you will eat today, put it aside and
keep it till the morning.'26 This Targum has made the verse into a
command about the keeping of the sabbath by supplementing 'all
that remains' with 'from what you will eat today', by using 'will need'
and by twice inserting the adjuncts of time 'tomorrow—today'.
 BEUKEN The Keeping of the Sabbath 9

Finally, in the Vulgate we also notice the inclination to interpret

v. 23 as a rule for the sabbath: quodcumque operandum estfacite, et
quae coquenda sunt coquite; quidquid autem reliquum fuerit, reponite
usque in mane. Here the word 'to bake' has been replaced by 'to do'.
Also the gerundive ('must') strengthens the suggestion that it is a
question of a number of connected actions which have to be done
before the sabbath. But Vg certainly does not contain a clearly
formulated instance of sabbath legislation.

3. Sentence structure, terminology and context

A characteristic Hebrew construction appears in the formulation
'that which you are going to bake, bake, and that which you are going
to boil, boil'. The idem per idem figure here takes the form of using
the same verb in both the principal clause and the relative clause (a
paranomistic relative clause). In this construction indeterminacy is
consciously created (cf. Gen. 49.28; Ex. 3.14; 4.13; 33.19; Deut.
29.15; 1 Sam. 23.13; 2 Sam. 15.20; 1 Kings 8.63; 2 Kings 8.1; 23.16;
Ezek. 36.20).27 The speaker explicitly distances himself, in a certain
respect, from the event which he describes or which he wants to set
going. He speaks of an action, but he leaves something—the subject,
the object, the place, the time or the way—out of account.28 In Exod.
16.23 it is the object which is omitted because the paranomastic
relative clause is an object sentence.
The three sentences of v. 23b obviously contain an order, because
there are three imperatives, but it is difficult to speak of a concrete
order, when the object of the action remains indeterminate in the
first and the second sentence. Moreover these indeterminate objects
as well as the determinate object of the third sentence come first,
while the three imperatives are in second position. And so interest in
the actions to be performed is subordinate to that in their objects.
On a semantic level the three objects are connected with one
another in such a way that the third one consists ofthat which the
first and the second are not. (The third object derives its determination
from this.) Furthermore the root *py always refers to a part that
exists in addition to another part, and is connected with it (cf. v. 18;
further Ex. 26.12f; Lev. 25.27; Num. 3.46, 48f). Here *pp is to be
distinguished from ΊΝΚ?. This refers to a part that remains when the
other part ceases to exist. Often it is equivalent to words used for 'to
save' and 'to escape' and in its semantic field one meets conceptions
such as 'to defeat', 'to exterminate' and 'to destroy'.29 The root ηπρ is
10 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

also to be distinguished from ΊΓΡ, which possesses the aspect of

abundance and excess (cf. vv. 19f.).30 This root is used in the
prohibition against leaving something of the paschal lamb for the
following morning (Ex. 12.10 twice) and also in another way in
connection with meals (Ex. 29.34; Lev. 2.3,10; 6.9; 7.17; 8.31; 10.12;
19.6; 2 Kings 4.43; Ruth 2.14,18; 2 Chron. 31.10).
Finally, perhaps even the third imperative, m (RSV: 'all that is
left over lay by'; cf. v. 24), points more to the unprepared manna as
object than to the remains of a manna meal. Some dictionaries give
the following meaning for πυ hiphil II: 'to leave untouched, in its
present condition' (Ex. 32.10; Lev. 7.15; Num. 32.15; Judg. 2.23; 3.1;
16.26; 2 Sam. 16.11; 1 Kings 7.47; 2 Kings 23.18; Jer. 14.9; 27.11;
Ezek. 16.39; Hos. 4.17; Eccl. 7.18; 10.4; 11.6; Est. 3.8.31 This
meaning of nu hiphil would go well with 'manna in unprepared
condition' as object. It would not function with an object 'the
remains of the meal'.
And so we conclude as follows: The terminology and the sentence
structure indicate that the Israelites must keep the manna which had
not been boiled or baked for the sabbath. This is not spoilt (v. 24).
The fact that there will be enough is not explicated, but suggested,
because on the sixth day the Israelites can bake and boil as much
manna as they wish. In this explanation there is a clear contrast with
what happens on ordinary days. Then, whoever keeps a supply of
manna (^rv) is disappointed (w. 19f.). But whoever does not hoard
the remains of the double portion of manna on the sixth day, but
keeps it (πυ hiphil), will not have his trust betrayed on the sabbath.
And so the commandment for the sabbath does not mean that, on the
seventh day, one must refrain from all activities and do the necessary
work in the kitchen a day earlier, but that one does not go out to
gather (vv. 27, 29).

Summary
Our research disclosed that v. 5 and v. 23 contain a commandment
about the sabbath; but only insofar as it concerns the weekly rhythm
in which the manna falls. In both verses the commandment coincides
with the announcement of a miraculous event. According to the
announcement of YHWH there will be a double portion on the sixth
day (v. 5 read in the light of vv. 26ff), when one gathers enough for
the daily ration. According to Moses' direction, manna will be left
 BEUKEN The Keeping of the Sabbath 11

over on the sixth day, when one has prepared the necessary amount.
What remains must be kept and the next day it appears to be still
edible (v. 23 read in the light of v. 20 and vv. 24-27). In this
contextual explanation justice is done to the remarkable and strange
formulations of v. 5 and v. 23.
Especially in v. 5, and sometimes also in v. 23, it has been
commonly understood that God and Moses give the order to respect
a commandment regarding the sabbath, a commandment which later
on becomes fundamental and which is elsewhere mentioned in
Scripture, albeit further on in the book of Exodus: 'You shall kindle
nofirein all your habitations on the sabbath day' (Ex. 35.3). In other
words, the sabbath meal should be prepared the day beforehand. But
the formulation of both verses does not allow this commandment to
be read into the account. Nor does the plot of the story, because then
the provision of the manna would lose the character of a miracle,
namely, that first there is a double portion of manna, and next the
remainder of the manna is not spoilt the next day.
In this explanation w. 5 and 23 do not contradict each other,
despite the opinion of many commentators, who think that the
special sabbath rule of Ex. 35.3 forms the background of v. 5 but not
of v. 23, a view which forms an argument for ascribing w. 5 and 23 to
different sources. Our explanation disposes of this argument.

NOTES

1. Eissfeldt (pp. 140f.+) ascribes both verses to J, Nôldeke (p. 48) to P.

2. Except Coppens (pp. 474-77), who ascribes w. 16-30 to a
midrash.
3. Noth, p. 32; Te Stroete, p. 118; Coats, pp. 83f.; Fritz, pp.9, 42,
47f.
4. Jülicher, p. 288; Ruprecht, pp. 279ff., 298ff.
5. Gressmann, pp. 127ff.; Coppens, pp. 475ff.
6. Eerdmans, p. 50.
7. Graf, p. 94.
8. Clamer, p. 155; Te Stroete, p. 120; Fritz, p. 44.
9. Cf. the Dutch Staten Translation and the annotation at v. 5
referring to Ex. 35.3.
10. Hirsch, pp. 210f.
11. Keil, p. 420; Michaeli, p. 142.
12. Rashi, pp. 82, 243£; Cassuto, p. 191.
13. Walton, I, pp. 294f.; Berliner, I, p. 79.
12 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

14. Diez Macho, II, p. 105; Le Déaut, II, p. 132; Berliner, I, p. 77.
15. Le Déaut, II, pp. 133f., especially note 5; cf. Walton, IV, p. 132;
Etheridge, I, p. 498.
16. Ehrlich, I, p. 324.
17. Wellhausen, p. 78; Gressmann, p. 127; Baentsch, p. 148. But in
Ex. 16.18 TlD is used for 'measure'.
18. Gesenius-Buhl, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Köhler-Baumgartner, Zoreil,
Baumgartner-Hartmann, ThWAT, IV, col. 101. Only Köhler-Baumgartner
mentions that Steuernagel accepts the meaning 'to measure' for Deut. 19.3
(p. 427b).
19. Ehrlich, I, pp. 222f. JO hiphil in the meaning of'to procure' (not 'to
prepare'), for an object of food, is comparable to that for objects as weapons,
building materials and clothing. See the dictionaries mentioned above.
20. ThHAT, I, col. 815 (E. Gerstenberger); ThWAT, IV, col. 101 (K.
Koch): 'Wirken zur Sicherung elementarer Lebensbedürfnisse'.
21. Orlinsky (p. 171) proposes 'to apportion' instead of'to prepare'. The
Einheitsübersetzung reads 'feststellen'.
22. Keil, p. 423; Noth, p. 108; Te Stroete, pp. 122f.; Michaeli, p. 142;
Clements, p. 100.
23. Rashi, p. 85; Baentsch, p. 154; Clamer, p. 158; Cassuto, p. 198;
Fensham, p. 97.
24. Walton, I, p. 296.
25. TgN: Diez Macho, II, p. 109; Le Déaut, II, p. 136. TgO: Berliner, I,
p. 78; Etheridge, I, pp. 382f. The latter translation is misleading: 'That
which you prepare by baking, bake, and that which you prepare by boiling,
b o i l . . . ' The words 'prepare by baking... boiling' are a rendering of
TbVib . . . NS1D1? ρτηϊ> Jìnsn n \ Etheridge has translated ΤΠΡ, meant to
paraphrase the imperfect (Dalman, p. 215), as an independent verb, so
creating the misleading impression that preparation for the sabbath is
involved. Walton's translation (I, p. 297), is better: 'quod cocturi estis,
coquite, et quod condituri estis, condite'.
26. Le Déaut, II, p. 137; cf. Walton, IV, p. 133; Etheridge, p. 500.
27. Joüon, §158o.
28. T.C. Vriezen, "Ehje 'a§er 'ehje', in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet
(Tübingen, 1950), pp. 498-506.
29. ThHAT, II, col. 846 (H. Wildberger).
30. ThWAT, III, col. 1080-90 (T. Kronholm).
31. Gesenius-Buhl, p. 492a, sub 3; Brown-Driver-Briggs, pp. 628f. sub 2;
Zoreil, p. 505a sub 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. General Works
A. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, I-II (Berlin, 1884)
 BEUKEN The Keeping of the Sabbath 13

G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (Leipzig, 1894)

A. Diez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1,1-V (Madrid, 1968-1976)
A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, I-VII (Leipzig, 1908-1918)
O. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig, 1922)
J.W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the
Pentateuch with the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the
Chaldee (New York, 21968)
P. Joüon, Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Rome, 21947)
R Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. Tome II: Exode et Lévitique (Sources
Chrétiennes, 256; Paris, 1979)
B. Walton, Sacra Biblia Polyglotta, I-VI (London 1654-1657; repr. Graz,
1963)

2. Translations and commentaries

Β. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (Handbuch zum Alten Testament;
Göttingen, 1903)
U. Cassuto, A commentary on the book of Exodus (Jerusalem, 1967)
B.S. Childs, Exodus (The Old Testament Library; London, 1974)
A. Clamer, L'Exode (La Sainte Bible; Paris, 1956)
RE. Clements, Exodus (Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge, 1972)
Die Bibel. Einheitsübersetzung (Stuttgart, 1980)
F.C. Fensham, Exodus (De prediking van het Oude Testament; Nijkerk,
1970)
S.R. Hirsch, The Pentateuch translated and explained. II. Exodus (2nd edn
by I. Levy; Gateshead, 1976)
C.F. Keil, Genesis und Exodus (Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte
Testament; Leipzig, 1878)
F. Michaeli, Le livre de l'Exode (Commentaire de l'Ancien Testament;
Neuchâtel, 1974)
H.M. Orlinsky, Notes on the new translation of the Torah (Philadelphia,
1969)
M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
Haphtaroth and RashVs Commentary translated into English and
annotated. II. Exodus (Jerusalem, 5733)
G. Te Stroete, Exodus (De boeken van het Oude Testament; Roermond,
1966)

3. Monographs and articles

G.W. Coats, Rebellion in the wilderness (Nashville, 1968)
J. Coppens, 'Les traditions relatives à la manne dans Exode, XVF, Estudios
eclesiásticos 34 (1960), pp. 473-89
B.D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien III: Das Buch Exodus (Giessen,
1910)
14 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

V. Fritz, Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der

Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten (Marburger theologische Studien, 7;
Marburg, 1970)
K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1866)
H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit (Göttingen, 1913)
A. Jülicher, 'Die Quellen von Exodus VII 8-XXIV 11', Jahrbuch ßr
protestantische Theologie 8 (1882), pp. 279-94
T. Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel, 1886)
M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948)
E. Ruprecht, 'Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder
(Ex. 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift', ZAWS6 (1974), pp. 269-307
J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments (Berlin, 31899)

(With acknowledgment to Mrs W. Quarles van UfFord for translating this

article)

D s ot pRess
Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield Sheffield S I 0 2TN England

EXEGESIS AT QUMRAN %^
4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context «y,
George J. Brooke *A

Our increasing awareness of early Jewish exegetical techniques

demands a re-evaluation of 4QFlorilegium, a Qumran text containing
a variety of scriptural passages together with their interpretation.
Terms such as pesher and midrash are freshly defined, and the
influence of the liturgical life of the Qumran community on its
interpretation of scripture is assessed.

Dr Brooke is Lecturer in Intertestamental Literature, University of

Manchester.

JSOT SUPPLEMENT SERIES, 29 viii+389 pp.

cL £18.50/128.50 (subscr. £12.50/118.50); pa. £8.95/113.50 (subscr. £6.95/$10.95)
ISBN 0 905774 76 0 / 0 905774 77 9 Pbk
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

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

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

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

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

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

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