Deuteronomy's distinctive treatment of ancient Israelite institutions of Passover and feast of Unleavened Bread, or Mass6t, is well established.' In common with sacrifices and offerings in general, Passover and great pilgrimage feasts are located at central sanctuary, the place that LORD will choose as a dwelling for his name (16:8 NRSV). In case of Passover, this requirement is particularly striking. It comes with a prohibition of local celebration of feast (16:5) that is in stark contrast with location of it in homes of Israel in prescriptions in book of Exodus (Exod 12:7, 22, 46), even though it is there a perpetual ordinance for and your children (Exod 12:24). Other Deuteronomic departures from requirements found in Exodus include permission to take Passover sacrifice from the flock and herd (16:2), instead of only from flock (Exod 12:3, 21), and instruction to boil it (16:7) rather than roast it (Exod 12:9). Furthermore, Deuteronomy forges Passover and Ma6*ot into a single entity in a way that is not clearly case in older provisions, giving rise to widely held view that Deuteronomy combines two originally separate celebrations for first time. Fundamental to this understanding is absence of Passover from earliest code, Exod 23:14-19, where v. 18 is presumed to contain general restrictions of sacrificial and festal practice rather than an allusion to Passover, and Exod 34:25 is thought to revise older code in conformity with Deuteronomy.2 The centralization and amalgamation of feasts are typically placed in context of Deuteronomic promotion of King Josiah's centralization of cult in Jerusalem. Bernard M. Levinson accepts above reconstruction in broad outline and has given it new force with a thesis that characterizes Deuteronomic law as deliberate and radical innovation, both transforming and aiming to replace previous legislation. The present paper is a response to Levinson, who has criticized earlier work of my own on topic.3 While I agree with many points of his analysis, I think thesis as a whole has serious problems, and I wish to propose an alternative way of handling data. Levinson contributes to interpretation of Deut 16:1-17 in two distinct ways. The first is hermeneutical, in accordance with declared aim of his thesis. Much previous scholarly analysis of text has discovered separate literary strands united in Deut 16:1-8, deriving from sources relating to Passover and Ma$@ot respectively.4 Levinson, in contrast, proposes a deliberate, creative composition, in which previous laws are exploited for their deposit of words, phrases, and concepts, but only so as to produce a novum, which entirely supersedes those laws.5 The interpreter of Deuteronomic law, therefore, cannot be content just to observe which elements of discourse derive from each source, but must understand why they are arranged as they are. For example, lemmata formerly applied to Mascot are now applied to Passover.6 The command in v. 1 opens with Observe month of Abib, taking verbal form from command concerning Mascot in Exod 23:15, but continues with by keeping passover for LORD your God (NRSV). Similarly, allusion to exodus from Egypt is attached to Ma.@ot in Exod 23:15 and 13:4, but is here applied to Passover (Deut 16:1). The phrases you must not eat with it anything unleavened. For seven days shall eat unleavened bread with it (r'w) (16:3a) turn around Exod 23:18: you shall not offer blood of my sacrifice with (5.) anything leavened, forcing a connection between eating unleavened bread and Passover meal. And command not to leave the fat of my festival till morning (Exod 23:18) is explained so that what must not remain overnight is the meat that slaughter on evening of first day (16:4). …
Read full abstract