¹ All biblical verses are given according to the version in A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976-1982).Google Scholar

There are thematic and stylistic differences between vss 1-14, 19 (the Aqeda story, E) and vss 15-18 (the promise motif, R^JE). On the secondary and late nature of vss 15-18, see: Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 328, 331Google Scholar and the references there to earlier literature; Rad, Gerhard von, Genesis (2d ed.; London: SCM, 1961) 237–38Google Scholar. On the structure of vs 14 see the text of this paper, and on that of vs 19 see n. 4 below.

² On the phrase “Adonai yir'eh” see: Yerkes, Royden Keith, “The Location and Etymology of ‘’. Genesis XXII: 14,” JBL, 31 (1912) 136–39Google Scholar. Yerkes proposes the reading of this passage: “And Abraham named that site El-roi,” following Gen 16:13. The emendation is unnecessary, however.

³ Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (Spain, 12th cent.), in his commentary on Deut 1:2, hinted at the later date of vs 14b: “And if you understand the secret… on Mount Adonai Yireh… you will recognise the truth.” Cf. Skinner, , Genesis, 330Google Scholar. There are other examples of this phenomenon: Gen 10:9; 1 Sam 5:5; 10:12; 19:24.

⁴ Vs 19a (“Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba”) seems to have concluded the original story of vss l-14a. Vs 19b (“and Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba”) seems to be an editorial interpolation. Beer-sheba was the place from which Abraham set out on his journey and to which he returned at its end. Cf. Skinner, , Genesis, 328Google Scholar; Rad, von, Genesis, 233Google Scholar. Gen 21:24: “And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time,” which stands directly between the etiological legend about Beer-sheba (Gen 21:22-23) and the Aqeda story, is also an editorial interpolation (cf. Skinner, , Genesis, 327)Google Scholar.

⁵ See Naveh, Joseph, “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave,” IEJ 13 (1963) 85–86Google Scholar.

⁶ See Naveh, Joseph, “A Collection of Inscriptions: Canaanite and Hebrew Inscriptions,” Lešonenu 30 (1966) 73 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

⁷ Professor Naveh pointed this fact out to me in conversation. I should like to thank him for his help in this matter. It seems, therefore, that there is no point to the readings proposed by: Cross, Frank Moore, “The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei,” in Sanders, James A., ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 302Google Scholar; Lemaire, André, “Prières en Temps de Crise: Les Inscriptions de Khirbet Beit Lei,” RB 83 (1976) 560–61Google Scholar(though none of these proposes the reading “Moriah ()” in the inscription in question). Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson (1 and 2 Chronicles [London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982] 203)Google Scholar rejects Naveh's 1963 reading of Inscription B, which, he argues, “should now most probably be read and dated differently,” and refers to the studies of Cross, Lemaire, and Gibson (the reference to Gibson s i most surprising as he adopts the Naveh reading rejected by Williamson himself)- Both Gibson's and Cogan's proposals (see below) are to be rejected, as they are based on Naveh's 1963 reading. Gibson includes this inscription among the corpus of Hebrew inscriptions discovered in Israel and even tries to date all the Khirbet Beit Lei inscriptions using, among other things, the paleography(l) of Inscription B; see Gibson, John C. L., Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 57–58.Google ScholarCogan, Mordechai (“‘The City Which I Have Chosen’: Jerusalem in Deuteronomistic Literature,” Tarbis 55 [1986] 307 n. 21Google Scholar [Hebrew]) mentions the inscription and notes: “If the reading proposed by Joseph Naveh is correct… the name ‘Moriah’ was understood as referring to Jerusalem as early as the sixth century BCE.”

⁸ See, e.g., Dillmann, August, Genesis (Edinburgh: W. B. Stevenson, 1897) 142Google Scholar; Skinner, , Genesis, 329Google Scholar; Vincent, L. H., “Abraham a Jerusalem,” RB 58 (1951) 366–71Google Scholar; Rad, von, Genesis, 235Google Scholar; Westermann, Claus, Genesis, vol. 2: Genesis 12-36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 437Google Scholar.

⁹ Wellhausen, Julius, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1889) 19Google Scholar. On Samaritan tradition, see n. 53 below.

¹⁰ Loewenstamm, SamuelE., “Moriah, the Land of Moriah,” Encyclopedia Biblica 5 (1968) 460Google Scholar(Hebrew). Cf. Umberto Cassuto, “Jerusalem in the Pentateuch,” in idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1: Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 71-78, esp. 74-76. The later Jewish tradition, as seen in Gen 22:14b and 2 Chr 3:1 (and see below), is also reflected in the rabbinic literature. See the references in Kasher, Menachen M., Torah Shelemah: Genesis (New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1949) 3.4. 870–72Google Scholar.

¹¹ Glueck, Nelson, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959) 60Google Scholar; cf. Sarna, Nahum M., Understanding Genesis (2d ed.; New York: Schocken, 1970) 159–60Google Scholar.

¹² E.g., Skinner, , Genesis, 328–29Google Scholar; von Rad, Genesis; Westermann, , Genesis 12–36Google Scholar; Montgomery, James A., “Paronomasias on the Name Jerusalem,” JBL 49 (1930) 279Google Scholar; and more recently, Kilian, Rudolf, Isaaks Opferung: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Gen. 22 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970) 31–37Google Scholar.

¹³ Not seven times, as claimed by Cassuto, , “Jerusalem in the Pentateuch,” 16Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Cf. Williamson, , 1 and 2 Chronicles, 205Google Scholar.

¹⁵ In similar fashion, the Neofiti Aramaic version of Gen 22:2 combines the “land of Moriah” of MT Gen 22:2 and “Mount Moriah” of 2 Chr 3:1. The translation reads “and go to the land of Mount Moriah” . In the margin of the manuscript, immediately after the word “Moriah,” there is a gloss: “where the Temple was later to be built” .

¹⁶ The context here demands the addition of the word “the Lord.” The Greek version has κÚριος here and cf. the Aramaic version.

¹⁷ Cogan, , “‘The City Which I Have Chosen,’” 301Google Scholar, comments on the Aqeda story: “It is well known that it was on Mount Moriah that God tested Abraham by requiring him to offer his son as a burnt offering.” He goes on to conclude (306-7): “It was in this period [the United Monarchy] that the site of the Jerusalem Temple was identified with Mount Moriah.” The same lack of precision may be seen in Williamson, , 1 and 2 Chronicles, 203: “First, and most striking, is his [the Chronicler's] identification of the temple site with Mount Moriah, referred to elsewhere in O.T. only at Gen 22:2 as the site where Abraham was commanded to offer up Isaac.” Mount Moriah is not mentioned at all in Gen 22:2!Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cogan, , “‘The City Which I Have Chosen,’” 307Google Scholar.

¹⁹ In fact Nathan the prophet is not mentioned in 2 Samuel 24; it is “the prophet Gad, David's seer” who appears in vss 11, 13, 14, 18.

²⁰ Cogan, , “‘The City Which I Have Chosen,’” 307Google Scholar.

²¹ According to Judg 18:30, the site in Dan had been considered holy from the time that the region was settled by the tribe of Dan: “The Danites set up the sculptured image for themselves; and Jonathan son of Gershom, son of Manasseh, and his descendants, served as the priests to the Danite tribe until the land went into exile.” It is, on the other hand, very difficult to determine precisely when and by whom this temple was established. Beth El, too, presents a number of problems: 1 Sam 10:3 mentions “three men making a pilgrimage to God at Beth El.” However, it is not clear whether this passage is referring to a temple or an open holy area with an altar/high place, since the three men are described as making a pilgrimage “to God” and not “to the house of God.” 1 Kgs 12:31: “He [Jereboam] made cult places…” is not sufficient to attribute the establishment of the Beth El temple to Jereboam ben-Nebat; see Haran, Menahem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 28Google Scholar n. 27. 2 Kgs 23:15, too, refers only to an altar or a high place established by Jereboam ben-Nebat-cf. 1 Kgs 12:33, “Jereboam ascended the altar which he had made in Beth El.” (Haran [Temples and Temple Service, 30] may be right, however, in arguing that Jereboam enlarged the altar in the already functioning Beth El temple.)

²² Following the edition of Yehoshua Gutman, s.v. “Eupolemus,” in The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1963) 156 (Hebrew). Later in the parallel passage in 1 Chr 21:15, the Targum is quick to make use of the opportunity to connect Araunah's threshing floor with the site of the Aqeda: “God sent the Angel of Pestilence to Jerusalem in order to destroy it. However, before [it could carry out] the destruction, He took notice of the ashes of Isaac's Aqeda which were in the base of the altar. He then considered his covenant with Abraham which he had made with him on the Mount of Divine Worship; [He also considered] the Sanctuary Above, where the souls of the righteous [rested], and the image of Jacob engraved on the Throne of Glory. He decided against the evil which he had determined to do and said to the Angel of Death: ‘This is enough for you! Now take Abishai their leader from among them and stop tormenting the rest of the people.’ But the Angel sent before God remained on the land of Araunah, the Jebusite.” (The translation here followsGoogle ScholarDéaut, Roger Le and Robert's, J. French version; see Targum des Chroniques (cod. Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1) [AnBib 51; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971] 1. 86–87Google Scholar. This passage of the Targum finds a parallel in the b. Ber 62b: “And He said to the Angel that destroyed the people, it is enough, R. Eleazar said The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death many sins can be expiated for them. At that time there died Abishai son of Zeruiah, who was [singly] equal in worth to the greater part of the Sanhedrin. And as he was about to destroy, the Lord beheld, and He repented Him. What did He behold?—Rab said: He beheld Jacob our ancestor, as it is written, And Jacob said when he beheld them. Samuel said: He beheld the ashes of [the ram of] Isaac, as it says, God will see for Himself the lamb… R. Johanan said: He saw the Temple, as it is written, In the mount where the Lord is seen… (English Translation: Epstein, I., ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Beraboth [London: Soncino, 1965] 393)Google Scholar. On “the ashes of the binding of Isaac,” which were supposed to have remained on the Temple Mount for generations, see: Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, Masekhet Depaseha, Bo, Section 7 (H. S. Horowitz's edition, 24-25); Midrash Hagadol on Gen 22:13 (M. Margoliot's edition, 358). For other sources and a discussion on them, see: Grossfeld, Bernard, “The Targum to Lamentations 2:10,” JJS 28 (1977) 60–64.Google Scholar(Grossfeld does not discuss the parallel between the Targum of 1 Chronicles and the Babylonian Talmud.) On later treatments of the legend of Isaac's ashes, see Shpiegel, Shalom, “From the Aqeda Legends: A Piyut on the Slaughtering of Isaac and its Resurrection by Reb Ephraim of Buna,” The Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950) [Hebrew section] 471–547Google Scholar, and esp. 483-97.

²³ See also the descent of heavenly fire as the divine reply to Elijah on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:36-39).

²⁴ On this subject, see Horowitz, Victor, “The Construction of Temples in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and West Semitic Texts,” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983) 11-274, esp. 98-99, 278-79, 283 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Horowitz, , “The Construction of Temples,” 98–99Google Scholar. It seems that Yadin, Yigael (“The First Temple,” in Avi-Yonah, Michael, ed., The Book of Jerusalem [Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1956] 190)Google Scholar may be right in holding that “the plan of the Temple, the vessels [used] there, the decorative motifs that graced it, as well as the building methods—all are thoroughly grounded in Ancient Middle Eastern tradition.”

²⁶ The exception that proves this rule is the inscription from Kultepe in Cappadocia in which I/Erišum I, King of Assyria (ca. 1939-1900 BCE), tells of his construction to the god Ashur in the city of Ashur: “I reserved land for Ashur, my Lord, from the Sheep Gate to the People's Gate. I built all of the temple area.” See Grayson, Albert Kirk, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, vol. 1: From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi-I (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972) 12Google Scholar. See also inscription 7, pp. 10-11.

²⁷ This, then, is another point of similarity between the biblical construction story and Ancient Near Eastern construction stories to add to Horowitz's list.

²⁸ There is another precise description of the construction of a sanctuary in the Old Testament—that of the portable temple in the desert, the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-32; 35-40). This is not a realistic description, however; see: Haran, , Temples and Temple Service, 194–204Google Scholar.

²⁹ Scholarly opinion differs as to whether this temple was located in the fortified part of the city or in a nearby settlement called “Migdal Shechem.” For a detailed discussion, see: Na'aman, Nadav, “Migdal Shechem and the House of El-Berith,” Zion 51 (1986) 260–65Google Scholar(Hebrew). A contrary view is taken by Wright, G. Ernest, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 136–38Google Scholar; idem, “The Biblical Traditions of Shechem's Sacred Area,” BASOR 169 (1963) 30–32Google Scholar. The temple under discussion here should probably not be confused with the “Temple of the Lord” which was situated outside Shechem (Josh 24:26 and cf. vs 1: “Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel… and they presented themselves before God.”) On this point, see Haran, , Temples and Temple Service, 51Google Scholar; Na'aman, , “Migdal Shechem,” 279–80Google Scholar.

³⁰ On the Gilgal temple, see alsoHos 12:12. Both Hosea and Amos denounced this temple, together with that at Beth El (Hos 4:15; 9:15; Amos 4:4; 5:2). The references in Josh 4:19; 5:8-12; 7:6; 9:6, 19 are to a different settlement, situated between Jericho and the Jordan River. There seems to have been no temple building at this place, only an open-air cultic precinct with an altar and so on. See Haran, , Temples and Temple Service, 31–32.Google ScholarVaux, Roland de (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961] 302–3)Google Scholar confused the verses from Joshua that refer to this open-air cultic precinct near Jericho with those referring to the Temple of the Lord on Mount Ephraim. He failed to discern that the texts refer to two different regions and to two quite distinct types of cultic institution.

³¹ Haran, (Temples and Temple Service, 33, 39)Google Scholar argues that there was an open-air precinct i n Mizpah Gilead, but no temple. There is no reason, however, not to accept the verse “And Jephthah repeated all these terms before the Lord at Mizpah” (Judg 11:11) at face value. “Before the Lord” is generally a technical term designating the use of a temple. The context here is of all the children of Israel gathering and appointing Jephthah “commander and chief”—a procedure normally carried out in a temple (cf., for example, 1 Sam 10:19, 24-25; 2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kgs 11:11-12). The fact that this is the only evidence in the Hebrew Bible for the existence of a temple at Mizpah Gilead does not justify Haran's claim that the use of the expression “before the Lord” was caused by the confusion of Mizpah Gilead with Mizpah Benjamin (where there quite definitely was a temple). The Mizpah Gilead temple was probably not the only one to be found in eastern Transjordan: the Mesha stone provides some evidence that there was a temple at Nebo: “” (lines 17-18; the restoration is accepted by the vast majority of scholars.) There may have been some connection between this temple and the traditions concerning Moses' death on Mount Nebo (Deut 32:49-50; 34:1-5); see Rofé, Alexander “Moses' Blessing, the Sanctuary at Nebo and the Origin of the Levites,” in Avishur, Yitzhak and Blau, Joshua, eds., Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978) 414–17 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

³² For the list of temples, cf. Haran, , Temples and Temple Service, 34–37Google Scholar.

³³ On the Beth El temple during the period of the Monarchy, see also: 1 Kgs 13:1; 2 Kgs 23:13; Hos 3:14; 4:4; 5:5-6; Amos 4:15; 7:13; Jer 48:13.

³⁴ See Cassuto, , “Jerusalem in the Pentateuch,” 71–74Google Scholar; Mazar, Benjamin, “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” in Ahituv, Shmuel and Levine, Baruch A., eds., The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986) 51–52Google Scholar; and see above.

³⁵ See also Judg 20:18, 26-27; 21:2^1. There is a school of thought that these verses originally referred to Shiloh, but this seems unlikely; see Cassuto, Umberto, “Beth El,” Encyclopedia Biblica 2 (1954) 64 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

³⁶ This idea was first presented by Noth, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle, 1943) 12–18Google Scholar(English Translation: The Deuteronomic History [JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1981] 12–17)Google Scholar and has been accepted by a broad spectrum of scholarly opinion; e.g., Cross, Frank Moore, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) 274–89Google Scholar, esp. 287-89; Nelson, Richard D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1981) 12–13Google Scholar; Fretheim, Terence E., Deuteronomic History (Nashville: Abingdon, 1983) 15–18Google Scholar; Peckham, Brian, The Composition of the Deuteronomic History (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 1Google Scholar. These scholars all believe that the Deuteronomistic history follows the “Tetrateuch” (Genesis-Numbers), which is essentially a priestly composition. Others hold that the Deuteronomistic history includes only Judges-2 Kings, Genesis-Joshua making up a “Hexateuch,” so: Kuennen, Abraham, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (London, 1886) 2–16Google Scholar; Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885) 228–362Google Scholar, esp. 293–96; Driver, Samuel R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Scribner, 1922) 4–5Google Scholar. All are agreed, however, that the Book of Samuel forms a part of the Deuteronomistic history.

³⁷ Cf. Noth, , The Deuteronomistic History, 4–5Google Scholar. It should also be noted here that the LXX names the MT four books of Samuel-Kings (τῶv) βασιλείωv βίβλοc (“The Book of the Kingdoms”). The Vg follows the LXX division, naming them “Liber Regum.”

³⁸ This is not to say that the census story has Deuteronomistic elements.

³⁹ As opposed to Noth, , The Deuteronomistic History, 124–25 n. 3Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ On this point, see the recently published McCarter, P. Kyle Jrll Samuel (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 516–17Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. also 2 Chr 3:1 and the discussion above. This connection may also be seen in an addition to 2 Sam 24:25, made by the LXX: καί προσέθηκεν Σαλωμων έπί τό θυσιαστήριον έл έσχάτῳ ὄτι μικρòν ђν έν лρὠτοις (“And after this, Solomon enlarged the altar, for i t had been too small at first”).

⁴² The translation here follows the LXX, Vg, and Peshitta, rather than the confused MT: .

⁴³ This explanation does away with Williamson's problem (1 and 2 Chronicles, 204) that the verse “involves the absurd implication of identifying the whole of Mount Moriah with the threshing floor.”

⁴⁴ Thus, for example, 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6 mention Kings Ahaz and Manasseh consigning their sons to the fire, without giving details of the place, while the parallel passages in 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6 add that it happened in “the Valley of Ben-hinnom.” This phenomenon is discussed at length in my book Die Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern, chap. 8 (forthcoming).

⁴⁵ The story of the binding of Isaac is not retold in Chronicles. The Chronicler refers to t i here on the grounds that it is familiar to his readers. A similar assumption underlies the text of Chronicles in other places too—see, for example, 1 Chr 2:7: “The sons of Carmi: Achar, the troubler of Israel, who committed a trespass against the proscribed thing.” This is a reference to Joshua 7, although the story is not retold in Chronicles. 1 Chr 10:13 tells how “Saul died for the trespass which he had committed against the Lord in not having fulfilled the command of the Lord; moreover, he had consulted a ghost to seek advice.” “For the trespass which he had committed” is a reference to Saul's transgression of the proscription against the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15; “in not having fulfilled ()” is a reference to 1 Samuel 13 (see vss 13-14: “Samuel answered Saul, ‘You acted foolishly in not keeping the commandments that the Lord God laid upon you… you did not abide by [] what the Lord had commanded you’”); “he had consulted a ghost to seek advice ()” refers to 1 Samuel 28 (vs 7: “Find me a woman who consults ghosts, so that I can go to her and inquire [] through her” and vs 16: “Samuel said, ‘Why do you ask me [], seeing that the Lord has turned away from you’”). Chaps. 13, 15, and 28 have no parallels in Chronicles. These phenomena are also discussed in Kalimi, , Die Geschichts-schreibung des Chronisten, chap. 15Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The Chronicler's line of thought here was developed later in rabbinic literature (Pirqei Derabbi Eliezer 35; b. Sanh. 95b; Pesiqta' Rabbati 44.2); see the list in Cogan, , “‘The City Which I Have Chosen,’” 308Google Scholar. To be added to the list is the Targum's paraphrase of 2 Chr 3:1. This idea was perhaps most extensively developed by Maimonides in his “Mishneh Torah,” Laws, Temple, Chap. 2, 1–2Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ For a similar approach, cf. Williamson, , 1 and 2 Chronicles, 205Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ See also the tradition mentioned in the b. Zebahim 62b.

⁴⁹ The English translation is that of Ralph Marcus in the Josephus, Lcl, Works (9 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1980) 8. 187-89Google Scholar. All the other translations of Josephus given here also follow the LCL edition.

⁵⁰² Chr 35:3 is not a reliable historical source for the existence of the Ark in the Temple at the time of Josiah, King of Judah; see Haran, Menahem, “The Removal of the Ark of the Covenant,” BIES 25 (1961) 211–23Google Scholar(Hebrew). Haran assumed that the Ark was removed from the Holy of Holies due to the placing there of a statue of Asherah by Manasseh, King of Judah, after which all trace of it was lost.

⁵¹ In fact, there were various legends concerning the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant; see 2 Mace 2:4-8; Eupolemus (Gutman, , “Eupolemus,” 158)Google Scholar; m. Šeqalim 6.1–2; b. Yoma 53b-54a.

⁵² See Grintz, Jehoshua M., The Book of Judith (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957) 22–23Google Scholar(“the middle of the Persian period”); Flusser, David, s.v., “Tobit, The Book of Tobit,” Encyclopedia Biblica 3 (1958) 370–71Google Scholar(“the first half of the Second Temple period”); Albright, William Foxwell, BO 17 (1960) 242Google Scholar(the fifth-fourth centuries BCE).

⁵³ See Flusser, David, s.v., “Enoch,” Encyclopedia Biblica 3 (1958) 207 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ But the Epistle of Aristeas from that period continues the Chronicler's line and praises the Temple. This phenomenon may have resulted from idealization of Diaspora Jews visiting the homeland.

⁵⁵ See Kalimi, Isaac, “Der jüdisch-samaritanische Streit um den Ort der Opferung Isaaks,” Trumah: Jahrbuch der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 2 (1990) 47–52Google Scholar.