(Published in Jerusalem Perspective, 2008)
Introduction
The Feast of Tabernacles (or Sukkot or Festival of Booths) as celebrated during the late Second Temple era included elements which were not prescribed in Scripture, and some of which ended with the destruction of the Temple. Torah said that everyone should live in booths for a week, and wave branches in celebration. Rabbinic law defined living in a booth as eating and sleeping in it, and prescribed how to construct a booth and a lulav. The lulav is a bunch of palm, myrtle, and willow branches with a citron (m.Suk.3.1-8), which was waved (or “shaken”) during parts of the Hallel Psalms (m.Suk.3.9).[1] In addition, other ceremonies had become popular during Tabernacles – beating willows, pouring water, and dancing with lights – and references to these ceremonies are found in Gospel accounts.
The Gospel accounts of Palm Sunday have some significant links with activities during Tabernacles, especially the chants from Psalm 118 and waving of branches, but these activities were also part of the early celebration of Hanukkah. Some of the extra activities during Tabernacles in Temple times may also have been inspired by the celebration of Hanukkah, so these festivals were intricately related to each other. The Gospel accounts do not hide the links between the events on Palm Sunday and these festivals, and perhaps they accentuated them. If this is the case, the festival that they are attempting to highlight may give us an insight into the significance of this event for the Gospel writers.
Ceremony of Willow Beating
The ceremony of willow beating is still performed in synagogues during celebration of Tabernacles, though the meaning is as uncertain as its origins. In Temple times, people cut down long willow branches and processed around the altar all day while chanting from Psalm 118.25: “Please Lord, save now!, Please Lord, prosper now!” (m.Suk.4.5). In English this sounds impolite and insufficiently reverential, so it is usually translated as something like “We pray you, Lord, please save us”.
This was a very popular ceremony which the ordinary people insisted on performing. Even when the Sadducees put stones on top of the willows to stop them being used on a Sabbath which coincided with the final festival day, the people broke the Sabbath by moving the stones, and carried on as normal (t.Suk.3.1-2).[2] Reading between the lines of the mishnaic account may indicate that the early rabbinic halakhah also tried to impose some restrictions, as implied by an implicit contradiction in the Mishnaic account. An anonymous tradition says “The whole day they circle the altar one time (פעם אחת)” and then a tradition by R. Judah adds “on that [last?] day they circle seven times” (m.Suk.4.5). It is difficult to understand how the extra-large crowds on the last day (which, unlike the other days, was a public holiday) could circle the altar seven times when the smaller crowd took all day to circle it once on other days. It is likely that R. Judah was recalling the original practice which the anonymous halakhah attempted to restrict. This is corroborated somewhat by Jubilees which says:
Abraham used to “take branches of palm trees and the fruit of goodly trees and every day going round the altar with the branches seven times in the morning, he praised and gave thanks to God for all things in joy” (Jub.16.31).
There is no explanation of the term “beating” in the earliest accounts (t.Suk.3.1), but there may be a clue in the phrase “they waved them at the sides of the altar, with their heads bent over the top of the altar” (m.Suk.4.5) which might imply that they hit the sides of the altar to make the top of the branch overhang the top of the altar. If this is correct, we can well understand why the authorities wanted to restrict this raucous and potentially unruly custom.
Ceremonies of Water and Lights
The ceremonies of water pouring and lights were also very popular, though they ceased with the destruction of the Temple. The title Bét haShoebah (“House of Drawing” or “The Well”) referred to the celebration of lights (m.Suk.5.1, 3) but it relates better to the celebration of water, and perhaps it was a title for both ceremonies. The ceremony started when a priest collected water from the pool of Siloam, and carried it back to the temple with a procession of people accompanied by trumpet blowing. At the altar, he poured it at the same time he poured out some wine, from two separate bowls. On one infamous occasion the priest poured them over his feet, and the crowd pelted him with their citrons (m.Suk.4.9).[3]
The ceremony of lights included the erection and lighting of two huge golden lambstands in the Women’s Court, and dancing with burning torches by “the Ḥasidim and men of deeds” to the music of flutes and many other instruments (m.Suk.5.1-4). This celebration was known as “the flutes” (m.Suk.4.1; 5.1), though arguably the light was more significant because it could be seen throughout Jerusalem (m.Suk.5.3).
It is possible that some of the details about these ceremonies were invented (or creatively remembered) later, but we can be certain that ceremonies something like these did occur because there would be little point in creating details which had no basis in Scripture and which were not needed to explain later practice.[4] We have some corroboration of the water-pouring ceremony in Josephus’ account concerning Alexander Jannaeus when he was High Priest (103-76 bce):
As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons…. They also reviled him as derived from a captive and therefore unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing. (Jos. Ant. 13.13.5=372).
Mishnah also records this incident but it does not name the priest. The Tosephta says he was a “Boethusian” which the Babylonian Talmud interpreted as “Sadducee”, and the Jerusalem Talmud debates whether he was the same Sadducee who made a mistake with regard to the incense on the Day of Atonement and the Red Heifer (y.Suk.4.6 II.4). It is possible that the Mishnah recorded an old tradition which was silent on this identity for political reasons and then later versions felt it increasingly necessary to provide some identification. It may therefore be unsafe to conclude from this tradition that the Sadducees rejected the Water Pouring ceremony.[5]
Water and Lights in John’s Gospel
The earliest corroboration we have for the ceremonies of water and of lights is the Gospel of John, which records that Jesus was in the Temple at the Festival of Tabernacles when he declared that he was both the source of the water of life and the light of life (Jn.7.2, 37-38; 8.5). Both of these sayings are followed by a long exposition, the first of which includes an attempt to arrest him (Jn.7.44-46) and the second ends with: “These words he spoke in the treasury… and no-one arrested him” (Jn.8.20). They are separated by the section about the woman caught in adultery, which is found in various positions in different manuscripts, so it was probably not originally in this position in the gospel. It is therefore likely that Jesus’ saying about light followed immediately after his saying about water, and that they both referred to the twin ceremony of Water Pouring and of lights which were known as the House of Drawing.
Jesus made these proclamations “on the last day of the feast, the great day” (Jn.7.37). This is almost certainly a reference to the High Festival Day on the eighth day, which was celebrated with virtually the same restrictions as a Sabbath, so that it was a public holiday (Lev.23.36, 39; Num.29.35).[6] This meant the crowds were much larger on this day, though many of them would have been disappointed because the ceremony of water and lights did not occur on the eighth day.[7] We can imagine that pilgrims who did not come very often, and who were therefore not used to the normal timetable of events, would be looking around and waiting for the water-pouring to happen. Their disappointment made this the perfect time for Jesus to make his proclamations and get the maximum attention.
Chanting at Tabernacles
The earliest accounts in Mishnah do not mention any chanting while waving the lulav. However, it is safe to assume that the chanting while carrying the willows (m.Suk.4.5) was a copy of chants which occurred while shaking the lulav, because the chanting repeated words from Psalm 118.25. These chants were particularly appropriate for the shaking of lulav which occurred when this verse was reached in the Hallel Psalms (m.Suk.3.9) but they had little to do with the willow ceremony. It is likely that the first tradition to became established was the chanting of Psalm 118.25 while shaking the lulavs, and then this led to the same chants occurring during the Willow Beating.
The Hillelites probably did not approve of chanting the second half of verse 25 (“Please Lord, prosper us now!”) because they tried to restrict the shaking of the lulav to only the first half of the verse (m.Suk.3.9). Perhaps they felt that this chant promoted something similar to the popular modern theology of prosperity. But the records of the chants at m.Suk.4.5 suggests that the crowd did actually chant both halves,[8] and they probably continued chanting further because the words of verse 26 (“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”) was also a popular chant (y.Suk.3.10, 54a; b.Suk.38b).
There was nothing in the willow beating ceremony which made it particularly appropriate to chant Psalm 118.25, so it is likely that they used these chants simply because they associated them with waving branches. This appears to be an example of learning chants in one place and then employing them elsewhere.
They also performed a more appropriate chant while circling the altar with willow branches: “Beauty [or ‘strength’, יופי] to you O altar!” Later commentators suggested that they might have said (or should have said): “To Yah (ליה) and to you O altar!”, probably because this would be less likely to be interpreted as worship of the altar.
There was similar disagreement over the chanting of “Please Lord” when quoting Ps.118.25. R. Judah recalled that they actually chanted “Ani waho” (אֲנִי וָהוֹ) instead of the biblical “Ana haShem” (אָנָא יהוה), where haShem represents the actual name of God which was actually spoken even by ordinary people during Temple times (m.Ber.9.5). We do not, of course, know how haShem was pronounced, though some later commentators have tried to argue that Ani waho was a correct form.[9] However, the most likely reason they chanted it in this form is that during the constant chanting all day long they slurred the syllables. In later traditions the rabbis have similar complaints about the slurring of “Halleluyah”, which they said should be pronounced as two distinct words (y.Suk.3.10, 53b).
Chanting on Palm Sunday
The chants on Palm Sunday were probably identical to the chants from Psalm 118.25 which were used while shaking the lulav.[10] The first half of this chant was “Please Lord, save now”, “Ana haShem hoshiah-na”. The Gospels record the last part of this chant as hosanna (ὡσαννά - Mk.11.9// Matt.21.9// Jn.12.13) which is similar to the modern imperative hoshanna. It is difficult to know when the change in the imperative occurred, so we do not know whether the crowd was moderninsing the Hebrew or whether they were merely slurring the words, as with other chants. Whatever the reason, the Pharisees and other learned listeners no doubt despised the ignorant crowd for quoting Scripture incorrectly.
The other chant recorded in the Gospel account of Palm Sunday was “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Mt.21.9// Mk.11.9// Lk.19.38// Jn.12.13) which is from the next verse of Psalm 118, and may indicate that the crowds recited more of this Psalm than just verse 25. Later Talmudic traditions refer to this chant when they record rules about how public chanting should work. If someone started off a chant, it was impious for others to ignore it – they should join in and complete the chant – and this was the case even if the chant was initiated by a minor (b.Suk.38b). Both Talmuds give the same example: if someone shouts “Blessed is he”, everyone should respond “…who comes in the name of the Lord" (Ps.118.26; see y.Suk.3.10, 54a; b.Suk.38b). This implies that Psalm 118.26 was a popular public chant which could be used in informal contexts where even a child could initiate it.
Matthew records that the Pharisees were specifically concerned about the role of children on Palm Sunday (Mt.21,15-16). It is likely that the children were not only chanting themselves, but they were egging on the crowd by initiating chants which the adults then felt obliged to complete.
Jesus’ response to the Pharisees also alludes to Psalm 118 (according to Lk.19.40). He says that if they prevented this praise, “even the stones will call out”, which brings together the rejected stone of verse 22 with ‘anah (עֲנַה, ‘answer, shout, call out’) in verse 21. By combining these ideas, Jesus implies that the one who “called to me and saved me” in verse 21 is identical to “the stone which the builders rejected” in the following verse. The Pharisees would have recognised those who “rejected” as an implied reference to themselves, as well as a claim by Jesus that he would become “the head cornerstone” (Ps.118.22). This would confirm to them that Jesus was a dangerous individual who had to be silenced.
Kingship implied at Palm Sunday
One aspect of the chanting on Palm Sunday which cannot be traced to the Hallel Psalms is the repeated references to kingship: “the Son of David” (Mt.21.9,15); “kingdom of our father David” (Mk.11.10); “blessed is the king” (Lk.19.38); “the king of Israel” (Jn.12.13). The versions which include “David” imply that a Messianic kingship is in view, because David is a very frequent messianic reference in early Judaism. At Qumran the messianic figure of the “branch of David” occurs frequently[11] and in rabbinic traditions the messianic references to “son of David” are very frequent, so that even though few or perhaps none of these can be safely dated before 70 ce, the widespread use of this term indicates that it has an old tradition behind it.[12]
Even without these verbal clues in the chanting, there is a very clear kingship theme in the act of riding into Jerusalem on a donkey to be met by a palm-waving crowd. The prophesy of Zechariah was highlighted by the Gospel writers (Zech.9.9; Mt.21.5; Jn.12.15), though even if this text had not been referred to, the minds of readers would have been drawn to it by the reported behaviour of the crowd.
An even stronger parallel was obvious between the behaviour of this crowd and a crowd on two relatively recent occasions. Waving of palm branches to welcome a new ruler as he enters Jerusalem had happened both when Judas Maccabaeus cleansed and rededicated the Temple in 165 bce having defeated Antiochus (2Macc.10.6-8) and when Simon Maccabaeus declared himself ruler of Jerusalem (with the blessing of Demetrius) as a political High Priest in 141 bce (1 Macc.13.51). The memory of this latter event was extended by the coins which Simon Maccabaeus had minted, showing a palm-tree and the words ‘for the redemption of Zion’ (לגאולת ציון).[13]
These events remained in the public consciousness, as seen by the repetition of this symbolism on the coins of the revolts in 66-70 and 131-5 ce. Raphael Lowe pointed out that carrying a lulav was punished with 100 lashes in the time of Hadrian, probably because he too recognised the nationalistic fever this engendered, and for a similar reason Bar Kokhba ordered the delivery of lulavs for his troops to celebrate Tabernacles even during a time of battle.[14]
It is impossible that the Gospel writer or their readers could have missed this symbolism, and yet they do nothing to hide it,[15] though the image of a king is mollified by riding on an ass instead of a horse (Mt.21.2-7// Mk.11.2-7// Lk.19.30-35// Jn.12.14-15). In fact the symbolism with regard to Judas Maccabaeus is heightened in the synoptic Gospels because Jesus’ entry into the city is followed immediately with his cleansing of the Temple, just as Judas cleansed the Temple from the defilement by Antiochus.
Hanukkah celebrations and Tabernacles
The rededication of the temple on the 25th of Kislev, 165 bce was later celebrated by the new festival of Hanukkah, though we do not know when this started, or what the festival consisted of. In 2 Maccabees the original celebration is described:
They kept eight days with gladness in the manner of Tabernacles, remembering how that not long before, during the Festival of Tabernacles, they were wandering in the mountains and in the caves like wild beasts. (7) Therefore, carrying branches wreathed with leaves and fine boughs and palms, they offered up songs of thanksgiving. (2 Macc.10.6-7, based on Revised Version Bible)
The only celebrations which are specifically described are identical to the celebrations at Tabernacles. This passage indicates that they celebrated aspects of Tabernacles which they had been unable to celebrate before while hiding in the mountains. It appears that they regarded this celebration in a similar way to the Second Passover when people, who were prevented from celebrating Passover at the correct date, could make up their loss. Indeed, the opening of 2 Maccabees refers to Hanukkah as “the feast of Tabernacles of the month of Kislev” (2Macc.1.9, cf. 1.18).
The entrance of Simon Maccabaeus into Jerusalem occurred on an entirely different date (23rd of the second month, between Passover and Pentecost – 1.Macc.51) though it is described in a very similar vein:
“… with praise and palm branches and with harps and with cymbals and with viols and with hymns and with songs… (52) and he ordained that they should keep that day every year with gladness.”
Unlike Judah’s entrance, which was remembered annually at the festival of Hanukkah, this day was not remembered as an annual festival, despite the urging in this passage to do so.[16] However, it is possible that it was remembered during one of the additional celebrations at Tabernacles, because the list of instruments in this description is reminiscent of the description of the celebration of “flute playing” which was part of the celebration of the House of Drawing at Tabernacles:
The flute playing in the House of Drawing…. They said: Anyone who has never in his life seen the rejoicing of the House of Drawing has never seen rejoicing. (4) The Hasidim and men of deeds would dance before them with flaming torches in their hand, and they would sing before them songs and praises. And the Levites beyond counting played on harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets, and [other] musical instruments. (m.Suk.5.1, 4, based on Neusner)
The fact that this was part of the celebration of lights might suggest that the entrance of Judas Maccabaeus was also celebrated at Tabernacles. The story of his rededication was associated with a miracle of lights from at early stage, though the actual story was told in two complimentary forms – a story of miraculous fire (2Macc.1.18-23) and of miraculous oil (b.Shab.21b). By the first century it was already known as a festival of “light”, though the reason for this was obscure because when Josephus reports it he clearly does not know the origin of the name. He said he supposed it was because the sudden freedom to worship God was like an unexpected ray of light (Ant. 12.7.7=325).
These stories of the miraculous fire and lamps in the temple would have been commemorated very suitably by some of the aspect of the celebration of lights at Tabernacles:
In the women's courtyard… there were golden candleholders, with four gold bowls on their tops, and four ladders for each candlestick. And four young priests with jars of oil containing a hundred and twenty logs, [would climb up the ladders and] pour [the oil] into each bowl. (3) … And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem which was not lit up from the light of The House of Drawing. (m.Suk.5.2-3, based on Neusner)
Therefore it is possible that these additional elements in the Festival of Tabernacles were added in order to celebrate the cleansing of the Temple by Judas, and also the joyful liberation of the city by Simon.
By the first century Hanukkah was already being celebrated as a separate festival. It is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12.7.7=325) and John (Jn.10.22) who calls it a “Festival of Dedication” – probably an abbreviation of “dedication of the altar” (1Macc.4:59) or of “dedication of the Hasmonean Temple” (ḥanukkat bét Ḥashmonai). But even when it was celebrated as a festival in its own right, the association with Tabernacles was already established:
We are now about to keep the purification of the temple in the month Kislev, on the 25th day. We thought it necessary to certify that you also should keep a Feast of Tabernacles and a memorial of the [miraculous] fire with which Nehemiah offered sacrifices (2 Macc.1.18, based on RV)
It is likely that when the Temple was destroyed, and the giant lampstands were lost, the celebration of light reverted back to the festival of Hanukkah, which was celebrated as a domestic or synagogue-based ceremony. David Moshe Herr concluded that Hanukkah originally included the lulav and perhaps other features of Tabernacles, though not the booths because the original celebrants had succeeded in celebrating this in the caves they occupied (cf. 2 Macc.10.6).[17] It is likely that the domestic celebration of lights was already established by the first century, as witnessed by the Schools dispute (Scholium to Megillat Ta'anit; Shab. 21b). Probably when the Temple was destroyed, the House of Drawing ceremonies and the links between Tabernacles and Hanukkah were gradually forgotten. The lulav disappeared from Hanukkah and only a few similarities such as the Hallel remained to link the two.
Was Palm Sunday like Tabernacles or Hanukkah?
The Gospel accounts of Palm Sunday contain some elements which are similar to both the celebration of Tabernacles and the early celebration of Ḥanukkah – the chanting from Psalm 118 and waving branches. Neither festival featured riding on a donkey or paving its way with cloaks and willows, though this was reminiscent of the welcome for both Simon Maccabaeus and Judas Maccabaeus (which Ḥanukkah celebrated). The reference to kingly language in all four Gospels confirms that they wished to promote this link in the readers’ minds, and the fact that the synoptic Gospels follow this event with the Temple cleansing confirms that they want the readers to remember the rededication of the Temple by Judas.
We can therefore conclude that the Gospel writers wished to promote these links. Does this mean that they invented the chanting in order to make the reader see these links more clearly? Would a crowd have used chants derived from the celebrations of Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah during the Passover celebrations?
Chanting Psalm 118 was by no means inappropriate during Passover, because the Hallel Psalms were used also at this festival – they were recited at the Passover meal (m.Pes.10.6), and they featured in the Temple worship (m.Pes.5.5,7). But, in any case, enthusiastic crowds are not concerned about what is appropriate. Today we can hear crowds at sports stadiums singing popular songs that are entirely unrelated to sport, and crowds in a bar are equally likely to shout out sporting chants for no apparent reason. The reaction of the Pharisees indicates that they certainly regarded the crowd’s chanting as inappropriate. Such inappropriate chanting is to be expected among enthusiastic crowds. We saw above that the chanting of Psalm 118.25 at the Willow Beating ceremony was probably introduced as an inappropriate chant, though it became a traditional chant by means of repetition.
The chants which the Gospels report are those which one would expect an undisciplined crowd to employ. The chant ‘Hosanna’ is an inaccurate quotation of the biblical ‘Hoshi’ah-na’, with slurring which is similar to that which rabbis complained of elsewhere. The chant “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is identified in rabbinic traditions as one which when started by anyone, including a minor, has to be completed by everyone. The chant ‘Hosanna’ was a key phrase in the chant which crowds repeated all day long while circling the altar with branches of willows. For anyone who ever attended that celebration, the chant must have become embossed in their brain by the constant daylong repetition. The fact that this chant was associated with carrying a branch would immediately bring it mind when they waved the branches to welcome Jesus on Palm Sunday.
Conclusions
The details presented by the Gospel accounts of Palm Sunday are consistent with what we would expect a crowd to do, whatever time of year this occurred at. But more significant than what actually happened is the fact that all the Gospels chose to record the events in this way. They could have obscured the links between this and the entrance of the Maccabaean brothers into the city. The Romans were already becoming suspicious of any nationalistic fervour and it might have been wise to de-emphasise this apparent bid for kingly recognition by Jesus.
However, this occurrence highlighted two important implications. This event was the final signal to the Jewish rulers that Jesus was a dangerous individual, and without it their sudden and untimely rush to get him killed before Passover would be inexplicable. Secondly, it sets the scene for Jesus’ clearing of the sellers out of the Temple. This event could have been interpreted as an entirely unwarranted disruption of proper Temple business. Everyone needed to buy offerings, and most people needed to change their money, and the Temple court was the best place to do this. By setting this event in the context of the Maccabean cleansing of the Temple, the Gospels can show that Jesus’ motive was the purity of the House of God.
The Gospel writers therefore wished their readers to be reminded more of Hanukkah than Tabernacles, when they read the account of Palm Sunday, though the similarity of these two festivals in Temple times has obscured this distinction.
[1] According to m.Suk.3.9 they also shook them at the first and last verses of Ps.118, but this detail is not confirmed by an early tradition like the shaking at Ps.118.25, so we cannot be so certain about this.
[2] Some later traditions assumed that only priests carried willows round the altar (first suggested by Johanan b. Nappaha [late 3rd C, PA2] - b.Suk.44a), but Mishnah implies that ordinary people cut down the willows and processed.
[3] This person may have been Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) as described by Josephus (Jos. Ant. 13.13.5=372). Mishnah is silent about his identity, though Tosephta says he was a “Boethusian” which the Babylonian Talmud interpreted as “Sadducee”, and the Jerusalem Talmud debates whether he was the same Sadducee who made a mistake with regard to the incense on the Day of Atonement and the Red Heifer (y.Suk.4.6 II.4). It is possible that the Mishnah recorded an old tradition which was silent on this identity for political reasons and then later versions felt it increasingly necessary to provide some identification.
[4] For detailed discussion of the dating of individual traditions, see my Traditions of the Rabbis in the Era of the New Testament vol.2B (Eerdmans, forthcoming)
[5] For other reasons to doubt that the Sadducees rejected the Water Pouring ceremony see Jeffrey Rubenstein, "The Sadducees and the Water Libation," JQR 84 (1994), 417-444. He concludes that although there was a dispute with the Sadducees, it may have concerned the location of the pouring or whether it overrides the Sabbath.
[6] Some commentators think that this refers to the seventh day of the festival, but the addition of the phrase “the great day” indicates that this was the final High Festival Day.
[7] The summary at m.Suk.4.1 can be understood with the commentary throughout the chapter. The water pouring occurred only on the first seven days, and the ceremony of lights (which is referred to in this mishnah by the “flute playing” which accompanied it) could not occur on Sabbaths or High Festival Days, presumably because they involved lighting a fire and dancing.
[8] Although some editions of the Mishnah replace the second half with a repetition of the first half, it is likely that this was a later attempt to show that the crowd followed the Hillelites, because it is unlikely that an editor would change the text in order to show the Shammaites having the upper hand.
[9] According to b.Shab.104a, Hu is one of the names of God, and some commentators thought that when Hillel said “I” (Ani) in the saying “If I am there, all are there…” (etc – see b.Suk.53a) he used this as a circumlocution for God. See notes in C.J.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic anthology (London : Macmillan 1938): 13. This may explain the pointing in the Kaufmann MS of Mishnah: אֲנִי וְהוּא (“I and he”).
[10] This was argued convincingly by Raphael Lowe in "Salvation" is not of the Jews” (Journal of Theological Studies 32, 1981: 341-368).
[11] See esp. Florilegium=4Q174 f1 2i:7-13; Commentary on Genesis=4Q252 5:2-3; Sepher haMilhanah=4Q285 f7:3-4+11Q14 f1i:7-13; cf. CD 7:16.
[12] A search of Babli and Midrash Rabbah in Davka software found 34 examples of “son of David” used in a messianic sense.
[13] W.R.Farmer “The Palm Branches in John 12.13” (JTS NS 3, 1952: 62-6). He warns that the coin may have originated from elsewhere because there were several people called ‘Simon’ concerned with the revolt.
[14] Lowe “Salvation”: 352-53.
[15] Conta Lowe “Salvation” who says that the Gospels tried to underplay it because only John actually calls the branches “palms”. The messianic and regal chants are far more significant than the species of the branches being waved.
[16] It is named as one of the 35 days on which fasting is forbidden in the Megillat Taanit but we do not know how widely this was followed.
[17] Moshe David Herr, “Ḥanukkah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 8. 2nd ed. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007): 331-333.
