94 Daniel Timmer It is worth pondering whether the standard diachronic approach to this question has not adopted too simple a solution to the problem of these two clearly distinguished structures. Given the unsurpassed emphasis that Exodus puts on the tabernacle, if we assume the general competence of the book’s final redactor he must not have considered the ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd a threat to the tabernacle’s unique identity and function (8). Ralph Hendrix, in a recent series of articles, attempts to make sense of the various terms used for Israel’s cultic structures in the Sinai period and to demonstrate, without appealing to multiple source documents, the resultant coherence of the tabernacle section in Exod 25–40 (9). His studies succeed in highlighting the nuance that each term often possesses, even if their use remains puzzling at points. Hendrix concludes that “whereas the literary context of miπk˝n was about construction, the literary context of ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd appears to involve the function of the cult of YHWH” (10). But in contrast to a source-critical approach, Hendrix overemphasizes the similarity of the two structures to the point of seeing them as one, something that Exod 33,7-11 and Numbers 11, 12 do not allow. Careful attention to the tent of meeting passage suggests that another understanding is possible. The question may be clarified, first, by defining the tent of meeting per its description in Exod 33: it is a tent located outside the camp for oracular purposes. This immediately distinguishes it from Moses’ personal tent, mentioned earlier in Exod 18, and from the tabernacle, which is constructed later in Exod 40 (11). Second, the silence of Exodus regarding any tent with cultic or oracular functions prior to this point favors seeing the tent of meeting as first used at some time between Exod 19 and Exod 32–34(12). This approach has the advantage of using more proximate textual and chronological contexts to understand the tent of meeting than solutions which connect the ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd with Moses’ personal tent, with the tabernacle, or with Canaanite parallels (13). (8) M. Haran argues that the tabernacle and the tent of meeting served very different purposes, as their names (miπk˝n, ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd) imply. The former was “where God dwells,” the latter “the place to which he comes at an appointed time . . . only to leave it when the communion . . . is over”, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake 1985) 269. 2 (9) “A Literary Structural Overview of the Golden-Calf Episode in Exodus 32:1–33:6”, AUSS 28 (1990) 211-217; “Miπk˝n and ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd: Etymology, Lexical Definitions, and Extra-biblical Usage”, AUSS 29 (1991) 213-224; “The Use of miπk˝n and ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd in Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 3-13; “A Literary Structural Overview of Exodus 25–40”, AUSS 30 (1992) 123-138. (10) HENDRIX, “Use”, 9. (11) Moses’ personal tent is mentioned in 18,7 (with the definite article), but the placement of that episode is thematic rather than chronological. See E.E. CARPENTER, “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus”, A Biblical Itinerary. In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. E.E. CARPENTER) (JSOTSS 240; Sheffield 1997) 91-108, and D.A. GLATT, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS 139; Atlanta 1993). (12) The frequentative verbal syntax in 33,7-11 strongly suggests that the tent of meeting existed prior to the events of Exod 33. (13) A.M. COOPER – B.R. GOLDSTEIN, “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative”, JBL 116 (1997) 201-215, assert Canaanite influence on the presentation of the ÷˛hel m˛¿ˇd here.