Question XI. (marg.) Was the Jewish Pentecost [instituted] for the memory of the Law's giving?

Some of the Jews affirm [it] — as, in book 3 of the Guide of the Perplexed [More Nevukhim], ch. 41, Rabbi Moses the Egyptian [Maimonides]; Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 41; Rabbi Isaac Arama, Gate 67, ch. 4, fol. 193b. And it is the most concurrent opinion of the Christian Doctors — as of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others, at the cited places. Rupert, however, and Abulensis take the name “the Law’s giving” a little otherwise. For they will have it [that], when the Law was pronounced on Sinai by the Lord, it was given inchoately and imperfectly; but on the morrow, when it was confirmed by sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood, [it was] given fully and perfectly. And so [that] the day dealt with is not [that] of that imperfect giving, but of the perfect [one] — because the former is the 49th, as [was] seen in the previous question, [and] this the 50th. But it is truer that, when the Law’s giving is spoken of, [it] seems to have been then rather, and more perfectly, given, when it was promulgated on Sinai by the Lord, than afterward, when it was merely stabilized by the struck covenant. For, first, [it] would otherwise be permitted to say even [that] not even then, when it was stabilized, was it perfectly given. Because, although [it was] already brought forth [and] confirmed, [it] had nevertheless not yet been entered upon the tablets — so that the perfection of this giving would [then] seem to have been when the tablets were given. Next, [it] is clear [that] it is one thing to bring forth a law, another to corroborate [it] with certain rites and ceremonies. The former was done most perfectly on Sinai, the latter on the morrow through the sacrifices and blood. And was not the supreme majesty of God [there] promulgating the Law? Does not “to give a law” signify rather the action of the lawgiver himself than [that] of those receiving the law? Especially since they had already professed [that] they [held] it [as] a law for themselves, and whatever the Lord should sanction…

(col. 117)

…had pleased [the Lord] to sanction, [they professed themselves] most ready to accept [it] — so that what is usually called the “acceptance of the law” was at hand together with its very bringing-forth, and was not deferred to a later day. There is therefore no [reason] why one should depart from the common opinion. Yet someone might perhaps not without cause wonder why the cause of this Pentecost instituted among the Jews is nowhere stated in the Scriptures — whereas the causes of the Passover, of the Unleavened Bread, of the Expiation, and of the Tabernacles are handed down so diligently, both elsewhere and [especially in] Leviticus 23 [and] Deuteronomy 16. Nay, another cause of the same Pentecost is there reported — namely, the offering of the bread of firstfruits, on account of the perfected and gathered harvest. This same, and this alone, [as] the cause, Philo opened (book On the Decalogue) and Josephus (Antiquities book 3, ch. 10), where he says this feast is called Asartha — from atsar [עצר], namely — just as the same day is then in the Hebrews’ reckoning called atseret [עצרת], and then the “seventh of the Unleavened” (Deuteronomy 16), and the “eighth of the Tabernacles” (Leviticus 23) — as I noted also below, Joshua 5, q. 34 — so that there is no need to give any credit to Lydiat (book On the Forms of Years, ch. 5, p. 48)

(col. 118)

when he writes that “the interpretation of that word Asartha, and its appropriation to Pentecost, is most inept, and altogether savors of some smattering little-Greek interpolator, or a licentious interpreter.” Nay, [there] are in Scripture three ordinary closings of the feasts, which are each called hetsereth [עצרת]: 1. the eighth [day] of the Scenopegia [Tabernacles]; 2. the seventh of the Unleavened; 3. Pentecost — as Scaliger shows at length (Isagoge of the Canons, book 3, p. 218). But read the scruple of Venerable Bede (book On the Reckoning of Time, ch. 9).

Our Pentecost is spoken of either as that which was the first, or as that which thereafter followed, and still now follows. The former — as is the concordant opinion of all — began by numbering from the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, up to the day on which the Holy Spirit was sent upon the Apostles (Acts 2, v. 1). But the Lord’s Resurrection was on the 17th day of the first month; and therefore, that day being included, Pentecost was the 6th day of the third month — from the exodus, in memory, the 50th day exclusive, the 51st inclusive. For [see the table]: