A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited 9781646020539

Citation preview

A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary

A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited

James A. Greenberg

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Greenberg, James, 1960– author. Title: A new look at atonement in Leviticus : the meaning and purpose of kipper revisited / James Greenberg. Other titles: Bulletin for biblical research supplements. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2019]  |  Series: Bulletin for biblical research supplement  |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A new study of Old Testament atonement in the Priestly Literature that employs a modified text-immanent strategy to investigate how sacrifice works. Focuses on Priestly Torah texts found in Leviticus 1–16, Exodus and Numbers”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019034334 | ISBN 9781575069760 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Leviticus—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  |  Sacrifice in the Bible. | Atonement ( Judaism) | Kpr (The Hebrew root) Classification: LCC BS1255.52 .G74 2019 | DDC 222/.1306—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019034334 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in The United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

Contents

List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 The Quest: What Does Sacrifice Achieve and How Is It Accomplished?   1 Lessons from the History of Interpretation of Sacrifice   7 Proposed Approach to Interpreting Sacrifice   8 Chapter Layout  10 chapter 1.  Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Introduction  12 Instructions Given to Moses by Yhwh for Taking a Census, Exodus 30:11–16  12 The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering, Leviticus 4–5:13   16 The ʾĀšām Offering, Leviticus 5:14–26   42 The ʿŌlâ Offering, Leviticus 1   45 The Minḥâ and Šəlāmîm Offerings, Leviticus 2 and 3   48 Chapter Conclusions  49 chapter 2.  The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary . . . . . . . . 51 Introduction  51 Do Priestly Texts Describe Sancta as Holy and Unclean at the Same Time?   52 Leviticus 8:15 / Exodus 29:36: The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering for Priestly Ordination  63 Chapter Conclusions  87 chapter 3.  Leviticus 11–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Introduction  92 Milgrom’s Laws One and Two   93 Milgrom’s Third Law of Sancta Contamination   95 Milgrom’s and Gane’s Pollution-and-Purge Views   103 Chapter Conclusions  107

vi

Contents

Evaluation of the Nineteenth-Century Relationship View of Johann Henrich Kurtz   109 chapter 4.  Leviticus 8–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Introduction  113 Israel Knohl’s View of Yhwh in the Priestly Torah Sanctuary   114 A Balanced View of Yhwh’s Active Role on Sancta   116 Methodology to Study the Cult Initiation and Reinitiation Texts  119 Cult Initiation: Leviticus 8–10   121 Chapter Conclusions  150 chapter 5.  Leviticus 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Introduction  153 How Do the Evils Listed in 16:16, 19, 21, 22, 30, and 34 Relate to the Evils in Leviticus 1–15 in Regard to Their Effect on Sancta and the People?   154 What Results Do Kipper in the Ḥaṭṭāʾt, Live Goat Ritual, and ʿŌlâ Offerings Produce?  165 Possible Connections Between Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 4:3–21  181 The Remaining Cult Reinitiation Texts   182 Chapter Conclusions  186 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

List of Figures and Tables

Figures Figure 1.  Main elements of blood sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2.  History of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3.  Chapter layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 4.  Offender’s motivation and actions in Leviticus 4:27–31 . . . . . . . 24 Figure 5.  Logical inconsistency for Leviticus 4:27–31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 6.  Pollution-and-purge view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Figure 7.  Relationship view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 8.  Leviticus 8–9: Creation and homeostasis established . . . . . . . . 116 Figure 9.  Leviticus 1–7, 12–15: Instability and homeostasis maintained . . . . 117 Figure 10.  Leviticus 10, 16: Crisis and homeostasis reestablished . . . . . . . . 118 Figure 11.  Status of Yhwh, sanctuary, and the people prior to the Day of Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Figure 12.  Steps 1 through 3 of kipper: The ḥaṭṭāʾt blood binds Yhwh to the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Figure 13.  Step 4 of kipper: Azazel goat symbolically removes rebellious sinners from camp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Figure 14.  Step 5 of kipper: The ʿōlâ blood and flesh connects the non-rebellious people to the altar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Figure 15.  Modified text-immanent strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Tables Table 1.  Contexts of Ḥll and Ṭmʾ and the Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 2.  Common Thread Between Unintentional Sin, Bodily Impurity, and the Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table 3.  Beneficiaries of the Ordination Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 4.  Relationship Between the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 14:33–57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table 5.  Interrelationship of the Altar, Priests, and Consecration in Leviticus 8:15 / Exodus 29:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 6.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in the Context of Their Grammatical Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 vii

viii

List of Figures and Tables

Table 7.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 4:1–5:26 . . . . . . 90 Table 8.  Purification Stages for the Parturient According to Milgrom . . . . . 95 Table 9.  Milgrom’s Breakdown of Bodily Impurity Duration and the Requirement for Sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Table 10.  Milgrom’s and Gane’s Differing Views of How Sin and Bodily Impurity Pollute Sancta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Table 11.  The Function of the Ḥaṭṭāʾt for the Person with Bodily Impurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Table 12.  The Function of Kipper in Priestly Torah Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Table 13.  Beneficiaries of the Ordination Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Table 14.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:15 . . . . . . . . . 122 Table 15.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:18–21 . . . . . . . 122 Table 16.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:22–30 . . . . . . 123 Table 17.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 9 . . . . . . . . . . 131 Table 18.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:11–16a . . . . . 166 Table 19.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:16b . . . . . . .166 Table 20.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:18–19 . . . . . .170 Table 21.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:20–22 . . . . . 175 Table 22.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:24b . . . . . . . 177

Abbreviations

General Eng. ESV H Heb. JE LXX NAS NIV NLT MT NT OT P

English English Standard Version Holiness School Hebrew Yahwist-Elohist Source Septuagint New American Standard New International Version New Living Translation Masoretic Text New Testament Old Testament Priestly School

Reference Works

Freedman, D. N., ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 ANET Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AYB Anchor Yale Bible Commentary BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BCOTWP Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms BDB Brown, F.; S. R.Driver; and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BHS Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Bib Biblica BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament CAD Gelb, Ignace J., et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary CC Continental Commentaries CDA A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian DDD Van der Toorn, K.; B. Becking; and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995 ABD

ix

x EBC ETL EvT FAT HAT HCOT HUCA HvTSt IBHS

Abbreviations

Expositor’s Bible Commentary Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testament Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Hebrew Union College Annual Hervormde teologiese studies Waltke, B. K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 IDB Buttrick, G. A., ed. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 ITC International Theological Commentary JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements NAC New American Commentary NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDNTT C. Brown, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–85 OTL Old Testament Library RB Revue Biblique R&T Religion and Theology SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TDOT Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TLOT Jenni, E., ed., and M. E. Biddle, trans. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TWOT Harris, R. L., and G. L. Archer Jr., eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980 UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC World Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Preface

This book is a revision of a Ph.D. dissertation completed under the supervision of Gordon Wenham (Trinity College, University of Bristol) and Richard Hess (Denver Seminary). Richard Hess instilled in me a passion to study the ancient texts. Gordon Wenham’s masterful commentary in Leviticus drew me to the study of biblical sacrifice. Both scholars kindly and gently provided insight, direction, and encouragement through the complex array of issues associated with ancient sacrifice. I greatly appreciate David Firth (Trinity College, University of Bristol), who stepped in during the last months of my writing to provide helpful advice and assessment of my work. I am also thankful to my examiners, Robert Gordon (Cambridge University) and Peter Hatton (Bristol Baptist College), who provided insightful challenges and helpful comments during my viva. This book takes on a topic that has been critically debated by scholars since the nineteenth century. I evaluate many views of kipper, not the least of which is the one espoused by Jacob Milgrom. While a number of Milgrom’s views are challenged, the immensity of his contribution to the study of Leviticus and sacrifice cannot be understated. It is in fact the vastness of his studies and the clarity and insight of his writings that allows a critical assessment of biblical sacrifice. My hope is that this book offers another view of sacrifice and kipper that may contribute to scholarship. Last, I am indebted to my family, friends, and students who have encouraged me along the way. I would like to dedicate this book to my children: Katie, Ethan, Rachel, Matt, Robbie, and Amy. Their unwavering love and encouragement helped me to complete this work. Ultimately, my source of inspiration and strength is the Scriptures. ‫נר־לרגלי דברך ואור לנתיבתי‬

xii

Introduction Priestly Torah sacrifices depict a complex interplay between the offerer, priest, and Yhwh by means of a sacrificial animal whose flesh and blood are applied to sancta residing in the Israelite sanctuary.1 Figure 1 depicts the main elements of blood sacrifice. Solid lines represent physical interaction between the offerer, animal, priest, and sancta. The offerer brings a sacrificial animal to the sanctuary and lays their2 hand on the animal’s head, the animal is slaughtered into flesh and blood, and then both elements are given to the priest to place on sancta. A question mark between Yhwh and the sancta shows that, although Yhwh is a party in sacrifice, Yhwh’s interaction with the sancta, priest, offerer, animal, flesh, and blood is not explicitly described.3 Two questions have guided the quest to interpret Priestly Torah sacrifice.

The Quest: What Does Sacrifice Achieve and How Is It Accomplished? The first question has been easier to address, at least at a high level, than the second. Many sacrifices include preconditions the offerer must meet, if, for example, the offerer committed an unintentional sin or contracted a bodily impurity, and end with result statements expressed on behalf of the offerer, such as forgiveness and making clean. As a result, with some confidence, scholars conclude that sacrifice fixes a problem between the offerer and Yhwh.4 However, determining how and why sacrifice fixes this problem is elusive. In order to answer this question, scholars have engaged in two, often overlapping, lines of research. One line of study seeks to identify the symbolic meaning of the sanctuary and sacrificial elements, and the other attempts to discover the 1.  The term Priestly Torah for P is borrowed from Israel Knohl (The Sanctuary of Silence). Knohl argues against Julius Wellhausen’s view that P is later than H (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel). I use the following nomenclature: Priestly Torah (P), Holiness School (H), Priestly texts (i.e., Priestly Torah and Holiness School), and non-Priestly texts (i.e., texts not sourced from the Priestly Torah and Holiness School). 2.  An offerer may be male or female. 3.  The Priestly Torah consistently declares that blood rituals are done lipnê Yhwh (‘at/to the face/presence of Yhwh’), however it limits anthropomorphic statements to describe Yhwh (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 128; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 58–61; Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 21–22). 4.  Watts contends that sacrifice removes a wide range of negative consequences (Leviticus 1–10, 344–46). Feder states that “ancient Near Eastern rituals are primarily intended to address concrete societal and personal concerns” (Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, 151).

1

2

YHWH

Introduction

?

Sancta

flesh blood

Priest

animal

Offerer

figure 1.  Main elements of blood sacrifice.

etymology of the Hebrew verb kipper, which usually follows the priest’s application of blood and flesh on the sancta.5 Unfortunately, a lack of information complicates both lines of research. Biblical Hebrew does not provide a straightforward etymology of the verb kipper, leading scholars to investigate cognate dialects.6 However, this type of comparative study is fraught with exegetical minefields. Specifically, it is unclear how ancient cultures interacted with each other and thus whether or not cognate roots share a common etymology.7 The pursuit of the symbolic meaning of sacrificial elements is equally elusive.8 Ritual texts do not clearly explain how sacrificial elements bring about a desired change.9 Furthermore, the symbolic meaning of ritual actions and elements may vastly differ for the participant and ritual specialists and change or lose their meaning over time as rituals become fossilized.10 Despite these challenges, scholars have employed a number of approaches to determine how sacrifice works. Prior to the nineteenth century, beginning with the church fathers, sacrifice had been interpreted through the lens of New Testament theology, specifically substitutionary atonement.11 For these scholars, the sacri5.  For proposals of the etymology of kipper, see the bibliography for works by Janowski, Gese, Schwartz, and Lang. 6.  For example, Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, 67. 7. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible, 28. 8.  According to Feder, most ritual signs are not interpreted and, even if explained, may not be applicable to other contexts (Blood Expiation, 150). Hundley, following Kertzer, argues that ritual signs are characterized by condensation of meaning, multivocality, and ambiguity (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 22–24; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, 11). Gilders, following David Wright, highlights the difficulty of using comparative evidence to identify the symbolic meaning and function of blood (Gilders, Blood Ritual, 129–30; Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 5–8). 9.  Gilders concludes that trying to find meaning and significance in symbolism or instrumental effect is not reliable (Blood Ritual, 100). 10.  Hundley notes that Priestly Torah rituals are prescriptive and not descriptive and thus may be idealized depictions of the ritual, rather than reflecting actual practice (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 18–19). Grimes argues that participation is required to interpret ritual (Ritual Criticism 109–44, 210–33). 11.  Tertullian, in speaking about the Day of Atonement, states, “The two goats represent Christ’s two natures: one is rejected, as Christ was in his passion; the other is taken up into the order of grace . . . offered up for sins” (Lienhard, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 185). Commenting on the sacrificial animal in Lev 1:4, John Calvin states, “This ceremony was not only a sign of consecration, but also of its being an atonement, since it was substituted for the man. . . . There is not, then, the least doubt but that they transferred their guilt and whatever penalties they had deserved to the victims, in order that they might be reconciled to God” (Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, 324).

Introduction

3

ficial animal was a vicarious substitute receiving the punishment due the offerer for violating Yhwh’s commandment.12 This view came under scrutiny by nineteenth-century scholars.13 These scholars grounded their understanding of sacrifice in the belief that the Hebrew kipper shared a common etymology with the Arabic kafara meaning ‘to cover’.14 While New Testament theology continued to influence scholarly thinking, nineteenthcentury scholars rooted their interpretation of sacrifice in their understanding of the Old Testament covenant.15 Rejecting the view of substitutionary atonement,16 the animal became an agent to remove the effects of sin and impurity that caused a disruption in the covenant relationship between the offerer(s) and Yhwh. Scholars held many views on what expiation entailed.17 However, they agreed that blood applied to sancta covered the offerer’s sin, or the effects of sin, from Yhwh, and burning the animal’s flesh on the sacrificial altar restored fellowship between the offerer and Yhwh.18 At the same time as the development of the new nineteenth-century perspective on sacrifice, Wellhausen developed the source-critical approach. Wellhausen and his followers postulated that the Pentateuch had been written by various authorial sources who held differing theologies and lived at different times in Israel’s history. Throughout Israel’s history, editors repeatedly integrated the writings of these different sources, creating a final form of the Pentateuch around the fourth century BC. Roundly rejected by some nineteenth-century scholars of Leviticus19 and embraced by others, Wellhausen introduced another layer of complexity into the interpretation of sacrifice. How can a text from a non-Priestly source, written and conceived by different authors at different times, inform and explain priestly sacrifice? 12.  Rodriguez, with a few modern scholars, continues to support the substitutionary atonement view (Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus, 7–12, 75–149). 13.  These scholars viewed the sacrificial animal as a gift, or a payment, but not a substitute (ibid., 7–8 nn. 1–7). 14. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 67–71. For Arabic kafara having the sense ‘to cover’, see Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v. kafara, 2620. See also the bibliography for works by Elliger, Janowski, and Schwartz. 15.  For example, Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 261–62. 16.  Rodriguez states that Kurtz was an exception to this scholarly trend (Substitution, 7). 17.  Kurtz defends his position against a number of nineteenth-century scholars in regard to how kipper achieved expiation (Sacrificial Worship, 66–75, 101–49). 18.  According to Keil and Delitzsch, “the burning of the animal’s fat represented man’s nature given to the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit of God so that it might be purified from sin and ascend in its glorified essence to heaven as a sweet savor to the Lord (Lev 4:31)” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 306). 19.  Delitzsch, joining Kurtz, Dillman, and Kittle, questioned source criticism. Delitzsch challenged the views of late dating and the rejection of Mosaic authorship (New Commentary on Genesis, 1–59; see also Thompson, Moses and the Law, 60–62).

4

Introduction

While the debate over the validity of source criticism and the interpretation of sacrifice continued, the twentieth century brought significant archeological discoveries of ancient Near Eastern cultures and cults.20 The similarities between sacrificial rituals of ancient Bronze Age cults to Israel’s Priestly texts fueled a debate over the dating of the Priestly source. Is the provenance of Israel’s blood ritual in the late Bronze Age, or is it postexilic, as Wellhausen and his followers proposed? These debates came to bear on the seminal work of Jacob Milgrom. Milgrom postulated a preexilic date for the Priestly source based, in part, on similarities with ancient Near Eastern cults of the Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians.21 Furthermore, in contrast to the nineteenth-century view that the Hebrew kipper traced its etymology through the Arabic kafara, Milgrom, along with Levine and others, postulated that kipper can be traced through the Akkadian kuppuru having the sense ‘wipe off, clean objects, rub, to purify magically’.22 Rather than the nineteenth-century view that kipper reflected expiation by ‘covering’ sins, Milgrom proposed that the Hebrew kipper, as employed in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, ‘purges’ pollution that collected in the sanctuary as a result of the people’s sins and bodily impurities.23 Milgrom postulated that Israelite sacrifice is a monotheistic adaptation of neighboring ancient Near Eastern cults.24 In Milgrom’s view, sin and bodily impurity in the Israelite system followed the behavior of demons. In non-Israelite cults, demons attacked sancta and were removed by cleansing rituals. Thus, Milgrom surmised that the priests envisioned human sin and bodily impurity as behaving like demons, polluting sanctuary sancta from afar. According to Milgrom, the priests developed a system centered on the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice, whose blood uniquely purged sin and bodily impurity pollution from sancta. Milgrom’s view completely revolutionized the interpretation and theological understanding of how sacrifice works. Milgrom proposed that Priestly theology follows the premise of the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, in that the stain of sin is not on the person but on the sanctuary, and thus the entire community shares in the responsibility to keep the sanctuary clean through their individual and collective sacrifices.25 Following the prophet Ezekiel, Milgrom contends that dire consequences followed as a result of neglecting this responsibility. If too much 20. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 4 nn. 14–15; Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions,” 95–129; Hess, Israelite Religions, 46–59. 21. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 3–55; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1361–64. 22. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56–61; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1040, 1079–84; Milgrom, “Kipper,” 180; “kuppuru,” CAD K, 178; Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 3–4 n. 7. 23.  Milgrom thinks kipper has the sense ‘purge’ for the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and ‘expiate’ for all other offerings (Leviticus 1–16, 578). For Milgrom, the ḥaṭṭāʾt is the central priestly sacrifice, and purgation of the sanctuary is the primary priestly concern. See the bibliography for Milgrom’s publications that describe and defend his view of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. 24.  Ibid., 254–58. 25. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 258, 981; Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary’” 75–84.

Introduction

5

sin and impurity polluted the sancta, then Yhwh would depart, bringing judgment upon Israel.26 Milgrom’s theory garnered a number of followers who have supported and advanced his views.27 However, his theory has been challenged. Some scholars think the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering purges sancta and at the same time expiates the offerer.28 Some reject all or part of Milgrom’s view of automatic pollution from afar.29 A few have questioned whether the etymology of the Hebrew kipper can be traced through the Akkadian kuppuru.30 Others have proposed that the Hebrew kipper is a factitive of the noun kōper having the approximate sense ‘making ransom’.31 Recently, Sklar has argued for an interpretation of the Hebrew kipper that combines both ‘ransom’ and ‘purge’.32 Perhaps the most significant critique of Milgrom comes from his exegetical decision to assign meaning to ritual action, which ritual theorists view as unreliable and misleading.33 Finally, Levine has a different understanding from Milgrom’s in regard to the comparative ancient Near Eastern data, finding that the notion of demonic activity had been part of Priestly thought.34 26. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 981. 27.  While not an exhaustive list, the following scholars seem to support Milgrom’s theory without modification or with minor variations: Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 129–31; Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 3–21; Gorman, Divine Presence and Community, 17; Block, Book of Ezekiel, 594, 609; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 175–86; Feder, Blood Expiation, 109–11, 116–17. Feder argues that the meaning of kipper diachronically changed from propitiation to expiation and then to purgation (Blood Expiation, 265–67). 28.  Dennis, “Function of the ‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 108–29; Wenham, Book of Leviticus, 88–89, 93–94; Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings,” 870–86; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 156–58; Hartley, Leviticus, 55–58; Hess, “Leviticus,” 617; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 56–62. Kiuchi’s view emphasizes expiation, with purgation of sancta only when the offerer approaches the sanctuary (Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 65, 161; Milgrom, Leviticus, 36–37; Kiuchi, Study of Ḥāṭā and Ḥaṭṭāʾt in Leviticus 4–5). Gilders does not think it is possible to assign a symbolic meaning to blood manipulation. However, for the Day of Atonement, Gilders argues that blood removes impurity (Blood Ritual, 181–91). Watts states that kipper should be glossed ‘mitigate’ because it removes negative consequences including environmental pollution (Leviticus, 343–45). The following scholars contend that kipper expiates the offerer but in certain contexts can have the sense ‘purge’. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 258; Koch, ‫חָ טָ א‬, 316–18. 29.  The following scholars think that sin and impurity are removed from the offerer (expiation), stored on the sancta via the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood and then are purged on the Day of Atonement: Gane, Cult and Character; Gammie, Holiness in Israel, 37–41; Propp, Exodus 1–14, 698–700; Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 609–18. 30. Lang, ‫ ִּכּפֶ ר‬, 290; Gilders, Blood Ritual, 29; Feder “On kuppuru, kipper and Etymological Sins,” 535–45. 31.  ‘Ransom’ in the sense of a quid pro quo arrangement. Janowski views kipper in the context of ‘ransom’ (Sühne als Heilsgeschehen, 183–276). Schenker views kipper in the context of ‘appeasement’ (“Kōper et expiation,” 32–46). Brichto views kipper in the context of ‘composition’ and purgation (“On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” 19–56). 32. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 187. 33. Gane, Cult and Character, 108. 34. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 75.

figure 2.  History of interpretation.

Meaning of Kipper

Milgrom (purge), Wright, Schwartz, Feder, Gorman, Nihan I

Gane, Propp, Gammie, Zohar (purge/store, expiate)

Influenced by Milgrom

Pollution-and-Purge

Levine (purge, expiate)

Relationship

Rodriguez (substitute, purge)

Kiuchi (expiate, purge)

Church fathers (substitute)

Delitzsch (cover/expiate)

Keil (cover/expiate)

Kurtz (cover/expiate)

Schenker (appeasement), Janowski (ransom) Brichto (composition, purge)

Watts Gilders (mitigate, (expiate, purge) purge)

Sklar (ransom, purge)

Wenham, J. Dennis, Hess, Hartley, Jenson, Anderson (purge, expiate)

Combined

Purpose of Sanctuary

6 Introduction

Introduction

7

Because this study wishes once again to take on the challenge of exploring how sacrifice works, it seems prudent to explore what can be learned from differing scholarly views and their critiques.

Lessons from the History of Interpretation of Sacrifice It appears that the starting assumption for scholars is their view of the Priestly conception of the sanctuary. Prior to the twentieth century, scholars viewed the sanctuary as the medium for expiation with Yhwh. Milgrom and his followers primarily view the sanctuary as a place for collecting and purging sin and impurity. Many scholars, influenced by Milgrom, have sought to show that both expiation and purgation are possible. A few scholars still contend that sacrifice works through a form of animal substitution for the offerer. Finally, some view the sanctuary as a place to receive expiation by means of a compensating payment to Yhwh. Other interpretive issues for sacrifice seem to flow from the assumption of sanctuary purpose, most notably the meaning of the Hebrew kipper. For example, based on his comparative study with other ancient Near Eastern cults, once Milgrom viewed the sanctuary as a place to receive the pollution generated by Israel’s sin and impurity, then it followed that the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice, and specifically the verb kipper, ‘purges’ this pollution, following the Akkadian kuppuru. While not an exhaustive list, figure 2 reflects scholarly views of the purpose of the sanctuary and the meaning of kipper.35 The history of interpretation moves from the lower righthand corner to the upper lefthand corner of the chart. It seems that the reason for a large number of diverse scholarly views is, in part, driven by an overemphasis on comparative study to explain the purpose of the sanctuary and the meaning of the Hebrew kipper. The overreliance of the church fathers on New Testament theology led them to view sacrifice as substitution. The nineteenth-century scholars anchored their views in Old Testament covenant theology that is not necessarily reflected in the Priestly Torah, as well as on a possible connection between the Hebrew kipper and the Arabic kafara ‘to cover’. While Milgrom carefully addresses sacrificial interpretation through the lens of source criticism, his view heavily depends on comparative study with other ancient Near Eastern cultures, and a possible etymological connection between the Hebrew kipper and the Akkadian kuppuru ‘to purge’. Scholars who find a theme approximate to ‘ransom’ must rely on non-Priestly sources to 35.  Figure 2 is a best attempt at categorizing each scholar’s view. I created the labels “pollutionand-purge,” “combined,” and “relationship” for the purpose of discussion in this book, and they are not used by the scholars listed.

8

Introduction

insist that kipper is the factitive of kōper.36 However, these approaches seem to struggle with explaining how a quid pro quo, that is, payment for wrong, legal context applies to sacrifice. Gilders, following many ritual theorists, has critiqued the scholarly penchant for overreliance on comparative study, calling it gap filling. While acknowledging that some scholars are better at gap filling than others, he attempts to show, through his critique of competing views of sacrifice, that gap filling is unlikely to yield accurate results.37 Gilders proposes to seek meaning by finding indexical relationships between sacrificial signs and argues for scholars to focus strictly on a close reading of the text.38 Gilders’s approach seems unnecessarily limited and has its own issues.39 For example, Gilders must still rely on the accepted meaning of sacrificial terms.40 He assumes the piel of ḥṭʾ has the sense of ‘purify’, which informs his understanding that the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 8:15 is to remove evils from the sacrificial altar. However, as discussed in ch. two, it is possible that the piel of ḥṭʾ has a different sense than ‘purify’ in Lev 8, and thus, even Gilders’s approach may be called into question. Comparative study is valuable; however, it should be used to confirm an interpretation derived from the primary text, rather than informing, or in other words placing meaning into, the text.41 Therefore, this study employs a text-immanent42 strategy modified to focus on close reading of the Priestly Torah sacrificial texts, while addressing issues with the comparative approach and ritual interpretation.

Proposed Approach to Interpreting Sacrifice This study focuses on Priestly Torah sacrificial texts based on the work of Israel Knohl, who argues that there are two distinct Priestly traditions: Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Knohl contends that the Priestly Torah’s theology differs 36.  For example, Sklar finds a strong relationship between the non-Priestly text in Exod 21:28–32 and the Priestly Torah text in Exod 30:11–16 (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 52–54). 37. Gilders, Blood Ritual, 100. 38.  Ibid., 8–11. 39. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 31–32; Feder, Blood Expiation, 151. 40. Gilders, Blood Ritual, 129. 41.  In a recent comparative study between Leviticus and Akkadian ritual calendar texts, Babcock emphasizes that intrabiblical texts should take interpretive precedence over extrabiblical texts (Sacred Ritual, 1–18). 42.  John Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 2. The following scholars define a text-immanent strategy as a text-centered reading of a self-contained stage of the text. Nyiawung, “Contextualising Biblical Exegesis,” 3; Young Lee, From History to Narrative Hermeneutics, 138–40; Postell, Adam as Israel, 43–44; Klerk, “Situating Biblical Narrative Studies,” 201.

Introduction

9

from the Holiness School.43 According to Knohl, the Priestly Torah emphasizes the sanctuary and the holiness of Yhwh, while the Holiness School seeks to expand holiness to the people and the land in personal relationship with Yhwh. While Knohl views the Holiness School as a polemic against the Priestly Torah, Milgrom, for the most part, understands the Holiness School and the Priestly Torah to be a continuum, with the Holiness School interpreting the Priestly Torah.44 This book takes a mediating position by inquiring on a case-by-case basis whether or not the Holiness School interprets the Priestly Torah. Also, when working with texts outside the Priestly Torah and Holiness School, this study seeks to discover whether or not these texts may legitimately contribute to the interpretation of the Priestly Torah. While considering comparative language and ritual study with non-Israelite cults, the primary focus is on a close reading of the biblical texts.45 Rather than declaring upfront the purpose of the sanctuary and the meaning of kipper, clues are identified as the study progresses. The investigation is kept on track by reevaluating findings in light of new clues. The hope is that the accumulation of these clues leads to a more text-specific interpretation of sacrifice. Last, following the recent work of Gane, Feder, and Hundley, this study focuses on what sacrifice does, what ritual says about what it seeks to accomplish.46 In this regard, this study treads carefully, as the penchant is to assign meaning to ritual elements immediately, which may be possible but is not always appropriate until all the clues have been gathered. Rather, significant time is spent on interpreting larger questions, such as whether sacrifice deals with intentional sinners or not. Can holiness coexist with sin and impurity on sancta? What is Yhwh’s interaction with sancta, the offerer, and the animal? It seems the answers to these larger questions bring into focus the inner workings of sacrifice. As I study each sacrificial text, I make observations with regard to the viability of the pollution-andpurge, relational, and combined views. Based on observations from the history of interpretation, this study will hone in on the purpose of the sanctuary and the meaning of the Hebrew kipper, engaging other interpretive issues that support this investigation. 43. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 124–197 (see also Kugler, “Holiness, Purity, the Blood and Society,” 3–27). 44. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 35–42. However, Milgrom acknowledges that the vocabulary of Priestly writings is markedly different from other pentateuchal sources, i.e., JE and D, and that, at times, the vocabulary of the Priestly Torah is different from the Holiness School. 45.  Silva highlights the importance of identifying the sense of a word based on its context (Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 137–69). 46. Gane, Cult and Character, 3–24; Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 26–37; Feder, Blood Expiation, 147–65.

10

Introduction

YHWH

?

Sancta

4 Leviticus 8–10 5 Leviticus 16

flesh blood

Priest

animal

Offerer

2 The Relationship between Evils and the Sanctuary 3 Leviticus 11–15

1 Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

figure 3.  Chapter layout.

Chapter Layout Chapter one begins with the Priestly Torah text found in Exod 30:11–16 and then follows with the sacrificial instructions found in Lev 1–7. Exodus 30:11–16 employs both the verb kipper and the noun kōper. Starting with this text, these terms are investigated, including how they may or may not relate to each other. Leviticus 1–7 focuses on sacrificial performance and, in some rituals, specifies preconditions and results for the offerer. These preconditions and results are studied to determine the nature of the problem between Yhwh and the offerer and how it may be corrected by sacrifice. The relationship between sacrifices is also studied, especially in regard to the Hebrew kipper. Based on these findings, ch. two investigates whether or not the sanctuary is designed to be both holy and polluted by studying the terms and texts that Milgrom and others think prove the sanctuary is contaminated by sin and impurity. The key question is whether or not the offerer, in some way, transfers sin and impurity to the sanctuary. The answer to this question provides insight to the purpose of the sacrificial animal and the viability of the pollution-and-purge and combined views in contrast to the relationship view. In ch. three, this investigation is extended to the study of the impurity rituals found in Lev 11–15. The study evaluates and compares Milgrom’s and Gane’s differing proposals for how the sanctuary collects pollution, culminating with a comparison between the pollution-andpurge view and the relationship view championed by the nineteenth-century scholar Johann Henrich Kurtz. By the end of ch. three, a sufficient number of clues are gathered to make a proposal for the purpose of the sanctuary and the meaning of the Hebrew kipper. However, there is still much to learn about Yhwh’s interaction with sancta. Most of the texts depicting Yhwh’s actions in the Priestly Torah are found in the cult initiation rituals in Lev 8–10 and the reinitiation rituals found in Lev 16. While assessing the viability of the pollution-and-purge, combined, and relationship views

Introduction

11

against the proposed view, ch. four investigates Lev 8–10. Chapter five applies the proposed understanding of the purpose of the sanctuary and meaning of the Hebrew kipper to Lev 16. Furthermore, the study attempts to uncover key insights into Yhwh’s interaction with sancta, the sacrificial elements, priest, and offerer. The interrelationship between Lev 1–15 and 16 is also explored. Using the schema in figure 3, chs. one through five focus on the interactions between the offerer, priest, Yhwh, sacrificial elements, and the sanctuary. The combined findings from these different interactions provide puzzle pieces for this study. My hope is that a modified text-immanent approach to the study of Priestly Torah sacrifice can provide new insight into the meaning of kipper and the purpose of the sanctuary, leading to a better understanding of how sacrifice works.

Chapter 1

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7 Introduction Exodus 30:11–16 provides instructions for how census taking should be done to ensure that a problem does not arise between Yhwh and each man counted. Each person must provide a kōper, with the result of making kipper for themself, or else a plague will break out. While blood and flesh are not applied to the sanctuary, this is the only Priestly Torah text that employs the verb kipper and the noun kōper. As a result, this study explores the relationship between these terms and how they are employed to resolve a problem between each person and Yhwh. Leviticus 1–7 provide instructions for the following priestly sacrifices: ʿōlâ (Lev 1; 6:1–6 [Heb.]; 7:8), minḥâ (Lev 2; 6:7–11 [Heb.]; 7:9–10), šəlāmîm (Lev 3; 7:11– 21, 28–34), ḥaṭṭāʾt (Lev 4–5:13; 6:17–23 [Heb.]), and ʾāšām (Lev 5:14–26 [Heb.]; 7:1–7).1 While it is less clear why an offerer2 brings an ʿōlâ, minḥâ, and šəlāmîm, each instance of the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʾāšām sacrifice includes preconditions, a result, and sacrificial instructions showing how an offerer may come to the sanctuary in order to resolve a problem before Yhwh. Therefore, I study these sacrifices first, and then the investigation turns to how the ʿōlâ, minḥâ, and šəlāmîm relate to the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʾāšām. The objective is to accumulate clues to uncover the meaning of kipper and the purpose of the sanctuary, while employing the proposed text-immanent strategy to interpret each text.

Instructions Given to Moses by Yhwh for Taking a Census, Exodus 30:11–16 This is a procedure for Moses (30:11) to follow when taking a census (indicated by the combination of nāśāʾ and rōʾš, literally ‘lift the head’, 30:12), by counting the Israelite men over the age of twenty years old (30:14).3 The passage is silent 1.  Each sacrifice is referenced in Hebrew or English as follows: ʿōlâ (‘burnt offering’), minḥâ (‘grain offering’), šəlāmîm (‘well-being offering’), ḥaṭṭāʾt (‘sin offering’), and ʾāšām (‘guilt offering’). Even though the singular of šəlāmîm is šelem, this study follows the practice of referring to this offering as šəlāmîm. The millūʾîm (‘ordination offering’), referenced in Lev 7:23, is investigated in ch. four. 2.  An offerer is alternatively referred to as an unclean person, sinner, or offender. 3.  According to Knohl, Exod 30:11–16 is considered a late stratum of the Priestly Torah (Sanctuary of Silence, 63 n. 8).

12

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

13

concerning the reason for this census and contains the only occurrence of the combination of nāśāʾ and rōʾš in the Priestly Torah. In non-Priestly texts, the combination of nāśāʾ and rōʾš often specifies an action to recognize a person for a specific occasion or purpose (cf. Num 1:2–3, and the counting of Israelite men over the age of twenty who are eligible for war). In Holiness School texts, this phrase refers to counting the eligible number of Levites for serving in the tent of meeting (Num 4:2, 22), counting plunder from war (Num 31:26), and to determine the number of casualties as a result of a battle with Midian (Num 31:49). This evidence does not lead to a definitive reason for taking a census in Exod 30:11–16. The occasion may be the counting of the number of eligible Israelite men for some type of service, perhaps war.4 As the counting is done, each man must give a kōper napšô to Yhwh so that they will not have a ‘plague’, negep, among them (30:12). A kōper napšô is equated to a half-shekel according to the holy place (30:13, 16) and is called a tərûmâ (30:14, 15), which refers to a non-sin offering directed toward Yhwh in all Priestly texts.5 The phrase kōper napšô is also called kesep hakkippūrîm, money for the purposes of kipper,6 and zikkārôn lipnê Yhwh (30:16). The term zikkārôn has a common sense across all text sources to reflect the ongoing memory of a person or thing.7 Thus, it seems that Yhwh is to remember each man’s kōper napšô continually. The counting of each Israelite man over twenty years old and the giving of the kōper napšô culminates with the phrase ləkappēr ʿal-napšōtêkem (30:15, 16). Given that ləkappēr ʿal concludes the instructions to Moses, it is natural to take the l preposition plus the infinitive construct to mean that kipper is the result of the process completed on behalf of each man counted (ʿal-napšōtêkem).8 The implied subject of kipper is not grammatically explicit, but it is likely Moses (30:11, 16), since the indirect object is each man counted. The implied direct object is Yhwh, who receives the kōper napšô from each man through the act of giving, wənātənû (30:12; cf. 30:15). In summary, Moses, on behalf of each one counted, gives each one’s kōper napšô offering to Yhwh. The result of kipper is that there will be no plague among the men (30:12) and that a memorial is established between each counted man and Yhwh. What can be observed from this grammatical structure? Scholars interpret kōper napšô to have the sense ‘ransom of his soul’ and ləkappēr ʿal-napšōtêkem to 4.  Propp states that military conscription was one of the ways silver was collected for building the tabernacle (Exodus 19–40, 476–78). 5.  Cf. Exod 25:2, 3; 29:27, 28; 35:5, 21, 24; 36:3, 6; Num 5:9; 6:20; 15:19, 20, 21; 18:8, 11, 19, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 31:29, 41, 52; Lev 7:14, 32, 34; 10:14, 15; 22:12. 6.  The verb kipper is the result of paying the kesep hakkippūrîm; cf. ləkappēr ʿal-napšōtêkem in 30:15–16. 7.  BDB 272 s.v. zikkārôn. 8.  For interpreting the preposition l as result, see Arnold and Choi, Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 71.

14

Chapter 1

take on the factitive sense of kōper, ‘to make ransom on behalf of your souls’.9 Sklar argues that the situation of Exod 30:11–16 follows the same pattern as Exod 21:28–32 (a non-Priestly text), where kōper has the sense ‘ransom’.10 In his conclusions for Exod 30:11–16, Sklar writes: To begin, an act is described (i.e. the taking of a census) that will result in severe consequences for those involved, namely, a plague from the Lord. While it is not clear as in Exodus 21 why the deed is wrong (reasons of pollution? infringement upon the property of the Lord?), the end result is the same: one party has offended another and is liable to severe consequences at the hand of the offended. Second, in place of this severe consequence, a mitigated penalty is offered: the payment of a kōper. This payment serves to rescue (otherwise forfeited) life from certain doom. Third, the kōper not only rescues the life of the guilty, it also functions to appease the injured party, restoring peace to the relationship. Finally, the offer of kōper is extended at the initiative of the ‘injured’ party, that is, the Lord.

This interpretation seems to be problematic. In the case of Exod 21:28–32, the condition for paying a kōper is that a negligent owner’s predisposed goring ox has caused the death of a person. Since the owner’s penalty is death (Exod 21:29), the owner’s kōper is said to represent a “ransom of his life” (pidyōn napšô, Exod 21:30). However, in Exod 30:11–16 there is no preexistent harm, nor is there negligence.11 Each man is ordered to be counted by Moses (30:12), and there is no statement that Yhwh is harmed by the counting.12 The emphasis does not seem to be on the offense to Yhwh but rather that there will be no plague if the kōper is paid by each man (30:12). Thus, the ox owner makes a reactive payment, because their 9.  Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice,” 26–27, 34–35; Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 67; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1082–83. 10. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 52–54. Sklar argues that the account in Num 17 (specifically, 17:11 [Eng. 16:46]) implies that a plague was considered evidence of the wrath of the Lord (ibid., 53). This assertion is true in the context of Num 17 and the people turning against Moses, 17:6 [Eng. 16:41]. However, in Exod 30:11–16 there is no indication of rebellion; rather, each person obediently follows Yhwh’s command. 11.  Sklar rejects applying to Exod 30:11–16 Speiser’s finding that counting each person corresponded to the fear associated with ancient Near Eastern gods recording who would live or die in the cosmic books of life and death (ibid., 52; Speiser, “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” 17–25). Instead, Sklar relates the danger of census taking to the consequences David faced in 2 Sam 24. However, the issue with David’s census was his rebellious actions (2 Sam 24:10), whereas here, the men were obedient to Moses. Gilders rejects the premise of legal culpability for Exod 30:11–16 (Blood Ritual, 172). 12.  Because of the proposition kî ‘if ’ or ‘when’, the rabbinic commentators debated whether Yhwh implicitly commands Moses to take the census or, rather, it is something Yhwh assumes Moses will do (Propp, Exodus 19–40, 475). Whether or not the census is a command, it is clearly something Yhwh allows.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

15

negligence resulted in the death of a person, while each counted man makes a proactive payment to protect them from a plague that would occur as a result of their obedience to Moses’s command.13 The term negep (‘plague’) occurs only here in the Priestly Torah. However, it is used by the Holiness School in a future, proactive context in the Passover narrative (blood is applied to doorposts to ensure that Yhwh’s plague does not destroy the Israelites, Exod 12:13), and the priestly rituals for the initiation of the Levites (Yhwh gives the Levites as a gift to Aaron to ensure that a plague does not occur among the sons of Israel when they approach the sanctuary, Num 8:19). It seems that the proactive kōper in Exod 30:11–16 is not a mitigating payment demanded by a harmed party to stop a deserved punishment.14 Rather, it is an offering (tərûmâ) to ensure that each person is constantly remembered before Yhwh (zikkārôn lipnê Yhwh), with the result that the people will not suffer a plague.15 It is possible that the service expected of each man over the age of twenty years may cause them to act in a way that normally brings punishment from Yhwh. Indeed, in the Priestly texts, if a punishment, like a plague, is deserved for intentional disobedience against Yhwh, for example, Lev 10:1–3, it may be inferred that mitigation of a plague should be impossible. However, since the people are acting in obedience, a proactive offering is prescribed to ensure Yhwh remembers their obedience and does not punish them. Perhaps this procedure is a way to deal proactively with issues associated with the shedding of blood during war or for taking plunder.16 In sum, it seems that the kōper in this passage is a proactive offering, for some type of future service, that is continually remembered by Yhwh. The phrase ləkappēr ʿal-napšōtêkem represents the result of the process overseen by Moses on behalf of each counted man. Moses collects their kōper napšō (money payment, kesep hakkippūrîm), which brings the result of kipper between each man and Yhwh. Is There a Quid Pro Quo Legal Context Between an Offerer and Yhwh? Based on Exod 30:11–16, scholars find evidence that kipper is the factitive of kōper. These scholars think that kipper in the Priestly Torah, in part or total, demonstrates 13.  Propp states, “Whether by paschal blood or by the ‘Clearing Silver’, Yahweh protects Israelites from himself ” (ibid., 535). In agreement with Propp, it seems that the half-shekel is a proactive and not reactive payment. 14.  Punishment in that Yhwh’s divine anger brings a consequence as a result of disobeying his standards (e.g., Lev 10:1–3). This punishment is often meted out by Yhwh but can also be implemented by those he puts in authority (cf. Num 15:35–36). 15.  Note that, if the men somehow offended Yhwh, then the act of forgiveness (nislaḥ) should be expected (cf. Lev 4:1–5:26). 16.  The ordinance in Exod 30:11–16 may override the laws for homicide in Num 35:30–34 for people who go to war for Yhwh (cf. Num 31:48–54).

16

Chapter 1

that the animal, or animal’s blood, is a payment to Yhwh for the offerer’s life, which was forfeited by sin. For these scholars, kipper, in a legal sense, represents a quid pro quo relationship with Yhwh, in that animal sacrifice is a payment for wrong, thus providing mitigation between Yhwh and the offerer.17 However, this quid pro quo relationship, while evident in non-Priestly texts such as Exod 21:28–32, does not appear to be found in Exod 30:11–16. Each person’s half-shekel payment does not seem to represent a ransom to Yhwh for their life.18 Rather than a payment for wrong, the kōper establishes a protective relationship between Yhwh and each person, as each person obediently serves in some manner.19 Thus, it seems that the Priestly legislators20 have employed the terms kōper and kipper differently from the case of the negligent ox owner. These terms are used in a protective sense in relation to Yhwh, rather than in the sense of wrong, harm, and payment. It seems that the Priestly legislators employ terms in different ways from other sources in order to reflect their unique views of how sacrifice works.

The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering, Leviticus 4–5:13 The study of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering begins with the case for a person from the people of the land (Lev 4:27).21 This offering seems to have the clearest precondition, sacrificial instructions, and result.22 The other cases of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering—the anointed priest (4:3), the whole congregation of Israel (4:13), and a chief or leader (4:22)—include additions or changes to the ḥaṭṭāʾt that are best dealt with after Lev 4:27–35.23 Also, this offering appears to be a bridge to the special cases of the ḥaṭṭāʾt found in Lev 5:1–13 and the ʾāšām offering in Lev 5:14–26. 17.  In the context of Exod 30:11–16, scholars claim that each person counted is guilty of an offense against Yhwh. Janowski claims each one counted is “der Schuldige,” guilty (Sühne als Heilsgeschehen, 171; see also Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” 27). 18.  It is difficult to view the token amount of a half-shekel as ransom in light of Exod 21:28–32, since the ransom for the negligent owner’s ox killing a slave is thirty shekels (21:32), a far more substantial payment. The Priestly Torah attests to Yhwh as creator of all things (Gen 1–2:4a), and thus it is difficult to understand how a half-shekel, or an animal sacrifice, was a way to compensate Yhwh; cf., Job 41:3 [Heb.]. 19.  Perhaps the men counted are thought of as committing an unintentional sin, that is, they did not intend to violate Yhwh’s standards, but Moses’s census and their obedience to serve may yield this unintended result. It is also possible that the men’s future service may lead to a sin against Yhwh that is dealt with by the ritual. 20.  By Priestly legislators, the authors of the Priestly Torah are meant. 21.  Lev 4:32–35 appears to be the same ritual as 4:27–31 except with a different animal. 22.  The precondition in Lev 4:2 is repeated in various ways for each ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. 23.  Feder argues that Lev 4:22–35 are earlier offerings (in relation to Lev 4:1–21) based on the open-altar (Blood Expiation, 38–43). Thus, Lev 4:27–35, as an early instance of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, may be an appropriate baseline for comparison to the priestly offerings in Lev 1–7.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

17

The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering for a Person from the People of the Land, Leviticus 4:27–35 This offering is for a person who has sinned by doing an act that Yhwh has strictly prohibited (4:27).24 Two additional preconditions must be met before the offerer may bring their sacrifice. First, the sin must be done bišəgāgȃ (4:27). Second, one of the following situations must be true: wəʾāšēm (4:27) or hôdaʿ ʾēlāyw ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾ (4:28).25 The offerer’s sacrificial remedy is to bring an unblemished female goat (4:28), lay their hand on its head (4:29), slaughter it in the place of the burnt offering (4:29), and give the goat’s flesh and blood to the priest. On behalf of the offerer, the priest places the blood of the goat on the horns of the burnt offering altar26 with his finger (4:30). He then pours out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar (4:30), removes the fat of the goat in the same way as the šəlāmîm offering (4:31; cf. Lev 3:3–4, 9–10, 14–15), and burns the fat on the altar for a rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ ‘a pleasing aroma’ to Yhwh (4:31). The actions of the priest result in kipper on behalf of the offerer (wəkipper ʿālāyw, 4:31), and then they are forgiven (wənislaḥ lô, 4:31). This study begins by investigating the precondition that the offerer’s sin must have been committed bišəgāgȃ. The Precondition Bišəgāgȃ The noun šəgāgȃ and the verbs šāgag and šāgāh occur in Priestly and non-Priestly texts. In the overwhelming majority of non-Priestly texts, these terms refer to individuals who intentionally ‘err or go astray’ from Yhwh’s standard.27 For example, Job 12:16 describes people who ‘go astray’ (šāgag, qal participle) and ‘lead others to 24.  The Priestly Torah does not contain a list of acts that Yhwh prohibits. However, the Holiness School refers to prohibitive commands such as doing work on the Sabbath (Num 15:31–36). Milgrom argues that punishment for the violation of prohibitive commandments falls under the jurisdiction of Yhwh, in the context of religious miṣwôt ‘commandments’ (Leviticus 1–16, 230). Furthermore, Milgrom contends that civil law is not called miṣwôt but mišpāṭîm and is punishable by people and not under the jurisdiction of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. However, Holiness School miṣwôt, such as not working on the Sabbath, are called mišpāṭîm elsewhere (e.g., Deut 5:14; cf. 5:1). It seems that the Priestly legislators believed the list of prohibitive commands were understood by the people, or they were purposely ambiguous so they could arbitrate what is considered a prohibitive commandment. 25.  The verbal aspect of wəʾāšēm is likely sequential and not consequential given the conjunction ʾô that follows. The conjunction ʾô takes its normal meaning of specifying an alternative (cf. Lev 3:6). 26.  The courtyard altar is referred to as the burnt offering altar, altar, or sacrificial altar. 27.  The noun šəgāgȃ refers to intentional acts in Eccl 5:5 [Eng. 5:6], and Eccl 10:5, as does the verb šāgag in Job 12:16 and Ps 119:67. The verb šāgāh is predominantly used in non-Priestly texts and almost universally reflects rebellion against Yhwh’s standards (Deut 27:18; 1 Sam 26:21; Job 6:24; 12:16, 19:4; Ps 119:10, 21, 118; Prov 5:19–23 in context to the adulteress; 19:27; 20:1; 28:10; Isa 28:7; Ezek 34:6). Ezekiel 45:20 is a cultic text that follows the Priestly Torah and Holiness School use of this verb for referencing unintentional sin. Hamilton argues that the primary emphasis of šāgāh is on sin done inadvertently (Hamilton, “Shāgȃ,” 904). For example, he states, “Job never denies that he has sinned, but he does ask that he be made aware of where he had ( Job 6:24; 19:4), implying unconscious sins.” However, Ballentine states that Job’s argument is not that he is unconscious of his sins but rather that he has not sinned at all, that is, he has not rebelled (or erred) against Yhwh and therefore does not

18

Chapter 1

go astray’ (šāgāh, hiphil participle) in following Yhwh’s wisdom.28 In Ps 119:67, the psalmist was at one time purposely ‘straying’ (šāgag, qal participle) from Yhwh’s commandments.29 In Eccl 10:5, a ruler’s ‘error’ (šəgāgȃ) is likened to evil.30 In a number of cases, ‘straying’ rebelliously leads to punishment.31 For example, in Deut 27:18, the Levites, as teachers of Yhwh’s commandments, proclaim a curse on anyone who causes a blind man to go ‘astray’ (šāgāh, hiphil participle) on the road.32 In contrast, in the Priestly texts, ‘to err or go astray’ does not have the sense of rebellion leading to Yhwh’s punishment. For example, in Num 15:22–36, a Holiness School text, a sin done in ‘error’ is contrasted with a rebellious sin against Yhwh. There is no stated punishment for anyone who sins ‘in error’; rather, they may bring a sacrificial remedy leading to the results of kipper and forgiveness (nislaḥ, Num 15:27–28). While the sacrificial animal may be costly, this requirement pales in comparison to what awaits the rebellious sinner. For the rebellious sinner, there is no sacrificial remedy leading to the results of kipper and forgiveness (Num 15:30).33 Instead, rebellious sin leads to the punishment of being cut off (Num 15:31) and death (Num 15:32–36).34 The Priestly Torah reflects the same contrast between remedy and punishment for sins done in ‘error’ versus rebellious sins. For example, in Lev 4, people who commit sins done in ‘error’ (4:2) may bring a sacrificial remedy, leading to kipper and forgiveness (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35), while the sinner who rebelliously disobeys Yhwh’s commands is cut off (Lev 7:18, 20, 21, 25, 27; Exod 30:31–33) or put to death (Lev 10:1–3; cf. 16:1). Scholars agree that a sin done ‘in error’ in the Priestly texts is not a rebellious act against Yhwh and his commandments.35 However, they have not highlighted that deserve the punishment he is receiving (Job, 140 and n. 18). Seidl provides occasions where he thinks ‘to err’ reflects intentional sins, e.g., 1 Sam 26:21 (‫שָ גַג‬/‫שָ גָה‬,400–401). 28.  Clines states for Job 12:16, “Here it must be a moral term for deliberate error, as in Prov 28:10, where ‘he who misleads (‫ )שגה‬the upright into an evil way’ is contrasted with ‘the blameless’” (Job 1–20, 299). 29.  Kraus views Ps 119:65–72 as the psalmist’s thoughts in regard to disobeying Yhwh and receiving chastisement (Psalms 60–150, 417). 30.  In regard to Eccl 10:5, Seow states that the ruler is to blame for a serious wrong (Ecclesiastes, 324). In Ecclesiastes, foolishness seems to be considered evil in contrast to Yhwh’s wisdom. 31.  Punishment is connected with the noun šəgāgȃ in one instance ( Job 12:16), and in a number of instances with the verb šāgāh (Deut 27:18; 1 Sam 26:21 [cf. 26:23]; Job 12:16 [cf. 12:17–25]; Pss 119:21; 118; Prov 28:10; Isa 28:7 [cf. 28:13]). 32.  Tigay argues that Deut 27:14–26 includes a list of intentional sins often done in secret that bring about punishment by Yhwh (Deuteronomy, 253–55). 33.  Jay Sklar gives a detailed description of the rebellious sinner, that is, one who commits sin bəyād rāmȃ, and why no sacrificial atonement is available to him (“Sin and Atonement: Lessons from the Pentateuch,” 473–78). 34.  In regard to being cut off, Levine states, “This penalty originally meant banishment from one’s clan or territory. . . . It came to connotate premature death, loss of status or office, and finally ‘death at the hands of heaven’” (Numbers 1–20, 466). 35.  There is some debate whether the term itself specifies the subjective or objective state of the offender. Milgrom thinks that for sin done in error, “unconsciousness of the sin and consciousness

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

19

this sense of unintentionality in the Priestly texts is not found in the non-Priestly texts. In non-Priestly texts, an act done ‘in error’ is an act of rebellion often leading to punishment. The last point is especially significant. If ‘to err’ rebelliously leads to punishment, do the Priestly texts require punishment for the one who sins ‘in error’? In the context of Num 35:1–34, a Holiness School text, punishment does not appear to be demanded for an unintentional act.36 This text provides instructions for how the cities of refuge are given to the Levites and how these cities are to be used for the adjudication (Num 35:12) of cases when a person kills another person. Anyone who kills a person intentionally will be put to death by their bloodavenger (per the cases in Num 35:16–21), but anyone who kills a person bišəgāgȃ (Num 35:15), without intent (per the cases in Num 35:22–23), may flee to a city of refuge.37 If the congregation confirms the murder was unintentional, the person lives in the city of refuge until the death of the anointed high priest (Num 35:24–25). In this way, the person who unintentionally kills is protected from their blood avenger.38 Furthermore, punishment by the blood avenger can only fall on the one who unintentionally kills, if this person chooses to not follow the remedy to live in the city of refuge. If they leave the city of refuge before the death of the anointed priest, their blood avenger may put them to death without penalty (Num 35:26–28). Thus, there is no punishment from the blood avenger for the one who kills unintentionally. Furthermore, this person should not expect punishment as long as they follow the remedy of living in the city of refuge until the anointed priest dies. Living in the city of refuge is not a way for the unintentional killer to mitigate or pay for their punishment. It is not a form of ransom (cf. Num 35:32), nor is the blood avenger’s desire for punishment mitigated by the unintentional killer living in the city of refuge (Num 35:27). Therefore, while fleeing to a city of refuge must of the act are always presumed” (Leviticus 1–16, 228; Milgrom, “The Cultic Šĕgāgȃ and Its Influence in Psalms and Job,” 115–25). Knierim does not think the term reflects consciousness of the sinner (‫שגג‬, 1303). 36.  Num 35:1–34 provides the most detailed understanding of šəgāgȃ in the Priestly literature. There are a number of reasons to believe that this Holiness School text supports the Priestly Torah’s understanding of šəgāgȃ. First, the theology of murder and blood vengeance appears to be consistent with the Priestly Torah (compare Num 35:16–21 with Gen 9:6). Second, the Holiness School and the Priestly Torah agree the term šəgāgȃ has the sense ‘erring’ without intention. Last, the Holiness School and the Priestly Torah use the term šəgāgȃ to contrast unintentional and rebellious sin, e.g., Num 15:17–36. Milgrom agrees that the cases of involuntary homicide are for people who have violated the law unintentionally (Leviticus 1–16, 283). 37.  Levine highlights that cities of refuge were a place for God’s protection (Numbers 21–36, 547). 38.  Milgrom argues that the text does not emphasize punishment, but rather, it is a way to protect the one who killed unintentionally; cf. Josh 20:5–6 (Numbers, 510). Levine states for Num 35:25, “The verb hiṣṣîl, from the root n-ṣ-l, has an essentially spatial connotation, bearing the sense of removing or extricating someone from a place of danger or distress, hence of rescuing, saving” (Numbers 21–36, 557).

20

Chapter 1

have been a difficult family choice, it is not punishment for the unintentional killer,39 but rather, it is a means of protection from the blood revenger. Yes, the anger of the blood avenger continues until the death of the anointed high priest (Num 35:27–28); however, this anger can never turn into punishment as long as the prescribed remedy is followed. At this point, what can be inferred from Num 35:1–34 concerning sin done bišəgāgȃ in regard to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering? Sin done bišəgāgȃ is not a rebellious act against Yhwh and his standards. Furthermore, like the one who killed unintentionally, the offerer of the ḥaṭṭāʾt should not expect punishment from Yhwh for committing an unintentional sin. The offerer understands that, while Yhwh’s divine anger has been kindled, Yhwh’s punishment is not incurred, unless the offerer fails to complete the sacrificial remedy (cf. Num 19:13, 20). While the offerer of the ḥaṭṭāʾt incurs the cost of an animal to implement the sacrificial remedy, the remedy itself does not seem to be a form of punishment. If this assertion is correct, how should the result of forgiveness (wənislaḥ lô, Lev 4:31) be understood in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering? The Result of Being Forgiven (Nislaḥ) In non-Priestly sources, the act of forgiveness is performed solely by Yhwh, and the request for forgiveness is for rebellious acts.40 If Yhwh grants forgiveness, then his divine anger is appeased, yet his punishment is still possible. For Israel, appeasement of divine anger leads to the avoidance of corporate punishment; however, individual punishment may be meted out for individuals who rebelliously sinned against Yhwh.41 In contrast, as noted above, Priestly texts for unintentional sinful acts do not include Yhwh’s punishment as a result of his divine anger. Divine punishment is meted out only if the sacrificial remedy is not completed (cf. Num 35:27). By not doing the sacrificial remedy, the unintentional sinner rebels against Yhwh by intentionally rejecting or ignoring his offer of forgiveness.42 39.  Levine considers asylum living not a punishment but rather a way to deal with the unrequited blood of the person who was killed by accident (Numbers 21–36, 566). 40.  Forgiveness in context of individual rebellion is found in: Num 30:6 [Heb.], 9 [Heb.], 13 [Heb.]; 2 Kgs 5:18; Pss 25:11; 103:3; Isa 55:7. Forgiveness in context of community rebellion is found in: Exod 34:9; Num 14:19, 20; Deut 29:19 [Heb.]; 1 Kgs 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50; 2 Kgs 24:4; 2 Chr 6:21, 25, 27, 30, 39; 7:14; Jer 5:1, 7; 31:34; 33:8; 36:3; 50:20; Lam 3:42; Dan 9:19; Amos 7:2. Hausmann does not explicitly state that the request for forgiveness in non-Priestly texts is for rebellious acts, but in his references, he makes this point clear. For example, he notes that the request for forgiveness in Deut 29:19 [Heb.] is for the worship of foreign gods (‫סָ לַ ח‬, 258–65). 41.  In Num 14:19–23, Yhwh forgives the people, but does not allow the current generation to see the land (Sklar, “Sin and Atonement,” 485–90). 42.  Num 19:13 and 20 (Holiness School) demands the punishment of cutting off for a person who rejects Yhwh’s corpse contamination purification rituals. In Jer 5:1–14, the people refused to repent, and therefore they cannot be forgiven by Yhwh. By analogy, according to priestly sacrifice, when an unintentional sinner refuses to bring the sacrificial remedy, Yhwh will not forgive them.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

21

Two additional observations can be put forward concerning the act of forgiveness in the Priestly sources. First, because Yhwh is the sole grantor of forgiveness in the non-Priestly sources, and in the Priestly Torah the verb sālaḥ is always passive, it may be inferred that Yhwh is the grantor of forgiveness in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.43 Second, Yhwh’s act of forgiveness confirms his divine anger has been appeased. Punishment is not in view, because the offender is not punished unless they rebelliously reject or ignore Yhwh’s sacrificial remedy. However, if the offender does not experience divine punishment for an unintentional sin, how are they compelled to bring the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering? The Preconditions Wəʾāšēm and Hôdaʿ ʾĒlāyw Ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾĂ šer Ḥāṭāʾ The answer may be found in two additional preconditions for this ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. One of the following must be true for the offerer to bring their sacrificial remedy: wəʾāšēm (4:27) or hôdaʿ ʾēlāyw ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾ (4:28). Across all sources, the verb ʾāšam, the nouns ʾašmȃ and ʾāšām, and the adjective ʾāšēm have all or a subset of the following senses related to guilt. The offender is cognitively44 aware of their wrongful act. The offender understands that their wrongful act has violated a standard, that there is a state of guilt before Yhwh as a result of violating one of his commandments. Punishment is a result of the wrongful act.45 In non-Priestly texts, when the verb ʾāšam, the nouns ʾašmȃ and ʾāšām, and the adjective ʾāšēm include punishment as a result of a wrongful act, in the overwhelming majority of instances the individual has committed a rebellious act against Yhwh.46 This 43.  Milgrom thinks that nislaḥ in the Priestly Torah is a divine passive (Leviticus 1–16, 245; cf. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 367). Stamm argues that God ordains the sacrificial rites to produce forgiveness (‫סלח‬, 798). 44.  The word cognitive is used to communicate that the individual becomes aware of their wrongful act as a result of their memory and internal mental processes. Kiuchi refers to the term guilt in Lev 4–5 as the “existential situation of a sinner” (Purification Offering, 32). 45.  For example, in 2 Chr 19:10, the first instance of the verb ʾāšam stresses awareness of a wrongful act that violated Yhwh’s law, while the second instance stresses the resulting punishment. In 2 Chr 28:10, the noun ʾašmȃ indicates becoming aware of wrongful acts. Livingston states that the root “seems to center on guilt, but moves from the act which brings guilt to the condition of guilt to the act of punishment.” (“ʾĀšam,” 78). 46.  Texts that convey punishment and rebellious acts for the verb ʾāšam include: Judg 21:22 (consequence of breaking a vow to Yhwh); 2 Chr 19:10 (possible punishment for unfaithfully breaking Yhwh’s Law); Ps 5:11 [Eng. 5:10] (punishment for rebellion against Yhwh); Ps 34:22–23 [Eng. 34:21–22] (those who hate Yhwh’s righteousness are punished, and those who take refuge in Yhwh are not punished); Prov 30:10 (one who slanders a slave is punished); Isa 24:5–6 (rebelliously breaking Yhwh’s laws, statutes, and covenant brings punishment); Ezek 22:4 (punishment for idol worship); Ezek 25:12 (Edom’s rebellious vengeance against Judah brings Yhwh’s punishment); Hos 5:15 (cf. 5:2; rebellious sin leads to affliction); Hos 10:2 (because of Israel’s unfaithfulness, Yhwh will destroy their altars and sacred pillars); Hos 13:1 (Ephraim’s worship of Baal caused death); Hos 14:1 (Samaria’s rebellion against Yhwh causes them to fall by the sword); Joel 1:18 (the people have no food because of their rebellious sin; cf. Joel 2:12–13); Hab 1:11 (destruction at the hands of another nation because of rebellion; cf. 1:4). Texts that convey punishment and rebellious acts for the noun ʾašmȃ include:

22

Chapter 1

connection between a rebellious act and divine punishment is confirmed in Lev 22:16, a Holiness School text, which stipulates that priests who intentionally profane Yhwh’s holy gifts are punished as a result of their ‘guilt’ (ʾašmȃ).47 Based on the study of the term bišəgāgȃ, unlike rebellious sinners, it may be inferred that guilt does not result in Yhwh’s punishment for unintentional sinners. As a result, in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, it seems that guilt references only two senses: cognitive awareness of the wrongful act and the understanding that the wrongful act has violated a standard, that is, a state of guilt. How does the offerer know that they have committed a wrongful act and have violated Yhwh’s commands? Either the offerer must acknowledge these two realities on their own (wəʾāšēm, 4:27) or become informed by an outside source (hôdaʿ ʾēlāyw ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾ, 4:28). It can be inferred from the verb wəʾāšēm (Lev 4:27) that the offerer may become aware of their wrongful act on their own and that their wrongful act has violated Yhwh’s standard. Furthermore, since their sinful act had been unintentional, there is no punishment as long as they complete the sacrificial remedy. However, it seems that the priests make an allowance for the offerer not becoming aware of guilt on their own. The offerer may be prompted to bring a sacrificial remedy when somone else informs (hôdaʿ, 4:28) them of their sin. The verb yādaʿ in the hiphil and hophal refers to a transfer of knowledge between two parties, especially in regard to the teaching of Yhwh’s standards.48 Thus, the person who sins 1 Chr 21:3 (David’s rebellious act by doing a census brings Yhwh’s punishment; cf. 21:7); 2 Chr 24:18 (Yhwh’s wrath for worshiping idols); 2 Chr 28:13 (Israel taking Judah captive against Yhwh’s wishes brings punishment); 2 Chr 33:23–24 (Amon’s rebellion leads to his death); Ezra 9:6, 7, 13, 15 (Israel’s sin brought Yhwh’s punishment, but Yhwh relents for the sake of the remnant); Amos 8:14 (those who align with rebellious Israelites will fall). Across all sources, the majority of references for the noun ʾāšām refer to the guilt offering. The following reference places the noun ʾāšām in context to rebellious acts against Yhwh, and punishment: Ps 68:22 [Eng. 68:21] (Yhwh’s enemies will be destroyed). Note that Gen 28:10 is an exception to the connection between punishment and a rebellious act. Abimelech’s fear is based on assumed retribution, whether he or one of his people had sexual relations with Rebekah, not knowing she is Isaac’s wife; cf. Gen 12:10–20. The implication is that, if Abimelech and his people had known that Rebekah was Isaac’s wife, then the wrongful act would have never been committed, and as a result there would be no punishment. A text that conveys punishment and rebellious acts for the adjective ʾāšēm: Gen 42:21 ( Jacob’s sons’ distress over their rebellious acts toward Joseph). Finally, the Priestly Torah does not appear to associate guilt with rebellious sin as is done in the Holiness School (Lev 22:16) and non-Priestly sources. For the Holiness School and non-Priestly texts, guilt, as a result of rebellious acts, always leads to punishment. The Priestly Torah seems to have reserved the term guilt for unintentional or intentional but excusable sins, which are not punished unless the sacrificial remedy, resulting in kipper, is not completed by the offender. 47. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1864–70. 48.  The verb yādaʿ occurs in the hophal in Lev 4:23, 28, and Isa 12:5 (Yhwh’s glory is to be made known to all the earth). Out of the seventy-three instances of the verb in the hiphil, twenty-six refer to teaching Yhwh’s standards as follows: Exod 18:16, 20; 33:12, 13; Num 16:5; Deut 4:9; 1 Chr 16:18; Neh 8:12; 9:14; Job 13:23; Pss 16:11; 25:4, 14; 32:5; 51:8; 78:5; 98:2; 103:7; 143:8; Prov 9:9; 22:19; Isa 40:14; Ezek 16:2; 20:4, 11; 22:2; 44:23. The remaining forty-seven instances refer to some type of knowledge transfer, especially through Yhwh’s revelation. Schottroff states that the verb yādaʿ indicates “primarily the sensory awareness of objects and circumstances in one’s environment attained through involvement

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

23

unintentionally may become aware of their wrongful act on their own or by the teaching of another person. In either case, the offerer is now compelled to bring a sacrificial remedy for their unintentional sin, since the offerer knows that Yhwh’s divine anger will result in punishment if they reject or ignore the sacrificial remedy. The offerer also knows that, by performing the sacrificial remedy, they will be forgiven, thereby removing Yhwh’s divine anger. The scholarly debate on the relationship between unintentional sin (bišəgāgȃ) and the guilt of the offerer (wəʾāšēm) has centered on two questions. The first question is whether these terms indicate the offender’s consciousness of their act and whether they know that their act has violated Yhwh’s divine standard—that it is a sinful act.49 On this point, it is clear from the Priestly texts that the consciousness of the sinner cannot be known with certainty. For example, it can be inferred from Num 35:22–23 that the individual who kills unintentionally is immediately conscious of both act and sin, while the text under study, Lev 4:27–35, holds out the possibility that a person may not be conscious of either the act or sin and must be told by an outside source (4:28). The second question concerns the role guilt plays in the motivation and actions of the offerer. The traditional gloss for wəʾāšēm is ‘he has become guilty’, emphasizing the objective state of the offender before Yhwh.50 Milgrom has suggested ‘he feels guilt’ arguing that the verb ʾāšam without a grammatical object deals with both the wrong, and punishment for the wrong.51 Kiuchi proposes ‘he realizes his guilt’, emphasizing the offerer’s consciousness of his wrongful act against Yhwh’s standard.52 More recently, Sklar has proposed ‘he is experiencing guilt’s consequences’ emphasizing that Yhwh’s punishment started at the instance of the unintentional act, and the punishment the offerer experiences compels him to come forward to offer the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.53 with them and through the information of others” (‫ידע‬, 511). Furthermore, the niphal and hiphil of ydʿ “are used as terms for revelation” (ibid., 516). 49.  It seems that the offender’s consciousness is indicated by the verb wəʾāšēm and the clause hôdaʾʿ ʾēlāyw ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾ rather than by the term bišəgāgȃ. This conclusion disagrees with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 228–29) and agrees with Kiuchi (Purification Offering, 25–31). 50.  Levine’s gloss is ‘incur guilt’ (Leviticus, 22–23). 51.  Milgrom calls this the consequential ʾāšām (Leviticus 1–16, 231, 339–45; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 3–12). In agreement with Milgrom, in non-Priestly texts the terms for guilt often are connected with punishment. However, Milgrom overlooks the fact that these contexts are for rebellious and not unintentional sin. For example, Milgrom references Ps 34:22–23 [Heb.] as “a parade example of the consequential ʾāšām” (Leviticus 1–16, 340). According to Milgrom, these verses state that evil people who slay the wicked and hate righteousness will be punished (Milgrom’s gloss for yeʾšāmû); however, the Lord’s servants, who take refuge in him, will not suffer (Milgrom’s gloss for yeʾšĕmû). These verses make the point that rebellious sinners are punished, but nonrebellious sinners, that is, the Lord’s servants, are not punished. Thus, while the verb ʾāšam may include punishment, context must dictate whether it includes this sense or not. 52. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 31–34; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 95–96. 53. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 39–41.

Divine Anger

Yes

No

Guilt Not Forgiven Assumed

bəyād rāmȃ

Intentional?

No

External Realization of Guilt

No

Self Realization of Guilt

Figure 4.  Offender’s motivation and actions in Leviticus 4:27–31.

Sinful Act

bišəgāgȃ No Punishment If Remedy Completed

Guilt Unknown

Not Forgiven

No

Complete Remedy

Divine Punishment

hôdaʿ ʾēlāyw ḥaṭṭāʾtô ʾăšer ḥāṭāʾ

Yes

Yes wəʾāšēm Yes kipper

Divine Anger Leads to Punishment

Forgiven

Divine Anger Appeased

24 Chapter 1

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

25

The traditional gloss, emphasizing the objective state of guilt, highlights the violation of Yhwh’s divine standard without specifying awareness of the wrongful act or its punishment. Kiuchi’s gloss emphasizes becoming aware of a wrongful act, that is, the offender realizes the violation of Yhwh’s standard and so is guilty, but ignores the question of punishment. Milgrom defines awareness of guilt as the sense of feeling that the act has violated Yhwh’s standard, and thus, the offender is punished through remorse, a guilty conscience. Sklar defines awareness as experiencing the violation of Yhwh’s standard stemming from the consequences of Yhwh’s punishment. Yhwh’s punishment may begin at the time of the sinful act and, thus, prods the offender to understand their sinful act and guilt. What can be said of these views? Based on the study thus far, the following realities concerning the offender may be deduced. First, the offender may become aware of their wrongful act on their own or through the help of others. Second, the offender may need help in understanding that their wrongful act has violated Yhwh’s standard, that is, of their guilt. Third, once the offender understands their wrongful act and guilt, based on the Priestly understanding of unintentional sin, they know that there is no divine punishment as long as they perform the sacrificial remedy. The traditional view does not address points one and three. Kiuchi’s gloss addresses points one and two but says nothing about point three, punishment. Milgrom and Sklar provide options for points one and two but incorrectly convey that punishment begins at the time of an unintentional sinful act.54 A different English gloss is proposed based on the following observations. The offerer is guilty of violating Yhwh’s commandments, and their guilt has caused Yhwh to become angry. However, because they have sinned unintentionally, their guilt does not lead to divine punishment, but divine punishment will result if they rebelliously reject the sacrificial remedy. The person who has sinned unintentionally either becomes aware of their wrongful act and guilt on their own, or they are informed by others. Upon understanding their wrongful act and guilt, the offerer is compelled to bring the sacrificial remedy so they do not become a rebellious sinner and receive Yhwh’s punishment. The offerer demonstrates repentance by bringing their sacrificial remedy with the result that Yhwh’s anger is appeased, and they are forgiven.55 As a result, I propose the following gloss for wəʾāšēm, ‘they are compelled by guilt’. Figure 4 depicts the offerer’s motivation and actions for the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. The premise that the offender is ‘compelled by guilt’ seems to fit the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. The traditional gloss ‘he has become guilty’ and Kiuchi’s gloss ‘he realizes his guilt’ do not specify the motivation for the offender to come 54.  An offender may, at some point, feel remorse for their sin. However, based on this study’s findings, this feeling must follow and not precede their understanding of their wrongful act and guilt. 55.  This sentiment is reflected in the Day of Atonement. The people’s self-denial (16:29–34), that is, repentance, must be accompanied by sacrificial action (16:1–28).

26

Chapter 1

forward. Milgrom’s gloss ‘he feels guilty’ and Sklar’s gloss ‘he is experiencing guilt’s consequences’ support the possibility that the offender, while being aware of their act, may be unaware of their specific sin and thus must experience its consequences. However, it does not seem that either of these two situations necessarily leads the offender to the decision of coming forward with a sacrifice. Furthermore, these glosses do not explain how the offerer comes to know the nature of their sin in order to bring the correct offering, a ḥaṭṭāʾt or ʾāšām.56 It appears the motivation of the Priestly legislators is to minimize rebellious sin in the camp. Thus, the most important consideration for the ḥaṭṭāʾt seems to be that, upon awareness of a specific sin, the offerer is motivated to come forward to ensure that an unintentional sin does not turn into intentional sin resulting in punishment. Based on the discussion thus far, it seems that kipper, resulting from the sacrificial remedy, brings about Yhwh’s forgiveness and removal of his divine anger. However, the act of forgiveness does not remove Yhwh’s punishment, because there is no punishment for an unintentional sinner. Like kipper in Exod 30:11–16, the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper appears to be protective of the offerer, as long as they obediently come forward with sacrifice. As a result, it does not seem that the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper is a factitive of kōper, and the sacrificial remedy is a ransom payment to mitigate Yhwh’s punishment. If the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper does not reflect the idea of ‘ransom’, does it reflect the idea of ‘purging’ pollution from sancta? Milgrom’s pollution-andpurge view is assessed throughout this study, for now, following a summary of his view, some preliminary issues are addressed. Milgrom’s Pollution-and-Purge View On the grounds that the “ḥaṭṭāʾt is prescribed for persons and objects who cannot have sinned,” for example, a woman recovering from childbirth (Lev 12), Milgrom 56.  Mary Douglas asserts that there must be a determination whether the offender committed a sin unintentionally or not (Leviticus as Literature, 127–28). However, in Milgrom’s and Sklar’s view, guilt is internal and based on a person’s conscience. In other words, Milgrom and Sklar hold to the view that a person may come forward to the priest and say, “I sinned because I feel guilt or am experiencing guilt’s consequences, but I don’t know the sin I committed and whether it was intentional or unintentional.” This seems to create an untenable situation with the priest, who must then decide to allow a person to come forward with a sacrifice without knowing whether the person committed the sin intentionally or not. Also, Milgrom’s ‘feel guilt’ implies that the motivation of the offerer is psychological sorrow as a result of sin. My proposed view, ‘compelled by guilt’, does not delve into the psychological dimension but offers another understanding of motivation. The offerer is motivated by fear and punishment to come forward. If they do not, they will be considered a rebellious sinner. It seems this makes more sense for Lev 5:20–26, where Milgrom so strongly argues for ‘feel guilt’ (Leviticus 1–16, 338). This person has stolen and lied about their theft before people and Yhwh. Is this person motivated to offer sacrifice because of sorrow, and repentance, or by the fact that they have come to the realization that their crime will be punished by Yhwh? Given the rebellious nature of their crime, it seems the latter is more convincing than the former.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

27

states that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering cannot be rendered ‘sin offering’.57 Instead, he finds an etymological relationship between the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt and the piel of ḥṭʾ, which, according to Milgrom, has the sense ‘cleanse, expurgate, decontaminate’. Thus, Milgrom concludes the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering must be rendered ‘purification offering’.58 Based on this understanding, Milgrom asks, “Whom or what does it purge?”59 In Milgrom’s view, the offerer must be free from impurity before sacrificing a ḥaṭṭāʾt.60 The offerer is freed from physical impurity by ablution.61 The offerer’s repentance frees them from spiritual impurity caused by an inadvertent violation of a prohibitive commandment.62 Since the ḥaṭṭāʾt does not remove impurity from the offerer, Milgrom concludes it must remove impurity from the sanctuary and its sancta. It is these objects that receive the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, and not the offerer.63 Milgrom supports his claim by arguing that the verb kipper derives its etymology from the Akkadian kuppuru and is a synonym of ḥiṭṭēʾ and ṭihar having the sense ‘purge’.64 Furthermore, sancta not people are the direct objects of kipper. Thus kipper represents the act of purging the sanctuary and sancta with ḥaṭṭāʾt blood. Milgrom claims, “By daubing the altar with the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood or by bringing it inside the sanctuary (e.g., 16:14–19), the priest purges the most sacred objects and areas of the sanctuary on behalf of the person who caused their contamination by his physical impurity or inadvertent offense.”65 Milgrom finds that for Israel and its neighbors, “impurity was a physical substance, an aerial miasma that possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred.”66 Paradoxically, while holiness attracts impurity, impurity negatively affects holiness. Milgrom claims that many biblical texts attest to Israel’s understanding that “impurity is the implacable foe of holiness wherever it exists; it assaults the sacred realm even from afar.”67 57. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253–54. Milgrom states, “Moreover, not only is the ḥaṭṭāʾt unrelated to sin in rabbinic thought, but most authorities deny emphatically that the impurity itself was caused by sin.” 58.  Ibid., 253; Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification Offering?” 237–39; reproduced in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 67–69. 59. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 254. 60.  Idem, “Preposition ‫ מן‬in the ‫ חטאת‬Pericopes,” 161. 61. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 254, 986–1004. 62.  Ibid., 254, 339–44; “Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” 186–205; reproduced in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 47–66; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. 63. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 255. 64.  Ibid., 255, 1079–80. 65.  Ibid., 255–56. 66.  Milgrom argues that Israel modified the cultic views of its neighbors by removing the magical power and demonic quality from the concept of impurity. Rather, impurity that attacked Israel’s sanctuary originated from humanity’s sin and bodily discharges (ibid., 257, 261). 67.  Cf. Lev 15:31; 20:3; Num 5:2b; 19:13, 20. Milgrom admits that his view of aerial pollution of the sanctuary was not the understanding of the rabbis, who understood that impurity could only be

28

Chapter 1

According to Milgrom, sin and physical impurity aerially pollute the sanctuary in three stages.68 1. The individual’s inadvertent misdemeanor or severe physical impurity pollutes the courtyard (sacrificial) altar, which is purged by daubing its horns with ḥaṭṭāʾt blood (4:25, 30; 9:9). 2. The inadvertent misdemeanor of the high priest or the entire community pollutes the shrine, which is purged by the high priest by placing the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood on [the horns of] the inner altar and the pārōket (4:5–7, 16–18). 3. The wanton unrepented sin not only pollutes the outer altar and penetrates into the shrine but it pierces the veil and enters the adytum housing the holy Ark and the kappōret, the very throne of God (cf. Isa 37:16). Because the wanton sinner is barred from bringing his ḥaṭṭāʾt (Num 15:27–31), the pollution wrought by his offense must await the annual purgation of the sanctuary on the Day of Purgation, and it consists of two steps: the purging of the adytum of the wanton sins and the purging of the shrine and outer altar of the inadvertent sins (16:16–19). Milgrom observes, “the outer altar is polluted though the wrongdoer is outside the sacred compound, the shrine is polluted though he, a nonpriest, may not even enter it, and finally, the adytum is polluted though no man, not even the priest may enter.”69 Citing Ezek 11:22, Milgrom believes the Israelites feared that Yhwh would leave the sanctuary if they did not urgently purge the sanctuary from impurity. “The merciful God will tolerate a modicum of pollution. But there is a point of no return. If the pollution continues to accumulate, the end is inexorable: ‘Then the cherubs raised their wings’ (Ezek 11:22). The divine chariot flies heavenward, and the sanctuary is left to its doom.”70 Thus, every Israelite had the obligation to remove impurity from the sanctuary for their sake and the sake of the community. Milgrom calls his view of Priestly transferred by touch (ibid., 257). Milgrom argues that the rabbinic view is a late stage in the understanding of impurity contagion (ibid., 316–18). Milgrom’s proof comes from what he considers early P texts that banish people with impurities from the community (e.g., Num 5:2–3). In his view, this banishment demonstrates the fear connected with the aerial nature of impurity. 68.  Milgrom seems to be inconsistent in how he states that rebellious sin affects the sanctuary. At times, he views rebellious sin as only polluting the adytum. However, at other times, he thinks rebellious sin also pollutes the shrine and outer altar. In his most recent commentary on Leviticus, Milgrom clearly states it is only the adytum that is polluted by rebellious sin (Leviticus, 162; cf. Leviticus 1–16, 257, 980, 1033–39). Taking his writings as a whole, it seems that Milgrom viewed the adytum as the only part of the sanctuary polluted by rebellious sin. The shrine and the altar were polluted by inadvertent sins and physical impurities. 69. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58; Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 38–43. 70. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 258, 981; Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary” 390–99; reproduced in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 75–84.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

29

theology the Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray.71 He concludes, “On the analogy of Oscar Wilde’s novel, the Priestly writers would claim that sin may not leave its mark on the face of the sinner, but it is certain to mark the face of the sanctuary; and unless it is quickly expunged, God’s presence will depart.”72 Milgrom’s Assumption That Ḥaṭṭāʾt Blood Purges the Sacrificial Altar Pars Pro Toto Milgrom views the daubing of the horns of the sacrificial altar as a key aspect of the ḥaṭṭāʾt purging function.73 He asserts that the daubing of the horns of the sacrificial altar with the blood of the purification offering purges the entire altar on the principle of pars pro toto (part for whole; e.g., Lev 4:25).74 Milgrom relates this principle to the practice of neighboring ancient Near Eastern cults. “In the ancient Neat East, temples were periodically smeared with magical substances at precisely the same vulnerable points, such as entrances and corners, in order to expel the malefic force from those points and to protect them against future demonic incursion.”75 For the Israelite sanctuary, Milgrom states, “The physical and spiritual impurity of human beings is capable of polluting the sanctuary altar by attacking it at its extremities, namely, its horns.”76 Milgrom is clear that the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood completely purges all impurities on the altar. For example, in his discussion on the sequence of purification and consecration of the sacrificial altar in Lev 8:15, he argues that the sacrificial altar must be completely purged by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood before the altar can be consecrated.77 According to Milgrom, impurity and holiness must not mix. “Thus an object must first be emptied of its impurities before it may be sanctified.”78 Following his exegesis of Lev 6:20 [Heb.], Milgrom observes that the handlers of the ḥaṭṭāʾt become unclean, because the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood has absorbed the impurity that resides on the sanctum.79 Milgrom sees the operation of the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice and the purpose of the Israelite sanctuary as follows.80 71. Ibid. 72. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 260. 73.  Milgrom thinks the horns of the incense altar, and the floor of the shrine and the adytum, are places where purgation may take place in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (ibid., 1081). 74.  Milgrom sees this principle reflected in the měṣōrāʿ purification rite (14:14–17, 25–28), the consecration of the priests (8:23–24; Exod 29:20) and of the new altar (8:11; Exod 29:21), and the application of blood to the lintel and doorposts at Passover (Exod 12:7, 22; ibid., 249). 75.  It seems clear that Milgrom means all malefic forces in the temple (ibid.). 76. Ibid. 77.  Ibid., 524. Also, according to Milgrom, on the Day of Atonement, the applications of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood purge all rebellious sins in the adytum. Thus, in Milgrom’s view, the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood purges everything in the sanctum on which it is applied (ibid., 1033). 78.  Ibid., 524. 79.  Ibid., 272, 403–6. 80.  Ibid., 981.

30

Chapter 1

1. Holiness and impurity are finite, quantitative categories; impurity displaces sanctuary holiness in fixed amounts until a saturation point is reached beyond which the sanctuary cannot endure. 2. God will tolerate inadvertent wrongs that contaminate the outside altar (4:22ff) and the shrine (4:1–21), for they can be purged through purification offerings. 3. Conversely, as for the perpetrator of pešaʿ ‘rebellious acts’ (16:16), “who acts defiantly, reviles the Lord” (Num 15:30), personal sacrifice will not avail him. The nation as a whole must expiate for him and others like him at the annual Purgation rite of the sanctuary (chap. 16). . . . Even then, only a limited amount of deliberate sin will be tolerated. There is a point of no return. One day, purgation will no longer avail; the impurities, especially the accumulated pešaʿ in the adytum, will go beyond the set limit; Gods endurance of his people’s impurities will end; he will forsake his abode and abandon it and his people to destruction. Thus, as Milgrom sees it, the Israelites must use the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering diligently during the year to remove inadvertent sins and impurities from the sacrificial altar and the shrine, while ensuring that rebellious sins that collect in the adytum are minimized. If this does not happen, following Milgrom’s view of collective responsibility, Yhwh will leave the sanctuary and the people will be destroyed. Logical Inconsistency with Milgrom’s View of the Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering Milgrom contends that the people’s inadvertent wrongs and severe physical impurities pollute the sacrificial altar as aerial miasma. This pollution occurs at the time the wrong is committed.81 Thus the scenario in figure 5 is possible. In this scenario, three individuals are waiting in line to make a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. These individuals have committed an inadvertent wrong at some time prior to coming forward with their ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice.82 Thus, in this scenario, following Milgrom’s assumptions, the aerial pollution of all three individuals now resides at the same time on the sacrificial altar as physical substances.83 If, as Milgrom argues, ḥaṭṭāʾt blood always purges impurities residing on the altar pars pro toto, then the blood from offerer 1’s offering purges their own impurity as well as offerer 2’s and 81.  Ibid., 229–30. 82.  In the actual operation of the sanctuary, there would be many different offerers making many different types of offerings including the ḥaṭṭāʾt. 83.  Ibid., 257. Milgrom’s view of ritual appears to be rooted in physical action and its cause and effects. For example, according to Milgrom, since ḥaṭṭāʾt blood is never applied to a person, it must not purge a person. In the case of aerial miasma, impurity is a substance with physical properties that adheres to physical objects such as the sacrificial altar. This physical substance must be removed by means of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood acting as a physical detergent. These physical actions and their causes and effects are central to Milgrom’s view of the proper operation of the Israelite sanctuary.

31

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

Ark

1

blood purges

Altar

Altar

Incense

Sacrifice

pollution

2

Individuals waiting in line at the sanctuary to make a ḥaṭṭā`t offering for their unintentional sin.

3

figure 5.  Logical inconsistency for Leviticus 4:27–31.

offerer 3’s impurities. As a result, when offerer 2 or offerer 3 come forward with their ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices, their impurities are no longer on the altar. In this reality, demanded by Milgrom’s assumptions, a logical inconsistency arises for offerers 2 and 3. In order to meet their individual and community responsibility to purge their impurities they caused to attach aerially to the sacrificial altar, offerers 2 and 3 must believe their impurities are still on the altar. If, however, ḥaṭṭāʾt blood purges the altar pars pro toto, their impurities are removed by offerer 1’s ḥaṭṭāʾt. Thus, offerers 2 and 3 could only conclude their ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices were without purpose, and they are not able to fulfill their responsibility to purge the altar. Milgrom never states that specific ḥaṭṭāʾt blood applications somehow know which offerer’s impurity to purge, but if this possibility is somehow argued, a second logical inconsistency arises. If offerer 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s impurities are on the altar, then after offerer 1’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, the priest continues to officiate on an altar polluted by offerer 2’s and 3’s impurities. This scenario, according to Milgrom, violates the Priestly Torah requirement that the sacrificial altar must be cleaned from impurities (Lev 8:15; 16:19). This violation is problematic in many ways. For example, if a person comes forward with a šəlāmîm offering before a person who has committed an inadvertent wrong has had a chance to offer a ḥaṭṭāʾt, the offerer of the šəlāmîm receives meat contaminated by the inadvertent wrongdoer’s impurity that resides as a substance on the altar.84 This situation leads to another violation of the Priestly Torah, which demands šəlāmîm flesh that touches anything unclean must be burned by fire and not eaten (Lev 7:19).85 84.  In Milgrom’s defense of his aerial miasma theory, he argues that, even though all of the animal’s carcass does not touch the altar, all the flesh absorbs the altar’s pollution on the principle of pars pro toto (“Modus Operandi,” 112–13). Thus, if the unintentional sinner’s pollution was on the altar while another offerer brings a šəlāmîm offering, according to Milgrom’s theory, all the šəlāmîm flesh would be polluted. 85.  One might propose that the sacrificial altar can store impurities for each individual offerer, and this storage mechanism somehow protects other offerers from this impurity. However, this option also has problems. First, there is no evidence in the Priestly Torah that the altar has such a storage mechanism. Second, in the Priestly Torah, impurity does not behave in such a controlled fashion. Rather, it is infectious and spreads, e.g., Lev 15:1–15. Third, a harmonious coexistence of holiness and impurity goes against Milgrom’s contention that impurity is the foe of holiness (Leviticus 1–16, 257). Finally,

32

Chapter 1

Access to the adytum is restricted to the Day of Atonement. Therefore, it is possible, as Milgrom argues, that pollution caused by rebellious sin could reside in the adytum and not disrupt sacrifices performed in the shrine and on the sacrificial altar during the year.86 However, Milgrom’s view of ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices for the incense altar, and especially the sacrificial altar, falters when assessed under the practical examples of everyday use of the sanctuary. Since, in Milgrom’s view, the collective responsibility to remove one’s own impurity from the sanctuary is the fundamental assumption of Priestly theology, it is difficult to accept that the priests and the people operated in a system where they could not be sure their sacrifices were efficacious. The crux of the logical inconsistency in Milgrom’s view is the assumption that impurity acts as aerial miasma attaching to the sacrificial altar as a physical substance. Milgrom’s view of aerial miasma simply cannot account for the complex relationships between the random occurrences of sin and physical impurity in the camp, coupled with the many uses of the sanctuary on a day-to-day basis. In fact, the ancient Near Eastern cults that Milgrom believes influenced the Priestly legislators did not operate in this way. These sanctuaries were a place for the king and priests to serve their gods but not a place for individuals to interact with the gods on a daily basis.87 Thus, while sanctuaries were cleansed by priests, it was not a place for individuals to receive forgiveness or fellowship from the gods. Perhaps Lang states it best when he says of Milgrom’s ḥaṭṭāʾt view, “We may ask whether this theory does not err by trying to combine several individually correct ideas into a uniform system.”88 Clues to the Meaning of Kipper and the Purpose of the Israelite Sanctuary If, as suspected thus far, the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper is not a ransom payment to mitigate Yhwh’s punishment, nor is it an act to purge an offerer’s pollution from the sancta, then what can be said about kipper? The subject of wəkipper in Lev 4:31 is the priest, whose actions result in kipper on behalf of the offerer (ʿālāyw, the indirect object). The result of kipper is achieved by means of the sacrificial remedy (Lev 4:28–31) and leads to Yhwh’s forgiveness (wənislaḥ lô, 4:31). If, as argued, this scholars have proposed the idea that the altar stores impurities in a controlled fashion until they are removed on the Day of Atonement. However, these views cannot explain how the sacrificial altar can be both holy and polluted on a continuous basis. Milgrom denies that this premise is possible. 86.  This statement assumes Milgrom views rebellious sin as only affecting the adytum. If Milgrom views rebellious sin as polluting the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar, then the logical inconsistency in his view is magnified. An offerer of the ḥaṭṭāʾt will not only purge his or her impurity from the sacrificial altar but will also purge all the rebellious sins of individuals who have been barred from the sanctuary! 87. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 115–16. 88. Lang, ‫ ִּכּפֶ ר‬, 294.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

33

act of forgiveness appeases Yhwh’s divine anger, how does the sacrificial remedy achieve this result? For now, the following observations can be made. There is an unbroken chain of physical touch between the offerer and the altar as mediated by the priest.89 The offerer lays their hand on the animal and, by the act of slaughtering, produces flesh and blood. Since the offerer is not allowed to officiate on the altar,90 the offerer must hand over the flesh and blood to the priest (e.g., Lev 1:5, 8, 9). The priest, on behalf of the offerer, takes the blood and with his finger places some of it on the horns of the burnt offering altar, and the remainder is poured out at the base of the altar. The fat portion of the flesh allocated to Yhwh is then burned on the altar resulting in a “pleasing aroma” to Yhwh. The text is not clear on how this aroma reaches Yhwh and why the altar is the terminus point for the blood. What is clear is that the sacrificial remedy requires an unbroken chain of physical touch between the offerer and the altar, mediated by the priest using the sacrificial animal’s flesh and blood. Furthermore, the ritual never removes the blood from the altar. The impression left by the ritual actions is that the blood stays on the altar as a continuing reminder of the offerer’s desire to touch it physically.91 If the indirect object of kipper is the offerer, then what is the direct object? It seems apparent from the terminus point of the blood that the direct object is the altar.92 So kipper, as performed by the priest, creates some type of relationship between the offerer and the altar. Furthermore, Yhwh is aware of what is happening on the altar and, at the very least, interacts with the burning flesh of the animal. According to the Holiness School texts, Yhwh may, in some sense, be associated with the altar.93 By creating an unbroken chain of physical touch 89.  Gilders argues that blood manipulation creates a relational index between Yhwh, who owns the altar, and the offerer as mediated by the priest (Blood Ritual, 82, 139–41). 90.  In agreement with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 147–49; Milgrom, “Sancta Contagion and Altar/ City Asylum,” 282–87). Leviticus 1:3 and 1:5 show that the altar is accessible to the offerer, but only the priest officiated on the altar. Hundley asserts that lay people could not touch the altar because they are not holy like the priests (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 115). 91.  The nineteenth-century scholars thought that blood stayed on the altar as a reminder that the offerer’s sins are covered. Milgrom argues that blood has purgative function but does not explain why blood, apparently filled with impurity, is left on the altar. Gilders thinks blood releases pollution from the altar, and is absorbed by the animal flesh (Blood Ritual, 130). However, it is difficult to understand why the pollution only finds the flesh, rather than other holy objects in the sanctuary. 92.  In agreement with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 255–56). Cf. Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15; 16:19. 93.  Holiness School texts that describe Yhwh as physically present in the sanctuary include Exod 29:42–46 and 40:34–38; cf. 19:18–20. In Exod 40:34, the verbs kāsāh ‘cover’ and mālēʾ ‘fill’ generally take on literal meanings across all text sources. In Lev 3:3, fat physically covers the entrails of the sacrificial animal. Thus, it seems that Yhwh’s presence is conceived as physically covering and filling the tabernacle. In the Priestly Torah, Yhwh is reflected as present in the sanctuary (Lev 9:23–24, 10:1–3) and residing over the ark in the adytum (Lev 16:1–2, 12–13). Hundley states, “Although the ark is closely associated with Yhwh’s presence to such an extent that sacrifices can be legitimately offered before it, the ark is not Yhwh himself ” (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 56).

34

Chapter 1

between the offerer and the altar, Yhwh forgives the offerer, and his anger is appeased. It seems that there is a very close relationship between Yhwh and the altar. I argue throughout the rest of this book that sancta can be thought to have a metonymic relationship with Yhwh—an action done with sancta is an action done with Yhwh. By creating an unbroken chain of physical touch with the altar, the offerer has, in some way, created a protective connection between themself and Yhwh that had been broken by an unintentional sinful act. Interpreting kipper as creating a protective connection with Yhwh is consistent with the findings for Exod 30:11–16. However, for the case of taking a census, each person counted sought a proactive and protective connection with Yhwh in order to avoid future divine anger and punishment. In the case of Lev 4:27–35, the offerer seeks to repair or create a new protective connection with Yhwh in order to avoid becoming a rebellious sinner and receiving punishment. What is common in both texts is the desire of the offerer to be connected with Yhwh. These findings for Lev 4:27–35 are compared to the remaining instances of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 4. This study seeks to explain the relationships between the blood rituals and whether or not these rituals follow the findings thus far, especially in regard to the meaning of kipper and the purpose of the sanctuary. The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering for a Chief or Leader, Leviticus 4:22–26 With minor variations, the conditions and results of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for the chief or leader (Lev 4:22–26) follow the same sequence and form as the offering for a person from the people of the land (Lev 4:27–35).94 A noteworthy difference is the addition of the phrase mēḥaṭṭāʾtô after wəkipper ʿālāyw (Lev 4:26). These kipper result phrases appear sporadically throughout the Priestly Torah.95 Milgrom takes the min in this phrase as causal, ‘because of his sin’, contending that the altar is ‘purged’ from the offerer’s sin.96 Gane interprets it as privative, ‘from his sin’, arguing that kipper reflects the transfer of sin from the offerer to the sacrificial altar.97 The question which interpretation is correct, if either, is taken up in chs. two and three, where this study addresses whether or not the sanctuary is designed to be holy and impure at the same time. 94.  The offender errs by committing an act prohibited by Yhwh and understands his guilt on his own (compare 4:22 with 4:27) or through a third party (compare 4:23 with 4:28). The sacrificial remedy is implemented (compare 4:24–26 with 4:29–31), and the results of kipper and nislaḥ are made on behalf of the offerer (compare 4:26 with 4:31). These cases are identical in condition, sacrificial remedy, and result. They only differ in the provision of a male goat for the chief or leader, versus a female goat or lamb for the person from the people of the land (compare 4:23 with 4:28, 32). 95.  Cf. Lev 4:26, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 18; 14:19; 15:15, 30; 16:16; Num 6:11. 96. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 857–58. 97. Gane, Cult and Character, 106–43.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

35

The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering for the Anointed Priest and Congregation, Leviticus 4:3–12, 13–21 The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for the anointed priest98 (Lev 4:3–12) significantly diverges from the offering for a person from the people of the land (4:27–35). Assuming the conditions in Lev 4:2 apply to all four cases of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, then the anointed priest’s sin is unintentional (bišəgāgȃ) and an act that Yhwh has prohibited. However, the similarities end here. The construct ləʾašmat hāʿām (4:3) appears to take the place of the verb wəʾāšēm, and there is no option for the discovery of the anointed priest’s unintentional sin by a third party. Blood is applied not to the horns of the burnt offering altar but instead to the front of the veil (that separates the shrine and the adytum), the horns of the incense altar, and to the base of the burnt offering altar. Finally, the verbs kipper and nislaḥ are not present. Since the cases for the chief or leader and the person from the people of the land require that the offerer becomes aware of their guilt, it seems reasonable to begin with the construct ləʾašmat hāʿām. Taking ʾašmȃ as a noun of verbal action having the sense ‘guilt’,99 the question is whether the absolute noun, ‘the people’, is an objective or subjective genitive. Read as an objective genitive, the priest’s guilt, as a result of his unintentional sin, is transferred to the people. Some scholars use Lev 10:6 as an example of the priest’s sin bringing guilt on the people.100 In Lev 10:6, Moses warns Aaron, and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, not to mourn the deaths of Nadab and Abihu lest they die, and Yhwh becomes wrathful against the entire congregation. However, if Aaron and his sons had mourned, they would have intentionally, not unintentionally, sinned against a direct command of Yhwh.101 Second, Moses does not state that the congregation will be guilty of the priests’ 98.  The title anointed priest is unique to the Priestly Torah (Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15 [Heb.]; cf. Lev 8:12; Exod 29:7). In his position, as anointed priest, Aaron oversees his sons, the priests, in the obedient operation of the cult as reflected (or not) in Lev 8 (Exod 29), 9, 10, and 16. The relationship between the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings in 4:1–21 and 4:22–35 is debated. Milgrom argues that 4:22 and the particle ʾăšer introduces a new kind of ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Leviticus 1–16, 246). Levine argues that 4:1–21 is purification offering, while 4:22–35 is not (In the Presence of the Lord, 103–4). Feder contends that the particle ʾăšer, along with other variations in terms and grammar between 4:1–21 and 4:22–35, indicates that 4:22–35 is an earlier offering suited for an open altar (Blood Expiation, 38–43). 99.  The noun is used in the objective sense of knowing a wrongful act. In Lev 4:3, the sin is unintentional. For Lev 5:24 [Eng. 6:5] and 5:26 [Eng. 6:7], the sin is intentional, but the Priestly legislators allowed this sin to be treated as an unintentional sin. For the Holiness School and non-Priestly sources, the noun is always associated with objective guilt in the context of rebellious sin (cf. Lev 22:16; 1 Chr 21:3; 2 Chr 28:10, 13; 33:23; Ezra 9:6, 7, 13, 15; 10:10, 19; Ps 69:6; Amos 8:14). 100. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 232; Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 36; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 44. 101.  The Priestly Torah reserves the term guilt for an unintentional sinner, or an intentional sinner who is eligible for sacrificial remedy. In the Priestly Torah, a rebellious sinner is never said to be “guilty.” Hence, Lev 10:6 has no reference to the “guilt” of the priests, because in this case the priests would be intentionally disobeying Yhwh.

36

Chapter 1

sin but only that they will experience wrath as a result of the priests’ actions. This wrath can be explained by the fact that, without priests, there will be no way to mediate forgiveness for the people’s sins, and therefore the people would become subject to Yhwh’s wrath.102 As a result, it seems unlikely that Lev 10:6 proves that the guilt of the priest can be transferred to the people. Read as a subjective genitive, the priest’s sin causes the people to sin and become guilty. Milgrom argues for this interpretation, conjecturing that the priest’s sin comes in the form of incorrect instruction to the people, causing them to do an act unintentionally that Yhwh has prohibited.103 Because the people’s and the priest’s unintentional sin must be addressed, Milgrom proposes that Lev 4:3–12 and 4:13–21 are in fact one ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. In support of this proposal, both offerings utilize the same sacrificial animal (compare 4:4 with 4:14), blood is applied in the same way to the same sancta (compare 4:5–12 with 4:16–20), and the anointed priest hands off the blood of the bull to the priest and does not enter the sanctuary (compare 4:5–6 with 4:16–17).104 The two offerings are linked by the command to handle each bull in the same way (4:20–21), and kipper and nislaḥ are completed for the entire community, which may include not only the people but also the priests.105 Based on the assumption that the congregation has received incorrect instruction and is simply obeying the anointed priest, it follows that the congregation is unaware or ignorant (wəneʿlam, 4:13)106 of their sinful acts. The congregation, including the priest, learns of their guilt (wəʾāšēmû, 4:13) when they become aware of their sinful acts (4:14).107 It seems that, when these ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings are combined, they follow the key terms and phrases found in the offering for the chief or leader (4:22–26) and the person from the people of the land (4:27–35). The sin of the anointed priest and 102.  Perhaps Num 8:19 makes a similar point in regard to the Levites. 103. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 240–41. 104.  This distinction is not given for the case of the chief or leader, and the person from the people of the land. Furthermore, it is not normal for the anointed priest to be restricted from entering the shrine. This uncommon requirement for the anointed priest to hand off the blood of the bull to the priest is perhaps a compelling reason to view 4:1–21 as one ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. 105.  It is possible that the priests and the congregation are in view because of the third-masculineplural objects connected with the verbs kipper and nislaḥ. 106.  Across all sources, the verb ʿālam takes on two senses. The first is the sense of purposeful hiding (e.g., Isa 1:15). The second sense is ignorance of a subject or fact (e.g., Num 5:13). This sense of ignorance is usually reflected in the niphal, as it is in Num 5:13 and in the text under study, Lev 4:13 (cf., 1 Kgs 10:3; 2 Chr 9:2; Job 28:21). All non-niphal instances of the verb ʿālam refer to the sense of purposeful hiding. If the congregation has been following an instruction from the anointed priest without knowledge that they were sinning, then the sense “ignorance” fits best here (see Locher, ‫עָ לַ ם‬, 150). 107.  The result wəʾāšēmû cannot be completed until the congregation’s sin has been made known to them. Thus, it seems that the waw in wənôdəʿâ is epexegetical, clarifying how the result wəʾāšēmû is achieved. How might they become aware? Through their study of the torah, some of the congregation may determine the anointed priest has led them astray. In this scenario, the verb yādaʿ in the niphal takes the reflexive voice (supported by the prepositional phrase ʿālêhā).

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

37

the congregation is unintentional (4:2, 13). The anointed priest and the congregation become aware of their guilt and are compelled to bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to ensure no punishment (4:3, 13–15). The sacrificial remedy is implemented by both the anointed priest and the congregation (4:5–12, 16–20), and this remedy leads to the results of kipper and nislaḥ (4:20).108 I will now investigate Leviticus 5:1–13 to determine whether or not this offering conforms to the findings for Lev 4, especially in regard to the meaning of kipper and the purpose of the sanctuary. The Four Special Cases of the Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering, Leviticus 5:1–13 Leviticus 5:1–13 introduces four special cases of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Since there is no new heading (compare with 4:1, 5:14, “then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying”), the main offering for 5:1–13 is a female lamb or goat called a ḥaṭṭāʾt (compare 5:6 with 4:28, 32), and the four cases (5:1–4) are for individuals (like the cases starting in 4:22), this offering appears to be four special cases of the ḥaṭṭāʾt for the person from the people of the land.109 The conditions of the four cases differ significantly from Lev 4. The acts are not specified as unintentional (bišəgāgȃ) or stipulated as prohibited by Yhwh. Consistently with Lev 4, the offerer must become aware of their guilt (5:2, 3, 4, 5), and the sacrificial remedy leads to the results of kipper and nislaḥ (5:6, 10, 13).110 Surprisingly, one of the sacrificial remedies allows for the use of grain, rather than animal flesh and blood (5:11–12). I now address each element that differs with Lev 4 to understand the relationship between these two groups of sacrifices. The first and fourth cases (5:1, 4) pertain to oaths, and the second and third cases address an individual who touches the carcass of an unclean animal (5:2), or human uncleanness (5:3). Case one (5:1) appears to be an intentional act on a number of grounds.111 The verbs hear, see, and know express in certain terms that the offerer witnessed the oath. Furthermore, the offender refuses to come forward 108.  While the priests may not benefit from their sin, and thus the ḥaṭṭāʾt is completely burned up, the Priestly Torah has no issue with the premise that the priests can implement kipper for themselves; cf. Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 17, 24. Because this is so, it seems to lend more credence to the view that Lev 4:3–12 and 13–21 are considered one sacrificial remedy. 109.  In agreement with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 309–10). 110.  Leviticus 5:10 and 13 include the result of forgiveness, but 5:6 does not. The Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Cairo Codex add this result. There does not seem to be a reason to omit forgiveness in 5:6 on the grounds of using a different animal for the guilt offering. Thus, it appears that the omission is a scribal error, or the result of forgiveness is assumed. 111.  Milgrom agrees (ibid., 314; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 109). Unlike 5:2–4, there is no declaration of guilt in 5:1. Since the term guilt seems to be reserved for unintentional sin in the Priestly Torah, the case in 5:1 may indicate that the Priestly legislators understood this as a case of rebellious sin. However, this case is still allowed sacrificial remedy and thus is treated as an unintentional sin (cf. Lev 5:5). For all four cases in 5:1–4, Kiuchi concludes, “They are all concerned with people showing indifference to divine norms” (Purification Offering, 30).

38

Chapter 1

to communicate the oath they heard (ʾim-lôʾ yaggîd), which leads to the declaration that they should be punished (wənāśāʾ ʿăwōnô).112 It is not clear whether cases two, three, and four are unintentional acts or not. Each has the caveat that the offerer is unaware of (wəneʿlam) or in other words had no memory of the act. It is important to note that, since the offerer had no memory of the act, they must become aware of their act on their own, as reflected by the phrases wəhûʾ yādaʿ (5:3, 4) and wəhûʾ ṭāmēʾ (5:2).113 The awareness of their act then leads to their awareness of guilt (wəʾāšēm, 5:2, 3, 4). Is there a common reason these four cases are singled out by the Priestly legislators? Assuming Lev 5:1–13 represent special cases of Lev 4, then a straightforward reading of the text is that these four cases are considered acts prohibited by Yhwh. However, unlike the cases in Lev 4, these acts are in some way intentional,114 and therefore the offender should expect divine punishment. For case one, this expected punishment is reflected by wənāśāʾ ʿăwônô ‘and he shall bear his punishment’. Furthermore, all four cases fall under the stipulation of wəhēbîʾ ʾet-ʾăšāmô ‘and he will bring his payment’ (5:6). However, following Lev 4, the Priestly legislators have suspended the offender’s divine punishment pending their awareness of guilt (the verb ʾāšam ends 5:2–4 and is in the summarizing statement for all four cases found in 5:5) and implementation of the sacrificial remedy. Why did the Priestly legislators make such a concession? Because it seems that, in each of the four cases, the offender is the only one who knows about their sinful act. In case one, the offender must come forward (ʾim-lôʾ yaggîd). In cases two through four, the offender is unaware of their sinful act (wəneʿlam) and only later becomes aware of the act on their own (wəhûʾ yādaʿ 5:3, 4; wəhûʾ ṭāmēʾ, 5:2).115 Because the offender is the only one who knows about their sinful act, they must publicly confess or declare their sin (wəhitwaddāh, 5:5).116 112.  Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 295–97) and Sklar (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 20–25) agree that this punishment is meted out by Yhwh. The person intentionally refuses to come forward putting some condition or result of the oath in jeopardy, thereby causing possible harm to another person and, at the same time, dishonoring Yhwh in the context of the oath. 113.  Milgrom contends that the verbal aspect of wəhûʾ yādaʿ and wəhûʾ ṭāmēʾ could be pluperfect, ‘he had known’ and ‘he had become unclean’. The premise is that the person became aware of the incident when it happened, but they do not presently remember it (Leviticus 1–16, 298). Kiuchi argues that the verbal aspect may be present, ‘he knows it’, and ‘he is unclean’. In this case, by remembering the incident, the offerer knows that they must make a sacrifice (Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 28). Milgrom’s interpretation supports his understanding that the offerer ‘feels guilt’, that is, even though they have forgotten the past act, it causes guilt feelings in them. Kiuchi’s supports his understanding that the offerer ‘realizes guilt’, that is, they remember the past act and thus become aware of their guilt. However, the key issue seems to be that, for these cases, only the offender knows their act. 114.  Sklar calls them intentional but not high-handed acts (“Sin and Atonement,” 478–82). 115.  Like the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for the congregation (4:13), the offender in 5:1–13 must become aware of their sin on their own; otherwise, it remains hidden. 116.  This requirement for confession or declaration of the offender’s sin is unique to Lev 4:1–5:13. According to Milgrom, the act of confession in 5:5 is required to convert the offender’s deliberate sin

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

39

Are these cases common among the people? Given an agrarian society, it seems reasonable to assume that working around unclean corpses of animals was common and part of everyday life (cf. Lev 11). For example, touching an animal corpse in the midst of working in a field and then forgetting about it seems quite possible and was, perhaps, an everyday occurrence. The Priestly legislators may have believed because of extenuating circumstances, such as forgetting the act (5:2–4), and personal difficulties117 associated with oath witnessing (5:1) and oath making (5:4), that the offender should not receive divine punishment for their wrongful act. At the same time, the Priestly legislators did not want an offender’s secret (and possibly at one-time forgotten) but intentional act to affect the offender or the sanctuary negatively.118 As a result, Lev 5:1–13 was developed. Because these acts were common, and the Priestly legislators felt it necessary to compel the offender to come forward, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is scaled to the offender’s economic circumstances.119 Despite the scaled ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, the results of kipper and nislaḥ are achieved as in Lev 4. According to his pollution-and-purge view, Milgrom argues that Lev 5:1–13 should be interpreted through the lens of impurity contamination, following his interpretations for Num 19 and Lev 12–15. Milgrom’s Interpretation of Leviticus 5:1–13 Milgrom claims that all four cases deal with the same issue. Each case represents an offender who is unable, or who has intentionally failed, to cleanse impurity as soon as it occurs; that is, he has violated a performative command.120 Milgrom’s argument centers on cases two and three, which he describes as secondary acquisitions of uncleanness that normally are resolved with a purification rite. Milgrom into an inadvertent sin (Leviticus 1–16, 300–303). In agreement with Milgrom, it does seem that confession is required for deliberate sin but not to convert it to inadvertent sin. First, there is no indication for this conversion in the text, that is, it is not confession that makes these deliberate sins eligible for sacrificial remedy; rather, it is the preconditions established by the Priestly legislators. Second, an alternative reason that confession is not required for an unintentional sin is that someone else knows, or finds out about the sin (Lev 4:14, 23, 28). Third, unlike the cases in Lev 4, it seems clear that the cases in Lev 5:1–4 require not only a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering but also an act on the part of the offender to deal with their sin, for example, presumably, in the first case, they must correctly perform their duties with regard to hearing or making an oath. Thus, it seems the requirement for the offender’s confession in Lev 5:5 is to reveal their otherwise unknown sin and to deal with the sin using the proper rituals and procedures (see Dennis, “‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 119). 117. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 294–95, 299–300. 118.  It seems that an overarching theme of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Israelites regularly minimized or ignored the gravity of rebellious sin (e.g., Exod 32). As a result, the offender, whose sin is only known to themself, might have had the attitude of taking their chances with Yhwh’s punishment. Therefore, the Priestly legislators devised ways to teach and encourage the people to come forward for their own good and the good of the camp. 119.  Scaled offerings for common sins are also found in Lev 12–15. Why are scaled offerings not available for the cases in Lev 4? Perhaps these sins are less common, or perhaps since others may have known of the sin, there is no need to incentivize the offender to come forward. 120.  Ibid., 307–18.

40

Chapter 1

contends that, since the offerer forgot that they had contracted uncleanness and as a result did not perform the required purification procedure within the specified time limit, the uncleanness had become virulent and possibly reached the level of polluting the sancta, for example, as Milgrom argues for the corpse-contaminated person who does not purify themself; cf. Num 19:20. Milgrom thinks the offender’s situation becomes the same as that of one who originates uncleanness, a primary carrier, such as the parturient (Lev 12), the scale diseased (Lev 13–14), and in some cases, the one with a discharge (Lev 15), who, according to Milgrom, must bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to purge the sanctuary. He assumes the Priestly legislators required the offender to bring the ḥaṭṭāʾt because, even though the offender was unaware of contracting uncleanness, the uncleanness has built up sufficient force to contaminate the sanctuary.121 Milgrom contends that, since the offerer’s uncleanness did not arise from the violation of a prohibitive commandment requiring a single, fixed animal as in Lev 4, the offender may bring any ḥaṭṭāʾt they can afford. Furthermore, since the Priestly legislators were unsure whether the sanctuary was actually contaminated or not, Milgrom conjectures that the Priestly legislators were ambivalent as to the type of ḥaṭṭāʾt offered. As a result, a grain offering was allowed even though, as Milgrom contends, it could not purge the sanctuary. In agreement with Milgrom, cases two and three assume the offender has come in contact with an unclean source but has forgotten their contact. As a result, the offender did not perform the purification rite within the specified time limit and has prolonged their uncleanness in the camp. However, it does not follow that prolonged uncleanness in the camp equates to aerial contamination of the sanctuary. First, the Priestly Torah specifies touch by an unclean person as the mode by which a holy thing is contaminated.122 Second, there seems to be a fine line between what constitutes a performative and prohibitive command. Yes, the offender did not complete their purification rite in the prescribed manner and as a result violated a performative command; however, because the offender is unaware of their prolonged unclean state, they have put themself, and others in the camp, in danger. Every Priestly Torah text dealing with unclean persons explicitly prohibits contact with a holy thing (Lev 7:20, 21; 12:4), or stipulates quarantine procedures to prevent contact with others (e.g., Lev 13:46).123 Therefore, it is possible that the Priestly legislators envisioned the unclean person, in cases two and three, as violating not only a performative command but also the 121.  Milgrom views force as the intensity of an impurity source to be magnetically attracted to a holiness source, such as the sanctuary (ibid., 980–81). 122.  For example: Lev 7:20, 21; 12:4. According to Milgrom, this is the rabbinic understanding as well (ibid., 257). 123.  Some quarantine procedures require confinement (13:46), some involve waiting periods (15:5), and others are not restrictive but require personal monitoring (12:4).

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

41

implied prohibitive commandments of touching a holy thing with uncleanness, or spreading uncleanness throughout the camp.124 Third, Holiness School texts, such as Num 19:20, do not necessarily support the idea of aerial contamination of the sanctuary. A straightforward reading points to the rebellious rejection of the purification rite (wəlōʾ yitḥaṭṭāʾ) as the grounds for somehow affecting the sanctuary, rather than the virulent nature of prolonged uncleanness.125 Fourth, using the cases for scale disease in Lev 13, Milgrom attempts to demonstrate that prolonged uncleanness pollutes the sanctuary. He argues that the two shorter quarantine periods of two weeks for scale disease imply that the sanctuary is not polluted and thus requires only purification rites (13:6, 34). However, long-term quarantine requires not only purification but a sacrificial remedy to purge the sanctuary (13:46; 14:1–32). However, it is not clear that uncleanness is dealt with by the purification rites in 13:6 and 13:34, which call for only clothes washing and not the normal waiting period or ablution.126 It seems questionable whether the Priestly legislators thought these were cases of uncleanness at all.127 It is interesting to note that the parturient must bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (12:6), even though she is unclean in relation to other people for a maximum of two weeks (12:2, 5), which is the same period of time as the scale disease cases in 13:6 and 34, which require only a purification rite. Also, she is not isolated but is given the prohibition of not touching a holy thing or entering the sanctuary (12:4). Therefore, it seems cases two and three share with the parturient, scale diseased, and in certain cases the one with discharge, the possible violation of the prohibitive command of potentially endangering Yhwh’s holy things, and other people, by touch. Normally, secondary acquisition of uncleanness and minor primary generation of uncleanness are not a violation of this prohibitive command as long as the purification rite is performed within the specified time limit. However, when the purification rite is unknowingly ignored (Lev 5:2–3), the secondary acquirer of uncleanness becomes guilty of the violation of Yhwh’s prohibitive command and as a result must bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, not, as argued, to purge the sanctuary, 124.  As Lev 5:2–3 seems to demonstrate, even the possibility of unintentionally touching a holy thing, or entering the sanctuary in an unclean state, is a sin that is prohibited by Yhwh. Milgrom concedes this view is correct in his discussion on why the person with scale disease must bring an ʾāšām offering (Leviticus 1–16, 363–64). 125. Gane, Cult and Character, 144. 126.  Milgrom argues that body washing is implied (Leviticus 1–16, 782). However, the Priestly legislators clearly state when ablution is required. For example, Lev 15:13–14 is a confirmed case of impure discharge and specifies a seven-day waiting period followed by clothes washing, bathing, and then a sacrificial remedy. 127.  It seems, for these cases, the priest finds no scale disease. It only appeared to be scale disease but is a scab (mispaḥat hîʾ, 13:6), and thus there is no impurity and therefore no required purification rite. The declaration ‘clean’ in this case seems to be an affirmation of the priest’s finding, rather than a result of clothes washing.

42

Chapter 1

but rather to create a protective connection with Yhwh. Finally, Milgrom inconsistently argues that cases two and three reach the level of polluting the sanctuary but contends that this pollution is only fictional. As a result, Milgrom argues that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in 5:1–13 really does not purge the sanctuary, so a grain offering is allowed.128 What can be concluded concerning Lev 5:1–13? This ḥaṭṭāʾt appears to involve four special cases of violations of Yhwh’s prohibitive commands. The acts are likely intentional, and thus deserve divine punishment. However, because of extenuating circumstances, like Lev 4, punishment has been suspended and a sacrificial remedy is available leading to the results of kipper and nislaḥ. This conclusion leads to the understanding that grain can achieve the same result as blood for a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Although this appears to be a rarely used option, it offers insight into the function of the ḥaṭṭāʾt.129 Rather than purge the sanctuary, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering repairs the protective connection that was broken with Yhwh as a result of the sin of doing an act that Yhwh has prohibited. The unbroken chain of touch, resulting from the offerer bringing grain to the priest and the placement of the grain by the priest on the altar (5:11–12), yields the same result as a blood and flesh offering. Also, as observed in Exod 30:16, this grain offering creates a memorial (ʾazkārātâ, 5:12), reflecting a positive connection with Yhwh.

The ʾĀ šām Offering, Leviticus 5:14–26 Leviticus 5:14–26 [Eng. 5:14–19; 6:1–7]130 begins a new offering called the ʾāšām (introduced by “then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying”; compare 4:1 with 5:14, 20). The offense in 5:14–16 is the unintentional (bišəgāgȃ) sin of sacrilege (maʿal) against Yhwh’s holy things.131 The sin of sacrilege also stems from misusing Yhwh’s name by deceiving (wəkiḥēš, 5:21, 22), and swearing falsely (wənišbaʿ ʿalšāqer, 5:22, 24), in order to acquire another person’s property illicitly (5:20–26). The case in 5:17–19, sinning by doing something that Yhwh has prohibited (5:17; cf. 4:2) though the person does not know (wəlōʾ-yādaʿ, 5:17), may be a special case of sacrilege and connected with the case in 5:14–16132 or a separate case. It has been argued that, for the ḥaṭṭāʾt cases in Lev 4, the offerer is not divinely punished unless they reject their sacrificial remedy once they are compelled by guilt to come forward. Based on the study of Lev 5:1–13, the four acts (5:1–4) are likely intentional and deserve divine punishment. However, because of 128. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 313–16. 129.  Cf. Lev 14:10, 31. 130.  References for the ʾāšām offering reflect the Hebrew and not the English verse numbering. 131.  Milgrom contends that sacrilege is the violation or misuse of holy things and oaths (ibid., 320–25). 132.  Ibid., 331–33.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

43

extenuating circumstances, as in the cases in Lev 4, the offerer is not divinely punished unless they reject their sacrificial remedy. Once the offender becomes aware of their guilt and implements the sacrificial remedy, as in Lev 4, they receive the results of kipper and nislaḥ. Like the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, kipper and nislaḥ are the result of the ʾāšām offering in 5:14–26, but in two cases the offender must make a payment for their sin (yəšallēm, 5:16; wəšillam, 5:24).133 In Lev 5:17, the offender’s divine punishment is declared (wənāśāʾ ʿăwōnô); however, like 5:1 this punishment is suspended until they become aware of their guilt and complete the sacrificial remedy. It appears that, as a general rule, the seriousness of an individual offender’s sin and the penalties connected with their sacrificial remedy increase in the order each offering is listed in Lev 4:27–5:26. The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in 4:27–35 is the lightest, requiring only a sacrificial remedy. The appendix of the ḥaṭṭāʾt (5:1–13) requires a sacrificial remedy and, although suspended, calls for an additional penalty. Finally, two cases of the ʾāšām offering (5:15–16, 20–26) require a sacrificial remedy and a penalty, while one case (5:17–19) requires a sacrificial remedy and suspends the additional penalty. Also, the cases in the appendix to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and the ʾāšām share a common theme. Both offerings deal with cases of sacrilege against Yhwh’s holy things (compare 5:2–3 with 5:14–16 and possibly 5:17–19), and sacrilege by improper speech acts, oaths, connected with Yhwh’s name (compare 5:1, 4 with 5:20–26). Is there a reason the offender’s sacrificial remedy is greater for the ʾāšām offering? This question may be answered by studying the verb yādaʿ in each offering. As argued, the verb yādaʿ conveys how the offender becomes aware of their act and sin. In Lev 4, the offender may become aware of their act and sin by themself or by a third party (4:14, 23, 28). In Lev 5:1–4, the knowledge of the offender’s act and sin is limited to the offender themself. There is no possibility of an outside party informing the offender. In 5:14–16 the verb yādaʿ is absent, and there is no statement of the offender’s guilt (wəʾāšēm), which is present in every other case of the ḥaṭṭāʾt and the ʾāšām. In 5:17–19, the offender is aware of their act but did not know it was a sin (wəlōʾ-yādaʿ).134 Finally, the verb yādaʿ is not present in 5:20–26 (cf. 5:1), because the offender’s act and sin are intentional and clearly understood. How does this understanding of the verb yādaʿ inform the question why the offender’s punishment is greater for the ʾāšām offering? Leviticus 4 describes cases for the congregation or individuals who may not know their act or sin. Leviticus 5:1–13 is likely for intentional acts, but the offender 133.  Ibid., 328–30. 134.  The offender in 5:18 may be ignorant of whether or not they have committed a sin, per Milgrom and the rabbis (ibid., 333–34), or they may be ignorant of Yhwh’s standards (following this study’s findings for yādaʿ in Lev 4:27–35). Either case describes a situation where the offender is violating Yhwh’s requirements. This is a very dangerous scenario in the Priestly literature (Priestly Torah: Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; Exod 30:31–33; Holiness School: Lev 15:31).

44

Chapter 1

must come forward (5:1) or become aware of their act (5:2–4) and then confess their guilt (5:5). However, in Lev 5:14–16, the act and their guilt are clearly known by the offender since the verbs yādaʿ and wəʾāšēm135 are not present in this case. The absence of these verbs can only reflect one reality. The offender knows both their act and sin of committing sacrilege against Yhwh’s holy things. They do not need to be told by someone else (4:23, 28). They are not unaware (wəneʿlam, 5:2–4), nor do they need to come to an understanding of their act and sin on their own (wəʾāšēm, as in all other cases). The offender knows immediately the ramifications of what they have done. As a result, they acted negligently. They act without intention to violate Yhwh’s prohibitions (bišəgāgȃ, 5:15), but in a careless way. For example, the parturient may in her time of purification knowingly come into the vicinity of a holy thing and does not intend to touch it (Lev 12:4). However, a circumstance comes about where she touches the holy thing and immediately becomes aware of her act and guilt. The act is unintentional but she is careless with Yhwh’s holy things. If Lev 5:14–16 is an act of negligence, then 5:17–19 seems to be an act of ignorance. The offender does not know Yhwh’s commandments, or was unsure of their sin. They act unintentionally, because they did not know their act was a sin. Finally, it is observed that the acts in 5:1–4 are of a lighter kind than the acts in 5:14–26. Leviticus 5:2–3 is concerned with the impact of undealt-with impurity on holy things and the people, while 5:14–16 is a confirmed case. The oath violations in Lev 5:1 and 5:4 do not describe actual harm to another party, while the case in 5:20–26 describes a confirmed case of harm by illicit acquisition of another’s property. Leviticus 5:20–26 shares another commonality with 5:2–4. Since the offender in 5:20–26 has deceived and sworn falsely concerning their act, only they know their own sin. As a result, it seems that the cases in 5:14–26 are far more serious than the previous cases. Acting in a negligent (5:14–16), ignorant (5:17–19), or deceitful way (5:20–26) with regard to Yhwh’s commands and his holy things is far more egregious than acting innocently (Lev 4) or in an unaware or only potentially harmful way (Lev 5:1–13). The Priestly legislators have provided sacrificial remedies for the more severe sins in 5:14–26 but no longer suspend all of the offender’s punishment (except 5:17–19136). While the offender can receive the results of kipper and nislaḥ from Yhwh, they must pay a penalty for their acts. This penalty is twenty percent of the valuation of a sacrificial ram. Like Lev 5:1–13, the Priestly legislators seem to incentivize the offender to come forward by requiring a rather light penalty. They 135.  Lev 5:15 and 5:16 contain three references for the noun ʾāšmā. The last two instances refer to the guilt offering. In the first instance, the phrase wəhēbîʾ ʾet-ʾăšāmô (5:15) describes the offender’s penalty for their unintentional act of sacrilege (ibid., 231–32, 326). 136.  Perhaps because the offender was not aware of his wrongful act as compared to the cases for negligence in 5:14–16 or intentional sin in 5:20–26.

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

45

seek to keep rebellious sin out of the camp, while acknowledging that the cases of the ʾāšām offering are more egregious but still include kipper and nislaḥ. The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, the appendix to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, and the ʾāšām offering seem to be part of a single system envisioned by the Priestly legislators to deal with violations of Yhwh’s prohibitive commands.137 The severity of an offender’s sin and sacrificial penalty increase with each offering, culminating with the ʾāšām offering, which deals with more egregious sins that may still be dealt with by a sacrificial remedy to receive the results of kipper and nislaḥ. In all these offerings, the Priestly legislators sought to balance the requirement to keep rebellious sin out of the camp by incentivizing the people to come forward with lighter penalties. Based on this understanding of Lev 4:1–5:26, there is no grammatical or theological reason to assign a different function or purpose for kipper to each offering.138 The purpose of the sacrificial remedy, as reflected by kipper is to repair or create a new protective connection between the offerer and Yhwh. Furthermore, the offerer is incentivized to come forward in order to minimize rebellious sin. The investigation now turns to the ʿōlâ offering, which seems to be carefully constrained by the Priestly legislators to adhere to their theology of keeping rebellious sin out of the camp.

The ʿŌlâ Offering, Leviticus 1 The ʿōlâ offering shares many features with the offerings in Lev 4:1–5:26. The sacrificial animal cannot have a defect and may come from the herd (compare 1:3 with 4:3), flock (compare 1:10 with 5:6), or birds (compare 1:14 with 5:7). The offerer must lay their hand on the head of the animal and slay it (compare 1:4–5 with 4:29). The offering includes the verb kipper (compare 1:4 and 4:31). The priest applies the animal’s blood to the altar (compare 1:5 with 4:30), and the flesh is burned creating a “pleasing aroma” to Yhwh (compare 1:9 with 4:31). The main differences between the ʿōlâ and the offerings in Lev 4:1–5:26 are the burning of the entire animal,139 no preconditions to bring the offering, and no expected results following kipper. What are the implications of these differences? 137.  Levine groups together the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, the appendix to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, and the ʾāšām offering as expiatory sacrifices (Leviticus, 18). 138.  Milgrom states for the ʾāšām offering, “The root meaning of the verb kipper is ‘rub, efface’, and in contexts dealing in sin it connotes the sin’s elimination.” However, according to Milgrom, this broad-based meaning is capable of more nuanced interpretation in specific sacrifices, and thus in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering it means ‘purge’ (Leviticus 1–16, 331). Milgrom argues that the verb kipper evolved from its original sense of ‘purge’ to ‘expiate’ (pp. 1079–84). For example, he contends that ‘purge’ for the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper is its original sense, while kipper in sacrifices such as the ʿōlȃ evolved to the sense ‘expiate’ (p. 1083). However, Milgrom argues elsewhere that the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʾāšām are late Priestly innovations in relation to the earlier ʿōlȃ (p. 177). 139.  Lev 7:8 assigns the skin of the bull to the priest.

46

Chapter 1

In non-Priestly sources, the ʿōlâ offering is used for almost every conceivable situation between an individual and Yhwh, including but not limited to celebration (2 Sam 6:13–19), inquiry into the will of Yhwh ( Judg 13:21–23), favor in battle (1 Sam 13:8–12), covenant creation (Exod 24:1–8), and forgiveness (2 Sam 24:17–25). Similarly, the Holiness School applies the ʿōlâ offering in many ways including thankfulness and remembrance (Num 10:10), vow fulfillment and free will offerings (Lev 22:18), inquiry into the will of Yhwh (Num 23), cult initiation (Num 8:1–14), and forgiveness (Num 15:23–26). In contrast, the Priestly Torah limits the applications of the ʿōlâ offering. These comprise a specific set of cultic functions including forgiveness, cult initiation, and dealing with uncleanness of people or the camp/sanctuary.140 In the Priestly Torah, the ʿōlâ is applied with other offerings with the ritual’s conditions and results precisely stated. Furthermore, the Priestly Torah seems to limit the ʿōlâ to contexts that include kipper.141 In order to understand what the Priestly Torah’s limited application of the ʿōlâ may reveal about the verb kipper, this study now looks at the ʿōlâ offering on the open altar.142 When making the ʿōlâ on an open altar the offerer cannot assume their request to Yhwh will be granted. Yhwh must first accept or reject the offering.143 If the ʿōlâ is accepted, the entreaty is answered, but Yhwh’s response may differ from the offerer’s original request.144 The account of David’s census taking in 2 Sam 24 illustrates these points. David takes a census that is against Yhwh’s will (24:3, 4, 10) and directs Yhwh’s punishment to himself and the people, hoping for a compassionate response (24:12–14).145 After David witnesses the results of his decision, he fully confesses his sin to Yhwh, and requests punishment to fall on him and his father’s house (24:17). David is then instructed to make an altar to Yhwh on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (24:18), so that he may offer an ʿōlâ for his request (24:22, 24). During the negotiation for the threshing floor, 140.  The Priestly Torah functions for the ʿōlâ offering are categorized as follows: forgiveness (Lev 5:7–10), cult initiation (Exod 29:18; Lev 8:18, 21, 28; 9:2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 24; Num 6:11, 14, 16), uncleanness in people (Lev 12:6, 8; 14:13, 19, 20, 22, 31; 15:15, 30), and sin and uncleanness in the camp (Lev 16:3, 5, 24). Leviticus 10:19 is a discussion between Moses and Aaron concerning the cult initiation rite in Lev 8–9. Lev 23:37 generally prescribes offerings for Israel’s holy convocations without describing their purpose in the ceremonies. 141.  Passages that directly relate the ʿōlâ offering to kipper include: Lev 1:4; 5:10; 9:7; 12:6, 8; 14:20, 31; 15:15, 30; 16:24; Num 6:11. Passages where the ʿōlâ offering and other offerings are in the context of kipper include Exod 29:18, 25 with 29:37; Lev 8:18, 21, 28 with 8:34. 142.  According to Milgrom, sacrifices on the open altar are described in non-Priestly and Holiness School texts (Leviticus 1–16, 172–77). 143.  For example, in 1 Sam 7:9, Yhwh accepts Saul’s entreaty. In 1 Sam 15:22–23, Saul’s sacrifice of burnt offerings was not accepted by Yhwh because of his disobedience. 144.  For example, in 1 Sam 13:9–14, Saul does not wait for Samuel as instructed and offers a burnt offering for favor in battle. Yhwh answers Saul but not in connection with battle. Instead, Yhwh communicates through Samuel that Saul’s kingdom will not endure. 145.  Firth suggests that David’s sin may have been a result of initiating a census outside the context of war, thus placing his authority above Yhwh’s (1 and 2 Samuel, 541, 545).

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

47

Araunah asks that Yhwh accept (rāṣāh) David (24:23).146 David then makes the ʿōlâ and šəlāmîm offerings, and Yhwh holds back his punishment from the land. Yhwh does not respond to David’s request for punishment to fall on him and his father’s house (24:25). Usually, Yhwh’s acceptance of an ʿōlâ offering is indicated by his response as in 2 Sam 24. In Noah’s ʿōlâ offering made after the flood (Gen 8:18–22), Yhwh indicates his acceptance by smelling the “pleasing aroma” (rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ) of the ʿōlâ and then responds by promising never to destroy every living thing again (8:21). What can be observed about 2 Sam 24, Gen 8:18–22, and the Priestly Torah ʿōlâ offering? The conditions to bring the open altar ʿōlâ are open ended, according to the needs of the offerer, and once Yhwh accepts the ʿōlâ, the results are open ended according to Yhwh’s will. Like the open altar, the ʿōlâ in Lev 1 contains no preconditions or results. In Lev 1, the ʿōlâ is accepted by Yhwh (wənirṣāh, Lev 1:4) on behalf of the offerer, and this acceptance is directly related to kipper. This acceptance is confirmed by the flesh and blood offering, which makes a “pleasing aroma” (rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ, Lev 1:9, 13, 17) to Yhwh. With one non-Priestly exception (Gen 8:22), the term rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ is exclusively used in the Priestly sources to reflect Yhwh’s acceptance of an offering.147 It seems that the Priestly legislators sought to model the cultic kipper to follow the open altar with modification. By including the verb kipper (Lev 1:4), there seems to be no question that Yhwh will accept the ʿōlâ made on the altar. Yhwh’s confirmed acceptance is demonstrated by the inclusion of kipper in all applications of the ʿōlâ in the Priestly Torah and in the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʾāšām offerings. Not only do the ḥaṭṭāʾt, ʾāšām, and ʿōlâ offerings always include kipper, but the results following kipper are always implemented. It seems as though the Priestly legislators sought to reform the open altar model. Instead of allowing any request to come before Yhwh, which might include the issue of rebellious sin (e.g., 2 Sam 24), the Priestly legislators developed a system whereby Yhwh’s acceptance of a priestly offering is guaranteed. In order to guarantee this acceptance, the Priestly legislators conditioned each priestly offering to fit with their understanding of Yhwh’s willingness to accept unintentional sin or intentional but tolerated sin. Since kipper is never mentioned for the open altar ʿōlâ, how have the Priestly legislators used kipper to convey Yhwh’s acceptance in the priestly offerings? As 146.  Araunah hopes that Yhwh will accept David’s request by means of his ʿōlâ. The verb rāṣāh in the niphal is used in Lev 1:4 to indicate Yhwh’s acceptance of the Priestly ʿōlâ by means of the hand-leaning rite with Yhwh’s response represented by kipper. Acceptance in Lev 1:3 refers to the unblemished state of the animal as confirmed by the priest. This agrees with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 149–50, 153). 147.  This agrees with Milgrom (ibid., 162). Also, refer to Ezek 20:40–41, which equates Yhwh’s acceptance with the phrase “pleasing aroma.” Given the majority use of the phrase “pleasing aroma” in Priestly sources, its inclusion in Gen 8:22 may reflect either the Priestly legislator’s reference to this account as the basis for the ʿōlâ or a Priestly addition to this text.

48

Chapter 1

noted in the analysis of Gen 8:18–22 and 2 Sam 24, an entreaty using the open altar ʿōlâ follows a two-step process. The offerer’s ʿōlâ must first be accepted, and then Yhwh responds according to his will. Acceptance and a favorable response are not guaranteed. It seems as though the Priestly legislators changed the two-step process of acceptance and response to one step. Acceptance and Yhwh’s response are guaranteed for a specific, well-defined set of conditions and responses.148 However, the two-step process can still be discerned in the priestly offerings. As argued, kipper conveys the creation of a positive and protective connection between the offerer and Yhwh and reflects Yhwh’s acceptance of the priestly offering. This acceptance can only come about if the offerer meets the priestly conditions for the offering. As a result of the offerer meeting the priestly conditions, their sacrifice and the result of kipper are guaranteed to bring Yhwh’s acceptance. The desired outcome is also guaranteed as a result of the offerer meeting the priestly conditions and offering the sacrificial remedy. In the case of the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʾāšām, it is forgiveness. As will be shown for Lev 12–15, a person or an object may be made clean.

The Minḥâ and Šəlāmîm Offerings, Leviticus 2 and 3 The verb kipper is not employed in the šəlāmîm (Lev 3) and minḥâ (Lev 2) offerings. However, it seems possible that these offerings produce the results expressed by the verb kipper. Each offering reflects an unbroken connection between the offerer and Yhwh, whether by carrying grain for the minḥâ offering or by the application of blood and flesh on the altar in the šəlāmîm offering. For both the minḥâ and the šəlāmîm, the Priestly legislators declare the automatic acceptance of each offering by the phrase “pleasing aroma.” As observed in the Priestly Torah, although rare, kipper occurs in the context of the minḥâ and the šəlāmîm offerings.149 Why then is kipper not listed in Lev 2 and 3? As observed, the Priestly legislators have defined cultic kipper as making a positive and protective connection between the offerer and Yhwh to achieve a specific result. This result is a corrective to a disruptive event, such as an unintentional sin, an excused intentional sin, or becoming unclean. However, the šəlāmîm and minḥâ 148.  Knohl views the Priestly Torah as reflecting Yhwh’s automatic forgiveness as a result of the implementation of the ḥaṭṭāʾt (Sanctuary of Silence, 135 n. 42). 149.  Instances where the minḥâ offering is included with kipper: Lev 5:13; 14:20, 31. Instances where the šəlāmîm offering is included with kipper: Lev 9:7; cf. 9:4; and possibly Exod 29:28–33, although this reference may be to the priestly milluʾîm offering; see also Ezek 45:17. Milgrom agrees that these offerings include kipper but in the ‘expiation’ sense, rather than ‘purge’ (Leviticus 1–16, 541; see also pp. 524–25, 858, 196; Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 155 n. 52). Kurtz also thinks the šəlāmîm includes kipper on the grounds of Lev 17:11, that is, all blood is expiatory (Sacrificial Worship, 74).

Exodus 30:11–16, Leviticus 1–7

49

offerings are prescribed for sharing a sacrifice with Yhwh and the priests and not for correcting a problem.150 Even though the šəlāmîm and minḥâ offerings connect the offerer to Yhwh, based on their usual use, it is conjectured that the Priestly legislators saw no need to include kipper in Lev 2 and 3.

Chapter Conclusions There seems to be a Priestly tenet to distinguish between unintentional and intentional sin. Rebellious sinners are cut off (Lev 7:18, 20, 21, 25, 27; Exod 30:31–33) or put to death (Lev 10:1–2; cf. 16:1). Some rebellious sin is accepted as unintentional, based on extenuating circumstances, especially when no one else can corroborate the sin (Lev 5:1–13, 20–26). For these sins, an additional penalty may be warranted or required as reflected in the ḥaṭṭāʾt appendix (5:1–13) and the ʾāšām offering (5:14–26); however, the sinner can still expect the results of kipper and forgiveness to be made on their behalf. It seems that the Priestly legislators have established sacrifice to incentivize an unintentional sinner to come forward so that their sin may not become rebellious. The exegesis of the terms bišəgāgȃ and wəʾāšēm shows that an unintentional sinner is not punished by Yhwh unless they reject their sacrificial remedy. The verbs wəʾāšēm and yādaʿ are carefully combined to explain how the unintentional sinner comes to know their sin and guilt. Once they become aware of their sin and guilt, they are compelled to come forward and implement the required sacrificial remedy. If they do not, they will experience Yhwh’s divine punishment. If they do come forward, they can expect forgiveness. The result of kipper is included in the ḥaṭṭāʾt, ḥaṭṭāʾt appendix, ʾāšām, and ʿōlâ offerings, and is possible in the šəlāmîm and minḥâ offerings. As observed from the study of Exod 30:11–16 and Lev 4:27–35, it seems unlikely that kipper reflects a ransom payment (kōper) to Yhwh. Furthermore, there seems to be a logical inconsistency implicit to the pollution-and-purge view. This view cannot account for the complex relationships between random occurrences of sin and bodily impurity in the camp, coupled with the varied uses of the sanctuary on a day-to-day basis. Finally, the open altar ʿōlâ appears to be a model for the Priestly Torah sacrificial offerings. Like the ʿōlâ offering, the ḥaṭṭāʾt, ḥaṭṭāʾt appendix, and ʾāšām implement 150.  This disagrees with Milgrom, who argues that the minḥâ offering is a poor person’s burnt offering and is used in negative contexts (Leviticus 1–16, 197). Milgrom is correct on both counts; however, it is clear that the Priestly Torah has limited the applications of these offerings to primarily positive contexts such as cult initiation (Lev 9:4, 17, 18, 22; Exod 29:28, 41; Num 6:14, 17, 18) and festivals (Lev 23:37; Num 28–29). Yes, the minḥâ offering shows up in negative contexts such as Lev 5:13, and 14:20, 31, but these cases are economic concessions by the Priestly legislators, rather than primary sacrifices.

50

Chapter 1

kipper. However, the Priestly legislators have redefined sacrifice to take out uncertainty that had been inherent in open altar sacrifice. The conditions of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, ḥaṭṭāʾt appendix, and ʾāšām are defined to allow only certain sinners to implement a sacrificial remedy. In return for these restrictions, the Priestly legislators assure the offerer of Yhwh’s forgiveness. Why did the Priestly legislators innovate in this way? They seek to ensure Yhwh’s connection with the sanctuary sancta by keeping rebellious sin out of the camp and at the same time assuring the people inside the camp that they are protectively connected to Yhwh. This connection is confirmed by kipper, which conveys Yhwh’s acceptance of the unintentional sinner’s sacrifice, while at the same time creating or repairing a positive and protective connection with Yhwh.

Chapter 2

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary Introduction Chapter one investigated how the result of kipper in the sanctuary resolves a problem between the offerer and Yhwh. The chapter findings led to the rejection of kipper as ‘ransom’ and questioned the pollution-and-purge view of kipper as ‘purge’. Rather, kipper somehow creates a protective connection between Yhwh and the offerer. This chapter and the next will attempt to confirm or question these findings by investigating whether or not evils, that is, sin and bodily impurity, pollute the Israelite sanctuary. Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view assumes that the sanctuary is holy and, at the same time, aerially receives and stores sin and bodily impurity as a polluting substance that is purged by sacrifice (see figure 6). In this view, Yhwh ordains the priest to use the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal’s flesh and blood to purge sanctuary sancta. Purification, and reconciliation between the offender and Yhwh are achieved via other mechanisms.1 The relationship view assumes that the sanctuary is holy and not polluted by sin and bodily impurity (see figure 7).2 In this view, the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is to repair the relationship between Yhwh and the offender that has been disrupted by sin and bodily impurity. By the priests’ mediation on behalf of the offerer, the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal, flesh, and blood, reconciles Yhwh with the offender.3 There are several views that combine elements of the purge-and-pollution and relationship views. These combined views contend that the animal, flesh, and blood achieve both sanctuary purging and relationship repair. Each is evaluated during the investigation of whether sin and impurity pollute the sanctuary. 1.  Milgrom believes that an offerer must be free of guilt or clean from physical impurity before coming forward to sacrifice the ḥaṭṭāʾt. The person with bodily impurity must go through purification rituals. The sinner receives forgiveness as a result of repentance by ‘feeling guilt’ (Leviticus 1–16, 231–32, 247, 339–45; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 3–11). 2.  The relationship view contends that sin guilt, or uncleanness, adheres to the people and not the sanctuary sancta (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 385–86; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 161). According to Brichto, the offerer comes forward with a sacrifice, a kōper, to resolve an imbalance between the offerer and deity caused by an offense such as sin (“On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” 35). 3.  In Keil and Delitzsch’s view, sancta are the medium by which Yhwh interacted with an offerer. Blood, applied to the altar, covered the offerer from the holiness of Yhwh, removed their punishment for sin, restored their covenant relationship, and brought forgiveness. The burning of the animal’s fat on the altar represented a person’s nature given to the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit, so that it might be purified from sin (Commentary on the Old Testament, 305–9).

51

52

Chapter 2 Sanctuary Holy + Unclean

Sin Bodily Impurity

Offender

Purged by sacrifice

figure 6.  Pollution-and-purge view.

Sanctuary Holy

Divine Repair and Reconciliation

Offender

Sin

Removed

Bodily Impurity

figure 7.  Relationship view.

Do Priestly Texts Describe Sancta as Holy and Unclean at the Same Time? Priestly texts claim that holiness cannot interact with sin and uncleanness without significant, and often immediate, negative ramifications.4 Hence, the burden of 4.  Unclean people are not to eat holy food, lest they suffer the penalty of being cut off (Priestly Torah: Lev 7:20–21; Holiness School: Lev 22:3). Nadab and Abihu are destroyed by Yhwh’s fire as a result of their disobedience of offering strange fire (Priestly Torah: Lev 10:1–2). The Nazirites, who are holy before Yhwh, must not make themselves unclean by going near a dead person (Priestly Torah: Num 6:6–8). The Nazirite may deal with the issue of corpse contamination through cleansing and sacrifice (Num 6:9–12); however, it is clear that the mixing of unclean and holy is prohibited. While this study disagrees that unresolved corpse contamination (Holiness School; resulting in being cut off: Num 19:13, 20), bodily impurities (Holiness School; resulting in death: Lev 15:31), and the sin of Molech worship (Holiness School; resulting in being cut off and death, Lev 20:1–5) cause the sanctuary to be polluted, at the very least, these texts show that sin and uncleanness should not interact with the holy. The priests and high priest, who are holy, must take special precautions to avoid sin and contact with uncleanness (Lev 21–22:16). The daughter of a holy priest who becomes a harlot shall be burned by fire (21:9). The high priest must not contaminate himself with a corpse, no matter what his family relationship is with the deceased. Furthermore, he must not leave the sanctuary with the anointing oil on him (21:12; cf. “lest he die,” Lev 10:7). Presumably, his holiness, as a result of the anointing oil, brings about destruction to a common thing or person. Not only should the unclean not come in contact with the holy but the common person must not come in contact with the holy. While a common object may become holy by touching a sacred object (Priestly Torah: Exod 29:37; 30:29; Lev 6:11 [Eng. 18], 20 [Eng. 27]; see also Ezek 46:20), a common person, that is, a non-priest, shall receive the punishment of death when attempting to enter the holy sanctuary (Holiness School: Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 4:19; 17:5 [Heb.], 28 [Heb.]; 18:3, 7; even if they unintentionally look upon the sanctuary while it is being dismantled; Holiness School: Num 4:20; see also Neh 6:11). It is clear from the Priestly texts that holiness is dangerous to the unclean and even to the common. It is important to note that, with the possible exception of holy food (Lev 7:20–21; 22:3), it is always the person who is negatively affected by holiness, not the other way around. Wenham states, “It is not God who is endangered by the pollution of sin, but man” (Leviticus, 95). See also Wenham (Leviticus, 19–20),

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

53

proof lies with the scholars of the pollution-and-purge view to show that holy sancta can coexist with unclean substances.5 While these scholars disagree on how animals, flesh, and blood work to purge pollution from the sancta, they all agree that the sanctuary allows holiness to coexist with impurity. This inquiry begins with a comparison of Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view (covered in ch. one) with the views proposed by Gane and Levine. Scholarly Views That the Sanctuary May Be Holy and Unclean at the Same Time Gane agrees with Milgrom that sin and impurity aerially attack the sanctuary from afar but, according to Gane, only for serious moral faults.6 In disagreement with Milgrom, Gane contends that ḥaṭṭāʾt blood carries sin and bodily impurity from the offender to the altar, where it is stored until its removal on the Day of Atonement.7 The min prepositional result phrases that sometimes follow kipper are privative and prove that flesh and blood removes sin or bodily impurity from the offerer.8 In the cases of inner sanctum sacrifices, those that start in the adytum, kipper purges impurity from the sancta.9 Levine also argues that kipper is a cognate of the Akkadian kuppuru.10 Like Milgrom, he views sin and bodily impurity as having the same nature as demonic spirits.11 However, for Levine, the purpose of blood is to act as an apotropaic agent that wards off or removes sin and bodily impurity.12 Through the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 977–80), and Douglas (Purity and Danger, 51–52) for a discussion of the dangers of interacting with Yhwh’s holiness. 5.  The following scholars reject that holy can coexist with uncleanness on sancta: Hayes as cited by Milgrom, “Modus Operandi,” 113; van der Merwe, “Laying on of the Hands in the Old Testament,” 39; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 207–8. Gane contends that only a trace level of eviscerated impurity may pollute sancta (Cult and Character, 179). Milgrom inconsistently argues that holiness should not interact with impurity, while at the same time, the sanctuary accepts sin and bodily impurity pollution (Leviticus 1–16, 257). He states for Lev 8:11 that the altar is sprinkled seven times with anointing oil “to buttress it against incursions of impurity.” This contradicts his view that the altar collects impurity (ibid., 516). 6. Gane, Cult and Character, 144–51. Gane simply accepts this possibility without explaining how sin and bodily impurity can be aerially attracted to sanctuary sancta. 7.  Ibid., 163–97, 273–77. Gane understands that a sanctuary that is both holy and unclean is inconsistent with the Priestly conception of holiness but argues that the unclean substance that is transferred is a trace level and eviscerated. 8.  Ibid., 106–43. 9.  Ibid., 217–41. 10. Levine, Leviticus, 23–24; Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56–67. Levine distinguishes between two verbal forms of kipper. Kippēr I, the primary piel, and kippēr II, a secondary denominative of the noun kōper, which according to Levine is only employed in the phrase kippēr ʿal nepeš, “to serve as kōper ‘ransom’ for life”; cf. Lev 17:11. 11.  Ibid., 75. 12.  Ibid., 74.

54

Chapter 2

kipper purges or wards off sin and bodily impurity from the offerer.13 Also, blood applied to sanctuary sancta purges or wards off impurity created by rebellious sin and the priest’s incursion into Yhwh’s holy space.14 While Levine accepts that the sanctuary can be holy and unclean, it is not by design or a desirable state.15 All the above scholars cite Lev 20:2–5 as a text confirming that rebellious sin becomes a substance that aerially pollutes sanctuary sancta from afar.16 This Holiness School text17 occurs in a list of prohibitions for the sons of Israel framed by the demand to be holy as Yhwh is holy (19:2; 20:7). One such demand prohibits the Israelites from giving, that is, offering,18 their offspring to Molech (20:2). The offender’s punishment for this act is death by stoning (20:2) and being cut off from their people (20:3).19 Also, anyone who is aware of Molech worship and does nothing will be cut off (20:4–5). Yhwh states that the result of giving a child to Molech is ṭammēʾ ʾet-miqdāšî ûləḥallēl ʾet-šēm qodšî (20:3). The pollution-and-purge scholars surveyed argue that the phrase ṭammēʾ ʾet-miqdāšî explains that the sin of Molech worship becomes an unclean substance that attaches to sancta from afar. However, this view may be questioned on two points. First, it is not clear that an individual’s sin pollutes the sanctuary with the result that Israel is affected corporately. Second, the terms typically translated by the pollution-and-purge scholars 13.  Levine contends there are two types of ḥaṭṭāʾt as follows, “(1) A purification rite intended to safeguard the sanctuary and its ministering priesthood from contamination. (2) A rite intended to expiate certain of the offenses of ‘the people’, of Israelites, individually, and even of their neśîʾîm, the tribal chiefs. In the case of such offenses the threat to the purity of the sanctuary was less direct, although present” (ibid., 103). 14.  Levine views the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings in Lev 4:1–5:26 and 12–15 as purifying the offerer (Leviticus, 18–19). The ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings in Lev 16 purify sancta (ibid., 99–100; Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 76). 15. Levine, Leviticus, 93, 98, 99–100; Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 74. 16. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1734–35; Gane, Cult and Character, 144; Levine, Leviticus, 136–37. Wright and Klawans follow Milgrom (Wright, “Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” 161–64; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 55; Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 26). Gane’s view of sin substance differs from Milgrom’s and Levine’s. Gane commenting on Milgrom’s view of sin as a substance states, “I could agree that it is quasi-physical, and his [Milgrom’s] recognition of impurity’s dynamic nature helps to put us on a productive track: because the defilement in question is conceptual, it can have an effect through space in the sense that it causes a change of state to occur at a distance” (Cult and Character, 160). Porter agrees that “sin is an objective, quasi-physical thing” (Porter, Leviticus, 37). Also, Milgrom inconsistently states that Holiness School texts such as Lev 20:3 are evidence that the sanctuary is polluted from afar, while at the same time asserting that the Holiness School’s metaphoric concept of impurity requires direct contact (Leviticus 1–16, 257; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1735). 17.  This text is widely viewed as sourced from the Holiness School (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 113; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1735). Knohl interprets this text, and others like it (e.g., Lev 15:31; Num 19:13, 20), as demonstrating the Holiness School’s attempt to make explicit what is implicit in the Priestly Torah with regard to the Israelite responsibility to maintain the sanctity of the temple (Sanctuary of Silence, 195). 18.  BDB 679. 19.  The penalty of death is implemented by the people. The penalty of cutting off or extirpation, that is, destruction of family line, appears to be implemented by Yhwh.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

55

as ‘pollute’, ḥll and derivatives, and ‘defile’, ṭmʾ and derivatives, do not necessarily have the sense that sancta are polluted by sin and impurity. Does Leviticus 20:2–5 Prove the Sanctuary Is Polluted? Leviticus 20:2–5 states that individuals who perform or condone Molech worship will be cut off by Yhwh and put to death. Punishment is directed toward the individual offender(s). The adherents to the pollution-and-purge view argue that Israel is corporately affected by these individual acts, since the sanctuary shared by all the people of Israel is polluted.20 However, the text already broadens the offense to those who condone Molech worship; thus, it seems out of place to say that all of Israel is affected. Rather, the text emphasizes that punishment is restricted to the individual(s) involved in the act of Molech worship. The terms for ‘pollute, profane, or defile’ (verb ḥll and ḥōl and ḥālāl) are not used in the Priestly Torah, other than possibly Lev 10:10, where the noun ḥōl is used to convey the status of ‘common’ in contrast with holy.21 In non-Priestly and Holiness School texts, it is difficult to determine whether these terms have the sense profane or defile, that is, dishonor or offend a person or thing, or the sense pollute or defile, that is, placing an unclean substance on a person or thing. Both senses can create a relationship break between two people. The pollution-andpurge view assumes that, when these terms are applied to the sanctuary, their sense is the sanctuary has been polluted by an unclean substance.22 However, this assumption should be questioned in light of how these terms are used in nonsanctuary contexts. In Gen 49:4, a non-Priestly text, the piel perfect of ḥll is used to describe the result of Reuben’s act of sleeping with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine (cf. Gen 35:22; 20.  According to Milgrom, the stain of sin is not on the person but on the sanctuary, and thus the entire community shares in the responsibility to keep the sanctuary clean (Leviticus 1–16, 49–50, 260–61; Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 390–99; reproduced in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 75–84). Gane agrees that the sanctuary is marked by the offender’s sin, but the offender is also affected by his sin (“Privative Preposition ‫ מן‬in Purification Offering Pericopes,” 209–22). Levine argues that Israelites, both individually and collectively, are responsible to keep the sanctuary pure to ensure Yhwh does not leave (In the Presence of the Lord, 76). 21.  Knohl views this text as part of the Holiness School (Sanctuary of Silence, 105). 22.  Milgrom states that the Holiness School “fuses and confuses the terms ḥillēl ‘desecrate’ and ṭimmēʾ ‘contaminate’” (Leviticus 1–16, 37). Milgrom, in reference to the piel of ḥll, further states, “The high priest who is contaminated by a corpse obviously contaminates the sanctuary, a far more grievous sin than desecration (21:12).” Milgrom views 21:12 as a warning for the high priest not to mourn and defile himself with a corpse (Leviticus 17–22, 1816). He contends that, if the high priest did become defiled, then he would defile the sanctuary with his corpse contamination when he returned (ibid., 1818). However, it is unlikely that the high priest would return to the sanctuary without first performing the required purification rituals. As a result, the warning must say something else, that is, the high priest dishonors or offends Yhwh by interacting with a corpse, thereby bringing harm to himself and others.

56

Chapter 2

1 Chr 5:1). Did Reuben pollute Jacob’s bed with an unclean substance, or profane Jacob, by dishonoring or offending him? The text makes no mention of an unclean substance on Jacob’s bed or a requirement for ablution (e.g., Lev 15:23) but rather indicates that Reuben offended Jacob (cf. Gen 35:22 and the phrase “Israel heard” implying the dishonoring of Jacob before the people), leading to Reuben’s punishment.23 The verb ḥll, and ḥōl and ḥālāl, may be applied to something belonging to Yhwh, including covenant, holy gift, name, land, Sabbath, and the sanctuary.24 For example, individuals or corporate Israel can profane the Sabbath. In Exod 31:14, a Holiness School text, an individual who profanes the Sabbath, by working on it, receives the punishment of death and being cut off from among his people. In Ezek 22:2, the prophet is called to judge the “bloody city,” Jerusalem (21:22), for its crimes including profaning the Sabbath (22:8), bringing corporate punishment upon the city (22:13–16). In 22:16, Yhwh states that the people will profane themselves in the sense of dishonor before the nations. Based on these texts, profaning the Sabbath has the sense of dishonoring Yhwh, rupturing relationship with him, and results in divine punishment that is meted out either individually or corporately. Furthermore, it seems that an individual’s sin against Yhwh brings punishment on the individual. Corporate sin against Yhwh brings punishment on corporate Israel. Individual sin, in the context of an obedient nation, does not directly affect corporate Israel, while corporate sin affects all Israel.25 Thus, the relationship between individual and corporate punishment appears to be muddled by the pollution-and-purge view. It is true that individuals collectively make up corporate Israel, but individual sin is not seen in the same way as corporate sin. Corporate sin is conceived as widespread, unrepentant disobedient actions of Israel’s leaders and its people.26 The premise conveyed is that all Israel, save a small 23.  Cf., Dommershausen, ‫חָ לַ ל‬, 416. Wenham argues that Jacob’s marriage bed was made unholy by Reuben (Genesis 16–50, 472). However, it seems the sense ‘dishonor’ is more appropriate here. 24.  Milgrom appears correct when he argues that the Priestly Torah’s term for ‘desecration’, maʾal is equivalent to the Holiness School’s metaphoric use of ḥillēl šēm Yhwh, for example, for the things of Yhwh such as Sabbath (“Priestly Doctrine of Repentance”, 188–90; reproduced in Milgrom, Studies of Cultic Theology and Terminology, 49–51; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1326). However, Milgrom seems incorrect when he claims that the Holiness School fuses and confuses ḥillēl and ṭimmēʾ (Leviticus 1–16, 37). It seems that ḥillēl and ṭimmēʾ are at times synonyms in the ‘dishonor’ sense, while at other times ṭimmēʾ is used in the context of contamination. Milgrom’s view for Lev 22:9 also appears to be unlikely when he contends that ḥillēl should have the sense ‘contaminate’. The issue is the priest’s desecration of Yhwh’s charge, not the actual effect of eating unclean animals. 25.  Based on the findings in ch. five, according to the Day of Atonement rituals, rebellious (not unintentional) sinners affect Israel’s relationship with Yhwh in the sanctuary, not in the sense of an unclean substance on the sanctuary, but rather by their presence in the community. Following Hoffmann, and Kurtz, rebellious sin is thought of as residing on the person, not the sanctuary (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 385–86; Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 448). 26.  Milgrom seems to confuse the Priestly Torah’s understanding of individual unintentional sins and sacrificial remedies with Yhwh’s handling of Israel’s rebellious sin in Ezekiel (Leviticus 1–16, 982).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

57

remnant, are complicit (Ezek 6:8). In the Priestly Torah, individual sin is assumed to be an exception to an otherwise obedient nation. Furthermore, Yhwh is never described as leaving the sanctuary for any reason.27 Yhwh’s holy name may be honored or dishonored. In the cases where it is honored, the hope is to receive Yhwh’s help and blessing (e.g., Pss 33:21; 103:1; 105:3; 106:47; 145:21). Dishonoring or profaning Yhwh’s holy name, as in Lev 20:3 (ûləḥallēl ʾet-šēm qodšî), results in a ruptured relationship, and Yhwh’s punishment. Again, as noted above, if it is an individual offense, Yhwh’s punishment is directed toward the individual, not corporate Israel. If corporate rebellion is in view, then Yhwh’s punishment is directed toward the nation of Israel (cf. Ezek 23:38–49). What then does the phrase ṭammēʾ ʾet-miqdāšî convey in Lev 20:3? Is the sanctuary made unclean, as Milgrom and others contend, by a sin substance generated by the individual(s) committing Molech worship? It is true that the verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ in the Priestly Torah predominantly refer to an unclean substance that resides on an object or person. For example, the impure person must perform ablution, follow a waiting period, and in some cases, come forward with a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Lev 11–15). However, the verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ may also act as a synonym of the verb and noun derivatives of ḥll, having the sense of dishonor or profane. In Num 5:27–28, a Priestly Torah text, if the woman’s adultery has been verified, then ‘defiling herself ’, niṭməʾȃ (niphal of ṭmʾ), reflects an act of faithlessness against her husband (Num 5:27), and thus she bears the guilt of her actions (Num 5:31), that is, she has dishonored her husband.28 The adulterous woman does not have an unclean substance on her, but rather by her adultery she has disrupted her relationship with her husband and Yhwh, and she is punished. In summary, the verb and noun derivatives of ḥll can have the sense of individuals, or corporate Israel, dishonoring Yhwh leading to a broken relationship and punishment. The verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ primarily have the sense of an He correctly explains that, in Ezekiel, Yhwh’s departure from the temple is a result of rebellious sin. However, following Hundley, it is clear that the nation has completely rejected Yhwh’s commandments and chosen to rebel against him (Ezek 5–6; Keeping Heaven on Earth, 178–79). The premise of the Priestly Torah is far different. It deals with individual sins in the context of a community that seeks to obey Yhwh. The Day of Atonement (Lev 16) is for a community that apparently deals with its sins and impurities properly, rather than a nation who has corporately rebelled in every way possible (cf. Ezek 39:23–24). 27.  Knohl argues that it is the Holiness School, not the Priestly Torah, that denies the idea of God’s permanent presence in the sanctuary (Sanctuary of Silence, 131 n. 20). 28.  This disagrees with Wenham, who views the woman as unclean (Numbers, 79–85). The woman is not experiencing a discharge or skin eruption and is not contagious. She also cannot be healed or cleansed by ritual. The issue at hand is whether she has been unfaithful and sinned, thereby defiling herself in the sense of dishonoring her husband. The grain offering without oil (5:15), as Wenham points out, is an indication of a type of sin offering, to determine whether the woman is guilty of unfaithfulness (5:27, 5:31) toward her husband. Her sin establishes her punishment, not whether she is unclean or not. According to Milgrom, the woman’s unfaithfulness is figurative for marital and not cultic fidelity (Numbers, 37).

58

Chapter 2

unclean substance residing on an animal, person, or common object, but may also take on the same sense as the verb and noun derivatives of ḥll.29 As a result, it is possible that the phrase ṭammēʾ ʾet-miqdāšî is synonymously parallel to ûləḥallēl ʾet-šēm qodšî. Grammatically, their structure is the same: infinitive construct followed by a direct object of something associated with Yhwh. It seems each phrase says the same thing, but from two different points of view. The phrase ûləḥallēl ʾet-šēm qodšî declares that the act of worshiping Molech dishonors Yhwh by mistreating his holy name. The phrase ṭammēʾ ʾet-miqdāšî declares that the act of worshiping Molech dishonors something belonging to Yhwh, namely, his holy sanctuary, since idol worship stands in direct contrast to the worship of Yhwh in the sanctuary (e.g., Ezek 5:11).30 Why is the verb ṭmʾ used in connection with the sanctuary? It seems the Holiness School makes explicit what is implicit in the Priestly Torah. In the Priestly Torah, uncleanness must be separate from holiness. The Holiness School understands the reason for this separation is that uncleanness dishonors and profanes Yhwh’s holy presence in the sanctuary.31 Thus, by stating the sanctuary is unclean, the Holiness School is explaining that the Molech worshiper has dishonored and profaned Yhwh.32 In Lev 20:2–5, if an Israelite offers a sacrifice to Molech, then Yhwh is dishonored by the mistreatment of his holy name, and the sanctuary on which the Israelite depends has also been dishonored. As a result, the Molech worshiper is barred from Yhwh and from his sanctuary.33 The personal ramifications are significant since without access to Yhwh and his sanctuary, the Israelite has no way to receive forgiveness, is cut off from the community, and is subject to Yhwh’s punishment. Thus, the two infinitive clauses reflect punishment for the person and do not reflect a change to Yhwh or his sanctuary. This result follows what has been observed in regard to the interaction of the holy with sin and the unclean. The sinner or unclean is affected and not the holy. Thus, Milgrom’s view that the Holiness School fuses and confuses ḥillēl and ṭimmēʾ is rejected.34 Rather, in the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, the 29.  This is especially true in Holiness School texts, which André views as employing this metaphorical usage of ṭmʾ (‫טָ מֵ א‬, 337–340; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 37). 30.  Büchler argues that Molech worship produces moral, not Levitical (cultic), impurity (Studies in Sin and Atonement, 226–28). The people’s rebellious sin resides on them and not the sanctuary. By their moral sin, they dishonor Yhwh. 31.  Even if uncleanness is dealt with properly (as in Lev 11–15), Yhwh is dishonored because uncleanness can pollute his people. Furthermore, uncleanness may cause a person to be separated from Yhwh’s sanctuary and his presence for a long period of time. For someone who defiantly rejects ritual purification, the consequences of uncleanness among the people could be disastrous. 32.  André states, “With references to holiness, therefore, ‘profane’ and ‘defile’ are almost synonymous” (‫טָ מֵ א‬, 339). 33. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1040. 34.  Ibid., 37; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1734–35.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

59

table 1.  Contexts of Ḥll and Ṭmʾ and the Sanctuary Reference

Term Type Reason for Relationship Break Yhwh’s Punishment

Lev 20:3 Num 19:13, 20 Ezek 5:11 Ezek 23:38 Lev 21:12

ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ḥll

Lev 21:23

ḥll

Ps 74:7 Ezek 7:24 Ezek 23:39 Ezek 24:21 Ezek 25:3 Ps 79:1

ḥll, ṭmʾ ḥll ḥll ḥll ḥll ṭmʾ

Zeph 3:4 Mal 2:11 Lev 15:31 2 Chr 36:14 Jer 7:30 Jer 32:34 Ezek 9:7

ḥll ḥll ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ṭmʾ ṭmʾ

indv. indv. corp. corp. indv.

Molech worship corpse contamination idol worship idol worship priest leaves sanctuary w/ anointing oil indv. priest w/defect makes an offering by fire corp. divine anger

cut off/death cut off judgment judgment death; cf. Lev 10:7

corp. corp. corp. corp. corp.

judgment judgment judgment judgment judgment

corp. indv. indv. corp. corp. corp. corp.

idol worship idol worship idol worship idol worship divine anger for iniquities of forefathers disobedient priests marrying foreign wives uncleanness idol worship idol worship idol worship idol worship

not stated judgment

judgment cut off death judgment judgment judgment judgment

terms are in some cases synonymous and in some cases not.35 The verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ may have the sense of an unclean substance on an animal, common object, and a person, or may have the sense of dishonoring Yhwh, creating a ruptured relationship leading to punishment. The verb and noun derivatives of ḥll do not appear to be associated with an unclean substance and have the sense dishonor or profane.36 Thus, it seems that the verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ are at times synonyms of the verb and noun derivatives of ḥll. However, the verb 35.  Nida identifies “three fundamental presuppositions which must underlie adequate semantic analysis: (1) no word (or semantic unity) ever has exactly the same meaning in two different utterances; (2) there are no complete synonyms within a language; (3) there are no exact correspondences between related words in different languages” (Language, Structure, and Translation, 5). 36.  Dommershausen observes that the piel of ḥll means ‘profane, desecrate’ (‫חָ לַ ל‬, 410).

60

Chapter 2

and noun derivatives of ḥll are not synonyms of the verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ in the context of an unclean substance. What is behind these relationships? As discussed below, it is postulated that when the verb and noun derivatives of ṭmʾ are associated with an unclean substance, they primarily have the sense of a disrupted relationship and only secondarily have the sense of unclean substance.37 Table 1 lists instances of the verb and noun derivatives of ḥll and ṭmʾ associated with the Israelite sanctuary, confirming that these terms do not convey that a sin has polluted the sanctuary. Rather, the sanctuary of Yhwh has been dishonored or profaned and thus has become off limits to the offender(s), with the result that their relationship with Yhwh has been ruptured and punishment follows. Individuals are barred from the sanctuary. If corporate sin is in view, the nation is barred from the sanctuary and Yhwh’s presence. Individual punishment does not affect corporate Israel. Of course, corporate punishment affects all individuals. It is clear that idol worship is the predominant way Israel dishonors the sanctuary and thus corporately rebels against Yhwh. For example, in Ezek 5, idol worship is a result of the nation’s total disobedience of Yhwh’s standards (5:6, 7, 9, 11). As a result, it seems incorrect to argue, as the pollution-and-purge view does, that the premise of the Priestly Torah parallels the situation in Ezek 5. Rather, whatever the ritual practices of the people at the time of Ezekiel, the point of the text is that they have completely and totally chosen to reject Yhwh and his standards.38 It does not seem to matter how many idols they have chosen to place in the temple. The issue is not the accumulation of pollution but rather the complete, corporate rejection of Yhwh. In addition to Lev 20:2–5, special attention should be given to the Holiness School texts of Lev 15:3139 and Num 19:13 and 20. These texts are referenced by the pollution-and-purge view as definitively showing that individuals, who do not follow the prescribed procedures for removing uncleanness, pollute the sanctuary with an impurity substance that collectively affects all of Israel.40 Leviticus 15:31 may apply to all the bodily impurities discussed in Lev 11–15 or only to the genital discharges in Lev 15.41 However, it is difficult to see why genital discharges are singled out, over and above all bodily impurities. While there is some debate over whether wəhizzartem is conjugated from nzr ‘separate, dedicate’ or zhr ‘warn’, 37.  It seems that these terms have an overlapping sense relationship. In different ways, they are employed in the context of dishonoring Yhwh. Silva discusses these types of sense relations (Biblical Words and Their Meanings, 119–36). 38. Block, Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 198–99. 39.  Milgrom inconsistently assigns Lev 15:31 to the Priestly Torah and to the Holiness School (Leviticus 17–22, 1343, 1734). Following Knohl, this study assumes this text is part of the Holiness School (Sanctuary of Silence, 69–70). 40. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1734; Gane, Cult and Character, 144–45; Levine, Leviticus, 98. 41.  Milgrom is not sure which choice is correct (Leviticus 1–16, 945).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

61

the intent of the verse seems clear. The Israelites, as a community (plural verbs), must follow the rituals in Lev 11–15, and thus deal with bodily impurity properly.42 If they do not, then as a community Israel will be punished with death. According to the findings above, the ground for this punishment is that Yhwh’s sanctuary is dishonored (piel infinitive construct of ṭmʾ with instrumental b). It is difficult to see why Milgrom takes this verse as evidence that bodily impurities pollute the sanctuary. If, as Milgrom contends, major bodily impurities always pollute the sanctuary,43 then why does polluting the sanctuary bring death to the community?44 Milgrom’s argument would be stronger if, according to his view, the text stated that death results from not removing uncleanness from the sanctuary. It seems better to interpret this verse as explaining the consequences if Israel corporately rejects Yhwh’s rituals for bodily impurity (noun forms of ṭmʾ), that is, the people do not separate themselves from bodily impurities properly, causing the nation to dishonor (piel of ṭmʾ) Yhwh and his sanctuary, leading to death. It is Israel’s rebellious act that dishonors Yhwh and brings punishment, not an unclean substance collecting on sanctuary sancta. It is also possible that there is a relationship between wəhizzartem and bəṭamməʾām, if the Israelites do not ‘separate’ themselves from their bodily impurities, they ‘dishonor’ Yhwh, and thus ‘separate’ themselves from him and his sanctuary. The context of Lev 15:31 is the corporate rejection of Yhwh’s demands for dealing with impurity. The context of Num 19:13 and 20 is an individual’s rejection of Yhwh’s demand to cleanse themself from corpse contamination. Both passages reflect rebellious rejection of Yhwh’s demand to deal with bodily impurity properly, thereby dishonoring Yhwh’s sanctuary. However, in the case of Lev 15:31, corporate punishment is in view, that is, death, while in the case of Num 19:13 and 20, individual punishment is in view, that is, being cut off.45 Implications of Findings Based on the above findings, when sanctuary sancta are the direct objects of the verbs ḥll or ṭmʾ, it does not seem to mean, as the pollution-and-purge view contends, that sancta have been polluted with a substance. Rather, in these contexts, 42.  Ibid., 945–46. 43.  Ibid., 986–87. 44.  Gane sees this discrepancy in Milgrom’s view and argues that it is not the impurity but the intentional disobedience of Yhwh’s commands that pollutes the sanctuary (Cult and Character, 144–45). Nevertheless, Gane’s observation does not clarify the matter. Neither Gane nor Milgrom explains why polluting the sanctuary brings death given that their views assume the sanctuary is designed to accept pollution. Perhaps Gane and Milgrom assume the impurity levels reach the maximum level tolerable to Yhwh, causing his departure. However, this is stretching what the text says beyond what seems possible. 45. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 945–46.

62

Chapter 2

table 2.  Common Thread Between Unintentional Sin, Bodily Impurity, and the Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering Because of Unclean Substance

Because of Guilt

Bodily impurity

yes

no

Unintentional sin

no

yes

There Is a Relationship Problem barred from sanctuary Yhwh’s anger

Requiring Divine Repair becomes clean forgiven

the verbs ḥll or ṭmʾ reflect the dishonoring of Yhwh and banishment from the sanctuary, resulting in a ruptured relationship bringing divine wrath and punishment. In the Priestly Torah, it has been observed that the verb ṭmʾ and its noun derivatives may be used in the sense of dishonoring as a result of sin or in the sense of an unclean substance residing on a person, animal, or common object. As hinted above, these ideas are not mutually exclusive. A person who dishonors Yhwh by sinning and a person who contracts an unclean substance experience the same result, a disrupted relationship with Yhwh. An unclean person is barred from the sanctuary and thus from Yhwh until their unclean substance is removed.46 In some cases, a person may still be considered unclean, in the sense of a disrupted relationship with Yhwh, until they bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. By becoming clean before Yhwh, the person’s relationship with Yhwh is repaired. In a similar vein, an unintentional sinner must become aware of their guilt and bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to the sanctuary to repair their relationship with Yhwh. Table 2 shows the possible common thread between unintentional sin, bodily impurity, and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.47 Thus, unintentional sinners and unclean people do not pollute the sanctuary with an unclean substance. Rather, their unclean substance or sin guilt has created a relationship break with Yhwh that must be repaired. So far, these findings have come from a study of Holiness School and non-Priestly texts. I now test the findings 46.  Trevaskis argues that the Levitical concern for impurity (Lev 11–15) is centered on the fear of being excluded from Yhwh’s presence (Holiness, Ethics, and Ritual in Leviticus, 103–7, 170). 47.  Rather than finding a distinction between sin and bodily impurity in the context of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, Dennis argues that the Priestly concept of sin included both moral offenses and ritual impurities (“‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 111; see also pp. 110–14; the following scholars agree: Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 65 and n. 21; Rodriguez, Substitution, 82–83; Toombs, “Clean and Unclean,” 647; Rendtorff, Leviticus Kapitel 1,1—10,20, 220). Dennis argues that, when the term ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is associated with sin or bodily impurity, it is a derivative of the piel of ḥṭʾ with the sense ‘to remove sin’, that is, the piel of ḥṭʾ is the privative of the qal of ḥṭʾ ‘to sin’. However, Dennis fails to observe that, when the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, in the Priestly Torah, is associated with the qal of ḥṭʾ, it is always in reference to the guilt of unintentional sin (and the desire for forgiveness) and not bodily impurity (Lev 4:2, 3, 14, 22, 23, 27, 28, 35; 5:1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 [Heb.], 22 [Heb.], 23 [Heb.]; Num 6:11).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

63

against the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering located in the parallel Priestly Torah rituals for priestly ordination found in Lev 8 and Exod 29. Milgrom contends that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in these rituals purges the sacrificial altar from pollution caused by the priests.

Leviticus 8:15 / Exodus 29:36: The Ḥaṭṭāʾt Offering for Priestly Ordination The purpose of Lev 8 and its parallel account in Exod 29 is to prepare the priests for service in the tent of meeting (Lev 8:10–12, 33; Exod 29:1, 7, 9). Moses officiates for seven days on behalf of Aaron and his sons. Each day, Moses assembles the congregation and readies Aaron and his sons (Lev 8:2–13; Exod 29:1–9) and performs the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Lev 8:14–17; Exod 29:10–14), burnt offering (Lev 8:18–21; Exod 29:15–18), and the ordination offering (Lev 8:22–32; Exod 29:19–28).48 In Lev 8:15, after Moses slaughters the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull and places its blood on the horns of the altar, the text states wayəḥaṭṭēʾ ʾet-hammizbēaḥ, and after the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood is poured out to the base of the altar, wayəqaddəšēhû ləkappēr ʿālāyw. The parallel verse found in Exod 29:36 instructs Moses to perform the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering each day (cf. Exod 29:10–14) and states, wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʿal-hammizbēaḥ bəkapperəkā ʿālāyw ûmāšaḥṭā ʾōtô ləqaddəšô. Milgrom explains these texts as follows. Since the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is for the priests, that is, they laid their hands on the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull, they must have polluted the altar from afar while living in the sanctuary precincts. Thus, the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood ‘purges’, the piel verb ḥṭʾ, their pollution from the altar, which is a required first step to consecrate the altar, the piel verb qdš. By purging and consecrating the altar, it becomes ready for future acts of ‘purgation’, the piel verb kpr. Milgrom’s arguments are investigated by first asking whether or not these texts specify that the priests polluted the sacrificial altar from afar. Second, is the sense ‘purge’ correct for the piel verb ḥṭʿ? Finally, what is the relationship between actions of the piel verbs ḥṭʾ, qdš, and kpr? Do Leviticus 8:15 and Exodus 29:36 Specify That the Priests Polluted the Altar from Afar? Milgrom contends that, since Aaron and his sons lean their hands on the head of the bull, they must have committed an offense that requires a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. His assertions are included verbatim.49 48.  Leviticus 8 and Exod 29 principally agree in the procedure to ordain the priests. Any differences are likely because Exod 29 is prescriptive (imperfect and waw-perfect consecutive verbs), while Lev 8 is descriptive (waw-imperfect consecutive verbs; cf., Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 495, 552). 49.  Ibid., 522. Rabbinic references are not cited.

64

Chapter 2

• The basic postulate of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is that it is required of the one who inadvertently violates a prohibition (4:2), and it is he who must perform the hand-leaning rite (cf. 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33); the sole exception is the presumptuous sin that bars its doer from the sanctuary, in which case the high priest on the Day of Purgation performs the hand-leaning. • Thus, as it is Aaron and his sons who perform the hand-leaning for the purification offering (v. 14) and the two subsequently sacrificed animals (v. 18, 22), the only possible inference is that they themselves are at fault. • Living day and night for an entire week in the proximity of the altar, it is not difficult to contemplate the incidence of unavoidable physical impurities (e.g., a nocturnal emission, 15:16–17), which, because of their occurrence within the sacred precincts, would necessitate a purification offering. This would explain why the purification blood was not brought inside the Tent, as required of the high priest’s bull (4:3–12). The sins were clearly minor, and their effect was limited to the pollution of the altar. Milgrom’s interpretation may be called into question for a number of reasons. The only case in Lev 4 that calls for multiple persons to lean their hands on the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal is for the unintentional sins of the congregation (4:13–21). Here, the elders, representing the congregation, lay their hands on the bull (4:15). Thus, Milgrom must assume that Aaron and each of his sons, all together, have experienced an unavoidable physical impurity each of the seven days of their ordination. The idea that the entire group experienced a physical impurity every day of the ritual seems unlikely.50 However, if this unrealistic scenario is accepted, another issue arises. According to Lev 15:16–17, a man with a nocturnal emission must bathe his body in water and remain unclean until evening.51 Thus, Aaron and his sons must wait one day before coming forward with a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (cf. Lev 15:13–14).52 However, this delay would disrupt the seven-day ordination ritual (Lev 8:33; Exod 29:37) and not allow Lev 9 to begin on the eighth day (9:1). Even though Aaron, as high priest, would normally offer his ḥaṭṭāʾt in the inner sanctum (cf. 4:3–12), Milgrom thinks that the minor physical impurities of Aaron and his sons only polluted the outer altar. Normally, in Milgrom’s view, a nocturnal emission would not pollute the altar at all. However, since these emissions happened within the sacred precincts, and in close proximity to the altar, Milgrom 50.  Even if Aaron and his sons are thought of as a collective whole, it still seems unlikely that one of them would experience a physical impurity every day for the seven-day period. 51.  Milgrom insists that offerers must be clean before coming to the sanctuary (Leviticus 1–16, 756–57, 984–1004). Otherwise, the person with a bodily impurity would be subject to death as a result of interacting with the holy. Milgrom is silent on why, in the cases of Lev 8 and Exod 29, death is not the outcome for priests he views as unclean. 52.  A one-day waiting period is a requirement for all bodily impurities in Lev 12–15.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

65

assumes the emissions had enough magnetic force to aerially pollute the outer altar.53 This contention causes Milgrom to contradict one of his key assumptions concerning how the altar is polluted. Milgrom contends that, in order for sancta to attract sin and bodily impurity pollution, it must have a holiness charge.54 This holiness charge magnetically attracts sin and bodily impurity substances from afar based on Milgrom’s understanding of the intensity of the impurity. However, as is clear from Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36, the altar has not yet been made holy. Furthermore, the outer altar does not fully achieve its holy status until the seven-day ritual is complete (Exod 29:37). Milgrom does not explain the internal inconsistency of his view, that is, how can an altar that has not yet been made holy magnetically attract physical impurities of Aaron and his sons?55 These objections to Milgrom’s argument seem insurmountable to resolve. Furthermore, some additional observations go against the premise that the altar is polluted. First, since holy and unclean should not mix, it seems unlikely, as Milgrom contends is possible, that Aaron is unclean when he is consecrated with anointing oil (cf. Priestly Torah: Exod 30:22–38; Holiness School: 40:9–16) before Moses offers the ḥaṭṭāʾt (cf. Lev 8:12; Exod 29:7). Second, some have argued that the altar is unclean from some outside source or person(s).56 However, if the sacrificial altar is polluted from an outside source, one would expect all sancta to be polluted and require purging; however, the ḥaṭṭāʾt is only applied to the sacrificial altar. Furthermore, if another person polluted the altar, then, in agreement with Milgrom, this person, not Aaron and his sons, must bring the ḥaṭṭāʾt and perform the hand-leaning rite. It seems that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 8 and Exod 29 is performing a different function from what Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view contends. It appears that the premise of the priestly ordination rituals is that Moses performs the ḥaṭṭāʾt because Aaron and his sons are not yet consecrated for priestly duty (Lev 8:10–12, 33; Exod 29:1, 7, 9). Furthermore, the altar is not fully ready to support the people’s offerings, since, in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36, the altar, not the offerers, is the primary beneficiary of the ḥaṭṭāʾt.57 By observing Lev 8 and Exod 29, Aaron and his sons, 53.  Cf. Milgrom’s discussion of the attractional relationship between impurity and holiness (ibid., 982–91). 54.  Ibid., 982–83. 55.  Gane avoids this problem by contending that the altar is polluted mainly by touch using the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Cult and Character, 163–97). However, Gane contradicts himself by explaining that Lev 8 and Exod 29 do not store the sin or bodily impurity of the priests on the altar, but rather, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering transitions the altar from the state of common to holy (pp. 130–33; following Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 40–43). 56.  Milgrom and Gane reject these arguments (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 521–22; Gane, Cult and Character, 132 n. 52). 57.  In agreement with Kiuchi, both the priests and the altar benefit from the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Purification Offering, 40–43).

66

Chapter 2

table 3.  Beneficiaries of the Ordination Rituals Offering

Offerers

ḥaṭṭāʾt ʿōlâ

Aaron and his sons Aaron and his sons

millūʾîm

Aaron and his sons

Beneficiary (Benefit) sacrificial altar (blood, oil) sacrificial altar (blood) Yhwh (pleasing aroma) sacrificial altar (blood) Yhwh (pleasing aroma) Aaron and his sons (blood, oil, bread, and meat)

Yhwh, and the altar closely participate and mutually benefit from the ritual’s three sacrifices. Table 3 details these relationships and benefits. Based on the beneficiaries of these offerings, it is possible that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is not used to purge the altar, but rather it is to build a consecrated and mutually beneficial relationship between Aaron and his sons, Yhwh, and the altar. This possibility is tested by investigating whether the piel verb ḥṭʾ has the sense ‘purge’. Is the Sense ‘Purge’ Correct for the Piel Verb Ḥṭʾ? Scholars have debated the etymology of the piel of ḥṭʾ, its connection with the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt, the qal of ḥṭʾ, and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Three proposals are summarized. The piel of ḥṭʾ ‘to de-sin’ is the privative usage of the qal ḥṭʾ ‘to sin’, and a denominative of the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt ‘sin’ as a result of its doubled middle radical.58 Following the Septuagint, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering removes sin (e.g., Lev 4:3, ἁμαρτία), and thus the piel of ḥṭʾ has the sense to ‘remove sin’. In this proposal, when the piel of ḥṭʾ is employed in the contexts of uncleanness, uncleanness is assumed to be a sin, or the result of sin. Milgrom argues that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering cannot be for sin, as it is applied to involuntary bodily impurities stemming from nonsinful acts such as childbirth (Lev 12).59 Based on his pollution-and-purge view, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering purges the sanctuary of pollution. Thus, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, in the sense ‘decontamination offering’, is a derivative of the privative piel of ḥṭʾ, which means ‘to cleanse, expurgate, decontaminate’.60 The noun ḥaṭṭāʾt is not related to the etymology of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and the piel of ḥṭʾ. 58. Feder, Blood Expiation, 100, and n. 208; IBHS 412–13. For a defense of this view, see Dennis (“‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 112–14, and n. 33). 59. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253–54. Feder counters this argument through a diachronic study that he believes shows bodily impurity is indeed considered sin (Blood Expiation, 107–8). See also Nolland, who has recently challenged Milgrom’s view of the piel of ḥṭʾ and the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (“Sin, Purity, and the ‫ חטאת‬Offering,” 606–20). 60. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253–54. Levine, Nihan, and Gilders agree with Milgrom that the piel ḥṭʾ has the sense ‘purge’ (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 101–2; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 177; Gilders, Blood Ritual, 29–32).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

67

Feder argues that the piel of ḥṭʾ is a denominative of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering or ‘sin offering’. As a result, originally the piel of ḥṭʾ had the sense of ‘to make a sin-offering’. However, diachronic changes led to the piel of ḥṭʾ taking the sense ‘purge’.61 Each proposal is grounded in a scholar’s view of the piel of ḥṭʾ and how it explains what the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering achieves. However, there should be great care taken in relating the piel of ḥṭʾ to the operation of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, since this verb is employed in texts that reference the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (e.g., Priestly Torah: Lev 8:15; Exod 29:36; Num 19:19; Holiness School: Num 19:12, 13, 20), and texts that do not (e.g., Priestly Torah: Lev 14:49, 52). It seems prudent first to study the other Priestly Torah texts that employ the piel of ḥṭʾ in hope of uncovering clues to determine the sense of this verb in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36. Thus, this study proceeds by investigating the piel of ḥṭʾ in the case of a house with ṣāraʿat (Lev 14:33–57) and the procedure for removing corpse uncleanness (Num 19:1–22). Leviticus 14:33–57 Leviticus 14 provides instructions for cleansing a person (14:1–32), or a house (14:33–57) from ṣāraʿat (a disease that affects a person’s skin; Lev 13), or the walls of a house (14:34–37).62 The instructions for a ṣāraʿat-infected house determine whether there is an infection or not, prescribe a remedy, and verify if the remedy has succeeded in removing the ṣāraʿat (Lev 14:33–48). If the remedy fails, the house is destroyed. If the remedy succeeds, the house must go through a two-stage ritual to become clean (stage one, Lev 14:49–52; stage two, 14:53). Apparently, even though the house is declared clean (piel of ṭhr, 14:48), it is still affected by the ṣāraʿat infection.63 The purpose of the first stage of the ritual is reflected in the piel infinitive construct of ḥṭʾ, ləḥaṭṭēʾ. This ritual is implemented by a priest with two live birds, cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop as follows: 1. One bird is slaughtered in an earthenware vessel over running water. 2. The cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet string, and live bird, are dipped in the blood of the slaughtered bird, and in the running water. 3. The house is sprinkled seven times with the blood and water mixture that is on the live bird. The result of this ritual is wəḥiṭṭēʾ ʾet-habbayit. In the second stage of the ritual, the priest sends the live bird away (piel of šlḥ) to the open field (14:53). The result 61. Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite Ritual, 99–108. See also Watts, who translates wayḥaṭṭēʾ ʾethammizbēaḥ in Lev 8:15 ‘he sin-offered the altar’ (Leviticus, 467–68). 62.  Many scholars think the case for the house has been edited by the Holiness School, however, the ritual elements of the text are considered to be sourced from the Priestly Torah (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 886; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 95 n. 119). 63.  Stages of cleanness are discussed in the study of Lev 11–15.

68

Chapter 2

that follows the release of the live bird is wəkipper ʿal-habbayit wəṭāhēr. Observations for this two-stage ritual follow. Leviticus 14:51–52 forms a chiasm emphasizing the seven-times sprinkling of the house, resulting in wəḥiṭṭēʾ ʾet-habbayit.64 The sprinkling of the live bird with cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet string, blood, and water on the house is the only required step to achieve the result wəḥiṭṭēʾ ʾet-habbayit. Thus, we can conclude that the second stage of the ritual, including the piel of kpr in Lev 14:53, gives a different result. Milgrom postulates the cedar wood and scarlet string add additional red substance to the mixture of blood and water to give the blood more life-giving purgative power to deal with the death or corpse-like nature of ṣāraʿat.65 Furthermore, Milgrom contends the hyssop is the sprinkling mechanism for the blood.66 However, as Yitzhaq Feder and Volkert Haas note, cedar wood and scarlet string are often used in ancient Near Eastern rituals to attract gods and absorb impurities.67 Thus, it is possible these elements may not add purgative power to the blood, as Milgrom contends, but rather function as absorbing agents. As a result, the ritual may operate as follows. Since the blood and water mixture, by means of sprinkling with hyssop, is the only substance that touches both the house and the live bird, the blood acts as a binding agent to transfer the ṣāraʿat uncleanness from the house to the absorbing hyssop, cedar wood, and string on the live bird.68 The water either adds volume to the blood or enhances the ability

64. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 880. 65.  Ibid., 835–36, 881; Milgrom, “Paradox of the Red Cow (Num xix),” 63; Milgrom, Numbers, 440; see also Gane, Cult and Character, 181–82. 66.  However, hyssop must also perform another function as it is added to the ash mixture for the cleansing of the corpse contaminated person; cf. Num 19:6. 67. Feder, Blood Expiation, 129 n. 57 (see also Haas, Materia Magica et Medica Hethitica, 640–41, 653–57). Feder notes that rites using these materials achieve different functions, and thus context is important for interpretation (Blood Expiation, 131 n. 66; see also Haas, Materia Magica, 277–81). In his discussion of the Azazel goat, Milgrom notes that materials, such as water and wools, can be used to absorb evil (Leviticus 1–16, 1072; see also Milgrom’s discussion of the Mesopotamian ritual Asakkī Marṣūti and the use of absorbing materials, p. 1078). 68.  This agrees with Gane’s view that blood functions as a conduit, although, as I argue below, with significant differences (Cult and Character, 163–97). Levine rejects the premise that blood can be a connecting or binding agent for two reasons (In the Presence of the Lord, 56–63, 78–79). First, he contends the sense of blood as ‘bind’ in Exod 24 is for a different purpose and context than the expiatory offerings. Second, the piel of kpr is closely related to the Akkadian kuppuru, which, in his view, has the sense ‘remove, purge’. However, since the function of blood is unique to Israel (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 255, 704–13), it is likely that the Priestly legislators understood the sense of the piel of kpr as ‘removal’ but adapted this sense to reflect their monotheistic understanding of Yhwh and the purpose and function of the Israelite sanctuary. Milgrom seems to accept that blood can be used as a conduit of transfer. In Lev 8:30, he argues that in one instance blood can purge when applied to Aaron and his sons, and in another instance, blood can transfer holiness as a result of touching what he considers a consecrated altar (pp. 533–34).

69

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary table 4.  Relationship Between the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 14:33–57

Stage 1, piel act ḥṭʾ Stage 2, live bird to field Piel of kpr

Blood Binds

Transfers to Live Bird

Live Bird to Field

Makes Clean

yes no yes

yes no yes

no yes yes

no yes yes

of the cedar wood, string, and hyssop to absorb the infection.69 The result wəḥiṭṭēʾ ʾet-habbayit is achieved by this sprinkling. Thus, in this case, the piel of ḥṭʾ is an act that binds the house to the live bird, and transfers the ṣāraʿat to the absorbing materials on the live bird by means of sprinkling the blood and water mixture. In this interpretation, the blood is the agent for removal of uncleanness; however, it is not the purgative itself. One might say the blood (and water) purged, or removed, the ṣāraʿat from the house. However, the mechanism is transfer to the absorbing materials and not a purgative applied to the house, as Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view contends.70 Once the ṣāraʿat is transferred by the blood and water to the cedar wood, string, and hyssop, the live bird carries the ṣāraʿat infection to the open field, outside Israel, where it can no longer contaminate persons or possessions.71 Thus, the phrase wəkipper ʿal-habbayit (14:53) reflects the removal of the ṣāraʿat from Israel to outside Israel. Once the ṣāraʿat is removed from the house (wəḥiṭṭēʾ ʾet-habbayit), and the land (wəkipper ʿal-habbayit), the house is clean (wəṭāhēr).72 Since the act wəṭāhēr follows wəkipper ʿal-habbayit, it can be concluded that the ritual in Lev 14:49–52, and its purpose ləḥaṭṭēʾ, is related to kipper in Lev 14:53.73 The house is not clean until the ṣāraʿat is transferred, via blood, to the absorbing cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet string on the live bird, and then sent outside the camp by the live bird. Thus, the relationship between the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr may be observed in table 4. 69.  Milgrom states that the water adds volume to the blood (ibid., 881). However, Milgrom elsewhere argues the general function of water in regard to ablution is to remove layers of impurity (pp. 967–68). It is possible that water is serving both purposes. 70.  Milgrom inconsistently states for the house with ṣāraʿat that blood absorbs (ibid., 882), while for the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, blood destroys (pp. 256, 1081). 71.  Ibid., 881. 72.  This is a result clause declaring the house has the status of clean before Yhwh, the people, and the camp. 73.  Milgrom’s glosses for the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr in Lev 14:52–53 seem forced. Milgrom renders wəḥiṭṭēʾ as ‘having decontaminated’ in 14:52, and then wəkipper as ‘perform purgation’ in 14:53 (ibid., 829). If the house has already been decontaminated by the actions in 14:49–52, why would the Priestly legislators repeat the fact that that the house has been purged again in 14:53 by the releasing of the live bird to the open field?

70

Chapter 2

It seems that the piel of kpr subsumes the piel of ḥṭʾ. If so, it can be concluded, with Kiuchi, that the piel of kpr is a supernym of the piel of ḥṭʾ. In other words, the piel of ḥṭʾ is subsumed in the function of the piel of kpr, but is not equivalent to the piel of kpr.74 This conclusion disagrees with Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view that argues the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr are synonymous having the sense ‘purge’.75 Furthermore, these findings disagree with both Kiuchi and Milgrom in regard to their understanding of the piel of ṭhr.76 In disagreement with Kiuchi, it is not a supernym of the piel of kpr. In disagreement with Milgrom, it is not a synonym of the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr having the sense ‘purge’. Rather, as observed, the piel of ṭhr is a result of the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr.77 In the next section, these findings are assessed against Num 19, but first, I draw out some possible implications for Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36. It has been found, thus far, that the piel of ḥṭʾ includes two functions: to ‘bind’ the ṣāraʿat infected house to the live bird, in order to ‘transfer’ the ṣāraʿat to the absorbing hyssop, cedar wood, and scarlet string by means of sprinkling with hyssop. The piel of ḥṭʾ in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 does not seem to use absorbing materials such as cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop. Furthermore, blood is not sprinkled on Aaron and his sons, as though they were an unclean house or person. One might argue that the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh absorbs and removes impurity that might be on the priests and the altar. However, the piel of ḥṭʾ in Lev 8:15 is conditioned on the blood application to the horns of the altar and not the flesh burning on the altar. Thus, it appears, as suspected, that Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 do not deal with a physical impurity substance residing on the altar. That is, since blood is a binding agent rather than a purgative agent, and there are no materials used to absorb impurity, the piel of ḥṭʾ in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 achieves something other than removal of pollution from the altar. Without the absorbing elements, the remaining function that may be in view for Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 is binding via blood. What is bound together? The two objects of Lev 14:49–52 are the house and the live bird. What are the two objects of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36? The answer is Aaron and his sons, and the sacrificial altar, through the mediating work of Moses. Thus, it may be tentatively concluded that the piel of ḥṭʾ reflects the action of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood binding Aaron and his sons to the altar, that is, they are in physical connection with each other. More study is required to understand the full implications of this connection. However, as suspected in the study of Exod 30:11–16 and Lev 1–7, this connection is somehow for a positive and protective purpose. 74. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 99. 75. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 255, 1079–82. Gilders states that the precise meanings of the verb kipper must be derived from context (Blood Ritual, 29). 76. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 255, 1079–82; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 99. 77.  While Feder is in the pollution-and-purge camp, he agrees that the piel of ṭhr is a result of the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr (Blood Expiation, 103–4).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

71

If the piel of ḥṭʾ, without absorbing materials, has the function ‘to bind’, then in what way does this function relate to the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, and the qal of ḥṭʾ? Sin across all sources reflects a relationship break between two persons, or a person and Yhwh, that if not resolved often leads to negative consequences.78 It is possible that in the Priestly Torah the process to remedy a relationship break between a person and Yhwh is codified in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Lev 4–5:26). It is postulated that when an offerer stands before Yhwh with their ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, their desire is to repair relationship by establishing a positive and protective physical connection with Yhwh that had been ruptured by unintentional sin or bodily impurity. The offender lays their hand on the head of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal, and the animal is slaughtered, producing flesh and blood. The blood is sprinkled on the altar, and all or part of the flesh is burned on the altar. The significance of flesh burning is discussed in the investigation of Num 19 below; for now, it seems that it is part of completing a connection with Yhwh. In regard to blood sprinkling, it is possible that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering establishes a connection via a blood conduit between the offender and the altar, which, as suggested, metonymically represents Yhwh.79 Thus, in this scenario, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering has the sense ‘reconciliation offering’. When the piel of ḥṭʾ is combined with absorbing materials, its function is ‘to bind’ and ‘to transfer’ impurity away from a person or object. This version of the piel of ḥṭʾ may then be said to have the sense ‘purge’, as the pollution-and-purge view contends; however, blood is a binding and not a purgative agent. When the piel of ḥṭʾ is not combined with absorbing materials, its function is only ‘to bind’ in order to repair relationship between two personal objects by creating a positive, protective connection. If the piel of ḥṭʾ is assumed to be part of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering by means of blood sprinkling, then it may be said that this action contributes to the reconciliation between the offender and Yhwh by means of ‘binding’. In this view, the act of sinning (qal of ḥṭʾ) disrupts relationship, and the piel of ḥṭʾ ‘binds’ and, thus, with flesh burning, repairs relationship. Following these assertions, it may be concluded that the piel of ḥṭʾ ‘to bind’, that is, repair relationship, is the privative of the qal of ḥṭʾ where ‘to sin’ has the sense ‘to disconnect’, break relationship. Furthermore, the piel of ḥṭʾ is a denominative of the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt, where ‘sin’ is the act that causes a relationship disconnect. Finally, the piel of ḥṭʾ is a component of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, which, as a result, should be rendered ‘reconciliation offering’ where binding to Yhwh is an integral part of reconciliation. As developed below, this interpretation 78. Koch, ‫חָ טָ א‬, 309–19. Koch emphasizes the connection between action and its consequences, rather than relationship disruption, but does explain that sin arouses Yhwh’s anger (p. 312). Knierim emphasizes that sin reflects an injury to a relationship between two persons or between a person and God (‫חטא‬, 409; see also Gane, Cult and Character, 292, and n. 30). 79.  Gilders argues that the sprinkling of blood is a relational-indexing act establishing an existential link between the offerer of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and Yhwh (Blood Ritual, 81, 82, 140).

72

Chapter 2

has wide-ranging implications for explaining how an offering for unintentional sin (Lev 4:1–5:26) can be applied to the problem of bodily impurities, many of which are involuntary (Lev 12–15). Numbers 19 is now studied to test this hypothesis. Numbers 19 Numbers 19 is a ritual to deal with corpse contamination of a person and object (19:11, 14–16). Scholars note that references to statute (19:2a, 10b) and the warning of making the sanctuary unclean (19:13 in 19:10b–13; and 19:20 in 19:20–21a) are the work of the Holiness School added to the Priestly Torah instructions. However, even if this is so, the function of the ritual, as depicted by the Priestly Torah portions of the text, is not changed by these additions. Thus, the Num 19 ritual instructions are studied in their final form.80 The ritual has two parts. The first part (19:2–10) describes the preparation of a specialized ḥaṭṭāʾt (19:9).81 This ḥaṭṭāʾt uses an ash mixture of the flesh and blood of an unblemished red heifer along with cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop. The red heifer is slaughtered outside the camp in the presence of Eleazar the priest, who then sprinkles some of its blood seven times toward the front of the tent of meeting. The red heifer’s flesh and blood along with the cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop are burned into ash and placed in a clean place outside the camp. As in the ṣāraʿat ritual (Lev 14:33–57), cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop appear to be the absorbing materials for the corpse impurity. The second part of the ritual uses the ash mixture for two cases of corpse contamination (19:11–13, 14–19).82 The ritual ends with a summary statement explaining the contagious nature of corpse impurity (19:21–22). The second case in 19:14–19 is more elaborate than the first and is considered to be entirely from the Priestly Torah. As a result, this case is studied. Numbers 19:14–16 describes how a person, tent, and uncovered objects in a tent may become contaminated by corpse contamination.83 The contaminated person and objects are declared unclean for seven days.84 Using hyssop, a clean 80. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 92–94. 81.  Milgrom agrees the ritual in Num 19 is a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Leviticus 1–16, 271). However, it stands in between what he considers an exorcism rite for the person with scale disease and the Day of Purgation and, thus, does not function like the ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 4:1–5:13. In other words, Milgrom contends that it purges the offerer and not sanctuary sancta (p. 276). 82.  The first case is thought to be sourced from the Holiness School (Num 19:10b–13). Furthermore, Num 19:20–21a, which parallels Num 19:13, is sourced from the Holiness School. 83.  Milgrom views the contamination of uncovered objects as an example of aerial overhang (Numbers, 45; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 842–43). While possible, these verses do not demand this interpretation. An uncovered object may be vulnerable to contact with a corpse by the actions of another person. This makes better sense of Num 19:15, which seems to imply that objects with coverings are not unclean. 84.  The text is not clear whether the purification procedure starts after the seven days of uncleanness, on the first day of the seven days of uncleanness, or on the third day of the seven days

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

73

person sprinkles the unclean person and objects with the ash mixture, combined with flowing water, on the third and seventh days (and perhaps also the first day if the 19:18 instruction is not subsumed by 19:19). The result of sprinkling on the seventh day is wəḥiṭṭəʾô, that is, the clean person performs the piel of ḥṭʾ on the unclean person.85 After the seventh day, sprinkling, washing clothes, and bathing result in wəṭāhēr.86 Observations for this ritual follow. As noted, the piel of ḥṭʾ may include sprinkling blood between two objects. In the case of corpse contamination, the two objects are the unclean person and the tent of meeting. Why the tent of meeting? The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for an individual in Lev 4:27–31 requires that the blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, associated with the offender by hand leaning, is sprinkled on the altar. Since the corpse contamination ritual requires the ash mixture of blood, flesh, cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop to be retained and stored for repeated use, the animal’s flesh and the blood are not manipulated on the altar as is the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt.87 Furthermore, the corpsecontaminated person cannot come to the sanctuary because they are unclean. However, since the ritual for corpse contamination is a ḥaṭṭāʾt, a gesture toward the altar (Yhwh) seems to be required. Thus, the priest sprinkles toward the tent of meeting. As suggested, the sprinkling of blood on the altar ‘binds’ the offerer to Yhwh, and so, sprinkling toward the tent of meeting seems to serve a similar purpose. Just like the house with ṣāraʿat, blood sprinkling toward the tent of meeting ‘binds’. However, the results are different because of the nature of the objects, their status, and the ritual mechanics. First, unlike the house with ṣāraʿat, the absorbing materials in the ash mixture are applied directly to the corpse-contaminated person. Thus, there is no need for the blood to serve as a conduit to transfer the corpse contamination to the absorbing materials. Second, the house is an inanimate object that does not require reconciliation with Yhwh.88 As a result, in the case of the house with ṣāraʿat, blood does not reconcile but rather, ‘binds’ the ṣāraʿat to the live bird and absorbing materials. In contrast, the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt blood ‘binds’ and thus reconciles the offerer to Yhwh, creating a protective, physical connection. The ash mixture includes not only blood, cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop, but also the burned-up ash of the red heifer’s flesh. Since each ritual ingredient of uncleanness. When the purification procedure starts does not affect the exegesis. 85.  The priests cannot officiate on behalf of the corpse-contaminated person because they must not come in contact with his impurity (cf. Lev 21:1–12). 86.  It is assumed that the ablution and the waiting period apply to the corpse-contaminated person and not to the clean person who performs the purification on behalf of the corpse-contaminated person; cf. Num 31:24. Compare Num 19:19 with 19:21, which provides the purification ritual for the person who has touched the ash and water mixture. 87. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 271. 88. Wenham, Leviticus, 211.

74

Chapter 2

appears to have a purpose, it seems reasonable to ask what is the purpose of the burned-up red heifer’s flesh? In the ḥaṭṭāʾt for an individual, the flesh of the ḥaṭṭāʾt is distributed in two ways. Part is burned on the altar, and part is given to the priest. The ash created from the burning of the red heifer flesh may signify the same function as the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh burned on the altar. I tentatively state here, with further arguments below, that the burning of flesh on the altar appears to convey two possible results.89 If sin or bodily impurity are in view, then flesh burning seems to reflect Yhwh’s removal of the effects of sin or bodily impurity that have separated the offerer from Yhwh.90 For example, in the case of unintentional sin, the sin guilt91 of the individual, which has separated them from Yhwh, must be removed in order for relationship to be restored. The effects of sin and bodily impurity are not physical substances that adhere to the altar but rather are relational issues that separate the offerer from Yhwh. If there is no sin or bodily impurity, then burning flesh seems to reflect a dedication, or relationship confirmation, between the offerer and Yhwh, for example, the burnt offering.92 For the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt, the burning of the red heifer flesh appears to represent Yhwh’s destruction of the effects of corpse contamination that have separated the offerer from Yhwh. If this view is correct, then a picture develops of the corpse contamination ritual’s inner workings. With water, the blood, flesh, cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop are sprinkled on the unclean person. The water, cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop absorb the corpse contamination and thus remove the unclean substance from the person. The ḥaṭṭāʾt blood binds the person to Yhwh to repair his relationship disrupted by the corpse contamination. Finally, the burned red heifer flesh represents Yhwh’s destruction of the effects of corpse contamination that has separated the unclean person from him.93 The result of these three actions,94 plus washing of clothes, bathing, and waiting until evening, makes the person clean from the substance of corpse contamination and from the effects of

89.  Watts states in reference to Lev 4:1–5:26 and kipper, “the formula’s placement here refers back to the priest’s actions in burning the fat and internal organs as well as in sprinkling, daubing, and pouring out the blood” (Leviticus, 346). 90.  Gilders agrees that the “burning of an offering on the altar seems to be an essential component of the ḥaṭṭāʾt complex” (Blood Ritual, 138). He goes on to say that “the verb kipper can be used to refer to the ‘removal’ of anything that disrupts the proper workings of the divine-human relationship.” 91.  Discussed in ch. one. 92. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 176–77. 93.  This is the “removal” component of the implied kipper for the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt. 94.  The relationship and pollution-and-purge views suffer with regard to explaining why the ash mixture must be applied to the corpse-contaminated person twice, once on the third day and once on the seventh. An explanation that supports both views is that corpse contamination is so virulent that it, or its effect on the offerer, is not fully removed on the third day, and thus requires another application on the seventh.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

75

corpse contamination that have separated the person from Yhwh. Once clean, the person is no longer barred from the sanctuary and Yhwh. Unlike the ritual for a house with ṣāraʿat, the corpse contamination ritual does not have a declaration of kipper following the piel of ḥṭʾ. In the case of the house, there is no relationship break. The piel of kpr, implemented by letting the live bird go to the open field, frees the house and the camp from the danger of ṣāraʿat. Since corpse contamination requires a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, relationship disruption seems to be in view. Thus, it follows that the piel of kpr should be included in Num 19 to reflect Yhwh’s removal of the effects of corpse contamination through the burned red heifer flesh. It is not clear why kipper is missing, but since the blood and flesh were not actually manipulated on the altar, the Priestly legislators may have been reluctant to include the verb kipper because its result is implied and not explicit in the ritual.95 Two interpretive questions arise when comparing the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual with ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual for an individual found in Lev 4:27–31. (1) Why are the handlers of the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt made unclean (19:7–10, 21–22), while there is no mention of this issue in Lev 4:27–31 (nor in Leviticus 4:1–5:26)? And (2) why is the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt blood applied to a person, while the blood of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 4:27–31 is applied to sancta? The red heifer does not make the priest who slaughters it unclean. Furthermore, Eleazar, who sprinkles its blood before the tent of meeting seven times, is not made unclean. However, the priest and handlers involved in the burning process, and anyone who applies the ash mixture to the corpse-contaminated person, become unclean. Following his pollution-and-purge view, Milgrom assumes the blood of the red heifer is a purgative agent that absorbs the corpse impurity and thus contaminates anything it touches.96 This interpretation follows from Milgrom’s understanding that the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt blood purges the impurity that has aerially attached to the sacrificial altar, and thus the blood becomes unclean, and anyone or anything that touches the blood becomes unclean. Milgrom argues that his assertion is verified by Lev 6:20b [Heb.], that is, Milgrom contends that ḥaṭṭāʾt blood splashed on the priest’s garments makes the garments unclean.97 He also argues that the 95.  The texts that require the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt as well as a normal ḥaṭṭāʾt (Ezek 44:26–27; Num 6:9–12) may be responding to this issue and thus include an explicit statement of kipper to be clear that reconciliation with Yhwh is required. 96. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 272. 97.  There is significant debate whether the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is holy or both holy and impure (cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 166–67, and n. 8). Milgrom contends that it can be both holy and impure, but does not become impure until after the blood and flesh are applied to the altar (Leviticus 1–16, 403–4; Milgrom, “Modus Operandi,” 111–13). Gane and Zohar agree that the ḥaṭṭāʾt can be both holy and impure but becomes impure before the blood and flesh are applied to the altar, that is, as a result of the transfer of sin or impurity from the offerer to the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal by hand-leaning (Gane, Cult and Character, 168–76; Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 609–18). As evidenced by significant

76

Chapter 2

ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh absorbs impurity once it touches the altar and thus must be burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp (Milgrom interprets Lev 16:28 as demonstrating the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh is unclean after being placed on the altar98). Gane confirms Milgrom’s assertion that the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and flesh are made unclean but are infected with the impurity of the offerer and not the altar, once the offerer lays hands on the head of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal.99 In Gane’s view, the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal and blood transmit impurity to sancta for disposal on the Day of Atonement. In disagreement with Gane’s view, Milgrom seems to find correctly that in the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt cases for bodily impurity the offerer must be clean before coming to the sanctuary.100 Thus, the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal and blood cannot transmit the offerer’s sin or bodily impurity to the altar. However, as argued, this study disagrees with Milgrom’s view that sancta are aerially polluted by sin and bodily impurity. Thus, I reject Milgrom’s claim that the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood are unclean after contact with the altar. Because of Milgrom’s universal view that blood is a detergent that removes sancta pollution, he seems not to focus on the decisive difference between the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt and the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. For the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the offerer is clean; however, for the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual the offerer is unclean. In Milgrom’s view, when Eleazar sprinkles the red heifer blood before the tent of meeting, he consecrates the blood so that it may act as a purgative when sprinkled in ash form on the corpse-contaminated person.101 This same blood infects anyone who comes in contact with the ash mixture. Thus, paradoxically, Milgrom observes, the blood purifies the corpse-contaminated individual but pollutes its handlers.102 scholarly disagreement, it is questionable to derive conclusions from an unclear text such as Lev 6:17–23 [Eng. 24–30]. The text seeks to address the issue of the handling of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal by the priest as an offering and as food. In agreement with Milgrom, it seems straightforward to understand that the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal cannot be holy until after it is offered to Yhwh. Thus, the context of the passage is that the offering has already been made. However, its application to the altar does not necessarily imply that is has been made impure. It is possible to read the ḥaṭṭāʾt becoming impure into the text as a result of the instruction to wash or destroy objects that have come in contact with the blood, but this interpretation does not seem necessary. It is also possible that the instructions in Lev 6:17–23 are specially designed for the priest in his role of handling the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and flesh. In disagreement with Milgrom, it may very well be that the concern for holiness transfer to garments and objects is the issue, and that this holiness may leave the sanctuary and create an issue as it interacts with the common and unclean. 98. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1053. 99. Gane, Cult and Character, 176. 100. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 984–1000; Milgrom, “Preposition ‫מן‬,” 161–62. In the case of the Nazirite (Priestly Torah: Num 6:9–12), and the priest (Ezek 44:26–27) who have been contaminated by corpses, they must first be cleansed and then make a normal ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 986). 101.  Ibid., 273. 102.  Milgrom follows the rabbinic understanding of Num 19 (ibid., 271–72).

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

77

While it is understandable that the people who come in contact with the corpse-contaminated person become unclean (19:21–22), with Milgrom, it is not clear why the handlers, who are involved in the burning and creation of the ash mixture, become unclean. In Lev 16:27–28, like the person who handles the live goat (16:26), the person who burns the unused flesh of the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull and goat must wash their clothes and bathe their body before coming back into the camp. While these ablutions do not definitively specify the person is unclean, it is possible.103 It is interesting that, like Num 19, where the offerer is unclean, Lev 16 deals with rebellious sins and impurities that reflect uncleanness on some people (16:16, 19). However, in the cases of unintentional sins of the priest and the community that are dealt with properly, there is no indication that the person who burns the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull becomes unclean (e.g., Lev 4:12, 21). Thus, it must be asked how a future corpse-contaminated person may infect the ash mixture as it is created. Milgrom argues that the ashes of the red heifer operate as a burnt ḥaṭṭāʾt and follows the postulate that “they defile their handlers and purify their recipients.”104 He does not explain how this mechanism works for the red heifer ashes. Perhaps Milgrom believes that when the ashes are applied to an unclean person—corresponding to sancta in the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, they absorb the uncleanness and in some sense infect all the ashes that are deposited in a clean place outside the camp. Milgrom thinks this is what happens to the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, that is, the flesh applied to the altar absorbs its impurity and infects the parts of the flesh that never touch the altar. However, as Zohar argues, it seems farfetched to contend that uncleanness absorbed by the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh somehow jumps to the flesh that never touched the altar.105 It appears even more farfetched to think that uncleanness is thought of, by the priests and offerers, as jumping, through time and space, from the unclean person who receives the ashes to a remote area outside the camp where the ashes are stored. Furthermore, the corpse-contaminated person is not sancta and does not have the same properties as sancta. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the priests and offerers would understand Milgrom’s view of how ashes defile their handlers and purify their recipients. As noted, the offerer of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt is clean, while in the corpse-contamination ritual, the offerer is unclean. As a result, it seems simpler to assume that, because the offerer is unclean, the Priestly legislators thought of the ḥaṭṭāʾt ash mixture as unclean. Thus, the handlers of the ashes are made unclean because one day the ash mixture will be applied to a corpse-contaminated person to absorb impurity. 103.  Leviticus 16:26–28 does not specify that the person is unclean until evening, which is the normal Priestly Torah declaration for someone who is unclean for a day or less. 104.  Ibid., 274. 105.  Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 612.

78

Chapter 2

If this view is correct, there does not seem to be any need to relate the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt to the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt and assume that the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood are somehow infected with impurity. It is simply the case, in the unique construction of the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt (and possibly for the Day of Atonement, Lev 16), that the offerer is unclean. Eleazar and the one who slaughters the red heifer are not involved in the burning process and the creation of the ash mixture and thus are not made unclean, while the handlers involved in the burning process and the creation of the ash mixture become unclean.106 Since the offerer is unclean, the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt appears to perform two functions while the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt performs one. In the case of the corpse-contaminated offerer, the specialized ḥaṭṭāʾt must remove the substance of corpse impurity from the person and perform all the actions of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt to reconcile the person with Yhwh. As a result, there is no choice but to apply the ash mixture, with the blood in it, to the unclean person. The cedar, scarlet string, and hyssop absorb the corpse impurity making the person clean, while apparently infecting the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood, which is not the usual case.107 Thus, the handlers who burn the cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop with the blood and flesh of the red heifer may be thought of as having become unclean by the fact that the absorbing materials will one day remove corpse contamination.108 The ḥaṭṭāʾt red heifer blood, like the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, is used to bind the offerer to Yhwh. Finally, the ḥaṭṭāʾt red heifer flesh, like the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, is burned, reflecting Yhwh’s destruction of the effects of the corpse contamination that has separated the offerer from him.109 Milgrom provides an explanation for how he thinks the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt relates to the ṣāraʿat rituals for a person and house in Lev 14.110 He argues that all three rites are sourced from Mesopotamian exorcism rituals where impurity 106.  If Milgrom views the ash mixture becoming proleptically unclean as a result of the purgative function of blood, it follows that Eleazar and the slaughterer of the red heifer, who both handle the blood, should become unclean. However, the text does not state they are unclean. 107.  The infection of the flesh and blood is by means of contact with the absorbing agents. This is why Eleazar and the slaughterer of the red heifer do not become unclean. Even though the text is silent, it is likely the ash mixture is disposed of outside the camp since it makes its handlers unclean (Num 19:21). 108.  Gane argues for this conclusion, but in a different way (Cult and Character, 183). He does not view cedar, scarlet string, and hyssop as absorbing materials, but rather they add red material to the blood. Thus, Gane assumes the offerer infects the ash mixture across time and space. However, Gane cannot explain why Eleazar, who sprinkles the blood toward the tent of meeting, and the priest, who slaughters the red heifer, are not unclean. If the red heifer is made unclean by the future corpsecontaminated people, then anyone who interacts with the animal should be made unclean, not just those who handled the ash mixture. 109.  Gane argues that the burning of the red heifer is the main way the impurity is destroyed for a corpse-contaminated person (Cult and Character, 190, and n. 104). 110. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 274–78.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

79

is thought to be demonic. Milgrom claims the ṣāraʿat rituals are early stages of an Israelite adapted exorcism ritual that were later modified and incorporated into the red heifer ritual in Num 19. The corpse contamination ritual reflects the Priestly adaptation of the exorcism rite that significantly reduced the intensity and significance of corpse impurity as compared to the ṣāraʿat infection. However, as argued, these three rituals serve similar purposes and are fully understood in the context of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. The ṣāraʿat for the house performs the same functions as the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, without the requirement of reconciliation to Yhwh. The two-bird ritual for a person with ṣāraʿat removes the unclean substance in preparation for the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt on the eighth day.111 Finally, the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual achieves the results of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual while at the same time removing the impurity from the corpse-contaminated person. Why did the Priestly legislators create the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt? Why not simply require a person contaminated by a corpse to go through a purification ritual and then use the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt? The answer must lie in the understanding of corpse contamination. Corpse contamination does not have an ending point as in the cases of Lev 12–15, in that it does not stop contaminating a person as a substance in the same way as the blood flow of the parturient or the discharges of a man or woman. Furthermore, corpse contamination does not heal by itself, as in the case of ṣāraʿat. Rather, the effects of corpse contamination linger.112 Thus, the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt is not applicable, since for the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt the offerer must come forward in a clean state. Rather a special, potent ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual that both removes impurity and reconciles the offerer to Yhwh was required. Thus, Milgrom’s view that the severity and intensity of corpse contamination has been reduced in the priestly cult is rejected.113 In fact, it seems to be potent and far more serious than other bodily impurities. The Remaining Texts That Employ the Hithpael and Piel of Ḥṭʾ I now apply the findings thus far to the remaining instances of the hithpael114 and the piel of ḥṭʾ. Ezekiel 43 (vv. 20, 22, 23), Ezek 45 (v. 18), 2 Chr 29:1–24 (v. 24), and 111.  The two-bird ritual in Lev 14:4–7 for a person with ṣāraʿat performs the same function as the two-bird ritual in Lev 14:49–53. It seems that kipper is not mentioned in Lev 14:4–7 since it is subsumed in the overall ritual’s focus, which is to make reconciliation with Yhwh (Lev 14:18–20). Milgrom agrees (Leviticus 1–16, 882). 112.  The lingering negative effects of death are attested in non-Priestly sources (Gen 4:10) and in the Holiness School (Num 35:33). 113. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 277. Inherent in Milgrom’s assertion is his understanding that corpse impurity does not aerially infect sancta in the Priestly Torah and thus is devitalized. However, corpse contamination appears to be a significant concern because, left unattended, its effects continue without end (Num 19:13, 20). 114. The hithpael and piel of ḥṭʾ are both used in cultic contexts (cf. Feder, Blood, 99–108).

80

Chapter 2

Num 8 (v. 21) employ the piel of ḥṭʾ in the initiation, or reinitiation of the cult, and thus these texts are studied with Lev 8, 9, 10, and 16. The remaining occurrences of the piel and hithpael of ḥṭʾ in non-Priestly texts follow. In Gen 31:39, Jacob recounts his honest dealings with Laban. If a wild beast had torn one of Laban’s flock animals, he did not bring it to Laban. Instead, Jacob states ʾānōkî ʾăḥaṭṭennâ. Milgrom and Loewenstamm take ʾăḥaṭṭennâ to be related to Akkadian ḫȃṭu (from ḫiāṭu) ‘weigh [out], pay’, and thus as having nothing to do with the piel of ḥṭʾ.115 However, the piel of ḥṭʾ ‘to bind’ works well here. Jacob bound, or assigned the loss to himself, rather than to Laban. Psalm 51 deals with the psalmist’s broken relationship with Yhwh (51:13 [Eng. 11]) as a result of his transgressions (e.g., 51:3 [Eng. 1]), iniquity (e.g., 51:4 [Eng. 2]), and sin (e.g., 51:5 [Eng. 3]). In 51:9 [Eng. 7], the psalmist states təḥaṭṭəʾēnî bəʾēzôb wəʾeṭhār təkabbəsēnî ûmiššeleg ʾalbîn. It seems that təḥaṭṭəʾēnî bəʾēzôb wəʾeṭhār is synonymously parallel to təkabbəsēnî ûmiššeleg ʾalbîn, with the emphasis on the results of wəʾeṭhār, “and I shall be clean,” and ûmiššeleg ʾalbîn, “and I shall be whiter than snow.”116 The psalmist equates the idea of washing with the piel of ḥṭʾ, in that both achieve what the psalmist desires, which is to receive the status of clean (wəʾeṭhār and ûmiššeleg ʾalbîn) and thus be reconciled with Yhwh. The action of təkabbəsēnî ‘you shall wash me’ requires the use of an agent that absorbs a stain and then is disposed. As found above, the piel of ḥṭʾ, when used with an absorbing agent such as hyssop, has the function of binding the offerer to the hyssop and then transferring an unclean substance to it, thereby removing it from a person. Thus, the psalmist is asking Yhwh to bind their sin to the hyssop for disposal, just as they are asking Yhwh to remove their sin via a washing agent. The result is that they will be clean before Yhwh. The idea that sin is a substance seems to be part of the poetic license of the psalmist.117 It is a metaphor for the idea that the effects of their sin have separated them from Yhwh. The psalmist wants metaphorical or internal cleansing from Yhwh, so that their relationship is restored (thus “clean heart” 51:12 [Eng. 10]).118 As argued, when the piel of ḥṭʾ is combined with absorbing material, the sense ‘purge’ is appropriate, as long as it is understood that the unclean person or object is ‘bound’ to the absorbing agent, so that the unclean substance may be ‘transferred’ to it. In Job, Yhwh states he is greater than the Leviathan (40:25–41:2 [Eng. 41:1– 10]). In 41:17 [Eng. 41:25], people fear the rising up of the Leviathan, and when 115.  Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1084) references Loewenstamm, “ʾĀnōkî ʾăḥaṭṭennâ,” 69–70. Genesis 20:6 is a clear use of the root ʾḥṭʾ, where the aleph disappears in the qal infinitive mēḥăṭô with a 3ms suffix. Thus, it does not appear that aleph assimilation, as a result of adding a pronoun suffix, is grounds to assume the root is not ḥṭʾ. 116.  Goldingay notes the parallelism in this verse (Psalms 42–89, 131). 117. André, ‫ּכָ בַ ס‬, 40–41. The external ablution of purification ceremonies with water is understood as internal spiritual washing. 118. Goldingay, Psalms 42–89, 133.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

81

the Leviathan crashes (presumably to the ground), it is stated that the people yitḥaṭṭāʾû. In this context yitḥaṭṭāʾû cannot be translated ‘they purified themselves’. The NAS translates yitḥaṭṭāʾû as ‘they are bewildered’ (the reflexive idea of ‘missing oneself ’). While this translation is possible, it does not seem that the men are confused about what to do, but rather, they realize nothing can be done to stop the Leviathan; cf. 41:18 [Eng. 41:26]. While this phrase is notoriously difficult to translate, the NLT seems to be on the right track with the translation ‘they are gripped’. Thus, the hithpael yitḥaṭṭāʾû takes on the reflexive voice of the piel of ḥṭʾ ‘they bind themselves’. The idea is the men take hold of themselves (presumably in fear) as they face the Leviathan. I will now assess occurrences of the hithpael and piel of ḥṭʾ in Priestly texts. In Lev 6:19 [Eng. 26], the priest is instructed to eat the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh in the court of the tent of meeting, which is a holy place. The priest is described as haməḥaṭṭēʾ ʾōtâ. The attributive participle becomes a relative clause as a result of the definite direct object maker.119 Thus, the translation becomes “the priest who offers it for x,” where x is the sense for the piel of ḥṭʾ. It is usually translated “the priest who offers it for sin” (NAS). Milgrom proposes “the priest who offers it as a purification offering.”120 As argued, my proposed translation is “the priest who offers it for binding,” where binding is an integral part of reconciliation, thus, “the priest who offers it for reconciliation.” Leviticus 9:15 follows this sense for the act wayḥaṭṭəʾēhû. The gloss for this waw consecutive may be rendered “then he (Aaron) offered it for binding/reconciliation.” Numbers 19:12, 13, and 20 are considered the work of the Holiness School. Each text includes the hithpael of ḥṭʾ, reflecting the corpse-contaminated person performing the sprinkling of the ash mixture. The unclean person, who applies the ash mixture to themself, receives the same result as the person who is sprinkled with ash by a clean person in Num 19:18–19. As argued above, the piel of ḥṭʾ conveys the ‘binding’ of the corpse-contaminated person to Yhwh for the purposes of repairing a ruptured relationship. Numbers 31:19, 20, and 23 (cf. Num 19:9, 13, 20) employ the hithpael of ḥṭʾ in this same sense for the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt that is needed because of killing during war. Based on these Priestly and non-Priestly examples of the hithpael and piel of ḥṭʾ, the finding ‘to bind’ is possible in these contexts. The pollution-and-purge sense, ‘purge’, comes about because this view seems to conflate two different contexts of the piel of ḥṭʾ. When combined with absorbing materials such as cedar, scarlet thread, and hyssop, the piel of ḥṭʾ may have the function ‘to bind’ for the purposes of transferring a substance to absorbing materials for removal. Thus, the piel of ḥṭʾ, when combined with absorbing materials, may be said to have the sense ‘purge’, with the understanding there are two acts involved: binding and 119.  Arnold and Choi, Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 78–79. 120. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 402.

82

Chapter 2

transfer. When not combined with absorbing materials, the piel of ḥṭʾ only has the function ‘to bind’. The pollution-and-purge view does not seem to make the distinction between the piel of ḥṭʾ without absorbing materials and the piel of ḥṭʾ with absorbing materials. This study now turns to the final question for Lev 8:15/Exod 29:36. As the relationship between the piel verbs ḥṭʾ, qdš, and kpr is investigated, the following secondary question is addressed: does the consecration of the altar require that holy oil be applied to the altar before the results of the piel of ḥṭʾ (Lev 8), after (Exod 29), or does it matter? What Is the Relationship Between Actions Specified by the Piel of Ḥṭʾ, Qdš, and Kpr? As observed above, it is unlikely that the purpose of the piel of ḥṭʾ in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 is for the removal of a sin or bodily impurity substance from the sacrificial altar. Furthermore, the piel of ḥṭʾ in these texts does not include absorbing materials; thus, it does not have the sense ‘purge’. What then does the piel of ḥṭʾ achieve, especially in relationship to the piel of qdš and kpr in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36? It is important to note the status of the sanctuary prior to the completion of the seven-day priestly ordination ritual. • Yhwh has not yet made his presence known in the sanctuary (cf. Lev 9:6, 23–24; Holiness School: Exod 29:45–46).121 • The consecration of the altar has not been completed (Exod 29:37; Lev 8:15). • The priests are not ready to perform sacrifice for the people (Lev 8:33–35; Holiness School: Exod 29:44). Thus, one should use caution when interpreting how rituals function in Lev 8 and Exod 29.122 It is possible that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering functions differently from the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering employed in a fully operational sanctuary (cf. Lev 4–5:26; 12–15). As noted, the piel of ḥṭʾ without absorbing materials has the function ‘to bind’ in reference to its objects. The two objects of the piel of ḥṭʾ in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 are Aaron and his sons, by means of laying of hands on the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull, and the altar, by means of its sprinkling with the blood of the bull (Lev 8:14–15; Exod 29:10–12). Thus, it seems that the operation of the cult requires a close association between the priests and the outer altar.123 121.  While Yhwh may be resident in the sanctuary (cf. Holiness School: Exod 40:34–35), he has not yet confirmed the operation of the cult. 122. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 40. 123.  Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 340–42.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

83

There are a number of interpretive questions related to the operation of the ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36. In regard to Lev 8:15, what is the purpose of the pouring out of the blood at the base of the altar? Why does wayəqaddəšēhû follow the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering? What is expressed by the infinitive ləkappēr ʿālāyw? In regard to Exod 29:36, why is the altar referenced by the piel of ḥṭʾ using the preposition ʿal rather than the definite direct object marker as in Lev 8:15? Finally, what action is expressed by the infinitive bəkapperəkā ʿālāyw, and is this action related to ûmāšaḥṭā ʾōtô and the infinitive ləqaddəšô? In order to answer these questions, the findings for the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr are applied to Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36. In summary, the piel of ḥṭʾ ‘binds’ two objects together. If absorbing materials are involved, a substance is also ‘transferred’ from one object to another. The piel of kpr includes the piel of ḥṭʾ, and both acts produce a positive result on behalf of one of the objects. As argued above, it is unlikely the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is required because of the priests’ sin or bodily impurity. This is a significant deviation from the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in that, in the ordination ceremony, the priests do not need forgiveness (Lev 4:1–5:26) or to be made clean (Lev 12–15). Rather, the direct beneficiary of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering appears to be the altar.124 The altar, which is the direct object of the piel of ḥṭʾ, receives a status change from the state of being not holy125 to the state of holiness. The altar is consecrated first by sprinkling anointing oil on it (8:11) and then by the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (8:15). In Exod 29:36, the altar first receives the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and then is anointed with oil, which results in consecration. There seems to be a significant difference in how the two texts view the consecration of the altar. Leviticus 8 requires anointing of the altar first and then the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, while Exod 29 requires the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering first and then anointing. Milgrom argues that the anointing of the altar in Lev 8:10–12 is an interpolation of Exod 40:9–13 and concludes that the act wayəqaddəšēhû in Lev 8:15 includes the act of anointing, even though it is not explicitly stated.126 Milgrom is influenced by his view that blood is a detergent that purges the altar and that the priests have caused the altar to become unclean as a result of minor bodily impurities. Thus, in Milgrom’s understanding, the altar must first be purged of impurity to make it clean before 124.  Kiuchi views both the priests and the altar benefiting from the piel of kpr (Purification Offering, 41; cf. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 144, 147). 125.  Since Lev 8 and Exod 29 are seven-day rituals, it is perhaps more accurate to say the altar is not holy enough. Repeated each day, the altar and the priests become more and more holy reaching the required level of holiness by the last day; cf. Exod 29:37. Hundley notes repeated actions means that the rituals are more effective (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 65). 126. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 513–16. Milgrom postulates that the sequencing in Lev 8, regarding the dressing of Aaron and his priests, necessitates the need to consecrate Aaron and his sons first before the altar even though what is meant is the opposite.

84

Chapter 2

table 5.  Interrelationship of the Altar, Priests, and Consecration in Leviticus 8:15 / Exodus 29:36 Issue

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

Piel of Kpr

Result

altar is not Aaron and sons to removes the altar’s unholy status by altar is holy holy the altar means of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, and the anointing oil

it can be consecrated. However, blood appears to be not a detergent but rather a binding agent, and furthermore, the altar has not been polluted by the priests. In contrast to Milgrom’s view, based on the findings of this study, the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr yields the results and interrelationships between the altar, priests, and consecration shown in table 5. The infinitive ləkappēr ʿālāyw in Lev 8:15 is best understood as the result of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering applied to the altar.127 While the altar has been consecrated by anointing oil (8:11), it also requires the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to be consecrated. It seems as though the syntax in Exod 29:36 also conveys the need for both acts. The infinitive bəkapperəkā ʿālāyw in Exod 29:36 links the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering with the anointing act. By taking the b in bəkapperəkā ʿālāyw as temporal128 the altar is anointed and consecrated during the piel of kpr, which includes the piel of ḥṭʾ and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Thus, the act ûmāšaḥṭā ʾōtô is part of the piel of kpr.129 The phrase ləqaddəšô is the result of the piel of kpr. The phrase in Exod 29:36 may be translated “and you shall bind the altar [with Aaron and his sons] when you are making removal for it, and130 you shall anoint it in order to consecrate it.” This Exod 29:36 interpretation explains how the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is part of the process to consecrate the altar. Thus, it seems that both anointing oil and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering are required for the consecration of the altar. Leviticus 8 and Exod 29 reflect this requirement in a different order, which is indirect proof that Milgrom’s view may be incorrect. It 127.  Following the rabbis, Milgrom argues that ləkappēr should be taken in a future context referring to the permanent function of the newly consecrated altar (Leviticus 1–16, 524–25). However, this seems to be a forced reading compared to the use of the infinitive kpr in Exod 29:36. Milgrom rejects that ləkappēr should be translated as a normal infinitive on the grounds that “an object must first be emptied of its impurities before it may be sanctified.” However, this basis for understanding ləkappēr is grounded in his assumption that the altar has been contaminated and the function of the altar is to collect impurity. As has been shown, this assumption may be questioned. 128.  In agreement with the NAS, “when you make atonement.” 129. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 96, 99. Kiuchi argues that the l in ləkappēr must be taken as instrumental, ‘by means of ’; however, the sense of kipper is ‘removal’, and thus the result of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and the consecration results in ‘removal’. It is the removal of the state of unholiness replaced by the state of holiness as a result of the altar’s anointment with holy oil, and its binding with Aaron and his sons. 130. The waw here appears to be temporally sequential and thus ûmāšaḥtā ʾōtô seems to be part of kipper.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

85

can be surmised from the texts that the order is not important. What is important is both anointing oil and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering are applied to the altar. Thus, it appears the demand for purgation before consecration is an artificial requirement introduced by Milgrom. How do anointing with oil and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering consecrate the altar? Here, it seems that the normal process of applying oil consecrates (Holiness School: Exod 40:9–15; Priestly Torah: Exod 30:22–33) and in this special case of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, the binding of the altar with the anointed priest also consecrates the altar.131 It is possible that, by binding Aaron and his sons to the altar via the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, following Exod 30:29, Aaron is considered to have the same nature as a holy object (he is anointed with the other holy objects; Lev 8:10–12; Exod 29:37), and thus, the altar, which is not holy, is made holy by Aaron.132 Unlike the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, where the offerer must deal with the negative circumstance of sin or bodily impurity, in the case of this special ḥaṭṭāʾt, a positive change is envisioned for the altar and the priests. By binding Aaron and his sons to the altar, and by anointing with oil, the altar’s status of unholy is changed to the status of holy.133 Unlike the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt where Yhwh, the priests, and the altar are ready for sacrifice, the purpose of this special ḥaṭṭāʾt is to prepare the altar and the priests for regular sacrifice. Apparently, the priests and altar must be bound by holiness in order to function properly. This is the first step in a multistep process 131.  Repeated consecration is required in Exod 29 and Lev 8 for each day of the seven-day ritual. This study agrees with Milgrom’s principle of pars pro toto for the ḥaṭṭāʾt in the sense that the horns represent the entire altar. However, it is not that the altar is purged completely, as Milgrom argues, but rather the altar is completely bound to Aaron and his sons. 132.  This is a special case of the ḥaṭṭāʾt that is driven by the status of the altar and Aaron. In this context, Aaron, while having holy oil on him, is considered a holy object and thus may transfer his holiness to the altar; cf. Exod 29:37; Lev 10:7. In Lev 8:14, the verb smk ‘lean, lay, rest, support’ is singular even though the subject of the verb is plural, Aaron and his sons. With the exception of Lev 8 and Exod 29, in all Biblical Hebrew instances, when this verb is plural the subject is plural (Lev 4:15; 24:14; Num 8:10; 12; 2 Chr 29:23; 32:8; Isa 48:2). In Lev 8, the other instances of smk are plural, with Aaron and his sons as the subject (i.e., 8:18 for the burnt offering, and 8:22 for the ordination offering). Thus, the author seems to think intentionally of Aaron and his sons as a single entity, supporting this study’s contention that it is Aaron’s holiness that changes the status of the altar along with the anointing act. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the MT and renders all instances of smk in Lev 8 in the singular form. Perhaps this was an attempt by each tradition to harmonize all instances of smk with 8:14. However, it is possible that the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch wish to represent Aaron and his sons as one entity in all the Lev 8 rituals. For Exod 29, the text versions are inconsistent. The MT renders smk as singular in 29:10, plural in 29:15, and singular in 29:19. The LXX renders smk as plural in 29:10, plural in 29:15, and singular in 29:19. The Samaritan Pentateuch renders smk as singular in all instances and thus is harmonized with Lev 8. This inconsistency with Exod 29 leads Milgrom to find no discernible pattern to explain why smk is rendered a singular in some cases and plural in others (Leviticus 1–16, 520). However, the MT of Lev 8 seems to highlight the unity of Aaron and his sons in the context of the ḥaṭṭāʾt and consecration. 133.  It is assumed that the beginning status of all the sanctuary sancta is either common or clean, since in Lev 8:10–11, anointing oil is applied to the entire sanctuary without concern for the status of sancta.

86

Chapter 2

to establish a consecrated and beneficial relationship between the priests, altar, and Yhwh to support regular sacrifice in the sanctuary.134 There is no grammatical reason the perfect plus waw consecutive of the piel of ḥṭʾ takes the altar as its object with ʿālāyw, rather than with a direct object construction (compare Exod 29:36 with Lev 14:52). It seems by using the construction with ʿālāyw, the author of Exod 29:36 emphasizes that the primary beneficiary of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is the altar, which is a deviation from the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. This observation furthers the claim that the act ûmāšaḥṭā ʾōtô and the result ləqaddəšô are integral to the ordination ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. In Lev 8:15, the pouring out of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood at the base of the altar immediately precedes the act wayəqaddəšēhû. Does this imply that the remaining blood is part of the consecration process? It seems that the pouring out of the rest of the blood is an act of disposal (compare with Lev 4:30).135 However, the point may be that the blood must stay in the sacred precincts because it uniquely represents the bond between the priests (and in regular sacrifice the offerers) and the altar.136 As shown in Lev 8:16, the special ḥaṭṭāʾt differs from the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 4:27–31 in another way. In Lev 8:16, the burning of the flesh occurs after the piel of kpr and consecration, not before.137 As suggested for the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the burning of the flesh is the means by which Yhwh removes the effects of sin and bodily impurity from the offerer and confirms that their relationship has been restored. In the case of this special ḥaṭṭāʾt, the burning of flesh does not need to reflect this result. First, Yhwh has not yet made his presence known on the altar (cf. Lev 9:6, 23–24). Second, there is no sin or bodily impurity to remove. Thus, the flesh is burned after the piel of kpr because the beneficiary is not solely the priest but rather the priests and the altar in the context of consecration.138 Flesh burning is not part of the removal process, nor does it reflect reconciliation with Yhwh. Perhaps, in this special ḥaṭṭāʾt, the burning of the flesh reflects Yhwh’s acceptance of the offering.139 Why is the flesh fully burned up rather than given to Moses, who is functioning as a priest?140 It seems that the millūʾîm reflects the allocation of food to the 134. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 334–36. 135. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 238; A. Rodriguez, Substitution, 141. 136.  Gane’s and Milgrom’s views that assume the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood is unclean (for different reasons) suffer when considering the disposal process of blood. Why would the priests dispose unclean blood in the sanctuary at the base of the altar? 137.  There is no way to detect the sequence in Exod 29:36 because it is listed separately from the instructions of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Exod 29:10–14. 138.  It is true that the ḥaṭṭāʾt fat burning is not always explicitly stated; cf. Lev 12. However, it seems that in this instance there appears to be a purposeful change in order for fat burning as compared to the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. 139.  I discuss in ch. one, Yhwh’s acceptance of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal in the burnt and ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings. 140. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 525.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

87

priests.141 Furthermore, the focus of Lev 8 and Exod 29 is not Moses but rather the establishment of a consecrated and beneficial relationship between the priests, the altar, and Yhwh for the purpose of regular sacrifice. Based on the above assessment, it seems that the purpose of the special ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 8 and Exod 29 is not the removal of sin or bodily impurity, but rather it is the first step in a three-step process to create a consecrated and beneficial relationship between the priests, Yhwh, and the altar. Thus, it cannot be assumed, as Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view does, that when the altar is the object of the piel of ḥṭʾ, it reflects a Priestly view that sanctuary sancta must be purged from pollution. Furthermore, Milgrom’s view that anointing with oil must follow the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is rejected. These two acts must happen for the altar to be consecrated, but their sequence is unimportant, thus explaining why the authors of Exod 29 and Lev 8 are not concerned with the ritual order for anointing and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.

Chapter Conclusions The pollution-and-purge view assumes that the sanctuary is both holy and unclean at the same time. However, this study has uncovered a number of issues that question this assumption. The dominant sense of the verb ṭmʾ and its cognates in the Priestly Torah reflect an unclean substance on an object or person. However, outside the Priestly Torah, when the verb ṭmʾ and its cognates are associated with the sanctuary, they do not have the sense that an unclean substance has polluted the sancta. Rather, the verb ṭmʾ and its cognates become synonyms of the verb ḥll and its cognates and have the sense of dishonoring or offending, with the result of a disrupted relationship between Yhwh and an individual or corporate Israel. If an individual dishonors the sanctuary, then the individual is punished by Yhwh, and barred from Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary. If corporate Israel dishonors Yhwh, then corporate Israel is punished by Yhwh and barred from Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary, leading to the sanctuary’s destruction (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:6–9). Thus, texts cited by the pollution-and-purge scholars that associate the verb ṭmʾ and its cognates with the sanctuary (Lev 15:31; 20:1–5; Num 19:13, 20) do not prove the sanctuary can be polluted by an unclean substance. Furthermore, when the verb ṭmʾ and its cognates are used to refer to an unclean substance in the Priestly Torah, their primary sense is a ruptured relationship with Yhwh caused by an unclean substance. In this sense, bodily impurity shares with unintentional sin the problem of causing a disruption in relationship with Yhwh. Milgrom’s view that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is employed in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36 for the purpose of purging the altar is called into question on a number of grounds. 141.  Ibid., 531–32, 534–35.

88

Chapter 2

It is doubtful Aaron and his sons, all together, experienced a bodily impurity each and every day of the seven-day ritual. If this did happen, they would not have the time to perform the required ritual to become clean before offering the next day’s ḥaṭṭāʾt. Furthermore, at the time of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36, the altar had not yet been fully consecrated. Therefore, the altar does not have what Milgrom terms a holiness charge and thus, as Milgrom argues, cannot magnetically attract impurity substances. It seems far more likely that the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, in tandem with the burnt and ordination offering, is to create a consecrated and beneficial relationship for Aaron and his sons, the altar, and Yhwh. The special ḥaṭṭāʾt for corpse contamination in Num 19 does not support, as Milgrom and Gane argued, that the sanctuary is polluted with an unclean substance (either aerially or by transfer). Rather, unlike the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt assumes the offerer is unclean when coming forward. Thus, it is possible that the offerer’s uncleanness, absorbed by the cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop, is conceived by the Priestly legislators to make the ash mixture unclean, but not the blood and flesh of the red heifer apart from the ash mixture. As a result, Eleazar and the one who slaughters the red heifer are not made unclean. The normal ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 4:1–5:26, employed in Lev 12–15, assumes that the offerer is clean, and thus does not require absorbing materials. This unique difference between the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt and the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt explains why the ash mixture is unclean. Like the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the blood that is sprinkled before the tent of meeting is not unclean but rather connects the offerer to the altar/Yhwh. Furthermore, like the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the burned-red-heifer flesh removes the separation caused by corpse-contamination from the offerer, thus repairing their relationship with Yhwh. However, unlike the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, the offerer of the corpse contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt is unclean and thus causes the ash mixture with the absorbing cedar wood, scarlet string, and hyssop to be considered unclean. Based on the findings of this study, table 6 explains how the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr operate in the context of their grammatical objects. The piel of ḥṭʾ conveys the action ‘to bind’ and in some cases ‘transfer’, if absorbing materials are involved, and is subsumed by the piel of kpr, which conveys the action ‘to remove’. In the Priestly system, these verbal acts operate on two objects. A key finding of this study thus far is that the combination of the nature of each object (human or nonhuman), the status of each object (sin, common, unclean, clean, or holy), and the materials used in each ritual act create different results based on the overall objective of the ritual. This complex relationship may be the reason scholarly explanations for a singular function of the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr have been heavily debated. However, it seems that a given ritual would have been clearly understood by the priest and offerer based on their understanding of the nature of each ritual object, each object’s status,

89

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary table 6.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in the Context of Their Grammatical Objects Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

O1

O2

BA

For

Absorbing Materials

P

RA

Piel of Kpr Removes

P

O1

Result

RA

Lev house live bird blood ṣāraʿat cedar, scarlet, ṣāraʿat house live bird clean 14:33–53 hyssop Num 19 person Yhwh blood corpse cedar, scarlet, corpse person red heifer clean impurity hyssop impurity unholy altar Aaron holy Lev 8:15/ altar Aaron blood unholy and sons and sons Exod oil holy 29:36 unholy altar

the ritual materials used, and the objective of the ritual. The offerer and the priest desire a positive status change that benefits one or both objects of the piel verbs ḥṭʾ and kpr. Table 6 shows how this approach to interpreting ritual is applied for the house with ṣāraʿat, corpse contamination, and the priestly ordination ḥaṭṭāʾt. In regard to Lev 14:33–53, the house (Object 1) with ṣāraʿat (Problem) is bound (piel of ḥṭʾ) to the live bird (Object 2) by means of blood as a binding agent (Binding Agent) with the result that the ṣāraʿat (P) is transferred, by means of the blood (BA), to the absorbing water, cedar, scarlet string, and hyssop (Removal Agent). The ṣāraʿat (P) is removed (piel of kpr) from the house (O1) by means of the live bird flying to the open field (RA) with the result that the house (O1) is clean (Result). In regard to Num 19, the unclean person (O1) with corpse contamination (P) is bound (piel of ḥṭʾ) to Yhwh, who is represented by the tent of meeting (O2), by means of blood sprinkling (BA). By direct application to the offerer, the corpse contamination (P) is transferred from the unclean person (O1) to the water and the cedar, scarlet string, and hyssop ash (RA). The separating effects of corpse contamination (P) are removed (implied piel of kpr) from the unclean person (O1) by means of the burned-red-heifer flesh as a removal agent (RA). After ablution, the unclean person (O1) is made clean and reconciled with Yhwh (Result). The text is silent, but after the ash mixture is applied to the offerer, it is likely disposed of outside the camp. As noted above, the Lev 8:15 / Exod 29:36 ḥaṭṭāʾt is a special case of the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. In this ḥaṭṭāʾt, the problem is not an unclean substance or a ruptured relationship but rather the status of the altar. The altar (O1) that is not holy (P) is bound (piel of ḥṭʾ) to Aaron and his sons (O2) by means of blood sprinkling (BA). The altar’s unholy status (P) is removed (piel of kpr) by means of binding with Aaron and his sons (RA, transferring holiness to the altar) and by means

90

Chapter 2

Table 7.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 4:1–5:26 Ritual

Lev 4:1–5:26

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

Absorbing Materials RA

O1

O2

BA

P

offerer

altar

blood

sin guilt

Piel of Kpr Removes P

O1

RA

sin guilt

offerer

flesh

Result

forgiveness

of anointing oil (RA). The altar becomes consecrated (Result) as a first step in a three-step sanctuary and priest-preparation process. The normal ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 4:1–5:26 (assuming the ʾāšām is a subset of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering) is explained by the approach to interpreting ritual outlined in table 7.142 The offerer (O1), who has sin guilt (P) as a result of unintentional sin (or intentional sin that can be dealt with by the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering), is bound (implied piel of ḥṭʾ) to the altar, which represents Yhwh (O2), by means of blood as a binding agent (BA).143 Since the only material used is blood, meaning that there are no absorbing agents, there is no indication that the ‘purge’ sense is in view for the piel of ḥṭʾ.144 The effect of the offerer’s unintentional sin, his sin guilt, that has disrupted his relationship with Yhwh (P) is removed (piel of kpr) by means of burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh on the altar (RA; and perhaps by the priests eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt; cf. Lev 6:19–23 [Heb.]). As a result of the flesh burning, the offerer’s sin guilt is destroyed by Yhwh and the offerer is forgiven (Result). The remaining blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal is poured out at the base of the altar as a means of disposal but also stays with the altar because it uniquely reflects the reconciliation achieved by blood sprinkling between the offerer and Yhwh. In this interpretation of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, sin guilt is understood not as a substance but as a negative act that has ruptured the offender’s relationship with Yhwh. This negative act has been defined as an effect of sin to capture that the issue in view is not pollution but a disrupted relationship. Milgrom rejects that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 4:1–5:26 is for the removal of sin guilt. His rejection, in part, is based on the use of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for bodily impurities. Milgrom argues that there is no basis to label a bodily impurity, such as bleeding after child birth, as sin, and therefore the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering must do 142.  Watts states in reference to Lev 4:1–5:26 and kipper, “the formula’s placement here refers back to the priest’s actions in burning the fat and internal organs as well as in sprinkling, daubing, and pouring out the blood” (Leviticus, 346). 143.  It seems clear, that in some instances, the Priestly legislators allowed grain to be used as a binding agent, e.g., Lev 5:11–13. I discuss this in ch. one. 144.  Gane and Milgrom argue that flesh may act as an absorbing agent for sin and bodily impurity. However, as has been argued, the offerer must be clean when entering the sanctuary, and the sanctuary sancta may not be polluted.

The Relationship Between Evils and the Sanctuary

91

something else.145 In Milgrom’s view, the ḥaṭṭāʾt purges the altar that has aerially attracted the impurity substance from the person with a bodily impurity. Inherent to Milgrom’s argument is the assumption that the preconditions of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to deal with unintentional sin are not directly dealt with by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood sprinkling. In other words, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering does not deal with sin: it deals with the effects of sin—Milgrom asserts that the ḥaṭṭāʾt is used to purge the offender’s sin substance that has collected on the altar. As a result, Milgrom contends that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering may also deal with the effects of bodily impurity in that some bodily impurities cause a substance to pollute the altar. My findings agree with Milgrom, but not in the same way. The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering does deal with the effects of sin and bodily impurity, but not by purging a substance from the altar. Rather, it deals with the effects of sin and bodily impurity that have disrupted the relationship between the offerer and Yhwh and may result in punishment if not handled properly. If unintentional sin is not dealt with, once understood by the offender, then the sin becomes rebellious, and the person is subject to being cut off and death. Bodily impurity also ruptures an individual’s relationship with Yhwh. The individual is barred from the sanctuary until they are cleansed from the bodily impurity. In the case of uncleanness of one day or less, the individual must perform ablution and wait until evening before becoming free to enter the sanctuary. In most cases of uncleanness lasting more than one day, the individual must perform ablution, wait an unknown amount of time for the unclean substance to affect them no longer,146 and then perform a sacrifice. An unclean period of more than one day147 seems to disrupt relationship with Yhwh that can only be repaired by sacrifice. The negative act that has disrupted the relationship is contracting an unclean substance. Even though the contraction of this unclean substance may be involuntary, it still reflects a negative act, as evidenced by the fact that the individual is barred from the sanctuary and may be isolated from the community. In some cases, the unclean person may unintentionally not perform the required purification rituals but still be allowed to make a sacrificial remedy (Lev 5:2–3). However, if the unclean person intentionally rejects the priestly ritual for handling impurity, then being cut off and death result (cf. Lev 15:31; Num 19:13, 20). This understanding of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is now evaluated for Lev 11–15.

145. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253–54. 146.  For example, in the case of a man with a discharge (Lev 15:1–15), the man’s time in his uncleanness is unknown (15:13). He must wait for the discharge to end, count seven days for cleansing, and then come forward with his offerings. 147.  As I argue in ch. three.

Chapter 3

Leviticus 11–15 Introduction Leviticus 11–15 deals with the issue of a person or object contracting bodily impurity through contact with an unclean animal (Lev 11), bleeding as a result of child birth (Lev 12), contracting ṣāraʿat disease (Lev 13–14), or from a bodily discharge of blood or semen (Lev 15). It is clear from these Priestly texts that uncleanness is thought of as a substance, at times contagious, affecting animals, people, and household objects. However, the texts are not clear whether uncleanness is contagious to the sanctuary and its sancta. This lack of clarity has led Milgrom to develop a complex theory to explain how sanctuary sancta are contaminated by bodily impurity. The following three interpretive questions for Leviticus 11–15 are investigated in light of Milgrom’s laws of sancta contamination. (1) What do the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, kipper, and the result ṭhr achieve for Yhwh, an unclean person, and the sancta? (2) Why do some physical impurities require a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and others do not? Is the answer to this question informed by the contagious nature of bodily impurity, the duration of impurity, ritual purification stages to remove impurity, and the duration of the ritual purification procedures? And (3) why is the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering used to deal with unintentional sin and bodily impurity? Some elements of these questions have already been studied. Thus, this investigation will either solidify the findings thus far or cause them to be reevaluated. Milgrom’s laws are listed below, verbatim.1 1.  The contamination of sanctum varies directly with the intensity of the impurity source, directly with the holiness intensity of the sanctum and inversely with the distance between them. Also, contamination has a threshold, a fixed value, below which it cannot be activated. 2.  The sanctuary is a special case of the general law (1), whereby a.  Contamination is a function of the intensity of the impurity source alone, i.e., impurities of a severe amount and from any distance (in the camp) will contaminate the sanctuary. b.  Contamination takes place at three ascending thresholds: the outer altar, the shrine, or the adytum.

1. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 984–85.

92

Leviticus 11–15

93

c.  Contamination displaces an equal volume of the sanctuary holiness (the Archimedean principle) until a saturation point is reached. 3.  Sancta are related to common things in regard to their contamination and purification, as follows: a.  Sancta are more vulnerable to contamination by one degree. b.  Each purification stage reduces the communicability of the impurity source to both sancta and common things by one degree. Milgrom provides a mathematical expression of these laws as a function of what he terms contagion factor (e.g., airborne, overhang, or direct), initial impurity, number of relevant purification rituals, and the holiness constant of the sanctum. He contends this function reflects how the sanctuary operates in the context of holiness and pollution; that is, the sanctuary has a maximum tolerable contamination level below which purification is possible and beyond which contamination is permanent.

Milgrom’s Laws One and Two First, as noted above, Milgrom claims that the point of the sacrificial system is to protect Yhwh’s holy presence. Thus, it seems odd that holiness attracts sin and bodily impurity (Laws 1, 2a, and 2b), and sancta collect and store sin and bodily impurity (Law 2c), the very thing that Milgrom argues endangers the sanctuary and Yhwh’s presence. Furthermore, according to all text sources, Yhwh’s presence and his holiness seem to repel and destroy, rather than attract sin and uncleanness.2 Second, it is not clear there is an intensity associated with sin and bodily impurity that dictates sanctuary contamination (Laws 1, 2a, and 2b). According to Milgrom, accidental community sins and impurities affect only the shrine. Accidental individual sins and impurities affect the outer altar. Rebellious sins and bodily impurities affect not only the adytum but also the shrine and the outer altar.3 If intensity is the key attribute of sin and impurity, then certain expiable individual sins and impurities should contaminate sancta other than the outer altar. For example, one might expect the intentional but expiable individual sins in 5:1–44 2.  I discuss this point in ch. two. 3. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 980. 4.  According to Milgrom, when the acts in 5:1–4 are committed, they are deliberate and seen by Yhwh as deliberate (ibid., 310). Following Milgrom’s understanding of contamination, these sins should pollute the adytum at the time they were committed. Milgrom cannot lean on his understanding of confession as converting deliberate sins into inadvertences, since at the time the act was committed, there would be no confession (p. 301).

94

Chapter 3

to have a higher intensity than the accidental individual sins of Lev 4. However, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for both center on the sacrificial altar. Third, it does not seem that in other ancient Near Eastern sacrificial systems, evil and demons adhere to specific places in a sacred area (Law 2b).5 Rather, the attacks occur everywhere and randomly without a prescribed assignment or intensity. For example, Milgrom references the Hittite ritual, “Ritual for the Purification of God and Man,” as evidence in the ancient Near East that evil and demons attack gods and their temples.6 In this ritual, there are a number of analogic actions employed to free the offerer’s sin of blasphemy and cursing from both the god and the offerer. Sin is like a soda plant growing in the temple that is burned down by the god to set the god and the offerer free. Sin is also like an onion wrapping itself around the temple that is then picked apart. Sin is like a twisted cord that afflicts the god, and when the cord is untied the sin vanishes. Sin is like a river that carries away the evil, which is then swallowed up by the earth. The analogic magic is followed by a substitution ritual to reinforce the carrying away of the evil. Nowhere in this ritual is evil said to adhere to a specific part of the temple. Rather, it is like a soda plant growing everywhere in the temple. Milgrom seems to support this point. In his Mesopotamian examples that show a sense ‘purify, purge’ for the Akkadian kuppuru, Milgrom explains that the act involved wiping pars pro toto—the evil had attacked everywhere, not in specific locations.7 Fourth, Milgrom’s view that pollution collects and coexists with holy sancta is derived from his understanding that the blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering purges sin and bodily impurity from the sancta (Law 2c). However, as has been argued, it is at least possible that blood is a binding, not a purgative, agent. Fifth, Milgrom’s own theory contradicts Law 2c that contamination displaces an equal amount of the sanctuary holiness until a saturation point is reached. Milgrom contends that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering purges the altar pars pro toto, and so each application of the ḥaṭṭāʾt should purge all unintentional and intentional sin and bodily impurity on the altar preventing Milgrom’s so-called saturation point to be reached. Furthermore, there are no texts in Lev 1–16 that state sanctuary holiness is reduced by sin or bodily impurity. Finally, Milgrom’s contention that rebellious sin is collected and stored in the adytum throughout the year seems incompatible with the cult’s insistence that people and objects must immediately remove uncleanness through purification. If the cult demands people and objects to be clean, how is it possible that the adytum remains in an unclean state on a continuous basis? These points bring into question Milgrom’s first and second laws. It seems that Yhwh’s holiness and presence is impervious to sin and bodily impurity, and there is no attraction between holiness and sin and impurity. Why do individuals offer 5. Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 124. 6. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 256; Goetze, “Ritual for the Purification of God and Man,” 350–51. 7. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1080–81.

95

Leviticus 11–15 table 8.  Purification Stages for the Parturient According to Milgrom Stage 1 2 3

Duration 7 (14) ≤1 begin 33 (66) end of stage 3

Actions confined like menstruant (15:19) launder, bathe no contact w/sacred (12:4) ḥaṭṭāʾt and burnt offering

Contagious Contagious to Sacred to Common aerial transition touch none

touch transition none none

their ḥaṭṭāʾt on the outer altar, while the community offers their ḥaṭṭāʾt on the incense altar in the shrine? Perhaps this is their designated location to reconcile with Yhwh.8 I now turn to Milgrom’s third law to determine if bodily impurity contamination implies, as Milgrom assumes, that sancta is contaminated aerially.

Milgrom’s Third Law of Sancta Contamination Based on his third law, Milgrom produces what he terms “The Table of Purification Procedures and Effects (Parts I, II, and III).”9 This table lists Milgrom’s reconstruction of the purification stages for each bodily impurity, and according to Milgrom, how each stage reduces the contagion of bodily impurity in relation to the sacred (holy things and sancta) and the common. In Milgrom’s view, major impurities aerially pollute sancta and require the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice to remove this pollution. Minor impurities do not aerially pollute sancta. Based on his laws of sancta contamination, Milgrom believes he is able to fill in missing purification stages and explain how these stages reduce the contagion of a bodily impurity in relation to the sacred and the common. A study of the parturient is used as a case example, and then the findings are applied to all bodily impurities. In regard to the parturient, table 8 describes Milgrom’s view of the relationship between purification stages and the contagious level of her bodily impurity to the common and the sacred. The durations of the stages are different for the birth of a male versus a female child. The durations for the birth of a female child are shown in parentheses. The actions of laundering and bathing in stage two are not stipulated in Lev 12, and so Milgrom interpolates this stage based on the actions taken for similar bodily impurities, such as the person with a discharge (Lev 15:13).10 Milgrom views the 8. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 216. 9. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 986–91. 10.  Table 8 does not include Milgrom’s comparison between the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School with regard to the effect of the parturient on the sacred and the common. In this expanded

96

Chapter 3

effect of the parturient on the sacred and common as varying by one degree until she is free from her bodily impurity. According to Milgrom, during stage one, the parturient is contagious to the sacred by air and to the common by touch—touch is one degree less contagious than aerial contagion.11 After stage one’s waiting period, stage two’s laundering and bathing reduces the effect of the parturient on the common and sacred. Thus, after stage two, the parturient is contagious to the sacred by touch but is no longer contagious to the common—there continues to be one degree of difference in contagion. By the end of stage three, prior to sacrifice, the parturient is free from her impurity. She is no longer contagious to the sacred and thus is allowed to enter the sanctuary to sacrifice. Milgrom views the prohibition in Lev 12:4, “the parturient must not touch any consecrated thing or enter the sanctuary until her days of purification are complete,” as a clear indication that there is a transition of contagion levels of the parturient between stages one and two.12 According to Milgrom, Lev 12:4 stipulates that after the parturient launders and bathes, she no longer infects the sacred by air but may infect the sacred by touch. Furthermore, in respect to the common, the parturient is no longer contagious and may resume most if not all of her normal activities in the community. Following the case of the menstruant’s impurity outlined in Lev 15:19–24, in agreement with Milgrom, the parturient is contagious to the common by touch in stage one.13 Furthermore, like the menstruant, the contagious nature of the parturient to the common ends after stage one (see Lev 15:19, where the time the menstruant is unclean and contagious by touch is restricted unless the discharge continues; see also v. 25). Thus, in agreement with Milgrom, the text seems to show that, after purification stage two, the effect the parturient has on the common is reduced by one degree, from touch to nothing. Finally, with Milgrom by stage three, the parturient must enter the sanctuary in a clean state, since her interaction with the holy sanctuary in an unclean state would mean her death.14 However, in disagreement with Milgrom, the text shows that the parturient is more contagious to the sacred by one degree of intensity in every purification stage. Leviticus 12:4 makes more sense if it is truly a warning and not, as Milgrom contends, an explicit statement specifying the change in the contagion of the table, Milgrom argues that the Holiness School is stricter in terms of the movements of the parturient in the community in stage one, but each school, according to Milgrom, interprets her effect on the sacred and the common in the same way (Leviticus 1–16, 988–91, 995). 11.  Milgrom thinks the parturient aerially pollutes the sacrificial altar in stage one but must wait to offer her ḥaṭṭāʾt until stage three, when she is no longer contagious to the sacred or common. 12. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 992. 13.  She is contagious to objects that are underneath her, people who touch those objects, and through intercourse following the stipulations for the menstruant (ibid., 952–53). 14.  Ibid., 945–46.

Leviticus 11–15

97

parturient to the sacred after her first purification stage.15 The Priestly legislators must remind the parturient that even though she is not contagious to the common she is still unclean in reference to the sacred. This warning is understandable given that the thirty-three (or sixty-six) day duration for her last purification stage is by far the longest waiting period for any bodily impurity in the Priestly Torah.16 None of the other bodily impurity rituals have a text that states the affected person may not touch a consecrated thing or enter the sanctuary. Why not? The other bodily impurities do not have a final purification stage that lasts more than seven days. As a result, it is unlikely that Lev 12:4 explains the change in the parturient’s contagious nature to the sacred, from aerial to touch. Rather, it explains how the contagion of the parturient to the common has changed. This change in respect to the common and the long duration of stage three required a warning to the parturient. While she is no longer unclean to the common, she is still unclean to the sacred. Thus, until the last purification stage, the parturient seems to be always unclean in reference to the sacred, but her contagious level to the common reduces after each purification stage. Only during the last purification stage is the parturient more contagious to (and so endangered by) the sacred than to the common by one degree. Thus, the last purification stage is the required time interval to move the person with bodily impurity from an unclean to a clean state in respect to the sacred.17 The same phenomenon regarding contagion level can be seen in the cases of bodily impurity as a result of unclean animals. The person contracts impurity from an unclean animal and then performs ablutions removing the unclean substance, but the person must still wait until evening to become clean (e.g., Lev 11:39–40). It may be concluded that after ablutions the person is no longer contagious to the common but is still unclean in reference to the sacred. When evening arrives, the person is no longer unclean and is free to approach the sanctuary. Thus, the goal of purification seems to be to remove the substance of uncleanness that has separated the person with bodily impurity from the sanctuary and Yhwh. Once the substance is completely removed and the person is no longer endangered by the sacred, the relationship disruption caused by the bodily impurity may be repaired via sacrifice. As a result, as asserted in ch. two, purification 15.  Ibid., 992. 16.  Following Milgrom’s table showing duration of major and minor impurities (ibid., 986–87). 17.  Why do people with bodily impurities require waiting periods before they are declared clean in relation to the sacred? Perhaps it is a precautionary period to ensure all of the unclean substance is removed. For example, a parturient’s bleeding may stop significantly in the timespan of seven to fourteen days; however, bleeding may continue to a lesser extent for up to six weeks (ibid., 749; Wenham, Leviticus, 188). It seems as though bodily impurity that was visible to the eye was contagious to the common. Bodily impurity that was no longer visible or significantly reduced was no longer contagious to the common but may still be considered to be endangered by the sacred.

98

Chapter 3

and sacrifice do the same thing. Purification stages reduce the separation between Yhwh and the person with bodily impurity, to the point that the person no longer has an unclean substance and thus may offer sacrifice to reconcile with Yhwh. The parturient is required to bring both a ḥaṭṭāʾt and burnt offering. Based on this study’s findings, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering produces a protective connection between Yhwh and the parturient, by binding with blood, and removing the separating effects of bodily impurity through the burning of the ḥaṭṭāʾt bird. The burnt offering also restores relationship with Yhwh via the burning of a lamb (or if a lamb cannot be afforded, then a bird). Both sacrifices remove separation between the parturient and Yhwh. The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering reflects kipper in the negative sense by removing the effects of the bodily impurity that has disrupted the relationship between the parturient and Yhwh. This is the offering that leads to the result of a clean status before Yhwh (e.g., Lev 12:7). The burnt offering reflects kipper in the positive sense by focusing on the desire of the parturient to be in relationship with Yhwh.18 Why is the parturient required to make a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, but the menstruant is not (Lev 15:19–24)? Milgrom argues that this exception makes sense given that the menstruant would need to make a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering monthly until she became pregnant. In Milgrom’s view the Priestly legislators made a concession for this very common bodily impurity.19 However Lev 12:2 and 5 clearly state that the seven- or fourteen-day purification stage of the parturient is like the menstruant. If in Milgrom’s view the menstruant does not pollute the sacred aerially, why does he think the parturient pollutes the sacred aerially? Milgrom does not seem to address this inconsistency. The parturient and the menstruant are contagious in the same way, but the parturient requires a ḥaṭṭāʾt and the menstruant does not. Based on this observation, the reason for the parturient’s ḥaṭṭāʾt is not to purge the altar from aerial pollution, but rather it is required because the parturient is separated from the sanctuary and Yhwh’s presence for a longer period of time, thirty-three to sixty-six days for the parturient versus seven days for the menstruant. Also, it seems reasonable to inquire that, if the parturient is contagious to the sacred by air for seven or fourteen days as Milgrom says, why would the priests not 18.  Milgrom generally agrees that the burnt offering is used in a positive sense, that is, as a gift (Leviticus 1–16, 758). The ḥaṭṭāʾt and burnt offering are required for bodily impurities, while in the majority of cases only the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is required for the unintentional sinner. However, the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal for bodily impurities, a bird, is less valuable than the unintentional sinner ḥaṭṭāʾt animal, a goat or lamb, and at least in the case of the parturient, it is less valuable than the burnt offering animal, a lamb. It is likely that the separating event caused by bodily impurity is less serious than the unintentional sinner in the eyes of Yhwh, as reflected by the priestly choice of sacrificial animal. Furthermore, at least for the parturient, the desire for closeness (burnt offering) is emphasized over her disrupted relationship (ḥaṭṭāʾt offering). Perhaps this is due to the longer duration that the parturient is separated from Yhwh. 19.  Ibid., 948–53.

Leviticus 11–15

99

require her removal from the camp?20 Does she not represent too much danger to the sanctuary and holy things during this seven- or fourteen-day period if she is contagious by air? If what Milgrom contends is correct, why does her ability to contaminate the sanctuary sancta aerially not extend to all holy things in the camp including the flesh of the well-being offering (cf. Lev 7:19–20)? It seems to make more sense that the Priestly concern is the possible contamination by the parturient to people, objects, and holy things by touch.21 The fear is that the parturient will either endanger her life by coming in contact with the sacred or make others unclean, endangering them in regard to the sacred. This view makes much better sense of the Holiness School warning to separate the sons of Israel from their uncleanness in Lev 15:31. If uncleanness is allowed to spread throughout the camp without any controls, the people will become unclean, come in contact with the sacred by touch, and die. Furthermore, the view that the person with bodily impurity affects the common, and not the sacred is supported by Num 5:1–4, which calls for the removal of persons with bodily impurities from the camp. Milgrom contends this text is sourced from the Holiness School (or a later Priestly Torah tradition) and is more conservative than the Priestly Torah with regard to concern for the effect of bodily impurity on the sacred.22 However, in context, Num 5:1–4 is a situation that is unique in the history of Israel. The text recognizes the effect bodily impurity will have on the camp and Yhwh in the light of a sanctuary that is not yet operational (cf. Num 7: Holiness School).23 The camp will be defiled (piel of ṭmʿ) if these persons with bodily impurity are allowed to stay. However, the camp is not defiled in the sense of aerial pollution but, as argued, in the sense of dishonoring Yhwh by allowing uncleanness to spread among the people without priestly control, since the cult had not yet been established.24 Thus, the historical situation of Num 5:1–4 calls for banishment to protect the people from the uncontrolled 20.  The priests require the removal of the person with ṣāraʿat (Lev 13:45–46). 21.  According to Milgrom, the rabbis viewed all impurity to be transmitted by touch (Leviticus 1–16, 317). Hyam Maccoby argues at length against Milgrom’s view of aerial miasma (Ritual and Morality, 165–81). He contends that the texts Milgrom uses to defend his theory of aerial miasma reflect pollution by touch on the principle of ellipsis. Milgrom rejects Maccoby’s claim, arguing that ellipsis can be read into any biblical text, and as a result, it is an unreliable line of argumentation (“Impurity is Miasma,” 729–46). 22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 995. 23.  Milgrom states the cult is not yet operative (Numbers, 52). 24.  Milgrom views Num 5:1–4 following the Holiness School, and thus impurity pollutes only by direct contact (Leviticus 17–22, 1353). According to Milgrom, the concern is that the divine presence in the wilderness war-camp demands more stringent purity (pp. 1354–55). Following the Holiness School conception of the camp as sanctuary, Milgrom argues that the concern is not only impurity spreading among the people but impurity polluting Yhwh’s presence reflected in the camp/sanctuary. Yhwh’s dwelling in the camp is conditioned on keeping the camp pure (Numbers, 33–34). However, there is no indication in the text that Yhwh’s presence in the camp is compromised. The emphasis is on the status of the camp, not on Yhwh’s presence.

100

Chapter 3

table 9.  Milgrom’s Breakdown of Bodily Impurity Duration and the Requirement for Sacrifice Major Impurities Requiring Sacrifice scale diseased person (Lev 14) parturient—male child (Lev 12) parturient—female child (Lev 12) person with genital discharges (Lev 15:3–15, 25–30) corpse-contaminated priest (Ezek 44:26–27) corpse-contaminated Nazirite (Num 6:9–12) person whose impurity is accidently prolonged (Lev 5:1–13) Minor Impurities Not Requiring Sacrifice corpse-contaminated lay person (Num 5:2–4; 19) menstruant (Lev 15:19–24) handler of red cow, scapegoat, burnt offering (Num 19:7–10; Lev 16:27, 28) emits semen (Lev 15:16–18) carcass contaminated (Lev 11:24–40; 22:5–6) secondarily contaminated (Lev 15; 22:4b–7; Num 19)

Duration x + 7 (8) 7 + 33 (41) 14 + 66 (81) x + 7 (8)  7 + 7 (8) 7 (8)  x + (1) Duration 7 7 1 1 1 1

spread of uncleanness in the camp, the dishonoring of Yhwh, and death caused by uncontrolled contact of unclean people with the sacred. It is reasonable to assume that the banished people may return once their bodily impurity has ended. Furthermore, once the tabernacle is completed, bodily impurity may be managed as prescribed in Lev 11–15. In summary, in agreement with Milgrom, purification stages reduce the contagious factor of bodily impurity in relation to the common. However, as noted, in disagreement with Milgrom, bodily impurity does not affect the sacred by air.25 Rather, bodily impurity seems always to be affected by the sacred for the duration of all purification stages leading up to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. If purification stages do not show, as Milgrom contends, that the sacred is polluted aerially by bodily impurity, why, for major bodily impurities, is purification followed by the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice? As hinted above, sacrifice seems to be required for some bodily impurities because these impurities have caused an excessive time of separation between the infected person, the sanctuary and thus Yhwh’s presence. Table 9, derived from Milgrom’s “Table of Purification Procedures and Effects,” shows the relationship between bodily impurities that do and do not require sacrifice, and the duration 25.  In the cases of ṣāraʿat and corpse contamination, overhang may be in view, but it is limited to the space inside an enclosed area such as a tent (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 993). However, this contamination may be a result of incidental touch by the movement of the corpse or by people who have been infected by corpse contamination, rather than by overhang.

Leviticus 11–15

101

of the impurity.26 Milgrom uses the variable x to reflect that an infection has an unknown duration before the first purification stage begins. Milgrom uses parentheses to reflect the day sacrifice is made. First, contra Milgrom, a corpse-contaminated lay person does require sacrifice. Milgrom agrees that the corpse-contamination ritual described in Num 19 is a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.27 As I have argued above, the special ḥaṭṭāʾt offering for the corpsecontaminated lay person achieves what the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt does in Lev 4:1–5:26. Second, Milgrom does not include the cases in Lev 13 that require a seven- to fourteen-day quarantine of people who are suspected of contracting ṣāraʿat. In agreement with Milgrom, the people in Lev 13 that do not end up contracting ṣāraʿat are never declared unclean and thus are not considered to have contracted bodily impurity.28 Their quarantine and separation from Yhwh’s sanctuary and presence was only a precaution. If, as has been argued, the corpse-contaminated lay person requires a ḥaṭṭāʾt, then with one exception there is an exact correlation between the duration of a bodily impurity and the requirement for sacrifice. Bodily impurities lasting more than one day require sacrifice. Bodily impurities lasting one day or less do not require sacrifice. The one exception is the menstruant (Lev 15:19–24). Milgrom argues, based on non–Priestly Torah sources, that the menstruant should require sacrifice but does not as a result of Priestly concession.29 He conjectures that the Priestly legislators did not think it made sense to require a woman to show up to the sanctuary once a month to sacrifice.30 However, rather than a concession, it seems from the text that the menstruant, like all bodily impurities that last a day or less, has a fixed period of time that the unclean substance may begin and end. Unlike the menstruant, all bodily impurities that last more than one day have variable or excessively long (the parturient)31 ending times, except for the case of corpse contamination. Corpse contamination seems especially virulent in regard to its ability to continue to contaminate if not dealt with properly (Num 26. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 986–87. 27.  Ibid., 271. 28.  Milgrom is inconsistent in his explanation of the person with a suspected case of ṣāraʿat. He does not include them in his minor-impurities table but agrees with the rabbis that the Lev 13 cases, which do not end up becoming a certified case of ṣāraʿat, are minor impurities (Leviticus 1–16, 782). However, it seems as though the diagnostic procedures in Lev 13 continually leave open the possibility that the person may not be unclean. 29.  Ibid., 948–53. 30.  Ibid., 953. A menstruant’s monthly need to sacrifice does not seem more inconvenient or offensive than requiring the parturient to sacrifice. Both cases are involuntary and part of the normal course of life. Furthermore, Milgrom argues that menstruation was far less frequent in the ancient world. Once a woman became capable of bearing children, she almost continually bore children and nursed until she reached menopause. Therefore, it is unlikely that a woman would have to come forward on a monthly basis. 31.  It is also unclear whether the duration of the parturient’s uncleanness is fixed to forty-one or eighty-one days. It seems clear that the parturient remains unclean until her bleeding stops (Lev 12:7).

102

Chapter 3

19:13, 20). This is not the case for the menstruant. In the normal case, the menstruant stops being contagious after seven days. In contrast, the corpse-contaminated person can continue to be contagious without end. With the exception of the menstruant, there is an exact correlation between the requirements to sacrifice and a duration of more than one day for a bodily impurity. Furthermore, bodily impurities requiring sacrifice are contagious to the common and the sacred for more than one day.32 It seems that the combination of a long-duration bodily impurity, where the person is contagious to the common for some of the time and always unclean in reference to the sacred, causes a disruption in the relationship between the person and Yhwh. Based on texts such as Num 5:1–4, 19:13 and 20, and Lev 15:31, Yhwh considers it an offense to have impurity with these characteristics in the camp. For those who rebelliously reject purification, Yhwh punishes with death. For those who follow the proper purification rituals, Yhwh, as in the case of the unintentional sinner, allows the person with bodily impurity to come forward with sacrifice to repair relationship and avoid punishment. Conclusions for Milgrom’s Laws of Sancta Contamination This study’s findings show agreement with Milgrom’s reconstruction of purification stages but disagreement with his conclusion regarding sancta contamination. For each purification stage, the contagious level of the person with bodily impurity is reduced by one degree to the common. However, until the last purification stage is complete, the person is unclean in reference to the sacred. This result points to a common purpose for purification and sacrifice. Purification removes the separation between the person and Yhwh to the point where the person may come forward with sacrifice to remove the last effects of the bodily impurity separating them from Yhwh, that is, their long segregation. The result of sacrifice is full reconciliation with Yhwh and thus becoming clean before him; that is, the offerer no longer has a bodily impurity substance that has caused them to be separated from Yhwh. In agreement with Milgrom, the severity or difficulty of removing contagion from a person with bodily impurity is directly related to the number of purification steps required. However, this severity does not mean that the bodily impurity causes the sanctuary sancta to be polluted aerially. Rather, the severity of bodily impurity is directly correlated to the duration of time a person with bodily impurity may infect other people, and the duration of time the person has been separated from the sanctuary and Yhwh’s presence. Certain bodily impurities are severe, and thus require long durations to be removed, or are especially virulent 32.  This also seems true for the cases of Lev 5:2–3, which normally last one day, but without purification the person likely continued in impurity.

103

Leviticus 11–15 table 10.  Milgrom’s and Gane’s Differing Views of How Sin and Bodily Impurity Pollute Sancta Scholar Milgrom Gane

Offerer’s State at Sacrifice clean unclean

Sancta Polluted by air blood, flesh

Sacrificial Flesh + Blood Before

After

clean unclean

unclean unclean

and have the ability to adhere to a person permanently. In these cases, the long duration and/or virulent nature of the bodily impurity causes a relationship disruption with Yhwh that must be repaired by sacrifice. The person’s relationship with Yhwh is affected based on the duration and virulent nature of the contagion and resulting separation from Yhwh. Bodily impurities that last one day or less are short enough that no such relationship break occurs. Milgrom contends that a person with bodily impurity must become clean before offering sacrifice. However, Gane argues the opposite and assumes a person with bodily impurity must be unclean before offering sacrifice. Gane’s view is now evaluated and compared with Milgrom’s view.

Milgrom’s and Gane’s Pollution-and-Purge Views Milgrom and Gane agree that sanctuary sancta are polluted by sin and bodily impurity; however, they disagree on the way pollution reaches sancta and how it is removed. Table 10 highlights the differences in the views of Milgrom and Gane.33 As discussed above, Milgrom argues the offerer must be clean before entering the sanctuary and offering the ḥaṭṭāʾt. Based on his understanding of demon behavior according to ancient Near Eastern cultures and Israel’s monotheistic adaption of this behavior in the context of human sin and bodily impurity, Milgrom concludes the sanctuary sancta are aerially polluted by sin and bodily impurity that occurs in the camp. Since the offerer is clean and pollution is on the sanctuary sancta, Milgrom contends the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood do not become unclean until they contact the polluted sancta by touch. The altar’s pollution is purged by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood. Gane agrees with Milgrom that the function of sanctuary sancta is to collect the pollution caused by sin and bodily impurity. However, Gane disagrees with Milgrom on how the pollution collection and removal process works. In Gane’s view, the person with sin or bodily impurity offers the ḥaṭṭāʾt in an unclean state.34 33.  Gane’s view for outer altar and outer sanctum ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices (Cult and Character, 231). 34.  Ibid., 163–97, 273–77.

104

Chapter 3

He argues that the purpose of bodily impurity purification stages is to reduce bodily impurity on a person but not to the point of complete removal. Gane bases his conclusion on his view that the min preposition in the Priestly result formulas for kipper is privative.35 Thus, the piel of kpr removes sin or bodily impurity from the offerer, who is the beneficiary of the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice. According to Gane, once the sin or bodily impurity is reduced enough to not endanger the offerer and the sanctuary, the offerer may come forward to sacrifice.36 The offerer’s act of laying his hand on the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal’s head causes the offerer’s uncleanness to be absorbed by the animal’s flesh and blood.37 By sprinkling the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and placing the flesh on the altar, the offerer’s uncleanness is transferred to the altar, where it is stored until removal on the Day of Atonement.38 Since Milgrom and Gane view the function of the min preposition as decisive to their respective pollution-andpurge views, this interpretive issue is dealt with first.39 Gane argues that the min preposition is privative, and thus, sin and bodily impurity pollution is removed from the direct or indirect object (the beneficiary) of the piel of kpr at the time of sacrifice.40 Milgrom argues that the min preposition is causative and thus is the reason the piel of kpr is performed on its direct or indirect object.41 In Milgrom’s view, the piel of kpr is required to remove sin and bodily pollution that has aerially collected on sancta. It should be noted from the start that both scholars’ interpretations of the min preposition hinge on a common assumption. Sin and bodily impurity are a substance that, in some form, adheres to sanctuary sancta. However, as I have argued so far, this assumption may be called into question, along with each scholar’s view of the function of the min preposition. It is instructive to evaluate Milgrom’s and Gane’s proposed gloss for the piel of kpr and its subject, object, and min prepositional phrase. I use Lev 4:26, wəkipper ʿālāyw hakkōhēn mēḥaṭṭāʾtô, as an example. Additions in brackets clarify each scholar’s intended translation. Milgrom’s gloss for Lev 4:26 is “Thus shall the priest effect purgation [of the burnt offering altar by means of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood acting as a detergent] on his [the offerer’s] behalf for [min] his wrong [that caused sin pollution to attach aerially to the burnt offering altar].”42 Gane’s gloss for Lev 4:26 is “Thus shall the priest effect purgation [by transferring the offerer’s sin pollution to the burnt offering altar by means of the unclean ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and flesh] for his 35.  Ibid., 106–143. 36.  Ibid., 106–43, 176–81. 37.  Since Gane does not think there is meaning in ritual action, he states that this is the effect of the offerer’s hand-leaning act; however, it is not necessary. Only the ownership correspondence between the offerer and the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal is required (ibid., 176). 38.  I discuss Gane’s view of the Day of Atonement in ch. five. 39.  Milgrom, “Preposition ‫מן‬,” 161; Gane, “Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 210. 40. Gane, Cult and Character, 106–43. 41. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 251, 303, 307, 857–58, 944; Milgrom, “Preposition ‫מן‬,” 162. 42. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 227.

Leviticus 11–15

105

[the offerer’s] benefit from [min] his wrong [which was transferred by the offerer laying his hand on the head of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal].”43 Gane deems Milgrom to rely heavily on sacrificial actions to determine ritual meaning. Gane argues that a far more reliable method is to focus on the ritual authority of the text as reflected in the grammar.44 Thus, Gane rejects Milgrom’s observation that, since the ritual action of applying ḥaṭṭāʾt blood to a person is never prescribed in the Priestly Torah, the ḥaṭṭāʾt must not purge the offerer.45 Rather, Gane argues that the clear intention of the Priestly grammar is to interpret the min preposition as privative, and thus, sin or bodily impurity is removed from the beneficiary of the piel of kpr (direct or indirect object), which can be the offerer or, on the Day of Atonement, sancta. However, Gane seems to follow the same error of which he accuses Milgrom by making several interpretive decisions that are beyond the ritual authority of the text. Based on his view that the min preposition is privative, and thus, sin or bodily impurity is removed from the offerer, Gane infers that the piel of kpr must always have the sense ‘purge’.46 The ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood must be unclean, and this uncleanness is transferred and stored on the altar.47 Thus, the laying on of hands must always have the function ‘transfer’. Finally, based on these inferences, Gane contends that the uncleanness of the offerer must have what he terms “limited immunity,” that is, a less-powerful uncleanness that does not disrupt the holy nature and function of the sanctuary.48 These findings may logically follow from his understanding of min as privative, but they are not the only possible interpretive results. Furthermore, Gane unfairly criticizes Milgrom when he rejects Milgrom’s assumption that an offerer must be clean before coming to the sanctuary. Against Gane, as has been argued, Milgrom’s assumption appears to have deep and extensive support in the ritual authority of the text. It is clear that, when an unclean person comes in contact with the sacred, this person is cut off and/or put to death. Gane’s assumption of “limited immunity” may make sense based on what he sees as the logical result of his privative min findings; however, it is not supported by the ritual authority of the text.49 43.  Gane, “Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 215. Gane contends that the priest transfers the offerer’s sin to the altar. However, according to Gane’s view, it is actually the offerer who performs the purging by transferring his sin impurity to the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal as a result of laying on of hands. Gane argues that the priest contributes to purgation on behalf of the offerer by eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, but this act happens after the sacrificial ritual. 44.  Gane, “Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 210–11; Gane, Cult and Character, 13. 45.  Ibid., 107–8. 46.  Gane argues that the sense ‘purge’ is in the context of removing evil from the offerer (ibid., 142–43). 47.  On the strength of his min preposition interpretation, Gane contends that, because evil is removed from the offerer, evil must be transported by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood to the altar (ibid., 165, 176). 48.  Ibid., 179. 49.  Gane’s view of “limited immunity” suffers when considering, for example, Lev 12:4. This text states that the parturient must not enter the sanctuary or touch a sacred thing until the days of her purification are completed. As argued above, the intent of the text is to warn and protect the

106

Chapter 3

However, Gane is correct when he criticizes Milgrom for stating that his privative min finding is incomprehensible.50 Milgrom’s assumption that the altar, not the offerer, is contaminated causes him to reject the possibility that the min preposition could be privative.51 However, Gane’s objection to Milgrom’s insistence that the offerer must be clean has caused him to miss other possible interpretations of the min preposition. The fact that Milgrom and Gane suffer from the same problems of interpretation indicates that there is likely a more accurate interpretation of the function of sacrifice and the piel of kpr. As I noted above, the pollution-and-purge view suffers from the assumption that the altar can be both holy and unclean at the same time. Milgrom’s view cannot explain how one offerer’s ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice can purge the altar pars pro toto without also removing any waiting offerer’s pollution from the altar. Gane’s view cannot explain how sin and bodily impurity transferred to the altar can make the handler of the ḥaṭṭāʾt unclean but not negatively affect the sanctuary, the priests, and the offerer. Gane’s view suffers from the same problem as Milgrom’s view—it does not seem that the sanctuary can function in both a holy and an unclean state. As I have shown, texts such as Lev 20:2–5 do not necessarily prove that the sanctuary is aerially polluted. Rather, these texts show that individuals may dishonor Yhwh by their rebellious acts and cause exclusion from the sanctuary, with the resulting punishment of being cut off and death. Also, in regard to the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, the piel of ḥṭʾ when combined with the piel of kpr does not have the sense ‘purge’, at least as Gane and Milgrom argue. Rather, the piel of ḥṭʾ without absorbing materials has the function ‘to bind’. When combined with the piel of kpr, the function is to reestablish a relationship with Yhwh on the altar and to ‘remove’ the effects of sin or bodily impurity that has caused relationship rupture. A review of noncultic instances demonstrates that the piel of kpr removes the effects of an action that has caused a rupture in relationship, not the act itself (e.g., Gen 32:21; Deut 21:8; 2 Sam 21:3; Isa 47:11; Jer 18:23).52 While this is a subtle distinction, it parturient. However, after her days of purification, it may be assumed that the parturient can touch a sacred thing. Otherwise why use the preposition ʿad and the infinitive mlʾ to reflect a closed period of time for this warning? Thus, what exactly does Gane envision is transferred from the parturient to her ḥaṭṭāʾt animal? Furthermore, if, as Gane contends, uncleanness when transferred to the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and blood can make its handlers unclean, why would this same type of uncleanness not create devastating problems for the parturient as she interacted with the holy sanctuary (ibid., 186–91)? Gane is silent on what happens to people who contract minor impurities (e.g., Lev 11). Is the person’s uncleanness fully removed by purification and waiting until evening? Is there a less virulent form still on the person just as with major impurities? If so, when is uncleanness fully removed from the person? 50.  Gane, “Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 213–214; Gane, Cult and Character, 112–14. 51.  Milgrom, “Preposition ‫מן‬,” 162. 52.  Lang states in regard to divine atonement that, “if forgiveness is not refused (Isa 22:14; 1 S. 3:14), it means deliverance from death (Isa 6:7), restoration of God’s presence (Ps 65:3ff.[2ff.]), preservation of life (Ps 78:38; 79:8f.), healing (2 Ch. 30:18ff.), and God’s vengeance against the lifethreatening enemy (Dt. 32:43; Ps 79:6–12; cf. Jer 18:19–23)” (‫ ִּכּפֶ ר‬, 301).

Leviticus 11–15

107

plays a very large role in the understanding of the purpose of sacrifice, the piel of kpr, and the function of the sanctuary. Thus, the assumption that the altar is polluted has influenced both Milgrom’s and Gane’s views of the meaning of the preposition min. It seems that Gane’s argument for a privative interpretation is more accurate, but not in the sense that Gane argues. Rather, the piel of kpr combined with the piel of ḥṭʾ removes the effects of sin or bodily impurity, the separation between the offerer and Yhwh. The offerer is connected with Yhwh on the altar by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, and the effects of sin or bodily impurity are removed by burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh. The privative min reflects the removal of the effects of sin or bodily impurity that has disrupted the offerer’s relationship with Yhwh.53 In this interpretation, by the time an offerer comes forward with the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice, their uncleanness has been removed through purification rituals. Thus, the sacrificial altar is not made unclean by the flesh and blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt. Furthermore, the offerer has not made the sacrificial altar unclean by aerially polluting it with bodily impurity. Thus, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering does not purge the sacrificial altar. Rather, the offerer stands before Yhwh in a state of separation that needs repair. Based on these observations, I propose the following translation for Lev 4:26: “Thus shall the priest make removal [by the implied piel of ḥṭʾ that binds the offerer to the altar/Yhwh via the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and by Yhwh’s acceptance of the burned ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh] on his [the offerer’s] behalf from [min] [the effect of] his wrong [that has separated him from Yhwh].”54 This translation supports Gane’s privative view for the Priestly min and Milgrom’s arguments that the offerer must be clean before making a ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice. Furthermore, this understanding of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering helps explain why the result of the unintentional sin ḥaṭṭāʾt is forgiveness, while the result of the bodily impurity ḥaṭṭāʾt is the status of clean. In both cases, Yhwh has initiated relationship repair with the offerer through the ḥaṭṭāʾt by removing the effects of sin and bodily impurity. For the unintentional sinner, the result of the piel of kpr is forgiveness. For the bodily impure, the result of the piel of kpr is a clean status before Yhwh.

Chapter Conclusions As a result of the findings for Lev 11–15, the ḥaṭṭāʾt that is applied for bodily impurity functions similarly to the ḥaṭṭāʾt that is applied for unintentional sin. Bodily 53.  For example, mēḥaṭṭāʾtô (Lev 4:26) reflects the removal of the effects of the offerer’s unintentional sin that has caused divine anger and the requirement for forgiveness. As I argued in ch. two, the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt can reflect not only the act of sin but also the results or effects of sin, that is, a relationship break. 54.  It seems that the gloss ‘atonement’—‘at-one-ment’—fits well with this translation, that the offerer is reconciled with Yhwh with the result that he is no longer separated but at one with Yhwh.

108

Chapter 3

impurity and unintentional sin create separation from Yhwh. In the case of unintentional sin, it is the offerer’s sin guilt. Once the offerer becomes aware of their sin guilt and separation from Yhwh, they are compelled to come forward to offer the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. If the unintentional sinner comes forward, their sin guilt is removed and their relationship is reestablished as signified by Yhwh’s forgiveness. If the unintentional sinner does not come forward, even though compelled by guilt, their sin guilt is not removed, they are considered a rebellious sinner, and they are subject to Yhwh’s punishment. How does bodily impurity relate to the situation of the unintentional sinner?55 Put another way, does the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering function in the same way for the person with bodily impurity as for the unintentional sinner? As has been argued, bodily impurity creates separation from Yhwh. This impurity separation is caused by two factors. The duration of the bodily impurity and the intensity of the person’s contagion cause the affected person to be separated from Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary. The Priestly texts are clear that Yhwh is concerned about impurity spreading among his people in his camp, and as a result, an unclean person who rejects purification is punished (e.g., Lev 15:31; Num 19:13, 20). Thus, a common ground has been found between the person with bodily impurity and the unintentional sinner. The result of forgiveness is in a way equivalent to a clean status and in a way is not. While the person with bodily impurity has violated a standard of Yhwh— possible spreading of bodily impurity through the camp—in most cases, the person has done everything possible to prevent this reality. Furthermore, it is likely that the person contracted bodily impurity involuntarily or in the context of a normal, Yhwh-ordained activity such as childbirth (Gen 1:28). Thus, there is no divine anger, and as a result, forgiveness is not required since the violation of Yhwh’s standard is involuntary. However, the person still must be made clean before Yhwh, restoring fellowship, because the act of acquiring bodily impurity possibly harms Yhwh’s people and camp. As a result, to be made clean before Yhwh produces the same outcome as forgiveness.56 Relationship is restored, and 55.  D. P. Wright argues that moral faults generate a kind of ritual impurity that along with bodily impurities reflect something that is destructive to holiness and thus must be dealt with in a similar fashion (“Two Types of Impurity,” 191; see also Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 64–66). Gane argues that moral faults and physical ritual impurities are related in the context of death (Cult and Character, 200–202). In disagreement with Wright, sin and bodily impurity do not appear to be substances that endanger sancta holiness. In response to Gane, sin and bodily impurity are clearly related to death in that, when they are committed or dealt with in a rebellious manner, the result is death. However, this death seems to come about as a result of being separated from Yhwh and not from the sin or bodily impurity itself. 56.  Milgrom agrees that the verb ṭhr can be used in the sense of reconciliation with Yhwh (Leviticus 1–16, 1056–57). See the following texts for examples: Ps 51:4, 9, 12; Ezek 36:25, 33; 37:23; Jer 33:8. Just as observed for the noncultic uses of the verb kpr, the verb ṭhr appears to include the sense of Yhwh’s action to remove the effects of separation between him and his people.

109

Leviticus 11–15 table 11.  The Function of the Ḥaṭṭāʾt for the Person with Bodily Impurity Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P Lev 12–15 offerer altar blood impurity more than separation one day or virulent

Absorbing Materials Piel of Kpr Removes RA

P O1 impurity offerer separation

RA flesh

Result clean

the person has free access to the sanctuary and Yhwh’s presence. Thus, the function of the ḥaṭṭāʾt for the person with bodily impurity may be represented as in table 11. The offerer (O1), who has impurity separation (P) as a result of contracting bodily impurity, is bound (implied piel of ḥṭʾ) to the altar, which represents Yhwh (O2), by means of blood as a binding agent (BA). Since the only material used is blood, and blood is a binding agent, there is no indication that the sense ‘purge’ is in view for the piel of ḥṭʾ (there are no absorbing materials used with the blood). The effects of the offerer’s bodily impurity, that is, their impurity separation that has disrupted relationship with Yhwh (P), is removed (piel of kpr) by means of burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh on the altar (RA). The offerer’s impurity separation has been destroyed by Yhwh with the result that the offerer is clean (Result). The remaining blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal is poured out at the base of the altar as a means of disposal but also stays with the altar because it uniquely reflects the reconciliation achieved by blood between the offerer and Yhwh. This study’s findings are now assessed against the Priestly Torah texts found in Lev 8–10 (ch. four), cult initiation, and Lev 16 (ch. five), the Day of Atonement or, as I term it, cult reinitiation. Thus far, the interactions between Yhwh and the sanctuary sancta have been addressed at a cursory level. The cult-initiation and Day of Atonement texts will reveal more about these interactions. Since the viability of the pollution-and-purge view (and the combined views that support this view) has been questioned, it seems appropriate to take a moment to assess this study’s findings against the relationship view.

Evaluation of the Nineteenth-Century Relationship View of Johann Henrich Kurtz Pollution-and-purge scholars contend that nineteenth-century scholars incorrectly thought that the Hebrew kipper shared the same sense as the Arabic kafara, that the piel of kpr has the sense to ‘cover up’ sin from Yhwh, thereby restoring

110

Chapter 3

relationship. Rather, the pollution-and-purge scholars argue that the Hebrew kipper is derived from the Akkadian kuppuru ‘wipe or wipe off ’.57 Thus, in part, these scholars conclude that the piel of kpr does not function to repair a broken relationship between the offerer and Yhwh but rather wipes off the offerer’s pollution either from sancta, from the offerer, or from both. However, given this study’s findings that the sanctuary does not seem to be a place for collecting and storing pollution, it may be instructive to consider the relationship view of the nineteenth-century scholars. The prominent nineteenth-century German scholar J. H. Kurtz rooted his view of sacrifice not in terms of the Hebrew kipper but rather in Israel’s covenant relationship guided by Lev 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (NAS).58 For Kurtz, Yhwh’s59 law demanded holiness, and holiness was the condition of Israel’s theocratic fellowship with Yhwh as distinct from other people. Sin was a transgression of the law, severed fellowship with Yhwh, and could only be restored by sacrificial expiation.60 Kurtz generally disagreed with his contemporaries on the ritual function of the elements of sacrifice while agreeing that the purpose of sacrifice was to restore relationship.61 Even though Kurtz agreed with the prevailing view of his time that the piel of kpr meant ‘to cover’, he perceptively determined that the function of the piel of kpr is ‘to exterminate sin’ while at the same time maintaining that sacrifice restores relationship.62 Kurtz’s view shows a balance between these two points and is supported by this study’s findings. According to Kurtz, 63 expiation, that is, the piel of kpr, is the “chief and most important end of the bleeding sacrifices”; without expiation, fellowship with Yhwh was not possible. “Consequently, the expiation of his sin was the Alpha and Omega for the wants and longings of a sinner desirous of fellowship with God.” Yhwh created humanity in order to have fellowship with them. This was 57. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56–63; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1079–81. Milgrom argues that the Arabic (‘cover’) and the Akkadian (‘wipe’) may go back to the common notion ‘rub’. However, according to Milgrom, in ritual texts the meaning of ‘rub off, wipe’ predominates for the Hebrew kipper (see also Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 44–45 n. 2, and pp. 87–88). 58. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 180. Kurtz (1809–1890) was a prominent German scholar and church historian serving as professor of church history and Old Testament at the University of Dorpat. Kurtz represents an example of the relationship view. 59.  Kurtz referred to Israel’s deity as God and not Yhwh, but for sake of consistency with this study, the abbreviation Yhwh is used. 60.  Ibid., 66–67. 61.  For example, in agreement with Kurtz, Keil states, “Sin-offerings were instituted for the purpose of putting an end to the separation between man and God that had been created by sin” (Manual of Biblical Archaeology, 299). 62. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 67. By “exterminate,” Kurtz meant that the offerer’s sin was rendered harmless and impotent and could no longer bring about God’s anger and wrath (p. 70). 63.  Ibid., 66–67.

Leviticus 11–15

111

the status quo. However, sin interrupted this relationship, and only expiation could reestablish fellowship between humans and Yhwh. Kurtz viewed64 the piel of kpr as a denominative verb from the noun kōper, ‘pitch or resin’, and following cognate dialects (Arabic kafara) the piel of kpr had the sense ‘to cover or cover up’. However, Kurtz argues that ‘cover up’ moved from the literal to the figurative sense based on his contextual observations of all biblical uses of kpr. In disagreement with many scholars of his time, Kurtz argued that what was covered was not God (his sight) or something godly, such as wrath, but rather the thing that was ungodly—sin, guilt, and uncleanness. In Kurtz’s view, covered sin became an exterminated or expiated sin. Kurtz argued that, when the object of the piel of kpr is a person, it is not the person that is covered up.65 Rather, the ʿal or min phrases that often followed the piel of kpr indicated that it is sin or uncleanness adhering to the person that is exterminated. However, Kurtz did not view this sin and uncleanness as a transferrable substance but rather as relational, i.e., that which disrupted fellowship between the offerer and Yhwh.66 Uniquely among his peers, Kurtz interpreted Lev 17:11 as conveying a relationship between a sacrificial animal’s living soul with its offerer’s living soul.67 The living soul of the animal, made up of soul and blood, represented the living soul and blood of the offerer. The animal and the person were subjectively one.68 Kurtz argued69 that hand leaning did not transfer sin and guilt from the offerer to the sacrificial animal. Rather, it reflected the transfer of the obligation of sin. Thus, for Kurtz, flesh burning was a sanctifying act to remove sin or uncleanness that had ruptured relationship between the offerer and Yhwh. This was the offerer’s holy act of self-surrender, a willingness to sacrifice their whole being to regain fellowship with Yhwh. The blood of the animal was the medium of expiation and objectively achieved the state of justification with Yhwh. Kurtz saw the entire sanctuary as the dwelling place of Yhwh. He viewed the act of blood sprinkling on the altar as the means to regain fellowship with Yhwh. Because expiation was to repair relationship, the location of an offerer’s sacrifice was conditioned on their office in Yhwh’s community. Kurtz interpreted the burnt and well-being offerings as ways to make general atonement for the feeling of separation from Yhwh and the desire to move toward 64. Ibid., 67–70. Cf. Kurtz’s exegesis of Isa 28:18. 65.  Ibid., 68. 66.  Kurtz states, “we also understand the covering of sin in sacrificial worship as a covering by which the accusatory and damnatory power of sin—is broken, by which, in fact, it is rendered both harmless and impotent” (ibid., 70). 67.  Ibid., 80. 68.  Rodriguez believes that Kurtz supported sacrificial substitution, that is, the sacrificial animal received the sin and penalty of the offerer and died in his place (Substitution, 6–8). 69.  Ibid., 102, 151–53, 216.

112

Chapter 3

him in self-surrender and fellowship.70 This is why, Kurtz argues, the sin offering is always followed by the burnt offering. The sin offering achieved expiation for the negative act of sin and uncleanness, while the burnt offering was a positive act of seeking a close relationship with Yhwh. This study’s finding that blood binds the offerer to Yhwh follows Kurtz’s view that blood is the objective medium of expiation. However, it is more specific to the ritual action of binding the offerer to the altar, which metonymically represents Yhwh. The finding that sacrificial flesh burning removes sin guilt or impurity separation is similar to Kurtz’s view. However, unlike Kurtz, this study has found that blood application and flesh burning are integral to the function of kipper. Furthermore, in disagreement with Kurtz, the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal is a representative of the offerer, rather than his sacrificial substitute.71 As the offerer’s representative, the animal does what the offerer cannot do without forfeiting their life. Interestingly, Kurtz argues that fellowship between Israel and Yhwh is the status quo and is assumed by both parties. However, sin disrupts this status quo, and certain sins may be expiated to allow the status quo to be restored. Kurtz’s understanding of the status quo informs my investigation of cult initiation texts and the Day of Atonement in the next two chapters. It appears that cult initiation establishes a baseline by which all of Israel is considered in fellowship with Yhwh. Sacrifices throughout the year maintain this status quo for individuals. The Day of Atonement ensures this status quo continues for individuals and corporate Israel.

70.  Ibid., 75, 177. 71.  Although Kurtz rejected the premise that the animal received the penalty due the offerer, penal substitution, he did think that the animal became a sinless substitute for the sinful offerer (ibid., 156–58). Kurtz’s view seems to be a middle ground between the traditional penal substitution view of sacrificial substitution and this study’s view of representation.

Chapter 4

Leviticus 8–10 Introduction Based on this study’s findings throughout chs. one through three, sacrifice involves a relational interplay between the offerer, priest, and Yhwh through the medium of sancta. For example, in the case of unintentional sin, an offender, who is ‘compelled by guilt’, brings a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to the sanctuary. However, a sinner, who rebelliously ignores his or her guilt, suffers the wrath and punishment of Yhwh. By coming to the sanctuary, and desiring reconciliation with Yhwh, the sinner demonstrates repentance. However, the offerer cannot directly interact with the altar and Yhwh. As a result, the sacrificial animal, through priestly mediation, becomes the offerer’s representative.1 The offerer slaughters the animal producing flesh and blood, the materials used by kipper to bring about reconciliation. How is reconciliation achieved? Blood creates a protective connection2 between the repentant offerer and Yhwh. Since the offerer cannot interact directly with Yhwh’s presence, the altar metonymically represents Yhwh. The rising smoke, as a result of burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, confirms Yhwh’s acceptance of the offerer’s request. As a result, the offerer’s sin guilt is removed.3 The repentance of the offerer, combined with the priest’s mediating work with flesh and blood, appeases Yhwh’s anger and results in forgiveness.4 While this study has found evidence for this proposed relationship view, there is still much to learn about Yhwh’s interaction with sancta. Most of the texts depicting Yhwh’s actions in the Priestly Torah are found in the cult initiation rituals in Lev 8–10, and the reinitiation rituals found in Lev 16. While continuing to assess the viability of the pollution-and-purge, combined, and relationship views against the proposed view, ch. four investigates Lev 8–10. Chapter five applies the

1.  Representation means that the animal does what the offerer cannot, which is to connect by blood with the altar / Yhwh and become the means by which sin guilt or impurity separation is removed by Yhwh. Representation is not the same as sacrificial substitution, that is, the early church fathers’ view, which equates the nature of the animal with the offerer and assumes the animal suffers the offerer’s punishment for sin, which is penal substitution. Representation is not ownership, a view championed by Milgrom, which regards the offerer as accruing benefit from the animal sacrifice by purging the sanctuary. 2.  Piel of ḥṭʾ, which is part of kipper. 3.  Piel of kpr. 4.  Niphal of slḥ.

113

114

Chapter 4

understanding of the purpose of the sanctuary and meaning of the Hebrew kipper to the Day of Atonement in Lev 16. I have suggested that the Priestly Torah depicts Yhwh as a direct participant in the ritual actions implemented on sancta. The cult initiation and reinitiation narratives seem to verify and bring into focus Yhwh’s actions in ritual.5 These texts are studied to confirm this hypothesis and to further the understanding of kipper and the purpose of the Israelite sanctuary. Before beginning this investigation, a potential objection from Israel Knohl is addressed. Knohl views Yhwh as an impersonal and inactive observer of the Priestly Torah sanctuary.6

Israel Knohl’s View of Yhwh in the Priestly Torah Sanctuary According to Knohl, the Priestly Torah significantly curtails the personal and anthropomorphic actions of Yhwh after the revelation of his name in Exod 3.7 Prior to Exod 3, Yhwh remembers, speaks in the first person, directly punishes, forgives, cuts off, and appears to his people. Yhwh cares for his people in word and deed. After Exod 3, Knohl argues that Yhwh’s interactions are restricted to Moses, one-sided, and muted through indirect phrases such as “before Yhwh.”8 Knohl puts forth two reasons for the change in the depiction of how Yhwh interacts with his people. First, the Priestly Torah rejects that Yhwh, like gods in neighboring cults, requires daily care and feeding.9 Second, with the advent of law and sanctuary, the concern of the Priestly Torah is not Yhwh’s care and relationship for his people but rather, the people’s responsibility to protect Yhwh’s holiness.10 Knohl’s second assertion may be questioned. While the Priestly Torah requires that the people and priests treat Yhwh as holy (Lev 10:3), it is not clear that Yhwh needs protection and that the Priestly Torah no longer depicts Yhwh as caring and relating to his people. As has been argued, it seems that the Priestly legislators seek to balance the requirement to honor Yhwh’s holiness with the people’s need to reconcile with their deity. However, according to Knohl, the Priestly Torah removes all depictions of “a wrathful deity appeased by the savor of sacrifice,”

5.  Wenham (Leviticus, 129–32) and Watts (Leviticus, 429–35) highlight the contrast between the ritual instructions in Lev 1–7, the narratives in Lev 8–10, and the writer’s desire to use this contrast to make theological points regarding ritual, priests, the people, and Yhwh. 6. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 125–48. 7.  Knohl draws his conclusions from Priestly Torah texts he identifies as before and after the revelation of the name Yhwh to Moses (ibid., 107). 8.  Ibid., 107, 125–28. 9.  Ibid., 132–36 (see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 59–60; Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 101–3). 10. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 152. Knohl’s evidence for this conclusion is presented in pp. 124–51.

Leviticus 8–10

115

something Knohl considers a “blatant anthropopathism.”11 Yhwh’s role in sacrifice takes on a technical-impersonal character and thus, according to Knohl, who follows Milgrom, “The sprinkling of blood on the altar was not designed to satisfy and appease the divinity, but to cleanse the impurity created through the act of sin.”12 Since Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view has been called into question, Knohl’s assessment of Yhwh’s role in the sanctuary may be challenged. In agreement with Knohl, Yhwh’s actions are muted in the ritual descriptions found in Lev 1–7. However, genre and not theological transformation seems to be the reason behind this change. The way Yhwh is depicted in Lev 1–7 is followed for all ritual actors. Moses is instructed without response. The offerer lays a hand on the sacrificial animal without speaking. The priest silently applies blood to the sanctuary, burns flesh, and disposes the rest of the animal. Yhwh’s only response is to notice the smell of the burning flesh. The passive voice of nislaḥ hints that Yhwh performs the act of forgiveness (e.g., Lev 4:31). However, in the Priestly Torah narrative portions of Lev 9, 10, and 16, Yhwh’s actions are markedly more dynamic and personal.13 In Lev 9:22–24, Yhwh positively responds to the sacrifices by consuming them with his fire. The people react with joy (wayyārōnnû) and humility (wayyippəlû ʿal-pənêhem).14 In Lev 10:1–3, Yhwh responds to Nadab and Abihu’s attempt to approach him with strange fire by consuming them with his fire.15 Moses then recounts Yhwh’s first-person declaration, “By those who come near me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored” (10:3, NAS).16 Finally, in Lev 16, recalling the Nadab and Abihu incident (16:1), Yhwh declares in the first person to Moses, “I will appear in the cloud over the mercy 11.  Ibid., 135. Knohl views the reference of “pleasing aroma” for the ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 4:31 as a later addition (p. 134 and n. 38). 12.  Ibid., 135. 13.  Leviticus 8 does not narrate interaction with Yhwh, but see Milgrom’s arguments that the high priest utilized the Urim and Thummim in the sanctuary (Lev 8:8) to seek Yhwh’s will (Leviticus 1–16, 507–11). 14.  In agreement with Hausmann (‫ ָרנַן‬, 519) and Seebass (‫נָפַ ל‬, 491). Knohl thinks that speech is not excluded from the Priestly Torah (Sanctuary of Silence, 148; this disagrees with Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 302–4). 15.  The assertion that the Priestly Torah uses muted language to reflect Yhwh’s actions is not contested. However, Knohl seems to be splitting hairs when he argues that the Priestly Torah’s description of fire “coming from before the Lord” reflects the writer’s desire to avoid “direct attribution of the fire to God” (Sanctuary of Silence, 129). It is clear from the following verses (10:3–7) that Moses interpreted the fire as coming from Yhwh. Furthermore, it is difficult to miss the contrast between Yhwh’s positive response in Lev 9:24 and his negative response in Lev 10:2. These descriptions seem to reflect a personal being who discerns obedience and disobedience. 16.  Again, Knohl seems to nuance his observations regarding Yhwh too much (ibid., 127). Knohl claims that, after the revelation of Yhwh’s name, Yhwh does not interact with Moses in the first person. Knohl is correct that the independent personal pronoun ʾănî is not employed by Yhwh in his discussion with Moses. However, based on Lev 10:3, the Priestly Torah understands that Yhwh speaks to Moses in the first person.

116

Chapter 4 Priests

YHWH

Sancta People

figure 8.  Leviticus 8–9: Creation and homeostasis established.

seat” (16:2, NAS).17 According to Lev 16:13, Aaron must approach the divine presence with extreme care, with an incense offering, or he will die. Thus, in disagreement with Knohl, the Priestly Torah is concerned not only with Yhwh’s holiness but also with his relationship with his people. With the advent of the sanctuary and law, the Priestly Torah seems to balance the proper treatment of Yhwh’s holiness and the people’s need for divine reconciliation. I propose that this balance is revealed in the cult initiation texts, Lev 8–9. It is jeopardized by the acts of rebellious people, for example, Lev 10, and it is reestablished in the cult reinitiation rituals found in Lev 16. Furthermore, the balance between Yhwh’s holiness and his relationship with his people is maintained by the Priestly Torah ritual procedures found in Lev 1–7 and 11–15. An overview of this balanced view is provided, and then it is tested by studying Lev 8, 9, 10, 16, and related texts.

A Balanced View of Yhwh’s Active Role on Sancta Three schemas illustrate the view of the cult’s desire to balance the proper care of Yhwh’s holiness and the people’s need for divine reconciliation as mediated by the priests in the sanctuary. In each schema, a solid line indicates an established connection with sancta prior to ritual implementation, and a dashed line indicates a desire to establish or reestablish a connection with sancta prior to ritual implementation. The term homeostasis is used to describe when Yhwh, the people, and the priests are connected through the sanctuary. Homeostasis is borrowed from the language of living organisms and reflects the biological ability to sustain life. Discussing the Israelite sacrificial system in these terms seems appropriate given its many biological references to humans, animals, flesh, blood, life, birth, death, bodily diseases, and discharges.18 The Israelite camp is in homeostasis when, by the mediation of the priests, Yhwh and his people are connected through the medium of the sanctuary. 17.  Knohl agrees that Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary is a concept accepted by the Priestly Torah (ibid., 131). 18.  Gane states, “The ‘legal’ and ‘biological’ are metaphors for a larger reality, in which sin affects relationships and states involving the sinner and God, God’s law, and the sinner’s environment, including consequences that can occur in the physical world” (Cult and Character, 161).

Leviticus 8–10

117 Priests, People

YHWH

Sancta Priests, People

figure 9.  Leviticus 1–7, 12–15: Instability and homeostasis maintained.

Homeostasis Established, Leviticus 8–9 There are no references in Lev 8–9 to problems of sin or impurity or the results of making clean or forgiveness.19 Rather, blood and flesh, through kipper, are employed to establish a connection between Yhwh, the priests, and the people through the medium of the sacrificial altar (see figure 8). In Lev 8, Moses places the priests in a consecrated relationship with the altar, so they may reflect Yhwh’s holiness as they mediate reconciliation for the people.20 In Lev 9, Aaron offers sacrifices, for himself and the people, in hope of acquiring connection with Yhwh.21 Yhwh confirms Aaron’s request by consuming the altar sacrifices with his fire (Lev 9:24).22 The people’s reaction shows they understand that Yhwh has responded positively. Upon the completion of Lev 8–9, the sanctuary, people, priests, and Yhwh, using the analogy of a living organism, are in homeostasis. All parties are connected to the sacrificial altar. As a result of the priests’ consecrated status, the starting premise is that Yhwh’s holy presence will be treated properly as they mediate between Yhwh and the people. Homeostasis Maintained, Leviticus 1–7, 12–15 In order to maintain homeostasis, a living organism must stay in balance. Its temperature must be properly regulated. Its fluids must be maintained at correct levels. For Israel, balance is reflected in a continued connection between Yhwh, the priests, and the people as mediated by the sanctuary (see figure 9). Leviticus 1–7 and 12–15 deal with positive or negative events with individuals (or the entire 19. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 42. Also, it seems that the congregation would not be able to come to the entrance of the tent of meeting (Lev 8:3; 9:5), if they believed sin or impurity was an issue. 20.  I discuss this in ch. two. 21.  While Aaron and his sons have a consecrated relationship with the altar (Lev 8), they have not yet been connected to Yhwh. The confirmation that the priests and people have been connected with Yhwh is reflected by his theophany in Lev 9 (9:4–6, 23–24). 22.  The Priestly legislators seem to reflect Yhwh’s acceptance and reconciliation of an individual offerer’s sacrifice as automatic based on a well-defined set of preconditions and results (discussed above in ch. one). However, the automatic nature of Lev 1–7 and 12–15 is contrasted with the narratives of Lev 8, 9, 10, and 16, which show that Yhwh’s corporate connection with his people is contingent on his acceptance (cf. 9:23–24; 10:1–3; 16:29–34).

118

Chapter 4 Priests

YHWH

Sancta People

figure 10.  Leviticus 10, 16: Crisis and homeostasis reestablished.

community) that repair or reinforce connection with Yhwh. These events include a desire for closeness, unintentional sin, intentional but excusable sin, and bodily impurities. The community, priests, and people must follow these remedies to stay connected to Yhwh, honor him, and properly interact with his holiness. Individuals who rebel against Yhwh’s standards dishonor him and offend his holiness.23 The priests and the people must deal with rebellious individuals properly, that is, cut them off and put them to death (e.g., Lev 20:3) or else jeopardize homeostasis. Homeostasis in Crisis, Leviticus 10, 16 Leviticus 10 and 16 seem to deal with the failure to maintain homeostasis. In Lev 10:1–3, Nadab and Abihu rebelliously violate Yhwh’s standards for approaching his holy presence.24 In Lev 16, the fear of rebellious acts by some of the people and priests leads to the concern that Yhwh may no longer reconcile with his people. Homeostasis is in crisis, and action must be taken. The premise of these texts is that Yhwh has been dishonored, and his holiness has not been treated properly.25 As a result, the connection between Yhwh and his people is in jeopardy. Leviticus 16 provides the remedy.26 Blood and flesh, through kipper, confirms the connection of Yhwh, the people, and the priests to the sancta, and a live goat removes the rebellious people27 from the presence of Yhwh. Homeostasis is reestablished. The pollution-and-purge and the relationship views reflect this idea of homeostasis. According to the pollution-and-purge view, accumulated pollution in the 23.  It seems the Priestly legislators wish to minimize rebellious sin in the camp. Individuals who rebel, dishonor Yhwh, and offend his holiness are barred from the sanctuary (discussed above in ch. two). 24. Yhwh destroys Nadab and Abihu by his fire, thereby punishing their rebellious sin. However, the effects of their rebellious sin are still felt by the people and priests (cf. Lev 10:6, 19; 16:1). 25.  In the case of Nadab and Abihu, they have committed a sin in and to Yhwh’s presence. In the case of corporate Israel, some of the people stand before Yhwh with rebellious sin and bodily impurity that has not been dealt with properly. 26.  Leviticus 8 and 9 achieve this connection under positive circumstances, that is, Yhwh initiates his relationship with the people by connecting to the sacrificial altar. Leviticus 16 achieves this connection under negative circumstances, that is, Yhwh must be invited back onto the sacrificial altar. 27.  I will argue in ch. five that the rebellious people, rather than their sins, are metaphorically removed from the camp.

Leviticus 8–10

119

sanctuary may reach a point where Yhwh departs from his people.28 For the relationship view, covenant disobedience reaches a point where Yhwh will judge his people.29 While both views observe a relationship between individual sacrifice for sin and impurity and the Day of Atonement, neither thinks that connection between Yhwh, the priests, and the people through sancta is the defining theme of Lev 1–16. Thus, these views continue to be assessed against this understanding of homeostasis. There appear to be specialized sacrificial texts envisioned to bring certain groups of people into connection with Yhwh, for example, the Nazirites (Priestly Torah: Num 6:1–21) and the Levites (Holiness School: Num 8:5–22). Several texts, not considered sourced from the Priestly Torah, initiate or reinitiate the cult and the relationship between Yhwh and his people, for example, Hezekiah’s reforms (2 Chr 29:21–24), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 43:18–27, 45:18–25), and Ezra’s Second Temple (Ezra 6:17; 8:35). Daily and calendar sacrifices seek to keep corporate Israel in relationship with Yhwh, for example, Num 28–29; Lev 6:1–6 [Heb.]; 23:1–22.30 These texts, along with Lev 8, 9, 10, and 16, are studied in the next two chapters to confirm or challenge the proposed view. Based on the findings thus far, the following methodology is used to investigate these texts.

Methodology to Study the Cult Initiation and Reinitiation Texts Each cult initiation and reinitiation ritual is evaluated based on the findings for the Priestly Torah kipper. The following variables influence the results of kipper: • the nature of each object, for example, human or non-human • the status or problem of each object, for example, sin, common, unclean, clean, or holy • the ritual materials used in connection with one or both objects, for example, blood, flesh, sacrificial animals, and absorbing materials such as cedar, scarlet, hyssop, and water • the ritual objective, for example, forgiveness, clean status, consecration, and connection 28.  I discuss Milgrom’s pollution-and-purge view in ch. one. 29.  Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 303. 30.  Leviticus 1–16 appear to be concerned with individuals and how individuals affect corporate Israel. The calendar sacrifices seem to be concerned with the corporate Israel as one people (Wenham, Numbers, 196). Perhaps Lev 1–16 is concerned with maintaining the viability of the cult, while calendar sacrifices are focused on a general desire for relationship between the people and Yhwh through remembrance and celebration. According to Knohl, the Priestly Torah seeks to distance the cultic system from popular festivals and celebrations (Sanctuary of Silence, 162–64).

120

Chapter 4

table 12.  The Function of Kipper in Priestly Torah Ritual Ritual Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds For Absorbing Materials Piel of Kpr Removes Result O1

O2

BA

P

RA

O1

RA

The piel of ḥṭʾ is subsumed into the piel of kpr. The piel of ḥṭʾ, applied to two objects, has the function ‘to bind’, for the purposes of connection and substance transfer or for the purposes of establishing connection only. The piel of kpr has the function ‘to remove’ a negative status from one of the objects. Combined, these two actions achieve a positive result for one or both of the objects. Table 12 breaks down kipper into its components. For a ritual, the two objects of kipper are designated as Object 1 (O1), and Object 2 (O2). The piel of ḥṭʾ binds O1 and O2 using a Binding Agent (BA) as a step to resolve the negative status (Problem) of O1. Additional absorbing material (Removal Agent, RA) may be used to accept the transfer of a substance from O1 to O2 by means of the BA. The piel of kpr removes the negative status (P) of O1 by means of RA, leading to the desired ritual result (R). In contrast to this approach, some scholars propose one or two senses for kipper and then seek to show how these senses work in the cult initiation and reinitiation texts. For example, Milgrom claims that kipper has the sense ‘purge’ for the ḥaṭṭāʾt but ‘expiation’ when associated with other offerings such as the millūʾîm.31 Levine argues that kipper has two distinct homonyms, ‘wipe off, cleanse’ and ‘ransom’.32 Kiuchi views kipper as ‘sacrificing oneself (usually the priest) for propitiation’ on behalf of either a person or sancta.33 Watts assigns the sense ‘mitigation’ for kipper.34 He views kipper as removing negative consequences based on a wide range of issues including legal conflicts, environmental pollution, emotional and physical burdens, and removing anger. He proposes a broad semantic range for kipper but does not provide a methodology to explain how mitigation works in each ritual. It seems in part or total, all these approaches falter under Barr’s warning against illegitimate totality transfer of a term’s sense without consideration of context.35 Each scholar seeks to overlay a universal sense for kipper over all, or a subset of, rituals instead of trying to identify what kipper achieves in the context of each ritual.36 Based on this study’s findings, kipper is a process that has a wide range 31. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 196, 524–25, 541, 858; Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 155 n. 52. 32.  Levine assigns the gloss ‘ransom’ to the Priestly Torah kipper in Exod 30:15–16, Lev 17:11, and Num 31:50 (In the Presence of the Lord, 67, 77). 33. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 56–57, 155. 34. Watts, Leviticus, 344–46. 35. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 218. 36.  Gilders questions the accuracy and validity of applying a univalent symbolic meaning to an action or element of all rituals (Blood Ritual, 99).

121

Leviticus 8–10 table 13.  Beneficiaries of the Ordination Rituals Offering

Offerers

ḥaṭṭāʾt ʿōlâ

Aaron and his sons Aaron and his sons

millūʾîm

Aaron and his sons

Beneficiary (Benefit) sacrificial altar (blood, oil) sacrificial altar (blood) Yhwh (pleasing aroma) sacrificial altar (blood) Yhwh (pleasing aroma) Aaron and his sons (blood, oil, bread, and meat)

of results conditioned on a ritual’s specific variables. It seems clear in the Priestly Torah that kipper variables and objectives vary in numerous ways. This may be the reason there is a lack of scholarly consensus for a single sense for this term. It seems that, by not taking into account how kipper operates as conditioned by a ritual’s specific variables, many scholars incorrectly interpret ritual function and purpose. Therefore, the proposed approach may be better suited for interpreting kipper in each ritual’s context.

Cult Initiation: Leviticus 8–10 I now study the cult initiation texts: first, the priestly investiture in Lev 8; second, the eighth-day ritual for the people and Aaron37 in Lev 9; and finally, the actions of Nadab and Abihu and their aftermath in Lev 10. Cult Initiation for the Priests, Leviticus 8 Leviticus 8 includes a preparation phase (8:1–13), three rituals (ḥaṭṭāʾt, 8:14–17; ʿōlâ, 8:18–21; and millūʾîm, 8:22–30), and postimplementation instructions (8:31– 36). Moses is the mediator38 on behalf of Yhwh, Aaron, and his sons. It has been proposed that Aaron and his sons, the sacrificial altar, and Yhwh mutually benefit from the ritual actions as shown in table 13. 37.  As I address below, Aaron’s sons are not explicitly listed as offerers in Lev 9. 38.  Milgrom reviews the debate whether Moses is a priest or not (Leviticus 1–16, 555–58; see also pp. 525, 531–32; cf. Watts, Leviticus, 473). Milgrom argues that, since Moses did not receive a prebend from the ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 8:14–17 (Lev 6:18–23 [Heb.]) and the right thigh of the milluʾîm (Lev 7:32–35, on the premise that the millūʾîm is like the šəlāmîm; cf. Exod 29:27–28), he is a quasi-priest. It seems evident that Moses is not a priest in the sense of Aaron and his sons. That is, Moses does not go through the rituals of Lev 8 and thus does not have a consecrated, one-for-one relationship with the altar. Furthermore, Moses is not tasked with carrying the sin of the Israelites in the sanctuary (cf. Lev 10:17). This last point seems to offer further proof that the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice in Lev 8:14–17 does not deal with the sins or impurities of Aaron and his sons. Moses is not qualified to perform this task. This may be the reason he does not receive any proceeds from the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering.

122

Chapter 4

table 14.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:15 Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

Absorbing Materials

For

O1 O2 BA P Lev 8:15 altar Aaron and blood not his sons consecrated w/Aaron and his sons

RA

Piel of Kpr Removes

Result

O1 RA altar Aaron and consehis sons crated altar oil consecrated

Table 15.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:18–21 Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P Lev Aaron altar blood Aaron and sons 8:18–21 and his not fully consons nected w/altar; Yhwh has not shared w/altar

Absorbing Materials RA

Piel of Kpr Removes

Result

O1 RA Aaron flesh Aaron, sons and his burning connected sons to altar; pleasing aroma to Yhwh

It appears that the Lev 8:15 ḥaṭṭāʾt offering creates a consecrated relationship between Aaron and his sons and the altar as depicted in table 14.39 The altar (O1), which is not in a consecrated relationship with Aaron and his sons (P), is bound (piel of ḥṭʾ ) to Aaron and his sons (O2) by means of blood sprinkling (BA).40 The altar’s nonconsecrated relationship with Aaron and his sons (P) is removed (piel of kpr) by means of Aaron’s holiness (RA: Aaron’s sons are one entity with Aaron, and Aaron’s holiness makes the altar holy) and by means of anointing oil (RA).41 The altar’s consecration begins the mutually beneficial ritual actions that continue with the ʿōlâ and the millūʾîm. Consecration is also a result of the millūʾîm offering (8:30), and thus brackets all three rituals. That is, Aaron and his sons consecrate the altar through the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, and the altar consecrates Aaron and his sons through the millūʾîm offering. The ʿōlâ and millūʾîm rituals are now investigated to 39.  In ch. two, I discuss the relationship between actions specified by the piel verbs ḥṭʾ, qdš, and kpr. 40.  In ch. two, I examine how the author of Lev 8 seems to reflect the unity of Aaron and his sons by rendering the verb smk ‘lean, lay, rest, support’ as singular for the plural subject, Aaron and his sons. 41.  I have argued above for this special ḥaṭṭāʾt that the transfer of holiness from Aaron to the altar is central to the ritual, and the burning of flesh is secondary.

123

Leviticus 8–10 table 16.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 8:22–30 Ritual (Stage 1) Piel of Ḥṭʾ Connects

For

O1 O2 BA P 8:22–24 altar Aaron blood not fully connected w/ (step 1) and his sons Aaron and sons (pars pro toto) Ritual (Stage 1) Piel of Ḥṭʾ Connects O1 O2 BA 8:25–29 altar Aaron flesh, (step 2) and his bread sons mixed w/oil

Ritual (Stage 2) 8:30

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For P dedication of food; dedication of Aaron and sons

For

O1 O2 BA P Aaron altar blood not fully conand his nected w/altar; sons not consecrated by altar

Absorbing Materials RA

Piel of Kpr Removes O1

RA

Absorbing Materials

Piel of Kpr Removes

RA

O1 RA altar flesh, bread mixed w/oil burned

Absorbing Materials RA

Result

Piel of Kpr Removes

Result pleasing aroma; Aaron and sons accepted by Yhwh Result

O1 RA Aaron oil connected, and his consecrated sons

explain how Lev 8 achieves a mutually beneficial relationship between Yhwh, the priests, and the sacrificial altar. The ʿŌlâ Ram The ʿōlâ ritual may be described as in table 15. As has been noted, the normal ʿōlâ (Lev 1) seeks to develop a positive connection between the offerer and Yhwh.42 The result of a “pleasing aroma” signifies Yhwh’s acceptance of the offerer’s sacrifice and that a connection has been established or reinforced. While Yhwh has not yet made his presence fully known on the altar (cf. Lev 9:4, 6, 23, 24), the 42.  Scholars view the ʿōlâ as resulting in an improved relationship with Yhwh. This study’s view expresses a more instrumental understanding of this relationship through the idea of connection between the offerer and Yhwh. Wenham states it was offered for reconciliation with God (Leviticus, 142). Kurtz states that the burning of the animal “is an expression of perpetual obligation to complete, sanctified self-surrender to Jehovah” (Sacrificial Worship, 250, 332). Milgrom views the ʿōlâ as a gift and is part of the general expiation of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 1–16, 526, 541).

124

Chapter 4

ʿōlâ seems to function normally here. This ʿōlâ establishes a positive connection between the altar and Aaron and his sons and shows Yhwh’s acceptance of their sacrifice. The “pleasing aroma” of the ʿōlâ offering is bracketed with the “pleasing aroma” of the millūʾîm offering (8:28). In between these two results, Moses presents the millūʾîm sacrifice to Yhwh as a tənûpȃ ‘wave offering’, thereby transferring ownership of the priests and the sacrifice to Yhwh (8:27).43 Later, the priests will be given Moses’s portion of this sacrifice, the breast meat of the ram, as food (8:31; Exod 29:27–28). This breast was dedicated to Yhwh through the wave offering, given as a gift to Moses, and then returned as a food gift to Aaron and his sons. Thus, there appears to be an emphasis on Yhwh’s acceptance of the priests and their sacrifices, and it appears that both Yhwh and the priests share, in the form of a gift, the sacrificial flesh. It is food to the priests and a “pleasing aroma” to Yhwh. The Millūʾîm Ram and Bread Mixed with Oil The millūʾîm offering is implemented in two stages, as shown in table 16. Step 1 of the first stage of the millūʾîm (8:22–24) applies the ram’s blood first to the extremities of Aaron and his sons and second to the sacrificial altar. The blood is applied to Aaron and his sons’ right ears, thumbs, and toes.44 The second stage (8:30) takes blood and oil from the altar to consecrate Aaron, his sons, and their garments.45 43.  Milgrom identifies the sacrificial elements put in the hands of Aaron and his sons as the wave offering (Leviticus 1–16, 531). However, the direct object of wayyānep in 8:27 is masculine plural, and thus it is possible that Moses dedicated not only the sacrifice but also Aaron and his sons to Yhwh (compare with the Levites presented as a wave offering in Num 8:11, 13, 15, 21). This interpretation seems to fit the overall tenor of Lev 8 and the commission of the priests. Milgrom provides an interpretation that the tənûpȃ transfers ownership (Leviticus 1–16, 464–65; reproduced from Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 139–58). 44.  The meaning of the application of blood to the extremities of Aaron and his sons and then to the altar is debated. Wenham sees several levels of meaning, including the intimate connection between the priesthood and sacrifice by means of blood, communion with God, and confession (Leviticus, 142–43). Kurtz views the act as a means to confer on the priests the rite to blood manipulation on the altar as well as an act of consecration (Sacrificial Worship, 336). Based on his view of blood as a purgative, Milgrom contends that Aaron and his sons are purged by the blood (Leviticus 1–16, 528–529). However, Milgrom’s view does not explain why Aaron and his sons must be purged. According to Milgrom’s own theory, if Aaron and his sons were impure, they would not be allowed to enter the sanctuary and certainly would not be able to be daubed with holy oil. Gilders rejects any interpretation of this rite because it is not explained by the text. Instead, Gilders views this rite as an emphatic statement of the special status of Aaron and his sons in relation to the altar (Blood Ritual, 96–103). Watts follows Gilders (Leviticus, 470–71). The common denominator in regard to all views seems to be that this special blood application closely associates Aaron and his sons with the altar. 45.  Milgrom views the phrases ʿal-ʾahărōn ʿal-bəgādāyw and ʾet-ʾahărōn ʾet -bəgādāyw as a hendiadys meaning “Aaron’s garments,” and thus Lev 8:30 does not specify that Aaron was consecrated again; cf. 8:12 (Leviticus 1–16, 532–33). He notes there is substantial textual evidence that adds a waw conjunction before ʿal-bəgādāyw and ʾet -bəgādāyw. However, with or without the waw the phrase may or may not be translated as a hendiadys, “Aaron’s garments” or “Aaron, and his garments.” Milgrom argues on ideological grounds that the text is inconsistent if it stated that Aaron was consecrated twice, once

Leviticus 8–10

125

The completion of the second stage seems to signify Aaron and his sons’ complete association with the altar.46 Just as the altar is consecrated by Aaron and his sons (Lev 8:14–17), Aaron and his sons are consecrated by the altar.47 Thus, the priests must not leave the sanctuary during the seven-day ritual (8:35), lest they die. The interaction of their holiness with the common or unclean would lead to disaster.48 By becoming like the altar, the priests may share in its sacrificial proceeds (8:31). In step 2 of the first stage (8:25–29), Moses places the millūʾîm sacrifice in the hands of Aaron and his sons and then presents both the sacrifice and the priests as a wave offering before Yhwh. As a result, Aaron and his sons, as well as the millūʾîm sacrifice, are dedicated to Yhwh by means of burning the ram flesh and bread mixed with oil. The wave offering is a “pleasing aroma” to Yhwh and signifies his acceptance of Aaron and his sons and the sacrifice. Later, the priests will eat Moses’s portion of the millūʾîm sacrifice that is gifted to them (8:29, 8:31). Thus, Aaron and his sons, like Yhwh in the ʿōlâ offering (8:21), share in the altar sacrifices. As noted above, a result of the millūʾîm sacrifice (8:30) is to consecrate Aaron and his sons through the application of blood and oil from the altar. This act follows closely with the result of the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice (8:15), which consecrated the sacrificial altar by binding it with Aaron and his sons. Thus, we can detect a chiasm centered on the wave offering in 8:22–29 and bracketed by the acts of consecration (8:15, 30) and producing a “pleasing aroma” to Yhwh (8:21, 29). in Lev 8:12 and again in 8:30. However, the authors of Lev 8 seek to implement a mutually beneficial relationship between Aaron and the altar. Thus, a consecrated Aaron (8:7) consecrates the altar (8:15), and a consecrated altar (8:30) consecrates Aaron. 46.  Milgrom notes that the milluʾîm shares attributes with the most holy offerings—burnt, cereal, purification, and reparation—and the holy offerings—well-being. Thus, he concludes it is a transitional offering following the transitional nature of the offerers (Leviticus 1–16, 527). While Milgrom’s observations appear correct, it seems as though the milluʾîm is a more intense and intimate sacrifice as compared to all other offerings. Blood, oil, and food are manipulated far more directly to the offerer than the most holy or holy offerings. Blood is directly applied to the offerers and the altar. Oil is applied directly from the altar to Aaron and his sons. Furthermore, this is the only offering that the offerers touch the flesh of the slaughtered sacrificial animal. 47.  Milgrom contends that, because both Aaron and the altar are anointed (8:11–12) using the same verb, māšaḥ, this anointing signifies that “Aaron is brought into metonymic association with the sacred cult objects” (ibid., 518–19). While it seems that there is a special association between Aaron and the altar, based on Lev 8, it is clear that Aaron’s sons are also brought into this same association. Furthermore, it does not appear that metonymy is in view. Aaron and his sons are not equal to the altar; they are like (simile) the altar. With the anointed oil on them and dressed in their consecrated garments, Aaron and his sons are holy, like sancta. Gilders finds that the blood sprinkling in the milluʾîm offering shows that Aaron and his sons and the altar share the character of holiness (Blood Ritual, 102). It is not Aaron and his sons who have a metonymic association with the altar; rather, it is Yhwh. 48.  Milgrom argues that in their “liminal” stage, Aaron and his sons are in extreme danger if they leave the sanctuary (Leviticus 1–16, 534, 535–36). However, it seems more appropriate to understand the danger as a result of their holy status and thus their negative impact on the common or unclean.

126

Chapter 4 A.  Consecration.  The altar is consecrated by holy oil (8:11) and by connection with Aaron (8:15; cf. 8:14–17). Aaron is also consecrated (8:12), and his sons are a unit with Aaron.  B.  Pleasing Aroma.  Aaron and his sons are accepted by Yhwh, and Yhwh receives the ʿōlâ sacrifice (8:21; cf. 8:18–21).   C.  Wave Offering.  Aaron and his sons are connected to the altar pars pro toto (8:22–24); Aaron and his sons with the millūʾîm flesh and bread are dedicated to Yhwh (8:25–28a; cf. 8:31, Aaron and his sons eat the millūʾîm ram breast).  B′.  Pleasing Aroma. Yhwh accepts Aaron and his sons and the millūʾîm flesh, bread, and oil (8:28b). A′.  Consecration.  Aaron and his sons are consecrated by blood and oil from the altar (8:30).

This chiasm seems to show an emphasis on the mutually beneficial and close relationship between the priests, the sacrificial altar, and Yhwh achieved by kipper in each offering (8:34). The altar and Aaron and his sons are dependent on each other for consecration (compare A with A′). Yhwh accepts the ʿōlâ, millūʾîm, and Aaron and his sons (compare B with B′). Finally, the wave offering (C) emphasizes the dedication of Aaron and his sons and their millūʾîm sacrifice to Yhwh, and that like Yhwh, Aaron and his sons may share in altar sacrifice. Comparison with Milgrom’s Leviticus 8 Structure Scholars agree that the rituals in Lev 8 prepare the priests and the sanctuary to implement sacrifice49 but debate how the offerings produce this result. Based on the repetition of the phrase kaʾăšer ṣiwwāh Yhwh ‘just as Yhwh commanded’ (8:4, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 36), Milgrom proposes two schemes for Lev 8.50 The first scheme follows. A.  Assembling Materials and Persons   1.  vv. 1–3: Command    v. 4a: Fulfillment    B.  Anointing Aaron      2.  vv. 4b–9: Washing the priests, dressing Aaron      3.  vv. 10–11: Anointing the sanctuary       vv. 12–13: Anointing Aaron, dressing his sons    B′.  The Sacrificial Service      4.  vv. 14–17: The purification offering 49. Wenham, Leviticus, 130; Gilders, Blood Ritual, 100–107; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 328–29; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 494–95; Watts, Leviticus, 429, 430–35, 439–41. 50. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 542–44.

Leviticus 8–10

127

    5.  vv. 18–21: The burnt offering     6.  vv. 22–29: The ordination offering      v. 30: Anointing the sons and the priestly vestments. A′.  Admonitions for the Seven Days   7.  vv. 31–35: Command     v. 36: Fulfillment

Milgrom’s scheme follows a structural symmetry associated with the sevenfold repetition of the phrase “just as Yhwh commanded.”51 However, Milgrom identifies vv. 10–11 as a “bulging unit” that does not belong with 8:4b through 8:13; furthermore, these two verses do not conclude with the phrase “just as Yhwh commanded.” Milgrom’s argument is based on his view that the altar must first be purged before it is consecrated. Thus, 8:10–11 is out of sequence with the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in 8:14–17, which he views as purging the altar. However, this study has argued against Milgrom’s view that Aaron and his sons have polluted the altar and that the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt is to purge the altar.52 Instead, as noted above, kipper in this ḥaṭṭāʾt offering consecrates the altar by binding it with Aaron’s holiness (with his sons standing as a single unit with him), and by anointing with holy oil. Milgrom identifies a second bulging unit in v. 30, which he views as a discrete unit, not connected with v. 31, in variance with its position in Exod 29,53 and not including the phrase, “just as Yhwh commanded.” In addition, Milgrom suggests that v. 30 forms an inclusion with vv. 6–9 and vv. 12–13 (minus the sanctuary 51.  Milgrom states that the sevenfold repetition of kaʾăšer ṣiwwāh Yhwh found in Lev 8, Exod 39, and 40:17–33 implies that Exod 40:34–38 and Lev 1–7 are later insertions (ibid., 543). However, Lev 8 is dependent on the ritual descriptions in Lev 1–7. Furthermore, there are ten, not seven, references to the phrase kaʾăšer ṣiwwāh Yhwh in Exod 39. Finally, identifying source relationships based on a phrase seems speculative. Exodus 40:34–38 and Lev 1–7 may have been written at the same time as Lev 8, and the author is making a point to link the creation of the tabernacle (Exod 39; 40:17–33) thematically with the initiation of the priests (Lev 8), demonstrating that the priests are like sancta. 52.  Milgrom states that “all rites described in this chapter were repeated every day for the entire week” (ibid., 538). Thus, following his view, Milgrom believes Aaron, his sons, and the altar, must be purged of impurity each of the seven days, all the while, quarantined in the sanctuary enclosure. However, this assertion implies that a single application of purgative blood is inadequate. Milgrom argues elsewhere that a single application of ḥaṭṭāʾt blood in Lev 4, 5, 11–15, and 16 is sufficient to purge the altar on the principle of pars pro toto (ibid., 249). Milgrom seems more on track when he states that the repeated seven-day ritual is for reinforcement, but what does it reinforce? Following sanctuary initiation ceremonies such as 1 Kgs 8:57–66, ritual repetition in Lev 8 seems to achieve a relational closeness to Yhwh and the altar. Hurowitz agrees (“The Priestly Account,” 23). 53.  Exodus 29:21 follows the placement of blood on Aaron and his sons, and then the altar, and this act precedes the wave offering. Leviticus 8:30 follows the placement of blood on Aaron, his sons, and the altar, as well as the wave offering. Milgrom thinks Lev 8:30 is in the same structural position as Exod 40:33a, where both verses are placed outside the formula scheme created by the phrase “just as Yhwh commanded.” Milgrom concludes, “Thus the writer/editor divided each of these two chapters (Exod 40 and Lev 8) into eight units, but being committed to a septenary scheme, he had no choice but to leave the last unit (Exod 40:33a; Lev 8:30) outside the scheme” (Leviticus 1–16, 543).

128

Chapter 4

anointing, 8:10–11), thereby highlighting the three sacrifices. Based on this evidence, Milgrom proposes a second scheme. A.  Assembling Materials and Persons.   1.  vv. 1–[3]: Command    [vv. 4–5] : Fulfillment   B.  Anointing the Priests    2.  vv. 6–9: Washing the priests, dressing Aaron     [vv. 10–11] : Anointing the sanctuary    3.  vv. 12–13: Anointing Aaron, dressing his sons     X.  The Sacrificial Service       4.  vv. 14–17: The purification offering       5.  vv. 18–21: The burnt offering       6.  vv. 22–29: The ordination offering   B′.  Anointing the Priests     v. 30: Anointing the priestly vestments A′.  Admonitions for the Seven Days   7.  vv. 31–35: Command    v. 36: Fulfillment

Milgrom thinks that 8:10–11 is a bulging unit because he insists that the sanctuary must first be purged before it is consecrated. While this study has disagreed with Milgrom that Lev 8 assumes the sanctuary is polluted, v. 30 does appear to be an integral part of the structure of Lev 8 and does stand out by not having the phrase “just as Yhwh commanded.” Furthermore, Milgrom’s scheme is misleading when he states that B and B′ reflect anointing the priests. In fact, in B, only Aaron, not his sons, is consecrated, while in B′, Aaron and his sons are both consecrated. In disagreement with Milgrom, my proposed structure reflects the reason both the altar and Aaron are consecrated in vv. 10–13. The three sacrifices form a chiasm with the outside bracket reflecting symmetry in consecration. The ḥaṭṭāʾt offering shows how Aaron’s holiness (with his sons by hand leaning) consecrates the altar through the medium of blood and oil. The millūʾîm offering explains how the altar’s holiness consecrates Aaron and his sons through the medium of blood and oil. Shared consecration seems to be an integral aspect of the close, mutually beneficial relationship between Aaron and his sons, the altar, and Yhwh. Cult Initiation for the People and Aaron, Leviticus 9 Leviticus 8 focused on the connection and relationship between Aaron and his sons, the sacrificial altar, and Yhwh. Now Lev 9 addresses the people, Aaron, and their connection and relationship with the sacrificial altar and Yhwh. As in Lev 8,

Leviticus 8–10

129

the rituals highlight the importance of obeying Yhwh’s instructions.54 However, the sacrificial procedures follow Lev 1–8 with modifications.55 There are no instructions for hand leaning. The sacrifices have no preconditions, for example, they are not offered for unintentional sin or impurity and have no explicit results such as forgiveness, making clean, or consecration.56 Furthermore, three aspects of the ritual complex seem to surprise the reader. First, unlike Lev 8 and the ritual prescriptions in Lev 1–7, the sacrifices do not produce a pleasing aroma to Yhwh.57 Second, Yhwh safely shows his presence to the people, and his divine fire consumes their offerings as they burn on the sacrificial altar.58 Finally, in contrast to Lev 8, Aaron’s sons appear as helpers of Aaron and not as offerers of the sacrifices (compare Lev 8:2, 6, 14, 18, 22, 27, 30, 31 with 9:1, 9, 12, 13, 18).59 They hand blood to Aaron (9:9, 12, 18) and possibly handled the burnt offering (9:13) as well as the fat portions of the šəlāmîm offering (9:20).60 The first two observations seem to be related and are addressed in this discussion. The status of

54.  Compare Lev 8:4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 34, 36 with Lev 9:6, 10. It is also important that the priests follow Moses’s commands, compare Lev 8:31, 35 with Lev 9:5, 21. 55.  Milgrom thinks that the calf and lamb combination, used for the people’s burnt offering, shows that Lev 9 is like a public offering prescribed for festivals; cf. Num 28 (Leviticus 1–16, 573). However, it is not clear that the offerings are yearlings. The absence of the phrase “pleasing aroma” distinguishes Lev 9 from both public offerings and private offerings where this phrase is used. As a result, it seems that Lev 9 is a hybrid offering for a unique purpose following the character of Lev 8. 56.  Milgrom claims that the requirement for the ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 9 is because “ongoing occurrences of sin and impurity continuously pollute the altar” (Leviticus 1–16, 573). However, this assertion seems difficult to accept on a number of grounds. The Priestly Torah has no qualms about mentioning when the ḥaṭṭāʾt is offered for sin and impurity (e.g., Lev 4:1–5:26; Lev 12–15). Furthermore, what sins or impurities are possible for consecrated priests who have been isolated in the tabernacle for seven days? Milgrom does not address the difference between the people approaching the sanctuary in Lev 9 versus Lev 16. It is quite likely, because this is the inauguration of the cult, that the people’s sins and impurities in regard to Lev 9 are far more numerous and serious than in Lev 16. After all, the people have not yet had a chance to bring their individual sacrifices. However, unlike Lev 16, the Lev 9 ḥaṭṭāʾt is not applied to the inner sanctum. Thus, while the people may have unresolved sins and impurities, the Lev 9 rituals do not deal with this issue. It seems that, before the cult is initiated, the people’s sins and impurities are not considered an issue in their relationship with the sanctuary and Yhwh. 57.  This phrase exists in all Lev 1–7 offerings as follows: ʿōlâ offering (Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 8:21); minḥâ offering (Lev 2:2, 9, 12; 6:8 [Heb.], 21 [Heb.]); šəlāmîm offering (Lev 3:5, 16); ḥaṭṭāʾt (Lev 4:31). 58.  Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 590), Watts (Leviticus, 501), and Wenham (Leviticus, 150) note that it took considerable time for the sacrifices to burn. Thus, it seems that Yhwh’s fire incinerated what Aaron had initiated (cf. 9:10, 13–14, 16–17, 20). 59.  Gilders makes the same observation (Blood Ritual, 122). 60.  Unless the 2ms suffix in baʿadəkā (Lev 9:7) references Aaron and his sons as a single entity. Milgrom notes that the LXX replaces ûbəʿad hāʿām ‘and on behalf of the people’ with ‘and on behalf of your house’ following Lev 16:6, 11, 17, and 24 LXX (Leviticus 1–16, 578). Milgrom thinks that ‘and on behalf of your house’, ûbəʿad bêtekā, is correct, and a scribal error occurred as a result of dittography with the word hāʿām four words later. In contrast, Watts argues that the high priest’s sins bring guilt on the people, and thus the MT is correct in saying that Aaron must make sacrifices that result in kipper not only for himself but also for the people (Leviticus, 492; cf. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 44).

130

Chapter 4

Aaron’s sons may influence the actions of Nadab and Abihu after the eighth-day ritual, and thus their status is addressed in the study of Lev 10 below. The ritual actions in Lev 9 focus blood application and flesh burning on the sacrificial altar.61 Because Lev 9 centers all rituals on the sacrificial altar, additional anomalies with Lev 1–7 may be observed. Aaron deviates from the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual for the high priest by applying the blood of his ḥaṭṭāʾt on the sacrificial altar, rather than on the veil of the shrine and the incense altar (Lev 4:3–12). However, his ḥaṭṭāʾt is completely burned (compare Lev 8:17 with 9:11), and thus Aaron does not follow the requirement that the priests eat a portion of a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering made on the sacrificial altar (Lev 6:18–19 [Heb.]). The same holds true for the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, which should have been applied to the incense altar and shrine (Lev 4:13–21). Moses will insist that the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt should be eaten by the priests (Lev 10:16–18), implying that this offering is like one for an individual offerer (Lev 4:22–5:13). The exceptional nature of Aaron’s and the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt ensures that the sacrificial altar is the focal point of Lev 8 and 9.62 The sacrificial altar is the place where Yhwh meets his people.63 What can be said about these variations in the Lev 9 sacrifices, especially the ritual focus on the sacrificial altar? It seems that the Priestly legislators wished to draw a close connection between kipper (blood manipulation and flesh burning), the sacrificial altar, and Yhwh’s theophany. In Lev 9:7, all the sacrifices are said to implement kipper.64 Aaron’s ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ implement kipper for himself and 61.  Gilders asserts the verb wayəḥaṭṭəʾēhû in Lev 9:15 refers to the entire ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual performed with the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal. Thus, slaughtering, which is listed prior to wayəḥaṭṭʾēhû, is not part of the ḥaṭṭāʾt (Blood Ritual, 122 and n. 48). Therefore, only the acts of blood manipulation and flesh burning on the altar are part of the ḥaṭṭāʾt. In addition to blood application and flesh burning, the presentation of the breast and leg of the šəlāmîm as a wave offering to Yhwh is also mentioned in Lev 9 (cf. Lev 7:29–34). However, this aspect of the wave offering seems unique to the šəlāmîm and not part of kipper. 62.  Milgrom views the burning of Aaron’s ḥaṭṭāʾt as a way for Aaron not to benefit from his own expiatory sacrifice (Leviticus 1–16, 580). Furthermore, he finds that Aaron’s ḥaṭṭāʾt blood should have been brought inside the shrine. Since it was not, Milgrom conjectures this ḥaṭṭāʾt must follow an earlier phase in its development (p. 581). While it is possible that the flesh is burned up so that Aaron cannot benefit from his own ḥaṭṭāʾt, Milgrom’s reasoning for not bringing the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood into the shrine does not seem convincing. First, as the sacrifices took on a unique function in Lev 8 because of the intermediate state of the sanctuary, the sacrifices in Lev 9 also take on a unique function, because of the intermediate state of the community. In both texts, it is to the sacrificial altar that all sacrifices are directed, and it is this altar that is the focus of Yhwh’s theophany. Second, like Lev 8, since sin and impurity are not the reason for Aaron’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, another purpose should be sought out based on the ritual variables. 63.  Milgrom agrees that the altar is the focal point of the climactic eighth-day ritual, but the reason is “to initiate offerings for the altar” (ibid., 571, 593). 64.  Milgrom agrees but with the distinction that the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper has the sense ‘purge’ while kipper for the other offerings has the sense ‘expiate’, that is, reconciliation (ibid., 578). Milgrom, following Janowski, is not sure the šəlāmîm offering includes kipper because its food may be eaten by the offerers (cf. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen, 191 n. 30). However, the Lev 9 šəlāmîm is eaten not by the people but rather by the priests; cf. Lev 10:14–15. This study’s function for kipper, ‘bind (transfer)

131

Leviticus 8–10 table 17.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 9 Ritual Piel of Ḥṭʾ Connects

For

O1 O2 BA P All Aaron w/ altar blood, not conrituals the people grain nected w/ altar

Absorbing Materials Piel of Kpr Removes RA

Result

O1 RA Aaron w/ burned connected the people flesh and w/altar grain

the people.65 The people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, ʿōlâ, minḥâ, and šəlāmîm, that is, their qorban (compare 9:7 with 9:15, which begins the description of all the people’s sacrifices), implement kipper. In Lev 9:6, the sacrifices of Aaron and the people are said to be done following the command of Yhwh. The purpose is that the glory of Yhwh will appear to the priests and the people.66 Thus, rooted in obedience to Yhwh, Aaron’s sacrifices (9:8–14) and the people’s sacrifices (9:15–21) implement kipper on the sacrificial altar in order to bring about Yhwh’s theophany (9:22–24). The function depicted in table 17 is detected for all rituals.67 Moses intimately connected Aaron and his sons to the altar in Lev 8. Now, in Lev 9, the people and Aaron in unity with the people are connected to the altar. Blood and grain make this connection, and the burning of the flesh and grain remove separation between the people and the altar. Why are the ḥaṭṭāʾt, ʿōlâ, minḥâ, and šəlāmîm sacrifices offered? As has been observed, all sacrifices include kipper and emphasize the desire to connect with Yhwh.68 and remove’, poses no problem with regard to the unity of kipper across all sacrifices. The šəlāmîm kipper is not for sin or impurity but rather a desire for closeness to the divine presence through the medium of a communal meal; cf. Exod 24:11. In agreement with Milgrom, the grain offering is excluded from 9:22b, not because it does not implement kipper but because it requires little, if any, activity on the altar (Leviticus 1–16, 588). 65.  Aaron’s unity with the people seems to be in view here. The people must have their own connection with Yhwh, and thus offer their qorban to implement kipper. However, Aaron’s sacrifices are just as important to the people, for without Aaron, the people would have no ability to make sacrifice. 66.  Both Kiuchi (Purification Offering, 43) and Wenham (Leviticus, 148) view the purpose of the Lev 9 sacrifices as theophany. It is conjectured that, because Lev 9:4 is an address to Aaron alone (cf. 9:2), Moses wished to encourage Aaron that his actions will bring about the expected result, so the perfect nirʾāh could be a rhetorical future (e.g., Num 24:17, dārak kôkāb miyyaʿăqōb ‘a star shall come forth from Jacob’). Thus, the use of the perfect could be emphatic. In Moses’s address to the congregation in 9:6b, the expected imperfect is used to reflect the future theophany in 9:23–24. Word order is changed to reflect that the theophany is directed to the people. As a result, it is speculated that the syntax of theophany is intended by the original writers to encourage Aaron (9:4) and create anticipation in the people (9:6). 67.  As noted for Lev 8, the repetition of rituals seems to emphasize a desire for close relationship. 68.  Milgrom argues that the ʾāšām offering is omitted because it is only for private use and, as a result, is not used for public festival offerings such as Lev 9 (Leviticus 1–16, 572, 592–95; Milgrom, “Chieftains’ Gifts,” 221–26). However, not every sacrifice in Lev 9 is always offered in the public cult,

132

Chapter 4

I have argued above that the phrase “pleasing aroma” indicates Yhwh’s acceptance of sacrifice. It seems reasonable to assume that Yhwh’s theophany (9:23) and his burning of the sacrifices on the altar (9:24) take the place of this phrase.69 Furthermore, Yhwh’s glory and fire represents his willingness to remove any separation between him and the people and to connect to the sacrificial altar.70 As a result, the people respond joyfully to Yhwh’s presence, rather than in fear.71 They are now connected to Yhwh through the sacrificial altar confirming the blessings given to them by Moses and Aaron.72 Furthermore, the people receive affirmation that, by their obedient acts of coming forward with a sacrifice (Lev 1–7; 12–15), Yhwh will accept their requests through priestly mediation.73 At the end of Lev 9, Aaron and the people are connected to Yhwh through the sacrificial altar, and as a result, the cult is initiated for daily use. A chiastic structure to this ritual complex is detected as follows.74 A.  The promise of Yhwh’s theophany as a result of Aaron’s and the people’s kipper acts through sacrifice (9:1–7)   B.  Aaron’s sacrifices implement kipper (9:8–14)   B′.  The people’s sacrifices implement kipper (9:15–21) A′. Yhwh’s blessing, acceptance, and theophany (9:22–24)

This chiasm shows that kipper, through each sacrifice, brings about Yhwh’s blessings, acceptance, and access to his presence. It seems that the positive relationship for example, Solomon’s dedication included the burnt, cereal, and well-being offerings and excludes the ḥaṭṭāʾt (1 Kgs 8:64). I have argued above that the ʾāšām is considered a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Thus, it seems that when the ḥaṭṭāʾt is applied to the public cult an ʾāšām is assumed. 69.  Kiuchi states, “The divine fire in v. 24 and in Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 18:38; 1 Chr 21:26 seems to suggest that the idea is divine approval or acceptance” (Purification Offering, 43). 70.  In ch. one, I discuss Yhwh’s metonymic relationship with sancta. Also, it seems that the purpose of Moses and Aaron’s entrance into the tent of meeting is to invite Yhwh’s presence to connect with the sacrificial altar. Milgrom agrees that Moses and Aaron pray for Yhwh’s glory to emerge from the adytum (Leviticus 1–16, 588). Hundley states, “the divine fire (Lev 9:24) connects Yhwh explicitly with the offerings, and by extension with the offerers, while simultaneously expressing his approval of both offerings and offerers” (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 62). 71.  Compare the people’s response to Yhwh prior to the covenant ceremony (Exod 19:16) with their response after (Exod 24:11). 72.  There is considerable debate over the content of the blessings in 9:22 and 9:23 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 587; Watts, Leviticus, 498–501; Wenham, Leviticus, 150). The key point is that these blessings reflect a positive benefit as a result of the completion of the sacrifices and kipper and are confirmed by Yhwh’s theophany. 73.  Hundley states in reference to Yhwh, “Although he will not always appear to the people in a blaze of glory to devour offerings with his flames, his appearance sets a precedent that assures the people that if they properly perform the appropriate rituals, he will make a functional appearance [ensuring ritual efficacy]” (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 90 and n. 200). 74.  Watts rejects that there is chiastic structure (Leviticus, 482). However, he fails to observe the connection between the sacrifices, kipper, and Yhwh’s theophany.

Leviticus 8–10

133

achieved in Lev 8–9 between Yhwh and his people, what has been termed homeostasis, is jeopardized by the rebellious acts of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. The Day of Atonement rituals in Lev 16 provide a remedy for rebellious acts such as these and restore homeostasis achieved in Lev 8–9.75 Before I study these texts, I explore the possible parallels between the rituals, objectives, and results of Lev 9 and Exod 24. Possible Relationship Between Leviticus 9 and Exodus 24 Scholars find a textual link between Lev 9 and the Mount Sinai covenant ceremony narrated in Exod 24. Based on the similar theophany accounts in Exod 24:15b–18 and Lev 9:23–24, these scholars conclude that the Priestly Torah views the tabernacle as a portable Mount Sinai, ensuring Yhwh’s presence remains with his people.76 Sarna finds a tripartite division in the representation of Mount Sinai and the tabernacle.77 He equates the summit of Mount Sinai to the holy of holies. Partway up the mountain matches the tabernacle’s outer sanctum, the holy place or shrine. The foot of the mountain is analogous to the outer court. However, there are issues with Sarna’s premise. The portions of the text that discuss the foot of the mountain and partway up the mountain are thought to be from the Elohist source (Exod 24:4, 12; cf. 19:17),78 while the reference to the “glory of Yhwh” in Exod 24:17 is from the Priestly Torah. For Sarna’s view to hold together, he must argue that the Priestly Torah and the Elohist source knew of the others’ account of Mount Sinai. Sarna makes no such argument, and there is no biblical text that equates Mount Sinai to the tabernacle.79 Furthermore, Exod 24:12 allows not only Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, partway up Mount Sinai but also Israel’s elders. There is no evidence that the Priestly Torah permits Israel’s elders access to the shrine. However, there does seem to be a thematic connection between the JE account of Exod 19 and 24:1–15a and the Priestly Torah accounts of Lev 8, 9, and 10. With the exception of Moses, the JE texts portray approach to Yhwh’s presence on Mount Sinai as deadly prior to the covenant blood ceremony (Exod 19:12, 13, 16, 75.  Wenham notes that Lev 9 bears some resemblance to the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 (Book of Leviticus, 147). 76.  Exodus 24:15b–18 is considered sourced from the Priestly Torah (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 67 n. 21; Propp, Exodus 19–40, 147). For the view that the tabernacle is a portable Mount Sinai, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 58, 574–75; Propp, Exodus 19–40, 300–301, 687–88. Schwartz does not view the tabernacle as a portable Mount Sinai (“Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” 123–24). 77. Sarna, Exodus, 105. 78. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 148. 79. Yhwh’s presence is not constrained, as if his presence must depart from one place to be housed in another; cf. Exod 13:21–22, where Yhwh’s presence is free moving in a cloud pillar (see also 1 Kgs 8:27).

134

Chapter 4

21–24; 24:2). However, after the covenant blood ceremony, the representatives of Israel safely go up Mount Sinai to view Yhwh and eat and drink in his presence (Exod 24:10–11).80 Likewise, the Priestly Torah portrays approach to Yhwh’s presence, which originates from the most holy place and the ark, as deadly (Lev 16:1–3, 13; perhaps Lev 10:1–3). However, by obediently following the blood-based ritual ceremonies in Lev 8 and 9, Yhwh’s theophany is safely seen by the people (Lev 9:22–24). Safe access to Yhwh’s presence in Lev 9 and the JE texts in Exod 19 and 24 appears to be rooted in obedience to Yhwh. In Exod 24, Moses obeys divine commands through direct communication with Yhwh (Exod 24:1–2, 12), and the people promise to obey in the covenant ceremony (Exod 24:3, 7; cf. 19:8). These actions seem to correspond to the repeated statements in Lev 9 that the actions of Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the people obeyed Yhwh’s commands. Thus, a common theme has been found between the accounts. Obedience to Yhwh’s commands, in combination with a blood ceremony between the people and Yhwh, yields safe and blessed access to Yhwh’s presence.81 What can be said when comparing the use of blood in the covenant ceremony with the rituals in Lev 9? As has been argued, in the Priestly Torah, blood binds two objects together for the purposes of resolving a problem with one or both of the objects. It has also been argued that Yhwh is connected to the altar, and this connection is essential for the offerer’s sacrifice to achieve its desired result. It seems that Exod 24 follows this same pattern.82 Moses first sprinkles the blood of the ʿōlâ and šəlāmîm sacrifices on the Mount Sinai altar (Exod 24:6). Yhwh has previously descended on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:18), and thus the altar seems to be in his presence. Next, Moses sprinkles the blood on the people, which he states is a blood covenant, dam-habbərît (Exod 24:8).83 Thus, one interpretation of the covenant ceremony is that blood creates a bond between Yhwh and his obedient people. As a result, it appears that the covenant ceremony of Exod 24 and the rituals of Lev 9 have a similar purpose. Conditioned on obedience to Yhwh’s commands, both rituals seek to connect the people and Yhwh via blood. In both texts, blood rituals lead to safe access to Yhwh’s presence. The burning of the sacrificial flesh is not explicitly stated in Exod 24; however, Israel’s leaders, who eat in the presence of Yhwh (Exod 24:11), are likely eating the proceeds of the šəlāmîm offering.84 It is possible that eating the sacrificial flesh in Yhwh’s presence 80.  Propp sees this encounter with Yhwh’s presence as safe (“He did not stretch out his hand,” Exod 24:11) and a celebratory meal (Exodus 19–40, 296–98). 81.  This access is safe, but still subject to constraints and conditions; cf. Lev 16:1–3. 82.  Gilders provides a long list of scholars who view the application of blood to the altar at the foot of the mountain as establishing a bond between Yhwh and the people (Blood Ritual, 39–40 nn. 24–25). 83.  While disputed, the Hebrew bərît may be related to the Akkadian birîtum having the sense of sharing together, and being part of the same thing (Black, George, and Postgate, Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 45; Weinfeld, ‫ ְּב ִרית‬, 255). 84.  Propp agrees, following the rabbinic commentator Ibn Ezra (Exodus 19–40, 298).

Leviticus 8–10

135

confirms the act of flesh burning and affirms Yhwh’s acceptance of the people’s sacrifices based on the connection created from the blood ceremony. Given the thematic similarities between the JE and Priestly Torah accounts, it is speculated, following Kurtz, that the Priestly legislators sought to ratify the covenant ceremony in the context of the tabernacle.85 The ramifications of covenant obedience and disobedience become a reality with the implementation of the sacrificial system. The people must follow Yhwh’s commands to retain their connection with him and thus access his presence and blessings (cf. Lev 9:23–24). If someone unintentionally sins or contracts bodily impurity, they must follow a sacrificial remedy to regain their connection with Yhwh. On a corporate level, Yhwh’s connection to the sacrificial altar is conditioned on the community’s proper handling of unintentional sin and bodily impurity, as well as rebellious sin. Yhwh’s connection to the sacrificial altar is thought to be in jeopardy on the Day of Atonement. As the people approach the sanctuary, they fear, as a community, that they have not properly dealt with unintentional sin, bodily impurity, and rebellious sin. As a result, Aaron must once again, following Lev 9, obey Yhwh (Lev 16:13, 34) and request Yhwh’s presence to connect to the sacrificial altar. Unlike Lev 9, the Day of Atonement is not a joyous occasion but is solemn, replete with danger for Aaron and for the people as they approach the sanctuary (Lev 16:1–3, 13; cf. 29, 31). Furthermore, the Day of Atonement does not end with a joyous theophany. Unlike Lev 9, the people have approached Yhwh under the premise that they have improperly dealt with sin and impurity. The people can only hope that Yhwh has accepted their sacrifices (16:29, 31) and once again made sacrifice efficacious by connecting his presence to the sacrificial altar.86 Gilders views the covenant blood ceremony as indexing Moses as a ritual specialist.87 By indexing, Gilders means that gestures or actions are used to create an existential relationship with its referent.88 Thus, in Moses’s case, his acts of blood manipulation demonstrate his privileged status, over and above others, who are not allowed to perform blood manipulation. Gilders also finds that the ritual combination of applying blood to the altar, the people’s affirmation of Yhwh’s demands, and applying blood to the people, shows that the people are construed as vassals to Yhwh.89 He views the blood manipulation as bonding the people and Yhwh together in an existential relationship. Gilders contends that this is as far as one can take the blood ceremony without gap filling to identify the symbolic or instrumental understanding of blood, the altar, and ritual actions.90 This study principally agrees with Gilders, except there seems to be more that can be said 85.  I discuss Kurtz’s view elsewhere in ch. three. See also Propp, Exodus 19–40, 301. 86.  The people must demonstrate repentance (Wenham, Leviticus, 236). 87. Gilders, Blood Ritual, 38. 88.  Ibid., 8. Following Jay, Throughout Your Generations Forever, 6–7. 89. Gilders, Blood Ritual, 41–42. 90.  Ibid., 10, 42–43.

136

Chapter 4

from the plain reading of the text. The existential bond created between Yhwh and the people is driven by both obedience and blood connection. This combination of obedience and blood connection is reflected in the Priestly Torah sacrifices. In both the JE account of the covenant ceremony and the Priestly Torah account of Lev 9, actions of obedience and blood application change the relationship between Yhwh and the people, from one of danger to one of acceptance. Thus, in addition to Gilders’s findings, the acts of obedience and blood manipulation seem to have the instrumental effect of producing safe access to Yhwh’s presence. While acknowledging that blood is used as a binding agent in Israelite covenant ceremonies, Levine objects that this same instrumental use of blood may be applied for Israelite sacrifice.91 Levine contends that, in contrast with Levitical sacrifice, the people in the covenant ceremony do not have the status of worshipers. Rather, they are only parties to the enactment of a treaty. However, as has been argued above, there is an important common theme between the covenant account and Lev 9. The results may be different. The covenant ceremony may enact a treaty with Yhwh, while the ḥaṭṭāʾt, for example, produces a renewed connection with Yhwh, bringing about forgiveness. However, blood may still serve the same purpose for those who seek favorable access to Yhwh by connecting to his presence. The Remaining Cult Initiation Texts This study’s findings and methodology are now applied to the remaining cult initiation texts. This investigation begins with the Priestly Torah text describing the initiation of the Nazirites (Num 6:1–21).92 Finally, the Holiness School text describing the initiation of the Levites is studied (Num 8:5–22).93 The Nazirite Vow (Numbers 6:1–21) Numbers 6:1–21 deals with the initiation (6:1–8), reinitiation (6:9–12), and decommissioning of the Nazirite (6:13–21). If the Nazirite unintentionally comes in contact with a corpse (6:9–12), then the Nazirite defiles his or her dedicated head (wəṭimmēʾ rōʾš nizrô, 6:9), the Nazirite’s vow and sanctity (cf. 6:5), and nullifies the days of his service thus far (6:12, wəhayyāmîm hārīʾšōnîm yippəlû kî ṭāmēʾ nizrô).94 91. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 78. 92.  Knohl argues that Num 6:1–21 (with the exception of 6:21a, which is sourced from the Holiness School) is characteristic of the Priestly Torah, based on its opening and conclusion, “this is the law,” and the phrase “man or woman” in 6:2 (Sanctuary of Silence, 89 nn. 91–92). Davies views this text as a late stratum of the Priestly corpus because of its dependence on Lev 1–7 (Numbers, 60). 93.  Knohl regards the Levite initiation as sourced from the Holiness School (Sanctuary of Silence, 71–73). 94.  The adverb petaʿ (6:9) has the sense ‘suddenness’, and thus the Nazirite did not intend to come in contact with a corpse. It was unintentional (Milgrom, Numbers, 46; Ashley, Book of Numbers, 144; Davies, Numbers, 62).

Leviticus 8–10

137

However, the Nazirite may restart his service by shaving his head, going through purification (6:9; it seems that the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt is used for corpse contamination based on the required ablutions on the seventh day; cf. Num 19), offering a ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ to implement kipper (6:10–11), and rededicating his days to Yhwh (6:12, wəhizzîr layhwāh ʾet-yəmȇ nizrô) by offering an ʾāšām. Unlike the normal case of corpse contamination, which only requires the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt for purification, the Nazirite must also bring a normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. Milgrom thinks this Nazirite requirement follows an older tradition found in Ezek 44:25–27 that requires the corpse-contaminated priest to use the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt to purify himself, as well as offer a ḥaṭṭāʾt to deal with sancta pollution.95 Milgrom contends that, because the Nazirite is holy, like Ezekiel’s priest, the older tradition views their corpse contamination as polluting the altar. However, it is not clear that the Nazirite or Ezekiel ritual comes from an older tradition. As Kiuchi points out, the Nazirite must offer a ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ to implement kipper because he sinned (cf. 6:11, ḥāṭāʾ).96 This may be the same situation for the Ezekiel priest. Presumably, Milgrom thinks Ezekiel’s priest must bring a ḥaṭṭāʾt because he defiled himself by going near the corpse of a relative (Ezek 44:25b). However, it is more likely that the priest, like the Nazirite, defiled himself by unintentionally going near a corpse of a nonrelative (Ezek 44:25a). The text does not say that the priest’s act was intentional or not, but the ḥaṭṭāʾt is required for unintentional, not intentional, acts (Lev 4:1–2). Thus, like the Nazirite, the priest may have unintentionally violated the prohibitive commandment of going near a corpse and must not only purify himself with the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt but also deal with his unintentional sin by offering a normal ḥaṭṭāʾt. The Nazirite’s exposure to a corpse seems to be without purposeful intent, that is, he is exposed to the corpse ‘suddenly’; cf. Num 6:9, and as a result became defiled. Thus, the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt must be applied to remove the corpse contamination, followed by the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ for the unintentional sin and then finally the ʾāšām, because the Nazirite also unintentionally committed sacrilege against his status as a holy person. As I have argued, the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt purifies and connects the Nazirite to Yhwh because of corpse contamination. The ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ connect the Nazirite to Yhwh because of unintentional sin. Finally, the ʾāšām connects the Nazirite to Yhwh because of sacrilege against his holy status (cf. Lev 5:14–16).97 It seems that the Priestly legislators require a person, whose connection with Yhwh has been disrupted for multiple reasons, to offer a sacrifice for each issue. Upon completion of his vow, the Nazirite must come forward to the sanctuary with a ḥaṭṭāʾt,ʿōlâ, minḥâ, and šəlāmîm (6:13–21). The requirement for the ḥaṭṭāʾt

95. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 279–80; Milgrom, Numbers, 46. 96. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 55. Levine thinks the Nazirite’s sin was not completing the term of his vow (Numbers 1–20, 223). However, the Nazirite’s sin is related to the corpse (6:11), not his vow. 97.  The Nazirite was regarded as a special form of sacred property (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 223).

138

Chapter 4

puzzles scholars.98 Milgrom admits that the ḥaṭṭāʾt cannot be for bodily impurity, since this state is incompatible with the Nazirite successfully completing his vow.99 Furthermore, the Nazirite must be aware of his sin to bring the ḥaṭṭāʾt, and yet there is no indication that the Nazirite committed a sin.100 Milgrom concludes, following the medieval commentator Ramban, that the Nazirite ḥaṭṭāʾt deals with legitimate desanctification. Milgrom understands desanctification as the usual purpose of the ʾāšām; however, he notes that this sacrifice is used for illegitimate desanctification. Thus, Milgrom concludes that this unique use of the ḥaṭṭāʾt stems from an older tradition. Kiuchi thinks, as he claims for Lev 9, that, like the priests, the Nazirite must perform expiation and purification when approaching Yhwh, lest he die.101 However, any Israelite may come forward to the sanctuary without a ḥaṭṭāʾt, for example, to offer a well-being offering, and not be concerned with incurring Yhwh’s wrath. Wenham seems on track when he states, “These sacrifices and the shaving off of his holy hair reintegrated the Nazirite into the ranks of the ordinary people of God.”102 During the duration of his vow, because of his sanctified status, the Nazirite has had a different type of connection with Yhwh as compared to a lay person. Once his vow is complete, the Nazirite must return to the status of a lay person. This change in status is signified by the burning of the Nazirite’s hair under the šəlāmîm on the altar (6:18). Thus, at the end of his vow, the Nazirite must follow a similar procedure to the people’s and the priests’ in Lev 9 and connect to Yhwh as a normal member of the community.103 Why is kipper not explicitly cited for these sacrifices? Either it is assumed, or the Priestly legislators, while understanding that the Nazirite had to be reconnected to Yhwh, were reticent to state explicitly the need for kipper and the requirement to remove something negative between the Nazirite and Yhwh. After all, the completion of the Nazirite vow seemed to be a positive occasion. The Levite Initiation (Numbers 8:5–22) Scholars view the Levite initiation (Num 8:5–22) as a series of purification rituals to prepare the Levites for service in the tabernacle.104 However, if purification is 98. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 55. 99. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 280. 100.  Even if the act of de-sanctification was thought of as a sin, it would be intentional, and thus, not a candidate for the ḥaṭṭāʾt. 101. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 56. 102. Wenham, Numbers, 88. 103.  In agreement with Marx, the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt is to change the state of the offerer, not for an internal condition, but rather, in relation to Yhwh (“Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rites de passage?” 27–48). 104. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 54; Ashley, Numbers, 169; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 273; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 278; Milgrom, Numbers, 61. Milgrom views the selection of two bulls, following Lev 4:3–21, as an indication that the Levites are initiated as a community.

Leviticus 8–10

139

the key purpose, then it may be asked, “How does this ritual make the Levites different from any other Israelite who performs purification rituals?” Scholars do not seem to provide a satisfactory answer to this question, so I seek a better understanding for the Levite initiation. Numbers 8:6 calls for Moses to take the Levites from among the sons of Israel, and Moses is directed by Yhwh, wəṭihartā ʾōtām ‘and you will make them clean’. As has been argued, in the Priestly Torah, the piel of ṭhr may reflect the result that someone has a clean status before Yhwh and is reconciled to him. Even though the Levite initiation is thought to be sourced from the Holiness School, the piel of ṭhr seems to take this sense. It appears that there is an added emphasis that the Levite’s clean status and reconciliation to Yhwh is different than that of a normal Israelite. In order for Moses to carry through with Yhwh’s command, the Levites must follow two steps. First, they purify themselves (wəhiṭṭehārû, Num 8:7). Second, they are reconciled and dedicated to Yhwh, and presented as clean for service in the tabernacle (Num 8:8–15a). In the first step, Num 8:7, the Levites are sprinkled with the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt (cf. Num 19),105 shave their bodies, and wash their garments. The application of the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt is normally for corpse contamination, while shaving and washing is included in the ablution procedures for scale disease (cf. Lev 14:8–9). As has been argued, corpse contamination and scale disease represent the two most significant forms of uncleanness. The text does not state that the Levites have any form of uncleanness. Furthermore, since these procedures are performed for all Levites, and all Levites could not possibly be unclean with corpse contamination and scale disease, it is unlikely that the purpose of this step is to deal with bodily impurity, but rather it is to move the Levites into a special purified status. The result of this step is wəhiṭṭehārû ‘and they will be purified’. It may be inferred that the Levites are being prepared like an object dedicated to the sanctuary.106 Perhaps the Levites must have the status of ṭāhôr, like the pure gold used in the sanctuary (e.g., Exod 25:11) and thus have the same quality as the sanctuary objects that are under their care (Num 1:50). After being elevated to a pure status, the second step, Num 8:8–15a, reconciles and dedicates the Levites to Yhwh for their work.107 A chiastic structure emphasizes the Levite separation from the sons of Israel and their dedication to service in the sanctuary.

105.  Milgrom thinks the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt are based on Num 19 (ibid., 278; Milgrom, Numbers, 61). Levine disagrees with Milgrom but nevertheless sees the mê ḥaṭṭāʾt as special water for purification ritual (Numbers 1–20, 274–75, 464). See also Cole, Numbers, 149. 106.  Ibid., 150. 107.  Just as pure gold is presented as a wave offering, e.g., Exod 35:22, the pure Levites are presented as a wave offering to Yhwh.

140

Chapter 4

A.  The Levites, with their sacrifices, are presented before the tent of meeting, the congregation is gathered, the Levites are presented before Yhwh, and the sons of Israel lay their hands on the Levites108 (Num 8:8–10).   B.  In order to serve Yhwh, the Levites are presented as a tənûpȃ from the sons of Israel before Yhwh (Num 8:11).   C.  Moses109 makes the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ offerings leading to the result of kipper for the Levites (Num 8:12).   B′.  The Levites stand before Aaron and his sons and are presented as a tənûpȃ to Yhwh (Num 8:13). A′.  The Levites are separated from the sons of Israel, come under the ownership of Yhwh, and will serve in the tent of meeting (Num 8:14–15a).

The chiasm emphasizes that kipper is essential to the tənûpȃ. Like the priests in Lev 8, Moses’s actions result in kipper for the Levites (compare Lev 8:15, 34 with Num 8:12), and he presents them as a wave offering to Yhwh (compare Lev 8:27 with Num 8:11, 13, 15, 21). On one hand, the priests are consecrated and intimately connected to the altar to serve Yhwh and the people. On the other hand, the Levites are made pure and connected to the altar, to serve Yhwh and the people by helping Aaron and his sons (Num 8:19).110 The Disobedience of Nadab and Abihu and Aftermath, Leviticus 10 The eighth-day ritual ended in joy and blessing when Yhwh revealed his glory and his fire consumed the people’s sacrifices on the altar (Lev 9:23–24). However, Lev 10:1 begins abruptly with the phrase “then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took.” Instead of Nadab and Abihu following commands from Yhwh, as did Moses (cf. ‘take’; Lev 8:2), or as Aaron followed commands from Moses (cf. ‘take’; Lev 9:2), Nadab and Abihu ‘take’ their own initiative.111 108.  The Levites become the representatives for the firstborn of Israel before Yhwh. The Levites are not the substitutes for the firstborn of Israel, because they are being dedicated to service and not sacrificial slaughter. Davies agrees that this hand gesture does not reflect substitution (Numbers, 78). 109.  The masculine singular imperative waʿăśēh in Num 8:12 refers to Moses not the Levites themselves, and in Num 8:6, the masculine singular imperative qaḥ references Moses. 110.  Because the Levites are called a sacrifice (8:11), Milgrom argues that the phrase ûləkappēr ʿal-bənē yiśrāʾēl explains that the Levites function as a ransom payment for Israel (Numbers, 369–71). Milgrom’s view is that the plague, which is prevented when the sons of Israel approach the sanctuary, is Yhwh’s wrath that is appeased by the ransom of the Levites. However, why is Yhwh’s wrath only incurred when the sons of Israel approach the sanctuary? Furthermore, what harm did the sons of Israel cause Yhwh that requires a ransom? The Levites are given to Aaron and his sons to perform a service for the sons of Israel in the tent of meeting. Thus, ûləkappēr reflects the Levites helping Aaron and his sons to produce kipper. Without the ability for Aaron and his sons to do this, there would be no forgiveness for unintentional sinners, with the result that Yhwh’s wrath would be incurred. 111. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 596.

Leviticus 8–10

141

Leviticus 10:1–3 recounts Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience to Yhwh 112 by offering ʾēš zārȃ ‘strange fire’. As a result, Yhwh consumed them by his divine fire, and then in response to their deaths, Moses communicates Yhwh’s oracle to Aaron. Next, Moses issues a series of commands to deal with Nadab and Abihu’s deaths (10:4–7). The text then seems to take a tangent by recounting Yhwh’s commands to Aaron on priestly responsibilities (10:8–11), only to turn back to Moses’s commands, now dealing with Aaron and his surviving sons eating the people’s sacrifices (10:12–15). Moses becomes surprised and angry that Aaron’s surviving sons disobeyed his prior commands by burning up rather than eating the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt (cf. Lev 6:18–23 [Heb.]). But based on Aaron’s explanation, Moses concedes that Eleazar’s and Ithamar’s decision was good in the eyes of Yhwh (10:16–20). What did Nadab and Abihu do wrong? Commentators have developed a number of theories that may be put into three categories: illicit or idolatrous motives, wrong procedures, or an unauthorized attempt to enter the adytum.113 Watts correctly points out the stark contrast between the obedience of Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and Moses in Lev 8 and 9, and the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10.114 In order to understand what Nadab and Abihu did wrong, the first question that should be asked from the text is “Why did Nadab and Abihu disobey Yhwh?” There seem to be many contextual clues in Lev 8, 9, and 16 and similarities with the Korah rebellion described in Num 16, to answer this question.115 In Lev 8, Aaron’s sons are direct participants in the sacrificial offerings. They are washed (8:6) and dressed by Moses (8:13), each laid a hand with Aaron on their sacrifices (8:14, 18, 22), participated in the wave offering (8:27), and received blood (8:24, 30), holy oil (8:30), and food from the altar (8:31). However, in Lev 9, Moses, Aaron, and the people are the central focus, while Aaron’s sons are depicted as merely helpers. The people and Aaron make offerings, but there is no mention 112.  In Lev 10:1, the LXX adds Yhwh as the subject of the phrase lōʾ ṣiwwāh ʾōtām to clarify that Yhwh had not commanded Nadab and Abihu’s actions. The Latin Vulgate makes the verb passive to indicate the divine subject. Milgrom thinks the reference to Yhwh dropped by haplography, that is, ṣ[wh] yh[wh] → ṣwh, but it seems as though making the subject more explicit is not necessary based on the resumptive pronoun ʾăšer, which links the preceding phrase, wayyaqrībû lipnê yəhwāh ʾēš zārȃ with lōʾ ṣiwwāh ʾōtām. 113.  For illicit or idolatrous motives, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 628–33; Hess, “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name,” 187–98. For wrong procedures, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 597, 633– 35; Laughlin, “The ‘Strange Fire’ of Nadab and Abihu,” 559–65; Shinan, “Sins of Nadab and Abihu,” 201–14; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 582–86; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 69. The wrong procedures proposed include an incense offering that was not required and wrongly timed, use of unauthorized coals, inebriation, failure to wash hands and feet, and improper dress and infringement on the high priest’s monopoly over incense offerings. Kiuchi claims, based on Lev 16:1–2, that Nadab and Abihu inappropriately entered the adytum (Leviticus, 81, 179); cf. Rabbi Jeremiah’s view (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 633). 114. Watts, Leviticus, 525; Wenham, Leviticus, 154. 115.  Nihan lists parallels between Lev 10 and Num 16 (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 582–86).

142

Chapter 4

of Aaron’s sons as offerers.116 They appear to be relegated to assisting Aaron by carrying blood to him (9:9, 12, 18) and perhaps handling the burnt offering (9:13) and the fat portions of the šəlāmîm offering (9:20). In contrast, Aaron receives instructions from Moses (9:2, 7), manipulates blood and grain (9:9, 12, 17, 18, 22), and officiates on the altar (9:8–21). Moses and Aaron bless the people (9:22, 23) and together enter the tent of meeting (9:23) bringing about the people’s joy over Yhwh’s theophany and divine acceptance (9:23–24). The minor role of Aaron’s sons in Lev 9 points to the possibility that Nadab and Abihu, like the clan of Korah (Num 16:3–5, 8–11), were jealous of Moses and Aaron’s access to Yhwh.117 Like the clan of Korah, Nadab and Abihu may have been attempting a mutiny of sorts by trying to gain divine acceptance through their incense offering (cf. Num 16:6–7, 16–19).118 Did they hope for a different fate from the clan of Korah (Num 16:35)? After all, they were priests and, like Moses and Aaron, should be able to approach Yhwh.119 It is difficult to accept, as a number of commentators propose, that the problem with Nadab and Abihu’s actions stems from the use of incense and fire from unauthorized sources. Nadab and Abihu, along with Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, had been sequestered in the tabernacle for eight days (cf. Lev 8:33; 10:7). Exactly how, under the watchful eyes of Moses, Aaron, and their brothers, were Nadab and Abihu able to produce an incorrect mixture of incense (cf. Exod 30:9)?120 Furthermore, how were they able to use or create a fire source other than the altar (cf. Lev 16:12–13)?121 The issue appears not to be the use of unauthorized sources but rather a seemingly impulsive and mutinous attempt to offer incense to Yhwh. It is not that Nadab or Abihu fall into the category of a ʾîš zār ‘a strange man’, who may not approach Yhwh (Num 17:5 [Eng. 16:40]); after all, they are priests who may approach Yhwh (cf. 10:3). However, it appears that their ʾēš zārȃ ‘strange fire’, 116.  I discuss this elsewhere in ch. four. 117. Wenham, Numbers, 135. 118.  Heger and Nihan view the incense offering as the sole prerogative of the high priest (Heger, Development of Incense Cult in Israel, 80–88; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 582–86). 119.  Watts does not agree that the Korah rebellion parallels the Nadab and Abihu account. Rather than viewing Lev 10 as a text that demonstrates problems with the priesthood, Watts believes it legitimizes the Aaronide priesthood over the public incense cult (Leviticus, 522). However, Watts fails to observe that the Korah rebellion is against Moses and Aaron and not Aaron’s sons. It is Aaron who offers incense in competition with the clan of Korah (Num 16:17; 17:11 [Heb.]; cf. 17:5 [Heb.]; Aaron’s descendants, who offer incense, may refer to only the high priests). Aaron’s sons never offer incense but rather are tasked with repurposing the Korah censers (Num 17:2–4 [Heb.]). 120.  Nihan points out that the context of Exod 30:9 is offering strange incense on the incense altar, but Nadab and Abihu offered their incense in their fire pans; cf. Exod 30:1–10, 34–38 (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 580). Also, the fire is called strange, not the incense. 121.  According to Lev 6:5–6 [Eng. 6:12–13], the altar is the only source of perpetual fire. It may be that Lev 9:17b, “besides the burnt offering of the morning,” is a textual clue that points to the fact that the fire source in the tabernacle was the sacrificial altar and the only place where Nadab and Abihu could obtain fire.

Leviticus 8–10

143

(10:1) in the eyes of Yhwh, was an attempt to approach him in a way that he did not command. In Lev 10:1, Nadab and Abihu first took their pans and put fire in them.122 At this point, the noun ʾēš is not modified by the adjective zārȃ. Given that they have been sequestered in the tabernacle, it is quite natural for Nadab and Abihu to take the fire from the only fire source in the tabernacle, the sacrificial altar (cf. Lev 16:12–13).123 Furthermore, the noun qəṭōret ‘incense’ is not modified by the adjective zārȃ, and thus Exod 30:9 does not seem in view. Only after they placed incense on the fire and brought it near to Yhwh is it called “strange fire.”124 It seems that the strange125 nature of the fire is based on Yhwh’s perception of Nadab and Abihu’s approach to him. Yhwh could consider it “strange fire” based on its makeup, which seems unlikely, or because he does not accept the motives of Nadab and Abihu.126 In the eighth-day ritual, Yhwh commanded Moses and Aaron, and not Nadab and Abihu, to approach his presence (9:23). Thus, Yhwh rejects Nadab and Abihu’s attempt to usurp his authority and the authority he gives to Moses and Aaron. His oracle declares as much to Aaron and Moses (10:3). By their disobedience and their attempt at a sort of mutiny, Nadab and Abihu did not treat Yhwh as holy, nor did they glorify him before the people, and thus they were subject to divine wrath. Perhaps Yhwh’s wrath and judgment served to sanctify and glorify him.127 The very divine fire and acceptance that Nadab and Abihu had hoped to reproduce 122.  It seems likely that fire pans for incense were a normal tool of the priests (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 596–97; Watts, Leviticus, 527). Presumably, the fire is hot coals from the altar. 123.  Nihan states “Also, in the context of Lev 9–10 it is more logical that the fire taken by Nadab and Abihu stems from the altar, since their offering follows immediately the offering of the first sacrifice on the altar in Lev 9” (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 582). 124.  Dillman does not think there was anything wrong with the fire but rather thinks that Nadab and Abihu acted in an unauthorized fashion (Leviticus Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 471). 125.  The usual interpretations of the adjective zārȃ view the problem with the fire (Watts, Leviticus, 527). However, the issue seems to be the motive of Nadab and Abihu. In Num 17:5 [Heb.], Yhwh warns that a man, who is not a descendant of Aaron, is considered “strange” if he attempts to burn incense before Yhwh. The context is the Korah rebellion. The clan of Korah receives punishment not because they offered strange fire but rather because they sought to usurp the priesthood (Num 16:3, 9–10). Milgrom, following Haran, thinks that the clan of Korah may have offered “strange fire” because their coals were discarded (Num 17:2 [Heb.]; see LXX addition of the adjective strange modifying fire; Leviticus 1–16, 598). However, it seems Aaron and the clan of Korah, each followed the same procedure to offer incense (Num 16:7, 17–18). The coals may not have been returned to the altar because they had been made profane, not by their source, but by the motives and actions of the clan of Korah. 126.  “Unauthorized fire” (NIV and ESV) encapsulates all of Nadab and Abihu’s actions in 10:1. It seems their actions are not authorized by Yhwh, because in Lev 9 Yhwh has only authorized Aaron and Moses to approach him. 127.  Milgrom translates the niphal verbs ʾeqqādēš and ʾekkābēd reflexively and thus assumes the purpose of Yhwh’s oracle is to justify his judgment on Nadab and Abihu; that is, Yhwh is made holy and glorified in judgment (Leviticus 1–16, 601–4). Watts views the text as ambiguous and as explaining not only Yhwh’s judgment but also the reason behind his judgment—that Nadab and Abihu did not treat Yhwh properly (Leviticus, 530–31).

144

Chapter 4

in order to elevate their status before the people consumed them and brought utter humiliation.128 This punishment also brought extirpation of their family lines (Num 3:4; 1 Chr 24:2).129 Thus, it does not seem that Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience stems from wrong procedures or unauthorized sources. Furthermore, based on the ambiguity of the location referred to by the term haqqōdeš,130 and thus where Nadab and Abihu were consumed, it is not clear whether or not they attempted to enter the adytum. Although, it does seem they were looking for some type of positive response from Yhwh. Based on the relationship between Lev 9 and 10 and the motives of Nadab and Abihu, Watts seems off-base when he claims that the Nadab and Abihu incident was used to solidify the authority of the Aaronide priesthood.131 If anything, the rhetorical effect of the text is that the Aaronide priesthood, at least through his sons, is in jeopardy. If Nadab and Abihu’s motives are judged by Yhwh to be unworthy of his holiness and glory, it is possible that their actions are rooted in idolatrous incense worship, which was rampant in Israel.132 However, their motive does not seem to be idol worship per se. Perhaps they desired to use idolatrous practices to receive Yhwh’s acceptance and solidify their position as equals to Moses and Aaron. In light of the observations thus far, it seems possible that Moses’s commands, in the aftermath of Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience, are guided by a fear of rebellion among Aaron’s remaining sons. Put another way, if Nadab and Abihu could rebel in such a dramatic way, what else could Eleazar and Ithamar be planning? Thus, Moses takes over and emphatically issues commands in rapid succession.133 While Aaron is not allowed to mourn his sons (cf. Lev 21:10–12), Eleazar and Ithamar should have been able to mourn their brothers (10:6; cf. Lev 21:1–4).134 128.  Wenham states concerning Nadab and Abihu, “They are treated like the useless parts of the sacrificial animals” (Leviticus, 158). 129.  If Nadab’s and Abihu’s lines were cut off, then this may point to the possibility that they were using idolatrous practices; cf. Lev 20:3 and extirpation as a result of Molech worship. 130.  Milgrom concludes that Nadab and Abihu were brought down in the tabernacle court (Leviticus 1–16, 606). However, haqqōdeš can also refer to the area of the incense altar (cf. Lev 4:6; 6:23 [Heb.]), or the adytum (cf. 16:2, 16a). It seems that each text elaborates on the spatial referent for haqqōdeš in the tabernacle. Leviticus 16:2 adds additional information by explaining the haqqōdeš is inside the veil. In the case of Lev 10:4, this information is left out, perhaps leaving the reader to wonder where Nadab and Abihu were consumed. 131.  Watts explains in regard to Lev 10:1–3, “In essence, the message from the Aaronide priests to the Israelite congregation is, ‘We do a dangerous but necessary job, and the rarity of fatalities shows that we do it well! So don’t begrudge us its perks!’” (Leviticus, 514). 132.  1 Kgs 3:3; 11:8; 12:33; 13:1–2; 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4; 17:11; 18:4; 22:17; 23:5; 23:8; Ps 141:1–2; Isa 17:8; 27:9; 65:3; 65:7; 66:3; Jer 11:12–13; 18:15; 32:29; 48:35; Ezek 6:4; 6:6; 8:11; Hos 4:13; 11:12. 133.  Note the fronting of the direct object for ʾal-tiprāʿû and lōʾ-tiprōmû (Lev 10:6) (Watts, Leviticus, 535). 134.  Milgrom thinks that Eleazar and Ithamar could not mourn because they were anointed with holy oil (Leviticus 1–16, 608; see also Rendtorff, Leviticus, 314). Milgrom prefers the MT’s temporary

Leviticus 8–10

145

It is telling that, in Lev 10:8–11, Yhwh speaks to Aaron alone, and in Lev 10:12–20, Moses is angry with Aaron’s sons, not Aaron, treating Aaron as an equal arbiter with regard to whether the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt should be eaten or burned. In the aftermath of Lev 10:1–3, the text’s focus seems to legitimize the authority of Moses and Aaron over and above Aaron’s sons, specifically for Moses to quell any additional rebellious actions by Eleazar and Ithamar. What is the point of Moses’s prohibitions? Under the threat of mutiny, he sought to retain his and Aaron’s authority and ensure no additional divine wrath came upon Aaron’s sons. Why does Moses tell Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar that mourning the deaths of Nadab and Abihu would cause Yhwh to be wrathful (yiqṣōp, 10:6) against the congregation? As has been argued, Moses is concerned that Eleazar and Ithamar may be planning additional rebellion. It is also possible, in light of Moses’s commands in Lev 10:12–20, that, if they leave the sanctuary and mourn, Yhwh will consider them to be disobeying his commands to eat the people’s sacrifices. Wenham considers another option. By mourning, the priests may reflect disagreement with Yhwh’s judgment on their brothers, perhaps even supporting their brothers’ actions.135 Disobedience and grumbling against Yhwh are biblical grounds for Yhwh’s wrath to move indiscriminately among the people (e.g., Exod 32:33–35; Num 11:1–3). After Moses commands Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar not to mourn, he tells the whole house of Israel136 that they will weep (yibkû) over Yhwh’s burning of Nadab and Abihu (10:6). The verb bākāh reflects joy (e.g., Gen 29:11) or loss or distress over someone (e.g., 2 Sam 3:32) or something (e.g., Gen 27:38). The direct object of yibkû in Lev 10:6 is not Nadab and Abihu but rather ʾet-haśśərēpȃ ʾăšer śārap yəhwāh ‘the burning that Yhwh burned’. It does not seem as though the people are to weep over the loss of Nadab and Abihu.137 Rather, they are to weep prohibition, ʾal-tiprāʿû, over the Samaritan Pentateuch’s and the Septuagint’s permanent prohibition, lōʾ- tiprāʿû, because the situation is unique to Eleazar’s and Ithamar’s anointing; that is, normally the priests were not anointed with holy oil. However, the prohibition may be temporary for another reason. Watts argues that the anointing of the priests was a temporary state, and eventually they would be able to leave the sanctuary (Leviticus, 534–35). Thus, the issue was not their anointing, per se, but rather Eleazar’s and Ithamar’s anointing in context to their continuing service in the sanctuary, including eating the people’s sacrifices (10:12–20). However, why could the priests not mourn and then return? While there is more work to be done in the sanctuary, it seems that Moses is seeking to keep the priests in the sanctuary to ensure no more rebellion ensues. For this reason, this study disagrees with Knohl that Lev 10:6–7 is based on Lev 21:10–12 and thus is a Holiness School insertion (Sanctuary of Silence, 68–69). It seems that Lev 10:6–7 is critical to the flow and intent of the Priestly Torah passage (10:1–5) that precedes it. 135. Wenham, Leviticus, 157. 136.  Perhaps the reference to the “house of Israel” represents the people and the priests, as compared to the “congregation.” Thus, following Watts, “your brothers” refer not to Israel, that is, “your kinsman,” but rather to Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus, 536). 137.  In Num 11:10, Yhwh’s anger is kindled when the people complain about his actions.

146

Chapter 4

over the effect of Nadab and Abihu’s actions on them.138 What is the people’s loss? Since it is still the eighth day, it seems reasonable to ask how Nadab and Abihu’s actions affected the people, especially in light of Yhwh’s theophany and divine fire at the end of Lev 9. As has been argued, Lev 9 follows a pattern established at Mount Sinai. Obedience in the context of a blood ceremony yields blessing and safe access to Yhwh’s presence. However, in the case of Nadab and Abihu, disobedience and approach without sacrificial blood139 led to Yhwh’s wrath and a curse upon their family lines. All sacrifices in Lev 9 included kipper and resulted in Yhwh’s divine glory and fire accepting the people’s sacrifices and Yhwh and the people connecting to the sacrificial altar. Once these results were achieved, it became the task of the people and the priests to stay connected to Yhwh, by means of the sacrificial altar, to ensure continued blessing and access to Yhwh’s presence (Lev 1–7; 12–15). Therefore, the house of Israel, the people and the priests (cf. Lev 22:18), should weep over the burning of Nadab and Abihu because the people are no longer connected to Yhwh, and Yhwh is no longer connected to the sacrificial altar. It is not that the rituals in Lev 9 were unsuccessful,140 but rather the results of the rituals have been reversed because of the actions of Nadab and Abihu. The underlying issue in Moses’s disagreement with Aaron over the ḥaṭṭāʾt (10:16–20) appears to be Moses’s demand for strict obedience to Yhwh’s commands (cf. 10:12–15) and his desire to ensure no additional rebellious acts by the remaining priests. Moses’s understanding is contrasted with Aaron’s view that, while the Lev 9 rituals were successful, they have been invalidated by the rebellious actions of Nadab and Abihu. In Lev 10:12–15, Moses demands that Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar follow the commands already given to eat their allocations, prebends,141 of the grain (cf. Lev 2:3; 6:9 [Heb.]; 7:10) and well-being offerings (cf. Lev 7:32–34). However, in Lev 10:16, Moses searches diligently for the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and finds that it had been burned up.142 Moses becomes angry, wayyiqṣōp, with Eleazar and Ithamar, because, 138.  Kiuchi states, referring to the unusual direct object of yibkû, “Thus it must be assumed that the situation of Lev 9:24 has been reversed, involving not only Nadab and Abihu, but the whole people” (Purification Offering, 71; emphasis original). 139.  Leviticus 16, which seems to be a corrective to Nadab and Abihu’s actions, requires blood sacrifice. 140. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 49, 73. 141. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 618–19 142.  The emphatic ‘diligently’ is based on the infinitive absolute plus perfect, dārōš dāraš. Watts is correct when he states that the verb śārap is used to reflect burning outside the camp (Leviticus, 547). However, this point poses a problem. It seems as though, short of eating the people’s sacrifices, by the end of Lev 9, all the sacrificial work has been completed. Thus, any of the remaining parts of the sacrifices would have been shipped out of the sanctuary to be burned at a clean place (e.g., Lev 4:11–12, 21). Based on Aaron’s statements in 10:19, it appears that Eleazar and Ithamar burned up the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt after Nadab and Abihu’s actions. It seems unlikely, under Moses’s watchful eye, that they could have shipped out their portion of the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt to be burned outside the camp. Thus,

Leviticus 8–10

147

based on his prior commands, the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt should be eaten by the priests. Moses interpreted Eleazar’s and Ithamar’s actions as disobedient, perhaps stoking his fear of additional mutiny. Moses does not call the meat of the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt the priests’ due but states that eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt is a priestly requirement (10:17). In agreement with Kiuchi, the direct object marker plus third-feminine-singular ending in 10:17, wəʾōtȃ, most likely refers to the entire ḥaṭṭāʾt and not just the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh.143 Thus, the phrase lāśēʾt ʾet-ʿăwōn hāʿēdȃ refers to the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt. It is to do away with the people’s guilt/separation through priestly mediation with Yhwh on the sacrificial altar and by eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt.144 Furthermore, the l in ləkappēr ʿălêhem also reflects purpose.145 The priests perform the ḥaṭṭāʾt for the purposes of carrying away guilt/separation and for the purposes of kipper. The infinitive construct clauses are synonymously parallel and equivalent in stating the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt, which is that kipper reflects the bearing of the people’s guilt/separation. Moses likely leads with lāśēʾt ʾet-ʿăwōn hāʿēdȃ to make his point that eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt is part of kipper. Thus, Kiuchi appears correct when he says that eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt is a privilege and a duty, but he does not go far enough.146 As has been argued, kipper is made up of two actions. By means of blood, the offerer is connected to the sacrificial altar and thus Yhwh. By burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh on the altar, the offerer understands that his sacrifice has been accepted by Yhwh, and his sin guilt that separated him from Yhwh has been removed. These two actions of kipper bring about a positive result, such as forgiveness, between the offerer and Yhwh. However, if the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood is not brought into the shrine (10:18; cf. 4:22–35), the priest must also eat the remaining flesh of the ḥaṭṭāʾt. It is part of kipper, in that it completes the removal of the offerer’s separation as a their only choice was to burn it on the altar. Perhaps this is another reason for Moses’s anger, because this act was a clear deviation from the ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual found in Lev 4. 143. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 48–49; see also Watts, Leviticus, 547. 144. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 88–93. This disagrees with Kiuchi, who argues that eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt cannot be part of the atonement process because atonement was completed at the end of Lev 9 (Purification Offering, 49; see also Watts, Leviticus, 547–49). It seems that eating the ḥaṭṭāʾt is not part of the kipper process with Yhwh, however, its removal, by means of consumption or burning outside the camp, is required to complete kipper. On syntactic grounds, Sklar agrees that the l in lāśēʾt ʾet-ʿăwōn hāʿēdȃ reflects the purpose of kipper but states, “It does not appear, however, that these different understandings of the means by which the sin is removed (viz. by the consumption of the animal or by the performance of the rite as a whole) need alter the general understanding of the results: the sin is removed so that the sinner no longer needs to suffer the consequences of their sin” (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 94–95). However, the relationship between blood manipulation, flesh burning, and flesh consumption is the key to understanding the debate between Aaron and Moses in regard to kipper. Milgrom originally held that the phrase lāśēʾt ʾet-‛ăwōn hāʿēdȃ represented a reward for the responsibility of removing pollution from the sanctuary (“Two Kinds of Haṭṭāʾt,” 333). However, he rescinded his position and argued that this phrase reflects that the priests must eat the ḥaṭṭāʾt as part of the process of removing pollution from the sanctuary (Leviticus 1–16, 622–25). 145. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 95. 146. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 52.

148

Chapter 4

result of sin guilt; however, it is clearly secondary in relation to what has already been achieved with Yhwh. Furthermore, the ritual instructions allow the complete burning of the ḥaṭṭāʾt as an acceptable means of removal when its blood is brought into the shrine (Lev 4:3–21). So, it is possible that, in Aaron’s view, priestly consumption or burning was acceptable. In Lev 9, kipper has been completed with Yhwh. As a result of his theophany and divine fire, the people know their separation has been removed, and they have been accepted and connected to Yhwh. However, since the disposal of the ḥaṭṭāʾt represents the removal of the people’s separation, it must be eaten by the priests. There seems to be a play on the verb ʾākal in Lev 9 and 10. Yhwh’s fire consumes (wattōʾkal, 9:24) the people’s sacrifices, signifying his acceptance and connection to the altar. Yhwh’s fire consumes (wattōʾkal, 10:2) Nadab and Abihu, signifying his rejection of their disobedient actions. Finally, Aaron and his remaining sons must be obedient and consume the people’s sacrifices (10:12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19).147 Thus, Yhwh’s consumption of the people’s sacrifices and, secondarily, the priests’ obedient consumption of these same sacrifices are part of kipper. However, the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu also requires eating. In their case, Yhwh’s act of eating is the antithesis of the results of kipper; that is, their disobedient acts have led to Yhwh’s consumption of them, thereby rupturing Yhwh’s connection with the house of Israel. It is thus not surprising that Moses is angry with Eleazar and Ithamar. Presumably, they burned up the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, although the text is not clear, so Aaron may have also had his hand in the act. However, it is Aaron’s sons and their disobedience that concerns Moses. The same verb, wayyiqṣōp (compare 10:6 with 10:16), is used to describe Moses’s anger and Yhwh’s divine wrath. This connection does not seem to be an accident. Moses considers Eleazar and Ithamar’s burning up of the ḥaṭṭāʾt as disobedient and rebellious, the very thing he feared, and their actions may lead to Moses’s wrath coming upon Aaron’s remaining sons. Thus, Aaron must intercede for his sons, lest he lose all of them. When Aaron states hēn hayyôm hiqrîbû ʾet-ḥaṭṭāʾtām wəʾet-ʿōlātām lipnê yəhwāh ‘behold today, they offered their ḥaṭṭāʾt and their ʿōlâ before Yhwh’, to whom is he referring? Scholars assume Eleazar and Ithamar,148 but this seems disconnected from the text. Eleazar and Ithamar made no offerings; only Aaron does. Thus, it seems more consistent for Aaron to be referring to the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ. Moses has already discussed the people’s well-being and grain offerings, and now Aaron and Moses are discussing the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ offerings. Aaron’s 147. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 637–38. 148.  Ibid., 626. Milgrom thinks Aaron is referring to the inaugural actions of his sons as priests. Milgrom’s implication seems to be that Aaron is upset over the failure of his sons (cf. Wenham, Leviticus, 160). Kiuchi thinks Aaron is justifying his sons’ act of burning up the ḥaṭṭāʾt, and thus the verb hiqrîbû refers to their priestly actions (Purification Offering, 72 and n. 17).

Leviticus 8–10

149

reflection on the “things that happened to me” (10:19) may reference the acts of Nadab and Abihu, but there seems to be no reason to limit it to only these events. As I have argued, Nadab and Abihu’s actions reversed the entire eighth-day ritual, so it is natural to view Aaron as referring to all events beginning at Lev 9:1. Thus, Aaron may be saying that the people’s offerings were for the purposes of connecting to Yhwh, and it was successful. That is, in obedience, the blood, flesh, and grain offerings were made, kipper was performed, and the people saw with their own eyes, that Yhwh blessed and accepted them. However, the disobedient actions of Nadab and Abihu brought Yhwh’s wrath, and caused the people to weep (10:6) over the loss of their connection with Yhwh, and Yhwh’s connection to the sacrificial altar.149 Thus, Aaron might say to Moses, “While you are correct, and it is technically obedient to eat the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, it is also obedient in the eyes of Yhwh that we not eat their ḥaṭṭāʾt.150 Should my sons and I benefit from the people’s sacrifices that produced kipper? Can we really complete kipper when we know that it has been invalidated?” Moses, understanding the more principled reasons of Aaron, agreed.151 Milgrom offers an alternative view of the ramifications of Nadab and Abihu’s actions. He contends that the disagreement between Aaron and Moses is based on Aaron’s belief that the ḥaṭṭāʾt meat has been infected with corpse contamination, a more serious pollution, and cannot be eaten, but rather it must be burned.152 Thus, the disagreement between Moses and Aaron points the way to the Day of Atonement in order to deal with more potent pollution that reaches the very presence of Yhwh in the adytum. However, Milgrom’s arguments are logically inconsistent with his own views of how the sanctuary is polluted. Milgrom thinks that the ḥaṭṭāʾt has absorbed Nadab and Abihu’s corpse contamination, but according to Milgrom, the ḥaṭṭāʾt absorbs pollution by being placed on the altar.153 Although he provides no explanation, Milgrom must assume one of two things has happened. 149.  Kiuchi argues at length that Aaron and Moses’s debate centers on the issue of the efficacy of the people’s atonement (Moses’s issue), versus the priest’s atonement (Aaron’s issue; Purification Offering, 72–77). However, it seems the sole issue is whether or not the Lev 9 atonement is still valid in light of Nadab and Abihu’s actions in Lev 10. 150.  Watts agrees that the issue is a “borderline case” (Leviticus, 551). 151.  The Septuagint and the BHS editors suggest pointing hayyîṭab (MT) with the interrogative h rather than the definite article. Milgrom, referencing Ehrlich, thinks this rare construction with a definite article reflects a rhetorical question (Leviticus 1–16, 626–27). However, the interrogative h can be used to indicate a rhetorical question (e.g., Hag 2:13), so Milgrom’s argument for a definite article is not convincing. Furthermore, it is not certain that this is a rhetorical question. Aaron’s argument is not clear (10:19), and Moses must consider his response (10:20). It seems more likely that it is not a rhetorical question and that Moses must balance his correct view, against Aaron’s correct view; thus, it is a borderline case. What is the resolution to the rare use of a definite article with a verb? It seems it is a scribal error, perhaps dittography with the preceding hayyōm. 152. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 638–39; cf. pp. 635–40. 153.  Ibid., 1053; cf. pp. 254–58.

150

Chapter 4

First, the ḥaṭṭāʾt has absorbed Nadab and Abihu’s pollution through time and space. Milgrom must claim that, even though Nadab and Abihu’s pollution had not aerially attached to the altar at the time the people offered their ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 9, somehow it absorbed their corpse contamination at that time. Or, as a second option, Milgrom must assume the ḥaṭṭāʾt is able to absorb impurity from afar. Thus, Milgrom seems to change the function of the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh arbitrarily from absorbing impurity by contact to having the ability to attract impurity from afar. In his view, the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh becomes like sancta. However, if this were so, why would the well-being and grain offerings, which are also holy, not attract impurity? Milgrom concedes, because the text demands it, that the well-being and grain offering are not affected by the corpse contamination impurity.154 Milgrom provides no resolution to either inconsistency in his view. A second issue, following Milgrom’s view, is that he must assume the ḥaṭṭāʾt contamination after Nadab and Abihu’s deaths is more virulent than the contamination after the completion of the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt in Lev 9. Apparently, Milgrom thinks that the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt can be eaten after the rituals in Lev 9 but can no longer be consumed after Nadab and Abihu’s sin. That is, following Milgrom’s argument, Nadab and Abihu’s corpse contamination is more virulent than all the people’s sins and impurities that they brought with them to the tabernacle at the beginning of the eighth-day service. Under Milgrom’s understanding of pollution and contamination, this assumption seems hard to accept.155 Finally, if corpse contamination is the issue, Aaron and Moses’s silence on the matter is difficult to understand.156 Thus, it seems more likely, as has been argued, that the issue is the invalidation of eighth-day ritual. In the wake of Nadab and Abihu’s actions, and Aaron’s debate with Moses, how can Lev 9 be reproduced in the context of Yhwh’s anger and wrath. The answer, it seems, is found in the Day of Atonement.

Chapter Conclusions The people, priests, and Yhwh desire a mutually benefitting and blessed relationship as mediated by the sanctuary. This condition was termed “homeostasis” to depict Yhwh, the people, and the sanctuary existing as a biological organism that 154.  In rejecting one of the rabbis’ views, Milgrom states, “if the purification offering was defiled so were the cereal and well-being offerings, which, however were permitted to the priests (vv 12–15)” (ibid., 636). 155.  Milgrom thinks accumulated pollution affects Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary (Leviticus 1–16, 981). 156.  Milgrom states, “To be sure, this story [Nadab and Abihu] adds the impurity of corpse contamination to those in the subsequent impurity collection which must be purged on Yom Kippur (see 16:1)” (Leviticus 1–16, 639). However, there is no mention of corpse contamination in Lev 10–16.

Leviticus 8–10

151

is threatened by sin and impurity but able to sustain itself through sacrifice in the sanctuary. Applying the findings that ritual, and kipper, can only be understood as a function of its variables and expected results, it was found that homeostasis is established by the rituals in Lev 8 and 9. It is maintained during the year by individual and community rituals found in Lev 1–7 and 11–15. Homeostasis is jeopardized by the acts of rebellious people, such as Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 and can only be restored by the Lev 16 rituals. The following chapter findings support this premise. Knohl, in agreement with Milgrom, supports the pollution-and-purge view of the sanctuary, which depicts Yhwh as an inactive observer of sacrifice. Thus, according to Knohl, Priestly Torah sacrifice focuses solely on protecting Yhwh’s holiness. However, it seems that the narratives of Lev 9, 10, and 16 demonstrate that Yhwh is an active participant in the sanctuary, and by his direct actions, he makes sacrifice efficacious. The Lev 8 ritual creates a mutually beneficial and consecrated relationship between Yhwh, the priests, and the sacrificial altar by means of kipper. Three sacrifices form a chiasm bracketed by consecration, and Yhwh’s acceptance and sharing of sacrifice. The center of the chiasm is a wave offering dedicating Aaron and sacrificial meat (which is then gifted back to the priests) to Yhwh. The Lev 9 rituals build on the results of Lev 8 by commanding the priests, through obedience and by blood, to create a safe and blessed relationship between the people and Yhwh as mediated by the sacrificial altar. Yhwh’s theophany demonstrates his acceptance of the people’s sacrifices and that he and the people are connected to the sacrificial altar. Furthermore, Yhwh’s theophany confirms that the people’s sacrifices during the year, for the purposes of creating fellowship and to resolve sin and bodily impurity (Lev 1–7; 12–15), will be accepted by Yhwh in order to restore connection with him. Leviticus 9 follows a key principle found in the Exod 24 covenant ceremony, that obedience and a blood ceremony produce safe and blessed access between Yhwh and his people. Finally, following the priestly investiture in Lev 8, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and kipper are used to create specialized connections between Yhwh and the Nazirite (Num 6:1–21) and Yhwh and the Levite (Num 8:5–22). In the wake of the joyous and blessed results of the eighth-day ritual, Nadab and Abihu rebel against the authority Yhwh has given Moses and Aaron. Perhaps they wished to achieve the same joyous theophany that resulted in Moses’s and Aaron’s actions. However, Yhwh destroys them with the very fire he used to accept the people’s sacrifices. Thus, Yhwh affirms that approaching him in disobedience and without the medium of blood produces his wrath. Yhwh’s wrath invalidates the results of the eighth-day ritual. In the aftermath, Moses tries to ensure that there is no more rebellion among Aaron’s remaining sons. He orders them not to mourn and leave the sanctuary, but rather to consume the people’s offerings obediently.

152

Chapter 4

However, Aaron’s sons burned, rather than consumed, the people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt, causing an argument between Moses and Aaron. Moses demanded strict obedience in the aftermath of the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu. Aaron argues for a more obedient response; he and his remaining sons should not benefit by eating the people’s hattat offering. In the aftermath of Nadab and Abihu’s rebellious acts, Yhwh’s wrath has been kindled. The fear seems to be that, while Yhwh still resides over the ark, he is no longer connected with the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar, and the people are no longer connected to the sacrificial altar. Leviticus 9 cannot be reimplemented as it was designed for joyous occasions. Rather, a solemn and more significant ceremony is required to deal with the rebellious acts of Nadab and Abihu and, more generally, the rebellious acts of all the people. Out of the ashes and destruction of Nadab and Abihu, the Day of Atonement was conceived.

Chapter 5

Leviticus 16 Introduction Commentators focus on five exegetical questions to uncover the function and purpose of Lev 16. 1. How does Lev 16 relate to Lev 1–15, specifically to Lev 10 given the textual link in 16:1? 2. What is the purpose of Aaron’s incense offering in the adytum (16:2, 12–13)? 3. What results does kipper in the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings, live goat ritual, and ʿōlâ offerings produce? 4. How do the evils listed in 16:16, 19, 21, 22, 30, and 34 relate to the evils in Lev 1–15 in regard to their effect on sancta and the people? 5. Is Lev 16:29–34 a later appendix or an integral part of the rituals in 16:2–28?1 The answer to question three, what does kipper achieve in Lev 16, informs why Aaron enters the adytum (question two), the potential problems caused by Nadab and Abihu’s rebellion (question one), and the relationship between the results of kipper in Lev 1–15 with Lev 16 (question one). The answer to question four, the priestly understanding of the effect of evils on the people and sancta, may explain the somber actions of the people, and the kipper result statements in 16:29–34 (question five). Furthermore, how evils affect sancta and the people (question four) provides insight to the function of kipper and purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings, live goat ritual, and ʿōlâ offerings (question three). Thus, I address question four first, followed by questions three, two and one. I investigate whether 16:29–34 changes, explains, or expands on the theology behind the rituals in 16:2–28 (question five) after examining the results of kipper. This study also looks for possible connections between Lev 16 and the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings for the high priest and the community in Lev 4:3–21 and between Lev 16 and the cult reinitiation texts found in 2 Chronicles, Ezekiel, and Ezra. The hope is to identify the purpose and function of Lev 16 that best fits its context, terms, grammar, and syntax. 1.  Knohl and Milgrom find two distinct sources in Lev 16. Leviticus 16:1–28 is thought to be part of the Priestly Torah source, while 16:29–34 is considered part of the Holiness School source (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1064–65; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 27–36). Feder agrees with Knohl and Milgrom but finds two different Priestly Torah strata for 16:1–28 (Blood Expiation, 82). This chapter follows Knohl and Milgrom while considering the unity or disunity of Lev 16.

153

154

Chapter 5

How Do the Evils Listed in 16:16, 19, 21, 22, 30, and 34 Relate to the Evils in Leviticus 1–15 in Regard to Their Effect on Sancta and the People? Leviticus 16:16a specifies a list of evils dealt with by kipper in the adytum: wəkipper ʿal-haqqōdeš miṭṭumʾōt bənê yiśrāʾēl ûmippišəʿêhem ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām. The investigation begins with the evil referenced by ûmippišəʿêhem and then is broadened to all evils dealt with in Lev 16:16a. These findings are assessed against the remaining texts. ‘Their Rebellious Sins’, Ûmippišəʿêhem A number of scholars agree that ûmippišəʿêhem refers to brazen acts of disobedience against Yhwh’s commands.2 For Milgrom and Gane, the rebellious acts of people become a substance that pollutes sancta by air and jeopardizes Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary. For these scholars, rebellious sins, along with other evils stored in the adytum, shrine, and the sacrificial altar, are purged by the rituals in Lev 16.3 In contrast, Kurtz conceives evils, such as rebellious sin, affecting the holy places because “inasmuch as having been erected in the midst of the sinful nation, they might be regarded as having been contaminated and defiled by the impurity of the atmosphere that surround them.”4 Kurtz associates evils directly with the persons who commit them; that is, it is the presence of the people and their sins and bodily impurities that negatively affect the holy places. In Kurtz’s view, Lev 16 implements a “higher form of expiation” in the adytum, shrine, and on the sacrificial altar by covering the evils of the people from Yhwh.5 Since this study does not find that blood has the instrumental sense ‘cover’, in disagreement with Kurtz, the Lev 16 rituals do not perform a “higher form of 2.  Milgrom agrees with the rabbinic view that pešaʿ has the sense of rebellion (Leviticus 1–16, 1034; cf. p. 1044). According to Kurtz, the list of evils in 16:16a represents “all the sins of the whole nation without exception, known or unknown, atoned for or not atoned for” (Sacrificial Worship, 386). Kiuchi, supporting Kurtz’s sentiment, blurs the relationship between pešaʿ and other sins (Leviticus, 300; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 154 n. 49). However, there is a distinction between the sins that are eligible for sacrificial remedy, that is, committed unintentionally, and those that are not, that is, committed deliberately with knowledge of Yhwh’s standards. Thus, the question is whether pešaʿ refers to sins done intentionally, inexpiable sins, or not (pešaʿ can certainly have the sense of deliberate rebellion, e.g., Ezek 37:23). Gane agrees that pešaʿ are inexpiable sins (Cult and Character, 294–98). He states that Kiuchi draws the wrong implication from Knierim’s understanding of pešaʿ (ibid., 295; Knierim, ‫פׂשע‬, 1036). 3. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1033; Gane, Cult and Character, 298–300. 4. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 385–86. Kiuchi holds a slightly different view. Sancta are defiled, that is, polluted, but only when the offender stands before Yhwh (Purification Offering, 61, 161). 5.  Kurtz views the Lev 16 rituals as providing a greater, more intense, covering (his gloss for kipper) of sins from Yhwh’s sight (Sacrificial Worship, 386). The people’s sins are covered not only on the sacrificial altar (as a result of the sacrifices performed during the year) but also on the adytum and shrine.

Leviticus 16

155

expiation.”6 However, since chs. two and three found that sin and impurity do not seem to be stored on sancta, in agreement with Kurtz, the rituals in Lev 16 may envision evils on people not sancta.7 This view is now assessed by studying the evils referenced by ûmippišəʿêhem. I consult non-Priestly text sources, because the noun pešaʿ and verb pāšaʿ do not appear in the Priestly Torah or the Holiness School other than in Lev 16.8 The verb pāšaʿ frequently occurs as a nominative and substantive participle describing rebellious people. For example, in Ps 37:37–38, they who are rebellious, ûpōšəʿîm, are equated with wickedness and will be destroyed and cut off. The noun pešaʿ appears in three contexts. A person is accused or confirmed to have committed a rebellious act (e.g., Gen 31:36; 50:17). A person may be thought of as committing multiple rebellious acts (e.g., Ps 25:7; 51:3). Last, a corporate entity, such as a city or nation, may be said to have committed rebellious acts (e.g., Ezek 14:11). However, even in this corporate context, Yhwh judges each offender (Ezek 18:30–31; cf. the rest of Ezek 18).9 Nowhere in the Priestly Torah is sin described as contagious or able to detach from the person who committed the sin.10 For 6.  There is also no reason to believe that the regular offerings during the year were insufficient and did not completely achieve their intended purpose. Dennis states that “if sins and impurities are dealt with throughout the year by means of the various sacrifices, the Day of Atonement must deal with other sins or else it appears to be superfluous” (“‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 125 n. 104). 7.  Leviticus 16 is not clear whether the people have approached the sanctuary or not. If these rituals were implemented after the Nadab and Abihu incident (cf. 16:1), since it is still the eighth day, the people are present (cf. Lev 9:24). This disagrees with Milgrom, who argues that the community cannot come forward because they are considered “wanton, presumptuous sinners” (Leviticus 1–16, 1018). However, there is no Priestly Torah prohibition for sinners to come forward to the sanctuary as evidenced by the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering preconditions in Lev 4:1–2. The only distinction seems to be whether a sinner can receive sacrificial remedy or not. Thus, there may be some people who come forward who know they have committed rebellious sins. This case seems to be anticipated by the rituals in Lev 16. 8.  Feder views the reference to the noun pešaʿ as originating from the Holiness School (Blood Expiation, 91–92). However, since this term is not found in the Holiness School source, it is difficult to make this claim. Because the term pešaʿ is unique to the Priestly Torah, Milgrom argues that 16:2–28 must stem from an earlier source and had been subsequently incorporated in the Priestly Torah (Leviticus 1–16, 1063). However, Milgrom does not explain how Lev 16 was integrated into the Priestly Torah, what portions of 16:2–28 had been originally sourced from the Priestly Torah, and what portions had not. It seems that this term is introduced by the Priestly legislators to stress that only rebellious acts are dealt with in Lev 16. 9. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 589–90. 10.  In disagreement with Milgrom, Schwartz argues that sin is not conceived by the Priestly Torah as a contagious substance such as impurity. He conjectures that the sin acts affect sancta as “odious, foul objects” (“Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 7; cf. n. 14). In agreement with Schwartz, sin is not contagious like bodily impurity. In disagreement with Schwartz, as I argued in ch. two, sin does not seem to behave like defilement that is attracted to the sanctuary. Even outside the Priestly Torah, while sins may affect the land, they are still associated with the people who created them. For example, in Lev 18:24–30 (Holiness School), the land is defiled because of its inhabitants. Once these inhabitants are removed, the land is no longer defiled. Thus, the sinful acts that defiled the land are on the people (18:1–23) and do not appear to become some type of substance that polluted the land.

156

Chapter 5

example, for the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals, there is a one-to-one association between the offerer and his or her sin (e.g., Lev 4:26). Therefore, in agreement with Kurtz, evils such as pešaʿ relate to individuals among the sons of Israel.11 Milgrom, Gane, and those who follow the pollution-and-purge view, appear to read beyond the text of Lev 16 when they claim that the Priestly legislators viewed evils as physically detached from people. If evils are attached to people and not sancta, then how does Lev 16 envision the state of the people and priests? First, there must be some people who have had no instances of sin or bodily impurity.12 A question naturally arises from this observation. Are clean non-sinners part of the Lev 16 people’s ḥaṭṭāʾt offering? The text seems to support this possibility by requiring a ḥaṭṭāʾt for all people and priests, while only requiring kipper for a specific set of evils (compare 16:5 with 16:16a). This question is explored in the discussion of kipper below. Second, there are people who have come forward and offered a ḥaṭṭāʾt or ʾāšām for unintentional sins (Lev 4; 5:14–16, 17–19), intentional sins that can be remedied by sacrifice (Lev 5:1–13, 20–26), and bodily impurities (Lev 12–15; Num 6:9–12; 19). Since these people have been forgiven or declared clean, it is reasonable to assume that they are free from this particular sin or bodily impurity.13 Third, there are people who have sins or bodily impurities that are eligible for the ḥaṭṭāʾt, but they are unaware of their evils and have yet to seek a sacrificial remedy. It is of course possible that there is overlap between categories two and three, that is, people have dealt with some, but not all of their sins and bodily impurities during the year. Fourth, there are people who have sins or bodily impurities that are eligible for the ḥaṭṭāʾt but have rejected the priestly sacrificial remedy. As I argued in ch. one, these people are considered rebellious sinners. They are included with people who knowingly rebel against Yhwh’s commands.14 11.  Furthermore, in Lev 16:16a, it is more natural to take miṭṭumʾōt in the construct miṭṭumʾōt bənê yiśrāʾēl as a possessive genitive—from the impurities possessed by the sons of Israel—rather than a subjective genitive—from the impurities generated by the sons of Israel. Like unintentional sins, in the Priestly Torah there is a one-to-one correspondence between the state of being unclean and the unclean object or person (e.g., Lev 15:3). 12.  In the Priestly Torah, there appears to be no understanding of the idea of general sinfulness of the people. The conditions in Lev 4:1–5:26 and Lev 12–15 require that an offender come forward for a specific sin or bodily impurity. There is an understanding of unknown sins and bodily impurities; however, sacrificial remedy is not implemented until they become known to the offender, and he or she is “compelled by guilt” to come forward with a ḥaṭṭāʾt. 13.  On his premise that the Nadab and Abihu incident demonstrates that the priestly atonement in Lev 9 was inadequate, Kiuchi asserts that the regular priestly work in the shrine and the forecourt, as a whole, was also inadequate (Purification Offering, 159). However, this study has argued against Kiuchi’s view that Lev 10 shows the inadequacy of priestly atonement. Furthermore, this study has rejected Kiuchi’s view that pešaʿ includes the sins and bodily impurities dealt with during the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings. 14.  I discussed this in ch. two. It is possible that people who have committed rebellious acts may have also have committed unintentional sins or contracted bodily impurities. However, their rebellious acts appear to supersede these other issues.

Leviticus 16

157

In Lev 16, all, or a subset of categories two through four, have caused some type of issue with the sancta and the people, since the people’s evils are the focuses of kipper (cf. Lev 16:16, 19, 21, 22, 30, 34). Which categories do the Lev 16 rituals address? Category-two people have handled their sin or bodily impurity properly, and thus it seems unlikely that these people have caused an issue with the sancta.15 Category-three people are possible candidates. However, why should unaddressed unintentional sins and bodily impurities be dealt with in Lev 16? These people are eligible for sacrificial remedy. They may come forward at any time, once they are compelled to do so.16 Furthermore, it does not seem that these people’s sins or bodily impurities affect the sanctuary during the year. If they did, kipper should be explicitly associated with sancta for the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt, as it is here in Lev 16. Finally, as discussed below, it does not seem that the purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt kipper in Lev 16:2–28 is to achieve forgiveness or a clean status for this group of people. Thus, the people who have committed category-four evils seem to be the people who negatively affect the sancta. They have rebelliously sinned against Yhwh’s standards (e.g., Lev 20:3) or rebelliously rejected the sacrificial remedy for their unintentional sin or bodily impurity (e.g., Num 19:13, 20). It does not seem surprising that this is the category of evils that adversely affects the people and the sanctuary where Yhwh resides.17 Priestly and non-Priestly narratives recount Yhwh’s wrath and punishment as a result of rebellion among the priests and the people (e.g., Lev 10; Exod 32; Num 17; and throughout the book of Ezekiel). This study now explores how rebellious evils relate to the other evils listed in Leviticus 16:16a. ‘From the Impurities of the Sons of Israel’, Miṭṭumʾōt Bənê Yiśrāʾēl Milgrom contends the phrase miṭṭumʾōt bənê yiśrāʾēl describes pollution caused by bodily impurities (Lev 11–15) and moral faults (Lev 4:1–5:13) that have aerially attached to the sanctuary.18 He bases his conclusion on the following arguments. 1.  Bodily impurities and moral faults, like demon attacks on ancient Near Eastern sanctuaries, aerially pollute the sanctuary.19 15.  This disagrees with Gane that these people’s evils have been stored in the sanctuary during the year (I discussed this in ch. three). 16. Gane, Cult and Character, 276. 17.  It seems that the preconditions of the Lev 4:1–5:26 sacrifices are designed to minimize rebellious sin in the camp (discussed in ch. one). 18. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1033–34. Presumably, Milgrom thinks ṭumʾōt includes pollution from sins and bodily impurities that are eligible for sacrificial remedy, but the offender has not yet come forward. Schwartz contends that Milgrom thinks ṭumʾōt are pollution generated solely by rebellious sins or bodily impurities, wherein the person has rebelliously rejected the required purification offering (“Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 6–7). Gane captures Milgrom’s view more accurately by stating that he views ṭumʾōt as including pollution from rebellious sins as well as nonrebellious sins (Cult and Character, 286). 19. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 256–58. I discuss this further in ch. one.

158

Chapter 5

2.  The verb kipper means ‘purge’, thus explaining how accumulated pollution is removed from the sanctuary.20 3.  Leviticus 16:16b and 16:19 only refer to ṭumʾōt, and thus this term must include all types of pollution. 4.  Comparing the list of evils in Lev 16:16a with the live goat procedure (16:21), demonstrates that ṭumʾōt parallels ʿăwōnōt, that is, blood rituals remove pollution, while the live goat removes Israel’s wrongs that caused the pollution. In regard to arguments one and two, this study has already provided evidence to question Milgrom’s view of sanctuary pollution and his sense ‘purge’ for kipper. In his third argument, Milgrom seems to view the waw in ûmippišəʿêhem as conjunctive and, at the same time, explicative/epexegetical.21 So for Milgrom, the term ṭumʾōt includes rebellious sins, while at the same time rebellious sins are a different category. Milgrom must explain ṭumʾōt in this way to justify why it is the only referent in Lev 16:16b and 16:19. However, Milgrom’s understanding of ṭumʾōt suffers from an internal inconsistency within his own view. According to Milgrom, bodily impurities pollute the sacrificial altar, moral faults pollute the sacrificial and incense altars, and rebellious sins pollute all sancta.22 Since Lev 16:16a references the adytum,23 Milgrom must explain why the adytum was purged from nonrebellious moral faults and bodily impurities, since according to his view, they should not have reached the adytum.24 Finally, in Lev 11–15, ṭumʾōt ‘impurities’ always refers to people with bodily impurities and not moral faults.25 Therefore, Milgrom’s understanding that ṭumʾōt refers to all sanctuary pollution appears to be incorrect. However, in agreement with Milgrom, the waw in ûmippišəʿêhem is both conjunctive and explicative/epexegetical; however, this study’s interpretation is different. The term ṭumʾōt references a subset of category-four evils, people who 20.  Ibid., 255–56, 1079–80. I discuss this further in ch. one. 21.  Ibid., 1010, 1034. Milgrom states that “all of Israel’s sin, including the brazen pěšāʿim, are responsible for the pollution of the sanctuary and are now purged by the blood of the two purification offerings.” Milgrom thus views pollution, ṭumʾōt, as including all of Israel’s sins, presumably what is left on the altar from unaddressed moral faults and bodily impurities, as well as, rebellious sins that cannot be dealt with by sacrificial remedy. See also Rendtorff who views the waw as explicative (Leviticus, 220). 22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58. It is actually difficult to understand what Milgrom thought because, in his most recent commentary on Leviticus, he states it is only the adytum that is polluted by rebellious sin (Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 162). This study principally engages with Milgrom’s more complete view articulated in his Anchor Bible commentaries (examined in ch. one). 23.  Milgrom interprets haqqōdeš referenced in 16:16a as the adytum (cf. 16:15; Leviticus 1–16, 1010, 1033). 24.  According to Milgrom, nonrebellious moral faults and bodily impurities do not have enough impurity charge to reach the adytum (ibid., 980–81). 25.  In agreement with Gane, Feder, and Schwartz (Gane, Cult and Character, 289–90; Feder, Blood Expiation, 92; Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 6).

Leviticus 16

159

contracted bodily impurities and caused them to continue unabated in the camp by rebelliously rejecting the prescribed cleansing ritual and sacrificial remedy (e.g., Num 19:13, 20; Lev 15:31). The term pəšāʿîm refers to people who committed rebellious acts that propagated physical impurities in the camp, as well as people who committed rebellious acts by violating Yhwh’s prohibitive commandments, for example, Lev 20:3. Milgrom’s third and fourth arguments are addressed below; for now, the next evil listed in Lev 16:16a is studied. How do impurities and rebellious sins relate to ḥaṭṭōʾt? ‘Belonging to All Their Sins’, Ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām Milgrom and Gane interpret ləkol in ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām as another category of sins dealt with by kipper.26 Gane argues that the l on ləkol has a conjunctive function following Lev 11:46;27 however, in 11:46 the l is preceded by a waw conjunction, which clearly marks swarming creatures as another category of animal. Milgrom makes a similar argument referencing Num 4:32a, but here again the l is preceded by a waw.28 There is no waw attached to ləkol in 16:16a. In disagreement with Milgrom and Gane, Lev 11:42 appears to be a more accurate example for the use of l in ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām, in that here the l in ləkol is possessive, showing that the entire list of creatures belongs to the category of swarming things. Since moral faults, pəšāʿîm, and physical impurities, ṭumʾōt, are not the same categories of evil, Gane rejects that the l in 16:16a is possessive because, if it were, then he thinks ḥaṭṭōʾt must refer to both ṭumʾōt and pəšāʿîm.29 However, what ḥaṭṭōʾt refers to is subject to interpretation. It may refer to both ṭumʾōt and pəšāʿîm30 or only pəšāʿîm. The latter view is how Schwartz understands the use of the l in 16:16a.31 Gane and Milgrom seem to attempt to force-fit ḥaṭṭōʾt as another category of evil, nonrebellious moral faults, to support their view that these types of evils pollute the sanctuary (Lev 4:1–5:13) and thus must be purged from sancta.32 26.  For Milgrom, ḥaṭṭōʾt include all sins except brazen acts (Leviticus 1–16, 1034). For Gane, ḥaṭṭōʾt are the moral faults that were stored on the sancta by the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings in Lev 4:1–5:13 (Cult and Character, 290, 292–93). 27.  Ibid., 289. 28. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1034; Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 77 n. 279. 29. Gane, Cult and Character, 289. 30.  Kiuchi (The Purification Offering, 155); Wenham (Leviticus, 233 n. 12). Kiuchi thinks that impurities refer to the acts that caused the physical impurities, rather than the physical impurities themselves. As I have argued above, impurities in Lev 11–15 refer to bodily impurities. Wenham views ḥaṭṭōʾt as a category that includes moral faults and bodily impurities. However, the term ḥaṭṭōʾt does not include bodily impurities in the Priestly Torah. 31. The l represents a possessive genitive (Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 6 n. 11, 18 n.  59; Feder, Blood Expiation, 92). 32.  In order to support his theory that the min preposition is privative, and thus ḥaṭṭōʾt evils are removed from the adytum, Gane seems to make the unlikely assumption that, while there is no min

160

Chapter 5

Based on the understanding that only rebellious acts are dealt with by the Lev 16 rituals, this study follows Schwartz’s interpretation of a possessive l, and render wəkipper ʿal-haqqōdeš miṭṭumʾōt bənê yiśrāʾēl ûmippišəʿêhem ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām as follows: ‘And he will implement kipper for the [most] holy place from the impurities [created by rebelliously rejecting prescribed purification rituals] of the sons of Israel, and their rebellious sins [that] belong to all their sins’. By modifying ûmippišəʿêhem alone, ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām emphasizes that Lev 16 deals with only rebellious sins, category-four evils, and not unintentional sins that have been or can be dealt with by sacrificial remedy, part of category-two and -three evils.33 The function and purpose of kipper in Lev 16:16a and the min prepositions associated with the evils ṭumʾōt and pəšāʿîm are discussed below. At this point, I tentatively state that kipper resolves an issue in the adytum caused by the people’s rebellious sins and impurities created from their rebellious rejection of purification rituals. As a result, kipper for the most holy place is not implemented for the benefit of the rebellious people.34 Rather, it is implemented for the benefit of Yhwh, the sanctuary, and the people who have not committed rebellious acts. As discussed below, this last point has major implications for the understanding of the purpose and function of Lev 16. The Remaining References to Evils in Leviticus 16:16b, 19, 21, 22, 30, and 34 Leviticus 16:16b states wəkēn yaʿăśeh ləʾōhel môʿēd haššōkēn ʾittām bətôk ṭumʿōtām ‘and thus he will do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their impurities’. While many scholars agree that ləʾōhel môʿēd refers to the shrine, there is debate whether Lev 16 envisions an incense altar in the shrine or not.35 It on the phrase ləkol-ḥaṭṭōʾtām, this preposition is somehow extended to this phrase because a min is attached to each of the other evils, miṭṭumʾōt bənê yiśrāʾēl and ûmippišəʿêhem (Cult and Character, 290). 33.  Gane claims that ḥaṭṭōʾt can only refer to the moral faults dealt with in Lev 4:1–5:13 (ibid., 292–93). However, it is reasonable to assume that, by creating a category of sins that are unintentional, the Priestly legislators understood that sins could also be done intentionally. Thus, it seems that ḥaṭṭōʾt refers to both unintentional and intentional sins. 34.  This disagrees with Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1043, 1056–57) and agrees with Gane (Cult and Character, 300–302). Why would the Priestly literature be so careful to distinguish between unintentional and intentional sin and require punishment for rebellious sinners (e.g., Num 15:27–36), only to allow these same people to receive expiation? Conceding to Milgrom, it appears that the Priestly legislators do allow for some intentional sins to become expiable. However, it does not seem, following Milgrom, that any rebellious sin can be converted to an expiable moral fault through confession. For example, the text does not support that someone who offered their child to Molech (Lev 20:1–5) was able to turn around and confess this sin and receive expiation. Also, in regard to Lev 16:21, it is not the people that make confession for their rebellious sins but rather the high priest. 35.  Milgrom takes ləʾōhel môʿēd to refer to the shrine because the Priestly Torah’s usual term for the shrine, haqqōdeš is used for the adytum (cf. 16:16a; Leviticus 1–16, 1034–35, 1037–39). Furthermore, he interprets Exod 30:10 as referring to kipper for the shrine in 16:16b. Milgrom, in disagreement with

Leviticus 16

161

is clear that 16:16a has a different list of evils as compared to 16:16b and 16:19. The mention of ṭumʾōt in 16:16b and in 16:19 seems to indicate that, while the people’s rebellious sins and impurities, created by the rebellious rejection of purification rituals, affect the adytum, impurities are the only evils that affect the other parts of the sanctuary. This observation creates significant problems for Milgrom and Gane, since both argue that rebellious sin, impurities, and nonrebellious sins are stored in the shrine and the sacrificial altar. Thus, Milgrom must make the awkward assumption that ṭumʾōt refers to ritual impurities and unintentional moral faults in 16:16a, while the same term refers to all types of evils that pollute, including rebellious sins, in 16:16b.36 Gane must resort to calling ṭumʾōt in 16:16b an “incipit,” that is, an identifying label for all types of evils,37 but the priestly writers do not seem to have a problem with repeating words and phrases (compare Lev 16:6 with 16:11; especially 16:16a with 16:21a). The relationship between 16:16a, 16:16b, and 16:19 comes down to how evils are envisioned in Lev 16. Since, Milgrom and Gane view evils as stored on the sancta for removal, they must look for ways to make the text reflect this understanding. However, once the constraints of their assumption are lifted, the rituals seem to reflect a different understanding of evils. While the adytum is affected by the people’s rebellious acts, that is, their rebellious rejection of purification rituals and rebellious sins (16:16a), the shrine and the sacrificial altar are only affected by the results of some of these rebellious acts, the people’s physical impurities (16:16b, 19). This reading is supported by the reference to Nadab and Abihu’s rebellious acts (16:1). Leviticus 16:2, and vv. 12–13, are clear that Yhwh resides in the adytum. Thus, like the rebellious acts of Nadab and Abihu, the rebellious acts of Israel directly offend Yhwh’s presence in the adytum. However, the shrine and the sacrificial altar, while in the sanctuary, are not directly in the presence of Yhwh. the rabbis, finds the altar in 16:18 is the sacrificial altar rather than the incense altar, leaving 16:16b as a cryptic statement for the shrine with no need for detailed explanation given the procedures already outlined in Lev 4:6–7 and 4:17–18. On the strength of the contextual links between Exod 30:10 and Lev 16, Gane and Kurtz view 16:16b as referring to blood manipulation in the shrine and on the incense altar (Gane, Cult and Character, 226–29; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 392). Knohl agrees that 16:16b refers to the shrine, but because the incense altar is not explicitly referenced in 16:16b, Lev 16 belongs to an older Priestly Torah stratum that knows nothing of the existence of the incense altar. He contends that Exod 30:10 is a later Holiness School addition that seeks to insert the incense altar into the Lev 16 rituals (Sanctuary of Silence, 28–29; cf. n. 62). Wenham agrees with Milgrom, Gane, and Kurtz that Exod 30:10 makes explicit what is implicit in 16:16b (Leviticus, 232). He helpfully points out that 16:20 alludes to blood manipulations in three separate parts of the sanctuary. Thus, while the existence of the incense altar may be questioned, it seems clear that 16:16b refers to the shrine given the reference to the adytum in 16:15–16a and the sacrificial altar in 16:18 (cf. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 128). 36.  Milgrom inconsistently states that ṭumʾōt in 16:16a refers to physical and moral impurities and then claims ṭumʾōt only refers to physical impurities (compare Milgrom’s notes for the term ṭumʾōt for 16:16a and 16:16b; Leviticus 1–16, 1033–35). 37. Gane, Cult and Character, 291.

162

Chapter 5

However, the people and priests meet Yhwh in these parts of the sanctuary during the year. So, perhaps, only the physical impurities that reside on the people are thought to affect the shrine and the sacrificial altar. How do these findings relate to the evils listed in Lev 16:21? After Aaron lays both his hands on the head of the live goat, 16:21 states, wəhitwaddāh ʿālāyw ʾet-kolʿăwōnōt bənê yiśrāʾel wəʿet-kol-pišəʿêhem ləkol-ḥattōʾtām ‘and he will confess upon it all the guilt of the sons of Israel and all their rebellious sins, belonging to all their sins’. In Biblical Hebrew, the term ʿāwôn can refer to a wrongful act, guilt from the violation of Yhwh’s standard, and/or punishment.38 As has been argued for Lev 5:5, confession is required when the evil is only known to the offender. The offender must confess the evil aloud, so their guilt can be dealt with properly.39 In 16:21, while Aaron cannot know all the hidden rebellious sins of the Israelites, his confession symbolically makes all the rebellious evils known so that they can be handled properly.40 In Lev 5:5, the offender confesses, so that their guilt may be dealt with by a sacrificial remedy in order to receive forgiveness. However, as has been argued, the Lev 16 rituals are not for the benefit of the rebellious sinners. Thus, we should ask, why is guilt dealt with by the live goat procedure, and what is the relationship between the evils listed in 16:16a and 16:21? The evils are the same in both texts with one exception. The term ṭumʾōt is replaced by ʿăwōnōt. As observed in the study of 16:16a, ṭumʾōt represent impurities caused by a person’s rebellious rejection of performing the required purification ritual. The pəšāʿîm represent the rebellious sins committed by people who brazenly propagated impurities and rebellious sins that have nothing to do with impurity. Thus, it was concluded that the waw on ûmippišəʿêhem is both conjunctive and explicative/epexegetical. Since ṭumʾōt is parallel to ʿăwōnōt, it seems reasonable to ask whether there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two terms; does one instance of impurity correspond to one instance of guilt? The answer seems to be no.41 The impurities, ṭumʾōt, stem from the acts of some rebellious people. 38.  Ibid., 294; cf. n. 40; Koch, ‫עָ וֺן‬, 546. 39.  I discussed this in ch. one. 40. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1043. However, I disagree with Milgrom’s view (who follows the rabbinic commentator Sipra) that confession turns iniquities and transgressions into inadvertencies. Furthermore, even according to Milgrom’s interpretation of confession, it should be the rebellious people, not the high priest, that makes the confession. Thus, it seems unlikely that the live goat procedure expiates for the rebellious people. 41.  This disagrees with Milgrom. Milgrom thinks the term ṭumʾōt in 16:16a refers to expiable sins and bodily impurities but that ṭumʾōt in 16:16b refers to all of Israel’s wrongdoing (Leviticus 1–16, 1033–35). Milgrom then explains that, since 16:21 parallels 16:16a, the term ʿăwōnōt (in 16:21) has a one-to-one correspondence with ṭumʾōt, that is, there is a one-to-one correspondence between each act that created pollution in the sanctuary and the guilt of the offender. However, to make this claim, Milgrom has to erroneously refer to his understanding of ṭumʾōt from 16:16b, not 16:16a (ibid., 1043)! See also Kiuchi, who makes a similar error. He establishes ṭumʾōt and pəšāʿîm in 16:16a, as rebellious acts that have a one-to-one correspondence to ʿăwōnōt in 16:21 but then fails to explain, if ʿăwōnōt

Leviticus 16

163

However, all the rebellious people, those who committed pəšāʿîm, are guilty before Yhwh and are represented in the term ʿăwōnōt. The people who committed the rebellious acts, the pəšāʿîm (which includes the acts that created ṭumʾōt), are the same people who are guilty of committing these acts, the ʿăwōnōt.42 Why are the rebellious people’s guilt and acts sent away on the live goat? As noted above, some commentators believe this action reflects expiation for the rebellious people. However, this view seems highly questionable.43 Why would the Priestly legislators in both the Priestly Torah and Holiness School differentiate between rebellious and nonrebellious sinners, calling for the ultimate punishment for rebellious sinners, death and extirpation (e.g., Num 15:27–41; Lev 20:3), while at the same time devise a ritual that provides expiation for these rebellious people?44 Furthermore, if this were an act of expiation with Yhwh, then, as I have argued, the removal of the rebellious sinner’s guilt should be represented by Yhwh’s acceptance of the burning ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh on the sacrificial altar.45 Instead, the people’s guilt and rebellious acts must be shipped out of the camp. The only reasonable conclusion is that Yhwh will not forgive these rebellious acts. Yhwh will not burn up and destroy the guilt of rebellious people (as he will, for example, the guilt of people who sin unintentionally; e.g., Lev 4:26). Rather, they have disrupted his relationship with the nonrebellious people and the sanctuary and includes pəšāʿîm, why pəšāʿîm but not ṭumʾōt are repeated in 16:21 (Purification Offering, 155). Gane thinks that ʿăwōnōt refers to guilt that was stored in the priests, that is, borne by the priests during the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offering that is transferred to the live goat in 16:21 (Cult and Character, 299–300). First, there is no evidence in the Priestly Torah that the priests store the people’s guilt in their bodies during the year. Second, even if this assertion is correct, then Gane’s view leads to the understanding that, since the priests also confess the pəšāʿîm over the live goat, then pəšāʿîm are also stored in the priests during the year. Again, there is no evidence for this assertion, and it seems unlikely, because the priests never expiate for rebellious sinners. See also Kiuchi, who makes a similar assertion that the high priest transfers the people’s guilt from himself to the live goat (Purification Offering, 152–53). However, Kiuchi’s premise for this act is that the live goat produces the result of kipper for the high priest; ləkappēr ʿālyw in 16:10 refers to Aaron. This assertion is difficult to defend in light of the fact that the live goat is not only for Aaron and his household but also for the people (16:21), that is, two separate entities. Gane refutes Kiuchi’s view on grammatical grounds alone (Cult and Character, 261 n. 71). That is, the other third-masculine-singular references in 16:10 refer to the live goat, not to Aaron. 42. Perhaps ʿăwōnōt and pəšāʿîm work together to portray the entire aspect of each rebellious person, e.g., Num 14:18. 43.  Seebass states in reference to the purpose of the live goat, “The goat was then led into the wilderness, probably a symbolic act (cf. in Zech 5:5ff. the woman sent to Babylon) intended not as atonement but as the removal from Israel’s midst of all that was inimical to God. (‫ּפָ שַ ע‬, 148). 44.  In non-Priestly texts, even though Yhwh preserves corporate Israel, rebellious people still receive his wrath and punishment, e.g., Exod 32:32–35 (cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 202–13). 45.  I discuss this in ch. two. I disagree with Kiuchi that the live goat is equivalent to the burning of the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh (Purification Offering, 135, 149). Kiuchi never considers the burning of the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh on the sacrificial altar to be part of the process of removing guilt. Furthermore, in Lev 16, the burning of the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh takes place later in the ritual (16:25), so if Kiuchi is correct, then why is the live goat needed?

164

Chapter 5 Before Leviticus 16: Because of some people’s rebellious acts, YHWH and all the people are thought to be disconnected from the sancta.

Tabernacle YHWH Ark

X

Incense Altar

Sacrificial Altar

X

People

figure 11.  Status of Yhwh, sanctuary, and the people prior to the Day of Atonement.

as a result must be symbolically removed from the camp—the people along with their sin and guilt (cf. Lev 18:24–25; this action seems analogous to Yhwh removing the unclean inhabitants of the land). While the rebellious people may still live in the camp, as far as Yhwh and the nonrebellious people are concerned, it is as though they do not exist. Presumably, their ultimate punishment, if it has not happened already, will come about in due time.46 By their symbolic removal under the authority of Yhwh (by the process of casting lots; 16:7–10),47 the people, sancta, and Yhwh are no longer affected by the rebellious people. Furthermore, the fact that ṭumʾōt are not placed on the goat demonstrates that they have not been stored on the sancta.48 Rather, the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood removes the negative effect of the rebellious people on sancta, while confession over the live goat removes the negative effect of the rebellious people from the camp. 46.  This point is commonly promised in Psalms, e.g., Ps 37. Yhwh will vindicate the righteous, but the wicked and the rebellious will eventually be punished; cf. 37:38. 47.  Milgrom and Gane agree that the casting of lots reflects Yhwh’s authority over the process. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020; Gane, Cult and Character, 249; cf. n. 17. 48.  Milgrom argues that originally the live goat was conceived as shipping out the actual impurities and not just the people’s sins. That is, the live goat resembled the live bird procedures for the scale diseased person and house (14:4–7, 49–52; Leviticus 1–16, 1044). However, this is a comparison driven by Milgrom’s assumption that sin and bodily impurities pollute sancta. In the case of scale disease, the live birds are part of the process to remove bodily impurity from the person or house through absorbing materials, such as scarlet, cedar, and hyssop. In the case of the live goat, there are no absorbing materials, and furthermore, the issue that affects sancta, as I have argued, is not pollution but the rebellious people who reside in the camp. Gane argues that impurities on the sancta are absorbed into the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcasses and then incinerated outside the camp (16:27; Cult and Character, 298). However, the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcasses never enter the adytum or shrine, and Gane does not explain how the flesh absorbs impurities from these areas of the sanctuary. Also, Gane, elsewhere, inconsistently states that blood purges the impurities stored on sancta and not the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh (pp. 290).

Leviticus 16

165

What Results Do Kipper in the Ḥaṭṭāʾt, Live Goat Ritual, and ʿŌlâ Offerings Produce? This question is answered by investigating each instance of kipper. Based on this study’s findings, the schema in figure 11 depicts the status of Yhwh, the sanctuary, and the people prior to the implementation of the rituals in 16:2–28. The evils in 16:16a reside on a subset of the people and the priests. It seems that the Priestly legislators envisioned the people’s evils as causing Yhwh to disconnect from the sacrificial altar, shrine, and adytum49 and thereby to disconnect from the people. As a result, the fear is that Yhwh is no longer connected to the sancta, and the people are no longer connected to Yhwh.50 This is an untenable situation, leaving the people subject to Yhwh’s wrath with no recourse for sacrificial remedy as described in Lev 1–7 and 12–15. Leviticus 16:11–16a After the narrative framework and preparation instructions in 16:1–10,51 the ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual actions begin in 16:11 with the slaughtering of Aaron’s bull. After slaughtering his ḥaṭṭāʾt bull, Aaron must enter the adytum and create a cloud of incense. It is not clear whether the cloud covers Yhwh’s presence and/or appeases Yhwh to allow Aaron to access his presence (cf. 16:2).52 Either way, by creating the incense cloud, 49.  Hundley notes that the Priestly literature clearly distinguishes the ark from Yhwh so as not to imply that the ark represents Yhwh, for example, like an ancient Near Eastern statue of a deity (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 57). While this seems true, in the case of Lev 16, Yhwh is thought of as residing on the ark (16:1, 12–13). 50.  Each scholar develops a premise for the reason why Lev 16 is needed. Gane and Milgrom conceive the sanctuary as storing pollution until a point is reached where the pollution must be removed or Yhwh will leave. The problem with this view is that the text is completely silent with regard to whether this threshold has been met or not. Furthermore, an annual date to implement Lev 16 seems at odds with the idea of a threshold—a threshold can be reached at any time, while an annual implementation seems to assume that there is no threshold. Kurtz must argue that there is no crisis. The people simply need confirmation from Yhwh that their evils have been fully expiated. However, this seems to negate the serious (16:1) and solemn (16:29–34) premise of the rituals. 51.  The scholarly consensus appears to be that the phrases bəkol-ʿēt in 16:2 and bəzōʾt in 16:3 indicate the manner by which Aaron must approach Yhwh in the adytum and implement the Lev 16 rituals (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1012–13; Wenham, Leviticus, 229; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 79–81). The text emphasizes Aaron’s obedient approach to Yhwh using sacrificial blood following the cult-initiation rituals in Lev 8 and 9 (paralleling Exod 24) rather than Nadab and Abihu’s rebellious approach to Yhwh in disobedience and without blood. 52.  Wenham finds both options are possible (Leviticus, 231). Hundley notes that incense, in the ancient Near East, was used to gain a favorable response for an entreaty to a deity (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 105–7; see also Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 390). Milgrom concedes it is possible that the incense was used to assuage Yhwh’s wrath (Leviticus 1–16, 1029). The hope that Aaron’s incense offering assuages Yhwh’s wrath seems to be in line with the Nadab and Abihu incident (Lev 16:1; cf. Lev 10; see also Num 17:11–13 [Heb.]).

166

Chapter 5

table 18.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in In Leviticus 16:11–16a Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P 16:11– adytum Yhwh blood evils 16a

Absorbing Materials RA

Piel of Kpr Removes O1 RA adytum Yhwh

Result Yhwh removes evils; connects to adytum.

Aaron may engage Yhwh’s presence without dying. Once he is safe, Aaron applies the blood of his bull and then the blood of the people’s goat once on the lid of the ark, the kappōret, and then seven times in front of the kappōret (16:14–15). Like Lev 8, the Lev 16 kipper seems to be completed in stages.53 The ritual variables for this step of kipper, as mediated by Aaron, are Yhwh’s presence, the adytum, and evils listed in Lev 16:16a.54 This step is broken down in table 18. The evils listed in 16:16a have caused an issue between the adytum and Yhwh. The first step to correct this problem uses blood as a binding agent to connect the adytum to Yhwh. The one-time application of blood on the kappōret, where Yhwh resides (16:1, 12–13), and the seven-times application of blood to the front of the kappōret seem to create a blood trail from the adytum, to the exit of the adytum.55 By Aaron’s incense and both blood offerings, Yhwh is requested to connect to the adytum56 and to the exit from the adytum leading to the shrine, that is, the vicinity of the veil. As in non-Priestly instances of kipper where Yhwh is the subject and the people’s sins are the object, it seems that Yhwh initiates the removal of rebellious sins from his presence (cf. Ps 79:9). Thus, evils on the people, 53.  I discuss this in ch. four. The implementation of kipper is repeated a number of times in the Lev 16 rituals (16:6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24). Furthermore, 16:20 states that kipper has been completed inside the sanctuary, and thus, each ritual act seems to contribute to the completion of kipper for the entire sanctuary. 54.  The preposition ʿāl, in wəkipper ʿāl- (Lev 16:16a), may reflect that the sanctuary is the beneficiary of kipper (Leviticus 1–16, 255). I argue here that the adytum receives the benefit of Yhwh’s presence and his removal of the effects of the people’s evils. See Dennis and Kiuchi, who agree that sancta may benefit from kipper (Dennis, “‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature,” 127–28; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 91–94). 55.  Gilders emphasizes that Aaron’s entrance into the adytum is a direct engagement with the divine presence. Furthermore, he states, “As I have indicated repeatedly, every blood manipulation in the cult, whatever else it may be said to do, indexes a relationship between Yahweh, the priestly mediator, and the lay individual or the community of Israel” (Blood Ritual, 124). This study takes Gilder’s point one step further. Yhwh has a relationship not only with the priest and the people but also with the sancta. The sancta, in fact, represents the relationship explicitly, as Yhwh, the people, and the priests connect with the sancta. Thus, it seems reasonable to take Aaron’s one-plus-seven-times blood application as way to create a relational index between Yhwh, the adytum, and the exit to the adytum. 56.  Why do both Aaron and the people request Yhwh to connect to the adytum? As has been suggested, repeated sacrifices emphasize relationship. Thus, both Aaron and the people show their desire for Yhwh to connect to the sancta.

167

Leviticus 16 table 19.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:16b Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P 16:16b shrine Yhwh blood impurities

Absorbing Materials RA

Piel of Kpr Removes O1 shrine

RA Yhwh

Result Yhwh removes impurities; connects to shrine

affecting Yhwh’s presence in the adytum, are removed from his presence by his act of connecting to the adytum.57 It is proposed that each step of the ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals requests Yhwh to move toward the people by connecting to the sancta, and by removing the rebellious people and their acts from his presence. The ritual actions connected with kipper are repeated until the rebellious people are permanently removed from his presence in the sanctuary and are ready to be sent away from the camp by the live goat. Leviticus 16:16b Leviticus 16:16b instructs Aaron to make the same blood application in the shrine as he did in the adytum. Gane thinks the abbreviated nature of the phrase beginning with wəkēn ‘and thus/likewise’ emphasizes the uninterrupted application of blood from the adytum to the shrine for the purposes of removing evils stored on the sancta from the inside out.58 However, based on this study’s understanding 57.  For the adytum, and the shrine, there is no declaration of the piel of ṭhr ‘made clean’ as there is for the sacrificial altar in 16:19a. It seems that there is no need to declare the adytum or the shrine to be clean because neither were unclean. The issue is the rebellious people as they stand before Yhwh, not some kind of substance that attaches to sancta. The function of the min prepositions attached to the evils in 16:16a, that is, impurities and rebellious sins, parallel the min prepositions found in some of the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings. For the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt, the min seems to be privative, reflecting Yhwh’s removal of sin guilt/separation between him and the offender (discussed in ch. three). In Lev 16, the min preposition reflects Yhwh’s removal of the separation between him and the sancta as a result of the rebellious people and their evils that reside in the camp. Finally, Gilders notes for Lev 4:6, 7, 17, and 18, in reference to blood manipulation and kipper in the shrine, “May we not conclude, then, that Yahweh is directly implicated in the achievement of the action-effect? Indeed, as much as physical sancta are the objects of the blood manipulation, it seems that Yahweh is the true focus” (Blood Ritual, 136). 58. Gane, Cult and Character, 226, 281–84. Gane rejects Milgrom’s view that the blood application in the shrine follows Lev 4:6–7, 17–18 (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1038–39). Instead of a 1 + 7, 7 + 1, 1 + 7 introversion as Milgrom claims, Gane argues for a 1 + 7, 1 + 7, 1 + 7 blood application, emphasizing, in his view, the purgation of the sanctuary from the inside out. In agreement with Gane, wəkēn in 16:16b emphasizes that blood is to be applied in the same way in the shrine as it was in the adytum. However, the reason does not appear to be Gane’s premise, that is, a reversal of the storage process that took place during the year. Rather, the repeated blood applications reflect the high priest’s requests to Yhwh to reconnect to the sancta.

168

Chapter 5

of kipper, the abbreviation of the shrine ritual appears to emphasize the uninterrupted access to the divine presence; the high priest requests Yhwh, through the medium of blood, to reconnect to the shrine in the same way as the adytum. Thus, following the pattern in 16:14–15, blood is applied one time to the incense altar and seven times to the exit of the shrine leading to the courtyard. As a result, a second step is now detected in the Lev 16 kipper process (table 19). Milgrom gives two reasons for the warning in 16:17 that no one, that is, no other priest, may be in the tent of meeting while Aaron is making kipper in the holy place.59 According to Milgrom, the shrine is a dangerous place because “impurities are being absorbed by the blood detergent” and because the high priest has entered the “symbolic realm of the wearers of linen, the divine assembly.” In regard to the first reason, Milgrom is inconsistent with his own view, as he has argued that the priests are immune to impurities.60 Milgrom’s second reason seems to be on track but requires a change in emphasis. It is not only that Aaron has entered into the realm of the divine assembly, but more importantly, he is interacting directly with Yhwh to request his return to the adytum and the shrine. As the text states, both in its premise based on the Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience (16:1; cf. Lev 10:1–3) and according to Lev 16:2, improper engagement with the divine presence brings death. This is dangerous work, and only Aaron may interact with Yhwh in the holy place (16:2). Leviticus 16:18–19 So far, Aaron has applied blood one time to the kappōret and seven times to the entrance of the adytum. He applied blood in the same way to the shrine, presumably one time on the incense altar and seven times to the entrance of the shrine leading to the courtyard. In the next step, Aaron applies blood to the horns of the sacrificial altar on all sides and then seven times on the altar.61 Why are the blood applications different for the sacrificial altar? Milgrom argues that the application of blood on the horns purges the altar, and the seven-times application of blood consecrates the altar.62 However, this assertion seems problematic, because by making this claim, Milgrom changes his instrumental understanding of blood. 59. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1036. 60.  Milgrom states, “The priest is unaffected by daubing blood on the altar, though the blood is absorbing impurity” (ibid., 638–39, 1048). Since the priest may enter the shrine during the year (4:3–21) and, as Milgrom argues, the shrine is collecting the very impurities being removed in Lev 16, according to Milgrom’s own view, there should be no priestly fear or consequence to enter the shrine. 61.  Milgrom argues the ḥaṭṭāʾt bull and goat blood are mixed following the rabbis (Leviticus 1–16, 1037). However, the text is not clear, and mixing or not mixing of blood does not seem to be critical to kipper. Also, it seems inconsistent, as Milgrom contends, to mix the blood for application to the adytum and the shrine, but not to mix the blood for application to the sacrificial altar. 62.  Ibid., 1037, 1039. For Milgrom, the piel of ṭhr is a synonym of kpr having the sense ‘purge’.

Leviticus 16

169

In the adytum and shrine, according to his view, the one-time and seven-time applications of blood are both for purgation.63 Now, according to Milgrom, the application to the horns of the sacrificial altar is for purgation, but the seven-time application consecrates because the blood has been made holy by entering the adytum.64 However, there are many issues with Milgrom’s view. First, he claims the blood has absorbed the evils in the adytum and the shrine.65 Thus, to consecrate the sacrificial altar, Milgrom must explain how blood can be both unclean and holy at the same time, an assumption that is not supported by his own view.66 Second, Milgrom argues that the courtyard floor, unlike the floors of the adytum and shrine, does not need to be purged by the seven-times blood sprinkling because, while it is sacred, it is not most-sacred like the adytum and the shrine.67 Milgrom assumes that only the sacrificial altar in the courtyard requires consecration, because it is the only object in the courtyard that initially received the holy oil and is most holy (Lev 8:11). However, this does not seem correct, because the laver, which is in the courtyard, receives holy oil (Exod 30:26–30; 40:9–16; cf. Lev 8:10–11). Since, according to Milgrom’s view, the laver is most holy, the purgative and consecrating blood in 16:18–19 should also be applied to the laver, but it is not. Third, Milgrom relates the blood application in 16:18–19 to Exod 29:36–37 and Lev 8:24–30. This study has rejected Milgrom’s understanding of both rituals on the grounds that their purpose is not purgation, but rather to create a consecrated, mutually beneficial relationship between the priests, sacrificial altar, and Yhwh. Furthermore, the priestly consecration rituals are considerably different because 63.  Milgrom translates the verb wəkipper as ‘thus he shall purge’ in 16:16a. He then states regarding the act of purgation, “The rite inside the adytum concludes with a statement of its purpose. The same is true for the rites inside the shrine and upon the altar (vv 17b, 19b)” (ibid., 1033). 64.  Milgrom contends that blood applied to the sacrificial altar can sanctify because “Its sanctifying power derives from being brought inside the Tent—indeed, inside the adytum itself (so the explicit statement concerning the blood of the goat, v 15)” (ibid., 1038). However, it is not clear that both bowls of bull and goat blood were brought into the adytum. This seems to be a physically difficult assumption, given that Aaron may not have helpers. It is more likely that Aaron brought some of the blood into the adytum, but not the entire basin. It is not the blood that communicates holiness as a result of where it has been. Rather, it is what the blood connects that communicates holiness, that is, Yhwh. 65.  Ibid., 1036. 66.  For the case when blood from the ḥaṭṭāʾt stains a priestly garment (Lev 6:20 [Heb.]), Milgrom states, “The ability of the purification offering to impart impurity has already been noted . . . For its blood, having absorbed the impurity of the sanctum upon which it was sprinkled, now contaminates everything it touches” (ibid., 403). Furthermore, Milgrom argues that blood cannot both purge and consecrate the altar. For Lev 8:15, Milgrom states, “Moreover, the notion that the same application of the blood of the purification offering can simultaneously decontaminate and consecrate is intrinsically wrong. The realms of impurity and holiness are incompatible with each other and their admixture is lethal. . . . Impurity and holiness must be kept apart at all costs.” It seems clear, according to Milgrom’s view, that if the blood was brought into the adytum, and the adytum was purged by the blood, then the blood is polluted and cannot consecrate (p. 524). 67.  Ibid., 1036–37 (cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 238).

170

Chapter 5

table 20.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:18–19 Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P 16:18–19 altar Yhwh blood impurities

Absorbing Piel of Kpr Materials Removes RA

Result

O1 RA altar Yhwh Yhwh removes impurities = clean status; connects to the altar = consecrated

blood, according to Milgrom, is used to purge, but holy oil is used to consecrate; however, there is no holy oil used in 16:18–19. This observation requires Milgrom to ask why blood and not holy oil is used to consecrate the altar in 16:19.68 He conjectures that in 16:19 the sacrificial altar is reconsecrated, not consecrated, presumably by sanctified blood that has entered the adytum. It has already been pointed out that, in Milgrom’s own view, the blood that entered the adytum cannot be both holy and impure, that is, it cannot be used to purge the adytum and shrine while at the same time being used for consecration. Furthermore, several additional questions may be asked that Milgrom does not address. What is the difference between consecration and reconsecration? Also, if the sacrificial altar is desanctified by impurity pollution, then why does the text not specify that the adytum and the shrine have been desanctified? Elsewhere, Milgrom states that the sanctuary has a fixed level of holiness that is reduced as pollution collects on the sancta until a point of no return is reached at which time Yhwh will leave the sanctuary.69 If Lev 16 presupposes that this condition has been reached, then why does the text not declare that the adytum and shrine’s holiness must be replenished? Also, according to Milgrom’s view, if the sacrificial altar has lost its holiness, why does Yhwh continue to reside in the sanctuary? The issues with Milgrom’s view that blood both purges and consecrates the sacrificial altar seem insurmountable to resolve. If this study is correct, step three of the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood rituals achieves a similar result to steps one and two. The onetime application of the blood on the four horns requests Yhwh to connect to the sacrificial altar. The seven-times application of blood emphasizes the sacrificial altar is the terminus point for Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary.70 Furthermore, 68. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1038. 69.  Ibid., 980–81. 70.  In Lev 4:6, and 17, a seven-times blood application is toward the veil, and seems to be an attempt to connect to the presence of Yhwh. In Lev 8:11, a seven-times application of holy oil is an act of consecration. Even for scale disease, a seven-times application of oil is said to be “before Yhwh” (14:16, 27). It seems that a seven-times gesture, at least when performed in the sanctuary (thus excluding the bird rituals in 14:7, 51), is a gesture to interact with Yhwh in some way, either directly or indirectly, to create a positive relationship with him. The normal statement that the remaining blood

171

Leviticus 16 Tabernacle YHWH Ark

Incense Altar

Sacrificial Altar

X

People

clean and holy

figure 12.  Steps 1–3 of kipper: the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood binds Yhwh to the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar.

the people’s evils that have disrupted the sanctuary are now completely removed by Yhwh, and the people who committed these acts are ready to be symbolically removed from the camp by the live goat. As I have argued, the piel of ṭhr is not a synonym of kpr having the sense ‘purge’; rather, it reflects the result of an action, that is, a status change. Thus, just as the ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals in Lev 12–15 make the offerer clean before Yhwh, kipper in step three makes the sacrificial altar clean before Yhwh. Yhwh removed from his presence the impurities of rebellious people, and now he connects to the altar. Thus, the altar has the status of clean before Yhwh. A natural result of Yhwh’s connection to the altar is that it is made holy. It is not that the altar was ever desanctified; however, the atmosphere of the people’s rebellious acts caused the altar to be in a state of limbo.71 It had been holy before Yhwh (cf. Lev 8 / Exod 29) but at the same time not holy, because it was no longer connected to Yhwh’s presence. At the end of 16:18–19, Yhwh is connected to the altar, and the altar is clean and consecrated before the people. Why is the result of clean and holy not repeated for the adytum and the shrine? It may be assumed, given their proximity to Yhwh’s presence, that these sancta have a clean and consecrated status (cf. Exod 29:43– 44). Or, the Priestly writer declares the piel of ṭhr and qdš to emphasize Yhwh’s agreement to connect to the sacrificial altar and that the sanctuary is once again ready for use by the priests and the people.72 As a result of the above investigation, step three of the kipper process is rendered in table 20. It is important to note that the people are a secondary beneficiary of kipper in steps one through three. The offerings are made on behalf of the people and the priests so that Yhwh is connected to the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar, and thus their sacrificial should be poured out at the base of the altar is missing (e.g., Lev 4:7), which seems to place emphasis on the seven-times application of blood to the sacrificial altar. According to Kurtz, the sacrificial altar is Yhwh’s sole revelation of himself to the people in the forecourt (Sacrificial Worship, 394). 71.  Cf. Hundley for a similar view (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 171). 72.  Milgrom holds a similar view (Leviticus 1–16, 1038).

172

Chapter 5

remedies may again be efficacious. As will be seen below, the ʿōlâ offering benefits the people directly by connecting them to the sacrificial altar and Yhwh’s presence. Leviticus 16:20–22 Leviticus 16:20 emphasizes that the ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals have been completed.73 The status of the sanctuary after step three is depicted in figure 12. Milgrom and Gane find the emphasis on the completion of the ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals important. In their view, at this point the evils have been released from the sancta by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood and then transferred to the live goat by Aaron’s confession and his laying both hands on the head of the goat. However, their understanding that blood releases evils stored on sancta is problematic. For Milgrom, the instrumental function of blood changes from an agent that disintegrates evil that has polluted sancta in the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings to an agent that releases evils from sancta to be transferred to the live goat.74 For Gane, the blood of the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings transfers evils to the sancta for storage.75 However, in Lev 16, Gane must adopt Milgrom’s revised instrumental understanding of blood to explain how evils are released from sancta and transferred to the live goat.76 It is interesting that these scholars critique each other’s understanding of the function of blood.77 Milgrom does not explain why he changes the instrumental action of blood. However, Gane defends himself against Milgrom’s charge that he inconsistently changes the nature of blood as follows.78 73.  Ibid., 1040. 74.  Milgrom states, “The ḥaṭṭāʾt blood, then, is the purging element, the ritual detergent” (Leviticus 1–16, 254). Milgrom thinks the original function of the live goat was to transport impurities, rather than wrongs, to the wilderness (ibid., 1023–24, 1044). 75.  Gane summarizes his two-phase view of sacrificial kipper, storage and then removal (Cult and Character, 275). 76.  In his discussion on the application of ḥaṭṭāʾt blood from the adytum, to the shrine, and then to the sacrificial altar, Gane states, “throughout the year, evils are transferred from offerers into the sanctuary, toward the ark, but on the Day of Atonement, the same evils are purged out” (ibid., 282; cf. 276 and n. 30). For the live goat, Gane states, “Confession plus double hand-leaning appears to be the means by which sins of the entire nation are transformed from abstraction, as if out of the air, into a concentrated, quasi-spatially containable form, gathered to the high priest, and channeled through his hands to the goat” (ibid., 245). 77.  In arguing that Gane’s view is inconsistent, Milgrom states, “Gane engages in two paradoxes: In his view, not only is the ‫ חטאת‬blood that is daubed on the most sacred altar impure . . . but on Yom Kippur the ‫ חטאת‬blood changes its nature from pollutant to a purifier; erstwhile impure blood now purifies the entire sanctuary and its sancta” (“Preposition ‫מן‬,” 163). Arguing against Milgrom’s view that blood always purges sancta not people, Gane states, “Observations regarding patterns of ritual activity, such as the fact that ‫ חטאת‬blood is applied only to objects and never to persons, are not a reliable guide to ritual meaning, especially when we take into account that ritual-activity systems are believed to transcend constraints on cause and effect that operate in the material realm” (“Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 211; cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 273–274). 78.  Gane, “Privative Preposition ‫מן‬,” 222; cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 174.

Leviticus 16

173

No, I have not implied that purification-offering blood switches its nature. Like blood in the circulatory system of a living body, it is always a carrier. Throughout the year (stage 1), it carries defilement away from offerers, thereby secondarily contaminating the sancta to which it is then applied. On Yom Kippur (stage 2), the blood of unique purification offerings is applied to the sancta to absorb the accumulated defilement and carry it away.

However, Gane’s explanation is not faithful to his understanding of the function of ḥaṭṭāʾt blood. During the year, Gane claims that the ḥaṭṭāʾt animal absorbs an offerer’s sin or bodily impurity into its blood and flesh. The blood and flesh then transfer the sin or bodily impurity to the altar, where it is stored until its removal on the Day of Atonement. However, according to Gane, on the Day of Atonement, blood not only absorbs sancta impurities, but also releases them in order for the high priest to place them on the head of the live goat.79 Thus, despite Gane’s objections, like Milgrom, he inconsistently changes his instrumental understanding of blood. It seems that Milgrom and Gane, and in general the pollution-and-purge view, cannot escape these types of logical inconsistencies because these scholars view sin and bodily impurity as substances that pollute sancta. Each scholar seeks to identify a Priestly conception for the storage and removal of these substances from sancta. Unfortunately, the text does not seem to support that such a process exists. Furthermore, both scholars are not on firm ground when they contend that released evils are transferred to the live goat. There is no definitive evidence in Biblical Hebrew or in the elimination rituals in other cultures that supports the transfer of released evils from people into the flesh and blood of live animals.80 79.  Gane states, “‫ פׂשע‬and ‫ חטאת‬sins must be released from the sanctuary (v. 16) before they can be laid on Azazel’s goat through the high priest’s confessions (v. 21)” (ibid., 278). Also, Gane claims, because 16:21 does not include the term ṭumʾōt, that blood somehow knows not to release physical impurities but rather allows them to be absorbed on the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcass. However, the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcass is never brought into the adytum or the shrine (ibid., 298)! 80.  As Elliger confirms (Leviticus, 215). Milgrom, following Wright’s work, surveys Hittite and Mesopotamian rituals that may be similar to the Azazel rite (Leviticus 1–16, 1071–79; Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 45–74). Milgrom concludes that the Hittite rituals differ significantly with the Azazel rite in that they require divine appeasement and animal-for-people substitution, rather than impurity transfer. For the Mesopotamian rites, Milgrom observes a number of differences with the Azazel rite but highlights, “The foregoing examples of Mesopotamian elimination rites resemble the biblical scapegoat rite in that an object is selected to draw the evil from the affected person, and then this object is consequently disposed of.” However, in the Mesopotamian rites the object that is selected to absorb evil is some type of inanimate absorbing material and not a live animal. Live animals are used as carriers of the absorbing material, but do not, in and of themselves, absorb impurity (cf. Lev 14). This is also true in the Hittite rituals with the possible exception of a broken tablet copy of the Ritual of Huwarlu, in which a live dog is waved over the king and queen to take away evil. However, similar rituals require spitting into the mouth of the animal and thus placing a substance in the animal to be carried away (cf. Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 60). Furthermore, Mesopotamian rituals do not

174

Chapter 5

This study contends that hand leaning is not a means of transfer to the live goat.81 Rather, following the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt, hand leaning reflects representation, as I previously argued. The live goat represents the rebellious people, with their guilt and sinful acts, as they are symbolically sent away to the wilderness and Azazel.82 Kiuchi does not seem correct when he states that the live goat procedure is analogous to burning the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh.83 First, the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh is burned in the Lev 16 ritual (16:25), so in Kiuchi’s view, there should be no need for the live goat. Second, as I have argued, the burning of the flesh in the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt reflects Yhwh’s removal of the offerer’s sin guilt or unclean status that has caused the offender to be separated from Yhwh. This is not the same result intended for the live goat. It is dispatched to the wilderness not to expiate for the rebellious people but rather to remove them symbolically from the camp. Kurtz views the ḥaṭṭāʾt goat as removing already expiated evils from the camp.84 However, rebellious sins are never expiated in Priestly Torah or the Holiness School texts.85 Finally, Gane must argue that there is an exact correspondence between the evils transferred to the live goat and the evils that had been stored on the sancta during the year. However, in his view, impurities, while stored on sancta during the year, are not transferred to the live goat.86 Thus, Gane has to assert, without evidence, another instrumental change to his understanding of blood. For Gane, the Lev 16 ḥaṭṭāʾt blood releases rebellious and nonrebellious moral faults but, at the same time, stipulate a large-scale transfer of evil or impurities from a sanctuary to absorbing materials (on a live animal) by the hands of a person or priest. 81.  Milgrom’s argument that the two-handed rite is for transfer, following Wright, does not seem convincing (Leviticus 1–16, 1041–42; cf. Wright, “Gesture of Hand Placement,” 433–46). In disagreement with Milgrom, the two-handed rite performed by Moses on Joshua (Num 27:18–23; Deut 34:9) does not demonstrate transfer. The hôd ‘authority’ (Num 27:20) of Moses is not a substance; it is a responsibility (cf. Wenham, Numbers, 195). In the case of the blasphemer in Lev 24:13–16, Milgrom, following Wright, initially rejected that it is for impurity transfer, but rather designates the blasphemer as guilty. Milgrom later reversed his position, arguing that, because this is a Holiness School text, like Lev 20:3, the blasphemer is thought to have created pollution as a result of his or her sin that has no remedial sacrifice (Leviticus 23–27, 2113–14). However, it has been shown that Holiness School texts, like Lev 20:3, do not necessary specify that sin generates pollution (I discussed this in ch. two). 82.  The phrase laʿăzāʾzēl in 16:8, has been interpreted in a number of ways (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020–21; Gane, Cult and Character, 246–50; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 395–403; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 351–53; Janowski, “Azazel”; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 202). The consensus view seems to be that the l in laʿăzāʾzēl is possessive, in the same way, as the l in layhwāh is possessive, that is, one lot belongs to the personal being Yhwh and one lot to the personal being Azazel. The nature, characteristics, and purpose of the Azazel has been widely speculated, for example, a demon, some kind of supernatural being, or Satan. Milgrom states concerning Azazel, “in the Priestly ritual he is no longer a personality but just a name, designating the place to which impurities and sins are banished” (cf. Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 25). 83. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 135, 149 84. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 405. 85. Gane, Cult and Character, 296; Noth, Leviticus, 37. 86. Gane, Cult and Character, 298.

175

Leviticus 16 table 21.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:20–22 Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P 16:20– live Azazel confesguilt, rebel22 goat sion, hand lious sinners leaning

Absorbing Materials Piel of Kpr Removes Result RA

O1 RA live goat = sending rebellious away people

rebellious people w/ Azazel

does nothing to impurities.87 Rather, Gane claims physical impurities are absorbed by the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, which is then incinerated outside the camp. However, the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh never touches the adytum or the shrine.88 There is significant debate over whether the live goat is a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering or not, and if it is a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, is it for the benefit of the people or the Azazel?89 This debate is hampered by the assumption that kipper has the sense ‘purge’ or ‘expiate’, rather than understanding kipper as a process whose results are conditioned on each ritual’s variables and desired result. Milgrom, Gane, and other pollution-andpurge commentators, cannot entertain that ləkappēr ʿālāyw in 16:10 is translated ‘to make purgation for it [the live goat]’.90 Nor can Kurtz view the live goat as needing expiation and thus translate ləkappēr ʿālāyw as ‘to make expiation for it [the live goat]’.91 As a result, each scholar develops a similar interpretation, rendering ʿālāyw ‘with or over it’, that is, the goat is a ritual element used to make purgation or expiation. However, as has been argued for the Lev 16 rituals, and the house with scale impurity in Lev 14:53, kipper plus the preposition ʿal can be thought of as ‘for, or 87.  Ibid., 299. 88.  In defending his view that impurities are absorbed by the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcasses, Gane states, “While the carcasses themselves never directly contact the polluted sancta, the animals are regarded as units: purgative application of their blood to the sanctuary contaminates their carcasses pars pro toto” (ibid., 240). However, Gane offers no proof for this assertion. Furthermore, if this was a true statement, following Gane’s logic, unintentional sins should also be absorbed by the Lev 16 ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh, in the same way, as Gane argues, that they are in the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings (p. 176). However, Gane states that released unintentional sins in Lev 16 are removed by the live goat (p. 299). 89.  After a survey of a number of views, Gane concludes that the live goat is a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, but that the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering “applies to a wide variety of ritual paradigms” (ibid., 251–61). Milgrom argues the live goat is not an offering but rather a means to dispatch impurities and sins (Leviticus 1–16, 1021). 90.  Milgrom states, “The preposition ʿal following the verb kipper always means ‘for, on behalf of ’ when the object is human . . . but when the object is inanimate it can also mean ‘upon’ (e.g., the altar, 8:15; 16:18; Exod 30:10; the adytum; 16:16)” (Leviticus 1–16, 1023; see also Gane, Cult and Character, 262). Levine argues that ləkappēr ʿālāyw should be translated as ‘to perform rites of expiation in proximity’ to a person or an object. (In the Presence of the Lord, 80). Levine thinks the referent in 16:10 is not the live goat but rather the bull and the other goat. 91.  Kurtz rejects the idea that the live goat can be the object of kipper; in his view, a goat cannot be expiated (Sacrificial Worship, 407; cf. pp. 406–10).

176

Chapter 5 Tabernacle Tabernacle

YHWH Ark

Incense YHWH Altar Ark

Incense Altar

Sacrificial Altar

To Azazel

Sacrificial Altar

X

People X

To Azazel

People

figure 13.  Step 4 of kipper: Azazel goat symbolically removes rebellious sinners from camp.

on behalf of ’ a nonhuman object.92 Since it has been determined that kipper is a process that is dependent on its ritual variables and objective, the live goat may be the beneficial subject of kipper. Leviticus 16:10 anticipates that the live goat is part of the process to send away to the wilderness something that negatively affects the camp and the sanctuary. When Aaron lays both his hands on the head of the live goat, the goat becomes the representative of the rebellious people. Thus, ləkappēr ʿālāyw has the sense ‘to implement kipper for the live goat/rebellious people’ as in table 21. In this understanding, the priestly assumption is the people, who are guilty of committing rebellious sin, must be sent away to the Azazel in the wilderness. The results of kipper are achieved by the priest connecting the rebellious people to the live goat through confession and hand-leaning, and then by sending away the live goat to Azazel and the wilderness. It is conjectured that the priestly writers are purposely provocative. By making the object of ləkappēr ʿālāyw the live goat, they wished to highlight their intent to symbolically send the rebellious people away by unconventionally associating the live goat with kipper. It seems this is a better explanation than changing the consistent Priestly Torah translation of ʿālāyw in ləkappēr ʿālāyw from ‘for, on behalf of ’ to ‘over, with’. Also, the live goat can be said to bear the guilt of the rebellious people (16:22) by symbolically carrying the rebellious people and their guilt into the wilderness. Furthermore, even though the live goat procedure is clearly not a normal ḥaṭṭāʾt offering, in that there is no interaction with the sanctuary, it completes the very unique Lev 16 ḥaṭṭāʾt offering. Again, the provocative approach of the Priestly legislators is observed. They call the live goat a ḥaṭṭāʾt (16:5), while at the same time it is not a reconciliation offering in respect to Yhwh but a reconciliation offering in respect to the rebellious people and Azazel. Why is this live goat procedure part of this unique ḥaṭṭāʾt? Because unlike the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings during the year, which are solely for the benefit of the offerer(s), this ḥaṭṭāʾt is for the benefit of Yhwh and only a subset of the people, those who have not committed rebellious acts. The Lev 16 ḥaṭṭāʾt and live goat offerings do not produce forgiveness for the people but rather symbolically 92.  I explored this idea in ch. 2.

177

Leviticus 16 table 22.  Operation of the Piel of Ḥṭʾ and Kpr in Leviticus 16:24b Ritual

Piel of Ḥṭʾ Binds

For

O1 O2 BA P 16:24b people Yhwh blood separation who caused by are not rebellious rebellious people

Absorbing Materials Piel of Kpr Removes Result RA

O1 RA people who burning conare not flesh nected rebellious to Yhwh

remove rebellious people, whom Yhwh does not forgive, for the benefit of his presence in the sanctuary, and the remaining nonrebellious people. The status of the sanctuary after step four is depicted in figure 13. The rebellious people that plagued the camp have been symbolically sent away. As a result, it is proposed that the remaining activities in 16:23 through 28 are for the benefit of Yhwh, the sanctuary, and the nonrebellious people. Leviticus 16:23–28 In agreement with Milgrom’s interpretation, Aaron removes his linen garments and bathes in a holy place (16:23–24a), not because he or his garments are unclean, but because he has been in the presence of Yhwh.93 This assertion is reinforced by the fact that the linens are left in the holy place, that is, the adytum and the shrine, and not destroyed. In 16:24b, Aaron offers an ʿōlâ offering to implement kipper for himself (and presumably his household; cf. 16:6), and the people. It seems clear that this offering cannot be for the rebellious people. They have been sent away by the live goat to Azazel in the wilderness (16:20–21). Thus, the ʿōlâ reflects Yhwh’s acceptance of the nonrebellious people and priests. Because of the rebellious people, Yhwh removed his connection to the altar and disconnected from the people, and as a result their sacrifices could no longer be accepted or seen by Yhwh. The elaborate ḥaṭṭāʾt and live goat procedures in 16:11–22 dealt with these issues. The rebellious people are no longer part of the people of Israel. How then do the nonrebellious people reconnect to Yhwh? By the ʿōlâ offering they are positively connected to Yhwh, and may once again receive his blessings and bring sacrifices.94 Thus, this ʿōlâ is an important step to the Lev 16 rituals and the process of kipper (see table 22). 93.  Milgrom rejects the rabbinic view that the linen garments are polluted on the ground that priests are immune from impurity. He states, “the garments are endowed with greater sanctity because the high priest entered the adytum” (Leviticus 1–16, 1048). Linen reflects the type of dress of the divine assembly (cf. Ezek 44:15–17). 94.  Based on Num 29:8–11, Milgrom notes that as many as eleven animal offerings were made for the ʿōlâ (Leviticus 1–16, 1049). Perhaps, the large numbers express the nonrebellious people’s joy as a

178

Chapter 5 Step 5 of kipper: Theʿōlâ blood and flesh connects the non-rebellious people to the altar. Tabernacle YHWH Ark

Incense Altar

Sacrificial Altar

People

figure 14.  Step 5 of kipper: the ʿōlâ blood and flesh connects the nonrebellious people to the altar.

Figure 14 depicts the state of Yhwh, the people, and the sanctuary after the completion of step five. The work to remove the effects of rebellious people from Yhwh, the sanctuary, and the people is completed. The remaining actions in Lev 16 are clean-up steps that are not integral to the reestablishment of a working sanctuary. In 16:25, the flesh of the ḥaṭṭāʾt is burned on the altar. In the normal ḥaṭṭāʾt, it has been argued that flesh burning signifies Yhwh’s removal of separation caused by unintentional sin or bodily impurity, as I argued in ch. two. In Lev 16:11–28, the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings did not result in forgiveness or a clean status for the people. As a result, since sin guilt or bodily-impurity separation was not removed, it seems that the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh burning is not an integral part of the sacrifice (following Lev 8:14–17, also mentioned in ch. two). Perhaps, the flesh burning affirms Yhwh’s acceptance of the nonrebellious people. Leviticus 16:26–28 specifies that the person who handled the live goat and the person who burns the remaining flesh of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings must wash their clothes and bathe in water before returning to camp. Milgrom and Gane contend that both people are unclean as a result of handling the polluted live goat and the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh.95 However, it may not be that they are unclean, and if they are unclean, it is likely not for the reason that Milgrom and Gane claim. First, the result of Yhwh’s acceptance. Why do the nonrebellious people need to reconnect to Yhwh? Perhaps, they are thought to be responsible in allowing the rebellious people to stay in the camp; however, they do not require a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering because they have done nothing to separate themselves from Yhwh. 95.  Milgrom thinks the handler is unclean until evening, against the Karaites, who do not view the live goat handler as unclean because the text does not state it (Leviticus 1–16, 1050–51; cf. Gane, Cult and Character, 240, 243, 279). Milgrom also assumes, in regard to the live goat handler, that “he is unclean until evening” (e.g., following Lev 11:25). He claims that this normal phrase, used for a person who has become unclean by contact, is missing because its purpose is to warn the individual not to come forward to the sanctuary. Milgrom contends that, because it is Yom Kippur, the text assumes that the handler knows he is barred from the sanctuary and from eating sacred food. However, this is an argument from silence. Furthermore, everyone who is unclean knows they are barred from the

Leviticus 16

179

Priestly Torah states that, if someone is unclean, they must wash and bathe, and wait until evening (e.g., Lev 11:25). This last stipulation is missing from the Lev 16 instructions. Second, if these men are unclean, it seems more likely to be a result of being outside the camp, and thus, in areas where uncleanness may be found.96 Third, if the men are unclean, it cannot be, as Milgrom and Gane claim, as a result of contracting uncleanness from the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh and the live goat. In Milgrom’s and Gane’s views, the live goat has only carried rebellious sin and guilt, not impurity. Nowhere in the Priestly Torah are sin and guilt transferable.97 Furthermore, if the ḥaṭṭāʾt flesh absorbed all the people’s impurities, then how can handling flesh polluted in this way require the person to only wash and bathe? Granted, most secondary cases of uncleanness in the Priestly Torah require washing, bathing, and a one-day wait period (e.g., Lev 15:5), but these cases are a result of a single person’s bodily impurity, not the entire community’s impurities! It is possible that the animals are reclassified as unclean, not because the animals carry evil but rather because they have transitioned to the status of unclean animals by their use in the Lev 16 rituals, that is, like an animal that should not be touched or eaten.98 Leviticus 16:29 Through 34 As I mentioned earlier, Milgrom and Knohl make strong cases that Lev 16:29–34 are an appendix to the original rituals added by the Holiness School. Knohl points out the title to this section, “And this shall be to you a law for all time” (16:29a; cf. v. 34a), the declaration of a date for the Day of Atonement (16:29b; cf.  25:9; Num 29:7), the call for self-denial (16:29c), the subjection of the alien to the commands of Torah (16:29c), the reference to the eternal observance of the purification rituals (16:29a, 34a), and the description of the priest as anointed and consecrated (16:32; cf. Lev 21:10) are clear signs of the Holiness School.99 Assuming 16:29–34 is an appendix, does this passage explain, expand, or change the theology behind the Lev 16 rituals? Because the Priestly Torah does not establish a date for the implementation of the Lev 16 rituals, Milgrom asserts that the priests originally considered the rituals to be emergency rites to remove sanctuary and from eating sacred food, and yet the rituals in Lev 11 clearly express the stipulation that one’s unclean status continues until evening. 96.  For example, the live bird rituals for scale disease send impurity outside the camp (Lev 14:7, 53; cf. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 415). 97.  Also, a person who has committed an unintentional sin is allowed access to the sanctuary without going through a purification ritual; cf. Lev 4:1–5:26. 98.  Perhaps because the animals were used in the context of rebellious people, their status as clean changed to unclean. In Haggai (2:3, 13), the people’s status before Yhwh has changed to unclean because of their disobedient neglect of the temple. It is not that they contracted uncleanness, but rather, their status has changed as a result of their disobedience. 99. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 27–34.

180

Chapter 5

pollution from the sanctuary.100 According to Milgrom, because of potential overuse of these emergency procedures, the priests calling for implementation too often, the people demanded that Lev 16 only be performed annually. However, this assumption is at odds with Milgrom’s view that the priests understood the sanctuary as a place designed to collect pollution. Milgrom does not explain how the priests recognized an emergency situation versus the normal operation of the sanctuary. In ch. four of this study, I rejected Milgrom’s view that the Nadab and Abihu incident required an emergency cleansing of the sanctuary. Thus, it is not clear that Lev 16 is an emergency procedure. Perhaps, the Priestly Torah assumed a fixed date that was made explicit by the Holiness School. Gane assumes that 16:29–34 is an integral part of the ritual and views the reference to ḥaṭṭōʾtêkem (16:30 and 34) as critical to his understanding of the purpose of the Lev 16 rituals.101 He views ḥaṭṭōʾt as referring to expiable moral faults dealt with in Lev 4–5:13. Gane concludes that, by referring to nonrebellious ḥaṭṭōʾt evils, the Priestly legislators affirm that rebellious sins are not expiated; that is, of the evils listed in 16:2–28 the result ləṭahēr ʾetəkem only applies to people with expiable evils. However, Gane does not explain why, according to his view, impurities (cf. 16:16a, 16b, 19), which can be dealt with by sacrificial remedy (Lev 12–15), are not included in 16:30 and 34. Furthermore, the Holiness School uses the term ḥaṭṭōʾt to refer to all types of sins, not only nonrebellious sins (e.g., Lev 26:18, 21, 24). It seems the call for self-denial (16:29, 31) and the warnings that those who reject this demand will be cut off (Lev 23:29–30) exclude people whom the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School call rebellious sinners. For example, the Holiness School calls for death and extirpation of anyone who commits or sanctions Molech worship (Lev 20:1–5). It seems inconceivable that either the Priestly Torah or the Holiness School views the Lev 16 rituals as expiating for these rebellious people. Thus, it seems that the appendix in 16:29–34 explains and expands the Priestly Torah rituals. In addition to the rituals in Lev 16:2–28, the nonrebellious people in the camp practice self-denial. Why? They hope that Yhwh will accept the high priest’s request for Yhwh to reconnect to the adytum, shrine, and sacrificial altar. It seems that self-denial can be a way to request Yhwh’s intercession (e.g., Isa 58:1–3).102 The call for self-denial may bring full-circle the results of the cult initiation ceremonies. In Lev 8 and 9, the people are joyous when Yhwh accepts their sacrifices, and connects with them on the altar (9:24). In Lev 16, because of the rebellious acts of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10), and the invalidation of the results of Lev 8 and 9, the occasion is solemn. Moses and Aaron’s obedience (16:34b), 100. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1023, 1044, 1061–63. 101. Gane, Cult and Character, 291; cf. pp. 292–98. 102.  Martin-Achard relates ʿānāh to the oppressed believers of Israel, and so this term reflects their total dependency on the faithfulness of Yhwh in the context of the rituals of the Day of Atonement (‫ענה‬, 937; cf. p. 932).

Leviticus 16

181

and use of blood to interact with Yhwh, reverses the results of the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu. Understanding the results of Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience (cf. Lev 10:6), the people’s actions are solemn and intercessory, hoping that once again Yhwh will connect with them on the sacrificial altar. The affirmation in 16:30, that the people have a clean status before Yhwh, reflects the Holiness School’s understanding that, in addition to the sanctuary being freed from the people who committed rebellious sin and impurities of the people, the remaining nonrebellious people have also been freed from the effects of these people. As the rebellious people are carried away from the camp by the live goat, the nonrebellious people are once again connected to Yhwh and are considered clean in his presence.103

Possible Connections Between Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 4:3–21 Some scholars find a connection between the rituals found in Lev 16 and the rituals in Lev 4:3–21 for the unintentional sin of the high priest and the community. Milgrom contends that, since the blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings for the high priest and the community must be applied in the shrine, then their unintentional sins have a greater impurity charge than the sins committed by a leader or individual.104 However, as shown in ch. three, Milgrom’s views are internally inconsistent. For example, the very impurities that Milgrom believes only affect the sacrificial altar and shrine somehow show up in the adytum (cf. 16:16a). Kiuchi thinks that Lev 4:3–21 foreshadows Lev 16.105 He argues that Lev 16 deals with all sins and impurities in a greater way than the regular ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings during the year. However, as has been argued, Lev 16 deals with a different set of evils, rebellious sins that cause a major disruption of Yhwh’s presence in the sanctuary, and the people’s access to Yhwh. Are the rituals in Lev 4:3–21 and Lev 16 related? There seem to be more differences than similarities. First, Lev 4:3–21 deals with unintentional sins eligible for sacrificial remedy, while Lev 16 rituals deal with rebellious sins and impurities not eligible for sacrificial remedy. Second, the result of Lev 4:3–21 is forgiveness for the community and the high priest. The result of Lev 16 is not forgiveness; rather, the result is the symbolic removal of the rebellious people from the camp and Yhwh’s reconnection with the nonrebellious people and the sancta. Third, the rituals in Lev 4:3–21 are only applied to the shrine, while the Lev 16 rituals start with an incense offering in the adytum. Fourth, and most compelling, there is no 103.  For a similar premise, see Hundley (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 176). 104. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58. 105. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 157.

182

Chapter 5

live-goat procedure in Lev 4:3–21. The unintentional sins of the high priest and the community are not required to leave the camp. Thus, it appears that Lev 16 deals with a far more serious situation. Therefore, this study does not find a significant relationship between the rituals in Lev 4:3–21 and Lev 16. However, there appears to be a dramatic difference between the Lev 4:3–21 rituals and the rest of the rituals found in Lev 1–15. All rituals, other than those for the high priest and the community, are centered on the sacrificial altar. According to this study’s findings for Lev 9, this is where Yhwh meets his people. If this premise is correct, then why are the rituals for the high priest and the community centered in the shrine? Unlike Lev 16, which deals with a subset of the people who have sinned rebelliously, Lev 4:3–21 presumes that the entire community and its priestly leader have sinned against Yhwh. The issue can be dealt with by sacrificial remedy, but the magnitude of the sin must have led the Priestly legislators to see a greater need to more closely connect with Yhwh. As a result, the Lev 4:3–21 rituals call for blood application to the veil leading to the adytum, as well as the incense altar. Do these rituals change the view that Yhwh meets his people on the sacrificial altar? First, the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood in Lev 4:3–21 is poured out at the base of the sacrificial altar, thus closely associating this altar with the high priest and the community. Second, instead of developing a theory around one exception, it seems best to view Lev 4:3–21 as a special case. Yhwh still meets his people on the sacrificial altar; however, in the case where all of Israel has sinned, there is a desire to be closer to Yhwh by applying blood to the shrine and veil.

The Remaining Cult Reinitiation Texts The remaining cult reinitiation texts outside the Priestly Torah include Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek 43:18–27, 45:18–25), Hezekiah’s reforms (2 Chr 29), and Ezra’s Second Temple (Ezra 6:17; 8:35). Ezekiel’s Temple (Ezekiel 43:18–27; 45:18–25) Ezekiel 43:18–27 lists cultic instructions to prepare the new altar in Ezekiel’s temple. Prior to these instructions, Yhwh returns to the temple (43:1–9; cf. Ezek 10) and instructs Ezekiel to describe the design of the new temple to shame the house of Israel because of their iniquities (43:10–17). The instructions in 43:18–27 reflect a restart or reinitiation of the sanctuary. However, since this temple has been completely destroyed, Ezekiel can also be thought of as initiating a new sanctuary, and thus, this text may resemble Exod 29 and Lev 8.106 106. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 605.

Leviticus 16

183

Like Lev 8, the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ offerings focus on the sacrificial altar, and the priests. However, Ezekiel’s altar and priests are not consecrated with anointing oil, the sacrificial animals are different, there is no millūʾîm offering, and the length of the initiation is eight not seven days.107 In 43:20, Ezekiel, following the role of Moses, sprinkles the blood of the Zadok priest’s ḥaṭṭāʾt bull on the altar. After Ezekiel’s blood application to the altar, the text states wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʾôtô wəkippartāhû. Milgrom views the piel verbs ḥṭʾ and kpr as synonyms having the sense ‘purge’.108 However, it is immediately clear that this understanding does not work here, because Milgrom’s view would render the phrase wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʾôtô wəkippartāhû as ‘and you shall purge it, and you shall purge it’.109 Furthermore, purgation does not seem to make sense in this context. The nation of Israel has not yet been reestablished, and thus there are no people to pollute the altar. Unlike Aaron and his sons in Lev 8, the Zadok priests have not been sequestered in the temple, and the text does not state that the altar initiation is for sin or bodily impurities. Furthermore, as observed for Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36, the altar has not been consecrated and thus according to Milgrom’s view, it has no ability to attract a sin or bodily impurity substance. It appears the verbs ḥṭʾ and kpr reflect two different actions. As I have argued in ch. two, the phrase wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʾôtô should be rendered ‘and you will bind/reconcile it’. This binding act is subsumed in kipper, and, as a result, the waw in wəkippartāhû may be temporal, ‘when you make removal for it’.110 Thus, a similar process is detected for this passage as in Lev 8:15 and Exod 29:36. Ezekiel, like Moses, binds/reconciles the Zadok priests to the altar. As I have argued, this process is repeated (eight days) to reflect an increasingly mutual beneficial relationship between the priests and Yhwh. Like Lev 8, the result prepares the priests to mediate on behalf of the people before Yhwh (43:27). It is striking that, beginning with the description of the goat ḥaṭṭāʾt offering on the second day, the subjects change for the verbs ḥṭʾ, kpr, ṭhr, and mlʾ (43:22, 26). Instead of the prophet Ezekiel, the Zadok priests are the subjects (43:20). Block views this change as showing that both Ezekiel and the Zadok priests have the responsibility to perform the sacrifices.111 However, Ezekiel remains the referent for presenting and making the offerings (e.g., 43:22). It seems that the author makes explicit what is implicit in Lev 8. Ezekiel, like Moses, facilitates the mutually beneficial relationship between the altar and the Zadok priests, but it is the priests who are bound/reconciled to the altar. They are the subjects of ḥṭʾ and 107. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 517, 537. 108.  Ibid., 255. 109.  In disagreement with Block, who follows Milgrom (Ezekiel 25–48, 594, 609). Block translates wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʾôtō wəkippartāhû as follows: ‘thus you shall decontaminate it and purge it’. He does not explain why or how both verbs can mean the same thing, or the reason the author would redundantly state the same action. 110.  Following Exod 29:36. 111. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 605.

184

Chapter 5

kpr, the altar is the direct object, and as a result the altar is considered clean and dedicated before Yhwh as reflected by the verbs ṭhr and mlʾ. Presumably, it is the priest’s holiness that facilitates this change in status (43:19; perhaps implied by the statement that the Zadok priests may draw near to Yhwh and minister to him; cf. 45:17–19). By these acts, the altar and the priests are initiated for service, and by sacrificial mediation of the Zadok priests, the community’s offerings are accepted by Yhwh (43:27). There is some debate over whether 45:18–25 is Ezekiel’s version of Lev 16 or not.112 Like Lev 16, the focus of this ritual is the sanctuary (45:18, 20). However, this seems to be the only similarity. The occasion appears to be a one-time act on the part of Ezekiel, centered on the Passover celebration (45:21).113 Furthermore, Ezekiel does not engage Yhwh’s presence, nor does he perform blood manipulations in the adytum or shrine. He places ḥaṭṭāʾt blood on the sacrificial altar but also on the door posts of the temple and the gates. Finally, there is no live-goat procedure; rather, evils are dispatched directly by the ḥaṭṭāʾt blood (45:20). Milgrom thinks Ezekiel’s task is to purify the sanctuary before and during the Passover.114 However, if the act wəḥiṭṭēʾtā ʾet-hammiqdāš (45:18) is intended to purge the sanctuary, why is there no list of evils following the seventh-day ritual (45:20)? Furthermore, Milgrom argues that the ritual in 45:20 is for expiable sins of the people in preparation for Passover. However, if true, then, according to Milgrom, these people must individually offer their own ḥaṭṭāʾt to purge their pollution from the sanctuary.115 It seems the findings for Lev 16 are a better fit for this ritual. Blood application on the door posts of the house, the gate, and on the altar may reflect the totality of the sanctuary, and in particular, that the presence of Yhwh is requested to connect with all sancta (43:1–5; 44:4). Thus, this ritual may be thought of as ‘binding/reconciling’ the sanctuary to Yhwh (45:18), and asking Yhwh to remove the people’s evils to ensure his connection with the altar (45:20). These assertions are made with some conjecture, because unlike the Priestly Torah passages such as Lev 16, it is difficult to identify the ritual variables and objective in Ezekiel. Hezekiah’s Reforms (2 Chronicles 29) Hezekiah restarts the sanctuary to mitigate Yhwh’s wrath upon the people as a result of the evils of Israel’s fathers (29:6–10). First, the Levites consecrate the 112.  Ibid., 662–63, especially n. 17; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 283. 113. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 664. 114. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 282. 115.  Milgrom states, “The basic postulate of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is that it is required of the one who inadvertently violates a prohibition (4:2), and it is he who must perform the hand-leaning rite (cf. 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33)” (ibid., 522).

Leviticus 16

185

sanctuary by physically removing unclean objects (29:5, 11–19). Second, the priests are called to make a large number of offerings on behalf of the kingdom, the sanctuary, and Judah (29:20–24).116 Hezekiah’s commands seem to emphasize the united purpose of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings. The seven male goats are called one ḥaṭṭāʾt (29:21), and the king and his assembly lay their hands on the ḥaṭṭāʾt goat offerings (29:23). The result phrase, wayəḥaṭṭəʾû ʾet-dāmām hammizbēḥȃ ləkappēr ʿal-kol-yiśrāʾēl (29:24), emphasizes that the ḥaṭṭāʾt goat offerings were made for all Israel.117 Like Lev 16, it seems these ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings seek to mitigate Yhwh’s wrath for the people, including Israel’s refugees. Furthermore, like Lev 8 and 9, the focus of the ritual is the priests and the people’s connection to the sacrificial altar (29:19, 21, 22, 24; see especially the directional h on hammizbēḥȃ in 29:24). Finally, as in Lev 9:23–24, the community worships Yhwh and rejoices (29:25–36). Thus, this ritual seems to use a mix of elements from Lev 8, 9, and 16. The altar is consecrated for service (compare 29:5, 11–19 with Lev 8), the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings are made to mitigate Yhwh’s wrath (compare 29:6–10 with Lev 16:1), and there is great rejoicing in the community over Yhwh’s acceptance of their offerings (compare 29:20–24, 25–36 with Lev 9:23–24). It seems that the intent of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings is ‘to bind/ reconcile’ the people to the altar, wayəḥaṭṭəʾû ʾet-dāmām hammizbēḥȃ, in order ‘to remove’ the separation between the people and Yhwh caused by the sins of their fathers, ləkappēr ʿal-kol-yiśrāʾēl. Ezra’s Second Temple (Ezra 6:17; 8:35) After the decree of Cyrus, the exiles who returned to Jerusalem rebuild the temple. Reminiscent of Ezek 43 and 45, the dedication of the temple (6:16–18) is followed by the observance of Passover (6:19–22). The dedication included a large number of animals, presumably used for ʿōlâ offerings. Also, twelve male goats are offered as a ḥaṭṭāʾt, one for each tribe. A similar ritual was implemented when a second wave of exiles returned, as recorded in Ezra 8:35. In this verse, the burning of the sacrifices is emphasized. Milgrom thinks it is because of the severity of Israel’s sins,118 however it seems more natural to understand the numerous offerings as the people’s desire to dedicate themselves to Yhwh. The verbs ḥṭʾ and kpr are not 116.  It seems that the large number of offerings reflects a relational idea rather than purgation. Klein argues that the bulls, rams, and lambs were likely burnt offerings (cf. 29:23, 27), and while described as offered first in 29:22, were likely offered after the ḥaṭṭāʾt offerings; cf. 29:27 (2 Chronicles, 421, 423). 117.  Milgrom argues that the change in the beneficiaries of the offerings from the kingdom, sanctuary, and all of Judah (29:21), to all of Israel (29:24) reflects a call for unity with Israel’s refugees, who entered Judah as a result of Sennacherib’s conquests (Leviticus 1–16, 285). 118. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 285.

186

Chapter 5

declared, but it appears that the purpose of these rituals is to connect with Yhwh and the temple. In both cases, the rituals do not include a list of evils, and so the occasion is joyous, and the large number of animals demonstrates a desire for relationship with Yhwh.

Chapter Conclusions Based on the study of the evils listed in Lev 16, it seems that the problem affecting Yhwh, the sanctuary, the people, and priests, is the rebellious people’s sins and impurities created by the rebellious rejection of performing purification rituals. I surmised that the Priestly legislators purposely introduced the term pešaʿ to emphasize that rebellious sinners are the focus of the Lev 16 rituals. Furthermore, against the pollution-and-purge view, in Biblical Hebrew, rebellious acts are envisioned to be attached to individuals, not detached, and stored on sancta. The premise introduced in 16:1 is that, like Nadab and Abihu, rebellious people offend Yhwh and bring about his wrath. As a result, in the context of the sacrificial system, Yhwh, while continuing to reside over the ark, withdraws his blessing and disconnects from sancta and his people and, by doing so, makes sacrifice inefficacious. The solution is a complex ritual that seeks to reconnect Yhwh to sancta, remove rebellious people from his presence, and allow nonrebellious people to reconnect to sancta. These actions are designed to restore homeostasis between Yhwh and his people. By viewing kipper as a process that is dependent on ritual variables and desired results, it becomes clear that the primary beneficiary of kipper is Yhwh. The nonrebellious people secondarily benefit as a result of the actions taken on behalf of Yhwh. First, the high priest enters the adytum with an incense offering to appease Yhwh’s wrath. By each successive one-plus-seven-times blood manipulation, the high priest invites Yhwh to reconnect to the adytum, the shrine, and finally the sacrificial altar. Furthermore, in each step, following the non-Priestly instances where Yhwh is the subject of kipper, Yhwh symbolically expels the rebellious people from his presence. A number of internal inconsistencies call into question the veracity of Milgrom’s and Gane’s views of how the Lev 16 kipper and ḥaṭṭāʾt operate, including but not limited to the following issues. Each scholar makes a number of borderline grammatical assumptions to force-fit how evils affect the sanctuary in Lev 16 in order to match their understanding of how evils are dealt with in Lev 1–15. Neither scholar can explain, according to their views, how impurities and unintentional sins pollute the adytum (16:16a). Also, each scholar must inconsistently change their instrumental understanding of blood from ‘purge’ in Lev 1–15 to ‘release’ in

Leviticus 16

187

Lev 16. Finally, even if blood did have the function ‘release’, biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence does not support the idea that live animals can be thought of as absorbing ‘released’ evils into their bodies. Furthermore, Kurtz’s relationship view does not seem viable, that is, that Lev 16 implements a higher form of expiation by ‘covering’ the people’s sins in the adytum and the shrine. Like the pollution-and-purge view’s sense ‘purge’ for kipper, the sense ‘cover’ does not seem to reveal the function of the rituals. However, in agreement with Kurtz, the purpose of Lev 16 is to reconcile the people with Yhwh. In disagreement with Kurtz, Lev 16 produces reconciliation not for all people but only for nonrebellious people. By the confession of the high priest, the rebellious people and their acts against Yhwh are exposed. Under the authority of Yhwh, kipper for the live goat consists of two steps. First, by the high priest leaning his two hands on the live goat, the rebellious people are symbolically connected to the live goat in that the live goat is their representative following the hand-leaning in Lev 1–15. Second, by sending away the live goat, the rebellious people are reconciled with the like-minded Azazel. By calling the live goat a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering and by assigning kipper to the live goat, the Priestly legislators have provocatively pointed the reader to the purpose of Lev 16, the removal of rebellious people from the presence of Yhwh and the camp. Once Yhwh reconnects to the sanctuary, the nonrebellious people are reconnected to the sacrificial altar by the ʿōlâ offering. These people do not require a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering because they have not rebelliously sinned, nor have they rejected a purification ritual for a bodily impurity. However, because of the rebellious people, the nonrebellious people must reconfirm their desire to connect to Yhwh. The ablutions required for the person who burns the ḥaṭṭāʾt and ʿōlâ flesh and the person who releases the live goat do not prove that the flesh and goat are laden with impurities. If they were, it seems that these people would be required to do more than simply bathe and wash their clothes. It seems that the theology that undergirds Lev 16 is that the connection between Yhwh, the sanctuary, and nonrebellious people has been disrupted as a result of rebellious people. Leviticus 16 does not allow the rebellious people to repent for their actions. The premise that rebellious people may be forgiven by Yhwh is foreign to the Priestly literature. Rather, the Lev 16 rituals seek to remove these rebellious people from the presence of Yhwh, while at the same time reestablishing Yhwh’s connection with nonrebellious people and priests via the sanctuary. While 16:29–34 is likely a Holiness School appendix to the Priestly Torah, it seems to explain and expand the theology expressed in 16:1–28. The call for self-denial is a form of intercession. Thus, it is likely that the Holiness School wished to emphasize the people’s solemn desire for Yhwh to accept the high priests’ invitation to

188

Chapter 5

reconnect to the sancta. Furthermore, since the Priestly literature does not support the theology of repentance for rebellious people, the clean status appears to be stated on behalf of the nonrebellious people.

Conclusion

What does Priestly Torah sacrifice achieve, and how is it accomplished? Without biblical narratives to explain sacrificial texts, scholars have used non-Priestly Torah sources to inform their investigation. However, the cultural, geographic, theological, and linguistic distance between these sources and the sacrificial texts have led to different and often diametrically opposed views. Rather than using outside sources to inform the interpretation of Priestly Torah, this study proposed a modified text-immanent strategy as depicted in figure 15. This modified text-immanent strategy seeks to explore how sacrifice works by uncovering the meaning of the Hebrew verb kipper, and the purpose of the sanctuary from the Priestly Torah texts. Other text sources are used to confirm, rather than inform, interpretation. This text-immanent strategy, coupled with a focus on what ritual says about what it seeks to accomplish, seems to avoid some exegetical pitfalls identified in this study. This strategy does not start with a priori assumptions for sacrificial terms and symbols but, rather, allows interpretation to evolve through an accumulation of clues. The investigation is kept on track by reevaluating findings in light of new clues. The reader is directed to the conclusion section of each chapter for the key findings of this text-immanent study. The following section provides concluding thoughts and implications from the study of kipper and the purpose of the Israelite sanctuary. A text-immanent approach appears to uncover insights that are overlooked by comparative approaches. Passages that are not considered central to the study of the Priestly Torah become more prominent in providing insights into how sacrifice works. For example, the cases of the house infected with scale disease (Lev 14:33–57) and the corpse-contamination ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual (Num 19) reveal important aspects of the piel of ḥṭʾ and kpr. A close reading of Exod 30:11–16 shows a different premise from the idea of ransom. It seems that a text-immanent approach avoids the tendency to force-fit theories, derived from comparative data, into the text, resulting at times in logical inconsistencies within a specific view. By viewing kipper as a process based on its ritual variables, a better understanding of the contextual senses of the piel of kpr and ḥṭʾ may be determined. For example, it seems that the piel of kpr for the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering in Lev 4–5:26 has the sense ‘reconciliation’. However, the piel of kpr for the house with scale disease can be understood as having the sense ‘remove’. The understanding of kipper as a process may aid in creating a more accurate lexical dictionary entry for key sacrificial terms. 189

190

Conclusion

Extrabiblical

Nonpriestly texts Holiness School

Priestly Torah

figure 15.  Modified text-immanent strategy.

Furthermore, the understanding that the piel of kpr, and the implied piel of ḥṭʾ, is a process that produces many results depending on ritual variables might be used to assess non-Priestly instances of kipper. Some of these texts seem to call for Yhwh to remove the effects of rebellious sinners and their guilt from the people who are experiencing judgment. For example, Ps 79 asks Yhwh to implement kipper for the sins that have caused judgment upon Israel.1 It seems the request of kipper in Ps 79:9 replays this study’s findings for the Day of Atonement, but from a postjudgment viewpoint. The people’s hope is that Yhwh will reestablish relationship with them by removing the effects of the rebellious sins and guilt of their forefathers (79:8). The sanctuary is likely destroyed (79:1), and so Yhwh interacts directly with his people, rather than through the medium of the sanctuary. While 1.  For Ps 79, Kraus states, “The extensive destruction of the country referred in v. 7b could again point to the year 587 B.C.E. . . . One could rather think of the fact that the catastrophe to which Ps 79 refers happened a generation ago. The ‘children’ groan under the wrath which the guilt of the fathers roused” (Psalms 60–150, 135).

Conclusion

191

the vantage points are different, it could be that kipper here might parallel the Priestly Torah Day of Atonement. Yhwh reconnects to his people by removing the effects of rebellious sinners and their guilt from his presence. Thus, it seems that we may reconsider sentiments such as those of Klaus Koch, who thinks atonement evolved from trying to change Yhwh’s mind with sacrifice to Yhwh making atonement for his people.2 Rather, it appears in both Priestly and non-Priestly texts that it is Yhwh who initiates reconciliation. It also seems that a text-immanent strategy may be productively applied to the study of other ancient Near Eastern cultic texts. This strategy may produce insight into how sacrifice works in these cults, and may be useful for comparison with Priestly Torah sacrifice. Recently, Yitzhaq Feder has compared Israel and Hittite blood rituals.3 While the Hittite texts are for the most part fragmentary, there does seem to be enough data to draw conclusions regarding the Hittite conception of blood and the meaning of ritual terms. While Feder agrees with Milgrom that the Hittites conceived of blood as a purgative, a close reading of Hittite sacrificial texts such as the Ritual of Papanikri, which deals with an omen during birth, may reveal a different possibility.4 It seems that in this Hittite ritual, blood is used only after the removal of an unclean birth stool, and the birth mother’s admission of her unintentional sin. While the Hittite conception of their gods is far different from Israel’s conception of Yhwh, it seems that blood may have been used in both cultures to establish a relational connection.5 This study does not seek to date any particular source but rather, focuses on how sacrifice worked in the Priestly Torah, while considering other sources to confirm or challenge findings. Based on Knohl’s evidence that the Holiness School edited the Priestly Torah, and not the other way around, it seems that the Priestly Torah is historically prior to the Holiness School and is possibly preexilic.6 Perhaps one consideration should be mentioned. We may question sentiments such as Knohl’s that the Priestly Torah “concentrates on its own inner world and has little 2.  Koch, “Sünde und Sündenvergebung um die Wende,” 224–39; cf. Link, “Reconciliation,” 150. 3. Feder, Blood Expiation, 7–34, 115–46, 209–42. 4.  Ibid., 109–11, 116–17. Strauβ provides transliteration, translation, and commentary of the Ritual of Papanikri found in the Hittite cuneiform text Kbo 5.1 (CTH 476; Strauβ, Reinigungrsrituale aus Kizzuwatna, 284–309; see also Feder, Blood Expiation, 9–13). 5.  According to Collins, there seems to be evidence of physical and literary collaboration between the Israelite and Hittite cultures (Hittites and Their World, 197–218; see also Hess, “Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution throughout Southern Canaan,” 353–62; Hess, “Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution in the Amarna Texts,” 149–68; Hess, “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine,” 153–56; Hoffner, “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data,” 176–92). 6.  Knohl argues that the Holiness School is written in response to idolatrous practices (especially Molech worship), social polarization between rich and poor, and moral failings in the cult. He postulates that these issues point to the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judea (Sanctuary of Silence, 204–12).

192

Conclusion

interest in what takes place outside the Temple and the cult.”7 It seems that the Priestly Torah balances the requirement of the people to honor Yhwh’s holiness, with Yhwh’s protective care and concern for his people. Thus, while sacrificial literature lacks narrative to explain specific societal or cultural concerns, it does not mean sacrifice excludes these considerations. In the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Chris Brown assesses the debate on whether Old and New Testament atonement includes propitiation and/or expiation.8 After reviewing a number of studies of the Hebrew kipper, and the Septuagint’s use of the synonyms, cognates, and derivatives of the Greek íλάσκομαι, Brown draws the following conclusion.9 There is a personal dimension which affects both the offending and offended parties which means that, even where an offence has to be expiated, the action has to be taken because the personal relationship between the parties requires it. What C. K. Barrett says of Paul’s teaching in Romans might also be applied to those passages in the OT concerning the expiation of man’s sin: “It would be wrong to neglect the fact that expiation has, as it were, the effect of propitiation: the sin that might have excited God’s wrath is expiated (at God’s will) and here no longer does so.”

This study’s findings for the Priestly Torah kipper agree and disagree with Brown’s view. In agreement, unintentional sin and bodily impurity have disrupted relationship with Yhwh that needs to be remedied. However, it is not that punishment is pending, but as soon as it is possible, the offerer, who becomes aware of their guilt or has been purified, must come forward with a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering to connect to Yhwh or else be considered a rebellious sinner. Furthermore, the Day of Atonement seems to show that the nonrebellious people in the Israelite camp are affected by rebellious people. It would be interesting to study the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testament conceptions of atonement, especially in regard to the treatment of unintentional versus intentional sin. This study’s findings seem to offer a view of the Priestly conception of evils more in line with earlier scholars. Rather than thinking of evils as metaphysical substances that attack Yhwh and his holy things, evils seem to disrupt relationship. Furthermore, the finding that bodily impurities cause separation between Yhwh and the unclean person may offer insight into why some impurities require longer and more involved purification rites than others. It seems that the unknown duration of an impurity concerned the Priestly legislators, perhaps more than simply the release of blood or a bodily fluid.10 7.  Ibid., 203. 8.  Brown, “Reconciliation,” 151–60. 9.  Ibid., 157. 10.  Milgrom argues that priests associated bodily impurities with death (Leviticus 1–16, 1002). While this seems to be a possibility, there must have been many more diseases and injuries that

Conclusion

193

Finally, despite many symbolic interpretations of animal, flesh, and blood (especially centered on the exegesis of Lev 17:11), these elements seem to take on a very practical function in sacrifice.11 How can the mundane reach the transcendent?12 How can a human interact with the divine? Perhaps physical contact between the offerer and Yhwh was thought of as too intimate, impossible, or somehow dishonoring. If the offerer offered his own flesh and blood, they would die. Thus, the closest analogy is employed, animal flesh and blood. These elements seem to bridge the relational gap between the mundane and the transcendent, between the human and the divine.

reflected death, but they are not in the list. Either the list is representative, or perhaps the virulent effect and duration of impurities are also significant issues for the Priestly legislators. 11.  In Rendtorff ’s critique of Milgrom’s assumption that Lev 17 deals with the requirement for expiation for the cultic slaughter of an animal, he argues that the text closely associates the animal’s nepeš and human nepeš for the purposes of kipper (“Another Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” 26; cf. Milgrom, “Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” 149–56; reprinted in Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 96–103; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 704–13). There are a number of interpretations of kipper in Lev 17:11 (cf. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 164–80). However, there seems to be a clear pratical point. The animal somehow allows the offerer to implement kipper with Yhwh, something the offerer cannot do directly. 12.  Reflecting on the role of ritual to bridge the gap between the human and divine, Hundley states, “Ritual enacts various activities that elicit the response of God, thereby bringing to bear his power on the mundane world. In other words, ritual serves as a bridge between two worlds, the human and divine. When these two worlds intersect, transformation inevitably occurs, as God, the wholly other, becomes accessible in the here and now. In such an interaction, simple words and actions are insufficient. Instead, we can only use whatever is at our disposal to grasp at a means of expressing this reality being ritually enacted” (Keeping Heaven on Earth, 20–21, and nn. 25, 26, 27, and 28).

Bibliography

Anderson, Gary A. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings.” Pp. 870–86 in vol. 5 of. Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. André, G. ‫טָ מֵ א‬. Pp. 330–42 in vol. 5 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. ———.  ‫ּכָ בַ ס‬. Pp. 40–42 in vol. 7 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Babcock, Bryan C. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Cultic Calendars; A Study of Leviticus 23 in Light of the Akkadian Text Emar 446. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Ballentine, Samuel E. Job. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ———.  The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Brichto, Herbert C. “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement.” HUCA 47 (1976): 19–56. Brown, Collin. “Reconciliation.” Pp. 151–60 in vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Büchler, Adolf. Studies in Sin and Atonement. New York: Ktav, 1967. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Last for Books of Moses. Translated by Charles William Bingham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Clines, David J. A. Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word, 1989. Cole, R. Dennis. Numbers. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000. Collins, Billie Jean. The Hittites and Their World. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Davies, Eryl W. Numbers. NCBC. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1995. Delitszch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. Vol. 1. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888. Dennis, John. “The Function of the ‫ חטאת‬Sacrifice in the Priestly Literature: An Evaluation of the View of Jacob Milgrom.” ETL 78 (2002): 108–29. Dillman, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880. 194

Bibliography

195

Dommershausen, W. ‫חָ לַ ל‬. Pp. 409–16 in vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ———.  Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 1966. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 1966. Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood and Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. ———.  “Contagion and Cognition: Bodily Experience and the Conceptualization of Pollution (ṭumʾah) in the Hebrew Bible.” JNES 2 (2013): 151–67. ———. “On kuppuru, kipper and Etymological Sins That Cannot Be Wiped Away.” VT 60 (2010): 535–45. Firth, David G. 1 and 2 Samuel. AOTC 8. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. Gammie, John G. Holiness in Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Gane, Roy E. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. ———.  “Privative Preposition ‫ מן‬in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of ‘Dorian Gray.’ ” JBL 127 (2008): 209–22. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by D. W. Stott. OTL Commentary Series. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gese, Hartmut. “The Atonement.” Pp. 93–116 in Essays on Biblical Theology. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981. Gilders, William K. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 2004. Ginsburg, C. D. Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961. Goetze, Albrecht. “Ritual for the Purification of God and Man.” Pp. 350–51 of Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Goldingay, John. Psalms 42–89. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Gorman, Frank H. Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Grimes, Ronald L. Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its Theory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Publishing, 1990. Haas, Volkert. Materia Magica et Medica Hethitica: Ein Beitrag zur Heilkunde im Alten Orient. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter: 2003. Hamilton, Victor P. “Shāgȃ.” Pp. 904–5 in vol. 2 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Harris, R. L.  “Kāpar.” Pp. 452–53 in vol. 1 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Waco, TX: Word, 1992. Hausmann, J.  ‫סָ לַ ח‬. Pp. 258–65 in vol. 10 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. ———.  ‫ ָרנַן‬. Pp. 515–21 in vol. 13 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Heger, Paul. The Development of Incense Cult in Israel. New York: de Gruyter, 1997.

196

Bibliography

Hess, Richard S. “Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution in the Armarna Texts.” UF 18 (1989): 149–68. ———.  “Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution Throughout Southern Canaan in Light of New Evidence.” UF 38 (2006): 353–62. ———.  “Hurrians and Other Inhabitants of Late Bronze Age Palestine.” Levant 29 (1997): 153–56. ———.  Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. ———.  “Leviticus.” Pp. 563–826 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition 1: Genesis–Leviticus, ed. Tremper Longman III and D. E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. ———.  “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name.” BBR 12 (2002): 187–98. Hoffman, David Z. Das Buch Leviticus. 2 vols. Berlin, Poppelauer, 1905–6. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data.” Pp. 176–92 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions from the Proceedings of a Symposium August 12, 24, 2001 at Trinity International University, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Hundley, Michael B. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. FAT 2/50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hurowitz, Victor A. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” JAOS 105 (1985): 21–30. Janowski, Bernd. “Azazel.” Pp. 128–31 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———.  Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. WMANT 55. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Jay, Nancy. Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Jenson, Philip P. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Keil, Karl F., and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1: The Pentateuch. London: T&T Clark, 1867; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. ———.  Manual of Biblical Archaeology: With Alterations and Additions Furnished by the Author for the English Translation. Translated by Fredrick Crombie, A. Cusin, and Peter Christie. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887–88. Kertzer, David, I. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. AOTC. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. ———.  The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. ———.  A Study of Ḥāṭā and Ḥaṭṭāʿt in Leviticus 4–5. FAT 2/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———.  Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Klein, Ralph W. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Bibliography

197

Klerk, Johannes C. de. “Situating Biblical Narrative Studies in Literary Theory and Literary Practices.” R&T 4.3 (1997): 201. Knierim, R. ‫חטא‬. Pp. 406–10 in vol. 1 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. ———.  ‫פׂשע‬. Pp. 1033–36 in vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.. ———.  ‫שגג‬. Pp. 1302–4 in vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 1995. Koch, K. ‫חָ טָ א‬. Pp. 309–19 in vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. ———.  ‫עָ וֺן‬. Pp. 546–61 in vol. 10 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. ———.  “Sünde und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit.” EvT 26 (1966): 217–39. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1989. Kugler, R. A. “Holiness, Purity, the Blood and Society: The Evidence for Theological Conflict in Leviticus.” JSOT 76 (1997): 3–27. Kurtz, Johann Heinrich. Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980. Lane, Edward W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Book 1, part 7. London: Williams & Norgate, 1885). Lang, Bernhard. ‫ ִּכּפֶ ר‬. Pp. 288–303 in vol. 7 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Laughlin, J. C. H. “The ‘Strange Fire’ of Nadab and Abihu.” JBL 95 (1976): 559–65. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. ———.  Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. ———.  Numbers 1–20. AYB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———.  Numbers 21–36. AYB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Linehard, Joseph T., ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Link, H.-G. “Reconciliation.” Pp. 148–51 in vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Livingston, G. H.  “ʾĀšam.” Pp. 78–80 in vol. 1 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Locher, C. ‫עָ לַ ם‬. Pp. 147–54 in vol. 9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Martin-Achard, R. ‫ענה‬. Pp. 931–36 in vol 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

198

Bibliography

Marx, Alfred. “Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rites de passage? Quelques réflexions sur la function du ḥaṭṭāʾt.” RB 96 (1989): 27–48. Merwe, B. van der. “The Laying on of the Hands in the Old Testament.” Pp. 34–43 in New Light on Some Old Testament Problems: Papers Read at 5th Meeting of Die O.T. Werkgemeenkap in Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenkap in Suid-Afrika, 1962. Milgrom, Jacob. The Book of Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. ———.  “The Chieftains’ Gifts: Numbers, Chapter 7.” Hebrew Theological Review 9 (1986): 221–26. ———.  “The Compass of Biblical Sancta.” Jewish Quarterly Review 65 (1975): 205–16. ———.  Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden: Brill, 1976. ———.  “The Cultic Šĕgāgȃ and Its Influence in Psalms and Job.” JQR 58 (1967): 73–79. ———.  “The Function of the ḥaṭṭāʾt Sacrifice.” Tarbiz 40 (1970): 1–8. ———.  “The Graduated Purification Offering (Leviticus 5:1–13).” JAOS 103 (1983): 249–54 ———.  “Impurity Is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby.” JBL 119 (2000): 729–46. ———.  “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray.’ ” RB 83 (1976): 390–99. ———.  “Kipper.” Pp. 180–83 in vol. 12 of Encylopaedia Judaica, ed. F. Skolnik and M. Berenbaum. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2008. ———. “Kipper ʿal/bəadh.” Lešonenu 35 (1970): 16–17. ———.  Leviticus 1–16. AYB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———.  Leviticus 17–22. AYB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———.  Leviticus 23–27. AYB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ———.  Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics. CC. Minneapolis, Fortress, 2004. ———.  “The Modus Operandi of the ‘Ḥaṭṭaʿth’: A Rejoinder.” JBL 109 (1990): 111–13. ———.  “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num xix).” VT 31 (1981): 62–72. ———.  “The Preposition ‫ מן‬in the ‫ חטאת‬Pericopes.” JBL 126 (2007): 161–63. ———.  “The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance.” RB 82 (1975): 186–205. ———.  “The Priestly Impurity System.” Pp. 121–27 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986. ———.  “A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11.” JBL 90 (1971): 149–56. ———.  “Review of B. Janowski, ‘Sühne als Heilsgeschehen.’ ” JBL 104 (1985): 302–4. ———.  “Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum.” SVTP 32 (1981): 278–310. ———.  “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” VT 21 (1971): 237–39. ———.  Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1983. ———.  Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ʿAboda. Berkley: University of California Press, 1970. ———.  “Two Kinds of ḥaṭṭāʾt.” VT 26 (1976): 333–37. Nida, Eugene A. Language, Structure, and Translation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. FAT 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Nolland, John. “Sin, Purity, and the ‫ חטאת‬Offering.” VT 65 (2015): 606–20. Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary. OTL. Translated by J. E. Anderson. London: SCM, 1965.

Bibliography

199

Nyiawung, Mbengu D. “Contextualising Biblical Exegesis: What Is the African Biblical Hermeneutic Approach?” HvTSt 69 (2013): 1–25. Oehler, G. F. Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883. Oppenheim, A. Leo, ed. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008. Porter, J. R. Leviticus. CBC. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Postell, Seth D. Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 on the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh. Cambridge: Clarke, 2011. Pritchard, James. B. ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Propp, William H. Exodus 1–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 2. New York: Doubleday, 2006. ———.  Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962; repr., Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Another Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11.” Pp. 23–28 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ———.  Leviticus Kapitel 1,1–10,20. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 2004. Rodriguez, A. M. Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus. AUSS 3. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press: 1979. Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Schenker, Adrian. “Kōper et expiation.” Biblica 63 (1982): 32–46. Schottroff, W. ‫ידע‬. Pp. 508–21 in vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature.” Pp. 3–21 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ———.  “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pp. 103–34 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to M. Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. ———.  “The Prohibitions Concerning ‘Eating’ the Blood in Leviticus 17.” Pp. 34– 66 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Saul M. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Seebass, W. ‫נָפַ ל‬. Pp. 488–96 in vol. 9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. ———.  ‫ּפָ שַ ע‬. Pp. 133–51 in vol. 12 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Seidl, Theodor. ‫שָ גַג‬/‫שָ גָה‬. Pp. 397–405 in vol. 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018. Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 18. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

200

Bibliography

Shinan, Avigdor. “The Sins of Nadab and Abihu in Rabbinic Literature.” Tarbiz 48 (1979): 201–14. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Sklar, J. “Sin and Atonement: Lessons from the Pentateuch.” BBR 22 (2012): 473–78. ———.  Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Speiser, E. A. “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel.” BASOR 149 (1958): 17–25. Stamm, J. J. ‫סלח‬. Pp. 797–803 in vol 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Strauβ, Rita. Reinigungrsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf. VTSup 19. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toombs, L. E. “Clean and Unclean.” Pp. 641–48 in vol. 1 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Trevaskis, Leigh M. Holiness, Ethics and Ritual in Leviticus. Hebrew Bible Monographs, 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Waltke, B. K., and M. P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watts, James W. Leviticus 1–10. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Weinfeld, L. ‫ ְּב ִרית‬. Pp. 253–78 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018 Weinfeld, Moshe. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” Pp. 95–129 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies—Panel Sessions: Bible Studies, and Hebrew Language.. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: Black,1885; repr., Gloucester: Smith, 1973. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. ———.  Genesis. WBC 1. 2 vols. Waco, TX: Word, 1987–94. ———.  Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1981. ———.  “Purity.” Pp. 378–94 in The Biblical World, ed. John Barton. New York: Routledge, 2002. ———.  “Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile?” ZAW 95 (1983): 432–34. Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. ———.  “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature.” JAOS 106 (1986): 433–46. ———.  “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity.” Pp. 150–81 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ———.  “Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible.” Koroth 9 (1988): 180–93. Young Lee, Han. From History to Narrative Hermeneutics. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Zohar, Noam 1982. “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of Ḥaṭṭaʾth in the Pentateuch.” JBL 107 (1988): 609–18.

Index of Authors

Anderson, G. A., 5, 6 André, G., 58, 80 Arnold, B. T., 13, 81 Ashley, T. R., 136, 138

Gese, H., 2 Gilders, W. K., 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, 33, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 120, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 166, 167 Goetze, A., 94 Goldingay, J., 80 Gorman, F. H., 5, 6 Grimes, R. L., 2

Babcock, B. C., 8 Ballentine, S. E., 17 Barr, J., 120 Barrett, C. K., 192 Barton, J., 8 Black, J., 134 Block, D. I., 5, 60, 155, 182, 183, 184 Brichto, H. C., 5, 6, 14, 16, 51 Brown, C., 192 Büchler, A., 58

Haas, V., 68 Hamilton, V. P., 17 Hartley, J. E., 5, 6 Hausmann, J., 20, 115 Heger, P., 142 Hess, R., 4, 5, 6, 141, 191 Hoffman, D. Z., 56 Hoffner, H. A., Jr., 191 Hundley, M. B., 1, 2, 8, 9, 32, 33, 57, 83, 94, 114, 132, 165, 171, 181, 193 Hurowitz, V. A., 127

Calvin, J., 2 Choi, J. H., 13, 81 Clines, D. J. A., 18 Cole, R. D., 139 Collins, B. J., 191

Ibn Ezra, R., 134

Davies, E. W., 136, 140 Delitzsch, F., 3, 6, 51, 82, 119 Dennis, J., 5, 6, 39, 62, 66, 155, 166 Dillman, A., 3, 143 Dommershausen, W., 56, 59 Douglas, M., 26, 53

Janowski, B., 2, 3, 5, 16, 130, 174 Jay, N., 135 Jenson, P. P., 5, 6, 53, 174 Kaufmann, Y., 115 Keil, K. F., 3, 6, 51, 82, 110, 119 Kertzer, D. I., 2 Kittle, G., 3 Kiuchi, N., 5, 21, 23, 25, 35, 37, 38, 51, 62, 65, 70, 82, 83, 84, 108, 117, 120, 129, 131, 132, 137, 138, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 156, 159, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 174, 181 Klawans, J., 54 Klein, R. W., 185 Klerk, J. C. de, 8 Knierim, R., 19, 71, 154 Knohl, I., 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 48, 54, 55, 57, 60, 67, 72, 114, 115, 116, 119, 133, 136, 145, 151, 153, 161, 179, 191, 192 Koch, K., 5, 71, 162, 191

Elliger, K., 3, 173 Feder, Y., 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 35, 66, 67, 68, 70, 79, 153, 155, 158, 159, 191 Firth, D. G., 46 Gammie, J. G., 5, 6 Gane, R. E., 5, 6, 9, 10, 34, 41, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 78, 86, 88, 90, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 116, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 186 George, A., 134 Gerstenberger, E. S., 5 201

202

Index of Authors

Kraus, H.-J., 18, 190 Kugler, R. A., 9 Kurtz, J. H., 2, 3, 6, 10, 48, 51, 56, 74, 83, 86, 95, 109, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 126, 135, 154, 155, 156, 161, 165, 171, 174, 175, 179, 187 Lane, E. W, 3 Lang, B., 2, 5, 32, 106 Laughlin, J. C. H., 141 Levine, B. A., 4, 5, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 35, 45, 53, 54, 55, 60, 66, 68, 110, 120, 136, 137, 138, 139, 175 Link, H.-G., 191 Livingston, G. H., 21 Locher, C., 36 Loewenstamm, S. E., 80 Maccoby, H., 99 Martin-Achard, R., 180 Marx, A., 138 Merwe, B. van der, 53 Milgrom, J., 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 191, 193 Nida, E. A., 59 Nihan, C., 5, 6, 66, 141, 142, 143, 174 Nolland, J., 66 Noth, M., 174 Nyiawung, M. D., 8

Porter, J. R., 54 Postell, S. D., 8 Postgate, N., 134 Propp, W. H., 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 133, 134, 135 Rad, Gerhard von, 5 Rendtorff, R., 62, 144, 158, 193 Rodriguez, A. M., 3, 6, 62, 86, 111 Sarna, N. M., 133 Schenker, A., 5, 6 Schottroff, W., 22, 23 Schwartz, B. J., 2, 3, 5, 6, 133, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160 Seebass, W., 115, 163 Seidl, T., 18 Seow, C. L., 18 Shinan, A., 141 Silva, M., 9, 60 Sklar, J., 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 35, 38, 110, 147, 193 Speiser, E. A., 14 Stamm, J. J., 21 Strauß, R., 191 Tertullian, 2 Thompson, R. J., 3 Tigay, J. H., 18 Toombs, L. E., 62 Trevaskis, L. M., 62 Watts, J. W., 1, 5, 6, 67, 74, 90, 114, 120, 121, 124, 126, 129, 132, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149 Weinfeld, L., 134 Weinfeld, M., 4 Wellhausen, J., 1, 3, 4 Wenham, G. J., 5, 6,52, 56, 57, 73, 97, 114, 119, 123, 124, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 159, 161, 165, 174 Wright, D. P., 2, 5, 6, 54, 108, 173, 174 Young Lee, H., 8 Zohar, N., 5, 6, 75, 77

Index of Scripture

Genesis 1–2 16 1:28 108 4:10 79 8:18–22  47, 48 8:21 47 8:22 47 9:6 19 12:10–20 22 20:6 80 27:38 145 28:10 22 29:11 145 31:36 155 31:39 80 32:21 106 35:22  55, 56 42:21 22 49:4 55 50:17 155 Exodus 3 114 12:7 29 12:13 15 12:22 29 13:21–22 133 18:16 22 18:20 22 19  133, 134 19:8 134 19:12 133 19:13 133 19:16  132, 133 19:17 133 19:18 134 19:18–20 33 19:21–24 134 21 14 21:28–32  8, 14, 16 21:29 14 21:30 14 21:32 16

Exodus (cont.) 24  68, 133, 134, 151, 165 24:1–2 134 24:1–8 46 24:1–15 133 24:2 134 24:3 134 24:4 133 24:6 134 24:8 134 24:10–11 134 24:11  131, 132, 134 24:12 133 24:15 133 24:17 133 24:24 134 25:2 13 25:3 13 25:11 139 29  35, 63, 64, 65, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 127, 171, 182 29:1  63, 65 29:1–9 63 29:7  35, 63, 65 29:9  63, 65 29:10 85 29:10–12 82 29:10–14  63, 86 29:15 85 29:15–18 63 29:18 46 29:19 85 29:19–28 63 29:20 29 29:21  29, 127 29:25 46 29:27 13 29:27–28  121, 124 29:28  13, 49 29:28–33 48 29:36  33, 63, 65, 67, 70, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 183 203

Exodus (cont.) 29:36–37 169 29:37  46, 52, 64, 65, 82, 83, 85 29:41 49 29:42–46 33 29:43–44 171 29:44 82 29:45–46 82 30:1–10 142 30:9  142, 143 30:10  160, 161, 175 30:11  12, 13 30:11–16  8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 34, 49, 70, 189 30:12  12, 13, 14 30:13 13 30:14  12, 13 30:15 13 30:15–16  13, 120 30:16  13, 42 30:22–33 85 30:22–38 65 30:26–30 169 30:29  52, 85 30:31–33  18, 43, 49 30:34–38 142 31:14 56 32  39, 157 32:32–35 163 32:33–35 145 33:12 22 33:13 22 34:9 20 35:5 13 35:21 13 35:22 139 35:24 13 36:3 13 36:6 13 39 127 40 127

204 Exodus (cont.) 40:9–13 83 40:9–15 85 40:9–16  65, 169 40:17–33 127 40:33 127 40:34 33 40:34–35 82 40:34–38  33, 127 Leviticus 1  12, 47, 123 1–7  10, 12, 16, 70, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127, 129, 130, 132, 136, 146, 151, 165 1–8 129 1–15  11, 153, 154, 182, 186, 187 1–16  17, 37, 41, 94, 119, 162, 164, 172, 174 1:3  33, 45, 47 1:4  2, 45, 46, 47 1:4–5 45 1:5  33, 45 1:8 33 1:9  33, 45, 47, 129 1:10 45 1:13  47, 129 1:14 45 1:17  47, 129 2  12, 48, 49 2:2 129 2:3 146 2:9 129 2:12 129 3  12, 48 3:3 33 3:3–4 17 3:5 129 3:6 17 3:9–10 17 3:14–15 17 3:16 129 4  18, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 64, 94, 127, 147, 156 4–5  12, 16, 21, 82, 180, 189

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 4–5:26 71 4:1  37, 42 4:1–2  137, 155 4:1–5  38, 45 4:1–5:13  72, 157, 159, 160 4:1–5:26  15, 45, 54, 72, 74, 75, 83, 88, 90, 101, 129, 156, 157, 179 4:1–21  16, 30, 35, 36 4:2  16, 18, 35, 37, 42, 63, 64, 184 4:3  16, 35, 37, 45, 63, 66 4:3–12  35, 36, 37, 64, 130 4:3–21  138, 148, 153, 168, 181, 182 4:4  36, 64, 184 4:5 35 4:5–6 36 4:5–7 28 4:5–12  36, 37 4:6  144, 167, 170 4:6–7  161, 167 4:7  167, 171 4:11–12 146 4:12 77 4:13  16, 36, 37, 38 4:13–15 37 4:13–21  36, 64, 130 4:14  36, 39, 43, 63, 64 4:15  64, 85, 184 4:16 35 4:16–17 36 4:16–18 28 4:16–20  36, 37 4:17 167 4:17–18  161, 167 4:18 64 4:20  18, 37 4:20–21 36 4:21  77, 146 4:22  16, 30, 34, 35, 37, 63, 64 4:22–5:13 130 4:22–26  34, 36 4:22–35  16, 35, 147

Leviticus (cont.) 4:23  22, 34, 39, 43, 44, 63 4:24  64, 184 4:24–26 34 4:25  28, 29 4:26  18, 34, 104, 107, 156, 163 4:27  16, 17, 21, 22, 34, 63 4:27–5 43 4:27–31  16, 73, 75, 86 4:27–35  16, 17, 23, 34, 35, 36, 43, 49 4:28  17, 21, 22, 23, 34, 37, 39, 43, 44, 63 4:28–31 32 4:29  17, 45, 64, 184 4:29–31 34 4:30  17, 28, 45, 86 4:31  3, 17, 18, 20, 32, 34, 45, 115, 129 4:32  34, 37 4:32–35 16 4:33  64, 184 4:35  18, 34, 63 5 127 5:1  37, 39, 43, 44, 63 5:1–4  37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 93 5:1–13  16, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49, 100, 156 5:2  37, 38 5:2–3  41, 43, 44, 91, 102 5:2–4  37, 38, 39, 44 5:3  37, 38 5:4  37, 38, 39, 43, 44 5:5  37, 38, 39, 44, 63, 162 5:6  34, 37, 38, 45, 63 5:7  45, 63 5:7–10 46 5:10  34, 37, 46, 63 5:11 63 5:11–12  37, 42 5:11–13 90 5:12 42 5:13  34, 37, 48, 49, 63 5:14  37, 42

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 5:14–16  42, 43, 44, 137, 156 5:14–26  12, 16, 42, 43, 44, 49 5:15  44, 63 5:15–16 43 5:16  43, 44, 63 5:17  42, 43, 63 5:17–19  42, 43, 44, 156 5:18  34, 43 5:20 42 5:20–26  26, 42, 43, 44, 49, 156 5:21  42, 63 5:22  42, 63 5:23 63 5:24  35, 42, 43 5:26  35, 43 6:1–6  12, 119 6:5–6 142 6:7–11 12 6:8 129 6:9 146 6:11 52 6:15 35 6:17–23  12, 76 6:18–19 130 6:18–23  121, 141 6:19 81 6:19–23 90 6:20  29, 52, 75, 169 6:21 129 6:23 144 7:1–7 12 7:8  12, 45 7:9–10 12 7:10 146 7:11–21 12 7:14 13 7:18  18, 49 7:19 31 7:19–20 99 7:20  18, 40, 43, 49 7:20–21 52 7:21  18, 40, 43, 49 7:23 12 7:25  18, 43, 49 7:27  18, 43, 49

Leviticus (cont.) 7:28–34 12 7:29–34 130 7:32 13 7:32–34 146 7:32–35 121 7:34 13 8  8, 35, 63, 64, 65, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 140, 141, 151, 165, 166, 171, 180, 182, 183, 185 8–9  46, 116, 117, 133 8–10  10, 11, 109, 113, 114, 121 8:1–3 126 8:1–13 121 8:2  129, 140 8:2–13 63 8:3 117 8:4  126, 127, 129 8:4–9 126 8:5 129 8:6  129, 141 8:6–9 127 8:7 125 8:8 115 8:9  126, 129 8:10–11  85, 126, 127, 128, 169 8:10–12  63, 65, 83, 85 8:11  29, 53, 83, 84, 126, 169, 170 8:11–12 125 8:12  35, 65, 124, 126 8:12–13  126, 127 8:13  126, 127, 129, 141 8:14  85, 129, 141 8:14–15 82 8:14–17  63, 121, 125, 126, 127, 178 8:15  8, 29, 31, 33, 63, 65, 67, 70, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 122, 125, 126, 140, 169, 175, 183 8:16 86

205 Leviticus (cont.) 8:17  126, 129, 130 8:18  46, 85, 129, 141 8:18–21  63, 121, 122, 126, 127 8:21  46, 125, 126, 129 8:22  85, 129, 141 8:22–24  123, 124, 126 8:22–29  125, 127 8:22–30 121 8:22–32 63 8:23–24 29 8:24 141 8:24–30 169 8:25–28 126 8:25–29  123, 125 8:27  124, 129, 140, 141 8:28  46, 124, 126 8:29  125, 126, 129 8:30  68, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 141 8:31  124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 141 8:31–35 127 8:31–36 121 8:33  63, 64, 65, 142 8:33–35 82 8:34  46, 126, 129 8:35  125, 129 8:36  126, 127, 129 9  35, 64, 80, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 165, 180, 182, 185 9–10 143 9:1  64, 129, 149 9:1–7 132 9:2  46, 131, 140, 142 9:3 46 9:4  48, 49, 123, 131 9:4–6 117 9:5  117, 129 9:6  82, 86, 123, 129, 131 9:7  37, 46, 48, 129, 130, 131, 142 9:8–14  131, 132

206 Leviticus (cont.) 9:8–21 142 9:9  28, 129, 142 9:10 129 9:11 130 9:12  46, 129, 142 9:12–15 150 9:13  46, 129, 142 9:13–14 129 9:14 46 9:15  81, 130, 131 9:15–21  131, 132 9:16–17 129 9:17  46, 49, 142 9:18  49, 129, 142 9:20  129, 142 9:21 129 9:22  46, 49, 131, 132, 142 9:22–24  115, 131, 132, 134 9:23  123, 132, 142, 143 9:23–24  33, 82, 86, 117, 131, 133, 135, 140, 142, 185 9:24  46, 115, 117, 123, 132, 146, 148, 155, 180 10  80, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 130, 133, 141, 142, 148, 149, 151, 153, 156, 157, 165, 180 10–16 150 10:1  140, 141, 143 10:1–2  49, 52 10:1–3  15, 18, 33, 115, 117, 118, 134, 141, 144, 145, 168 10:1–5 145 10:2  115, 148 10:3  114, 115, 142, 143 10:3–7 115 10:4 144 10:4–7 141 10:6  35, 36, 118, 144, 145, 148, 149, 181 10:6–7 145 10:7  52, 85, 142 10:8–11  141, 145

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 10:10 55 10:12 148 10:12–15  141, 146 10:12–20 145 10:13 148 10:14  13, 148 10:14–15 130 10:15 13 10:16  146, 148 10:16–18 130 10:16–20  141, 146 10:17  121, 147, 148 10:18  147, 148 10:19  46, 118, 146, 148, 149 10:20 149 11  39, 92, 106, 179 11–15  10, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 67, 91, 92, 100, 107, 116, 127, 151, 157, 158, 159 11:24–40 100 11:25  178, 179 11:39–40 97 11:42 159 11:46 159 12  26, 40, 66, 86, 92, 95, 100 12–15  39, 48, 54, 64, 72, 79, 82, 83, 88, 109, 117, 129, 146, 151, 156, 165, 171, 180 12:2  41, 98 12:4  40, 41, 44, 95, 96, 97, 105 12:5 41 12:6  41, 46 12:7  98, 101 12:8 46 13  41, 67, 101 13–14  40, 92 13:6 41 13:34 41 13:45–46 99 13:46  40, 41 14  67, 78, 100, 173 14:1–32  41, 67

Leviticus (cont.) 14:4–7  79, 164 14:7  170, 179 14:8–9 139 14:10 42 14:13 46 14:14–17 29 14:16 170 14:18–20 79 14:19  34, 46 14:20  46, 48, 49 14:22 46 14:25–28 29 14:27 170 14:31  42, 46, 48, 49 14:33–48 67 14:33–53 89 14:33–57  67, 72, 189 14:34–37 67 14:48 67 14:49 67 14:49–52  67, 69, 70, 164 14:49–53 79 14:51 170 14:51–52 68 14:52  67, 69, 86 14:52–53 69 14:53  67, 68, 69, 175 15  40, 60, 92, 100 15:1–15  31, 91 15:3 156 15:3–15 100 15:5  40, 179 15:13  91, 95 15:13–14  41, 64 15:15  34, 46 15:16–17 64 15:16–18 100 15:19  95, 96 15:19–24  96, 98, 100, 101 15:23 56 15:25–30 100 15:30  34, 46 15:31  27, 43, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 87, 91, 99, 102, 108, 159

207

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 16  10, 11, 35, 54, 57, 77, 78, 80, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 127, 129, 133, 141, 146, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187 16:1  18, 49, 115, 118, 150, 153, 155, 161, 165, 166, 168, 185, 186 16:1–2  33, 141 16:1–3  134, 135 16:1–10 165 16:1–28  25, 153, 187 16:2  116, 144, 153, 161, 165, 168 16:2–28  153, 155, 157, 165, 180 16:3  46, 165 16:5  46, 156, 176 16:6  37, 129, 161, 166, 177 16:7 37 16:7–10 164 16:8 174 16:10  163, 166, 175, 176 16:11  37, 129, 161, 165, 166 16:11–16 165 16:11–22 177 16:11–28 178 16:12–13  33, 142, 143, 153, 161, 165 16:13  116, 135 16:14–15  166, 168 16:14–19 27 16:15  158, 169 16:15–16 161 16:16  30, 34, 77, 144, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 175, 180, 181, 186 16:16–19 28

Leviticus (cont.) 16:17  129, 166, 168, 169 16:18  161, 166, 175 16:18–19  168, 169, 170, 171 16:19  31, 33, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 167, 169, 170, 180 16:20  161, 166, 172, 175 16:20–21 177 16:20–22 172 16:21  153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 173 16:22  153, 154, 157, 160, 176 16:23 177 16:23–24 177 16:23–28 177 16:24  37, 46, 129, 166, 177 16:25  163, 174, 178 16:26 77 16:26–28  77, 178 16:27  100, 164 16:27–28 77 16:28  76, 100, 177 16:29  135, 179, 180 16:29–34  25, 117, 153, 165, 179, 180, 187 16:30  153, 154, 157, 160, 180, 181 16:31  135, 180 16:32 179 16:34  135, 153, 157, 160, 179, 180, 181 17 193 17:11  48, 53, 111, 120, 193 18:1–23 155 18:24–25 164 18:24–30 155 19:2  54, 110 20:1–5  52, 87, 160, 180 20:2 54 20:2–5  54, 55, 58, 60, 106 20:3  27, 54, 57, 59, 118, 144, 157, 159, 163, 174 20:4–5 54

Leviticus (cont.) 20:7 54 21:1–4 144 21:1–12 73 21:9 52 21:10 179 21:10–12  144, 145 21:12  52, 55, 59 21–22:16 52 21:23 59 22:3 52 22:4–7 100 22:5–6 100 22:9 56 22:12 13 22:16  22, 35 22:18  46, 146 23:1–22 119 23:29–30 180 23:37  46, 49 24:13–16 174 24:14 85 25:9 179 26:18 180 26:21 180 26:24 180 Numbers 1:2–3 13 1:50 139 1:51 52 3:4 144 3:10 52 3:38 52 4:2 13 4:19 52 4:20 52 4:22 13 4:32 159 5:1–4  99, 102 5:2 27 5:2–3 28 5:2–4 100 5:9 13 5:13 36 5:15 57 5:19 100 5:27 57

208 Numbers (cont.) 5:27–28 57 5:31 57 6:1–8 136 6:1–21  119, 136, 151 6:2 136 6:5 136 6:6–8 52 6:9  136, 137 6:9–12  52, 75, 76, 100, 136, 156 6:10–11 137 6:11  34, 46, 63, 137 6:12  136, 137 6:13–21  136, 137 6:14  46, 49 6:16 46 6:17 49 6:18  49, 138 6:19 156 6:20 13 6:21 136 7 99 8 80 8:1–14 46 8:5–22  119, 136, 138, 151 8:6  139, 140 8:7 139 8:8–10 140 8:8–15 139 8:10 85 8:11  124, 140 8:12  85, 140 8:13  124, 140 8:14–15 140 8:15  124, 140 8:19  15, 36, 140 8:21  80, 124, 140 10:10 46 11:1–3 145 11:10 145 14:18 163 14:19 20 14:19–23 20 14:20 20 15:17–36 19 15:19 13 15:20 13

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 15:21 13 15:22–36 18 15:23–26 46 15:27–28 18 15:27–31 28 15:27–36 160 15:27–41 163 15:30  18, 30 15:31 18 15:31–36 17 15:32–36 18 15:35–36 15 16 141 16:3 143 16:3–5 142 16:5 22 16:6–7 142 16:7 143 16:8–11 142 16:9–10 143 16:16–19 142 16:17 142 16:17–18 143 16:35 142 17  14, 157 17:2 143 17:2–4 142 17:5  52, 142, 143 17:6 14 17:11  14, 142 17:11–13 165 17:28 52 18:3 52 18:7 52 18:8 13 18:11 13 18:19 13 18:24 13 18:26 13 18:27 13 18:28 13 18:29 13 19  39, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 88, 89, 100, 101, 137, 139, 189 19:1–22 67 19:2 72

Numbers (cont.) 19:2–10 72 19:6 68 19:7–10  75, 100 19:9  72, 81 19:10 72 19:10–13 72 19:11 72 19:11–13 72 19:12  67, 81 19:13  20, 27, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 67, 72, 79, 81, 87, 91, 102, 108, 157, 159 19:14–16 72 19:14–19 72 19:15 72 19:18 73 19:18–19 81 19:19  67, 73 19:20  20, 27, 40, 41, 52, 54, 59, 60, 67, 72, 79, 81, 87, 91, 102, 108, 157, 159 19:20–21 72 19:21  73, 78 19:21–22  72, 75, 77 23 46 24:17 131 27:18–23 174 27:20 174 28 129 28–29  49, 119 29:7 179 29:8–11 177 30:6 20 30:9 20 30:13 20 31:19 81 31:20 81 31:23 81 31:24 73 31:26 13 31:29 13 31:41 13 31:48–54 15 31:49 13 31:50 120 31:52 13

209

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 35:1–34  19, 20 35:12 19 35:15 19 35:16–21 19 35:22–23  19, 23 35:24–25 19 35:25 19 35:26–28 19 35:27  19, 20 35:27–28 20 35:30–34 15 35:32 19 35:33 79 Deuteronomy 4:9 22 5:1 17 5:14 17 21:8 106 27:14–26 18 27:18  17, 18 29:19 20 32:43 106 34:9 174 Joshua 20:5–6 19 Judges 6:21 132 13:21–23 46 21:22 21 1 Samuel 3:14 106 7:9 46 13:8–12 46 13:9–14 46 15:22–23 46 26:21  17, 18 26:23 18 2 Samuel 3:32 145 6:13–19 46 21:3 106 24  14, 46, 47, 48

2 Samuel (cont.) 24:3 46 24:4 46 24:10  14, 46 24:12–14 46 24:17 46 24:17–25 46 24:18 46 24:22 46 24:23 47 24:24 46 24:25 47 1 Kings 3:3 144 8:27 133 8:30 20 8:34 20 8:36 20 8:39 20 8:50 20 8:57–66 127 8:64 132 9:6–9 87 10:3 36 11:8 144 12:33 144 13:1–2 144 18:38 132 22:43 144 2 Kings 5:18 20 12:3 144 14:4 144 15:4 144 15:35 144 16:4 144 17:11 144 18:4 144 22:17 144 23:5 144 23:8 144 24:4 20 Isaiah 1:15 36 6:7 106

Isaiah (cont.) 12:5 22 17:8 144 22:14 106 24:5–6 21 27:9 144 28:7  17, 18 28:13 18 28:18 111 37:16 28 40:14 22 47:11 106 48:2 85 55:7 20 58:1–3 180 65:3 144 65:7 144 66:3 144 Jeremiah 5:1 20 5:1–14 20 5:7 20 7:30 59 11:12–13 144 18:15 144 18:19–23 106 18:23 106 31:34 20 32:29 144 32:34 59 33:8  20, 108 36:3 20 48:35 144 50:20 20 Ezekiel 5 60 5–6 57 5:6 60 5:7 60 5:9 60 5:11  58, 59, 60 6:4 144 6:6 144 6:8 57 6:16–18 185 6:19–22 185

210 Ezekiel (cont.) 7:24 59 8:11 144 9:7 59 10 182 11:22 28 14:11 155 16:2 22 18 155 18:30–31 155 20:4 22 20:11 22 20:40–41 47 21:22 56 22:2  22, 56 22:4 21 22:8 56 22:13–16 56 22:16 56 23:38 59 23:38–49 57 23:39 59 24:21 59 25:3 59 25:12 21 34:6 17 36:25 108 36:33 108 37:23  108, 154 39:23–24 57 43  79, 185 43:1–5 184 43:1–9 182 43:10–17 182 43:18–27  119, 182 43:19 184 43:20  79, 183 43:22  79, 183 43:23 79 43:26 183 43:27  183, 184 44:4 184 44:15–17 177 44:23 22 44:25 137 44:25–27 137 44:26–27  75, 76, 100

Index of Scripture Ezekiel (cont.) 45 79 45:17 48 45:17–19 184 45:18  79, 184 45:18–25  119, 182, 184 45:20  17, 184 45:21 184 46:20 52 Hosea 4:13 144 5:2 21 5:15 21 10:2 21 11:12 144 13:1 21 14:1 21 Joel 1:18 21 2:12–13 21 Amos 7:2 20 8:14  22, 35 Habakkuk 1:4 21 1:11 21 Zephaniah 3:4 59 Haggai 2:3 179 2:13  149, 179 Zechariah 5:5 163 Malachi 2:11 59 Psalms 5:11 21 16:11 22

Psalms (cont.) 25:4 22 25:7 155 25:11 20 25:14 22 32:5 22 33:21 57 34:22–23  21, 23 37 164 37:37–38 155 37:38 164 51 80 51:3  80, 155 51:4  80, 108 51:5 80 51:8 22 51:9  80, 108 51:12  80, 108 51:13 80 65:3 106 68:22 22 69:6 35 74:7 59 78:5 22 78:38 106 79 190 79:1  59, 190 79:6–12 106 79:8  106, 190 79:9  166, 190 98:2 22 103:1 57 103:3 20 103:7 22 105:3 57 106:47 57 119:10 17 119:21  17, 18 119:65–72 18 119:67  17, 18 119:118  17, 18 141:1–2 144 143:8 22 145:21 57 Job 6:24 17

211

Index of Scripture Job (cont.) 12:16  17, 18 12:17–25 18 13:23 22 19:4 17 28:21 36 40:25–41:2 80 41:3 16 41:17 80 41:18 81 Proverbs 5:19–23 17 9:9 22 19:27 17 20:1 17 22:19 22 28:10  17, 18 30:10 21 Ecclesiastes 5:5 17 10:5  17, 18 Lamentations 3:42 20 Daniel 9:19 20

Ezra 6:17  119, 182, 185 8:35  119, 182, 185 9:6  22, 35 9:7  22, 35 9:13  22, 35 9:15  22, 35 10:10 35 10:19 35 Nehemiah 6:11 52 8:12 22 9:14 22 1 Chronicles 5:1 56 16:18 22 21:3  22, 35 21:7 22 21:26 132 24:2 144 2 Chronicles 6:21 20 6:25 20 6:27 20 6:30 20

2 Chronicles (cont.) 6:39 20 7:14 20 9:2 36 19:10 21 24:18 22 28:10  21, 35 28:13  22, 35 29  182, 184 29:1–24 79 29:5 185 29:6–10  184, 185 29:11–19 185 29:19 185 29:20–24 185 29:21 185 29:21–24 119 29:22 185 29:23  85, 185 29:24  79, 185 29:25–36 185 29:27 185 30:18 106 32:8 85 33:23 35 33:23–24 22 36:14 59

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements

1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil 2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-​First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens 3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. 4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim 5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer 6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins 7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery 8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews 9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks 13. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg 14. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, by Daniel Y. Wu 15. Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy, by Dillon T. Thornton 16. Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology, by Matthew H. Patton 17. Making Sense of the Divine Name in Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics, by Austin Surls 18. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, by William R. Osborne 19. Bearing Yhwh’s Name at Sinai: A Reexamination of the Name Command of the Decalogue, by Carmen Joy Imes 20. Poor and Rich in James: A Relevance Theory Approach to James’s Use of the Old Testament, by Nelson R. Morales 21. “I Will Walk Among You”: The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the Book of Leviticus, by G. Geoffrey Harper 22. Signs of Continuity: The Function of Miracles in Jesus and Paul, by Greg Rhodea 23. A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited, by James A. Greenberg