CHAPTER II. SACRIFICE.

With the Hebrews, as with the whole ancient world, sacrifice

constituted the main part of worship. The question is whether

their worship did not also in this most important respect pass

through a history the stages of which are reflected in the

Pentateuch. From the results already reached this must be

regarded at the outset as probable, but the sources of information

accessible to us seem hardly sufficient to enable us actually to

follow the process, or even so much as definitely to fix its two

termini.

II.I.1. The Priestly Code alone occupies itself much with the

subject; it gives a minute classification of the various kinds of

offerings, and a description of the procedure to be followed in the

case of each. In this way it furnishes also the normative scheme

for modern accounts of the matter, into which all the other casual

notices of the Old Testament on the subject must be made to fit as

best they can. This point accordingly presents us with an

important feature by which the character of the book can be

determined. In it the sacrificial ritual is a constituent, and

indeed a very essential element, of the Mosaic legislation: that

ritual is not represented as ancient use handed down to the

Israelites by living practice from ancestral times: it was Moses

who gave them the theory of it--a very elaborate one too--and

he himself received his instruction from God (Exodus xxv. seq.;

Leviticus i. seq.). An altogether disproportionate emphasis is

accordingly laid upon the technique of sacrifice corresponding to

the theory, alike upon the when, the where, and the by whom, and

also in a very special manner upon the how. It is from these that

the sacrifice obtains its specific value; one could almost suppose

that even if it were offered to another God, it would by means of

the legitimate rite alone be at once made essentially Jehovistic.

The cultus of Israel is essentially distinguished from all others

by its form, the distinctive and constitutive mark of the holy

community. With it the theocracy begins and it with the

theocracy; the latter is nothing more than the institution for the

purpose of carrying on the cultus after the manner ordained by

God. For this reason also the ritual, which appears to concern the

priests only, finds its place in a law-book intended for the whole

community; in order to participate in the life of the theocracy,

all must of course, have clear knowledge of its essential nature,

and in this the theory of sacrifice holds a first place.

The Jehovistic portion of the Pentateuch also knows of no other

kind of divine worship besides the sacrificial, and does not attach

to it less importance than the Priestly Code. But we do not find

many traces of the view that the sacrificial system of Israel is

distinguished from all others by a special form revealed to Moses,

which makes it the [sic] alone legitimate. Sacrifice is

sacrifice: when offered to Baal, it is heathenish; when offered

to Jehovah, it is Israelite. In the Book of the Covenant and in

both Decalogues it is enjoined before everything to serve no other

God besides Jehovah, but also at the proper season to offer

firstlings and gifts to Him. Negative determinations, for the most

part directed against one heathenish peculiarity or another, occur

but there are no positive ordinances relating to the ritual. How

one is to set about offering sacrifice is taken for granted as

already known, and nowhere figures as an affair for the

legislation, which, on the contrary, occupies itself with quite

other things. What the Book of the Covenant and the Decalogue

leave still perhaps doubtful becomes abundantly clear from the

Jehovistic narrative. The narrative has much more to say about

sacrifice than the incorporated law books, and this may be

regarded as characteristic; in the Priestly Code it is quite the

other way. But what is specially important is that, according to

the Jehovistic history, the praxis of sacrifice, and that too of

the regular and God-pleasing sort, extends far beyond the Mosaic

legislation, and, strictly speaking, is as old as the world

itself. A sacrificial feast which the Hebrews wish to celebrate in

the wilderness is the occasion of the Exodus; Moses already

builds an altar at Rephidim (Exodus xvii.), and, still before the

ratification of the covenant on Sinai, a solemn meal in the

presence of Jehovah is set on foot on occasion of Jethro's visit

(Exodus xviii.). But the custom is much older still; it was

known and practiced by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Noah, the

father of all mankind, built the first altar after the Flood, and

long before him Cain and Abel sacrificed in the same way as was

usual in Palestine thousands of years afterwards. Balaam the

Aramaean understands just as well as any Israelite how to offer

sacrifices to Jehovah that do not fail of their effect. All this

brings out, with as much clearness as could be desired, that

sacrifice is a very ancient and quite universal mode of honouring

the Deity, and that Israelite sacrifice is distinguished not by

the manner in which, but by the being to whom, it is offered, in

being offered to the God of Israel. According to this

representation of the matter, Moses left the procedure in

sacrifice, as he left the procedure in prayer, to be regulated by

the traditional praxis; if there was any definite origination of

the cultus of Israel, the patriarchs must be thought of, but even

they were not the discoverers of the ritual; they were merely

the founders of those holy places at which the Israelites

dedicated gifts to Jehovah, a usage which was common to the whole

world. The contrast with the Priestly Code is extremely

striking, for it is well known that the latter work makes mention

of no sacrificial act prior to the time of Moses, neither in

Genesis nor in Exodus, although from the time of Noah slaughtering

is permitted. The offering of a sacrifice of sheep and oxen as the

occasion of the exodus is omitted, and in place of the sacrifice of

the firstlings we have the paschal lamb, which is slaughtered and

eaten without altar, without priest, and not in the presence of

Jehovah. /1/

-- Footnote

1. With regard to sacrifice, Deuteronomy still occupies the same

standpoint as JE.

-- Footnote

The belief that the cultus goes back to pre-Mosaic usage is

unquestionably more natural than the belief that it is the main

element of the Sinaitic legislation; the thought would be a

strange one that God should suddenly have revealed, or Moses

discovered and introduced, the proper sacrificial ritual. At the

same time this does not necessitate the conclusion that the

Priestly Code is later than the Jehovist. Nor does this follow

from the very elaborately-developed technique of the agenda, for

elaborate ritual may have existed in the great sanctuaries at a

very early period,--though that, indeed, would not prove it to be

genuinely Mosaic. On the other hand, it is certainly a

consideration deserving of great weight that the representation of

the exclusive legitimacy of so definite a sacrificial ritual,

treated in the Priestly Code as the only possible one in Israel,

is one which can have arisen only as a consequence of the

centralisation of the cultus at Jerusalem. Yet by urging this the

decision of the question at present before us would only be

referred back to the result already arrived at in the preceding

chapter, and it is much to be desired that it should be solved

independently, so as not to throw too much weight upon a single

support.

II.I.2. In this case also the elements of a decision can only be

obtained from the historical documents dating from the pre-exilic

time,--the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings on the one hand, and

the writings of the prophets on the other. As regards those of the

first class, they represent the cultus and sacrifice on all

occasions as occupying a large place in the life of the nation and

of the individual. But, although it would be wrong to say that

absolutely no weight is attached to the RITE, it is certainly not

the fact that the main stress is laid upon it; the antithesis is

not between RITE and NON-RITE, but between sacrifice TO JEHOVAH and

sacrifice TO STRANGE GODS, the reverse of what we find in the

Priestly Code. Alongside of splendid sacrifices, such as those of

the kings, presumably offered in accordance with all the rules of

priestly skill, there occur others also of the simplest and most

primitive type, as, for example, those of Saul (1Samuel xiv.35) and

Elisha (1Kings xix.2I); both kinds are proper if only they be

dedicated to the proper deity. Apart from the exilian redaction of

the Book of Kings, which reckons the cultus outside of Jerusalem as

heretical, it is nowhere represented that a sacrifice could be

dedicated to the God of Israel, and yet be illegitimate. Naaman

(2Kings v. 17), it is to be supposed, followed his native Syrian

ritual, but this does not in the least impair the acceptability of

his offering. For reasons easily explained, it is seldom that an

occasion arises to describe the ritual, but when such a description

is given it is only with violence that it can be forced into

accordance with the formula of the law. Most striking of all is

the procedure of Gideon in Judges vi.19-21, in which it is manifest

that the procedure still usual at Ophrah in the time of the

narrator is also set forth. Gideon boils a he-goat and bakes in

the ashes cakes of unleavened bread, places upon the bread the

flesh in a basket and the broth in a pot, and then the meal thus

prepared is burnt in the altar flame. It is possible that

instances may have also occurred in which the rule of the

Pentateuch is followed, but the important point is that the

distinction between legitimate and heretical is altogether wanting.

When the Book of Chronicles is compared the difference is at once

perceived.

The impression derived from the historical books is confirmed by

the prophets. It is true that in their polemic against confounding

worship with religion they reveal the fact that in their day the

cultus was carried on with the utmost zeal and splendour, and was

held in the highest estimation. But this estimation does not rest

upon the opinion that the cultus, as regards its matter, goes back

to Moses or to Jehovah Himself, gives to the theocracy its

distinctive character, and even constitutes the supernatural

priesthood of Israel among the nations, but simply upon the belief

that Jehovah must be honoured by His dependents, just as other

gods are by their subjects, by means of offerings and gifts as

being the natural and (like prayer) universally current

expressions of religious homage. The larger the quantity, and the

finer the quality, so much the better; but that the merit arising

from the presentation depends upon strict observance of etiquette

regarded as Jehovah's law is not suggested. Thus it is that the

prophets are able to ask whether then Jehovah has commanded His

people to tax their energies with such exertions? the fact

presupposed being that no such command exists, and that no one

knows anything at all about a ritual Torah. Amos, the leader of

the chorus, says (iv.4 seq.),

"Come to Bethel to sin, to Gilgal to sin yet more, and bring your

sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days, for so ye

like, ye children of Israel."

In passing sentence of rejection upon the value of the cultus he

is in opposition to the faith of his time; but if the opinion had

been a current one that precisely the cultus was what Jehovah had

instituted in Israel, he would not have been able to say, "For so

ye like." "Ye," not Jehovah; it is an idle and arbitrary worship.

He expresses himself still more clearly in v.21 seq.

"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I smell not on your holy days;

though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your gifts, I will not accept

them; neither do I regard your thank-offerings of fatted calves.

Away from me with the noise of thy songs, the melody of thy viols

I will not hear; but let judgment roll on like waters, and

righteousness like a mighty stream. Did ye offer unto me

sacrifices and gifts in the wilderness the forty years, O house

of Israel?"

In asking this last question Amos has not the slightest fear

of raising any controversy; on the contrary, he is following

the generally received belief. His polemic is directed against

the praxis of his contemporaries, but here he rests it upon a

theoretical foundation in which they are at one with him,--on

this, namely, that the sacrificial worship is not of Mosaic origin.

Lastly, if ii.4 be genuine, it teaches the same lesson. By the

Law of Jehovah which the people of Judah have despised it is

impossible that Amos can have understood anything in the remotest

degree resembling a ritual legislation. Are we to take it then

that he formed his own special private notion of the Torah? How in

that case would it have been possible for him to make himself

understood by the people, or to exercise influence over them? Of

all unlikely suppositions, at all events it is the least likely

that the herdsman of Tekoah, under the influence of prophetic

tradition (which in fact he so earnestly disclaims), should have

taken the Torah for something quite different from what it actually

was.

Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah are in agreement with Amos. The first

mentioned complains bitterly (iv.6 seq.) that the priests

cultivate the system of sacrifices instead of the Torah. The

Torah, committed by Jehovah to their order, lays it on them as

their vocation to diffuse the knowledge of God in Israel,--the

knowledge that He seeks truthfulness and love, justice and

considerateness, and no gifts; but they, on the contrary, in a

spirit of base self-seeking, foster the tendency of the nation

towards cultus, in their superstitions over-estimate of which lies

their sin and their ruin.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; ye yourselves

(ye priests!) reject knowledge, and I too will reject you

that ye shall not be priests unto me; seeing ye have forgotten

the law of your God, so will I also forget you. The more they are,

the more they sin against me; their glory they barter for shame.

They eat the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their

iniquity."

From this we see how idle it is to believe that the prophets

opposed "the Law;" they defend the priestly Torah, which, however,

has nothing to do with cultus, but only with justice and morality.

In another passage (viii.11 seq.) we read,

"Ephraim has built for himself many altars, to sin; the altars

are there for him, to sin. How many soever my instructions

(torothai) may be, they are counted those of a stranger."

This text has had the unmerited misfortune of having been forced

to do service as a proof that Hosea knew of copious writings

similar in contents to our Pentateuch. All that can be drawn

from the contrast "instead of following my instructions they offer

sacrifice" (for that is the meaning of the passage) is that the prophet

had never once dreamed of the possibility of cultus being made

the subject of Jehovah's directions. In Isaiah's discourses

the well-known passage of the first chapter belongs to this connection:

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?

saith the Lord. I am weary with the burnt-offerings of rams

and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks

and of lambs and of he-goats. When ye come to look upon my face,

who hath required this at your hands?--to trample my courts!"

This expression has long been a source of trouble, and certainly

the prophet could not possibly have uttered it if the sacrificial

worship had, according to any tradition whatever, passed for being

specifically Mosaic. Isaiah uses the word Torah to denote not

the priestly but the prophetical instruction (i.10, ii.3, v.24,

viii.16, 20, xxx.9); as both have a common source and Jehovah is

the proper instructor (xxx.20), this is easily explicable, and is

moreover full of instruction as regards the idea involved;

the contents of the Priestly Code fit badly in with the Torah of i.10.

Lastly, Micah's answer to the people's question, how a return of

the favour of an angry God is to be secured, is of conspicuous

significance (vi.6 seq.):

"Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old?

Is the Lord pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of

rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,

the fruit of my body as atonement for my soul?--It hath been

told thee, O man, what is good, and what Jehovah requireth of thee.

Nay, it is to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly

before thy God."

Although the blunt statement of the contrast between cultus

and religion is peculiarly prophetic, Micah can still take

his stand upon this, "It hath been told thee, O man, what Jehovah

requires." It is no new matter, but a thing well known,

that sacrifices are not what the Torah of the Lord contains.

That we have not inferred too much from these utterances of the

older prophets is clear from the way in which they are taken up

and carried on by Jeremiah, who lived shortly before the

Babylonian exile. Just as in vi.19 seq. he opposes the Torah to

the cultus, so in vii.11 seq. he thus expresses himself:

"Add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat flesh!

For I said nought unto your fathers, and commanded them nought,

in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning

burnt-offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them:

hearken to my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my

people, and walk ye in the way that I shall always teach you, that

it may be well with you."

The view indeed, that the prophets (who, from the connection,

are the ever-living voice to which Israel is to hearken) are

the proper soul of the theocracy, the organ by which Jehovah

influences and rules it, has no claim to immemorial antiquity.

But no stress lies upon the positive element here;

enough that at all events Jeremiah is unacquainted with the Mosaic

legislation as it is contained in the Priestly Code. His ignoring

of it is not intentional, for he is far from hating the cultus

(xvii.26). But, as priest and prophet, staying continually in

the temple at Jerusalem, he must have known it, if it had existed

and actually been codified. The fact is one which it is difficult

to get over.

Thus the historical witnesses, particularly the prophets, decide

the matter in favour of the Jehovistic tradition. According to the

universal opinion of the pre-exilic period, the cultus is indeed of

very old and (to the people) very sacred usage, but not a Mosaic

institution; the ritual is not the main thing in it, and is in no

sense the subject with which the Torah deals. /1/

-- Footnote

1. That the priests were not mere teachers of law and morals,

but also gave ritual instruction (e.g, regarding cleanness

and uncleanness), is of course not denied by this. All that is

asserted is that in pre-exilian antiquity the priests' own praxis

(at the altar) never constituted the contents of the Torah,

but that their Torah always consisted of instructions to the laity.

The distinction is easily intelligible to those who choose

to understand it.

-- Footnote

In other words, no trace can be found of acquaintance

with the Priestly Code, but, on the other hand, very clear

indications of ignorance of its contents.

II.I.3. In this matter the transition from the pre-exilic to the

post-exilic period is effected, not by Deuteronomy, but by

Ezekiel the priest in prophet's mantle, who was one of the first to

be carried into exile. He stands in striking contrast with his

elder contemporary Jeremiah. In the picture of Israel's future

which he drew in B.C. 573 (chaps. xl.-xlviii.), in which

fantastic hopes are indeed built upon Jehovah, but no impossible

demand made of man, the temple and cultus hold a central place.

Whence this sudden change? Perhaps because now the Priestly Code

has suddenly awakened to life after its long trance, and become

the inspiration of Ezekiel? The explanation is certainly not to

be sought in any such occurrence, but simply in the historical

circumstances. So long as the sacrificial worship remained in

actual use, it was zealously carried on, but people did not

concern themselves with it theoretically, and had not the least

occasion for reducing it to a code. But once the temple was in

ruins, the cultus at an end, its PERSONNEL out of employment, it is

easy to understand how the sacred praxis should have become a

matter of theory and writing, so that it might not altogether

perish, and how an exiled priest should have begun to paint the

picture of it as he carried it in his memory, and to publish it as

a programme for the future restoration of the theocracy. Nor is

there any difficulty if arrangements, which as long as they

were actually in force were simply regarded as natural, were seen

after their abolition in a transfiguring light, and from the study

devoted to them gained artificially a still higher value. These

historical conditions supplied by the exile sufffice to make clear

the transition from Jeremiah to Ezekiel, and the genesis of Ezekiel

xl.-xlviii. The co-operation of the Priestly Code is here not

merely unnecessary, it would be absolutely disconcerting.

Ezekiel's departure from the ritual of the Pentateuch cannot be

explained as intentional alterations of the original; they are

too casual and insignificant. The prophet, moreover, has the

rights of authorship as regards the end of his book as well as for

the rest of it; he has also his right to his picture of the future

as the earlier prophets had to theirs. And finally, let its due

weight be given to the simple fact that an exiled priest saw

occasion to draft such a sketch of the temple worship. What need

would there have been for it, if the realised picture,

corresponding completely to his views, had actually existed, and,

being already written in a book, wholly obviated any danger lest

the cultus should become extinct through the mere fact of its

temporary cessation?

Here again a way of escape is open by assuming a lifeless

existence of the law down to Ezra's time. But if this is done it

is unallowable to date that existence, not from Moses, but from

some other intermediate point in the history of Israel. Moreover,

the assumption of a codification either as preceding all praxis,

or as alongside and independent of it, is precisely in the case of

sacrificial ritual one of enormous difficulty, for it is obvious

that such a codification can only be the final result of an old

and highly developed use, and not the invention of an idle brain.

This consideration also makes retreat into the theory of an

illegal praxis impossible, and renders the legitimacy of the

actually subsisting indisputable.

II.II.

At all times, then, the sacrificial worship of Israel existed, and

had great importance attached to it, but in the earlier period it

rested upon custom, inherited from the fathers, in the post-exilian

on the law of Jehovah, given through Moses. At first it was naive,

and what was chiefly considered was the quantity and quality of

the gifts; afterwards it became legal,--the scrupulous fulfilment

of the law, that is, of the prescribed ritual, was what was looked

to before everything. Was there then, apart from this, strictly

speaking, no material difference? To answer this question our

researches must be carried further afield, after some preliminary

observations have been made in order to fix our position.

II.II.1. In the Pentateuch the sacrificial ritual is indeed copiously

described, but nowhere in the Old Testament is its significance

formally explained; this is treated as on the whole self-evident

and familiar to every one. The general notion of a sacrifice is

in the Priestly Code that of _qorban_, in the rest of the Old

Testament that of _minha_, /1/ ie., "gift;"

-- Footnote

1. Genesis iv. 3-5, Numbers xvi. 15; 1Samuel ii. 17, 29, xxvi. 19;

Isaiah i. 13; Malachi i. 10-13, ii. 12, 13, iii. 3, 4.

In the Priestly Code _minha_ is exclusively a terminus technicus

for the meal-offering. The general name in the LXX and in the

New Testament is DWRON (Matthew v. 23-24, viii. 4, xv. 5,

xxiii. 18, 19). Compare Spencer, "De ratione et origine

sacrificiorum" (De Legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, iii.2), by far

the best thing that has ever been written on the subject.

-- Footnote

the corresponding verbs are _haqrib_ and _haggish_, i.e., "to bring

near." Both nouns and both verbs are used originally for the offering

of a present to the king (or the nobles) to do him homage, to make him

gracious, to support a petition (Judges iii. 17 seq.; 1Samuel x. 27;

1Kings v. 1 [A.V. iv.21]), and from this are employed with reference

to the highest King (Malachi i.8).

DWRA QEOUS PEIQAI, DWR' )AIDOIOUS BASILHAS

The gift must not be unseasonably or awkwardly thrust upon the

recipient, not when the king's anger is at white heat, and not by

one the sight of whom he hates.

With respect to the matter of it, the idea of a sacrifice is in

itself indifferent, if the thing offered only have value of some

sort, and is the property of the offerer. Under _qorban_ and _minha_

is included also that which the Greeks called _anathema_. The sacred

dues which at a later date fall to the priest were without doubt

originally ordinary offerings, and amongst these are found even

wool and flax (Deut. xviii. 4; Hos. ii. 7, 11 [A.V. 5, 9] ).

But it is quite in harmony with the naivete of antiquity that as

to man so also to God that which is eatable is by preference

offered; in this there was the additional advantage, that what God

had caused to grow was thus rendered back to Him. In doing this,

the regular form observed is that a meal is prepared in honour of

the Deity, of which man partakes as God's guest. Offering without

any qualifying expression always means a meat or drink offering.

On this account the altar is called a table, on this account also

salt goes along with flesh, oil with meal and bread, and wine with

both; and thus also are we to explain why the flesh, according to

rule, is put upon the altar in pieces and (in the earlier period)

boiled, the corn ground or baked. Hence also the name "bread of

Jehovah" for the offering (Leviticus xxi.22). It is of course true

that "in his offering the enlightened Hebrew saw no banquet to

Jehovah:" but we hardly think of taking the enlightened Protestant

as a standard for the original character of Protestantism.

The manner in which the portions pertaining to God are conveyed to

Him varies. The most primitive is the simple "setting in order"

[ (RK, struere] and "pouring out" [#pk, fundere) in the case of the

shewbread and drink offerings; to this a simple eating and

drinking would correspond. But the most usual is burning, or, as

the Hebrews express it, "making a savour" (HQ+YR), to which

corresponds the more delicate form of enjoyment, that of smelling.

Originally, however, it is God Himself who consumes what the flame

consumes. In any case the burning is a means of conveying the

offering, not, as one might perhaps be disposed to infer from the

"sweet savour" (RYX HNYXX Genesis viii.21), a means of preparing it.

For in ancient times the Hebrews did not roast the flesh, but

boiled it; in what is demonstrably the oldest ritual (Judges

vi. 19), the sacrifice also is delivered to the altar flame boiled;

and, moreover, not the flesh only but also the bread and the meal

are burnt.

As regards the distinction between bloodless and bloody

offerings, the latter, it is well known, are preferred in the Old

Testament, but, strictly speaking, the former also have the same

value and the same efficacy. The incense-offering is represented

as a means of propitiation (Leviticus xvi., Numbers xvii. 12

[A.V. xvi. 47] ), so also are the ten thousands of rivers of oil

figuring between the thousands of rams and the human sacrifice in

Micah vi. That the cereal offering is never anything but an

accompaniment of the animal sacrifice is a rule which does not hold,

either in the case of the shewbread or in that of the high priest's

daily minxa (Leviticus vi. 13 [A.V. 20]; Nehemiahx.35). Only the

drink-offering has no independent position, and was not in any way

the importance it had among the Greeks.

When a sacrifice is killed, the offering consists not of the blood

but of the eatable portions of the flesh. Only these can be

designated as the "bread of Jehovah," and, moreover, only the

eatable domestic animals can be presented. At the same time,

however, it is true that in the case of the bloody offerings a new

motive ultimately came to be associated with the original idea of

the gift. The life of which the blood was regarded as the

substance (2Samuel xxiii.17) had for the ancient Semites something

mysterious and divine about it; they felt a certain religious

scruple about destroying it. With them flesh was an uncommon

luxury, and they ate it with quite different feelings from those

with which they partook of fruits or of milk. Thus the act of

killing was not so indifferent or merely preparatory a step as

for example the cleansing and preparing of corn; on the contrary,

the pouring out of blood was ventured upon only in such a way as

to give it back to the Deity, the source of life. In this way, not

by any means every meal indeed, but every slaughtering, came to

be a sacrifice. What was primarily aimed at in it was a mere

restoration of His own to the Deity, but there readily resulted a

combination with the idea of sacrifice, whereby the latter was

itself modified in a peculiar manner. The atoning efficacy of the

gift began to be ascribed mainly to the blood and to the

vicarious value of the life taken away. The outpouring and

sprinkling of blood was in all sacrifices a rite of conspicuous

importance, and even the act of slaughtering in the case of some,

and these the most valued, a holy act.

II.II.2. The features presented by the various literary sources

harmonise with the foregoing sketch. But the Priestly Code

exhibits some peculiarities by which it is distinguished from the

pre-exilian remains in matters sacrificial.

In the first place, it is characterised in the case of bloodless

offerings by a certain refinement of the material. Thus in the

meal-offerings it will have SLT (simila) not QMX (far). In the

whole pre-exilian literature the former is mentioned only three

times altogether, but never in connection with sacrifice, where,

on the contrary, the ordinary meal is used (Judges vi. 19; 1Samuel

i. 24). That this is no mere accident appears on the one hand from

the fact that in the later literature, from Ezekiel onwards, QMX as

sacrificial meal entirely disappears, and SLT invariably take its

place; on the other hand, from this that the LXX (or the Hebrew

text from which that version was taken) is offended by the

illegality of the material in 1Samuel i. 24, and alters the reading

so as to bring it to conformity with the Law. /1/

-- Footnote

1. Ezekiel xvi. 13, 19, xlvi. 14; I Chronicles ix. 29, xxiii. 22;

Ecclus. xxxv.2, xxxviii. 11, xxxix. 32; Isaiah i. 13 (LXX); lxvi. 3 (LXX).

In the Priestly Code slt occurs more than forty times.

-- Footnote

So also a striking preference is shown for incense. With every

meal-offering incense is offered upon the altar; in the inner sanctuary

a special mixture of spices is employed, the accurately given recipe

for which is not to be followed for private purposes. The offering

of incense is the privilege of the higher priesthood; in the

ritual of the great Day of Atonement, the sole one in which Aaron

must discharge the duties in person, it occupies a conspicuous

place. It has an altogether dangerous sanctity; Aaron's own sons

died for not having made use of the proper fire. It is the cause

of death and destruction to the Levites of Korah's company who are

not entitled to use it, while immediately afterwards, in the hands

of the legitimate high priest, it becomes the means of appeasing

the anger of Jehovah, and of staying the plague. Now of this

offering, thus invested with such a halo of sanctity, the older

literature of the Jewish Canon, down to Jeremiah and Zephaniah,

knows absolutely nothing. The verb Q++R there used invariably

and exclusively of the BURNING of fat or meal, and thereby making

to God a sweet-smelling savour; it is never used to denote the

OFFERING OF INCENSE, and the substantive Q+RT as a sacrificial

term has the quite general signification of that which is burnt on

the altar. /2/

-- Footnote

2. The verb is used in _piel_ by the older writers, in _hiphil_

by the Priestly Code (Chronicles), and promiscuously in both forms

during the transition period by the author of the Books of Kings.

This is the case, at least, where the forms can with certainty be

distinguished, namely, in the perfect, imperative, and infinitive;

the distinction between YQ+R and YQ+YR, MQ+R and MQ+YR rests,

as is well known, upon no secure tradition. Compare, for example,

_qatter jaqtirun_, 1Samuel ii. 16; the transcribers and punctuators

under the influence of the Pentateuch preferred the hiphil. In the

Priestly Code (Chronicles) HQ+YR has both meanings alongside of

each other, but when used without a qualifying phrase it generally

means incensing, and when consuming a sacrifice is intended HMZBXH

is usually added, "on the altar," that is, the place on which the

incense-offering strictly so called was NOT offered. The substantive

Q+RT in the sense of "an offering of incense" in which

it occurs exclusively and very frequently in the Priestly

Code, is first found in Ezekiel (viii. 11, xvi. 18, xxiii. 41) and

often afterwards in Chronicles, but in the rest of the Old

Testament only in Proverbs xxvii. 9, but there in a profane sense.

Elsewhere never, not even in passages so late as 1Samuel ii.28; Psalms

lxvi. 15, cxli. 2. In authors of a certainly pre-exilian date the

word occurs only twice, both times in a perfectly general sense.

Isaiah i. 13: "Bring me no more oblations; it is an abominable

incense to me." Deuteronomy xxxiii. 10: "The Levites shall put incense

(i.e.,the fat of thank-offerings) before thee, and whole

burnt-offerings upon thine altar." The name LBNT (frankincense)

first occurs in Jeremiah (vi. 20, xvii. 26, xli. 5); elsewhere only

in the Priestly Code (nine times), in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. (three

times), in Chronicles and Nehemiah (three times), and in Canticles

(three times). Compare Zephaniah iii. 10; 1Kings ix. 25.

-- Footnote

In enumerations where the prophets exhaust everything pertaining to

sacred gifts and liturgic performances, in which, for the sake

of lengthening the catalogue, they do not shrink from repetitions even,

there is not any mention of incense-offerings, neither in Amos

(iv. 4 seq., v. 21 seq.) nor in Isaiah (i. 11 seq.) nor in Micah

(vi. 6 seq.). Shall we suppose that they all of them forget this

subject by mere accident, or that they conspired to ignore it?

If it had really existed, and been of so great consequence, surely

one of them at least would not have failed to speak of it.

The Jehovistic section of the Hexateuch is equally silent, so also

the historical books, except Chronicles, and so the rest of the prophets,

down to Jeremiah, who (vi.20) selects incense as the example of a rare

and far-fetched offering: "To what purpose cometh there to me incense

from Sheba, and the precious cane from a far country?"

Thenceforward it is mentioned in Ezekiel, in Isaiah (xl.-lxvi.),

in Nehemiah, and in Chronicles; the references are continuous. The

introduction of incense is a natural result of increased luxury;

one is tempted to conjecture that its use must have first crept

into the Jehovah worship as an innovation from a more

luxuriously-developed foreign cultus. But the importance which it

has attained in the ritual legislation of the Pentateuch is

manifest above all from this, that it has led to the invention of a

peculiar new and highly sacred piece of furniture, namely, the

golden altar in the inner tabernacle, which is unknown to history,

and which is foreign even to the kernel of the Priestly Code

itself.

We expect to find the altar of incense in Exodus xxv.-xxix., but

find it instead as an appendix at the beginning of Exodus xxx. Why

not until now? why thus separated from the other furnishings of

the inner sanctuary? and not only so, but even after the

ordinances relating to the adornment of the priests, and the

inauguration of the divine service? The reason why the author of

chaps. xxv.-xxix. is thus silent about the altar of incense in

the passage in which the furniture of the tabernacle, consisting of

ark, table, and candlestick, is described, is, that he does not

know of it. There is no other possibility; for he cannot have

forgotten it. /1/

-- Footnote

1. There is a peculiar perversity in meeting the objection by

alleging other singularities in the ordinance as for example, that

the vessels of the tabernacle are appointed (chap. xxv.) before

the tabernacle itself (chap. xxvi.). This last is no

eccentricity; the order in commanding is first the end, and then

the means; but in obeying, the order is reversed. In like manner,

it is not at all surprising if subsidiary implements, such as

benches for slaughtering. or basins for washing, which have no

importance for the cultus, properly so called, should be either

passed over altogether, or merely brought in as an appendix. The

case is not at all parallel with the omission of the most important

utensil of the sanctuary from the very passage to which it

necessarily belongs.

-- Footnote

And the phenomenon is repeated; the altar of incense occurs only

in certain portions of the Priestly Code, and is absent from

others where it could not possibly have been omitted, had it been

known. The rite of the most solemn atoning sacrifice takes place

in Leviticus iv. indeed on the golden altar, but in Exodus xxix.,

Leviticus viii., ix., without its use. A still more striking

circumstance is, that in passages where the holiest incense-offering

itself is spoken of, no trace can be discovered of the corresponding

altar. This is particularly the case in Leviticus xvi. To burn incense

in the sanctuary, Aaron takes a censer, fills it with coals from the

altar of burnt-offering (ver. 12, 18-20), and lays the incense

upon them in the adytum. Similarly in Leviticus x., Numbers xvi.,

xvii., incense is offered on censers, of which each priest

possesses one. The coals are taken from the altar of

burnt-offering (Numbers xvii. 11; [A.V. xvi. 46]), which is plated

with the censers of the Korahite Levites (xvii. 3, 4; [A.V.

xvi. 38, 39]); whoever takes fire from any other source, incurs

the penalty of death (Leviticus x. 1 seq.). The altar of incense is

everywhere unknown here; the altar of burnt-offering is the only

altar, and, moreover, is always called simply 'the altar', as for

example, even in Exodus xxvii., where it would have been specially

necessary to add the qualifying expression. Only in certain

later portions of the Priestly Code does the name altar of

burnt-offering occur, viz, in those passages which do recognise the

altar of incense. In this connection the command of Exodus xxvii.

as compared with the execution in Exodus xxxviii. is

characteristic.

The golden altar in the sanctuary is originally simply the

golden table; the variation of the expression has led to a

doubling of the thing. Ezekiel does not distinguish between the

table and the altar in the temple, but uses either expression

indifferently. For he says (xii.21 seq. ): "Before the adytum

stood what looked like an altar of wood, three cubits in height,

two cubits in length and breadth, and it had projecting corners,

and its frame and its walls were of wood; this is the table which

is before the Lord." In like manner he designates the service of

the priests in the inner sanctuary as table-service (xliv.16);

table is the name, altar the function. /1/

-- Footnote

1. Malachi, on the other hand, designates the so-called altar

of burnt-offering as a table.

-- Footnote

In 1Kings vii. 48, it is true that the golden altar and the golden

table are mentioned together. It seems strange, however, that in

this case the concluding summary mentions one piece of furniture

more-- and that piece one of so great importance--than the preceding

detailed description; for in the latter only the preparation of the

golden altar is spoken of, and nothing is said of the golden table

(vi. 20-22). As matters stand, nothing is less improbable than that

some later transcriber should have interpolated the golden table

in vii. 48, regarding it, in accordance with the Pentateuch, as

distinct from the golden altar, and therefore considering its

absence as an omission. From other considerations also, it is

clear that the text of the whole chapter is in many ways corrupt

and interpolated.

It is not to be wondered at if in the post-exilian temple there

existed both a golden altar and a golden table. We learn from

1Maccabees i. 21 seq., iv. 49, that both were carried off by

Antiochus Epiphanes, and renewed at the Feast of the Dedication.

But it causes no small surprise to find that at the destruction

of Jerusalem the Romans found and carried off table and candlestick

only. What can have become, in the meantime, of the golden altar

of incense? And it is further worth remarking that in the LXX the

passage Exodus xxxvii.25-29 is absent; that is to say, the altar

of incense is indeed commanded, but there is no word of its

execution. In these circumstances, finally, the vacillating

statement as to its position in Exodus xxx. 6, and the supposed

mistake of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are important

and intelligible. Compare also 2Maccabees ii.5, where only the table,

but not the altar, is hidden by Jeremiah.

So much for the offering of incense and its altar. We may in

like manner venture to regard it as a kind of refinement, though

rather a refinement of idea, that the flesh of the sacrifice in the

Priestly Code is no longer boiled, but consigned to the altar

flames in its raw condition. Such was not the ancient custom, as

is seen, not only from the case of Gideon already cited (Judges

vi.), but also from the procedure at Shiloh, described in 1Samuel

ii., where the sons of Eli will not wait until the flesh of the

sacrifice has been boiled, and the altar pieces burnt, but demand

their share raw for roasting. The meal which the Deity shares

with men is prepared in the same way as for men. This naive

conception gave way before advancing culture, and that at a

comparatively early date. It is possible that another cause may

also have co-operated towards this result. The old method of

preparing flesh in general use among the people, at a later period

also, was by boiling. The word B#L (to seethe in water) occurs

with extreme frequency; CLH (to roast), on the other hand, only

in Exodus xii. 8, and Isaiah xliv. 16, 19. All sacrificial flesh

(B#LH) was boiled, and there was no other kind. /1/

-- Footnote

1. Accordingly one must understand (#H also of boiling (Judges vi. 19).

Compare the boiling-houses of the temple still found in Ezekiel

xlvi. 20-24. In I Sam. i. 9 pronounce _beshela_ instead of _beshilo_,

and delete W)XRY #TH.

-- Footnote

But among persons of the upper class roasting must also have come

into use at an early period. "Give flesh to roast for the priest;

for he will not take sodden flesh of thee, but raw," says the

servant of the sons of Eli in 1Samuel ii. 15. The fact that in the

interval the custom of boiling had gone generally somewhat out of

fashion may accordingly have also contributed to bring about the

abandonment of the old usage of offering the sacrificial portions

boiled. In any case this is the explanation of the circumstance

that the paschal lamb, which originally was boiled like all other

offerings, could, according to the express appointment of the

Priestly Code, be eaten roasted only. /2/

-- Footnote

2. Compare the polemical ordinance of Exodus xii. 9 with Deuteronomy

xvi. 7.

-- Footnote

The phenomenon that in the Law meal is by preference offered raw,

while in the earlier period, even as an adjunct of the burnt-offering,

it was presented baked, belongs to the same category. The latter

is the case in Judges vi. 19 at least, and the statement of 1Samuel

i. 24 is also to be understood in the same sense; the sacrificer

brings meal along with him in order to bake it into _maccah_ on the spot

(Ezekiel xlvi. 20). But he may bring along with him common, that is

leavened, cakes also (1Samuel x. 3), which seem originally by no

means to have been considered unfit to be offered as in Leviticus

ii. 11. For under this law of Leviticus ii. even the presentation of

the shewbread would be inexplicable, and moreover it is certain

that at first the loaves of the feast of weeks were offerings,

properly so called, and not merely dues to the priests.

According, to Amos iv. 5, leavened bread was made use of precisely

at a particularly solemn sacrifice, and a reminiscence of this

usage has been preserved even in Leviticus vii. 13, although of course

without any practical weight being attached to it. /1/

-- Footnote

1. The loaves are passed over in silence in Leviticus vii. 29 seq.,

although it is in this very place that the matter of presenting

on the part of the offerer is most fully described. And when it

is said (vii. 12),

"If he offer it for a thanksgiving (Todah), then he shall offer

with it unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers

anointed with oil and fine flour (LXX), mingled with oil ;"

vii. 13, "[With] leavened cakes shall he offer as a gift with the

thank-offering of the Todah,"

the suspicion very readily occurs that verse 12 is an authentic

interpretation prefixed, to obviate beforehand the difficulty

presented by verse 13, and that similarly the first (l in verse 13

is also a later correction, which does not harmonise well by any

means with the second. Verse 13 connects itself better with

verse 11 than with verse 12.--Exod xxxiv. 25.

-- Footnote

Moreover, massah also means, properly speaking, only the bread

that is prepared in haste and in the most primitive manner for

immediate use, and originally implies no contrast with leaven, but

simply with the more artificial and tedious manners of producing

ordinary bread /2/

-- Footnote

2. Compare Genesis xviii. 6 with xix.3.

-- Footnote

In the Priestly Code the materials are finer, but they are as

much as possible left in their raw condition; both are steps

in advance.

II.II.3. There is another and much more important difference in the

case of the animal sacrifice. Of this the older practice knows

only two kinds apart from extraordinary varieties, which may be

left out of account. These two are the burnt-offering (`Olah) and

the thank-offering (Shelem, Zebah, Zebah Shelamim). In the case of

the first the whole animal is offered on the altar; in the other

God receives, besides the blood, only an honorary portion, while

the rest of the flesh is eaten by the sacrificial guests. Now it

is worth noticing how seldom the burnt-offering occurs alone. It

is necessarily so in the case of human sacrifice (Genesis xxii. 2

seq.; Judges xi. 31; /1/ 2Kings iii. 27; Jeremiah xix.5);

-- Footnote

3. It is probable that Jephthah expected a human creature and not an

animal to meet him from his house.

-- Footnote

otherwise it is not usual (Genesis viii. 20; Numbers xxiii. 1 seq.;

Judges vi. 20, 26, xiii. 16, 23; 1Samuel vii. 9 seq.; 1Kings

iii. 4, xviii. 34,38); /1/ moreover, all the examples

-- Footnote

1. In the above list of passages no notice is taken of the

_sacrificium juge_ of 2Kings xvi.15. The statement in 1Kings iii. 4

is perhaps to be taken along with iii. 15, but does not become at

all more credible on that account. Of course it is understood that

only those passages are cited here in which mention is made of

offerings actually made, and not merely general statements about

one or more kinds of offering. The latter could very well fix

attention upon the `Olah alone without thereby throwing any light

upon the question as to the actual practice.

-- Footnote

just cited are extraordinary or mythical in their character, a

circumstance that may not affect the evidence of the existence of

the custom in itself, but is important as regards the statistics of

its frequency. As a rule, the `Olah occurs only in conjunction

with Zebahim, and when this is the case the latter are in the

majority and are always in the plural, while on the other hand

the first is frequently in the singular. /2/

-- Footnote

1. Exodus x. 25, xviii. 12, xxiv. 5, xxxii. 6; Joshua viii. 31;

Judges xx. 26, xxi. 4; 1Samuel vi. 14 seq., x. 8, xiii. 9-12;

2Samuel vi. 17 seq., xxiv. 23-25, 1Kings iii. 15, viii. 63 seq.;

2Kings v. 17, x. 24, 25. The zeugma in Judges xx. 26, xxi.4 is

inconsistent with the older _usus loquendi_. The proper name

for the holocaust appears to be KLYL (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 10;

1Samuel vii.9) not (LH. It is impossible to decide whether

the sacrificial due in all sorts of Zebah was the same,

but most probably it was not. Probably the Shelamim are a

more solemn kind of sacrifice than the simple Zebah. The word 'fat'

is used in Genesis iv. 4; Exodus xxiii. 18 in a very general sense.

It is not quite clear what is meant by the blessing of the Zebah

in 1Samuel ix. 13; perhaps a kind of grace before meat.

-- Footnote

They supplement each other like two corresponding halves; the

`Olah is, as the name implies, properly speaking, nothing more

than the part of a great offering that reaches the altar. One

might therefore designate as `Olah also that part of a single

animal which is consecrated to the Deity; this, however, is never

done; neither of the blood nor of the fat [Q+R] is the verb H(LH

used, but only of the pieces of the flesh, of which in the case of

the minor offering nothing was burnt. But the distinction is

merely one of degree; there is none in kind; a small Zebah,

enlarged and augmented, becomes an `Olah and Zebahim; out of a

certain number of slaughtered animals which are eaten by the

sacrificial company, one is devoted to God and wholly given to the

flames. For the rest, it must be borne in mind that as a rule it

is only great sacrificial feasts that the historical books take

occasion to mention, and that consequently the burnt-offering,

notwithstanding what has been said, comes before us with greater

prominence than can have been the average case in ordinary life.

Customarily, It is certain, none but thank-offerings were offered;

necessarily so if slaughtering could only be done beside the

altar. Where mention is made of a simple offering in the Books of

Samuel and Kings, that it is a thank-offering is matter of course.

1Samuel ii. 12 seq. is in this connection also particularly

instructive.

From what has been said it results that according to the praxis of

the older period a meal was almost always connected with a

sacrifice. It was the rule that only blood and fat were laid upon

the altar, but the people ate the flesh; only in the case of very

great sacrificial feasts was a large animal (one or more) given to

Jehovah. Where a sacrifice took place, there was also eating and

drinking (Exodus xxxii. 6; Judges ix. 27; 2Samuel xv. 11 seq.;

Amos ii. 7); there was no offering without a meal, and no meal

without an offering (1Kings i. 9); at no important Bamah was

entertainment wholly wanting, such a LESXH as that in which Samuel

feasted Saul, or Jeremiah the Rechabites (1Samuel ix. 22; Jeremiah

xxxv. 2). To be merry, to eat and drink before Jehovah, is a usual

form of speech down to the period of Deuteronomy; even Ezekiel

calls the cultus on the high places an eating upon the mountains

(1Samuel ix. 13,19 seq ), and in Zechariah the pots in the temple

have a special sanctity (Zech. xiv. 20). By means of the meal in

presence of Jehovah is established a covenant fellowship on the one

hand between Him and the guests, and on the other hand between the

guests themselves reciprocally, which is essential for the idea of

sacrifice and gives their name to the Shelamim (compare Exodus

xviii. 12, xxiv. 11). In ordinary slaughterings this notion is not

strongly present, but in solemn sacrifices it was in full vigour.

It is God who invites, for the house is His; His also is the gift,

which must be brought to Him entire by the offerer before the

altar, and the greater portion of which He gives up to His guests

only affer that. Thus in a certain sense they eat at God's

table, and must accordingly propare or sanctify themselves for

it. /1/

-- Footnote

1. In order to appear before Jehovah the guest adorns himself

with clothes and ornaments (Exodus iii. 22, xi. 2 seq.;

Hosea ii. 15 [A.V. 13]; Ezekiel xvi. 13; compare Koran, Sur. xx. 61),

sanctifies himself (Numbers xi. 18) and is sanctified (1Samuel xvi. 5;

Exodus xix. 10, 14). The sacrificial meal is regarded as Kodesh

(hallowed) for not only the priests, but all the sanctified persons

eat Kodesh (1Samuel xxi. 5 seq. On what is meant by sanctification

light is thrown by 1Samuel xxi. 5; 2Samuel xi. 2. Compare L) LPNW

XNP YB) ( Job xiii. 16; Leviticus vii. 20; Matthew xxii. 11-13). Jehovah

invites the armies of the nations to His sacrifice, for which

He delivers over to them some other nation, and calls the Medes,

to whom He gives Babylon over, His sanctified ones, that is,

His guests (Zephaniah i. 7 seq.; Jeremiah xlvi. 10; Ezekiel xxxix 17;

Isaiah xiii. 3).

-- Footnote

Even on occasions that, to our way of thinking, seem highly unsuitable,

the meal is nevertheless not wanting (Judges xx. 26, xxi. 4;

1Sam xiii. 9-12). That perfect propriety was not always observed

might be taken for granted, and is proved by Isaiah xxviii. 8

even with regard to the temple of Jerusalem; "all tables are full

of vomit, there is no room." Hence also Eli's suspicion regarding

Hannah was a natural one, and by no means so startling as it appears.

How different from this picture is that suggested by the Priestly

Code! Here one no longer remarks that a meal accompanies every

sacrifice; eating before Jehovah, which even in Deuteronomy is

just the expression for sacrificing, nowhere occurs, or at all

events is no act of divine worship. Slaying and sacrificing are no

longer coincident, the thank-offering of which the breast and right

shoulder are to be consecrated is something different from the old

simple Zebah. But, precisely for this reason, it has lost its

former broad significance. The _mizbeah_, that is, the place where

the _zebahim_ are to be offered, has been transformed into a _mizbah

ha-'olah_. The burnt-offering has become quite independent and

comes everywhere into the foreground, the sacrifices which are

unconnected with a meal altogether predominate,--so much that, as

is well known, Theophrastus could declare there were no others

among the Jews, who in this way were differentiated from all

other nations. /1/ Where formerly a

-- Footnote

1. Porphyry, De Abstin. ii.26. Compare Joseph., Contra Apion,

ii. 13: )OUTOI )EUXONTAI <?> UEIN (EKATOMBAS TOIS QEOIS KAI XRWNTAI

TOIS (IEREIOIS PROS )EUWXIAN.

-- Footnote

thank-offering which was eaten before Jehovah, and which might with

greater clearness be called a sacrificial meal, was prescribed, the

Priestly Code, as we shall afterwards see, has made out of it

simple dues to the priests, as, for example, in the case of the

first-born and of firstlings. Only in this point it still bears

involuntary testimony to the old custom by applying the names

_Todah, Neder, and Nedabah_, of which the last two in particular must

necessarily have a quite general meaning (Leviticus xxii. 18; Ezekiel

xlvi. 12), exclusively to the thank-offering, while _Milluim_ and

paschal sacrifice are merely subordinate varieties of it.

II.II.4. What the thank-offering has lost, the sin and trespass

offering have gained; the voluntary private offering which the

sacrificer ate in a joyful company at the holy place has given

way before the compulsory, of which he obtains no share, and from

which the character of the sacred meal has been altogether taken

away. The burnt-offering, it is true, still continues to be a

meal, if only a one-sided one, of which God alone partakes; but

in the case of the sin-offering everything is kept far out of sight

which could recall a meal, as, for example, the accompaniments of

meal and wine, oil and salt; of the flesh no portion reaches the

altar, it all goes as a fine to the priest. Now, of this kind of

sacrifice, which has an enormous importance in the Priestly Code,

not a single trace occurs in the rest of the Old Testament before

Ezekiel, neither in the Jehovist and Deuteronomist, nor in the

historical and prophetical books. /1/

-- Footnote

1. How great is the difference in Deuteronomy xxi. 1-9; how very

remote the sacrificial idea!

-- Footnote

`Olah and Zebah comprehend all animal sacrifices, `Olah and Minhah,

or Zebah and Minhah, all sacrifices whatsoever; nowhere is a special

kind of sacrifice for atonement met with (1Samuel iii. 14).

Hos. iv. 8 does indeed say: "They eat the sin of my people, and they

are greedy for its guilts," but the interpretation which will have it

that the priests are here reproached with in the first instance

themselves inducing the people to falsification of the sacred dues,

in order to make these up again with the produce of the sin and

trespass offerings, is either too subtle or too dull. /2/

-- Footnote

2. The sin and guilt are the sacrificial worship generally as

carried on by the people (viii. 11; Amos iv. 4); in the entire

section the prophet is preparing the way for the here sharply

accentuated reproach against the priests that they neglect

the Torah and encourage the popular propensity to superstitious

and impure religious service. Besides, where is there any

reproach at all, according to the Pentateuch, in the first section

of iv. 8? And the second speaks of (WNM, not of )#MM.

-- Footnote

It would be less unreasonable to co-ordinate with the similarly

named sin and trespass offering of the Pentateuch the five golden

mice, and the five golden emerods with which the Philistines send

back the ark, and which in 1Samuel vi. 3, 4, 8 are designated _asham_,

or, still better, the sin and trespass monies which, according to

2Kings xii. 17 [A.V. 16], fell to the share of the Jerusalem

priests. Only the fact is that even in the second passage the

_asham_ and _hattath_ are no sacrifices, but, more exactly to

render the original meaning of the words, mere fines, and in fact money

fines. On the other hand, the _hattath_ referred to in Micah vi. 7

has nothing to do with a due of the priests, but simply denotes

the guilt which eventually another takes upon himself. Even in

Isaiah liii. 10, a passage which is certainly late, _asham_ must not

be taken in the technical sense of the ritual legislation, but

simply (as in Micah) in the sense of guilt, borne by the innocent

for the guilty. For the explanation of this prophetic passage

Gramberg has rightly had recourse to the narrative of 2Samuel

xi. 1-14. "Upon Saul and upon his house lies blood-guiltiness, for

having slain the Gibeonites" is announced to David as the cause of

a three years' famine. When asked how it can be taken away, the

Gibeonites answer,

"It is not a matter of silver and gold to us with respect to Saul

and his house; let seven men of his family be delivered to us that

we may hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul upon the

mountain of the Lord."

This was done; all the seven were hanged.

_A*sham_ and _hattath_ as offerings occur for the first time in

Ezekiel, and appear, not long before his day to have come into the

place of the earlier pecuniary fines (2Kings xii. 17 [16]), which

perhaps already also admitted of being paid in kind; probably in

the seventh century, which seems to have been very open to the

mystery of atonement and bloodshedding, and very fertile in the

introduction of new religious usages. /1/

-- Footnote

1. Consider for example the prevalence of child sacrifice precisely

at this time, the introduction of incense, the new fashions which

King Manasseh brought in, and of which certainly much survived

that suited the temper of the period, and admitted of being conjoined

with the worship of Jehovah, or even seemed to enhance its dignity

and solemnity.

-- Footnote

The sin and trespass offerings of the Pentateuch still bear traces

of their origin in fines and penalties; they are not gifts to God,

they are not even symbolical, they are simply mulcts payable to the

priests, partly of fixed commutation value (Leviticus v. 15). Apart

from the mechanical burning of the fat they have in common with

the sacrifice only the shedding of blood, originally a secondary

matter, which has here become the chief thing. This circumstance

is an additional proof of our thesis. The ritual of the simple

offering has three acts:

(1.) the presentation of the living animal before Jehovah,

and the laying on of hands as a token of manumission on the part

of the offerer;

(2.) the slaughtering and the sprinkling of the blood on the altar;

(3.) the real or seeming gift of the sacrificial portions to the Deity,

and the meal of the human guests.

In the case of the burnt-offering the meal in the third act disappears,

and the slaughtering in the second comes into prominence as significant

and sacred, inasmuch as (what is always expressly stated) it must

take place in the presence of Jehovah, at the north side of the altar.

In the case of the sin and trespass offering the third act is dropped

entirely, and accordingly the whole significance of the rite attaches

to the slaughtering, which of course also takes place before the altar,

and to the sprinkling of the blood, which has become peculiarly

developed here. It is obvious how the metamorphosis of the gift

and the meal into a bloody atonement advances and reaches its

acme in this last sacrificial act.

This ritual seems to betray its novelty even within the Priestly

Code itself by a certain vacillation. In the older corpus of law

(Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.) which has been taken into that document, all

sacrifices are still embraced under one or other of the two heads

ZBX and (LH (xvii. 8, xxii. 18, 21); there are no others. The _asham_

indeed occurs in xix. 21 seq., but, as is recognised, only in a

later addition; on the other hand,it is not demanded /1/ in

xxii.14,

-- Footnote

1. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the _asham_ here,

in the case of property unlawfully held, is simply the impost of

a fifth part of the value, and not the sacrifice of a ram, which

in Leviticus v. is required in addition. In Numbers v. also,

precisely this fifth part is called _asham_.

-- Footnote

Where it must have been according to Leviticus v. and Numbers v.

And even apart from Leviticus xvii.-xxvi there is on this point

no sort of agreement between the kernel of the Priestly Code

and the later additions, or "novels," so to speak. For one thing,

there is a difference as to the ritual of the most solemn sin-offering

between Exodus xxix., Leviticus ix. on the one hand, and Leviticus iv.

on the other; and what is still more serious, the trespass-offering

never occurs in the primary but only in the secondary passages,

Leviticus iv.-vii., xiv.; Numbers v.7, 8, vi. 1, xviii. 9. In the

latter, moreover, the distinction between _asham_ and _hattath_ is not

very clear, but only the intention to make it, perhaps because in

the old praxis there actually was a distinction between KSP XT)WT

and KSP )#M, and in Ezekiel between X+)T and )#M. /2/

-- Footnote

2. The three sections, Leviticus iv. 1-35 (hattath), v.1-13

(hattath-asham), and v. 14-26 (asham), are essentially not

co-ordinate parts of one whole, but independent pieces proceeding

from the same school. For v. 1-13 is no continuation of or appendix

to iv. 27-35, but a quite independent treatment of the same material,

with important differences of form. The place of the systematic

generality of chap. iv. is here taken by the definite individual case,

and what is analogous to it; the ritual is given with less minuteness,

and the hierarchical subordination of ranks has no influence on

the classification of offences. In this section also _asham_ and

_hattath_ occur interchangeably as synonymous. In the third section

a ram as an _asham_ is prescribed (v. 17-19) for the very case in

which in the first a he-goat or a she-goat is required as _hattath_

(iv. 22, 27). The third section has indeed in form greater

similarity to the second, but cannot be regarded as its true

completion, for this simple reason, that the latter does not

distiguish between _hattath_ and _asham_. If Leviticus v. 13-16,

20-26 be followed simply without regard being had to vers. 17-19,

the _asham_ comes in only in the case of voluntary restitution of

property illegally come by or detained, more particularly of

the sacred dues. The goods must be restored to their owner

augmented by a fifth part of their value; and as an _asham_ there

must be added a ram, which falls to the sanctuary. In Num v. 5-10

the state of the case is indeed the same, but the language employed

is different, for in this passage it is the restored property that

is called _asham_, and the ram is called )YL HKPRYM. Comp. Leviticus

xxii. 14.

-- Footnote

II.III.

The turning-point in the history of the sacrificial system was

the reformation of Josiah; what we find in the Priestly Code is

the matured result of that event. It is precisely in the

distinctions that are characteristic of the sacrificial law as

compared with the ancient sacrificial praxis that we have evidence

of the fact that, if not all exactly occasioned by the

centralisation of the worship, they were almost all somehow at

least connected with that change.

In the early days, worship arose out of the midst of ordinary

life, and was in most intimate and manifold connection with it.

A sacrifice was a meal, a fact showing how remote was the idea of

antithesis between spiritual earnestness and secular joyousness.

A meal unites a definite circle of guests, and in this way the

sacrifice brought into connection the members of the family, the

associates of the corporation, the soldiers of the army, and,

generally speaking, the constituents of any permanent or

temporary society. It is earthly relationships that receive

their consecration thereby, and in correspondence are the natural

festal occasions presented by the vicissitudes of life. Year

after year the return of vintage, corn-harvest, and sheep-shearing

brought together the members of the household to eat and to drink

in the presence of Jehovah; and besides these there were less

regularly recurring events which were celebrated in one circle

after another. There was no warlike expedition which was not

inaugurated in this fashion, no agreement that was not thus

ratified, no important undertaking of any kind was gone about

without a sacrifice! /1/

-- Footnote

1. Sacrifice is used as a pretext in 1Samuel xvi. 1 seq.;

1Kings i. 9 seq. Compare Proverbs vii. 14.

-- Footnote

When an honoured guest arrives, there is slaughtered for him a calf,

not without an offering of the blood and fat to the Deity.

The occasion arising out of daily life is thus inseparable

from the holy action, and is what gives it meaning and character;

an end corresponding to the situation always underlies it.

Hence also prayer must not be wanting. The verb H(TYR, to "burn"

(fat and _minha_), means simply to "pray," and conversely BQ# )T

YHWH, "to seek Jehovah," in point of fact not unfrequently means

to "sacrifice." The gift serves to reinforce the question

or the request, and to express thankfulness; and the prayer

is its interpretation. This of course is rather incidentally

indicated than expressly said (Hos. v. 6; Isaiah i. 15; Jeremiah

xiv. 12; 1Kings viii. 27 seq.; Proverbs xv. 8); we have a specimen

of a grace for the offering of the festival gift only in Deuteronomy

xxvi. 3 seq.; a blessing is pronounced when the slaughtering takes place

(1Samuel ix. 13). The prayer of course is simply the expression

of the feeling of the occasion, with which accordingly it varies

in manifold ways. Arising out of the exigencies and directed

to the objects of daily life, the sacrifices reflect in themselves

a correspondingly rich variety. Our wedding, baptismal, and funeral

feasts on the one hand, and our banquets for all sorts of occasions

on the other, might still be adduced as the most obvious comparison,

were it not that here too the divorce between sacred and secular

destroys it. Religious worship was a natural thing in Hebrew antiquity;

it was the blossom of life, the heights and depths of which it was its

business to transfigure and glorify.

The law which abolished all sacrificial seats, with a single

exception, severed this connection. Deuteronomy indeed does not

contemplate such a result. Here, in marked opposition to what we

find in the Priestly Code, to eat and be merry before Jehovah is

the standing phrase for sacrificing; the idea is that in

concentrating all the worship towards Jerusalem, all that is

effected is a mere change of place, the essence of the thing

remaining unaltered. This, however, was a mistake. To celebrate

the vintage festival among one's native hills, and to celebrate it

at Jerusalem, were two very different things; it was not a matter

of indifference whether one could seize on the spot any occasion

that casually offered itself for a sacrificial meal, or whether it

was necessary that one should first enter upon a journey. And it

was not the same thing to appear by oneself at home before Jehovah

and to lose oneself in a large congregation at the common seat of

worship. Human life has its root in local environment, and so also

had the ancient cultus; in being transplanted from its natural

soil it was deprived of its natural nourishment. A separation

between it and the daily life was inevitable, and Deuteronomy

itself paved the way for this result by permitting profane

slaughtering. A man lived in Hebron, but sacrificed in Jerusalem;

life and worship fell apart. The consequences which lie dormant in

the Deuteronomic law are fully developed in the Priestly Code.

This is the reason why the sacrifice combined with a meal,

formerly by far the chief, now falls completely into the

background. One could eat flesh at home, but in Jerusalem one's

business was to do worship. Accordingly, those sacrifices were

preferred in which the religious character came to the front with

the utmost possible purity and without any admixture of natural

elements, sacrifices of which God received everything and man

nothing,--burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings.

If formerly the sacrifice had taken its complexion from the

quality of the occasion which led to it, it now had essentially

but one uniform purpose--to be a medium of worship. The warm

pulse of life no longer throbbed in it to animate it; it was no

longer the blossom and the fruit of every branch of life; it had

its own meaning all to itself. It symbolised worship, and that was

enough. The soul was fled; the shell remained, upon the shaping

out of which every energy was now concentrated. A manifoldness

of rites took the place of individualising occasions; technique

was the main thing, and strict fidelity to rubric.

Once cultus was spontaneous, now it is a thing of statute. The

satisfaction which it affords is, properly speaking, something

which lies outside of itself and consists in the moral satisfaction

arising out of the conscientiousness with which the ritual

precepts, once for all enjoined by God on His people, are

fulfilled. The freewill offering is not indeed forbidden, but

value in the strict sense is attached only to those which have

been prescribed, and which accordingly preponderate everywhere.

And even in the case of the freewill offering, everything must

strictly and accurately comply with the restrictions of the

ordinance; if any one in the fulness of his heart had offered in

a _zebah shelamim_ more pieces of flesh than the ritual enjoined, it

would have been the worse for him.

Of old the sacrifice combined with a meal had established a

special relation between the Deity and a definite society of

guests; the natural sacrificial society was the family or the

clan (1Samuel i. 1seq., xvi. 1 seq., xx. 6). Now the smaller sacred

fellowships get lost, the varied groups of social life disappear in

the neutral shadow of the universal congregation or church [(DH,

QHL]. The notion of this last is foreign to Hebrew antiquity, but

runs through the Priestly Code from beginning to end. Like the

worship itself, its subject also became abstract, a spiritual

entity which could be kept together by no other means except

worship. As now the participation of the "congregation of the

children of Israel" in the sacrifice was of necessity always

mainly ideal, the consequence was that the sacred action came to

be regarded as essentially perfect by virtue of its own efficacy

in being performed by the priest, even though no one was present.

Hence later the necessity for a special sacrificial deputation,

the _anshe ma'amad_. The connection of all this with the Judaising

tendency to remove God to a distance from man, it may be added,

is clear. /1/

-- Footnote

1. It is not asserted that the cultus before the Iaw (of which

the darker sides are known from Amos and Hosea) was better

than the legal, but merely that it was more original; the standard

of judgment being, not the moral element, but merely the idea,

the primary meaning of worship. Nor is it disputed further that

the belief in the dependence of sacrifices and other sacred acts

upon a laboriously strict compliance with traditional and prescriptive

rites occurs in the case of certain peoples, even in the remotest

antiquity. But with the Israelites, judging by the testimony of the

historical and prophetical books, this was not on the whole the

case any more than with the ancient Greeks; there were no

Brahmans or Magians in either case. Moreover, it must be carefully

noted that not even in the Priestly Code do we yet find the same

childish appreciation of the cultus as occurs in such a work as the

Rigveda, and that the strict rules are not prescribed and

maintained with any such notion in view as that by their

observance alone can the taste of the Deity be pleased; the idea

of God is here even strikingly remote from the anthropomorphic,

and the whole cultus is nothing more than an exercise in piety

which has simply been enjoined so once for all without any one

being in any way the better for it.

-- Footnote

Two details still deserve special prominence here. In the Priestly

Code the most important sacrifice is the burnt-offering; that is

to say, in point of fact, the _tamid_, the _holocaustum juge_,

consisting of two yearling lambs which are daily consumed upon

the "altar of burnt-offering," one in the morning, another

in the evening. The custom of daily offering a fixed sacrifice

at a definite time existed indeed, in a simpler form, /2/

-- Footnote

2. See Kuenen, Godsdietzst van Israel, ii. 271. According to 2Kings

xvi. 15, an (LH in the morning and a MNXH in the evening were daily

offered in the temple of Jerusalem, in the time of Ahaz. Ezekiel also

(xlvi. 13-15) speaks only of the morning (LH. Compare also Ezra

ix. 4; Nehemiah x. 33. In the Priestly Code the evening _minhah_ has

risen to the dignity of a second _`olah_; but at the same time

survives in the daily _minhah_ of the high priest, and is now

offered in the morning also (Leviticus vi. 12-16). The daily _minhah_

appears to be older than the daily _`olah_. For while it was a

natural thing to prepare a meal regularly for the Deity, the

expense of a daily `olah was too great for an ordinary place of

worship, and, besides, it was not in accordance with the custom of

men to eat flesh every day. The offering of the daily _minhah_ is

already employed in 1Kings xviii. 29, 36, as a mark of time to

denote the afternoon, and this use is continued down to the latest

period, while the tamid, ie., the `olah, is never so utilised. The

oddest custom of all, however, was doubtless not the daily

_minhah_, but the offering of the shewbread, which served the same

purpose, but was not laid out fresh every day.

-- Footnote

Even in the pre-exilian period, but alongside of it at that time,

the freewill private offerings had a much more important place,

and bulked much more largely. In the law the _tamid_ is in point

of fact the fundamental element of the worship, for even the sacrifices

of Sabbaths and feast days consist only of its numerical increase

(compare Numbers xxviii., xxix.). Still later, when it is said

in the Book of Daniel that the _tamid_ was done away, this is equivalent

to saying that the worship was abolished (viii. 11-13, xi. 31, xii. 11).

But now the dominant position of the daily, Sabbath day, and festival

_tamid_ means that the sacrificial worship had assumed a perfectly

firm shape, which was independent of every special motive and of

all spontaneity; and further (what is closely connected with

this), that it took place for the sake of the congregation,--the

"congregation" in the technical sense attached to that word in the

Law. Hence the necessity for the general temple-tax, the

prototype of which is found in the poll-tax of half a shekel for

the service of the tabernacle in Exodus xxx. 11 seq. Prior to the

exile, the regular sacrifice was paid for by the Kings of Judah,

and in Ezekiel the monarch still continues to defray the expenses

not only of the Sabbath day and festival sacrifices (xiv. 17

seq.), but also of the _tamid_ (xlvi. 13-15). /1/

-- Footnote

1. Compare LXX*. The Massoretic text has corrected the third person

(referring to the princes) into the second, making it an address

to the priests, which, however, is quite impossible in Ezekiel.

-- Footnote

It is also a mark of the date that, according to Exodus xxx.,

the expenses of the temple worship are met directly out of the poll-tax

levied from the community, which can only be explained by the fact

that at that time there had ceased to be any sovereign. So completely

was the sacrifice the affair of the community in Judaism that

the voluntary _qorban_ of the individual became metamorphosed

into a money payment as a contribution to the cost of the public

worship (Mark vii., xii. 42 seq; Matthew xxvii. 6).

The second point is this: Just as the special purposes and

occasions of sacrifice fall out of sight, there comes into

increasing prominence the one uniform and universal occasion--that

of sin; and one uniform and universal purpose--that of

propitiation. In the Priestly Code the peculiar mystery in the

case of all animal sacrifices is atonement by blood; this appears

in its purest development in the case of the sin and trespass

offerings, which are offered as well for individuals as for the

congregation and for its head. In a certain sense the great day

of atonement is the culmination of the whole religious and

sacrificial service, to which, amid all diversities of ritual,

continuously underlying reference to sin is common throughout. Of

this feature the ancient sacrifices present few traces. It was

indeed sought at a very early period to influence the doubtful or

threatening mood of Deity, and make His countenance gracious by

means of rich gifts, but the gift had, as was natural then, the

character of a tentative effort only (Micah vi. 6). There was no

such thought as that a definite guilt must and could be taken away

by means of a prescribed offering. When the law discriminates

between such sins as are covered by an offering and such sins as

relentlessly are visited with wrath, it makes a distinction very

remote from the antique; to Hebrew antiquity the wrath of God was

something quite incalculable, its causes were never known, much

less was it possible to enumerate beforehand those sins which

kindled it and those which did not. /1/

-- Footnote

1. When the wrath is regulated by the conditions of the "covenant,"

the original notion (which scorns the thought of adjustment) is

completely changed. What gave the thing its mysterious awfulness

was precisely this: that in no way was it possible to guard against

it, and that nothing could avail to counteract it. Under the pressure

of Jehovah's wrath not only was sacrifice abandoned, but even

the mention of His name was shunned so as to avoid attracting

His attention (Hos iii. 4, ix. 4; Amos vi. 10).

-- Footnote

An underlying reference of sacrifice to sin, speaking generally,

was entirely absent. The ancient offerings were wholly of a joyous

nature,--a merrymaking before Jehovah with music and song,

timbrels, flutes, and stringed instruments (Hos. ix. 1 seq.; Amos

v. 23, viii. 3; Isa xxx. 3). No greater contrast could be conceived

than the monotonous seriousness of the so-called Mosaic worship.

NOMOS <de> PAREISHLQEN (INA PLEONASH| TO PARAPTWMA

["But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied".

Romans 5:20 NRSV)]

In this way the spiritualisation of the worship is seen in the

Priestly Code as advancing _pari passu_ with its centralisation.

It receives, so to speak, an abstract religious character; it

separates itself in the first instance from daily life, and then

absorbs the latter by becoming, strictly speaking, its proper

business. The consequences for the future were momentous. The

Mosaic "congregation" is the mother of the Christian church; the

Jews were the creators of that idea.

We may compare the cultus in the olden time to the green tree

which grows up out of the soil as it will and can; later it

becomes the regularly shapen timber, ever more artificially

shaped with square and compass. Obviously there is a close

connection between the qualitative antithesis we have just been

expounding and the formal one of law and custom from which we set

out. Between "naturaliter ea quae legis sunt facere" ["do

instinctively what the law requires" Romans 2:14 NRSV] and

"secundum legem agere" there is indeed a more than external

difference. If at the end of our first section we found

improbable precisely in this region the independent co-existence

of ancient praxis and Mosaic law, the improbability becomes

still greater from the fact that the latter is filled with a quite

different spirit, which can be apprehended only as Spirit of the age

(Zeitgeist). It is not from the atmosphere of the old kingdom,

but from that of the church of the second temple, that

the Priestly Code draws its breath. It is in accordance with this

that the sacrificial ordinances as regards their positive contents

are no less completely ignored by antiquity than they are

scrupulously followed by the post-exilian time.