Part 10
(32:7—14) This passage has caused difficulty. Why should Moses react so violently in v. 19 if YHWH had already told him on the mountain? How can the long process of intercession in 32:30-34:9 be understood if Moses has already secured YHWH's forgiveness in v. 14? It is a matter of literary technique. The key issues are set out here, right after the account of Israel's sin, and they govern the whole story. There is, in any case, no real difficulty in understanding Moses' reaction on actually seeing the worship of the golden calf; and it is often overlooked that Moses is not himself told of YHWH's change of heart, v. 14 is a narrative comment which gives the reader the advantage over Moses; as far as he knows, there is everything still to play for; and YHWH, as befits the seriousness of the sin, will not immediately reveal his forgiveness. 'Stiffnecked' (v. 9) is one of the motifs of the story, repeated in 33:3, 5; 34:9. In YHWH's demand 'Now let me alone', 'he pays such deference to [Moses'] prayers as to say they are a hindrance to him' (Calvin 1854: iii. 341); and he then indirectly reminds Moses of the right basis for such prayers. 'Of you I will make a great nation' recalls his promise to Abraham, Gen 12:2. Moses in his reply picks this up, as well as reminding YHWH of the danger to his reputation, which had been one of the main themes of the struggle with Pharaoh.
(32:15-24) The tablets are the focus in w. 15-19. Moses'breaking of them appears to signify that the covenant is at an end, and this is confirmed in ch. 34, where a new covenant is made on conditions inscribed on new tablets. Could a calf made of gold be burnt and ground to powder? It is possible that the
We may treat this passage as a literary unity, though many would see 32:9-14 and 25-9 as later expansions (see Moberly 1983: 157-86 and Van Seters 1994: 290-5). Interesting questions arise when we compare the story, particularly 32:1—6, with the story of Jeroboam and his calves in i Kings 12. In both
89 EXODUS
is remarkable: a holy God has agreed to be present with a people who are still sinful and show no serious sign of repentance. Moses' further request in v. 18 seems at first sight to be purely selfish. But it becomes clear when YHWH grants it (in his own way) in 34:5—7 that the vision of his 'goodness' which he has promised Moses has everything to do with the people's need of mercy and forgiveness. Moses has achieved much, but he has still not gained the main point, absolute forgiveness. The answer he got to the direct request in 32:32 was not encouraging, so he tries an indirect one, and this time receives definite, though still indirect, encouragement (v. 20). YHWH is merciful, though he reserves to himself absolute discretion in deciding whom to be merciful to.
description has simply been taken over from Deut 9:21 (Van Seters 1994: 303—7); Deuteronomy does not say what the calf was made of. w. 21—4 recall Gen 3. Aaron contrives to throw all the blame on the people and minimizes his own part, in contrast with Moses, who identifies himself with the people in his struggles with God.
(32:25—9) is another passage that has caused difficulty, partly because Moses inflicts a fearful punishment on the people, whereas elsewhere he pleads for forgiveness, partly because the punishment seems quite random. It should be noted that what Moses pleads against is the total destruction of the people, and then YHWH's withdrawal of his presence from Israel's midst; this does not rule out an exemplary punishment, v. 35 expresses the same idea, though it has been interpreted as the much later fulfilment of the threat in v. 34. The passage serves to account for the special position of the Levites in Israelite society. (32:30-33:6) In this episode of intercession, Moses clearly does not achieve his object, though it is not easy to follow the conversations between Moses and YHWH because of their polite and allusive language. 32:33 rejects Moses' offer, and v. 34 warns that a time of punishment is yet to come. YHWH is not yet reconciled. For v. 35, see above on w. 25—9. In 33:1—3 YHWH sends the people off to Canaan, but without his presence among them. The 'angel', as in 23:20, may represent YHWH and even be a form of his presence. But what he refuses to give them is his presence among them. Moberly (1983: 62—3) suggests that this presence would be experienced through the medium of a sanctuary; and the following section supports this. (33:7-11) This section is a digression from the main thread of the narrative, but not an irrelevant digression. It describes not what Moses did next, but what he regularly did; the period over which he did it is not specified, but see Num n and Deut 31:14-15. It is mentioned to make clear how Moses was still able to communicate with YHWH although he had refused his presence in their midst. He does it through the medium of a tent shrine; but unlike the one provided for in chs. 25-6 it is pitched way outside the camp, a clear enough sign of the danger of YHWH's coming any closer, v. n underlines the special privilege of Moses in speaking with YHWH 'face to face', and this leads in appropriately to the next passage of intercession.
(34:1-9) The episode moves to its climax. YHWH's order to Moses in v. i leaves no doubt now that he intends to restore the covenant shattered with the tablets in 32:19. Moses alone goes up the mountain. The people's rebellion leaves them no role but humbly to accept their Lord's good pleasure. YHWH's proclamation of his own name and qualities in w. 6—7 is another version of the descriptions in 20:5—6 and Deut 7:9— 10, and is itself repeatedly quoted elsewhere (e.g. Ps 103:8). It lays stress on his forgiveness, and avoids saying that he is gracious 'to those that love me and keep my commandments'. The centre is his 'steadfast love' (Heb. hesed; other translations
'faithfulness', 'mercy'). This is the gracious favour which a patron shows to those who have come under his protection (or the loyalty which they show to him); it is gracious and yet at the same time required of him by the relationship, an idea difficult for us to grasp in a society which has separated institutional obligation and personal motivation (cf. Kippenberg 1982: 32). There remains a paradox in the proclamation: YHWH forgives iniquity, and yet he also punishes it, even to the fourth generation. As we have already seen, punishment is not excluded even where he has resolved to forgive. The essential thing is that the relationship is restored and maintained in perpetuity, however much Israel's sinfulness may test it.
(34:10—28) And this is what YHWH promises in his proclamation T hereby make a covenant'. A covenant, because what he now does is new. The precise reference of the rest of v. 10 is unclear; even whether 'you' is Moses or Israel; but it is clear thatthe covenant is primarily YHWH's promise to Moses to forgive Israel. There are conditions; they are not new, but almost entirely a selection of the commandments from the Book of the Covenant (see EX 20:22—23:33) with particular emphasis on the exclusive worship of YHWH. w. n—16 are a rewriting of 23:23-4, 32-3; v. 17 is a version of 20:23; and w. 18-26 are 23:15-19 with some expansion, mostly from 13:12-13 (cf. 22:29-30). The implication is that, as YHWH has already said in 34:1, the covenant terms are still in force, but it is not necessary for the author to repeat the entire code, as only certain things need to be emphasized. Moses is commanded to write the words, as he had done in 24:4. The text in 28 seems to say that Moses wrote on the tablets. But YHWH has already said (34:1) that he himself would write the words on them. So probably the subject of the last sentence in v. 28 is YHWH, and Moses is thought of as writing a separate copy. But what did YHWH write? Up to this point the implication has been that it would be the words in w. 11-26, yet the text
Although P takes over the name 'tent of meeting', there are many differences between this tent and his, besides its location. It is a place not of priestly service and sacrifice but of prophetic revelation, and YHWH appears not in its innermost recesses but at its entrance. It has been conjectured that this tent of meeting was an ancient prophetic institution in Israel. But Van Seters (1994: 341—4) suggests that it is J's imaginative reconstruction. (33:12-23) The story of Moses' intercession with YHWH is taken up again at the point where it was left in 33:4. Moses' object is to gain YHWH's personal presence among the people. In v. 14 the translation T will go with you' (NRSV and others) makes nonsense of the conversation. Only in v. 17 does YHWH finally grant Moses what he has been asking for, his presence with the people. At v. 14 all he says is 'My presence will go', without the vital word 'with'. Moses' success
EXODUS 90
adds that it was 'the ten commandments'. This can only mean 20:2—17. Th£ likely explanation is that someone has added the words 'the ten commandments', remembering that in Deut 5 it is these which are written on the tablets and trying to make Exodus and Deuteronomy agree. (34:29-35) The shining of Moses' face as a sign of intense spiritual experience is not unparalleled: one might think of Jesus' transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8) or the experience reported of St Seraphim of Sarov. It is not clear why Moses puts a veil over his face when he has finished reporting YHWH's commands, unless perhaps simply to avoid standing out unnecessarily when not performing his religious and leadership functions. (Chs. 35-40) The Building of the Sanctuary With the covenant relationship restored, the instructions given by YHWH to create a sanctuary for him can now be carried out. This account obviously depends very closely on chs. 25—31; in the parts which describe the actual construction the instructions are reproduced word for word with the appropriate changes. As the incense altar and laver are described in their proper places, the account was obviously written from the start in dependence on the whole passage chs. 25-31 including its afterthoughts. Every paragraph concludes 'as YHWH had commanded Moses' to underline the authority behind the construction. As the instructions had concluded with the repetition of the sabbath command, Moses' commands to the Israelites begin with it. A detailed account of the offering follows in 35:4—36:7, together with the calling of Bezalel and Oholiab. The construction of the various items occupies 36:839:43. The account begins with the tabernacle itself before moving on to the furniture which is placed in it. It is broken only by the account of the contributed metals in 38:24—31. This does not reproduce any single passage in 25-31, but is deduced from its data; as far as the silver is concerned the figure in 38:25 is derived from the census figure in Num 1:46 on the assumption that the ransom commanded in 30:11—16 was intended for the construction. (38:8) No one can really explain this odd note, i Sam 2:22 is no help.
Bimson, J. J. (1978), Redating the Exodus and Conquest, JSOTSup 5
(Sheffield: JSOT). Blenldnsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five
Books of the Bible (London: SCM). Brenner, M. L. (1991), The Song of the Sea: Ex. 15, 1—21, BZAW 195
(Berlin: de Gruyter). Brichto, H. C. (1963), The Problem of'Curse' in the Hebrew Bible, JBL
Monograph Ser. 13 (Philadelphia: Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis). Brueggemann, W. (1995), 'Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of a Political
Metaphor', CBQ 57: 27-51. Calvin, J. (1854), Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, arranged
in the Form of a Harmony, tr. C. W. Bingham (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society).
(1953), Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. H. Beveridge (2 vols.; London: James Clarke). Cassuto, U. (1967), A Commentary on Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes). Childs, B. S. (1974), Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM). Chirichigno, G. C. (1993), Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near
East, JSOTSup 141 (Sheffield: JSOT). Clines, D. (199512), 'The Ten Commandments, Reading from
Left to Right', in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 26-45. (1995(7), 'God in the Pentateuch; Reading against the Grain', ibid. 187-211. Croatto, J. S. (1981), Exodus: A Hermeneutics of Freedom (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books). Cross, F. M. (1973), "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', in
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 112-44. Daube, D. (1947), Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press). Davies, G. I. (1979), The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study
of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament, SOTSMS 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dever, W. G. (1992), 'Israel, History of (Archaeology and the "Con-
quest")', ABD iii. 545-58. Durham, J. I. (1987), Exodus, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word Books). Exum, J. C. (1993), ' "You Shall Let Every Daughter Live": A Study of
Exodus i.8-2.10', Semeia, 28: 53-82, repr. in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 37—61.
(1994), 'Second Thoughts about Secondary Characters: Women in Exodus 1.8—2.10', ibid. 75—87. Fewell, D. N. and Gunn, D. M. (1993), Gender, Power and Promise: The
When all is complete, YHWH gives the order to set the tabernacle up and consecrate it and ordain its priesthood
Subject of the Bible's First Story (Nashville: Abingdon). Finkelstein, I. (1988), The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement
(40:1—15). For the fulfilment of much of this we must wait till Lev 8; but here we are told of the setting up of the tabernacle (40:16—33), and this is followed immediately by the climax of the whole account, the entry of the glory of YHWH into his dwelling-place. The glory is described as cloud and fire, as it appeared on Sinai in 24:16-17. The object of all the work has been achieved: the presence of YHWH, as it had been on Sinai, is with his people for ever, and guides them on their journeys.
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Friedman, R. E. (1992), Tabernacle' in ABDvi. 292-300. Gerstenberger, E. (1965), Wesen und Herkunft des 'apodiktischen Rechts',
WMANT 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Gottwald, N. K. (1980), The Tribes ofYahweh:A Sociology of Liberated
Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E. (London, SCM). Gowan, D. E. (1994), Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form
of a Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox). Gunn, D. M. (1982), The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart', in David
J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, JSOTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT), 72-96. Gutierrez, G. (1988), A Theology of Liberation, rev. edn. (London:
Albertz, R. (1994), A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament
Period (2 vols.; London: SCM). Alter, R. (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: Allen &
SCM). Habel, N. (1965), The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives',
Unwin). Auffret, P. (1983), The Literary Structure of Ex. 6.2-8', JSOT 27:
ZAW 77: 297-323. Haran, M. (1985), Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 2nd edn.
46-54.
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
91 LEVITICUS
(i992)> ^*e Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress). Moran, W. L. (1967), The Conclusion of the Decalogue (Ex. 20,17 =
Herrmann, J. (1927), 'Das zehnte Gebof, in A. Jirku (ed.), Sellin-
Festschrift (Leipzig: A. Deichert), 69-82. Herrmann, S. (1973), Israel in Egypt, CSBT 2nd ser. 27 (London:
SCM). Hort, G. (1957-8), The Plagues of Egypt', ZAW 69: 84-103; 70:
Dt. 5,21)', CBg29, 543-4. Nicholson, E. W. (1986), God and his People: Covenant and Theology in
48-59. Houston, W. (1993), Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Ani-
the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon). Noth, M. (1962), Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM). Patrick, D. (1986), Old Testament Law (London: SCM).
mals in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 140 (Sheffield: JSOT).
(1997), 'Misunderstanding or Midrash?', ZAW 109: 342-55. Houtman, C. (1993), Exodus, Historical Commentary on the Old
(1994), 'Is the Truth of the First Commandment Known by Reason?', 03(356:423-41. Phillips, A. C. J. (1970), Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach
Testament (3 vols.; vols. i, ii (1996) Kampen: Kok, vol. iii Leuven: Peelers, 2000), i. Hughes, J. (1990), Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical
to the Decalogue (Oxford: Blackwell). Ramsey, G. W. (1981), The Quest for the Historical Israel (London:
SCM). Redford, D. B. (1963), 'Exodus i, n', VTiy. 401-18. Robertson, D. (1977), The Old Testament and the Literary Critic (Phila-
Chronology, JSOTSup 66 (Sheffield: JSOT). Jackson, B. S. (1989), 'Ideas of Law and Legal Administration', in R. E.
Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 185-202. Janzen, J. G. (1992), 'Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who is Second-
delphia: Fortress). Robertson, E. (1948), The Altar of Earth (Exodus xx, 24-26)', JJS r.
ing Whom?', CBQ 54: 211-20, repr. in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield:
12-21. Robinson, G. (1988), The Origin and Development of the Old Testament
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 187—99. Jenson, P. P. (1992), Graded Holiness, JSOTS 106 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Sabbath, BEET 21 (Bern: Peter Lang). Romer, T. (1994), 'De 1'archai'que au subversif: le cas d'Exode
Academic Press). Johnstone, W. (1990), Exodus, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield:
4/24-26', ETR 69:1-12. Rost, L. (1943), 'Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalendar',
JSOT). Kippenberg, H. G. (1982), Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken
ZDPV66: 205-16. Schmidt, B. B. (1995), The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images
and Viewing Texts', in Diana V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: Kok Pharos), 75-105. Schmidt, W. H. (1988), Exodus i. Teilband: Exodus 1-6, BKAT
Judda: Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Verhdltnis von Tradition
und gesellschaftlicher EntwicUung (SUNT 14), 2nd edn. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Kirkpatrick, P. (1988), The Old Testament and Folklore Study, JSOTSup
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Smith, G. A. (1918), The Book of Deuteronomy, Cambridge Bible
62 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Knohl, I. (1994), The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the
for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Sprinkle, J. M. (1994), "The Book of the Covenant', a Literary Approach,
Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress). Lang, B. (1983), The Social Organization of Peasant Poverty in Biblical Israel', in Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority (Sheffield: Almond), 114—27, repr. in Lang, Bernhard (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1985),
JSOTSup 174 (Sheffield: JSOT). Trible, P. (1994), 'Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows', in Athalya
Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 166-86; repr. from Bible Review 5/1 (1989), 170-90. Van Seters, J. (1994), The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in
83-99. Levenson, J. D. (1988), Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San Fran-
cisco: Harper & Row). Luther, M. (1896), The Larger Catechism', in Wace and Buchheim
Exodus-Numbers (Kampen: Kok Pharos). Vaux, R. de (1978), The Early History of Israel (2 vols.; London: Darton,
(eds.), Luther's Primary Works, ii. Mendenhall, G. E. (199212), 'Covenant' in ABD, i. 1179—1202.
Longman & Todd).
(1992(7), 'Midian' in ABD, iv. 815-18. Mettinger, T. N. D. (1982), The Dethronement ofSabaoth: Studies in the
(1961), Ancient Israel, its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman &Todd). Wambacq, B. N. (1976), 'Les Origines de la Pesah Israelite', Biblica, 57:
Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup).
(1995), No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context, ConBoT (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Int.). Meyers, C. (1976), The Tabernacle Menorah (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars
206-24, 301-26. Weinfeld, M. (1991), Deuteronomy i-uAB 5 (New York: Doubleday). Wilson, R. R. (1977), Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, YNER
Press). Milgrom, J. (1991), Leviticus 1-16, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday). Miranda, J. P. (1973), Marx and the Bible (London, SCM). Moberly, R. W. L. (1983), At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in
7 (New Haven: Yale University Press). Zimmerli, W. (1968), 'Das zweite Gebof, in Gottes Offenbarung (Mun-
ich: Kaiser), 234—48.
(1982), 'I am Yahweh', in lam Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox), 1—28.
Exodus32-34, JSOTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT).
6. Leviticus
LESTER L. GRABBE
Whole burnt offering (1:3—17) Cereal offering (ch. 2) Well-being offering (ch. 3)
A. Structure and Contents. 1. The structure and content of Leviticus as a whole can be briefly outlined as follows:
Sin offering (chs. 4—5)
Sacrificial system (chs. 1—7)
Normal sin offering (ch. 4) Graduated sin offering (5:1—13)
Introduction (1:1—2)
LEVITICUS 92
Guilt offering (5:14-6:7 (HB 5:14-26)) Laws (torot) of the offerings (chs. 6—7)
diversity of material in composing it. For example, many would see chs. 17—26 (usually referred to as H, for the Holiness Code) as originally a separate block of material which was taken over by P. Since Wellhausen's time, this dating to the sixth century—whether the exilic or the early post-exilic period—has remained fairly constant among critics. An exception was Vink who put it in the fourth century, though few have followed him. All agree that this is only the date of the final form of the work, though, since the editor/author drew on various priestly traditions, some of them of substantial antiquity.
Law of burnt offering (6:8-13 (HB 6:I-6)) Law of cereal offering (6:14-18 (HB 6:7-11)) Offering at Aaron's anointment (6:19-23 (HB 6:12-16)) Law of sin offering (6:24—30 (HB 6:17—23)) Law of guilt offering (7:1—10) Law of well-being offering (7:11-18) Miscellaneous instructions (7:19-38) Initiation of Aaron and sons to the priesthood (chs. 8—10)
Consecration of priests (chs. 8—9) Death of Nadab and Abihu (10:1-11) Question of consuming the offerings (10:12-20) Purity and pollution (chs. 11—15)
3. In recent years, however, there have been two challenges to this consensus: (i) some ask whether P may not date from before the Exile (see below), and (2) others have questioned whether the traditional alleged sources exist at all (Whybray 1987). Although biblical fundamentalists have continually rejected the Documentary Hypothesis for dogmatic reasons, it should not be assumed that recent challenges fall into the same category. While some of the arguments may have been around a long time, those who oppose the old consensus do so for critical reasons which have nothing to do with a desire to 'defend' the biblical text.
Clean and unclean animals (ch. n) Childbirth (ch. 12) Skin diseases ('leprosy') (chs. 13-14) Genital discharges (ch. 15) Atonement for sanctuary and people (scapegoat ritual) (ch. 16) Holiness code (chs. 17-26)
Question of blood (ch. 17) Forbidden sexual relations (ch. 18) Miscellaneous laws on being holy (chs. 19—20) Laws for priests (ch. 21) Laws on holy things and sacrifice (ch. 22)
4. The question of P is discussed at length above (INTROD. PENT 8.5) and need not be repeated here. I shall only point out that the composition and dating of the book of Leviticus is very much tied up with the question of when P is to be dated— assuming that it exists. One school of thought, currently a minority but with a growing number of adherents and a strong voice in the debate, now favours a pre-exilic dating (Haran 1978; Milgrom 1991; Hurvitz 1982, 1988; Zevit 1982). Indeed, Milgrom even suggests that P was originally composed for the pre-monarchic territory centring on the temple at Shiloh. On the other hand, Gerstenberger (1993) continually discusses how the book fits into the situation in the post-exilic community, and Blenkinsopp (1996) has recently challenged the linguistic arguments of Hurvitz and others for a pre-exilic dating. A further factor to consider is the current debate on the history of Israel in which a number of scholars are arguing that the present text of the HB is no earlier than the Persian period and perhaps even later (see e.g. Lemche 1993). This debate has taken on a new impetus with the launch of the European Seminar on Historical Methodology (see Grabbe 1997).
Who may eat of holy things (22:1—16) No blemished animals (22:17—25) Miscellaneous laws (22:26-30) Concluding admonition (22:31-33) Festivals (ch. 23) Lamps and bread of presence (24:1—9) Question of blasphemy (24:10-23) Sabbatical and jubilee years (ch. 25) Blessings and curses (ch. 26) Appendix: vows and tithe of livestock (ch. 27)
2. At various points in this commentary, the form critical structure of passages will be discussed. For further detailed information on the structure and contents of Leviticus, one should consult the Leviticus volume of the Abingdon series, the Forms of Old Testament Literature, when it appears. In the meantime, the commentary by Hartley (1992) is very valuable for its extensive discussion of the form criticism of each section of the book.
5. The question is rightly being vigorously debated on several fronts, and I believe it is premature to anticipate the outcome. Yet we should not forget that there is some agreement on several issues. One is that the present form of the book was not reached until the Persian period; another is that the text as it now stands incorporates some material of considerable antiquity. Finally, the book probably says a good deal about the temple cult in the Second Temple period, but one should be cautious in assuming it is an actual description of what went on at that time. For this last point, see further below ('Leviticus and the Actual Temple Cult').
B. History of the Tradition. 1. We can say with some confidence that the book of Leviticus has had a long period of growth, with numerous additions and editings. Scholarship is practically unanimous on this point. We can also state that much of the material within it seems to derive from priestly circles. Thus, Leviticus is a 'Priestly' document as it now stands, whether or not there was a P source as envisaged by the Documentary Hypothesis. More controversial are the precise stages of this growth. In recent years many monographs, as well as commentaries, have attempted to tease out the different layers (in addition to the writers cited below, see Reventlow 1961; Kilian 1963; Rendtorff 1963; Koch 1959). 2. The Documentary Hypothesis has dominated study of the Pentateuch for the past century (see INTROD. PENT B). According to that theory, most of Leviticus belongs to the Priestly source (P), though the P writers may have used a
6. Throughout the rest of this commentary on Leviticus, I shall often refer to P, by which the material normally identified as part of the P document is being referred to. However, in each case one should always understand the qualifying phrase, 'if it exists' or 'as normally identified'. I have no
93 LEVITICUS
thinks these should be seen primarily as an aid to understanding the present text.
intention of begging the question of whether P exists or, if so, what it consisted of.
10. This by no means suggests that older methods of source criticism and the like can be forgotten. On the contrary, they are often presupposed in the new methods. This means that traditio-historical analysis is very important for two further legitimate stages to be interpreted. The second level of interpretation is that of the book as a part of the P document (see below). A third object of interpretation would be the various levels in the growth of the book as determined by form and redaction criticism. This is the most hypothetical and is less favoured today for that very reason (cf Rendtorff 1982-95: 4), yet most commentators give some attention to the internal growth of the book, and many see it as their primary concern.
7. The Holiness Code. Lev 17—26 is commonly divided off from the rest as the so-called Holiness Code (H), with ch. 27 as an appendix to the book. Not all would accept this delineation, but most would agree that within 17—26 is another document which has been incorporated into the present book but is not necessarily fully integrated with 1-16. That is, both 1-16 and 17-26 are collections with their own stages of growth, but each has a relative unity which marks it off from the other. There are tensions between the two parts, with some major differences of outlook on certain issues. There is also the difficult problem of trying to give the relative dates of the two collections. In the past it was customary to consider H earlier than most of the material in i—16. Nevertheless, a number of prominent scholars had not accepted the existence of H as such. For example, Elliger had proposed several independent legal corpora which had been brought together, with several redactional hands. A. Cholewski took a similar view. I. Knohl (1995; cf. 1987), although accepting the existence of H, has come to the conclusion that it was later than Lev i—16. He argues the question mainly on the basis of Lev 23 which he thinks is constructed on Num 28—9. Knohl concludes that there were two priestly schools, one that produced the earlier P document and the other that not only wrote H
C. Importance of the Cult to Ancient Israel. 1. It is easy for modern Christians to dismiss the Levitical and other passages dealing with the sacrificial cult as outdated or irrelevant. For that reason, the cult is often slighted or even ignored when Israel's religion is discussed. But it must not be forgotten that many Jews still observe the regulations concerning ritual purity, in some form or other, even though the sacrificial regulations can no longer be applied in the absence of a functioning temple. Any description of Israelite religion has to take stock of its complexities, but one cannot get away from the fact that the sacrificial cult, especially blood sacrifice, lay at the heart of worship in Israel. On the other hand, the Israelite cult, like all religious ritual—and all religions have their ritual—was extremely meaningful to the participants even if we do not always understand it from our time and culture millennia later. A number of recent studies have focused on the symbolism of the cult and attempted to decipher the priestly world-view that lay behind it. For example, Gorman (1990) argues that a complex creation theology is presupposed and represented by the cult, and Jenson (1992) has made similar points. The priestly view had a cosmological and sociological dimension, as well as a cultic. In order to express this, it made distinctions between holy and profane, clean and unclean, life and death, order and chaos.
(the later document) but also did the final editing of the Pentateuch. Similarly, Milgrom (1991) has taken the position that most of H is later than most of 1-16, and in his opinion H was one of the editors of the book.
8. Methods and Approaches to Interpretation. Having now seen a general consensus that the book grew up over a long period of time, the reader might ask, 'What level of the book do we interpret?' There is more than one legitimate answer to the question. In recent years, many interpreters have argued for the final form of the text as the primary object of study, whatever the stages of growth of the book or its dating. This has led to a number of new disciplines under the general rubric of the literary approach' to the biblical text, including 'close reading', structuralism, deconstruction, and rhetorical criticism. So far, few seem to have applied these to Leviticus specifically (but see Damrosch (1987) and Schwarz (1991) for examples). From a different perspective, those interested in the 'canonical' form of the text for theological purposes are also concerned mainly with the final form of the text (see esp. Childs 1979). Douglas (1993: 8-12) has recently argued that the book can be properly understood only if one recognizes a basic ring structure of the text in its present form.
2. The idea of sacrifice seems to be ubiquitous among human societies the world over. Even those which have abandoned it in their contemporary form, especially in the developed countries, have sacrifice as a part of their past. Since the concept goes so far back in human history that its origins are no longer traceable, we are left only with hypothesis and speculation as to how sacrifice came to be a part of the religious culture of most peoples. (For further information, see the account of the debate in Grabbe 1993: 43-7.) But the inescapable conclusion seems to be that central to most sacrifices are the notions of expiation, cleansing, and re-establishment of cosmic—or at least microcosmic—harmony. If evil cannot be removed, sin wiped away, pollution purified, and harmony restored, there would be little point in sacrifice. Therefore, regardless of the precise terms in which sacrifices are conceived (substitution, ritual detergent, etc.), the desired outcome is clear. The scapegoat sort of ceremony is perhaps not strictly a sacrifice, in that the animal is not killed (though according to later Jewish tradition, the scapegoat was pushed over a cliff: m. Yoma 6:6; cf. Grabbe 1987), but the concept seems to be very much the same as that of sacrifice. In this
9. This does not mean that the final form of the text has been ignored even by some of the traditional disciplines. For decades, many form critics have practised a structural analysis of the text as we have it before asking questions of growth or even questions of genre and the like. The results of this approach can be seen in the series Forms of Old Testament Literature edited by R. P. Knierim and G. Tucker. Knierim's recent book (1992) on exegesis combines traditional form criticism with broader concerns, including theological and sociological ones. Some exegetes, while not abandoning traditional source criticism, have severely demoted it in their concerns. For example, although Rendtorff (1982—95: 4) does not reject 'reconstruction' of earlier phases of the tradition, he
LEVITICUS 94
arcane ritual turn out to be a rich symbolic system with significant meaning for understanding the concerns of ancient Israel.
case, the sins are heaped onto the head of the victim which is then separated from the community. In other cases, the victim is in some way identified with the offerer even if precise identification is not required. The laying of the hands on the victim by the offerer in Israelite sacrifice may have a function along these lines. But regardless of the rite, the desire is to cause the sins, pollutions, illness, or troubles to vanish.
D. Women and the Cult. 1. The place of women in society and literature has become a much-discussed subject in the past couple of decades (see e.g. Newsom and Ringe 1992; Schiissler Fiorenza 19940 and b). Some have seen the treatment of women as very negative. It is not my purpose to enter into this debate, but Wegner (1992) gives a mainly positive assessment of Leviticus on women, recognizing its general context in the ancient world. Women are mentioned specifically in only two sections of Leviticus: one concerns childbirth, which made a woman impure for ritual purposes (Lev 12). In order to be allowed to re-enter the temple, she had to undergo a period of cleansing which culminated in sacrifices in the temple. The implication is that the woman herself is envisaged as participating in the sacrificial cult. Although the directions relating to sacrifice are addressed in the masculine form of the verb (whether singular or plural), this could be thought to include women under normal circumstances. Women are not specifically excluded in the P legislation. If women were not allowed to enter the altar area, as was the case in the time ofthe
3. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts is that of ritual purity. It has little or nothing to do with hygiene or with the clean/dirty distinction in a physical sense. For example, in the Israelite system, excrement was not usually included in the category of unclean, even though ancient I sraelites had much the same view towards it that we do today. One of the important discoveries of anthropology in the past half-century is that purity and pollution systems are not arcane, primitive superstition. The precise form of the rituals may well be arbitrary, at least to some extent, but recent study suggests that broader concerns are at the heart of the purity system. The insights offered by social and cultural anthropology have gone a long way towards explaining the deeper meaning and foundation of these laws which may seem primitive to many today. Purity and pollution form an important mirror of the society itself, especially its social relations and attitudes. They map the ideological cosmos of the people who hold these views. These regulations can be seen as a language, in the broad sense of the term, communicating to those within the society the 'correct' attitudes towards relations between the sexes, marriage, kinship, and intercourse with outsiders. Ritual cleanliness tells the people how to classify the entities—human and animal—which inhabit the world around them and communicates to the society how to fit in new forms which enter its world. The animal world and how it is treated is also a map of human society, and the human community is represented by the body of the individual.
Second Temple, this is nowhere stated.
2. The other occasion of impurity with women was menstruation (15:19—24). The regulations about bodily issues in Lev 12—15 do n°t make a particular point about menstruation; on the contrary, it is only one of a number of issues of blood or fluid which are polluting. Nevertheless, most of the other regulations concern unusual occurrences, whereas the rules about menstruation would regularly affect all women between puberty and menopause, as well as their families more indirectly. It is clear that these purity regulations were extremely important to all Israelites of both sexes. However, it should be noted that menstruation, like the impurity contracted from normal sexual intercourse, did not require a sacrifice for cleansing. These were in a different category from 'abnormal' discharges.
4. One ofthe major attempts to work outthe meaning ofthe biblical system in detail was by Mary Douglas in her seminal book Purity and Danger (1966; for an account of this book and criticisms of it, see Grabbe 1993: 56—9). Despite some criticisms against Douglas, some of her points about the meaning ofthe system in Israelite society have not been affected and still seem valid, especially the notion that the system of permitted and forbidden animals was a microcosm ofthe world according to the Israelite view. The many forbidden animals represented the surrounding nations; the few clean animals, the Israelites; and the sacrificial animals, the priests. Just as I sraelites were not to eat certain animals, they were not to mix with other nations. The dietary regulations had both a practical and a symbolic function; symbolically they stood for the fact that Israel was to keep itself free from intercourse with non-Israelites; practically, inability to eat certain animals meant that Jews could not socialize with those who ate these animals. The rules of pollution and purity also drew strict boundaries around the altar and sanctuary. No pollution and no polluted persons were allowed to penetrate into the sacred area. This clear and rigid boundary drawing suggests a concern with political boundaries as well as social ones. Just as the Israelites were concerned about mixing with the surrounding peoples, so their political boundaries may have been threatened by others who claimed the territory for themselves. If so, the message ofthe rules which, on the surface, might seem
3. Anthropological studies have suggested that regulations about menstruation often mirror the relationship between the sexes and the place of either sex within the society. Societies in which women have considerable freedom of choice and independence from men will usually have this reflected in various customs about ritual purity, including menstruation. Those societies in which women are restricted to a particular place and function and are discouraged from entering the province of men will usually have constrictive regulations about menstruation.
4. It seems clear that in Israelite society, women had a particular sphere and place in which they were confined. They were not generally allowed to participate in activities which were associated with the male Israelite. These customs were not necessarily absolute since the OT tradition has stories of exceptional women who broke through the traditional boundaries. But any woman who carefully observed the rules about menstrual pollution would have found her activities severely restricted in certain ways. A similar purpose seems to be associated with the rules surrounding childbirth. The longer purification time after bearing a daughter could be a symbol that women had an appropriate place in society which
95 LEVITICUS
But it is also likely that many cultic procedures remained essentially unchanged over long periods of time (Rendtorff 1985-92: 5; Grabbe 1995: 207). The many differences in detail between Leviticus and other passages in the OTdo not suggest major differences in the overall shape of the cult. Those who see Leviticus as by and large a description of cultic observance in the Second Temple period are probably correct since, even if much of it goes back to the First Temple, the same practices were probably continued when the temple was rebuilt.
was different from that of men. On the other hand, any evaluation of these regulations would do well to take account of the fact that many Jews still observe these or similar regulations today and give them a positive value (cf Wegner 1992).
E. Leviticus and the Actual Temple Cult. 1. Does Leviticus (or it and the rest of P) describe the rites in the temple, or is it merely a theoretical document, a programme, or even a mere fantasy? We can say with some confidence that Leviticus does not describe the cult in a tabernacle built by the Israelites under Moses during 40 years in the wilderness. The whole story as described in the biblical text (from Exodus to the end of Deuteronomy) is now generally rejected by biblical scholars. A generation ago, many would have given greater credence to the story, or at least certain parts of it. New archaeological information and further study has convinced most that Israel did not enter the land as a unified group out of the wilderness after escaping from Egypt. Rather, even if some had been in Egypt, they would have been a small group. The bulk of those who came to make up Israel were probably indigenous people in some sense, though there may also have been immigrants from outside the area. Those who coalesced to produce Israel no doubt had their shrines, permanent or portable, but the description of building the tabernacle in Exodus is fiction as it stands. For example, the altar described in Exodus is made of wood and bronze. This sort of construction would hardly stand the heat of the fire necessary to consume the sacrificial portions, and any actual altar was probably made of stone and earth (Gerstenberger 1993: 29). Nevertheless, some reality may have lain behind it. What might that have been?
Chs. 1-7 describe the sacrificial system. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the book of Leviticus than just a description of various sacrifices. Nevertheless, the cult was central to Israelite worship, and it is important to understand the sacrifices if one wishes to understand Israelite religion
(see c.i—2 above). It was through the sacrificial cult that sins were forgiven and evil was removed from the land. And an important question is what was thought to happen when an animal was slain at the altar. Milgrom (1976) has dismissed the idea of the sacrificial victim being a substitute for the sinner. He does acknowledge, though, that on the 'day of kippurini (Day of Atonement) the sins were placed metaphorically on the head of the goat for Azazel. In this case, there is no sense of'wiping off but of the transfer of sins from the people to the animal (see further at LEV 1:4 and 16). That this is really a type of substitute or surrogate for the sinner, however, is a point well made by Kiuchi (1987). Kiuchi argues that the sin offering is envisaged as a substitute for the sinner; in other words, it purges the sin of the individual and not just, as Milgrom asserts, the effects of these sins on the sanctuary. (The transfer of sins in the Day of Atonement ceremony may be somewhat different from this, since the victim is sent away and not slain. Nevertheless, he argues that the scapegoat ceremony is a form of sin offering.) This transfer of sins might be indicated when the offerer lays hands on the animal's head. Kiuchi (1987: 112—19) n°tes that there are a number of interpretations of this act. Although he favours the interpretation that it represents substitution, he recognizes thatthe evidence is scanty. Knierim (1992: 34-40) opposes the idea of substitution and considers the gesture (which he translates as 'firm pressing down of the hand') a means of denoting transfer of ownership, i.e. from the offerer to God. If so, this aspect of the discussion does not help resolve the main problem of the elimination of sin.
2. It is possible that the description in P is purely hypothetical or Utopian. Priests who had a vision of an idealized cult could write it up and present it as if that was what happened long ago under Moses. There is no doubt that we find a certain amount of idealization in the description of the tabernacle and the setting up of its cult. However, most scholars would see some relationship to what went on in an actual temple or shrine. Those who date P to the post-exilic period consider the Priestly material to reflect generally the situation in the
Second Temple which was built in the early Persian period. If P is dated to the exilic period, one would expect that it is presenting a programme for a renewed cult in Jerusalem (which was expected imminently), with the hope of influencing the structure of the new cult.
3. Cross (1947) advanced the thesis that the tent of David, which housed the ark before and after its removal to Jerusalem but before the temple was built, was the basis of the tabernacle tradition. The proposal of Haran (1962), followed by Milgrom (1991), makes the core of Leviticus relate to the temple at Shiloh in the early period of the monarchy. Part of Milgrom's argument concerns later editings which attempted to bring the material up to date, with some of these even as late as the post-exilic period. Therefore, despite possible earlier origins the cult and regulations in the present text of Leviticus in most cases can be related to the practice in the First Temple.
Perhaps part of the problem is being too literal in interpretation. The sacrificial system was a symbolic system, filled with metaphor, allegory, and analogy. It would be a mistake to assume that only one symbol or metaphor was used for removing sin (e.g. ritual detergent). In the same way, the cultic terminology may have a more general meaning and should not be defined in terms of the specific metaphor used. The individual's sins were removed, whatever the precise symbolic conceptualization used.
Chs. 1-5 tend to address the whole people, lay as well as priest, in contrast to 6-7 which seem aimed primarily at the priests. The main term for offering is qorban, a generic term which refers to a variety of different types (cf the reference to the term in its Greek transliteration korban 'gift' in Mk 7:11).
4. What most would accept is that Leviticus represents to a large extent actual cultic practice, despite some tensions and contradictions. No doubt there have been editings, perhaps in part because of changes and developments in actual practice.
LEVITICUS 96
meanings 'cover' ('wipe on') and 'wipe off are complementary rather than contradictory. In ritual texts, the idea of'wipe off predominated in that the blood was thought of as wiping off impurity, acting as a sort of cultic detergent. With certain rituals, such as those on the Day of Atonement or involving the red cow (Num 19:1—10), the idea of'ransom' or 'substitute' was the main connotation. This finally led to the meaning 'atone, expiate' in some passages, especially with regard to all sacrifices where blood was not daubed on the horns of the altar.
The instructions about how to prepare the sacrifice are often stereotyped, so that similar instructions are given about those which are parallel; however, it is interesting to notice that small differences in wording are often found, even when the same instructions seem to be in mind. The sacrificial pattern for animals generally goes according to the following schema:
1. The sacrificer laid hands on the head of the animal. 2. It was killed at the entrance to the tabernacle, north of the altar, and cut up. The most natural interpretation of the Hebrew wording is that the slaughtering was done by the one making the offering rather than by the priest. If so, it contradicts Ezek 44:11, where it is done by the Levites, and 2 Chr 29:22, 24 where done by the priests. 3. Blood was sprinkled or dashed or poured, usually on the sides and/or base of the altar. 4. The parts burned for cattle included the entrails with their fat, the kidneys and suet, and the caul of the liver; the same was true with sheep or goats, except that the fat tail was also added. 5. Except for the whole burnt offering, the breast of the animal went to the priests as a body, while the right thigh went to the presiding priest specifically.
Central to the cult was the shedding of blood. There is a major disagreement about the function of the blood between Milgrom and Levine, however. Levine argues that it has two functions: (i) an apotropaic function for the deity; that is, the blood was placed on the altar to protect God from the malignancy of impurity which was regarded as an external force; (2) purificatory or expiatory, in which the blood served as a ransom substituting for the life owed by the offerer. According to Milgrom, the idea of demonic or malignant forces which might harm the deity had no place in the thought of the P tradition. Impurities did compromise the holiness of the sanctuary and altar, so the purpose of the offering was to remove these. As noted above, Milgrom's opinion is that the blood acted as a ritual detergent, washing off the impurities which had attached themselves to the sacred things. For further comments on the blood, see at LEV 17:10—14.
(1:1—2) is an introduction to the entire section of chs. 1—7 and forms an indusio with 7:37-8, to mark off chs. 1-7 as a unit.
(1:3-17) describes the whole burnt offering ('old). Sometimes referred to as the 'holocaust', this whole burnt offering was the complete sacrifice, for none of it went to the sacrificing priest (except for the hide, 7:8) or to the one bringing the offering. The entire animal was 'turned into smoke', to use the Hebrew expression (hiqtir). The offering couldbe from the herd or flock, a male animal in either case, or from the birds (turtle-doves or pigeons). Although the animal was cut up, all the pieces (not just the fat, kidneys, etc.) were placed on the altar. The legs and entrails were washed but placed on the altar as well. The burnt offering had expiatory function, as indicated by 1:4, 9:7,14:20, and 16:24 (cfalsoEzek45:i5,17). But it also seems to have been used for a wide range of functions, according to other passages, including entreaty (i Sam 13:12) and appeasement of God's wrath (i Sam 7:9; 2 Sam 24:21—5). It could also be used as an occasion for rejoicing (Lev 22:17—19; Num 15:3). It has been proposed that because of its ubiquity in early texts, it and the well-being offering (Lev 3) were the only sacrifices in the earliest period, with the sin and guilt offerings being added later when the temple was established. Gerstenberger (1993: 31) also suggests that the sin offering was a later replacement for the whole burnt offering.
(1:14—17) gives instructions for a whole burnt offering of birds. There are differences from those of other animals. For birds the neck was wrung off but, rather than being cut up, the body was torn open by the wings without severing it. The crop and excrement were placed on the ash pile. The whole of the offering was done by the priests, perhaps because only the poorest, such as slaves, used birds and were perhaps not as observant of the cult (Gerstenberger 1993: 27-8). On fowls for the sin offering, see at LEV 5:14—6:7.
(2:1-16) describes the cereal or meal offering (minhdh). The word minhah means 'gift' and is used with such a general meaning in some texts (e.g. in reference to animals in Gen 4:3-4 and i Sam 2:17). It could even have the meaning of 'tribute' (Judg 3:15; 2 Sam 8:2). In Leviticus and priestly tradition in general, it refers exclusively to the offering of grain or meal. The cereal offering was the only non-blood sacrifice. It had two functions: (i) it was often an accompanying offering to one of the others, in particular the burnt and thanksgiving offerings; (2) it could be offered in its own right as an independent sacrifice. The meal offering follows this basic pattern:
(1:4) says that the purpose of the sacrifice is for 'atonement' for the one making the offering. The Hebrew word is kipper and is used in a number of contexts to describe the removal of sin or ritual impurity. Although often translated as 'atone' or 'cover up', the precise connotation has been much debated. The denominative verb can mean 'serve as a ransom, expiation gift'. Levine (1974: 56—77) has argued that it means 'remove, wipe off impurity, not 'cover up'. In the cult, the word was used primarily in functional terms to mean 'perform rites of expiation' rather than 'to clean'. Milgrom (1991: 1079—84) sees a development in the word from a basic meaning 'purge'. It also carried the idea of'rub, wipe', so that the
1. Choice flour was to be used, with oil mixed in before cooking or added afterwards; anything cooked was always unleavened; frankincense accompanied the offering. 2. The frankincense and a token portion of the flour or cake were burnt on the altar. 3. The rest of the offering went to the priest.
It could be raw flour (mixed with oil) or it could be baked in an oven, cooked on a griddle, or fried in a pan. It was always unleavened since no leaven was to be burnt on the altar (v. n), and was to be salted (v. 13) as a sign of the covenant. Other vegetable offerings could be brought: first fruits (v. 12: re'sit,
97 LEVITICUS
no details given) and a cereal offering of first fruits (bikkurim) which was to consist of roasted grain with the usual oil and frankincense (w. 14—16).
3-9-3 H 230-2). The same quandary has afflicted modern commentators, with various solutions proposed. For example Kellermann (1977) suggested that the guilt offering developed from the sin offering, to provide a form of sacrifice between the sin and burnt offerings, as the atonement sacrifice for all cases of gross negligence. In Lev 5:15, however, it is probably equivalent to the sin offering. Levine (1974) believes that it was not originally an altar sacrifice but a cultic offering presented to the deity in the form of silver or an object of value in expiation for certain offences. A necessary precondition is that the sin be done inadvertently, although Lev 5:20—6 may seem to go against this, because a false oath cannot be given inadvertently, Levine explains this as a separate category of crime. Milgrom (1976) opposes Levine with the view that the guilt offering must be a blood sacrifice. Any mention of silver has reference to buying an animal to sacrifice. Milgrom thinks he has found a solution in the meaning of the name, which he takes to mean 'feel guilt' when there is no verbal object. The notion common to all offences which call for it is that they are all cases of sacrilege against God, i.e. either an actual infringement of holy things or a trespass against the name of God.
In his recent study Marx (1994) argues that the vegetable offering plays a central role in the system of P (including Ezek 40—8 and Chr), and is an accompaniment not only of the whole burnt offering but also of the well-being offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. (P represents a Utopian ideal which views vegetarianism as the original state of mankind.) As noted above, the cereal offering can also stand alone and be offered independently of other offerings. By contrast, the J source (followed by Deut, Hos, and Ezek 1-39) limits its horizon to the blood offering, according to Marx.
(3:1-17) describes the selamim offering. There is no agreed translation for this term. It was long connected with salom 'peace' and called the 'peace offering', a translation still found in the RSV. More recent translations have often derived the name from salem 'well-being', the translation used in the New Jewish Publication Society translation and the NRSV (the NEB and REB have 'shared-offering'). Levine himself suggests the meaning 'gift', based on the Akkadian sulmanu which means 'gift of greeting'. These are all only educated guesses, and exactly how one renders the term is to some extent arbitrary. The actual terminology used for the wellbeing offering is zebah selamim 'sacrifice of well-being'. The term zebah is often translated by the general term 'sacrifice'; however, it seems to be limited to those sacrifices which were eaten by the offerer and would not be applied to the burnt offering or the sin offering since these were burnt whole or eaten only by the priests. The question is why the double terminology is used. Rendtorff has suggested that two originally separate offerings must have been combined, since such double terminology is unparalleled in cultic language. Also, zebah selamim is limited to Leviticus and Numbers; zebah often occurs by itself outside these two books, but selamim is never alone and often in the context of the burnt offering. Milgrom (1991), on the other hand, argues thatzefcah selamim is merely a synonym for selamim. This passage does not discuss the various sorts of well-being offerings, and one must see the later treatment at 7:11—18 for a breakdown of the types of usage for this offering.
(4:1-35) The term hatta't is traditionally translated 'sin offering' because the word also means 'sin'. The difficulty with this translation is that the sacrifice is required in certain cases where no sin is involved (e.g. Lev 12:6). Therefore, Milgrom argues for the translation 'purificatory offering'. His point is well taken; however, it seems a cumbersome title and one which may not be readily apparent to those more used to 'sin offering'. For this reason, 'sin offering' is still used here despite being somewhat problematic. The sin offering is to be offered when one has committed a sin unwittingly. The instructions vary according to the rank of the person offering it, and the pattern differs in certain details from that given at the head of this section on LEV 1-5. It is clear that two sorts of sin offering are in mind here. There is the one which is offered because of the sin of the priests or the congregation as a whole and is burnt entirely. The other, offered on behalf of the ordinary Israelite (including the tribal chieftain), was eaten by the priests after the normal parts were burned on the altar. w. 3—12, if the anointed priest (high priest?) is atoning for his own sin, he is to offer a bull. The blood is sprinkled inside the tabernacle itself, before the curtain covering the Holy of Holies, and some of it put on the horns of the incense altar. The normal portions are burnt on the altar, but the rest of the animal is taken outside the camp and burned where the ashes from the altar are dumped, w. 13-21, if the whole community has sinned, the ceremony is the same as for the priest, except that the elders take the part of the offerer, w. 22—6, if a tribal chieftain (nast') has sinned, a male goat is offered, with blood put on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings. In this case only the normal portions are burned, while the rest goes to the priest to be eaten, w. 27—31, if an ordinary person ('am ha'ares) has sinned, a female goat or sheep is offered, with the other details being the same as for the chieftain.
v. n: A number of offerings are said to be 'isseh, which is often translated as 'offerings by fire'. This depends on the presumed origin of the word from 'es 'fire', which is also reflected in later translations. This presents two difficulties: some offerings are referred to as 'isseh even when they are not burned (e.g. the wine offering: Num 15:10), whereas some offerings burned on the altar (e.g. the sin offering) are not called 'isseh. Milgrom has related the zword to Ugaritic itt 'gift' and perhaps Arabic 'aau 'possession of every kind'. He suggests the translation 'food gift', perhaps a shortened term from lehem 'isseh 'food gift' (Lev 3:11, 16). In his opinion, the word may have become obsolete by exilic times since it is absent from later OT collections.
(5:1-13) is generally interpreted as describing the graduated sin offering. That is, there are two sorts of sin offering: the normal sin offering (4:1—35) and the graduated sin offering. Confusion is caused by the fact that the term 'asam is used here (w. 6-7) as in 5:14-6:7 (HB 5:14-26), suggesting that the
(4:1—6:7) (HB 4:1—5:26) treats the sin and guilt offerings. There is considerable difficulty in separating these. The guilt offering especially has been a notorious problem since antiquity. Early Jewish commentators already had difficulties in interpreting it (cf. Philo, Spec. leg. 1.226—38; Josephus, Ant.
LEVITICUS 98
has to be made, with 20 per cent added, and a ram or its equivalent value is brought for a guilt offering.
offerings of ch. 5 are separate from ch. 4. However, it is usually argued that 'asam means 'atonement for guilt' in w. 6—7 rather than 'guilt offering', especially since reference is specifically made to the 'sin offering' in w. 6, 7, n. The breaches for which this is offered do not form a clear pattern: not acting as a witness, uttering a rash oath, or touching the corpse of an unclean animal or some other unclean thing without realizing it. The person must first confess the sin, then bring an offering of a female goat or sheep. If he does not have enough wealth for sheep or goat, he can bring two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering. Since there are no instructions about fowls for a sin offering, some details are given: the neck is wrung but the head not severed from the body, and part of the blood is sprinkled on the side of the altar while the rest is poured out at the base. What happens then is not stated. The flesh of the guilt offering normally went to the priest, after the fat etc. were burned on the altar, but we do not have precise instructions about birds. The other bird is treated as a burnt offering. If the person does not have enough for birds, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (without oil or frankincense) is offered. A token portion is burnt, and the rest goes to the priest, as is normal in cereal offerings. This is the only case where a cereal offering can serve for a transgression (though cf Num 5:15).
(6:8-7:38) (HB 6:1-7:38) givesthelaws (torot) oftheofferings. The term tord in these texts often refers to a priestly ruling. The sacrifices enumerated in chs. 1-5 are covered once more, but this time the instructions relate to the responsibilities of the priests rather than focusing on the offerings from the point of view ofthe lay person. It also emphasizes the priestly dues to be given over from each sacrifice. 6:8-13 (HB 6:1-6) gives the law ofthe burnt offering; cf. 1:3-17. 6:14-18 (HB 6:7n) gives the law ofthe cereal offering; cf. Lev 2. 6:19—23 (HB 6:12—16) discusses the offering at Aaron's anointing. This section seems out of place because of its subject, though it was probably put here because a cereal offering is being described. It seems to be referring to a type of tamid or daily meal offering. It consisted of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (about 2 litres), mixed with oil, and cooked on a griddle. Half is offered in the morning and half in the evening. This is burned entirely on the altar, with no portion eaten by the priests. We know that there was a daily or tamid offering made on the altar, and it seems to have included a cereal offering as well as a burnt offering in the morning. The daily offering was extremely important in antiquity because it was the chief sign that the temple was functioning and God accessible to the people. The times when the daily sacrifice was stopped were times of dire consequences, as when the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer or the Romans, or when the sacrifice was stopped by force in the time ofthe Maccabees. Surprisingly, though, what constituted the daily offering is not clear. Leviticus mentions only the cereal offering ofthe high priest, made in the morning and in the evening. Other priestly passages mention a daily burnt offering of two lambs, one in the morning and one in the evening (Ex 29:38-42; Num 28:38). Was this separate from the cereal offering or was the cereal offering thought of only as a companion offering? If the cereal offering accompanied it, why is this not mentioned in Leviticus, and why is the required drink offering also ignored? Other passages are different yet again. Dating from the time ofthe Maccabees, the practice of sacrificing the tamid twice a day is attested in Dan 8:11—14, while 9:21 mentions an evening cereal offering. 2 Kings 16:15 refgrs to a morning whole burnt offering and an evening cereal offering. Ezek 46:13-15 differs from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by describing a daily sacrifice of one lamb (not two), accompanied by one-sixth of an ephah of flour (instead of one-tenth). The question is, What is the offering of 6:19-23? Is it identical with the cereal offering ofthe tamid? Most likely, it is a separate offering but one offered daily by the high priest (Milgrom 1991).
(5:14—6:7) (HB 5:14—26) describes the guilt offering. The precise meaning of 'asam is not clear. The verb can mean 'commit an offence' and 'become guilty' (by committing an offence); hence, the traditional translation 'guilt offering'. Milgrom (1976) opposes this, arguing that when confined to cultic usage it has four meanings: (i) reparation, (2) reparation offering, (3) incur liability to someone, (4) feel guilt. It is especially this last which he emphasizes. The translation 'realize guilt' or 'become conscious of guilt', as found in a number of translations, he thinks is wrong. Rather, the clue to the sacrifice lies in the fact that the person becomes conscience-stricken, afraid that he has committed an offence. For the offering itself, he uses the translation 'reparation offering'.
5:14-16: the first transgression relating to the guilt offering involves unwitting violation of the 'holy things' of God (qodse yhwh). The type of violation is not described, but the later ceremony suggests that the person has used something belonging to God for his own purposes, for restitution has to be made with another 20 per cent (fifth part) added to it (v. 16). A ram is also brought (v. 15; cf. 6:6 (HB 5:25)). A debate has arisen concerning the expression 'convertible into silver' (v. 15). Does this mean that only the value of the ram in money was brought rather than the animal itself (Noth 1977: 47)? Hartley (1992: 81—2) disagrees. However, Levine (1974: 98— 100) thinks this was the earlier practice which later developed into the use of a ram of a minimal value, while Milgrom (1991: 326-7) argues that the value of the ram could be assessed and the equivalent value paid. w. 17—19 follow the instructions about the transgression with regard to holy things by a general statement that a ram is to be brought for any transgressions of YHWH's commands which at first escape the person's notice. 6:1-7 (HB 5:20-6) expands the the concept of 5:17-19 further to include defrauding one's neighbour by illicitly appropriating a pledge or not returning a lost object. Again, restitution
6:24-30 (HB 6:17-23) gives the law ofthe sin offering; cf. 4:1-5:13. 7:1-10 gives the law ofthe guilt offering; cf. 5:14-6:7. 7:11-21 gives the law ofthe well-being offering. 3:1-16 gives the details of the ritual, but it is only here that the basic rationale is given, i.e. the various sorts of well-being offering. Three types seem to be included under the well-being offering:
1. The freewill offering (nedaba), given voluntarily on the part ofthe offerer, without any special motivation. 2. The votive offering (neder). Whenever a vow was made, it was completed by an offering.
99 LEVITICUS
another, such as from boyhood to manhood or girlhood to womanhood. There is first a rite of separation, next a transitional rite during which the person is in a 'liminal' state (on the doorstep between one phase and another). There may be dangers while in this liminal state, and various rituals have to be carefully performed to protect the one undergoing the transition. In the case of Aaron and sons, they were undergoing the passage from 'common' to 'sacred'. Various purification and burnt offerings and washings were performed, a special ordination offering carried out (8:22—9), an(^ me anointing done. Those involved were then required to remain a week segregated in the Tent of Meeting (transitional rite). The final act was a ritual of incorporation, in this case sacrifices and ceremonies on the eighth day (Lev 9). Thus, the ceremony of consecration in Lev 8-9 is very much parallel to rites of passage known both from preliterate modern societies and from many examples in modern Western culture. Ch. 10 seems to be an inset chapter relating the incident of Nadab and Abihu (sons of Aaron) and its consequences, though the chapter follows naturally on the anointing ritual of Aaron and his sons.
3. The thanksgiving offering (toda), given as an expression of thanks for deliverance in time of trouble. There are several problems with understanding this offering.
Is it the same as the freewill offering? Some scholars have thought so. Others (e.g. Milgrom 1976) think the two are always clearly distinguished in the OT and should be kept separate. There are certain anomalies about the toda offering when compared with the other well-being offering, suggesting that it was once considered separate. The main distinction from the other similar offerings is that it is accompanied by a cereal offering and must be eaten the same day it is offered. The freewill and votive offerings do not have the accompanying cereal offering and can be eaten both on the day of the offering and the next day. Indeed, in other passages the thanksgiving does seem to be an independent offering alongside the well-being (Lev 22:21, 29; Jer 17:26; 2 Chr 29:31—3; 33:16) and only in the supposed P source is it made a subdivision of the well-being offering.