cult and character purification offerings day of atonement and theodicy

8/11/2019 Cult and Character Purification Offerings Day of Atonement and Theodicy

1/416


2/416

CULT AND CHARACTER


3/416


4/416

CULT AND CHARACTER

Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement,and Theodicy

Roy E. Gane

Winona Lake, IndianaEisenbrauns

2005


5/416

Copyright 2005 by Eisenbrauns.

All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gane, Roy, 1955Cult and character : purification offerings, Day of Atonement, and

theodicy / Roy E. Gane.p. cm.

Includes indexes.ISBN 1-57506-101-5 (hardcover : alk. paper)1. Purity, ritualJudaism. 2. Yom Kippur. 3. Bible. O.T. Leviticus

Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Theodicy. I. Title.BM702.G35 2005296.4u9dc22

2005009783

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the Ameri-

can National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for PrintedLibrary Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.


6/416

Dedicated to my teacher,Jacob Milgrom

whypb htyh tma trwt(Malachi 2:6)


7/416

Dedication

One evening in the 1980s, Prof. Jacob Milgrom relaxed with his studentsduring a break in the Advanced Biblical Hebrew Texts seminar that he con-ducted in his Berkeley home. To explain his preoccupation with Leviticus, hetold us a story about a yeshiva student who noticed that his teacher was study-ing a certain page of Talmud. On a subsequent day, the student was surprised

to find the rabbi perusing the same page. When he inquired why, the teachersimply responded: I like it here.

Since that evening in Berkeley, Milgrom has moved through the sacrificialand purity instructions of Leviticus 116 and on to the legislation of chapters1727. But now it is the student who lingers. I am still pondering the sacri-fices, especially the tafj (purification offering) and the ceremonies of YomKippur. Why? I like it here.

Before participating in Milgroms seminar, I had no interest in Leviticus

whatsoever. Without the inspiration, mentoring, and example of scholarshipthat he has provided through his teaching and published writings, the presentbook would never have been contemplated, let alone written. So this humbleoffering is respectfully and affectionately dedicated to Jacob Milgrom.


8/416

vii

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xivIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Part 1Ritual, Meaning, and System

1. The Locus of Ritual Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Ritual actions have no inherent meaning 4Ritual = activity + attached meaning 6

A structural approach is inadequate for identifying ritualmeaning 9

The meaning/function of a ritual is the goal assigned to itsactivity system 12

A ritual is an activity system with a special kind of goal 14Systems theory concepts can aid interpretation of Israelite

rituals 18

The biblical text provides instructions for physicalperformance and interpretations of activities 21Conclusion 24

2. The System of tafjRituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25In the final form of the biblical text, the Day of Atonement

rituals function within the larger system of Israeliterituals 25

Challenges to the unity of Leviticus 16 do not preventconsideration of the Day of Atonement rituals as a

system 31Scholars present diverse interpretations regarding the role ofthe special Day of Atonement services 37

Conclusion 42

Part2Purification Offerings Performed throughout the Year

3. Outer-Altar Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45The ritual procedure includes some activities that are

mentioned in the text and others that are not 47The overall goal/meaning of an outer-altar purification offeringfor sin is to purge evil on the offerers behalf, prerequisite toforgiveness 49


9/416

Contentsviii

Activity components contribute to the overall goal 52Conclusion 70

4. Outer-Sanctum Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71The ritual procedure includes some activities that are

mentioned in the text and others that are not 71The sevenfold sprinkling of blood before the veil is

performed in front (east) of the incense altar 72The overall goal/meaning of an outer-sanctum purification

offering for sin is to purge evil on the offerers behalf,prerequisite to forgiveness 80

Activity components contribute to the overall goal 87Conclusion 90

5. Purification-Offering Flesh: Prebend or Expiation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91When priests eat the flesh of purification offerings at which

they have officiated, they contribute to expiation 91The priests participate withYhwhin bearing the culpability of

the people 99Conclusion 105

6. Purification Offering: Purgation of Sanctuary or Offerer? . . . . . . . . . 106Physical ritual impurities are purified from offerers 112Moral faults are purified from offerers 123The special Day of Atonement purification offerings remove

moral faults and physical impurities from their offerersthrough purgation of the sanctuary 129

Some purification-offering formulas refer to removal of eithermoral faults or physical ritual impurities from offerers 130

An outer-altar purification offering purges the outer altar at thetime of its initial consecration 130

Inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonementpurge the sanctuary and its sancta 133

On the Day of Atonement, a nonsacrificial goat for Azazel is aninstrument to purge the moral faults of the Israelites bycarrying them away 136

Following initial decontamination of the altar, purificationofferings throughout the year, except for the inner-sanctumsacrifices of the Day of Atonement, only purge theirofferers 136

Conclusion 142

7. Pollution of the Sanctuary: Aerial or Only by Direct Contact? . . . . . 144Some serious moral faults pollute the sanctuary from a

distance when they are committed 144Milgroms miasma theory is based on his general theory of

the tafjsacrifice, which generalizes from specific cases ofautomatic defilement 151


10/416

Contents ix

Only inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day ofAtonement can remove automatic defilement 154

Automatic defilement is nonmaterial in nature 158

Legal and biological approaches to sin are intertwined inthe purification-offering system 160

Conclusion 162

8. Blood or Ash Water: Detergent, Metaphorical Carrier Agent,or Means of Passage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Purification-offering blood uniquely serves to carry awaycontamination 164

In outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings, theofferer is the source of defilement carried by the

blood 167A purification offering transfers imperfection in mitigated form

from the offerer toYhwhs sanctuary 176Water mixed with ashes of the red cow can be directly applied

to persons because it is not already carrying theirimpurity 181

Impurity of participants in the red cow ritual comes frompersons to whom the ash water is subsequently applied,rather than constituting some kind of super-sanctity 186

The verb rpkmetaphorically expresses removal of an

impediment to the divine-human relationship 191Conclusion 197

9. The Scope of Expiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198Physical ritual impurities and moral faults are related but

distinct 198Nondefiant sinners can receive the benefit of expiation

through sacrifice, but defiant sinners cannot 202Conclusion 213

Part

3Phases ofrpk

10. Inner-Sanctum Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217On the Day of Atonement, five main rituals are structurally

bound together as a unified system 217Two inner-sanctum purification offerings form a unit 221The purification-offering procedure includes some activities

that are mentioned in the text and others that are not 222Two performances of the inner-sanctum purification-offering

paradigm are interwoven and then merged 229The inner-sanctum purification offerings purge ritualimpurities and moral faults from the three parts of thesanctuary on behalf of the priests and laity, andreconsecrate the outer altar 230


11/416

Contentsx

The inner-sanctum purification offerings accomplish rpkthatis beyond forgiveness 233

Activity components contribute to the overall goal 235

Conclusion 24011. The Purification Ritual of Azazels Goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

The live goat is banished from the sanctuary court to thewilderness 242

The overall goal of the ritual with Azazels goat is to banishmoral faults from the Israelite camp 243

Confession and leaning two hands serve to gather the moralfaults and transfer them to Azazels goat 244

The tafjof Azazels goat is a unique, nonsacrificial

purification ritual 246Purgation (rpk) on the live goat returns the moral faults of theIsraelites to their source: Azazel 261

Conclusion 265

12. Two Major Phases of Sacrificial rpk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267Some scholars have argued for one phase of sacrificial

rpk 267The one-phase theory is not adequately supported by the

biblical data 273

There are two phases of sacrificial rpkfor expiable sins 274The two-phase theory accounts for data that would otherwisebe problematic 277

Conclusion 284

13. Trajectories of Evils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285The words [vp, tafj, and w[represent distinct categories of

evil 285Categories of evil have different dynamic properties 291Categories of evil follow different trajectories 298

The purpose of the Day of Atonement is to preserve the justiceof Yhwhs administration 300Conclusion 302

Part4Cult and Theodicy

14. Divine Justice and the Cost of Kindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305The Day of Atonement is Israels judgment day 305The Israelites are to demonstrate their continuing loyalty

toYhwhon the Day of Atonement 310Moral cleansing beyond forgiveness recognizes the need forloyalty to endure 316


12/416

Contents xi

Yhwhs kindness/mercy carries a cost of judicialresponsibility 318

Conclusion 323

15. Divine Presence and Theodicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324The Israelite cult involves theodicy on the corporate

level 324Yhwhmeted out retributive justice from his sanctuary 329Ritual remedies for human imperfection enact theodicy 331Conclusion 333

16. Loyalty and Royalty in Hebrew Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334Numbers 14 illustrates divine sin-bearing 334Some narratives concerning David and Solomon describe a

two-phased treatment of offenses, with loyalty as thedecisive factor in the ultimate verdict 337

Conclusion 353

17. Yearly Accountability in Mesopotamian Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355The Nanshe New Year 355There are similarities between the Nanshe New Year and the

Israelite Day of Atonement 356There are differences between the Nanshe New Year and the

Israelite Day of Atonement 360The Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring 362There are similarities between the Babylonian ceremonies of

Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement 363There are differences between the Babylonian ceremonies of

Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement 370Final days of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, like

the Israelite Day of Atonement, involve accountability forloyalty and determination of destiny 374

Conclusion 378

18. Conclusion:Cult and Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383Index of Authors 383Index of Scripture 387


13/416

Contentsxii


14/416

xiii

Acknowledgments

To Jacob Milgrom goes the primary credit for stimulating and equippingme to tackle this daunting project. Thanks are also due to other members ofmy Ph.D. committeeProfs. Anne D. Kilmer, Frits Staal, and Ruggero Ste-faninifor their contribution to the 1992 dissertation (Ritual DynamicStructure: Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected Ancient

Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days, University of California atBerkeley)1that laid much of the methodological foundation for the presentwork.

I am grateful for encouragement, feedback, and ideas from BaruchSchwartz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Richard Davidson (my depart-ment chair at Andrews University), Moise Isaac (my student at AndrewsUniversity), Constance Gane (my wife), and Glenn Hartelius (Santa Rosa,California). My secretaryKathy Ekkensand a succession of research as-

sistantsJan Sigvartsen, Oleg Zhigankov, Wann Fanwar, Afolarin Ojewole,and Gregory Arutyunyanhave facilitated collection of secondary sourcematerial.

My wife and daughter, Constance and Sarah, have given loving supportand patient toleration through the long and grueling gestation and birth ofthis book. Last and foremost, I thank God for his Torah and for the opportu-nity to learn from it.

1. Now published as Ritual Dynamic Structure(Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004).


15/416

xiv

Abbreviations

General

Akk. AkkadianAnt. Josephus,Antiquities of the Jewsb. Babylonian TalmudBer. Berakot

CD Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Documentcstr. constructFr. FrenchH Holiness documents, sources, or redactionsag. agigahHor. Horayotinfin. infinitiveKer. Kerithotm. Mishnahmasc. masculine

Mena. MenaotMT Masoretic Textneb New English Biblenjb New Jerusalem Biblenjpsv New Jewish Publication Society Versionnrsv New Revised Standard Versionobj. objectobv. obverseP Priestly documents, sources, or redactionsPesa. Pesaimpf. perfect tense/aspectpl. pluralposs. possessiveprep. prepositionpron. pronoun/pronominalrev. reverseRosHas. RosHassanahrsv Revised Standard VersionSebu. Sebuotsing. singularsubj. subjectsuff. suffixt. Tosefta


16/416

Abbreviations xv

Taan. TaanitTem. TemurahTg. Onq. Targum Onqelos

y. Jerusalem TalmudZeba. Zebaim

Reference Works

AA American AnthropologistAB Anchor BibleABD D. N. Freedman, ed.Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York, 1992AfOBei Archiv fr Orientforschung BeiheftAHW W. von Soden.Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden, 196581

AnBib Analecta BiblicaANET J. B. Pritchard, ed.Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the OldTestament.3rd ed. Princeton, 1969

ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and StudiesAOAT Alter Orient und Altes TestamentAoF Altorientalische ForschungenAOTS Augsburg Old Testament StudiesASORDS American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation SeriesATA Alttestamentliche AbhandlungenATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

AThR Anglican Theological ReviewATS Alttestamentliche StudienAUSDS Andrews University Seminary Dissertation SeriesAUSS Andrews University Seminary StudiesBBR H. Zimmern. Beitrge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. Leipzig,

1901BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexiconof

the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907BEATAJ Beitrge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken

Judentum

BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum LovaniensiumBib BiblicaBibB Biblische BeitrgeBibT Bibliothque ThologiqueBIS Biblical Interpretation SeriesBKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes TestamentBM Beth Miqra (or Beth Mikra)BN Biblische NotizenBO Bibliotheca OrientalisBRLJ Brill Reference Library of Judaism

BSac Bibliotheca SacraBSem Biblical SeminarBSC Bible Students Commentary


17/416

Abbreviationsxvi

BTB Biblical Theology BulletinBZ Biblische ZeitschriftCAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago. Chicago, 1956CahRB Cahiers de la Revue bibliqueCB Century BibleCBC Cambridge Bible CommentaryCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCHL Commentationes Humanarum LitterarumCJ Conservative JudaismCOS W. W. Hallo, ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden, 19972003CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of JudaismCTM Concordia Theological Monthly

CTQ Concordia Theological QuarterlyDARCOM Daniel and Revelation Committee SeriesDSB Daily Study BibleEAC Entretiens sur lAntiquit ClassiqueEgT glise et thologieEncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972ErIsr Eretz IsraelETSS Evangelical Theological Society StudiesEvQ Evangelical QuarterlyEvT Evangelische TheologieExpBib The Expositor s BibleExpTim Expository TimesFAT Forschungen zum Alten TestamentFOTL Forms of the Old Testament LiteratureFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

TestamentsGKC E. Kautzsch, ed. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A. E. Cowley.

2nd ed. Oxford, 1910HALOT L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. M. Richardson. 2 vols.Leiden, 2001HAT Handbuch zum Alten TestamentHKAT Handkommentar zum Alten TestamentHS Hebrew StudiesHSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten TestamentesHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualIB G. A. Buttrick et al., eds. Interpreters Bible. 12 vols. New York, 195157IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

IDBSup K. Crim, ed. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume.Nashville, 1976IJT Indian Journal of TheologyInt Interpretation


18/416

Abbreviations xvii

IRT Issues in Religion and TheologyITC International Theological CommentaryITL International Theological Library

JAGNES Journal of the Association of Graduate Near Eastern Students of theUniversity of California at Berkeley

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJCS Journal of Cuneiform StudiesJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJM P. Joon.A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka.

Subsidia biblica 14/12. Rome, 199193

JQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman

PeriodsJSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement SeriesJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement SeriesJSQ Jewish Studies QuarterlyJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartn, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen

Texte aus Ugarit.AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976LBC Laymans Bible CommentaryLBS Library of Biblical StudiesLes LesonnuLHC Laymans Handy CommentaryMTZ Mnchener theologische ZeitschriftNAC New American CommentaryNCB New Century BibleNEchtB Neue Echter Bibel

NIB The New Interpreters BibleNICOT New International Commentary on the Old TestamentNIVAC NIV Application CommentaryOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrientalisOBT Overtures to Biblical TheologyOr OrientaliaOTG Old Testament GuidesOTL Old Testament LibraryOTM Old Testament MessageOtSt Oudtestamentische Studin

PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish ResearchQD Quaestiones disputataeRB Revue bibliqueRevExp Review and Expositor


19/416

Abbreviationsxviii

RevQ Revue de QumranRIDA Revue internationale des droits de lantiquitRlA Erich Ebeling et al., eds. Reallexikon der Assyriologie.Berlin, 1928

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium SeriesSBONT The Sacred Books of the Old and New TestamentsSCR Studies in Comparative ReligionSFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of JudaismSJLA Studies in Judaism in Late AntiquitySJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSJT Scottish Journal of TheologySKGG Schriften der Knigsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft, geistes-

wissenschaftliche Klasse

SM Studia MoraliaSAW Sitzungen der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in WienSR Studies in ReligionSSAOI Sacra Scriptura Antiquitatibus Orientalibus IllustrataSSN Studia Semitica NeerlandicaST Studia TheologicaTDOT G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, eds. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Trans. J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley,and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, 1974

THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwrterbuch zumAlten Testament. 2 vols. Munich, 197176

ThT Theologisch TijdschriftTLJS Taubman Lectures in Jewish StudiesTLOT E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Trans. M. E. Biddle. Peabody, Massachusetts, 1997TMC The Torah: A Modern CommentaryTOTC Tyndale Old Testament CommentariesTWOT R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old

Testament. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980

TynBul Tyndale BulletinUBL Ugaritisch-biblische LiteraturUBSHS United Bible Societies Handbook SeriesVT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum, SupplementsWBC Word Biblical CommentaryWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

YOS Yale Oriental SeriesZABR Zeitschrift fr altorientalische und biblische RechtsgeschichteZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde derlteren KircheZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche


20/416

xix

Introduction

Through the swirling smoke of Aarons incense, and of scholarly theories,the present volume steps toward the meaning enacted on yriPUKIh" /y, theDay of Purgation, commonly known as Yom Kippuror the Day of Atone-ment. Leviticus 16, which prescribes the rituals of the great Day, could betermed the inner sanctum of the Torah. Here alone, at the heart of the

middle book of the Pentateuch, the high priest approaches the center of an-cient Israelite religion: the deity Yhwhin his awesome Holy of Holies.

Leviticus 16 portrays the character of Yhwh, not by theological assertions,narrative, or even poetry, but by instructions for cultic deeds to be performedin his presence.1The effects of these rites on Yhwhs sanctuary and commu-nity profile harmony between divine justice and kindness.2 Yhwhs way ofdealing with imperfect people of various kinds of character demonstrates hisown holy character.3

By treating moral evil both as relational/legal breach and as pollution, theIsraelite system of tafjrituals (purification offerings = so-called sin offer-ings) addresses both the standing and the state of Yhwhs people. This sys-tem shows the way not only to freedom from condemnation, but also tohealing of character, which is defined in terms of loyalty to Yhwh. Freedomand healing come together on the Day of Atonement, when freedom fromcondemnation previously granted is affirmed at Yhwhs sanctuary for thosewho show themselves loyal to him. In the process, the Israelite cult character-

izes Yhwhas a just king.

1. H. Gese aptly describes cult as worship in ritual procedures (Essays on Bib-lical Theology[trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981] 100).

2. See the observation of M. Douglas that she finds in Leviticus no conflict be-tween internal versus external religion, or justice versus ritual. As I read it, Leviticusmakes a truly brilliant synthesis of two equations: justice of people to people, and jus-tice of people to God (Holy Joy: Rereading LeviticusThe Anthropologist and theBeliever, CJ46 [1994] 10; cf. 1314; cf. F. Crsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social

History of Old Testament Law[trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 306).3. Cf. Ps 77:14[13]K


21/416

Introductionxx

The present work has grown out of part of my 1992 University of Californiaat Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation entitled Ritual Dynamic Structure: SystemsTheory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected Ancient Israelite, Babylonianand Hittite Festival Days. During my dissertation research regarding the Dayof Atonement, I discovered key evidence pointing to two major phases of sac-rificial purgation (pielof rpk) for each expiable sin, both of which are accom-plished through tafj sacrifices. The first phase removes the sin from theofferer (Lev 4, etc.), and the second removes the same sin from the sanctuaryon the Day of Atonement (ch. 16).

My understanding of the tafj is heavily indebted to Jacob Milgromsmonumental contribution, lavish citation of which is necessary in any serious

treatment of this topic. I accept as ineluctable his conclusion that this sacri-fice belongs to a ritual system that was actually performed in preexilic timesand that reflects profound theological and ethical principles. I also follow histranslation of tafjas purification offering and acknowledge defilement ofthe sanctuary from a distance in some cases of wanton sin. At the same time,my two-phase interpretation of purification-offering function (= symbolicmeaning/purpose; see pp. 1218, esp. p. 13) significantly departs from Mil-groms now-famous general tafjtheory, according to which all such sacri-

fices purge the sanctuary or parts thereof, so that only one phase of sacrificialexpiation remedies any given sin.

During the decade following completion of my Ph.D., I have continued totest, refine, and expand my interpretation of purification offerings and theDay of Atonement. In addition to further ritual analysis, examination of He-brew terminology, and interaction with scholarly literature, I have sought im-plications for the character of Israels deity and religion: What difference doesit make whether there are one or two phases of purgation for a given sin? If a

second phase of rpk follows forgiveness, what is its function? Does purgingthe residence of Yhwh, the theocratic King, have meaning that goes beyondmaintaining his presence among his people?

My conclusions are derived from exegetical study of Hebrew ritual texts,informed by controls to ritual analysis that I developed in the course of disser-tation research through critical examination of existing ritual theories and byadapting Brian Wilsons systems theory approach to human activity systems.4

Although I am the first, to my knowledge, to explicitly apply General Systems

4. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure: Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Ap-plied to Selected Ancient Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days (Ph.D. diss.,University of California at Berkeley, 1992); now idem, Ritual Dynamic Structure(Gor-gias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004).


22/416

Introduction xxi

Theory to the study of ritual activity systems in this way, 5I do not regard thisas the dominant aspect of my methodology.

The present work first identifies the locus of meaning attached to ritual ac-tivity systems in general and then applies this methodological basis to the an-cient Israelite system of tafj rituals. Detailed consideration of purificationofferings performed throughout the year sheds light on the way in which theyremedy moral faults and physical ritual impurities by removing these fromthe offerers. Analysis of the Day of Atonement rituals, including terms for theevils that they purge, shows that they provide a second major phase of rpkforexpiable moral faults. This phase constitutes a corporate judgment for thecommunity, through which Yhwhis cleared of judicial responsibility for hav-

ing forgiven guilty people. Yhwhs vindication results in moral clearing forthose who continue to demonstrate loyalty to him, but he rejects those whoare disloyal. These dynamics bring into focus the character of Yhwh, whoseapproach to ensuring the loyalty of his people basically parallels that of someIsraelite monarchs and Mesopotamian deities. For a more detailed preview,see the table of contents, which (at the risk of clarity!) lists my main points asfull sentences.

In the scope and trajectory of the purification-offering process, I have

found that the way Yhwhs cult relates to the imperfections of his peopleshows concern for maintaining his justice when he pardons the loyal but con-demns the disloyal. Thus my alternate tafjsystem ultimately affirms Mil-groms seminal insight that theodicy is at the foundation of the Israelitesacrificial system. It is found not in utterances but in rituals, not in legal stat-utes but in cultic proceduresspecifically, in the rite with aat blood.6

5. Others have applied systems theory concepts to relationships between cultic and

social/cultural systems. See, e.g., F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time andStatus in the Priestly Theology(JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 1415, 19,22. Gorman does recognize that a ritual process can include several distinct seg-ments, each of which completes one step of the process (p. 68 n. 1). He also acknowl-edges that, within a sociocultural system, a ritual system is made up of a number ofdistinct rituals that are related by similar forms, symbols, conceptual categories, and/or purposes (p. 19). R. Payne points out an ascending hierarchy of systems: the par-ticular ritual, the ritual tradition, the religious tradition, the religious culture and thesociety (The Tantric Ritual of Japan: Feeding the Gods, the Shingon Fire Ritual[ata-Piaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 365; Delhi: International Academy of IndianCulture and Aditya Prakashan, 1991] 198).

6. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991)260; repr. fromIsraels Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray, RB83 (1976) 397.


23/416

Introductionxxii


24/416

Part1

Ritual, Meaning, and System


25/416


26/416

3

Chapter 1The Locus of Ritual Meaning

Interpretation of the ancient Israelite ritual system is sufficiently challeng-ing to require methodology that is based on viable ritual theory.1Before be-ginning to investigate the biblical text in order to discover the meaning/

1. On conceptual issues involved in theories regarding ritual and ritualization andperspectives for analyzing them, see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice(New York:Oxford University Press, 1992); idem, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1997). Compare the cautions of G. Kirk regarding use of gen-eralizing ritual theories (e.g., of Mary Douglas, Evans-Pritchard, Leach, Hubert andMauss) that do not account for many of the details found in rituals (Some Method-ological Pitfalls in the Study of Ancient Greek Sacrifice, in Le Sacrifice dans lAntiq-uit [ed. J. Rudhardt and O. Reverdin; EAC 27; Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1981] 4190).D. Wright points out that attempts to distinguish ritual from nonritual activities on the

basis of objective criteria, such as formality and connection with supernatural pow-ers, fail by either overdefining or underdefining the phenomenon of ritual (Ritual inNarrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the UgariticTale of Aqhat[Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2001] 9). The difficulty of formu-lating an adequate, comprehensive definition of everything that could be consideredritual is compounded by the facts that there are degrees of ritual (R. Grimes, RitualCriticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its Theory [SCR; Columbia, SouthCarolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1990] 13), and the broad scope of ritualstudies reaches from ritualization among animals through ordinary interaction ritualto highly differentiated religious liturgy. It includes all types of ritual: celebrations,political ceremonies, funerals, weddings, initiations, and so on (p. 9). Rather than at-

tempting to define ritual, Grimes prefers to deal with the nature of ritual by iden-tifying its family characteristics, only some of which appear in specific instances.These variable characteristics, none of which is unique to ritual and therefore defin-itive, include: performed, formalized, repetitive, collective, patterned, traditional,highly valued, condensed, symbolic, perfected, dramatic, paradigmatic, mystical,adaptive, and conscious. When these qualities begin to multiply, when an activitybecomes dense with them, it becomes increasingly proper to speak of it as ritualized,if not a rite as such (p. 14; cf. 13, 15). Ritual is not a single kind of action. Rather,it is a convergence of several kinds we normally think of as distinct. It is an impuregenre. Like opera, which includes other genresfor example, singing, drama, andsometimes even dancinga ritual may include all these and more (p. 192; repr.

from Infelicitous Performances and Ritual Criticism, Semeia41 [1988] 1045). Onmethodological problems involved in theories regarding the sacrificial category ofrituals, see A. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East(ASORDS 1; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975) 317.


27/416

Chapter 14

function of tafj rituals, including those performed on the Day of Atonement,we must ask where the meaning of a ritual resides. Is it to be found in the physi-cal activities themselves, as prescribed or described by the text, or in the inter-pretations of these actions, cryptic as they may be, that the text provides?

Since rituals involve activity, the ideal way to study them is by direct obser-vation. But our only access to ancient rituals is through texts, which only re-flect rituals, without fully capturing the ritual experience. Since we mustview such rituals through the filter of texts, our quest for the locus of their rit-ual meaning must take into account both the nature of ritual itself and thenature of ritual text.2As R. Grimes points out, investigation of ritual as perfor-mance should inform readings of ancient ritual texts even though usual

methods of field study, which are difficult enough, are not possible, becausein all but the most bookish traditions, ritual texts exist to serve ritual enact-ments, not the other way around.3

Ritual actions have no inherent meaning

Examination of ritual actions alone cannot yield their meaning becauseactions have no inherent meaning. F. Staal, a ritual theorist specializing inVedic rituals, demonstrates this by showing that a given ritual action can have

more than one meaning.4In the Israelite cult we can adduce an example of polyvalence that will

later play a pivotal role in our analysis of purification-offering function. In theouter sanctum of the Israelite sanctuary, the high priest sprinkles blood seventimes before the veil as part of purification (tafj) offerings on behalf ofhimself and of the community, respectively (Lev 4:6, 17). During the specialDay of Atonement purification offerings, he sprinkles blood seven times inthe inner sanctum (16:1415), the outer sanctum (v. 16babbreviated), and

on the altar in the courtyard (v. 19). Although 4:6 and 17 do not state themeaning of their sevenfold sprinklings, 16:16a explains such aspersions in theinner sanctum as effecting purgation (rpk) of this area from the impuritiesand moral faults of the Israelites. Later in the same ritual, however, v. 19

2. F. Gorman remarks that it would be helpful if J. Milgrom clarified his under-standing of the nature of ritual. For example, what constitutes a ritual or ritual activity?

Are rituals to be understood in terms of their performance and enactment or primarilyin terms of the ideas to which they point? (review of Leviticus 116: A New Transla-

tion with Introduction and Commentary, by Jacob Milgrom, JBL 112 [1993] 326).3. Grimes, Ritual Criticism,9.4. F. Staal, Rules without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras and the Human Sciences (New

York: Peter Lang, 1989)12729, 131, 134, 330.


28/416

The Locus of Ritual Meaning 5

attributes another meaning to the sevenfold sprinkling on the outer altar: to(re)consecrate (vdq) it.5Thus, the same activity carries two related but dis-tinct functions in the same ritual.6Obviously this activity did not simply haveone inherent meaning. Thus T. Vriezen was inaccurate when he claimed thatthe sevenfold sprinklings in Lev 4 and 16:1415 resemble each other somuch, that another conclusion cannot well be possible than this, namely:these ceremonies have all the same meaning: they are a manner of hallowingthe blood.7

F. Staal explains the variability of relationships between actions and mean-ings: the activity itself has no inherent meaning, but it can carry meaningthat is assigned to it from a source such as culture or religious authority. 8 Ex-

amples of this principle are familiar to anyone who has experienced morethan one culture. The meaning (or lack of meaning) of a given gesture, suchas shaking the head from side to side or holding out the hand in a certain way,depends on how it is interpreted within a given culture. M. Wilson refers tocultural idioms, accepted forms of expression, which frequently recur, butgoes on to point out that, though one learns the symbolism of a culture asone learns the language, and is aware that certain forms of expression arecommon, one cannot predict with certainty what symbols will be used in a

ritual, any more than one can predict what symbols a poet will use.9Simi-larly, B. Malina points out that sacrifice is symbolic behavior, and symbolsare notorious for being polyvalent, fused, and multi-meaninged.10

Recognizing that ritual actions have no inherent meaning aids ritualanalysis by sparing us the trouble of searching for some holy grail of essen-tial meaning and by keeping us from unjustifiably importing meaning from

5. A. Bchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First

Century(LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 266; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116 (AB 3; NewYork: Doubleday, 1991)1033, 103738.6. T. Vriezen regards the sprinkling in the inner sanctum as consecration and on

the outer altar as lustration (The Term Hizza: Lustration and Consecration, OtSt 7[1950] 22833). F. Gorman recognizes that the function of sprinkling varies from oneritual to another, but he takes the purpose of this act as purification both in Lev 16:14and in 19 (Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus[ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997] 9).

7. Vriezen, The Term Hizza, 232.8. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 12729, 134, 137, 140, 330; cf. Milgrom, Leviti-

cus 116,279: Ritual substances have no intrinsic force: they are powered by the will

of God.9. M. Wilson, Nyakyusa Ritual and Symbolism,AA 56 (1954) 236; cf. 229, 237.10. B. Malina, Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political

Religion, BTB 26 (1996) 37; cf. Wilson, Nyakyusa Ritual, 237.


29/416

Chapter 16

one context to another because we incorrectly assume that the function ofidentical actions must be the same. For example, we should not importthe meaning of one sevenfold sprinkling of blood (Lev 16:1416) or another(v. 19) from the special Day of Atonement context to Lev 4, assuming that inthe latter passage the same kind of activity must also purge or reconsecratepart of the sanctuary.11In fact, we will find that it serves another functionin Lev 4.

N. Kiuchi states at the outset of his investigation into the purification offer-ing that we know little about the meaning of this ritual because the text sel-dom refers explicitly to the meaning of its activities.12 His solution is asfollows: Nevertheless, we shall endeavour to point out some hints in the text

itself. In the case of multiple interpretations the criterion for choice will bewhether a suggested interpretation can be coherently applied to the same actsin other contexts.13This is a sensible and helpful procedure, provided that itslimitations are kept in mind. The danger is interpretive leveling by importingmeaning from one context to another. Kiuchi implies some kind of controlwhen he refers to the need for coherence, but scholars have produced differ-ent kinds of coherence that imbue mutually exclusive interpretations with ap-pearances of logic and heuristic effectiveness. How do we validly control

coherence? We will pursue this question below.

Ritual = activity + attached meaning

While I agree with Staal that actions, including ritual ones, have no inher-ent meaning (see above), I part company with him when he goes on to arguethat, because activities are intrinsically meaningless and rituals consist simplyof rule-governed activities, rituals must be intrinsically meaningless.14Even

11. W. Gilders criticizes Milgrom: his work on ritual and sacrifice lacks adequatetheoretical reflection on the nature of ritual and its symbolic-communicative func-tion. Milgrom seems, generally, to assume that ritual acts are univalent (Blood Ritualin the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power[Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,2004] 34). Compare A. Schenkers response to Milgrom, who builds his general the-ory of tafjsacrifices on explicit indications of Lev 16 that special sacrifices of thisclass purge the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Interprtations rcentes et di-mensions spcifiques du sacrifice aat, Bib 75 [1994] 60; cf. 61). We will reviewMilgroms approach in detail later in this volume.

12. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and

Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 1718.13. Ibid., 18.14. Staal concludes: Ritual may be defined, in approximate terms, as a system of

acts and sounds, related to each other in accordance with rules without reference to


30/416


though in some cases it may be true that a ritual is performed only because itis the tradition to do so,15 all ritual has some kind of meaning or it is not rit-ual.16Physical activities alone do not constitute ritual or set it apart from non-ritual activity. Some kinds of nonritual activity systems, for example, games,entertainment, music, and dance, can also involve lack of concern for practi-cal results and be governed by rules. So it is not enough to know that ritualactivities are rule-governed and impractical.17

I would contend that, even if a ritual is fossilized in the sense that itsmeaning has been lost, the tradition of performing it as a ritual is remem-bered because at some time in the past it was believed to do something overand above the physical cause and effect of its activities. If an activity system

was never believed to have any kind of efficacy, whether religious, magical,social, or otherwise, I would not regard it as a ritual, at least not in the fullsense of the word.

Without some kind of attached meaning, we would not know that ritualactivities constitute a cohesive activity system, let alone a ritual. Because ac-tivities such as leaning one hand on the head of a sacrificial animal (e.g.,Lev 4:29) and applying its blood and suet to an altar (vv. 3031) do not con-tribute to any recognizable practical goal, their presence in an activity system

cannot be justified on purely physical grounds. Physical activities alone areinadequate for unifying and bounding activity systems that constitute rituals.So rituals must consist of physical activities plus meaning that is attached tothem.18 In this sense we can say that ritual consists of symbolic activity. 19

But in this context the term symbolic should not be taken to mean virtual

15. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 11516, 134. However, E. Vogt points out that,although the most common response of a Mesoamerican native informant to a fieldresearcher regarding the significance of a ritual is its the custom, such informantscan take so much for granted that it does not occur to them to explicate ritual signif-icance. In a particular case, Their response to further interviews were to the effectthat anyone in his right mind knows that! (Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Anal-

ysis of Zinacanteco Rituals [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1976] 1, 2, 4).

16. Cf. L. Grabbe, Leviticus (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 43; cf. 75.17. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure(Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Pis-

cataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004) 4345; cf. Kirk, Some Methodological Pitfalls,

5455.18. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 1823, 5060.19. Cf. F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly

Theology(JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 19, 2225.

meaning (Rules without Meaning,433); cf. idem, The Meaninglessness of Ritual,Numen 26 (1975) 222.


31/416

Chapter 18

unreality. As F. H. Gorman recognizes, when Aaron places the sins of thepeople on Azazels goat (16:21), this

is not simply a symbolic act. The sins are ritually placed on the goat so thatit may carry them into the wilderness (certainly not a symbolic carrying,which, if taken to extremes, might eventuate in a symbolic goat!). The highpriest actualizes or concretizes the sins through confession and puts themon the goat, which carries them into the wilderness, away from the camp.20

In other words, in ritual a nonmaterial entity (e.g., sin) can be treated as if itbelongs to the material domain, so that it can be subject to physical interac-tion and manipulation.

A certain collection of activities makes up a purification offering becausethe Israelite religious system has attached meaning to physical activities thatwould otherwise be incoherent and meaningless. This concept has importantcorollaries:

1. The religious system can assign different meanings to a given activity.21For example, aside from the different functions of blood aspersions inLev 16:1416, 19 (see above), the suet of a well-being offering ispresented to Yhwhas an hVaI, food gift (3:35, 911, 1416), but thesuet of a purification offering is not (e.g., 4:810, 19, 26, 31, 35).22

2. A given activity can carry more than one meaning at the same time. Forexample, an officiating priests privilege and duty of eating purification-offering flesh (6:19[26], 22[29]) can simultaneously function asappropriation of his agents commission for carrying out a transactionbetween Yhwhand the offerer (7:7) and contribute in some way toexpiation (10:17). It is not necessary to argue for one of these functionsto the exclusion of the other (see ch. 5 of the present work).

3. Different activities can carry the same meaning. Thus a grain offering

can function as a tafj sacrifice (5:1113) in place of a living creature(cf. vv. 610).23

20. Gorman, Divine Presence,97.21. Cf. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 12729, 134, 330.22. Milgrom, Leviticus 116, 16162; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985) 1:65; cf. 3:188. For the idea that hVaIrefers to agift (cf. Ugaritic itt)rather than to a fire offering (derived from vaE,fire), whichdoes not account for the biblical range of usage, see J. Hoftijzer, Das SogenannteFeueropfer, Hebrische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter

Baumgartner (VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 11434; G. R. Driver, Ugaritic andHebrew Words, Ugaritica6 (1969) 18184.23. Regarding ritual placement of one or two hands on the head of an animal,

Kiuchi states a solid theoretical premise from which to begin investigation: the


32/416


4. We are as dependent on a ritual tradition to provide us with meaningsat every stage of development as we must rely on that tradition for rulesgoverning performance of activities. When it comes to the ancientIsraelite system of rituals, we have no viable choice but to acceptindications of meaning in our primary source of information: thebiblical text. From the perspective of the Pentateuch in its final form,the religious authority who fixed the activities and meanings of theIsraelite ritual system was Yhwhhimself, through the mediation ofMoses.24Applying blood to the altar had no inherent efficacy. Its rpkfunction derived solely from the authority of Yhwh.25

Closely related to the concept just described, Yhwhwas believed to haveassigned ritual roles to physical objects that have no inherent meaning. Forexample, Yhwh established the function of the outer altar as an object towhich blood was applied (cf. Lev 17:11). This explains why the altar had tobe consecrated to him before this function could commence (Lev 8:11, 15).Since meanings of the altar and blood derive not from their intrinsic qualitiesbut from Yhwhs mandate,26E. Gerstenberger is wrong when he asserts re-garding Israelite animal sacrifices: As is the case among other peoples, bloodis considered to be a magical substance efficacious in and of itself.27

A structural approach is inadequatefor identifying ritual meaning

Advocating a structural approach, P. Jenson reacts against dynamistic rit-ual interpretation that attributes the effectiveness of a ritual to the power ofthe particular symbols and actions of which it is comprised:28

24. Cf. R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:19: A Case in ExegeticalMethod(FAT 2; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 6.

25. A. Rodrguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs,Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 242.

26. Regarding the blood, compare A. Schenker, Vershnung und Shne(BibB 15;Freiburg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981) 108.

27. E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary(trans. D. Stott; OTL; Louisville,Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 5960.28. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World

(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 151.

difference in form as such does not necessarily imply a difference in the meaning ofthe gesture (The Purification Offering,113). In her study of African rituals, M. Wilsonfound: Contrary to the commonly accepted idea that ritual is more stable than the in-terpretation of it, we found the same conceptions expressed in varying ritual forms(Nyakyusa Ritual, 229).


33/416

Chapter 110

Instead of an atomistic approach, it is preferable to begin with the move-ment and structure of the sacrificial ritual as a whole, since this larger con-text should determine the primary significance of the individual symbols.

The value of a structural approach is that it looks for patterns at the level ofthe complete ritual. The symbols and actions will be combined in such away as to communicate the nature and purpose of the sacrifice. Certainmeanings of a multivalent symbol will not be stressed in a ritual in whichthey are unnecessary.29

The advantage of such a structural methodology is that it takes into accountthe fact that rituals are hierarchical systems of activity in which individualactivities are included and shaped by higher-level goals to which they areintended to contribute (see below). Thus the full significance of an individ-ual ritual or ritual activity can only appear within the context of the ritual sys-tem to which it belongs.30 Jenson recognizes that the variety of functions/meanings borne by many common ritual activities arises from the variety ofcontexts in which they appear.31Therefore the analyst should begin from thecontextually conditioned top of the systems hierarchy rather than workingfrom the bottom up by starting with the individual activities.

While the structural approach is attractive, it is inadequate by itself. AsStaal has pointed out, actions have no inherent meaning. So whether you be-

gin from the top of a collection of activities or from the bottom, meaning willnot appear as the sum of the parts if these parts consist exclusively of physicalactions. In fact, because activity systems are defined by their goals, we maynot know that one constitutes a ritual system at all unless we have some clueregarding its goal.

For example, suppose we observe a man washing his feet outside a reli-gious shrine on a hot day. Is he (a) cooling himself, whether or not he entersthe shrine, (b) making sure that he will not soil the carpet in the shrine when

he enters, (c) ritually purifying himself preparatory to worship, or (d) engag-ing in a core act of worship? Even if we continue to watch the mans subse-quent behavior, without knowing how his actions fit into his world view, wewill remain unsure whether his actions constitute a complete activity systemor belong to a larger activity system, let alone whether they are ritual in na-

29. Ibid., 152.30. Wilson, Nyakyusa Ritual, 229; M. Douglas, Deciphering a Meal, Implicit

Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology (London: Routledge, 1975) 23151;

D. Wright suggests that such a structural or contextual approach should be applied tothe Israelite states/situations of impurity (Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writ-ings of the Bible, Koroth 9 [1988] 192).

31. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 152.


34/416


ture and, if so, what they might mean. How can we even begin to employ astructural approach, unless we import one or more a prioriassumptions thatinvalidate our analysis from the outset, when we do not know whether we arelooking at the top or the bottom of a ritual or nonritual activity hierarchy?

Jenson admits that a structural approach may not provide all the answersand suggests that a historical approach may be better suited to dealing withanomalies:

There is a conservative tendency in the cult to preserve actions and symbolswhen their original function has ceased, although it is also the case thatthe symbols can be reinterpreted in a way consistent to the new context.Further, the meaning of individual symbols may transcend the specific pur-

poses of a ritual.32

Granted that rituals can undergo fossilization and/or reinterpretation,33doesa diachronic perspective account for that which a structural approach can-not? Returning to the above illustration, suppose we revisit the shrine afterfive years on another summer day and observe the same man performing thesame action, except that after he bathes his feet he also washes his hands. Willthis diachronic information shed light on the boundaries of the activity sys-tem and its symbolic meaning, if there is any? No, because a change from

one unknown to another unknown does not yield something that is known.If we know that a man washing part of his body is a practicing Hindu, Bud-

dhist, Muslim, Jew, or Christian, or something else, we may be able to narrowdown the options because he participates in the current phase of a living tra-dition to which we have access. We can even test our results by asking theman what he is doing. But how do we interpret an ancient ritual when wecannot even physically observe its performance, let alone discuss its signifi-cance with someone who participates in the tradition to which it belongs?

D. Davies, who employs a structuralist anthropological approach, explic-itly presupposes that the form, that is, symbolic patterning, of Israelite ritualsprovides their meaning when they are viewed within their covenant con-text.34Thus Davies acknowledges the need for a conceptual element (cove-nant) provided by the Israelite world view. It is true that, within the Torah,

32. Ibid.33. H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in

Judaism(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 56.

34. D. Davies, An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus, ZAW 89 (1977) 392. Forthe idea that cultic expiation should be understood within the context of an interper-sonal covenant between God and Israel, see L. Shelton, A Covenant Concept of

Atonement, WTJ 19 (1984) 9296.


35/416

Chapter 112

cult and covenant are inextricably linked.35The divine covenant with thepatriarchs and the nation of Israel provides background for the special mani-festation of that relationship through the residence of Yhwhamong the Israel-ites at the tabernacle. Continuation of Yhwhs Presence there depends onobservance of his laws, including those that directly relate to the cultic centerby regulating the ritual system. However, unless the functions/meanings ofthe ritual forms themselves are understood to a certain degree, such an over-arching covenant context appears too general to supply adequate specificityto our interpretation of the rituals.

The meaning/function of a ritual is the goal

assigned to its activity systemIt almost goes without saying that a ritual is an activity system. But the fact

that rituals share properties with nonritual activity systems has profound im-plications for ritual analysis.

In B. Wilsons study of nonritual human activity systems, he points out thatthe goal/raison dtrefor such a system is to accomplish a particular transfor-mation through an activity process.36So it is not the activities that define thesystem but the goal that determines which activities are necessary to achieve

the desired change.The concept just described applies to ritual activity systems, which are also

dynamic transformation processes.37For example, we found earlier that Lev

35. On the complex relationship between the Israelite covenant and cult, see, e.g.,B. J. Schwartz, The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai, inTexts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Fox et al.;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 131; cf. 130, 13334.

36. B. Wilson, Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications (Chichester:

Wiley, 1984) 16, 26.37. Cf. H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function (trans. W. Halls;Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964; orig. 1898); A. van Gennep, The Rites ofPassage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); V. Turner, The Ritual Process:Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine, 1969); I. Gruenwald, Rituals and RitualTheory in Ancient Israel(BRLJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003) viiviii, 1417, 2526, 188, 198201; Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual,21527. Elsewhere Gorman builds upon vanGenneps work on rites of passage to suggest a general typology/taxonomy of priestlyrituals: (1) Rituals of founding, such as the consecration and inauguration of the sanc-tuary described in Lev 89, create a normative state. (2) Rituals of maintenance, suchas those of the cultic calendar in Num 2829, maintain a preexisting order. (3) Rituals

of restoration, such as rituals of purification, accomplish restoration to the normativestate (Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status, in History and In-terpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes [ed. M. Graham, W. Brown, andJ. Kuan; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993] 4764). Cf. A. R. S. Kennedy


36/416


16:16 expresses the goal of special purification offerings: to purge the innersanctum from ritual impurities and moral faults. The goal is to effect transfor-mation (purging) through activities, namely, by sprinkling blood (vv. 1415).The goal defines the activities that are included and the way they are per-formed. Achieving the goal constitutes the basic function/raison dtre of theritual, which is the same thing as the meaning assigned to it by religious au-thority. There may be higher-level functions within the society, but this is thebasic function.

Like other human activity systems, rituals are contructed hierarchically,with smaller systems constituting components of larger systems. Systems ateach level are defined by their goals, with subgoals defining subsystems.

Thus on the Day of Atonement, a pair of elaborate purification offerings havethe overall goal of purging from the entire sanctuary the impurities andmoral faults of the Israelite priesthood and laity (Lev 16; for summary, seev. 33). These sacrifices include subsystems that achieve the smaller goals ofpurging the inner sanctum (v. 16a), the outer sanctum (v. 16b), and the outeraltar (vv. 1819).

Within each system, at each hierarchical level, activities can have differentrelationships to achievement of the relevant goal. An activity may be prereq-

uisite to another activity that fulfills the goal, or it may be postrequisite. Forinstance, slaughtering an animal (4:29) is prerequisite to application of itsblood to the horns of the altar (v. 30a), following which pouring out the re-maining blood at the base of the altar is postrequisite disposal (v. 30b).

Understanding the nature of ritual enhances our sensitivity to ritualtexts. A. Noordtzij says that Lev 16:2528, prescribing the burning of tafjsuet on the altar, disposal of carcasses, and personal purification of ritual as-sistants on the Day of Atonement do not appear to preserve the chronologi-

cal order of the activities and takes this to indicate the composite characterof the chapter.38But he fails to understand that the activities in question aresimply postrequisite to the core procedures involved in purging the sanctu-ary by blood and banishing moral evils from the camp to the wilderness ona live goat (vv. 1422).

38. A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1982) 170.

and J. Barr on the reparation (va; so-called guilt) offering: The occasion of thesacrifice may then reasonably be held to be restoration or reintegration to normality

after an offence (Sacrifice and Offering, Dictionary of the Bible [ed. J. Hastings; rev.ed. F. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley; New York: Scribners, 1963] 875).


37/416

Chapter 114

A ritual is an activity system with a special kind of goal

As is well known, definitions of ritualand riteare legion.39As a beginning

example, we can cite F. Gorman, who follows anthropological theory whenhe defines ritualas a complex performance of symbolic acts, characterizedby its formality, order, and sequence, which tends to take place in specific sit-uations, and has as one of its central goals the regulation of the social or-der.40He explains: Ritual is a way of enacting meaning in ones existence inthis world. It is a way of construing, actualizing, realizing, and bringing intobeing a world of meaning and ordered existence. Ritual is, thus, seen as ameans of enacting ones theology.41

Working with Nyakyusa culture, M. Wilson distinguishes between cere-monies and rituals, and in the process points out a crucial additional aspectof ritual:

In short, a ceremony is an appropriate and elaborate form for the expressionof feeling, but a ritual is action believed to be efficacious. A ritual is oftenemedded in ceremonial which is not held to be necessary to the efficacy ofthe ritual but which is felt to be appropriate. Both ritual and ceremonialhave a function in rousing and canalizing emotion, but ritual, by relatingits symbols to some supposed transcendental reality, affects people more

deeply than a ceremony, which some will describe as mere play-acting.42

So that which sets ritual apart is the fact that it is action believed to be effi-cacious through symbolic relationship to some supposed transcendentalreality.43

In my study of rituals as activity systems and analysis of complex ancient Is-raelite, Babylonian, and Hittite religious rituals, I have found Wilsons defini-tion of ritual to be confirmed.44 I realize that in some kinds of ritual theelement of reference to some supposed transcendental reality may not have

to do with belief in one or more supernatural beings.45

Nevertheless, even insecular ritual there is some kind of transcendence. A ritualized version of an

39. For analysis of a wide variety of approaches, see Bell, Ritual Theory.40. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 19.41. Ibid., 232.42. Wilson, Nyakyusa Ritual, 240; cf. B. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural

Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986)13942.

43. See Turner, The Ritual Process,106; cf. 105.

44. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure.45. Wright, Ritual in Narrative,911. As Grimes has shown, the Western idea thatritual is inherently related to belief in supernatural beings or powers does not neces-sarily apply in other cultures (Ritual Criticism, 12).


38/416


activity, such as a meal, may be similar and related to the mundane version ofthe same activity. As C. Bell articulately puts it, the former can be distin-guished as follows:

a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privi-lege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, ac-tivities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specificstrategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privi-leging a qualitative distinction between the sacred and the profane, and

for ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers ofhuman actors.46[italics mine]

Ritual or ritualized activity does not merely communicate as a kind of sign

language. Rather, it is believed to do something that changes reality in a waythat goes beyond the constraints of cause and effect that operate in activitiesbelonging to the mundane physical world that are susceptible to manipula-tion by the performers.

While I admit that my theory of ritual is undoubtedly shaped and limitedto a certain degree by the parameters of the ritual phenomena that I have an-alyzed, which belong to the religious systems of certain ancient Near Easterncultures,47 I offer my working general definition as a heuristic modern

abstraction to facilitate focused reflection, at least within the ancient NearEastern context:

This definition draws most closely from M. Wilson, C. Bell, and my Ph.D. re-search, in which I recognized that human rituals are human activity systems

that accomplish transformation processes.48

46. Bell, Ritual Theory, 74; cf. 9091; cf. Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 1214.47. On the effect of culture on recognition of ritual as such, see Bell, Ritual The-

ory,2056.48. In my dissertation I developed a tentative, working definition of an individual

ritual: An individual ritual is a formulaic activity system carrying out an individual,complete cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is in-volved. With this I also presented a less-technical wording: An individual ritual is anactivity system of which the components/subsystems are fixed in terms of their inclu-

sion, nature, and relative order, and that carries out an individual, complete transfor-mation process in which interaction with one or more entities ordinarily inaccessibleto the material domain takes place (Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 61). By formu-laic or fixed activity, I did not mean that every detail of performance is necessarily

A ritualis a privileged activity system that is believed to carry out atransformation process involving interaction with a reality ordinarilyinaccessible to the material domain.


39/416

Chapter 116

A religious ritualis a ritual that involves belief in a deity. The ancientIsraelite sanctuary rituals investigated in the present volume obviously belongto this type. In biblical religion, the deity Yhwhis ordinarily inaccessible, be-yond reach of the earthly material domain (cf. Job 11:7), unless he chooses tomake himself accessible (e.g., Gen 18). Therefore, scientific investigation ofphenomena such as rituals should take into account what M. Douglas refersto as the non-Newtonian physics upon which religion rests:

Spiritual beings are so-called just because they are non-corporeal, and soenjoy the powers of ubiquity, invisibility and knowledge of what will hap-pen at a later time. They can also confer these powers on their adepts. Thisdimension has to be accepted by the anthropologist if there is going to be

any understanding by explanations, excuses and accusation.Anthropologists are not happy about using the word supernatural to de-

scribe religious beliefs which defy the way we see the laws of nature. Forone thing, we should not use a vocabulary which assumes that ghosts andangels are not natural.49

A sacrifice is a religious ritual in which something of value is ritually trans-ferred to the sacred realm for utilization by a deity. This is close to V. Valerisdescription of sacrifice as any ritual action that includes the consecration ofan offering to a deity.50See also B. Malinas definition: sacrifice is a ritualin which a deity or deities is/are offered some form of inducement, renderedhumanly irretrievable, with a view to some life-effect for the offerer(s).51

49. M. Douglas, Holy Joy: Rereading LeviticusThe Anthropologist and the Be-liever, CJ46 (1994) 7.

50. V. Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii (trans.P. Wissing; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 37.

51. Malina, Mediterranean Sacrifice, 37; cf. 3839 for implications of this defini-

tion. J. van Baal distinguishes between offering and sacrifice: I call an offeringany act of presenting something to a supernatural being, a sacrifice an offering accom-panied by the ritual killing of the object of the offering (Offering, Sacrifice andGift, Numen 23 [1976] 161; cf. 177). But this definition of sacrificeraises a problem.

specified but simply that activities are specified at least to some extent, to varying lev-els of detail. The very existence of ritual prescriptions and descriptions indicates thisfactor, without which there would be no limits to the kinds of activity that could ac-complish a given efficacy. Neither did I intend my use of the term formulaic to im-

ply formality, by contrast with informal activity. Notice that both in my dissertationand in the present volume I use the term ritualwith reference to specific enactments,which are what Grimes would call rites when he distinguishes between rite, rit-ual, and ritualizing: A rite is a specific enactment; ritual is the general idea ofwhich a rite is a specific instance, and ritualizing is the process of cultivating ritesfrom activities that can be viewed as potential ritual (Ritual Criticism,910).


40/416


I agree with Gorman that the relationship between the biblical ritual textsand the system of belief behind them is complex, so that a ritual enactmentmay be believed to affect the interrelated states of an individual, society, thecosmos, and the deity.52But I would emphasize that the ritual effects are be-lieved to result from interaction with the supramundane. This kind of inter-action explains why a ritual packs such an evocative punch: not only is itsmeaning acted out as potent dramatic expression, it is also believed to resultin transformation that nonritual activity cannot achieve.53

Returning to our illustration of the Day of Atonement purification offer-ings that purge the Israelite sanctuary, we see that, unlike nonritual activitysystems, the ritual goal is not achieved as a natural physical result of its activi-

ties. Slaughtering an animal, putting its blood on various parts of a dwellingand its furniture, and then burning the suet and carcass (Lev 16:1128) donot accomplish any kind of cleansing in physical terms. To the contrary, theseactivities create a mess and are impractical and wasteful, transforming a live,valuable animal into bloodstains, smoke, and ashes, none of which are put topractical use. Nevertheless, the text informs us that the goal of another trans-formation is achieved at a higher level: nonphysical pollution, consisting ofritual impurities and moral faults, is purged from the sanctuary of supramun-

dane Yhwhon behalf of the Israelites (vv. 16, 1819, 33). While the activitiesthemselves do not produce this goal through physical cause and effect, as theywould be expected to in ordinary life, they serve as a vehicle for transforma-tion that takes place on the level of symbolic meaning.

The symbolic meaning involved in achieving the goal of the special puri-fication offerings was part of a conceptual system that called for belief. To ac-cept the rules and efficacy of the rituals, the priest and his people would need

52. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 3738.53. Cf. E. Leach regarding religious ritual: the purpose of religious performance

is to provide a bridge, or channel of communication, through which the power of the

gods may be made available to otherwise impotent men (The Logic of Sacrifice, inAnthropological Approaches to the Old Testament [ed. B. Lang; Philadelphia: Fortress,1985] 137; cf. H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function [trans.W. Halls; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964; orig. 1898] 97).

In Lev 5:1113, an offering of grain explicitly serves as a tafj, which is the functionalequivalent of a tafjsacrifice consisting of a sheep or goat (v. 6). So the grain servesas a sacrifice, but obviously it is not subject to ritual killing. True, part of it is burnedon the altar (v. 12), but any attempt to regard this destruction as equivalent to slaughterfounders on the fact that part of a tafjgoat or sheep is also burned on the altar (4:31,35) subsequent to slaughter (vv. 29, 33, respectively).So sacrifice involves ritual trans-fer to a deity for his/her utilization, whether killing is needed or not.


41/416

Chapter 118

to believe in the existence of Yhwh, the reality of the pollution that neededto be removed, and the effectiveness of the prescribed ritual actions requiredto carry out the desired transformation.

Systems theory concepts can aid interpretation ofIsraelite rituals

As mentioned in the introduction, my 1992 Ph.D. dissertation developed acontrolled methodology of ritual analysis that incorporated an adaptation ofB. Wilsons systems theory approach to human activity systems.54 The pri-mary usefulness of applied systems theory for this kind of study is to highlightproperties of rituals, many of which have been recognized by scholars such asR. Knierim,55 in light of known properties of nonritual human activity sys-tems. I do not hereby import an alien methodology in an attempt to fill gapsin our understanding of ancient Israelite rituals.56Rather, I simply recognizethat the category of human activity systems includes human rituals and there-fore contend, with C. Bell, that the latter should not be treated as isolatedphenomena:

When returned to the context of human activity in general, so-called ritual

acts must be seen first in terms of what they share with all activity, then interms of how they set themselves off from other practices. . . . ritual actsmust be understood within a semantic framework whereby the significanceof an action is dependent upon its place and relationship within a contextof all other ways of acting: what it echoes, what it inverts, what it alludes to,what it denies.57

While the present work includes only a fraction of the explicit theoreticaland methodological detail and technical language contained in my disserta-

54. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure; cf. Wilson, Systems.55. R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:19: A Case in Exegetical Method

(FAT 2; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1992).56. So I do not plead guilty to charges leveled by N. Lemche, On the Use of

System Theory, Macro Theories and Evolutionistic Thinking in Modern OT Re-search and Biblical Archaeology, SJOT 2 (1990) 7388. C. Queen concludes his ex-tensive critique of systems theory: The contribution of systems theory in religiousstudies, both in its experiments and applications to date, and in its heuristic potentialfor future development, lies in its unique ability to integrate the findings of many dis-ciplines, to respect the worlds of meaning which they purvey, and to place all of this

in a non-dogmatic, but irreducible Context that is the source of religious experience(Systems Theory in Religious Studies: A Methodological Critique [Ph.D. diss.,Boston University, 1986] 294).

57. Bell, Ritual Theory, 220; cf. 221.


42/416


tion, prominent properties of ritual activity systems and their goals, whichhave already been introduced in earlier sections of this chapter, implicitly in-form all of my ritual analyses:

1. Achieving its goal of carrying out a given transformation constitutes thefunction of a given ritual, which is the same thing as its meaning.58Soby telling us the goal, the text supplies the function/meaning. Theremay be higher-level social functions, but this is the basic function.

2. The goal defines the ritual and its boundaries because activitiesincluded in the ritual are those that contribute to its goal.59

3. Like other human activity systems, a ritual accomplishes physical

transformation.60

However, carrying out such transformation does notachieve the goal of the ritual as a natural physical result. Rather, ritualactivities serve as a vehicle to accomplish a higher-leveltransformation.61

4. Acceptance of the efficacy and rules of an Israelite ritual requiresreligious belief in harmony with a conceptual system, of which theritual serves as an expression. As presented in the Bible, the Israeliteritual system is an open system in the sense that it interfaces with thecultural environment of the Israelite community. This environmentincludes the suprasystem constituted by the Israelite religion ofYhwh, of which the ritual system is a part.62

5. Like systems in general, rituals are structured hierarchically, withsmaller systems constituting wholes embedded in larger systems.63Ateach level, a whole possesses distinctive emergent propertiesproperties not possessed by the parts comprising the whole.64In theIsraelite system of rituals the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its

58. See Gruenwald, Rituals, 19899: Meaning is created in relation to, and as aresult of, transformation.

59. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 3032, 5253, 7982. Regarding the definingrole of goals in nonritual activity systems, see Wilson, Systems, 2631.

60. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 2942; Wilson, Systems,1516, 2542.61. On ritual activity as a vehicle for interpreted function, see my Ritual Dynamic

Structure, 5153.62. For an explanation of such systems concepts from a (nonritual) social-systems

perspective, see J. Norlin and W. Chess, Human Behavior and the Social Environment:Social Systems Theory(3rd ed.; Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 3133.

63. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 101. Regarding systems hierarchy in general, see,for example, J. van Gigch, Applied General Systems Theory (2nd ed.; New York:Harper & Row, 1978) 66.

64. Norlin and Chess, Human Behavior,31.


43/416

Chapter 120

parts. A ritual or ritual complex achieves its goal only if it is performedin its entirety, with its activities in the proper order.65

6. Like a higher system, a subsystem is defined by its goal, which is carriedout by a transformation process.66Activities that bring subgoals tocompletion, which could be termed goal-activities, are moresignificant than other tasks that are prerequisite or postrequisite tothem. But such tasks also belong to subsystems because they makenecessary contributions to their goals.67

In the service of ritual theory that informs exegesis, systems theory can aidus in grasping implications of terminology in ritual texts. For instance, in Lev

16:25, the high priest is to burn the suet of the purification offering(taF:j"h"), singular, on the altar. Scholars have been confused by the fact thatthis verse mentions only one purification offering in spite of the fact that ch.16 elsewhere prescribes two such sacrifices to purge the sanctuary on the Dayof Atonement: a bull on behalf of the priests and a goat for the laity. The sin-gular purification offering here does not need to indicate confusion in thetext68or an earlier stage of diachronic development, at which only one tafjsacrifice was performed.69Rather, taF:j"h"is collective, referring to the com-plex consisting of both sacrifices, which are interwoven and then mergedwhen their bloods are simultaneously applied to the outer altar (vv. 1819).So the singular simply acknowledges unity at a higher level of systems hierar-chy, as in Exod 30:10 and Num 29:11, where the same complex is calledyriPUKIh"taF"j", purification offering (sing.) of purgation.

65. See, for example, Lev 10:1618, where Moses was concerned that the inaugu-ral purification offering on behalf of the community was invalidated because thepriests had not eaten the flesh. Cf. m. Yoma 5:7, where performance of Day of Atone-

ment procedures that violates their stipulated order accomplishes nothing at all.66. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 3334, 3742; Wilson, Systems,3135.67. I agree with Knierim that in Lev 1 sacrificial actions differ in function, but I do

not see a qualitative differentiation between sacrificial acts proper and supporting,practical acts necessary for the procedure (Text and Concept,55; cf. 54, 56). Knierimrecognizes that in terms of moving forward to fulfillment of the goal of the ritual,none of the prescribed steps may be missing. Each is equally important. And moreare not necessary (p. 89). So we can say that all of the acts are properly sacrificialbecause they all contribute to the activity system, which is a sacrifice.

68. M. Noth introduces confusion when he notes: In v. 25 a missing remark aboutthe sin offering of vv. 3ba, 6, 1114 is subsequently brought in. As this now means only

one sin offering, the sin-offering goat of vv. 9, 15 is ignored. Contrast vv. 27, 28, wheresomething more is said about the parts left over from both sin-offering animals(Leviticus[OTL; London: SCM, 1965] 126).

69. K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tbingen: Mohr, 1966) 216.

spread is 6 points short


44/416


The biblical text provides instructions for physical performanceand interpretations of activities

D. Baker points out that ritual texts belong to the linguistic category of pro-cedural texts, which are goal oriented.70As G. Anderson recognizes, biblicaltexts provide two kinds of information regarding ritual procedures: instruc-tions for physical performance of activities and interpreted goals of these ac-tivities.71To interpret an ancient Israelite ritual properly, we must distinguishbetween the two levels of information.

For example, in Lev 4 a common Israelite who realizes that he has inad-vertently violated a divine command is required to offer a female goat as a pu-rification offering (v. 28). Verses 2931a stipulate a series of physical activitiesto be performed in the courtyard of the sanctuary: the sinner lays one handon the head of the victim and then slaughters it. The priest puts some of itsblood on the horns of the altar and pours out the rest of the blood at the baseof the altar. The suet is removed from the carcass and the priest burns it onthe altar. Verse 31b states the goal of all this, not on the level of physical causeand effect, but on the higher level of interpreted meaning: Thus the priestshall effect purgation on his behalf, that he may be forgiven.72Notice thatthe text does not explain each action individually. Rather, it provides the over-

all conceptual framework for the activity system as a whole, to which theindividual actions contribute.

Among ritual texts, B. Levine and W. W. Hallo have distinguished betweenprescriptive texts, which tell how rituals should be done, and descriptive texts,which describe how ritual performances were actually carried out on par-ticular occasions.73 The language of a ritual text reveals its prescriptive ordescriptive nature. For example, Lev 4:2235 is clearly prescriptive because itssections begin with conditional clauses (rva . . . , When . . . [v. 22];aw . . . ,

If . . . [vv. 27, 32]) and continue with clauses governed by perfect consecu-tive or imperfect verbs, which provide instructions for a purification-offering

70. D. Baker, Leviticus 17 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison,ZAW 99 (1987) 19293; cf. R. Longacre,An Anatomy of Speech Notions(Lisse:

cult and character purification offerings day of atonement and theodicy

Documents