Page images
PDF
EPUB

III.

SUPPLEMENTARY LAWS RESPECTING SACRIFICES AND PURITY.

CHAPTERS XVI AND XVII.

A. INTRODUCTORY TREATISE ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT1:

ITS ORIGIN AND ITS PLACE IN THE SYSTEM OF HEBREW FESTIVALS.

THE ordinances concerning the Day of Atonement are, in the Pentateuch, introduced with these words, "And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to Aaron thy brother." But there is conclusive evidence to prove, that the Day of Atonement was instituted considerably more than a thousand years after the death of Aaron and Moses. If this statement appears startling to many, no one can fail to perceive the important inferences which it would suggest if indisputably established.

In the first place, let us remind the reader, that the Day of Atonement is, except in the three middle Books of the Pentateuch, never mentioned throughout the Old Testament, neither in the historical nor in the prophetic Books; and that it is even omitted by the Chronist in the enumeration of the "Mosaic" festivals which king Solomon honoured with sacrifices. This negative argument, though it will

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

not be undervalued by those who consider the nature and extent of the Hebrew Scriptures, is of course in itself not decisive; but it adds weight to historical testimonies at variance with the injunctions of the Pentateuch.

We have incidental proof to show, that the Day of Atonement cannot have been celebrated in the first or Solomon's Temple. In this edifice, the Holy of Holies was separated from the Holy, not by a curtain or "vail” (n), but by folding doors of olive-wood, adorned with carvings of Cherubim, palm-trees, and opening flowers, all overlaid with gold3. These doors were not always closed'; for in earlier periods, no anxiety was felt to shroud the entire Holy of Holies in mysterious darkness; the Ark of the Covenant was indeed rendered invisible by the figures of the Cherubim and their outspread wings"; but the staves by which it was carried, and which always remained in it, were so long that their ends could be seen from the Holy through the open doors of the Holy of Holies'; yet in order to mark the separation between the two chief divisions of the Sanctuary, "a partition was made by chains of gold before the Holy of Holies". Hence Ezekiel also, who in his ideal delineations reproduced with all possible faithfulness the Temple at which he had himself served, gave to his own Sanctuary no curtain; and he placed before it "two doors with two turning leaves each". But the Temple of Zerubbabel, like that of Herod for both resembled each other, except in size and splendour — had a vail or curtain 10; for though the Holy of Holies, deprived of the Ark, was entirely empty 11, it was then, in accordance with more recent and severer notions, utterly shut out even from the gaze of the priests, and access to it was only per

on the Feast of unleavened Bread, and on the Feast of Weeks,and on the Feast of Tabernacles" (2 Chron. VIII.12,13).

31 Ki. VI. 31, 32. The contrary statement of the Chronist (2 Chr. III. 14), who in his descriptions copies the second Temple, has no weight.

41 Ki. VI. 16 does not refer to a closed door before the Holy of Holies, but alludes to the partition-wall, twenty cubits high, which divided the two main parts of the structure (comp. Mishn. Midd. IV. 1).

5 1 Ki. VIII. 6, 7.

6 Exod. XXV. 13-15.

7 1 Ki. VIII. 8; comp. Vatke, Rel. des A. T. I. 332, 340, 540.

8 1 Ki. VI. 21. Thus the chains, by no means "enigmatical" (Winer,RealWört. II, 572), served an intelligible purpose; they were neither an idle ornament, nor an "opus reticulatum" above the door to allow the vapour of the incense to escape, nor a mere symbol to indicate the absolute seclusion of the Holy of Holies (Bähr, Der Salomon. Tempel, pp. 142, 143). 9 Ezek. XLI. 23, 24.

10 Joseph. Bell. Jud. V. v. 5 (xataTéτазμя); comp. Matth. XXVII. 51. 11 According to Jewish tradition,

mitted to the High-priest on one single occasion in the year'. Now, if it be remembered, that in the precepts regarding the Day of Atonement repeated mention is made of the vail (n), through which the High-priest has to pass in order to reach the Holy of Holies2, it follows, that the solemn day could, in the prescribed manner, not have been kept during the time of the first Temple.

Ezekiel, writing in the fourteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem (B. C. 574)3, and describing the future reorganization of public worship, introduces indeed expiatory ceremonials designed "to cleanse the Sanctuary" and "all who have sinned from error or simplicity"; but these ceremonials differ widely from those of Leviticus. We find discrepancies with respect to the very time of the celebration. While the Pentateuch prescribes one day, namely the tenth of the seventh month, the prophet sets apart two days, viz. the first and the seventh of the first month. This difference may easily be accounted for, and forms a strong link in the chain of our arguments. In Ezekiel's time, the year still commenced, as it had commenced among the Hebrews from immemorial ages, at the season of the vernal equinox, or in the first month Aviv (Nisan); therefore, desirous to mark the new cycle of time by religious solemnities, the prophet recommended rituals of expiation to be performed on the first of Aviv, and to be repeated on the seventh day, a number familiar to the Hebrews as holy and significant. However, after the Babylonian exile, the Jews not only employed those Chaldean names of the months, which occur in the later Books of the Hebrew Canon, but,

however, a stone stood in the place of the Ark (Mishn. Yom. V. 2,

see ;(היתה שם ... ושתיה היתה נקראת

Comm. on Lev. I. p. 30 note 6.

1 Later traditions supposed between the Holy and the Holy of Holies even two curtains, with a space of one cubit between them (Mishn. Yom. V. 1).

2 Lev. XVI. 2, 12, 15.

3 Ezek. XLI. 1; comp. in general ch. XL sqq.

4 Ezek. XLV. 18-20.

5 Exod. XII. 2 and notes in loc. It is a gratuitous assumption, that in Ezek. XL. 1, Tishri and not Nisan is understood as "the beginning of the

.(בראש השנה) "year

6 See p. 207.

7 Nisan, Iar, Sivan, etc.

8 In Zechariah, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and then in the Books of the Maccabees and subsequent writings; comp. Talm. Jer. Rosh. Hash. I. fol. 56 ed. Krotosch. (AR MIDD baan); Turg. Sheni Esth. III. 7 (893 NP). The division of the day in hours (i) has the same origin; the word does not occur in the Old Testament (except Dan. IV. 16, where it has not the meaning of hour); up to the Persian period, we find no trace of any other division of time than morning, noon, evening, and midnight, besides three, and later four,

accommodating themselves to east-Asiatic customs, they began to date the civil year from the autumnal equinox, or the seventh month Ethanim (Tishri 9). When they had made this change, they deemed it advisable to distinguish the first day of the seventh month as a religious festival or a "holy convocation"; as such it was appointed in the latest Books of the Pentateuch, in Leviticus and Numbers, under the names of "Day of Memorial" (ii) or “Day of blowing the

.(רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה) and it was then simply called New Year ,(רוֹם תְּרוּעָה)"trumpet

In the course of time, the tenth day of the same month was fixed for penitence and self-affliction, and for the restoration of inward purity through Divine forgiveness; for the number ten was considered as hardly less significant than seven; it was chosen to convey that God's spirit or power descended to manifest itself on earth; and thus we must understand the revelation of Ten Commandments and the infliction of ten Egyptian plagues 10. Those who attribute the whole of the Pentateuch to Moses, have ever been unable to explain the disagreement under discussion, and have asked themselves in utter perplexity How could Ezekiel venture to blot out from the new theocracy the holiest day of the year, and to substitute for it two days of his own arbitrary selection? The indignation of the Rabbins at this imagined heresy was so vehement, that they were anxious to banish the Book of Ezekiel from the Canon; they attempted to lower its authority by ascribing it not to Ezekiel, but to the men of the Great Synagogue; while some urged, both against reason and against the plain context of the passage, that Ezekiel did not ordain an annual festival, but alluded to an exceptional ritual performed in the time of Ezra; yet they finally acquiesced in the hope that, in due time, the prophet Elijah would harmonise the apparently fatal contradictions11. It is impossible to suppose that Ezekiel, a pious and learned priest, would have ignored or deliberately altered the most striking and most solemn day in the whole Hebrew year, if in his time that

night-watches (is; comp. Talm. Berach. 33).

9 from to open, that is, Januarius; comp. Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. I. 1, Apud orientales populos post collectionem frugum et torcularia, quando decimae deferebantur in templum, October erat primus mensis et Januarius quartus; see also Ideler, Chron. I. 432, 492, 522.

10 See supra p. 59; comp. Philo, De

Septenar. c. 23, ʼn ôè źμépa tñs vnστείας ἄγεται δεκάτη μηνός, ὅτι ἡ δεν κὰς παντέλεια.

11 Talm. Shabb. 13b ("if it had not been for R. Hananiah, the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, because his words contradict those of the Law"); Chagig. 13a (pa

פרשה זו אליהו) 454 .Menach ;(ספר יחזקאל .(עתיד לדרשה

day had already been generally kept or authoritatively fixed: the fact that he knew of no such day, is sufficient proof that it was then not yet fixed.

But he deviates from the Pentateuch not merely in the time of the celebration: he prescribes rituals totally different from those of Leviticus. Apparently aiming at the expiation of the Temple rather than of the people, he merely ordains, that the blood of a young bullock slain as a sin-offering shall by the priest be put "on the posts of the Sanctuary, and upon the four corners of the ledge of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner Court"1. Is it necessary to point out how little this agrees with the complicated, significant, and imposing ceremonial of Leviticus?

It may, therefore, be taken as certain, that the Day of Atonement is of later origin than the earlier part of the Babylonian exile (or B. C. 570).'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

When the first colony of Jews who, by permission of Cyrus, returned from Chaldea under the leadership of Zerubbabel, arrived in Palestine (B. C. 538), we are told that, at the approach of the seventh month that is, still the month Ethanim they all assembled in Jerusalem, set up the brazen altar in its old place, “and offered burnt-offerings thereon to the Lord morning and evening; they kept also the Feast of Tabernacles as it is written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by number according to the custom, ... from the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burntofferings to the Lord". It is surely surprising that, in this notice, the Day of Atonement is neither mentioned nor alluded to3: when the first and the fifteenth of the month are named, though the former evidently not yet as a day of particular distinction, why was the intervening tenth day omitted, which, if celebrated even partially in the striking manner of the Law, must have produced a powerful impression upon the minds of men providentially released from a land of bondage, and just restored to their old homes, to commence a new and uncertain life full of struggles and dangers? No historian would, at that peculiar juncture, have failed to record the celebration of the Day of Atonement if a celebration of any kind had taken place.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »