
Romans 8:1–17 (NIV)
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.
11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it.
13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Day of Atonment
DAY OF ATONEMENT. A day of fasting, self-denial, and rest on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri) on which the sanctuary is cleansed of impurities and the Israelites’ sins are sent away on the scapegoat.
A. The Rite in Leviticus 16
1. Purification of the Sanctuary and Sanctums
2. The Scapegoat Rite
3. Self-Denial and Rest
4. Miscellaneous Sacrifical Elements
B. Near Eastern Parallels
C. The Development of the Biblical Rite
D. The Day of Atonement in Later Literature
A. The Rite in Leviticus 16
The Day of Atonement is attested only in the Priestly legislation (= P) of the Pentateuch. P’s main discussion is in Leviticus 16, which lists the prescriptions for the occasion. As chap. 16 now stands, the ritual is an annual sanctuary purgation ritual occurring on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev 16:29, 34). The prescriptions contain two main expiatory or purgative rites: the purification of the sanctuary and some of its sanctums with blood from priestly and communal ḥaṭṭāʾt (purgation) sacrifices (vv 3–19), and the dispatch of the scapegoat, which bears the people’s sins (vv 20–22). For details pertaining to the following discussion of these rituals, see in particular J. Milgrom (1983: 67–95; Leviticus AB on Leviticus 16; Wright 1987: 15–86, 129–59).
1. Purification of the Sanctuary and Sanctums. The purification of the sanctuary and sanctums reflects P’s carefully conceived system of ritual practice. The cleansing is achieved by a combination of blood sprinkling and daubing in the three main locales of the sanctuary, beginning with the most sacred and ending with the least sacred (see HOLINESS (OT)). The blood manipulations in each locale, while differing in manner and order, appear in pairs with each pair including a sevenfold sprinkling of blood: (a) In the adytum (the most holy room of the tent) blood is sprinkled once on the front of the E side of the kappōret (the cover of the ark) and then seven times in front of it (Lev 16:14–16b). (b) The shrine (the outer room of the tent), the text says, was treated similarly (v 16b). This probably presumes the blood manipulation in Lev 4:5–7a, 16–18a, where purgation offering blood is sprinkled toward the veil seven times (apparently not touching it) and then placed on the four horns of the incense altar (cf. Exod 30:10). (c) Outside the tent, blood is placed on the horns of the burnt-offering altar and then sprinkled on it seven times (Lev 16:18–19).
The systematic character of this ritual is made more apparent when the blood manipulations are viewed as discrete acts. The blood of the priests’ and the blood of the people’s purgation offerings are apparently manipulated separately in the adytum and shrine (Lev 16:14–16), but the bloods of the two animals are presumably mixed before application to the outer altar and are applied together (cf. vv 18–19). The total of each separate act of sprinkling and application to an altar horn is forty-nine, the square of the number seven. The latter number is generally expressive of completeness and wholeness. The seven-times-seven sprinkling thus represents the thoroughness of the rite’s effects (see NUMBERS AND COUNTING).
The place where blood is manipulated also reflects the conception of the holiness of the portable sanctuary reflected in other prescriptions. The blood manipulations in the adytum and shrine purify not only the furniture pieces to which they are applied, but also the rooms generally. The sevenfold sprinklings occur in the air space of the rooms and fall on the floor. Outside the tent, however, blood is applied only to the burnt-offering altar and not to the court. This demonstrates the lesser holiness of the sanctuary court vis-à-vis the outer altar and tent and also the higher holiness of the outer altar, which is somewhat less than, but comparable to, that of the other sanctums to which blood is applied—see HOLINESS (OT).
The sanctuary purification rites are part of the larger system of ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices. The purpose of ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices generally is to remove impurity from the sanctuary and its sanctums. The purgative effect is clearly stated for the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16, 19). The verb ḥiṭṭēʾ, a privative Piʿel meaning “purify,” is used to describe the effect of this sacrifice elsewhere (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15; Ezek 43:20, 22, 23; 45:18). This verb, in fact, is evidence that the noun ḥaṭṭāʾt is to be properly understood as a privative Piʿel noun meaning “purgation-offering” rather than “sin-offering” or the like. The blood acts like a detergent and removes the impurity that affects the sanctums. This removal renders the entire offering, including the carcass, impure and it in turn may pollute others (cf. Lev 16:27–28). This impurity, however, does not seem to become effective until after the carcass leaves the sanctuary precincts (m. Yoma 6:7; Zebaḥ. 12:6). This observation would apply only to ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices the blood of which is used in the sanctuary or to those which are brought for the benefit of the priests themselves. Only the carcasses of these ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices are burned outside the camp. The ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices of individuals, the blood of which is used at only the outer altar, can be eaten by priests inside the sanctuary court (cf. Lev 6:17–20; 10:16–20; see UNCLEAN AND CLEAN (OT)).
The blood of the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering is only applied to holy furniture or sprinkled in the rooms of the tent (Exod 29:12; Lev 4:6–7, 17–18, 25, 30, 34; 5:9; 8:15; 9:9; cf. Ezek 43:20; 45:18): it is never applied to a person. The effect the offering has for a person is indirect and is described by the verb kipper plus the prepositions ʿal or bĕʿad. The verb has a general meaning of “appease; propitiate; expiate” and when used with the purgation offering has more the notion of “purify” though the other meanings can be present (e.g., Lev 16:16, 20, 33; cf. vv 18, 27, 32 see UNCLEAN AND CLEAN; Milgrom 1983: 67–84; Leviticus; cf. Levine 1974: 55–77; Janowski 1982 passim). When the verb and prepositions are used with a person, the expression means the purification or expiation performed on the sanctum is done “on behalf of” that person (e.g., Lev 16:6, 11, 17, 24, 30, 34). P uses the verb kipper mainly to describe the effect of purgation offerings. This led to designating this ritual occasion, where these offerings figure so prominently, as yôm (hak)kippurîm, “the day of expiation/purification” (Lev 23:27–28 [LXX hēmera exilasmou]; 25:9 [LXX: tē hēmera tou hilasmou]; cf. Exod 30:10; Num 29:11).
That ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices purify the sanctums on behalf of persons reveals the human factor in the dynamics of the sacrifice: it is people who cause the impurity in the sanctuary; that is, when they sin or suffer severe impurity, the sanctuary is soiled. People do not have to be in the sanctuary area for this pollution to occur; it occurs aerially. This pollution follows a graded scheme according to the gravity of the impure situation. The more severe the sin or impure situation, the more extensively the sanctuary is polluted. Permissive tolerance of severe impurities and inadvertent sins committed by individuals pollute only the outer altar (cf. Lev 4:22–35). Sins by the community in concert or by the high priest pollute the incense altar and the shrine (4:2–21). Intentional sins and presumably other unrectified sins and impurities pollute the adytum and the kappōret and implicitly the ark. This is evidenced by the term pišʿêhem ‘their crimes’ in Lev 16:16a, which seems to refer to brazen, deliberate sins (cf. Num 15:30–31) and which, together with impurities, is the express evil removed from the adytum. In view of this scheme of pollution, the purpose of the Day of Atonement ritual becomes lucid: while throughout the year the impurity of individual or community sins may be purged as they arise (Leviticus 4), once a year a special rite must be performed that cleanses the sanctuary of impurity from deliberate sins and from any other lingering impurity not yet rectified. The implication following from this is that were the sanctuary left sullied by these impurities, God’s presence, which manifests itself in the tent, could not dwell there and would leave (cf. Ezekiel 8–11).
The sanctuary purification is a very dangerous chore, so special precautions must be taken. If these were not observed, the officiator would perish (Lev 16:2, 13). An indication of the chapter’s concern about the danger of what is holy is the linkage of the chapter with Lev 10:1–7, which recounts the death of two of Aaron’s sons who encroached on the sanctuary (cf. 16:1). Part of the reason why Leviticus 16 refers back to this episode is to underscore the care with which sanctuary service must be performed. Since the Day of Atonement purification is the most comprehensive and intensive of all ḥaṭṭāʾt rituals, the strictest rules apply. Only the high priest, the holiest human, may enter the adytum. He wears special holy clothing (vv 4, 32), different from what he normally wears. He is to bathe his entire body before officiating (v 4; cf. the Samaritan and LXX). In other cases of sanctuary service, priests only need to wash their hands and feet (Exod 30:18–21; 40:30–32; cf. 2 Chr 4:6). After the ḥaṭṭāʾt and scapegoat rites the high priest bathes again, presumably to desanctify after working in the adytum (Lev 16:24). He then changes to his regular high priestly clothing to finish the ritual (vv 23–24). When entering the adytum, he must offer special holy incense, which probably includes an ingredient to cause a thick cloud of smoke to cover the kappōret (vv 12–13; cf. v 2). This is to hide the sanctum so that he will not die. On the danger of what is holy, see HOLINESS (OT).
2. The Scapegoat Rite. At the beginning of the rite two goats brought by the people were distinguished by lot, one for the Lord and one for Azazel, an attenuated demonic figure living in the wilderness perhaps representing in the present text more a geographical locale than an active supernatural figure (Lev 16:8–10, 26; see AZAZEL). The goat designated for the Lord is offered as a ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifice, as seen above; the one designated for Azazel is the scapegoat, which bears the people’s sins to the wilderness to Azazel. The scapegoat ritual follows directly after the purgation with ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices (v 20). To transfer the sins to the goat, the high priest places his two hands on the head of the animal and confesses over it the Israelites’ transgressions (v 21; see HANDS, LAYING ON OF (OT)). The goat is then sent out to a remote land (ʾereṣ gĕzērâ) in the wilderness (vv 21–22).
Though the purpose of the rite is to banish the people’s sins, it is not unrelated to the purgation with ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices. As already noted, sins and impurity have an intimate connection; the former cause the latter in the sanctuary. Carrying sins to the wilderness removes the cause of impurity to an innocuous locale. The impurity-sin connection is found also in the fact that the scapegoat, though bearing sins, pollutes the person who dispatches it (v 26). The relationship of the scapegoat rite to the foregoing is also seen in its denomination, together with the slaughtered goat, as a ḥaṭṭāʾt (v 5). The Priestly legislation has placed both goats into a complementary relationship. Despite this denomination, the scapegoat is not really an offering according to the Priestly context of sacrifice attested elsewhere. It is merely a vehicle for carrying impurity away from the temple and the people’s habitation.
3. Self-Denial and Rest. The first part of Leviticus 16 deals with prescriptions pertaining to the sanctuary and priesthood; the last part (vv 29–31) deals with the people’s obligations. These chiastically arranged prescriptions require self-denial (Heb ʿinnâ nepeš) and complete cessation from work. The former requirement mainly denotes fasting, but perhaps also abstention from other physical pleasures such as anointing and sexual intercourse is intended too (cf. Num 30:14; Dan 10:3, 12; 2 Sam 12:16–20; m. Yoma 8:1; Heb 9:10). The requirement of complete rest is found only elsewhere with the Sabbath. Other holidays that have prescriptions of rest only require cessation of laborious work (see HOLINESS (OT)). While the people have certain obligations on this day, there is no requirement in any of the legislation that they appear at the sanctuary. Presumably they remain at their homes abstaining from work and pleasures while the priesthood purifies the sanctuary. The rules for fasting and rest are repeated in 23:26–32; Num 29:7 (see FAST, FASTING).
4. Miscellaneous Sacrificial Elements. After the ḥaṭṭāʾt and scapegoat rites the high priest changes his clothes and offers a burnt offering for the priestly household and one for the people (Lev 16:24b, cf. vv 3, 5). If the text indicates the actual order of the rite, the fat pieces of the ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices are then burned on the altar (v 25; cf. the rule in m. Zebaḥ.10:2) and the ḥaṭṭāʾt carcasses are taken outside the camp and burned (v 27). The Mishnah keeps these particular acts in the order listed in the Bible (m. Yoma 6:6–7; m. Zebaḥ.10:2), but the Temple Scroll puts them between the blood rites in the sanctuary and the scapegoat rite (11QTemple 26:6–10; 27:3–5). Numbers 29:8–11 lists other offerings to be brought on this holiday: a bull, ram, and seven one-year-old lambs for burnt offerings with their accompanying cereal offerings, a goat for a ḥaṭṭāʾt in addition to the other ḥaṭṭāʾt animals, plus the daily burnt offering with its accompanying cereal offerings and libations. One controversy growing out of these prescriptions is whether the burnt-offering ram prescribed in this list is the same as the ram of the people in Lev 16:5 or whether it is in addition to it (see 11QTemple 25:12–16; Philo Leg All I.187–88; Josephus Ant 3.10.3 §§240–43; Sipra, Aḥare Mot, Par. 2:2; b. Yoma 70b). Lev 16:25b ascribes to the burnt offerings of the people and priests an expiatory function (cf. Lev 1:4). This may implicitly apply to the extra burnt offerings listed in Numbers 29 as well. Thus all of the animal offerings on the day serve the general purpose of expiation and purification.
B. Near Eastern Parallels
Purification and elimination rites similar to those in the biblical Day of Atonement ritual are well attested in the religious literature of the ANE. For a full discussion, see Wright (1987: 31–74 and passim).
Parallels to the ḥaṭṭāʾt ritual include the purification of the cella of the god Nabû on the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival (the akı̄tu festival; see Wright 1987: 62–65). A ram is decapitated and its carcass is wiped on the temple to remove the impurity. The wiping is described with the verb kuppuru, cognate with Heb kipper. The ram carcass and its head are then discarded in the river. This disposal removes the impurity that has been collected in the carcass of the ram. Those who discard the carcass and head are apparently impure; they may not enter the city Babylon until Nabû leaves. The Hittite ritual of Ulippi is more similar to the biblical ḥaṭṭāʾt rite since it uses blood as a ritual detergent. When a new temple is being purified and dedicated for a god, the last rite performed is slaughtering a sheep and smearing its blood on the god’s statue, the wall of the edifice, and cultic utensils. The text explicitly says this application renders the god and its temple pure. The sheep is then burned up (perhaps in the temple building); it is not to be eaten (Kronasser 1963: 30–33, iv 35–41). The similarities to the biblical ḥaṭṭāʾt are patent, particularly with respect to the animal the blood of which is used inside the sanctuary and which cannot be eaten by the priests: animals, sometimes their blood, are used to remove impurity from a sanctuary. The carcasses become impure and must be discarded; they cannot be eaten.
Rites similar to the scapegoat include the Hittite rituals of Huwarlu and Ambazzi (Wright 1987: 57–60). These are the closest examples to the biblical scapegoat rite in that they use live animals as bearers of the evil and lack the motif of substitution, where the carrier of evil suffers in place of the human sufferers. Substitution is lacking in the biblical scapegoat rite. In the Huwarlu ritual, a dog is waved over the king and queen and inside the palace. The “old woman” officiator recites an incantation expressing the hope that the dog will carry away evil and utters a “magical word,” ending with the words: “Wherever the gods have designated it, there let him [the dog] carry it [the evil].” The live dog is then taken away and apparently let loose. In the Ambazzi ritual the woman officiator wraps tin on a bowstring and then puts the string on the right hand and feet of those suffering evil. She then removes the string and puts it on a mouse with the request: “Let this mouse take it [the evil] to the high mountains, the deep valleys (and) the distant ways.” The god Alawaimi is called on to drive the mouse away. Mesopotamian literature does not have a clear example where a live animal bears evil away from sufferers, but it does have elimination rituals that are otherwise conceptually similar to the biblical scapegoat ritual. A good example is from the Utukkī Lemnūti series (Wright 1987: 65–67). Ea instructs Marduk, his son, how to cure a person plagued by demons and accompanying diseases. Marduk is to bring a goat into some sort of contact with the patient. An incantation adjures the evil to leave the man and go to the underworld. The skin of the goat is removed from the man and thrown into the street, a place where polluted items are often discarded. In the Shurpu ritual series (Wright 1987: 68–69) Marduk, again, is commanded to take loaves of bread on a skewer and wipe with it a patient who has been seized by a “curse.” The patient is also to spit on the skewer. After an incantation the materials are taken out to the open country and placed near a bush. A request follows for the Lady of the Open Country and Plain to receive the patient’s curse and that his illness be transferred to the “vermin of the ground.” Finally, a ritual similar to the scapegoat may be attested in Ugaritic literature. A model lung contains a list of sacrifices ending with a ritual in which, if the translation of the crucial words is correct, a goat apparently carrying evil connected with an attack on Ugarit or a plague is driven into a remote locale (KTU 1.127: 29–31; Aartun 1976; 1980: 91–92; Janowski 1982: 214–15; Loretz 1985: 35–49; cf. Dietrich and Loretz 1969: 171–72; Tarragon 1980: 41).
C. The Development of the Biblical Rite
Consideration of these extrabiblical rituals, of other elimination rites in the Bible, and of literary- and tradition-critical evidence from biblical passages dealing with the Day of Atonement has generated different explanations of the development of the Day of Atonement prescriptions. The evidence is susceptible to various interpretations depending upon one’s methodological or theoretical framework and emphasis. A speculative reconstruction based on recent scholarship is offered here (see Milgrom Leviticus AB; Knohl 1987: 86–92; Wright 1987: 16–30, 72–74, 78–80; Aartun 1980).
The analysis begins with the present text of Leviticus 16 and moves backwards. This chapter is clearly a composite work. Most critics argue that vv 29–34a are an addition to the first part of the chapter. Reading the first part of the chapter without these verses has led to the generally accepted conclusion that the fixed date of the rite, the tenth day of the seventh month, did not apply originally. Either the ritual was performed annually on another date, or it was an emergency purification rite performed when necessary. The latter interpretation is suggested by the connection of Leviticus 16 with Leviticus 10 (cf. 16:1). Aaron’s two sons had just polluted the sanctuary by their encroachment; hence it required immediate purification. God’s wrath was aroused; and presumably to prevent further destruction, purification of the sanctuary was necessary. Emergency appeasement rites for arresting divine wrath are not unknown to the Priestly literature (Num 17:9–15). It is likely that the biblical designation yôm (hak)kippurîm ‘day of expiation,’ which points to a particular fixed occasion, arose after the fixing of the date.
Leviticus 23:26–32 and Num 29:7–11, which reflect the text of Leviticus 16 that contains vv 29–34a, are probably composite themselves. The holiday they name for the tenth day of the seventh month may have originally not included the expiation ritual in Lev 16:1–28. Later the ritual was associated with this date because the day was part of—perhaps the last day of—the fall new year period, which began on the first day of the seventh month (cf. Lev 23:23–25; Num 29:1–6; the cultic calendar elsewhere lists multiday holidays where the first and last days are more important than intervening days). Leviticus 25:9 clearly shows the tenth day with the Day of Atonement to be connected with the new year ceremonial (cf. Ezek 40:1). The new year was a proper occasion for sanctuary purification. Ezekiel prescribes a threefold sanctuary purification for the first and seventh day of the first month in the spring, another new year in Israel (Ezek 45:18–20; perhaps this is a ritual to balance the Day of Atonement rite in the seventh month, which he does not explicitly mention; cf. the LXX on v 20). Recall also the purification of Nabû’s cella in the Babylonian new year rite, noted above.
While it may be argued on the basis of separating Lev 16:29–34a from the rest of the chapter that self-affliction which includes fasting was not originally associated with the ritual, fasting is often associated with crises elsewhere in the Bible (Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 7:6; 14:24; Joel 1:14; Esth 4:3; Ezra 8:21–23; etc.). It may be that an original day of abstention on the tenth day of the seventh month helped attract the purification rite to it since it too was accompanied by self-denial. As for cessation from work, this may have been originally associated with an emergency rite, but it seems its specific formulation derives from the rite’s insertion into the fixed cultic calendar.
Literary-critical criteria do not give hints about the development of Lev 16:1–28 adequate to lead to an understanding of the character of the ritual before its attachment to the fixed fall date. It would seem that various ritual elements were added together, perhaps over time, to arrive at the rite described in these verses. To speculate about the development requires comparison of ritual practices in other places of the priestly writings. The discussion here is limited to the development of ḥaṭṭāʾt and scapegoat rites. Since these two rites form discrete ceremonies, one may surmise that they existed independently and were joined together to form the present ritual. This is supported by the difference in evils they remove (Lev 16:16, 19, 21–22; impurity versus sins) and by the existence elsewhere in P of ḥaṭṭāʾt sacrifices without a scapegoat element. But a comparison with the rite for purification from sāraʿat (so-called leprosy; see LEPROSY) suggests a different development (cf. Lev 14:2–7, 48–53). In this rite two animals—birds—are used to purify a person or a house. One bird is killed to obtain blood to serve as a ritual detergent; the other bird carries away the impurity that the blood removes. This may suggest that what lies behind Lev 16:1–28 is a ritual where two animals, perhaps the two goats, were used, one providing blood for purification and the second carrying away the evil the blood of the first animal had removed. To compose the original stage of the text such a two-goat rite would have been combined with a ḥaṭṭāʾt bull rite which consequently led to designating the two-goat rite a ḥaṭṭāʾt offering (in contrast, the sāraʿat bird rite was never drawn into the ḥaṭṭāʾt system). The bull would have been designated for the benefit of the priests and the goat for that of the people. The portion of the rite where blood is manipulated in the sanctuary was given the purpose of removing impurity in accord with the ḥaṭṭāʾt system. The release of the goat was given the goal of removing sins, the cause of impurities.
What the two-goat rite may have been like prior to its adoption as a sanctuary cleansing rite can only be guessed. The nonbiblical rituals give some hints. The two-goat rite may not have been connected with a sanctuary at all but with purification of individuals or their houses or other property, like the Hittite and Ambazzi rituals. The evils removed might have been much more like those in nonbiblical rites: sorcery, slander, demonic attack, sickness, and so forth, rather than impurity in the priestly sense. The goat sent out to the wilderness could have functioned merely as a carrier of the evil or, as other Near Eastern rituals show, an offering to an offending demon. The obscure figure Azazel could have been an original element in the ritual actively functioning as a custodian of evil or as an attacking demon needing appeasement (see AZAZEL).
Some have argued that the scapegoat element of the ritual derives from a N Syrian (Hittite-Hurrian) origin (Kümmel 1968: 318; Janowski 1982: 213–15; Loretz 1985: 40–41). From there it spread to Ugarit (hence KTU 1.127) and Canaan (hence Leviticus 16) and westward to Greece (appearing in pharmakos rituals; cf. Burkert 1979: 39–77). Other biblical ritual elements seem to have a N Syrian origin or connections with Hittite ritual practice, for example, the burnt offering (see Kümmel 1967: 23–24) and the gesture of hand placement (see HANDS, LAYING ON OF (OT)). Though caution must be used in determining genetic relationships (see Moyer 1983: 19–21, 37–38), there is good reason for looking into Hittite-Hurrian ritual for some of the influences upon Israelite ritual practice (cf. Weinfeld 1983: 102–3).
D. The Day of Atonement in Later Literature
Because the Day of Atonement embodies the central concerns of priestly religion and sacrificial worship, its treatment and reflexes in postbiblical literature are extensive. For example, the Mishnah devotes an entire tractate (Yoma, lit. ‘The Day’) to the ceremony and prescriptions. Additional details, perhaps reflecting Second Temple practice, are found about the priests’ and people’s roles and how the ceremony is to be precisely performed. The Temple Scroll (11QTemple 25:10–27:10) reworks and conflates many of the rules found in different places of the Pentateuch into a succinct new law written in the tone of biblical prescription. By its rearrangement of text and with careful additions, it solves for its readers some of the difficulties of the biblical text and, as it seems, engages in a polemic with ritual practice at Jerusalem later reflected in rabbinic documents. The NT calls the day “The Fast” (hē nēsteia, Acts 27:9). The main reflex of the ritual is in Hebrews, where the writer metaphorically describes Jesus’ work of salvation as a Day of Atonement ceremony performed in heaven (cf. Hebrews 6–9). Jesus is the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary, who entered into the adytum with his own blood to achieve eternal redemption for the people. See also, for example, Sir 50:5–21; Jub. 5:17–18; 34:18–19; Ps-Philo 13:6; Philo Leg All II.52, 55–56; Spec Leg I.72, 186–88; 2.195.
Bibliography
Aartun, K. 1976. Eine weitere Parallele aus Ugarit zur kultischen Praxis in Israels Religion. BO 33: 285–89.
———. 1980. Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag. ST 34: 73–109.
Burkert, W. 1979. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. Sather Classical Lectures 47. Berkeley.
Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O. 1969. Beschriftete Lungen- und Lebermodelle aus Ugarit. Ugaritica 6: 165–79.
Grabbe, L. L. 1987. The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation. JSJ 18: 152–67.
Janowski, B. 1982. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und der Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. WMANT 55. Neukirchen.
Knohl, I. 1987. The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals. HUCA 58: 65–117.
Kronasser, H. 1963. Die Umsiedelung der schwarzen Gottheit: Das hethitische Ritual KUB XXIX 4 (des Ulippi). SÖAW Phil.-hist. Kl. 241/3. Graz.
Kümmel, H. M. 1967. Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König. StBT 3. Wiesbaden.
———. 1968. Ersatzkönig und Sündenbock. ZAW 80: 289–318.
Landersdorfer, S. 1924. Studien zum biblischen Versöhnungstag. Münster.
Levine, B. 1974. In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 5. Leiden.
Löhr, M. 1925. Das Ritual von Lev. 16 (Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem III). Schriften der Königsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft, geisteswissenschaftliche Kl. 2/1. Berlin.
Loretz, O. 1985. Lebershau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur 3. Soest.
Milgrom, J. 1983. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLA 36. Leiden.
Moyer, J. C. 1983. Hittite and Israelite Cultic Practices: A Selected Comparison. Pp. 19–38 in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN.
Tarragon, J. M. de. 1980. Le culte à Ugarit. CahRB 19. Paris.
Weinfeld, M. 1983. Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their ANE Background. PWCJS 8: 95–129.
Wright, D. P. 1987. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta.
David P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 72–76.