SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS. Religious ritual was a major expression of ancient Israel, esp. the rites of animal sacrifice with their accompanying libations, effusions, sacred meals, etc. Such liturgical acts have their parallels in the contemporary cultures of the ancient Near E, but this is not to say that Biblical sacrifice is merely an imitation of neighboring cultures. It is the ideology expressed in the ritual complex as a whole that makes the Israelite religion unique. The presentation of sacrificial rituals in OT passages furnishes a counterpart to the more hortatory proclamations of the prophets. The concepts and ideology of OT ritual underlies NT theology regarding the problem of sin and man’s reconciliation to God by means of atonement. See Atonement.

I. Introduction

The older approach to the study of sacrifice as a religious phenomenon was usually based on some 19th-cent. concept of cultural progress. The source of rituals was sought among primitive societies; in the Near E, the rites of the Bedouin were taken as normative for explaining the development of OT sacrifice. Today, the comparative study of tribal customs in underdeveloped areas is the domain of the anthropologist; its main contribution is the interpretation of the preliterary cultures of Pal., e.g. the Chalcolithic. Even though the Bible also affirms that sacrificial practices go back to the dawn of civilization (Gen 4:3ff.), the terminology used in the Pentateuch for describing the earliest rituals is that of Leviticus. In other words, even the most ancient examples of sacrifice are depicted by means of a nomenclature rooted in a highly developed, well-organized sacerdotal framework. Certain schools of Biblical criticism have asserted that the ritual system embodied in the Pentateuch cannot be earlier than the postexilic period. However, archeological discoveries pertaining to the sacrificial systems of Mesopotamia and the Levant in the 3rd and 2nd millennia b.c. have shown that very complex rituals were practiced all across the Fertile Crescent long before the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. Since the Biblical claim is quite explicit to the effect that the patriarchal culture esp. in the sphere of religion, sprang from the great centers of civilization, Mesopotamia and Egypt (cf. Joshua’s unequivocal statement, Josh 24:2, 14), there is no reason to doubt that even the Israelites could have known and also practiced a sophisticated order of ritual.

For the study of sacrifice in the ancient world, the modern investigator may avail himself of both the material remains of temples and other cultic centers, including the bones of sacrificial animals found in association with them. Many such installations have been found in Mesopotamia, N Syria and even in Pal., as well as Egypt, Anatolia, and the Aegean region. Some date to the prehistoric era, i.e., before the use of writing, whereas many are from the richly documented 2nd and 1st millennia b.c. (For details, cf. Temple.) The only real temple found thus far in a true context of a fortified center from Israelite times is that at Arad, though Iron Age “high places” and “cultic centers” of various types have been discovered elsewhere (e.g. Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo).

On the other hand, the main source for the elucidation of ancient sacrificial ritual is the collections of written documents now at our disposal. Today it is customary to classify these texts of a ritual nature according to the manner in which the rite is depicted (cf. B. A. Levine’s articles in the Bibliography). A definite set of instructions for the conduct of rituals including the implements, materials, actions, prayers, and incantations to be performed is called a prescriptive ritual. Such contexts were composed and preserved for the guidance of the priests or other functionaries in the conduct of their duties. A written source that tells how and when a certain rite or series of rites was performed is referred to as a descriptive ritual. Under this latter category are two subclasses. Narratives, whether historical, mythological, or legendary, may include the description of a sacrifice made by the leading personage in the story; quite often they go into considerable detail to stress that the rite was performed according to regulations. This was a literary means of teaching the reader or hearer about the necessity and propriety of fulfilling one’s sacrificial obligations. The “narrative descriptive rituals” form this class. The second is comprised of a much more prosaic, often boring type of documents, viz., the laconic temple records of expenditures and income in terms of the required ingredients for rituals performed. In some cases they represent a sort of accountant’s journal of the sacrifices made during a specific period of time. Mesopotamia and Ugarit (cf. below) have produced many such records, but their analysis for the purpose of defining ancient sacrificial ritual is only beginning. The usefulness of this terminological classification of the sources will be obvious in the ensuing discussion.

II. In the ancient world

The following is not meant to be definitive for any of the cultures dealt with; only salient features that by comparison or contrast, shed light on the sacrifices of the OT will be pointed out.

A. Mesopotamia. The dominant idea of sacrifice in the “Land of the Two Rivers” was that of provision for the gods. In the Creation Epic, Marduk is said to have created mankind (the blackheaded ones) for this purpose: “Verily, savage man will I create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods, that they might be at ease” (ANET, 68a). The other deities of the pantheon, grateful for Marduk’s deliverance from chaos and provision for their needs expressed their devotion and adoration:

May he shepherd the blackheaded ones, his creatures...May he establish for his fathers the great food offerings. Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their sanctuaries. May he cause incense to be smelled....May food offerings be borne for their gods and goddesses. Without fail let them support their gods! Their lands let them improve, build their shrines. Let the blackheaded wait on their gods (ANET, 69a-b).

The dependence of the deities upon the food provided by man is further illustrated by a narrative description of the sacrifice offered by the flood hero, Utnapishtim, after his escape from the deluge: “I poured out a libation on the top of the mountain. Seven and seven cult vessels I set up; upon their pot stands I heaped cane, cedarwood and myrtle. The gods smelled the savor; the gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer” (ANET, 95a). This picture of the gods famished by hunger because mankind had been destroyed and was no longer providing their meals, swarming around the offerer like flies, may reveal a touch of humor but it also brings home the pathos of Mesopotamian religion. The gods were subject to the same appetites as men; therefore they had enslaved the human race and required of them that they furnish their meals as the fruit of their (mankind’s) toil on the earth. The parallel with Genesis 8:20-22 is quite striking, but the difference is even more so. For the significance of the “pleasing odor” (KJV “sweet savor”) in Israelite ritual, cf. below.

This central idea is also reflected in the social organization of ancient Sumer. society. Each deity in the pantheon had his own estate, consisting of a city and its adjacent territory. He was the lord of his manor, and the priest-king, the ensi, was the manager of his estate. The temple was the central institution to which all products due to the deity were brought. By the Old Babylonian period (19th-18th centuries b.c.), the monarchy and the palace had come to overshadow even the temple as a social, economic, and political institution, but the kings were always concerned with providing the gods their due.

The role of sacrifice was inextricably bound up with prayer and supplication in the attempt of the individual to obtain health, prosperity, and well-being from his deity. Copies of prayers to be offered were concluded by a special section addressed either to the supplicant or to the priest—the expert who must perform the rites with precision if the prayer was to be effective. The so-called Babylonian “Righteous Sufferer” described his miserable state as that of one who had failed to carry out his ritual obligations to his god and goddess; such neglect consisted of not praying (with the lack of accompanying rituals), of neglecting the holy days, of failing to teach his people reverence and obedience, of eating without the proper blessings, of neglecting to bring cereal offerings to his goddess, of forgetting his lord and of taking his oath frivolously (BWL 38, 11.12-22). On the contrary, he claimed that: “For myself, I gave attention to supplication and prayer. To me prayer was discretion, sacrifice my rule” (ibid., 38, 11. 23, 24). After his restoration to health, he resumes his worship:

I persisted in supplication and prayer before them [the gods]. Fragrant incense I placed before them. I presented an offering, a gift, accumulated donations. I slaughtered fat oxen and butchered fattened sheep (?). I repeatedly libated honey-sweet beer and pure wine (BWL, 60, 11. 91-95).

Although animals were habitually slaughtered, no evidence has been produced for any special attention being paid to the blood as an element of ritual. The beast itself was food for the deity, but its blood was evidently allowed to return to the earth. The ancient hero Etana, who earnestly besought the sun god (Shamash) to grant him an heir said:

Thou hast consumed, O Shamash, my fattest sheep. O Earth, you have drunk the blood of my lambs. I have honored the gods and revered the spirits. The oracle priestesses have done the needful to my offerings. The lambs, by their slaughter, have done the needful to the gods (cf. ANET, 117a-b).

The earth’s drinking of the blood is a natural expression for death by slaughter, and is also applied to warriors (cf. Code of Hammurabi, rev. xxviii, 10; ANET, 179b).

Of special significance, however, was the use made of the entrails. The lungs, intestines, and, above all, the liver were utilized in the determination of oracles. There was even a special set of oracular conditions that could be determined by the behavior of the sacrificed lamb in its death throes. A vast lit. grew up in the form of collections of events, historical or theoretical, that were indicated by markings, indentations, holes and other features of the organ being examined. The offerer frequently made his sacrifice with the express purpose of gaining supernatural insight into the future. Thus the king of Babylon resorted to just such a practice in the course of his campaign in the Levant that resulted in the attack on Jerusalem (Ezek 21:21).

The most widely known prescriptive ritual text from Mesopotamia is that for the New Year Festival at Babylon (ANET, 331-334). It gives the order of events including sacrifices and the recital of prayers and other texts, as required for each day of the celebration. One of the most relevant for comparison with OT ritual is the act of purification performed on the fifth day. The officiating priest “...shall call a slaughterer to decapitate a ram, the body of which the mašmašu-priest shall use in performing the kuppuru-ritual for the temple.” After the necessary incantations and purifications have been performed, the mašmašu-priest takes the lamb’s carcass and the slaughterer takes its head; both of them proceed to the river and throw their gory burdens into it. Then they remain in the open country for seven days from the fifth to the twelfth of Nisan. The parallel with the “scapegoat” ritual of the OT is only general and not in details. There was no act of confession for sin; instead, the expulsion of demons was the goal of this rite, as is clearly seen in the incantation that follows it (ANET, 333b, 334a).

Presenting the food prepared from sacrificial cereals, animals, spices, and liquids before the deities was a central feature of the Mesopotamian cultus. After the god, in the form of an idol, had viewed the foodstuffs, they were taken away to be eaten by the king (contrast the apocryphal Bel 3-22). The principle seems to have been that the god had obtained the necessary nourishment by gazing upon the food or having it passed before his eyes. In turn, his doing so imparted a special blessing to it that was passed on to the king.

B. North Syria and Anatolia. One of the most striking allusions to sacrifice from the Amorite kingdom of Mari is the description of the ritual for making peace by slaying a young donkey foal. An official reported:

I went to GN to kill a donkey foal between the Khaneans and Idamaras. They brought forth a puppy and a goat and, my lord, I was afraid. A puppy and a goat I would not give. I caused to be slain a donkey foal the offspring of a she-ass; I made peace between the Khaneans and Idamaras (ARM II, No. 37, 11. 5-14).

Apparently two rituals were known to them, and the official insisted on the donkey sacrifice (the word rendered “goat” was formerly misunderstood as “lettuce”).

The text from Alalakh (Level VII) records the sacrifices to be offered in connection with an oath in the name of Adad and Ishtar by the king and his brother. The W Sem. emphasis upon burning the animals (instead of cooking them as food for the deity) is expressed by the prescription: “The fire will consume the lambs and the birds” (Alalakh Text No. 126:15, 19).

The Hitt. rituals with their detailed prescriptive texts (cf. e.g. ANET, 346ff.) have many suggestive parallels to OT passages. Most interesting is the ceremony in which one of the sacrificial animals, e.g., a dog, is cut into pieces and placed on either side of an improvised gate, through which the participants have to pass. A similar rite using the bodies of prisoners of war is also attested. Whether there is any connection between the Hitt. practice and the rital acts of Abraham (Gen 15:10, 11, 17) or of the leaders of Judah (Jer 34:18-20) is impossible to say (cf. Ezek 16:3, 45).

C. Ugarit and Phoenicia. The tablets from Ugarit furnish some important ritual texts of both prescriptive and descriptive types. The literary pieces give special attention to the enactment of sacrificial rites at crucial points in the narrative. The legendary King Keret conducted a special sacrifice to invoke blessing upon an impending military expedition:

He washed and rouged himself...he entered the shade of the tent. He took a sacrificial lamb in his hands...its commensurate loaves as food offering, he took the...of sacrificial bird(s); he poured wine in a silver cup, honey in a golden bowl; he went up to the top of the tower...he lifted his hands heavenward; he sacrificed to the Bull, his father El; he invoked Baal with his sacrifice, the son of Dagon with his victuals (Krt, 11. 156-171). A mythological selection contains the enigmatic statement: “Two sacrifices does Baal hate, three the rider of the clouds, the sacrifice of shame, and the sacrifice of fornication, and the sacrifice of abuse of handmaidens” (UT 51: III, 17-21).

The word rendered “sacrifice” (dbḥ) may also be “festival,” as proven by the new syllabary tablet where Akkad. isinnu, “festival,” is equated with Ugaritic *dabhu. The tr. of entries in accounting records such as ḫmšy. bd/bḥ mlkt / mdr’, “five (jars) of wine for the sacrifice of the queen in the sown land” (UT 1090:14-16) may have to be altered to “the festival of the queen, etc.” Nevertheless, the prosaic ledgers of the palace and temple library at Ugarit contain both descriptive (accounts of supplies issued) and prescriptive ritual texts. The sacrificial terminology applied to animals designated for the various gods include ’atm, “guilt offering,” šrp, “peace offering.” The animals offered were the sheep, male (š) and female (dqt), the cow (gdlt), the bull (’alp) and also fowl (’ṩr); incense (qṭr), and libations of wine (yn, ḫmr, trt-) and honey (nbt) were also utilized. The occasions recorded are usually calendrical, e.g. ym ḥdṭ, “day of the new (moon),” and the magic, mythological or ethical significance is generally impossible to determine (except for narrative passages). One broken tablet listing sacrifices begins by an allusion to slḫ. npš, “forgiveness of soul” (UT 9:1).

These Ugaritic texts, dating from at least as early as the 14th-13th centuries b.c., show how the technical terminology of the OT was already in wide use during the second millennium. For the Canaanite (Phoen.) practices of Israel’s contemporaries, we are dependent upon OT allusions. Elijah and the prophets of Baal evidently prepared their sacrifices in the same manner (1 Kings 18); common Heb. terms such as “sacrifice” (זֶ֫בַח֒, H2285) and “whole burnt offering” (עֹלָה֒, H6592) were applied to the customs at the temple of Baal in Samaria (2 Kings 10:18-27), as well as for the Aramean rites of Naaman (2 Kings 5:7). Two Punic (i.e. late Phoen.) lists of prices for sacrificial animals, one found at Carthage and the other at Marseilles (whence it had been carried) reveal a nomenclature very much like that of the OT, though scholars are in disagreement about the exact comparisons. The main terms are: ṩw’t (“sin offering”?), kll (“whole [burnt] offering”) and šlm (“peace offering”). The distribution of the meat varies according to the type of sacrifice; even from the kll, a small portion was given to the priest (contrast the “whole burnt offering” in Israel, below). There are differences between the two lists; therefore, one need not be surprised that the regulations do not match exactly those of the OT.

D. The Hellenic world. The common Mediterranean practice of burning the offering (unlike Mesopotamia, cf. above) is also reflected in Gr. sources. The Homeric epics describe in some detail the typical sacrifice to an Olympian (e.g., Iliad, I, 11. 446-476). After the washing of hands, grain was scattered about; then the animal’s head was drawn back so as to face upward, its throat was slit and afterward it was flayed. Slices from the thighs wrapped in fat were burned on the altar amid libations of red wine. Next the offerers tasted the inner parts (σπλάγχνα), contrary to Israelite practice (cf. below), and carved the rest of the meat into small pieces, which they roasted for themselves on skewers. Thus, a sacred meal was even part of the sacrifice meant to appease an angry god.

Sacrifices to the Olympians of heaven bore some sharp contrasts to those made for the underworld deities of the earth. The animal was usually a white ox for the former, a black ram (or pig) for the latter; the throat was turned upward to the Olympian, downward to the earth deity for whom pains were taken to see that the blood soaked into the earth. The heavenly gods were worshiped in their splendid classical temples and the sacrifice made on the raised βωμός, G1117, (cf. Heb. בָּמָה֒, H1195, “high place”); the chthonian deities received their homage in caves of underground shrines and the offering was laid either on a low “hearth” altar or in a pit. The proper time for sacrificing to the Olympians was morning, to the underworld gods it was at evening or late at night. A good example of the rites for an earth deity is that for the dreaded Hecate, goddess of demons and phantoms, who normally received sacrifices of dogs, black female lambs and honey (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, III, 1029-1039).

Descriptive ritual texts of the non-narrative class include not only inscrs. from the classical period, e.g., the sacrificial calendar (4th cent. b.c.) from Cos, but also some of the clay tablets in the Linear B script from 14th-13th cent. b.c. Pylos and Knossos. The classical graphic representations can also be supplemented by the sacrificial rite portrayed on the sarcophagus from the Late Bronze Age Cretan town of Agia Triada. The underworld nature of the ritual (funerary) is the reason for the collection of the victim’s blood as it flows from its slashed throat.

III. In the OT

A. General concept. The act of sacrificing is expressed by a special group of verbs that had doubtless obtained their technical meanings through centuries of usage. The most common is זָבַח, H2284, “to slaughter for sacrifice.” Its basic meaning was prob. “to slaughter an animal for food,” as seen in the Arab. cognate, ḏabaḥa, which is widely used for acts of slaughtering, besides those explicitly pertaining to sacrifice. The semantic relationship to the act of slaughtering is illustrated by Isaiah 34:6, “For the Lord has a sacrifice [זֶ֫בַח֒, H2285] in Bozrah, a great slaughter [טֶ֫בַח֒, H3181] in the land of Edom.” In spite of the superficial resemblance of the two nouns used here, they are not etymologically related; their Sem. roots were *ḏbḥ and *ṭbḫ respectively. The Heb. verb often takes a cognate accusative (i.e., זָבַח זְבָחִים), “to sacrifice a sarcifice (or sacrifices)” (Lev 22:29; Deut 18:3; 1 Sam 6:15; et al.). The slaying of the sacrificial animal can be portrayed by the use of a more common verb for slaughtering (שָׁחַט֒, H8821, e.g., Ezek 44:11; also Exod 29:16, et al.).

One could also speak simply of making a sacrifice (עָשָׁה זְבָחִים; Exod 10:25; 1 Kings 12:27; Jer 33:18). Other aspects of the sacrificial act could be highlighted by the use of different verbs, e.g., the presentation; one might bring (הֵבִיא) the offering (Amos 4:4) or present (הִגִּישׁ) it (5:25).

The idea of presenting the sacrifice to God is most often expressed by the verb “to bring near” (הִקְרִיב), which appears profusely in ritual contexts (הִקְרִיב זֶבַח; Lev 7:16; 22:26; cf. also Exod 29:3, et al.). The cognate noun from the same root is קָרְבָּן, H7933, “that which is brought near.” The usage הִקְרִיב קָרְבָּן, is found twenty-five times in the ritual passages from Leviticus 1:2 to Numbers 31:50. It is this term that appears as “Corban” (κορβᾶν, G3167) in Mark 7:11, where it is explained as ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, “which is a gift” (LXX also renders the Heb. term by δῶρον, G1565, Lev 1:2, passim; cf. also Jos. Apion, I. 22, Jos. Antiq. IV. iv. 4). An inscr. on the fragment of a stone vessel discovered in the current excavations of NT Jerusalem consists of the word קרבן. Just above the word appears a symbol (like a trident) that occurs on small offering plates from the preexilic temple at Arad; the symbol is preceded by the letter qoph, evidently an abbreviation for (ק) רבן.

Other aspects of the process are reflected in such verbs as “to prepare” (הֵכִין; Zeph 1:7), “to cook” (בִּשֵּׁל; Ezek 46:24), “to bless” (בֵּרֵכְ; 1 Sam 9:13), or “to offer up (literally: cause to go up)” (הֶעֱלָה; Lev 17:8; cf. “burnt offering,” עֹלָ֖ה, below). Note that the standard verbs for the incineration of sacrificial materials on the altar are הֶעֱלָה or הִקְטִיר, “to vaporize,” “to cause to go up in smoke” (Lev 1:9, 13, passim). This latter verb, viz. the causative stem, is the normal form from that root for reference to Israelite offerings; the factitive stem (קִטֵּל; i.e. piel) is always (except for Amos 4:5) used for non-Israelite forms of worship (e.g., 2 Kings 17:11). The normal verb, “to burn” (שָׂרַף, H8596) is never used of burning on the altar but only of incinerating those parts of the sacrifice that had to be disposed of “outside the camp” (e.g. Lev 4:12). Contrast the Ugaritic šrp, “burnt offering” (above) from the same root.

The concept that the offering was in effect a gift from the offerer to God is also made explicit in the phrase מַתְּנֹ֖ת קָדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם, “the gifts of their holy things” (Exod 28:38). Furthermore, the special feature of being “set apart, made holy” is closely tied in with the view that the sacrifice is a gift. For discussion of such terms as קָדַשׁ, H7727, and its cognates, which often pertain specifically to sacrifices or parts thereof (e.g. Lev 27:9), cf. Holiness.

B. Materials. The various materials and elements that comprised the sacrifices and the offerings of ancient Israel will be reiterated in detail below. Certain general observations are necessary, however, in anticipation of the discussion regarding specific offerings. For example, the thing offered had to be the property of the offerer (Lev 1:2); he might purchase it or bring it from his home. The agricultural nature of all the elements is obvious; except perhaps for the incense, all of the items were edible. Unlike the Mesopotamian view (cf. above) that the sacrifices were necessary to the gods as essential food (cf. Deut 32:37, 38), the God of Israel is only said to enjoy the “pleasant odor” of certain specific kinds of offering (cf. below). Even so, the sacrifices are called by the Lord, “My offering (qorbānî), my food (לַחְמִ֜י) for my offerings by fire, my pleasing odor” (Num 28:2) and “my food the fat (חֵ֣לֶב) and the blood (דָ֔ם)” (Ezek 44:7). However these were consumed or effused on the altar and not arrayed before Him in the manner of the Mesopotamian divine meal (cf. above).

On the other hand the priests received certain portions that they were required to eat in a sacred place (Lev 6:26 et al.) and sometimes the offerer was allowed to take part of the animal home with him for a meal of communal nature (cf. Communal offerings, below). The acceptable animals were of domesticated varieties raised for the purpose of providing food (and other products); work animals such as the donkey, which were not eaten, were not used for sacrifice (contrast the allusions to slaying an ass at Mari, above). Throughout the Levitical regulations it is stressed that the sacrificial animal had to be without physical blemish (מוּם, H4583; LXX μῶμος, G3700, “blame”). Such disqualifying blemishes are defined and summarized in Leviticus 22:17-25. The minimum age for any animal offered was eight days (vv. 26-30).

Although libations of wine and cereal offerings played a prominent role in the rituals, the most important sacrifices were those of animals. The surrender of a living victim was a major factor in nearly every kind of sacrificial ritual; that the life was being forfeited was signified by the extraction of the animal’s blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life [that is in it]” (Lev 17:11). The people were therefore forbidden to eat the blood (Lev 17:10; also Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:31-34), since life belonged only to God.

The very careful attention paid to the use and disposal of the blood in the various kinds of sacrifices indicates that, even with nonexpiatory offerings, the principle of blood atonement was not entirely absent. In fact, the role of the blood in the different rituals is one of the unifying features in all of Israelite sacrifice. The ancient meaning of atonement (verb: כָּפַר֒, H4105) in this context (e.g. Lev 17:11 et al.) was apparently that the sin of the offerer was “wiped away,” not in the literal sense of being ritually purified only, but in the ethical sense that it no longer interfered with the offerer’s relationship to God. Cf. Atonement.

Certain other parts of the animal, in particular the inner organs and the fat attached to them (cf. below), were always burned on the altar; they were considered to belong exclusively to God. By contrast, some of these very parts were eaten by the sacrificer(s) in Gr. epic lit. (cf. above). The skins were most often given to the priest (Lev 7:8).

C. Sources. The OT passages pertaining to sacrifice can also be classified according to the categories utilized for other ancient texts:

1. Prescriptive. The principal source for specific instructions concerning the correct performance of Israelite sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (chs. 1-7). It consists of two separate treatises. The first (Lev 1:1-6:7 [MT 5:26]) is didactic in nature; it discusses the sacrifices under two categories, those of a pleasing odor (רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ; LXX ὀσμή εὐωδίας; KJV “sweet savor,” ASV “savor”), viz. the burnt offering (1:3-17), the cereal (KJV meat, ASV meal) offering (2:1-16) and the peace offering (3:1-17) as distinct from those pertaining to expiation, viz. the sin offering (4:1-5:13) and the guilt (KJV, ASV trespass) offering (5:14-17 [MT 5:26]). The order in which the various sacrifices are treated reflects a pedagogical classification for the training of the sacerdotal specialists. Great attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual; the different offerings are grouped according to their logical, or conceptual, associations. The cereal offering appears immediately after the burnt offering because it was always presented with the latter in actual practice (not stated in this context, but cf. Num 15:1-21; chs. 28-29 passim); it also accompanied the peace offering (Lev 7:12-14; Num 15:3-4). In all three of these sacrifices, special attention is paid to the incineration of the inward parts on the altar to produce a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lev 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16); therefore they represent an expression of right relationship with Him. The divine favor was bestowed when “the Lord smelled the pleasing odor” (Gen 8:21); displeasure was followed by refusal to smell them (Lev 26:31). There must have been some observation or sign by which the officiating priest announced to the offerer that his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sam 26:19; cf. Amos 5:21-23).

The other category (Lev 4:1-6:7 [MT 5:26]) was comprised of two sacrifices, both of which were for making atonement (cf. above) to gain forgiveness for the offerer (Lev 4:20, et al.). The occasions demanding such offerings are defined (viz., sin on the part of individuals of various ranks or of the whole congregation) and special attention is paid to the ritual handling of the blood. The sin and guilt offerings are thus in the same class and bear a close relationship to one another; for the unique features of the latter as a specialized sin offering, cf. below.

The second part of these prescriptions (Lev 6:8 [MT 6:1]-7:38) concentrates mainly on certain administrative details pertaining to each offering. It consists of a series of paragraphs, each giving the “instructions” (תּﯴרָה, H9368) for one type of sacrifice; these latter have to do with the disposal of the materials presented some parts being allocated to the priest(s), some to the offerer, whereas others were either consumed on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. The designation “most holy” (קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָדָשִֽׁים) with regard to sacrifices had a practical, administrative significance; it pertained to those offerings, or portions thereof, that were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lev 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Num 18:9). Therefore, in the administrative treatment of the sacrifices, the offering that was wholly consumed (and thus not eaten by priests) came first, followed by those allotted to the functionaries (Lev 6:17 [MT vs. 10], 25 18, 29, 22; 7:1, 6) and concluded by the peace offerings, large parts of which were returned to the offerer.

The order also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Num 28; 29; 2 Chron 31:3; Ezek 45:17a): whole burnt offering (Lev 6:9 [MT 6:2]-13 [MT 6:6]), cereal offering (6:14 [MT 6:7]-23 [MT 6:16]), sin offering (6:24 [MT 6:17]-30 [MT 6:23], and finally the guilt offering (7:1-6) which is included here, though it was not prescribed for holy days, because it had the same instructions (תּﯴרָה, H9368) as the sin offering (v. 7). Each paragraph concludes with a statement about the logistic or administrative detail peculiar to the offering discussed; next comes a brief summary of the items treated thus far (7:7-10) followed by an additional section giving the instructions (תּﯴרָה, H9368) of the peace offerings (7:11-36). These latter had no special function in the sacred calendar except at the Feast of Weeks (23:19, 20); otherwise their offering was purely voluntary and therefore not subject to any fixed reckoning (other sacrifices could also be made by individuals and groups as the occasion demanded). The difference between the fixed “income” from the calendral offerings and the sporadic presentation of others is clearly reflected in the closing v. of the roster prescribing the daily and periodic sacrifices (Num 29:39).

The same general order is followed, viz. burnt, cereal (and drink), sin (or guilt), and sometimes peace offerings in other “bookkeeping” contexts. The most illuminating study in recent times of such a passage is that by B. A. Levine on the list of donations made by the tribal leaders for the dedication of the altar (Num 7). He has shown that this narrative is structured like an everyday ledger from a sanctuary; the summary lists the animals as burnt, cereal, sin, and peace offerings (7:87, 88) following the pattern of the respective entries for each donor (7:15-17, passim). The “two dimensional” nature of this record, as defined by Levine, is also quite understandable. The Levitical scribe had to use such a record for two purposes: (1) to credit the offerers and (2) to keep track of the treasures and food supplies coming in, the latter being esp. important logistically since they were the rations for the officiating priests and Levites (Num 18:8-11; 2 Chron 31:4-19).

The same administrative sequence is almost invariably used whenever prescriptions are made concerning the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Num 15:24). Such was the case with each of the festivals and holy days (the daily sacrifice was only a burnt offering of two lambs with their cereal and drink offerings, one in the morning and the other in the evening 28:1-8); on the Sabbath, two additional male lambs with their cereal and drink offerings were added (28:9, 10). Burnt offerings with their associated cereal offerings and libations were listed, followed by an additional notation prescribing a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (28:11-15), each day of Passover (28:19-22), Weeks (28:26-30; Lev 23:15-19), Trumpets (Num 29:1-5), Day of Atonement (29:8-11a) and each day of the Feast of Booths (Num 29:12-16, passim).

For specific acts of ritual sacrifice, e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth (Lev 12:6, 8), the same order appears in the instructions as to what offerings to bring.

The best case in point is the list of required sacrifices for the successful termination of a Nazarite vow; the Nazarite was to furnish a burnt, sin, and peace offering (with some special cereal offerings, Num 6:14, 15). However, a striking point emerges from the actual conduct of the ritual. The priest carried out the sacrifices in a different order, viz., the sin offering and then burnt offering followed by the peace offering (6:16, 17). In the case of a broken vow, the first step was also the sacrificing of a sin offering and then a burnt offering (6:11) to renew the vow; the reconsecration of the votary’s head was accomplished by a separate guilt offering, which was already a second and distinct ritual act (6:12). The Nazirite passage thus points up the difference between the “bookkeeping” order in which offerings were prescribed and later entered into the sanctuary records on the one hand and the “procedural” order in which the rites were actually conducted.

The contrast between the two orders is most striking in the prophetic prescriptive text concerning the prince in the apocalyptic restoration. It was his duty to furnish “the burnt..., cereal..., and drink offerings” at the calendral holidays; he was to make (הֽוּא־יַעֲשֶׂ֞ה ; RSV “provide”) “the sin...., cereal...., burnt..., and peace offerings” (Ezek 45:17). That there was a fixed order for carrying out the sacrifices different from that in which they were furnished and audited is obvious.

A strikingly similar picture is reflected in another prescription, viz., Ezekiel’s vision of the liturgy by which the altar was to be reinstituted (43:18-27). A sin offering was to be made on the first (vv. 18-21) and second days (v. 22) of the ceremony. The latter was immediately followed by a burnt offering (vv. 23, 24); the sin and burnt offerings of the second day were repeated for seven days (vv. 25-27). From the eighth day on, the way was clear for burnt and peace offerings (v. 27).

Further examples of the “procedural” sequence include the ritual purification of a leper: guilt (Lev 14:12) and sin offering (14:19), which belong to the expiatory category (cf. below), followed by the burnt offering (14:20); of the man with a discharge (15:15; sin, burnt); and of the woman with a hemorrhage (15:30; also sin, burnt). The same order prevails in the various sacrifices for the Day of Atonement (16:3, 6, 11, 15, 24).

The prescriptive ritual texts cited above are seen to reflect three methods of recording the sacrifices: (1) didactically (conceptually), (2) administratively, and (3) procedurally.

The instructions for ordaining Aaron and his sons preserve the procedural order of sacrifices in the prescriptive text (Exod 29) and the same order is confirmed in the narrative descriptive text (Lev 8). First, the sin offering was made (Exod 29:10-14; Lev 8:14-17) and then the burnt offering (Exod 29:15-18; Lev 8:18-21); the climax of the altar rites was the sacrifice of ordination (מִלֻּאִ֛ים), literally of “setting in, installation” (Exod 29:19-34; Lev 8:22-29), which was in fact a specialized form of communal, or peace offering (cf. below).

2. Descriptive. Numbers 7 (discussed below) shows that a descriptive text, i.e., one that tells what was offered, need not always reflect the “procedural” order of the sacrifices. If the descriptive text is in the form of a temple ledger, as Levine has shown, then it is more likely to be composed according to the administrative order. Such is the case with Numbers 7.

On the other hand, the narrative descriptions normally follow the procedural sequence. Leviticus 8, which describes the installation ceremony for Aaron and his sons, has been discussed above. This was followed by the formal inauguration of the whole Israelite sacrificial system as portrayed in Leviticus 9. The initial offerings for Aaron followed the order: sin offering, burnt offering (Lev 9:7-14). The sequence of the people’s offering that followed was: sin, burnt, cereal, and peace offerings (9:15-22). Even the narrative prescription, the command from the Lord, is given in the same functional order (9:2-4).

The great cleansing and restoration of the Temple and its ritual in Jerusalem was conducted in the reign of King Hezekiah according to the same pattern (2 Chron 29:20-36). An extensive sin offering was made first (vv. 20-24); next followed the burnt offering, the ritual of which was accompanied by elaborate acts of worship in music and song (vv. 25-30). At this stage the king announced that the people had consecrated themselves “to [a state of holiness vis à vis] the Lord” (v. 31); they were therefore in a state of purity that qualified them to engage in further sacrifices (vv. 31-35) of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).

In view of the preceding passages, it seems most likely that the same ritual sequence was followed at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. Unfortunately, 1 Kings 8:5 (cf. 2 Chron 5:6) is ambiguous; it only states that the king and the people were “sacrificing” (מְזַבְּחִימ׃֙). Later, the burnt, cereal, and peace offering sequence is maintained (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Chron 7:7). These latter prob. correspond to the voluntary sacrifices offered after the conclusion of the atonement ritual proper (cf. 2 Chron 29:31-35; Ezek 43:27). By analogy, one may assume that 1 Kings 8:5 refers to the atonement ritual of sin, burnt and cereal offerings (cf. 2 Chron 29:20, 31; Ezek 43:18-27).

The “procedural” sequence of the offerings, i.e., the actual order in which they were offered on any occasion that demanded more than one type, provides the key to understanding the religious (spiritual) significance of the sacrificial system. First of all, sin had to be dealt with; the appropriate offering (sin or guilt) had to be made. This was closely linked with a burnt offering that followed it immediately (with its accompanying cereal offering as stated in many cases) and thus completed the self committal (2 Chron 29:31) that qualified the supplicant(s) for the last stage of the liturgy. The crowning phase was the presentation of burnt and peace offerings, the former including both the voluntary gifts of individuals and the calendrical offerings symbolizing the constant devotion of the people as a whole, the latter representing the communal experience in which the Lord, the priest, and the worshiper (along with his friends and the indigent in his community; Deut 12:17-19) all had a share.

D. The sacrifices. By describing the various types of offering in their “procedural” order, the significance of their respective ritual acts as expressions of OT ethical monotheism can be placed in its proper perspective.

1. Expiatory offerings. Two offerings fall in this category. The particular aspect of conduct for which they were required will be discussed after the liturgical details have been summarized for both of them.

a. Sin offering. (חַטָּאת, H2633; ἁμαρτίας; Lev 4:1-35; 6:24-30 [MT 17-23]). The type of animal required was suited to the rank of the offerer. The high priest brought a young bull (Lev 4:3) as did the congregation (v. 14) except, apparently, when a ritual infraction was involved (Num 15:24). A ruler brought a male goat (Lev 4:25), but a commoner could furnish a female (v. 28; Num 15:27) or a lamb (Lev 4:32). A poor person could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of the pair served as a burnt offering; Lev 5:7), or, in extreme cases he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (vv. 11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).

The offerer brought the animal and executed the symbolic act of laying his hand on it (Lev 4:4 passim). In this way he identified the offering with himself. He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, Lev 16:21). It was also his duty to slay the animal (on the N side of the altar; 4:24, 29; cf. 1:11).

The priest collected the blood; when the sacrifice was a bull for himself or for the congregation he took some of it into the shrine to sprinkle before the veil (4:5-7) and put some on the horns of the incense altar there (vv. 16-18). On the Day of Atonement, he took his and the people’s sacrificial blood into the Holy of Holies (16:14, 15). From all the other animals the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:7, 18); that of the birds was effused on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from every type of offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7, passim).

The choice parts of the viscera, viz. the fatty tissue (חֵ֫לֶב֒, H2693; LXX στέαρ) over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat and the appendage to the liver, were all consumed on the altar (Lev 4:8-10, passim). The carcass and the remaining entrails were disposed of as refuse by burning outside the camp in the case of a bull for the priest or the people (vv. 11, 12, 21). This rule prevailed for the bull in the ordination rites of Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:10-14; Lev 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest received the edible flesh for food; it was to be eaten within the sacred precincts and very strict rules of ritual purity governed its handling (6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20).

A sin offering of one male goat was required at each of the sacred festivals: the New Moon (Num 28:15), each day of Passover (vv. 22-24), Weeks (v. 30), Trumpets (29:5), Day of Atonement (v. 11; besides the special sin offerings for that day), each day of Booths (v. 16, 19, passim). The high priest brought a bull for himself and then offered one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement (q.v.).

Rites of purification called for lesser sin offerings, viz. lambs or birds after: childbirth (Lev 12:6-8), leprosy (14:12-14, 19, 22, 31), abscesses and hemorrhages (15:15, 30), or defilement during the period of a vow (Num 6:10-11).

The strictly individual cases requiring sin offerings are discussed following the guilt offering below.

b. Guilt offering. (אָשָׁם, H871; LXX πλημμέλεια; Lev 5:14-6:7 [MT 5:26]; 7:1-7). The guilt (KJV, ASV trespass) offering was a specialized kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required in cases when someone had been denied his rightful due; reparation of the valued amount defrauded was required plus a fine of twenty percent (Lev 5:16; 6:5 [MT 5:24]). The animal prescribed was usually a ram (Lev 5:15, 18; 6:6 [MT 5:25]; 19:20); the cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite were to bring a male lamb (14:12, 21; Num 6:12). The offerer’s part in the ritual was prob. identical to that of the sin offering; however, the pri