t V.20 seems to be misplaced. Its natural poaltion would be Immediately after v.m (cf. 4»-'0. '»• » etc.).
200
ATONEMENT, DAY OF
ATONEMENT, DAY OF
t lought of the people than was the case pre- viously. The phrase ' to artlict the soul ' (^jj njy, see Lv 16^- " 23-''- ^- ^^, Nu 29') occurs elsewhere only Is 58»- »• '" (exilic) and Ps 35" (influenced by Jer). Fasting as a religious observance was prac- tised among the Hebrews in ancient times ; but we first hear of annual fasts on stated days in connexion with the fall of Jerusalem (Zee 7'"° 8"). The elaborate ritual of the blood probably points to a comparatively late date (cf. Lv 4'"^', one of the later portions of P j and contrast 9^'") ; while the nearest analogies to the public confession of sins (16-') are to be found in post-exilic writings (Ezr 9, Neh 1*-'" 9', Dn 9^*'). Moreover, the priestly prophet Ezekiel, in his legislation for the restored people (ch. 40-48), prescribes a ceremonial, which, « hile its general aim is similar to that of the Day of Atonement, is much simpler in character ; he enjoins, viz. (45'"*'), two solemn purifications of the sanctuary on the 1st day of the first month, and on the 1st of the seventh month (so LXX ; see IlVm), when a young bullock was to be slain for a siu-otlerlng on behalf of all who might err through inadvertence or natural slowness {mer vks •nsDi), and the blood of the victim was to be placed on the doorposts of the temple, on the corners of the ledge of the altar, and on the gateposts of the inner court. Tlie prophet, in his legislation for the future, attaches himself largely to existing usage ; if, therefore, the law of Lv 16 had been in his day a time-honoured institution, would he ha\'e either disregarded it or stripped it of so many of its significant rites? Does it not seem more probable that the law of Lv 16 is a develop- ment of the simpler ceremonial prescribed by Ezekiel ? Indeed, there are reasons for supposing that its introduction was decidedly later than Ezekiel's time. In Neh 8-10 we possess a fairly cir- cumstantial account of the events of tlie 7th month (if B.C. 444, including, for instance (8-- "'"), notices of what happened on the 1st and 2nd days of the month, and the observance, in accordance with Lv 23^-", of the Feast of Booths from the 15th to the 23rd days ; that being so, it is remarkable, if the fast of the 10th day had been an established institution, that no mention should be made of its observance, especially when we are expressly told (9"-) that the 24th day was observed as a day of fasting and of confession of sins. Reuss, indeed, on the ground that the fast of the 24th would have been superfluous, if the fast of the 10th had just preceded, argued (Hist, sainte et la lui, i. 260) that Lv 16 did not even form part of the law-book read by Ezra; but, as Kuenen (//ex. § 15. 32; cf. Dillm. NDJ p. 673 ; Stade, Gesch. ii. 182) points out, this argument is hardly decisive ; the fast of the 24th is manifestly intended as a special token of humiliation for national shortcomings, prepara- tory to the conclusion of the covenant (9**"^) ; it has thus little or nothing in common with the annually-recurring Day of Atonement, and it might have been apjiointed whether Lv 16 was contained in Ezra's law-book or not. But Kuenen agrees tliat the non-mention of the day on the part of the well-informed narrator of Neh 8-10 is ' very strange,' if it were an established institution, and considers it to be an indication that it was intro- duced/or the first time in the law-hook of Ezra, though not observed at once, on account of its forming part of a new system, which had not yet been formally accepted by the people. Whetlier this argument be satisfactory or not, it is import- ant to recollect that the argument against the antiquity of the Day of Atonement is not, as it is often represented as being (e.(]. by Delitzsch, in his study on the subject, ZKWL, 1880, p. 173 ff.), solely an nrgumentum e silentio : that, as Kuenen observes (TA. Tijdschr. 18S3, pp. 207-212), is but one
argument out of many ; the Day of Atonement is part of a system, the ceremonial system of tlie Priest's Code ; when, therefore, the question of ita antiquity is raised, it cannot be treated by itself, but forms part of a larger question, viz. the antiquity of that sj'stem as a whole, and must be answered in the same sense as that in which the wider question is answered.
(2) Tlie second question is whether Lv 16 forms a liomogeneous whole. The chapter is connected w ith the narrative of the death of Aaron's sons for oflering strange fire (ch. 10 ; cf . 16'- ** ' that he die not,' and ". u. ^nd contrast 'tire from the altar,' v.'^, with 'strange fire,' 10') ; but it treats of two distinct subjects, without clearly indicating the transition from one to the other. It opens with a warning addressed to Aaron against rashly enter- ing the Most Holy Place, and prescribes the pre- liminary rites to be performed, whenever he may have occasion to do so.* It passes on to describe a solemn atoning ceremony to be per- formed for the tabernacle itself, and for the worshippers ; and it concludes with the institution of an annual fast on the day of the atoning cere- mony. This change of subject suggests a doubt whether the chapter in its present form can be wholly the work of one writer. Dillmann explains the change of subject, and the connexion with ch. 10, by the supposition that originally the chapter contained the description of a ceremony of purification, to be performed in consequence of the defilement brought upon the tabernacle by the sin of Nadab and Abihu. He supposes that directions were given for the repetition of the rite after any subsequent desecration ; that in later times it had become the practice to perform this service once, and once only, in every year; and that the chapter was altered to suit tne later practice. This ex- planation, however, requires us to supply a good deal which is not stated, and only indirectly suggested, by the present text.