(c) As a sacrifice, the piacular side stands out in the present accounts with especial prominence. For the blood ceremonial (cf. Ex 12) can hardly have any other meaning. In it a practice from the early tribal life seems to be preserved to us. We see that blood had much the same significance in worship in the case of Israel as was given to it by other peoples. Developments of this same conception could then be found in the many later rites of blood: the pouring, the sprinkling, and the staining. Trumbull’s books greatly help one to see how this could come about. At the same time, as a sacrifice the Passover has another side, no less important and no less primitive (cf. RS p. 239 et passim). It ranks with the shélamim or peace-offerings, where the common meal is central, as the means of establishing or renewing the covenant with God and with one another.
We have seen how P gave marked emphasis to this sacramental side. And this cannot be made to conflict with the previous aspect or to exclude it. The fact that the sin-offering of later times could not be used for such a meal, cannot be made & norm for practice at this early stage. Rather one could urge, as some do, the probability that in the case of all sacrifices the blood then found some such application. And in saying this we must remember that it Li no means implies that the words atonement and reconciliation need to have the same serious content that a later age gave to them. Originally offered as all other sacrifices, we should expect no other priest than the head of the family.
_ (d) If we keep within the bounds of our records, it can hardly be denied that the sacrifices at this feast were for the most part, if not entirely, the
Jirstborn. Such an offering is mentioned in the oldest portions of the law, and is closely associated
with those passages dealing with the Passover. In view of the previous discussion, we need at present merely mention this aspect (ef. ii. 3).
(e) It seems, furthermore, to be an undoubted part of the old tradition, that the Exodus was closely connected with the observance of this ancient feast. In the case of P there is, to be sure, a demand for ete release, but otherwise there is no indication that the Israelites gave any hint of their intention not to return. The demand which Moses and Aaron repeatedly urge upon Pharaoh is—‘ Thus saith J” the God of Israel, ἜΣ my ecnle Ὁ, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness . . . let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacri-
fice unto J” our God, lest he fall upon us with
pestilence or with sword’ (Ex 5'8), With young and old, with its sons and its daughters, with its flocks and its herds, Israel seeks to go forth into the Sinaitic peninsula to hold a feast unto the Lord (Ex 10°). That they should ask to do so, does not apparently seem a strange or unintelligible demand to the king. Possibly because such religious pil- srimages, which were a frequent occurrence with ater Semitic peoples, were not unusual in those earlier times (cf. Dillmann, Hz. p. 46 f.).
Such a feast as this need not, of course, be the Passover; much less the ΡΟ νοῦ. of the later mazzith (so Dill. in loc. p. 636). But that it stood in close relation to the Passover and the sacrifice of the firstborn, seems an almost necessary con- clusion from the OT accounts.
Such are the features which the Passover seems to include within itself. But to give the name Passover especial application to any particular one of them in this early time does not seem warranted, for we have no means of judging of its age or mean- ing. It may have belonged origin: μὰ to some particular part, or may have been the designation of the entire feast or series of feasts. In any case it has come to stand for a most important recur- ring occasion in the early nomad life of Israel, one that was possibly then what the feast of Taber- nacles was for the early agricultural life—the Feast. The very fact that it survived the many changes attending the passing from this nomad to the agricultural stage, as well as later changes hardly less revolutionary, points to something deeply rooted in the popular life and tradition. From first to last it keeps this character of a people’s feast, and reforms which failed to recognize this feature could not be ultimately successful. Such a celebration could well be the occasion of the Exodus, and this supposition affords adequate explanation for the subsequent traditions. That the old character should become merged in the memorial significance, was to be expected in the face of the new life and institutions. Contiguity in time seems the best explanation for its associa- tion with mazzéth, which always remains really distinct.
iii. THE PosT-EXxILIc PASSOVER.—1l. Manner of Observance.—The practice subsequent to the return from captivity, as we have seen in 2Ch and Ezra, conformed more closely to Dt than to P. This is borne out by the extra-canonical sources (esp. Tract Pesachim, Josephus, Bk. of Jubilees). Many details in Ex 12 were interpreted as intended only for the Egyptian Passover (psd nodD) as over against the permanent Passover, which future generations were to observe (md nod or pwri nop as distinguished from the second or little Passover ‘uw nop). Such features were (a) the selection of the lamb on the 10th day ; (6) the slaughter at the home; (6) the sprinkling of blood on the doorposts ; (d) the admission of those who might be Levitically impure ; (e) the haste indicated in dress and manner of eating (i.e. standing); (f) lodging where the feast was held. These were assigned to the feast of preparation, but not intended to be perpetuated in the feast of commemoration. It is to be noted that the priestly writer does not expressly enjoin these features save for the first Passover, but the whole tenor of his narrative indicates that the were undoubtedly given for all time. The Samari- tans so continue to understand them. It is only among them that there is still an attempt to ob- serve the Passover with actual sacrifice as in earlier days (cf. the account in Baedeker’s Palestine and Syria ; Trumbull’s Studies in Oriental Social Life, p. 371 ff.; Thomson in Expos. Times, xi. (1900) 377).