vi. The Sacrificial System of the Priestly Code. — With tlie downfall of the kingdom of Judah, involving the destruction of the Temple and the deportation of the people, Hosea's pre- diction of the cessation of sacriticial worship was fulfilled. Whatever relief individuals might there- after find in recurrence to simple forms of offering, or by conforming to heathenism, the nation as such, broken as it was and dispersed, was deprived of the stated means of communion with God. Yet the visitation which had thus overwhelmed Judah, and reduced its institutions to ruins, was not in- terpreted by its religious leaders as a Divine condemnation of its system of worship. The WTitings of Ezekiel bear testimony to the hopes of a great prophet touching the restoration of the Temple and its solemn ordinances. The priests who escaped into exile carried with them a minute knowledge of the Temple services, possibly also written summaries of the rules that had governed the elaborate system of otl'erings and ritual ; and it may well be believed that, ere tlie Temple with its solemn rites faded from living memory, it was realized to be a pious duty to compile a faithful record of the ancient sanctities and glories. Cherished as a monument of the past, this record naturally became, in the prospect of a new national existence, the basis of a practical religious jiro- gramme. The dream of restoring the old worship on the old sacred gi'ound, in a second Temple of Jerusalem, was one wliicli must have irresistibly appealed to the pious exile. But restoration did not preclude adaptation and amendment. Novel cir- cumstances, foreign impressions, deeper reflexion, required that the legacy from the piast should be handled with freedom as well as with piety. The result of the two factors — obscure as was the pro- cess— was the Priestly Code, which was adopted as authoritative at the Reformation under Ezra, c. 444, and which thenceforward regulated Jewish worship and gave its characteristic note to Jewish religion. The sacrificial system described in this
SACRIFICE
SACRIFICE
337
code (Leviticus, Ex 25-31. 35-40, Nu 1-10. 15-19. 25-36) we have now to analyze.
1. Fot-ms of SacriJice.—'i'Uc arrangement of the complicated enactments of the code lias been at- tcniiitBd in ditleient ways, but the more satisfactory method is to adopt as the leading clue the distinc- tion of kinds and varieties. Tlie cliissilication of the Levitical sacrifices may, however, be carried out from dill'erent points of view.
The main principle of division has been sought in the distinction of the subjects oa behalf of whom sacrihces were ollered.
It is on this principle that Malmonlrles haor-s his interesting and instructive suinniary ot the auorilicial laws (J'r(rlatio in quintain J/uiiice iiiirli-m', iii. IIT.)- Tin- viirieliis, he premises, may all be reduced to four groups — the Sin-offcriug, tlie Guilt- offering, the Durnt-offcring, and the Peace-oflering ; and the Tictinis were o( Ove species— sheep, cattle, goats, young pigeons, and turtlenioves. In reference to the subjects, his classification (sligbtlv transposed) is as follows : —
1. Sacrifices offered on behalf of the whole congregation :— (o) in the exercise ot its ordinary religious duty, under a ■Uted ritual, and tied to stated occasions (Saljhath, New Moon, F<;ists) ; (^) on the occasion o( some collective or public traiis^rression.
2. Sacrilicea oiTered on behalf of the individual :— (a) in virtue of his r-onnexion with the theorratic community as an official or ordinary member, e.ti, the Pawover ; (h) on a special occa- aion— «.£/. a sin of word or deed, a bodily accident, amisfor- tune in business, the end of a flxcd period, the obligation of a vow.
The Levitical sacrifices have also been classi- fied with reference to the dill'erent ends which they served in the approach to the Deity.
The usual division from this point of view is into horunrijie, designed to render due homage to Ood, and piacular or ex- piaturii, designed to make atonement for sin— to wliich, since W. R. Smith's work, it luis been usual lo add sacrifices of cum- munion. The distinction wliich (lihler lays at the basis of his discussion is expressed by him (Tlienlog;/ of OT, Eng. tr. p. 423) as follows :— ' We refer the tour kinds of offering to two higher classes— those which assume that the covenant relation is on the whole undisturbed (Peace^)frerings), and those tliatare meant to do awav with a disturbance which has entered into this relation, and' again to restore the right relation (of the peojile or of separate individuals) to Ood ' (Burnt-, Sin-, and Uuilt-offeriugs).
The division founded on the distinctions of the sacrificial maierinl — animal, vegetable, or liquid — is the most obvious, and may be followed here as of adequate importance, while not pre- judging the difficult question of the purpose of sacrifice.
(i. ) Animal sacrifices are by far the most im- portant, and in P it appears that a re-valuation has taken place of the two ancient types. The Peaceofiering of which the worshippers claimed a large sliare is overshadowed by the feurntoHering, with which are now associated two kindred sacri- fices—the Sin-offering and the G nil t-oU'eriug, falling to (jod and Uis ministers.
(o) The Burnt-otrerlng (n^'y Lv 1, Ex 29»<«, No JS"-, Lv CI'), which stands at the head ot the group, owes its position to the fact that its juirpose was the most general, that the victims were ot pre-eminent value, anrl that at this stage it was regarfled as most pertectlv emlwdying the sacriticial idea (Knoliel-Dillmann on Lv 1^). (l) Tht viclinis \yere the oxkind, sheep, goats, turtloKiovcs. or young pigeons, — in the case of the animals it was prescribed that the victim should be a male, as the more valuable, and without blemish (1», tor a list of blemishes of. 2a*-^). (2) The riltuit to tje observed includes the