Copyright © 1996 by
Andrews University Press. Cited with permission.
LEVITICUS 16:
ITS LITERARY STRUCTURE
ANGEL MANUEL RODRIGUEZ
Biblical Research
Institute
Silver Spring, MD
To
the memory of Gerhard F. Hasel, a former professor,
an excellent
Christian, a respected scholar, and a supportive
friend.
Scholarly work on Lev 16 has been
mainly interested in the
redactional history of the materials
present in the chapter, and
consequently little interest has
been shown in the literary structure of
this important passage. Questions related to the
form and purpose of
the supposedly original and independent rituals
that are now embedded
in the biblical text, as well as to the date for
the creation or formulation
of the day of atonement, are still lacking final answers.l It is not our
purpose to look into those issues, but rather to
explore the literary
structure of Lev 16 in an attempt to illuminate
the way in which its
diverse sections constitute a single unity.2
It is no longer possible to argue,
without introducing serious
modifications to the statement, that
"It is evident at the first glance that
the chapter [Lev 16] is in its present form the
result of a probably fairly
long previous history that has left its traces in a
strange lack of
continuity and unity about the whole."3
Some scholars have found
evidence of literary structures and beauty in Lev
16 which suggests a
definite attempt on the part of the writer to
integrate it into a whole.
For
instance, John E. Hartley speaks of the "remarkable tapestry" of the
chapter, pointing particularly to the balance
and unity created by the
1 On these and related
issues, see A. Bertholet, Leviticus (Tubingen: Mohr, 1901), 50-
53;
and more recently, K. Ellinger, Leviticus (Tubingen: Mohr, 1966), 200-201;
Jacob
Milgrom, Leviticus
1-16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1061-1065; John E. Hartley,
Leviticus (Dallas: Word, 1992), 217-220;
David P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD
2:72-
76;
and Rene Peter-Contesse, Levitique 1-16 (Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1993),245-248.
2 I would like to thank
William Shea for going over the first draft of the
literary
structure proposed here and for his comments.
3 Martin Noth, Leviticus: A
Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 117.
269
270
SEMINARY STUDIES 34
(AUTUMN 1996)
constant reference to the sacrifices of the high
priest and the
congregation and the objects of
expiation (priests, people, and parts of
the sanctuary). He even finds a chiastic structure
in Lev 16 based on
the general content of the passage rather than on
linguistic parallels.5
Some
scholars have found small chiasms within the chapter,6
but as far
as I know, none of them has attempted to carefully
explore the literary
structure of the whole chapter.
Literary Structure of Each Section of Lev 16
A literary analysis of Lev 16
indicates that chiasms and
synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic parallelisms,
complete and
incomplete, are found throughout. It is now well
known in the study
of biblical texts that repetitions do have
specific functions and purpose.
This
is also the case in Lev 16, which is formed by legal materials
artistically constructed. Our
reading of the chapter indicates that it can
be divided into five main sections, each one well
structured. In order to
assist the reader, we will provide first the result of
our study, followed
by comments and interpretations of the proposed
findings.
Lev 16:1-2: HISTORICAL
SETTING
"The Lord spoke to Moses. . . 'Tell
Aaron. . . or he will die.'"
Lev 16:3-5: INTRODUCTION
A Aaron's Bull for a Sin-offering 16:3
B Aaron's Ram for a Burnt-offering
16:3
C Priestly Vestment and
Ritual Bath 16:4
A'
People's Male Goats for Sin-offering 16:5
B People s Ram for Burnt-offermg 16:5
Lev 16:6-10: FIRST
DEVELOPMENT
A Aaron Brings Near Bull for Sin-offering 16:6
B Makes Atonement for Himself and
His House 16:6
C Places the Two Goats Before Yahweh 16:7
D Casts Lot
for Yahweh 16:8
E
Casts Lot for Azazel 16:8
D' Lot for
Yahweh - Sin-offering 16:9
4 Hartley, 31-32. Frank
H. Gonnan, Jr., speaks of the importance of
recognizing in
the study of Lev 16 “the dynamics of the text as a
self-contained unit of meaning" (The
Idelogy of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology [Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990D, 67.
5 He suggested the
following structure: A narrative and introduction (vv. 1-2); B
calendrical agenda (vv. .3-10); C
liturgical regulations (vv. 11-28); B' calendrical
instructions
(vv. 29-34a); A compliance report (v. 34b) (Ibid., 232).
6 E.G. Wright finds one
in 16:29-31 (73), and Milgrom
identifies another one in 16:14
(1033).
RODRIGUEZ: LEVITICUS 16 271
E'
C' Places Goat Before Yahweh
B' To Make Atonement for/on It
A' To Send It to the
Wilderness
Lev 16:11-22: SECOND
DEVELOPMENT
A Aaron's Bull: Sin-offering for Himself and His
House 16:11-14
A1 Slaughtered 16:11
A2 Bring Incense behind
the Veil: Not to Die 16:12-13
A3 Blood
Manipulation 16:14
B Community's Goat for Yahweh: A
Sin-offering 16:15
B1 Slaughtered 16:15
B2 Bring
blood Behind the Veil 16:15
B3
Blood Manipulation 16:15
C Atonement for the
Sanctuary, Tent of Meeting, the Priesthood, the
Congregation
of Israel, and the Altar 16:16-19
C1 Atonement
for Sanctuary and Tent of Meeting 16:16
C2
Atonement for Priesthood and Assembly 16:17
C3
Atonement for the Altar 16:18-19
C' Atonement Finished
for the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting
and the Altar
B' Community's Goat for Azazel 16:20-22
B1 Live Goat Is Presented 16:20
B2 Place Both Hands on
the Head of the Live Goat 16:21
B3 Confession of All Iniquities,
Rebellions and All Sins 16:21
B2' Place Them [the
Sins] on the Head of the Goat 16:21
B1' Goat Taken to the Wilderness 16:21
B2'1 Goat Bears All
Iniquities upon Itself to a
B1" Set Free in the Wilderness 16:22
A' ________________________
Lev 16:23-28: CONCLUDING
RITUAL ACTS
A
Priestly Vestments and Ritual
B Atonement Performed through
Burnt-offerings 16:24
C Disposal of the Fat of
the Sin-offering
A'
Vestment and Ritual
B' Atonement and the Blood of the
Sin-offering
C' Disposal of the
Flesh, Skin and Dung of the Sin-offering
A"
Vestment and Ritual Bath: Person Handling the Flesh of the Sin offering
Lev 16:29-34:
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE RITUAL
A Everlasting Statute: Seventh Month, Tenth Day
B Deny Yourselves
C Do no Work
D Atonement
to Cleanse from All Sin 16:30
272
SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
C' Sabbath Rest
B' Deny Yourselves
A'
Everlasting Statute
D Anointed Priest
Makes Atonement 16:32
E
Wears Linen Vestments 16:32
E'
Holy Vestments
D' Makes
Atonement for Sanctuary, Tent, Altar,
Priests, and All the Assembly 16:33
A” Everlasting Statute 16:34
D To Make
Atonement for the People of
Sins
16:34
A’”
Once a Year
Lev
"Moses did as the Lord had
commanded him."
(Heb, "Lord/Moses")
The five main literary units are
carefully structured and integrated
into each other through the use of specific
terminology and by the flow
of the different ritual acts. But before exploring
those units we should
define the function of the Historical Setting (vv. 1-2) and the
Concluding Remark (v. 34d). From the literary point
of view they
form a literary envelope for the content of the
chapter, singling it out
as a unit by itself that can be separated from its
immediate context for
literary analysis. At the end of the chapter we
are taken back to the
beginning, hence informing us that the unit has
come to an end. This
is done in two ways. At the beginning Moses is
ordered by the Lord to
do something (dabber
'el 'aharon/"speak to
Aaron"), and at the end we
are told that he did exactly as he was told (wayya'as k’aser
siwwah
yahweh/”he did as the Lord commanded”).
This "compliance report"7
closes the literary unit. In addition, we find in both
sections the names
Yahweh and Moseh together, something that is
not found throughout the
rest of the chapter. We find conceptual and linguistic
connections
between these sections.
"The Historical Setting contains additional information that is
useful in determining its purpose. In its canonical
form the
institutionalization of the day of atonement
is dated to the period of the
Israelite
Sinai experience soon after the death of Aaron's sons inside the
sanctuary. The possibility of dying inside the
sanctuary was a real one,
even if the sin of Aaron's sons was not repeated.
The purpose of the
legislation is to avoid a similar experience in the
sanctuary. This could
happen particularly whenever the priest would go into
the adytum of
7 Hartley,
225. Formulas of compliance are common in Leviticus; see Baruch A.
Levine,
Leviticus (New York: Jewish
Publication Society, 1989), 110.
RODRIGUEZ: LEVITICUS 16 273
the sanctuary (yabo' . . . 'el-haqqodes). The implicit
question raised in
vv. 1-2 is the one of the proper time for a rite
of entrance,8 but it is not
answered until the end of the chapter. In
addition we also find in vv.
1-2
terminology that will be used in other sections of the chapter, as,
for instance, the verb "to die" (mot), the nouns "adytum" (haqqodes),
kapporet, and "cloud"
(anan), and
the phrase "behind the veil" (mibbet
lapparoket). There is a clear
terminological link between this section and
the rest of the chapter.
Introduction
(16:3-5)
The structure of this section is
identified by the use of synthetic
parallelism
based on the repetition of the terms hatta’t/”sin-offering"
(A//A')
and 'olah/"burnt-offering"
(B//B). The parallelism is
incomplete because the C element is omitted in the
second part and
there is no compensation for it. The reason for the
omission is obvious:
The
ritual act under C, the exchange of clothes by the high priest and
his ritual bath, takes place only once before the beginning
of the
activities of the day. But the fact that this ritual
is left without a balance
in the literary structure serves to emphasize its importance.
The high
priest should wear this special vestment only in
preparation to enter the
adytum. This type of vestment is directly related to
the rite of entrance
during the day of atonement.
It would seem that the, introduction
is primarily defining the basic
elements needed for Aaron’s rite of entrance. In
16:2 we were told that
"Aaron
should not go into [yabo'] the haqqodes," but v. 3 begins,
"With
this Aaron should go in [yabo']." The introduction shows interest not
only in the time element but also in the proper
preparation for it (bezo't
yabo'/"with
this he shall come in"). The rite of
entrance requires the
use of a special priestly vestment and a specific
number of sacrificial
offerings. It is important to observe that the
burnt-offerings are included
in v. 3. The reason for this is that the Introduction provides also a
listing of the sacrificial victims that are
going to be involved, in one
way or another, in the activities of the day.
First Development
(16:6-10)
This segment is formed by a chiasm
within a chiasm. The beginning
and end of the chiasm (A//A') is framed by two
opposite ideas, a case
of antithetic parallelism. At the beginning we
find the expression "bring
near the bull"/wehiqrib 'et-par, and at the end "send it [the goat] to
Azazel to the wilderness"/lesallah 'oto la'aza'zel hammidbarah.
One is
8 On rites of entrance,
see Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage
(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960), 24-25; he suggested that they belong
to
the general category of rites of passsage.
274
SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
approaching the Lord, while the other is distancing
or, better, being
separated permanently from the Lord. The B lines
in both sections of
the chiasm contain the verb kipper. The meaning of the verb and the
preposition in the case of the goat for Azazel is unclear, although it is
recognized that the goat is not related to the
cleansing of the sanctuary.9
Be
that as it may, what is significant for us is that there is a parallelism
between these sections. With respect to lines C,
the parallelism is
suggested by the use of the same verb, 'amad/"to
station," and the
phrase
lipne Yahweh/”before the Lord" in both
cases.
Lines D and E are located at the
pinnacle of the chiasm but in
inverted position, creating, as indicated above,
a chiasm within a larger
chiasm. One would have expected D//D' instead of D//E.
The
parallelism is indicated by the term lots" (goral), used twice in
association with Yahweh and twice in association
with Azazel. The two
goats that were introduced as a unit in 16:5 are now
separated, and a
specific function is assigned to each of them. The
one for Yahweh is
9 The usage of the phrase
kipper 'al in
interpret. The phrase usually means "to make
atonement for/on behalf of" someone or
something. Obviously, this meaning does not fit
the context of that passage, even though
it has been supported by C.F. Keil
and F. Delitzsch, Biblical
Commentary of the OT, vol.
2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1956), 683.
It is true that in
performed on objects but never on animals, and
this case does not seem to be the
exception. In searching for a solution some
scholars have suggested, without providing any
supporting evidence, that the use of kipper 'al
here is a scribal error or mistake (Noth,
121;
Elliger, 201; Bernd Janowski,
Suhne als
Heilsgeschehen [Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1983], 185). Others have argued that the preposition 'al means, in
this particular case, “in proximity to,” which is
linguistically possible (Baruch A. Levine,
In the Presence of the
Lord [
Atonement
II: The Day of Atonement," in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement: Biblical,
Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. A. V. Wallenkampf
and W.R. Lesher [
DC: Review and Herald, 1981], 121). Another has suggested
that in this phrase the
preposition 'al
means "for/on behalf of" only when the object is human, but when it
is
inanimate means "on, upon"; it is then
argued that the goat for Azazel is treated as an
inanimate object (Milgrom,
1023). Whether the distinction in the use of the preposition
'al is valid or not, it is
quite clear that in Lev 16 the goat for Azazel is not
treated as an
inanimate object, but on the contrary it is called
several times "the living goat" (vv. 10,
20, 21). The preposition has been also
interpreted to mean "by means of," and kipper 'al
has been understood to mean that atonement is
performed through it by sending it away
to the wilderness loaded with the sins of the
Israelites (Peter-Contesse, 253-254). But in
that case one would have expected the verb to take
the preposition be, which
is used with
the verb kipper
to express instrumentality, rather than 'al.
Another group of scholars have
looked for a solution in the antecedent of the third
person singular pronominal suffix
attached to the preposition (‘alakyw, "for it"). One
has suggested that it refers to Aaron
(N.
Kiuchi, The Purification
Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function
([
to the congregation (Hartley, 237); in both cases
the syntax of the sentence makes the
solution very unlikely. Finally, it has been
suggested, based on the history of tradition and
(redaction criticism, that what we find in
the dominant priestly sacrificial practice and
theology of expiation" (J. R. Porter, Leviticus:
A Commentary [
RODRIGUEZ: LEVITICUS 16 275
made a sin-offering (asahu hatta’t). Originally either one of them
could
have been offered as a hatta’t, but through the lot the
one for Yahweh
becomes the hatta’t.10
Since DE//D'E' are located at the center of the
chiasm, we have to conclude that the elements listed
there are being
emphasized. The separation of the goats for
different roles is an
important aspect of the day of atonement because
of their mutually
exclusive roles. In the First Development the most important element
is precisely the casting of lots to select the
goat for Yahweh and the one
for Azazel.
At the center of the chiasm we also
find for the first time Yahweh
and Azazel mentioned
together. The parallelism suggests that they are
both personal beings. They move in different spheres,
which seem to be
opposite to each other. Yahweh dwells with his
people, but Azazel is
located away from the Israelite camp, in the
wilderness. Nothing more
is said about the enigmatic figure of Azazel, but one senses that it is a
negative power.
In the First Development two additional rites are introduced. We
are told for the first time in the chapter that
Aaron's bull will be part
of a cleansing
rite; it will be used to make atonement for himself and for
his house (kipper
ba'ad). The second rite is associated with Azazel. The
second goat is "to be sent to the
wilderness," an expression that implies
the performance of an elimination rite. Both rites
will be developed in
more detail throughout the rest of the chapter.
Second Development
(16:6-22)
This is the central section of Lev
16, in which the ritual for the day
of atonement is described in detail and is,
therefore, a full development
of what was stated in the previous verses under First Development.
The
structure of the whole section is basically chiastic, with one of its
members missing; there is probably a theological
reason for the
omission. The pattern is ABC//C' B', without a
corresponding A'
10 Some have concluded
that the two goats together constitute the hatta’t (e.g., N.H.
Snaith, Leviticus
and Numbers [
according to v. 8, only the goat for Yahweh is
selected to be a hatta’t (A.M.
Rodriguez,
Substitution in the
Hebrew Cultus [
p.
113; see also Gorman, p. 97). Kiuchi, pp. 148-149,
has rejected our suggestion, arguing
that since the two goats were destined for a hatta’t in v. 5, none of them could later on
cease to be a hatta’t (see also
Baruch J. Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly
Literature,"
in Pomegranates and Golden Bells,
David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman,
and Avi Hurvitz, eds. [
what v. 8 indicates when unpacking the statement
made in v. 5. Besides, he is unable to
explain in a convincing way how the goat for Azazel functions as a hatta’t , except by
suggesting that its being sent away corresponds
with the burning of the flesh of the hatta’t
One
seems to be going beyond the evidence when applying the term
"sacrifice," in the
Levitical
sense, to the goat for Azazel. This is not a cleansing
rite but an elimination rite.
276
SEMINARY STUDIES 34
(AUTUMN 1996)
parallel at the end of the structure. Under A we find three
main
activities: A1--Slaughtering
Aaron's bull for a sin-offering, A2--Going
behind the veil with incense, and A3-Blood manipulation. A takes us
back to v. 6, repeating it almost verbatim but
adding a new element:
"And
he shall slaughter his bull for a sin-offering" (v. 11). The addition
is significant in that it describes the performance
of the second step in
the procedure followed when sacrificing a sin-offering,
the slaughtering
(sahat)
of the sacrificial victim (Lev 4:1-12).
The offering of incense is somewhat unexpected,
but the text
justifies it by associating it directly with the
rite of entrance. We should
look first at the structure of this activity. Its
literary form is
abcd//a' b'c'd'e'
a Censer
Full of Live Coals of Fire 16:12
b
From Altar Before the
c Hands Full of Incense 16:12
d Brought inside the Curtain 16:12
a’ Place
Incense on Fire 16:13
b'
Before the
c’ Cloud of Incense 16: 13
d' The Kapporet
e' "And he will not die"
The parallelism is developmental or
synthetic. The a//a' lines
mention fire (‘es), which is placed in the
censer and used to burn
incense. Lines b//b' use the same expression,
"before the Lord"/lipne
Yahweh,
while lines c//c’ use the term "incense" /qetoret. The d//d'
parallel is synonymous: "inside the
curtain"/mibbet lapparoket is
obviously the place where the kapporet is located. This last
element is
the most important one in the rite of entrance
because it invades the
most holy space to which the high priest could ever
have access. Here
the rite of
entrance, reaches its highest point, its intended goal. It should
not surprise us to find an extra element, line e',
in the second set of
lines in the structure: welo’ yamut/”that he may not die." This is
exactly the same expression found in the Historical Setting (v. 2), when
the rite of entrance was introduced for the first
time. The extra line e'
(16:13)
brings the rite to its climax and indicates that it can be
successfully accomplished by using
incense when approaching the
awesome presence of the Lord.
The literary structure of the blood
manipulation of Aaron's bull
(A3)
is clearly a chiasm:
a Some
Blood of the Bull
b
Sprinkle with Finger
c On the Front of the Kapporet
RODRIGUEZ: LEVITCUS 16 277
c' And Before the Kapporet
b’
Sprinkle Seven Times
a' Some of
the Blood
By
opening and closing the chiasm with the term dam, "blood," the
significance of this element in the cleansing rite is stressed. At the
center
of the chiasm is located the kapporet (c//c'), the place where
the Lord
manifests his presence (v. 2). It deserves to be
at the center because it is,
in terms of significance, the very center of the
sanctuary and of the
Israelite
camp, and especially because it is against God, who manifests
his presence there, that the Israelites sin.
The first B line follows in general
the structural pattern of A, but
this time the sacrificial animal is one of the goats
of the people. This
line will develop the thought contained m 16:9,
under First
Development, where the goat for
Yahweh was designated as a sin-
offering and parallels the development of Al-A3. Bl states that it is to
be slaughtered (sahat), and B2 introduces the
idea of going "behind the
veil"/mibbet lapparoket, an expression found also under A2. In this
case
the main emphasis falls on the blood manipulation
of the sacrificial
victim and the kapporet. This hatta’t is part of the cleansing ritual
performed during the day of atonement,11
and its blood is also taken to
the adytum, behind the veil. The blood
manipulation, Bl, is not
structured, as in A3, in a chiastic form, because
according to the text a
summary of the procedure is being provided. Yet,
one can detect an
ab//a’b’ pattern based on the
fact that the verb hizzah,
"sprinkle,"
seems to have a double-duty function.
a
Sprinkling
b
upon the Kapporet
a'
[Sprinkling]
b'
before the Kapporet
Line C is at the center of the
chiasm of the whole section. This is
to be expected, because here we find an
interpretation of the meaning
of the rituals performed through the blood
manipulation of the bull of
Aaron and the goat of the people. This is the most
important element
in the instructions and deserves the center not
only of this section but
of the chapter itself. A word count of the chapter
shows 229 words in
11 Roy Edwin Gane, Ritual Dynamic
Structures: System Theory and Ritual Syntax
Applied to Selected
Ancient Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days (Ph.D.
Dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, 1992), has correctly argued that the
rituals performed with Aaron's bull and the
people's goat form "a ritual complex unit"
(p.
211). He bases his conclusion on the fact that both of them are called the purification
offering of purgations"
(
second ritual begins before the first ritual is
completed and similar activities belonging to
the two rituals alternate" (p. 210), and that
the rituals are actually merged when the blood
is applied to the altar (p. 211).
278
SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (ATUMN
1996)
vv. 1-15 and 237 in vv. 20b-34; the exact center
of the chapter is in vv.
17-18.12
We are indeed dealing here with the heart of the
rituals
performed during the day of atonement. The
emphasis of this section
is on the comprehensiveness of the kipper-acts performed that day.
Line C can be subdivided into three main
sections (Cl, C2, C3),
each one carefully constructed. Cl
discusses the purgation of haqqodes
and the ‘ohel mo’ed. The cleansing of
these two apartments is described
in parallel lines following the abc//a' b'c'.
a Thus He Shall Make
Atonement
b for the Sanctuary
c because of the Uncleanness of the People