Two chapters of Naphtali Meshel’s The “Grammar” of Sacrifice cover what he calls “jugation” and “hierarchies.”
The first involves the addition of other materials to an animal offering. Jugates include wine, cereal, and oil that are added to the animals (zoemes) that are offered in sacrifice. Some jugates are coordinated with the main sacrifice, whiles others are considered subordinate to the main sacrifice, the animal. The latter is marked grammatically in the Hebrew with the possessive pronoun “its”: An ascension offering is offer with “its” grain and libation. In a particular sacrificial sequence, he argues, it’s possible (grammatical) to have some coordinate jugates and also an offering that has subordinate jugates. This is how he reads the sequence of offerings for the Nazirite, which requires a hattat (sin offering), an olah (ascension – my term, not his), two coordinate cereal offerings in the form of cakes and wafers, and then a peace offering with “its” libation and semolina, to which oil is added.
From a consideration of the different syntactical roles of grain offerings and libations, he concludes that “the cereal offering [is] more closely linked to the zoeme [i.e., the animal] than is the wine.” He uses a fast-food analogy: At the tabernacle, it would be possible to order a burger with fries and no soda, but never a burger with soda and no fries” (82-3). This forms, perhaps, part of the deep Levitical background to Eucharistic theology, since bread is linked with flesh/body and the blood-wine is kept distinct.
He argues that is “an important difference between the wholeburnt and wellbeing offerings in terms of their subordinate jugational patterns. “ Citing Numbers 7, he suggests that “the Priestly author thought of the grain offerings present in the silver bowls and basins as related to the zoemes designated for wholeburnt offerings rather than to those designated for wellbeing or purification offering” (84-5).
His examination of jugational patterns leads into a larger discussion of grain offerings that were independent of animal sacrifices. Cereal offerings too might have subordinate jugates that vary according to circumstance. Raw grain offerings, for instance, always require oil and frankincense, while cooked offerings require only oil. He concludes, “it is as if the cooking ‘replaces’ the frankincense – one is expected to spend energy (cooking) or money (frankincense), so to speak, to make the offering pleasing” (94). I’m not convinced by the associations; frankincense is much more easily associated with prayer. An offering that is not going to ascend in actual smoke on the altar will ascend by the proxy of incense.
Meshel speaks of “hierarchy” in part to highlight the way the flexibility of the use of sacrificial terminology in “P’s” sacrificial system. He argues cogently that an animal can function as two different sorts of sacrifices at the same time, at different levels. This occurs because the names of particular offerings (ascension, peace, sin, etc.) can also be used as the names of sacrificial sequences.
He points to Numbers 28:6 as an example. There the daily olah “is a single ritual comprising two oloth . . . separate by many hours. . . . When referring to calendric sacrifices offered on special occasions in addition to . . . this double daily offering, P may employ a phrase such as . . . ‘in addition to the daily wholeburnt offering’” (106-7). In Ezra 8:35, he argues, there is a sacrificial sequence identifies as an olah that includes “nearly two hundred animals, twelve of which are purification-type sacrifices . . . and the rest wholeburnt sacrifices” (113). What this means in practice is that certain animals within the sequence would be offered according to the ritual of a purification offering (in the blood rite and the distribution of flesh, for instance) but would be included in an event that as a whole is considered an ascension or whole burnt offering. An animal in this situation is functionally or “semantically” a whole burnt offering, while in terms of ritual is a purification offering. He also points to later Jewish evidence in which certain parts of a single animal are considered olah, presumably because, like the olah, they are wholly consumed on the altar.
This is also how he reads Leviticus 5:6a, often a crux. It reads, “He shall bring his asham to Yahweh for the transgression that he has committed, a female from the flock – a female ovine or a female caprine – for a hattat.” How can an asham (trespass offering) serve as a hattat (sin offering)? Many commentators have suggested that asham must mean something other than trespass offering – compensation or debt, but Meshel questions that move. Rather, he argues, this text indicates that the very same animal can be characterized as an asham at one level (function) while being performed as an hattat. As he summarizes verses 6-10: “the individual has transgressed in a particular manner and must offer a reparation offering. . . . This reparation may come in (at least) one of two forms, either as [adult female flock animal] offered as a purification sacrifice . . . or 2[turtledove or pigeon], one bird offered as a purification-type sacrifice and one as a whole-burnt type sacrifice” (126).
As is evident from these comments, Meshel’s is a detailed, demanding, technical book. But his patient and rigorous effort to discern the “grammar” of sacrifice highlights some surprising, potentially illuminating conclusions.
He devotes another chapter to “praxemes,” the ritual actions of the sacrificial system, and I will devote another post to that topic.
Peter J. Leithart is President of Trinity House.