Naphtali Meshel observes in his new The “Grammar” of Sacrifice that scholars have been talking for decades about the “grammatical” character of ritual and sacrifice in general, but have never actually analyzed a specific ritual or sacrificial system grammatically. Some even talk about a “universal grammar” of sacrifice “even though not one complete grammar of a specific sacrificial system exists” (8). Meshel begins to fill this gap with his analysis of the sacrificial system of the so-called Priestly Document, “P.”
Meshel’s grammatical model is generativist, based on the researches of Noam Chomsky and others. According to this paradigm, “ritual and language are isomorphic only inasmuch as both are based on a finite set of generative rules, in part unconsciously internalized, that are amenable to concise, formulaic notation, such that illicit combinations are immediately discernible.” Chomsky has shown that “in certain systems, the exposure to a finite set of sequences enables a practitioner to create an unlimited number of new sequences, none of which he or she has been exposed to in the past, and yet all of which comply with a set of rules that have never been consciously formulated or taught” (19). P’s sacrificial system, he argues, works in this way, and his goal is to isolate the generative rules that produce “grammatical” ritual sequences and combinations and that enable one to judge a pattern grammatical or ungrammatical even if it doesn’t appear in P.
One early chapter of Meshel’s book is about “zoemics,” a term he coined to echo the linguistic term “phoneme.” A zoeme is “a group of individual specimens of animals that share certain relevant biological traits and to which a common set of sacrificial rules apply” (29). Three factors are relevant to P’s system: the zoological classification of the animal, its age, and its sex. These factors are not necessarily in play; that is, in some cases the Bible doesn’t prescribe the age or sex of a sacrificial animal. Overall, though, these are the three possible considerations.
Zoologically, the zoemics of the priestly system form a set of binary divisions. First, zoemes as a group are divided into winged animals and quadrupeds. Winged creatures are divided into two groups, turtledoves and pigeons. Quadrupeds are divided into flock animals and bovines, and the flock animals are divided into sheep and goats. As a result there are five main groups: turtledoves, pigeons, bovines, sheep, and goats. The sex and age of each may be prescribed, so Meshel comes up with a notation system to indicate whether the text requires an adult animal (upper case “B” is adult bovine, for example) or a young specimen (lower case ‘b” is a young bovine), in combination with the animals sex, represented by the standard symbols of male and female. Theoretically, there are over a million possible combinations, but “only a relative handful of the . . . possible zoemes are actually attested” (37).
Several intriguing conclusions come from this analysis. First, Meshel points out that binary systems like this are by no means universal. At Uruk, for example, daily sacrifices often prescribed an animal’s diet (milk-fed rams were distinguished from barley-fed rams, for instance, p. 41). In other Mesopotamian systems, the animal’s color is prescribed. Most sacrificial systems in the ancient world include a wider variety of animals – ducks, cranes, ostrich eggs, even wild animals. The dramatic simplicity of the Israelite system is worth some reflection and investigation.
Second, Meshel offers several alternative translations of Hebrew animal terms. The word seh, he argues, doesn’t mean “lamb” or “kid,” as it is often translated, but is a generic term for flock animals. As he accompanies his father up to Moriah, Isaac does not ask “where it the lamb for the ascension?” but “where is the flock-animal?” (Genesis 22:17; pp. 49-50). In Leviticus 14:10 ad Numbers 6:14, the word kabsah is rightly translated as “ewe-lamb,” and Meshel concludes that “there is a functional distinction between [young female sheep] and [adult female sheep] offered as a hatta’t: the former is offered where only purification is required . . . the latter is offered where both purification and forgiveness are involved (Lev 4:32; 5:6)” (56).
Perhaps the most dramatic re-translation is of shor, frequently translated as “bull.” Meshel argues that it is a more generic term, “bovine,” and is unspecific about the sex of the animal. This changes how we understand the animals used in the rite in Leviticus 9. Three animals are prescribed: a male bovine of unspecified age (vv. 2, 8); a young male bovine (v. 3); and a bovine of unspecified age and sex (vv. 4, 18). The adult male bovine, common elsewhere in the sacrificial system, is absent from the rite (58).
Meshel does address questions about the meaning of “P’s” sacrificial system at the end of his book, but this analysis of zoemics is primarily an attempt to present the overall scheme of animals offerings. In a further chapter, he discusses “jugation,” the combinations of animals, and of animals with grain, incense, oil, and libations, in the sacrificial system. I will devote another post to his discussion of jugation.
Peter J. Leithart is President of Trinity House.