Blenkinsopp, Joseph, The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12): VT 66, 2016, 1-14.  Published abstractThe argument presented in this article is that the term ‘asham’ in Isa 53:10 refers to the sacrificial ritual of the guilt offering, that this reference is supported by indications throughout Isaiah 53, and that therefore the suffering and death of this Servant of the lord is to be understood as sacrificial by analogy with the ritual of the guilt or reparation offering in the book of Leviticus. This conclusion, much contested in contemporary scholarship, is supported by a survey of the reception of this text in the period prior to early Christianity. AssessmentAlthough many of B.’s observations are helpful and plausible, the overall thesis suffers from the problem that the final condition of the Servant makes him not acceptable as an offering: The Servant bears infirmities and diseases, is full of bruises (Isa 53:3-5), and an animal in such a condition is not eligible for an offering or sacrifice (see Lev 22:17-25). Hence it is necessary to underscore the metaphorical language of the Fourth Servant Song: It gleans some aspects from cultic language and sacrificial concepts, including the ‘asham’ offering from Lev 5:14-19 and 7:1-6, but it does not entirely take over the ‘asham’ as a priestly concept for cultic atonement. The Fourth Servant Song rather mixes bits and pieces from various sources in order to create a new idea of atonement by human suffering (of a group, i.e., Israel, rather than an individual). Here one finds a close relationship with the Prayer of Azariah (Dan 3), as B. also points out. But the Prayer of Azariah rather draws heavily upon Leviticus and the sacrificial logic than on the Fourth Servant Song. See Hieke, Thomas, Atonement in the Prayer of Azariah (Dan 3:40), in: Xeravits, Géza G.; Zsengellér, József (eds.), Deuterocanonical Additions to the Old Testament Books. Selected Studies (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 5), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2010, 43–59.

Hoskins, Paul M., A Neglected Allusion to Leviticus 4-5 in Jesus’s Words Concerning His Blood in Matthew 26:28, in: Bulletin for Biblical Research 30, 2020, 231–242.  Show More Abstract from OTA: Previous treatments of the allusions to the OT in Matt 26:28 have overlooked or neglected its allusion to Lev 4:1-5:13, the passage concerning the “sin offering.” In fact, however, in comparison with its Marcan and Lucan parallels, Matt 26:28 features the clearest allusion to Lev 4:1-5:13. The allusion is based on both verbal and thematic connections. In terms of verbal connections, Matt 26:28’s combination of the terms “blood,” “poured out,” “for” (περί) the sinner, and the forgiveness of sins is found in only one OT passage, i.e. Lev 4:1-5:13. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]

Ko, Ming Him, Blood Manipulation in Hezekiah’s Re-inauguration of the Temple in Chronicles, in: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46, 2022, 423–442. DOI: 10.1177/03090892221081155.  Show MorePublished abstract: According to 2 Chronicles 29.20–24, Hezekiah’s re-inauguration of the temple involved a purification offering for all Israel in which the blood manipulation did not include the sevenfold sprinkling of blood in front of the veil (Lev. 4.17) or daubing blood on the horns of the incense altar (Lev. 4.18), as stated in the prescriptive text of P. This article proposes that the apparent inconsistency can be explained by examining the Chronicler’s conception of YHWH as cosmic God and global king. The location of the divine presence tends to be in heaven for the Chronicler rather than from within the tabernacle, as illustrated in P. The difference in perspective constitutes a decisive theological reason for the Chronicler’s particular depiction of the blood manipulation in Hezekiah’s re-inauguration of the temple.

Lam, Joseph, On the Etymology of Biblical Hebrew חַטָּאת. A Contribution to the “Sin Offering” vs. “Purification Offering” Debate, in: Journal of Semitic Studies 65, 2020, 325–346.

Nolland, John, Does the Cultic אשׁם Make Reparation to God?: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 91, 2015, 87–110.  Show MorePublished abstract: Despite the present popularity of the view, the אשׁם offering is not recompense to God. אשׁם became the name of a cultic offering as a “recompense offering” in the special sense of a cultic offering associated with recompense to a wronged person (Lev 5,2–26; cf. Num 5,5–8). The range then expanded in stages to cover offences that had some kind of similarity to the offences already associated with an אשׁם. At some point the specific reason for the name may have been lost sight of, and further expansion unconstrained by the original connection became possible. For many of the אשׁם offerings an alternative development is, however, more likely, a parallel to that which produced the חטאת offering. In relation to this development the choice of אשׁם for the name of the offering simply marks a fit between offence and offering, but with no suggestion that this fit takes the form of offence and compensation. This is simply God’s provision for making retrieval possible.

Nolland, John, Sin, Purity and the חטּאת Offering, in: Vetus Testamentum 65, 2015, 606–620.  Show MorePublished abstract: The case against חטּאת and the piel of חטא referring to a sin offering does not make purification offering the necessary alternative. When sin is being addressed by the חטּאת, it connects with moral impurity only in the exceptional case of the Day of Atonement. Not impurity but defect/deficiency provides the right level of generality for making sense of the whole range of texts. Unless the view in Ezek 43:26 is an unstated assumption of all the Pentateuchal cultic texts, it seems likely that the חטּאת can deal with a deficiency that is neither of impurity nor sin. Despite the mt exclusive focus of non-cultic uses of חטּאת on sin, the wider uses of the חטא root opens up a place for a cultic use where blame is not necessarily involved.

Peres, Caio, Bloodless ‘Atonement’. An Exegetical, Ritual, and Theological Analysis of Leviticus 5:11-13, in: Journal of Hebrew Sciptures 20, 2020, 1–36. Show More Abstract from OTA: According to Lev 5:11-13, semolina has the same ritual effect as blood. P.’s thorough exegetical and ritual comparison between the ḥtʾṭ of animals and the ḥtʾṭ of semolina, or the mnḥh-like ḥtʾṭ, explains how this was possible. The results of this comparison are helpful in establishing the ritual effect of kpr as a process that defines the Priestly theology of the cult. [Adapted from published abstract—B.J.M.]

Vis, Joshua M., The Purgation of Persons through the Purification Offering, in: Wiley, Henrietta L.; Eberhart, Christian A. (eds.), Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity. Constituents and Critique (Resources for Biblical Study 85), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017, 33–57.

Watts, James W., The Historical and Literary Context of the Sin and Guilt Offerings, in: Landy, Francis; Trevaskis, Leigh M.; Bibb, Bryan D. (Hg.), Text, Time, and Temple. Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible Monographs 64), Sheffield 2015, 85–93.  Show MoreAbstract from OTA: In this reprint of a section of his 2013 HCOT commentary on Leviticus 1-10, W. turns to the laws on „sin“ and „guilt“ offerings in Leviticus 4-5, analyzing the historical and literary context of these rituals in order to explain the significance and meaning of their names. From a historical point of view, W. argues that sin and guilt offerings were priestly innovations during the 8th to 6th cents. B.C.E. that were developed in response to changing political and economic realities. These offerings increased the prominence and wealth of the priestly class even as the political fortunes of Judah’s royalty declined. However, foreign invasions and the ultimate destruction of Israel and Judah called into question the effectiveness of Temple worship, a concern perhaps addressed by Leviticus 4 in its emphasis on unintentional sins. The priests could not reasonably claim to effect atonement for intentional sins, given the catastrophic punishment their nations underwent. By emphasizing unintentional sins instead, the priests could still play an indispensable role in a skeptical community. Furthermore, these offerings created a role for confession and restitution, which anticipates the hope for the survival of the covenant in Lev 26:42-45. From a literary point of view, W. argues that internal references in Leviticus 4-5 to the words of Moses connect the above offerings to the larger rhetorical context of the Torah. When the Torah was assembled in the Second Temple period, these traditions addressed the people’s ritual need for atonement, riot only ritually but also textually. They invite readers to identify themselves as the „Israelites“ in the narrative and take seriously the reality of human sin. Thus the terms „sin“ and „guilt“ have resonated with the ritual and emotional needs of worshipers for thousands of years—even after the cessation of Temple worship. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]