David Volgger, «The Day of Atonement according to the Temple Scroll», Vol. 87 (2006) 251-260
The Temple Scroll (11Q19) dedicates about two and a half columns to the Day of
Atonement (25,10-27,10). The present study concentrates on the content of the
transmitted text (25,10-16; 26-3-13, and 27,01-02.1-10), analyses its structure,
and explains its development of thought. The focus of the text seems to be on the
concept of the sin-offering. First, the sin-offering of a he-goat makes part of the
common festival sacrifice. Second, the two rams belong as burnt-offering to the
special sin-offering of the Feast. And third, a he-goat for YHWH is offered as a
special sin-offering on the altar of burnt-offering, whereas, a second he-goat for
Azazel bears all the sins of Israel and is sent out into the desert. Since the he-goat
for Azazel does not get in touch with the altar of burnt-offering, it cannot be
classified as a burnt-offering. Moreover, it shares only one major feature with the
other sin-offerings, namely, to remove sins.
The Day of Atonement according to the Temple Scroll 259
portions of the other sin-offerings are transported from the slaughter
installations in the inner courtyard, to a place outside the sanctuary or its city.
Since the he-goat for Azazel never comes in contact with the altar, it will
exclusively be defined as a sin-offering.
*
**
The preserved text of the TS on the Day of Atonement, the tenth day of
the seventh month, places different emphases on the festival agenda in its
individual sections. The peripheral sections at the beginning (I) and the end
(VII) emphasize that Israel must humble itself. It must refrain from all work.
It must attend a solemn meeting. Sections II-VI, however, concentrate on the
sacrificial agenda concerning the burnt-offerings and the sin-offerings. In this
context the author develops an elaborate reflection that concerns the entire
festival agenda for the day. The focus, however, is on the concept of the sin-
offering.
Part of the common burnt-offering (II) is a he-goat. It is also a sin-
offering. In any case, this he-goat must be distinguished from the sin-offering
of atonement. In a second step, two rams are required (III). These are burnt
offerings belonging to the special sin-offering of atonement. In a third and
final step, two he-goats are mentioned. From the beginning, these goats have
to be identified by lots. Consequently, they are treated differently in the ritual
now to be described. The first he-goat for YHWH (IV.1) is qualified in 26,9
as a sin-offering. This is after, first, its fat, its cereal offering and libation have
been burnt on the altar. Second, after its flesh, its hide, and its entrails have
been burnt “beside the bullockâ€. The context clarifies that the altar and the
specification “beside the bullock†cannot be the same place. That is why the
difference between burnt- and sin-offering also depends on the place where
some portions of the animal are burnt. As soon as some portions are laid on
the altar, it is correct to categorize the sacrifice as a burnt-offering. This,
despite the fact that the further agenda would reveal that it is in the ultimate
analysis a sin-offering.
Finally, the author focuses on the he-goat for Azazel. It shall bear all sins
of Israel into the desert (IV.2). This he-goat shares two characteristics with
other sin-offerings. First, it is the function that expiates sins. Second, it is in
part the way whereby some portions are transported from the slaughter
installations to a place outside the sanctuary or its city. Unlike all other sin-
offerings of the Sacrificial Calendar in the Temple Scroll (col. 13-29), the he-
goat for Azazel, however, does not touch the altar of burnt-offering.
Therefore it cannot be specified as a burnt-offering. In this way, what is said
about the he-goat for Azazel leads to the unambiguous distinction between
sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. The central parameter for this distinction is
the relation of the sacrifice to the sanctuary, more concretely, the altar of
burnt-offering. To this altar are related not only many detailed ritual
prescriptions of the Calendar, but also the Calendar, col. 13-30, in its totality.
Pontificia Università Antonianum David VOLGGER
Via Merulana 124
I-00185 Roma