The early history of the HebrewsSayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
History
The early history of the Hebrews
Sayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Jews -- History -- To 953 B.C.
For every offering which is brought by a poor man in cattle or
birds, the priests shall receive nothing.... Anything leprous or scabby
or lean is forbidden, and no one as regards that which he offers shall
taste of the blood of the dead. The tariff for each offering shall be
according to that which is prescribed in this publication.... As for
every offering which is not prescribed in this table, and which is not
made according to the regulations which have been published in the time
of ...-Baal the son of Bod-Tanit, and of Bod-Ashmun the son of
Halzi-Baal, and of their comrades, every priest who accepts the offering
which is not included in that which is prescribed in this table shall be
punished.... As for the property of the offerer who does not discharge
his debt for his offering [it shall be taken from him].’[211]
The general resemblances between these regulations and those of the
Levitical law are obvious. In both we have the same kind of sacrifices
and offerings—the ox, the sheep and the goat, the lamb and kid, birds
and cakes, meal and oil. Silver shekels were to be paid to the priests,
like the silver shekels of the sanctuary exacted in certain cases from
the Israelite (Lev. v. 15, xxvii. 25), and the blood and the fat were to
be offered to the gods. The necessities of the poor man were remembered
as they were in the Levitical law (Lev. v. 7, xii. 8, xiv. 21), and
whatever was ‘leprous or scabby or lean’ was forbidden to be brought to
the altar. The firstborn could be claimed by Baal as they were claimed
by Yahveh, and the offerer was not permitted to taste of the blood of
the slain beast (compare Lev. vii. 26, 27). The ‘full-offerings’ of the
Phœnician tariffs mean that the whole of the victim had been given to
the gods, and so correspond with the burnt sacrifices of the Mosaic
Code. It is unfortunate that we cannot fix with certainty the exact
signification of the words denoting the parts of the animal which were
the due of the priests, and consequently cannot be sure whether or not
they answer to the breast and shoulder of the peace-offering, which
under the Levitical legislation were assigned to the sons of Aaron (Lev.
vii. 33, 34).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account