¹ With these words, Norman Gottwald has paraphrased Gouldner's definition of ‘domain assumptions’ and adapted it to the field of Biblical studies (‘Domain Assumptions and Societal Models in the Study of Pre-Monarchic Israel’, VTSup 28 [1974] 89–100Google Scholar, esp. 89; cf. Gouldner, Alvin W., The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology [New York: Basic Books, 1970]).Google Scholar

² Sandmel, Samuel, The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainties (New York: OUP, 1969) 166.Google Scholar

³ Besides , the ‘olah is sometimes called (1 Sam 7.9; Deut 33.10; Ps 51.21), (Lev 1.2, 10, 14) and (Lev 1.9, 13, 17). In English, it is also translated ‘whole-burnt-offering’. Besides the thank-offering is also termed without qualification, or simply (always pl. except once in Amos 5.22). It is also translated ‘communion sacrifice’ and ‘covenant sacrifice’. The translation ‘peace offering’ is inspired by the LXX (for σωτήριον can mean either ‘safety’ or ‘peace’) and by false analogy with . Josephus translates correctly as χαριστηρίους θυσίας (Jos. Ant. 3.9.2). The Passover sacrifice is a subset of the thank-offering. The term names both the sin and the sacrificial rite which does away with the effects of sin. It is also translated ‘expiation offering’. Likewise the term is also applied to a sacrificial rite, and is also translated ‘guilt’ or ‘trespass sacrifice’.

⁴ Oesterley, W. O. E., Sacrifices in Ancient Israel: Origin, Purposes and Development (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1937) 77Google Scholar; de Vaux, Roland, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961) 420–1Google Scholar; Saydon, P. P., ‘Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering’, CBQ 8 (1946) 393–9Google Scholar, esp. 393. In either case, it is clearly specified that such a sacrifice is to be reserved for so-called ‘inadvertent’ () sins (Lev 4.2, 22, 27; 5.15, 18; 22.14; Num 15.24–9; 35.11, 15; Josh 20.3, 9). The expression sins is customarily translated, ‘inadvertent sins’ as opposed to sins committed ‘deliberately’ (lit. ‘with a high hand’). Such sins may result either from negligence (i.e., the offender knows the law but accidentally violates it), or ignorance (the offender does not know the law, but acts deliberately) (Milgrom, J., ‘The Cultic and Its Influence in Psalms and Job’, JQR 58 (1967) 115–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 118). In contrast to this, no provision was available for dealing with sins committed ‘with a high hand’ (Num 15.30–1) until the institution of the Day of Atonement ritual (cf. Lev 16). For Philo's distinctions between these two kinds of sin, see Spec. 1.226–7, 233–4, 238, 259; Qu.Gen. 4.102.

⁵ Philo discusses each type at length individually; burnt offering: Spec. 1.198–211; ‘peace-offering’: Spec. 1.212–25; sin-offering: Spec. 1.226–46.

⁶ R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 451–3; Jacob Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices and Offerings, OT’, in IDBSup, 763–71, esp. 769; Stephenson, William B., ‘Hebrew and Sacrifices’, Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950) 488–97Google Scholar; Dan, Joseph, ‘Sacrifice’, EncJud, 14.599–616Google Scholar. The (‘tribute offering’) was a cereal offering which served as an inexpensive ‘olah for the poor (cf. Lev 2; m. Menah 13.11).

⁷ For further discussion of this point, and Jewish witnesses for and against, see: Belkin, Samuel, Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1940) 55–6.Google Scholar

⁸ Gray, G. Buchanan, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925) 60Google Scholar; of offerings, see: P. P. Saydon, ‘Sin-Offering’, 398.

⁹ Milgrom, Jacob, ‘Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly “Picture of Dorian Gray”’, RB 83 (1976) 390–9Google Scholar; J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices’, 766–7; Milgrom, J., ‘The Day of Atonement’, EncJud 5.1375–87Google Scholar, esp. 1384–5; Milgrom, J., ‘Sin-offering, or Purification-offering?’, VT 21 (1971) 237–9Google Scholar; Milgrom, J., Studies in Priestly Theology and Terminology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982) 75–6Google Scholar; Milgrom, J., ‘The Function of Ḥaṭṭa Sacrifice’, Tarbiz 40 (1970) 1–8Google Scholar, esp. 1–3. B. A. Levine accepts Milgrom's thesis that the ḥaṭṭa is a purification-offering, not a sin-offering, however he modifies it: he claims that there are two types of ḥaṭṭa and only one is purificatory (In the Presence of the Lord [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974] 101–8Google Scholar; ‘Leviticus’, EncJud [1972] 11.138–47Google Scholar, esp. 139; cf. Milgrom's review in JBL 95 [1976] 291–3)Google Scholar. Cf. Wright, David, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1987) 17–21.Google Scholar

¹⁰ J. Milgrom, ‘Israel's Sanctuary’, 292, 295; J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices’, 763–71; D. P. Wright, Disposal, 18–20. Sins such as the failure to purify oneself from corpse contamination (Num 19.13, 20), certain sexual impurities (if prescriptions are not observed; Lev 15.31), and the offering of children to Molech ((Lev 20.3) are explicitly described as defiling the sanctuary.

¹¹ J. Milgrom, ‘Israel's Sanctuary’, 392, cf. 391; J. Milgrom, Studies, 76; J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices’, 766; in the case of the application of blood to the healed leper and at the priest's consecration, the blood for the daubing ritual stems from sacrifical animals other than a ḥaṭṭa offering (Lev 14.14, 25; Exod 29.20; Lev 8.22–4).

¹² E.g., Lev 16.24, 30, 33; Num 8.12, 21; or sometimes (e.g., Lev 16.6).

¹³ J. Milgrom, ‘Israel's Sanctuary’, 391.

¹⁴ J. Milgrom, ‘Israel's Sanctuary’, 391. The purificatory sense of (piel) is made clear by its synonyms, (piel) and (piel) which are used with in Ezek 43.20 (cf. Lev 14.52) and Ezek 43.26 respectively.

¹⁵ Roland de Vaux succinctly summarizes the distinction between these two types of hand laying: ‘This action [of laying a single hand] is not … a symbolic action implying that the victim is a substitute for the man, whose sins are thereby transferred to the victim for expiation … Rather it is a solemn attestation that this victim comes from this particular individual who is laying his hands on it, that the sacrifice which is going to be presented to God by the priest is offered in his name, and that the fruits of this sacrifice shall be his’ (R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 416, cf. 449; cf. de Vaux, R., Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice [Cardiff: University of Wales, 1964] 28–9Google Scholar; cf. Péter, R., ‘L'imposition des mains dans l'Ancien Testament’, VT 27 [1977] 48–55Google Scholar, esp. 51–2; Rudolph, Wilhelm, Chronikbücher [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955] 297Google Scholar; Smith, W. R., Religion of the Semites [New York: Meridian, 1889] 422Google Scholar; Dhorme, E., La Bible: Pt. 1. L'Ancien Testament [Paris: Bibliotéque de la Pléiade, 1956] 295Google Scholar; von Rad, G., Theologie des Alten Testaments 1 [3rd ed.; MunichGoogle Scholar: Chr. Kaiser, 1961] 247; David Wright, P., ‘Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature’, JAOS 106 [1986] 433–46Google Scholar, n. 118; Robinson, H. W., ‘Hebrew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism’, JTS 43 [1942] 129–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 131; Milgrom, J., ‘Sacrifices’, IDBSup [1976] 765Google Scholar; D. P. Wright, Disposal, 17, n. 6). Though Num. 27.18 (MT) records a single hand, it is a defective text; both the LXX (Num 27.18) and Num 27.23 (MT) stipulate two hands.

¹⁶ A ḥaṭṭa sacrifice is called a ‘rising and falling’ sacrifice because the monetary value of the victim varied in accordance with the economic means and rank of the offerer (cf. Lev 5.6, 7,11).

¹⁷ Milgrom, Jacob, ‘Day of Atonement’, EncJud 5.1384.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Milgrom, J.,Cult and Conscience: The and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976) 3–12Google Scholar; J. Milgrom, ‘Cultic . Since the act was inadvertent, no confession is necessary. However, the offender must still take responsibility for the contamination which his actions conferred upon the Temple and its sancta by offering a sacrifice.

¹⁹ That the Day of Atonement concerns deliberate sins is indicated by the unique occurrence of (Lev 16.16, 21), a term denoting rebellion. It was borrowed by P from political terminology (e.g., 2 Kings 3.5; Ezek 20.38) (J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifice’, 767).

²⁰ The scapegoat was not a sacrifice in the Levitical sense; having become a carrier of sin, it was no longer suitable for sacrifice to YHWH (cf. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 416; Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960) 114Google Scholar, cf. 113; Kautzsch, Emil, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1911] 344–5Google Scholar; König, Eduard, Theologie des Alten Testaments [Stuttgart: Belser, 1923] 290–1Google Scholar; Benzinger, Immanuel, Hebraische Archäologie [Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1894/3rd ed.: 1927], 371Google Scholar; Matthew, J. C., ‘Der Sühnegedanke bei den Sündopfern’, ZAW 23 [1903] 97–9Google Scholar; Henry Robinson, W., ‘Hebrew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism’, JTS 48 (1942) 129–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 131; R. Péter, ‘L'imposition des mains dans l'Ancien Testament’, 51).

²¹ Zohar, Noam, ‘Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of in the Pentateuch’, JBL 107 (1988) 609–18Google Scholar. For Milgrom's own rejoinder see: ‘The Modus Operandi of Ḥaṭṭa: A Rejoinder’, JBL 109 (1990) 111–13Google Scholar. For my own rejoinder: ‘The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and the Scapegoat’, Studies in Religion 20.3 (1991)345–56.Google Scholar

²² Though, in so far as Paul sometimes calls the Christian a living temple, the idea of the purgation of the Temple might have been carried over metaphorically from Levitical theology (e.g., 1 Cor 3.16–17; 6.19; cf. 2 Cor 6.16). However, this seems unlikely since the point of these texts has to do with morality and ontology, not atonement: as the believer grows in holiness, he becomes the temple of God.

²³ Dunn, J. D. G., Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word, 1988) 181.Google Scholar

²⁴ J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 181.

²⁵ Bligh, J., Galatians in Greek (Detroit: University, 1966) 138Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., The Second Letter to the Corinthians (tr. Harrisville, R. A.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976/1985) 165Google Scholar; Lagrange, M.-J., St Paul, Épître aux Galates (Paris: Lecoffre, J. Gabalda, 1918/2nd ed.: 1925) 71Google Scholar; Büchsel, F., s.v. ‘κατάρα’, in TDNT 3 (1965) 449–51Google Scholar, esp. 450; H. Meyer, A. W., Critical and Exegetical Commentary to the Epistle to the Galatians (CECNT 7; tr. Dickson, W. D.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884) 153.Google Scholar

²⁶ H. A. W. Meyer, Galatians, 153.

²⁷ M.- J. Lagrange, Galates, 72.

²⁸ M.- J. Lagrange, Galates, 72. Paul's portrayal of Christ's debasement, defilement and humiliation is a theme found elsewhere in his letters (e.g. Phil 2.5–8; 2 Cor 8.9).

²⁹ R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 419.

³⁰ In commenting on the practice of the washing of individuals and garments of uncleanness (e.g. Lev 6.27; 16.24; Num 19.7–10; m. Yoma 8.4), Robertson Smith comments, ‘all symbolic interpretations of them [i.e., the ritual washings] are nothing more than an attempt, in higher stages of religious development, to justify adhesion to traditional ritual’ (Religion of the Semites, 452).

³¹ J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices’, 767.

³² There is no consensus in the first century CE regarding the importance, or even recognition of this paradox. In his discussion of the sacrifice of the red heifer (Spec. 1.261–2, 268), Philo paraphrases the entire text of Num 19.1–22 (LXX) with the exception of every passage which refers to the ability of the holy carcass to confer impurity (Num 15.7–8, 10, 19–22). In so doing, he deliberately omits the most salient point of the passage (Richard Hecht, D., ‘Preliminary Issues in the Analysis of Philo's De Specialibus Legibus’, in Studia Philonica 5 [1978] 1–55Google Scholar, esp. 17–20). In contrast to this, the Rabbis considered this paradoxical element to be the most important part of the sacrifice of the red heifer. Joseph Blau states that the frequent Rabbinic attestations ‘should be understood in terms of the endless capacity of the human mind to be fascinated with the insoluble problem’ (‘The Red Heifer: A Biblical Purification Rite in Rabbinic Literature’, Numen 14 [1967] 70–8Google Scholar, esp. 78).

³³ Bruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Corinthians (Frome/London: Butler & Tanner, 1971) 210Google Scholar; cf. Sabourin, L., Rédemption sacrificielle. Une enquête exégétique (Studia 11: Bruges, 1961)Google Scholar; Robert Daly, J., Christian Sacrifice (Washington: Catholic Univ. of America, 1978) 239Google Scholar. Some OT scholars also hold this interpretation of 2 Cor 5.21: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 420; Snaith, Norman, ‘Sacrifices in the Old Testament’, VT 7 (1957) 308–17Google Scholar, esp. 316. This interpretation was also adopted by Augustine (354–430 CE), Ambrosiaster (4th cent.), Pelagius (ca. 412 †), Oecumenius (6th cent.), Erasmus (1469–1536 CE).

³⁴ Cullmann, Oscar, Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957/1959) 76Google Scholar. It is remarkable that in all of Paul's letters, there does not exist a single clear allusion, let alone quotation, to any verse of Isa 53 that could be interpreted in the light of the crucifixion or atonement. Rather he quotes Isa 52.15 (= Rom 15.21) and Isa 53.12 (= Rom 10.16) in order to convince the Romans of the value of his planned mission to Spain.

³⁵ Bachmann, Philipp, Der zweite Brief des Paulas an die Korinther (KNT 8; ed. Th., Zahn; Leipzig: Deichert, 1918/4th ed.: 1922) 272–4Google Scholar; cf. Furnish, Victor, 2 Corinthians (Anchor Bible 32A; Garden City NY: Doubleday & Co., 1984) 340Google Scholar; Stanley, Arthur, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (2 vols.: London: John Murray, 1855) 112Google Scholar; Alford, Henry, The Greek New Testament (7th ed.; 4 vols.; London: Rivingtons, 1877) 2. 666Google Scholar; B. Weiss, Commentary on the NT, 3.316; McFadyen, John E., The Epistles to the Corinthians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1911) 322Google Scholar; A. Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 187; Goudge, Henry L., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Methuen, 1927) 60Google Scholar; Jean Héring, La Seconde Épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens, 54; Tasker, R. V. G., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958) 90Google Scholar; J.-F. Collange, Énigmes de la Deuxieme Épître, 277–8; C. K. Barrett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 180; Ernest, Best, Second Corinthians (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1987) 56.Google Scholar

³⁶ Other Passover allusions in the NT include John 1.29, 36; 19.36; 1 Pet 1.19; Rev 5.6, 9, 12; 12.11. John 1.29, 36 may also allude to the apocalyptic lamb of Rev 4.1–5.14 (C. K. Barrett), or the Suffering Servant lamb (Isa 53.7) (R. de Vaux).

³⁷ Herbert, Danby (tr.), The Mishnah (London: OUP, 1933).Google Scholar

³⁸ Walther, Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 130.Google Scholar

³⁹ R. Daly, Sacrifice, 240, cf. 237.

⁴⁰ Gottfried Fitzer, ‘Der Ort der Versöhnung nach Paulus. des, Zu FrageSühnopfers Jesus’, TZ 22 (1966) 161–83,Google Scholar esp. 171. On this same passage Friedrich Büchsel remarks, ‘it is hard to say with any clarity whether Paul in Rom 3:25 is thinking of the ίλαστήριον in particular or a means of expiation in general’ (s.v. ίλαστήριον, TDNT 3.318–23, esp. 320).

⁴¹ There is one text in which the seems to have an expiatory function: ‘For the life of the flesh is the blood and I have assigned it to you upon the altar to purify for ( ) your lives, for it is the blood as life that purifies ( )’ (Lev 17.11). Milgrom disconnects this text from ḥaṭṭa sacrifice and restricts it to thanksgiving sacrifice alone. According to the Priestly doctrine of Creation, man was meant to be a vegetarian (Gen 1.29). However from the time of Noah onward, God conceded that man may eat animal flesh so long as he does not eat the blood which must be returned to its Creator (Gen 9.3–4; Lev 17.3–4, 13–14; cf. 19.2; 20.26). Thus the animal-slayer is a murderer unless he return the animal's blood to God as a ransom for the animal's life (Lev 17.11; cf. J. Milgrom, Studies, 100–1; J. Milgrom, ‘Atonement in the OT’, IDBSup 78–82, esp. 80; J. Milgrom, ‘Sacrifices’, 770; cf. also H. C. Brichto, ‘On Slaughter and Sacrifice, , Blood and Atonement’, HUCA 47 [1976] 19–55).Google Scholar

⁴² R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 453, cf. 417–18.

⁴³ This can be compared with the custom whereby a contract was sealed between men by the sharing of a meal (cf. Gen 26.28–30; 31.44–54).

⁴⁴ In the phrase κοινωνία το αἵματος το χριστο (1 Cor 10.16), Rudolf Bultmann notes that the term ‘blood’ does not specify the physical substance, but is employed as a synonym for the ‘covenant’. The theology of the thanksgiving offering is to be found in Exod 24.6–8 (quoted in 1 Cor 11.25) where the two terms occur together in the phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ (The Theology of the New Testament [complete in one volume; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951–1955] 148Google Scholar; cf. Hans, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969/1975] 199).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ R. Bultmann, Theology of NT, 296.

⁴⁶ Bushnell, Horace, The Vicarious Sacrifice (London: Richard D. Dickenson, 1880) 393–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Hans Schoeps, J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (London: Lutterworth, 1959/1961) 129Google Scholar. Similarly, Henry W. Robinson comments on Isa 53 saying that it ‘uniquely illustrates the sacrificial principle as applied to the interpretation of human suffering’ (Suffering, Human and Divine [New York: Macmillan, 1939] 43–4).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ H. J. Schoeps, Paul, 127–49.

⁴⁹ Cf. Isa 53.5–6, 8, 10–12.

⁵⁰ Hengel, Martin, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (tr. Bowden, J.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980/1981) 8Google Scholar; Klaus Koch describes it as an ‘erratic block misunderstood to lie at the heart of the New Testament period’ (‘Sühne und Sünden-vergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit’, EvTh 26 [1966] 217–39Google Scholar, esp. 237).

⁵¹ Klaus, Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973) 65–6.Google Scholar

⁵² Hartmut, Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology (tr. Crim, K.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977/1981)96.Google Scholar

⁵³ For instance, in H. Anderson's introduction to 4 Maccabees he says the following: ‘Doctrinally, the most significant contribution of 4 Maccabees is the development of the notion that the suffering and death of the martyred righteous had redemptive efficacy for all Israel and secured God's grace and pardon for his people’ (‘4 Maccabees’, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [2 Vols.; ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985] 2.531–43Google Scholar, esp. 539; also: G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1.548–9); Jonge, Marinus de, Christology in Context. The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988] 183Google Scholar, 242 nn. 33, 34). C. K. Barrett interprets 2 Cor 5.21 by analogy with 4 Macc 6.28–9, reasoning that the belief was ‘current in Judaism that the merits of the (at least relatively righteous) could be used for the benefit of the sinful’ (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 180); also: H. J. Schoeps, Paul, 130.

⁵⁴ S. K. Williams gives the following reasons to substantiate his conclusion: 1) There is no reference to forgiveness in 4 Maccabees; 2) It is not the people who are purified but the ‘land’ (cf. 17.21–2); 3) The purification is accomplished by courage and steadfastness, rather than by death; 4) The author does not intend to argue that it was the deaths of the nine martyrs specifically which reversed the political situation. The ‘nine martyr story’ is representative of all steadfast Jews. The narrative concentrates the persecution of all Jews under Antiochus into the particular story of the nine martyrs. This can be demonstrated by the fact that elsewhere in the book the author acknowledges that the nine martyrs were not the only Jews to stand firm, nor were they the only ones to try to convince Antiochus of the futility of his pursuit (e.g. 18.5). The eulogizing of the nine martyrs actually serves to eulogize all steadfast Jews, who collectively forced the departure of Antiochus (Saving Event, 169–83).

⁵⁵ M. de Jonge, Christology in Context, 183.

⁵⁶ Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period (12 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953–1965) 4.183–4Google Scholar; Spiegel, Shalom, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (New York: Pantheon, 1967)Google Scholar; Vermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961/3rd ed.: 1973) 193–227Google Scholar; Daly, R. J., ‘The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac’, CBQ 39 (1977) 45–75Google Scholar; Davies, P. R. and Chilton, B. D., ‘The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History’, CBQ 40 (1978) 514–46.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hans Schoeps thinks that this tradition ‘provided the very model for the elaboration of Pauline soteriology’ (Paul, 141; cf. M. Hengel, Atonement, 61–2).

⁵⁸ For recent discussion of this question: Bruce Chilton, Targumic Approaches to the Gospels (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986) 39–49, cf. 25–37.

⁵⁹ G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1.551.

⁶⁰ Yerkes, Royden, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952) 5.Google Scholar

⁶¹ W. Eichrodt, OT Theology, 1.168.

⁶² Köhler, Ludwig, Old Testament Theology (London: Lutterworth, 1936/1957) 181–2.Google Scholar

⁶³ W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 424. New Testament scholars would do well to heed the admonition of E. Evans-Pritchard who cautions that ‘many ethnographers would be greatly aided by acquainting themselves with the subtleties of classical and theological dogma and ritual’ (Theories of Primitive Religion [Oxford: OUP, 1965] 16–17)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ For an explanation of this terminology see my article: ‘On the Revision of Scapegoat Terminology’, Numen 37/2 (1990) 168–73Google Scholar; for some of my argument see: ‘Christ as a Pharmakos Victim in Pauline Soteriology’, Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers (ed. David Lull; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1991) 187–206.Google Scholar