IV. The Daily Service

IV. THE DAILY SERVICE
The daily worship of the sanctuary was conducted by the twenty-four divisions of the priests (see p. 216 ff. above), each division taking its turn and officiating for a week at a time. The divisions were changed every Sabbath day, the arrangement being that the retiring one should offer the morning sacrifice and the extra Sabbath offerings (according to Numbers 28:9-10) before leaving, while the one that came in to take its place was to offer the evening sacrifice and put the fresh shewbread upon the table.[1074] On the occasion of the three leading festivals of the year (Passover, Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles) the whole twenty-four courses officiated simultaneously.[1075] The attempts made by Christian scholars to make out on chronological grounds the week during which the course of Abia happened to serve in the year of our Lord’s birth (Luke 1:5) have no tenable historical basis on which to rest.[1076] Every weekly division again was broken up into somewhere between five and nine sub-divisions, each of which officiated on an average for a single day the one after the other. If the sub-divisions happened to be fewer than seven, then some of them required to take their turn twice; but if, on the other hand, there happened to be more than seven, then on some of the days two of them officiated at the same time (see p. 216, above). But further, as never more than a fraction of the priests belonging to a sub-division were required to officiate at the regular daily offering of the public sacrifices, it was necessary to determine by lot those on whom the active duties of the day were to devolve. Like the priests, the Levites were also divided into twenty-four courses of service (see p. 227 f., above), which in like manner relieved each other every week.[1077] But lastly, in addition to this there was an analogous division of the people themselves into twenty-four courses of service (מִשְׁמָרוֹת), each of which had to take its turn in coming before God, every day for a whole week, by way of representing the whole body of the people while the daily sacrifice was being offered to Jehovah.[1078] The division actually engaged in the performance of this duty was known under the designation of מַעֲמָד, “a station.” At the same time the case of the ordinary Israelites differed from that of the priests and Levites in this respect, that unlike these, the entire division did not require to go up to Jerusalem when its turn came. Instead of this the persons belonging to it met together in the synagogues in the towns in or near which they resided and there engaged in prayer and the reading of Scripture; probably in every instance it was merely a deputation of them that actually went up to Jerusalem to be present at the offering of the sacrifice. In that case it was this deputation that, in the strict sense of the word, constituted the מַעֲמָד, which “stood by” while the sacrifice was being offered.[1079]
[1074] See, in particular, Tosefta, Sukka iv. 24-25 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 200); also Mishna, Sukka v. 7-8; Tamid v. 1. 2 Chronicles 23:4; 2 Chronicles 23:8 (where the priestly courses of services are evidently in question; it is otherwise in the corresponding passage 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 11:9). Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7: διέταξέ τε μίαν πατριὰν διακονεῖσθαι τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, ἀπὸ σαββάτου ἐπὶ σάββατον. It is probable that we ought also to understand as referring to the changing of the weekly (and not the daily) divisions, the passage contra Apion. ii. 8: alii succedentes ad sacrificia veniunt, et congregati in templum mediante die a praecedentibus claves templi et ad numerum vasa omnia percipiunt.
[1075] See Sukka v. 6-8, and Bartenora on Sukka v. 6, in Surenhusius’ edition of the Mishna, ii. p. 279.
[1076] See for such attempts, Scaliger, De emendatione temporum (Coloniae Allobrog. 1629), Appendix, pp. 54-59. Lightfoot, Harmonia evangelistarum, note on Luke 1:5 (Opp. i. pp. 258-264). Bengel, Ordo temporum (1741), pp. 230-232. Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse, pp. 140-145. Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra (1846), pp. 97-103. Stawars, Die Ordnung Abia in Beziehung auf die Bestimmung des wahren Geburtsdatums Jesu (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1866, pp. 201-225). The calculations here in question are based partly upon purely gratuitous assumptions and partly upon a very late and somewhat untrustworthy notice in the Talmud, to the effect that the course of Joiarib was the one that happened to be officiating on the day on which the temple was destroyed (Bab. Taanith 29a).
[1077] 1 Chronicles 9:25; 2 Chronicles 23:4; 2 Chronicles 23:8. Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7. Taanith iv. 2.
[1078] On the whole arrangement, comp. Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 1622 f. (see under עמד). Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, cap. vii. 3 (Opp. i. p. 700 f.). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 109 f. Hottinger, De viris stationariis, Marburg 1707 (a moat exhaustive treatment of the matter). Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, vol. iii. pp. 188-200, 204-209. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. 187 (2nd ed. vol. xii. 227). Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, vol. ii. pp. 877-880 (art. “Opferbeistände”).
[1079] Sea especially, Taanith iv. 1-4. The principal passage, Taanith iv. 2, runs thus: “The early prophets instituted twenty-four courses of service (משמרות). There was a station (מעמד) in Jerusalem, consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites, to represent each course. When the time for service came round the priests and Levites of the course went up to Jerusalem, while the Israelites belonging to that course met in the synagogues of their towns and read the account of the creation.” The terms of the passage are contradictory in so far as they seem to allege that the whole מעמד was in Jerusalem, while telling us, at the same time, that the Israelites merely assembled in the synagogues of their towns. It is probable that the correct view of the matter is given in the corresponding passage in the Tosefta (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 219), where to “the Israelites belonging to that course” are added the words “who were unable to go up to Jerusalem.” What is meant therefore is this, that the whole of the priests and Levites belonging to the same course, and who were capable of service, were bound to go up; while the Israelites, on the other hand, might stay at home if it did not happen to be convenient for them to go, though at the same time it is presupposed that some of them were expected to be actually present in Jerusalem. Accordingly, in Tamid v. 6 it is assumed without more ado that the “head of the station” (ראש המעמד) was regularly present in the capital. A similar view of the matter is taken by Herzfeld, for example, iii. p. 193, and Hamburger, ii. p. 878. Bikkurim iii. 2 proceeds on the assumption that there were station-districts or circles marked off by definite boundaries and having some leading town as the centre of each. Comp. besides, Taanith ii. 7.
The officiating priests wore, during the service, a special official dress, which consisted of the four following article:—(1) מִכְנָסִים, i.e. short breeches covering merely the hips and thighs, and made of byssus (probably not cotton, but fine white linen). Then over these (2) the כְּתֹנֶת, a long, somewhat close-fitting coat, reaching down to the feet, with narrow sleeves, and also made of byssus. This coat was fastened together somewhere about the breast with (3) a girdle (אַבְנֵט), which mostly consisted of byssus also, only it had ornaments of purple, scarlet and blue embroidered upon it. It was therefore the only part of the attire that had any colour about it, all the rest being pure white. Then the covering for the head was (4) the מִגְבָּעָה, a kind of cap or turban.[1080] Shoes are nowhere mentioned, and it may be regarded as certain that the priests always officiated without having anything on the feet.[1081]
[1080] For the priests’ attire, see Ezekiel 44:17-19; Exodus 28:40-43; Exodus 39:27-29, and above all the minute description of it in Joseph. Antt. iii. 7. 1-3. Philo’s brief notice in Vita Mosis, iii. 13 (Mang. ii. 157): χιτῶνας λινοῦς, ζώνας τε καὶ περισκελῆ; De monarchia, ii. 5 (Mang. ii. 225): ἡ δὲ ἐσθής ἐστι χιτὼν λινοῦς καὶ περίζωμα. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 6: λινῆν στολήν Aristeas, ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 270. 1-2: τῶν ἱερέων κεκαλυμμένων μέχρι τῶν σφυρῶν βνσσίνοις χιτῶτιν. The literature of our subject is the same as that already referred to in connection with the high priest’s dress; see note 124, above. On the question as to whether byssus is to be identified with cotton or with linen, see among others, Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Baumwolle;” Dillmann’s note on Exodus 25:4; Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer, pp. 536-538 (who is of opinion that Rosellini has decided the question, and that in favour of cotton); and, on the other side, Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, vol. ii. (1882) p. 464 f., and the leading work on the subject quoted there, viz. Yates’ Textrinum antiquorum, An Account of the Art of Weaving among the Ancients, part i. London 1843; also Hehn, Culturpflanzen und Hausthiere, 3rd ed. p. 145. As the ancients did not always carefully distinguish between linen and cotton, it is quite possible that there were some instances in which cotton was also made use of for making the priests’ attire (as witness, for example, the fine Indian fabric from which the garments were made which the high priest was in the habit of wearing on the afternoon of the great day of atonement, and which consisted of that material). On the other hand, it may be taken as certain that, as a rule, it was linen that was used. According to Mishna, Kilajim ix. 1, only flax (פשתים) and sheep’s wool (צמר) were employed for the purpose in question, the latter being for the parti-coloured ornamentation on the girdle; see the commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. i. p. 149, and Braun’s Vestitus sacerdotum Hebraeorum, i. 6. 2, ii. 3. 4. It is with reference to this matter that it is said in Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 11: μηδεὶς δʼ ἐξ ὑμῶν κλωστὴν ἐξ ἐρίου καὶ λίνου στολὴν φορείτω· τοῖς γὰρ ἱερεῦσι μόνοις ταύτην ἀποδεδεῖχθαι. Consequently the priests’ attire was expressly exempted from the prohibition of Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11.
[1081] See Bartenora on Shekalim v. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 192). Braun’s Vestitus sacerd. Heb. i. 3. 3 (pp. 43-47). Carpzov, Discalceatio religiosa in loco sacro ad Ex. iii. 5 (in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxix.). Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. 405 ff. Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 271. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. vii. p. 718. The following passage occurs in Megilla iv. 8 with reference to the worship of the synagogue: “He who says, I will not lead the prayers in coloured clothes, as little is he to do so in white attire. He who is unwilling to do so with sandals on, as little is he to do it barefooted.” The meaning of which is simply this, that in the service of the synagogue no one is to presume to wear the dress of a priest. With regard to the priests’ benediction, on the other hand, Jochanan ben Sakkai is said to have ordained, that even after the destruction of the temple it was still to be pronounced by them only with the feet bare (Rosh hashana 31b; Sota 496. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 305, note 3).
As the white attire was a symbol of purity, so the officiating priests required to be men characterized by temperance and Levitical purity. During the period of their service they were prohibited from drinking wine or any other intoxicating beverage.[1082] Nor were they allowed to enter the court for the purpose of officiating unless they were Levitically clean. Nay more, even those who were so were, in every instance, required to take a formal bath previous to their entering upon the services of the day.[1083] But besides this, they had then to go and wash the hands and feet in the brazen laver (כִּיּוֹר) that stood in the open air between the temple and the altar of burnt-offering.[1084]
[1082] Leviticus 10:8-11; Ezekiel 44:21. Pseudo-Hecataeus in Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22 (ed. Bekker, p. 204, 26 ff.): τὸ παράπαν οἶνον οὐ πίνοντες ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 7. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Taanith ii. 7. Ugolini’s Thesaurus, xiii. 885 ff. (where are given in extenso in Hebrew and Latin the passages from the Jer. Taanith 65d; Tosefta, Taanith ii., Sifra and Pesikta to Leviticus 10:9).
[1083] Joma iii. 3: “No priest is to be allowed to enter the court for the purpose of officiating, even though he be already clean, without having taken a bath;” comp. Tamid i. 2. A bath had also to be taken above all after every occasion of doing their needs, Joma iii. 2. On the place where the bath was to be taken, see Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 9, fin.
[1084] Exodus 30:17-21; Exodus 40:30-32. Tamid i. 4, ii. 1. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 15: πόδας μάλιστα καὶ χεῖρας ἀπονιπτόμενοι. On the כִּוּוֹר itself, see also Exodus 38:8; Sir_50:3; Middoth iii. 6; r iii. 10; Tamid iii. 8. Lightfoot, Descriptio templi, cap. xxxvii. 1 (Opp. i. 643 sq.). Clemens, De lahro aeneo, Traject. ad Rh. 1725 (also in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xix.). The commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 223, v. 360. Iken, Tractatus talmudicus de cultu quotidiano, 1736, pp. 32-34 (full of matter). Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Handfass.” Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 583-586. Kohler’s Lehrb. der Bibl. Geschichte, i. p. 373 f.
As regards the sacrifices that were offered every day,[1085] they are to be distinguished into two classes, the public and the private sacrifices.[1086] The former were offered in name of the people, and were purchased with a portion of the people’s own offerings, especially the half-shekel tax; while the latter again were those in which only private individuals were concerned, and which might be offered on a vast variety of occasions, some of them being voluntary and others of them being, for some particular reason or other, compulsory. Both those categories again were sub-divided into different sorts, varying according to the particular objects for which they were offered, though they all admit of being classified under the three following heads:—(1) the burnt-offerings, the essential characteristic of which lay in the fact that the whole victim was consumed upon the altar; (2) the sin- and the trespass-offerings, in the case of which only the fat was burnt upon the altar, while the flesh fell to the priests; (3) the peace-offerings (זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים), according to Luther, “thank-offerings,” in the case of which again it was only the fat that was burnt upon the altar, while the flesh was used by the owner of the sacrifice himself as material for a jocund sacrificial feast.[1087] As was only natural, it was the numerous private offerings of so many different kinds that constituted the bulk of the sacrifices. However, as it is with giving au account of the regular daily worship of the sanctuary that we are here concerned, it is only the public sacrifices that fall to be considered by us, and especially the most important of them all, the people’s daily burnt-offering.
[1085] On the sacrificial worship generally, see Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xxxiii.-xlvi. Bähr’s Symbolik, ii. 187-522. Winer’a Realwörterb., art. “Opfer;” and in addition, the various articles on Brandopfer, Schuld- und Sündopfer, Dankopfer, Speisopfer, Trankopfer, Räuchern, etc. Oehler’s art. “Opfercultus des alten Testaments,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. x. 614-652, 2nd ed. xi. 29-61). Thalhofer, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaisch. Cult. 1848. Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opfercult. nach seiner Begründung und Anwendung dargestellt und erläutert, 1862. Kohler’s Lehrb. der Bibl. Geschichte, i. p. 387. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. 53-84. Dillmann’s Ereget. Handb. su Exod. u. Levit. pp, 373-387. The dictionaries of Schenkel and Riehm, and the archaeological works of De Wette, Ewald, Keil, Haneberg and others.
[1086] Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (ed. Mang., ii. 238 f.): Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν θυσιῶν, αἱ μέν εἰσιν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντος τοῦ ἔθνους, εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὸ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντος ἀνθρώπων γένους, αἱ δὲ ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἱερουργεῖν ἀξιούντων, λεκτέον πρότερον περὶ τῶν κοινῶν. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 1: δύο μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἱερουργίαι· τοΰτων δʼ ἣ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἑτέρα δʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου συντελούμεναι κ.τ.λ.
[1087] In the leading passage on the classification of the sacrifices, viz. Leviticus 1-7, there are, strictly speaking, five leading kinds of them mentioned: (1) the burnt-offering, (2) the meat-offering, (3) the peace-offering, (4) the sin-offering, and (5) the trespass-offering. But the meat-offering is certainly not to be regarded as being on a level with the animal sacrifices, seeing that, like the drink-offering, it occurs for the most part simply as an accompaniment of such sacrifices. With regard to the sin- and trespass-offerings, they are no doubt distinct, yet they are so much akin to each other that they may well be regarded as one species. Consequently in the case of the animal sacrifices, and these are by far the most important of all, we ought to distinguish them into three leading kinds, as Philo and Josephus have already done (the former De victimis, § iv., and the latter Antt. iii. 9. 1-3). The whole three classes enter into public and private sacrifices alike, although in the former the peace-offering (זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים) is, of course, of but rare occurrence, the only time at which it is regularly offered being Pentecost (Leviticus 23:19); otherwise we meet with it only on special occasions (see Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Dankopfer”). The flesh of the public peace-offerings belonged to the priests (Leviticus 23:20). On these in general, see Pesachim vii. 4; Sebachim v. 5; Menachoth v. 7; Meila ii. 5. The burnt-offerings and the sin-offerings offered in the name of the whole body of the people were of very frequent recurrence; see the catalogue of those for festival days in Numbers 28-29.
In order that the reader may be in a better position for understanding what is to follow, it will be well, before proceeding farther, to offer here one or two topographical observations.[1088] The inner court, within which the whole of the worship was celebrated, was divided by means of a wall into two divisions, a western and an eastern. The latter was called “the court of the women,” not however because none but women were admitted to it, but because women as well as men were allowed to enter it.[1089] The beautiful gate-way in the east side of this court, with its elaborate two-leaved gate made of brass (ἡ θύρα ἡ λεγομένη ὡραία, Acts 3:2), formed the principal entrance to it; and hence it was that beggars were in the habit of sitting here (Acts 3:2). The western division again was reserved exclusively for male Israelites, and within it stood the temple proper. Comparatively speaking, this was not a large, but a handsome edifice. The interior, which was probably almost quite dark, was divided into two divisions, the larger one being to the front, and the other, which was only half as large, being at the back. The latter formed the “holy of holies,” which was trodden by human foot only once in the year, and that by the high priest on the great day of atonement. In the front (and therefore eastern) division stood those three sacred articles, the punctual ministering at which on the part of the officiating priests formed one of the principal parts of the worship, viz.: (1) in the middle the golden altar of incense (מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב), known also as the “inner altar” (מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי), upon which incense had to be offered every morning and evening;[1090] (2) to the south of the latter the golden candlestick with seven branches (מְנוֹרָה), which had to be kept constantly burning;[1091] and (3) to the north of the altar of incense the golden table for the shewbread, on which twelve fresh loaves had to be placed every Sabbath day.[1092] The front of the temple looked toward the east. Before it and in the open air stood the great altar of burnt-offering, or “the altar” κατʼ ἐξοχήν, at which, with the exception of the burning of the incense, every act of sacrifice had to be performed. It was a high four-square erection of large dimensions, being, according to the Mishna, thirty-two cubits square at the base (while for the sake of comparison it may be mentioned that the interior of the temple was only twenty cubits wide). It diminished in size toward the top in such a way as to form several stages or landings round it, although on the top it still measured as much as twenty-four cubits by twenty-four.[1093] The whole structure was built of unhewn stones which no tool had ever touched.[1094] Then, on the south side, there was a gradual ascent leading upward to the top of the altar, and this was likewise formed of unhewn stones. The fire upon this altar had to be kept continually burning by night as well as by day.[1095] Between the temple and the altar of burnt-offering there stood, and likewise in the open air, the brazen laver (כִּיּוֹר) already referred to, in which the priests were required to wash their hands and feet previous to their engaging in the worship of the sanctuary. To the north of the altar, and still in the open air, was the place for slaughtering the victims, where there were rings fastened in the ground to which the animals were tied when about to be slaughtered; while there were pillars at hand on which to hang the victims after they were killed, as wall as marble tables on which to skin them and wash the entrails.[1096] The temple, along with the altar of burnt-offering and the place for slaughtering, was surrounded by an enclosure within which, as a rule, none but priests were allowed to enter, ordinary Israelites being permitted to do so only “when it was necessary for the purpose of the laying on of hands, or for slaughtering, or waving” (תְּנוּפָה).[1097]
[1088] For the sources and literature connected with the temple of Herod, see § 15, above.
[1089] See Joseph, contra Apion. ii. 8: In secundam vero porticum (by which the women’s court is meant) cuncti Judaei ingrediebantur eorumqus conjuges.
[1090] On the daily offering of the incense, see Exodus 30:7-8. On the preparation of the incense itself, Exodus 30:34-38. On the altar of incense, Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 37:25-29; 1Ma_1:21; 1Ma_4:29. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 9. De victimis offerentibus, sec. iv. Josephus, Antt. iii. 6. 8; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap. xxv.-xxvii. Monographs in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xi. Winer’s Realwörterb., arts. “Räucheraltar” and “Räuchern.” Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des mos. Cultes, pp. 78-82, 131-139. Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 499-505. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebräer, ii. 2. 479 ff., note on ix. 4. Leyrer’s arts. “Räucheraltar” and “Räuchern,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. 502-513. The same articles in the second edition re-written by Orelli, vol. xii. 483-489. Delitzsch in Riehm’s Wörterb. pp. 1255-1260. מִזְבּח הַזָּהָב, Joma v. 5, 7; Chagiga iii. 8; Sebachim v. 2; Menachoth iii. 6, iv. 4. מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, Joma ii. 3, v. 5; Sebachim iv. 2; Meila iii. 4; Tamid iii. 6. 9, vi. 1. Wellhausen’s doubts as to the actual existence of the altar of incense (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 410 ff.) are disposed of by a unanimous testimony in its favour from the time of the Maccabees down to Josephus and the Mishna. On the other hand, it certainly appears as though it had been introduced at a somewhat latish period. It is worth noting that as yet Pseudo-Hecataeus (in Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, ed. Bekker, p. 204, 19-21) mentions nothing else as being in the interior of the temple but the candlestick and a golden βωμός, which latter might as readily be supposed to refer to the table for the shewbread as to the altar of incense.
[1091] On the duties connected with the candlestick, see Exodus 27:20-21; Exodus 30:7-8; Leviticus 24:1-4; Numbers 8:1-4; 2 Chronicles 13:11. From the passages just quoted it would seem as though the lamps on the candlestick were to be lighted only in the evening with a view to their burning during the night. So also Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec. vii. init. But, according to Joseph. Antt. iii. 8. 3, fin., on the other hand, three of the lamps were kept burning during the day and the whole seven during the night; while according to the Mishna only one was lighted during the day and the whole seven at night (Tamid iii. 9, vi. 1, and the reference to those passages by Krüger, Theol. Quartalschr. 1857, p. 248 f.). Comp. further, Pseudo-Hecataeus in Joseph. contra Apion. i. 22: ἐπὶ τούτων φῶς ἔστιν ἀναπόσβεστον καὶ τὰς νύκτας καὶ τὰς ἡμέρας. Diodor. xxxiv. 1 (ed. Müller): τὸν δὲ ἀθάνατον λεγόμενον παρʼ αὐτοῖς λύχνον καὶ καιόμενον ἀδιαλείπτων ἐν τῷ ναῷ. On the candlestick itself, see Exodus 25:31-40; Exodus 37:17-24; 1Ma_1:21; 1Ma_4:49. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 9. Joseph. Antt. iii. 6, 7; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5. Mishna, Menachoth iii. 7, iv. 4, ix. 3, fin.; Tamid iii. 6, 9, vi. 1. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap, xxiii. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Leuchter.” Bähr, Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. 492-499. Krüger, Der siebenarmige Leuchter (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1857, pp. 238-261). Riehm’s Wörterb., art. “Leuchter” (with illustrations). On the position of the candlestick to the south of the altar of incense, see Exodus 26:35; Exodus 40:24.
[1092] On the duties connected with the table of shewbread, see Leviticus 24:5-9. Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (ed. Mang., ii. 239 f.). Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 7. On the table of shewbread itself, see Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 37:10-16; 1Ma_1:22; 1Ma_4:49. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 10. Joseph. Antt. iii. 6. 6; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5. Mishna, Menachoth xi. 5-7. Comp. further the description of the table alleged to have been presented to the temple by Ptolemy Philadelphus as given by Pseudo-Aristeas (Havercamp’s Joseph. ii. 2. 109-111. Merx’ Archiv, i. 264-267. Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 7, 8). Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap. xxiv. Winer’s Realwörterb., arts. “Schaubrode” and “Schaubrodtisch.” Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 488-492. Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des mos. Cultes, pp. 73-78, 156-168. Leyrer, arts. “Schaubrod” and “Schaubrodtisch,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. 467-472. Delitzsch in Riehm’s Wörterb. pp. 1388-1392 (with an illustration). Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. vol. xiii. 455-458. On the position of the table to the north of the altar of incense, see Exodus 26:35; Exodus 40:22.
[1093] Comp. in particular, the descriptions of it in the Mishna, Middoth iii. 1-4, and in Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 5. 6; further, Pseudo-Hecataeus in Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22 (ed. Bekker, p. 264. 16 ff.); Aristeas, ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 269 f. (in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 112); 1Ma_4:44-47. Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec. iv. Also measurements given in Ezekiel 43:13-17. Monographs in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. x. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Brandopferaltar.” Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 579-582.
[1094] Pseudo-Hecataeus in Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22: οὐκ ἐκ τμητῶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ συλλέκτων ἀργῶν λίθων. 1Ma_4:47. Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec. iv.: ἐκ λίθων λογάδων καὶ ἀτμήτων. Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 6. Mishna, Middoth iii. 4. The oldest and most primitive altars were undoubtedly made merely of rough stones taken from the field, or even of simple heaps of earth; and the Jehovistic legislation proceeds on the assumption that these were the kind that were still in ordinary use (Exodus 20:24-26; comp. Deuteronomy 27:5-6). But we find that as early as the days of Solomon this monarch ordered a brazen altar to be erected in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:64; 1 Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 16:14-15; 2 Chronicles 4:1). The priest-code, inasmuch as it seeks to describe the whole sanctuary as being of a portable character, accordingly represents the altar of burnt-offering as having been made of wood and covered with brass (Exodus 27:1-8; Exodus 38:1-7; Numbers 17:1-5). We can scarcely think that one of this description ever existed. The practice of post-exilic times reverted rather to a compliance with the older legal prescriptions contained in Exodus 20:25; Deuteronomy 27:5-6. Comp. in general, Wellhausen’s Geschichte, i. pp. 30, 38 f.
[1095] Leviticus 6:6. Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec. v. init. (ed. Mangey, ii. 254). Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6. Comp. further, 2Ma_1:18-36, and Buxtorf, Historia ignis sacri et coelestis sacrificia consumentis (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. x.). Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap. xxxiv.
[1096] Middoth iii. 5. v. 2; Tamid iii. 5; Shekalim vi. 4. That the slaughtering of the burnt-offerings had to take place to the north of the altar is prescribed as early as Leviticus 1:11. But it was further required that the sin- and trespass-offerings should also be slaughtered at the very same place (Leviticus 4:24; Leviticus 4:29; Leviticus 4:33; Leviticus 6:18; Leviticus 7:2; Leviticus 14:13). This prescription is omitted only in the case of the peace-offerings; see Knobel-Dillmann’s note on Leviticus 1:11. For more precise information as to the places where the victims were slaughtered, see Sebachim v.
[1097] On this enclosure, see especially, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 6; Antt. xiii. 18. 5. But according to Kelim i. 8, ordinary Israelites were also allowed to enter this “court of the priests” for the purposes stated in the text.
Now, as regards the regular worship of the sanctuary, the most important part of it was the daily burnt-offering offered in the name of the people at large, the עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד, or simply הַתָּמִיד, “the standing one.”[1098] The practice of offering regular daily sacrifice is, comparatively speaking, of very ancient date. But it underwent certain modifications at different periods; not only in so far as, previous to the exile, the kings were in the habit of defraying the cost of the sacrifices (Ezekiel 45:17; Ezekiel 46:13-15, Sept. version), whereas they were subsequently provided at the expense of the people, but also as regards the character and number of the sacrifices themselves.[1099] In the time of Ahaz the morning sacrifice consisted only of a burnt-offering, and the evening one of simply a meat-offering (2 Kings 16:15). This had become so much of an established practice that various parts of the day took their names from it. To speak for example of anything as happening at the time “when the meat-offering was presented” was equivalent to saying toward evening (1 Kings 18:29; 1 Kings 18:36). Not only so, but this mode of denoting the hour of the day had become so completely established that it continued in use even long after the practice had been introduced of offering a burnt-offering in the evening as well (Ezra 9:4-5; Daniel 9:21).[1100] It would appear that this had not been introduced as yet in Ezekiel’s time. Yet in his day there must have been already an advance upon the older practice, in so far as, according to this prophet, both a burnt-offering and a meat-offering would seem to have been offered in the morning (Ezekiel 46:13-15). On the other hand, by the time the priest-code came to be in force it was prescribed that both a burnt-offering and a meat-offering should be offered every morning and every evening as well, and further, that on every occasion they should also be accompanied with a drink-offering (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:3-8). And so we find that, in the time of the author of the Chronicles, the practice thus established of offering a burnt-offering twice every day in the course of the daily service was looked upon as one of long standing (1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 13:11; 2 Chronicles 31:3). This then formed the true heart and centre of the whole sacrificial system of worship. In no circumstances whatever could it be allowed to be dispensed with. We find, for example, that in the year 70 Jerusalem had for a considerable time been invested by the Romans, and that, in consequence, the scarcity of food had reached a climax, but for all that the daily sacrifices continued to be regularly offered; and it was felt by the Jews to be one of the heaviest calamities that could have befallen them when, on the 17th of Tammuz, they at last found themselves in the position of having no more to offer.[1101]
[1098] עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד, for example, in Numbers 28:10; Numbers 28:15; Numbers 28:24; Numbers 28:31; Numbers 29:16; Numbers 29:19; Numbers 29:22; Numbers 29:25; Numbers 29:28; Numbers 29:31; Numbers 29:34; Numbers 29:38; Ezra 3:5; Nehemiah 10:34. הַתָּמִיד, for example, in Daniel 8:11-13; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:12; Mishna, Pesachim v. 1; Joma vii. 3; Taanith iv. 6; Menachoth iv. 4. It is from this that the whole tractate bearing the title of Tamid derives its name.
[1099] For what follows, comp. Kuenen, De godsdienst van Isräel, ii. 270-272. Wellhausen’s Geschichte Israels, i. pp. 81, 82. Reuss, L’histoire sainte et la loi (La Bible, Ancien Testament, part iii.), i. 202. Smend’s Exeget. Handbuch zu Ezekiel, p. 381 f. The objections advanced by Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch zu Exod. u. Levit. p. 313, can in no way affect what is a simple and undoubted matter of fact.
[1100] In the Mishna even the expression “time of the minchah” (of the meat-offering) continues to be used as equivalent to the afternoon; for example, Berachoth iv. 1; Pesachim x. 1; Roth hashana, iv. 4; Megilla iii. 6, iv. 1.
[1101] Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 1; Mishna, Taanith iv. 6. Similarly in the days of the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes the suppression of the Tamid was regarded as one of the most serious calamities possible (Daniel 8:11-13; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11).
The following are the more specific prescriptions contained in the priest-code with regard to the Tamid (Exodus 39:38-42; Numbers 28:3-8).[1102] Every morning and evening alike a male lamb of a year old and without blemish was to be offered as a burnt-offering, and in doing so all those regulations were required to be observed that apply to burnt-offerings generally, particularly those contained in Leviticus 1:10-13; Leviticus 6:1-6. Not only so, but on every occasion a meat-offering and a drink-offering were to be offered along with the burnt-offering, as it is prescribed by the priest-code that these were to accompany all burnt-offerings without exception (Numbers 15:1-16). In cases in which the victim happened to be a lamb, the meat-offering was to consist of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour (סֹלֶת), which was to be mixed (בָּלוּל, therefore not baked] with a quarter of a hin of pure oil; while the corresponding drink-offering was to consist of a quarter of a hin of wine. The time at which the morning sacrifice was to be offered was early dawn; that for the evening sacrifice again was to be, in Biblical phraseology, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, i.e. in the evening twilight, though at a later period it had become the practice to offer the evening sacrifice so early as the afternoon, or according to our mode of reckoning, somewhere about three o’clock.[1103]
[1102] Comp. further, Lightfoot’s Ministerium templi, cap. ix. (Opp. i. 716-722). Lundius, Die alt. Jüd. Heiligth. book v. chap. i.-ii. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Morgen- und Abendopfer.” Keil, Handb. der bibl. Archaeol. (2nd ed. 1875) p. 373 f. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer, pp. 604-609. For full details, consult the tractate Tamid, and comp. note 250, below.
[1103] On the principal occasion on which they speak of the Tamid, Philo and Josephus simply reproduce the scriptural statements with regard to the times for offering it (Philo, De victimis, sec. iii.: Καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν οὖν ἡμέραν δύο ἀμνοὺς ἀνάγειν διείρηται, τὸν μὲν ἅμα τῇ ἕῳ, τὸν δὲ δείλης ἑσπέρας. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 1: ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δημοσίου ἀναλώματος νόμος ἐστὶν ἄρνα καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν σφάζεσθαι τῶν αὐτοετῶν ἀρχομένης τε ἡμέρας καὶ ληγούσης). What the actual practice was in later times is clearly evident from Antt. xiv. 4. 3: δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας, πρωί τε καὶ περὶ ἐνάτην ώραν, ἱερουργούντων ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ. This entirely accords with the statement of the Mishna (Pesachim v. 1), to the effect that the evening sacrifice was usually slaughtered about half-past eight and offered about half-past nine o’clock (consequently, according to our reckoning, about half-past two and half-past three o’clock in the afternoon). Comp. further, Josephus, contra Apion. ii. 8 (ed. Bekker, p. 239): Mane etiam aperto templo oportebat facientes traditas hostias introire et meridie rursus dum clauderetur templum. And hence it was also the practice to go to the temple about the ninth hour for devotional purposes (Acts 3:1; Acts 10:3; Acts 10:30). See in general, Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 184 f.
It was also the regular practice to offer the daily meat-offering of the high priest in conjunction with the daily burnt-offering of the people. For, according to Leviticus 6:12-16, the high priest was required to offer a meat-offering every day (תָּמִיד),[1104] both morning and evening, and one too which differed from that offered in the name of the people along with their burnt-offering, not only in respect of quantity, but also as regards the mode in which it was prepared. It consisted altogether of only the tenth of an ephah of fine flour, of which one half was offered in the morning and the other half in the evening; and not only was it mixed with oil, but after being so it was baked in a flat pan (מַחֲבַת); the cakes thus prepared were then broken into pieces, oil was poured over them, and then they were duly offered (Leviticus 6:14; comp. Leviticus 2:5-6).[1105] Owing to the circumstance of its being made read in a מַהֲבַת, it was known at a later period simply as the חֲבִיתִים, “the baked (the cakes), which is the designation already given to it, directly or indirectly, by the author of the Chronicles,[1106] and subsequently by the Mishna in particular.[1107] Now as the presenting of this offering was incumbent upon the high priest, we are, of course, justified in speaking of him as offering a daily sacrifice.[1108] At the same time it must be borne in mind that here the high priest is to be regarded as the offerer of the sacrifice only in the same sense in which the people is so in the case of the daily burnt-offering, i.e. he causes it to be offered in his name and at his own expense,[1109] but it was by no means necessary that he himself should officiate on the occasion. In fact the expression used in connection with this matter in Leviticus 6:15 is not יקריב but merely יעשח. We learn from Josephus that the high priest officiated as a rule on the Sabbath and on festival days (see p. 255, above). But on ordinary occasions the meat-offering of the high priest, in common with the sacrifices of the people, was offered by the priests who happened to be officiating for the time being; and when the lots were drawn with the view of deciding who were to take the various parts of the service for the day, one was always drawn at the same time to determine who was to be entrusted with the duty of presenting the חֲבִיתִין, i.e. the meat-offering of the high priest.[1110] Nay more—seeing that the law speaks of this offering as being an offering of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 6:13),—there is no reason why it should not also be conceived of as a sacrifice which the priests offered for themselves.[1111]
[1104] With this it is impossible to reconcile the words “in the day when he is anointed,” Leviticus 6:20; one or other is a later interpolation. See Dillmann’s Exeget. Handb. zu Exod. u. Levit. p. 442. Jewish and Christian expositors have endeavoured in various ways to dispose of the discrepancy contained in this passage. See Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (1851), p. 143 f. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. ix. Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des mos. Cultes (1848), pp. 139-151.
[1105] On the mode of preparation, comp. further, Philo, De victimis, sec. xv. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7; Menachoth xi. 3. Both לִישָׁה (kneading) and אְפִיָּה (baking) formed part of the process. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xxxix. pp. 56-61. Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer, p. 151 ff.
[1106] 1 Chronicles 9:31. In this passage the Septuagint simply paraphrases the words מַעֲשֵׂה הַהֲבִתִּים as follows: τὰ ἔργα τῆς θυσίας τοῦ τηγάνου τοῦ μεγάλου ἱερέως. So also Gesenius, Thesaurus, under חבתים. But it is probable that the author of the Chronicles may have had in view the baked meat-offering generally, and not that of the high priest alone.
[1107] Tamid i. 3, iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3, iii. 4; Menachoth iv. 5, xi. 3; Middoth i. 4.
[1108] Philo, De specialibus legibus, ii. sec. xxiii. (Mang. ii. 321): εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. The well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7:27) is also to be explained on this ground; only it must be understood that this daily meat-offering on the part of the high priest was not a sin-offering, as the passage in question might lead one to suppose. On several Talmudic passages in which, either apparently or in reality, it is the daily offering of a sacrifice on the part of the high priest that is in question, see Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, ii. p. 140 f.
[1109] Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7: θύει δʼ ὁ ἱερεὺς (= the high priest) ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀναλωμάτων, καὶ δὶς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ἄλευρον ἐλαίῳ μεμαγμένον καὶ πεπηγὸς ὀπτήσει βραχείᾳ· καὶ εἷς μέν ἐστιν ἀσσάρων τοῦ ἀλεύρου, τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ πρωῒ τὸ δʼ ἕτερον δείλης ἐπιφέρει τῷ πυρί. When A high priest died, the meat-offering bad to be furnished at the expense of the people (according to Rabbi Juda, Shekalim vii. 6, at the expense of his heirs) until his successor was installed.
[1110] Tamid iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3. It is true, no doubt, that, strictly speaking, what is in view in the passages here referred to is not the actual offering of the sacrifice, but the bringing of the materials of it to the ascent leading to the top of the altar. Still, according to Tamid v. 2, Joma ii. 4-5, there was also appointed for the actual offering (the carrying of the sacrifice up to the altar hearth) precisely the same number of priests again as were employed in bringing it to the foot of the altar, viz. nine, corresponding to the nine parts of which the sacrifice was composed, and among which, even in the passages first referred to (Tamid iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3), the חביתין are expressly mentioned. Consequently, there can be no doubt whatever that the actual offering of the חביתין also devolved, as a rule, upon an ordinary priest.
[1111] Philo, Quis rerum div. heres. sec. xxxvi. (Mang. i. 497): Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμιδάλεως, καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν, οὓς ἀναφέρειν διείρηται. De victimis, sec. xv. (ed. Mang. ii. 250): Σεμιδαλις γὰρ ἡ ἐυδελεχὴς αὐτῶν θυσία μέτρου ἱεροῦ τὸ δέκατον καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, ου τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ πρωΐας, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ δείλης προσάγεται ταγηνισθὲν ἐν ἐλαίῳ, μηδενὸς εἰς βρῶσιν ὑπολειφθέντος.
Besides the offering of the sacrifices just referred to, the priests in the course of the daily service were also called upon to perform certain functions inside the temple in connection with the altar of incense and the candlestick. On the former incense had to be offered every morning and every evening alike (Exodus 30:7-8), that offered in the morning being previous to the offering of the burnt-offering, and that in the evening, on the other hand, coming after it, so that the daily burnt-offering was, as it were, girt round with the offering of incense.[1112] Then further, with regard to the candlestick, it had to be attended to every morning and every evening. In the morning the lamps were trimmed and replenished with oil, when one or more of them (according to Josephus three) were allowed to burn throughout the day. In the evening again the rest of them were lighted, for it was prescribed that during the night the whole seven were to be burning (see especially Exodus 30:7-8; 2 Chronicles 13:11; and in, general, p. 281, above).
[1112] Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (Mangey, ii. 239): δὶς δὲ καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐπιθυμιᾶται τὰ πάντων εὐωδέστατα θυμιαμάτων εἴσω τοῦ καταπετάσματος, ἀνίσχοντος ἡλίου καὶ δυομένου πρότετῆς ἑωθινῆς θυσίας καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἑσπερινήν. De victimis offerentibus, sec. iv. (Mang.ii.254): οὐ γὰρ ἐφίεται τὴν ὁλόκαυτον θυσίαν ἔξω προσαγαγεῖν, πρὶν ἔνδον περὶ βαθὺν ὄρθρον ἐπιθυμιάσαι. Still more precise is the statement of the Mishna (Joma iii. 5), to the effect that “the offering of the morning incense took place between the sprinkling of the blood and the offering of the various parts of the victim; while the corresponding evening one occurred between the offering of these portions and the drink-offering.”
Then lastly, with the view of imparting greater beauty to the worship, it was also deemed proper to have vocal and instrumental music. When the burnt-offering was being presented the Levites broke in with singing and playing upon their instruments, while two priests blew silver trumpets (2 Chronicles 29:26-28; Numbers 10:1-2; Numbers 10:10). While this was going on the people were also assembled in the temple for prayer. At the pauses in the singing the priests sounded a fanfare with their trumpets, and as often as they did so the people fell down and worshipped.[1113] There was a special pealm for every day of the week, the one for Sunday being the 24th, for Monday the 48th, for Tuesday the 82nd, for Wednesday the 94th, for Thursday the 81st, for Friday the 93rd, and for the Sabbath the 92nd.[1114]
[1113] On the assembling of the people in the temple for prayer, see Luke 1:10; Acts 3:1. For more precise information, as furnished by the tractate Tamid, see below. It is quite a mistake to suppose, as has been done through a misapprehension of Acts 2:15; Acts 3:1; Acts 10:3; Acts 10:9; Acts 10:30, that the third, sixth, and ninth hours of the day (therefore, according to our reckoning, nine, twelve, and three o’clock) were regular stated times for prayer (so, for example, Schoettgen, Horae hebr. i. 418. Winer’s Realwörterb. i. 398. De Wette’s note on Acts 2:15; and Meyer’s on Acts 3:1). The actual times for prayer were rather the three following:—(1) early in the morning, at the time of the morning sacrifice; (2) in the afternoon, about the ninth hour (three o’clock), at the time of the evening sacrifice; and (3) in the evening at sunset. See Berachoth i. 1 ff., iv. 1. Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. p. 188 ff. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud, 2nd part, arts. “Morgengebet,” “Minchagebet,” “Abendgebet.”
[1114] Tamid vii. fin. Further, Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. v. no. 25. Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 163 f. Grätz, Die Tempel psalmen (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissens. des Judenth. 1878, pp. 217-222). Delitzsch’s Commenter zu den Psalmen. In the case of five of the psalms here in question the Sept. also inserts in the title of each a correct statement of the particular day on which it was to be sung, thus: Psalms 24 (23), τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτου; 48 (47), δευτέρᾳ σαββάτου; 94 (93), τετράδι σαββάτου; 93 (92), εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου, ὅτε κατῴκισται ἡ γῆ; 92 (91), εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου. As regards the psalm for the Sabbath, the statement to the effect that it was the one appointed for that day has forced its way even into the Masoretic text. It has been alleged that the Jews were led to select those particular psalms from an idea that they presented suitable parallels to the six creative days (see Rosh hashana xxxi.a; Soferim xviii. 1; the commentaries of Bartenora and Maimonides in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. v. p. 310). But in the majority of the psalms in question it is quite impossible to discover any such parallelism. This view has obviously been suggested by the circumstance that when the “station” of Israelites assembled in the synagogue to read a portion of the Scripture (as described at p. 275 f. above), it was so arranged that in the course of the week the entire account of the creation should be read through consecutively (Taanith iv. 3: On the first day of the week they read the account of the first and second days’ work; on the second day of the week, that of the second and third days’ work, and so on). Besides the psalms for the different days of the week, many others, of course, were used in the services of the temple on the most divers occasions. Thus, on the high festival days, for example, the so-called Hallel was sung, i.e. according to the ordinary view, Psalms 93-98; at the same time the traditions would seem to be somewhat undecided as to what we are to understand by the Hallel; see Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 613-616 (under הלל). Lightfoot’s Horae hebr., note on Luke 13:35 (Opp. ii. p. 538 f.). Lundius’ note on Taanith iii. 9 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. p. 377). Grätz. Monatsschr. 1879, pp. 202 ff., 241 ff. Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. under הלל. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, 2nd part, art. “Hallel.”
The form of the daily service in the temple which we have just been describing, is the same as that which had been already delineated with so much fondness by the son of Sirach (Sir_50:11-21). A very circumstantial account of the morning service, founded evidently on sound tradition, is given in the Mishna in the tractate Tamid, the substance of which may here be subjoined by way of supplement to what we have already said.[1115]
[1115] The tractate in question is to be found in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. v. pp. 284-310; and in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xix. col. 1467-1502. The principal passages along with other material also in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. 942-1055. There is a good edition of the tractate by itself (and, as in the case of those already mentioned, also furnished with a Latin translation and notes), under the title, Tractatus Talmudicus de cultu quotidiano templi, quem versione Latina, donatum et notis illustratum … sub praesidio Dn. Conradi Ikenii patrui sui … eruditorum examini subjicit auctor Conradus Iken, Braemae 1736.
The officiating priests slept in a room in the inner court. Early in the morning, even before daybreak, the official who had charge of the lots for deciding how the different functions for the day were to be apportioned came, and, in the first place, caused a lot to be drawn to determine who was to perform the duty of removing the ashes from the altar of burnt-offering. Those who were disposed to offer themselves for this task were expected to have taken the bath prescribed by the law previous to the arrival of the above-mentioned official. The lots were then drawn, and one of those who thus presented themselves was in this way told off to perform the duty in question. This person then set to work at once while it was still dark, and with no light but that of the altar fire. The first thing he did was to wash his hands and feet in the brazen laver that stood between the temple and the altar, after which he mounted the altar and carried away the ashes with a silver pan. While this was being done, those whose duty it was to prepare the baked meat-offering (of the high priest) were also busy with their particular function.[1116] Meanwhile fresh wood was laid upon the altar, and, while this was burning, the priests, after they had all in like manner washed their hands and feet in the brazen laver, went up to the lischkath ha-gasith (on this see p. 191, above), where the further drawing of the lots took place.[1117]
[1116] Tamid i. 1-4. Comp. Joma i. 8, ii, 1-2.
[1117] Tamid ii. 1-5.
The official who had charge of this matter then caused lots to be drawn in order to determine—(1) who was to slaughter the victim; (2) who was to sprinkle the blood upon the altar; (3) who was to remove the ashes from the altar of incense; (4) who was to trim the lamps on the candlestick; further, who were to carry the various portions of the victim to the foot of the ascent to the altar, viz. who (5) was to carry the head and one of the hind legs; (6) who the two forelegs; (7) who the tail and the other hind leg; (8) who the breast and the neck; (9) who the two sides; (10) who the entrails; (11) who the offering of fine flour; (12) who the baked meat-offering (of the high priest); and (13) who the wine for the drink-offering.[1118] The next step was to go out to see whether there was as yet any symptom of daybreak. Then as soon as the dawn appeared in the sky they proceeded to bring a lamb from the lamb-house and the ninety-three sacred utensils from the utensil-room. The lamb that was thus to form the victim had now some water given to it from a golden bowl, whereupon it was led away to the slaughtering place on the north side of the altar.[1119] Meanwhile the two whose duty it was to clean the altar of incense and trim the lamps proceeded to the temple, the former with a golden pail (טְנִי) and the latter with a golden bottle (כּוּז). They opened the great door of the temple, went in, and proceeded, the one to clean the altar of incense, and the other to trim the lamps. In the case of the latter however the arrangement was, that if the two that were farthest east were found to be still burning they were in the meantime to be left undisturbed, and only the other five were to be trimmed. But should it so happen that the two that were farthest, east were out, then they were, in the first place, to be trimmed and relighted before the trimming of the others was proceeded with. And so having finished their task, the two priests now retired, but they left behind them in the temple the utensils which they had been using.[1120]
[1118] Tamid iii. 1; Joma ii. 3.
[1119] Tamid iii. 2-5; comp. Joma iii. 1-2.
[1120] Tamid iii. 6-9. For an exposition of Tamid iii 6, comp. further, Grätz, Monatsschr. 1880, p. 289 ff.
While the two just referred to were thus occupied within the temple, the lamb was being slaughtered at the slaughtering place by the priest to whose lot this duty had fallen, another at the same time catching up the blood and sprinkling it upon the altar. The victim was then flayed and cut up into a number of pieces. The entrails were washed upon marble tables that were at hand for the purpose, There were whole six priests appointed to carry the pieces to the altar, one piece being borne by each priest. Then a seventh carried the offering of fine flour, an eighth the baked meat-offering (of the high priest), and a ninth the wine for the drink-offering. All the things here mentioned were in the first instance laid down on the west side of the ascent to the altar and at the foot of it, and then seasoned with salt, whereupon the priests betook themselves once more to the lischkath ha-gasith for the purpose of repeating the schma.[1121]
[1121] Tamid iv. 1-3. For the place where the pieces were laid down, see also Shekalim viii. 8. According to Shekalim vi. 4, there was a marble table for this purpose standing on the west side of the ascent to the altar. On the salting of the pieces, see Leviticus 2:13; Ezekiel 43:24; Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 1.
After they had repeated the schma, the lots were again drawn. In the first instance they were drawn among those who as yet had not been called upon to offer up incense in order to determine which one amongst them should now be entrusted with this duty.[1122] Then another was drawn to determine who were to lay the various parts of the victim upon the altar (which, if we are to believe Rabbi Elieser ben Jacob, was done by the same priests who had formerly carried them to the foot of the altar). Those on whom no lot fell upon this occasion were now free to go away, and accordingly they took off their official attire.[1123]
[1122] The offering of the incense was regarded as the most solemn stage in the whole sacrificial act. See Philo, De victims offerentibus, sec. iv. (Mangey, ii. 254): Ὅσῳ γάρ, οἶμαι, λίθων μὲν ἀμείνων χρυσός, τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀδύτοις τῶν ἐκτὸς ἁγιώτερα, τοσούτῳ κρείττων ἡ διὰ τῶν ἐπιθυμιωμέυων εὐχαριστία τῆς διὰ των ἐναίμων. Hence it was while they were offering the incense above all that revelations were made to the priests, as for example in the case of John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 10. 3) and that of Zacharias (Luke 1:9-20).
[1123] Tamid v. 1-3. Comp. Joma ii. 4-5.
The priest to whose lot the duty of offering the incense had fallen now went and took a golden saucer (כַּף) covered with a lid, and inside of which again there was a smaller saucer (בָּזָךְ) containing the incense.[1124] Another priest took a silver pan (מַחְתָּה), and with it brought some live coal from the altar of burnt-offering and then emptied it into a golden pan.[1125] This being done, both entered the temple together. The one emptied the coals that were in his pan on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself in an attitude of devotion, and then withdrew. The other took the smaller saucer containing the incense out of the larger one, then handing this latter to a third priest, he emptied the incense out of the saucer on to the coals upon the altar, whereupon it ascended in clouds of smoke. This being done, he, like the other, fell down in an attitude of devotion, and then left the temple. But, previous to these latter having entered, the two who had charge of the cleaning of the altar of incense and the trimming of the lamps had also come back and entered for the second time, the former merely to bring away his utensils (the טְנִי), the latter in like manner to bring away his (the כּוּז), but also for the additional purpose of trimming the more easterly of the two lamps that had not yet been so; the other being allowed still to burn in order that with it the others might be lighted in the evening. If it, too, happened to be out, then it was trimmed like the others, and lighted with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offering.[1126]
[1124] That the lid belonged to the כף and not to the בזך may be seen from Tamid vii. 2; as also from its being assumed that possibly some of the incense might fall from the בזך when it was full into the כף, Tamid vi. 3.
[1125] Tamid v. 4-5. On the gold and silver pan, as well as the incense itself, comp. further Joma iv. 4.
[1126] Tamid vi. 1-3. According to this account from the Mishna, it appears that only one of the seven lamps of the candlestick was kept burning during the day, and that the middle one of the three on the east side. According, on the other hand, to what must be regarded as the more important testimony of Josephus, it was usual to have three lamps burning in the day-time; see p. 281, above. On the whole controversy as to which and how many lamps burnt during the day, see also Iken, Tractatus Talmudicus de cultu quotidiano templi (1736), pp. 73-76, 107 f.
The five priests who had been thus occupied inside the sanctuary now proceeded with their five golden utensils in their hands to the steps in front of the temple, and there pronounced the priestly benediction over the people, in the course of which the name of God was pronounced as it spells (therefore יהוה, not אדוני).[1127]
[1127] Tamid vii. 2.
And now, at this point, the offering of the burnt-offering was proceeded with, the priests who had been appointed to this duty taking up the portions of the victim that lay at the foot of the ascent to the altar, and after placing their hands upon them, throwing them on to the altar.[1128] In those cases in which the high priest officiated, he caused the pieces to be given to him by the ordinary priests, and then placing his hands upon them he threw them on to the altar. And now, in the last place, the two meat-offerings (that of the people and that of the high priest) and the drink-offering were presented. When the priest was bending forward to pour out the drink-offering a signal was given to the Levites to proceed with the music. They accordingly broke in with the singing of the psalm, and at every pause in the music two priests blew with silver trumpets, and every time they blew the people all fell down and prayed.[1129]
[1128] The throwing required a special dexterity on the part of the priests, a dexterity of which Pseudo-Aristeas already speaks in terms of admiration (Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 112; Merx’ Archiv, i. 271).
[1129] Tamid vii. 3. Towards the close this tractate becomes somewhat less detailed. It only describes the mode of offering the sacrifice in those cases in which the high priest himself officiated. Besides, the offering of the two meat-offerings is not expressly mentioned. That we have inserted them in their proper place it is impossible to doubt, if we may judge from the order in which they are introduced elsewhere (Tamid iii. 1, iv. fin.). Consequently, the meat-offering of the high priest was not offered before that of the people, as Hebrews 7:27 might lead us to suppose, but after it. See also Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xxxix. no. 58.
The evening service was exactly similar to the morning one, which has just been described. The only difference was that in the former the incense was offered after the burnt-offering instead of before it, while in the evening again the lamps were not trimmed, but simply lighted (see p. 290 f. above).
Those two daily public sacrifices formed the substratum of the entire worship of the temple. They were also offered, and that in the manner we have described, on every Sabbath and every festival day. But with the view of distinguishing them above ordinary occasions, it was the practice on those days to add further public offerings to the ordinary tamid. The addition on the Sabbath consisted of two male lambs of a year old, which were offered as a burnt-offering along with two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a meat-offering, and a corresponding amount of wine as a drink-offering. Consequently the sacrifices offered at a single service on the Sabbath would be exactly equivalent to the daily morning and evening sacrifices put together.[1130] On festival days again the additional offerings were on a still more extensive scale. On the occasion of the feast of the Passover, for example, there were offered as a burnt-offering, and that daily during the whole seven days over which the festival extended, two young bullocks, a ram, and seven lambs, along with the corresponding meat- and drink-offerings, and in addition to all this, a he-goat as a sin-offering (Numbers 28:16-25); and on the feast of Weeks again, which lasted only one day, there were offered the same sacrifices as on each of the seven days of the feast of the Passover (Numbers 28:26-31). Then on the occasion of the feast of Tabernacles, which, as being the festival that took place when the harvest was over, would naturally be celebrated with special tokens of thankfulness, the number of sacrifices was much greater still. On the first day of this feast there were offered; as a burnt-offering, thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs, along with the corresponding meat- and drink-offerings, and over and above all this a he-goat as a sin-offering; while on each of the six following festival days, all those sacrifices were repeated, with this difference, that every day there was one bullock fewer than on the preceding day (Numbers 29:12-34). Similar supplementary sacrifices and offerings, at one time on a larger at another on a smaller scale, were also prescribed for the other festivals (the new moon, the new year, and the great day of atonement) that occurred in the course of the year (see in general, Numbers 28-29). Then to those sacrifices which merely served to indicate in a general way the festive character of the occasions on which they were offered, there were further added those special ones that had reference to the peculiar significance of the feast (on this see Leviticus 16, 23).
[1130] Numbers 28:9-10. Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (Mang. ii. 239): Ταῖς δὲ ἑβδόμαις διπλασιάζει τὸν τῶν ἱερείων ἀριθμόν. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 1. κατὰ δὲ ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν, ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται, δύο σφάζουσι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἱερουργοῦντες. The prescriptions in Ezekiel 46:4-5 are essentially different from this. But the main difference between pre- and post-exilic times, as regards both the festival sacrifices and the tamid alike, lay in this, that previous to the exile the king was called upon to defray the cost of them, whereas after the exile they were provided at the expense of the people themselves. See in particular, Ezekiel 45:17; and in general, Ezekiel 45:18; Ezekiel 46:15. For an account of the form of worship observed on the Sabbath, see Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book v. chap. v.
But copious as those public sacrifices no doubt were, they still seem but few when compared with the multitudes of private offerings and sacrifices that were offered. It was the vast number of these latter—so vast in fact as to be well-nigh inconceivable—that gave its peculiar stamp to the worship at Jerusalem. Here day after day whole crowds of victims were slaughtered and whole masses of flesh burnt; and when any of the high festivals came round, there was such a host of sacrifices to dispose of that it was scarcely possible to attend to them all notwithstanding the fact that there were thousands of priests officiating on the occasion.[1131] But the people of Israel saw in the punctilious observance of this worship the principal means of securing for themselves the favour of their God.
[1131] Aristeas (in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 112. Merx’ Archiv, i 270. 5, 6): Πολλαὶ γὰρ μυριάδες κτηνῶν προσάγονται κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 19, init.: Πολλῶν δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἀναγομένων θυσιῶν καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, καὶ διαφερόντως ἐν πανηγύρεσι καὶ ἑορταῖς ὑπέρ τε ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστου καὶ κοινῇ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων διὰ μυρίας καὶ οὐχὶ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας κ.τ.λ. Comp. the numbers given in 1 Kings 8:63; 1 Chronicles 29:21; 2 Chronicles 29:32 f., 30:24, 35:7-9.