Mesopotamian Religion

8. Excerpts

Samuel E. Balentine
2020 Ritual

Marco De Pietri – May 2021

Samuel E. Balentine (ed.) 2020 Ritual

Balentine 2020 Ritual
The Oxford Handbook of Ritual and Worship in the Hebrew Bible,
Oxford: Oxford University Press

ToC of Balentine 2020 Ritual

Table of Contents

     1. Introduction (Samuel E. Balentine)

I Historical Contexts
     2. Mesopotamian Religion (Tzvi Abusch)
     3. Ritual and Worship in Ancient Egypt (Emily Teeter)
     4. The Hittites Serve Their Gods (Gary Beckman)
     5. Syria-Palestine: Worship and Ritual (Adrian Curtis)
     6. The Greeks and Their Rituals (Barbara Kowalzig)

II Interpretive Approaches
     7. History of Religion (Lester L. Grabbe)
     8. Rituals and Ritual Theory: A Methodological Essay (Ithamar Gruenwald)
     9. Social and Cultural Anthropology (William K. Gilders)

III Ritual Elements: Participants, Places, Times, Objects, Practices
     10. God, Gods, and Humankind (Worldview) (Friedhelm Hartenstein)
     11. Sacred Space and Common Space (Michael B. Hundley)
     12. Ritual Experts and Participants in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (Thomas Hieke)
     13. Sacred and Ritual Times (Andrew R. Davis)
     14. Ritual Objects and Artifacts (Ryan P. Bonfiglio)
     15. Ritual and Religious Practices (Roy E. Gane)
     16. Ritualizing Iconic Jewish Texts (James W. Watts)
     17. Ritualizing Christian Iconic Texts (Dorina Miller Parmenter)
     18. Ritualizing Muslim Iconic Texts (Jonas Svensson)

IV Cultural and Theological Perspectives
     19. Sin and Expiation (David Janzen)
     20. Clean/Unclean, Pure/Impure, Holy/Profane (Jonathan D. Lawrence)
     21. Sickness and Healing (Deborah Rooke)
     22. Death and Afterlife (Brian B. Schmidt)
     23. Divine Presence and Absence (Angelika Berlejung)

V History of Interpretation
     24. Ritual and Worship at Qumran (Eileen M. Schuller)
     25. Influence on Early Christian Worship (Paul F. Bradshaw)
     26. Ritual and Worship in Early Judaism (Judith H. Newman)
     27. Rabbinic Judaism (Stefan C. Reif)

VI Social-Cultural Functions
     28. The Politics of Worship (William S. Morrow)
     29. The Ethics of Worship (Eryl Davies)
     30. Socio-Religious Functions of Worship (Stephen L. Cook)
     31. The Economics of Worship in Ancient Israel and Judah (Joachim Schaper)

VII Theology and Theological Heritage
     32. Ritual Theology in/and Biblical Theology (Gerald Klingbeil)
     33. Welcoming the Sabbath on the Kibbutzim: Secular Religiosity (Dalia Marx)
     34. One God, Multiple Rituals and Theologies: Christianity (Rodney A. Werline)
     35. Islamic Ritual (Richard Gauvain)

General topic(s)
of the book

A very useful handbook to gain insightful information about rituals and cultic activities in the Ancient Near East and Israel (as specifically attested in the Old Testament).

Excerpts from Balentine 2020 Ritual

Atonement in Syria

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Atonement in Syria	p. 65	“*An Atonement Ritual?. Noteworthy is what Wyatt entitles A Liturgy for a Rite of Atonement for the People of Ugarit. Several copies of this ritual have survived, the most complete being KTU 1.40. Del Olmo Lete speaks of "Rites of Purification and Atonement," but Pardee entitles it a "Ritual for National Unity." The crucial word npy* has been variously understood. Pardee gives "well-being," and Wyatt picks up on his explanation of the underlying meaning as "being made whole," suggesting that the obvious technical equivalent in English is "atonement." If this understanding of the text is correct, it provides a possible parallel to the idea of an annual Day of Atonement in the Hebrew Bible (see Leviticus 16)” (Curtis).

Comparative Approach

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Comparative Approach	p. 145	“This chapter summarizes basic characteristics of the encounter with the divine in the cultures of the ancient Near East (ANE), ancient Greece, and Israel. It focuses on essential elements of the relations between humans and their gods in order to understand especially the Biblical God YHWH as a participant in ritual and cultic practices. To achieve this, the essay thoroughly considers an emic (cultural or contextual) as well as an etic (modernscholarly) point of view [on this topic, see also Buccellati 2006 - mDP]. For that it is necessary, on the one hand, to put the material evidence from archaeology into perspective. On the other hand, the most important sources for a differentiated overview on the matter are textual traditions from the ancient world. The chapter starts by posing a question whose answer normally seems self-evident: "What is a god?" The comparison between different ancient cultures leads to a working definition of gods/God and serves as a foil to outline basic characteristics of YHWH. A further survey is dedicated to central topics of the communication between gods and humans by focusing on the complex of offerings/sacrifice” (Hartenstein).

Cultic Statues

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Cultic Statues	p. 208	“The central ritual object in most ancient Near Eastern religion was a freestanding cult statue. Referred to as an "idol" or "graven image" (pesel) in the HB, a cult statue was typically anthropomorphic in form and fashioned from wood or stone, overlaid with precious metal, and housed in a temple. Rather than being seen only as an image of a god, the cult statue was understood to serve as a conduit for divine disclosure insofar as the real presence of the deity was thought to dwell in the material form of the object. However, the connection between the deity and the image was not automatic or inherent. Rather, it was conferred through special consecration ceremonies, known as the washing of the mouth (mīs pī) or opening of the mouth (pīt pī). Through these rituals, the statue's senses were activated, transforming it into an epiphany of the deity. This understanding explains why cult statues were routinely fed, clothed, washed, anointed, perfumed, and processed as part of the regular operation of ANE temples. Almost without exception, the HB condemns the making and use of cult statues” (Bonfiglio).

G/god(s)

Topic	Page	Excerpt
G/god(s)	pp. 145-148	God/gods in the Ancient Near East: Mesopotamia: “A collection of essays by prominent Assyriologists provides a valuable definition of the supernatural beings called "gods" in ancient cuneiform sources; the philological and archaeological contributions show some important commonalities: in the religions of ancient Mesopotamia gods are predominantly personalized entities with anthropomorphic shape and behavior. Together they mark the center of a divine sphere that is linguistically identified by the determinative DINGIR, "god/divine" (a Sumerian word; in Akkadian the term for god is ilu, as in other Semitic languages). This sign of the cuneiform script not coincidentally represents a star, a heavenly body evoking notions of splendor, movement, order, and inaccessible height/superiority. What do material objects (e.g., certain weapons or the kettle drum) and more abstract concepts (e.g., justice and righteousness) have in common so that they have all been written with the determinative for "god"? From a modern point of view neither inanimate things nor abstract concepts seems to be plausible candidates for a divine personification” (Hartenstein, pp. 145-146). Egypt: [passage not reported here: see Hartenstein, pp. 146-147.]. Syria (Ugarit): “In Ugarit, the Bronze age north Syrian city, the gods were characterized by their superior powers and size, their immortality, and their separation from the realm of humankind as "sacred beings." The social life of the gods was easily "readable" since the norms of behavior followed the same pattern of court and family structures as in the city state. The family metaphor is basic to understand how and why the polytheistic world of gods in Ugarit also contained an implicit notion of unity: "the divine family was for polytheism a sort of monotheism". From another perspective the bi- and trilingual lists of gods from Ugarit may be understood as the expression of a holistic world view in which all the gods are minor parts of a greater sphere of the divine. It is also important to note the quite distinct divine personalities we find especially in the Ugaritic narratives (myths, epics and legends). Comparable to the early Greek religion, one has to be careful about gaining actual insights into common beliefs and practices of the Ugaritic religion due to the variety of sources (the textual genres like narratives, rituals or lists show significantly different aspects of the deities)” (Hartenstein, p. 147). Hittite: “The religion of the cultures in Asia Minor during the Bronze age shows certain Mesopotamian influences but maintains a specific local and autochtonous character, which is especially true for the substratum of the Hurrian culture. In the Hittite language, the semantic field for "purity" (suppi-) corresponds with the status designated by the determinative DINGIR (the star-shaped Sumerogram inherited from Akkadian), which is connected with many material or immaterial objects or entities. It stands for the Hittite root siu(n)- "god/divine." The class of divine things encompasses, for example, all the deities, their symbols, and any other temple equipment. An abstractum siunatar means "divine/image of a god." In the Hittite religion many phenomena of nature and culture are personified or deified, for example, the hearth, smoke, the growth of plants, the door, the threshold, the night, or springs and mountains (which are often themselves conceptualized as minor or major goddesses and gods). The names for some of the aforementioned objects are often composed with a morpheme -sepa/-nzipa denoting a "supernatural" character” (Hartenstein, p. 147). Greece: [passage not reported here: see Hartenstein, p. 148.]. Phoenicia: “In the religious universe of the Phoenicians, the anthropomorphic shape and the personal approachability of the gods were in the foreground. The concept of a human-like body, the proper names, and especially the "face" of the gods, made them accessible. The gods "hear," "bless," and bestow victories (to the rulers). A system of family relations and of hierarchy structures the divine sphere, which was ruled by a "mighty lord" (‘dn [...]). Sometimes the human part of the relation to the gods was conceptualized as a kind of treaty. The god was encountered in a courtly fashion in the temple cult like an earthly ruler. Iconic images as well as – prominent in Phoenicia – aniconic symbols (e.g. the betyl, an erected stone stela) were media of the divine presence that were usually considered to be of equal rank. The objects and entities considered to be part of the divine sphere included personified abstracta like "luck" (gd) or "justice" (ṣdq; cf. ṣedeq in the Old Testament). These were of no minor importance alongside the anthropomorphic gods and their sometimes extra personified body-parts like the "face"” (Hartenstein, p. 148).

Methodology of Analysis

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Methodology of Analysis	p. 110	.“The study of rituals can be done in two complementary ways: by observing live rituals or by studying texts that contain ritual prescriptions and guidelines. In both cases, not all the needed details of what is done and how become clear” (Gruenwald).

Myths and Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Myths and Rituals	p. 110	“In many cases, rituals are sustained by a link to a story in a mythic context. In other words, myth is a story that links and sustains a ritual. In the mythic context, rituals make a culture-related point. They are shared by a concerned and involved community, creating complex notions of social identity and cohesion” (Gruenwald).

Palace Rituals in Syria

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Palace Rituals in Syria	p. 66	“*Palace Rituals: Funerary and Non-funerary. Wyatt refers to text KTU 1.161 as "A Royal Funeral Liturgy" and, noting that it involves the summoning up of rpum* (corresponding to the rĕpā’îm of the Hebrew Bible), suggests that it "provides a remarkable backdrop to Isa. 14.9-21"” (Curtis).

Priests

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Priests	p. 103	“*Cultic Personnel and Religious Specialists. Almost all religions appear to have cult personnel of some sort. They might be priests with a formal office and formal duties or they might be senior figures of the religious community who lead in worship on a part-time basis. The ancient Roman religion did not have priests as such, but the head of the family normally undertook cultic duties. Ancient Israel may not originally have had a hereditary priesthood, since we have accounts of a variety of figures who took on cultic duties (Jonathan [Judges 17-18]; Samuel [1 Samuel 1-3]; David's sons [1 Sam 8:18]). But at some point a hereditary priesthood was appointed, with various ranks that exercised a variety of specialized duties. These included the Aaronites* and the Levites, but also a number of other classes of temple servant with other (sometimes more menial) duties (Ezra 2:41-58; Neh 7:44-60). Priests were not the highest rank of cult specialist, however. A number of passages make it clear that the king was in charge of the temple and all personnel who served there (1 Kgs 4:2-5; 6-8; 1 Chron 22:1–23:6), even if attempts were made to edit the text in such a way that the king was subject to the priests (Deut 17:14–20; 2 Chron 26:16–21). The temple was the king's chapel, and at various times he led the religious ceremonies (1 Kgs 3:4–15). It is hardly surprising since, as in many neighboring nations, the king was considered the son of God and had a special religious place in the national order (cf. Psalm 2)” (Grabbe).

Analysis of Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Analysis of Rituals	pp. 109-110	“It follows, then, that the discussion of rituals and ritual theory is best undertaken in the context of behavioral factors. That is, rituals are best discussed in terms of what is done, how it is done, and what existential and anthropological functions the actions are expected to accomplish. In our view, the ideological and theological concerns that accompany rituals do not account for the performance aspects of rituals. In disciplinary terms, anthropology with an eye on socio-psychological issues (mainly group and identity formation) is the adequate platform for the study and scholarly assessment of rituals” (Gruenwald).

Anthropology of Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Anthropology of Rituals	p. 128	“The predominant anthropological understanding of ritual as symbolic communication – which has been referred to as "canonical" and "almost a social compact in anthropology" – can be termed "representational"; that is, ritual actions stand representatively for various phenomena (most quite abstract): social relations, beliefs, values, concepts, or worldview. [...] this understanding of ritual as symbolic activity goes back to the first definitions of ritual that were formulated as anthropology emerged as a distinctive scholarly discipline. It is expressed by key figures in the development of the discipline, [...] referring to ritual actions ("rites") as "the regulated symbolic expressions of certain sentiments". While the identification of ritual as symbolic activity has a long history in anthropology, it took on a new life with the emergence of what came to be termed "symbolic anthropology" (especially in American contexts)” (Gilders).

Behavioral View

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Behavioral View	p. 110	“Viewed from a behavioral angle, rituals are extensions of the human mind. They reflect a specific inclination on the part of the group or the individual to express themselves in structured and purposive forms of behavior, rather than, or instead of, ideas. Evidently, religious rituals engage unique spectra and complex layers of such behavior” (Gruenwald).

Definition of Ritual

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Definition of Ritual	p. 109	“In the eyes of many, rituals constitute a riddle. Many people do not understand what makes rituals work and how the doing of rituals is essential to reaching specific goals. In other words, what are rituals and what do they do? Social ethnography, anthropology, and the comparative study of religions consider rituals as the dynamic core of social and religious systems. From tribal groups to fully developed religious systems, rituals play a major role in making the respective systems work. However, rituals are also vital for the orderly functioning of bureaucratic organizations and structures. Whether these rituals are agreed upon or prescribed by an accepted authority, they are a major factor in bringing people together in a working coherence. In other words, rituals create and maintain social systems”.

Ritual Experts

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Ritual Experts	pp. 179-186	“The ancient Near East offers a wide variety of ritual personnel due to regionally differing systems of polytheism. As a rule, the priest or the priestess is the main ritual expert: He or she acts as mediator between the Divine (gods and goddesses) and human society or the individual, performs the rituals in the cult, and cares for the gods and goddesses. Other officiants, priests and non-priests, take over various tasks within the cult or in support of the activities at the temples. Often the king does not officiate in the cult, but he has the main responsibility to keep up the sanctuaries, their personnel, and the cult. As the priests and other ritual experts perform functions and tasks for the community, they get their alimentation by the state (the king). In many cases they are separated from the common to preserve their ritual purity and the dignity of their office” (Hieke, p. 179). Mesopotamia: “Over three millennia the ancient Near Eastern religious culture developed in various regions quite differently. The Assyrian king for example, is the representative of the god Ashur on earth and officiates as the high priest of the god Ashur. In Babylonia, on the contrary, the king has to respect the position of the high priest, who ritually humiliates the king during the New Year Festival in order to remind him that he is a humble servant of the gods. However, some basic aspects appear in Mesopotamia as well as in other areas in more or less the same way. Priests and priestesses are members of the elite or upper class; they derive their origin from a priestly family of old or from the house of the king. Even at smaller sanctuaries, the office of the chief administrator of a temple (Sumerian, SANGA, Akkadian, šangû) is handed down in one family over generations. As part of their office the priests cultivate a certain amount of specific knowledge and traditions” (Hieke, pp. 179-180). Mari (Euphrates): “The Mari archive of cuneiform tablets does not stem from a temple, but from the royal palace, mostly from the time of king Zimri-Lim (18th century BCE). We have relatively good information about the administration and economy of the sanctuaries, but the evidence about cult and temple personnel is scarce. The most common male officiant is the šangûm (Sumerian, SANGA, see previous subsection), who is the primary authority in a temple. There were also priestesses of a high rank (nin-dingir[-ra]). Although described with similar terminology, the Mari temple personnel cannot be directly equated with the Babylonian ones; the Syrian temples may have represented much smaller communities than their Babylonian counterparts” (Hieke, p. 181). Hittite Anatolia: “Most of the basic aspects mentioned earlier also apply for Hittite Anatolia. The cult is organized by the state (the king). The "Instructions for Temple Personnel" (CTH 264) offers insights into everyday situations of the priests; however, there is no proof that the office was hereditary. The priests have to carry out the cult in accordance with the prescriptions, with respect towards the gods, and in loyalty with the king. Ritual purity is important; after sexual intercourse, the priest must perform purifying rituals before officiating. The king plays an eminent role within the cult, functions as the highest priest, and takes part in almost all ritual feasts in Hatti” (Hieke, p. 181). Egypt: [passage not reported here: see Hartenstein, pp. 152-153.]. Israel (Bible): Priests: “The Hebrew term for "priest," kohēn (plural: kohanîm), occurs 750 times in the Hebrew Bible (and eight times in the Aramaic parts of Ezra). Its etymology is uncertain. [...]. Only males are "priests," the term is never applied to females. "Priest" is a multifaceted term with a variety of meanings and concepts in various religions past and present. Hence one has to unfold the specific concept of "priests" within the Hebrew Bible, which also differs from the current usage of the term in Christianity and Judaism. [... The priests] are introduced into their task in a special ordination ritual (see Leviticus 8-9): In a rite de passage, the male member of the priestly family leaves the realm of ordinary life and passes over to the service at the sanctuary. Inside the sanctuary, the priests perform two major tasks. First, they serve at the altar. [...] In a second rite, the High Priest confesses over the head of a living goat, which is sent into the wilderness (the scapegoat: Lev 16:21). [...] A third task of the priests, differing significantly from the major tasks described earlier, is the blessing of the people (Num 6:22-27; Deut 10:8). [...] The role of the priests can be summarized with the terms "mediator" and "representative." As mediators, the priests maintain the communication between God and his people Israel. As representatives, the priests have a dual role. When they teach the people, the priests are representatives of God, promulgating his will and commandments. When they serve at the altar, sacrificing the holy offerings of Israel, they are Israel's representatives in front of the deity. Thus the priests within this system have a high degree of responsibility accompanied by high privileges. [...] the special holiness of the priests is not restricted to cult or ritual activities alone, but is also related to certain expectations of the community regarding their social behavior” (Hieke, pp. 183-185). Levites: “The term "Levites" applies to members of the tribe of Levi as well as to servants (or ministers) at the sanctuary (in Jerusalem). In the latter usage, "Levites" are ritual experts, however, they perform different functions in the various parts of the Hebrew Bible” (Hieke, p. 185). Cult prophets: “Within Biblical Hebrew, there is no specific term for "cult prophet." However, there probably was a certain class of cult officials who had to advise the king by figuring out the divine will (e.g., Ezek 7:26; in analogy to the praxis in the ancient Near East). This sort of "prophet" works at the temple like the priests and the sages ” (Hieke, p. 186).

Function of Rituals (1)

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Function of Rituals (1)	p. 109	“A starting point in assessing rituals and figuring out a relevant ritual theory is the notion that rituals constitute a major component in human behavior, in general. In other words, many forms of human activity unfold as structured forms of behavior that come into purposive effect by doing an orderly sequence of purposefully detailed acts. The bureaucracy of ritual protocols constitutes structured segments that obey an inner logic of functional organization. Together these segments compose the processual dynamic that unfolds as a ritually configured whole”.

Function of Rituals (2)

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Function of Rituals (2)	p. 111	“Religious rituals, though, are by definition shared by a community. More than any other ritual, religious rituals create group cohesion. In their special context, religious rituals are reinforced with theological stances. Apart from their function in establishing social identity, rituals create notions of (bureaucratic) hierarchy and social stratification. At the same time, rituals are functional in maintaining social diversity and ideological differences, even factors of alienation, which enhance the existence of classes, groups, and denominations” (Gruenwald).

Function of Rituals (3)

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Function of Rituals (3)	pp. 490-494	Function of rituals: “The focus in what follows will be on three important characteristics of ritual, including (1) ritual as an integral part of human existence and its role in the biblical text; (2) ritual as a vehicle for complex concepts; and (3) ritual and its relationship to worship against the backdrop of the relational concept of the "I and Thou" connecting humanity with the divine” (Klingbeil, p. 490). Integral part of existence: “Every ritual, sacred or secular, points beyond itself and wants to communicate or critique (see the later discussion of ritual innovation). Knowledge and ritual are integrally related to each other in many biblical texts. Ritual requires a specific space, time, occasion, and participants to achieve a particular outcome. This definition alone requires the reader of ritual texts (including the many biblical ritual texts) to pay attention to the emotions, underlying message, and outcome evoked, associated with, attributed to or accomplished by the ritual. Thus it seems that rituals have both a pre-life as well as an afterlife. The pre-life centers around what triggers a ritual; the afterlife concerns what the ritual purports to accomplish” (Klingbeil, p. 491). Vehicle for complex concepts: “Rituals are a powerful vehicle to communicate often complex ideas and concepts. Ritual shorthand implies abbreviation and familiarity with generally recognized ritual building blocks. An intriguing example of the ability of rituals to abbreviate and communicate complex concepts can be found in the altar construction texts in Genesis (8:20; 12:7, 8; 13:18; 22:9, 10; 26:25; 35:7). In an earlier study, I have suggested that these short descriptive vignettes of ritual activity in the patriarchal narratives illustrate the power of abbreviation. Abbreviation serves as a means to communicate concepts, similar to a red STOP sign next to the road, warning a driver or pedestrian to pay attention, come to a complete halt, look carefully around, ascertain if and when the journey can continue, and then take off. All these elements are not spelled out on the sign – yet they are implied, explicitly mentioned in traffic rules, and commonly accepted and enforced by law enforcement authorities” (Klingbeil, p. 492). Medium of worship: “The ability of ritual to build community (or communitas as coined by anthropologist Victor Turner) is an important benefit of integrating ritual as a medium of worship in a time when people living in urban centers feel increasingly isolated and attached to virtual realities. The mnemonic function of ritual can help unlock memories and is a powerful teaching tool. All this, however, requires serious reflection and represents a theological task, if one is to avoid the rut and routine so often condemned by Israel's writing prophets. Ritual activity does not automatically mean theological reflection, but theological reflection can be discerned in ritual activity” (Klingbeil, p. 494).

Relationships between Israel and Canaanite Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Relationships between Israel and Canaanite Rituals	p. 54	“*Perceived Importance for Biblical Study. Perhaps the most important reason the discoveries from Ugarit were seized upon as of relevance for the study of the Bible was the early surmise that this was a Canaanite city. Previously the principal source of knowledge of the Canaanites was the Hebrew Bible, where they were hardly presented in a good light. Perhaps here was a direct witness to Canaanite culture and, in the texts, beliefs. But reasons for the initial interest went beyond the suggestion that Ugarit was a Canaanite city, and that its texts would provide a direct witness to Canaanite religion and culture. That there had been an Israelite conquest of, and settlement in, Canaan was also widely believed, and much of the debate revolved around whether the Exodus took place in the 15th or 13th century BCE rather than whether it happened at all. So here was potential evidence of the Canaanites from a time close to when Israelites may have been encountering Canaanites*” (Curtis).

Meaning of Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Meaning of Rituals	p. 1	“The construction of rites and rituals enables humans to conceive and apprehend this transcendent order, to symbolize it and interact with it, to postulate its truths in the face of contradicting realities and to repair them when they have been breached or diminished” (Balentine).

Nature of Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Nature of Rituals	p. 109	“Rituals consist of stylized ceremonial events. They evolve in strict and repetitive protocols. Among them one finds rich displays of colors (e.g., garments [uniforms], insignia, flags), instrumental and vocal music, and a variety of physical gestures (e.g., parades, stylized exercises). One may view these protocols as the bureaucracy of rituals, each of them consisting of a purposive "cosmos"”.

Ritual Objects

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Ritual Objects	p. 207	“The Hebrew Bible refers to a wide range of material artifacts in connection to worship and ritual activities. These include the ark, altars, wash basins, censers, tables, lampstands, and various other items. During the fall of Jerusalem, these objects were destroyed and some were brought back to Babylon as spoils of war (2 Kgs 25:13-17; Jer 52:17-23). Certain cultic objects deemed to be illicit, such as idols, pillars, sacred poles, and the bronze serpent, are critiqued by the prophets and are the target of the cult reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-6) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1-20). For much of the history of biblical scholarship, especially in Protestant circles, the importance of ritual objects has often been downplayed if not altogether dismissed. Some have suggested that any connection between Yahweh and the natural or material world was the result of Canaanite influence. As a form of syncretism, this aspect of early Israelite religion was eventually overcome through a theological emphasis on Yahweh's transcendence beyond image, object, and locality. Other interpreters have concluded that a concern for ritual and ritual objects only emerged in the latter stages of the Hebrew Bible's literary growth and thus reflected a priestly corruption of earlier forms of religion” (Bonfiglio).

Ritual Practices

Topic

Page

Excerpt

Ritual Practices

pp. 224-251

Ritual practices and gestures:

ANE: “Ritual practices in the ancient Near East (ANE) were supposed to establish, maintain, repair, or utilize relationships with powerful superhuman beings who ruled or otherwise affected human life within the interactive cosmic community. [...] Religious activities reflected and affected human societies and cultures in profound ways, but the ANE peoples themselves were primarily concerned with the larger "society" that included deities. Humans fostered beneficial relations by constructing and maintaining their temples, by giving them gifts, and by carrying out performances for them” (Gane, p. 223).
Israel: “Israel's unique monotheism simplified its cult because it only had to relate to one deity. The real, immanent presence of YHWH himself at his sanctuary, instead of an idolatrous material representation, greatly raised the rewards and risks of interaction with him and the level of accountability to his rules” (Gane, p. 224).

Prayer: “In the Hebrew Bible, prayer could be directed to God at his sanctuary/temple (1 Sam 1:9-12), toward the place of the temple (1 Kgs 8:29-30, 35), or to God without apparent reference to the sanctuary/temple (2 Kgs 4:33). Speech in conversation with a theophanic manifestation of God (Gen 18) also could be regarded as a form of prayer. Except for a unique declaration of innocence and petition for corporate absolution by elders regarding an unsolved murder (Deut 21:7-8), biblical prayers are not prescribed for repeated use, unlike some prayers in ritual contexts recorded in other ANE texts. However, the formulaic "priestly blessing" (Num 6:22-27) and conditional oath/curse uttered by the suspected adulteress (5:19-22) resemble prayers in that they call upon God (albeit indirectly) to act” (Gane, p. 224).
Sacrificial rituals: “Religious rituals are formulaic activity systems that are believed to interact with deities or with non-material things that affect the divine-human relationship, such as sins or impurities. Sacrifices are rituals that transfer materials, usually food, to deities for some kind of utilization by them. Thus, sacrifices are offerings, whether they are voluntary gifts or mandatory payments. An offering may be simply dedicated to a deity without a sacrifice (Lev 27; Num 7), but a sacrifice is a kind of formal presentation of an offering that can highlight the superhuman nature of the recipient. Like non-ritual activity systems, rituals are hierarchical, so they can be simple and brief or complex and long. Activities that are united by contributing to a single goal form an individual ritual (e.g., Lev 1:3-9), which can combine with other individual rituals to form a ritual complex (Num 15:1-16). Ritual complexes can combine at higher hierarchical levels to accomplish greater goals. [...] Routine maintenance of a shrine could include guarding it, tending its fire, preparing food for one or more deities, and supplying agricultural products for offerings ([e.g.] Hittite "Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials")” (Gane, p. 225).
Non-sacrificial ritual activities:

Purification and Elimination: “The Hittite "Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials" (§2) observes: "When the servant stands before his master, he (is) washed. He has clothed (himself) in clean (clothes)." Here the "Instructions" use this as an analogy for the respectable manner in which a human should approach a divine master. This principle applied to Israelite priests: Aaron and his sons underwent ablutions before they were initially dressed in their official vestments (Lev 8:6-9, 13). Subsequently, the priests were to wash their hands and feet with water drawn from the sacred basin before entering the tabernacle or officiating at the outer altar (Exod 30:19-21), and the high priest was to wash his whole body before officiating the Day of Atonement service (Lev 16:4). [...] The Babylonian high priest was to wash with water drawn from the river (Euphrates) before beginning his activities during the New Year Festival of Spring” (Gane, p. 246).
Performance, Procession, and Lifestyle: “Israelite singers and instrumental musicians praised and gave thanks to YHWH at his central shrine in Jerusalem (1 Chron 16:4-2; 2 Chron 5:12-13), and the Hebrew Bible records many hymns (Psalms) to God, some of which refer to praising God with string, wind, and percussion instruments (e.g., Ps 150). Other ANE peoples, especially Mesopotamians and Egyptians, composed many hymns for their gods. [...] Performances to honor a deity could take place within the context of a ritual procession. Processions organized by David to transport YHWH's ark of the covenant to Jerusalem featured singing, instrumental music, and dancing (including by the king himself) before YHWH (2 Sam 6:5, 14-16; 1 Chron 13:8; 15:16-22, 24, 28-29). Musicians, singers, and dancers also participated in a magnificent cultic parade during the Babylonian New Year Festival. In some Hittite processions, musicians played harps and tambourines before the (idol of the) god Telipinu and girls sang behind him. During one such journey, wrestlers performed before Telipinu, apparently to entertain him” (Gane, p. 248).
Ritual Speech and Reciting: “ANE formulaic speech included spells, such as to assist deceased spirits, and incantations to counter various kinds of evils and dangers, for example, sorcery, snakes, sickness, and evil spirits. These were lacking in the Israelite ritual system, which depended on YHWH's power alone. Babylonians and Israelites practiced the regular recitation/reading of sacred texts, but in different ways. On Nisannu 4 during the Babylonian New Year Festival, the high priest was to recite the Enuma Elish to the god A M G G" target="_blank">Marduk. This creation myth culminates in the exaltation of A M G G" target="_blank">Marduk, city god of Babylon, to kingship over the gods. So presumably the private recitation honored the deity and celebrated the greatness of Babylon and its divinely established order. Every seven years during the Festival of Booths, the Israelite priests and elders were to have YHWH's Torah/Instruction, comprising the terms of the covenant between God and Israel, read to all Israelites, including men, women, and children, as well as resident aliens (Deut 31:9-13). Unlike the Babylonian recitation, this reading was public and the audience was human” (Gane, p. 249).
Divination and Magic: “ANE peoples believed that deities possessed much greater perception and knowledge than humans, including the ability to see what is going on in human hearts/minds (1 Sam 16:7; Ps 139 [...]). Deities were volitional beings who could disclose secret knowledge if they chose to do so (Dan 2:11). YHWH revealed hidden information (e.g., 2 Kgs 6:8-12), including regarding the future (e.g., Dan 2, 7-12), through means of communication such as prophecy, which could be received in ways such as visions and dreams (e.g., Num 12:6). YHWH also divulged secrets by means of physical phenomena that could be observed, including through casting lots (Josh 7:14-23; 1 Sam 10:20-23; cf. Jon 1:7), the sacred lot/oracle of the Urim and Thummim worn by the high priest (Exod 28:30; Num 27:21; 1 Sam 14:36-43), and the results of the suspected adulteress ritual (Num 5:11-31 [...]). In a broad sense, all of these Yahwistic modes of revelation, which transcended interhuman capabilities of communication, could come under the category of "divination." However, according to the Bible, they were under YHWH's control and did not involve interaction with other superhuman beings or forces. Biblical law strictly prohibited Israelites from resorting to occult or magical sources of knowledge” (Gane, pp. 249-250).

Ritual gestures: “ANE ritual practices included a number of distinctive and significant physical gestures. Temple officials could stand before a deity or symbol of divine presence as a servant could stand before a master in readiness to serve him/her (Hittite "Instructions" [...]). Other people could stand before a deity or symbol in order to witness and participate in worship or make offerings (e.g., Lev 9:5; 1 Kgs 3:15), or to wait upon and petition the deity (2 Chr 20:13). [...] Worshipers or persons praying could raise their hands, bow, kneel, or prostrate themselves before a deity or his/her material representation as an image or symbol ([...] forbidden to Israelites in Exod 20:5), as an individual could show respect in such ways to a higher status human (e.g., Est 3:2). Gestures of anointing could signify bestowal of special status to cultic officials or sacred places or objects. Moses anointed the new Israelite tabernacle, its contents, and the outer altar with sacred anointing oil to consecrate them (Lev 8:10-11) and then poured it on Aaron's head to consecrate him as the high priest (v. 12). Consequently, the high priest could be referred to as "the anointed priest" (4:3; cf. 6:15 [ET 22]), although the other priests were also anointed (Exod 40:15) and could be called "anointed priests" (Num 3:3). Similarly, Hittite or Mesopotamian priests could be described as "anointed". In the Israelite cult, the offerer of a sacrifice could lean one hand on the head of an animal to signify that he/she was its owner, who was transferring the animal to sacred utilization and would receive the benefit/efficacy from the deity (Lev 1:4 [...]). The high priest was to lean both hands on the head of Azazel's goat while confessing Israel's moral faults over it, thereby transferring them to the goat (Lev 16:21). Another kind of gesture practiced by Israelites and Egyptians was the elevation (not waving) of a gift as a gesture of dedicating it to the deity (Exod 29:26-27; Lev 7:30 [...]).” (Gane, p. 251).

Segmentation of Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Segmentation of Rituals	p. 114	“In principle, rituals engage four experiential platforms: the reality that requires change or was damaged and needs to be fixed (the starting point); what makes the change happen (the ritual act); what is expected to happen (the effect that rituals have on shaping requested realities) or what comes into functional existence; and, finally, the likely results or consequences of the ritual act (what the new reality facilitates or brings about). Every ritual embodies a "cosmos" of its own, with its own rules and forms of functioning. Furthermore, every "cosmos" embeds or is likely to create its modes of sharing with other rituals, thus building a totality, a "ritual cosmology," which is the overarching ritual system of any religious system or social structure. As indicated, each ritual consists of a set of entities, sections, or segments” (Gruenwald).

Synthesis on Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Synthesis on Rituals	p. 111	“To sum up this part, the ritual aspects of human behavior come into effect in segmented units that link together to make a workable whole, a ritual Gestalt. Furthermore, the enactment of rituals assumes that repeating the same things in the right order guaranteesthe same results. The repetitive factor is a dominant feature. The same things are done in the same manner to achieve or fulfil the same aims or results. In other words, rituals presuppose a strictly observed protocol. [...] any change in the processual protocol is likely to disrupt the ritual process and end in failure. Culturally oriented rituals engage a wide spectrum of factors. They bring about what may be considered substantial changes in life-preserving or life-enhancing processes. They empower processes that prevent the disruption or annihilation of existence in the broad sense of that term. In other words, rituals bring into effect dynamic processes vital for creating and sustaining processes that sustain the existence of a "cosmos." Or, else, they prevent the termination, disintegration, or annihilation of that "cosmos"” (Gruenwald).

Sacred and Rituals Times

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Sacred and Rituals Times	p. 195	“In the religion of ancient Israel and its neighbors the connection between time and divine worship is rooted in humankind's need for temporal guidelines to maintain a proper schedule of offerings. According to ancient Near Eastern literature, including the Hebrew Bible, these guidelines were provided with the creation of celestial bodies that ensured the accurate division of time. The Babylonian myth Enuma Elish, for example, intertwines Marduk's fashioning of the stars and moon with his creation of the year, months, and days (Tablet 5, lines 1-22), and according to the Priestly creation story of the Hebrew Bible the lights in the sky mark the seasons, days, and years (Gen 1:14). The division of time indicated by these celestial bodies made possible a festival calendar that provided consistency and regularity to the worship of gods, and some rituals continue to reflect the originating connection between sacred time and creation. For example, the Enuma Elish was recited at the annual Babylonian Akitu (New Year's) Festival, an eleven-day event, originally coinciding with the equinoxes, that celebrated the renewal of creation, and in ancient Israel God's rest on the seventh day (Heb. šabbāt) was an organizing principle for parts of its cultic life. These examples represent a widespread assumption in the ancient Near East that time was sacred because it was created by god(s) and that humans participate in this sacred time through worship. This worship follows a calendar whose units of time were established at creation and correspond to other parts of the created order” (Davis).

Sacrifice

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Sacrifice	p. 154	Sacrifice: Mesopotamia: “For Mesopotamia and the Hittites no mythical transposition of the daily temple ritual [...] is known. But in all [...] cultures the regular cult in front of the images aimed at the maintenance of the communication between humans and deities. In this respect, the daily food ritual was only a part of the far more complex cultic symbolism and practice of the temples. Since ritual order often represents and confirms social order, the following rule for analyzing sacrifices might be useful: the communicative significance of a sacrifice can only be understood against the background of the ritual as a whole. The linguistic elements of the actions (prayers, invocations, declarations) play the decisive role in the modern as well as presumably in the ancient understanding of what was going on in the cultic actions” (Hartenstein, p. 153). Israel: “In research on the Israelite temple cult and its system of sacrifices — as mirrored in the book of Leviticus shaped by late Priestly redactors — categories of cultural anthropology have proven their value. The logic of sacrifice as a "gift" provides a possible clue for interpreting sacrifice in ancient Israel. We might also understand Israelite sacrifice with reference specifically to the symbolism of feasts and "hospitality"” (Hartenstein).

“Scapegoat” Ritual (Hittites)

Topic	Page	Excerpt
"Scapegoat" Ritual (Hittites)	p. 46	“Substitute or "Scapegoat" Rituals. These procedures do not belong in the category of offerings, because their purpose was not the bestowal of a gift on a deity, but rather the disposal of impurity, sin, blood-guilt, or other unwanted quality. Nonetheless, they must be mentioned here because in many cases they were performed not for an individual, but on behalf of a societal collectivity, such as the Hittite army. Their goal was accomplished through the transferal of the moral or literal pollution (papratar) from the patient onto a living carrier, who was then either driven off into the wilderness or killed. In the latter instance the victim, along with the associated evil, was indeed definitively removed from the human realm, but this practice is really a magical one. The few attestations of "human sacrifice" in Hittite texts are to be interpreted in this manner” (Beckman).

Temple

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Temple	p. 163	“In a dangerous world, where disease, childbirth, or lack of rainfall could prove fatal, people in the ANE turned to the gods to gain some measure of control over their lives. They believed that the gods governed the necessary, dangerous, and humanly uncontrollable elements of the world. In turn, they sought to secure divine favor to ensure some measure of security. How could they influence the gods without consistent access? Temples were their primary solution, concretizing the divine presence and enabling access to it. Rather than being the gathering place for a worshipping congregation, temples were considered divine homes to which common people had little access. In fact, the various ANE languages use the same language for a domestic dwelling and a temple (Ugaritic and Aramaic bt, Hebrew and Aramaic byt, Akkadian bītu, Sumerian é, Hittite per- and parn-, and Egyptian ḥwt and pr). As such, they bear a greater resemblance to a modern home than a modern church. The temple's goal was not primarily to meet worshippers' needs, but divine ones, so that the resident deity would remain resident and continually extend its blessing and protection. The people presumed that as long as the deity in its temple was satisfied, the world around it would prosper” (Hundley).

Temple Service

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Temple Service	p. 152-153	Temple service: Mesopotamia: “The "care and feeding of the gods" in the daily cult in Babylonian temples was aligned in all respects with the idea of a "service" (Oppenheim 1964). The ritual took place without public access in analogy to the courtly ceremonies dedicated to the ruler. The basic equipment of a temple in this respect was aimed at the supply of food to the god and his entourage. For this a table and different storage vessels as well as one or more kitchens were necessary for the preparation of the meals. In later temples this was extended by a reception hall, which marked the parallel between the gods and the ruler even more clearly by setting up there a throne, attributes, and weapons. In addition, many temples had dormitories for the divine rulers, stables (for chariots and horses), and a quay for the god's journeys by boat to his fellow deities in other sanctuaries” (Hartenstein, p. 152). Egypt: [passage not reported here: see Hartenstein, pp. 152-153.].

Worship Rituals

Topic	Page	Excerpt
Worship Ritual	p. 104	“*Worship Ritual (Sacrificial System). The cult is often slighted or even ignored when Israel's religion is discussed, because it revolves around animal sacrifice. Any description of Israelite religion has to take stock of its complexities, but one cannot get away from the fact that the sacrificial cult, especially blood sacrifice, lay at the heart of worship in Israel. The various aspects of the temple cult are too lengthy to describe in detail here, so only two aspects will be commented on in this section. The Israelite cult, like all religious ritual – and all religions have their ritual – was extremely meaningful to the participants even if we do not always understand it* from our time and culture millennia later. A number of recent studies have focused on the symbolism of the cult and attempted to decipher the priestly world view that lay behind it. For example, F. H. Gorman argues that a complex creation theology is presupposed and represented by the cult. The priestly view had a cosmological and sociological dimension, as well as a cultic. In order to express this, it made distinctions between holy and profane, clean and unclean, life and death, order and chaos [as it was in Egypt; cf. the opposition "Maat" vs. "Isefet" - mDP]. The lengthy ritual described in Leviticus 8–9 has many characteristics of what is often referred to as a "rite of passage". This is an anthropological term for rites that take place as a person passes from stage to another, such as from boyhood to manhood or girlhood to womanhood. There is first a rite of separation, next a transitional rite during which the person is in a "liminal" state (on the doorstep between one phase and another). There may be dangers while in this liminal state, and various rituals have to be carefully performed to protect the one undergoing the transition. In the case of Aaron and sons, they were undergoing the passage from "common" to "sacred." Thus, the ceremony of consecration in Leviticus 8–9 is very much parallel with rites of passage known both from preliterate modern societies and from many examples in modern Western culture” (Grabbe).