Through the Shedding of Blood: A comparison of the Levitical and the Supyire concepts of sacrifice PDF Free Download
1 / 163/163
100%
®
DigitalResources SIL eBook 60
Through the Shedding of Blood:
A comparison of the Levitical
and the Supyire concepts of
sacrifice
Michael William Thomas Jemphrey
Through the Shedding of Blood:
A comparison of the Levitical and the Supyire
concepts of sacrifice
Michael William Thomas Jemphrey
SIL International®
2013
SIL e-Books
60
2013 SIL International®
ISBN: 978-1-55671-366-8
ISSN: 1934-2470
Fair-Use Policy:
Books published in the SIL e-Books (SILEB) series are intended for scholarly research and
educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional
purposes free of charge (within fair-use guidelines) and without further permission.
Republication or commercial use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly
prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s).
Editor-in-Chief
Mike Cahill
Managing Editor
Bonnie Brown
Michael William Thomas Jemphrey
LLB (QUB, 1981) BD (QUB, 1986)
THROUGH THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD:
A comparison of the Levitical and the Supyire
concepts of sacrifice
Thesis offered for the degree of
MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY
COLLEGE OF THE HUMANITIES
THE QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY, BELFAST
MAY 2000
ii
PREFACE
In 1992, my wife, Miranda, our two-year-old daughter, Shona, and I took up
residence in the village of Kabakanha, which lies twenty miles west of Sikasso town,
on the main road towards the capital of Mali, Bamako. We joined the SIL team that
is working on linguistic and anthropological research, literacy and Bible translation
among the Supyire people.
As the time approached for the move, the whole idea became daunting. But
over the years, as together we learned the language, made a circle of friends and
acquaintances, rejoiced as Stephanie was born into our little family, listened to the
personal and family dramas unfolding around us, sought co-operation with church
leaders and missionaries, studied and worked on producing written materials in
Supyire, the sense of utter strangeness gave way to one of belonging. Of course, we
will always be strangers, we will never fully understand, nor will our strange ways
ever be fully understood here; but still, the place has become more and more like
home for us.
Working on Bible translation, we have been confronted day in, day out, with
the fact that we are not just translating from one language to another, but from one
whole worldview to another. A simple word like “dog” seems easy to translate into
Supyire. Pwun certainly designates the familiar four-legged creature, but what about
all the differing connotations that the word may bring to the mind of the hearer? To
the Jews “dog” was a term used of the despised Gentiles. To the Supyire it may bring
up images of a hunting animal, or of a bloody sacrificial offering to a fetish. Now
add in the complicating factor of a multiethnic team: for me, to call someone “dog”,
or even more so, a female of the species is most derogatory. A German colleague, on
the other hand, assures me that Hund! can be used to compliment someone, for
example for his intelligence.
Being on guard against possible mismatches in meaning is essential in the
process of translating. In translating Jesus’ remark to the Gentile woman “It is not
right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” it proved necessary to add
an explanatory footnote to bridge the cultural gap and increase comprehension of the
dialogue.
iii
When it came to translating passages involving sacrifice, which is a rich and
central theme both of the Bible and of Supyire life, the issues became all the more
complex. Coming from a culture where animal sacrifice is not practised and is seen
as alien, if not repulsive, I felt the need to gain a much deeper understanding of the
concept in both the Hebrew and Supyire worldviews. It is primarily this which has
prompted me to follow this line of research.
The dissertation was written over a two-year period. The first was on location
in Mali, and the second during our home assignment in Belfast. It has been far from a
one-man venture. As the Supyire proverb puts it, “One finger alone cannot lift a
pebble.” My present understanding of the Supyire view of sacrifice is thanks to the
help and co-operation of many within the Supyire community, and many outsiders
who themselves have sought understanding of the matter. Particular thanks should go
to:
Those members of the Supyire community who have given interviews about their
sacrificial practices, and the role they play in Supyire life.
1
The members of the translation and literacy team, who spent hours with me
shedding light on otherwise incomprehensible words and events.
Our SIL colleagues, Joyce Carlson whose detailed anthropological journal of
Supyire life over the years has been a veritable gold mine of anecdotes and
insights, and Robert Carlson whose musings on the matter, as on any matter,
invariably provoke further questions.
Emilio, who opened up for me the significant research on sacrifice, carried out by
himself and others in the Roman Catholic community.
I am very thankful that God has surrounded us with extended family and
friends in Belfast who, along with our home congregation, Knock Presbyterian
Church, have supported and encouraged us unstintingly throughout our years in Mali.
I was amazed and very grateful too to find a supervisor, almost on our doorstep in
Belfast. Dr. T.D. Alexander, who has written on sacrifice in Leviticus, has given me
1
It seemed clear that there were parts of their work they were willing to discuss and other parts “trade
secrets” as it were, which they were not. This is understandable and did not prejudice our purpose,
which was to gain an understanding of sacrifice among the Supyire population as a whole. A large
majority of the population is aware that certain practitioners have certain secrets to which they will
never have access. There is also a large body of public knowledge, and it is that which we are
studying.
iv
the benefit of his experience, provided wise guidance and made timely, incisive
comments.
A translation strives to communicate as fully as possible the original
intentions of the author. Translators readily admit though that the subtle complexities
of each language, the connotations, the play on words mean that they will always fall
short of the ideal. When the translator has turned off his computer, the task of
bridging the gap between the two worldviews must be taken up by others. My prayer
is that this thesis may make a contribution not only to translation of the Scriptures
into Supyire, but also to the understanding of the biblical and Supyire worldviews for
those evangelists, pastors, and teachers who seek to communicate the translated
Word of God to the Supyire people.
Note:
For the purposes of confidentiality names of certain persons and villages have been
changed.
v
CHIEF ABBREVIATIONS
Biblical books
1 Sam 1 Samuel
2 Chr 2 Chronicles
2 Sam 2 Samuel
2 Tim 2 Timothy
Deut Deuteronomy
Exod Exodus
Ezek Ezekiel
Gen Genesis
Heb Hebrews
Isa Isaiah
Judg Judges
Lam Lamentations
Lev Leviticus
Num Numbers
Phil Philippians
Prov Proverbs
Ps Psalm
Biblical versions
GW God’s Word for the Nations
KJV King James Version
LXX Septuagint
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCV New Century Version
NIV New International Version
NLT New Living Translation
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
REB Revised English Bible
RSV Revised Standard Version
TEV Today’s English Version
(Biblical quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise specified.)
BDBG The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon
fn. footnote
SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics
NIDOTT New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
JPS Jewish Publication Society
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ii
CHIEF ABBREVIATIONS
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE AND CULTURE: AN OUTLINE
SKETCH
6
3. SACRIFICE IN SUPYIRE SOCIETY
28
4. LEVITICAL SACRIFICE IN RELATION TO HOLINESS
58
5. THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7
70
6. LEVITICAL AND SUPYIRE CONCEPTS OF SACRIFICE
COMPARED AND CONTRASTED
117
7. TRANSLATING LEVITICAL SACRIFICES INTO SUPYIRE
125
8. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
138
APPENDICES
A. HISTORY OF THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE
142
B. OCCUPATIONS OF THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE
145
C. THE SUPYIRE CALENDAR
146
BIBLIOGRAPHY
148
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of North and West Africa
10
2. Map of Supyirephone area in Mali
11
3. Supyire vocabulary in the domain of sacrifice
54
4. Structure of Exodus 19 – Leviticus 27
58
5. Dynamics of sacrifice sin and infirmity in Leviticus
64
6. Dynamic categories of holiness and impurity
65
7. Gradations of holiness
66
8. Holiness spectrum
66
9. Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: summary of their forms
70
10. The hlu ritual
71
11. The hjnm ritual
83
12. The <ymlv ritual
88
13. The tafj ritual
99
14. The priest’s actions in the greater and lesser tafj rituals
99
15. Tafj prescribed for different offenders
101
16. The <va ritual
108
17. Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: summary of their functions
115
18. Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: translations in English versions
129
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE THEME OF SACRIFICE IN HEBREW AND SUPYIRE
CULTURE
Sacrifice is offered on account of a birth, a marriage, barrenness, farming,
family disputes, death; sacrifice runs as a thread through the whole of Supyire life.
From Cain to Abraham to Moses to Isaiah to the Lamb that was slain, the
same thread can be traced through the Bible. The writer to the Hebrews comments:
“Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:23b).
But how similar are these threads? How do the Supyire people involved in
sacrifice view what they are doing? What is the function of this ritual? How does it
work? Apart from the superficial similarities, do these Supyire rituals have anything
in common with the biblical ones?
These are important questions for the translator. “Wittgenstein pointed out
that words do not carry meaning so much as they stimulate the hearer’s thoughts into
the right channels”
2
and a major hurdle in translation is that words which may appear
similar may stimulate the hearer in a different culture to think along the wrong
channels. The same thought is developed by Callow:
“Words do not relate to abstract definitions in our minds, but to
experiential concepts. … In northern Ghana dogs are not associated with
leads, walks and parks, but fleas, hunting, and being cooked and eaten. Not
only do word associations differ factually from one language to another ...
they differ also emotively. The Englishman’s affection for his dog is almost
incomprehensible in many cultures. … Unless otherwise trained, we associate
the foreign word with our own cultural background, often with misleading
consequences. We need to do exact and intensive studies in every aspect of
meaning in order to counteract our intuitive and false assumption that other
languages, although sounding different, are in other respects much like our
own.”
3
2
Goerling, Fritz, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, Doctor of
Philosophy Thesis; Fuller Theological Seminary, 1995, p.38.
3
Callow, Kathleen, Man and Message: A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis; Lanham, New York
and Oxford: United Press of America, 1998, pp.89f.
2
Wendland
4
outlines three steps necessary for taking into account these
cultural factors in biblical translation:
1. exegesis of biblical culture
2. exegesis of receptor culture
3. comparing and contrasting the two cultures with the purpose of making any
necessary adjustments in the translation.
This paper shall attempt to follow Wendland’s counsel and gain an in-depth
understanding of the theme of sacrifice: a theme of fundamental importance both to
the biblical message and to the Supyire people. As the topic of sacrifice in the Bible
is too vast for a work of this size, this study needs to be limited. It will compare
Supyire sacrifice with the system of sacrifices instituted in Leviticus 1-7, which is
foundational for sacrifice in the rest of the Bible.
The understanding gained will inform preliminary proposals as to how the
various sacrifices should be translated. Two caveats need to be entered at this point.
Firstly, though comparing and contrasting the two cultures’ view of sacrifice is an
essential foundation, it will not automatically yield the “correct translation”. Van der
Jagt stresses the need for creativity: “Translators must have an open and creative
mind and base their choices on research of both the biblical text and the culture of
the receptor audience in order to assure a faithful transfer of meaning.”
5
Gutt stresses
that it is both an analytical and an intuitive process.
6
Secondly, the preliminary nature of any proposals presented herein needs to
be emphasized. The work of translating the Scriptures is, in fact, never complete, as
can be seen in the continuing work on translating into English six hundred years after
Wycliffe’s English Bible appeared. It would therefore be presumptuous to propose
any definitive solutions in this paper, especially so as it will be completed outside the
context of the Supyire community. As Gutt remarks, the comparative study should
ideally involve representatives of the community for whom the translation is
intended.
7
4
See Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.82.
5
In Stine, Philip C. and Ernst R. Wendland, Bridging the Gap, African Traditional Religion and Bible
Translation, UBS Monograph Series No. 4; Reading: United Bible Societies, 1990, p.150.
6
Gutt, Ernst-August, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation; USA:
Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies, 1992, p.70.
7
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
3
The most that should be attempted is firstly, putting forward suggestions
which will need to be pondered collectively by the translation team and tested in all
sections of the Supyire community, and secondly, highlighting areas which will
require further research.
A potential additional benefit of the study is that the comparison and
contrasting of the two worldviews should inform discussion on the translation of
other biblical key terms which relate to the concept of sacrifice, such as priest, altar,
sin, atonement, guilt, temple, and tabernacle.
1.2 USAGE OF TERMS
Some scholars distinguish between the words “offering” and “sacrifice”. On
the basis of their etymology, some contrast them by using “offering” to refer to the
presentation of a gift, and “sacrifice” as a presentation to a divinity. Others use the
word “sacrifice” to refer to any “offering” that involves killing.
For the purposes of this paper we shall avoid making any distinction between
the two terms. We are seeking to compare Hebrew and Supyire customs, and it
seems simpler not to introduce English semantic divisions, which might confuse the
discussion. Hence, we will use “sacrifice” and “offering” interchangeably.
1.3 THEORIES OF SACRIFICE
For much of the 20th century it has been commonly held among ethnologists
that sacrifice in religions throughout the world have evolved from totemic beliefs, in
which certain animals are regarded as sacred and unable to be used as daily food.
The totemic animal represented both the tribe and its god, and the ritual slaying and
eating of this animal created a communion between the god and his people.
Robertson Smith, for example, argued that since totemic practices call for ritual
killing and eating of the forbidden animal, therefore sacrifice originated with these
practices.
8
This is however a non-sequitur, and in 1964, in their influential work
“Sacrifice: its Nature and Function”, Hubert and Mauss demonstrated the weakness
8
De Heusch, Luc, Sacrifice in Africa, A Structuralist Approach; Bloomington, Indiana: University
Press, 1985, p.2.
4
of the argument.
9
They rejected the evolutionary schemes of their predecessors, and
aimed rather to provide a general model applicable to all religious systems. For them,
the opposition between sacred and profane is the foundation of all societies.
10
Sacrifice is the means par excellence of establishing communication between the
sacred and the profane worlds. Sacrifice is a rite of passage.
When a victim is consecrated, it becomes progressively divine. As it
penetrates the sacred zone, it becomes so sacred that the sacrificer hesitates to
approach it. But he must, as his personality and that of victim are merged. The killing
separates the divine principle in the victim from the body, which continues to belong
to the profane world. The sacrificer then performs an exit ritual to return to profane,
and to rid himself of any contamination that he may have suffered in the ritual.
However de Heusch in his critique of Hubert and Mauss points out that their
model suits Vedic Indian, but not necessarily the African or Indo-European
contexts.
11
There is a real danger in imposing a model from outside.
An example of how easy it is to fall into this trap of imposing a model is
Evans-Pritchard’s study of the Nuer religion. If a Nuer man infringes an interdiction,
he is in a state of nueer, kor or rual, depending on the circumstances. Evans-
Pritchard translated all three by the word “sin” and argued that sacrifice fulfils a
purifying and expiatory function among the Nuer. Indeed Evans-Pritchard himself
clearly admits that these concepts have been imported from the Judeo-Christian
worldview: “I must confess that this is not an interpretation that I reached entirely by
observation, but one taken over from studies of Hebrew and other sacrifices, because
it seems to make better sense than any other as an explanation of the Nuer facts.”
12
Averbeck, surveying the different theories, comments that most
“have been both reductionistic (i.e. illegitimately reducing the diversity of
sacrificial phenomena to one rationale) and evolutionistic (proposing that all
offerings and sacrifices evolved from one primal form). Scholars today tend
to disregard the reductionist and evolutionary features and treat them as
9
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.2.
10
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.3.
11
De Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, pp.3-4.
12
Quoted in de Heusch, Sacrifice in Africa, p.9.
5
complementary rather than contradictory, suggesting that there appears to be
some truth in all or most of them, at least in certain cultures.”
13
In the light of the above discussion, I shall attempt to avoid the imposition of
any model, but rather allow the biblical and the Supyire sources to speak for
themselves. The Supyire people will speak through transcribed stories, texts and
interviews. I shall seek to understand how they see sacrifice, and how it fits into their
view of the world. I shall do the same for the biblical material, and then compare the
two. It is clear that perfect objectivity is an unattainable goal, as the results are
processed through the author whose own understanding of the world will inevitably
influence what is selected as important and the way the results are presented.
Nevertheless, this remains the best way for an outsider to gain a clear understanding
of how the two different cultures look at sacrifice.
13
Averbeck, Rick, “Offerings and Sacrifices”, in W.A. Van Gemeren (ed.) NIDOTT Carlisle:
Paternoster Press and Zondervan, p.997.
6
2. THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE AND CULTURE:
AN OUTLINE SKETCH
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Traveling through the bush, we happened on a group of maybe thirty young
people; most were wielding the typical heavy wide bladed hoe and attacking the task
of ploughing the field. There was also a small group of musicians playing the drums
and the balaphone,
14
and there was one figure in the middle, wearing a smart hat,
singing out encouragement to the workforce. They responded vigorously with what
brought to mind a dance rather than any farm labour I have ever witnessed. Bent
almost double over the earth, they jumped in time to the music first to one side of the
furrow they were ploughing, then to the other, each time they landed cutting the
blade into the soil with the weight of their whole body. There was definitely a party
atmosphere in the air.
This little cameo captured the essence of Supyire life, of how the Supyire see
themselves.
The Supyire see themselves tied to the earth
The pride and joy they feel in exploiting the soil is encapsulated in the songs
such as that sung by the young man in the smart hat. The following is one such verse.
Sorcerer of the earth
Old Robber Cultivator
Cuts the earth without pity
Stirs the earth like a porcupine
Crushes stones to dust
Morning Star among the farmers.
14
The balaphone is an instrument similar to a xylophone, made out of wood and gourds.
7
The Supyire are inextricably linked to their family
It is likely that most, if not all, of the young people cultivating together were
from one large extended family. A united family, working and living together in
harmony, is of the highest priority for the Supyire. The impossibility of success
outside this context is expressed in a plethora of stories and proverbs such as:
You cannot lift a pebble with one single finger.
The fool says, “The family is not good”, but in reality, the family is more savoury
than salt in the sauce.
A united family is defined as follows:
“They do the same work.”
“They listen to one another.”
“They follow the same customs.”
“They eat at the same place.”
The Supyire are closely bound to the supernatural.
The name of God is never far from the lips of the Supyire. They will invoke
his blessings at every occasion, such as:
Blessing Occasion
“May God sweep the road before you.” departure on a voyage
“May God make his mother’s milk sweet to him.” news of birth
“May God give you a lot back in its place.” the receipt of a gift
“May God open the morning.” good night greeting
To have access to God, one normally has to go through the channel of
intermediaries who are closer to him than humans are: spirits who live in the bush, or
ancestors who live in the village of the dead. The field I witnessed being ploughed
belonged to one family who would pay the young people with an animal, which the
young people would keep to celebrate the annual village festival. Then it would be
slaughtered in honour of the bush spirits or ancestors, and provide a communal feast.
Summary
Typically then, a Supyire farms in co-operation with his extended family and
seeks to maintain harmony in his relations with the family, and with the supernatural
8
beings who inhabit the earth, and indeed with mother earth herself. Regular
sacrificial gifts are essential to maintain these peaceful relations, and if for some
reason the peace is broken, inevitably a sacrifice of some sort will be required to
repair the damage and restore harmony.
2.2 THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE AND THEIR NEIGHBOURS
IN WEST AFRICA
The Supyire people who number, according to some estimates,
15
over
350,000, live in south-eastern Mali in the region of Sikasso (see maps, figures 1 and
2, pp.10-11). Their language, which also bears the name Supyire, is one of a chain of
seventeen Senufo languages spoken in the savannah of West Africa stretching into
Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.
The Senufo language family can be divided into northern, central and
southern branches. Supyire is one of the northern group which includes Minyanka
(further north in Mali) and Sucite (across the border in Burkina Faso).
16
These
languages are closely related but have their own distinctive peculiarities.
The same can be said of their cultures. Despite many features in common
with neighbouring groups, the Supyire can be said to have their own distinctive
customs. Unlike their neighbours, the Minyanka,
17
the Supyire do not practise
sacrifices to God. Unlike the southern Senufo groups, they do not have secret
societies.
18
In our research, we have noticed variations on the theme of sacrifice even
from one Supyire village to another.
The largest ethnic groups in the region are non-Senufo: the Bambara to the
north and the Jula to the south, whose languages are closely related to one another.
The Bambara have been dominant militarily and politically, while the Jula traders
have considerable economic power. A large majority of both groups are Muslim, but
15
Grimes, Barbara F., (ed.), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 13th Edition; Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics Inc., 1996, p.310.
16
Carlson, Robert, A Grammar of Supyire; Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994, p.1.
17
Berthe, Pierre, La Religion Traditionelle chez les Minyanka, Abidjan, Institut Supérieur de Culture
Religieuse, 1978, p.37.
18
Called poro and sandogo see Glaze, Anita, Art and Death in a Senufo Village; Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1981.
9
their Islam often affects the exterior forms of their religion, while they remain at
heart animistic.
19
19
See Paques, Viviana, Les Bambara; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954, p.87.
10
Figure 1: Map of North and West Africa
11
Figure 2: Map of Supyirephone area in Mali
12
2.3 ENVIRONMENT
The region of Sikasso has been called the breadbasket of Mali. Certainly its
environment is gentler on humans than the rest of the country. The terrain is forested
and hosts series of gently undulating hills and a few plains.
20
Since the soil is fairly
fertile, much of the forest surrounding the villages has been cleared for agricultural
purposes.
The average temperature over the year is twenty-seven degrees centigrade.
21
The dry season is dominated by the harmattan, a dry warm wind blowing off the
Sahara. Then in April, the humidity and temperature build before the rain is released
in tropical downpours. The rainy season can last up to six months through to
October.
2.4 EVOLUTION OF SUPYIRE SOCIETY
The ancestors have a great influence on everyday Supyire life. This factor
acts as an effective brake on any rapid innovation in Supyire society. To break with
any tradition means doing things differently from one’s forefathers, which may well
displease them and provoke them to cause illness, accident or some other misfortune
to the offending family.
For instance, the practice of excision of girls is continued to this day.
22
Whatever the origins of the practise were, they are largely forgotten, and when asked
why it is carried out, most woman reply that it is traditional.
Occupations have evolved with the introduction of cash. But farming
techniques in advance of the traditional manual hoe were late to develop. It was not
until the 1960s that the ox-drawn plough became established. Introduction of a cash
crop like cotton, now widespread in the area, also took a long time.
It is in the realm of religion that tradition retains its greatest hold. Despite the
pressure of living in a country where Islam dominates, and the fact that the Christian
church has been established since the beginning of the 20th century, the large
20
Coulibaly, Daouda and N’Golo Coulibaly and Marjike Loosvelt, Panorama du Kénédougou;
Bamako: Editions Jamana, p.4.
21
Coulibaly, Coulibaly and Loosvelt, Panorama du Kénédougou, p.6.
22
Jemphrey, Miranda “Knives To Razors: Female Circumcision Among the Supyire of Southern
Mali”, Insights in African Ethnography 2 (1997) 1-16.
13
majority of Supyire remain outside the world religions and continue in the traditions
of their ancestors. Many of those who do attend the mosque or the church are careful
to fulfil their traditional religious obligations too. Probably Muslims are more openly
syncretistic, and would sacrifice a lamb during the traditional village festival to the
spirits. Church teaching would discourage Christians from active participation in the
festival. Christianity is seen as a foreign religion. This is reinforced by the fact that a
majority of church leaders are from other ethnic groups, having immigrated into the
region, and that worship services have been held in Bambara, the dominant trade
language.
A further restraint on innovation is the fear of being different. Anyone who is
seen as getting ahead of one’s neighbour is in danger of being the object of jealousy.
His neighbours will use sorcery or violence to reduce the gap. The story of Naba,
23
reputedly the first Christian in Kabakanha, serves as a good illustration.
Va was a warrior renowned to have certain supernatural powers. It was said
he could predict the future and that no metal object could penetrate his body. He was
also wealthy in cattle. Jealousy of his riches meant that he was chased from one
village to another, until he finally settled in Kabakanha.
At that time Protestant missionaries were also having a hard time finding a
Supyire village which would welcome them and their message. Naba predicted that
those who refused the whites would later come to admire them. Kabakanha then
converted and became a predominately Christian village.
It is striking to note the ongoing effects of that decision today. Even though a
large number of Christians later reverted to animism, the stranglehold that the fear of
change held was broken. Today the village has become the major market town in the
area, and boasts a dispensary, maternity, primary and secondary schools, and is seat
of the new mayor’s office for the area.
There is an ongoing struggle over the Supyire identity: education in French,
migration of other ethnic groups into the region from the north of Mali, outside
religion, development agencies introducing new technologies and modern
communication have a tendency to squeeze Supyire language and culture to the
sidelines, especially in public life. On the other hand, the Supyire remain proud of
their identity, culture and language. Local radio stations which broadcast
23
As recounted to the author by his grandson Pabara Sagoro.
14
programmes in the Supyire language and the continuing use of the language within
the family mean that the struggle is by no means one-sided. While Supyire culture is
no longer as static as it once was, it is adapting to change rather than disintegrating.
2.5 THE SUPYIRE COSMOLOGY
The Supyire world is alive and teeming with unseen forces and beings,
benevolent and malign to varying degrees. Religion has to produce results; its goal is
to harness enough power from what Joyce Carlson
24
describes as the “Supyire
pantheon” to protect oneself from harm and make life a success. We shall see later
how sacrifices are so vital in appropriating this protection and power.
Deity
Kile, the Supyire name for God, is the same word they use for sky. Kile is the
Creator God, the source of all life. It is Kile that is in control of all that happens,
good and bad, and is perceived more as a force rather than a person. In the face of a
death, people will say fatalistically, “God’s will for him has arrived.”
As he is the source of all blessings, throughout the day, people will wish each
other good fortune, health and protection invoking the name of Kile. There is a vast
variety of blessings which include:
“May God give you strength.”
“May God make the rest of the day pass well.”
“May God wake us up one at a time” (a night greeting: only in an emergency would
everyone wake up at the same time).
Nevertheless, Kile is seen as remote and inaccessible to humans. Escudero
25
notes the following current Supyire expressions:
“
Kile laaga a t››n
.” God is far away.
“
W… na j… a n› Kile na mî
.” Nobody can reach God.
“
W… na Kile cŠ mî
.” Nobody knows God.
As Kile cannot be reached directly, people need to find intermediaries who do
have access to him. As we shall see, there is no shortage of these.
24
Carlson, Joyce “The Supyire Pantheon: A Comparison with the Central Senufo Pantheon”, Notes on
Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work 10 (June 1987) 3-15.
25
Escudero, Emilio, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie; Abidjan:
I.C.A.O., 1979, p.290f.
15
Supernatural spirits
There are different races of spirits who live in the bush country, outside of the
villages. Those that commonly appear in folk tales are called the bush people. They
have long hair, often blond, have white skin and backward turning feet. In one tale,
they return home to a baobab tree after a day cultivating their fields. They bring
firewood and put down their hoes. Then the hoes pick them up and put them down!
So mixed up with the magical elements of the stories is the mundane, everyday life
they lead. Living as they do in the wild, chaotic untamed bush, they are somewhat
dangerous creatures, with potential for causing harm as well as good.
The Supyire have also adapted to the existence of jinas, which form part of
the world of the neighbouring Bambara people, the majority ethnic group in Mali.
Appearing less often in traditional stories than the bush people, less is known about
the lives of jinas. Still, they probably wield the greater influence on the course of
human life. One diviner said that the jinas need to talk with Kile before he agrees to
send the rain. They choose certain people to be their instruments, and at certain times
will take possession of them and give them powers, such as the ability to perform
divination or play musical instruments during religious festivals.
Another race that live in the bush, are the
w•rokolobii
,
26
known for their
evil deeds. According to Joyce Carlson’s research,
27
they will shoot a person on
sight, but fortunately they fall asleep very easily, and will sometimes even fall asleep
before they are able to discharge their arrow. If you construct a corral or house near
the home of one of them, they will eventually kill all your cattle or family.
Also hostile towards humans are the
faraüi
water spirits that can kill a person
who falls into a stream, the body being left to float on the water. The Bambara too
know this spirit.
A more benevolent spirit is your guiding spirit (nahafoo), otherwise known as
your
mîlîgî
, a word borrowed ultimately from Arabic where it means angel. It will
protect you, but can also punish you if it is neglected and does not receive sufficient
sacrificial gifts.
26
A loan word from Bambara.
27
Carlson “The Supyire Pantheon”, p.7.
16
Ancestors
The ancestors (
kw—ubii
, literally “the dead ones”) are those who lived long
honourable lives in society, and have contributed to the continuation of the race
through marriage and children. They lead a village life of their own, raising herds
and cultivating fields. The more importance a person gains in this life, the greater
power he will wield as an intermediary when he has passed on to the village of the
ancestors.
Particularly powerful among the ancestors are the spirits of twins. A woman
who was both a twin and a mother of twins from a Senufo group in Côte d’Ivoire
recounted a creation myth
28
which explains their significance. “When [God] created
the first man and woman, they became man and wife. When the woman conceived
for the first time, she gave birth to a boy and a girl, who were twins.”
The balance between male and female is important; twins who are of the
same sex are a sign that something is out of balance and not seen so favourably. It is
important to give the twins the same gifts; jealousy caused by unequal treatment
would endanger the life and health of the family.
A small model made of two winnowing baskets joined together represents the
family’s twin spirits. When I took a lady who was having a long, difficult labour to
hospital, her family members brought along this model, presumably to help give a
safe delivery.
Fetishes
Fetishes are man-made objects endued with supernatural power which
families will often hang in a bag in the vestibule, entrance hut to their compound.
Alternatively, they house it in its own little hut. Typically a fetish can be made out of
gold, or can be fabricated according to some “recipe”. Widespread among the
Supyire are fetishes called the
Wara
, the
Kono
and
K›nr›
. They get renowned for
having certain powers. For example, the
K›nr
›, known as the fetish of love, can help
to consolidate the love between a man and a woman and be used to produce a
product which will increase the fertility of one’s fields.
As a certain fetish gains a reputation, people will copy its recipe to make their
own fetish that will bear the same name. Often lesser known fetishes with different
28
See Glaze Art and Death in a Senufo Village, p.73.
17
powers will be brought and added to the bag and assimilated to the main fetish, so
that if the contents of each
K›nr›
, for instance, were now examined, they would not
be identical.
The power of the fetish is greatly feared, for the owner can use it not only to
seek his own good, but also to harm others. Or it can be used as a sign of one’s
power. The story is told by Nawara Sagoro that when Tieba was king of Sikasso in
the 19th century, a certain renowned Senufo fetisher and warrior among the king’s
troops, Namon›, used his tail fetish to bind the king and his court. In sacrificing to
the fetish, reciting the name of the king, he “tied” them, thus enabling Namon› to go
right into the king’s bedroom, shave his head, and escape without waking anyone.
This occurred on three separate occasions, until the king suspected Namon› and
arranged for him to be killed in battle by his own side.
The power of the fetish is also used to serve as a policeman and judge in a
small village community. In the case of a theft or suspected adultery, the wronged
party will consult the owner of the fetish and ask him to harm or kill the offending
party.
Every year the owner will organize a celebration in honour of the fetish and
maintain good relations with it. Someone will don a mask and a particular outfit to
personify the fetish and dance. The fetish mask will also come out to dance at the
funeral of its owner. It is often forbidden for women to see the fetish or its mask.
The fetish can take action on its own too, especially against sorcery, for
sorcery is viewed as most anti-social. Typically the sorcerer (nearly always a
woman) can transform herself into an animal and drag away the souls of others while
they sleep to use them for her purposes, transforming them into animals. This leaves
the soul of the victim weak and leads to sickness or death. A member of the family of
an old lady who died in the 1970s related how when she died, she was said to have
been killed by the Kono. The Kono mask had been out dancing not long before her
death and a cat had been spotted during the celebration. So when the old lady died, it
was deduced that she had transformed herself into the cat to get close to the fetish
and the fetish had punished her. Her clothes were then left on the roof of the fetish
house to rot as a sign of what had happened.
18
Life force
Robert Carlson
29
writes that every living thing in Supyire cosmology is
“endowed with a kind of impersonal life force called
¤…m…
. This force can
harm other animals or things and is thus potentially the cause of disease and
even death. Certain animals and people, such as pythons and albinos, have
more
¤…m…
than others. You can get sick even by walking past the place
where a python has been coiled up, even if it is no longer there. Hunters must
protect themselves in various ways against the
¤…m…
of their prey. Soldiers
and policemen, too, who may kill someone in fulfilling their duties, are also
subject to attack from the
¤…m…
of their victims.”
Conclusion
Although tradition holds great weight among the Supyire,
30
it would be
wrong to give the impression that they hold to an unchanging body of orthodox
doctrine. What is outlined above should only be taken as a rough guideline of beliefs.
Many of the details are somewhat vague, and the lines blurred. So in one
conversation Robert Carlson recorded between two old men, one of them is heard
arguing that Kile and the jinas are one and the same. In the mind of one diviner
interviewed, jinas and bush people were the one and the same.
The same blurring can be seen in that the same word kile has three meanings:
First, the Creator God is Kile. Second, the sky is called kile. And third, if you find
anything considered extraordinary in nature, such as a skin shed by a python,
31
or the
nest of a rare bird (called
kileükuu
, God’s chicken) or two chameleons mating, you
can take them home, and they become a kile. They are considered as a manifestation
of God, and have supernatural powers. This little kile can receive sacrifices like a
fetish, but it is more the god of an individual or a family, and as such has less
influence on the community as a whole.
29
Carlson, Robert “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, Notes on Anthropology 3:3 (1999) 7-14
p.11.
30
See above, p.12.
31
A woman named Siri, hearing that a man had found a snake skin exclaimed “U a kile ta!” which can
be translated “He has found a god!” (from anthropological notes by Ruth Herber passed on to Joyce
Carlson). Nawara Sagoro explained that finding a python skin fits into the category because
normally the python swallows its skin once shed.
19
In the 1950s a new religion involving a powerful fetish swept through the
area. Before a village could adopt it though, it had to get rid of certain other fetishes,
and a considerable number were burnt. So, despite the weight of tradition, when the
Supyire have encountered something new which proves itself to be powerful, they
have adapted it, and then adopted it into their own unique pantheon.
2.6 THE ROLE OF THE INTERMEDIARY
The importance of an intermediary in Supyire life is not restricted to dealings
with the supernatural. If a Supyire travels to another village for business of any form,
he needs to go through his intermediary, called a jatigi. The jatigi is responsible for
housing and feeding the guest if he is staying a while. He will go with his guest on
whatever business he is intent and will repeat his guest’s words to the third party,
even if they have been already been clearly understood.
Once the relationship is established it is usually life long. “To leave a village
is better than to change jatigi” is a proverb that expresses disapproval of the
fickleness of someone who changes from one intermediary to another.
Another important relationship is that of
narafoo
(plural:
narafeebii
). A
person is a
narafoo
for his or her mother’s home village. A
narafoo
does not reside
in his mother’s village, since at marriage, it is customary for the bride to come to live
in her husband’s village. The word
nara
has as its primary meaning “to lean away
from”. These are people who are obliquely related to the mother’s patriclan, related
to it, but leaning away from it, as it were. The narafeebii in the village of their
mother’s patriclan are always treated indulgently like children, no matter how old
they are. At the same time, they are frequently given the role of mediator in matters
of ritual or dispute.
In resolving a dispute, one can call on the services of a narafoo. If it is a
particularly serious dispute, one may need others who are totally outside the family,
such as members of the castes the blacksmiths and griots, or the Fulani, a light
skinned nomadic race who herd cattle across West Africa.
In the most serious cases, one might have to resort to requesting the help of a
zìükunü›
(plural
zìükunmpii
). There are traditional links between those bearing
certain surnames; for example, the Sagoro and the Bogodogo families are
zìükunmpii
. So are those bearing the name Jamutene and those called Jabate.
20
Zìükunmpii
are expected to insult and banter each other (for example, accusing
them of eating green beans). The only time there are any serious dealings is when
one is called on to come and help resolve a family dispute. Immediately the
reconciliation has taken place, the
zìükunü›
insults all the parties, left, right and
centre, and then gets on his bicycle and leaves the village without a further word to
anyone.
2.7 LIFE CYCLE OF A SUPYIRE
Birth
Oftentimes, a woman will seek supernatural help in order to conceive.
Although
Kile
is the source of life, each child is thought to have come from a certain
place. So, if the mother had prayed for a child from the family’s little god
kile
, she
might well name him
Kilen›
“God-man”; if from the fetish of love the
K›nr›
, the
child may be named
K›nr›cwo
“K›nr›-girl”.
The child is actually not usually named until he has survived the first week,
probably due to the high rate of infant mortality in the past. At the naming ceremony,
he is presented to the ancestors of the village, who then take note of him to protect
him and to keep him from straying from traditional ways.
If a mother loses a succession of two or three babies, it is said that it is the
same child that keeps returning. The jinas are blamed for the death of some children,
especially beautiful children they are thought to want for themselves. In order to try
and deflect the attention of the jinas away from him, the child following one who has
died in infancy may be given a name such as “Ugly child”.
So there is some belief in reincarnation, but it is not clearly defined, and does
not play a central role in Supyire thought. A child born into the family of an elderly
person who has recently died is sometimes named after him.
Circumcision
The custom of circumcising both boys and girls continues without exception.
It is a rite that enables the child to develop into a full adult (which for the Supyire is
synonymous with being married.) The foreskin and the clitoris respectively are seen
as being characteristic of the opposite sex, and as being inappropriate for the boy or
girl. Therefore they are cut from the body. H. Sawyerr suggests that circumcision in
21
Africa can be seen as a sort of sacrifice,
32
but this does not appear to be the case
among the Supyire.
Marriage
This is the rite that fully establishes an individual as a full-fledged individual
in society. One must marry outside the family clan. The wife will invariably come to
live in the village of her husband. Indeed it is the norm for the husband to build a hut
for her in his own parent’s home compound. So he will not move away from his
family.
A series of long negotiations over the years between two clans culminate with
a family delegation from the groom’s side making an overnight stay in the village of
the bride. They stay with their jatigi who then as intermediary goes with the
delegation to bring greetings and gifts to the girl’s family. Kola nuts, cloths, cooking
utensils and two chickens to sacrifice to the ancestors are among the obligatory gifts.
There is also usually nowadays a cash dowry. After friendly banter over the quality
of the gifts, the bride’s family provide a communal meal to seal the alliance between
the two families.
Consistent with the third party nature of most dealings in Supyire society, the
couple to be married is at no point involved in the negotiations. They are not even in
the village on the wedding day; the girl will already have left to take up residence in
the groom’s village the previous day. They are strictly forbidden to eat any part of
the communal wedding meal, even leftovers.
The marriage is only really seen as consummated with the successful arrival
of the first child. At this point they have fully entered into the ageless stream of
family life, by contributing to its ongoing existence and expansion.
Married life
Men and women tend to live very separate lives. The men eat together first
and then the women and children. There is a fairly rigorous division of labour. For
example, it is the husband’s responsibility to provide the staple for the meal: corn,
32
Dickson, Kwesi A. and Paul Ellingworth,, Pour une Théologie Africaine, Yaounde, Editions Clé,
1969, p.109.
22
millet or rice. It is the woman, no matter what her husband’s means might be, who
has to work to provide the tomatoes, spices and other condiments for the stew.
Divorce is fairly rare. The families, having invested so much in the marriage
and the family alliance, will seek to ensure that it is successful. So although a wife
may be mistreated, and may run back to her parents’ home, in most cases attempts at
reconciliation will bring the two together again. There is little alternative. There is no
role for a single woman in society. She has no means of obtaining an independent
income. The children of the marriage belong to the family of the husband: it is they
who have paid for the wife and the offspring of her womb.
On the other hand, if she is widowed, it is the husband’s family who has the
responsibility to take care of her material needs, and provide her with a younger
brother or cousin as a husband. Any offspring of this levirate marriage are considered
as belonging to the deceased brother’s family. If he has not already done so, the
younger brother in such a case still needs to get married himself to another woman to
be a fully fledged member of society.
It is rare to see a woman enjoying an idle moment. From dawn to dusk, they
have responsibilities: collecting firewood, drawing water, heating it for bathing,
pounding flour, cooking, tending the youngest and working in the fields. A good
wife does all this for her husband without complaining, and above all, bears him
many children. The joy for women, as for men, comes in working together in
harmony, and sharing the chores with the members of the extended family.
Polygyny is still practised, somewhat less now than in time of warfare that
claimed the lives of many men. The principal reasons for taking more than one wife
are said to be:
1. If your first wife is unable to bear you children.
2. If your first wife becomes very sick or an invalid and can no longer work, or
cook or satisfy your sexual needs.
3. If your first wife dies, even if she has given you children, and you are still young,
you should marry again because of your own needs.
Funeral
One of the main goals in life for a Supyire is to have a good funeral; it is a
prize to be won. To qualify for this, he or she will have lived a long life, produced
many offspring and have a family in a position to celebrate it. First, there is the burial
23
with a series of rites, including wrapping, washing, and dancing the body, and giving
it its last meal before burying it in the graveyard outside the village.
Then there is the wake, a feast-cum-celebration, the size and extravagance of
which reflects the age and importance of the deceased. Such a send-off, properly
performed, will ensure him or her a good welcome in the village of the ancestors.
The wake does not always take place immediately after the burial. There can
be a delay of months or even years. The timing depends on the family having the
grain and the money and the willpower to organise it. But for as long as it is not
carried out, no one else in the family can receive his wake; moreover the
reorganisation of the family’s responsibilities cannot take place. Only when the wake
of the family is finished, can the authority of the deceased be devolved to the next in
line.
As Joyce Carlson
33
observes, the nightmare scenario is a “bad death”. If a
person dies accidentally, by falling out of a tree, by snakebite, by suicide or murder,
or in childbirth, or out in the bush away from their home, then they are a sinarbu, and
as such, receive a hasty, insulting burial. It is said that if they are shown honour in
their burial, their spirit will bring bad fortune back on those who buried them. The
body is not washed or dressed in grave cloths. Nothing is done for it. The grave is
dug right beside the body where it lies. The ditch is filled with thorns. Those burying
the body turn their backs to it, and roll it backwards with their feet pushing it into the
grave. Finally they cover it with earth.
There is, though, a way of at least partially redeeming this shameful situation
by ensuring that the departed does integrate into the village of the ancestors and is
not left homeless and dangerous. For someone who was married and would thus have
had a full ceremony if he had not met a “bad death”, the family can organise for the
sinarbu to be transformed. That is, they go to the cemetery in the middle of the night
with a flute player who calls for the soul of the deceased, and then a hunter fires off a
rifle round to indicate that the soul has come. Then they wrap a bamboo pole (to
represent the body) in burial cloths, and bring it back into the village. There they go
through the whole burial ceremony and wake with the pole, just as though it were the
body of the deceased.
33
Carlson “Senufo Funeral Ritual” (unpublished).
24
Another case of “bad death” is when a child or young person dies unmarried.
After the burial there is no wake. But at some stage there will be a ceremony to
integrate him into the village of the ancestors. If there is a death in his family soon
afterwards, the ceremony for the youth will be carried out quickly during this fuller
funeral. Otherwise, on the third day of the village festival, a collective wake is
carried out along with the music and feasting for all youth, children and aborted
babies who have died since the last festival.
2.8 VILLAGE AND BUSH
The Supyire world is divided in two: the village and the bush. The village is
home, a safe sanctuary surrounded by the wild bush, inhabited by dangerous animals
and spirits. Animals fall into two categories: bush animals and domestic animals. The
bush becomes even more sinister at night, when the little bush people are out and
about. People hesitate to venture outside the bounds of the village in the dark.
The shape of the traditional village reflects this need for protection. All the
family compounds are enclosed behind the village walls. There is one sole entry to
the village and to get to any particular family home requires knowledge of the
sinuous paths that connect all the compounds. I have known even Supyire friends to
get lost in a small village with which they were not too familiar.
At the entrance is found the village vestibule. The vestibule is easily
distinguished from other huts, as it alone has two doors that enable it to serve as an
entrance passageway. Being the sole point of entry, it is naturally the focus of efforts
to defend the village from outside dangers, visible and invisible. Any enemy
assaulting the village would be met at the vestibule by a battery of bows or rifles.
The vestibule also houses a series of magic charms to ward off any evil spells aimed
at penetrating the village. This is also where the elders of the village meet to make
decisions, and negotiate with outsiders. They meet here too with the ancestors and
perform various sacrifices to them.
Each family compound inside the village is itself walled in and has its own
family vestibule, containing an altar to the ancestors of that family. The traditional
compound is dotted with thatched mud huts: round sleeping huts for the women and
children, square ones for the men and others serving as granaries and a kitchen.
There is an open space in the centre that is where most daily activities take place.
25
2.9 THE EARTH
The Supyire have an intimate relationship with the earth, as it is ancient and
the source of all fertility. They receive children from spirits living in a certain sacred
spot on the earth. They live in huts made from the earth, farm on it with tools
fashioned from metals drawn from the earth. Finally they are buried under the earth.
Traditionally the grave is dug with two holes connected by a tunnel. Before the body
is laid to rest in the tunnel, the children of the deceased crawl through the tunnel to
see their parent’s home.
The sacred nature of the earth is seen in that land cannot be bought or sold,
but can only be used by permission, and that certain acts can spoil the earth. In that
case, rain will not fall until the spoilt earth is repaired.
34
2.10 FAMILY UNITY
“It is through a crack in the wall that a cockroach enters.”
“One hand cannot wash itself.”
Many proverbs, like the two above, and folk tales express the ideal of unity,
solidarity and co-operation in the Supyire family. This is a concern common
throughout Africa. Grebe and Fon write,
“The greatest moral value that the head of the family tries to uphold is
UNITY. Within society each extended family is in opposition to other ones.
Dealings between families are regulated by the influence a given family has
within society. The larger a family, the greater its chance to make its influence
felt. But if the family members are not united, the group is weakened. The
head of the family will, therefore, always strive for two things: (1) to increase
the number of his family; and (2) to have his family united.”
35
One is automatically expected to feed and lodge any member of one’s
extended family who arrives at one’s home for as long as they care to stay. The
desire for unity is seen too in the process for making decisions. The men will gather
to discuss a given problem. The youngest will be given the first chance to speak.
34
See below, p.44.
35
Grebe, Karl and Wilfred Fon, African Traditional Religion and Christian Counseling; Yaounde:
Karl Grebe, 1982, p.4.
26
Then each in his turn, from the youngest to the oldest, will speak. Finally, the eldest,
the chief makes the decision. The wise chief, having taken into account everyone’s
point of view, will make his decision and attempt to please everyone, thus guarding
the peace in the family, at least on the surface.
The flip side of this stress on unity is that individualism is not readily
tolerated. Families that install themselves outside the main village are regarded with
suspicion. I have heard of one village where anyone who might become a Christian
has been threatened with death. Malana Sagoro recounted the story of one man,
whose only son married a Fulani girl, adopted a Fulani name and Fulani customs,
and herded cattle as a Fulani nomad. The father insisted that his son return to Supyire
ways. The son refused. When the son died prematurely, the father said that he had
asked the ancestors to punish his son.
The village is also seen as a large family, with a similar decision-making
process. In Kabakanha, for example, there are three main families all with the same
surname, two of which are descended from the two brothers who founded the village.
The third is descended from a slave family, and its members do not have the right to
become village chief. The chiefdom is handed to the oldest man within the two
“free” families.
At a national and international level, the Supyire identify themselves closely
with others in the Senufo language family, but generally keep a distance from other
ethnic races. In the town of Sikasso, where the Supyire are the largest ethnic group,
they have their own political party, though they cannot command an overall majority
in the local legislative body. If a dispute arises, the preference is to resolve it
internally within the family or at the village level, rather than bringing them to the
attention of the civil authorities.
2.11 CONCLUSION
“The stranger’s eyes are wide open, but he doesn’t see anything.” This
Supyire proverb underlines how little a casual visitor to this society understands. At
first glance, the positive aspects of life here are clearly evident: the united family,
assiduously working together on the land, living in a close-knit village. But a closer
look under the surface reveals lurking fears which seems to dominate: fear of the
27
bush, fear of the spirits, fear of the ancestors, fear of the dark, fear of suffering a bad
death, fear of the unknown, and even fear of one’s closest family and neighbours.
Coulibaly
36
comments: “The Senufo appear to us profoundly religious and
superstitious, paralysed by fear of invisible forces with occult powers, which they
have to deal with day in day out, in all their undertakings. It is that which explains
the multitude of sacrifices, offerings, and consultations with the diviners ... ”
In this chapter we have painted broad brush a picture of Supyire society, with
the hope that it will help the reader to understand the role of sacrifices, to which we
turn in detail in the next chapter.
36
Translated from Coulibaly, Sinali, Le Paysan Senoufo; Abidjan and Dakar: Les Nouvelles Editions
Africaines, 1978, p.97.
28
3. SACRIFICE IN SUPYIRE SOCIETY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Arriving in the centre of Wabere, the most ancient of all Supyire villages, one
sees a very old tree, said to be sacred, under which all the sacrifices are made during
the annual village festival. There is a huge, crescent-shaped, cement sitting area
where the men relax and chat, curving around under the tree. Nearby are two small
huts consecrated to the Wara fetish,
37
and a mound streaked white from the flour
paste poured on it in offering.
The importance of sacrifice in Supyire society is illustrated by the centrality
of these sacrificial sites. The diversity of sacrifices will be seen in the wide variety of
reasons for which people carry them out; for the present they can be summarised
under the following general headings:
38
1. To make requests for the future
2. To maintain good relationships with the supernatural realm
3. To gain knowledge
4. To deal with problems in relationships in the extended family
5. To ward off evil
6. To punish a wrongdoer
7. To gain power through sorcery
8. To dedicate some object or place to the jinas.
The most common and typical sacrifices are those carried out at the annual
village festival seeking blessings on the year ahead. In order to give some insight into
the rites, the words spoken at a sacrifice at the annual village festival at Sarazo
village are set out below. This was the first of thirty-one sacrifices brought during the
festival.
“Hear what the elders have to say.
This is the offering for the new year even today.
37
See p.16.
38
These are discussed more fully on pp.34-46.
29
Make the village stand by the mortar, make the village stand by the pestle,
even today.
39
Give the village millet.
Give the village more people.
Seek to make the village prosperous.
May our village not be dependent on any other.
Multiply the population.
May every visitor who comes to the village with a sincere heart, even today,
help him during the day, help him during the night,
so that he may be well thought of.
And our village may be well thought of.
We, the people of Sarazo,
if we were without the difficulties which beset us today,
could help out another village.
Another village would not have to take care of giving us millet.
That should not have to happen.
This is not boasting.
Another village should not have to look after us.
That would be shameful.
Give us a good rainy season…
O yes, give us a good rainy season.”
40
In looking at Supyire sacrifice, we will start (in 3.2) by describing the surface
forms by answering the following questions. To whom are sacrifices made? Who
makes them? What is sacrificed? When are sacrifices made? Where are sacrifices
made? On what are sacrifices made? What steps are performed? We will refer to
Escudero’s analysis of the village festival as a starting point in answering these
questions.
39
This expression “Make the village stand by the mortar, make the village stand by the pestle” means:
“Give us women and millet; for without women and millet the sound of the mortar dies out, and the
village cannot stand.”
40
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, pp.64-69 (my
translation).
30
Next we will go below the surface (in 3.3) and seek to explain the functions
of the sacrifices, why are they made?
At that stage we will probe deeper (in 3.4), exploring how these forms and
functions fit into the rest of the Supyire view of the world, and how they are seen to
be effective, how they believe sacrifice “works”.
We will conclude the chapter (3.5) with an overview of the vocabulary the
Supyire use in the domain of sacrifice.
3.2 SUPYIRE SACRIFICE: THE FORM
To whom are sacrifices made?
Any supernatural being who is perceived as being in a position to help or
harm is a potential recipient of a sacrifice. During the village festival, the village
ancestors and the village jinas receive particular attention. The ancestors are
concerned that they continue to be remembered and honoured by their descendants.
The jinas are seen as the erstwhile owners of the earth with whom the founders of the
village made an alliance: in return for being allowed to settle on the land, the
villagers make sacrifices to the jinas.
An exception is that the Supyire do not sacrifice to God, at least not directly.
He is seen as too remote to intervene directly in everyday human affairs, and is not
interested in the sacrifices of men. “God does not eat our food” is a Supyire
expression that reflects this idea.
God is regarded as the ultimate source of all blessings, but since life descends
to the living via the long line of ancestors and by the mediation of the jinas, it seems
normal to re-ascend to God by the same pathway. Nawara Sagoro stated that in any
sacrifice, to any god, spirit or fetish, inevitably part of the prayer associated with it is
“Kile u fara” which means “May God come and add to this.”
In one prayer recorded, the sacrificer to the jinas said, “Here is the sacrifice
for Dasu. Her son’s wife has passed away. Pingo’s wife has also passed away. So she
has come with this request: If God could give new wives to these two men, she will
come and thank them [the jinas] with food.”
41
41
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.279.
31
Who makes sacrifices?
Any individual, man or woman, family or group (such as the village elders),
can bring an animal or other offering for sacrifice for a specific reason. But the actual
killing of the animal or presentation of the offering will be made by the person who
has a special relationship to the recipient of the sacrifice. The oldest man in the
ruling extended family is the closest to the ancestors and is thus responsible for the
sacrifices. A fetish owner will sacrifice to that fetish. While a woman may bring an
animal for sacrifice, only a man will ever kill it.
There is no formal ceremony to consecrate someone to the office of
sacrificer, but in a society where relationships are constantly being monitored, it is
widely known who fills which role.
What is sacrificed?
By far the most common sacrifice offered during the village festival consists
of a chicken. Of the thirty-one sacrifices made during the Sarazo festival, twenty-five
included a chicken, one was a bull, three were of staple foods, one of kola nuts, and
two included money. Only those traditionally considered as domestic animals are
acceptable as an offering.
The size and value of the sacrifice is important. A fully mature two-year-old
cock is considered a better singer and a more valuable sacrifice than a young one. On
one occasion, a large chicken had been promised, but only a small one was available,
so the difference was made up by adding 100 francs.
There is enough evidence from various sources to affirm that in the past
human sacrifices were made.
42
In order to establish a market in a village, a girl had to
be buried alive. In place of this, in 1985, the village of Kabakanha asked its pastor to
say a prayer for its new market. In sacrificing to a fetish, dog’s blood is now
accepted where once human blood might have been required.
Different members of the pantheon require different sacrifices. Nawara
Sagoro, in conversation with Joyce Carlson, stated that the most common offering to
42
Carlson, Robert, Dictionnaire Supyire-FranÇais, unpublished defines dahaba as follows: “a kind of
fetish consisting of a pot enclosed in an adobe wall and covered with a small thatched roof; inside
are the roots of 33 types of trees ... formerly warriors used to wash with water in which powder from
the roots had been put and then they would not be attacked by the spirit/force of those they had killed;
formerly a person was sacrificed to this fetish, then a dog, but nowadays more usually a goat.”
32
twin ancestors was kola nuts, followed by millet paste, money, chickens, and cowry
shells.
Another sort of offering which is also called a
sÃraga
, the general Supyire
word used for sacrifice, is that of cloth. These are not burnt or eaten, but are often
given away, often to a poor stranger. Alternatively, a cloth of a certain colour or with
a particular design is to be worn by the offerer.
When are sacrifices made?
The annual festival, seeking blessing on the year ahead, generally lasts a
week and is usually held near the beginning of the rainy season. There is, though, no
fixed date and each village will hold its festival on a different week at the discretion
of the chief.
Individuals or families who have links to a particular jina or fetish will often
hold a celebration and make a sacrifice annually to keep up the relationship.
43
Otherwise, the sacrifices will take place whenever a problem or situation demands it.
If someone is dogged by misfortune, for example some illness, he will consult a
diviner, who will use some method—throwing cowry shells, reading palms, slapping
of the thigh, or hitting a calabash full of water
44
—to diagnose which divinity or
ancestor has been offended, why he is causing the illness, and what sacrifice should
be offered as appeasement.
Where are sacrifices made?
The different spirits in the Supyire pantheon live outside of the village—in
the fields, trees and rivers. That is where the sacrifices offered to them take place.
There is often a sacred spot, sometimes marked by an unusual geographical feature,
where they reside: in the village of Sarazo it is a dense thicket, whose trees must not
be cut, where the original alliance between the founding fathers and the jinas was
made. In Ifola, there is a pool with sacred fish that should not be eaten; in
Kabakanha, a large flat solid rock; and in Misiricoro, an unusual grotto. In each case,
43
Diarra, Niara, Le Pori, Une Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo, Mémoire de Fin d’Etudes à
l’Ecole Nationale d’Administration, Bamako, 1996, p.19.
44
Carlson, Robert “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, Notes on Anthropology 3:3 (1999) 7-14,
p.12, fn.3.
33
the Supyire make contact with the divine through sacrifice in a place in the earthly,
natural world marked in some way as out of the ordinary.
By way of contrast, if a particular jina has an intimate relationship with an
individual or family, it may require that a hut be built, smaller than the huts used for
human residences, which will be where it lodges and receives sacrifices. Fetishes
often have similar diminutive huts.
The ancestors receive their sacrifices in the village vestibule that is their
meeting place with the living.
On what are sacrifices made?
As noted above,
45
the Supyire have an intimate relationship with the earth; it
is seen as the symmetrical counterpart of the sky, (which itself is associated with the
supernatural.)
46
So the earth is seen as a suitable place for the cult. It is usual for the
victims to be sacrificed on a simple altar of a pile of large stones, or of earth packed
together into a half wall two or three feet high.
What steps are performed?
The typical pattern for a sacrifice is as follows:
1. An introduction: whoever brings the offering will let his intentions be known to
the sacrificer by way of an intermediary. The intermediary then takes the chicken
or other offering and, naming the person who has brought it, passes it on to the
sacrificer, who performs the remaining steps.
2. The offering is presented, with some appeal to tradition such as, “This is the
offering from X on the path of the new year,” or to the name of someone who has
performed this before. Thus it is shown that it is not something new which is
being done, but there is an authoritative precedent for it.
3. A prayer is made for specific blessings for the offerer. The name of God or some
other supernatural force is often invoked. The expressions “God is more powerful
than all,” and “Every good person says God and every bad person says God” are
commonly heard. Malana Sagoro explained this by saying that this adds power to
the sacrifice.
45
See p.25.
46
See p.14.
34
4. The throat of the victim is slit, and its blood is poured over the altar. As a sign
that the sacrifice has taken place, the feathers of a sacrificial chicken will be
stuck to the altar with the congealing blood. Food in a liquid form may also be
poured on the altar. However, if it is a question of a sacrifice to a fetish, the fetish
itself is dipped in the sacrificial blood, so that over the years the fetish becomes
black with thick coagulated blood.
5. After the animal or food has been presented to the deity, it is shared around the
community. Joyce Carlson witnessed a sacrifice in the fulfilment of a vow made
by the family of Kara Sagoro at Misiricora caves, home for the most renowned
jinas in the region, where many people come to make sacrifices. She writes at
the end of her notes of the account, “I began to realise too that eating the exact
sacrifice that you brought was not so crucial as eating some part of some
sacrifice. So Kara and family ate with 3 or 4 old men who were already there
eating a previous sacrifice, and then we came away.”
During the village festival, the sacrifice rituals are accompanied by song and
dance and the playing of the balaphone, a celebration in which the whole community
can participate. There is a brouhaha, a nonchalance among the crowd and those
bringing sacrifices. There is no idea of a respectful silence in the presence of the
sacred, as everything in life has a religious dimension for the Supyire.
3.3 SUPYIRE SACRIFICE: THE FUNCTIONS
In this section we will look at the different reasons Supyire have for making
sacrifices. The general reasons mentioned above can be subdivided as follows:
To make requests for the future
1. To ask for blessings
2. To ask for protection against perceived dangers
To maintain good relationships with the supernatural realm
1. A greeting
2. To maintain an alliance
3. To fulfil a vow
4. To avoid offending divinity through neglect
35
5. To ask for forgiveness
6. To inform the ancestors of someone joining the family
7. To aid someone recently deceased to get established in the village of the
ancestors
To gain knowledge
1. To discern the cause of a problem
2. To determine whether the ancestors have consented to a request
3. To determine the cause of death
To deal with problems in relationships with ancestors
1. To seek forgiveness from an aggrieved ancestor
2. To reconcile ancestors still quarrelling
To ward off evil
1. Problems caused by jinas
2. Curses
3. Misfortune
4.
¤…m…
5. The earth being spoilt
To punish a wrongdoer
To gain power through sorcery
To dedicate some object or place to the jinas
To make requests for the future
1) To ask for blessings. The requests made by the elders at the village
sacrifices can be summarised as follows: they were seeking wives, good rains, millet,
increase in population, the ability to be generous hosts, and a good reputation for the
village. Most of these could be grouped around the theme of fertility: fertile families
and fertile earth are earnestly sought after among the Supyire and will result in
honour for the family or village.
Many individuals’ sacrifices at the same festival were accompanied by
requests in a similar vein: a large family, help to find a wife or wives, good rains,
millet and mouths to eat it, health for the family and workers, healing for a sick child,
peace within the family, riches for the family, and children with whom to play the
balaphone. One request was “Help us celebrate the festival with laughter.” Escudero
comments on this prayer: “This expresses the wish that the festival will pass in a
36
spirit of conviviality and unity, without disputes; and also that there will be as many
guests as possible in his courtyard, for their presence brings honour to the host.”
47
In
another prayer, the comment is made: “Even if you lose everything, but you still
have people around, that compensates for the lack of things; it is people who are
more important than everything else.”
48
The importance of fertility is again shown in
another village where three sheep were sacrificed for all the women giving birth.
2) To ask for protection against perceived dangers. The requests for
protection are the natural counterpart of those for blessings: protection from hunger,
from birds eating the millet in the fields, from lightning, from the death of infants,
from those jealous of the village who would seek to harm it.
One prayer uttered with a sacrifice of food to the Komo fetish was: “May
those who would do evil forget to do it.” Another at the annual sacrifice to ancestors
was: “May the evil wind stop outside the village vestibule, may the violent
headaches stop outside the village vestibule, may excessive diarrhoea stop outside
the village vestibule.”
49
To maintain good relations with the supernatural realm
1) A greeting. A series of sacrifices at the village festival is formally initiated
by an offering either of a chicken or millet water. This offering makes the initial
contact and gives thanks for the blessings that have been accorded in the past. At the
same time, it seeks to prepare the ancestors to be favourable to the sacrifices and
requests to come. In the village of Fanterila, Ninga Sagoro in his initial prayer to the
ancestors said, “If I speak too little, do not hear that way” (i.e. I may not present
everything required, but do not limit your work according to my words).
“Even if there are a hundred other things, it is not a question of those; this is the
sacrifice for the new year” (i.e. if someone in the village has not fulfilled a vow to
you, please overlook that for now).
50
47
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.72 (my
translation).
48
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.106 (my
translation).
49
Recorded at Fanterila village by Malana Sagoro and Robert Carlson.
50
Recorded at Fanterila village by Malana Sagoro and Robert Carlson.
37
A parallel offering will be presented at the end of the series to conclude the
proceedings. A final general prayer included the words: “Here is the last water
poured out to you, may the family be blessed with women, millet and riches.”
2) To maintain an alliance. The elders of the village of Sarazo, recounting the
history of the foundation of their village, talk of Tiéfari, accompanied by a group of
jinas who looked after his cattle, coming to take up residence in a wood of tamarind
trees. A crocodile living in a pool made to grab one of the cows, but the jinas who
inhabited the wood stopped him. Then the two sets of jinas formed an alliance to live
there together. The jinas protect the villagers and in particular the chief from all
harm, and punish those who use sorcery to kill others. The villagers are to respect the
wood of tamarind trees, not to collect firewood there, nor kill its reptiles that are the
embodiment of the jinas. If a sacred reptile dies, the villagers are to hold funeral
ceremonies for it. “If they neglect to do this, the jinas get angry and decimate the
population.”
51
Apart from the sacrifices that form part of these funeral ceremonies,
they will also make an annual sacrifice during the village festival. According to
tradition, in his dying hour, Tiéfari gathered his children and told them: “After my
death, worship these woods that have given us a primitive lodging place. Then the
jinas will be favourably disposed to you and help you in all you undertake to do.”
3) To fulfil a vow. When a Supyire desires to obtain some blessing or to avoid
some catastrophe, he will often make some vow to the jinas, stating that if they fulfil
his desires, he will bring some specific offering in return. A lady who was sick
promised a chicken if she got better; another made a vow on the condition that all her
sons got successfully married; and a hunter sacrificed a bull when his request that his
mother’s village be spared an epidemic of cattle disease was fulfilled.
4) To avoid offending a member of the pantheon through neglect. To neglect
a sacrifice normally made each year is to risk suffering the wrath of the neglected
party. One traditional healer stated that if you forget to sacrifice to the family’s twin
spirits, they would send their allies the scorpions to sting you within three days.
51
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.37 (my
translation).
38
In another case, a boy had recurring nightmares, seeing his ancestors in his
dreams. It was divined that the cause was that his family of late had neglected to look
after its little jina house, and had stopped making the annual sacrifices there.
One diviner is obliged to give her jina an offering and in addition a gift of
cola nuts to an old man every six weeks on a day called Saturday-
kìi
52
the day in the
Supyire calendar that she built her jina hut. If she neglects her duties, she is liable to
become insane.
5) To seek forgiveness and reconciliation. This is another sacrifice that is
performed at the annual festival. Each family brings a chicken to re-establish total
reconciliation with everyone.
The jinas in the village of Kabakanha have a horror of onions and indigo. So
with this chicken one asks the jinas to pardon sins committed against them, such as
cooking onions, washing the cooking pots in the stream they inhabit, washing clothes
in the wrong place, and washing indigo cloth in particular.
6) To inform the ancestors of some addition to the family or someone leaving.
When a child is born, a ceremony to announce its arrival to the ancestors is held in
the vestibule, with flour, or in some cases cinders, being poured on the doorway. The
ancestors are thereby charged to take care of the child, and, if necessary, to take its
life, if it strays from the traditions. Usually, when a girl gets married, she leaves her
home to live in her husband’s village. The groom’s family is expected to provide two
chickens for sacrifice, one for the ancestors of the bride’s village, and one for the
ancestors of the bride’s mother’s village. These sacrifices act to notify the forefathers
of the change of location of one of their family.
7) To help someone recently deceased get established in the village of the
ancestors. The ancestors’ lives resemble in many ways those of the living: they hunt,
cultivate and cook in their own village. Many of the funeral rites are aimed at
providing the deceased with the wherewithal for these activities. A black chicken is
killed on the site of the grave before it is dug; a female goat on the path while the
body is being carried to the grave. The following prayer has been recorded at the
52
See below (Appendix C, p.146) on the Supyire six-day week and seven-day week.
39
time of this sacrifice: “Here is your grave-diggers’ goat. When you arrive in the land
of the dead, share it with those who don’t have a goat.”
53
A family prosperous
enough to own a herd of cattle may sacrifice a cow for the deceased relative. One
man remarked: “If you build a cattle corral after the death of your father, you take a
cow and say, ‘My father, this is your share of the cows.’” In this way, the deceased is
provided with livestock so he can start his own farm work, share with his neighbours
and be happily integrated into the village of the ancestors. He will not feel neglected,
nor be tempted to come and seek his due rights and cause problems among the living.
To gain knowledge
1) To discern the cause of a problem. Often the first step a Supyire will take
when confronted with a difficult problem will be to seek the help of a diviner to
discover the source of the problem. Joyce Carlson documents one case where a
family consulted a diviner to discover why their mother had become insane.
Different diviners use different methods, one of which involves the killing of
chickens. Before a chicken is killed, two hypotheses are announced. If one
hypothesis is correct, then the chicken should fall on its stomach; if the other is
correct, then it should die on its back. The answer can be narrowed down by killing a
series of chickens answering a series of either-or questions.
In the case of the insane lady, they first asked if the madness was caused by
the jinas, and the answer was yes. Further questioning discovered which jinas were
responsible and what they required in order for the woman to be restored to her
senses.
When the problem has been discovered, the diviner also prescribes the
solution, which will usually involve a sacrifice either to ancestors or the jinas.
2) To determine whether a sacrifice has been accepted. One can tell whether
a cock sacrificed to the ancestors has been accepted by opening its stomach to
inspect the colour of its testicles. White shows approval, but if they are black, the
sacrifice needs to be redone. An alternative method (mentioned by Nawara Sagoro)
of discovering if an ancestor has been successfully appeased is to leave a bowl of
cooked cereal lying around. If it is devoured by some animal, then it is taken as a
53
Carlson, Dictionnaire Supyire-Francais, under the entry fanntugusika.
40
sign that the ancestors have eaten it and are happy to share food again with the
family.
If one is sacrificing to the jinas, their attitude can be determined by watching
how the chicken dies. After its throat is slit, it is allowed to flutter around. If it finally
falls and comes to rest on its back, that is taken to mean that the jinas are pleased.
But any other position shows that there is some outstanding problem that needs to be
addressed, and that may require further consultation with the diviner.
3) To determine the cause of a death. When a village chief who was the
owner of a fetish with a reputation for great power died, several hours were spent on
finding out who had caused his death. The fetish had to be consulted, using the
method of killing chickens and seeing which way they fall. The answer, however,
was seemingly already determined. The fetish itself had to be the agent of the death
of its owner; otherwise that would mean that there was something stronger than his
fetish had killed him, which was either inconceivable or too uncomfortable to
contemplate. So several hours were required until the chickens fell appropriately and
gave the right answer.
To deal with problems in relationships in the extended family
Sacrifices are seen as a powerful means for cutting through complicated
family disputes, which can stretch back over generations.
1) To ask forgiveness from an aggrieved ancestor. A Supyire farmer named
Bémé
54
died in the 1950s. He had had a troubled marriage; his wife had divorced
him. Ill and knowing he would not live long, he had called for his daughter Jeneba to
come and visit him, as is the Supyire custom. The daughter, who was married and
was living away in the Ivory Coast, did not come, as her husband had no money to
spare for her to travel. On Bémé’s death, it appears he cursed his daughter, saying,
“If I die before she comes back, may she suffer all her life.” Jeneba did not even
come for the funeral.
54
The author is grateful to Nawara Sagoro and to Joyce Carlson who both provided information on this
story.
41
Bémé’s ex-wife was bound to come to the funeral, and carry out certain
rituals, as she would still be considered his wife in the village of the ancestors. She
did attend the funeral, but left early without carrying out the necessary rituals.
Bémé was thus an ancestor snubbed by his ex-wife and his daughter. So when
Jeneba had difficulties in conceiving children—having just one daughter—it was
evident that her father was wreaking his revenge. She and her husband came back to
the village in the early 1960s to sacrifice a cock. She arrived at night, and found in
the morning that her clothes had been gnawed at by mice, though the clothes of
others were all intact. This was a bad sign, and when the elders confronted her later
in the morning she readily admitted she was wrong in not coming home earlier.
They called upon the services of an in-law, a narafoo
55
who came to pour
water on the altar of the ancestors and ask Bémé to pardon his daughter. A cock was
killed, plucked and roasted. Its testicles were inspected and found to be white; and so
it was declared that Jeneba had received pardon from her father, and she was free to
leave. In the mid 1960s, she and her husband had three boys in quick succession.
2) To reconcile ancestors quarrelling in the village of the dead. Although
Jeneba and her husband were successful in producing a family, as the children grew
into adults, they began to be dogged by ill fortune: epilepsy, unemployment,
dropping out of school, failing to find a husband. Jeneba herself contracted a form of
leprosy. After visiting diviners, it was realised that all was still not peaceful in the
village of the ancestors between her father Bémé and her mother who had died in the
late 1980s. The series of misfortunes was attributed to this continuing quarrel among
the dead.
So, in 1991, Jeneba and her husband returned to her home village to try and
sort out the problem once and for all. Instead of a simple sacrifice, they felt the
situation serious enough to warrant calling on the services of a member of the
Bugudugu family that has a
zìükunü›
56
relationship with their family. He is able to
play a significant part in the reconciliation because in normal circumstances, he has
nothing to do with the family. As an outsider he can say whatever needs to be said,
and be out of reach of any offended party who may wish to take revenge.
55
See p.19.
56
See pp.19-20.
42
The family elders gathered in the vestibule, and the husband of Jeneba
explained the whole history. The village chief then repeated this. A cock and a small
coin were taken and given to Bémé with the prayer that he accept his wife. A second
cock was then given to resolve the conflict between them. Now they had no more
right to be in disagreement.
Finally, the
zìükunü›
poured water as a symbol of cooling the heated
relationship and said, “I pour this water on the altar of the [family] ancestors. The
disagreement between you and your wife ... I put an end to that for today, and for
tomorrow. I ask you to take her as your wife in the village of the dead. I ask you both
to sleep on your bad hands and bring out your good hands for your children and
grandchildren.”
Finally, as the traditional means of distancing himself again from the whole
family, he insulted everyone, even the ancestors, “You are false, spoilt, and
untrustworthy.” He then took the calabash and the two cocks, still alive, and left the
village, talking to no one on the way. He could do with the cocks what he wanted,
the only rule being that no one from Jeneba’s family could eat them.
To ward off evil
1) Problems caused by jinas. As jinas are seen ambivalently, sometimes
bringing good, sometimes evil, the Supyire on occasion make sacrifices to them to
persuade them not to repeat their harmful activity.
A family who loses more than one child will attribute that to the jinas taking
back those children that they fancy. To prevent this reoccurring, several courses of
action may be attempted; for example, the family may move house to avoid the
attention the jinas, or the next child may be named “Ugly child” or something similar
to show the jinas that it is not worth taking. In addition, a sacrifice may be made to
the jinas, or a vow saying that they will make an offering if the next child lives.
The family of a teenager who had raped a younger girl believed that he had
been driven to do it by a jina, and killed a large ram for the jina to try to persuade it
to leave their son alone. Apparently it was in vain, as he repeated the offence months
later.
43
2) Curses. Words are believed to have great power. Once uttered, they take
on a life of their own to bring about what was spoken. Faced with such a curse, a
Supyire will often make a sacrifice to ward off the evil directed towards him.
The curse may be connected to an action, such as defecating on the doorstep
of the one who is the object of the curse. One old man testified in church that he
found in his field that someone had cut off the head of a snake, and wrapped up as if
it were a corpse ready for burial. His family counselled him to bring chickens to their
fetish in order to rebuff the curse.
3) Misfortune. If a wife is barren or if her husband falls ill after their
marriage, a diviner may pronounce her to be the bearer of ill fortune. As a remedy a
chicken is killed on the trunk a jatigifahanga, a parasitic tree. The tree is believed to
have taken the ill fortune on itself and will die within three months. The leaves of the
tree are taken and boiled, and the husband will drink the potion and wash himself
with it, and will be cured.
On one occasion, we noticed an ear of roasted corn hanging at just above
head height over a major path from the village to the fields. We were told that it was
a sacrifice to the jinas with the object of getting rid of a burden or problem. The idea
behind it is that the burden will fall on those who pass underneath the sacrifice, and
thus the present sufferer will be rid of it.
If a diviner sees some hot problem on the horizon for a client, such as a house
fire, lightning or an accident involving rifles, he may counsel using a red cloth (red
being a dangerous colour) as protection, by tying it to a tree. Again, the idea is to
pass on the problem to another, or to tie it to someone terminally ill who could accept
such an object with equanimity.
4)
¤…m….
We noted above (p.18) that when a hunter kills his prey, or a soldier
kills someone, he will seek to protect themselves (by means of some sacrifice)
against revenge attack from the life force (
¤…m…
) of the one killed. Robert Carlson
writes, “a person can also be attacked by the
¤…m…
of his own actions”
57
He cites in
evidence the Supyire phrase “the
¤…m…
of his/her own action has seized him.”
58
This
57
Carlson “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, p.11.
58
Carlson “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, p.11.
44
is seen as something external to the person. Carlson explains the Supyire mind on
this as follows: “The consequences of my action do not arise from myself, but are an
external force which I may be able to protect myself from by means of making
certain offerings, wearing a certain type of clothing, or enlisting the aid of a fetish.”
59
5) The earth being spoilt. As we have noted (p.25), the Supyire see the earth
(or bush land) outside the village as animated and in a mystical union with the sky.
Their oral tradition is that God told their forefathers that the earth could be spoiled in
three ways. Firstly, if human blood is spilt on it through an assault or murder.
Secondly, if sexual relations take place on the earth, rather than inside a village.
Lastly, if farming is carried out on a Monday, one is liable to cut a large snake-like
creature believed to live under the soil whose blood spoils the earth as human blood
does.
If the earth in a certain locality is spoilt, then according to one relative of the
family of earth owners, an inhabitant of the village of Molasso, “
Kile
(sky/God)
agrees to reign in kingship, and measures off that place and leaves it: the rain does
not reach there.” The chief of the ancient village of Buwara himself put it like this:
“If the earth is spoiled, it ... rises and takes the sky, and stops the rain from coming.”
If it is known or suspected that the earth has been spoilt, because the crops
are poor or the rains are failing (or indeed if, on occasion, there is too much rain)
then one calls for help from the owner of the earth at Buwara. He or a delegate from
his family will go to the area spoilt and perform sacrifices out in the fields, away
from public view. The owners of the earth carry a risk in doing their duty as they
believe that if, within three days of their sacrifices, they have not succeeded in
causing rain to fall, then before long whoever carried them out will die.
To punish a wrongdoer
Physical punishment is very rare among the Supyire. What is much more
common is seeking supernatural help to carry out punishment, as we saw in the case
of the old man who sacrificed to the ancestors, so that they would punish and kill his
son who had forsaken Supyire traditions (see above p.26).
59
Carlson “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, p.11.
45
As another case shows, it is not necessary to know who committed the
offence—one can ask the fetish to find that out. A young girl came across a wallet
full of money on the way home from the fields. She left it alone, but told her family.
The traveller who had dropped it was told, but could not find the wallet. He accused
the girl’s family of stealing it, and the 2,000 francs it held. The father of the girl went
to the Kono fetish with a chicken, saying that it should find the person who took the
money and plague him until he gave back 4,000 francs. If he refused to give this it
should kill him. A couple of days later, the woman who had in fact taken the money
grew ill. Later on, someone said that he smelt the odour of a corpse in the village.
This was enough to persuade the woman to confess and pay the 4,000 francs.
The fear of the power of the fetishes is so strong that just the knowledge that
someone has consulted one is often enough to force a thief to confess to his crime.
To gain power through sorcery
In pre-colonial times, warrior chiefs would make sacrifices to gain advantage
over their enemies. In modern times, rumours circulate during election time about
candidates resorting to similar means to gain an advantage in the polls. The word
“rumours” must be emphasised here, because it is in this area that we move from
sacrifices that are public, open and generally acceptable to the Supyire population, to
those that are secret, shady and looked on with suspicion, fear and distaste.
It is the very nature of the subject that makes it difficult to discern fact from
fantasy. What can be affirmed though is that the fear of sorcery is very real, and that
groups of sorcerers are popularly believed to offer human children from their own
extended families in order to qualify to be part of the group and gain power for the
group. One man explained it in this way: the sorcerer who takes the life of a child
will gain the extra years of that child’s life. In so doing, he or she may live a very
long life until his mental powers give up on him and he can no longer carry out the
secret rites.
Other powers attributed to sorcerers include: to render oneself invisible; to
walk through walls; to change one’s enemy into an animal and kill them in a hunt; to
change sticks into snakes which will attack an enemy; to effect abortions.
Traditionally, it is supposed that men and women without children are
sorcerers—the logic being that they must have given up their children for this
purpose.
46
To dedicate some object or place to the jinas
Specific objects such as a blacksmith’s tool or a musician’s balaphone may
be dedicated to the jinas with a sacrifice in order that its use may bring blessing.
Similarly, to establish a new village market, a sacrifice to the jinas to bless the new
venture is customary. Nawara Sagoro has said that at one market where this was
done,
60
on market day there is a sound over and above that of the normal throng at
the market and that is the sound of the jinas.
3.4 SACRIFICE THROUGH SUPYIRE EYES
Having looked at the forms of Supyire sacrifice, and then the reasons they
carry them out, we now turn to explore how sacrifice fits together with other themes
in the Supyire worldview, and what the Supyire believe is happening when they
carry out a sacrifice. The themes in Supyire worldview that we will consider are the
following:
Village and family cohesion
Fertility
Limited good
Pragmatic man-centred religion
Gift and counter-gift
Intermediary
Superstition and tradition
Dualism
Ambivalent attitude to the supernatural.
Village and family cohesion
As noted above, the identity and prosperity of a Supyire is bound up with that
of the village community and especially the family clan—both living and dead. In
order to be fully a part of that community, sacrifices are carried out at key moments
60
At the village of Zanférébougou .
47
of transition: at birth, marriage and death. At birth, to inform the ancestors of the
arrival a new member of the clan; at marriage, to make them aware of the change of
residence of the bride; and at death, they are vital for the safe change of residence to
the village of the dead. These rites are seen as a vital contribution to the continued
cohesion of the clan.
Equally, the sacrifices to the ancestors during the annual village festival
maintain an ongoing communication between the living and the dead, and ensure that
those who have gone before are respected and content. At this week-long festival, the
whole community is involved: each family brings sacrifices, the young people dance
and sing, and everyone participates in the feast. A united family eats together; and
through the eating together of the sacrificial meat, the village community, living and
dead, is drawn together and gains strength through solidarity.
Should the peace and unity be disturbed through lack of respect or by not
upholding tradition or for some other reason, again it is a sacrifice that is required to
restore harmony.
Fertility
Linked with the theme of the family is that of fertility. A Supyire man or
woman is only really part of the community once they are married and have
produced offspring. In producing, preferably numerous, children, they contribute to
the continued success of the family and leave behind descendants who will continue
to remember and honour them in the village of the dead. Escudero comments that for
the Supyire “life constitutes the supreme value, so that the ideal for man, his ultimate
end, is to live life to its greatest intensity (meaning longevity and numerous
descendants).”
61
Indeed, unless they do have at least one child, they will not be entitled to the
honour of a full adult funeral—they will be buried in a separate graveyard with the
children and strangers. So singleness and infertility are viewed with dread, and are
the occasion for many sacrifices pleading for marriage partners and for children.
61
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.340 (my
translation).
48
Limited good
While infertility is openly acknowledged as a threat to the growth and success
of the family, another threat which is probably more hidden and deep-rooted under
the surface of the Supyire mindset is what has been called the concept of limited
good. This concept has been posited by observers of different cultures in West Africa
and can be explained as follows: There is only a limited amount of good, which has
to be shared around everybody. If one person is successful, he is taking more than his
fair share of the good. Thus he becomes the object of jealousy.
There is evidence for this among the Supyire. Naba
62
was a successful farmer
who had many cows. His fields were burnt time and again, and he was chased from
one village to another by jealous neighbours.
Often jealousy leads to making sacrifices, linked to curses, which are aimed
at upsetting the success of another. The underlying logic is that as a result of the
curse, there will be more good for the rest to share. In contrast to the sacrifices
celebrated by the whole community, mentioned above, these sacrifices will be done
in secret. It is important to keep, even if only as an outward veneer, the appearance of
family harmony, but sacrifices made out of fear and jealousy often belie this
appearance of peace.
Pragmatic man-centred religion
Another important aspect of Supyire religion that is common to many African
traditional religions is that it is man-centred and pragmatic in that good and evil are
not defined in terms of moral absolutes; rather events are judged as good or evil in
how they affect oneself.
The Supyire finds themselves in a universe populated by a host of seen and
unseen people, beings, and forces, sometimes friendly, sometimes hostile. Sacrifice
is used as the principle means to gain as many allies and as much support for power
and status and ward off any malevolent forces ranged against them.
Those offering the sacrifice may try and see what is the minimum they can
get away with to secure the desired end. For instance, Joyce Carlson notes an
occasion when she saw the remaining feathers and blood from a sacrificed chicken
lying on a path. She discovered that it had been made for the sacred fish of Ifola, the
62
For a fuller account of his story, see above, p.13.
49
village lying several kilometres along the path, and concluded that the offerer did not
have time to go to the sacred pool itself. If some sacrifice or rite does not work, it
can be jettisoned in favour of a more efficacious source of power. We have heard one
report of a fetish that did not produce results, which was taken out and beaten by its
owner.
Gift and counter-gift
The pragmatic thinking behind Supyire sacrifice is further demonstrated
when sacrifice is compared with the dynamics behind the giving of gifts.
If you see a bowl of millet paste doing the rounds in the village, it is either
being given to say thanks for a past gift, or to signal that one will be requiring
something in the future. Things are given with an unspoken, but very real, obligation
for the favour to be returned at some time. So the family that receives millet paste, in
return for a favour they have done in the past, may decide to pass on the same millet
paste to someone who needs it, in order to store up goodwill for the future.
This theme of gift and counter-gift can be seen in all aspects of life.
Negotiating a bride for a family traditionally requires a series of gifts stretching over
a number of years. To invite chiefs of a neighbouring village to attend the opening a
new market, one is obliged to send presents of meat along with the invitation, with
the expectation that they will repay by honouring the occasion with their presence.
Talking of the days when cowry shells served as currency, one old man Ladji
Bogodogo said “My father used to distribute about 3,000 cowries and receive about
5,000 during the festival.”
63
Diarra
64
writes that it is not the size of the gift that
counts for the Supyire, but rather the meaning. The continual round of gifts and
counter-gifts draws members of the community into an ever tighter web of
interlocking and interdependent relationships. Even the closest friendship is
formalised by the giving and receiving of gifts.
This way of thinking then carries over into the use of sacrifices. It is most
clearly seen in the use of vows: “If you give me success, I will bring you a chicken.”
Gifts to the ancestors, jinas or fetishes put them under an obligation to help in
return. On occasion, the assumption comes clearly to the surface, when the divinity
63
Quoted in Diarra, Le Pori, Une Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo, p.30 (my translation).
64
Diarra, Le Pori, Une Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo, p.28 (my translation).
50
has not fulfilled its obligation. While sacrificing a chicken, one man threatened the
recipient: “If you do not answer, next year all you will get is a young immature
chicken who cannot sing.”
During the drought-ridden years of the mid 1980s, one prayer to the jinas
during the annual festival ran:
“Children are dying in the village. It is not the fault of any person. It is the
fault of the jinas themselves. It is necessary to say this to you, so that you take
notice, and you intervene to prevent it happening to us during the night, and
you intervene to prevent it happening to us during the day. Here is the chicken
which precedes the sacrifice of the sheep.”
Intermediaries
Intermediaries have two principle functions in relations among the Supyire
people. Firstly, they act as independent buffers; if there are tensions between parties
they can give vent to their feelings to the intermediary without directly offending the
other party, and thus preserve the relationship between the negotiating parties. This is
particularly important in a culture where words spoken are particularly powerful and
potentially dangerous. This role is equally important for negotiations between the
living and the dead, as was demonstrated by the family of Jeneba calling on a
zìükunü›
to carry out the sacrifice to her offended father.
65
Under normal
circumstances
zìükunmpii
have no serious dealings with one another, but
communicate by joking and bantering one another. This serves to emphasise their
mutual independence—they have no duties or obligations to one another. It is this
very independence which is so important in negotiating with the ancestors. Since
they are outside the family, the ancestors have no power over them and so the
zìükunü›
can conduct a sacrifice and related negotiations without fear of retribution.
Secondly, the use of intermediaries ensures that transactions are carried out in
public. This is most important because acting alone is always seen as suspicious. If a
Supyire man, out of sympathy, tries to help a widow, without giving his gift through
an intermediary, he will be automatically assumed to be doing so in return for sexual
favours. Private sacrifices similarly attract suspicion. The natural conclusion a
65
See pp.40-41.
51
Supyire would draw from someone performing a sacrifice alone is that he is seeking
supernatural help to harm another.
Respect for age
In Supyire society, the respect one receives increases with age and
experience. This ties in with the respect shown to the ancestors in remembering them
with gifts. “We know that our dead fathers are in a certain place, and therefore we
honour them.” The jinas were in the land even before the forefathers of the Supyire,
and they too receive due honour.
Tradition and superstition
For the Supyire, the path is a strong image of the power of tradition. Once a
path through the bush has been opened, it is natural for others to follow it. One strays
from the path (i.e. the traditions) of the ancestors at one’s peril. Hence many
traditions such as circumcision are carried out even after the original rationale for
them has long been forgotten. The reason for killing a black chicken on the site of a
grave is the subject of speculation rather than any firm knowledge.
Events also follow paths traced out for them in the past. So if something
favourable happened on a certain day of the week, that day will be the path for more
good. Thus each village builds up a calendar of auspicious and inauspicious days (or
combinations of days in the six-day and seven-day weeks
66
) for certain rituals and
sacrifices.
Performing a sacrifice is fairly mechanistic. If one follows the tradition,
performs the prescribed actions and says the correct words in the right order, then
that should produce certain results. If it does not, for example, if a chicken dies on
its stomach indicating that an offering has been rejected, then something has gone
wrong in the procedure. The diviner may then be consulted to discover what went
wrong, and the sacrifice may have to be repeated several times before one gets
the desired result. In one village festival in Kabakanha, when three out of four
chickens sacrificed to the jinas were rejected, the eldest of the women started
hunting around on the ground for some reason. Then the jinas spoke to her and
told her that the man who had been delegated by the old blind chief to do the
66
See Appendix C: The Supyire Calendar, p.146.
52
sacrifices had refused to do it. That was the reason for the displeasure of the jinas.
So this man was called on, and when he killed two more chickens, they were both
accepted.
Duality
Supyire naturally think in dualistic terms; every phenomenon has its opposite,
and the two opposites make up the whole. For example, day (when humans work)
and night (when ancestors and jinas work) make up the totality of time; village
(domestic and safe) and bush (untamed and inhabited by wild beasts and jinas) make
up the world; men and women make up humanity; men are represented in rituals by
the number four and women by the number three, with their sum seven being the
complete, perfect number. There is a village of the living (where people are right
handed), and there is a village for the dead (where one becomes left-handed).
It is important that the two sides of any realm are kept apart. There is danger
when the two come too close in contact. Indeed, there are usually nefarious
consequences. One does not go out into the bush at night, for fear of encountering the
spirits. Sexual relations should be confined to the village; otherwise the earth gets
spoiled. Men generally live very separate lives from their wives: they have different
roles, expertise, areas of knowledge; the idea of making joint decisions is quite
foreign.
This dualistic thinking impacts on Supyire sacrifice in a variety of ways:
1. Sacrifices are required to avoid two sides of a duality coming into too close
contact (for example, sacrifices ensure that a deceased person happily settles in
the village of the ancestors and is not left roaming the village of the living).
2. They are similarly required to repair the damage done when the relationship has
been upset (as when the owners of the earth have to repair the earth).
3. Often the perfect number seven figures in the sacrifice which a diviner prescribes
to deal with a problem. It could be the wearing of a piece of clothing made up of
seven long painted strips of cloth. Again, he may tie seven knots in a cloth while
holding it to his mouth and speaking into it the necessary words.
4. Only domestic animals raised in the village are acceptable as sacrifices. Wild
animals and birds do not belong to villagers and so are not appropriate to offer.
Domestic animals belong to the offerer in a way that a wild animal does not, so in
sacrificing them you are in a way sacrificing part of yourself.
53
Funeral rites clearly demonstrate the dualistic thinking. The wealth (cowry
shells or coins) that the deceased accumulated during his lifetime is thrown away, the
pots are broken over the grave, and the goat and possibly the chicken are killed to
provide a start for the deceased’s livestock.
Here it seems we are close to the heart of the Supyire idea of sacrifice. The
throwing away, or the destruction or sacrifice of something belonging to one on this
side of the domain, can be beneficial for someone on the other side. One’s loss is the
other’s gain.
Ambivalent attitude to the supernatural
Supyire people have mixed feelings towards the supernatural. They see the
need to harness the power available there, but also have a fear of coming too close to
beings who are not always favourably disposed towards them. The view of sacrifice
is similarly mixed. While it is the channel to receive blessings and power, it is
potentially very dangerous. One needs to exercise caution to avoid incurring their
wrath. The head and feet of the black chicken that is sacrificed on the site of the
grave are put in a small earthen pot and taken off and hidden away in the graveyard;
if someone else should happen to touch it, he would get ill in the head and die. The
rest of the chicken is given to the family of the deceased to be cooked and shared.
Any man could eat it except if he had committed adultery with the deceased, in
which case partaking would result in falling ill and death.
We have seen that the Supyire use of sacrifice is multi-faceted. It is viewed as
a practical, if potentially dangerous, means of gaining favour with the unseen beings
and forces—those who determine the outcome of life’s quest for status and a large,
united and successful family. The benefits are considered to outweigh the dangers, as
evidenced by the multitude of sacrifices that continue to be performed.
54
3.5 SUPYIRE VOCABULARY IN THE DOMAIN OF SACRIFICE
By way of a conclusion to this study of the Supyire concept of sacrifice, I
tabulate below the words in this domain found in Robert Carlson’s Supyire-French
dictionary,
67
and make some general observations concerning this vocabulary which
should be pertinent when it comes to consider the possibilities for translating the
various sacrifices.
Figure 3: Supyire vocabulary in the domain of sacrifice
Verbs: to sacrifice
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
b•
kill
kill for (a divinity)
k››n
cut throat
cut the throat (sacrifice implicit)
kw–
die
die (sacrifice implicit)
lw›he wu
pour water
make a libation
¤w› kan
give mouth
1. make a vow
2. give someone over to (a divinity)
pˆe
make large
honour
sÃraga ww–
lift off a sacrifice
make a sacrifice
sun
worship
make religious offerings;
worship;
offer religious cult to
kanhe sun
worship the village
celebrate the annual village festival
during which sacrifices are offered to
the guardian spirits of the village
Nouns: sacrifice
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
luwuni
water + pour +
NOM.68
action of offering a libation
sÃraga
sacrifice, offering
sunüke
sun = offer a sacrifice
+ NOM.
action of offering a sacrifice
yaaüa
yaa = repair + NOM.
sacrifice or ceremony to set something
right which has been spoiled
zun
sun = offer a sacrifice
+ NOM.
celebration or offering to a fetish or
other object of cult worship
67
Carlson, Dictionnaire Supyire-Francais (unpublished).
68
NOM. = Nominaliser, an affix which transforms a verb into a noun.
55
Types of sacrifice
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
cîîre ük—bilini
Divination + chicken
chicken sacrificed for divination
buüi k…sanraga
sÃragaüi
Corpse + the last +
sacrifice
corpse’s last sacrifice
ük—pîn
Chicken + be bad
tasting
sacrificed chicken which falls on its
side or stomach, signifying that the
sacrifice is not accepted or that the
answer to the question is no
ük—tan
Chicken + be sweet
sacrificed chicken that falls on back,
signifying that the sacrifice is accepted
or that the answer to the question is
yes
Places for sacrifice
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
cìzunyi
Species of tree (plural)
+ worship
sacred grove of ciüî trees
kafugo
the ensemble of sacrificial sites in a
village
j¡nabaga
jinn + house
jinn house
k…jicyîgî
place on the path to the graveyard for
sacrifice of goat
serege
half wall
half wall in the vestibule which serves
as an altar for ancestors
tasunmbw›he
place + worship +
large
principal place of sacrifice in a village
¤cw•sunüke
pool + worship
sacred pool
tasunüke
place + worship
altar;
place of sacrifice
Recipients of sacrifice
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
d…haba
sacred pot
üÃütanhii
twins + winnowing
basket
fetish made of small winnowing
baskets joined, symbolising twins and
put inside a calabash
dÃmbaa
trust + without
fetish to which strangers to the village
who were not trusted were sacrificed
kacyiin
fetish
56
Other compound nouns with the verb sun
Supyire
Literal gloss
Free translation
kacyinzun
fetish + worship
fetish worshiper/fetish priest
kasunni
thing + worship
reason for sacrifice
sunükanni
worship + way of
doing
method of sacrifice
The following remarks may be made concerning the above vocabulary.
1.
SÃraga
has been borrowed from Arabic via Bambara/Jula, where it can refer to
all sorts of offerings of a religious or quasi-religious significance: for example,
animals sacrificed to God, alms, gifts at a naming ceremony for infants which are
reciprocated by a blessing for the child.
69
In Supyire, too,
sÃraga
is the word for
sacrifice with the widest semantic domain. It includes all kinds of bloody and
non-bloody sacrifices, to God or to gods. It may be used of gift with a religious
significance, such as alms by those who are Muslim, or a gift prescribed by a
diviner as a means of dealing with a problem.
2. The Supyire have not only borrowed certain divinities like the jinas from their
dominant Bambara neighbours, but also the word for worshipping them, sun. The
use of the word implies that one is dealing either with these lesser divinities, or
fetishes or ancestors. Like their Bambara neighbours, they do not sun the creator
God.
3. In many contexts,
sÃraga
and sun can be used interchangeably, and may even be
combined in one sentence side by side as in the following excerpt from a
conversation recorded by Robert Carlson:
70
“Every year, when the year changes,
they go and offer sacrifices in each of those [sacred places]. It is the sacrifices of
those [sacred places] that you see are given (
sÃraga ww–
) and offered in
worship (
sun
).”
4. It is fairly common for the idea of sacrifice to be left implicit, as it is readily
supplied by the context and by the ideas of killing or death that are explicit, as in
the following examples that are literally translated from Supyire.
69
Goerling, Fritz, The Use of Islamic Theological Terminology in Bible Translation and
Evangelism among the Jula in Côte d’Ivoire, Masters of Arts Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary,
1989, p.117.
70
In Supyire dialogue, a speaker will often make the same point in more than one way.
57
“When a fetish worshipper cuts the chicken’s throat, he pours the blood on
the fetish.”
“Let us catch this chicken to come kill it for the people of the pool”
(i.e. “let us sacrifice it for the purposes of divination at the sacred pool
where the jinas live”).
“It is a sheep that dies there.”
“We went to Cwoono of Nangola and he did divination and said we that
we must come and pour water
71
to the dead, and then wait for the
outcome.”
5. Supyire has a large number of compound nouns; this is illustrated by the number
of compounds with the verb sun in the above table.
We shall return to the question of vocabulary in chapter eight when we
consider how to translate the biblical terms in this domain.
71
“To pour water” is a common way of making an offering and the term in itself implies a sacrificial
rite.
58
4. SACRIFICE IN RELATION TO HOLINESS
4.1 SACRIFICE AND HOLINESS IN THE SCHEME OF
LEVITICUS
The first seven chapters of Leviticus comprise regulations for the
performance by the people of Yahweh of five kinds of sacrifice. The importance of
these regulations is shown by their detailed nature and their place at the start of the
book of Leviticus. It is necessary, though, to remember that Leviticus is intimately
linked in the Pentateuch with the book of Exodus. As Levine observes: “Leviticus
takes its cue from the covenantal charge delivered in Exod 19:5-6: ‘Indeed, all the
earth is Mine, but you shall be My kingdom of priests and holy nation.’”
72
Exodus
describes how Yahweh delivered his people from Egypt, how he set out the covenant
binding on the two parties, and then, how he intends to dwell among his people in the
tabernacle. We may summarise the major sections of Exodus 19 to the end of
Leviticus as follows:
Figure 4: Structure of Exodus 19 – Leviticus 27
Exod 19- 24
The Covenant and its ratification
Exod 25- 27
Instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle
Exod 28-31
Instructions for the consecration of the priests
Exod 32-34
The idolatry of the golden calf and the second recording of the
covenant
Exod 35-40
Account of the construction of the Tabernacle
Lev 1:1 - 6:7
Instructions to Israelite laity on sacrifices
Lev 6:8 - 7:21
Instructions to priesthood on sacrifices
Lev 7:22-34
Instructions to Israelite laity on sacrifices
Lev 8-10
Account of the consecration of the priests
Lev 11-15
The clean and the unclean
Lev 16
The Day of Atonement
72
Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1989, p.xi.
59
Lev 17-25
Laws on holy living
Lev 26
Blessings and punishments
Lev 27
Laws on vows and offerings
At the end of Exodus, Moses sets up the tabernacle and the glory of Yahweh
fills it: “So the cloud of Yahweh was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the
cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel during all their travels” (Exod
40:38). The book of Leviticus then starts with a waw-consecutive, indicating clearly
that this is the next part of the same story: “Then Yahweh called to Moses and spoke
to him from the meeting tent, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel: When a man among
you brings an offering to Yahweh from animals ... ” (my translation).
Setting the Levitical sacrifices in this context helps to determine their
essential purpose. Yahweh’s desire was to have a dwelling among the people he had
rescued from slavery. He set out in great detail how the tabernacle and its furnishings
should be constructed. Finally, he took up residence there.
However, there is still an unresolved tension: there remains a barrier
preventing the intimate relationship that God intended to have with man, made in his
image (Gen 1:27), pictured at the start of the Pentateuch in the Garden of Eden. The
barrier is the rebellion of man, for “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil all the time” (Gen 6:6). The rift is so widespread that even Moses cannot
enter the meeting tent because it was filled with God’s glory (Exod 40:35). If even
Yahweh’s spokesman cannot enter, what hope is there for the future of the
relationship?
Yet, Leviticus emphasises that there is hope. “You shall be holy for I, the
LORD your God, am holy” (19:2) has been termed the motto of the book.
73
The
tension is resolved as Yahweh provides a way for the people to be holy and to enjoy
again an intimate relationship with him, and that way has at its heart the system of
sacrifices.
73
Wenham, Gordon J., The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, p.18.
60
4.2 WHAT DOES HOLINESS MEAN IN LEVITICUS?
As holiness is such a key concept, it is essential to examine what it means
before going on to study the different sacrifices in detail. Milgrom defines holiness
as “that which is unapproachable except through divinely imposed restrictions” or
“that which is withdrawn from common use.”
74
He examines holiness in Semitic
polytheism where natural objects such as certain trees or rivers have supernatural
force and are unpredictably dangerous.
75
He contrasts this with the Bible. “Holiness
there is not innate. The source of holiness is assigned to God alone. ... If certain
things are termed holy ... they are so by virtue of divine dispensation.”
76
The holiness of God
God describes himself as holy (Lev 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:20; 21:8). He is
certainly different ontologically from man, but as Cole comments, “The separateness
or difference of God from men is not merely that of two different orders of being.
It is in His moral nature that the God of Israel is different: therefore ‘holiness’ in
Israel has a moral content.”
77
He reveals something of his character in the ten
commandments (Exod 20).
God’s holiness has two ramifications for Israelite sacrifice. First, all offerings
are to be brought to Yahweh (Lev 1:2). He brooks no rival: no other deity, heavenly
creature or intermediary is to receive any sacrifice. Second, the method of sacrifice is
determined by God and not according to the wishes or imagination of the people.
Leviticus prohibits the sacrifice of children to the deity Molech as it would breach
both these principles and profane God’s name (Lev 20:2f). When two of Aaron’s
sons make an unauthorised offering and are consumed by a fire from Yahweh,
“Moses said to Aaron: this is what the LORD spoke of when he said:
‘Among those who approach me I will show myself holy;
In the sight of all the people I will be honoured.’” (Lev 10:3)
There is little else that directly defines what is meant by the holiness of God,
but as Malina comments, “God-talk or theology necessarily consists in comparisons
drawn from human experience. God, too, will be described in terms of the concerns
74
Quoted in Sawyer, John F.A., ed., Reading Leviticus, A Conversation with Mary Douglas, Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 227; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996, p.65.
75
In Sawyer, Reading Leviticus, A Conversation with Mary Douglas, p.65.
76
In Sawyer, Reading Leviticus, A Conversation with Mary Douglas, p.65f.
77
Cole, Alan, Exodus, An Introduction and Commentary; IVP: Leicester, 1973, p.22.
61
of society ... God will be described as complete, whole, perfect, and this perfection
will be discernible in God’s relationship to God’s people and God’s world.”
78
So as
we look at what holiness means as it is worked out in Israelite society, we will at the
same time gain a fuller picture of God’s holiness.
Holy people, things, times and places
Apart from God, members of certain domains in the human world have the
potential to be holy: people, priests, garments, offerings, places, and occasions. Since
God is holy, then anything associated with him or his service is also considered holy.
The location for the sacrifices: the tabernacle
The drama of the Israelite sacrifices was to take place in the environment of
the tabernacle (Lev 17:8-9) where God dwelt, also known as the tent of meeting (the
place where God met with his people or their leader) or the sanctuary. Yahweh gave
Moses detailed construction plans (Ex. 25:8-9). “The tabernacle was tripartite: one
entering the outer court could proceed directly forward to the holy place, and the
most holy place (the holy of holies) is directly behind the holy place.”
79
This most
holy place contained the ark of the covenant, a chest containing the tablets inscribed
with the decalogue. A slab of pure gold rested on top, with a cherub at each end
resting on top. These symbolised a throne with God enthroned above them. The most
expensive colours and metals were used nearest the ark, as a symbol of its holiness.
As one moved away from the ark, less valuable materials were used.
The priesthood
One of the twelve tribes of Israel, Levi, was set aside to assist in the
performance of religious rites, and to educate the people on what God expected of
them (Lev 1:2). Within the tribe, the family of Aaron was given special status as high
priests and the responsibility of serving in the holy place and the most holy place in
the tabernacle. The close connection between the priests and the tabernacle was
emphasised symbolically by similar colours in priestly clothing and tabernacle cloth.
78
Malina, B., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology; Westminster: John
Knox Press, 1993, p.158.
79
Ryle, Wilbert and Tremper Longman III, (eds.), Dictionary of Biblical Images; Leicester and
Illinois: IVP, 1998, p.837.
62
The priest’s role in the sacrificial rites was to represent Israel to their God, and to
represent God to his people.
Animals: unclean, clean and sacrificial
Leviticus divides animals into the clean and the unclean. Eating unclean
animals was forbidden (Lev 11), and touching the carcass of one entailed temporary
uncleanness (Lev 11:24), which meant that the person could not approach the
tabernacle. Among the clean animals, certain species were considered appropriate to
be sacrificed.
The social anthropologist Mary Douglas seeks to relate the distinctions
among animals to all the laws on holiness found in Leviticus. She argues that
holiness means separateness, wholeness and perfection:
“Much of Leviticus is taken up with stating the physical perfection that is
required of things presented in the temple and of persons approaching it. The
animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish, women must be purified
after childbirth, and lepers should be separated and ritually cleansed before
being allowed to approach it once they are cured. All bodily discharges are
defiling and disqualify from approach to the temple. Priests may only come
into contact with death when their own close kin die. But the high priest must
never have contact with death ... In short, the idea of holiness was given an
external, physical expression in the wholeness of the body seen as a perfect
container.”
80
Douglas argues that the same idea of wholeness is carried over into the
categorisation of the animal world which is divided into three categories in Genesis:
those that fly in the air, those that walk on the land and those that swim in the sea
(Gen 1:20-30). Wenham summarises Douglas’ argument well: “Each sphere has a
particular mode of motion associated with it. Birds have two wings with which to fly
and two feet for walking; fish have fins and scales with which to swim; land animals
have hoofs to run with. The clean animals are those that conform to these standard
80
Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Pollution and Taboo; London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1966, p.51-52.
63
pure types. Those creatures which in some way transgress the boundaries are
unclean. Thus fish without fins and scales are unclean ... ”
81
There is a parallel between holiness required in humans (conformity to moral
and physical norms) and cleanness in animals (conformity to the norms of the animal
group to which they belong). Further the “threefold division of animals—unclean,
clean and sacrificial—parallels the divisions of mankind, the unclean, i.e. those
excluded from the camp of Israel, the clean, i.e. the majority of ordinary Israelites,
and those who offer sacrifice, i.e. the priests.”
82
Holy and common, clean and unclean
The high priest Aaron and his descendants were instructed as follows: “You
must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the clean and the
unclean” (Lev 10:10). So there is here a double contrast:
1. What is holy is opposed to what is common.
2. What is clean is opposed to what is unclean.
Wenham’s analysis of these contrasts in Leviticus can be summarised as
follows:
83
Everything that is not holy is common.
Common things divide into two groups, the clean and the unclean.
Cleanness is an intermediate state between holiness and uncleanness.
The diagram below sets out the relationships between the holy, the clean and the
unclean, how moving from one state to another is described and how it is
effected.
81
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.169.
82
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.170.
83
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.19.
64
Figure 5: Dynamics of sacrifice sin and infirmity in Leviticus
Cleanness is the usual intermediate state of most persons and things. (This
implies that what is holy is set apart as somehow special.)
Clean things become holy when they are sanctified, but unclean objects cannot be
sanctified.
Clean things can be made unclean, if they are polluted.
Holy items may be profaned and become common. They may even be polluted
and made unclean.
The unclean and the holy are two states that must never come into contact with
each other. For instance, if an unclean person eats part of a sacrificial animal,
which is holy food, he will be cut off from his people (Lev 7:20-21).
Sin and impurity cause profanation and pollution, while the offering of sacrifices
reverses the process and brings cleansing and sanctification.
Jenson
84
sees Wenham’s scheme as a useful starting point but somewhat
over-simplified. It can be refined in various ways to reflect more accurately the
Levitical picture.
1) The impression from the scheme is that the steps between the holy, clean
and unclean are regular and uniform, but this does not reflect the priestly emphases.
Jenson writes, “Although Wenham introduces a ‘profane’ step for the step from a
84
Jenson, Philip, Graded Holiness, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 106;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992, p.47.
S
A
C
R
I
F
I
C
E
HOLY
sanctify profane
CLEAN
cleanse pollute
UNCLEAN
S
I
N
&
I
M
P
U
R
I
T
Y
65
holy to a clean step, this is primarily to retain the symmetry of the diagram rather
than to reflect Priestly vocabulary.”
85
Jenson suggests it is to better to think of the divine sphere (represented by the
holy and its opposite, the common) and the human sphere (clean and unclean). God
is never called pure or clean, as this sphere does not apply to him.
86
“The presence of
a holy God and a holy sanctuary in the midst of Israel ensures that these two points
of view overlap in a complex way.”
87
Milgrom offers the diagram below to help explain this complex
relationship:
88
Figure 6: Dynamic categories of holiness and impurity
Holy
Common
Pure
Impure
Two categories, holiness and impurity are dynamic and mutually antagonistic
(their boxes do not touch). They are contagious as they extend their influence over
what they come in contact with in the two static categories, the common and pure.
Israel is enjoined to advance the holy and diminish the impure. (This is represented
by the arrows in the diagram.)
2) There are different degrees or gradations of both holiness and impurity.
For example, anything associated with disorder, such as skin diseases, mixed crops,
mixed teams of plough animals is impure, but disorder is manifested supremely in
death. This is exemplified in the regulation that to eat any sort of dead animal, even
of a clean species, which has not been ritually slaughtered, is to become temporarily
unclean (Lev 11:39f). Death is the greatest disorder directly opposed to life and
wholeness, and thus to holiness.
Wenham himself offers the following diagram
89
to represent the gradations in
holiness with respect to persons (from God to the dead), of places (from the holy of
85
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47.
86
Noted by Levine, see Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47, fn.2.
87
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.47f.
88
See Sawyer, Reading Leviticus, A Conversation with Mary Douglas, p.72.
89
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.177.
66
holies to Sheol, the realm of the dead), and of animals (from unblemished sacrificial
beasts to carcasses):
Figure 7: Gradations of holiness
LIFE & Increasingly abnormal DEATH &
NORMALITY TOTAL DISORDER
Holy of
holies
Altar
Tabernacle
court
Camp
Outside
camp
Sheol (realm
of dead)
God
Priests
Deformed
priests
Israelites
Unclean
people
Dead people
Perfect
sacrificial
animals
Blemished
sacrificial
animals
Clean
animals
Unclean
animals
Animal
carcasses
Jenson adds two further dimensions, the ritual and the temporal, to what he
calls the “Holiness Spectrum”
90
:
Figure 8: Holiness spectrum
I
II
III
IV
V
Very Holy
Holy
Clean
Unclean
Very unclean
myvdq vdq
Vdq
Rwhm
amf
amf
Spatial
holy of
holies
holy place
court
camp
outside
Personal
high priest
Priest
Levites, clean
Israelites
clean, minor
impurities
major
impurities,
the dead
(sacrificial
animals)
(sacrificial
animals)
(clean
animals)
(unclean
animals)
(carcasses)
Ritual
Sacrificial
(not eaten)
sacrificial
(priests eat)
Sacrificial
(non-priests
eat)
purification
(1 day)
purification
(7 days)
Temporal
Day of
Atonement
festivals,
Sabbath
Common days
90
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.37.
67
3) Another refinement is offered by Amorim,
91
who distinguishes between
desanctification and profanation. Desanctification is a necessary aspect of moving
from the holy to the profane sphere, marked by minor rituals like the high priest
changing his clothes and washing on leaving the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement
(Lev 16:23f). Profanation is much more serious. It is any deliberate attempt to treat
the holy as profane and constitutes a serious act of rebellion against God. Profanation
may occur in any of the four dimensions: the sanctuary (Lev 21:12,23), the priests
(Lev 21:4), the holy portions of the sacrifice (Lev 19:8; 22:15) or the Sabbath (Exod
31:14).
4) The method of cleansing and sanctification is also more nuanced than
Wenham’s model suggests. In cases of ritual impurity, the process depends on its
seriousness and could involve one or more of the following: waiting a specified
period of time, ritual washing, and, for the more serious case, sacrifice. In the cases
of impurity caused by sin, sacrifice is always required. If the sin is deliberate,
repentance too is necessary.
5) Impurity and sin are both antithetical to holiness, but the relationship
between the two is complex. Sin inevitably causes impurity, and certain sins,
especially in the sexual domain, are explicitly said to be defiling (e.g. Lev 18:6-25).
On the other hand, not all ritual impurity is sin, as it cannot be avoided in the normal
course of events, such as contact with a corpse. However to deliberately defile
oneself in contradiction to God’s prohibitions is sin (e.g. Lev 21:1-4). So is failure to
deal with ritual impurity in the prescribed way.
Wenham sees the disorder associated with impurity as symbolic of the
disorder caused by sin: “Wherever disorder is manifested, man is reminded of the sin
which perpetually disrupts creation.”
92
Conclusion
Sacrifice plays a central role in maintaining the holiness of the people. It is
used in the consecration of things to God, and in rectifying holiness caused through
sin and serious ritual impurity.
91
See Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.51.
92
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
68
Jenson
93
admits that the Holiness Spectrum he proposes is not an ideal
representation; but his analysis, coupled with that of Wenham, gives a useful
framework within which to consider the five sacrifices set out in Lev 1-7. We shall
consider these five in detail in the next chapter.
Before moving on to that, though, it is worth taking a brief backward glance
at chapter 3 in the light of what we have discussed on holiness, to keep in mind the
Supyire perspective, and to consider if the Israelite concept of holiness has any
parallels in the Supyire’s view of the world.
The Supyire certainly have a concept of the otherness of the supernatural.
Events and things out of the ordinary are considered to belong to the realm of Kile,
such as the python skin (see p.18) which is viewed as a manifestation of Kile. Here,
then, there is at least some parallel with the Israelite distinction between what is holy
and what is common. The two societies, too, have a similar view on the need to take
care in approaching the power involved in the supernatural. For example, the detailed
instructions for the disposition of the sacrificial beasts in Lev 1-7 have some parallels
in the rules observed by the Supyire in their rites (see p.53). An approach to the
power made in the wrong way can have disastrous consequences: witness the death
of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10) and the threat of death for touching the remains of the
chicken sacrificed at a Supyire funeral (see p.53).
Other aspects of Israelite holiness, however, are not found in Supyire thought;
or perhaps only the faintest reflection of them is discernible. Fundamental to Israelite
holiness is the holiness of Yahweh, the personal God whose moral character is
reflected in the Ten Commandments. For the Supyire, Kile is a somewhat distant,
fairly shadowy figure: the most that is said about him is in the ascription “the good
God”. The Supyire have no notion of the need for purity to approach any deity.
Before making a sacrifice they appeal to tradition as justification for their approach:
“Every good person says God and every bad person says God” (see p.33). Just as
there is no concept of purity, there is no antithesis for the Supyire between what is
holy and what is impure (in either the physical or moral domain).
So, in Supyire thinking, the supernatural is something over and above the
common, the normal, and needs to be approached with care. For the Israelites,
holiness is more than that: it is the perfection in Yahweh’s character which he
93
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.37.
69
expects to be seen mirrored in his people. How sacrifices contribute to maintaining
that holiness we will investigate in the next chapter.
70
5. THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The regulations for the five sacrifices in the Leviticus 1-7 are comprised of
two sets of overlapping instructions: one set focusing on the presentation of an
offering by a member of the community (Lev 1:2-6:7) and the other set on its
disposition, which largely involved the priests (Lev 6:8-7:34).
The following table gives an overview of the five sorts of offerings, the
biblical references (Ref. 1 refers to presentation and Ref. 2 to the disposition), what
material was sacrificed, and how it was disposed of. We will look later at each sort in
more detail, and seek to discover their respective functions.
Figure 9: Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: summary of their form
Name
Trans-
literation
Ref.1
Ref.2
Material offered
Disposition
Hlu
u)l*H
1
6:8-
13
Individual male animal*
All burned
Hjnm
m!nj*H
2
6:14-
23
Salted, unleavened grain
or cakes
Part burned
Rest assigned to
priests
<ymlv
sh+l`m'm
3
7:11-
21
Animal from flock or
herd*
Fat burned
Rest eaten as
fellowship meal
Tafj
j^F*at
4:1-
5:13
6:24-
30
Bull
(for priest or community)
Male goat
(for community leader)
Female goat or lamb
(for individual)
Doves or pigeon or grain
(for poor)
Fat burned
Rest eaten by priests
<va
a*sH*m
5:14-
6:7
7:1-
10
Ram
Fat burned
Rest eaten by priests
* According to the means of the individual
With Kiuchi, we will start the analysis of the five sacrifices from the text of
Lev 1-7 as it stands as an integral part of the Pentateuch “because to enter into the
history behind the present text involves, at the present stage of scholarship, too many
71
extra problems, and particularly for any study of the meaning of sacrifice like this
one, source-criticism is unlikely to be fruitful.”
94
When the Israelites performed their sacrifices they were, no doubt, very
aware of their symbolic meaning; indeed, the meanings of the rituals are rarely
spelled out in the text because they were self-evident.
95
What we shall attempt is to
glean from those clues in the text and from the symbols used the purpose or purposes
of the different sacrifices.
For each of five sacrifices the following pattern of study will be followed:
1. Rite: an overview of the main elements of the ritual.
2. Translation: an initial survey of the various translations suggested. In some cases
this will serve as a preliminary overview of some of the major questions
concerning the purpose of the offering.
3. Exegesis: a detailed look at the elements of the rite and the explanations found in
the text.
4. Conclusion: a consideration of the purpose or purposes of the offering.
5.2 hlu
Figure 10: The hlu ritual
Actor
Action
Worshipper
Presents the offering at the entrance of the Tabernacle
Worshipper
Lays a hand on the head of the animal
Worshipper
Slaughters and skins the animal
Priest
Applies the blood to the altar
Worshipper
Cuts the animal
Worshipper
Washes the innards and the legs
Priest
Burns the whole animal (except the hide) on the altar
Translation
hlu has been variously translated:
94
Kiuchi, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987, p.17.
95
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.18.
72
1. holocaust or elevation or ascending offering (Scherman and Goldwurm), as the
noun derives from the verb meaning to offer up or go up.
96
These translations
accord with the animal being burnt, and the flames and smoke ascending to
heaven.
2. burnt offering (NIV, Wenham) emphasises the animal is burnt before God and
not consumed by humans.
3. whole offering (Hartley) was chosen because the whole animal is consumed on
the altar.
4. whole burnt-offering (BDBG).
The different translations do not reflect any major differences in theology or
interpretation; they rather are looking at the physical action involved in the sacrifice
from different angles.
The animal offered
There are three forms of hlu—herd, flock and then birds—outlined in
separate paragraphs to imply that if the offerer can afford to bring a bull, it is
preferable to do so. If not, he may bring a sheep or goat, and if he cannot afford even
that, he may bring a bird.
The bull, lamb or goat had to be without defect, which both accorded with
the holiness of God
97
and “prevented the offering of weak, deformed or crippled
animals, animals that had lost much of their value.”
98
They were also required to be male. Milgrom suggests that “the male is
economically more expendable, the female being the one to supply the milk and the
offspring.”
99
Most scholars, however, like Hartley, think it is because of the higher
value placed on the male in that society.
100
This is backed up if one looks at the
graded offerings in Lev 4 where bulls are offered in the two most important cases.
101
96
Hartley, John E., Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary volume 4; Dallas: Word Books, 1992, p.17.
97
Hartley, Leviticus, p.19.
98
Hartley, Leviticus, p.19.
99
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1991, p.147.
100
Hartley, Leviticus, p.18. In Lev 27:1-8 the higher price for a man redeeming himself from a vow to
serve God reflects the higher price on redeeming a male slave; see Wenham, The Book of Leviticus,
p.338.
101
See Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.174.
73
If a bird was offered, it was to be a dove or pigeon. They are thought to be the
only birds that the Hebrews domesticated.
102
Further latitude is shown to the poor in
that there is no requirement for a male or an unblemished bird.
103
Washing
The animal’s legs and entrails are washed so as to ensure that no dirt on the
legs or undigested food or dung defiles the altar.
Division of responsibilities
It appears that the worshipper undertook the messier tasks, such as washing,
which would have polluted the clean and holy priest. In contrast, “[t]he blood, the
means of atonement (cf. Lev 17:11) is the most sacred element and could only be
handled by the priest. The priest catches the blood in a bowl (Ex. 27:3; 38:3), stirring
it to keep it from coagulating. Then he throws it or dashes it against the large altar
standing in the courtyard.”
104
It is the holy priest, too, who approaches the altar itself,
and burns the animal.
In the case of the smaller sacrifice of a bird, fewer steps were involved, but
the same principle governed the division of labour, i.e. the worshipper performed the
dirtier tasks.
The same concern for the holiness of the priest is expressed in the regulations
concerning the correct priestly clothing, covering his private parts, as he approaches
the altar to clear away the ashes. When he left to dispose of the ashes outside the
camp, he had to put on other clothes (Lev 6:10f).
The stated purpose
Its purpose is stated but briefly. The worshipper is “to lay his hand on the
head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make rpk for
him.” (Lev 1:4). “It is a burnt offering, an hva, an aroma pleasing to Yahweh.” (Lev
1:9,13,17). We will now attempt to penetrate the meaning of these short statements.
102
Hartley, Leviticus, p.23.
103
Hartley, Leviticus, p.23.
104
Hartley, Leviticus, p.21.
74
hva
The meaning of hva is enigmatic and has attracted various proposals:
1. an offering made by fire, by association with hva “fire” (NIV).
2. a food offering (NEB, TEV, Wenham), by association with an Akkadian word for
offerings made at a festival.
3. a gift to create friendly relations between God and man (Ellinger).
105
4. a sacrifice that is willingly received by Yahweh.
106
5. a generous, rich gift (Driver).
107
Wenham points out the weakness of the first interpretation in that hva
“refers not only to sacrifices which are burned in whole or in part on the altar, but to
the portions of sacrifices eaten by the priests (2:3,10; 7:30,35) and to the bread of the
Presence (24:7,9).”
108
Hartley uses the same critique against Wenham’s suggestion
of food offering: if it refers to all these different kinds of sacrifices then to restrict it
to food offering is too narrow.
109
The final three interpretations are close to each other; they fit in well with
what immediately follows: an aroma pleasing to Yahweh. Given the association with
a fairly wide variety of offerings, Hartley’s suggestion, that it is best translated
simply as gift, seems wise. Milgrom also brings forward evidence to support this
conclusion: the purification offering (which cleanses the tabernacle) is never
described as hva. He writes: “A sacrifice that purges the sanctuary of the pollution
caused by the accumulation of sin can hardly be called a gift.”
110
Leaning of a hand on the head of the animal
Several theories have been forwarded for the meaning of this action.
1. Symbolic transference of the offerer’s sin to the animal. Morris, among others,
111
supports this theory. The sin is transferred to the animal “so that when it died it
105
Cited in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56.
106
Targums Ps.-J. and Neof. cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
107
Cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
108
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56, fn.8.
109
Hartley, Leviticus, p.14, fn.9.g.
110
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.162.
111
Shadal in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
75
was taking the punishment due to the worshipper for his sins.”
112
Certain scholars
think of it as the “obvious symbolism” of the action.
113
Such a transfer took place annually on the Day of Atonement when the high
priest placed his hands on a goat, confessed the wickedness and rebellion of the
people over it before driving it into the desert (Lev 16:21f).
But the Day of Atonement, others argue,
114
is unique in its mention of such a
transfer, and the high priest on that day laid both his hands on the goat, and not
just one. This difference would indicate a different meaning. Furthermore, the
leaning of one hand occurs during, amongst others, the <ymlv, an offering which
has “little concern with expiating sin.”
115
De Vaux also argues that according to
the doctrine of Leviticus, the “expiatory force is not attached to the gesture of the
imposition of hands, but to the blood rite (cf. Lev 17:11)”
116
(though it shall be
argued below (p.81) that the atonement is attached not only to the blood, but to
the sacrificial death and the rite as a whole).
2. Identification of the soul of the offerer and that of the animal. Janowski argues
that the gesture means the offerer participates in the death of the animal that dies
in place of him, a sinner.
117
Rowley argues that the death of the animal removes
any obstacle to fellowship with God and at the same time symbolises the surrender
of self to God.
118
Milgrom quickly dismisses identification as magical and alien
to biblical thought.
119
Another possible counter-argument is that the hand-leaning
occurs in the rite for the <ymlv, which does not involve expiation of sin.
3. An act associated with the declaration of the offerer of the purpose of the
sacrifice.
120
Levine argues that hand-leaning “assured that sacrifices intended for
specific rites would be used solely for that purpose.” Milgrom,
121
though, points
out that if a declaration took place, it was a discrete act independent of hand-
112
See Morris, Leon, The Atonement, Its Meaning and Significance; Leicester: IVP, 1983, p.47.
113
Morris, The Atonement, p.47.
114
Sansom, M.C. “Laying On of Hands in the Old Testament”, Expository Times 94 (1982/3) 323-336,
p.324.
115
Hartley, Leviticus, p.20.
116
De Vaux, Roland, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice; Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964,
p.28 fn.5.
117
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.20f.
118
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.20.
119
Milgrom, Leviticus, p.151.
120
Péter in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
121
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151.
76
leaning. If declaration was the main purpose, why was hand-leaning not required
for all sacrifices?
4. Identification of the offerer as the owner of the animal and beneficiary of the
sacrifice. Rendtorff
122
finds the interpretation of the rite in the words that follow
its prescription: “ ... so that it may be acceptable on his behalf to make atonement
for him.” (Lev 1:4) The gesture ensures the sacrifice benefits the offerer, and
eliminates a surrogate offering on behalf of another, as stressed by Jewish
tradition.
Wenham argues against this theory: “This is so self-evident that it hardly
seems necessary to express such a sentiment in a specific act.”
123
Milgrom,
however, suggests the following reason for the necessity: “It is required for all
quadrupeds because they would have to be dragged in by rope or bought from the
sanctuary stock. In either case, ownership would have to be established. Without
authenticated ownership, the sacrifice would be invalid.”
124
Milgrom further
argues that the sacrifices for which hand-leaning was not required, e.g. a cereal
offering, bird, or reparation offering which could be commuted to money, could
each be carried in the hand and thus the owner easily identified.
125
It is difficult to be sure of the meaning of this symbolic gesture when there
are mere hints given in the text as to the signification. But the following arguments
taken together point towards the first option, the symbolic transfer of sin to the
animal as the most probable.
There is a great similarity in the actions of laying on of one hand and the laying
on of two hands on the day of atonement, the meaning of which is stated clearly
in Leviticus.
The difference between one and two hands is not fundamental and may be
explained in one of two ways. It may have been caused by physical constraints,
the offerer dragging an animal into the tabernacle may have had only one hand
free to place on the beast, whereas on the Day of Atonement, Aaron would
probably have been helped by his attendant to manhandle the goat and
122
In Hartley, Leviticus, p.21.
123
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.62.
124
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.152.
125
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.151f.
77
consequently had both hands free. Alternatively, two hands may have been
required for the Day of Atonement sacrifice because of the importance of
confessing over it “all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites” (Lev 16:21),
but the essential nature of the symbolic act was the same as laying on one hand.
The transfer of sin is a weighty matter and would appear to merit the place
accorded to this hand-leaning action near the very beginning of the Levitical
regulations. It is in accordance with a major theme in the Pentateuch: the need for
Israel to deal with its sin to live in the presence of a holy God. The identification
of the offerer, in contrast, is not stressed anywhere else in the text of Leviticus or
indeed of the Old Testament.
As for the argument that hand-leaning is part of the <ymlv which is not expiatory,
Wenham contends that “in some degree substitution seems to form part of the
theology of all the sacrifices.”
126
rpk
Snaith writes that the origin of rpk is obscure, as it occurs mainly in cultic
passages: “Probably it means ‘cover over’; cf. Gen 32.20 (Heb 21), ‘appease’,
literally cover his face so that he cannot see the wrong.”
127
It is traditionally
translated “atonement” meaning reconciliation between man and God. According to
Wenham, rpk can have one of two emphases depending on the context, to wipe
clean or to pay a ransom:
128
1) to wipe clean or expiate defilement on account of sin. This is generally
agreed to be a good translation in the context of the tafj (see below, section 5.5)
where some holy object, such as the horns of the altar (Lev 4:25) or the mercy seat
(Lev 16:14) has been defiled, and needs to be purged by the application of blood.
2) to pay a ransom and propitiate God’s wrath against sin. The payment of a
ransom in the Old Testament allowed a guilty party to escape being punished by
death. Wenham cites several examples:
129
126
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.111.
127
Snaith N.H. ed., Leviticus and Numbers, The Century Bible; London: Thomas Nelson and Sons
Ltd., 1967, p.30.
128
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
129
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59ff.
78
A husband was entitled to exact the death penalty against a faithless wife and her
lover (Lev 20:10), but he might choose to spare them on the payment of a ransom
(rpk) (Prov 6:35).
By offering incense as a ransom (rpk) Aaron stopped a plague that would have
destroyed Israel (Num 16:47).
Similarly Phinehas halted a national plague by executing one of the Israelites
guilty of worshipping foreign gods, thus paying a ransom (rpk) for the people of
Israel (Num 25:13).
Wenham argues that the hlu could function similarly as a ransom, for
example when:
David provoked the wrath of Yahweh by taking a census, and Yahweh brought a
plague on Israel, it stopped when David offered tlu and <ymlv (2 Sam 24:25).
God told Job’s friends to sacrifice an hlu so that they would not be dealt with
according to their folly (Job 42:8).
King Ahaz neglected to present “burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of
Israel. Therefore the wrath of the LORD came on Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Chr
29:7-8, RSV).
An hlu was made as atonement for the Levites who were being consecrated to
Yahweh (Num 8:5-12). They needed a ransom here because as sinful men
coming into the presence of holy God, they were deserving of death.
Levine helpfully comments:
“Basic to the theory of sacrifice ... was the notion of substitution. The
sacrifice substituted for an individual human life or the lives of the
members of the community in situations where God could have exacted the
life of the offender ... Indeed, all who stood in God’s immediate presence
risked becoming the object of divine wrath. But substitution could avert the
danger ... ”
130
130
Levine, Leviticus, p.115.
79
Hartley, in contrast, argues that propitiation of divine wrath should not be
linked with any of the Levitical sacrifices, as it is not specifically mentioned in the
regulations. In contrast to the rare cases where God’s fierce anger against his people
is displayed, “the cult is concerned with the usual, daily means of approaching God.
Thus not God’s kindled wrath but his potential wrath is the direct focus of expiating
sacrifices ... ”
131
However, making a distinction between kindled wrath and potential
wrath does not take away from the fact that it is God’s wrath that is averted, which is
the meaning of propitiation.
Wenham further argues for rpk meaning ransom payment rather than
cleansing in the context of the hlu:
“In those rituals where kipper means ‘to wipe clean’ or ‘to cleanse’ it is clear
that the blood is applied carefully to the polluted object ... This is not the case
with the burnt offering. The blood is simply caught and thrown over the altar.
The focus of attention is the animal’s burning carcass and the soothing aroma
thereby produced. In the burnt offering there is no sign of any attempt at
cleansing the worshipper, priest or altar.”
132
We conclude then that rpk has two emphases according to the context in
which it is found. In the context of Hlu, it means to ransom, while in the context
of Tafj, it means to cleanse. It is not unusual for a word to develop more than
one meaning according to context. Indeed, there is a common denominator, that
is in both contexts, rpk is overturning the negative consequences of sin.
Soothing aroma to Yahweh
According to Hartley, “Smell arouses one’s memory and reaches very deeply
into a person’s emotions ... The sacrifice is offered in order to move God to
remember with mercy the one who makes this sacrifice.”
133
So this
anthropomorphism expresses the same idea as propitiation, averting God’s wrath.
The hlu soothes Yahweh, and changes his attitude to man.
131
Hartley, Leviticus, p.65.
132
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.59.
133
Hartley, Leviticus, p.22.
80
A clear example is the hlu Noah offered. Yahweh had decided to destroy
humankind for he saw that every imagination of man’s heart was evil from his youth
(Gen 6:5). In contrast, after the flood, Noah made his hlu, and “when Yahweh
smelled the soothing aroma Yahweh thought: I will never again curse the ground
because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen
8:21). Wenham comments on this: “Though man was unchanged in his sinfulness,
God’s attitude to man altered, thanks to the burnt offering.”
134
Application of blood to the altar
The only part of the Old Testament which explicitly states how sacrificial
blood effects atonement is found in Yahweh’s words in Lev 17:10-11:
“Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats blood—I will set my
face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make
atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for
one’s life.”
The meaning of this text is debated. Some insist with von Rad that it “is not
the blood itself that effects expiation, but the blood in so far as the life is contained in
it.”
135
Hicks argues that blood was not associated with death in the Old Testament.
136
Vincent Taylor, in a similar vein, states, “The victim is slain in order that its life, in
the form of blood, may be released ... the bestowal of life is the fundamental idea in
sacrificial worship.”
137
Thus, the RSV translates the final phrase: “it is the blood that
makes atonement, by reason of the life.”
Others, like Harrison, see blood as a symbol of life given up in death. “Shed
blood constituted visible evidence that life had indeed been offered up in
sacrifice.”
138
This is reflected in the NIV translation: “it is the blood that makes
atonement for one’s life.” Morris sets out cogent arguments to defend this latter
view:
139
134
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.56.
135
Quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.274.
136
See Morris, The Atonement, p.54.
137
Quoted in Morris, The Atonement, p.54.
138
Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP, 1980, p.182.
139
Morris, The Atonement pp.53-61.
81
1. Out of 362 occurrences of blood in the Old Testament, 203 denote violent death
(contra Hicks).
2. Even in those passages that link blood and life, the meaning is “life given up in
death”. He illustrates this with Gen 9:5 in which Yahweh says: “for your
lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting … from each man, too, I will surely
demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Here “what is in mind is
murder.”
140
3. The Hebrew vpn, translated “life” in Lev 17:11, often has the meaning “life
given up in death”. “Thus the Hebrew might speak of ‘lying in wait for the
nephesh’ or ‘laying a snare for the nephesh’ when murder is planned (e.g. 1 Sam
28:9; Prov 1:18).”
141
4. There are occasions of atonement in the Old Testament, which involved death of
a victim, outside the cult and the application of blood. Examples include Moses’
offer to be blotted out in atonement for the sin of the people (Exod 32:30-32),
and Phinehas’ execution of the principal offenders which effected atonement for
Israel (Num 25:13).
5. Sometimes atonement is linked with another part of the sacrificial process, such
as the burning of fat, or possibly the sacrificial rite as a whole (Lev 4:26,31,35
and Exod 29:31-33), rather than specifically to blood.
His conclusion is therefore that it is “plainly the death of the victim that is the
important thing.”
142
The purposes of hlu
hlu was a most versatile sacrifice. Milgrom comments, “The burnt offering
is a gift with any number of goals in mind.”
143
Tyler
144
proposed in 1871 that all
sacrifices were gifts. In its crude form his theory reduces all sacrifices to the
mechanistic notion of reciprocity, even bribery: “I give to you so that you will give
to me in return.”
145
Averbeck modifies this, for on an integrated reading of the Old
Testament, God has no need of being fed (see Ps 50:12-14). He lacks nothing.
140
Morris, The Atonement, p.56.
141
Morris, The Atonement, p.56.
142
Morris, The Atonement, p.61.
143
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.176.
144
See Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.998.
145
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.998.
82
Averbeck writes rather of gifts as tribute, the purpose of which is to “impress the
people and the priests with the fact that God was actually physically present,
dwelling in the tabernacle.”
146
Malina develops a similar idea in terms of clients paying tribute to a patron:
God as owner of all, does not need their sacrifices; but they need to sacrifice to God.
“Sacrifice to God symbols (sic) a gift of a client to a patron, an expression of
asymmetrical but reciprocal relationship with a view to power, protection and the joy
of bathing in the presence of the patron of patrons.”
147
The goals of the gift may be classified under three headings:
1. An expression of trust and readiness to obey
Yahweh tested Abraham’s faith and obedience requiring him to offer his son
Isaac as an hlu. Blood ritual of some kind was common in the ancient Near East on
the occasion of making a covenant. When Yahweh set out the terms of the covenant at
Sinai the people responded, “Everything the LORD has said, we will do” (Exod 24:3).
Moses then offered tlu
148
and <ymlv, and read the Book of the Covenant (Exod
24:5ff). In the absence of comment in the text on its significance, the natural deduction
in the context is that the sacrifice constituted ratification on behalf of the people.
2. An expression of thankfulness
After childbirth, or a healing, or the purification of a bodily pollution, an hlu
was required. Wenham suggests that public thanksgiving could be the underlying
motive here for someone who has proved God’s faithfulness in his life.
149
Thanksgiving could likewise be the motive when an hlu was presented as a freewill
offering, a spontaneous act in response to God’s goodness. Again, as a votive
offering, vowed in advance, it was given in thankfulness for the executed prayer (Lev
22:18ff).
3. Atonement
This purpose came to dominate in the cult. The hlu was an essential part of
the regular pattern of cultic worship prescribed in Num 28-29. There was daily,
weekly, monthly, and feast day acts of worship each of which required specific hlu.
146
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.999.
147
Malina (1993) The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, p.171.
148
The plural form of hlu.
149
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.58.
83
Hartley’s comment is appropriate: “As an atoning sacrifice, the whole offering was
offered not so much for specific sins, but for the basic sinfulness of each person and
the society as a whole ... The frequent presentation of whole offerings enabled the
covenant community, despite the human proneness to sin, to maintain fellowship
with the holy God.”
150
It was customary for an hlu to be made every morning and every evening
(Num 28:3-8), and it was incumbent on the priests to keep the fire going day and
night, to not let it go out (Lev 6:9-13). Calvin, noting that the first burnt offerings in
both tabernacle and later temple were lit by fire from heaven, concludes that the fire
had to be kept going so “that the offerings should be burnt with heavenly fire.”
151
Keil sees the perpetual fire as “a visible sign of the uninterrupted worship of
Jehovah,”
152
and Wenham adds that it was a “reminder of the constant need for
atonement.”
153
Conclusion
The offerer presented the hlu as a gift to Yahweh, but the initiative
originally came from Yahweh: it was the means he ordained for worship. It could
express thankfulness to Yahweh and trust in him, but most prominent was its
provision of atonement for the sinner.
5.3 hjnm
Figure 11: The hjnm ritual
Actor
Action
Worshipper
Prepares the grain with oil and frankincense
Worshipper
Presents the offering to the priest
Priest
Burns a handful of mixture as a memorial portion, a
soothing aroma to Yahweh
Priest
Eats the rest
150
Hartley, Leviticus, p.18.
151
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.119.
152
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.119.
153
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.120.
84
Translation
This offering is unique among the five main types of Levitical sacrifices in
that it does not involve animals. hjnm is the general word for gift, tribute, or any kind
of offering to God whether grain or animals (BDBG). In Leviticus, however, it is
used as a technical term for the offerings described in chapter two which comprise
chiefly grain. Hence it is usually translated as “grain offering” or “cereal offering”.
Purpose
Leviticus does not specify the purpose of hjnm, so it will need to be gleaned
from clues such as the use of the term in contexts outside the cult, the designation of
materials to be offered, and what use was made of the offering within the cult.
Uses of hjnm outside the cult
hjnm had a fairly wide semantic range; Driver defines it as a “present made to
secure or retain good will.”
154
It often designated a gift to someone in a superior
position to the giver. It could denote reverence to a divine being, homage to someone
in an important position who could help, or tribute from a vassal to an overlord as a
mark of goodwill and faithfulness, as the following examples show:
1. Gideon gave a hjnm out of reverence to the angel of the Lord who appeared to
him (Judg 6:19).
2. Jacob’s sons sent a hjnm in homage to Pharaoh’s second in command when they
returned to Egypt seeking food and favour from him (Gen 43:11).
3. The Moabites paid hjnm as tribute to their victor King David (2 Sam 8:2,6).
Thus Hartley can argue, “The choice of hjnm for this offering adds a note that
a grain offering is a gift for Yahweh in recognition of his lordship and his total claim
on the presenter’s life.”
155
“Tribute” probably better captures the idea than “gift” in
the context of the Levitical offering, as Yahweh is already the owner of everything,
and no one can add to his possessions through any “gift”.
154
Quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
155
Hartley, Leviticus, p.29.
85
Materials designated for hjnm
1. tls, which is variously translated “fine flour”,
156
“choice flour”,
157
“flour of
clear wheat”,
158
and “semolina flour”.
159
It is clear that it was the result of a “long
and involved process,”
160
and thus “a luxury item in ancient society.”
161
2. Olive oil which was poured over the flour is associated sometimes with the Spirit
of God (1 Sam 10:1, 9ff; 16:13), and sometimes with joy (Isa 61:3; Ps 45:7).
3. Incense was mixed in the dough. This, too, has associations with joy. The
proverb runs: “Oil and perfume make the heart glad” (Prov 27:9).
4. Salt is a most vital element, as the text insists three times: “Season all your grain
offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your
grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings” (Lev 2:13). As Milgrom states, “the
preservative qualities of salt made it the ideal symbol of the perdurability of a
covenant.”
162
To the worshipper it was a reminder that “God would never forsake
him, and also that the worshipper had a perpetual duty to uphold and keep the
covenant law.”
163
Two elements were expressly forbidden to be added to the hjnm: leaven and
honey, but no reason is given for their exclusion. Some commentators argue that the
exclusion was a reaction against the widespread use of honey in pagan cults.
164
However, the regular cultic use of other elements regularly used in pagan worship
argues against this suggestion,
165
and Lev 2:12 forbids their use only on the altar:
“You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not
to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma.” Other commentators suggest that
leaven and honey both cause fermentation, which is unacceptable on the holy altar
because of its associations with decay and corruption.
166
156
NIV.
157
JPS.
158
Ibn Ezra see Levine, Leviticus, p.10.
159
Levine, Leviticus, p.10.
160
Scherman, Nosson and Hersh Goldwurm, Leviticus; New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1989,
p.59f.
161
Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
162
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.191.
163
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
164
Maimonides quoted in Levine, Leviticus, p.12.
165
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.190.
166
E.g. Keil, Hertz quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
86
Memorial portion
There are two main interpretations put forward for the priest being required to
burn a handful of the grain on the altar as a memorial portion.
1. Driver, who prefers “token” as a translation to “memorial portion”, asserts, “It is
the sign whereby the worshipper is reminded or taught that the whole offering is
in fact owed to God but that He is pleased to accept only a part of it as a ‘token,’
while remitting the burning of the rest of it on the altar so that it may be
otherwise consumed.”
167
2. The presenter is remembering God’s grace in giving him his daily food or good
things.
168
In addition, the offering stirs God’s memory concerning his past
commitments, so that he will continue to act graciously to the presenter.
169
In
support of this, it is noted that each time Leviticus mentions the memorial portion
(2:2; 2:9; 2:16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7), it is followed by one or both of the phrases “as
a gift to Yahweh” and “as an aroma pleasing to Yahweh”.
The third interpretation seems to fit the context best. If, as hinted above, hjnm
is a reverent tribute of a vassal seeking God’s favour, the burning of the memorial
portion, including incense to please him, and salt to remind him of the covenant
between them, fits well into the overall picture.
It may be argued that such a small portion can hardly be called tribute, but it
must be remembered that the rest of the offering was given to Aaron and his sons and
this is also “a most holy portion of the Lord’s food offerings” (Lev 2:3). It was all a
gift to Yahweh; it was all holy, consumed by fire on the altar or by Yahweh’s priests.
Firstfruits
Lev 2:14-16 describes the rite to be carried out “if you bring a grain offering
of firstfruits to the LORD.” The rationale behind the firstfruits fits in again with the
picture of the hjnm as a tribute. In the firstfruits ceremony, the first part of the
harvest was brought to Yahweh in acknowledgement that he is the Lord of the land
and in gratitude for his goodness (Deut 26:1-11).
167
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.68.
168
Hoffman quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
169
Childs quoted in Hartley, Leviticus, p.30.
87
Relationship with hlu
The regulations for the hjnm follow immediately those for the hlu in
Leviticus, which to Milgrom
170
and others suggests that they are closely related.
“Rabbinic tradition clearly regards the cereal offering as the poor man’s burnt
offering.”
171
The rationale is that there is a range of sacrifices in Lev 1 and 2,
commencing with the bull, becoming progressively less costly: lamb, goat, bird, and
ending with grain. Milgrom supports this view with the observation that the
relationship between burnt and cereal offerings is “comparable to the graduated
purification offerings, where too the cereal offering follows that of birds (5:7-10,
11-13) and where the reason for allowing both is explicitly stated: ‘if his means do
not suffice (for an animal).’”
172
The difficulty with this view is that more often than
not, the hjnm was not offered alone, but along with the hlu or <ymlv.
Most modern scholars see a different relationship: the hjnm usually
accompanied the hlu (or sometimes the <ymlv) to supplement the meat with bread,
thus completing the food gift to Yahweh. Wenham, for example, writes, “The cereal
offering ... normally followed the burnt offering. God having granted forgiveness of
sins through the burnt offering, the worshipper responded by giving to God some of
the produce of his hands in cereal offering.”
173
Secondary purpose of the hjnm
The offering of grain served a practical purpose in providing the priests who
owned no land with their staple foodstuffs. One particular occasion of this was when
a hjnm was offered alone during the jealousy ritual to determine whether a wife
accused of adultery was guilty or not (Num 5:15). “In this case the offering does not
seem to be much more than a payment to the priest for administering the ... ritual.”
174
Oil and incense were not added to the grain, probably because it was not a joyful
occasion.
175
170
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
171
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.195.
172
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.196.
173
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
174
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.70.
175
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.70.
88
Conclusion
The hjnm was usually a joyful occasion when tribute was presented to
Yahweh with two main purposes:
1. “It was an act of dedication and consecration to God as Saviour and covenant
King. It expressed not only thankfulness, but obedience to and a willingness to
keep the law.”
176
2. “It caused God to remember [the offerer] in covenant faithfulness.”
177
In combination with the hlu, it was repeated many times in a lifetime. As
Wenham comments: “Man’s sinful nature requires that he repeatedly seek divine
forgiveness and he renew his dedication to God and his covenant vows.”
178
5.4 <ymlv
Figure 12: The <ymlv ritual
Actor
Action
Worshipper
Presents the animal at the entrance of the tabernacle
Worshipper
Lays a hand on the head of the animal
Worshipper
Slaughters the animal
Priest
Dashes the blood on all sides of the altar
Priest
Removes fat from the animal
Priest
Burns the fat on the altar on top of the whole offering
Priest
Is assigned the breast and the right thigh
Worshipper with
his family and
friends
Consume the rest as a festive meal
Translation
This offering <ymlv jbz (also called simply jbz or <ymlv) has been
variously translated:
176
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.71.
177
Hartley, Leviticus, p.32.
178
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.72.
89
1. concluding sacrifice. Rendtorff argues that in lists of sacrifices <ymlv always
occurs last. Hartley suggests that this final position may be accounted for
according to the purpose of the different sacrifices. “Only after the head of the
family had made expiation for his own sins and for those of his family, rendering
himself and his family acceptable to God, were they in a position to enjoy a
festive meal before God. Therefore the theology of the sacrificial system tends to
account for an offering of well-being almost always occurring last in the order of
sacrifices.”
179
2. covenant sacrifice (suggested by Schmid). This suggestion seems unlikely as
<ymlv was a voluntary offering; a sacrifice specifically designed to uphold the
covenant surely would not have been left optional.
180
3. peace offering. This is the traditional translation (via the Septuagint and Vulgate),
as it is suggested that <ymlv comes from the Hebrew <lv, “be complete” which
has the cognate <olv, “peace”. This means more than the absence of war, but
health, prosperity, wholeness and peace with God.
4. offering of well being. This renders the same idea as peace offering, but attempts
to make it less ambiguous.
5. shared offering (NEB), communion sacrifice (JB), and fellowship offering (NIV).
These are useful translations, as all “focus on the fact that this sacrifice is shared
by the presenter’s family, the officiating priest, and God.”
181
Levine, working
from parallels with Ugaritic and Akkadian, suggests it originally meant “gift of
greeting”, and that it was adopted for this sacrifice because “it expressed the
fellowship experienced by the worshippers and priests in God’s presence, as they
greeted the divine guest.”
182
The animal offered
As in the case of hlu, cattle, sheep or goats can be offered as <ymlv, but here
there is no gender restriction. Most regard this regulation as more lax because it is a
voluntary sacrifice. Milgrom, though, thinks the reason for lack of gender restriction
179
Hartley, Leviticus, p.39.
180
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.77.
181
Hartley, Leviticus, p.38.
182
Levine, Leviticus, p.15.
90
is because its function is to allow the Israelites to eat meat (see the argument below,
p. 94).
Unlike the hlu regulations, birds are not mentioned. Milgrom suggests that
the parts that could have been burnt on the altar would be infinitesimal in size.
183
It is
perhaps more likely that the birds would have been insufficient to provide a festive
meal.
The blood rite
As in the case of hlu, the priest dashes the blood against all sides of the altar.
This leads Harrison to say that there is “a strong substitutionary element”
184
in the
<ymlv. Although atonement is not specifically mentioned here, Wenham writes,
“Atonement is not a prominent feature of the peace offering. But even this essentially
joyful sacrifice includes a blood rite, a reminder that sinful man is always in need of
the forgiveness of his sin.”
185
The parts of the animal burnt for Yahweh
The parts burnt on the altar as a pleasing aroma to Yahweh are listed below.
The significance of the parts is not spelt out, but word associations elsewhere in the
Old Testament may offer some clues.
Fat covering the entrails. Fat is synonymous with what is best in Gen 45:18 and Ps
81:16, and was seen as the source of an animal’s strength. Lev 3:16 emphasises that
all the fat belongs to Yahweh. This fat of sacrificial animals, along with blood, may
not be eaten by Israel (Lev 7:20ff).
186
Two kidneys. The kidneys were the centre of emotions, so possibly they symbolise
here “the dedication of the worshiper’s best and deepest emotions to God.”
187
Long lobe of liver. The liver symbolises emotions of deep joy and sorrow (Lam 2:11;
Ps 16:9). Hartley suggests that as this was used for divination by neighbouring
peoples, it was burned here to erect a barrier to this practice in Israel.
188
However,
this seems rather out of place with the symbolism suggested above, and as Milgrom
183
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.222.
184
Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP, 1980, p.57.
185
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.80.
186
Per Levine, Leviticus, p.45.
187
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
188
Hartley, Leviticus, p.40.
91
says, if this had been the reason “then the rest of the liver—employed just as much as
the long lobe in divination (hepatoscopy)—would have also been consigned to the
altar.”
189
The priest’s share
In Lev 7:29-33, portions of the <ymlv are assigned to the priests:
“He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall
bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. His
own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with
the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering
before the LORD. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the
breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons.
And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering
of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. He among the sons of Aaron, that
offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right
shoulder for his part.”
190
These traditional translations of “wave offering” (Hebrew hpwnt) and “heave
offering” (Hebrew hmwrt) are based on the rabbinic interpretation that they
constitute two cultic motions performed with an offering, the hpwnt being a
horizontal motion extending and bringing back, and the hmwrt being a vertical
motion raising and lowering.
191
Wenham states that “etymologically this is quite a
natural way to explain these terms, but it fails to explain the difference between
them. And in some cases it is hard to envisage any such motion being involved.”
192
He cites Levites (Num 8:13ff) and land (Ezek 45:1) as examples of objects of hpwnt
and hmwrt respectively which could not be waved or heaved.
Milgrom notes that as far back as the LXX there was uncertainty as to their
meaning and inconsistency in the translation of the two terms.
193
In a detailed
attempt to discover their original signification, he starts by noting that hpwnt is done
189
Levine, Leviticus, p.208.
190
KJV.
191
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461.
192
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126.
193
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461.
92
almost always before the LORD, which refers to a cultic action within the sanctuary,
while hmwrt is always to the LORD, and is not a ceremony at all.
194
In the case of hpwnt, he notes that the text lays emphasis on the need for the
offerer to bring the portion with his own hands, which signifies that at that point, it
still belongs to him (Lev 7:29-30).
195
He argues that hpwnt is a “ritual of dedication
that is performed in the sanctuary, with the result that the offering is removed from
the domain of the owners and transferred to the domain of God.”
196
He argues
against the traditional rabbinic interpretation of “waving”, by pointing out that the
related verb [nh means “to raise”.
197
In sum, hpwnt is an actual or symbolic
elevation rite, which sanctifies the profane, or makes it holy.
198
Milgrom demonstrates that most of the occasions of hpwnt in the Old
Testament can be interpreted consistently with this thesis. For example the hpwnt
service for the Levites separates them from the rest of Israel and transfers them to
Yahweh’s domain, thus qualifying them for service at the Tent of Meeting (Num
8:13-15).
199
From Lev 10:13-14, Milgrom makes a distinction between most offerings,
which are from the start of the rite gifts belonging to Yahweh, and so do not undergo
hpwnt, and on the other hand, the well-being offering, which even at the point of
slaughter, belongs to the offerer. The meat is his to eat, and so hpwnt must be
performed to transfer the portion for the priests to the domain of Yahweh.
200
According to Milgrom, hmwrt has a similar function to hpwnt, dedication to
Yahweh. It differs, though, in that it is carried out outside the sanctuary and without
a rite.
201
He brings the following evidence in support:
202
1. the preposition “to” (Yahweh) is used with hmwrt
2. the verb “to give” is used with hmwrt, but never with hpwnt
194
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 pp.462, 474.
195
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463f.
196
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464.
197
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.469f.
198
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.470, 473.
199
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464.
200
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463.
201
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.475.
202
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.474.
93
3. the related verb <rh means “to remove, set aside, give”.
In the light of these factors, translators have now generally moved away from
the traditional translations to:
Hpwnt, T$nWp> : elevation offering (Levine, Milgrom, Hartley), dedication
(Wenham).
Hmwrt, T$rWm> : gift offering (Levine), gift (New Living Bible, Milgrom),
contribution (Wenham, Hartley).
What the essential distinction is between the two terms remains controversial.
G.R. Driver denied there was any real difference.
203
Milgrom, though, rejects the
idea that they are interchangeable and states “T$rWm> is not a ritual ... its true sense
is a dedication to God ... An offering requiring T$nWp> must undergo a previous
stage of T$rWm>, that is to say, a separation from the profane to the sacred.”
204
It
appears that Milgrom is not being totally consistent here, as that separation was
exactly what he argued was the function of hpwnt: to remove the offering from the
domain of the owner to that of God (see above, p.92).
There is a further problem for Milgrom’s theory, in that there are several
examples of offerings being described by both terms, for example the right thigh of
the well-being offering (hmwrt in Lev 7:32) is also described as part of the hpwnt in
Lev 10:15. Milgrom considers the latter text a late editing and elaborates a theory of
historical development to account for a change in practice at the time of the
Jerusalem temple due to the large number of priests.
205
However, this is a suggestion
made to sustain Milgrom’s theory and Milgrom himself admits that “assured
historical facts are lacking, and any reconstruction can only be conjectural.”
206
It is
more probable that the same offering is being described by two different words to
reflect two different perspectives.
Levine suggests that hmwrt means a levy, a gift to Yahweh who in turn
allocates it to the priests.
207
He refers to Num 18:8 which reads, “Then the LORD
said to Aaron, ‘I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented (hmwrt) to
203
See Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126.
204
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.476.
205
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.479ff.
206
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.479.
207
Levine, Leviticus, p.43.
94
me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your
portion and regular share.’”
It seems then that there is considerable overlap in the semantic domains of the
two terms, as both imply sanctification of the offering. In addition, hmwrt
emphasises that an offering was made to Yahweh before being allocated to priests,
and hpwnt emphasises that an offering was made before Yahweh in the sanctuary.
The purpose of the <ymlv
1) It has been suggested that the purpose of <ymlv is atonement for the
slaughter of animals for food. Lev 17:3-4 records Yahweh’s command: “If anyone of
the house of Israel slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, or does so outside
the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as
an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be
imputed to that man.”
208
Milgrom follows one ancient rabbinic interpretation that insists that this
forbids any slaughter outside the tabernacle for any reason—including for food. So it
is argued that the main function of the <ymlv is to atone for this illegal killing of the
animal itself (Lev 17:11) and thus allow the possibility of meat for the table. As this
would be a rare luxury, it would inevitably be a joyous celebration to share with
family and friends.
209
There are two difficulties with this interpretation.
Firstly, it implies that the manipulation of the blood of the animal atones for
its death. But if blood symbolizes life given up in death (as argued above, p.80), then
Milgom’s position on the <ymlv is reduced to the animal being killed to make
atonement for the animal being illegally killed – which makes little sense.
Secondly, Lev 17:3-4 prohibits slaughter away from the tabernacle, so
slaughter at the tabernacle is implicitly legal. What need then is there to atone for the
legal killing involved in the <ymlv at the tabernacle?
Levine takes the line of the other traditional interpretation, that slaughter in
Lev 17:3-4 is used in its restricted sense, that is to slaughter a sacrifice, in line with
the use of the verb in other ritual texts in the Pentateuch (e.g. Exod 34:25).
210
The
208
JPS.
209
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221.
210
Levine, Leviticus, p.112f.
95
purpose of the prohibition is to avoid the people sacrificing to deities other than
Yahweh away from the Tent of Meeting, such as the goat-idols mentioned a little
later (Lev 17:7). Slaughter for purposes of food could occur anywhere. This line of
argument can be supported by observing firstly that Deut 12:15 allows the slaughter
in any town of “as much meat as you want”, and secondly the requirement that the
<ymlv be without defect (Lev 3:1,6) which suggests blemished animals must have
been killed away from the tabernacle.
2) Another suggestion is that <ymlv is essentially a fellowship meal. The
burning of the fat and entrails is described as a hva <jl for Yahweh (Lev 3:11,16).
hva probably means gift (see above, pp.74); <jl usually means bread or food.
Hartley observes that the idea of a gift of food for Yahweh is at first sight startling,
as there are no Old Testament. texts indicating that Yahweh is dependent on
sacrifices for food.
211
Milgrom states that <jl clearly “harks back to earliest times, when
sacrifices were intended to feed the gods”
212
and terms it “a linguistic fossil”.
213
Levine offers a less literal interpretation of the phrase. While it preserves “the idiom
common to ancient religions, it understands the process somewhat differently. God
desires the sacrifices of His worshippers not because He requires sustenance but
because He desires their devotion and their fellowship.”
214
This fits well with the
description in Deuteronomy of a joyful feast in which the presence of Yahweh was
especially near:
215
“Bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what
you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your
herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your
families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to,
because the LORD your God has blessed you” (Deut 12:6-7).
Wenham, commenting on this, writes, “The worshipper had made his vows to
keep the covenant law, or to do something more specific (e.g., to give Samuel back
to the Lord), if the prayer was answered. The enjoyment of eating the meat was a
211
Hartley, Leviticus, p.41.
212
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213.
213
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213.
214
Levine, Leviticus, p.17.
215
Per Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
96
physical reminder of all the blessings that attended the faithful observance of the
covenant (Lev 26:3ff; Deut 28:1ff).”
216
3) Smith argued from the fact that <ymlv was eaten “before the LORD” that
its purpose was to effect a mystical unity between the offerer and the deity.
217
But
Milgrom rebuts this by pointing out that the sacrifice was eaten “before the LORD”
and not “with the LORD”.
218
It appears then that the second suggestion, that <ymlv is in essence a
fellowship meal, celebrated by Yahweh’s people, in his presence, has most to
commend it.
Three different types of <ymlv
Three types of <ymlv are distinguished in Lev 7: hdt jbz “praise” (7:12ff),
rdn “vow” (7:16ff) and hbdn “freewill” (7:16ff).
1) hdt jbz This is usually translated as “praise offering” or “thanksgiving
offering”. Alone among the three types, an accompanying offering of cakes of bread
is prescribed (Lev 7:12-13). It is offered to express one’s gratitude to God for
“deliverance from danger or misfortune.”
219
Wenham, though, suggests “confession offering” as a translation as it was
“appropriate in two quite different situations: when someone was seeking God’s
deliverance, either from his enemies or from sickness. In such cases he might well
feel the need to confess his sins, if he thought this was the reason for his present
predicament (Judg 20:26; 21:4; 2 Sam 24:25). Or he could offer the confession
sacrifice after he had been delivered. In this case the confession would center on
God’s mercy rather than on his own sinfulness.”
220
However, in the instances he cites of confession of sin, the hdt jbz is
offered after the hlu. It could be argued that the confession of sin is tied more closely
to the hlu which has atonement as its purpose, and the hdt jbz is giving thanks for
the acceptance of the hlu, and for assurance of God’s fellowship within the difficulty.
216
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81.
217
In Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.220.
218
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221.
219
Levine, Leviticus, p.42 The rabbis derived from Ps 107 four occasions for this: safe return from a
sea voyage or a desert journey, recovery from illness, and release from prison: Milgrom, Leviticus
1-16, p.220.
220
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78.
97
2) rdn Wenham writes, “In difficult circumstances, men of old often made a
vow to the Lord that if he helped them, they would do something for God. When
they fulfilled their vow, they were expected to bring a peace offering.”
221
For
example, when barren, Hannah prayed for a child and vowed that if her prayer were
answered she would dedicate the child to God. When the child was weaned, she
brought cattle, flour and wine as a <ymlv (1 Sam 1).
3) hbdn is described as the “spontaneous by-product of one’s happiness
whatever its cause.”
222
Wenham distinguishes this from the previous two that were
connected with petitionary prayer. hbdn came as a response to God’s unexpected and
unasked for generosity.
223
Wesseley comments on the above three types of <ymlv: “The common
denominator of these motivations is rejoicing.”
224
Requirements for cultic purity for the fellowship meal
1. Generally the sacrificial beast had to be without defect (Lev 3:1), but this
requirement was relaxed in the case of the freewill offering (Lev 22:23).
2. The meat had to be eaten within a certain time limit. This limit was tighter for the
praise offering (Lev 7:15f).
3. Any person who ate of the meat had to be ritually pure, or he would be “cut off
from his people” (Lev 7:20f).
4. Fat and blood should not be eaten (Lev 7:20ff).
Conclusion
From the above we can see that the <ymlv was usually an occasion for joy
and fellowship involving the offerer, his family, the priest and Yahweh. It could be
offered at any time and was especially appropriate at the high points of the nation’s
life: sealing the covenant at Sinai, the installation of King Saul, David’s bringing of
the Ark to Jerusalem, and the dedication of Solomon’s temple.
225
221
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78.
222
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.219.
223
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.79.
224
Cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.218.
225
Hartley, Leviticus, p.38.
98
Averbeck writes, “The point of eating was to enact the bond of relationship
that had been established between God and his people. Whenever such an offering
was presented, it re-enacted the same bond and could have the effect of calling the
people to renewed covenant loyalty to Yahweh and one another.”
226
It also served as a means of support for the priests. The manipulation of
blood, and the regulations for cultic purity reminded the partakers that they were
sinners, requiring Yahweh’s merciful provision of the sacrifice to cleanse them to be
fit to eat in the presence of a holy God.
226
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.1001.
99
5.5 tafj
Figure 13: The tafj ritual
Actor
Action
Worshipper
Presents the animal at the entrance of the Tabernacle
Worshipper
Lays a hand on the head of the animal
Worshipper
Slaughters the animal
The part the priest plays in tafj depends on the social status of the offerer
(see figure 15 below, p.101). The high priest or the whole community made what
Hartley calls the greater offering; a tribal leader or a member of the community made
the lesser offering.
Figure 14: The priest’s actions in the greater and lesser tafj rituals
The greater tafj
The lesser tafj
Takes blood inside inner sanctuary and
sprinkles some of it seven times before
the curtain
Puts some on the horns of the altar of
incense
Puts some blood on the horns of the altar
of burnt offering
Pours out the rest of the blood at the
base of the altar of burnt offering
Pours out the rest of the blood at the base
of the altar of burnt offering
Removes the fat and burns it on the
altar of burnt offering
Removes the fat and burns it on the altar
of burnt offering
Takes the remains of the animal
outside the camp and burns it
Eats the remains of the animal in the
sanctuary courtyard with any male from
his family (Lev 6:29)
Translation
Since tafj most commonly means “sin”, the traditional translation for this
sacrifice, dating back to the LXX, has been “sin offering” or its equivalent. Most
commentators have seen it as the principal expiatory offering. The purpose is stated
by Keil as “putting an end to the separation between man and God that had been
100
created by sin ... ”
227
and by Levine as removing “the culpability borne by the
offender.”
228
However, more recent commentators, such as Milgrom, Wenham and
Hartley, agree that this is inadequate, and all prefer the rendering “purification
offering”. Their reasons can be summarised as follows:
1. The burnt, fellowship and reparation offerings in their different ways atoned for
sin, and so simply to translate tafj as “sin offering” obscures the precise
function of the sacrifice.
229
2. Morphologically, it corresponds not to the qal form of the verb afj “to sin”, but
to its piel form which means “to cleanse, decontaminate”.
230
Further, the hithpael
form of the verb means “to purify oneself”.
231
3. In various places where the offering is connected with purification (e.g. Lev 12:8;
14:19), the rites are said to cleanse people from bodily pollutions.
232
4. Lev 15:31 states the purpose of tafj: “You must separate the children of Israel
from their uncleanness so that they do not die in their uncleanness by polluting
my tabernacle which is among them.”
233
This, coinciding with the application of
the blood to various parts of the tabernacle, demonstrates that the particular
emphasis of this offering is not so much the reconciliation of human beings with
God, but on purifying Yahweh’s sanctuary from uncleanness.
The gradation of tafj offerings
The different rituals for the tafj set out in Lev 4 according to the social
status of the offerer correspond with the gradations of the Holiness Spectrum (see
p.66). This is summarised in the following table (originally set out by Jenson,
234
but
slightly modified). Jenson comments that “the order in which the text describes the
sacrifice gives formal expression to the grading ... The most serious faults are dealt
with first and require the strongest purification rituals.”
235
The table shows that the
227
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.93.
228
Levine, Leviticus, p.18.
229
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.88.
230
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.253.
231
Hartley, Leviticus, p.55.
232
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.94.
233
Translation by Wenham The Book of Leviticus.
234
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.172.
235
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.172.
101
strongest purification rituals require the most valuable sacrificial animal, the blood to
be applied in the more holy place, and the prohibition of its use for food.
Figure 15: Tafj prescribed for different offenders
Lev 4
Offender
Animal
Place
Blood
sprinkled
Blood
applied
Food
for
3-12
high priest
bull
holy place
in front of
veil
horns of
incense
altar
no one
13-21
congregation
bull
holy place
in front of
veil
horns of
incense
altar
no one
22-26
leader
goat
tabernacle
court
horns of
hlu altar
priests
27-35
anyone
goat/ lamb
tabernacle
court
horns of
hlu altar
priests
Occasions for offering tafj in Lev 4-5
Lev 4:2 speaks of the need for tafj in the case of inadvertent sins. In Num
15:22-31, an inadvertent sin is contrasted with one committed defiantly, with a high
hand, when offender must be cut off from his people, with his guilt remaining on
him. Inadvertence can arise, according to Milgrom,
236
from one of two causes:
1) negligence, when the offender knows the law, but involuntarily breaks it, such as
accidental homicide (Num 35:22f).
2) ignorance, when he intends the act, but is unaware that it violates the law. This
could be due, according to Levine, either to ignorance of the law, or ignorance of
the nature of the act, such as a person eating forbidden fat, while mistakenly
believing it to be ordinary fat.
237
Lev 5:1-4 also requires a tafj to be offered for certain sins of omission:
1) failure to give testimony in court;
2) someone touches an unclean thing and it is hidden from him;
236
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.228.
237
Levine, Leviticus, p.19.
102
3) someone touches human uncleanness and it is hidden from him, and he comes to
know it; and
4) someone makes a rash oath and it is hidden from him, and he comes to know it.
The condition attached to the last two cases “and it is hidden from him, and
he comes to know it” has attracted various interpretations:
238
1. The offender acted accidentally later forgot later remembered
2. The offender acted unconsciously later discovered the fault
3. The offender acted deliberately later forgot later remembered
Hartley
239
concurs with Kiuchi
240
in favouring the first possibility. Against
the second position, he argues that the verb “and it is hidden” is to be interpreted as
following on in sequence with the offender’s action—it is not simultaneous with it.
He favours the first position over the third, as the description of one who utters a rash
oath indicates an action done consciously, but without premeditation.
Comparison of the greater and lesser tafj
The following four comparisons can be made between the greater and lesser
tafj:
1) The greater ritual is unique among the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 in that it partly takes
place inside the holy place, while the lesser takes place in the courtyard.
The reason for this is that pollution from sin committed by a high priest
penetrates into the holy place itself, which then requires purification by the tafj
ritual.
241
In terms of the Holiness Spectrum, the holiness of the high priest
corresponds with the most holy place in the tabernacle.
2) The greater involves sprinkling blood seven times before the curtain.
The gesture of sprinkling, according to Kiuchi,
242
is like the more usual
gesture of daubing blood in that it symbolises the purification of the sancta.
243
He
argues too that sprinkling is the more potent of the two symbols, as it is connected
238
Outlined in Hartley, Leviticus, p.67.
239
Hartley, Leviticus, p.67.
240
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.28ff.
241
Hartley, Leviticus, p.60.
242
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.130.
243
Sancta are the furniture and the instruments consecrated for use in the tabernacle.
103
with the more holy objects and the more holy Day of Atonement. Seven times
denotes completeness.
3) The greater involves daubing blood on the horns of the incense altar.
Hartley likens this action to that of applying blood to Aaron’s ear, thumb and
toe during his ordination: daubing the extremity with blood cleanses the whole.
244
4) In the greater ritual, the remains of the animal are taken outside the camp to be
burnt, compared with their consumption by the priests in the lesser.
The general verb “to burn” is used in connection with the disposal of the
remains outside the camp, rather than the verb “to turn into smoke” used in Lev 4:10
in connection with the fat offered on the altar. This indicates to Hartley
245
that this
part of the proceedings is not a ritual act directed towards Yahweh, but rather a
necessary disposal or “riddance”
246
of something that is holy.
The priests are compensated for their services on behalf of the people by
being able to eat the meat of the lesser. Since the high priest is involved in the sin
which requires the greater tafj, neither he nor his household may benefit by eating
the meat. The riddance then prevents any misuse of a holy animal.
247
The poor man’s tafj
Those individuals who could not afford to bring a lamb were to bring two
doves or pigeons (Lev 5:7). Failing even that, they could bring fine flour (Lev 5:11).
This demonstrates that despite the prominent part in the rite of the manipulation of
blood, it was not totally indispensable; it certainly points away from any
interpretation of the magical efficacy of the blood. Jenson comments, “The necessity
for even the poorest person to offer something took precedence over the
symbolism.”
248
244
Hartley, Leviticus, p.60.
245
Hartley, Leviticus, p.61.
246
An anthropological term for such a procedure. Levine, Leviticus, p.18.
247
Hartley, Leviticus, p.61.
248
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.161.
104
Other occasions for offering tafj
tafj is prescribed for a variety of occasions and situations. A. Marx
organises these into four categories
249
:
1. Sins of inadvertence or a sin that becomes hidden in some way.
2. Rite of reintegration to the community for those who have been unclean for an
extended period, e.g. as a result of touching a corpse (Num 19:11-22) or of
enduring sexual discharges (Lev 15:13ff; 28ff).
3. Rituals of consecration: the investiture of the Levites (Num 8:5-26), the
ordination of Aaron (Exod 29:1-37, Lev 8:1-36) and the consecration of the altar
(Exod 29:36f), or of the opposite, deconsecration in the case of the termination of
the vow of a Nazirite (Num 6:13-20).
4. Certain high days and festivals. The highest day of the calendar was the annual
Day of Atonement (Lev 16), when the Israelites “abstained from all earthly
pleasures ... to seek God solemnly for forgiveness of their sins.”
250
The High
Priest entered the Holy of Holies twice to sprinkle the blood of a tafj, the first
time for himself and his household and the second time for the Israelite
community.
Purpose of tafj
Marx has proposed that the common theme in all tafj is that it forms part of
a system of rites of passage that effects a transfer from one state to another. “The hub
of the system is to be found in the j^F`aT and the holocaust, the former sacrifice
being designed to operate the separation with the previous state, and the latter
working the reintegration of the ‘sinner’ and the unclean, or the aggregation to a
new, or renewed state.”
251
As part of his evidence he cites the need for two doves,
one tafj and one hlu, in the case of a poor man’s wrongdoing. He proposes that
tafj be called the “sacrifice of separation”. The tafj also helps effect the changes
in the seasons, the annual regeneration of the territory, and the transfers to and fro
between the sacred and profane.
249
Hartley, Leviticus, pp.55-57.
250
Hartley, Leviticus, p.243.
251
Quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.289.
105
Milgrom is convincing in his rebuttal of Marx’s hypothesis:
252
There are clear cases where tafj operates independently of hlu (e.g. Lev 4-6).
The case of the two doves was a marginal case when the offerer was poor.
Philologically, rpk, the verb often associated with tafj, means “to purge”.
Although tafj indeed forms part of the consecration ceremonies, evidence that
it can actually signify “consecration” is found wanting. During the consecration
of the Levites, the tafj waters were sprinkled on them “to purify them” (Num
8:7). Similarly, in the consecration of the altar, tafj is the first sacrifice offered
and its object is to purify it (Exod 29:36) in preparation for its role in other
sacrifices.
When it comes to the question as to what is purified, Milgrom is clear that the
object of tafj is limited to the sanctuary and its sancta, which are polluted in three
stages:
253
1. Individual inadvertent misdemeanour or severe physical impurity pollutes the
courtyard, which is purified by the lesser tafj.
2. Inadvertent misdemeanours of the high priest or entire community pollute the
shrine, which is purified by the greater tafj.
3. Wanton, unrepented sin penetrates to the very throne of God. As the defiant
sinner is barred from bringing his tafj, the pollution wrought by his offence
must await the annual purgation of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.
For Milgrom,
254
the offender himself is not purified by the tafj. He reasons
that the blood is always applied to the sanctuary and its contents, and never to the
offerer. Rather, it is the ablution that purifies him of physical impurity: “he shall
launder his clothes [and] bathe in water” (Lev 15:8 inter alia). As for the inadvertent
sinner, he is never called “impure”, and so does not need purification for himself.
The fact that his act is inadvertent and that he feels remorse is sufficient for him to be
forgiven.
252
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.290f.
253
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.257.
254
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.254f.
106
Milgrom sees the role of the tafj solely in terms of purification of the
sanctuary and its contents. The purity of the sanctuary is restored after deliberate sin
(purged on the Day of Atonement), inadvertent sin, or some impurity lasting more
than a week has compromised it. As for the festival days, tafj is required “because
presumably the sanctuary is crowded with pilgrims and the consequent pollution of
the altar is inevitable.”
255
Jenson, while welcoming Milgrom’s focus on purification and the
significance of grading, questions his conclusion that places are purified to the
exclusion of people.
256
He suggests that there may have been practical reasons for the
fact that blood was not applied to someone’s person, and points to several texts (Lev
12:8; 14:19f; 16:19, 30; Num 8:6f, 15, 21) where the person is purified. For example,
Lev 14:19, dealing with the final stage of the purification of a leper, reads: “The
priest is to perform the ritual of a purification offering and make expiation for the
one being cleansed because of his uncleanness.”
257
Milgrom interprets “expiates for”
as “expiates on behalf of”
258
and “his uncleanness” as that “which he inflicted on the
sanctuary”
259
; but the latter, at least, seems somewhat forced.
Kiuchi
260
suggests that the tafj can purify both the offerer and the sancta at
the same time. Whereas Milgrom assumes that the sanctuary becomes defiled at the
moment a person becomes unclean, Kiuchi argues uncleanness of the sancta is only
envisaged when an unclean person stands before Yahweh at the entrance of the
tent.
261
Thus “tafj blood indeed purifies the sancta, but not the sancta that have
been defiled for a lengthy period.”
262
Kiuchi recognises that three passages (Lev 15:31; 16:16; 16:19b) do suggest
long term “sancta pollution.”
263
The first, Lev 15:31, he suggests could be interpreted
255
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.292.
256
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.157.
257
Translated by Hartley, Leviticus, p.174.
258
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.255f.
259
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.857f.
260
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.60f.
261
In Lev 14, the leper is declared clean at three stages: before he re-enters the camp, after seven days
waiting, and finally after the tafj ritual in the sanctuary (v.20). Kiuchi, interprets the threefold
declaration as meaning the leper has become clean enough for each particular stage. This is
consistent with the Holiness Spectrum (see p.67) and with his argument that purification of people
and place takes places through the tafj.
262
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
263
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
107
as a warning that breaking or ignoring the rules on how to deal with uncleanness
defiles the tabernacle—rather than the uncleanness in itself being the immediate
cause.
264
Lev 16:16, describing the Day of Atonement, reads, “In this way [the high
priest] will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and
the rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for
the Tent of Meeting which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” Later,
in 16:19b, the high priest is to sprinkle some of the blood on the horns of the altar “to
cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.”
Jenson postulates that Milgrom may be right for general corporate contexts
and Kiuchi right for individual impurity.
265
Whatever the exact timing may be, it is
clear that the texts envisage that the tafj purifies both the people and the sanctuary.
On the need for the annual tafj on the Day of Atonement on top of the
ongoing sacrifices prescribed in Lev 4, Hartley comments: “Given the reality that
humans by nature sin continually, pollution of the sanctuary was unavoidable.
Therefore it had to be cleansed yearly by these blood rites on these key sacred
objects in order that it might continue to function efficaciously as the place for the
worship of Yahweh.”
266
One can see that there were certainly sins which would not
be covered by the more regular tafj: unwitting breach of uncleanness rules,
267
sins
never coming to consciousness, and sins committed with a high hand for which the
offender himself could not bring an offering. However, one should not imagine that
anyone was keeping a tally or making a strict division as to what was being covered
on the Day of Atonement for the language is very inclusive: “Atonement is to be
made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites” (Lev 16:30).
Conclusion
The tafj is clearly purificatory in nature. It helps deal with the polluting
effects of both sin and physical impurities which affect people, and which are also
communicated to the dwelling place of Yahweh. The purification ensures that when
the people come into the presence of their God, the holy and the unclean do not come
264
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
265
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.157.
266
Hartley, Leviticus, p.244.
267
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.228.
108
in contact, a scenario which would result in death (Lev 16:2). However, the tafj in
and of itself does not automatically convey purification; at least in the case of sin it
follows confession of sin and penitence (e.g. Lev 5:5; 16:29) on the part of the
offenders, and depends ultimately on the will of Yahweh who prescribed it.
5.6 <va
Figure 16: The <va ritual
Actor
Action
Worshipper
Brought unblemished ram to the altar of burnt offering
where it is slaughtered
Priest
Applies the blood to the altar
Priest
Burns the fat and the entrails on the altar
Any male in a
priest’s family
Eat the rest of the meat
Translation
The RSV, NEB, NIV and NLB all translate <va as “guilt offering”, whereas
recent commentators
268
concur that this is unhelpful and prefer “reparation offering”.
Jenson comments, “A great deal of confusion arises because of the different
meanings of <va. According to context, it could refer to a sacrifice of reparation, the
penalty for guilt, or the state of guilt.”
269
The confusion has been compounded by the
common mistranslation of Lev 5:7. There the poor man’s tafj is described as <va.
In that context, <va should be translated “penalty for his sin” (as NIV) or
“reparation for his sin” (as REB).
270
However many versions have followed the RSV
which has been translated it “guilt offering”. The result has been that in the past,
many commentators have taken the <va as a kind of tafj or vice-versa.
268
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, Hartley, Leviticus, Jenson, Graded
Holiness.
269
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.160, fn.2.
270
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.104.
109
Wenham contends that “the two sacrifices were quite different. The ritual was
different. The sacrificial animals were different. The circumstances in which they
were offered differed ... In short, different names denote different sacrifices.”
271
Occasions for <va in Lev 5-6
These chapters set out three different occasions for a reparation offering:
1) When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of
the LORD’s holy things (Lev 5:15).
Levine
272
follows rabbinic tradition which understood that “holy things of
Yahweh” here were limited to the tent of meeting and its sancta. Milgrom,
273
though,
has shown that the term is wider and includes things that belong to priests—such as
portions of <ymlv (Lev 7:31-34) and tithes (Lev 27:30ff)—and anything dedicated
to Yahweh. In Lev 19:5ff meat of the <ymlv is classified among the holy things of
Yahweh.
A layman who took anything that was holy would commit a violation. An
example is found in Lev 22:14: “If anyone eats a sacred offering by mistake, he must
make restitution to the priest ... ” Anyone discovering his fault was to return the
property or its value, plus 20 per cent of the value, plus a ram as reparation offering
(Lev 5:15f).
2) If a person sins, and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even
though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible (Lev 5:17).
The syntax of the Hebrew in this text makes it difficult to interpret what it is
“he does not know”. This has provoked different interpretations.
JPS translates the verse on the basis that the offender did not know that his
action was forbidden. Levine
274
points out, though, that this would mean that there is
no distinction between the occasions for the reparation offering and the individual’s
purification offering (Lev 4:27-35): both would deal with the situation of inadvertent
offences.
271
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.105.
272
Levine, Leviticus, p.30.
273
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.322.
274
Levine, Leviticus, p.32.
110
Levine follows the rabbinic interpretation that the offender suspected he may
have committed an offence, but did not know for certain. He cites the case of Job
who used to make a “contingent sacrifice”—in case his sons had sinned (Job 1:5).
Since the exact offence is unknown, there can be no return of the property as in the
first case; simply a ram is offered in sacrifice.
Another part of the verse difficult to interpret is the word <va, which appears
here as a verb. It is translated in NIV as “he is guilty”. Kiuchi points out that this
translation makes the protasis simply an objective statement and does not answer the
question as to when one should bring the sacrifice. He argues, “Since the term
usually comes just before the bringing of the sacrifice or the confession (e.g. Lev
5:5,17), it is most likely that the term refers to the existential situation of the
sinner.”
275
Milgrom renders <va as “he feels guilt”. It does not refer to the state of guilt
but “the suffering brought on by guilt, expressed now by words such as qualms,
pangs, remorse, and contrition.”
276
Kiuchi prefers “he realises guilt”. His position is
summarised as follows: “<va connotes both a legal status and the idea that ‘guilt’
works itself into the conscience ... so that the sinner becomes aware of his sin.”
277
However, as the offerer remains unaware of what has caused him to feel guilty,
Kiuchi’s emphasis on actual legal guilt seems, at least in the context of this verse,
misplaced.
The traditional rabbinic view was that the reparation offering here was for
unconscious breaches of any of God’s laws; but Wenham and Hartley
278
follow
Rabbi Akiba
279
and argue that, in the context, it is rather trespasses against sacred
property that are in view. Milgrom agrees that “basically the text predicates sancta
desecration,”
280
but goes on to argue that “the term for desecration,
, was
deliberately excluded, in order to teach that the
offering is prescribed not just
for the desecration of the sancta, but also for the unconscious violation of all of the
Lord’s prohibitive commandments.”
281
275
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.32.
276
Quoted in Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.31.
277
Hartley, Leviticus, p.82.
278
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.107; Hartley, Leviticus, p.82.
279
In Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.331.
280
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.332.
281
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.332.
111
The offerer’s lack of knowledge of the exact offence supports Milgrom’s
wider interpretation here. The typical offerer, Milgrom postulates, has been suffering
psychologically or physically, and unaware of the cause of his feelings of guilt,
would often imagine the worst case scenario, that he has committed some sacrilege,
though in fact it may have been something else.
282
3) The third occasion for the reparation offering is found in Lev 6:2ff which reads:
“If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbour
about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats
him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if
he commits any such sin that people may do ... ”
Recent commentators
283
generally follow Milgrom
284
who considers this text
as essentially dealing with religious rather than civil law. “Swearing falsely” does not
specify a discrete wrong, but applies to all the preceding cases. The offender has
defrauded his neighbour by one of the various means listed, but on top of that, when
accused of his fraud, he has denied it under oath, using the name of Yahweh.
This position clarifies the phrase, “unfaithful to the LORD” (Milgrom
translates as “sacrilege against the Lord”) which heads the pericope (v2). The
sacrilege occurs because “the Lord has been made an accomplice to the defrauding of
man.”
285
As in the first case, the offender has to return the property to its rightful
owner, plus 20 per cent, and make a reparation offering to Yahweh (Lev 6:4f).
Other occasions for offering <va
The <va is required elsewhere in several cases:
1. A Nazirite whose vow of consecration had been broken through corpse
contamination had to reconsecrate himself and renew his vow and then present an
<va (Num 6:7-21).
2. A man who slept with a betrothed slave (Lev 19:20-22).
3. In post-exilic Jerusalem, those who were guilty of mixed marriages and had to
divorce their foreign wives (Ezra 10:19).
282
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.332f.
283
E.g. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, Levine, Leviticus, and Hartley, Leviticus.
284
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.336f.
285
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.365.
112
4. The Philistines returned the Ark they had captured together with valuable objects
to appease the wrath of God they were experiencing (1Sam 6:3-5).
5. One healed of an infectious skin disease offered an <va as part of a complex rite
of aggregation (Lev 14:12, 21).
These can each be interpreted as examples of breach of faith or sacrilege: the
first two involve breach of vows (in the second, the oath of betrothal taken before
Yahweh has been broken.)
286
In the case of mixed marriage, the leaders talk of
desecration of the holy people of Israel: “They have taken some of their daughters as
wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples
around them.” (Ezra 9:2) The Philistines had desecrated the holy ark of Yahweh.
As for the person cured of the skin disease, Hartley
287
suggests that as illness
was generally thought of as punishment for sin, and skin disease as the worst curse
one could experience, a sufferer may well believe he had unknowingly desecrated
sacred property. Wenham,
288
while not discounting this theory, suggests an
alternative, that the reparation offering here compensated God for the loss of all
sacrifices, tithes and firstfruits the sufferer had been unable to present during his
uncleanness.
The material
The reparation offering was to consist of a ram “one without defect and of
proper value in silver according to the sanctuary shekel” (Lev 5:15). The latter
phrase (in my italics) has attracted various interpretations. Some of these require the
text to be emended. The two that interpret the text as it stands are as follows:
1. The ram must possess a certain value measured in shekels, though the number is
not given.
289
The rabbinic view is that as “shekels” is given in the plural, the
animal must be worth at least two shekels. Hartley suggests the value was varied
from time to time by the officiating priest.
290
2. The offender had the option of providing his own ram or remitting the cost so
one could be purchased on his behalf.
291
Milgrom supports this by pointing to
286
Milgrom, in Hartley, Leviticus, p.79.
287
Hartley, Leviticus, p.79.
288
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.210.
289
Hartley, Leviticus, p.81.
290
Hartley, Leviticus, p.81.
291
Levine, Leviticus, p.31.
113
2 Kings 12:16 which talks of the “money from the guilt offerings”. Although the
phrase is only found in Lev 5:15, he argues that it functions as a standard for the
second and third cases which follow (Lev 5:17f and 6:2ff).
Unlike other sacrifices, there was no provision for a poor man, and there was
no alternative species to the specified ram. The description of the rite is relatively
brief, and from these facts Wenham concludes that for the reparation offering the
“value of the animal presented was more important than the procedure at the
altar.”
292
Purpose of the <va
Whereas the tafj was offered by individuals and by the Israelites
collectively, the <va was uniquely for individuals.
293
For Hartley,
294
the common thread running through all the occasions on
which reparation offerings were made was lum, which he translates as “breach of
faith”. The crimes of mishandling a neighbour’s property he conjectures were
elevated to a breach of faith against Yahweh by swearing an oath of innocence in his
name.
Milgrom’s analysis, however, is more precise and helpful. His studies reveal
that the key word lum in all occurrences in the OT constitutes a sin against God, and
that its antonym is “to sanctify”.
295
So the common thread is desecration of
something holy: holy property or offerings, or the holy people of Israel, or the holy
name of Yahweh.
When an offender feels guilt concerning some desecration, he is to make, if
the offence is known, full compensation or reparation to all offended parties to put
them back in the same position as before, plus a twenty per cent additional penalty.
In all cases, on top of any compensation, he is to present a reparation offering to
Yahweh so that the priest will make atonement for him and he will be forgiven (Lev
5:16,18; 6:7).
Milgrom notes that there is a paradox raised by the forgiveness of intentional
desecration of the name of Yahweh in Lev 6:1-7, for elsewhere the Priestly author
292
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.105.
293
Hartley, Leviticus, p.78.
294
Hartley, Leviticus, p.77.
295
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.345.
114
asserts the person who sins with a high hand is excluded from the benefits of atoning
sacrifice (Num 15:30f). He finds that the paradox is resolved in Num 5:6-7, a
passage parallel to that in Lev 6:
“If a man or woman commits any wrong against man whereby he commits
sacrilege against the Lord, when that person feels guilt, he shall confess the
wrong he has done, make reparation in its entirety, and add one-fifth to it,
giving it to the one to whom he has incurred liability.”
296
Milgrom
297
argues that this passage is more general than the cases in Lev 6
and confirms that lum applies to all cases of fraud through oath. It further stipulates
that restitution must be preceded by confession. He surveys the passages (Lev 5:1-5;
16:21; 26:40; Num 5:6f) where the priestly author requires confession and finds that
the passages all deal exclusively with deliberate sin. So he deduces that while for
involuntary sacrilege, it is sufficient that the offender feels remorse
298
and presents
the reparation offering to make atonement, in the case of deliberate sacrilege, there
must also be verbal confession. In other words, repentance through remorse and
confession “reduces ... intentional sin to inadvertence, thereby rendering it eligible
for sacrificial expiation.”
299
Conclusion
A reparation offering is a costly offering presented by an individual to
compensate Yahweh for desecration of his property or his name.
5.7 SUMMARY
The following table summarises the major conclusions we have drawn
concerning the purposes of the five sacrifices in Lev 1-7. It also sets out what can be
perceived to be the distinctive focus of each ritual.
300
296
Quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.368.
297
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.365ff.
298
The verb <va means to feel guilt or remorse.
299
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.373.
300
See Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.161.
115
Figure 17: Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: summary of their functions
Sacrifice
Focus of ritual
Purpose(s)
hlu
burning of the whole animal
substitutionary atonement; expression
of thankfulness and trust
hjnm
presentation of grain
tribute; consecration; thanksgiving;
reminder of the covenant
<ymlv
distribution of flesh to
various parties
enjoyment of fellowship between the
people and Yahweh
tafj
manipulation of the blood
purification of the sanctuary, its sancta
and the people
<va
value of the sacrificial
animal
reparation for the desecration of
Yahweh’s holy property or name
This brief overview demonstrates how complex the Levitical sacrificial is,
with its different forms of sacrifice. Wenham argues that substitutionary atonement
forms a part of the theology of all the blood sacrifices, and that the different
sacrifices deal with different effects of sin.
“The burnt offering uses a personal picture: of man the guilty sinner who
deserves to die for his sin and of the animal dying in his place. God accepts
the animal as a ransom for man. The sin offering uses a medical model: sin
makes the world so dirty that God can no longer dwell there. The blood of the
animal disinfects the sanctuary in order that God may continue to be present
with his people. The reparation offering presents a commercial picture of sin.
Sin is a debt which man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the
offered animal.”
301
Wenham concentrates on the effects of sin, but as Averbeck points out, since
Yahweh was actually “physically, literally and visibly present in the tabernacle”
302
(see the cloud and fire in Exod 40:34-38; Lev 9:22-24; 16:2; Num 9:15-23), he was
concerned also about the visible, physical holiness and purity of his residence, and of
301
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.111.
302
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.1008.
116
the people who approached him there. Sacrifice, especially the purification offering,
had a part to play in addressing this concern.
If substitutionary atonement and the restoration of broken fellowship are
central to the hlu, tafj, and <va, the focal purpose of the hjnm and <ymlv is
rather the enjoyment of that fellowship once restored. To put this another way, the
first group is concerned primarily to restore the holiness of Israel after it has been
compromised, and the second group to maintain that holiness through consecration
and fellowship.
Averbeck, in common with Rainey,
303
sees a pattern in the sequence in which
the sacrifices are generally carried out:
1. expiation (the purification or reparation offering or both)
2. consecration (burnt offering and accompanying grain offering)
3. fellowship (peace offering).
It is important to see the Levitical sacrifices, too, in the wider context of
God’s progressive revelation through the Pentateuch and Old Testament. The hlu
was the earliest of the sacrifices to be developed and, as such, it performed more than
one function. The purification and reparation offerings were instituted at the same
time as the construction of the dwelling place for Yahweh, and were linked to the
purification of this sanctuary and its sancta. Obedience to the sacrificial regulations
was important: disobedience led to the offender being cut off from the people. On the
other hand, following the regulations was not, in and of itself, necessarily sufficient;
there was no magical effect in following the prescribed rites. Sacrifices for deliberate
sins needed to be accompanied by repentance; otherwise they were odious to
Yahweh.
So Levitical sacrifice was instituted by Yahweh to be performed in the
context of the relationship between himself, the holy God, and his holy people to
play an essential part in sustaining that relationship.
303
Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.1015.
117
6. LEVITICAL AND SUPYIRE CONCEPTS OF
SACRIFICE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED
6.1 THE FUNCTIONS OF SACRIFICE
By way of comparison, the list of functions that sacrifice has in Supyire
society is reproduced below, with an asterisk against those that feature (with at least
some degree of similarity) in the Levitical system.
To make requests for the future
1. To ask for blessings
2. To ask for protection against perceived dangers
To maintain good relationships with the supernatural realm
1. A greeting *
2. To maintain an alliance *
3. To fulfil a vow *
4. To avoid offending divinity through neglect
5. To ask for forgiveness *
6. To inform the ancestors of someone joining the family
7. To aid someone recently deceased get established in the village of the
ancestors
To gain knowledge
1. To discern the cause of a problem
2. To determine whether the ancestors have consented to a request
3. To determine the cause of death
To deal with problems in relationships with ancestors
1. To seek forgiveness from an aggrieved ancestor
2. To reconcile ancestors still quarrelling
To ward off evil
1. Problems caused by jinas
2. Curses
3. Misfortune
4.
¤…m…
5. The earth being spoilt
118
To punish a wrongdoer
To gain power through sorcery
To dedicate some object or place to the jinas *
Functions of sacrifice in Supyire society not found in Israel
Seeking Yahweh for future blessing, or for protection against evil, or for
wisdom when confronted with a problem is part and parcel of Israelite religion, and
the subject matter of many recorded prayers. However it is not a function of
sacrifice, for the concept of a supernatural being responding to a request because he
has benefited materially from the sacrifices offered to him is alien to Israelite religion
(see above, p.95).
The following practices found among the Supyire are specifically forbidden
to the Israelites in the Pentateuch:
1) Divination (Lev 19:26, Deut 18:10), for it is based on the conviction that
impersonal fate determines all that happens rather than Yahweh the sovereign
God.
304
2) Consulting the spirits of the dead (Deut 18:11). This too militates against
acknowledging the sovereignty of Yahweh.
3) Magic or sorcery in which the magician tries to compel a divinity or occult forces
to work for him (Lev 19:26). This contrasts with the humble walk of the believer
with his God, characterised by prayer and submission.
4) Punishing wrongdoers, while not expressly prohibited, is seen as the prerogative
of Yahweh who says, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay” (Deut 32:35).
Functions of sacrifice in Israel not found in Supyire society
The Supyire do not perform sacrifices to purify themselves or their property
from the effects of sin, as they do not share the Levitical concept of sin in terms of it
having a polluting effect.
304
Hartley, Leviticus, p.320.
119
Functions common to Israelite and Supyire sacrifice
Homage, reconciliation, consecration, reparation and fulfilment of a vow are
functions of sacrifice common to both societies.
1) Homage
The Israelite year was punctuated by a number of festivals appointed by
Yahweh and outlined several times in the Pentateuch (Exod 23:14-17; 34:18-26; Lev
23; Num 28-29; Deut 16:1-17). There are a number of similarities between these and
the Supyire village festival. They are both community celebrations, when typically
no work is done. Sacrifices are offered as gifts in homage to Yahweh for having
intervened on behalf of the Israelite people in the past and for providing for their
ongoing needs. Similarly, Supyire villages offer homage to the jinas who have
helped establish their village and who provide for continuing harvests.
As we have seen, the <ymlv was a celebration in the presence of Yahweh
and during the festival of shelters Israel was commanded to “rejoice before the
LORD for seven days” (Lev 23:40). In Fassoumana, a village in the north of Supyire
territory, the annual festival is called P
›ri
.
305
Diarra writes, “It is a festival which
seeks to honour the ancestors, invoke the jinas and the sacred forests, to offer
sacrifices, to repent: in short to seek the p
›r›
mi from the jinas … all activities except
commerce come to a halt. It is a time for ‘sacred rest’ … joy, abundance,
brotherhood, reunion and reconciliation.”
306
Despite the similarities in the theme of celebration, there are differences of
emphases that should be pointed out. For the Israelites the personality and attributes
of Yahweh are much more to the fore. It is Yahweh who is the centre of attention,
and specific miraculous acts he has performed in the past are brought to mind. The
Supyire jinas and ancestors are much more shadowy characters. For a start, there are
many of them; there is not one who is in focus for the whole festival week (as is the
case in e.g. Lev 23:40). Instead, sacrifices will be made to different groups on
different days of the festival. They are not named in the prayers, and their actions are
recalled, if at all, only in very general terms. The exploits of a living hero are more
likely to be recited than those deeds now forgotten in the mists of time.
305
Diarra states that P
›
ri is derived from p
›r›
mi, which means “happiness”: see Diarra, Le Pori, Une
Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo, p.24.
306
Diarra, Le Pori, Une Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo, p.24 (my translation).
120
2) Reconciliation
Both in Israel and in Supyire worldviews, an important function of sacrifice is
to restore broken relationships. The relationship between Yahweh and his people was
broken by their sin; a holy God cannot dwell in the presence of sin, and God’s wrath
was averted by means of sacrifice. For the Supyire, ancestors who for some reason
have been offended will take out their anger against the living, and their anger can be
appeased by sacrifice.
3) Dedication
Tools, musical instruments or a market may be dedicated to a jina by way of
a sacrifice. Exod 29:35-36 shows that the tafj has a role to play in the dedication of
priests and of the altar in the service of Yahweh.
4) Reparation
When Yahweh’s name or property consecrated to him has been violated,
there is the need for a reparation offering to restore it to its proper position. This has
some parallels with the need in Supyire society to repair the land when it has been
spoilt, as the land is seen as something apart and having a special relationship with
kile.
5) Fulfilment of a vow
When a prayer has been executed, the Supyire will usually be quick to fulfil
any vow that they have made in connection with the prayer, for fear of reprisals. The
Israelites, too, were expected to fulfil vows to Yahweh: “If you make a vow to the
LORD your God, do not be slow to pay for it, for the LORD your God will certainly
demand it of you, and you will be guilty of sin” (Deut 23:21).
6.2 DIFFERENT IDEAS OF SACRIFICE
We shall now compare and contrast the concepts that under-pin the practices
of sacrifice in Israelite and Supyire culture.
Similarities:
The following ideas are found in both worldviews:
121
1) A sacrifice may be given individually or communally. In the case of Israel,
many sacrifices were offered on behalf of the whole nation, while in Supyire the
largest group represented would be an extended family or a village.
2) The presentation of the sacrifice is made through an intermediary.
Yahweh designated Aaron and his descendants to be consecrated as his priests for the
nation, to represent him to the people and the people to him. Among the Supyire, the
suitability to fill an intermediary role in a family is determined by one’s position in
relationship with that family. Typically the eldest male fills the role, as he is closest
to joining the ancestors.
3) Sacrificing animals is expected to be costly to the person making the
offering. In neither society is a wild animal an acceptable sacrifice. Only domestic
animals that have been cared for and fed by the individual or his family qualify. The
offerer is, in a way, giving of himself. In the procedures for several of the Levitical
sacrifices, it is stated that the beast should be unblemished.
4) The life of the animal is substituted for that of the individual. This concept,
which is central to substitutionary atonement at the heart of the Old Testament
sacrifice, is also found on the periphery of Supyire thought. Erstwhile sacrifice of
human life has now been replaced by animal sacrifice (see above p.31).
307
5) There are certain dangers involved in dealing with the supernatural realm.
As noted above, the Supyire exhibit a certain wariness in relation to supernatural
powers (see p.53). In Leviticus, those who are ritually unclean are not permitted
contact with the holy. For example “if anyone who is unclean eats any of the meat of
the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from the
people” (Lev 7:20). So, for the Israelites, it was important to keep meticulously the
instructions Yahweh had given them in relation to sacrifices. The Supyire seek to
protect themselves from the potential dangers as best as possible. One old man
sacrificing to the ants (seen as messengers of the earth gods) in order to have good
rains, had his fetish with him, in order to keep away any evil that might threaten him
by touching the sacrifice.
307
A folk story shows that the idea of substitution is not totally foreign to Senufo culture. In the story,
a family suffering from famine cultivated a new field, but as payment to the jinas who occupied the
field they had to give a sacrifice which turned out to be a boy. The boy was tied up, but at the last
moment the jinas released him and allowed a sheep and a goat to be sacrificed in his place. (The
story was recounted in 1983 by Yaandurugo, a griot in Burkina Faso who speaks Sicite, whose
language and culture is closer to Supyire than any other in the Senufo family).
122
Differences
1) Who demands the sacrifice? The ancestors are part of the extended family,
and the jinas are also seen in mainly human terms because they inhabited the area
before the village founders arrived. The homage offered is to those who are more
ancient and thus more powerful creatures, rather than to the uncreated God who is
wholly other. The Supyire sacrifice to a plurality of beings, the Israelites to one
alone. Thus, while Yahweh demands uncompromising loyalty, the Supyire will at
times neglect one sacrifice or change loyalty depending on what seems most
expedient.
2) Who benefits from the sacrifice? In Supyire thought, sacrifice is founded
on the principle do ut des: “I give in order that you give.” In other words, it is a
transaction of mutual benefit. The power of the worshipped increases and in return,
he will execute the prayer of the worshipper. In the Pentateuch, Yahweh and Israel
are in covenant relationship with obligations on both parties. If Israel fulfils its
obligations, which include sacrifice, it is promised blessings in return. However,
there is a fundamental difference from the Supyire perspective: unlike their deities,
Yahweh is already omnipotent and stands in no need of any sacrifice to increase his
power. Indeed, it is he who ultimately provides the means of sacrifice to his people
so that they can sacrifice to him for their benefit.
3) Why is sacrifice necessary? As we have seen, Israelite and Supyire
sacrifice can both have in view reconciliation between estranged parties. The reasons
for the estrangement though are not identical. In the Pentateuch, sin and rebellion
against a holy God constitute the reason. Due to his holy character, he has an
implacable, unwavering antithesis to sin. For the Supyire on the other hand, the
strained relationship does not have this ethical dimension to the fore. The strain may
come as much from one side as from the other, due to the human-like unpredictable
moods of the ancestors and spirits.
Another contrast along similar lines is that the Hebrew sacrifices in order to
purify himself of his filth before Yahweh due to his sin, while the Supyire sacrifices
in order to protect himself from the
¤…m…
of his wrong actions, something which is
outside himself.
4) How is sacrifice effective? The shedding of blood is a powerful symbol in
both cultures, but at root the symbolisms are very different. For Israel, it is a symbol
123
of death exacted by God in just punishment for sin. For the Supyire, it is a symbol of
life-giving force,
308
which has been transferred from the slaughtered animal to the
recipient of the sacrifice. Just as the fetish increases in size as more and more blood
congeals on it over the years, so too does its power as it receives increasing power
from the life-giving force of many animals. Jonckers talks of fetishes being fed by
the blood of sacrifices.
309
For the one, it is efficacious because the living God so
prescribed it. For the other, its efficacy is founded on an animistic view of the
universe with each object having its own life force which can be transferred to
another through sacrifice.
5) When is sacrifice carried out? The Supyire will make sacrifices both on an
annual basis and on other occasions when circumstances require it. In Israel, as well
as the annual festivals, there was need for an ongoing system of sacrifices, day in,
day out, on behalf of the community as the presence of Yahweh with his people was
also ongoing. Lev 6: 9,12 stipulates that the
“burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, till
morning, and the fire must be kept burning on the altar … The fire on the
altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to
add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the
fellowship offerings on it.”
Conclusion
Despite a fair number of similarities in terms of form and function, and even
the sharing of some important concepts between the Supyire and Levitical sacrifices,
there are at heart fundamental differences. The proto-typical Israelite animal sacrifice
is aimed at atonement for sin before a holy, omnipotent God who has provided
308
Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie. p.256 notes that in
a northern dialect of Supyire, the word for blood is the same as that for sweat, a symbol of man’s
toil. A proverb runs “Sweat from a man’s toil in the fields becomes cool water (symbol of
happiness) for his descendants.”
Henri Gravand writes:
“Parce qu’il véhicule les forces de la vie humaine ou animale comme la sève des vegetaux, le
sang est un symbole de la vie. Celui qui offre une poule en sacrifice en prend une goutte et se
touche le front pour se communiquer la force vitale.
Le sang stablilise et renforce la puissance de la parole dans le sacrifice. Il augmente la
puissance des talismans.
Un gris-gris est plus efficace si on a verse sur lui un peu de sang.”
Quoted in Escudero, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de L’Eucharistie, p.255.
309
Jonckers, La Société Minyanka du Mali p.75.
124
sacrifice as a means of redemption. Vegetable and other sacrifices are offered in
homage to him in recognition of total dependence on him as Creator and Provider.
The proto-typical Supyire sacrifice is, in contrast, a plea for help based on the
concept of a reciprocal bargain: the transfer of life force through the shedding of
blood to some greater power in return for answered prayer.
While there is some overlap between the concepts of sacrifice in the two
cultures, there are also major differences. Consequently, there can be no neat
categorization by which one could say that this word in Supyire corresponds exactly
to that word in Hebrew. The similarities and differences of emphases add to the
complexity of translating the key sacrificial terms. So the next section will look at the
principles which can be used to guide the translator in this complex task.
125
7. TRANSLATING LEVITICAL SACRIFICES INTO
SUPYIRE
7.1 APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION
There is a range of approaches to the translation of the Scriptures: at one end
of the continuum there is the highly literal translation and at the other what is called
transculturation. A literal translation is highly influenced by the form of the original
(or source) language, and uses as far as possible the “same parts of speech,
grammatical forms, word order and sentence length.”
310
Transculturation at the other
extreme is adapted to the receptor culture: it seeks to recreate the original events as
though they took place in today’s context.
Both of these approaches distort the original message. Because forms do not
correspond across languages, the literal approach sometimes results in “nonsense,
wrong sense or ambiguity.”
311
Transculturation distorts the historical and cultural
context of the Scripture.
Today many translators take an approach midway between the extremes,
variously called an idiomatic, dynamically equivalent, or meaningful translation.
They aim for a translation that is:
1. accurate, i.e. does not add or take away from or distort the meaning of the
original;
2. clear, i.e. is unambiguous (unless there is ambiguity intended in the original
text
312
);
3. natural, i.e. does not sound stilted.
Gutt, building on the work of Sperber and Wilson on the principle of
relevance, has recently contributed to the understanding of the translator’s task. He
summarizes the principle as follows: “Whenever a person engages in ostensive
communication, she creates the tacit presumption that what she has to communicate
310
Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.64.
311
Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.68.
312
“It is an … unwarranted assumption that greater clarity equals ‘better translation’; rather, a
translation should match the degree of comprehension of the source text.” Goerling, Criteria for the
Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.93.
126
will be optimally relevant to the audience: that it will yield adequate contextual
effects, without requiring unnecessary processing efforts.”
313
The importance of this for the translator is that he needs to uncover the
message the author intended to communicate, and then translate it in such a way that
the reader will understand this message. If what first comes to the reader’s mind is a
different message, or if he is left groping in the dark for a meaning, then the principle
of relevance has been breached.
This raises the further wider question: to which audience are we seeking to
communicate? For what may be relevant and clear to one reader may well be obscure
to another depending on his background. What Supyire audience are we translating
for?
Christian, Islamic or animist?
Male or female?
Adult or child?
Educated or uneducated?
These issues have been aired within the Supyire translation team but have yet
to be fully discussed with the churches that are interested in further involvement in
the work. We are presently working on the assumption that the translation is aimed at
as wide an audience within the Supyire community as possible; that the Scriptures
will be read and taught in church to build up the believers in their faith and will also
be used in evangelism to explain the Christian faith to Muslims and animists. So the
goal is that the Scriptures will communicate with all those who speak the Supyire
language fluently, from all faiths, educated or uneducated, male or female. But this
does not mean that the language will necessarily be at a simple level. The rich
complexity of the Supyire language should be exploited so that the Supyire
Scriptures will reflect as much as possible the richness and variety of the original
texts.
313
Gutt, Ernst-August, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation; USA:
Summer Institute of Linguistics and United Bible Societies, 1992, p.24.
127
7.2 OPTIONS FOR TRANSLATING CULTURALLY
UNFAMILIAR CONCEPTS
Although the concept of sacrifice is known to the Supyire, the different types
of sacrifice in Lev 1-7 are, to a greater or lesser extent, unfamiliar. This poses a
problem for the translator who is aiming at a relevant, meaningful translation.
Wendland
314
outlines various possible strategies to meet the challenge:
1. Reinterpret a local word.
2. Create a new local word.
3. Use a loanword from another language.
4. Use a generic word to describe the form or function.
5. Use a descriptive phrase to describe the form or function.
6. Use a comparison to describe the form or function.
7. Use a cultural substitute which has a different form from the biblical word, but a
similar function.
8. A combination of two or more of the above approaches.
Each of these approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses; and careful
consideration must be given as to which would be the most appropriate for the
translation of the Levitical sacrifices into Supyire.
7.3 GENERAL WORDS FOR SACRIFICE IN SUPYIRE
There are two general words often used by Supyire in relation to sacrifice:
sun (borrowed from Bambara) and
sÃraga
(borrowed from Arabic via Bambara).
Although both are originally loan-words, today they are fully integrated into the
Supyire language. So they do not suffer the disadvantages of sounding foreign and
meaningless which many loan-words suffer. As they are familiar to the Supyire, they
are an obvious starting place, and I will assess their potential use in translation before
going on to look, if necessary, at other solutions.
As sun and
sÃraga
originated from traditional religion and Islam
respectively, the question arises is whether they are suitable for use in translating the
314
Wendland, Ernst R., The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, A Study in Communicating the Word
of God in a Central African Cultural Context, UBS Monograph Series No. 2; London, New York,
and Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1987, chapter 4, pp.57-82.
128
key term “sacrifice” in the Bible. Would their use not lead to syncretism? In response
to a similar issue, Goerling
315
outlines two approaches as unacceptable:
1. an avoidance of all religious words as a rigid principle because of their
associations with concepts which convey meanings that seem incompatible with
Christian meaning;
2. an uncritical acceptance of traditional religious words as fully usable to express
the Gospel.
The question to consider in each case is whether there is enough common
ground in the use of a word for it to communicate the message of Bible relevantly
without causing a significant distortion?
As noted above (p.56), the two words can be used in the same sentence to
refer to the same action. However this does not mean that they are necessarily
synonyms in every context. Indeed it seems that
sÃraga
can be used in a much wider
range of contexts than sun.
When the word sun is mentioned, it immediately brings to the mind of the
Supyire listener the whole scenario of animistic worship: fetishes, ancestors and
spirits. It does not collocate with Kile the high God. The question arises whether this
is a collocational clash only for Christians who may react strongly against using any
word associated with animism in the translation of the Bible. However, all research
to date points to it being a collocational clash for Supyire across all sections of the
community. So sun should not be used in translation in connection with sacrifices to
God, but it would appear to be very suitable for occasions in the Bible when mention
is made of sacrifices to local, pagan deities.
SÃraga
, unlike sun, has a very wide range of meaning. Although the Supyire
themselves do not sacrifice to God, they have sufficient contact with Islam to be
aware that others do. To collocate
sÃraga
with Kile would not be shocking to
Supyire ears in the way that collocating sun and Kile would be.
The wide semantic range of a word can constitute another problem for the
translator, that is to limit the reference to the type of sacrifice found in the Bible.
This problem in the case of
sÃraga
will often be immediately resolved by the
participants mentioned in the immediate context, for example in the introduction to
315
Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.29.
129
Leviticus, Yahweh said to Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When any
of you brings an offering to the LORD ... ” (Lev 1:2).
In other cases in Lev 1-7, some device will be needed to specify the different
types of
sÃraga
. This could be done either by a descriptive phrase or a comparison to
delimit either the form or function of each sacrifice (see Wendland’s suggestions
numbers 5 and 6 above, p.127). These solutions however have the disadvantage of
producing long and cumbersome phrases. These are awkward to handle naturally in
translation, especially in the case of key terms, such as sacrifices, that may be
repeated several times in a text.
A better solution appears to be to create neologisms, new compound nouns
with
sÃraga
as one of the components. This has the advantages that it is short and
neat, and that it is a device used very commonly in Supyire. It would therefore add to
the naturalness of the translation.
7.4 FORM OR FUNCTION
Given the need to create suitable compound nouns, the next question to tackle
is whether the compounds should reflect the form or the function of the different
sacrifices.
A Survey of English Translations
It is instructive to look at how translators into English have treated the five
sacrifices. The table below sets out how ten versions have handled them.
Figure 18: Five sacrifices in Leviticus 1-7: translations in English versions
hlu
hjnm
<ymlv
tafj
<va
KJV
burnt
sacrifice
meat
offering316
peace
offering
Sin offering
trespass
offering
NASB
burnt
offering
grain offering
peace
offering
Sin offering
guilt
offering
RSV
burnt
offering
cereal
offering
peace
offering
Sin offering
guilt
offering
NRSV
burnt
offering
grain offering
sacrifice of
well-being
sin offering
guilt
offering
316
Meat here is used in the archaic sense of food.
130
NIV
burnt
offering
grain offering
fellowship
offering
sin offering
guilt
offering
TEV
burnt
offering
offering of
grain
fellowship
offering
sin offering
repayment
offering
GW
burnt
offering
grain offering
fellowship
offering
offering for
sin
guilt
offering
NCV
whole burnt
offering
grain offering
fellowship
offering
sin offering
penalty
offering
NLT
whole burnt
offering
grain offering
peace
offering
sin offering
guilt
offering
REB
whole-
offering
grain-
offering
shared-
offering
purification-
offering
reparation-
offering
In the cases of hlu and hjnm, all these translations have opted to translate
an aspect of the form of the sacrifice. For the hjnm it is the material offered, the
grain that is highlighted, while for the hlu it is rather the means of disposition
which is in focus (the animal is burnt, or the whole animal is offered to God, or both
of these). While they give the reader an idea of what happened, they give little or no
hint of the reason for the sacrifice.
As for the latter three sacrifices, while the translators have not translated the
form, it appears that the majority of them have not made a significant effort to
accurately reflect the function either. They have rather fallen victim to what Carson
calls the root fallacy. He writes, “One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy
presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its
components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root
or roots of a word.”
317
The root of <ymlv is <lv, “be complete” which has the
cognate <olv, “peace”; tafj in many contexts means “sin”, and <va often means
“guilt”. Hence the translations peace offering, sin offering and guilt offering have
risen to prominence as a result of mere word associations. The best that can be said
for them is that they are connected in some general way to the functions of Israelite
sacrifice; it is concerned to deal with the effects of sin and guilt and to bring peace
with God. But they are much too general and do not relate to the distinctive functions
of the sacrifices in question.
The one translation surveyed in figure 18 which consistently avoids the root
fallacy is the Revised English Bible (REB), which carefully seeks to reflect the
317
Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1996, p.28.
131
functions in its translations shared-offering, purification-offering, and reparation-
offering.
It is worth considering here the weight that the tradition of a particular
rendering over years and centuries may have on the minds of translators. Particularly
in the case of tafj, the translators have not sought a clearer understanding of the
term they are translating, or for some reason have not felt free to break from the
traditional “sin offering”. It is particularly striking in the case of the New Living
Translation. According to its introduction, “The translators have made a conscious
effort to provide a text that can be easily understood by the average reader of modern
English.”
318
Again, “We avoided weighty theological terms that do not communicate
to modern readers.”
319
Yet for some reason, and one can only imagine that it was the
weight of tradition, they have retained the traditional renderings peace offering, sin
offering and guilt offering which are not easily understood and which do not
communicate accurately the functions of the offerings.
Also worthy of note is an inconsistency in dealing with the translation of the
five sacrifices: some of the terms reflect the form of the sacrifice and some reflect its
function. Even the REB which has function-based translations of <ymlv, tafj and
<va retains the form-based translations of the other two. This inconsistency would
appear to be a less than ideal solution. If it is to be retained, then it needs to be
properly justified.
Factors to weigh in choosing between form and function
There are, though, it seems good reasons to attempt to be consistent in
reflecting the functions of the sacrifices. Concentrating on the form can lead to the
difficulty of either leaving the audience totally in the dark concerning the function or,
probably worse, giving them the wrong idea about the function. For example,
Degraaf
320
in his article on translating sacrifice into Nyarafolo, a language closely
related to Supyire, comes up against a dilemma. On the one hand, in Nyarafolo, sun
does not collocate with God, but, on the other hand, the form of the sacrifice (slitting
318
New Living Translation children’s edition 1997, p.xvi.
319
New Living Translation children’s edition 1997, p.xix.
320
DeGraaf, David “Translating ‘God’ and ‘Sacrifice’ into Nyarafolo”, Notes on Translation 13.3
(1999) 34-49.
132
the animal’s throat, letting the blood pour out, and occasionally burning up the entire
thing) was very similar to the form of sun in Nyarafolo culture. If the Nyarafolo
translators choose to reflect the form by using sun for sacrifices towards God, they
will give the wrong signals concerning the function.
Wendland
321
points out that if one has to choose between function and form,
“the priority generally lies with the function, since that is normally more crucial to
the understanding of the passage.” This concern for a good understanding of the
translation corresponds with that of Gutt’s relevance theory (see chapter 7).
Gutt though enters a caveat that there is a danger in explicating the originally
intended meaning “since it focuses on one particular aspect of the meaning, perhaps
precluding the reader from exploring wider ramifications of the original intention.”
322
This concern would be most pertinent in the cases of sacrifices that have more than
one function.
On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the aim is to reach as wide a
cross-section of Supyire speakers as possible, most of whom are more likely to hear
the Scriptures read rather than have the possibility of reading them themselves, let
alone doing in-depth Bible study. Those Supyire who would wish to make further
studies would most likely be in a position to avail themselves of translations of the
text in other languages. As Gutt himself points out, the distortion in making explicit
what is implicit may be considered negligible in comparison to the problems caused
by leaving the information implicit.
323
Wendland makes four exceptions to his general rule of preferring function:
“1) where the form of itself is clear or familiar enough to convey the intended
function as well…
2) where specific reference to a historical event is involved…
3) where there is a particular emphasis upon the formal features of an object or event
in the context…
4) in the case of a term with special symbolic significance in the Scriptures e.g., the
ritual of circumcision (Gen 17:11) or the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29).”
324
321
Wendland, The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, p.61.
322
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
323
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
324
Wendland, The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, p.61.
133
I will take each of the four exceptions Wendland mentions in turn, and study
if it applies to the translation of the Levitical sacrifices.
1) The form of itself is clear or familiar enough to convey the intended
function as well. The forms of sacrifice translated in English—burnt, cereal—do not
reveal much to the average reader, and there is no indication in the research that they
would be any clearer for the Supyire reader. The Supyire do offer grain, but they do
not burn their sacrifices.
2) Specific reference to a historical event. Lev 1-7 prescribe how the sacrifices
are to be carried out, rather than describe historical events.
3) Particular emphasis upon the formal features of an object. It is true that
the forms that the sacrifices take are important, for they are spelt out at length; but
they are spelt out in the long paragraphs and are not reflected or emphasised in the
Hebrew name. The words “burnt” and “cereal” are not components of the Hebrew
words hlu and hjnm.
4) A term with special symbolic significance in the Scriptures. The term
“sacrifice” certainly is a key term with theological significance throughout the Old
Testament and the New Testament. However, the particular forms of sacrifice are
mentioned rarely in the New Testament; it is more common for the generic term
sacrifice or offering to be used—or for the whole range of sacrifices to be referred to
in a phrase such as “burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12:33). Even when
particular sacrifices are mentioned in the New Testament, the only occurrences in
which the particular form of the sacrifice is in focus refer to hksn, the drink offering
(prescribed in Lev 23 for various festivals). Paul uses this offering pictorially, “But
even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service
coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you” (Phil 2:17). “For I am
already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my
departure” (2 Tim 4:6).
From the above discussion, I conclude that there is no strong reason to go
against the general rule of describing the function of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7. There
is, though, a reasonably good case for translating hksn as “drink offering” because of
its use in New Testament imagery (although care would need to be taken that the
translation would not bring strongly to mind animistic practises associated with
pouring water (see above, p.57). The choice of translation for hksn could have
134
implications for the translation of other sacrifices, especially for other non-animal
offerings like hjnm. Translations of key terms cannot be decided in isolation; they
need to be considered in relation to one another so that when all the different
sacrifices are compared, there should be consistency and clarity. These implications
will be considered below when the translation of hjnm is being discussed.
7.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATING THE KEY TERMS IN
LEV 1-7
I shall now consider the different sacrifices in Lev 1-7 in turn, and discuss
how best to translate them by highlighting the advantages and potential problems
with suggested solutions.
hlu
1. Atonement (or reconciliation) +
sÃraga
. Although atonement (or reconciliation)
expresses the main function of hlu (Lev 1:4), and would be understood by the
Supyire, it is probably too broad, for, as was seen above (p.112), different aspects
of atonement come into play in several of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7.
2. Substitute +
sÃraga
. This has the advantage of being more specific than the
previous suggestion, and the concept of a substitute being sacrificed is familiar to
the Supyire.
3. Whole +
sÃraga
. This would not be at all clear in Supyire, as it leaves implicit
the referent “animal”, but whole + animal +
sÃraga
would be a possibility.
Although it expresses the form of the sacrifice, it hints at its importance: the
whole of the animal is devoted uniquely to Yahweh, and none of it is consumed
by humans. In Lev 1:4 the purpose of atonement is given, and the link between
the form and this function should not be too difficult for the reader aware of the
substitutionary sacrifices that take place in Supyire culture. (The translation
would have to be adapted in the cases where a bird is offered, such as Lev 1:17,
as there is no generic word for animal in Supyire that can also cover birds.)
4. Burnt +
sÃraga
. This is probably an unhelpful translation in Supyire, as it
communicates only something of the form. It may though be worth considering a
composite with solution 3 to give whole + animal + burnt +
sÃraga
. This would
135
have the advantages of whole + animal +
sÃraga
described above, with the
additional detail that the whole animal was burnt. It leaves in no doubt that it was
an animal being sacrificed, and details how it was disposed of. If it is decided to
opt for a translation focusing on form, this may be the clearest, most helpful,
description, as long it does not prove too long and unwieldy in Supyire.
hjnm
1. Giving oneself +
sÃraga
. “Giving oneself” would be the Supyire way of
expressing dedication of oneself to someone more powerful, which lies behind
the idea of tribute. The idea of giving oneself to a deity is familiar to the Supyire.
A person may be owned by a jina and, as a result, be committed to make regular
sacrifices to it.
2. Cereal +
sÃraga
. If indeed, it is decided to render hksn as “drink offering”, then a
case, too, could be made for translating hjnm as “cereal offering”. There would
then be a certain consistency: the two sorts of offerings which are not animal
sacrifices would be translated according to their form (at the possible cost though
of losing the consistency of translating all the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 according to
their function). Furthermore, the concept of cereal offerings, like that of drink
offerings, is familiar to the Supyire.
Special care would need to be taken to check that there is no
miscommunication of function. Cooked cereal is used among the Supyire:
1. as an introductory offering during the village festival;
2. as a concluding fellowship meal when it is specifically said to the jinas “Here
is your meal”; and
3. as a test to see if the ancestors have accepted a sacrifice aimed to appease
them and are reconciled to the family, and eating their food again (see above
pp.39-40).
<ymlv
1. Concluding +
sÃraga
. The argument in favour of this translation is that both
Supyire and Hebrew festivals conclude with a festive communal meal. However
it is not totally clear from the evidence that this was usually the concluding
sacrifice for the Israelites, and the translation may be somewhat opaque in
136
communicating the function. If it were being considered seriously, checking
would need to be done to ensure that a meaning such a “farewell greeting
sacrifice” was not communicated, as at times when ancestors are consulted a final
sacrifice is given before taking one’s leave.
2. Covenant +
sÃraga
. This proposal was considered above (p.87) and was found to
be wanting, as <ymlv is a voluntary offering.
3. Fellowship (or communion or shared) +
sÃraga
. This is probably the solution
which best explains the function of the <ymlv. It may prove difficult though to
find a Supyire word that would include the idea of fellowship with God, as God
is viewed as distant and remote. It may be necessary to consider a phrase making
it explicit along the lines of God and people together offering. This phrase may
prove somewhat unwieldy, and it could be argued for the shorter expression, that
once Supyire accept the idea of sacrificing to God, they would automatically
assume that he would be present at the sacrificial meal. They already use the
expression, “May God add to it in their prayers” with most sacrifices.
4. Peace (or well-being) +
sÃraga
. God is certainly seen by the Supyire as the
ultimate source of well-being, as evidenced by the many blessings they
pronounce invoking the name Kile. However well being is probably not as central
a concept as fellowship in this offering. If this solution were adopted, care would
need to be taken to ensure that what was communicated was the sacrifice as an
expression of joy and thanks for well-being, rather than a sacrifice to obtain well-
being which is typically Supyire.
tafj
1. Sin +
sÃraga
. This is too general to be a useful translation for one particular
sacrifice (see pp.96-7).
2. Cleansing +
sÃraga
. As noted above (p.115), the metaphor of purification of the
pollution caused by sin is unknown to the Supyire. In the gospel of Mark we
translated “to purify” as
ma finiüî Kile yyahe taan
, which means word for
word “to cleanse before God’s face”. It may be possible to render tafj as
cleansing-before-God-sacrifice. This, though, would be unwieldy and may not be
necessary. In the context of Leviticus, all the sacrifices are made to God, and the
reader may be able to fit this sacrifice into the pattern, especially if the translator
137
can supply the background information in another fashion, such as in a subtitle or
footnote.
<va
1. Guilt +
sÃraga
. As was seen above (p.105), this is based on a confusion of two
homonyms, and the idea of removal of guilt is not specifically tied to this
sacrifice.
2. Reparation +
sÃraga
. The Supyire concept of repairing the land (which is held to
be sacred in the sense of having a special relationship with Kile) through sacrifice
may open the way for an understanding of <va as repairing the sanctity of God’s
property or name. The term will have to be checked to ensure that the idea of
repairing the land is not suggested. If that proved indeed to be the case, then a
term like reparation of God’s property +
sÃraga
might have to be considered.
7.6 CONCLUSION
We will never make the perfect translation of the Levitical sacrifices into
Supyire, due to the mismatch between the Levitical and Supyire worldviews. Indeed,
the very nature of translation means that perfection is never attainable. However, the
aim is to get as close as possible and seek a close enough fit, so that the reader can
expand and shape the meaning
325
of the words to fit the context. This is what
Goerling calls “reinterpretation” The reader can be helped in this regard by study
aids such as subtitles, footnotes, glossaries, and teaching booklets.
325
This is one way languages evolve and expand. One example is the case of the use of in
Greek in John 1. The author built on an image known in Jewish and Greek literature to represent
Christ as the preincarnate Word of God.
138
8. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
By way of conclusion, I shall offer a résumé of the main lines of argument in
this thesis, and then look forward to the challenges that still lie ahead for the Supyire
team as we work on the translation of Levitical sacrifices.
Before any attempt is made at translation of Scripture, Wendland emphasizes
the need for a thorough exegesis of the biblical and receptor cultures (see p.2). In
seeking to comprehend the nature of Supyire and biblical sacrifices, I have tried to
avoid the trap of imposing any pre-conceived model of sacrifice on the source
material. My concern has been to allow the source material to be pre-eminent, to
penetrate the mindset of the Israelites and Supyire worshippers, and understand how
they view what is going on when they bring offerings. To do this, it has been
necessary not only to concentrate on the forms and functions of the sacrifices
themselves, but to cast a look at the wider contexts: to discern how sacrifice relates
to the way they see themselves and their cosmos, and their fundamental goals in life.
For the Supyire people, harmonious relationships with the multiple deities
and forces in their pantheon are never far from mind. In Leviticus, the focus is again
on harmonious relations, but this time with Yahweh, the holy omnipotent God who
has redeemed his people and expects them to act in accordance with his character.
This difference of focus is also reflected in how the two communities
understand the nature of sacrifice. The Levitical view is that sacrifices are effective
because God provided them as a means to divert his wrath away from those whose
have sinned against him, and onto a substitute. Once the relationship has been
restored, they are a means of celebrating the divine-human covenant between
Yahweh and his people. God himself has provided the means for sacrifice; as
omnipotent Creator, he has no need for anyone to give him anything.
The Supyire, by contrast, believe that in making their sacrifices, they are
giving to a deity something from which it is going to derive benefit, something from
which it can increase its power. The gift is given with the intention of receiving in
return. As a result of his gift, he expects that the deity will be obliged to return the
favour in some way. The differences can be highlighted further by contrasting each
community’s understanding of the symbolism of blood. In the Pentateuch, blood is a
symbol of the death of the substitute animal Yahweh has provided. For the Supyire,
139
blood is a symbol of life-giving force that has been transferred from the slaughtered
animal given by the offerer to the deity.
The emphasis in the Supyire prayers that accompany their offerings is on the
benefits they are seeking, in terms of health, prosperity and a large and growing
family. Although in the Pentateuch, similar blessings are promised by Yahweh to his
people on condition of their obedience, the primary focus is rather on the relationship
between God and his people. “You shall be holy for I, the LORD your God, am
holy” (Lev 19:2).
This primary focus is reflected in the main purposes of the five Levitical
sacrifices: purification (tafj), reparation (<va), substitution (hlu), tribute (hjnm)
and fellowship (<ymlv). For God to be able to dwell in the midst of his people, they
need to be purified from their sin, desecration of his name or property needs to be
repaired, and his holy wrath against sin averted. Then, and only then, are the people
in a position to dedicate themselves to their Lord and enjoy fellowship with him.
Given the difference of focus, and given that the same form of sacrifice can
have different purposes in the two different cultures (e.g. an offering of cereal), it is
important that, if possible, the functions rather than the forms of the sacrifices be
reflected in the translation.
The Supyire language can be used naturally to produce new compound
words for the five sacrifices with the model: function +
sÃraga
. The term
sÃraga
,
originally Arabic, has been adopted by Supyire, where it is a general term which can
cover all sorts of offerings. Its use by the neighbouring Bambara and Jula peoples in
the context of Islam, mean that Supyire are familiar with the idea of offering a
sÃraga
to God.
It would be wrong to conclude from the above résumé that we have arrived at
the definitive solution for the translation of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 into Supyire.
There are other factors that lie outside the scope of this study that will have some
bearing on the matter. There are wider contexts to be considered. There is the
translation of sacrifices in the other books in the Pentateuch, the Old Testament, and
the whole Bible and then there is the context of the wider translation and church
community in the geographical region.
The translation of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 cannot be treated totally in
isolation, for there is other biblical vocabulary in this domain, and in particular other
140
sacrifices, such as hksn “drink offering”. It is especially important that there is no
conflict or confusion created for the audience between two different sorts of
sacrifice.
The whole range of sacrificial terms should be translated, as far as possible,
using the same principles. So, ideally, if it is decided that function is the most
important aspect of the sacrifice to be communicated, then all biblical sacrifices
should be translated according to their function. However, the ideal translation is
often not possible, as was noted when considering the importance of form in the
hksn: and so, an eclectic approach may be required.
Another important related issue is whether a single Hebrew word should be
translated concordantly: i.e. should it always be rendered the same way in Supyire on
every occasion it appears in Scripture? Goerling writes on this question:
“With respect to the translation of key terms, meaningful translations are
usually context-sensitive, that is, they can at times be flexible in their
renderings of a single source language word, at times be inflexible, that is,
choose a concordant translation, depending on the nature of the biblical term
or symbol to be translated.”
326
Most versions do translate the sacrifices concordantly throughout the
Scriptures, for their form and function are reasonably stable and do not change
dramatically from one context to another. However there is an important point to
consider here. If the translation of sacrificial key terms proceeds on the basis that I
have suggested, i.e. it is consistently function-based, then there will be times one
cannot translate concordantly. This will be especially pertinent to hlu, which we saw
has more than one discernible function, particularly in Genesis. In this case, there are
two valid considerations pulling in opposite directions: the principle of concordant
translation and the desirability for a function-based translation. The translation team
will need to weigh the two in balance. If it opts for substitution +
sÃraga
, then in
Genesis, it may be necessary to opt for a different translation of hlu dependent on
the particular function in the context. If it opts for something like whole + animal +
burnt +
sÃraga
one gains in the area of concordance but loses perhaps in the area of
relevance.
326
Goerling, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations, p.74.
141
Then there may be well be other factors that come into play to tip the balance
of the scales one way or the other. The translation is being carried out in the context
of a church community and a smaller sub-set, the translation community, which have
their own traditions and concerns. The Supyire church has for decades used the
Bambara translation of the Bible, a version that tends to be literal rather than
idiomatic. Tradition is very important in Supyire culture, and there may well be
strong opinions expressed that the Supyire Scriptures reflect closely the traditional
Bambara translations of key terms. On the other hand, an idiomatic Jula translation
of the New Testament has recently been completed, and there has been considerable
appreciation for the clarity and illumination that has brought to the reading of
Scriptures by a number of Christians. Work is currently in progress on the Jula Old
Testament, and there will be a desire in certain quarters to follow its example. Those
who believe in the importance of clear idiomatic translation will need to enter into
dialogue with the larger church community and put forward the advantages of such
an approach, and listen to the response, so that the church and translation
communities can move forward together with a common understanding.
Another dynamic at work is that within the community of the Senufo family,
Bible translation is being undertaken in over ten different Senufo languages, at
various stages, from preparatory study to near completion. The translation teams
meet together occasionally to discuss common concerns, such as the translation of
key terms. One possibility that has been discussed is the use of CARLA (Computer
Assisted Related Language Adaptation) which is computer software designed to
transfer a translation in one language into a first draft translation in a related
language. If the considerable potential for such an approach is to be realised, then
again a common philosophy on the translation of key terms such as sacrifice will
need to be sought and agreed upon.
The translation of the key sacrificial terms in Lev 1-7 is part of a much larger
process of making the Scripture accessible to the Supyire and West African people. It
is hoped that this study will make its own small contribution in moving that process
forward.
142
APPENDIX A: HISTORY OF THE SUPYIRE PEOPLE
Attempts to trace the origins of the Supyire people quickly get lost in the
mists of time. Carlson comments, “By tradition, they came from the south, and this is
probably historically accurate, since the main body of the Senufo language group, to
which Supyire belongs, is located in northern Côte d’Ivoire.”
327
The Senufo family, as a whole, have more or less resided continually in the
same region since the establishment of the kingdom of Kong probably in the 11th
century. It is commonly held that Buwara is the most ancient village in the region of
Sikasso, and the descendants of the original settlers are still designated owners of the
earth for the whole area. As owners of the earth they have responsibilities to litigate
on land disputes, and to carry out sacrifices when the earth is desecrated, for example
when human blood is spilt on it. This authority has been recognised, at least semi-
officially, as the governor of Sikasso regularly used to provide money to the chief of
Buwara for the annual sacrifices.
Besides these limited powers vested in the owners of the earth, traditional
Supyire political organisation did not go beyond the village level. They have
however been incorporated into various political entities in the region. In the last 125
years, they have successively been part of the Jula kingdom of Sikasso, French West
Africa, and finally the country of Mali.
328
In the early 19th century from Kong, the capital of a Jula kingdom, two
Traore brothers were chased northwards and founded their own dynasty in the
region.
329
The tiny village of Natién became the centre of resistance against the
assaults of the king of Kong. Legend has it that the village is impregnable, that under
attack, an army of warriors emerge from the ground to defend the territory.
A grandson of one of the dynasty’s founders, by the name of Tiéba, led the
kingdom, called Kenedougou, to its zenith from 1866-1893. He was able to impose
his rule on other smaller kingdoms in the region.
330
He fortified the town of Sikasso
with impressive defensive walls, and made it his capital.
327
Carlson, Robert, 1994, A Grammar of Supyire, Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter, p.1.
328
Carlson, A Grammar of Supyire, p.1.
329
Coulibaly, Coulibaly and Loosvelt, Panorama du Kénédougou, pp.47f.
330
Such as at the villages of Kignan and Lutaana.
143
Although the dynasty was Jula, the family intermarried with the Supyire
families in the surrounding villages and the military commanders were drawn from
the Supyire population.
Tiéba’s kingdom came under attack by Samory, the strongest warlord of the
époque. He advanced from the west towards Sikasso. Arriving at a village, he would
demand 10 or 20 young recruits for his army. If this was granted, he would leave the
village in peace. If not, he would lay it waste.
The Supyire did not present a united front, each village looking out for its
own interests. There was rivalry between Nkourala and Fanterila, two Supyire
villages seven miles apart on the main road. Samory’s troops arrived at Nkourala
first and the villagers submitted to the demands for young men to join forces with
him. They then arranged for a woman born in Nkourala, but married and living down
the road in Fanterila, to sabotage the stocks of munitions in Fanterila. She climbed on
the roof of the munitions hut and dripped water down through the thatch onto the
powder below. So when the men of Fanterila sought to resist Samory’s army, they
were without ammunition, and were slaughtered or forced to flee to the caves and
hills.
But Samory did not find the town of Sikasso to be easy prey; it was too well
fortified and despite an 18-month siege he was unable to capture it. The story goes
that Supyire women in villages near to Sikasso which had submitted to Samory
prepared food for his army but introduced into it a leaf which induced a deep sleep,
and thereby played their part in the resistance.
Tiéba allied his kingdom to the French colonialists, and expanded it in all
directions until he met his death in 1893 when his enemies succeeded in poisoning
him.
After the death of Tieba and the succession of his brother to the throne,
relations with the French deteriorated. The French demands of installing a garrison in
Sikasso town and levying a tax were resisted. In 1898, after laying siege to it for two
weeks, the French took Sikasso.
Thus the Supyire came under French colonial rule. Rather than active
resistance to it, the reaction seems to have been to seek ways to lighten its burden.
For instance, when the French wished to transport freight from one town to another,
they obliged each village on the road to carry it manually on to the next village. To
144
escape this, the village of Kabakanha simply upped and moved away from the road
across the nearby stream, and rebuilt the village in the bush.
Mali became an independent country in 1960. In drawing up the borders,
little or no attention was given to distribution of the ethnic groups. So the Burkina
Faso border separates the Supyire from their closest neighbours, linguistically and
culturally, the Sucite. A dialect of Supyire is also spoken in a number of villages in
the north of Ivory Coast.
Politically, the country of Mali has undergone three distinct phases. In the
first eight years, the president brought the country under the influence of socialism-
cum-communism. In 1968, a military coup ushered in a long period of dictatorship
under Moussa Traore. He was overthrown by a popular movement in 1991, since
when Mali has been taking its first steps as a democracy. In 1999, under a policy of
decentralisation, district councils have been set up, and the commune of Kabakanha,
comprising 11 villages, has elected its first ever mayor. This is the first time that
Supyire villages have combined to form a political entity.
145
APPENDIX B: OCCUPATIONS OF THE SUPYIRE
PEOPLE
The environment makes it natural for the majority of Supyire to be farmers.
Millet and corn are the main crops that form the staple diet, supplemented by rice,
peanuts, yams, sweet potatoes and tomatoes. Some have specialised in orange,
mandarin and mango orchards.
In the past there was a fairly strict division of labour between the farmers on
the one hand and the two artisan casts, blacksmiths and griots on the other. The
blacksmith men produced tools for the farmers, and their women winnowing baskets.
The griots produced leather goods (men) and pottery for the kitchen (women). A
system of bartering meant that they provided the tools and the peasants in return
gave them grain. With the introduction of cash and cash crops, the division has
broken down and now nearly everyone does some cultivation, though caste families
are still known as such.
There is a pride among the Supyire, then, in their independence in producing
from the earth enough to support their family. Begging is looked down on; thievery,
if apprehended, would spoil the family name for generations. Indeed in the past it is
said that if a theft took place in the market in Sikasso, the police would cordon off
the area and let all the Supyire speakers leave, so sure were they of their innocence.
The development of the educational system in Mali has entailed that many
who complete secondary and tertiary education have migrated to urban centres in
search of employment, often government posts. Links with the village remain strong
though, and most emigrants will return regularly to their home villages, especially at
times of festivals and funerals.
146
APPENDIX C: THE SUPYIRE CALENDAR
The Supyire year has 12 lunar months, outlined in the table below, each
month commencing at a new moon.
Supyire
month
Nearest
equivalent on
Western
Calendar
Typical activities in the Supyire community
during this month
Kafubwoyi
April
Village festivals seeking blessings and fertility
for the coming agricultural year.
W›r›yiüke
May
Ploughing after the first rains have softened
the earth.
ükaannunüi
June
Sowing corn, peanuts and cotton.
Kaafuwaani
July
Weeding, sowing millet.
Kaafubwoüi
August
Planting trees.
Sit›nüi
September
Tending millet.
Yiügw›he
October
Harvesting corn. Searching in the bush for
traditional remedies against sorcery.
Yiügw›fiini
November
Cotton harvest and weighing.
Sumpiniüke
December
Millet harvest and drying.
Kafeepyire
January
Transport of grain to the granaries.
Kafeebwoyi
February
Building with mud bricks.
Kafupîîre
March
Making pots.
The Supyire follow both a six-day week and a seven-day week. The calendar
for the month of April 2000 below illustrates this. The name of the seven (
Tîîn,
Tîîntahara
, etc.) along the top row are partially based on the Bambara calendar.
The days of the six-day week written in the boxes are uniquely Supyire. So each day
has two names: the 1st March will be a war
aba-cwšh›li
. This combination of names
will come up every 42 days.
147
KAFUPÿÿRÿ 2000 MARCH
TÿÿN
TÿÿNTAHARA £
WARABA
DI
PWÄRÄ
PWÄRÄNA
KARI
1
cwšh›li
2
cì¤uü›
3
wÃa
4
kìi
5
s››n
6
tšr›
7
cwšh›li
8
cì¤uü›
9
wÃa
10
kìi
11
s››n
12
tšr›
13
cwšh›li
14
cì¤uü›
15
wÃa
16
kìi
17
s››n
18
tšr›
19
cwšh›li
20
cì¤uü›
21
wÃa
22
kìi
23
s››n
24
tšr›
25
cwšh›li
26
cì¤uü›
27
wÃa
28
kìi
29
s››n
30
tšr›
31
cwšh›li
Specific combinations are auspicious days for certain sacrificial rites and
community events: marriages in Kabakanha should take place on
tîîntahara-kìi
, so
the 28 March 2000 would be a good day to hold a wedding ceremony. In fact, it is
said that
kìi
is a weighty day: everything that happens then is amplified: the good is
better and the bad is worse. So arrangements for a burial can be speeded up to avoid
it taking place on a
kìi
.
148
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, T.D., From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main
Theme of the Pentateuch; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995
Anderson, G.A., “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (O.T.)”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.),
The Anchor Bible Dictionary; New York: Doubleday, 1992
Appia-Kubi, Kofi and Torres Sergio, African Theology En Route; New York: Orbis
Books, 1979
Averbeck, Rick “Offerings and Sacrifices”, in W.A. Van Gemeren (ed.) New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis; Carlisle:
Paternoster Press and Zondervan, 1997
Bangali, Lamisa “Artisan Groups in Senufoland” (unpublished)
Barnwell, Katharine, Paul Dancy and Anthony Pope, Key Biblical Terms in the New
Testament: An Aid for Bible Translators; Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics (pre-publication version), 1995
Beckwith Roger T. and Selman Martin J., eds., Sacrifice in the Bible: Carlisle and
Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press and Baker Books., 1995
Berthe Pierre “Regard Pastoral Sur Les Funerailles Senufo” (unpublished), 1973
Berthe Pierre, La Religion Traditionelle chez les Minyanka; Abidjan: Institut
Supérieur de Culture Religieuse, 1978
Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew-English Lexicon; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979
Callow, Kathleen, Man and Message: A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis;
Lanham, New York and Oxford: United Press of America, 1998
Carlson, Joyce “Senufo Funeral Ritual” (unpublished), 1995
Carlson, Joyce “Marriage Customs among the Supyire”, Notes on Anthropology and
Intercultural Community Work 11 (Sept 1987) 3-14
Carlson, Joyce “The Supyire Pantheon: A Comparison with the Central Senufo
Pantheon”, Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work 10
(June 1987) 3-15
Carlson, Joyce “Anthropological Notes on Supyire Culture” (unpublished)
Carlson, Robert, A Grammar of Supyire; Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,
1994
149
Carlson, Robert, Dictionnaire Supyire-Francais (unpublished)
Carlson, Robert “External Causation in Supyire Culture”, Notes on Anthropology 3:3
(1999) 7-14
Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1996
Cole, Alan, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary; Leicester: IVP, 1973
Coulibaly, Daouda and Coulibaly N’Golo and Mariike Loosvelt, Panorama du
Kénédougou; Bamako: Editions Jamana, undated
Coulibaly, Sinali, Le Paysan Senoufo; Abidjan-Dakar: Les Nouvelles Editions
Africaines, 1978
De Heusch, Luc, Sacrifice in Africa: A Structuralist Approach, Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1985
De Vaux, Roland, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice; Cardiff: University of Wales
Press, 1964
DeGraaf, David “Translating ‘God’ and ‘Sacrifice’ into Nyarafolo”, Notes on
Translation 13:3 (1999) 34-49
Diarra, Niara, Le Pori: Une Fête Traditionelle en Milieu Senoufo; Mémoire de Fin
d’Etudes à l’Ecole Nationale d’Administration: Bamako, 1996
Dickson, Kwesi A. and Paul Ellingworth, Pour une Théologie Africaine; Yaounde:
Editions Clé, 1969
Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Pollution and Taboo; London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966
Dyrness, William, Themes in Old Testament Theology; Exeter: Paternoster Press,
1979
Edersheim, Alfred, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services; Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1982
Ela, Jean Marc, Ma Foi Africaine; Paris: Karthala, 1985
Escudero, Emilio, La Célébration Senufo du Katyire et la Célébration de
L’Eucharistie; Abidjan: Ivory Coast, I.C.A.O., 1979
Gehman, Richard J., African Traditional Religion in Biblical Perspective; Kibaje,
Kenya: East Africa Educational Publishers Ltd., 1989
Glaze, Anita, Art and Death in a Senufo Village; Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1981
150
Goerling, Fritz, The Use of Islamic Theological Terminology in Bible Translation
and Evangelism among the Jula in Côte d’Ivoire, Masters of Arts Thesis,
Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Goerling, Fritz, Criteria for the Translation of Key Terms in Jula Bible Translations,
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1995
Gorman, Frank H. Jr., The Ideology of Ritual, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990
Grebe, Karl and Wilfred Fon, African Traditional Religion and Christian
Counseling; Yaounde: Karl Grebe, 1982
Green, Diane “On Translating Sacrifice, Offering and Altar”, Notes On Translation
8:3, (1994) 17-19
Grimes, Barbara F., ed., Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 13th Edition; Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics Inc., 1996
Gutt, Ernst-August, Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in
Translation; USA: Summer Institute of Linguistics Inc. and United Bible
Societies, 1992
Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP,
1980
Hartley, John E., Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word Books, 1992
Hiebert, Paul and Daniel Shaw, The Power and the Glory: A Missiological Approach
to the Study of Religion; Pasadena (unpublished), 1993
Jemphrey, Miranda “Knives To Razors: Female Circumcision Among the Supyire of
Southern Mali”, Insights in African Ethnography 2 (1997) 1-16
Jenson Philip, Graded Holiness, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992
Jonckers, Daniella, La Société Minyanka du Mali; Paris: L’Harmattan, 1987
Keck, L.E. et al., New Interpreters Bible, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994
Keita, Kassoum, Un Seul Sacrifice; Abidjan: Centre de Publications Evangeliques,
1973
Kiuchi, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987
Larson, Mildred L., Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language
Equivalence, Lanham and London, University Press of America, 1984
151
Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 1989
Malina, B., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology;
Westminster: John Knox Press, 1993
Maranz, David E., Peace is Everything; Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics Inc.,
1993
Massoud, Mary M.F., Translate to Communicate: A Guide for Translators; Illinois:
David C. Cook Foundation, 1988
Mbiti, John S., African Traditional Religion: An Introduction; Yaounde and London:
Heinemann, 1975
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1991
Morris, Leon, The Atonement, Its Meaning and Significance; Leicester: IVP, 1983
N’Diayé, Bokar, Groupes Ethniques au Mali; Bamako: Editions Populaires, 1970
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation;
Leiden: United Bible Societies, 1969
Paques, Viviana, Les Bambara; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954
Péter-Contesse, René and John Ellington, A Translator’s Handbook on Leviticus;
New York: United Bible Societies, 1990
Reyburn, William D. “Christianity and Ritual Communication”, in Smalley, William
A.(ed.), Readings in Missionary Anthropology II; California: William Carey
Library, 1978
Ryle, Wilbert and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Images;
Leicester and Illinois: IVP, 1998
Sanoko, Soumaila, Le Royaume de Kénédougou, Mali, EDIM, 1998
Sansom, M.C. “Laying On of Hands in the Old Testament”, Expository Times 94
(1982/3) 323-326
Sawyerr, Harry “Sacrifice” in K. Dickson and P. Ellingworth (eds.), Biblical
Revelation and African Beliefs; London: Lutterworth, 1969
Sawyer, John F.A., ed., Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 227; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1996
Scherman, Nosson and Hersh Goldwurm, Leviticus; New York: Mesorah
Publications Ltd., 1989
152
Snaith N.H. ed., Leviticus and Numbers, The Century Bible; London: Thomas
Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1989
Spindel, Carol, In the Shadow of the Sacred Grove; New York: Vintage Departures,
1989
Stine, Philip C. and Ernst R. Wendland, Bridging the Gap: African Traditional
Religion and Bible Translation, UBS Monograph Series No. 4; Reading:
United Bible Societies, 1990
Touré, Abdou, Sacrifices dans la Ville; Abidjan: Editions Douga, 1990
Traoré Seydou and Abadallah Traoré, Le Royaume Sénoufou du Kénédougou: La
Dynastie des Traoré, Bamako: Le Figuier, 1998
Wendland, Ernst R, The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, A Study in
Communicating the Word of God in a Central African Cultural Context, UBS
Monograph Series No. 2; London, New York, and Stuttgart: United Bible
Societies, 1987
Wenham, Gordon J., The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1979
