Sin Offering - Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism

According to 19th century textual scholars these rules originate from two different layers in the priestly source, thought by scholars to be one of the source texts of the Torah; the priestly code within the priestly source is believed to be a series of additions to the text, from Aaronid editors, over a long period. The earlier source is thought to be the one referring to the flesh being consumed by the priests, the latter part of Leviticus 6 falls into this source, while the later source, which Leviticus 4 falls within, reflects a development where the flesh from sin offerings was seen as insufficiently holy and thus needing to be disposed of elsewhere. In the Book of Hosea, a reference to the earlier form (Hosea 4:7-8) suggests a possible reason for the change - the priests were accused of rejoicing in the people's wickedness as they were living off the sin offerings. Although known as sin offerings, it is more likely that such offerings began as offerings made for unintentionally breaking a taboo (here meaning something which is seen as sacred but simultaneously prohibited).

1. The offerings for recovery from discharges and childbirth being for the breaking of a taboo about contact with blood - pus potentially containing blood, menstruation obviously containing it, and in the case of childbirth blood comes with the placenta. Textual scholars believe that the biblical regulation specifying the offering for childbirth in Leviticus 12 originally fell among those concerning bodily discharges in Leviticus 15 (due to various textual features), and hence that childbirth was treated as a form of abnormal discharge, for which a period of recovery was required.
2. The Nazarite's offering being due to the breaking of the Nazarite's own taboo nature, due to consecration to the deity, when the Nazarite vow was terminated.
3. Tzaraas was seen as a disease inflicted by God, as punishment for transgression of mitzvot, specifically slander and hence people becoming inflicted with Tzaraas themselves being seen as taboo (thus being temporarily expelled from society as a result); the sin offering for recovery from Tzaaras, for which the same sacrificial animal as the Nazarite's sin offering is proscribed, being due to the breaking of this taboo state by the act of recovering.
4. The Yom Kippur sin offering is considered to have developed slightly later; the biblical text seems to explain this offering as being for the purpose of protecting the high priest from death (...so that he does not die) when he approached the mercy seat, an action which was taboo (as the mercy seat was seen as sacred, but approach to it was prohibited). The passage in which this is explained as being about atonement for real sin, Leviticus 16:16 rather than just breach of this taboo, being considered by textual scholars to be a later gloss added to the text. The sin offering required when a priest had sinned, for which there is a similar sacrificial animal as the Yom Kippur offering, is considered by scholars to be a much later development, and only added to the text of Leviticus in the latest stages of its compilation, after sin offerings had begun to be seen as being about atonement for actual sin rather than relatively immediate breaches of taboos.

The other sin offerings are considered by scholars to be gradual developments; from being offered after contact with unclean animals, which is more of a taboo, to being offered for ritual uncleanliness in general, and finally to being offered for arbitrary sins. The gradations, according to which the type of sacrificial animal depends on the social status of the sinner, are considered by textual scholars to also be a later development.