1. The Long Silence of History:
(1) The Facts and the False Conclusions.
The Day of Atonement is stated to have been instituted in the times of Moses (Le 16:1); the ceremony takes place in the tabernacle (tent of meeting); the people are presupposed to be in the camp (Le 16:26 ff); Aaron is still the high priest. Very remarkably there is but little evidence of the observance of this prominent day in the later history of Israel. Down to the time of the Exile there is found a deep silence on this subject. The days of atonement in Eze 45:18 ff (compare under I, 1) differ in number and observance from that in Le 16:1-34. According to Zec 3:9, God in the Messianic future will take away the guilt of the land in a single day; but this too presents no more than an analogy to the results of the Day of Atonement. On the other hand, there is no reference made to the day where we could expect it. Not only 2Ch 7:7-9 in connection with the consecration of Solomon's temple, and Ezr 3:1-6, in the account of the reintroduction of the sacrificial services after the return from the Exile, are silent on the subject, which fact could possibly be explained in an easy manner; but also Ne 8:1-18 f. According to Ne 8:2 f, Ezra begins on the Ne 1:1-11st day of the Ne 7:1-73th month in the year 444 BC to read from the law; on the Ne 2:1-20nd day of the Ne 7:1-73th month remembrance is made of the ordinance treating of the feast of tabernacles, and on the 22nd day of the Ne 7:1-73th month (Ne 8:13 ff), this festival is observed; on the 24th day of the 7th month a day of penance is observed (Ne 9:1); but of the Day of Atonement coming in between Ne 8:1 and chapter Ne 9:1, namely, on the Ne 10:1-39th day of the Ne 7:1-73th month, which would seem to make the day of penance superfluous, nothing is said. From these facts the Wellhausen school has drawn the conclusion, in accordance with its principles elsewhere observed, that all those legal enactments that have not in the history a sufficient evidence of having been observed, did not exist until the time when they have such historical evidence; that therefore the Day of Atonement did not originate until after the year 444 BC. It is claimed that the day originated in the two days of atonement mentioned in Eze 45:18-20 (compare under I, 1); in the four national fast days of Zec 7:5, and Zec 8:19, and in the day of penance of 444 BC, just mentioned, on the 24th day of the Zec 7:1-14th month, which is said to hav e been repeated on the following New Year's day, the Zec 10:1-12th day of the Zec 7:1-14th month; and that by the sacred character of its observance it soon crowded the New Year day upon the Zec 1:1-21st day of the Zec 7:1-14th month (compare Le 23:23 ff; Nu 29:1 ff; contrary to Le 25:9 and Eze 40:1). In this way it is thought that Le 16:29 ff first originated, and that at a still later time the complicated blood ritual had been added (compare under I, 1, 2). But it is to be observed that in still later times there is found no more frequent mention of the Day of Atonement than in the earlier, although it is the custom of modern criticism to place a much larger bulk of Biblical literature into this later period. It is only when we come to Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 50:5 ff) that the high priest Simon is praised, when he came forth from behind the veil; and this is certainly a reference. to the Day of Atonement, although no further mention is made at this place of the ceremony as such. Then there is a further silence on the subject down to Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:19; 9:7,13 ff; 10:1 ff; compare underII , 2). It is probable too that the fasting mentioned in Ac 27:9 is based on the Day of Atonement. We have in this manner a characteristic example to show how carefully we must handle the argument from silence, if we do not want to arrive at uncomfortable results.
(2) The Historicity of the Day of Atonement.
Since Le 16:1-34 constitutes only one part of the Levitical legislation, the question as to the original and historical character of the day cannot be fully discussed at this place (see LEVITICUS). At so late a period, naturally all the data that would lead to an explanation of the origin of such a fundamental institution as the Day of Atonement are lacking. It is all the more impossible to separate Le 16:1-34 from the other priestly ordinances, because the name of the lid of the ark of covenant hakapporeth: Ex 25:17 ff; Ex 26:34) stands in the clearest relation to the ceremony that takes place with this ark on the Day of Atonement. The impossibility of splitting up Le 16:1-34 as is the manner of critics, or even as much as separating it from Le 11:1-47 through Le 15:1-33, has been sufficiently demonstrated above (compare under I). Against the view which forces the Priest Codex down at least to the Exile and to claim the tabernacle as the product of imagination and as a copy of the temple of Solomon (see EXODUS), we have still the following to add: If the ark of the covenant was no longer in existence after the Exile and if, according to Jer 3:16, the Israelites no longer expected its restoration, then it would have been absolutely impossible in the ritual of the Day of Atonement to connect the most important ceremony of this ritual with this ark and on this to base the atonement. In the second temple, as is well known, the incense pan was placed on the "foundation stone" in the Holy of Holies, because there was no tabernacle. Against these facts the counter-arguments mentioned above cannot stand. Even those who deny the existence of the Day of Atonement do not lay much stress on 2Ch 7:1-9 and Ezr 3:1-6; but Ne 8:1-18 ff also does not deserve mention, since in this place the emphasis lies on the purpose of showing how the congregation was to declare its adherence to the law, and how the Day of Repentance, which had been observed since the beginning of the history of Israel, was instituted to be observed on the 24th day of the Ne 7:1-73th month for all sins (Ne 9:1 ff), and was not made superfluous by the celebration of the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the 7th month, on which day only the sins of the last year were taken into consideration. But Ezekiel changed or ignored also other pre-exilic arrangements (compare EZEKIEL), so that he is no authority in deciding the question as to the earlier existence of the Day of Atonement. Finally, attention must be drawn to the fact that the Passover festival is mentioned in prophetic literature, in addition to the mere reference in Isa 30:29, only in Eze 45:21; the ark of the covenant only in Jer 3:16; the Feast of Tabernacles only in Ho 12:9; Eze 45:25; and that in its historical connection the Feast of Weeks is mentioned incidentally only in 2Ch 8:13, and possibly in 1Ki 9:25, and is not at all found in Ezek (compare 45:18 ff), although the existence of these institutions has for a very long time been called into question.
2. Further Development:
The Day of Atonement, in accordance with its purpose in later times, came more and more into the foreground and was called "the great fast" or "the great day," or merely "the day." Its ritual was further enlarged and the special parts mentioned in the law were fully explained, fixed and specialized. Compare especially the tract "Yoma" in the Mish; and for the further elaborations and stories in poetry and prose on the basis of the Talmud, see, e.g. Delitzsch's translation from Maim, Ha-yadh ha-chazaqah, in the supplement to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1857. According to these accounts, e.g. the high priest had to be a married man. Already seven days before the beginning of the Day of Atonement he was ordered to leave his house and had to submit to a series of purifications and had to practice for the performance of the different purification ceremonies, some of which were difficult. The last night he was not allowed to sleep and had to spend his time in studying the sacred writings. On the Day of Atonement he took five baths and ten washings. Four times he enters the Holy of Holies (with the incense), with the blood of both sin offerings, and when he brings out the utensils used with the incense he makes three confessions of sins (for himself, for himself and his house, for Israel); 10 times in all he utters the name of Yahweh; 43 times he sprinkles; in addition he must read certain sections of the Scriptures or repeat them from memory (compare also AZAZEL). When he returns home he celebrates a festival of rejoicing, because he has without harm been able to leave the sanctuary. In addition, he had performed severe physical work, and especially difficult was the manipulation of the incense. The modern estimate put on the Day of Atonement appears from the following citation of Wellhausen: "The rite and the sacrifice through the unfavorable circumstances of the times have disappeared; but it has retained the same sacred character. He who has not yet entirely broken with Judaism observes this day, no matter how indifferent he may be otherwise to old customs and festivals."
Wilhelm Moller