Abstract
Within the Hebrew Bible, the phrase reah nihoah (ריח ניחוח), “a pleasing smell,” appears frequently throughout accounts of sacrifice, referring in a most literal sense to the smell of an offering burnt on the altar and offered up “to the Lord.” Throughout multiple Second Temple Jewish texts, both the incidence and meaning of this term shift considerably. Some texts essentially erase the term from sacrificial discourse; others “spiritualize” it, employing reah nihoah in contexts other than physical sacrifices; yet others conflate the “pleasing smell” language with other sacrificial technical terms such as “acceptability” and “atonement.” This article examines the manifold shifts in meaning of reah nihoah in Ancient Jewish texts, considering various biblical translations, Hellenistic works, materials from Qumran, and New Testament texts. After considering how these texts interpret the biblical reah nihoah, it considers possible impetuses for this shift as well as its ramifications.
Within the Hebrew Bible, the phrase reah nihoah (ריח ניחוח), “a pleasing smell,” appears frequently throughout accounts of sacrifice, referring in a most literal sense to the smell of an offering—either animal flesh or flour—that is burnt on the altar and offered up “to the Lord.” 1 This term is closely related to the offering of sacrificial flesh to the Divine, one of the central aspects of sacrifice not only in the Hebrew Bible but throughout sacrificial discourse across many cultures. 2
Throughout multiple Second Temple and Late Antique Jewish texts, however, both the incidence and meaning of the term shift considerably, in several ways. Some texts essentially erase the term from sacrificial discourse; others “spiritualize” it, employing reah nihoah in contexts other than physical sacrifices; yet others conflate the “pleasing smell” language with other sacrificial technical terms such as “acceptability” and “atonement.” 3
This article examines the manifold shifts away from a literal meaning of reah nihoah in Ancient Jewish texts, considering various biblical translations, Hellenistic works, materials from Qumran, and New Testament texts. 4 After considering how these texts interpret the biblical reah nihoah, the paper considers the impetus for this shift and its ramifications for understanding sacrifice in this context. This interpretive issue, while focused on a single term, speaks to the broad question of how the nature of sacrifice was understood by various ancient Jewish groups.
Hebrew Bible on Reah Nihoah
Defining Reah Nihoah
The term ריח ניחוח (reah nihoah), literally meaning “pleasing smell,” appears dozens of times throughout the Bible, always in the context of sacrificial offerings. Within the first schematic layout of sacrifices in Leviticus (chs. 1–5), the term appears consistently regarding the burnt (olah), cereal (minhah), and well-being (shelamim) offerings (appearing at Lev 1–3), which are largely or completely focused on the burning of flesh or flour on the altar. It is almost completely absent in the context of the purification (hattat) and guilt (asham) offerings (appearing at Lev 4–5), the primary role of which is expiatory, as indicated by the commonly used verb ר.פ.כ in those contexts. 5 The phrase reah nihoah always appears sequentially following the burning of (parts of) the offering and thus should be taken literally as referring to a smell produced by burning the meat and/or flour on the altar. 6 This smell is almost always directed toward a deity, 7 often as indicated by the formulation ריח ניחוח ליי, “a pleasing smell to/for/of the Lord.” 8 However, there exist only two biblical cases where the proposition of the Lord physically smelling the pleasing smell is raised; in most cases, the Lord’s reaction to the reah nihoah goes unstated.
There are several interpretive questions in contemporary scholarship as to how to understand this evidence, and particularly how God is seen as responding to reah nihoah. Whether the pleasing function of reah nihoah has the capacity to appease the Lord and mitigate the Lord’s anger or only to be pleasing unto the Lord in a more general sense is a matter of dispute among biblical scholars. Jacob Milgrom presents strong accounts of both the appeasement position and its opposition. 9 He writes that reah nihoah “must connote something pleasurable to the deity” but that it is questionable whether one might render it as “appeasing, placating, soothing.” Etymological support for such a translation comes from the rendering of ניחוח as the infinitive Polel of ח.ו.נ, which means “to put to rest” or “to appease,” 10 and which is cognate to the Akkadian nuḫḫu, which means “to appease” in a sacrificial context. Such an explanation is buttressed by the two cases where the prospect of the Lord actually smelling the pleasing smell appears—Gen 8:21 and Lev 26:31 (by negation). 11 On the contrary side, Milgrom notes the rarity of the term’s appearance in the primary offerings of atonement, indicating that it does not play a role in these offerings. He also invokes later texts—rabbinic literature, the Septuagint, and even writings of the medieval scholar Maimonides, which see the smell as somehow pleasurable in a non-physical way—as support for his reading. One wonders to what extent theological considerations drove Milgrom to reject the more anthropomorphic interpretation.
Central to this dispute is the question of how to treat the two cases that raise the prospect of the Lord smelling an offering. A “strong” reading of these two verses might assert that all cases of reah nihoah presume divine olfactory inhalation of the offering, a phenomenon absent from the passages of the sacrificial manual of Lev 1–7 perhaps merely due to the sterility and verbal economy of these passages. This claim could be supported by formulations throughout the Bible referring to offerings as the Lord’s food (לחם), such as Num 28:2, “My offering, my food for my food offerings, my pleasing aroma” (את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחחי). Alternatively, these two cases could be seen as outliers, turns of phrase not meant in a literal sense. 12 Furthermore, it is possible to argue that neither of the cases preserves a clear case of appeasement per se: in Gen 8:21, after the conclusion of the deluge, the Lord—not said to be angered 13 —gives a future assurance not to destroy the world; Lev 26:31 asserts that the Lord will not smell the offerings—rejecting not just appeasement but all sacrifice in a time of Israel’s religious failure. 14
These interpretive questions relate to the issue of situating Israelite theology within its Ancient Near Eastern context. Should one read the text as assuming that the God of Israel consumes the offering’s smoke, as it is intended to appease the Lord and minimize any punishment the Lord may mete out? Such an account is highly reminiscent of Ancient Near Eastern understandings of the role of the Divine in sacrifice (although even within this strong reading of reah nihoah the Lord at most inhales the smoke of the offerings, but never consumes the sacrifices as in Ancient Near Eastern literature 15 ). Or is it more accurate to assume that the pleasing smell is merely offered to the Lord, but that there is no basis to assert that the Divine actually inhales the smoke? The reah nihoah certainly does not have the power to sway the Lord, only to gladden the Lord in some general sense. This understanding presents quite a shift from the Ancient Near Eastern paradigm. To quote Milgrom, who adopts this latter approach: “Although pagan temple shrines clearly originate in the notion of caring for and feeding the resident deity, there is no trace of this notion in Israel. Only rare linguistic fossils survive.” 16
Distinctions among sacrificial terms and various sacrifices
Another question is the degree of “crossover” that exists between the two groups of offerings—the smoke-centric burnt-, flour-, and well-being offerings (first presented in Lev 1–3) and the expiatory purification and guilt offerings (Lev 4–5). The offerings of the former category are generally brought on a volitional basis, while those of the latter are mandated to be offered in certain scenarios of interaction with sin and/or impurity. The term reah nihoah appears throughout Lev 1–3, but rarely in Lev 4–5, whereas the verb ר.פ.כ, “to expiate,” appears only once in Lev 1–3, while appearing throughout Lev 4–5. Do the two categories operate on completely distinct paradigms or are they interrelated? As Kiuchi puts it, the question is “whether or not reah nihoah is part of the concept of the kipper-act,” that is, to what degree the two overlap. 17
The question depends, in part, on the extent to which one may build upon the following two exceptional cases, which deviate from the usual pattern of reah nihoah appearing for the sacrifices in Lev 1–3 and expiation appearing for the sacrifices discussed in Lev 4–5:
Lev 1:4, in describing the stage of the laying of hands on the burnt offering, reads ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it will be acceptable on his behalf to atone for him.” This implies that even the burnt offering atones.
Lev 4:31 depicts the purification offering of an individual who sins:
ואת־כל־חלבה יסיר כאשר הוסר חלב מעל זבח השלמים והקטיר הכהן המזבחה לריח ניחח לי-הוה וכפר עליו הכהן ונסלח לו׃ And he shall remove all of its suet, just as the suet was removed from the well-being offering; and the priest shall turn it to smoke on the altar as a pleasing aroma to the Lord, and thus the priest will expiate for them, and they will be forgiven.
18
Here apparently the hattat offering yields expiation, a theme not seen elsewhere.
Kiuchi argues that strong conclusions should be drawn from these two cases; the two types of offerings are to be seen as largely integrated, and “it is unreasonable to conclude that the effect of the reah nihoah is absent” for expiatory and guilt offerings, even when unstated. 19 Furthermore, all offerings expiate, using (among other things) the pleasing smell, but with different emphases for each distinct sacrifice. Alternatively, one might view these two cases as outliers, given how uncommonly one finds expiation with the burnt offering or reah nihoah with the purification offering. 20 Milgrom, noting the relative non-incidence of “crossover” between the reah nihoah and kapparah, while citing both the biblical sources (Lev 9:7, 14:20, 16:24, Ezek 45:15,17), as well as Hittite and rabbinic associations of olah with atonement, takes a moderate position on the matter: “The burnt offering then is a gift, with any number of goals in mind, one of which . . . is expiation.” 21 Others go a step further in presenting a hard distinction between categories, even describing these outlier cases as “intrusions” or later glosses. 22
This question integrates with the others. Is there a neat separation between a sacrifice providing God with the pleasing smell and its yielding an expiatory result? Is expiation only achievable by wiping away sins using “blood as detergent” (to invoke Milgrom’s interpretation)? 23 Or can even the burnt offering, which focuses less on blood and more on providing “food” for the Lord, effect atonement? 24
The questions above are debated in contemporary biblical scholarship, as noted. For the purposes of this study, which considers the reception of these biblical materials in later literature, the following uncontroversial points remain important. In the Bible, reah nihoah is always presented as a physical reality resulting from the burning of an animal or flour offering. That smell is offered “to the Lord,” and presumably it is the physical smoke that is indeed pleasing to the Lord (in whatever form, with whatever results). Finally, whatever one makes of the outlier cases, there is not generally much textual overlap between reah nihoah and the purification and guilt offerings, nor much overlap between expiation-ר.פ.כ and burnt, flour, and well-being offerings.
Distinctions among core sacrificial conceptual terms
Even as some questions of overlap in sacrificial function remain open, it is generally possible to draw fairly clear lines of separation regarding sacrificial language, particularly as regards the three terms ר.צ.י /רצון, ר.פ.כ, and ריח ניחוח.
The phrase reah nihoah, in its biblical appearances, refers to a physical smell. Quite distinct from this phrase, two other biblical terms are used to refer to the non-physical results of the sacrifice: The root י.צ.ר, including the nominal form ratzon, refers to the acceptability of an offering, often attending the description of the appropriate animal needed for the offering. The root י.צ.ר, meaning “to atone,” appears almost exclusively in the context of purification and guilt offerings, which feature expiation. 25
These two latter terms generally appear separately from that of reah nihoah. While the pleasing smell appears at the end of an offering’s description, the term י.צ.ר/רצון generally appears either at the beginning of the discussion of a sacrifice, denoting sacrificial requirements for acceptability, or in a separate section denoting these requirements. 26 The root ר.פ.כ does not usually occur in connection with sacrifices that feature reah nihoah, as noted above. Furthermore, the three terms seem to have conceptually distinct roles: reah nihoah describes the physically pleasing smell yielded by some offerings, ר.פ.כ points to a process of expiation yielded by others, and י.צ.ר describes requirements for an acceptable offering in general.
While there is no clear case in which expiation, acceptability, and pleasing smell language are collocated within the biblical account, it is possible to propose such a reading. One might draw upon Lev 1:4, ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it may be acceptable on his behalf to expiate for him,” where י.צ.ר and ר.פ.כ appear together, and read it in light of Lev 1:9 (regarding the same offering), which states that the offering produces reah nihoah, albeit at a later stage. As will be demonstrated, various later texts extract these terms from their original contexts and conflate and/or repurpose them in a mode much clearer than this possible, albeit strained, biblical reading.
Non-Pentateuchal biblical material on Reah Nihoah
The term reah nihoah rarely appears outside the Pentateuch (or, more precisely, its first four books), with the exception of four cases in Ezekiel (6:13, 16:19, 20:28,41). The first three of these track the Pentateuchal meaning of a literal pleasing smell, all following verbs meaning “to place” or “to present” (נ.ת.נ, מ.ו.ש) the offering or its smoke, and thus clearly referring to a physical process. However, there is an early case of both conflation and (likely) spiritualization of reah nihoah in Ezek 20:41:
בריח ניחח ארצה אתכם בהוציאי אתכם מן־העמים וקבצתי אתכם מן־הארצות אשר נפצתם בם ונקדשתי בכם לעיני הגוים I will accept (ארצה) you with/as fragrant incense when I bring you out from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will be sanctified through you in the eyes of the nations.
Two explanations of this verse appear in the literature. The more common reading is that this verse speaks not of a literal pleasing smell with which the Lord “accepts” (that is, reconciles with) Israel, but of a metaphorical or spiritual pleasing smell, perhaps one representing proper actions. 27 However, Baruch Schwartz has argued that the context of this passage, describing an actual return to the land, indicates that the pleasing smells are the literal smells of Israelite offerings brought upon their homecoming, which in turn cause God to accept Israel. 28
Even according to Schwartz, however, the verse offers an unusual biblical case of direct conflation between reah nihoah and the root י.צ.ר—it is with the pleasing smell (whether literal or metaphorical) that God accepts Israel. Furthermore, if one follows the majority reading, this is a case of spiritualization of the term reah nihoah, a phenomenon prevalent in post-biblical literature, to be discussed below. While this verse is suggestive, it would be the only biblical case where this term is spiritualized and thus appears to be an outlier.
As for the rest of the Bible, appearances of reah nihoah are rare. The term ניח(ו)חין appears at both Dan 2:46 and Ezra 6:10, an Aramaic word meaning “animal sacrifices.” This is not associated with ריח and thus is presumably not relevant to our analysis. 29
Post-biblical conceptions of Reah Nihoah
The remainder of this article considers the meaning of the term reah nihoah in its post-biblical, pre-rabbinic appearances. Although in a few cases the later texts apply the term in the same manner as the Bible, these materials also shift the meaning of reah nihoah in several ways. These phenomena will be categorized as ‘maintaining,’ ‘erasing,’ ‘conflating,’ and ‘spiritualizing.’ It is worth noting at the outset that this categorization is heuristic rather than hermetic and various ancient Jewish treatments might qualify for more than one category.
Maintaining the biblical conception
Temple Scroll and Damascus Document
The Temple Scroll features the term reah nihoah multiple times. 30 In each case, the term is employed in the same manner as in the sacrificial descriptions of Leviticus. The formulations are all along these lines: אשה ריח ניחוח (הוא) [לפני] (ל)יי “(it is) a fire-sacrifice of pleasing smell (to) [before] the Lord.” This reflects a clear effort to maintain the denotation and connotation of the term as it appeared in Leviticus. 31 The sole appearance of the term in the Damascus Document is an invocation of the curse in Leviticus 26:31 that the Lord will not smell the odor of the burnt offerings if Israel sins. 32 This indicates that, for some ancient Jews, and particularly those who generally hewed closely to the biblical account on sacrificial matters, 33 there was reason to maintain the literal, biblical conception of reah nihoah.
However, many textual witnesses from the Second Temple period—at Qumran and elsewhere—diverge significantly from the standard biblical use of the term reah nihoah. They will be analyzed within three categories: erasure, conflation, and spiritualization.
Jubilees and Aramaic Levi Document
Previous scholarship has argued that two related texts, the Aramaic Levi Document and the Book of Jubilees, reflect a greater focus on smell within sacrifice. 34 These studies have noted the inclusion of frankincense accompanying the minhah offering alongside the animal (ALD 8:6/30=Jub. 21:7), as well as specification regarding the type of firewood to be used (ALD 7:5/22-25=Jub. 21:12-15) all apparently serving the goal of optimizing its smell. Several explanations have been suggested for this development, including that they reflect existing practices in the Temple and/or an attempt to flesh out the Levitical laws in a more practical sense; or that they aim at reflecting the more ethereal aromas widely described in this period as existing in heaven and/or a particular focus on affecting God’s sensory experience (for ALD). 35
Both texts feature appearances of the term reah nihoah in particular. A Hebrew language Jubilees text found at Qumran straightforwardly continues the Pentateuchal use of the term reah nihoah as an apparently physical smell (4Q220 frag. 1, li. 5, 9, parallel to Jub. 21:7-10):
ואת כל ]בשר העלה תקט[י]ר על המז[בח ]עם סולת מנחתו בלולה ב[ש]מ[ן] 5 [עם נסכו ת]קטיר] 4 [הכ ול על המזבח אשה ריח ניחוח לפני האלהים… [והקטרת את 9 הכל לריח ניחוח לפני הא]להי[ם [עם מנחתו ונסכו לריח נ(י)ח[וח לחם אשה 10 לאלהים 4 [And all] the meat of the burnt-offering you shall offer upon the al[tar] with the finest flour of its offering mixed with [o]i[l], 5 [with its libation. You] shall offer everything upon the altar, a fire-offering with a pleasant fragrance before God . . . [and you shall offer 9 it all as a pleasant fragrance before G]od with its offering and its libation for the plea[sant fragrance, bread of the fire-offering] 10 [for God.]
These passages emphasize the presentation of reah nihoah as a literal pleasing smell. 36 Furthermore, in several Jubilees passages not extant in Hebrew, we find biblical stories retold while invoking the idea of a pleasing fragrance (Jub 3:27, 6:3-4, 7:4-6, 16:23, 30:16, 32:4-6), extending the biblical motif of a literal pleasing smell. ALD does also feature a case of the pleasing smell, using the term reah nihoah at 8:20, which will be discussed below in the section on “conflation.”
The erasure of Reah Nihoah
Josephus
As Josephus presents his “antiquities of the Jews,” including traditional Jewish law and history, to a Greek-speaking public, he reformulates biblical narratives and laws. In his revision of biblical sacrificial law, he succeeds in completely erasing the term and concept of a pleasing smell to God. This can be demonstrated by setting his divergent formulations alongside the biblical text, as Josephus is consistent in this erasure.
The central Josephan treatment of sacrifice appears in Ant. 3, chs. 9–10. As part of the discussion of the construction of the Tabernacle and what it (and its successor, the Temple) 37 would stand for, Josephus provides a short summary of the various sacrifices. Chapter 9 discusses individual offerings, corresponding to Leviticus 15, while chapter 10 discusses communal offerings occasioned by set times, effectively summarizing Numbers 28–29. Josephus’s presentation of these key chapters on sacrifice largely maintains the order and content of the Biblical text. He clearly had the biblical text—presumably in Greek translation 38 —at the forefront of his mind as he composed his summary, writing in a fashion often termed “rewritten bible.” 39
Given this background, it can be informative to consider what Josephus leaves out of his description, as much as what he inserts. Most notably for our purposes, he consistently excises the repeated reference, in both Leviticus 1–3 and Numbers 28–29, to the pleasing smell (ריח ניחוח, or ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας), despite its prominence within these biblical passages. In fact, for the opening description of an offering, describing the fully burnt offering, Josephus’s conclusion is simply, “this is the way of offering a burnt-offering” (καὶ ὁ μὲν τῆς ὁλοκαυτώσεως τρόπος ἐστὶν οὗτος), replacing Leviticus’s formulaic “it is a burnt offering, a sacrifice, of sweet smell to the Lord” (κάρπωμά ἐστι, θυσία, ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας τῷ Κυρίῳ). Consider the following chart, which compares the biblical and Josephus passages, with divergences noted in bold:
Similar synopses can be set up for the other offerings that demonstrate the pleasing smell itself is consistently absent throughout these two chapters in Josephus. Indeed, in Josephus’s account of Israelite sacrifice there is generally a decreased textual presence of the Lord, 40 as the offerings are only rarely said to be “to/for the Lord” (τῷ κυρίῳ), again in a marked departure from the LXX. 41
Josephus’ avoidance of the pleasing smell of the sacrifice and God’s decreased role therein are consistent with his writings elsewhere. If one considers Josephus’s opera omnia, he never invokes the pleasing smell of a sacrifice. Such deafening silence is of a piece with his downplaying the physical aspects of sacrifice. Instead, Josephus emphasizes aspects of prayer that accompany an offering even when there is no hint in the biblical text that any prayer occurred. 42 A sacrifice’s smell is thus irrelevant to the efficacy of the offering, in his view. To give one example, after the deluge, the Lord actively smells the pleasing odor. As the Septuagint puts it (Gen 8:21), following the Hebrew, the Lord God’s commitment not to destroy the world is preceded by His reception of an offering: καὶ ὠσϕράνθη Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, καὶ εἶπε, “And the Lord God smelled a sweet smell, and said . . . ” However, Josephus does not include this line in his account. He adds an accompanying supplication to Noah’s offering, then writes: ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τὸν ἄνδρα ἀγαπῶν ἐπένευεν αὐτῷ τὰς εὐχὰς εἰς τέλος ἄξειν, “God, who loved this man because of his righteousness, nodded assent to him that he would fulfill these prayers.” The sacrifice is re-envisioned as primarily a prayer, with the smoke of the pleasing smell cleared away.
In several other places, Josephus inserts prayer into sacrificial processes, despite the fact that no such prayer appears in the relevant biblical texts. As Israel Knohl argued, the Hebrew Bible’s central ritual system is notable for not including prayers along with sacrifices.
43
Still, Josephus in several places emphasizes prayer within sacrifice. See his description of the priest’s role (Ant. 3.8.1):
Thus, he will put on the garment consecrated to God and he will have care of the altars and concern for the sacrifices; and he will offer the prayers on our behalf to God, who will gladly listen to them, both because He bestows His care upon our race and because He welcomes these, having come from a man whom He Himself has designated.
44
This principle may have been drawn from Solomon’s inauguration of the Temple (1 Kgs 8, esp. vv. 28–53), where Solomon’s speech focuses fully on prayer and fails to directly mention sacrifice. Indeed, in Josephus’s presentation of this event (Ant. 8.4.2), he explicitly notes (once again) the integration of prayer and sacrifice by the priest:
I, however, have constructed this dedicated sanctuary for you, so that from it we may send up our prayers into the air, sacrificing and singing hymns and we may constantly be convinced that you are present and not far distant.
45
The theme of integrating prayer with sacrifice appears in several other places within Josephus’s oeuvre, as well (Ant. 10.1.3, 11.1.3; Ag. Ap. 2.14).
This conflation of sacrifice and prayer fits well with the assertion, made several times in Josephus (for example, Ant. 3.8.9), that God chooses whether to accept a sacrifice or not, based on, among other things, the character and prayers of the offerer (Ant. 6.7.4). God, a free agent, is not swayed overmuch by any physical offering per se, but by the quality of the prayers offered along with the sacrifice.
Thus, Josephus, apparently for theological reasons, minimizes the importance of sacrifices, by rendering them as primarily support for prayer. That petitionary appeal supersedes God’s receipt of the physical offering is of a piece with the move to downplay the pleasing smell. It is understandable, then, why Josephus excised the pleasing smell (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας) from both narrative and legal accounts of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible in his rewriting of the biblical material.
Philo
Philo, like Josephus, consistently eliminates the “pleasing smell” from his depiction of Israelite sacrifice. Philo further tracks Josephus in often inserting prayer into the context of sacrifice, even when the biblical base texts have no mention of prayer. 46 Similarly, his works show a marked focus on the piety and proper intention of the one bringing the sacrifice. Following prophetic critiques, Philo sees no value in empty, ritualistic offerings. 47 God does not wish to be bribed 48 and does not desire meat per se; 49 offerings are brought as a mode of honoring God rather than as a feeding mechanism. 50
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that “pleasing smell” language is absent from Philo’s discussion of sacrifices. He virtually never uses the term “pleasing smell” (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας); the one instance in which the phrase appears, in direct citation of a verse, functions as the exception that proves the rule. (See the discussion of this passage in item 4 below.)
In several passages, a biblical verse containing the phrase “pleasing smell” (ריח ניחוח/οσμην ευοδιας) is paraphrased by Philo while he excludes the “offending” phrase:
On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 111 cites what appears to be Num 28:2 51 : “in another passage it is said, ‘My gifts, and my offerings, and my sacrifices, you will take care to offer to me at my festivals.’” The apodosis of the citation, “take care to offer to me at my festivals,” only appears biblically at Num 28:2, and indeed the verse is fully identical to LXX to Num 28:2—except that the phrase εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, “(my) pleasing smell,” has been carefully excised. 52
Less explicit, but equally significant, is the presentation of Who is the Heir?, 174, which notes the daily offering, loosely paraphrasing Num 28:4, but failing to mention that it is God’s food or that it offers a pleasing smell:
The law prescribes that half of the offerings named shall be sacrificed in the morning and half in the evening, that God may be thanked both for the day-time and the night-time blessings which He showers upon all.
53
The most general presentation of sacrificial offerings in Philo appears in On the Special Laws 1.198-212, which sets out the processing of the burnt offering, including details of division of the meat and placing it on the altar, but leaves out one important matter (§199):
The victim after being flayed must be divided into parts complete in themselves, while the belly and feet are washed, and then the whole must be given over to the sacred fire of the altar. Thus the one in it has become many and the many one.
54
Leviticus 1:8–9, describing the burnt offering, also tells of washing the entrails and feet and placing the whole animal on the altar, except that it closes with “it is a burnt-offering, a sacrifice, a smell of pleasing smell to the Lord” rather than including Philo’s note about one and many.
These three conspicuous absences of the “pleasing smell,” combined with the nonappearance of the term generally in Philo, attest a clear pattern, as Philo erases the pleasing smell from his account of biblical sacrifice.
Despite the above, the sacrificial olfactory theme does appear at times in Philo’s works, albeit not using the common biblical formula ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. However, in each case, the context redirects or undermines the prospect of viewing smell as an important aspect of sacrifice:
On Dreams 2.74: Philo discusses the “best of sacrifices,” so described as “perfumed with the breaths exhaled from justice and the other virtues.” Here the smell is spiritualized as a metaphor for a just offering, which, as above, is crucial for Philo’s understanding of sacrifice.
On the Special Laws 1.201: In describing an offering pleasing to God (albeit without reference to smell, only acceptability), Philo highlights possessing a mind with the proper virtues, rather than focusing on physical features of the offering. Accompanying this explicit statement on the unimportance of smell is the accompanying implicit exclusion of the ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, again focusing on the offerer rather than the smell of the offering. 55
On The Decalogue 74: Philo decries worship of idols that lack sense perception, which he describes as nevertheless “day and night, ever drinking in the smoke of the [sacrificial] victims.” This caustic critique of idolatry does not reflect favorably on the olfactory delight of divine beings in sacrificial smell. 56
Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.53: This text features the one appearance in Philo’s writings of the phrase ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, in a verse (Gen 8:21) cited in the question presented to Philo. His response pays no attention to the incidental occurrence of “pleasing smell” in the citation, and instead focuses on questions pertaining to various representations of God’s name. 57
All of the above point in the same direction: Philo, like Josephus, objected to the pleasing smell playing any role in the efficacy of sacrifice. Instead, sacrifices are effective as an adjunct to prayer, presented by a virtuous individual along with their petition, serving as an accompaniment, at best. 58 Thus, Philo consistently avoided reference to the “pleasing smell” of an offering, referring to sacrificial smell only in order to denigrate or spiritualize and emphasizing virtue rather than physical enjoyment by the Deity. 59
Onqelos and other Aramaic Targumim
Targum Onqelos, the Aramaic Pentateuchal translation composed somewhere between the first and sixth century C.E., 60 and cited frequently throughout the Babylonian Talmud, is well known for its avoidance of anthropomorphic language. 61 It is thus unsurprising that the translation consistently refrains from rendering the phrase reah nihoah literally, both in the cases where the Lord actively inhales the pleasing smell and in the cases lacking an explicitly stated action. Rather, the translation is always some version of “an offering (קורבן) accepted (ל.ב.ק) with goodwill (ברעוא) before the Lord.”
Two additional observations about Onqelos’s translation of reah nihoah are relevant for this analysis: (1) In the two cases where God’s olfactory agency appears in the biblical text, at Gen 8:21 and Lev 26:31, the translation does not include the distancing term “before” (קדם), found in the other instances, presumably because קדם usually responds to the prepositional ל before the divine name in those cases. (2) At times when another word connoting an offering, such as אשה or אזכרה, is present, the word ניחוח goes untranslated, while ריח (“smell”) is replaced with רעוא (“goodwill”). 62
The shifts applied by this translation make one point very clear: for Onqelos, the God of Israel does not smell the pleasing odor of a sacrifice. Rather, He accepts the offering with goodwill in a non-physical act, allowing a shift in meaning such that reah nihoah now signifies acceptability. 63 At times this acceptance is formulated in a more direct manner and at times less so, but never is the pleasing smell of the offering invoked. It should be noted that Onqelos undertakes a similar shift in other sacrificial passages that do not include the term reah nihoah, as well, such that a divine acceptance or non-acceptance of an offering is signified with goodwill rather than the verbs in the verses (“to heed,” “to turn to,” “to have an offering placed on Your altar”). 64 This indicates that the shift is conceptual/ideological in nature, rather than simply representing an arbitrary translation choice by Onqelos. 65
This trend of Targumim avoiding the term reah nihoah is common to the midrashim of the Land of Israel as well. As Flesher and Chilton put it (p. 44),
The two word Hebrew phrase translated into English as “soothing smell” or “sweet-smelling savor” (ריח ניחוח) is recast in Targum Neofiti as “which is accepted as a pleasing odor before the Lord” ( דמתקבל לריח דרעוא קדם ייי) in Leviticus 1:9. Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan take a similar approach, “Which is accepted with pleasure before the Lord” (דמתקבל ברעוא קדם יוי).
The re-orientation provided by Targum Neofiti is somewhat less extreme than that of Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, in that it retains the language of ריח, yielding an acceptable smell, rather than Onqelos’s acceptable offering. Despite this, it still diverges from the biblical pleasing smell, employing the Divine’s agentive acceptance rather than His reactively being pleased by the smell. Each of these translations thus utilizes some degree of anti-anthropomorphic distancing, 66 specifically by replacing the pleasing smell (ריח ניחוח) with goodwill (רעוא) or by conflating the two. In this sense, the translations utilize some combination of erasure and conflation, the next category to be discussed. 67
Conflation of Reah Nihoah
A number of post-biblical sources neither erase the term reah nihoah nor maintain the phrase in its original meaning. Instead these texts conflate, correlate, or redefine the term “pleasing smell” with non-physical descriptions of the sacrifice. In multiple cases the term for a pleasing aroma is placed in apposition to terms for atonement and/or acceptability of an offering, indicating at least significant conceptual and semantic overlap, if not synonymy. Such conflation is uncommon within the biblical corpus, as each of these terms holds a distinct meaning, and they generally appear at different places within the description of the ritual, as noted at the outset of this paper. The texts considered below might be seen as generalizing from the rare cases of biblical collocation of “pleasing smell” with “atonement” and/or “acceptability,” such as Lev 1:4,9 or Lev 4:31, to presenting reah nihoah as assimilated to those other meanings more generally.
Rule of the Community
As part of a general exhortation to follow the (sectarian) law, column 3 of the Qumran text Serekh ha-Yahad, also known as Rule of the Community, invokes purity and holiness and their opposites to describe those who alternately adhere or do not adhere to the law. Among these metaphors, the text asserts that one who succeeds in adhering to the godly path will experience the following success (1QS III:11-12):
אז ירצהבכפורי ניחוח לפני אל והיתה לו לברית 12 יחד עולמים In this way he will be accepted (ירצה)
68
by means of pleasing (ניחוח) atonement (כפורי) before God, and it shall be for him the covenant of an everlasting Community.
69
This short snippet conflates three distinct sacrificial themes: acceptability (רצון), expiation (כפורים), and pleasantness (ניחוח), a far cry from the Bible’s usual separation between the three. The text has extracted the three separate key terms used to describe a successful sacrifice and artificially juxtaposed them. 70
War Scroll
In a similar vein, the following text in the Qumran War Scroll notes the various officers and their roles in supervising offerings (1QM II:5 אלה יתיצבו על העולות ועל הזבחים לערוך מקטרת ניחוח לרצון אל לכפר בעד כול עדתו ולהדשן לפניו תמיד These shall take their positions at the burnt offerings and the sacrifices, in order to prepare the pleasing (ניחוח) incense for God’s acceptance (לרצון), to atone (לכפר) for all his congregation and to satisfy themselves in perpetuity before him at the table of glory.
This case also bridges the pleasing (ניחוח) incense (albeit without the term ריח, but likely still meaning “pleasing smell” here), with the terms “acceptable” (לרצון) and “to atone” (לכפר). 71
Miscellaneous Rules
The fragmentary Miscellaneous Rules (4Q265) presents another relevant example. It is not fully clear what the text is referring to at this point—it has just discussed laws of carrying on the Sabbath, and then begins to discuss the formation of a communal council. These establishments are to yield a positive result, described using sacrificial language (frag. 7, col. ii, lines 8–9): 72
… [… נכונה עצת היח[ד באמת … בחירי] 9 רצון וריח ניחוח לכפר על ה[א]רץ מא[שמתה [T]he commun[ity] council will be [firmly] established [… those chosen of] (his) will (רצון), and it shall be a pleasing smell (ניחוח ריח) to atone (לכפר) for the land, (cleansing it) from [its] g[uilt …]
73
Once again, the text conflates reah nihoah with atonement, and possibly with acceptability as well. This text is difficult to interpret, given its fragmentary nature, but it does offer several relevant points. The juxtaposition of “pleasing smell” (ניחוח ריח) and “atonement” (לכפר) indicates some integration between these two phenomena. 74 Furthermore, the conflation of ritual sacrificial terms might suggest an alternative restoration of the text as well. It is possible to read the word רצון not as describing chosen ones (following the restoration in DSSSE of the word בחירי), but instead as relating to a sacrifice, such as if the word מנחת, “offering of,” were restored prior to it. 75 On that reading, this text would not only include the juxtaposition of ניחוח ריח and ר. פ.כ, but of י.צ.ר as well, presenting a conflation of the pleasing smell with both atonement and acceptability in yet another text.
Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint Insertions to Leviticus 17:4
Conflation of the terms ניחוח ריח and רצון exists beyond materials found at Qumran. Parallel alternate versions of the biblical text of Leviticus 17:4 in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint contain words absent in the Masoretic text. These longer texts gloss the MT in near-identical ways, and the inserted text participates in the conflation. Consider the three versions of the text (with insertions in bold):
Masoretic Text
ואל־פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו להקריב קרבן לי-הוה לפני משכן י-הוה דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו ׃
Samaritan Pentateuch
ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו
להקריבו קרבן ליי לפני משכן יי דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו
Septuagint
καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου μὴ ἐνέγκῃ
ὥστε μὴ προσενέγκαι δῶρον κυρίῳ ἀπέναντι τῆς σκηνῆς κυρίου, καὶ λογισθήσεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ αἷμα· αἷμα ἐξέχεεν, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτῆς·
The translation of the version with insertions (which are nearly equivalent between SP and LXX) bolded reads as follows:
One who slaughters an animal in the camp but does not bring it to the Tent of Meeting, to offer it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, it shall be considered blood for this man; he spilled blood; and the man shall be cut off from the midst of his nation.
The Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch appear to have the same text for this passage. This is not unusual, as the Septuagint often follows SP rather than MT when those two Hebrew texts diverge. 76 There is every indication that the bolded material here is a later gloss to the MT, given how long and cumbersome the verse is in its extended form.
The insertion, in both its Hebrew and Greek forms, integrates the terms of acceptability-רצון/δεκτὸν) and the pleasing smell-ניחח ריח/ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας), noting that it is acceptable as (or “for”) a pleasing smell. The two terms are equated, presented as working together, and suggestion that to be an offering “for pleasing smell” is to be an acceptable offering, shifting away from a literal, physical meaning.
Aramaic Levi Document
As noted, above, ALD is generally read as focused more on optimizing the smell of sacrifice. Within its sustained discussion on sacrifice, it is worth analyzing its singular invocation of the term reah nihoah in the material we have extant. The text recovered from Bodleian column D discusses how to present offerings on the altar. At the end of this discussion, ALD writes (lines 13–16):
ובתר כולא חמר נסך 14 והקטיר עליהון לבונה ויהוון 15 עובדיך בסרך וכל קורבניך [לרעו]א 16 לריח ניחח קודם אל עליון And after everything, pour wine and burn incense over them so that your works may be in order and all your offerings [be accept]able (לרעוא), to give a pleasing smell (ניחח ריח) before the God Most High.
77
This passage can be taken in one of two ways:
The wine and incense themselves are the cause of the pleasing smell, either independently or in concert with the flesh of the animals offered. If this is the case, it is possible to read reah nihoah as pointing to a literal, physical smell, and this is a technical piece of advice in olfactory optimization. This would be somewhat surprising, since in the Bible the pleasing smell is generally not a function of additive substances, and especially not wine. 78
This passage is a summary flourish, noting that if all the stages of presenting an offering are followed, the offering will be acceptable and hence pleasing. If this is the case, reah nihoah likely does not refer to a literal smell but is instead synonymous with acceptability (רעוא) 79 —otherwise, how would actions such as sprinkling blood affect the smell of the incineration of the sacrifice?
However one reads the passage, it is noteworthy that the pleasing smell and acceptability are placed in apposition to one another. The shifting of reah nihoah from a physical phenomenon to a synonym for acceptability is more acute if the term no longer has a physical meaning. Even if the term retains its physical meaning, this semantic shift remains significant, as the pleasing smell has become a metonym for an acceptable offering overall.
Spiritualization of Reah Nihoah
Possibly the most frequent way “pleasing smell” gets reworked in ancient Judaism is through the strategy of spiritualization, in which an aspect of sacrifice is redefined as spiritual and metaphorical rather than physical and literal. 80
Spiritualization of sacrifice in general (although not necessarily involving the particular term reah nihoah) may appear already in some prophetic and wisdom literature accounts of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, which emphasize that ritualistic sacrifice accompanied by societal immorality is repugnant. In such contexts, we find technical ritual terms like “acceptability [for sacrifice]” (ר.צ.ה) or its sibling term, “to desire” (צ.פ.ח), borrowed—or “spiritualized”—and used to refer to moral, non-sacrificial practices that God “accepts” or “wills.” One such example is Samuel’s charge to the people (1Sam 15:22): ויאמר שמואל החפץ לי-הוה בעלות וזבחים כשמע בקול י-הוה הנה שמע מזבח טוב להקשיב מחלב אילים And Samuel said: Does the Lord desire (החפץ ליי) burnt offerings and sacrifices, as much as listening to God’s voice? Behold, [He prefers] listening over a good sacrifice; obedience over fat rams.
This passage reflects an explicit move away from sacrifice and toward ethical behavior, in this case. This theme of spiritualization is developed further in several Second Temple and post-Second Temple texts as a general trend. More to the point of this paper, several of these texts particularly spiritualize the term reah nihoah, as part of the move away from the concept of literal sacrificial smell. 81
Ben Sira
Two passages within Ben Sira 35 (specifically, vv. 8–9 and v. 29
82
) use language relating to acceptability and/or the pleasing smell of an offering, in the context of a general charge to ethical behavior. The chapter begins as follows:
He who keeps the Law multiplies offerings. One who makes a sacrifice for deliverance is he who pays heed to the commandments. One who repays a kindness is one who offers the finest flour, And he who does an act of charity is one who makes a sacrifice of praise. A good pleasure to the Lord it is to withdraw from wickedness, And it is an atonement to withdraw from injustice. Do not be seen empty in the presence of the Lord, For all these things are for the sake of a commandment.
It is in this context that the following lines (li. 8–9) should be read:
An offering of a righteous person enriches the altar, And its A righteous man’s and its
We do not possess an original Hebrew text of these lines. 83 The bolded words above would appear to correlate to the following biblical terms relating to sacrifice: ריח (ניחוח), ל[פני] יי, קרבן, ירצה, אזכרה. Verses containing parallels to these phrases include Lev 2:2,9,16, 5:12, 6:8, and others.
προσφορὰ δικαίου λιπαίνει θυσιαστήριον καὶ ἡ εὐωδία αὐτῆς ἔναντι ὑψίστου
θυσία ἀνδρὸς δικαίου δεκτή καὶ τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐπιλησθήσεται
In a vacuum, these two lines can be taken literally, discussing sacrifices of righteous people that are physically brought to the Temple. 84 However, the positioning within a spiritualized account of sacrifice makes it likely that this text is discussing ethical behavior using ritual language. If that suspicion is correct, this text “spiritualizes” sacrificial terms. Moreover, however one interprets the text, it is notable that the pleasing smell and acceptability are used in parallel to one another, almost interchangeably.
Moving ahead within chapter 35 to line 20 θεραπεύων ἐν προσευχὴ ταπεινοῦ νεφέλας διῆλθεν καὶ ἕως συνεγγίσῃ οὐ μὴ παρακληθῇ :תמרורי רצון הנחה וצעקה
85
ענן חשתה :שועת דל ענן חל עם
86
ועד
87
תגיע לא תנוח One who cries with His petition reaches to the clouds A humble person’s prayer passes through the clouds, Until it draws near, it will never relent, Nor will it ever desist until the Most High takes notice.
The use of רצון, meaning “desirability” or “goodwill” in this context, offers yet another example of the spiritualization of sacrificial language. Throughout the chapter, Ben Sira builds upon a tradition in the Hebrew Bible (primarily Psalms and Proverbs, but also in some prophetic critiques of sacrifice) of using sacrificial language as a metaphor for righteous behavior, but extends it to include not only ratzon but reah nihoah as well. 89
New Testament (spiritualizing and conflating)
The New Testament is well associated with the process of spiritualization of sacrifice, as it applies sacrificial categories as metaphors for other areas of religious life, including the Eucharist. Sacrificial metaphors are thus applied outside the realm of classic Temple sacrifice, shifting the focus away from sacrifice and toward alternative ritual practices. This section will not analyze the manifold cases of this phenomenon, but will focus on instances of the term “sweet smell” (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας) in its New Testament appearances, considering whether and how the term is “spiritualized” and conflated, in some cases, with other ritual sacrificial terms, such as “acceptability.”
Philippians 4:18 describes gifts that Paul receives using sacrificial language:
ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω· πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας), a sacrifice acceptable (δεκτήν) and pleasing (εὐάρεστον) to God.
This text groups the pleasing smell of the sacrifice (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας) 90 with the offering’s acceptability (δεκτήν) and adds yet another term for its pleasingness (εὐάρεστον) before God. 91 These terms are presented in apposition to one another, as near-synonyms, with the pleasing smell equated to the acceptability of a sacrifice, in a clear instance of conflation. 92 In this case, the context is also significant—the term “a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” is used to describe a gift among non-divine entities (albeit religious functionaries). The term has thus been conflated, rendered into a formula, and then spiritualized or de-sacralized, as the sacrificial language is used to refer to a non-sacrificial gift. 93
The following case, a Pauline or deutero-Pauline homily at Ephesians 5:1–2, may also indicate the blending of the pleasing smell of sacrifice into conceptions not of acceptability but of atonement and efficacy:
γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητά, καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a pleasing smell and sacrifice to God.
Jesus is called a sacrifice (προσϕορὰν καὶ θυσίαν) and pleasing smell (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας) to God, and this is in the context of giving himself up for the people. This presumably refers to the themes, emphasized in related writings (Galatians and Romans), that Jesus was an effective sacrifice and expiation for humanity’s sins, “giving himself up” as an offering with attendant pleasing smell.
In 2 Cor 2:14–16, as well, we find a blending between the language of pleasing smell and acceptable offering.
Combining the word ὀσμὴν (fragrance) in v. 14 with the word εὐωδία (aroma) in 15 yields ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας (fragrant aroma), the equivalent of ניחח ריח (ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας). 94 As the verses are meant to be read together, it is likely that the reader was meant to hear echoes of this sacrificial phrase. The term here is clearly not referring to a physical smell, but to a spiritualized fragrance of knowledge of God and acting properly. The efficacious conduct of Jesus’s followers is equated to a pleasing smell as they carry on his legacy.
Conclusion
This analysis has surveyed a variety of ancient Jewish texts: Josephus and Philo; Onqelos and other Targumim; Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint; several texts of Qumranic provenance, sectarian and otherwise; and several New Testamental texts. While a fraction of these texts preserve reah nihoah in its biblical, literal meaning, most diverge from the biblical path and use the term in various distinct and overlapping ways. Across these sources appear several patterns, extended across several centuries and languages among the late Second Temple and early post-Temple era. Aside from the cases of maintaining or erasing the biblical meaning, some texts reflect a novel use of the term: the trope of the pleasing smell is used precisely to signal acceptability of an offering, and, at times, even atonement. Some of these cases of conflation point to spiritualization, as well.
This paper has demonstrated that, with a few exceptions, early biblical interpreters consistently move away from deploying reah nihoah as meaning a literal smell. While some texts, such as the Temple Scroll and Jubilees, do maintain the physical sense of the reah nihoah, this is a distinct minority position against extensive evidence in the opposite direction. It would appear that this large-scale move away from the literal pleasing smell of the sacrifice emerges from the confluence of several factors that appear across Second Temple interpretation: a rejection of divine neediness, a trend of spiritualization of ritual worship, and a rejection of anthropomorphic understandings of God. The argument against divine neediness emerges not only from Greek philosophy
95
but also from passages such as that of Psalms 50, where God asserts (Ps 50:12-15):
Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of he-goats? Sacrifice a thank offering to God, and pay your vows to the Most High. Call upon Me in time of trouble; I will rescue you, and you shall honor me.
96
And, in the very next chapter (Ps 51:18-19):
For You delight not in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You have no pleasure in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
97
The related phenomenon of spiritualization also has clear biblical roots, not only in the passage above but also in various prophetic passages (see, for example, I Sam. 15:22, Hos 14:3, Mic 6:7, 98 and possibly the example from Ezekiel 20:41 noted at the outset of this paper). That this trend, which applies throughout Second Temple texts such as Ben Sira (for example, 34:21-17) and is of great import in the New Testament, extends to interpretation of the pleasing smell is not terribly surprising. We can add to this the phenomenon of opposition to anthropomorphism that clearly cuts across both the Hellenistic works of Philo and Josephus and also the Targumim, especially Onqelos. 99 The confluence of all of these trends yields the situation described in this paper, where the overwhelming majority of Second Temple interpretations of reah nihoah move away from a literal meaning, utilizing a variety of methods to do so.
While there may be a tendency to reflexively assume some correlation between these non-literal understandings of reah nihoah and a historical situation where sacrifices are not being offered, the evidence of this paper does not lend itself simply to such an explanation. Notably, the materials in this paper that minimize the pleasing smell of the offering include texts produced in societies that were not offering sacrifices (Targumim, New Testament materials, likely the Qumran texts 100 ), but also those in contexts where offerings were still being brought (Samaritan Pentateuch, Ben Sira, and possibly ALD). 101 This paper’s findings, therefore, point to an intellectual trend away from literal reah nihoah that transcends any particular text’s historical situation relative to Temple sacrifice.
Moreover, that this trend can be clearly outlined as early as the Second Temple period is important for tracing the overall history of interpretation of this theme, as well. In particular, the data discussed in this paper indicate that the rabbinic move away from a literal reah nihoah is not an innovation but is continuous with an interpretive trend across ancient Judaism.
As is clear from the Mishnah’s presentation of sacrifice, the processing of the blood is essential, while the burning of flesh very much takes a backseat. Mira Balberg argues on the basis of this de-emphasis of the burning and its resulting reah nihoah that it produces that the rabbis reject the “broader view of sacrifice as a mode of communication with the deity” (p. 84). 102 This is part of a process of sacrificial reinvention in Balberg’s view, wherein “the rabbis construed sacrifice as a process without addresser by eliminating the agency of the offerer” and also “as a process without addressee” (p. 66), instead aiming “to establish sacrifice primarily as a manifestation of commitment to accurate and scrupulous performance of the law” (p. 106).
However, keeping in mind the historical trajectory of how the burning of flesh was interpreted in ancient Judaism, this explanation becomes difficult to support. The rabbis were by no means trailblazers in minimizing the significance of the burning of flesh, given all those who preceded them. And it would be difficult to argue that each of the various texts analyzed in this analysis rejected the view of sacrifice as a mode of communication with the deity. In some cases—Philo and Josephus may be clearest on this front—the accompanying of all sacrifices with prayer particularly means to center the interactive role within sacrifice, albeit through other means than the burning of flesh. 103
One might try to respond to this point, as Balberg does, by asserting that “in several [Second Temple] texts the application of blood is depicted as emphatically marginal to the burning of flesh or suet.” 104 However, these texts are the exception to the interpretive rule of the Second Temple period that minimizes reah nihoah as it relates to the burning of the flesh of an offering. This study, if nothing else, should lead us to see the rabbinic approach to reah nihoah as less “reinvention” of sacrifice and more “retention” of existing interpretive trends. 105
For ancient Jews, reah nihoah overwhelmingly ceases to mean a literal pleasing smell because God is understood not to need or be affected by the physical aroma of the sacrifices. This sense of divine impassability across a wide swath of Second Temple texts revolutionizes the understanding of that ritual term, and worship overall, leaving God with, literally, nothing to sniff at.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
Partial versions of this paper were presented at the NE/EC Regional SBL Conference, Yale’s Greco-Roman Group, and the SBL Annual Meeting in 2017. I appreciate the productive feedback from participants in those sessions and others.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.