What do you think?
Rate this book
A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited
In this book, James A. Greenberg examines animal sacrifice in Priestly Torah texts found in Leviticus 1–16, Exodus, and Numbers. Through his analysis, Greenberg identifies a new valence of kipper as a process that produces a positive result between two objects and argues that the Israelite sanctuary exists to facilitate a connection between YHWH, sancta, and the Israelites through the medium of blood.
Rather than beginning with a priori assumptions of what sacrificial terms and symbols mean, Greenberg allows his interpretation to develop through an accumulation of textual clues. To avoid the exegetical pitfalls of symbolic and structuralist approaches, he focuses on what the language of the ritual says about sacrifice and what it seeks to accomplish. His investigation considers why the flesh and blood of an animal are used by the priest as he mediates on behalf of the offerer through the medium of YHWH’s sanctuary, what the difference is between intentional and unintentional sin, how the meaning of kipper changes from one sacrifice to the next, whether the sanctuary can be both holy and unclean, and how priests conceive of YHWH’s interaction with sancta, the offerer, and the animal.
A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus recalibrates our understanding of kipper and furthers our knowledge of the priestly cult in ancient Israel. It will especially interest scholars of Biblical Hebrew and the Old Testament in particular.
Rather than beginning with a priori assumptions of what sacrificial terms and symbols mean, Greenberg allows his interpretation to develop through an accumulation of textual clues. To avoid the exegetical pitfalls of symbolic and structuralist approaches, he focuses on what the language of the ritual says about sacrifice and what it seeks to accomplish. His investigation considers why the flesh and blood of an animal are used by the priest as he mediates on behalf of the offerer through the medium of YHWH’s sanctuary, what the difference is between intentional and unintentional sin, how the meaning of kipper changes from one sacrifice to the next, whether the sanctuary can be both holy and unclean, and how priests conceive of YHWH’s interaction with sancta, the offerer, and the animal.
A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus recalibrates our understanding of kipper and furthers our knowledge of the priestly cult in ancient Israel. It will especially interest scholars of Biblical Hebrew and the Old Testament in particular.
224 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 5, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 26, 2025
"However, the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu also requires eating. In their case, YHWH’s act of eating is the antithesis of the results of kipper; that is, their disobedient acts have led to YHWH's consumption of them, thereby rupturing YHWH's connection with the house of Israel." - James Greenberg
Rough and tough to follow. Doesn't help that Greenberg seems to advocate for a source critical view of the Pentateuch (constant mention and interaction with the "Priestly Torah" and "Holiness School"). But overall, I just found it hard to find exactly what this book was arguing for. He writes that kipper should be understood as some type of proactive offering of remembrance and protective covering to ensure the offerer has a right relationship with YHWH. At the end of the day, I don't really find the difference between protective covering and ransom payment (for sin) to be all that different. He also makes a difference between the sacrificial lamb being a representative rather than a substitute. Isn't a representative someone who goes in the place of another as a substitute? Don't they stand in the place of that person/group of people? I just don't find that distinction all that significant. He sees the Azazel ritual as representing rebellious Israelites who are symbolically removed from the camp. In sum, not as helpful, as clear, or as thought stimulating as Gane's work. Not likely to be a book I utilize much in the future.
Rough and tough to follow. Doesn't help that Greenberg seems to advocate for a source critical view of the Pentateuch (constant mention and interaction with the "Priestly Torah" and "Holiness School"). But overall, I just found it hard to find exactly what this book was arguing for. He writes that kipper should be understood as some type of proactive offering of remembrance and protective covering to ensure the offerer has a right relationship with YHWH. At the end of the day, I don't really find the difference between protective covering and ransom payment (for sin) to be all that different. He also makes a difference between the sacrificial lamb being a representative rather than a substitute. Isn't a representative someone who goes in the place of another as a substitute? Don't they stand in the place of that person/group of people? I just don't find that distinction all that significant. He sees the Azazel ritual as representing rebellious Israelites who are symbolically removed from the camp. In sum, not as helpful, as clear, or as thought stimulating as Gane's work. Not likely to be a book I utilize much in the future.
April 13, 2022
Frankly astounding in its depth and level of analysis. Greenberg examines the biblical texts having to do with sacrificial practice in Leviticus in the search for the meaning of atonement. He critiques pollution theories of sacrifice and atonement which claim that the function of sacrifice was to cleanse the sanctuary so that Yahweh would not depart. By moving progressively through these texts in painstaking fashion, he builds evidence for his position that the overall purpose of sacrifice was to provide means and ways for Israel to repair a broken relationship with Yahweh. A thorough, exhaustive, and endlessly compelling examination that should change the way anyone views and understands the Israelite sacrificial practice.
January 17, 2026
Perhaps I'm just not well-read enough in Levitical rites because I found this book rather convoluted and confusing at times.
"Rather than thinking of evils as metaphysical substances that attack YHWH and his things, evil seem to disrupt relationship."
In conclusion, Greenberg argues that the Kipper is for reconciliation of the people to the altar, which YHWH has sanctified the altar, and thus through the altar they can connect to God, makign a complete reconciliation circuit. By sending the live goat into the wilderness, those who have rebelled willfully are symbolically exiled and God can reinstate a relationship with the non-rebellious people.
However, I'll admit I'm understudied on this subject and this conclusion doesn't satisfy me. I believe the author is right about the pollution-purge view being an inaccurate theory, but in his arguments he seemed to neglect that Aaron and his sons would bear the iniquity of the congregation. (Ex. 28:38; Ex. 32:21; Num. 18:1, 23; Is. 53:6, 11-12; Ezk. 4:4-6; Matt. 8:17; 26:28)
The High Priest bears the sins of the people-the sanctuary does not bear the sins as in Milgrom's view, but rather the High Priest and his sons do. The priest is the mediator. So the Day of Atonement seems to be more of a one-on-one with the High Priest and YHWH, and could therefore still be a pollution-and-purge argument if the High Priest is the one being 'purged'. If Aaron did not bear all the sins of the people why would he lay his hands on the live goat (indicating transfer) and then send the goat off? He represents the people, yes; but the sin has been transferred, so to speak, to Aaron. Which is why the High Priest makes sacrifice for his own sins and his household then the sins of the people before entering the Holy of Holies.
I don't believe Greenberg is correct about God disconnecting from the altar or sancta and that Atonement is 'coxing' him back through sacrifice, offering, and penitence. He didn't make a convincing enough argument for me to believe God has left the altar or sancta.
In New Testament theology, our bodies are the Temple of God, therefore we are the altar and the sancta. Only by the unpardonable sin does God remove his Holy Spirit from us. I'm not convinced that one or a few rebellious people, threaten God's presence at the Temple which then affects the whole congregation.
The book left me with more questions than answers. I paid $108 for the book and all I can say, is I don't believe it should be valued so high.
I'm not convinced this book is doctrinally accurate, so I can't recommend it nor is it something I will likely use as a resource or for citation in the future.
"Rather than thinking of evils as metaphysical substances that attack YHWH and his things, evil seem to disrupt relationship."
In conclusion, Greenberg argues that the Kipper is for reconciliation of the people to the altar, which YHWH has sanctified the altar, and thus through the altar they can connect to God, makign a complete reconciliation circuit. By sending the live goat into the wilderness, those who have rebelled willfully are symbolically exiled and God can reinstate a relationship with the non-rebellious people.
However, I'll admit I'm understudied on this subject and this conclusion doesn't satisfy me. I believe the author is right about the pollution-purge view being an inaccurate theory, but in his arguments he seemed to neglect that Aaron and his sons would bear the iniquity of the congregation. (Ex. 28:38; Ex. 32:21; Num. 18:1, 23; Is. 53:6, 11-12; Ezk. 4:4-6; Matt. 8:17; 26:28)
The High Priest bears the sins of the people-the sanctuary does not bear the sins as in Milgrom's view, but rather the High Priest and his sons do. The priest is the mediator. So the Day of Atonement seems to be more of a one-on-one with the High Priest and YHWH, and could therefore still be a pollution-and-purge argument if the High Priest is the one being 'purged'. If Aaron did not bear all the sins of the people why would he lay his hands on the live goat (indicating transfer) and then send the goat off? He represents the people, yes; but the sin has been transferred, so to speak, to Aaron. Which is why the High Priest makes sacrifice for his own sins and his household then the sins of the people before entering the Holy of Holies.
I don't believe Greenberg is correct about God disconnecting from the altar or sancta and that Atonement is 'coxing' him back through sacrifice, offering, and penitence. He didn't make a convincing enough argument for me to believe God has left the altar or sancta.
In New Testament theology, our bodies are the Temple of God, therefore we are the altar and the sancta. Only by the unpardonable sin does God remove his Holy Spirit from us. I'm not convinced that one or a few rebellious people, threaten God's presence at the Temple which then affects the whole congregation.
The book left me with more questions than answers. I paid $108 for the book and all I can say, is I don't believe it should be valued so high.
I'm not convinced this book is doctrinally accurate, so I can't recommend it nor is it something I will likely use as a resource or for citation in the future.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews