Who Wrote the Pentateuch? A Brief Description of the Documentary Hyopthesis. (myths, gospels)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

Not surprising a Chrstian translation would put boil instead of roast, huh? I pulled out my chumash (with the actual words in Hebrew), and the word in Deu 16:7 (in parshas RE'Eh) is "Uvishalta," which translates to English as "roast." Not boil.

In Exo 12:8, the Hebrew word used is "tzli' aish," which translates as roasted over fire.

Tearing apart one of whoppers points does not tear apart his entire argument, however, it does show that as convincing as his arguments may sound, they make assumptions that simply are not agreed upon, and then these assumptions are used to make the point. From what i understand, whoppers can read Hebrew - but did he consult the actual text, or did he rely on a translation of a translation instead?

Using a bad translation (whatever translation Eusebius is fond of) and appealing to other English translations that have harmonized the two verses by using roast does not destroy my argument at all - it illustrates it. Eusebius does not understand Hebrew (or even read it), so his critique on the subject is neither accurate nor helpful.

I did, actually, consult the Hebrew text. Is it safe to assume, Flipflop, that you can read Hebrew but cannot understand it fluently? I don't mean that as an insult - for I know many people who can read Hebrew, but do not understand it competently. I ask, because your transliteration obscures the root by using a "v" instead of a "b" (a "v" is only the soft pronounciation of the "b" in this case); and you are confusing the word with "roast":

"To boil"
בֹשׁל or bšl.
The verb means: "to boil". This can be seen from cognate languages:
Akkadian: bašālum
Ugaritic: bšl
Aramaic: bšl
Southern Arabian: bsl

It had secondary meanings of "to ripen", "to cook", etc. but the main meaning in Biblical Hebrew (and the cognate languages mentioned) was "to boil", with liquid involved. Thus a proper translation would, indeed, read:

You are to boil it and you are to eat it
in the place
that YHWH your God chooses.
(Deut. 16:7, SB - Shocken Bible)

"To roast"
As for Exodus 12:8, it uses the form for "to roast", adjectively as "roasted in fire".
צלה or ṣlh: "to roast", "to bake" ("ṣ"= your "tz", or "ts" as in "fits").
The cognates from other languages have to do with the same concept: "to roast", "to bake","to darken", "to blacken", etc.
Akkadian: ṣelûm
Arabic: ṣalāy

The adjectival form "roasted in fire" is used in Exodus 12:8:
צְלִי־אֵשׁ or ṣĕlî-ʾēš .

So it is proper to translate it as:

They are to eat the flesh on that night, roasted in fire,
and matzot,
with bitter-herbs are they to eat it.
(Exodus 12:8, SB)

So, hopefully - it's a little more clear. If not - plenty of Biblical passages could be referenced in which the terms are quite clearcut. And now we can look at the Chronicler again and his device of taking the two contradicting laws ("boil" or "roast") and mixing them together by turning them into two steps. A standard English translation will erroneously use the word "roasted", such as:

They roasted the passover lamb with fire according to the ordinance;
and they boiled the holy offerings in pots, in caldrons, and in pans, and carried them quickly to the people.
(II Chronicles 35:13, NRSV)

What it literally says, however, in the Hebrew text, is that the passover lamb was "boiled in/with fire", and they "boiled" the offering in pots, etc. It uses the exact same Hebrew word - "boil" in both lines in this verse. In the first line, the passover lamb was "boiled in/with fire" using the exact same phrasal form as "roasted in fire" from Exodus. This is how the Chronicler dealt with the two contradictory instructions in Deuteronomy and Exodus.

Modern translations typically attempt to harmonize the situation even further by translating it as "roasted in fire" in Chronicles. The translators are well aware of the situation that is going on here and making their own interpretational decision regarding the passage.

Now, it should be more clear that I made no "assumptions", but was fully cognizant of the Hebrew text and the problems inherent in it. These passages are quite familiar to translators and exegetes, or anyone who reads them closely. No assumptions are needed.

Originally Posted by theflipflop

OK, i admit I did not fully read your OP. But i have now. What i can't figure out, though, is what is the "chiddush" (the essential point) you're trying to make. I don't disagree that the word Torah can take on many different meanings, depending on the context of how it's used. That's consistent with thousands of other words found in the Torah.

Well - my posts may be long, but they cannot be skimmed if you want to fully understand them. I apologize for their length, but sometimes it's unavoidable when discussing complicated matters.

The different usages of the word was the point - to demonstrate how the word was used and understood by the biblical writers to apply to different concepts. This was done because, as NoCapo pointed out, it serves to be a source of confusion. The situation is made even worse in typical English translations where the negative Pauline catchall term "Law" is used. As you point out directly below, "Law" would hardly be appropriate for the way in which you frequently use the term. It certainly wouldn't be applicable to how the term is used to denote the Pentateuch, either. It's also necessary because one needs to start somewhere, and defining one's terms is always a good idea.

Originally Posted by theflipflop

And BTW, you missed another major usage of the word Torah - which is "a way of life that's consistent with morality and law abidence." I consistently try to teach my kids to live a "Torahdik" life.

I didn't miss it. I mentioned in my post that more usages of "torah" (though later) would be dealt with in their proper time. Thank you for mentioning it, however.

Originally Posted by theflipflop

With regards to the vowels being added later, it's really a tangental point. The vowels were not added to the Torah scrolls thmselves. They were added as masoretic notes, and today you find them in chumashim - but if one were to write a single vowel in a Torah scroll, it would render the entire scroll posul (invalid) and would either need to be corrected by a qualified sofer (Torah scribe), or buried altogether if uncorrectable. The Torah scrolls every Jew in the world reads from on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbos do not have any vowels.

It's not really a tangential point based on your original claim, which I was responding to. It's something we can go into later, perhaps.

[/quote]
I can leave the science vs. tradition discussion for later if you prefer. The point I was trying to make, is that the "science' appears dubious at the very least to me. Simply unconvincing. But as I've said before, you're not discussing this subject with someone who is willing to do it on your terms. In order to change my mind, you'd have to find a spiritual or faith-based reason (my language- my terms). Otherwise, all your "points" are simply unrecognizable to me. I realize what a difficult spot this puts you in and how unreasonable this makes me sound. But I mistrust your "language" and I'm unwilling to discuss the Torah in the terms of science. And if that disqualifies me from participating in this thread, then I understand. I'll just read along and I'm happy to clarify any traditional Torah views if you think it's helpful.[/quote]

Well, that's fine - but I still think you're still creating a false dichotomy at the moment. It doesn't take science to discuss how the term "torah" was used in different ways, does it? A simple examination of the texts (in Hebrew, if you prefer) can clarify many things. I think if you look in your traditional rabbinic sources, they were fully able to discuss such matters of grammar and context without fears of secularism. Now, later down the road - we might clash on certain things, but I don't think it should be an issue at this point.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by granpa

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

the root idea seems to be that of 'making ripe or ready to eat'.

That is one of the rarer usages of the word, yes - but the main usage is "to boil". When it is used in the sense of "to ripen" it is usually figurative.

[granpa]

sure thats the 'main usage' since the word boil is more common than the word ripe

but that doesnt mean that its the more ancient root idea

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by granpa

this idea that the documentary hypothesis is somehow at odds with theism is a common misunderstanding
that Friedman himself talks about in the introduction to his book 'who wrote the bible'.
He says that he himself thought the same way until he finally looked into it.
Far from being at odds with theism this approach leads to greater insights into the original message of the bible

Good point. We can get into a confusion with a reluctance to go back to the rediscovered original in favour of the rather inaccurate redactions we are used to. This is the case with the KJV. Dispite its mertits is is not perfect, but those who grew up with it confuse tradition and familiarity with Holiness or unquestionable authority and go down this very regrettable road of rejecting science in favour of faith - to apply a much broader label.

The problem is that to opt for human discoveries in favour of a belief which God should surely have told us was wrong is it was wrong is going to raise doubts, so it is not surprising that believers (Jewish Christian, Muslim or whatever) will prefer to sideline those doubts and close the mind, effectively.

I wish it were otherwise, but without the closing of the mind in some way or other one is risking admitting doubts about faith -based beliefs.

[AREQUIPA]

Whoppers, I am no-where near up on the complexities of Hebrew, but it sounded to me as though you were taking it that 'roast' was originally the word 'boil' on the grounds of similarity to Akkadian and arabic. Doesn't that mean that the word hasn't changed, but the hebrew idea of what it means has changed, so the torah is right, but the interpretation has changed?

Please clear up my confusion.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by granpa

sure thats the 'main usage' since the word boil is more common than the word ripe

but that doesnt mean that its the more ancient root idea

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Whoppers, I am no-where near up on the complexities of Hebrew, but it sounded to me as though you were taking it that 'roast' was originally the word 'boil' on the grounds of similarity to Akkadian and arabic. Doesn't that mean that the word hasn't changed, but the hebrew idea of what it means has changed, so the torah is right, but the interpretation has changed?

Please clear up my confusion.

Arequipa, I think I know what you're asking (but not entirely sure), but I'll give it a shot. The summary is at the bottom of the post, perhaps best stated by Fishbane.

Granpa, I agree about your observation of usage, but only to a point, and illustrate that a figurative usage of a word usually follows a non-figurative usage linguistically (example: "to boil/darken/cook" must first be a standard concept before one can figuratively apply it to fruit, as in "the fruit boiled (ripened) in springtime"). Make sense?


Ancient Semitic Languages
I'm trying to avoid the etymological fallacy here, which is given simply by Wikipedia here:

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. A similar concept is that of false friends.

With that said, using comparative linguistics one can usually trace, fairly accurately, how a root was used through related languages in different times. Semitic languages shared the feature that their words were based off of roots, and different grammatical usages could be garnered from that same root by conjugating them, adding vowels, etc. An example (but not really, it's just illustrative) in English would be if we were to look at the consonnats kck and realized with the addition of vowels, suffixes, etc. we would arrive at kick, kicked, kicking, kicker (both verbal and noun forms). One derives from the root all sorts of concepts.

I tend to look at the evolution of Biblical Hebrew as from a NorthWest Semitic source, with examples of those languages being available now (Phoenician, Ugaritic, etc.), and the evolution of NorthWest Semitic languages from either a common or East Semitic Akkadian source (with Akkadian having it's own evolutional and dialectal changes from Old Akkadian [OAkk - 2600-1500 BCE] to Old Assyrian [OA - 2000-1500], Middle Assyrian [MA - 1500-1000] and Neo-Assyrian [NA - 600-100 CE] - much of it having to do with geographical and political influences). Our earliest Akkadian, that we have, is from the 26th century BCE. Here's a chart that's fairly helpful, I think:



By the time of Biblical Hebrew, the root form bšl would have been used to mean primarily "boil", with awareness and examples of it being used as "cook", "ripen", "roast" (rarely - "cook" is more accurate). The means of "boiling" might sometimes be specified by using "- in water" (as opposed to "boil in wine", as in some Akkadian examples).

Using Our Earliest Attested Semitic Lanuage: Akkadian's Usage of bašālum.

Happy-Fun-Time Pronounciation Note:
1: the phoneme š represents the Akkadian consonantal sign that matches our "sh" sound ("sh" as in "shift"), which sound we - in our weird English language - represent with 2 phonemes: "s" and "h". The standard transliteration also represents Hebrew שׁ.
2: besides complicated linguistic reasons for the difference between the two "a" vowels, short "a" is pronounced "ah" as in "bah humbug", and the long "a" (with the macron over it) is just held slightly longer.
3: "u" as in "put".
So - bašālum would be pronounced as basically "bah-SHAA-lum".
Since we don't have any native Akkadian speakers anymore (aw shucks), we must use various comparative "educated guesses" as to how Akkadian was originally pronounced.

CAD - The Chicago Assyrian [the older term for Akkadian] Dictionary (which can be viewed and downloaded here for free:Oriental Institute | The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD) - Volume 2 contains our word) gives the meanings and frequencies, though it does not contain that much cognate, or comparative, data. Under bašālum it lists these meanings, with sub-meanings and usages (note that in some instances, as is typical of most Akkadian dictionaries, the mimation is missing - the "m" at the end of the word). Many of the meanings have definite technical usages (in the preparation of medicine, glass, food, etc.,:

1. to boil, to roast, to become roasted, to burn to ashes, to become fired (said of clay), to fuse, to melt (said of glass),
2. to ripen,
3. to keep boiling (said of glass),
4. to boil (objects) in a liquid,
5. to bake, to fire (bricks), to roast meat,
6. šubšulu to cook a meal, to prepare medication by boiling,
7. šubšulu to roast meat,
8. šubšulu to melt (metals, wax, bitumen),
9. šubšulu to dye, to glaze

You can see that the word could took several primary meanings in Akkadian, but still with the main primary meaning of "to cook by boiling" (if I had to describe it more complexly) - it all depends on when, where, why and by whom the word was being used. Judging from it's usage in our available cuneiform sources, "to boil" seems to be the most frequent, especially from it's use in technical language (one cannot afford to be ambiguous when giving instructions on making or preparing things!). Using it generically to mean "to cook" was also popular, but it depended on the context. Like most activities, one assumed certain things when using certain terms (for example, when I say "I am going to fry some bacon", most people assume that I am implying that "I am going to fry some bacon ... in a pan"). "To ripen" was also a usage, as grandpa seems to prefer, but as I pointed out - it's figurative, based off of the regular meaning of the word.

Some examples of usage - (see CAD for sources - there are 3 pages on the word):

- "as soon as it has come to a boil you remove (it), you put honey and fine(?) oil into it"
- "you pour (the metal) again (into the crucible) and it goes on fusing"
- "they boil raw shoulder meat (on the day of the gurše festival) in soup"
- "they cook the meal"
- "I cooked those birds in the wine they drank"
- "you boil it in milk and fine beer"
- "if a lizard falls into a brazier into the fire and burns"
- "after they (the clay figurines) have been fired, you cool them"
- "if the green date becomes reddish when ripening"

Has the Hebrew Idea of the Word Changed?

I would say: not much.
By the time it became normative in Biblical Hebrew, it had the meanings of "to boil", "to ripen", "to cook" and very rarely "to roast". In fact, it might be safe to say that in Biblical Hebrew the word became more solidified. This seems to happen with many words over time with language, but always considering that a dialect or language may have it's own peculiar usages of a word or form (especially see Biblical Hebrew's strange usage of elohim when referring to the "God" of Israel, rather than to the "gods" - which is also strange - as I'm sure you're already aware, it's a strange plural form used singularly in reference to the Israelite "God").

Anyways, some examples of the root בֹשׁל or bšl and how it was used in the Hebrew Bible, to help give some context:

- Take the choicest one of the flock,
pile the logs under it;
boil its pieces,
seethe also its bones in it.
(Ezekiel 24:5, NRSV)

- He said to them:
It is what YHWH spoke about:
tomorrow is a Sabbath / Ceasing, a Sabbath of Holiness for YHWH.
Whatever you wish to bake - bake, and whatever you wish to boil - boil;
and all the surplus, put aside for yourselves in safekeeping until morning.
(Exodus 16:23, SB)

- Then he said to me, "These are the kitches where those who serve at the temple shall boil the sacrifices of the people."
(Ezekial 46:24)

- ...and every cooking pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be sacred to YHWH of Armies [Hosts], so that all who sacrifice may come and use them to boil the flesh of the sacrifice.
(Zechariah 14:21)

- The choicest firstlings of your soil, you are to bring to the house of YHWH your God.

You are not to boil a kid in the milk of its mother.
(Exodus 23:19)

- The premier of the firstfruits of your soil you are to bring into the house of YHWH your God.

You are not to boil a kid in the milk of its mother.
(Exodus 34:26)

- You are not to eat any carcass.
To the sojourner that is within your gates you may give it, that he may eat it,
or it may be sold to a foreigner;

for you are a people holy
to YHWH your God;

you are not to boil a kid in the milk of its mother!
(Deuteronomy 14:21)

-The people would roam around and collect it [the "manna"],
grind it in millstones or crush it in a crusher,
boil it in a pot, and make it into cakes,
so that its taste was like the taste of (something) rich (made with) oil.
(Numbers 11:8)

Some examples of the other meanings:

- In my dream -
here, a vine was in front of me,
and on the vine, three winding-tendrils,
and just as it was budding, the blossom came up,
(and) its clusters ripened into graps.
(Genesis 10:9-10)

- Put in the sickle,
for the harvest is ripe.
Go in, tread,
for the wine press is full.
The vats overflow,
for their wickedness is great.
(Joel 4:13)

- So Tamar went to her brother Ammon's house, where he was lying down.
She took dough, kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes.
(I Samuel 13:8)

More examples could be given, but taken on frequency and comparative data - it becomes increasingly clear that "to boil" (in a liquid) was the normative meaning.


The Torah and its Interpretational Change
What we have in Chronicles is an example of inner-biblical exegesis, specifically of the law codes by post-Exilic writers. This is very similar to what later rabbinic tradition would do via its own writings - when it examined a biblical prescription that may have been ambiguous or contradictory to another prescription and then expounded upon it in an attempt to harmonize it or give it more meaning.

We do have contradictory laws here. As Michael Fishbane observes in Biblical Interpretation in Acient Israel, "Being products of different regions and periods, the laws of the Pentateuch are often in manifest contradiction." (Oxford, 1985, p. 134) Exodus specifically contradicts Deuteronomy in our case. Exodus instructs the Israelites to "roast in fire" the paschal meat and to definitely NOT boil it, while Deuteronomy says the exact opposite:

Roast it in Fire
They are to eat the flesh on that night, roasted in fire...
Do not eat any of it raw, or boiled, boiled in water,
but rather roasted in fire, its head along with its legs, along with its innards.
(Ex. 11:8-9, SB)

VS

Boil it
...you are to slaughter the Passover-offering, at setting-time,
when the sun comes in...
You are to boil it and you are to eat it
in the place
that YHWH your God chooses.
(Deut. 16:6-7)

Chronicles performs some inner-biblical exegesis on these two contrary laws and merges the two laws together in the first line of his passage:

Boil it in Fire
Then they boiled the paschal-offering in fire, according to the law [mishpat]...
(II Chronicles 35:13)

Fishbane summarizes what has happened nicely:

On the face of it, the logic of this ritual statement is absurd, since one does not boil meat IN fire; and the attribution that the ritual was done "according to the law" is presumptuous, since there is no "law" to which the preparation refers.
Bothered by the incomprehensible phrase "they boiled the paschal-offering in fire", and its apparant variation from the received Pentateuchal traditions, many ancient and modern interpreters have argued most extraordinarily that the verbs in 2 Chron. 35:13a must mean "roast", on the basis that the same verb in Deut. 16:7 ALSO means "roast".
This argument is both tendentious and circular.... [as I have hopefully demonstrated in my examination of the words, and how different translations prefer "roast in fire", rather than "boil in fire" for II Chron. in their own "harmonization" of Scripture]....

An unprejudiced examination of the plain sense of the Chronicler's text makes it clear that 2 Chron. 35:13 is, in fact, a textual blend of the two aforementioned Pentateuchal laws prescribing the paschal offering. The word אשׁ 'fire' has been taken from Exod. 12:9, and the verb בשׁל
'boil' has been derived from Deut. 16:7;
hence the peculiar formulation "they boiled the paschal-offering in fire". Evidently, the Chronicler knew the two distinct sets of ritual norms, and, regarding both as authoritative traditions, preserved them by an artificial, exegetical harmonization. This he tendentiously called "the [ancient] law".

Commentators who do not recognize this fact simply compound one (modern) harmonization with another (earlier, biblical) one. In fact, however, the Scriptural harmonization in 2 Chron. 35:13 and its later - rabbinically inspired - one are clear corollaries of one and the same principle: that the Pentateuchal Torah of Moses is integral and indivisable. The antiquity of this perception is thus of considerable not in the overall growth of biblical exegesis.
(ibid, p. 136)

I hope that makes more sense, now - and I hope I understood your question correctly. There are several stages of interpretation going on here:
1- the original laws, from Exodus and Deuteronomy
2- the post-Exilic, inner-biblical exegesis, or interpretation, in Chronicles
3- later Jewish and Christian interpretations (Ibn Ezra, Aqiba, i.e.)
4- modern translations - building off the previous stages.


This is why most modern translations have in Chronicles "they roasted the paschal-offering in/with fire": they are the inheritors of thousands of years of exegesis on these two Pentateuchal laws.

[granpa]

people knew about ripeness long before they knew how to cook food over fire

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by granpa

people knew about ripeness long before they knew how to cook food over fire

Yes, they did. But you keep missing that one feature: "figuratively".

Since you're obsessed with this one detail - tell me: is the Semitic root bšl (that is used figuratively for "to ripen" using cooking imagery) the only root used for the verb "to ripen"? Did you read my explanation of how the basic meaning of a root was expanded, via grammatical features, to include other meanings that were directly related to the primary meaning of that root?

[granpa]

its very simple

ripe = ready to eat

cooking makes food 'ready to eat'.

[Eusebius]

It is my understanding that they were not to eat the meat cooked in water but roasted with fire:

Exo 12:9 Do not eat any of it underdone or cooked by being cooked in water, but rather roasted with fire, even its head along with its shanks and with its inwards.

2Ch 35:13 And they cook the passover with fire, according to the ordinance, and the sanctified things they have cooked in pots, and in kettles, and in pans--for all the sons of the people.

This is what Keil and Delitzsch say:

2Ch_35:13
The passover, i.e., the flesh of the paschal lamb, they roasted (בָּאֵשׁ בַּשֵּׁל, to make ready upon the fire, i.e., roast; see on Exo_12:9), according to the ordinance (as the law appointed); and “the sanctified (as they called the slaughtered oxen, cf. 2Ch_29:33) they sod (שְּׁלוּ, sc. בַמַּיִם, cf. Exo_12:9) in pots, caldrons, and pans, and brought it speedily to the sons of the people,” i.e., the laymen. From this Bertheau draws the conclusion, “that with the paschal lambs the oxen were also offered as thank-offerings; and the sacrificial meal consisted not merely of the paschal lamb, but also of the flesh of the thank-offerings: for these must have been consumed on the same day as they were offered, though the eating of them on the following day was not strictly forbidden, Lev_7:15-18.” But this conclusion is shown to be incorrect even by this fact, that there is no word to hint that the roasting of the paschal lambs and the cooking of the flesh of the oxen which were offered as thank-offerings took place simultaneously on the evening of the 14th Nisan. This is implied neither in the לַבָּקָר וְכֵן, nor in the statement in 2Ch_35:14, that the priests were busied until night in offering the עֹלָה and the חֲלָבִים. According to 2Ch_35:17, the Israelites held on that day, not only the passover, but also the Mazzoth-feast, seven days. The description of the offering and preparation of the sacrifices, partly for the altar and partly for the meal, 2Ch_35:13-15, refers, therefore, not only to the passover in its more restricted sense, but also to the seven days' Mazzoth festival, without its being expressly stated; because both from the law and from the practice it was sufficiently well known that at the פֶּסַח meal only צֹאן (lambs or goats) were roasted and eaten; while on the seven following days of the Mazzoth, besides the daily burnt-offering, thank-offerings were brought and sacrificial meals were held; see on Deu_16:1-8. The connecting, or rather the mingling, of the sacrificial meal prepared from the roasted lambs with the eating of the sodden flesh of oxen, would have been too great an offence against the legal prescriptions for the paschal meal, to be attributed either to King Josiah, to the priesthood, or to the author of the Chronicle, since the latter expressly remarks that the celebration was carried out according to the prescription of the law of Moses, and according to the “right.”
2Ch_35:14-15
And afterwards (אַחַר, postea, after the passover had been prepared for the laymen in the way described) the Levites prepared it for themselves and for the priests; for the latter, however, only because they were busied with the offering of the עֹלָה and the חֲלָבִים till night. Most expositors understand by עֹלָה the fat of the paschal lambs, which was burnt upon the altar, as in 2Ch_35:12; and חֲלָבִים, the fat of oxen, which was likewise burnt upon the altar, “but was not, as it seems, designated by the expression הָעֹלָה” (Berth.). This interpretation certainly at first sight seems likely; only one cannot see why only the fat of the oxen, and not that of the paschal lambs also, should be called חלבים, since in the law the parts of all thank-offerings (oxen, sheep, and goats) which were burnt upon the altar are called חלבים. We will therefore be more correct if we take וְהַחֲלָבִים to be a more exact definition of הָעֹלָה: the burnt-offering, viz., the fat which was offered as a burnt-offering; or we may take הָעֹלָה here to denote the evening burnt-offering, and הַחֲלָבִים the fat of the paschal lambs. But even if the first-mentioned interpretation were the only correct one, yet it could not thence be concluded that on the passover evening (the 14th Nisan) the fat not only of the 37,600 lambs and goats, but also of the 3800 oxen, were offered upon the altar; the words, that the priests were busied until night with the offering of the עלה and the חלבים, are rather used of the sacrificing generally during the whole of the seven days' festival. For the compressed character of the description appears in 2Ch_35:15, where it is remarked that neither the singers nor the porters needed to leave their posts, because their brethren the Levites prepared (the meal) for them. With the words, “according to the command of David,” etc., cf. 1Ch_25:1 and 1Ch_25:6.
2Ch_35:16-19