From scc Fri Aug 18 21:14:30 1995
Subject: Re: Progressive revelation?
To: b-hebrew@virginia.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 21:14:30 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

For purposes of this message, I will use the verse divisions as
printed in English bibles and I will assume the Documentary
Hypothesis as popularized by R.E. Friedman, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
(1987).  Furthermore, all quotations are from the NRSV.

Bruce Wildish wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Rick Turkel, Ext. 2214, Room 5404B bs"d wrote:
> > In view of the overriding concern of
> > the Torah for the sanctity of human life, as well as the other passages
> > forbidding child sacrifice, how can Ex. 22:28b (not 29b, which refers
> > back to the oxen and small cattle in the beginning of that verse) be
> > interpreted as _anything_ but the dedication of the firstborn to God
> > (later replaced by redemption of the firstborn with a kohen)?
> 
> What other passages in the Torah have to say are irrelevant really as it 
> is quite obvious that the completed work is a collection of many sources 
> written at various periods of time under very different socio-political 
> environments. The fact that one part may condemn the practice does not 
> mean that other parts must do so also--such forced harmonization 
> practices are methodologically improper. Each section has to be read in 
> its own context.

This point is well taken.  The closer (as a source) another
passage is to Ex22:29b the more relevant it is for purposes of
illuminating the meaning.  Even so, I believe that Ex22:29b is
not referring to child sacrifice at all, but, as many others here
have suggested, to child dedication.  The sources I consider
decreasing order of probativity are: (a) the immediate context,
(b) E's Covenant Code, (c) the pre-exilic source E, (d) other
pre-exilic sources J and P, and (e) exilic prophets Jeremiah
and Ezekiel.

A.  Immediate Context

>                  The passage in Exodus 22 leaves little room for doubt 
> what it means: the context is offerings and in that context God requires 
> that first born sons be given to Him. What does given mean? The next line 
> makes it clear by saying "You shall do the same with your oxen and with 
> your sheep...etc." This makes it clear that the sons of humans are to be 
> given in the same manner that cattle and sheep were given--sacrificed! 

Aside from proof by assertion with conclusory statements like
"leaves little for doubt" and "makes it clear," the immediate
context is hardly so forthcoming.  The terminology, "give (NTN)"
to YHWH is not explicit.  It may refer to either dedication or
sacrifice; compare 1Sa1:11 (dedication) with Lv20:2 (sacrifice
to Molech, though a poster here suggested consecration as well).
Considering the very next clause which Mr. Wildish elided, "on
the eighth day you shall give them to me," this seems to have
more to do with circumcision (on the eighth day; blood is also
shed, BTW) than burning a child in sacrifice or any other form
of sacrifice.

B.  E's Covenant Code

Many scholars take Ex22:29b to be part of a covenant code (21:1-
23:33) which E may have incorporated into his text [Friedman
259].  If so, the language throughout the Covenant Code is
especially relevant. In the Covenant Code, the verb NTN is used
to mean to give, especially for payments (21:19 22 30 32 22:7)
and wives (21:4 22:17).  On the hand, the Covenant Code expresses
the concept of sacrifice with a different word, ZBX (22:20).  Thus,
the selection of verbs in E's Covenant Code better supports a
dedicatory rather than sacrificial notion behind 22:29b.

C.  (Pre-exilic) E

Other passages within E, who worked the Covenant Code into his
text, show an understanding that giving to YHWH is dedicatory
and not sacrificial.  Ex13:2 says "[c]onsecrate to me all the
firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the
Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine."  Here, the
consecration is explicit.  Note also that "is mine" (13:2) is
the natural result of "you shall give to me" (22:29b). In
addition, v13 clarifies that the children are to be redeemed,
which is impossible after a sacrifice.

Methodologically, the danger of forced-harmonizing disparate
source is minimized here.  The Covenant Code and E are not
independent of each other later to be combined.  E was written
by the same person who incorporated the Covenant Code into his
text.  In fact, E can be viewd as the oldest extant interpreter
of that legislation, and he interprets it as consecrative.  E
has much better access to the linguistic and cultural milieu
than we do, so E should carry very much weight indeed.

D.  Pre-exilic J and P

J and P also understand that first born males are to be
consecrated to YHWH (Nu3:13 8:17 18:15 [all P]) and redeemed
(Nu18:15 [P]; Ex34:19 [J]).  Although much less weighty than the
above passages, they both provide insights into the pre-exilic
cultural understanding of the legislation.  Needless to say,
they are explicit about the nature of the giving of first born
sons to YHWH and do not suggest child sacrifice.

E.  Exilic Prophets -- Jeremiah and Ezekiel

> Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's admission that such a law existed and their 
> attempts to explain it (Ezekeil has God amit outright that He gave the 
> people such a law but that there was a specific reason for doing so) 
> leave no doubt that the practice was part of the old law.

I can't see how Jeremiah can be construed to admit that such a
law ever existed.  In fact, he denies that there ever was such a
law (Je7:31 "which I did not command, nor did it come into my
mind" 19:5 ditto 32:35 ditto), even though some of them were
performed in a "house that bears [YHWH's] name" (32:34).  This
reads, if anything, more like a corruption of an Israelite law
than a practice of a bad law.  Furthermore, the practice that
Jeremiah is condemning is not limited to first-born sons, but
includes "sons and daughters" (7:31 32:35; see also "children"
19:5).  There is hardly much of anything to connect this child
sacrifice to Ex22:29b.  In fact, there is much to connect it to
the prohibition in the Holiness Code about Molech (Lv18:21).

The interpretation of Ezekiel 20:25-26 is not without its own
problems (this is very similar in spirit to Romans 1:24ff), but
those "statutes which were not good" (v25) were given after the
previous statutes were rejected (v24).  This coheres well with
Jeremiah's notion of a corruption of YHWH's law.

Furthermore the contrast of the ancestors' sacrificing animals
at high places in vv27-29 with Ezekiel's generation's child
sacrifice in vv30-31 indicates that what was wrong with the
ancient practice was the high places, and what was wrong with
the new practice was child sacrifice and idolatry.  Child
sacrifice is explicitly linked to idolatry (v31) and as such
could never have been condoned in the Law of a jealous God (see
e.g., Ex20:5).  Seen in this light, perhaps the "statutes which
were not good" (v25) referred to allowing sacrifice at high
places.  Thus child sacrifice was a recent development.

> Why is this a problem? The fact that the Israelites at one time engaged 
> in the practice and even legislated it does not force anyone to defend 
> it. Noone today (I hope) believes that God must actually have ordained 
> such a practice just because we learn that the Israelite law once 
> endorsed it.

I think sacrificing at the high places fits in that category,
but I can't see from the text any strong indication that child
sacrifice (i.e., killing a child) was ever endorsed.  Ex22:29b
reads more like child dedication or consecration from its
immediate context and surrounding E source.  Neither Jeremiah
nor Ezekiel contradict this.  In fact, they explicitly connect
child sacrifice to the service of other gods and imply that it
was a recent innovation or corruption influenced by paganism.

Stephen Carlson