On Sacrifice
I could continue to list scores of examples similar to ani/anoki where we see a distinctive stylistic difference between P and D. But, why bother? The cynics have already explained away any stylistic difference as stemming from differences between God and Moshe. But, I don’t think the DH is finished just yet. The cynics have conceded that this answer doesn't explain factual differences, and it certainly doesn't explain linguistic differences between JE & P. We’ll examine those issues in future posts. But, does it even explain linguistic differences between P & D? Let’s look at another example: the word korban. The word Korban (sacrifice) appears in Chumash 77 times. The verb to offer as a sacrifice (makriv) comes up 124 times in Chumash. Add to that 16 usages of the verb makriv referring to offering the Priests to sacrifice (as in ex 29:4) and another 18 for instances that the priests approach (as in Ex 40:32) and the word sacrifice and its derivatives appears 235 times in Chumash. [these are my counts. There are some gray cases, but they are at least in the right ball park]. It is quite remarkable then, that every single such instance is in P. One may retort by noting that the all instances regarding sacrificial worship are assigned to P, so this is no big deal. But, that is simply not factual. Examples abound (Gen 8:20 Ex 20:21 Nu. 22:40 Deut 12:6 12:11 16:2 18:3 27:7 and many more, but I won't bore you to death). hencoop will probably argue that the word "korban" was just, not part of Moshe's vocabulary. But, is that likely? It's one thing to argue that Moshe had an inclination to a given form of a word that has two viable forms, but the word korban is such a basic staple of the sacrificial vocabulary, that it's absence, to me suggests a person coming from a completely different background and orientation visa a vise the world of sacrifice. Is it likely that God used the word korban freely when speaking to Moshe, but Moshe, somehow, didn't pick it up?
posted by littlefoxlings at 9:34 PM
4 Comments:
One may retort by noting that the all instances regarding sacrificial worship are assigned to P, so this is no big deal.
Well, yes! It doesn't solve every case, but it does significantly weaken your case, since there are very few places outside of what you label P that deal with sacrifice at all. Don't overstate the case; the real problem is that in the fairly few cases where non-P texts discuss sacrifices they don't use the same word.
The question then remains, can one plausibly explain away why in each case the word korban doesn't appear. Again, if you start from the multiple authorship perspective, the need to individually explain each verse might sound forced. But if you are starting without that assumption and I can plausibly demonstrate a reason for the difference in usage, then there's nothing in the text that requires multiple authors either.
You made my life easy with your examples, friend.
Gen. 8:20 is Noach sacrificing. It's the first korban in Chumash (you know that traditionally the korban of Kayin and Hevel isn't really a korban) and Noah is a monotheist but not an Israelite. Is his sacrifice a korban? That could easily be a technical term restricted to Israelite worship.
Exodus 20:21 shouldn't say korban. I presume you mean 20:20, which uses "zevach" instead of "korban"? But the Amoraim dealt with this example rather neatly by explaining that at this point meat was only allowed if it was brought as a korban, and shechitat chullin was not permitted - thus the word zevach implies that even when you want to kill an animal for meat it must be done on a mizbeach.
Nu. 22:40 is Balak sacrificing. A pagan king's sacrifices are quite plausibly not "korban."
Devarim I don't feel a need to answer - yes, it's quite plausible to me that Moshe doesn't use the word korban. I lack context of the crowd Moshe is speaking to - would they have colloquially called a sacrifice korban or used a different word? Was Moshe sensitive to colloquialisms? I don't know, nor do I care - I've conceded that Devarim is stylistically different and as I said before it wouldn't bother me if it was in Latin.
These are local answers, of course, and you'll say that the more plausible answer is a sweeping distinction that in one fell swoop places all the korban words in P and all the other verses outside P. But that assumption is just as big an imposition on the text as individual answers are, and my question is whether the text itself requires it - which I am adamant that it does not.
11/01/2006 11:02 PM
One may retort by noting that the all instances regarding sacrificial worship are assigned to P, so this is no big deal.
Well, yes! It doesn't solve every case, but it does significantly weaken your case, since there are very few places outside of what you label P that deal with sacrifice at all. Don't overstate the case; the real problem is that in the fairly few cases where non-P texts discuss sacrifices they don't use the same word.
The question then remains, can one plausibly explain away why in each case the word korban doesn't appear. Again, if you start from the multiple authorship perspective, the need to individually explain each verse might sound forced. But if you are starting without that assumption and I can plausibly demonstrate a reason for the difference in usage, then there's nothing in the text that requires multiple authors either.
You made my life easy with your examples, friend.
Gen. 8:20 is Noach sacrificing. It's the first korban in Chumash (you know that traditionally the korban of Kayin and Hevel isn't really a korban) and Noah is a monotheist but not an Israelite. Is his sacrifice a korban? That could easily be a technical term restricted to Israelite worship.
Exodus 20:21 shouldn't say korban. I presume you mean 20:20, which uses "zevach" instead of "korban"? But the Amoraim dealt with this example rather neatly by explaining that at this point meat was only allowed if it was brought as a korban, and shechitat chullin was not permitted - thus the word zevach implies that even when you want to kill an animal for meat it must be done on a mizbeach.
Nu. 22:40 is Balak sacrificing. A pagan king's sacrifices are quite plausibly not "korban."
Devarim I don't feel a need to answer - yes, it's quite plausible to me that Moshe doesn't use the word korban. I lack context of the crowd Moshe is speaking to - would they have colloquially called a sacrifice korban or used a different word? Was Moshe sensitive to colloquialisms? I don't know, nor do I care - I've conceded that Devarim is stylistically different and as I said before it wouldn't bother me if it was in Latin.
These are local answers, of course, and you'll say that the more plausible answer is a sweeping distinction that in one fell swoop places all the korban words in P and all the other verses outside P. But that assumption is just as big an imposition on the text as individual answers are, and my question is whether the text itself requires it - which I am adamant that it does not.
11/01/2006 11:02 PM
Also, since when am I "the cynics" (both the plural and the designation?)
:-P
11/01/2006 11:18 PM
"You made my life easy with your examples." Didn’t mean to. There’s many more I could have picked, I selected these randomly.
As to your answers. Essentially, I am making two points in my post.
1. The awkward avoidance of the word is problematic.
2. Statistically, the fact that, coincidently, the 235 times that the word sacrifice appears come up in places which are, for other reasons, assigned to P, is odd. One may argue that it is not coincidence. That the other reasons the passage are assigned to P are related to the usage of the word korban. As you noted above, that’s true to some extent, but I’m just saying it’s not totally true.
Your answers explain (1), not (2). It doesn’t really matter WHY these words come up when they do, whatever the reason is, it’s sort of funny that they seem to come up exactly when the other reasons to assign something to P come up. Of course, my argument is weak when two causes for P are related, like the word korban and the word chatat, but take two unrelated things, like the word ani and the word korban and it doesn’t matter WHY it’s there, it an amazing and unlikely coincidence that is explained by the DH.
In terms of your specific arguments:
"That could easily be a technical term restricted to Israelite worship." Why? Seems forced.
"At this point meat was only allowed if it was brought as a korban, and shechitat chullin was not permitted - thus the word zevach implies that even when you want to kill an animal for meat it must be done on a mizbeach."
On what basis do you argue that this the definition of the word? On what basis to you argue that the verse is talking about meat for meat, and not the korban’s sake? Moreover, Shechitah outside of the mikdash isn’t permitted till we get to Devorim, yet all the many verses in P before than use the word korban. Isn’t it an amazing coincidence that, coincidently every time sacrifice comes up outside of P it is “when you want to kill an animal for meat”
"Also, since when am I "the cynics" (both the plural and the designation?)." I assume that every reader who does not argue with you agrees with you.
The bottom line is that these answers are sufficiently forced that you could have come up with equal answers for any other verse in the Bible. Especialy the one about 20:21 where there is not even anything in the text to hint to your understanding. That being so, they don’t help to explain the coincidence of 235 korban’s all being in P. Because, every time sacrifice comes up you would expect the word korban but could come up with a reason not to use it. Why, then, is it that every time a sacrifice comes up outside of P, it is coincidently the case that the explanation ends up being right?
11/02/2006 11:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home