04 July 2012

Times and means of rapprochement (III)

Another exaggeration in Gane's treatment of Leviticus 16 is the emphasis on Yom Kippurim as a day of judgment. Not only is the rabbinic tradition ambiguous in this regard (Rosh Hashanah being strongly associated with the idea of judgment), but one could also take into account passages like Exodus 12:15 and Numbers 9:13, that imply a Paschal judgment (under the same threat of kareth as in Lev. 23:29-30). Covenantal loyalty was not to be tested only by the strictures of Yom Kippurim. But this is a minor point.

More significantly, Gane contends that טמאה ,פשע ,חטאת and עון are distinct categories of evil, with different ritual trajectories (cf. Lev. 16:16.21). This presupposes a level of terminological specialization that is simply lacking in the Pentateuch (or elsewhere in the Tanakh, for that matter). פשע for instance is nowhere associated with “high-handed" crimes (etymology does not suffice), while it is frequently used interchangeably with חטאת or עון (from Gn. 31:36 to Ps. 51:3-5 to Micah 7:18). Gane's thesis also relies on an erroneous syntactical judgment: he cites Lev. 11:46 in support of his claim that לכל־חטאתם in Lev. 16:16.21 is enumerative, not resumptive. But in 11:46, the lamed is clearly genitival, extending the argument of the constructus תורת, and decisively preceded by a conjunctive waw. In 16:16.21, the lamed breaks the syntactical sequence (as in Lev. 5:3; 11:42; 22:5) and is obviously appositive. Finally, maybe the only reason why the טמאה of Lev. 16:16 is replaced by עון in 16:21 derives from the fact that uncleanness cannot be properly confessed (the hitpael of ידה).

Since I've mentioned the category of “high-handed" sins, I should point out the fact that one instance where Gane is wrong precisely for being a Milgromite, and not (only) an Adventist, is his rejection of the idea that the death of those who defile the sanctuary eliminates any need for further atonement. The legal principle of elimination of offenses through capital punishment is upheld in passages such as Num. 35:33 and 1 Sam. 25:39 (Nabal's crime fatally returns on its perpetrator). By the way, if “the guilt of innocent blood" had to be promptly eliminated from the land of Israel (the NRSV of Deut. 21:9), why would YHWH have tolerated a full year of accumulation of “toxic waste" at his very sanctuary? And if God's justice was vindicated only by shedding forgiven guilt (i.e. the guilt of forgiving) once a year, did God have a right to forgive in the first place?

No comments:

Post a Comment