The Sacredness of Firstling Animals: Evolving Perspectives within Deuteronomy

Repeated and varied treatments of animal firstlings in Deuteronomy’s cultic laws (Deut 12:17–18; 14:23–26; 15:19–23) reflect a succession of attempts to place firstlings within Deuteronomy’s centralized cult. Based on comparison of Deuteronomy’s firstling regulations and informed by the history of their interpretation, this study reconstructs the process of amendment that produced this set of laws and places this process within the larger context of the legal hermeneutics of the Pentateuch.

Deuteronomy's single cult site. The present study builds on my previous research on legal revision in Deuteronomy, and complements that research in several ways. For example, my previous work emphasized and perhaps overstated the degree of tension within these laws in Deuteronomy. In the present study, I characterize the various legal perspectives evident within Deuteronomy as reflecting "development" and "evolution," and at times "tension," but not "conflict" or "contradiction." Although my focus remains on relative dating and dependence among various laws, I have added a discussion of absolute dating. This addition acknowledges that literary works such as Deuteronomy were not written in an ahistorical vacuum but served real functions for real historical communities, and that the value of textual dissection lies ultimately in its ability to give us glimpses, however remote, into those ancient communities.
My comparison of Deuteronomy's firstling regulations starts with a sequential synchronic reading to introduce the texts and illustrate their varied perspectives. I turn next to the history of interpretation of these passages. The tendency of readers to resort to harmonization affirms that tension inheres in the texts themselves and not only in the imaginations of historical-critical scholars. Thus, diachronic analysis of these texts is merited and likely to be fruitful. Moreover, the history of interpretation can guide diachronic analysis in a promising direction. Next, I reconstruct the diachronic process of amendment that produced these regulations. 2 I conclude by suggesting some ways in which this process of amendment can enhance our understanding of Deuteronomy's internal development, Deuteronomy's place within the legal hermeneutics of the Pentateuch, and possibilities for tying these developments (however tentatively) to historical contexts.

DEUTERONOMY'S FIRSTLING REGULATIONS IN SYNCHRONIC PERSPECTIVE
The opening law of Deuteronomy (Deut 12:1-28) establishes the limitation of sacrificial worship to a single, divinely-chosen site (vv. 4-7, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 26-27). Centralization of worship creates a problem: some Israelites would have lived far from the single cult site, making travel there difficult (see v. 21). To address this problem of distance, Deuteronomy permits the non-sacrificial slaughter and consumption of livestock throughout the land (vv. 15-16, 20-25). But some offerings, and the accompanying meals, could not be severed from their cultic contexts. Deuteronomy 12:17-18 explicitly excludes some offerings, including firstlings, from local slaughter and consumption, demanding instead that they be consumed in a cultic meal at YHWH's chosen site:  By permitting the sale of firstlings (as well as tithes), and thus their inclusion in the mundane local economy, this concession stands in tension with Deut 12:17-18, which had carefully excluded tithes, firstlings, and certain other offerings from non-cultic use. Deuteronomy 14:26b returns to the language of Deut 12:17-18: Rather than referring to the consumption of firstlings, tithes, and other sacrificial foods, Deut 14:26b stipulates that the substitute meal permitted by vv. 24-26a is to be eaten before YHWH. By echoing Deut 12:18 and Deut 14:23a, Deut 14:26 equates the substitute meal with the firstling/tithe meal it replaces.
Deuteronomy then provides a separate firstling law (Deut 15:19-23). This law requires that firstlings be eaten in a sacrificial 5 In Deut 14:26, ‫שם‬ ("there") refers back to ‫יהוה‬ ‫יבחר‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫המקום‬ ‫בו‬ ‫אלהיך‬ ("the place that YHWH your God will choose"), found at the end of Deut 14:25. 6 The list of household members to be included in a feast is also abbreviated as ‫ביתך‬ ("your household") in Deut 12:7; 15:20. J. Stackert suggests that the term ‫בתיכם‬ ("your households") in Deut 12:7 could include the local Levite as well as family members (Rewriting Every firstling that is born in your herd and your flock that is male, you shall set aside as sacred to YHWH your God. You shall not work your firstling ox or shear your firstling sheep/goat. 20 You shall eat it annually before YHWH your God, in the place that YHWH will choose-you and your household. Deuteronomy 15:19-20 reiterates the requirement of Deut 12:17-18 that firstlings be consumed in a sacral meal at YHWH's one chosen sanctuary, providing additional clarifications and justification. Deuteronomy 15:19 requires that firstlings be set aside as sacred ‫קדש(‬ Hiphil) and prohibits their use for traction and wool: these prohibitions probably function as a merism, implying a ban on all economic use of firstlings. 8 The command to separate firstlings and the prohibitions of their economic use go beyond the letter of Deut 12:17-18: firstlings are not only barred from local consumption but completely excluded from the local economic sphere. The qualification of ‫בכור‬ "firstling" with ‫כל‬ + ‫ה‬ "every" in v. 19 implies that the requirements to sanctify sacrificable firstlings, exclude them from economic use, and consume them in a cultic meal are without exceptions. 9 Deuteronomy 15:20 then echoes Deut 12:18 to reassert its demand: The strict requirements of Deut 15:19-20 stand in tension with the concession of Deut 14:24-26, which does allow for some exceptions. The absolute nature of Deut 15:19-20 may also explain why a clarification about blemished firstlings was included in vv. 21-23: the general laws of sacrifice in Deut 12:1-28 surely assumed that blemished animals were ineligible for sacrifice, but the insistence of Deut 15:19-20 that absolutely all male firstling animals must be offered gave rise to the possible misunderstanding that this included even blemished animals.
The major tension that emerges in a synchronic reading of Deuteronomy's regulations for firstlings is whether they must absolutely be consumed in a sacrificial context or whether exceptions can be made in light of the problem of distance. Deuteronomy 12:17-18 and Deut 15:19-20 agree that firstlings are not to be utilized in any non-cultic context, although Deut 15:19-20 provides more detail and is perhaps stricter than Deut 12:17-18. Deuteronomy 12:17-18, which prohibits the local slaughter of firstlings, and Deut 14:24-26, which permits the sale of firstlings and thus their non-cultic use, stand in tension. This tension can be resolved by reading Deut 14:24-26 as providing an exception to Deut 12:17-18, and the verbal resumptions of Deut 12:17-18 in Deut 14:23a and 26b implicitly frame Deut 14:24-26 as just such an exception. It is more difficult to read Deut 14:24-26 as an exception to the stricter and more detailed requirements of Deut 15:19-20. A concession allowing the sale of firstlings cannot be reconciled with a command to sanctify firstlings and a ban of their local economic use.
To resolve the lingering tension between Deut 14:24-26 and Deut 15:19-20, one of the texts must be read against its plain sense. A number of premodern interpreters did exactly this, interpretively limiting the concession of A pronominal suffix in v. 24 ( ‫תוכל‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ש‬ ‫אתו‬ "you are not able to convey it") and an implied object in v. 25 ‫ונתתה(‬ "then you may sell [it]") refer the reader back to "the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the firstlings of your herd and your flock" in v. 23. Because the concession lacks explicit references to firstlings, and much of the surrounding passage focuses on tithes, it is not difficult to see why readers might have read the concession as applying only to tithes. Many readers did exactly this, thereby eliminating the tension between Deut 14:24-26 and 15:19-20.
The Temple Scroll reads the concession of Deut 14:24-26 as applying to tithes but not firstlings. Temple Scroll column 43 quotes Deut 14:24-26, in abbreviated and modified form. This column regulates the consumption of certain sacred vegetable foods, probably tithes. 12  If the way is too great for you, so that you are not able to carry the second tithe, . . . 25 then you shall redeem the second tithe for money . . . 14 Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan supplies ‫מעשרא‬ ‫ית‬ "the tithe (accusative)" in v. 24. It leaves the object implicit in v. 25, imitating the Masoretic text, but because "the tithe" was supplied in v. 24, it also stands as the implicit object of v. 25. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan also adds "second tithe" in v. 23, which already explicitly mentions tithes and firstlings:

‫בכספא‬ ‫ותחליל‬
23 And you shall eat the second tithe before YYY your God, in the place where he will choose to make his Shekhinah dwell: the tithe of your grain, wine, and oil. And thus (for) the firstlings of your oxen and your small cattle, in order that you learn to fear YYY your God forever. 24 And if the journey is too great for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, . . . 25  14 The concept of the "second tithe" was invented by interpreters to deal with the discrepancies between Deut 14:22-26 and Num 18:20-32 (see Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 167). mention of the "second tithe" but never discusses firstlings at all. Ibn Ezra's interpretation of Deut 14:24-26 is similar: he suggests that "tithe" in v. 23 is the implied object of ‫ונתתה‬ ("then you may sell") in v. 25. 15 Many modern readers exclude firstlings from the concession of Deut 14:24-26 as well, though some interpret it as applying to both tithes and firstlings. 16 With respect to firstlings, many readers have effectively read Deut 14:24-26 not on its own terms but on terms dictated by Deut 15:19-20.

DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF DEUTERONOMY'S FIRSTLING LEGISLATION
As shown above, in a synchronic reading of Deuteronomy's firstling regulations, the concession of Deut 14:24-26 can be read into Deut 12:17-18. The ancient and modern interpretations surveyed above show how Deut 15:19-20 can be (and has been) imposed on Deut 14:24-26. The ability of synchronic readers to resolve the tensions among Deuteronomy's firstling regulations does not negate those tensions. Rather, as the following diachronic analysis will demonstrate, it reflects the designs of secondary authors who wrote their texts to amend existing texts. Deuteronomy 12:17-18 represents the earliest of the firstling regulations. At this stage, both firstlings and tithes were excluded from the new concession of local non-cultic slaughter (Deut 12:15-16) and had to be consumed in cultic meals. A later author composed Deut 14:24-26 to introduce an exception to Deut 12:17-18: for those living far from the cult site, both tithes 15  the verb of consumption ‫)‪/φάγῃ‬ואכלת(‬ of v. 23aα to the tithe command of v. 22 and adds a new verb, οἴσετε "you shall bring." 19 The tithe and firstling list of v. 23 is the subject of οἴσετε. This verb of bringing (a future-tense form of φέρω) connects the tithe and firstling list to one of the conditions of v. 24: ‫ש‬ ‫תוכל‬ ‫לא‬ ‫אתו‬ /μὴ δύνῃ ἀναφέρειν αὐτά "you are not able to bring them up." Thus, the Septuagint translator understood the concession as including both tithes and firstlings.
Grammatically and semantically, the term ‫ש‬ ‫אתו‬ "to carry it" in Deut 14:24 might seem to be better suited to a reference to tithes alone than to tithes and firstlings. Singular pronouns most often refer to singular nouns, but can be used to refer to compound noun phrases, even those containing plural nouns. Such a construction is found in Deut 12:17-18, in which a suffixed pronoun ‫תאכלנו(‬ ["you shall eat the aforementioned"]) refers back to a long list of sacrifices that includes the tithes and firstlings found in Deut 14:23. 20 ‫נשא‬ ("to carry") often refers to the transportation of inanimate objects. 21 But ‫נש‬ ‫א‬ can also be used to refer to the conveyance of animals, as in In short, the verb ‫נשא‬ and its singular object suffix do not necessarily reflect an original concession for tithes alone.
The legal reasoning of Deut 14:23-26, including the cultic meal described in v. 23 and the substitute meal in v. 26, fits a concession that includes both tithes and firstlings. As several scholars have sug-  (Deuteronomium (12,1-13,1)  gested, it would be impractical to consume ten percent of one's harvest in a single meal. 23 The consumption of firstlings in a single feast might be more realistic. Other tithe and firstling texts substantiate this contrast. Priestly/Holiness regulations suggest that firstlings could be consumed by Priests in a single cultic meal (Num 18:17-18), but tithes could sustain the Levites (a much larger group than priests) throughout the year (Num 18:30-32). 24 The Temple Scroll also allows tithes to be eaten on multiple feast days throughout the year, which may also reflect the impossibility of consuming the tithe in a single feast (11QT 43). Moreover, the list of potential substitute meal items in Deut 14:26 suggests that firstling animals were a more natural basis for a cultic banquet. The list of possible foods for the substitute cultic meal does not include grain or oil, perhaps because these ingredients could not serve as the basis of a cultic feast. 25 Livestock, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate to this function, thus cattle and sheep/goats are included in the list of foods that can be In this case another significant difference is that tithes and firstlings are donated rather than being consumed by the offerer. Nevertheless, the regulations in Numbers 18 suggest that tithes represented a substantial food source that could sustain a relatively large group (Levites) throughout the year, whereas firstlings could be consumed by a relatively small group (priests) in a single meal. 25 Nielsen notes that the list includes processed products like wine and beer instead of harvested, unprocessed produce like grain and oil (Deuteronomium, 157). But the incongruities between the tithe demand and the substitute meal list are more fundamental than this. If the list consisted of processed foods that correspond to tithed produce, we might expect bread to be listed, but instead grain is not represented in any form.
purchased. More generally, meat (along with alcohol) was a centerpiece of any festive meal. 26 The Temple Scroll, which allows only the sale of tithes, adds grain and oil to the substitute meal list and puts these added elements, along with wine, at the beginning of the list (11QT 43.14-15), thereby establishing a closer correspondence between the normally-required tithe offering and what can be substituted for it. The details of these provisions as well as larger intertextual considerations suggest that Deuteronomy depends on this passage for the formulation of its tithe law. In Exod 22:28-29, the deity demands an obscure vegetable offering (Exod 22:28a) and the firstborn of Israel's sons (v. 28b) and livestock (v. 29). Variety in ancient understandings of Exod 22:28a illustrate the obscurity of this half-verse and provide some parallels to Deuteronomy's "discovery" of a tithe law there:    18. This quotation is selective and rearranges quoted material: Deut 14:23a effectively makes tithes and firstlings a pair, whereas in Deut 12:17 tithes and firstlings are merely two contiguous members of a five-item list. This exclusive pairing of tithes and firstlings is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. 34 The basic point of Deut 12:17-18 remains intact: certain offerings can only be offered or consumed at the cult site in a cultic meal. Verbal and conceptual echoes set the stage for the significant departure from Deut 12:17-18 that follows.
That departure comes in the concession of Deut 14:24-26a, which permits Israelites living far from the cult site to sell firstlings (as well as tithes), travel to the sanctuary, and use the proceeds to purchase the banquet that the tithes and firstlings otherwise would have provided. The concession builds on the concession of local slaughter (Deut 12:15-16, 20-25): both concessions address the needs of those far from the cult site. By allowing some Israelites to sell their firstlings, however, Deut 14:24-26a diverges from Deut 12:17-18, which explicitly required that all Israelites consume their firstlings in cultic banquets at the one chosen sanctuary.
The concession of Deut 14:24-26 differs from the concession of local slaughter in that it results in a cultic meal, thereby preserving, albeit indirectly, the tie between firstlings and the cult site. 35 Theoretically, the author could have simply expanded the concession of secular slaughter to include firstlings, but this would have had two deleterious effects. First, it would have contravened Deut 12:17-18 in a blatant way rather than providing a way around it. Second, it would have completely severed firstlings from their cultic context, eliminating altogether the cultic meal they should have provided. Although the concession of Deut 14:24-26 avoids contradicting Deut 12:17-18 directly, is likely that firstlings, once sold, would have been subjected to non-cultic use, including local slaughter and consumption. 36 (Likewise, sold tithes could presumably have been consumed in a local non-cultic meal.) The sale of tithes and firstlings implies that the buyer would be able to use them, whether for traction, wool, or the basis of a local non-cultic meal. Moreover, restrictions imposed on the proceeds of the firstling (or tithe) sale and on the foods purchased with it parallel the restrictions that would normally be imposed on the firstling itself and suggest a tacit transference of sacredness from the firstling to the money and finally to the substitute meal. One who sells a tithe or firstling must "bind up" ‫)צור√(‬ the proceeds, isolating it from one's other possessions, just as firstlings and tithes would be separated. 37 The proceeds must then be brought to the cult site and used to purchase food and drink for a cultic banquet. The money cannot be used for other purposes, and neither can the substitute meal be acquired by other means. These restrictions mirror the enforced separation of tithes and firstlings elsewhere. In Deut 12:17-18, tithes and firstlings are excluded from consumption in the local context in which most foods can be consumed. In Deut 15:19, firstlings are set apart ‫קדש√(‬ Hiphil) and barred from economic use. Even the triennial tithe, which is to be used locally to feed the poor rather than brought to the sanctuary for a cultic banquet, must be kept separate from other produce (Deut 14:28; 26:13) and is subject to special purity restrictions (Deut 26:14). In addition, the efficacy of the substitute cultic meal suggests that the sacredness of the firstling (or tithe) is transferred to the proceeds of its sale and ultimately to the food and drink purchased at the central sanctuary. The introduction of the substitute foods into the cultic sphere implies a concomitant releasing of the firstling (or tithe) into the local economic sphere. 38 Deuteronomy 14:26b bookends the amendment of Deut 14:24-26a with a return to the language of Deut 12:18. Deuteronomy 14:26b echoes the language of Deut 12:17-18, which was also used in 14:23a, but gives these words a new addressee and the referent. The commands to eat and rejoice are now directed only to those who live far from the cult site-the more limited "you" who might avail themselves of the concession of Deut 14:24-26a, rather than to all Israelites. The meal that must be consumed "before YHWH" is now the substitute meal purchased with the proceeds of the firstling (or tithe) sale. Deuteronomy 14:26b uses the language and concepts of Deut 12:17-18 to claim that a meal arranged in accordance with the procedures outlined in the preceding verses fulfills the requirement to consume one's firstlings (and tithes) in a cultic meal. In the concession itself, a pronominal suffix in v. 24 ( ‫ש‬ ‫אתו‬ "to convey it") and implied object in v. 25 ‫ונתתה(‬ "then you may sell [it]") point back to the tithes and firstlings listed in v. 23. Although context suggests that the concession applies to firstlings as well as tithes, the lack of any explicit references to firstlings in Deut 14:24 and 25 provided an interpretive opportunity for the author of Deut 15:19-20, which that author exploited. By characterizing firstlings in a way that makes their sale unthinkable, Deut 15:19-20 encouraged readers to reinterpret Deut 14:24-26 as if it only allowed the sale of tithes and not also firstlings. Deuteronomy 15:19-20 left no doubt about the immutable sacrality of every ‫כל(‬ + ‫)ה‬ firstling, which was to be sanctified ‫:קדש(‬ v. 19) to the deity, could not be put to economic use (v. 19), and must be eaten before the deity (v. 20). As the history of interpretation shows, this strategy was largely successful.
Deuteronomy 15:19-20 addresses a consequence of firstling sale that is not mentioned in Deut 14:24-26: sold firstlings would be subjected to normal economic use. If a firstling were sold locally, the animal's new owner would face the same problem of distance, so it is unlikely that Deut 14:24-26 envisioned the new owner delivering the firstling to the sanctuary for a cultic meal. Instead, as argued above, the firstling's sacredness was transferred first to the money received for the sale and ultimately to the foods purchased for the substitute meal. All of this means that for its new owner, the firstling would effectively become a normal animal that could be eaten locally and used for economic purposes such as traction or wool. The command to set aside firstlings as sacred to the deity (v. 19) and the requirement of a cultic meal (v. 20) should preclude the sale of firstlings. As a failsafe, Deut 15:19-20 deprives firstlings of any potential economic value by prohibiting their economic exploitation for traction or wool (Deut 15:19), effectively eliminating any potential market for firstlings and undermining the concession allowing their sale. 39 By commanding that all firstlings be set apart as sacred, prohibiting their economic use, and reiterating the command to consume them cultically, Deut 15:19-20 effectively removes firstlings from the concession of Deut 14:24-26 and limits the concession to tithes alone.
The foregoing observations suggest that Deut 15:19-20 was written to amend Deut 14:24-26, and it would be difficult to argue for dependence in the opposite direction, or that both texts stem from the same hand. Interpreters have consistently read Deut 15:19-20 into Deut 14:24-26 for more than two millennia, which suggests that Deut 15:19-20 successfully amended Deut 14:24-26. The somewhat laconic presentation of Deut 14:24-26 would have been sufficient to circumvent the exclusion of firstlings from the local sphere Deut 12:17-18 but would have been inadequate to overpower the more explicit and forceful exclusion articulated in Deut 15:19-20.
Diachronic analysis of Deuteronomy's firstling regulations reveals a series of competent, effective, and successful amendments. The author of Deut 14:24-26 succeeded in amending Deut 12:17-18, and that success was later relativized by another successful amendment in Deut 15:19-20. Deuteronomy 12:17-18 and 15:19-20 are closely aligned in terms of legal substance, but they cannot be attributed to a single compositional layer because Deut 12:17-18 served as a source for Deut 14:24-26, whereas 15:19-20 responded to Deut 14:24-26. 40 I conclude this article by considering the implications of this more complex compositional picture for our understanding of the legal hermeneutics of the Pentateuch and of relative and absolute dating of passages in Deuteronomy. 39 Cf. Altmann's observation that "maintaining young domestic animals for the purpose of slaughter instead of for traction (plowing), wool, or milk constituted a significant economic burden" (Festive Meals, 74). Deuteronomy 15:19-20 makes no mention of milk because it deals specifically with male firstlings. 40 Otto, for example, argues for the literary unity of Deut 12:13-19; 15:19-23 (Deuteronomium: 12,1-23,15, 1369).

PENTATEUCH
The complex processes of legal revision evident in the Pentateuch have been intensively examined, and the significance of these processes continue to be debated. A particularly important and enduring question is the basic purpose underlying legal revision: what relationship does a revising author intend for his new laws to have with those he has revised? Scholars remain divided on the intention behind Deuteronomy's rewriting of the Covenant Code: was Deuteronomy designed to replace the Covenant Code and stand independent of it, or to stand alongside it and supplement it in some way? Focusing on contradictions and tensions between the two corpora, many scholars have advocated a model of replacement. 41 Others, emphasizing complementarities between Deuteronomy and The Covenant Code, regard Deuteronomy as a supplement. 42 As I have argued elsewhere, both models have much to commend them, but neither provides a comprehensive picture of Deuteronomy's complicated relationship with the Covenant Code. 43 A mediating model, which I have termed an "amendment model," better captures the full range of Deuteronomy's response, which includes contradictions and overriding as well as presupposition and complementation. 44 These dynamics can be observed at the scale of individual laws and regulations. For example, Deuteronomy presupposes the Covenant Code's altar law as its starting point, echoing it and even referring to it even as it overrides the Covenant Code's distributed sacrificial cult with a centralized one. At larger scales, the Deuteronomic document presupposes and complements the Covenant Code, presenting itself not as a narration of the theophany and lawgiving at the divine mountain, but as a Mosaic recapitulation of these foundational events. This complementarity of setting is of crucial importance even if, as some scholars suspect, these settings are secondary, because it shows a continuity between earlier and later layers of Deuteronomy, all of which presuppose and complement the Covenant Code and the narratives that frame it. Throughout its evidently long and winding history of composition, Deuteronomy's authors continued to respond to the Covenant Code. The one group that we can safely say read Deuteronomy-its subsequent editors-seems to have read it alongside the Covenant Code and understood that their role was not to replace or eliminate the Covenant Code but to read new meanings into it. 45 As generations of scribes continued to develop the text of Deuteronomy to respond to perceived deficiencies in the Covenant Code, they also responded to shortcomings they saw in their own text. This sort of internal revision is reflected in Deuteronomy's succession of firstling regulations. Each secondary author presupposes the existing firstling regulations, complements them by filling in any gaps, and overrides them at points of disagreement. Deuteronomy 14:24-26 was designed to alter the reader's understanding of Deut 12:17-18, and Deut 15:19-20 corrected a perceived error in Deut 14:24-26. Secondary authors did not merely compose new texts that contradicted existing ones. They composed new texts that dictated the terms on which existing texts would be read. Similar amending methods are evident, for example, in Deuteronomy's law of cultic place and sacrifice (Deut 12:1-28). An initial law establishes that all sacrifice must take place at the deity's one chosen site, whereas nonsacrificial slaughter is permitted elsewhere (see vv. 13-19). Later amendments limit local slaughter only to places far from the cult site (v. 21), delay centralization (vv. 8-12), and delay local slaughter to synchronize it with the onset of centralization (v. 20). The initial formulation of the law and its several amendments continue to respond to the Covenant Code's altar law as well. 46 The methods for internal amendment within Deuteronomy can help us better understand Deuteronomy's interactions with external source texts such as the Covenant Code. The strategies employed in inner-Deuteronomic revision bear significant similarities to the methods used in Deuteronomy's reworkings of the Covenant Code. Deuteronomy 14:24-26 is bracketed with citations of Deut 12:17-18 that change the cited text's meaning: the quotation in Deut 14:23 introduces an exception not anticipated by Deut 12:17-18, and the quotation in v. 26 equates the substitute cultic meal with the firstling (or tithe) meal that Deut 12:17-18 required. Deuteronomy similarly employs tactics of echoing and citation at key points of disagreement to impose new meanings on the Covenant Code. An especially close parallel to Deut 14:26b is Deut 16:16-17, which quotes the Covenant Code so as to present the radical revision of the Covenant Code's festival calendar in the foregoing verses (Deut 16:1-15) as equivalent to that calendar. 47 Deuteronomy 15:19-20 rejects the allowance of firstling sale, without ever acknowledging its existence, through a series of positive requirements that preclude the possibility. This method parallels Deuteronomy's "silent polemics" against pre-existing texts and institutions. 48 The chronological development of Deuteronomy's firstling legislation also reflects an increasing affinity with Priestly and Holiness ideas and perhaps an increasing awareness of Priestly and Holiness texts or an increasing willingness to interact with them. Deuteronomy 15:19-20 effectively brings Deuteronomy's tithe and firstling legislation into closer alignment with the Priestly/Holiness view that vegetable tithes can be redeemed (Lev 27:30-31) but sacrificable animal firstlings cannot (Num 18:17). Deuteronomy 15:19-20 still diverges substantially from Priestly/Holiness views, however, in allowing lay Israelites to consume their own firstlings rather than giving them to the Priests (Num 18:17-18). Several scholars see a further substantive contradiction between Deuteronomy's command ‫תקדיש‬ and the Priestly prohibition ‫איש‬ ‫יקדיש‬ ‫לא‬ ‫אתו‬ "one may not dedicate a firstling" (Lev 27:26). 49 Rather than contradicting one another, these passages use different meanings of ‫.קדש‬ Lev 27:26 uses ‫קדש‬ to refer to the transfer of an object from the secular to the sacred sphere, whereas Deuteronomy 15:19 refers to the separation of something that is intrinsically sacred. 50 A firstling can be "set apart" because it is born into the owner's flock (Deut 15:19), but it cannot be "sanctified" because it is intrinsically sacred (Lev 27:26).
This apparent awareness of Priestly/Holiness viewpoints allows us to place Deuteronomy's internal development in the context of the Pentateuch's overall composition and gets us closer to a possibility of absolute dating. First of all, the affinities of Deut 15:19-20 with Priestly thought support this paper's conclusion, based on inner-Deuteronomic evidence, that Deut 15:19-20 is relatively late. Second, Deut 15:19-20 does not apparently attempt to harmonize Deuteronomy with priestly concepts or texts, but instead utilizes priestly ideas to improve Deuteronomy itself. Thus, Deut 15:19-20 is "Deuteronomic" (or Deuteronomistic) rather than "pentateuchal" in its outlook. 51 as its affinities with Priestly literature. A date in the early Persian period is also possible, but again I would stress that Deut 15:19-20 seems to aim at improving Deuteronomy based on Priestly ideas rather than integrating Deuteronomy with Priestly texts into a Pentateuch or Hexateuch.
The preservation of multiple viewpoints within Deuteronomy can help us better understand Deuteronomy's place in the larger picture of Pentateuchal composition and compilation. Deuteronomy's authors preserved multiple views in their own text, and they may also have "accommodated" external texts such as the Covenant Code, despite points of serious disagreement. Deuteronomy's firstling legislation represents just one of many cases in which minor issues of internal composition history can shed light on larger issues of composition, interpretation, and their intersection.