Chapters from the Biblical Law. a man whose father is an Egyptian and whose status as a son of Israel is therefore doubtful? Is it a crime to blaspheme the name of a god in whom one does not believe? Could, therefore, the son of the Egyptian be held amenable for this crime? It appears that Moses' decision is based on the general principle of the law which provided that the child follows the status of the mother, and as she was an Israelitish woman, her son was considered an Israelite, irrespective of his paternity. This is furthermore emphasized by the fact that the record is careful to give his, i.e., his mothers pedigree. But what would have been the decision had he been the son of an Egyptian woman? The ques tion is not decided in this case, but.it evi dently must have arisen, for as we shall shortly see, in the general law that was pro mulgated on this subject this case is pro vided for. The court consulted and decided that a crime had been committed, that the offender was amenable to the law, and that he should be stoned to death. In the sentence of the court, the witnesses, that is, those who heard the blasphemy, are directed to place their hands upon his head. This was analogous to the custom of sacrificing, where the per sons bringing the sacrifice placed their hands upon the head of the sacrificial animal. The idea implied here was that the animal was offered by the hands of the persons who sacrificed to the deity, and that the sins or offenses of the person sacrificing were to be atoned for by the sacrificial offering. Thus the persons who are, as it were, parties to the crime, merely from having heard the blas phemy, offer the offenders as a sacrifice to the insulted deity, and thereby avert the divine wrath from themselves. The blasphemer was stoned to death by "all the congregation." The Hebrew word which we have translated "congregation" is Edah. meaning assembly. It was the select men of the people who are meant bv Edah, who acted as executioners, and
495
perhaps were also the associate justices with whom Moses deliberated before rendering judgment. After the sentence of the court was carried out, a general law to cover this and similar cases was formulated. Judging from the proximity of the text of this special case and the general law, it might be supposed that the latter was passed immediately after or even before the execution of the sentence, but, as was pointed out in the case of Zelophehad's Daughters, the mere proximity of laws or texts in the Bible proves nothing regarding their chronology. The general law was no doubt much later than the special case which is here cited, and sums up the law on the subject in a brief sententious manner, thus: "And thou shall speak unto the children of Israel saying, Whoever curseth his god shall bear his sin, and he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger as the native when he blasphemeth the Name shall be put to death." This general law seems to have been especially made to cover the point that was raised, but not decided in the case of the son of the Egyptian. If he had been the son of an Egyptian woman he would not have been an Israelite; and the question as to whether lie could have been punished would have been a more difficult one. This question is now settled. The stranger as well as the native is punishable with death if he blas phemes the name of Jehovah. If the stranger blasphemes his own gods, the Jewish law takes no cognizance of it. If a man blas phemes his god let him bear his sin—let him suffer such punishment as his god may mete out to him; but if he blasphemes the name of Jehovah, and is, for the time being under ihe jurisdiction of the Jew-ish law, let him be punished with death. That the crime of blasphemy was akin to the crime of .treason is shown in several other passages of the Bible. In Exodus
