# What evidence is there that boiling a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19) was a pagan practice?

In Exodus 23:19 (KJV), Jehovah tells the Israelites, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Searching online for a possible meaning, many suggestions are given, the most compelling of which I find to be that boiling a kid in it's mother's milk and sprinkling the resulting potion on fields was a ritual from some pagan fertility cult. However, I cannot find where this idea originated. I would like to know whether this is simply the result of speculation, or whether there is evidence that such a ritual existed or was common.

The closest thing I can find to a source is footnote F9 on this website, which references Gregory's Notes & Observ. c. 19. p. 97, 98. I searched for this work and found a book titled Gregorii Opuscula, or, Notes & observations upon some passages of Scripture : with other learned tracts (published 1650), of which I found a PDF, which is a collection of works (fewer than 19), none of which is titled Notes & Observations. Pages 97-98 discuss Matthew 2:16 and the Jewish demon Lilith.

Can anyone help me find the book referred to as Gregory's Notes & Observ. in the above citation? Else, can anyone guide me to another source of the idea that Exodus 23:19 refers to a pagan ritual?

• Hi Ledge, welcome to BHSE - thanks for contributing! I'd encourage you to take the Site Tour and check out the On Topic post to learn more about the distinctives of this site, as sometimes it can be challenging to figure out overlap with some other SE's. – Steve Taylor Nov 16 '20 at 22:06
• @SteveTaylor Thanks for the welcome. I saw the site tour when I first arrived. I actually have had a difficult time understanding exactly what should be asked on this site and what should be asked elsewhere. From what I had read on the site tour page, it seemed to me that this question was appropriate as addressing historical context. Do you think it would have been better for a different SE? – The Ledge Nov 17 '20 at 0:00
• No, this question looks like a good fit - it has been flagged by a few people as "searching for a text", but I disagree - that's a criteria we use for closure when people are asking us to find a biblical passage for them. To me, this is a good hermeneutical question - you've started with a passage, have presented a question on historical context, and shown your previous efforts. As a general rule, if a question 1) arises from a 2) specific biblical passage and is 3) about its intended meaning, that's a safe bet for on-topic, and captures 95% of the questions on the SE. – Steve Taylor Nov 17 '20 at 6:40

In the book The Bible and Archaeology by Sir Frederic Kenyon, he does give some historical information about seething or boiling a kid in its mother milk:

[The original question "What is the significance of the command found in Exodus 23:19, 'You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk'?" was in a Watchtower from 1965 and it mentions the book by Sir Kenyon.

I was able to find a pdf file located at Birzeit University. Searching through the file, the information is located on page 162 (183 of the pdf) with the reference in the screenshot above.]

There have been so many attempts to show this is a Cannanite myth, and whenever I've tried to track things down, it's never been verified. This is true in this case as well. In the entire Ugaritic corpus "kid/goat" and "milk" do not occur in the same stanza or poem. Here is the portion of the poem supposedly containing the description of a ritual in which a kid is seethed in his mother's milk:

1.23 R 1 Let me invoke the gra[cious] gods,

[                 ] and beautiful,

sons of Shap[sh?             ]

Let them give a feast [to those] of high rank,

in the wilderness of the end (of the world).


1.23 R 5 [ ] on their heads,

[                                 ]

Eat from any of the food,

and drink from the vat any wine!

Greetings, king, greetings, queen, priests and temple-

victuallers!9

———————————————————————

The lord and master sat enthroned,

in his hand the staff of sterility,

in his hand the staff of widowhood.

Those who prune the vine pruned him,

those who bind the vine bound him;


1.23 R 10 they let his tendril fall like a vine.

———————————————————————

Seven times shall it be recited on the throne-dais,

and the priests are to respond.

———————————————————————

Now the steppe, the vast15 steppe

is the steppe of Athirat and Rahma<y>.

Over a fire seven times the choristers of fine voice

(seethe) coriander in milk,

mint in butter,


1.23 R 15 and over the cauldron seven times

let incense be burned.

———————————————————————

Rahmay went forth,

[and Athirat] set out.

[           ] they girded themselves.

May the gracious chorister [           ]

and their name let the priest e[xalt.]

———————————————————————

The dwellings of the gods eight [         ]


1.23 R 20 seven times [ ]

———————————————————————

Lapis lazuli, carnelian

scarlet the singers…24

———————————————————————

Let me invoke the gracious gods,

[both gluttonous from] birth26,

who suck at the nipples of Athirat’s breasts,

[from the paps of Rahmay,]


1.23 R 25 Shapsh counts their tendrils,

[                    ] and grapes.

Peace to you, priests and temple-victuallers,

as you proceed to the sacrifice of propitiation.


Wyatt, N. (2002). Religious texts from Ugarit (2nd ed., pp. 325–329). London; New York: Sheffield Academic Press.

I apologize for the lengthy quotation, but the only way to squash these notions or at least show how dubious they are is to present the actual text.

For those of you with the logos package, you can buy the book and investigate yourselves, it's part of the Ugaritic language package, and I've searched through the entire databank looking for "goat", "kid", "milk" and have found nothing to support this notion, yet it keeps coming up. I can only surmise that the default explanation for anything in Leviticus is that it was being done by native tribes that the Israelites were commanded to be separate from. This, I believe, is poor exegetical practice.

• I fully agree - bad exegesis to base an interpretation on what is unknown as opposed to what is known. Thanks for your efforts. +1. – Dottard Jan 15 at 9:27