Bible verse by verse

[_Roger]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Exodus 22 is not YHWH's commandment, but a commandment introduced by humans engaging contemporary cultural mores. As a Christian, I have no problem with that, but I'm not bound to an inerrant view of scripture.

Yes, I know that's not what you're saying, but it is what orthodoxy is bound to. Not necessarily "inerrancy" in that there are/were literally no errors in the text, but rather inspiration of the text (2 Tim. 3:16).

But we can know that even the autographa were not inerrant. Acts 15:16-17, for instance, demonstrably quote a mistranslation of Amos 9:11-12, and the relevance of the quotation is tied directly to that mistranslation. In other words, the very first original composition had to have contained the mistranslation, which makes the statement that it is the "words of the prophets" demonstrably false. Inerrancy is a demonstrably false proposition, even if one appeals to the autographa.

I'm not following you here. How is it possible that "the very first original composition had to have contained the mistranslation,"? mistranslation of what? Why would an original be translating anything?

1. The writer of the original version of Exodus that you theorize, or a least a portion of Exodus, was not only not under inspiration but was in fact writing blasphemy in that he has God command what God otherwise says is an abominable practice. In which case, Exodus should never have been included in the canon.

This is really the only plausible scenario, although the judgment that it shouldn't have been included in the canon is separate.

Of course it's not the only plausible scenario. The other plausible scenario is that the whole thing is made up and YHWH is a false god. I'm also arguing that option 3 is plausible, but obviously you disagree. You may be right, I don't know, but if you are, I see option 2 as much more plausible than option 1.

But let's say we agree that option 1 is the most plausible, what are the implications? A possible implication is that whoever wrote Exodus (and by that I mean the original that you theorize without the "redeem" concept trumping 22:29) was not writing under the inspiration of God. How then, can we know what is inspired or not? Do we have to rely on (fallible) Biblical scholars to filter the text for us? (It goes without saying that I do not accept the LDS solution as valid.)

The second implication is that Israel practiced child sacrifice and apparently officially did so under the idea that the practice was commanded by YHWH - unless the writer of original Exodus was some weirdo who was not really speaking for Isreal, in which case, again, original Exodus would be worthless blasphemy. If you are correct about the Ezekiel reference, then apparently Ezekiel agrees with you, **I'm editing this at this point, because as I think about it, even if you are correct, Ezekiel does not agree with you. He says God actually commanded child sacrifice whereas you are saying humans did. Okay, back to my original thought** but I find Ezekiel's explanation extremely weak. It implies that God commanded child sacrifice out of exasperation, which then leads me to question whether Ezekiel should have been canonized.

If option 1 is the most plausible, then there seems to be only two possible conclusions. Either original Exodus is worse than something that is merely human produced, it is blasphemy, or God commanded child sacrifice. I don't like either alternative.

You say, as a Christian, you have "no problem" with this, but it seems to me you should. Obviously you can't trust the original writer of Exodus, so why would you trust the person who fixed the original by introducing the "redeem" concept? Why would a trustworthy person attempt to fix a blasphemous text? Isn't it more reasonable to just throw out all of Exodus?

There is solid evidence that the Covenant Code is a separate and earlier composition, and that's what I meant by Exodus 13 as a later addition.

Is the Covenant Code something that is exclusively identified with Israel?

The bottom line is, there is a reasonable possibility that the original autograph of Exodus contained 13:13. You don't think it did, based on an educated guess, but you have no way of proving otherwise.

For the sake of discussion, let's say it did. What would that imply for the Ezekiel passage? Is it possible Ezekiel is referring to something else?

All the best.

[_Roger]

mak:

So looking at Ezekiel 20...

The premise of the case Ezekiel is making - and is stating as the very words of God - is that God chose Isreal, showed them favor, brought them out of Egypt and gave them a set of laws that would bring them life and asked them to follow the laws and not profane his name. However, God says they indeed profaned his name, again and again, and were desirous of worshiping idols. This is emphasized several times before we get to the troubling passages, verses 25 & 26.

In verses 23 & 24 God is exasperated with Isreal's unfaithfulness and swears to disperse them among the nations. But verses 25 & 26 indicate that God did more than that:

"I did more. I imposed on them statutes that were not good statutes, and laws by which they could not win life. I let them defile themselves with gifts to idols; I made them surrender their eldest sons to them so that I might fill them with horror. Thus they would know that I am the Lord." (NEB)

If this is actually referring to Ex. 22:29, then this has to be the most troubling scripture I've ever seen.

Could the answer pivot on the translation of one word? Is the word "made them surrender" the best translation? The preceding sentence says that God "let them" defile themselves, but then we are still stuck with the fact that God is admitting he "imposed on them statutes that were not good."

I'm not sure what to make of all this. I suppose "statutes that were not good" does not necessarily have to refer to child sacrifice, but given the context, that's what the text seems to be saying.

[Guest]

No, you are just repeating what some know-it-all told you in college...

I am doing absolutely no such thing, and I asked you to stop making assumptions about my motivations and background.

You may see for a Biblical point of view: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG ... ateuch.htm

A terribly naïve misrepresentation of the history and nature of the source criticism of the Pentateuch. I had a friend who did a master's degree with me a few years ago who had done an MDiv previously. He was pretty well educated, but when it came to source criticism, he was always a bit unsure. By the end of the program he pointed out to us that he had been trained to debunk the Documentary Hypothesis in his MDiv, but discovered during our program that the theory had absolutely nothing to do with what he had been taught about it, and that the theory is actually solidly based on a great deal of empirical evidence. He's since changed his mind completely. It's funny how the people who bark the loudest about how it's false are the people who know the least about it, as well as how people who actually learn what it is and what it's based on tend to change their minds and come to accept it. I recommend you check out God's Word in Human Words for a discussion from an Evangelical about how fundamentalism misrepresents the scholarship and the evidence in an effort to protect the uneducated from being convinced by it. Or you could just keep belligerently barking at me about how you're right and I'm wrong, even though I'm the only one with any actual education about the topic.

Someone taught you what you think. It didn't come out of thin air. You certainly didn't pick it up from reading the Bible on your own. And maybe you should stop assuming that because people disagree with your "high opinions," that they are naïve and misrepresentations. The simple fact is that God was demonstrating to everyone that they NEED A SAVIOR. Even the "Righteous" are unable to fulfill the Law to the letter. This is what God is spelling out. Maybe you should try it sometime. Do everything the Bible says to do, the way it says to do it. You will fall flat. It isn't possible. Only Christ perfectly fulfilled the letter of the Law in the only way it could be fulfilled. God gave himself as a ransom for many. The foundation of the Bible is not that of the Book of Mormon. The Bible contains history, but it isn't a history book. The Bible contains prophecy, but it isn't a about seeing the future. The Bible contains wonderful poetry, but it wasn't written for its artistic merit. The reason for the Bible is to bring to the world the how, why, and wherefore that Christ had to do what He did. It is a love letter for whosoever will. Education isn't just about going to a classes and hearing lectures, and doing reports. Very often an education is learning to walk by faith. And this is something you are not demonstrating.

[_Roger]

Here's what the commentary in my NEB says about it (Ez. 20:25-26):

"The surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God, inasmuch as he directs even the evil deeds of men to their own good. Sacrifices of human infants are condemned in v. 31 and in 16:20; also in Lev. 18:21; Jer. 7:31"

This doesn't help much. The commentators are acknowledging that "the surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God," but then qualify that with the "inasmuch as" statement. It seems that the best possible interpretation would have God commanding human sacrifice but only in response to "the evil deeds of men."

As we noted earlier, Ex. 22 reads in a very nonchalant way... as in do this, this and this, not okay, go ahead and sacrifice your first born and see how you like it.

[_huckelberry]

Very often an education is learning to walk by faith. And this is something you are not demonstrating.

Neither are you, at least to appearance. You appear to spend too much time stopping thought with your rules.

[_Nevo]

Hi Roger,

Here are some additional commentaries on Ezek. 20:25-26 if you're interested:

• "Since the people disobeyed God's good laws, He gave them bad laws instead, exemplified by child sacrifice. Whether this is the way some Israelites interpreted Exod. 22.28; 34.19, and whether at an early point in Israelite religion sacrifice of the first-born was regularly practiced, is unclear. It seems, however, that some believed that God approved of child sacrifice (Deut. 12.29; Jer. 7.31; 19.5; 32.25). The notion that God misled the people so that He could condemn them for it is found also in 14.9." (Marvin Sweeney, The Jewish Study Bible [OUP, 2004])
  
  
• "Because Israel consistently rejected God's good, life-giving laws, God's condign punishment was to replace them with not-good laws, by observing which one would gain not life but death. These are then exemplified by child sacrifice, at once a murderous pagan practice and an abomination worthy of severest condemnation. By this anti-gift God only confirmed the people in their choice of laws countering God's (cf. vss. 18f.); this choice led them inevitably to adopt the deadly laws of the pagans. . . . The shocking idea that God misleads those who anger him into sin, for which he then destroys them, already appeared in 14:9 (the misled prophet). . . . It is essentially the same as God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart so that his ruin might be an object lesson (Exod 9:16; 10:2); or the charge to Isaiah to 'dull the people's mind, stop its ears, and seal its eyes, lest, seeing with its eyes and hearing with its ears, it also grasp with its mind and repent and heal itself' (Isa 6:9ff.); or the complaint of Isa 63:17, 'Why, YHWH, do you make us stray from your ways, and harden our hearts not to fear you?' (cf. also I Kings 18:36b). . . . Moderns, seeking a historical basis for the allegation of vs. 25, have found it in such a categorical demand as Exod 22:28b (34:19): 'You must give me the firstborn of your sons' (in 13:1, 'the first issue of the womb'); on this supposition, the practice of redemption ordained in 34:20 and 13:11-13 is assumed to be a later modification of this originally harsh rule making over all firstborn males as sacrifices to the deity. Outside of our passage no evidence for such an interpretation of these laws, or for such a practice, exists; indeed, it is intrinsically improbable. On the other hand, our vs. 25 was not spun out of thin air. The polemic against child sacrifice (to YHWH) in Deut 12:29ff.; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35 indicates that at least from the time of the last kings of Judah it was popularly believed that YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded, it. The above-mentioned laws declaring all firstborn males the property of YHWH (to be 'transferred' to him) signified their naturally dedicated status; normally they were to be redeemed, but their peculiar fitness for sacrifice as a token of extraordinary devotion in emergencies appears to have been widely held (II Kings 3:27; Micah 6:7)." (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 [Anchor Bible 22; Doubleday, 1983], 369-70)
  
  
• "What is curious in Greenberg's comment is his certainty that popular practice was so radically separate from the normative religion. Why, if there is no evidence in the Bible (outside of Ezek 20:25-26) for the sacrifice of the first-born son to YHWH, did so many Israelites come to adhere to such a practice? And, conversely, why, if we know there was a popular belief 'that YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded' such offerings, should we retroject the provision for redemption even onto Exod 22:28b, where it is absent and contradicts the implication of the subsequent verse? The more natural conclusion, it would seem, is that what Greenberg brands as popular religion is simply the continuation of an older normative tradition against which the two great prophets of the late monarchy and early exile, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, turned with passion and vehemence. Because Greenberg follows Jeremiah's view that God never commanded child sacrifice (Jer 19:5), he has no choice but to brand the rite as popular and 'pagan' and to rely on the conventional analogy of Pharaoh's divinely hardened heart to explain Ezekiel's opposing opinion. But it is the latter opinion that better fits the biblical data: YHWH once commanded the sacrifice of the first-born but now opposes it. Without recourse to modern historical reasoning, the only explanation for this that preserves the continuity of YHWH's will is the one that Ezekiel, in fact, offers: YHWH's command and Israel's obedience to it were in the way of punishment, a means to bring about the death of those who had turned away from the means to abundant life." (Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son [Yale, 1993], 8)

[_Roger]

Hi Nevo:

It stands to reason that I'm not the only one who's ever struggled with this. What is not so comforting are the possible conclusions that emerge.

I would challenge this, from Levenson:

And, conversely, why, if we know there was a popular belief 'that YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded' such offerings, should we retroject the provision for redemption even onto Exod 22:28b, where it is absent and contradicts the implication of the subsequent verse? The more natural conclusion, it would seem, is that what Greenberg brands as popular religion is simply the continuation of an older normative tradition against which the two great prophets of the late monarchy and early exile, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, turned with passion and vehemence.

To me the way 13:13 reads, as well as 34:20, it is clear that first born humans are to be redeemed. Yes, according to 22:29 they belong to God, but 13:13 has already stated that first born human males must be redeemed, whereas with certain animals it's optional. So I don't see a problem with the notion of redemption not appearing in 22:29 since it already appeared in 13:13. If it's a later addition, however, then that would be a problem. I don't know how we know for sure whether it is or not unless we stumble upon an original autograph of Exodus.

But I must reluctantly admit that the point mak makes about Ezekiel seems to suggest that 13:13 may not have been a part of the text Ezekiel is responding to. What would be the point of Ezekiel's notion that God gave bad commandments if YHWH sanctioned child sacrifice had never been practiced in Isreal? I wish there were some other explanation, but I don't see any at this point.

Because Greenberg follows Jeremiah's view that God never commanded child sacrifice (Jer 19:5), he has no choice but to brand the rite as popular and 'pagan' and to rely on the conventional analogy of Pharaoh's divinely hardened heart to explain Ezekiel's opposing opinion. But it is the latter opinion that better fits the biblical data: YHWH once commanded the sacrifice of the first-born but now opposes it.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. It is inconceivable that YHWH "once commanded the sacrifice of the first-born" especially given (what we would expect) his later, vehement opposition.

Without recourse to modern historical reasoning, the only explanation for this that preserves the continuity of YHWH's will is the one that Ezekiel, in fact, offers: YHWH's command and Israel's obedience to it were in the way of punishment, a means to bring about the death of those who had turned away from the means to abundant life."

Reluctantly, I have to agree with Levenson at this point. But it is extremely unsatisfactory - especially given the way Exodus actually reads (in the absence of 13:13).

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, In these comments you are projecting an image well within my usual understanding of the situation. There are a few more legal statement in the Torah which I have no other way to relate to but by thinking that people brought their own understanding of law as building blocks in many cases.

An excellent scholarly book on this topic is Inventing God's Law, by the renowned Old Testament scholar and former Latter-day Saint David Wright. The book argues that the authors of Exodus' Covenant Code drew intentionally and heavily from Hammurabi's law code and others in composing their own legal corpus.

[_maklelan]

Yes, I know that's not what you're saying, but it is what orthodoxy is bound to. Not necessarily "inerrancy" in that there are/were literally no errors in the text, but rather inspiration of the text (2 Tim. 3:16).

So what, precisely, does that mean? Can it mean the author was inspired to record her own thoughts, or must it mean each and every word is directed by God?

I'm not following you here. How is it possible that "the very first original composition had to have contained the mistranslation,"? mistranslation of what? Why would an original be translating anything?

The original composition of Acts 15:16-17 included a mistranslation of Amos 9:11-12.

Of course it's not the only plausible scenario. The other plausible scenario is that the whole thing is made up and YHWH is a false god. I'm also arguing that option 3 is plausible, but obviously you disagree. You may be right, I don't know, but if you are, I see option 2 as much more plausible than option 1.

Fair enough. I was going off the assumption you were dismissing outright the notion that it's all made up and YHWH doesn't exist.

But let's say we agree that option 1 is the most plausible, what are the implications? A possible implication is that whoever wrote Exodus (and by that I mean the original that you theorize without the "redeem" concept trumping 22:29) was not writing under the inspiration of God. How then, can we know what is inspired or not?

It always seems to come down to this, doesn't it? How do you know the Bible is inspired? Is it not a decision you made one day based on something someone told you?

Do we have to rely on (fallible) Biblical scholars to filter the text for us? (It goes without saying that I do not accept the LDS solution as valid.)

I prefer that to relying on dogmatism and tradition. Isn't the notion of the Bible's inerrancy just something you arbitrarily accept, anyway? I've asked people to give me a reason to accept inerrancy for years, and no one has ever come up with anything other than that I'm supposed to because the Bible says so (which it demonstrably does not).

The second implication is that Israel practiced child sacrifice and apparently officially did so under the idea that the practice was commanded by YHWH - unless the writer of original Exodus was some weirdo who was not really speaking for Isreal, in which case, again, original Exodus would be worthless blasphemy. If you are correct about the Ezekiel reference, then apparently Ezekiel agrees with you, **I'm editing this at this point, because as I think about it, even if you are correct, Ezekiel does not agree with you. He says God actually commanded child sacrifice whereas you are saying humans did. Okay, back to my original thought** but I find Ezekiel's explanation extremely weak. It implies that God commanded child sacrifice out of exasperation, which then leads me to question whether Ezekiel should have been canonized.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that are weak. Many of Jesus' rhetorical dodges are quite weak, for instance.

If option 1 is the most plausible, then there seems to be only two possible conclusions. Either original Exodus is worse than something that is merely human produced, it is blasphemy, or God commanded child sacrifice. I don't like either alternative.

You say, as a Christian, you have "no problem" with this, but it seems to me you should. Obviously you can't trust the original writer of Exodus, so why would you trust the person who fixed the original by introducing the "redeem" concept? Why would a trustworthy person attempt to fix a blasphemous text? Isn't it more reasonable to just throw out all of Exodus?

I prefer to see what this human-produced text can teach me about Israel and how it related to deity. Even if the text was produced by a blasphemer I think it can teach me something about God, even if it only provides the raw materials for me to construct a lesson myself.

Is the Covenant Code something that is exclusively identified with Israel?

The Covenant Code as found in Exodus sure is, but a lot of it is drawn from other law codes. David Wright's Inventing God's Law explains the relationships, and how the authors drew from other legal corpora to produce the Covenant Code.

The bottom line is, there is a reasonable possibility that the original autograph of Exodus contained 13:13. You don't think it did, based on an educated guess, but you have no way of proving otherwise.

For the sake of discussion, let's say it did. What would that imply for the Ezekiel passage? Is it possible Ezekiel is referring to something else?

All the best.

I can think of no other candidates.

[_maklelan]

mak:

So looking at Ezekiel 20...

The premise of the case Ezekiel is making - and is stating as the very words of God - is that God chose Isreal, showed them favor, brought them out of Egypt and gave them a set of laws that would bring them life and asked them to follow the laws and not profane his name. However, God says they indeed profaned his name, again and again, and were desirous of worshiping idols. This is emphasized several times before we get to the troubling passages, verses 25 & 26.

In verses 23 & 24 God is exasperated with Isreal's unfaithfulness and swears to disperse them among the nations. But verses 25 & 26 indicate that God did more than that:

"I did more. I imposed on them statutes that were not good statutes, and laws by which they could not win life. I let them defile themselves with gifts to idols; I made them surrender their eldest sons to them so that I might fill them with horror. Thus they would know that I am the Lord." (NEB)

If this is actually referring to Ex. 22:29, then this has to be the most troubling scripture I've ever seen.

Could the answer pivot on the translation of one word? Is the word "made them surrender" the best translation?

The sentence literally reads, "I defiled them in their gifts and in the causing to pass through of the firstborn in order to desolate/appall them . . ." The verb has reference to turning over an offering or sacrifice to the altar or fire and is the same exact verb used in Exod 13:12 (KJV):

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.

This is unquestionably a reference to sacrificial offerings.

The preceding sentence says that God "let them" defile themselves, but then we are still stuck with the fact that God is admitting he "imposed on them statutes that were not good."

It's absolutely not "I let them defile themselves." It's a first common singular piel with a separate direct object marker and third masculine plural pronominal suffix. Literally, it is "I put in a state of defilement them."

I'm not sure what to make of all this. I suppose "statutes that were not good" does not necessarily have to refer to child sacrifice, but given the context, that's what the text seems to be saying.

If it means anything to you, I think you're approaching it much more honestly and objectively than anyone else with whom I've had this same conversation.