|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: This is in the Bible - but it stinks! IMHO...
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
As this thread has a long and venerable history in Kerygmania (despite no-one having found another text that stinks that they'd like to comment on since Dec. 2013), I am bumping it to the front page ahead of the coming Oblivionation. If this sparks further discussion of Bible texts that stink, that would be a bonus.
Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Talk about a bumpy ride!
I think what stinks most in the bible, time and time again, is the unforgiveable misuse of power and the ascription of human cruelty to divine justice. Some of you will know what's coming next.
Ananias drops dead (Act 5). Hours later, his wife turns up. Peter tricks her into repeating Ananias's "unholy, unforgiveable lie" then jumps in with the killer line:
"The men are at the door who buried your husband, and they will carry you out."
How long have those men been at the door? Did it take them three hours to bury Ananias? Did they just happen to stay for a cup of tea or two afterwards? What were the instructions they got from Peter - "Stick around chaps, I might have a bit of gardening for you to do later..." ?
I await your filthy stinking justifications of this cowardly bully's deeds ands words!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am sure this has been mentioned upthread, because it is a classic: Jesus's confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman who had a sick daughter. She asks him to heal her. He says, "Should dogs get fed before the children of the house?"
=Nasty.= Reams and reams of argument (He was smiling when he said it! She was a whore! He can see the future and knew that in the next sentence he would give in! The kid wasn't really sick! He had to make a gesture to all the listening Jews before healing! and so on) does not change the nastiness of the retort.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
riotgrrrl
Apprentice
# 18437
|
Posted
Not sure if this has been mentioned so far, but good old Deuteronomy 2.28-9
quote:
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Sure the laws of Deuteronomy aren't applicable to modern Christians but it still stinks that this was ever a law in the first place .
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes, it stinks. However thank God that we know it stinks for it was written into a society where that was a surprising bit of women's liberation.
The normative practice was probably at the time which was to treat the girl as spoiled goods. Married off at a discount if the father could arrange it, if not treated as a slave because she was unmarriageable or worse still cast out home as having brought disgrace on the family.
When I say spoiled goods I am not talking metaphorically. We have come a long way since women were viewed as property, but that was the type of society that the commandments were written for. You need only see the order not to covet your neighbours wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor (Exodus 20:17) to get a clear statement of the fact.
This is one of those occasions where reading as to a given society rather than to a current one suggests a completely different agenda by the Almighty.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This one comes up again and again and again...
Short answer, Jengie's right, and in the context of the culture it was very pro-woman. What the law does is force the rapist to make reparations for the social and economic harm he has done her (that being pretty much the only thing the asshole CAN redress, given the crime). A rape victim in such a culture faced the loss of social status, future career (for women, =marriage and head of household status), future family (children), and poverty (because there were almost no careers a woman could support herself with bar prostitution). So, how to redress that?
The law (with parallel passages) gives a rape victim the right either to marry the rapist regardless of his wishes in the matter, and he is not allowed to ever divorce her, either (unlike basically every other marriage in Israel). This guarantees her the social and financial support of marriage. The rapist gets no say at all, nil, zilch, nada. Which is still better than he deserves.
If she chooses NOT to marry the asshole, he is forced to pay reparations to her birth family, which can be used for her support in case she never marries. Her father has the deciding vote on which of the two happens, which was probably thrown in to prevent unapproved suitors from trying to force marriage through rape.
Is the situation ideal? Duh, of course not. But under the circumstances about as pro-woman as you can get. (Note: killing him would do no good, as she'd still be left in a mess.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The law (with parallel passages) gives a rape victim the right either to marry the rapist regardless of his wishes in the matter, and he is not allowed to ever divorce her, either (unlike basically every other marriage in Israel). This guarantees her the social and financial support of marriage. The rapist gets no say at all, nil, zilch, nada. Which is still better than he deserves.
If she chooses NOT to marry the asshole, he is forced to pay reparations to her birth family, which can be used for her support in case she never marries. Her father has the deciding vote on which of the two happens, which was probably thrown in to prevent unapproved suitors from trying to force marriage through rape.
I'm confused. Where does it say that it is an either/or choice? What riotgrrrl quoted states that the rapist is to pay the 50 shekels and marry the girl and never divorce her. Other translations seem to indicate the same thing. The earlier verses do run through the variations of the situation (virgin/not virgin; engaged/not engaged; voluntary/rape), but I am failing to see where the victim gets the choice to not marry the rapist. What am I missing?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's a parallel expanded passage which goes into the details I mentioned. I'll have to dig it up later, I'm late for an appointment!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've just read G K Chesterton's Father Brown story, The Sign of the Broken Sword. I thought this passage relevant:
"'Sir Arthur St. Clare, as I have already said, was a man who read his Bible. That was what was the matter with him. When will people understand that it is useless for a man to read his Bible unless he also reads everybody else's Bible? A printer reads a Bible for misprints. A Mormon reads his Bible, and finds polygamy; a Christian Scientist reads his, and finds we have no arms and legs. St. Clare was an old Anglo-Indian Protestant soldier. Now, just think what that might mean; and, for Heaven's sake, don't cant about it. It might mean a man physically formidable living under a tropic sun in an Oriental society, and soaking himself without sense or guidance in an Oriental Book. Of course, he read the Old Testament rather than the New. Of course, he found in the Old Testament anything that he wanted -- lust, tyranny, treason. Oh, I dare say he was honest, as you call it. But what is the good of a man being honest in his worship of dishonesty?
'In each of the hot and secret countries to which the man went he kept a harem, he tortured witnesses, he amassed shameful gold; but certainly he would have said with steady eyes that he did it to the glory of the Lord. My own theology is sufficiently expressed by asking which Lord?"
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I love that story and that passage -- some of the best of Father Brown.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
riotgrrrl
Apprentice
# 18437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's a parallel expanded passage which goes into the details I mentioned. I'll have to dig it up later, I'm late for an appointment!
Please do, I'd be really keen to read that- and thank you for your highly interesting explanation.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, I found the following, and it's likely I was conflating the two passages in my memory:
quote:
Exodus 22:16-17
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
The difference here of course is that we're talking seduction, not rape--and yet I wonder if the two wouldn't have been conflated in practice just as I apparently did in memory. It's not that easy to draw a line between seduction and rape when the only two people who were there have vested interests in telling the story (and may tell it differently from one another, too).
Going strictly by the letter of the written passages we've looked at, in both cases the man is liable for the damage done to the girl's future. A rapist must make reparations through marriage--he gets no choice in the matter; it looks like a seducer is in the same boat, though it's more implied than stated.
Nothing is said in either passage about compelling the girl or her family; both passages are all about male responsibility to make reparations. In one case (seduction) the law deals explicitly with the question of "What if the girl's family doesn't WANT the marriage?" and concludes that financial damages must be paid. In the other case (rape) this question doesn't come up at all, and we'll have to decide it based on our own understanding of the Law as a whole.
Because the two passages are so very similar, and because of the trouble proving rape vs. seduction in the situation outlined, I incline very strongly to think that the same exception was granted. I also incline to it because otherwise every girl in love with a ne'er-do-well would claim rape to force Dad's approval to their marriage--and every asshole intent on marrying into a rich and powerful family would be able to do it legally by simply raping a daughter. The whole tenor of the Law is to prevent these kinds of abuses. Therefore I think the unwilling father clause applied to cases of rape as well.
The clause about "he can never divorce her" is also unique, in this case to the rape scenario. Its intent is clearly to protect the woman. The seduction scenario says nothing either way, and again, we must decide that one based on our overall understanding of the Law.
I rather suspect that divorce WAS a possibility in cases of generally-admitted seduction, for two reasons. First of all, such a divorce wasn't likely to happen immediately after the wedding, as the couple is obviously already, er, inclined to be together. So she's not at risk of being dumped and abandoned immediately the wedding is celebrated. And second, because the Law does treat women as moral, thinking, responsible human beings, and in the case of seduction, she bears some responsibility. So the extra safeguard given to a rapist's victim probably does not apply to her, and she must take her chances with the general population of married men and women.
I hope that all makes some sense.
[ 10. July 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Thank you, Lamb Chopped. I was looking through Leviticus and Numbers for the parallel section. It didn't occur to me that it would be as far back as Exodus.
I agree that the rape situation should have allowed for the victim's father to decline the marriage, pretty much for the same reasons you gave. It may well have been an understood part of the law that the forced marriage portion could be waived by the party that was intended to benefit from it. That sort of inherently understood meaning wouldn't be completely unheard of in the law. To give a modern example, technically the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel AND unusual" punishment...but that is not interpreted as meaning that cruel punishment is okay just as long as it isn't unusual. The understood meaning of phrases is not necessarily the literal meaning of phrases.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Right. One difficulty that sometimes crops up is that we (for values of many modern nations, notably our shared country, the US!) have a hermeneutic we use to understand laws which is basically "If you didn't spell it out in detail using precise language and even correct freaking punctuation, we will drive a truck through the resulting loopholes singing "NYAH nyah nyah NYAH!"
While the more usual hermeneutic (used of ordinary speech and also of the Bible) is "Duh, you idiot, you should know me better than to take one isolated statement and say I meant X when everything else I've ever done and said is not-X."
And sometimes people will take the modern legal hermeneutic and apply it to Scripture, with disastrous results... ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
[ 10. July 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jesus's confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman who had a sick daughter. She asks him to heal her. He says, "Should dogs get fed before the children of the house?"
As a general comment with all these, you have to be careful about reading 21st Century sensitivities into a 1st century culture.
From memory, the word that Jesus uses for 'dog' is not a harsh 'stray dog', but rather a softer 'domesticated dog'. Hence the woman's comeback that the dog gets to eat the scraps!
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's also the fact that written text doesn't always convey certain emotions well, such as humor or teasing. We can only go by the woman's reaction, since she was there--and she does not show disgust, anger, or anything else you'd expect in response to a real racist slur. Similarly, Jesus himself does not "double down" on the apparent racism once she responds, though that's the usual behavior of someone who meant to be nasty.
I'm not trying to explain it away. But the reaction of the alleged "target" must be taken into account, as well as the general character and subsequent behavior of the alleged racist.
A modern example would be a kid from my church who yells out to another kid, "Yo, nigga, whatcha doin'?" You'd have to see the second kid's response to know whether the first one deserves a sharp reprimand or not. (and no, at my church you can't tell just by looking at kid no. 1's skin color, things are more complex than that.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
**bump**
(because you never know when this thread will come in handy)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Like when I want to come back with "Yo, Lamb chopped!" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
sooooooo many stinkers, what do folks think of Jeremy 19: And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend.
Jeremiah 19: 1-9
[Added Bible reference for context. Mamacita, Host]
[ 12. January 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
or possibly psalm 58, with its not so subtle hints to abortion
Break the teeth in their mouths, O God;
Lord, tear out the fangs of those lions!
Let them vanish like water that flows away;
when they draw the bow, let their arrows fall short.
May they be like a slug that melts away as it moves along,
like a stillborn child that never sees the sun.
Psalm 58
[Added Bible reference for context. Mamacita, Host]
[ 12. January 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
I think the Psalm is referring to miscarriage (the NRSV translates it as "untimely birth") or stillbirth, both of which would have been common in that time and place. The context of the psalm is a prayer for vengeance. The Psalmist is using a miscarried fetus as one of several analogies for God bringing judgment by causing weakness and death.
ETA: Still a nasty business, though, those cursing psalms.
[ 12. January 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Hedgehog quote:
To give a modern example, technically the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel AND unusual" punishment...but that is not interpreted as meaning that cruel punishment is okay just as long as it isn't unusual.
...........Unless one is referring to capital punishment?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just a thought - there is good precedent for leaving out verses that 'stink' - se tomorrow's gospel where Jesus nearly gets lynched for quoting Isaiah selectively. He leaves out vengeance.
I think that episode does work as an example of this thread, but not quite in the way leo suggests. Jesus doesn't get nearly lynched for anything particularly to do with the Isaiah passage he quotes, or even his claiming to have fulfilled it - in fact, Luke says they "spoke well" of him at that point.
Where that passage is an example of "This is in the Bible - but it stinks!" by the crowd is when Jesus goes on to point to the stories of Elijah and Elisha as examples of when Isaiah's words are fulfilled among the Gentiles and not Israel and heavily implies that it might happen again with him. That's when they take offence and try to kill him...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just a thought - there is good precedent for leaving out verses that 'stink' - se tomorrow's gospel where Jesus nearly gets lynched for quoting Isaiah selectively. He leaves out vengeance.
I think that episode does work as an example of this thread, but not quite in the way leo suggests. Jesus doesn't get nearly lynched for anything particularly to do with the Isaiah passage he quotes, or even his claiming to have fulfilled it - in fact, Luke says they "spoke well" of him at that point.
Where that passage is an example of "This is in the Bible - but it stinks!" by the crowd is when Jesus goes on to point to the stories of Elijah and Elisha as examples of when Isaiah's words are fulfilled among the Gentiles and not Israel and heavily implies that it might happen again with him. That's when they take offence and try to kill him...
Yes - because be left out the vengeance expected to be visited on the gentiles and turned if on the Jews - see especially the targum quoted here which explains where i'm coming from about selectively quoting the Bible being a good thing.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
In Hell, I commented that Exodus 21 is fucked up.
LambChopped did not care to explain there why it was not and suggested moving the discussion here.
Not sure how quoting the bible works here, if certain interpretations have copyright, so I am beginning this with a discussion of Exodus 21 with a link to reference.
It begins by discussing the terms of Hebrew(Israelite) indentured servitude. A problem right off,it fails to include the rest of the cultures in the world, therefore seem to be cool with slavery for everyone else. (not to mention the children of Ham rubbish)
It goes on to say that the male, upon the end of his seven year sentence/contract, wishes to stay with his wife and child, he must remain a slave forever
Tell me how this is not fucked up?
Also, please explain Leviticus 25:44
[Edited to include link. Mamacita, Host]
[ 28. February 2016, 02:35: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What the fuck? I told you the truth. I did not think the Hell thread, on a totally different topic, was the right place to explain what is going on in the passage about what to do with slaves who voluntarily choose to stay with their masters and families, as slaves, forever. The reason why (besides annoying the fuck out of the hosts) will become apparent below. At no time did I undertake to justify slavery, or even to treat it beyond that particular passage.
I will do what I promised to do, then. If you want more, you can ask me when the bronchitis clears up.
The passage in question is Exodus 21, these verses:
quote:
"2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."
And the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 15:
quote:
12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do."
Let’s start with the situation envisioned in the passages. A fellow Hebrew has been sold into slavery to another Hebrew. By the law of Moses he must be regarded as a brother, and cannot under any circumstances (bar this one) remain a slave for more than seven years at maximum. He may be released early for any number of reasons; but if he serves out the full term, he is to be set free unconditionally with whoever he brought with him (wife, children) and with a start-up living stake besides. He is not to be turned loose to starve, thieve, or sell himself again. And all of this is based explicitly on the fact that the whole race of Hebrews had been slaves in Egypt, and are not to treat each other as chattel.
Note that this is in no way a discussion of the moral value or otherwise of slavery. It simply assumes the basic conditions of ancient societies pretty much everywhere—that some unfortunate people did wind up in slavery, usually as a result of debt or warfare. You may say that nothing short of complete abolitionism in the text would do, and that anything else is unacceptable. If you say so, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I look at it, however, and think, “This is yet another case of God knowing exactly how shitty we are to one another, and attempting to do damage control rather than shooting for the moon and getting nothing at all.” Similar examples of damage limitation include the strictures put on divorce, on vengeance killing, and on the mistreatment of women, sexual and otherwise.
Notice also that this passage is dealing with what would seem to me the highly unusual circumstance where a man (or woman), having been a slave, is given his (her) freedom and decides not to take it. Laws are normally made for events that happen, not impossible hypotheticals. I therefore conclude that some ancient slaves did in fact wish to continue in their current enslaved situation. And this could be because of friendship, love of other slaves not yet free, or economic benefit.
A ritual is provided, therefore, that will make this possible but highly unusual situation both public and recognized. The slave gets “taken to God” (which I take to mean either to the tabernacle/temple, or else simply placed in the presence of a priestly authority, so as to solemnize the thing properly) and gets his ear pierced with an awl with the wooden door serving as a, er, back support. (Ew! Ewwwwwww! Okay, reaction over)
Yes, this is freaky. But it is also not too terribly painful if they’re using the earlobe (yes, I’ve had my ears pierced without anesthetic) and it is voluntarily chosen. And it is really pretty minimal in a society where every male was circumcised (shudder). More to the point, it creates a permanent, visible reminder of the agreement, which prevents others in the future from blaming the owner for seemingly breaking the command about seven-year-only slaves. It might also cause the would-be permanent slave to take the decision a bit more seriously.
All of this would be mere historical curiosity if it were not for the modern application of it, which is the real reason I wanted to get the discussion the hell out of Hell. Because Hell is not the place for ooshy gooshy religious feels—and yet for a great many Christians, that is precisely what this OT passage points to with relationship to Christ. There is only one person I can imagine loving to the point I would gladly be his slave forever, would proudly bear his scars on my body (as Paul boasts more than once). And that is Jesus Christ. Mock me if you like. I’m not the only one (as bad Christian music will testify).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
This is yet another case of God knowing exactly how shitty we are to one another, and attempting to do damage control rather than shooting for the moon and getting nothing at all.
God has not one iota of an issue laying down the law, telling people to do things against their desire in other places in the bible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Verses 4 and 5 of the Exodus passage LC quoted give a particularly twisted, manipulative, and probably economic reason for the practice, IMHO.
In certain circumstances, a male slave would face the horrible, evil choice of leaving his family behind to get freedom for himself, or staying with them and becoming a slave for life.
Personally, I think any owner that invoked that clause should've have had *his* ear pierced that way, so that anyone who saw him would think he was a lifelong slave, and treat him accordingly. And if his piercing closed up, they'd think he was a runaway slave, trying to hide.
But then, that's me, in this time and place.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A problem right off,it fails to include the rest of the cultures in the world, therefore seem to be cool with slavery for everyone else. (not to mention the children of Ham rubbish
Exodus is a book written for the Israelites about the Israelites. The passage you cited, like much of the Torah, was setting down laws governing this particular people. I wouldn't say that its omission of other cultures of the world was a matter of being cool (or not being cool) with anyone else practicing slavery. It was writing laws for Israel, not the rest of the world.
This is not to disregard the great, terrible, mischief that humans, in the centuries since Exodus was written, have justified based on such texts. But that's a different matter.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
This is yet another case of God knowing exactly how shitty we are to one another, and attempting to do damage control rather than shooting for the moon and getting nothing at all.
God has not one iota of an issue laying down the law, telling people to do things against their desire in other places in the bible.
Have you ever raised a child?
If so, you know that you don't start off by saying to the child, "I want a five paragraph essay out of you by Friday." Unless you want the kid to fail, of course.
No, you start out with "This is the letter A, see how it looks? It sounds like this..." and so on. It's no use trying to teach rhetoric when the kid hasn't mastered reading yet. (Written rhetoric, you pedants snickering, sheesh. You know what I mean)
You need to consider the historical setting. When God was shaping ancient Israel, he was doing very much the moral ABCs--"line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" as Isaiah put it. Israel was living in a world full of things like child sacrifice, temple prostitution, and endless revenge feuds. Getting them to put a lid on that shit was a huge step forward, never mind taking on evils we ourselves didn't cope with until the eighteenth/nineteenth century.
(I suppose this should give us pause as well--what are we doing that our descendants will condemn as obvious atrocity?)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A problem right off,it fails to include the rest of the cultures in the world, therefore seem to be cool with slavery for everyone else. (not to mention the children of Ham rubbish
Exodus is a book written for the Israelites about the Israelites. The passage you cited, like much of the Torah, was setting down laws governing this particular people. I wouldn't say that its omission of other cultures of the world was a matter of being cool (or not being cool) with anyone else practicing slavery. It was writing laws for Israel, not the rest of the world.
This is not to disregard the great, terrible, mischief that humans, in the centuries since Exodus was written, have justified based on such texts. But that's a different matter.
This, pretty much. Also, it is my understanding that scholars pretty much agree that the Levitical laws were not all typed up by Moses on one night, but are a result of perhaps centuries of the kind of case/ precedent procedure that tends to produce common law.
To modern eyes, Levitical slave laws are a parody of fairness, but at the time, the idea of making actual laws that set limitations on the liberties people could take with slaves was pretty progressive. Pre-Revolutionary American courts actually had to make new laws that overrode Levitical slave laws to turn slavery into the horrible, inhuman institution it became. (A couple New England slaves actually sued for freedom from abusive masters, way, way back in the day. The slave owner lobby put a stop to that.)
It is one of the things that makes the Bible a fascinating document to me-- it covers the evolution of the cultural assumptions of a group of people from oral history to written history to theological development to philosophical development.
To me it shows a progress toward-- dare I say it-- a more and more humanistic approach to building a society. But to expect the path along the way to match up with specific current ideas of justice and individual rights is unrealistic.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
--Long ago, I took a class from a rabbi. He said that the Penteteuch is Torah, the rest of the Hebrew scriptures are Torah, that "everything is Torah". I guess that view is probably from the Orthodox /Hassidic /Kabbalistic part of the Jewish spectrum. Mystical. I liked the idea of everything being Torah.
--In my childhood church, the Bible was basically the Word about the WORD. I've sometimes thought of it as an user's/owner's manual. My current view is along the lines of "It's one culture's struggles with and towards God; some or all of it may be inspired by God, in some sense; and it's where I can go to think about and work out that stuff".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
As Kelly points out, a good starting point is always to get a grip on the original context (not just linguistic, but all the way up through social expectations to world-view) before drawing conclusions and applications. One light consideration is given here by Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House in Cambridge (UK version).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ok, I don't agree with you lot about the training wheel approach.
The peoples of the bible had been transmitting these stories for millennia before they were written, plenty of time for updating, just as you would in any teachings of a child.
in teaching a child, you do not correct them and say, 'Hit your sister with less force, but strike the neighbour child however you wish'. You say do not hit. And you introduce the reasoning as they become more capable of understanding. In other words; simple, strong prohibitions first.
Again, starting form the very first, God has no problem with draconian edicts, why does he get so chary of them here?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, IME children are subject to strict rules that get more relaxed as they develop their own judgement, but then I am not arguing that Levitical law was handed down by God of a piece, like Muslims say the Koran was. Or like orthodox Jews and inerrantists say the Bible was. I don't think Leviticus is in fallible, but I do think it is literal-- a literal transcription of exactly the laws the Israelites had at the time they were compiled. That is what history writers do, legal history or otherwise--they don't evaluate the material compiled.
I agree that the "this is what God wanted those specific people to do at that time." Is a hard argument to support, but I will take what I do believe about literalism to Dead Horses.( Gosh, this topic is versatile!)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
This is probably another instance where an English word used in translation fails to do justice to the original concept. Like the English words "love" and "soul", perhaps "slave" should be removed from bibles and another term introduced. Something that better represents the semantic domain covered by the Hebrew term in its context. "Slave" smuggles too many more modern presuppositions into the frame.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In other words; simple, strong prohibitions first.
Again, starting form the very first, God has no problem with draconian edicts, why does he get so chary of them here?
Of course if the rules are not from God but from the wisest, most charitable contemporary heads, and if over the centuries the heads got increasingly wiser and more charitable....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This is probably another instance where an English word used in translation fails to do justice to the original concept. Like the English words "love" and "soul", perhaps "slave" should be removed from bibles and another term introduced. Something that better represents the semantic domain covered by the Hebrew term in its context. "Slave" smuggles too many more modern presuppositions into the frame.
It ain't only the word, but the description which equals slave.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
But in what sense does the description in Ex. 21 overlap with the concept of 'slave' in English?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
But in what sense does the description in Ex. 21 overlap with the concept of 'slave' in English?
Ownership and perpetual servitude. Exodus 21 lays out the conditions of Hebrew servitude, but it does not contradict the passages which say taking slaves is fine.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We'd have to take each passage on its own merits, I know, but as far as this particular passage (Ex. 21:2-11) goes, I can't see how it comes near to falling into the 'stink' category. If anything, it lifts it out of the stink associated with slavery.
The circumstances that gave rise the related set of judicial rulings in this passage appear to run like this:
In a situation where a man has fallen into debt without any reasonable means of being able to repay on his own account, he is entitled to seek protection – in a covenant relationship – in the house (the economy) of a benefactor from the same community who will pay the debt. The man then has guaranteed work and subsistence in this new relationship, a 'father-son' covenantal relationship that sets up expectations on both sides, and where the weight of the debt has been taken off his shoulders. He has security.
The court making the first ruling looked to the foundational legal principles for guidance (we call them the 10 commandments, listed a chapter earlier) and saw the application of the Sabbath principle here. Accordingly the court ruled that such fellow community members – fellow citizens of the same faith and social community – should not remain in that relationship for more than six years. The seventh is the year of the start of rest and restoration, where the man must be allowed to return to his responsibilities under God, even if by that stage the debt equivalent had not been worked off. He is free from debt and owes nothing to anybody. A man could work for fewer than six years, but not more.
At some point after that courts were asked to rule on a series of subsequent issues:
[1] Question: In a case where a man enters the protective system with his wife, what happens at the end of the protective period?
Answer: He leaves with his wife if he had one. The 'Father' has no right to retain anyone after the conclusion of the six year (or less) period.
[2] Question: In a case where a man agreed to receive the gift of a wife and there are children of the marriage born during the relevant period, who is responsible for whom at the end of that period?
Answer: Starting principle is that if children are born, then they stay with the mother who remains under the protection of the 'Father'.
[3] Question: In a case where children are born during the relevant period, but where the man is pleading to remain with his wife and children, he must formally swear to the court that he will be the loyal one for his family and also declare loyalty to his 'Father'. This declaration will be ratified in the accepted way by ear piercing and this relationship will be lasting, i.e. it supersedes the time-bound Sabbath principle.
And so on; related cases are considered as they arise. The mandate the courts had to apply was the covenant relationship and how to make it work in situations where something had gone wrong, in this case where a member of the community had fallen into hard times and had no protection. This is not really on a par with more modern concepts of slavery, where someone is taken forcefully and against his or her will out of their community and forced to work without reprieve for the duration of their rather brutalised lives.
In these circumstances it might be worth trying to translate the passage differently, avoiding the snare words. For example:
quote:
If you acquire [the verb is not limited to the English word 'buy'] a Hebrew [a subject from the community] worker [the noun covers range of meaning associated with service], he is to work for [be subject to] you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything [i.e. he is a debt subject, not something else – e.g., war booty].
If he came in [became one of the 'Father's House, protected by the one in charge] by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him.
If his 'Father' gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her 'Father', and he will go out by himself.
But if the subject should declare, ‘I wish to continue owing loyalty and allegiance to my 'Father', my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his 'Father' must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his 'Father' will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall work for him forever.
If a man sells his daughter as a female worker, she will not go out as the male workers do. If she does not please her new 'Father', who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. If he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her according to the customary rights of daughters. If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ok, first you have an incorrect view of what slavery is. It is not only the most brutal treatment, it is indefinite servitude.
Second, Exodus 21 is carving out an exemption for the treatment of male Hebrews, not describing anything different to slavery.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, first you have an incorrect view of what slavery is.
It's not a question of an incorrect view of slavery. It's a matter of trying to understand what the text says about the system of slavery as practiced by the Israelites and how it was governed and regulated. That is not to excuse it or pretty it up or paint over it, and certainly not to use it as sanction for continuing such practices.
People upthread are simply trying to explain that slavery in ancient Israel was not the same thing as the system of chattel slavery known in the West in the last 400 years.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
A link to a Wikipedia article is a refutation?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It shows that the treatment and conditions endured by slaves didn't really change. The economic scale is the major difference between ancient world slavery and new world slavery.
Not a hell of a moral highground, IMO.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The issue about whether the bible supports slavery could do with a thread all to itself here in Kerygmania. It would be a worthwhile investigation as it clearly still has resonances in the popular imagination. Here the issue has only really been about the single passage in Exodus 21.
For what it's worth, I'd start off with a good wholesome thesis: Nowhere does the Bible support slavery.
That would then need to be explained along these lines:
[1] The biblical authors have to be understood on their own terms and in the terms they used to express their worldview, mindsets, and resulting cultures. Authorial intention is king (or at least is better than the alternatives)
[2] Importing concepts from other worldviews, mindsets, and resulting cultures, into the biblical texts risks anachronism, which is illegitimate. Concepts from one culture do not automatically overlap with concepts from another. I cannot assume that just because I think about something in one way, that therefore someone from another time and place thought about that something in exactly the same way.
[3] Following from that, and because concepts are communicated so commonly by words, it follows that words used in a translation process have to be chosen on the basis of their 'fit' with the concepts denoted and connoted by words used in the original language. It is rare to find words with a complete fit.
[4] The English word 'slave' carries connotations (and even denotations) that do not map effectively with their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek counterparts in the Bible. As shown by the issue on this thread and by websites that prove the point, the word 'slave' is proving to be hopeless, in that it has failed to do justice to the concepts behind the biblical words. Rather than promoting study of the bible, it has facilitated a 'reading in' that has distorted the author's original meaning. There is no hope that it can prevent this
[5] Accordingly, it is not appropriate to use the term 'slave' in translation of biblical texts unless it can be shown that the concepts associated with the term 'slave' map sufficiently to their equivalents in the Bible. In lieu of that, and in the absence of a related term that might suffice, I suggest that the biblical authors were communicating a concept that is better translated by the English term 'work' (or cognate terms to that).
Hang on... I'll start a new thread...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agnostic Believer
Apprentice
# 18566
|
Posted
Too many pages to this thread for this ‘newbie’ to attempt even a ‘speed read’ to see if anyone has hit on my stinkiest stinker, which is Genesis 19:1-8.
But what is important, to me, is the lesson that the entire succession of ‘stinkers’ ought to teach us.
And that is that none of the writings of anyone from Moses through to current Religious leaders were/are ‘inspired’ to a degree whereby they were/are exempt from the influence of their culture, cosmic knowledge, or academic capability.
From the most primitive, barbaric, and penal, through to the most civilised, all spoke/wrote accordingly, as distinct from doing so under God’s ‘Robotic Pen’ control.
Even today we still have those whose penal and judgemental personalities would have God resurrecting the majority of mankind for the purpose of subjecting them to an ‘eternal life’ of hellfire torment.
After all is said and done, it is but a mere 400 years since (in Britain) we hunted witches (always female), strapped weights to them, and cast them into deep water…..those that surfaced proving that they were witches and were then burned at the stake, whereas those that stayed submerged were granted posthumous pardons.
--------------------
Saying what I think I might know, helps me to know what I ought to think.
Posts: 22 | From: Holt, Norfolk, UK | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
