On Thom Stark

With the arrogance borne of ignorant certainty informed only by emotionalism, Thom Stark recently
issued a rather extended critique of Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? which we will hereafter be
addressing in a series of E-Block articles, with Copan’s permission and blessing. We’ll strive to make this
as efficient as possible, ignoring Stark’s many designations of Copan or other apologists as dishonest,
deceitful, etc. and getting right down to fact claims. We’ll also note in advance (as I have in a prior Ticker
review) that I do not agree with all of Copan’s arguments or solutions, and so will not find it needful to
defend his arguments at certain points.

Stark’s largest failure – which was a lack in Copan’s, though not devastating to his arguments – is a
continuing enslavement to anachronism, particularly in an anthropological sense. His reply to Copan
shows no awareness that the values and concerns of an agonistic society differ widely at points from
those of a modern American, especially with respect to some matters critical to the issues at hand. It
would never occur to Stark, for example, that persons in an honor-based society might prefer death in
battle – for themselves and their children – to the insufferable ignominy of defeat at the hands of a
greater power. No doubt it would shock his sensibilities, and have him yelling about barbarity from the
top of his lungs, at the very suggestion that someone might place honor above life. However, as we will
see, this very failure to recognize alternative hierarchies in values crops up again and again in his
response.

We will also note to begin that Stark does not address some parts of Copan’s book, legitimately, for they
do not concern him (such as Copan’s evaluations of the New Atheists). We’ll take up our response past
all the initial bluster and summary judgments, and to where the actual “meat” begins, which is with…

The Jealousy of God

We’ll begin with a review of our own assessment of this topic, which I offered as an analysis of Exod.
20:5, in which God is said to be jealous:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word for "jealousy" in this form is used less than half a dozen times in the OT, and always is used to
describe God. Nowhere is this word described as a sin. A related word is used to describe a husband
who worries that his wife is walking out on him (Numbers 5). Sarna (Exodus commentary, 110) notes
that the root of the word means "to become intensely red" and that it can refer to ardor, zeal, rage, or
jealousy. Paul knows of a godly jealousy (2 Cor. 11:2), so is this a sin as we understand it? Jealousy is part
of God's nature because it is demanded by who He is -- He is the only being who can indeed say He has a
right to be jealous, since He is the only one who truly deserves utter respect and devotion. Malina in The
New Testament World [126-7] adds that in the context of an honor-based world, jealousy was "a form of
protectiveness that would ward off the envious and their machinations." It is a behavior that an
honorable person is expected to "exhibit towards that which he or she is perceived to possess exclusive
access." Thus for God to be jealous here is not a vice in context, but a supreme virtue and
demonstration of His concern for Israel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copan’s own analysis, though lacking the social-science aspect observed by Malina, is more or less of the
same sentiment, but with a few nuances I would not have used. For my part, I also do not accept
Copan’s argument about YHWH’s jealousy involving vulnerability, as such a concept would not cohere
with ancient personality models (a point Stark does not know about, either, even as he objects to
Copan’s arguments). However, let’s respond to Stark’s assessment as it might affect our own views.

Unfortunately, Stark’s response is peppered with rather distracting side observations of no relevance to
the issue of God’s jealousy. For example, in observing OT professions that God was “slow to anger,”
Stark sidetracks into a single sentence commentary on the alleged failure of Jesus’ eschatology. The
reason for this is not obvious, though one suspects it was so that Stark would have an excuse to insert a
footnote referring readers to his prior book (which we have replied to as well).

It takes some disciplined reading to find actual counter-points between the rambling, which also
includes a good deal of New Atheist-style “argument by outrage” in which acts of God in the OT are
deemed cruel, unloving, etc without any actual argument, as well as summary positions on things such
as e.g, the alleged source of Ex. 32 being controversies in Jeroboam’s age. Indeed, the bulk of the
response amounts to Stark railing away like a New Atheist about how horrible YHWH was, not once
engaging in any substantive analysis to show that any of YHWH’s acts were actually unjust.

In the end, Stark’s only direct comment on YHWH’s jealousy amounts to pointing out that other ancient
gods were jealous too. True, but – so what? Based on the above definition, that’s exactly what any
competent, qualified leader would be expected to be, whether divine or human. Stark doesn’t dispute
that YHWH is jealous, he just rants incessantly about the reputedly unjust ways in which YHWH
expresses that jealousy. The response amounts to one long and irrelevant argument by outrage.

So that’s how the main point is dealt with. I’ll conclude with a comment on one side issue where an
actual argument is found, though one that also reveals Stark’s poor education on the subject matter.

•Stark asserts that Korah was wrongly judged for making a “good point” that all of Israel was holy, as an
objection to the hierarchical priesthood. However, this is yet another example of Stark’s anthropological
naivete.

To begin, all of Israel being holy did not mean all of Israel was thereby qualified to be elevated to the
priesthood, or to challenge it. Indeed, Stark notably fails to quote the verse, which says:

They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone far enough, for all
the congregation are holy, every one of them, and)the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt
yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"

Korah’s question is far from an honest one making a “good point”, as Stark claims. For one thing, Moses
and Aaron were in their positions because YHWH Himself had assigned it to them – Moses as broker of
the covenant, Aaron as broker of the priesthood. There is no reason to think that Moses and Aaron
“exalted” themselves unfairly; indeed, since they had been given charge of representing God before
Pharaoh, they were uniquely and solely qualified to be brokers above the assembly. Korah notably does
not assert any specific qualifications on his part, and in fact, his question is nothing less than a challenge
to the honor and position of Moses and Aaron. Korah was a Levite, so the challenge amounts to him
indicating his own desire to occupy one of their positions.

Second, hierarchical structures are functional mechanisms of survival in a collectivist society. Korah’s
objection (actually, as noted, a brazen and open challenge from someone without any stated
qualifications, and no reason to think he had any, either) is little more than a contrived excuse in power-
seeking for his own benefit. It is, thus, an act of treason, and Stark is entirely disingenuous to present it
as though Korah were some early advocate of democracy who was just wanting diversity in government.

The Incremental Approach

Initially, I would explain this subject by way of an analogy I have frequently used to the differing
approaches of two figures: Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. Both of these men had roughly the same
aims, but entirely different methods: King sought to undermine negative values through peaceful and
subtle reform, while X took a much more hardened approach of demanding immediate and radical
change, sometimes by violence if necessary.

The fact that only one of these two men has a holiday named after him is illustrative of which method is
generally regarded as morally superior and more effective. As applied to our current topic, the argument
would be that many of the Biblical laws and regulations were intended to gradually reform Israel in the
way King proposed to reform society in his time. Skeptics frequently suppose that a “Malcolm X”
approach should have been used, under the presumption that there is something morally and practically
preferable about instant demands for reform. (Yet these same Skeptics often complain when they think
God had not given people enough time to repent.)

In terms of Copan and Stark, what does this issue bring to the fore? Stark first tries an end around by
declaring that this can’t be true, that the law was incremental, because the OT says that the law was
eternal. He points to Is. 24:5, Ex. 31:16, and Deut. 29:29.

However, this is an error we have seen before from other quarters, but from a different direction. The
word used in all three is ‘olam, and as we have said of that word:

The assertion is misleading: olam is used not of things that "will" end, but things that did end, but were
meant not to. Specifically, it is used to refer to ordinances in the Jewish law which were to be kept by
the Israelites.

The word olam is also used to describe the tenure of a slave, indicating that his service will last for the
entirety of his life. One might argue that this indicates a time that ends, but the parallel usage of olam
with the phrase "as long as he lives" in 1 Sam. 1:22-28 indicates that what lies behind olam in these
cases is something of a figurative sense of "forever" that stresses the permanence of the person's
condition.

Barr, as well, in Biblical Words for Time, the premier study on this subject, regards olam as meaning
essentially "in perpetuity" -- i.e., forever.
In other words, though able to be defined in practical terms as “forever,” this word does not mean that
some change cannot be made which ends the tenure of the event early. Thus there is also nothing that
forbids future refining of the law as conditions change. Indeed, it would be rather idiotic to suggest (as
Stark’s argument requires) that laws tied to specific cultural matters are meant to be applied forever
without emendation. So, for example, using Stark’s absurd logic, the law requiring rails around roofs
(Deut. 22:8), which was tied to the fact that people in Israel’s culture used a roof as a sort of second
room, would have to continue to be observed even as Israel’s house design excluded use of the roof as a
living space. Indeed it might even be taken to argue that Israel could design no house that did not use a
roof as a living space, for otherwise, this law could not be kept! Stark’s approach to the law here is
remarkably fundamentalist.

Other than that, Stark’s only jab at this matter is to appeal to Psalm 19:7’s praise of the law as “perfect”.
This is absurd as an appeal for a number of reasons. The first of course is that it is part of a psalm – an
item of poetry – and so Stark’s exegesis amounts to the sort that would be used only by the most
literalist fundamentalist. Second, while the word used can mean “perfect” it can also mean things like
“without blemish”. Finally, we may add that Ps. 19:7 does not say, “perfect for all times, circumstances,
and cultures” – concepts that Stark is implicitly adding to the text. If it were otherwise, we have the
absurd conclusion that the law could be rendered “imperfect” by (for example) stopping all construction
of houses that use a roof as a living space, thus making Deut. 22:8 a useless piece of legislation.

Jeremiah 31

In this, Copan rightly notes that Jer. 31:31-4 promises a new covenant. Stark objects that it does not say
that there is a new covenant to be offered because the old one was lacking, but this is merely a case of
literalist semantics: The very offer of a new covenant implies an alternative, and the very offer of an
alternative implies some reason to prefer the newer option. It is true, of course, as Stark notes, that
Jeremiah indicates that the new covenant was offered because of inability by Israel to keep the old one.
But this misses the point of the “incremental” argument: Certainly King did not think his acts of passive
resistance would cause all bigots to reform into fair-minded people. Nor did he expect Congress to wait
to pass civil rights laws until all those bigots were reformed, or support those laws because he supposed
his passive resistance tactics were a failure. The nature of subtle, undermining reform is such that
“failure” is expected and seen as part of the process of reform.

Stark makes much of Copan seeing Jer 31:31-4 as a literal prediction of the covenant. I am not as
particular about this, though I would suggest (again) that Stark’s objections to the equation are rooted
more in a fundamentalist reading of the text than any substantial objection. In Stark’s black and white
worldview, it could not now be in fulfillment because Jeremiah says men will not teach one another, yet
we still have teachers in the church. It does not occur to him that Paul’s own use of the passage, as one
who himself teaches and appointed teachers, might indicate that the broad and dramatic language of a
different culture might not be meant to be taken as a literal statement that there will be no teaching
whatsoever in the new covenant community. At the same time, the subject of the teaching is rather
narrow: “Know Yahweh.” Stark takes this to refer broadly to teaching of a great many subject matters,
but contextually, this is little reason to stretch it beyond the simple premise that it is knowing Yahweh
that will not be taught or said. (The word used, yada, is one of the broadest of meaning in the OT, and is
even used as a euphemism for sexual relations!) To Jeremiah’s contemporaries, this would be taken to
mean entering into a covenant, as is clear from the fuller context:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I
will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Here the end result of “knowing” YHWH is not a forever pass from being taught in an educational
setting, but forgiveness of iniquity. And it would be then argued that this is because God’s covenant
community is indwelt by God’s Spirit – hence, the law of God is now written on their hearts. Stark’s
expansion of the prophecy into didactic settings is simply the result of imaginative fundamentalist
thought.

That is one alternative. The other is that, at the very worst, what this predicts rather is the end results of
that covenant, as envisioned in what, as a preterist, I would place in the time after the general
resurrection; and in that respect, Paul’s allusion to Jeremiah is not, as Stark supposes, an indication that
Paul thought Jeremiah’s prophecy was already fulfilled, but rather a case of Paul applying the text in a
thematic and creative way to describe events current to him – thereby using Scripture in an allusive way
that would accrue honor, and was perfectly acceptable to contemporary readers and writers.

In the end, the most clear indication that the law was a tool for reform (though I do not say, exclusively
that) is where Paul compares the law to a pedagogue. Further talk over whether this means it was
“perfect” or not is ultimately beside the point, lacking in consideration of the question, “Perfect for or as
what, exactly?” Stark’s retorts begs the question that the answer is, “perfect as a way to make humans
good”. But there’s nothing offered at all to suggest that this answer was ever intended. Nor does Paul
need to say, as Stark implies, that the law was “inferior” for the incremental argument does not need to
make such an argument; it would still remain that the law, as is, would have to be regarded as “inferior”
in some contexts (e.g., it would have been inferior if given to a society which lived in the Amazon
jungle), and again, the very fact of a new covenant implies a moving on and a change which the older
covenant was inappropriate for.

A few points follow where Stark is reliant upon an assumption of prophetic failure by Jesus. As a
preterist, these arguments leave me unscathed and I am able to aver that “all was fulfilled” in 70 AD,
and that at that time, the old covenant was officially broken and ended. Along the way, Stark also
misappropriates Matt. 5:18 in a fundamentalist fashion, failing to recognize that when Jesus says, “when
heaven and earth pass away,” this is equivalent to the modern expression, “when pigs fly.” Of course,
we addressed Stark’s rather minor attempts on preterism in our reply to his earlier book.

I am uncertain where Stark gets the idea that Paul thought the law was “no longer applicable.” On the
contrary, one of his warnings to the Galatians considering circumcision was that they would have to
follow the whole law – he didn’t answer that the law was no longer applicable, and obviously conceived
of the possibility of people still signing up for the old covenant. The social reality is that the only hard
and fast sign of the covenant ending would be the destruction of the Temple – the very nexus of the
covenant cultic apparatus. (In all of this, Stark is also lacking in explaining in what we he thinks within
law still applies to the Christian – per our discussion in the link below. Instead, he later opts for a black
and white idea that they must either all be applicable, or none are – and in so doing, shows no
knowledge of such concepts as ritual purity which stood behind the laws.)

Next, Stark takes on Copan’s argument that certain of Israel’s laws were more progressive than those of
surrounding nations. This particular horse is one I have no stake in riding; it matters little to me if they
were any more progressive or not. Perhaps some were, and Stark himself allows for this, while also
saying some were the same and some were worse, and that he plans to argue this in later chapters. For
the present chapter, Stark is resolved to argue that an incremental approach really wasn’t that good, but
in so doing, he once again is compelled to resort to emotional rhetoric and argument by outrage. He
poses the query, for example, whether the laws against idolatry were really that good, since Israel
disobeyed them and there was a lot of carnage because of it. But in this respect, Stark’s argument fails
even the least burden of proof, because it requires him to produce a sound and logical counterfactual
history. He must suggest some other incremental step along the way between idolatry which he
supposes ought to have been taken. However, this would be a difficult proposition for the particular
subject. Idolatry is a matter of a binary equation: Either you worship god X, or you do not. There is
simply no “increment” between the two. Stark’s one suggestion in this regard is laughably naïve: he
suggests that Yahweh could have allowed prayer to other gods for “certain kinds of things” to wean
Israel off of polytheism and into monolatry. This, he supposes, would have caused less carnage.
One has to ask if Stark is serious here, or if he has consumed some illegal substance before composing
this answer. For one, he has to prove, not merely assume, that his solution would have caused less
carnage. Second, Stark needs to open his window of counterfactual history a little wider: If such a thing
were recorded in Deuteronomy, then what would generations further on have made of later commands
towards strict monotheism? As it is, atheists today think the OT text is frequently polytheistic, and mock
theists for believing in a single god, let alone many more; and we have groups like the Mormons who
would gladly make use of texts allowing prayer to other gods for “certain things” for their purposes.
Third, Stark is here confusing the matter of provision with that of idolatry. God could certainly have told
the people that e.g., if you want rain, ask Gabriel, my angel, I have assigned Him the task of broker of
rain. But such would not amount to worshipping Gabriel, and of entering into a covenant agreement
with him to serve him.

Finally, Stark here again lacks the perspective of honor so critical to interpreting Biblical texts: Such an
allowance would be seen as an admission by God that He lacked the ability to provide those “certain
things” (like what, one wonders??). This is turn arguably would lead to factionalism and violence even
more grotesque than the Bible actually records. Indeed, Stark here shows little knowledge of the core
principles that governed ancient covenant; it is summed up by Jesus in saying, a man cannot serve two
masters. This would have been a case of mixed loyalties – it would be like suggesting that an Egyptian
could have shown obeisance to the Pharaoh, but also shown some to the kings of Assyria, Moab, and
Canaan, and that would have kept the peace between the nations and their peoples far better. Not only
is such a concept of mixed loyalties foreign to ancient covenant relationships, it also reeks of difficulties
that would inevitably be engendered when one side or the other demanded more and better loyalty.
Stark surely does not think Chemosh existed in reality, but what happens when the Israelite permitted
to pray to Chemosh to pray to him for “certain things” (like cheeseburgers, maybe?) claims to have
received a revelation that now Chemosh wants to be prayed to for “other things” once the province of
YHWH?

So in the end, Stark fails counterfactual history for lack of application: he merely assumes, but does not
prove, that the best result was not had already.

As noted above, the matter of worship is a binary equation. For this reason, it is absurd for Stark to use
this radical break to question why God could not have offered similarly radical commands concerning
such matters as patriarchy and divorce. The equations in such matters, rendered into binary terms, do
nothing to address the underlying assumptions of those concepts, which are deep, complex, and rooted
in human relationships where multiple causes and effects have to be reckoned with. A command to not
worship god x is a simple one rooted in YHWH declaring that god x is His inferior – a simple, binary
matter. A command to not divorce involves a far more complex set of factors, having to do with
assumptions about the role of women and men in a collectivist, agonistic culture where roles were very
precisely defined for the sexes. A straightforward command to not divorce wives – as Stark thinks ought
to have been used – would do nothing to resolve those assumptions, and if anything (as Malcolm X
found out) would result in an equally radical reaction that in the end would hurt women more than it
would help them: resentment, refusal to even marry, seeking out wives one could dominate easily while
ignoring any that were stronger of will, and so on. Stark is once again simply too much of a
fundamentalist to work out the results of his own solutions.

Equally oblivious is Stark’s note that not all nations killed the children of the enemy in warfare. That is
true – usually they made them slaves, a fate of such disgrace that many would choose death over it in an
agonistic setting. He asks rather naively whether it would not have made sense to Israel to be told to
treat such children as orphans and adopt them. Well – no. He is importing modern ideas of sentiment
and family closeness into the text, and is oblivious to the notions of patronage, collective identity, and
honor that governed the Biblical mind. A straightforward command such as the one he suggests would
have made no sense at all to the Israelite – not in terms of achieving the results Stark is hoping for. And
if he wishes to object, that is too bad – no human society at this time was any more advanced than that.

At this point, little more needs to be said, as what is left of Stark’s chapter is simply variation on the
same themes reported above. Much is made of alleged errors by Copan concerning Jesus’ teachings on
divorce, but Stark could be 100% right here and it would not change the broader problem at all. The
claim is: Some aspects of Biblical teaching were incremental. This is not answered by pointing to the fact
that some aspects were binary instead, as Stark does, for it merely assumes that two issues are of the
same simplicity, when as we have seen, they are not. Only a few issues remain to discuss from this
chapter.

First, Stark suggests that Israel’s law could have been improved by allowing women to own property.
Unfortunately, Stark doesn’t explain this to the necessary depth with respect to concepts of property
ownership in the ancient world. No human owned land; the gods owned it, and humans were just
tenants or brokers, not owners. He claims that scholars think the plight of women was much worse in
Israel than in surrounding nations, but offers no documentation, reference, or substantiation. (In
contrast, see Miller’s series below.) His one example from the Laws of Eshunna 59 provides that any
man who bears children with his wife and divorces her to marry another will lose all his property, and he
sees this as a step up from Israel’s laws. But it’s hardly the boon to the divorced wife he thinks it is: The
man is question would have received a new dowry from the new wife’s family (hence, the law also says
the man may seek someone else to take him in!), and would be able to start over if he chose his new
wife judiciously (which we can fairly assume, he did!). In contrast, who does Stark suppose got the
property left behind from the first marriage? Chances are best in that social setting that it would be
returned to the woman’s father as recompense for the dowry he lost. Stark apparently envisions the
wife as a Betty Broderick having the chance to blow the loot left behind, but here – as in Israel – the
assumption is that the wife would return to her former family for support. There is no advancement for
the sake of women in the Laws of Eshunna; rather, it is a provision for compensation for the father of
the wife, and his family.

I stop there; more is in the chapter, but some is summary of what Stark will discuss in later chapters, and
some is of arguments made by Copan that I either would not use or which I do not consider of
significance. We’ll pick up with more next time.

The Role of the OT Law for the Christian

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.(cf. Luke 16:17)

"If this is true, why are you violating the law by eating pork and wearing polyester suits?"

This is indeed the substance of Skeptical objections I have seen, but behind it lies a valid question: What
is the role of the Law in the life of the Christian today? Do we need to trash our polyester? If we are true
believers, do we need to execute witches? And finally, is the covenant still "good" with Israel today?

To answer these questions we need to establish some frameworks, and to do this I will draw from some
previous and related essays. Our primary framework has to do with the categories of the law.

•First, some laws are universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, and others. There is no
disagreement that these laws should indeed be continued to be obeyed today, so we need not discuss
them further.

•Second, some laws are cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel's culture that have a
universal moral law behind them. As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming
your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the
universal behind this cultural would be, don't do the occult. But here is my favorite example, from Deut.
22:8-9:

When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of
bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.
One Skeptic says, "One would be hard-pressed to find home builders" who follow this rule. But actually
they do follow the modern equivalent. In ancient Israel, the flat roof of a house would be used for many
purposes, such as sleeping, household chores, and entertaining. These chores included drying and
storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations.

We don't use our roof the same way -- the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do
make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter. At any rate, it would also be agreed that
the universals behind these cultural applications should continue to be followed.

•Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example, are
definitely in this, as are sacrificial laws. What else belongs in here? Most likely the dietary laws belong
here, as their purpose was to make the Jews "different" and to serve as a testimony to their difference
in the most intimate ancient setting, that of meal fellowship.

With these matters in mind, we may now address some issues of how the law is regarded in the NT.

Matthew 5:17-18 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

One Skeptic objects that "the Law of Moses is nothing to be 'fulfilled' in any way....one cannot fulfill the
law. One can only obey it." The skeptic is wrong, because he does not understand what "fulfill" means
and is "fulfilling" it with his own meaning. To fulfill God's law was to confirm it by obedience; whereas to
"annul" the law was to treat it as void.

This leads to our next passage:

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

"But wait," the critic says. "Hasn't Paul just said that 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law' (v. 28)?"
Indeed he has. And this is where another concept skeptics living in the 20th century know nothing about
comes into play: the Semitic Totality Concept. And now we plagiarize our own work again to explain our
meaning, The Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results
in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 60] To put
it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements
of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity.

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without
corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and
action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the
Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and
body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial
and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of
works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the
act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament
Doctrine of Baptism, 111] And thus when Paul tells his readers that we "establish" (obey) the law by
faith, he is saying no more than that it is our faith that prompts us to follow the law. And hence, a
person who finds faith, but dies a moment later having done no works, is not condemned -- if such a
theoretical possibility ever came to pass!

Hence also Paul's admonition here:

Rom. 6:15-16 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

A believer in Jesus will indeed follow the dictates of the law -- the universal morals, of course, not the
cultural particulars -- because of obedience to Christ.
"But didn't Paul say in Galatians somewhere that the law is useless?"

Not exactly. Gal. 2:16 says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith
of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Some may read
this and other passages in Romans (7:4) and Galatians (3:13) as referring to the law as ineffectual, or as
something to be avoided, but it actually means we are ineffectual, and that is why the law is a "curse"
and it is necessary for Christ to make us "dead" to it.

"No flesh shall be justified" by the law because none of us can obey it fully. Paul is stating a condition of
fact, not making a statement about the veracity of the law.

"So that means that Christians would have us go out executing witches and homosexuals if they ever got
in charge?"

Could we? No -- let's keep something in mind about the Law. Deuteronomy is laid out in the form of an
ancient treaty between a king and his vassals. It is in essence a contract between God and Israel. They
"signed on" and agreed to enforce the penalties.

What's the equivalent now? We now have a new covenant or contract between Christ and the individual
and the believer. The sins are paid for by Christ's blood, and he takes on the punihsment for the
trangression of those who break God's law and accept his payment. The old covenant and our enmity
with it is now abolished (Eph. 2:15). The non-believer, the witch, et al. aren't covered by this, but nor
does our new contract contain specifications of enforcement -- that is now God's domain, with regard to
each individual, on the basis of the new covenant terms.

It also suggests that those who wanted to can remain under the Old Covenant, which was never
officially revoked -- and suggests in turn that modern Jews can make a case of sorts for still having
"rights" to the land.
What of verses that say the law is "for ever"? The word used in the Hebrew is 'olam and means, not
exactly forever, but "in perpetuity." It is used to describe as well the term of a slave (Ex. 21:6//Deut.
15:17). Unless one thinks that this means that the master would dig the slave out of his grave and put
him to work, this clearly does not mean "forever" in the sense that covenant would always be kept, but
implies that the Jews would keep these feasts and such as long as they maintained the covenant
agreement and didn't break it. At the same time, it hardly indicates that God cannot sign a new
covenant/contract with others on different terms.

If one then happens to ask, "On what basis do you then continue to say that these laws are still valid
morally?" -- beyond the "all agree" level of things like murder, and in the category of things like
homosexuality and adultery -- the answer is that when a superior writes a contract, even if you are not a
party to it, the contract will still give you an idea what values the superior holds to. We no longer
enforce the penalties, but we still know what actions displease God.

"Well, then, why aren't Christians out sacrificing animals and eating kosher?"

The reason is simple for this one: All of the ceremonial laws has been superseded by Christ. (Hebrews is
the NT book that lays this out the best, though see Matt. 26:28.) They pointed towards Christ and the
unified body. Thus also there is no need for the laws of diet and not wearing two types of fabric woven
together (the latter of which may have been related to magical practice, but may also have been a
symbol of purity and separation) -- there is no longer a case of a certain people reserved to God, for the
new covenant is open to all.

Discussion may of course continue over what laws in the OT belong in what category. But it is clear that
the law retains a certain application today, even if not in the same way for us, and even if the critics
don't have the tools to grasp it.

Glenn Miller has a related article here.

-JPH

Barbarisms and Crude laws

Stark’s next chapter is on alleged “barbarisms” and “crude laws,” and here, I am less inclined to argue
(as Copan does) that certain laws are in some way progressive for their time. This is not necessary to a
defense of these laws, for criticism of these laws of the sort Stark offers amount to crude and bigoted
anachronisms, coated in “argument by outrage.” Typical of this, Stark writes:

… Copan claims, we should not judge the brutal laws and punitive measures against modern Western
morality, but rather within the context of the ancient Near East. He then quips, reprehensibly, that if
ancient Near Eastern people looked at us modern Westerners, they’d think we were a “bunch of softies”
(89)

A bunch of softies? Are we supposed to feel embarrassed by that? Are we supposed to feel inadequate
because we’re not as “tough” as ancient barbaric peoples who cut off hands, or stoned children to death
for backtalking their parents?

In an nutshell – if that is the extent of your “argument,” then yes. Stark should be embarrassed and feel
inadequate, because he pontificates as one whose most pressing daily need has been to decide which
gas station to patronize. He has never experienced serious hunger; he has never had to scrape in a
chaotic world to survive. If he were dumped unceremoniously into the OT world, he would be dead
within a week.

As it happens, recent events provide an analogy. Much is made over whether or not torture should be
used to extract information from terrorists. Many are against the use of torture, but from that number,
there are quite a few who admit that if a terrorist knew the location of a nuclear bomb, even they would
use torture to extract that information. By the same token, Stark is offering the pose that “backtalking
their parents” is, as in modern times, nothing more than a harmless act of defiance made by Junior
because he refuses to clean his room. In contrast, the ancient “backtalker” undermines the most
essential mechanisms of survival and authority in the ancient world, and would be someone who
refuses, for example, to participate in the daily work of farming that ensures that the family will not
starve to death. An ancient “backtalker” in this case is not just mouthing off; they are betraying others
and condemning them to a slow death by starvation – and not caring that they do so.

Put another way, Stark is ignorant of the contexts that rate these offenses as “mini-nukes” worthy of
more severe measures. There is certainly a distinction to be made between torturing a terrorist to get
the location of a nuclear bomb on Pluto, and the location of such a bomb in the heart of Washington DC.
Backtalking in modern America rates with putting a bomb on Pluto – it won’t hurt anyone, but it makes
for a good show.

Pulling out the tears again, Stark continues:

Some cultures still practice these sorts of punishments. Am I supposed to feel like a softy because my
every inclination is to condemn them as immoral?

Yes, because “inclinations” are not arguments. Rather, they are bigoted, presumptuous value judgments
made solely on surface impressions. To determine if a practice is truly immoral requires much more than
simply a shallow “argument by outrage.” It requires showing that the bomb is on Pluto rather than in
downtown Washington.

Further evidencing his shallowness, Stark decries such delineations as “relativism”. This is far too
simplistic: It is not relativism, but collection and evaluation of data to determine which absolutes apply.
It is not simply a matter of “back then” as Stark claims, but of achieving a realistic and holistic picture of
what was done and why it was applied.

Deut. 21:18-21 is Stark’s first specific focus. I do not find it needful to defend most of Copan’s analysis,
but Stark is manifestly unware of a very basic fact about ancient law codes of the Near East, courtesy of
Hillers' Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea:

..(T)here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was
applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws
served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they
left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local
courts without controlling them.

Stark complains that there is nothing in Deuteronomy of a trial or witnesses, but per Hillers, there didn’t
need to be.
Stark’s further complaint that God ought to have come up with a penalty “more humanizing” is naïve in
the extreme. His alternate suggestions for punishment are no less cognizant. Two suggestions, to reduce
the son’s inheritance or disown him, are partly based on an idea of Copan’s, but amount to a slaps on
the wrist in context and show that Stark has neither the knowledge nor the presence of mind to take the
offense seriously. His most drastic solution, expelling him from the community, amounts to a death
sentence in itself, but a slow one by starvation; apparently Stark conceives of the son starting over
somewhere else like a modern person, when in reality he’d be cut off from all human support and would
find it next to impossible to find acceptance in a new community (in which strangers were regarded with
suspicion). At best, like the prodigal son, he’d end up working shameful jobs – and in an honor-based
social world, might prefer the stoning for his penalty; that at least would be over with at once, and spare
him a life of shame and struggle. (This, of course, is an example of what we alluded to in Part 1, where
Stark lacks awareness of the agonistic dialectic.) He also again appeals to the Code of Hammurabi’s
supposed parallel, but as we noted in Part 1, whether there is indeed a parallel situation is not at all
clear.

Stark’s next specific complaint has to do with Deut 25:1-3, though strangely, he does not quote it, nor
even offer a citation for it – which is especially odd inasmuch as he offers citations of Proverbs in the
same paragraph. Here is the full quote:

If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them;
then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be
worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face,
according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he
should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto
thee.

Stark apparently omits this because it notes that judicial discretion is used to decide whether the wicked
man deserves punishment. This in turn implies directly that the reason for the punishment is that the
wicked man has brought charges with the specific intent of getting the righteous man into trouble, so
that it is he who will be punished. In that light, it is quite sensible that the wicked man receive whatever
punishment the righteous man would have received if found guilty. (And of course, the law being
didactic, “forty lashes” is merely exemplary of any punishment fitting the crime.)

The next section discusses lex talionis, and I am not particular about whether “eye for an eye” is literal
or metaphorical. Even if it is literal, Hillers’ admonition above governs the context: Obviously, under
such circumstances, one might opt to pay an equitable fine as compensation. Stark petulantly denies
this, insisting that the text doesn’t ever say this in lex talionis cases, but here again he is merely reading
the law codes like a modern fundamentalist, rather than as a didactic product. The main point, though,
is that “eye for an eye” was probably meant to stop the offended from taking more than an eye in
return for an eye, and Stark offers no comment in this respect.

Some time is spent commenting on Deut. 24:16 and related issues (link below). Suffice to say that
Stark’s counter-examples utterly miss the point of Deut. 24:16 and are already refuted by the link below.
There is thereafter mere dismissive commentary on Deut. 22:23-4, 28-9, with no serious argument or
contextualizing (link below), and then yet extended commentary in which it is simply assumed that
every law and penalty was applied with gross literalness (again, contrary to the spirit revealed by
Hillers). Such is how the chapter closes – with little accomplished other than screaming.

Human Sacrifice

Quite naturally, Stark’s first move is an end around, as he declares Deuteronomic texts condemning
human sacrifice to be late additions, though if you are looking for evidence or arguments as opposed to
assertion, he won’t oblige. Instead, Stark rants for a while about how Copan allegedly misrepresented
the work of Susan Niditch, a sideshow that interests me little and concerns me even less. It is space
Stark should have spent arguing for late additions to Deuteronomy, but that seemed too much to hope
for. Our own arguments finding such literary theories lacking is linked below.

It takes 5 pages for Stark to end his rant concerning Niditch, before he gets back on topic, starting with
the usual resort on Jephtah and his daughter (though even this is just an accessory to the continued
rant, now with another scholar, Hess, involved). However, Stark does not even touch on our own reply
(link below) since it seems Copan does think the sacrifice did occur (where we do not). Thus we will not
defend Copan here. Following this, another example offered from Numbers 21:1-3 is used to argue that
here we have human sacrifice under the rubric of victims of war being dedicated to Yahweh.

Stark presents no actual argument for this equation, and no doubt would refer to Niditch’s case. In this
issue, therefore, we also offer the argument that Niditch has merely presented the understanding of
“human sacrifice” to rubbery rating levels.

Stark rants another few pages about Copan’s alleged misuse of Niditch (perhaps the chapter ought to be
retitled at this point), and then some issue is made of Israel allegedly violating God’s command by
attacking Moab. Stark sees this as in opposition to command to Israel not to take territory from other
nations, but as far as can be read, Israel took none of Moab’s territory; they did not move in and settle
down as they did in Canaan. Apparently Stark is confusing defeat in battle with occupation and
resettlement. He then repeats an argument previously used in his earlier book about 2 Kings 3; our
answer was:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One other textual abuse of note relates to 1 Kings 3:26-7. Of this we have said before:

Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city
wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

The "he" here is the king of Moab, who is taking on the Israelites and was losing pretty badly up to this
point. Callahan sees this verse as evidence that Yahweh was at one time a mere tribal deity, not the
overall Creator, and "the Israelites believed that Yahweh had no power in Moab" against Chemosh, the
Moabite god - for otherwise, what is the "wrath" here, and why would they withdraw in the face of
victory?

There is one big thing that speaks against this "wrath" being from Chemosh - in this war against Moab,
Israel was not alone: They were accompanied by the Edomites and by the armies of Judah, and there is
no indication that either of these armies had to take a break from the field.

However, Herzog and Gichon in Battles of the Bible [171] provide the answer: Child sacrifice was often
performed in the ANE because of imminent plague. The Israelites would have interpreted the sacrifice as
an indication that plague was already in the city, and therefore would have made haste to leave as soon
as possible.

The word for "wrath" means indignation or strife, and "against" is a preposition that can mean among,
between, concerning, or through.
HFG4 takes the other tack, of course, though using a translation which says that the “coalition”
withdrew – which is not a warranted reading of the text. Nor is any answer given to our own, though it is
vainly pointed out that the word “wrath” (qetseph) is never used of an army and is mostly used to refer
to the wrath of a deity. This is meaningless for several reasons. First, there are no doubt many words
never used of an army in the Bible, yet this does not restrict the use of that word to or from any party or
person. Second, it is also admitted, humans are said to have qetseph in a handful of passages as well,
which is sufficient to show that it is not the exclusive province of deity. Third, it may be noted that a
closely related word, qatsaph, is used frequently of both deity and humanity. Finally, the text does not
say anywhere that the qetseph is that of Chemosh, who is not even mentioned anywhere in the
passage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copan’s own analysis does not match our own at all, and Stark repeats some of what he said in his prior
book, so as of this stage, we consider him still refuted on these points.

Rounding off the perversity for this chapter, Stark repeats his arguments from his prior book concerning
passages in Ezekiel and Micah, which we have already answered there.

Patriarchy and Misogyny

We’ll close with this one; nothing Stark offers overturns Miller’s excellent series (link below), and seeing
as how Stark is still using the standard canard regarding 1 Tim. 2;11-15, and making the absurd non
sequitur argument that wives are property because they are listed with other items regarded as
property, it is clear he still has a lot of learning and thinking to do before he can make a respectable
argument.

We’ll return with more next time.

Deut. 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate
me...
Deut. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their
fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Do these verses reveal a major contradiction in the Bible? Does one teach individual responsibility for
sin, while another teaches that one can be punished for the sin of another?

Do these contradict? There are a couple of answers to this one.

One is to say that Deuteronomy 24:16 refers to punishments meted out for crimes, as does a vese cited
in Ezekiel. Verses cited in Isaiah, and others, in contrast, refer to punishments and sufferings that are the
natural results of one persons' actions "rolling downhill" on another person. It may also be added that
"four generations" in Deut. 5:9 and elsewhere refers to the normal lifespan of a human being, so that
essentially, the verse means that punishment will be meted out over the lifetime a person alone.

There's a far more contextual answer, though, and we'll need to look at each verse in questio. We'll list
them first, then examine each in turn. Starting with the "individual responsibility" side, there are three
that are cited:

Dt. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers;
each is to die for his own sin.

Jer. 31:29-31 "In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the
children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--
his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor
will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him,
and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Now, from what we might call the "other responsibility" side -- verses which are cited as teaching that
one person can be punished for the sins of another:

Ex. 20:5//Deut. 5:9 (cf. Ex. 34:7) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth
generation of those who hate me...

2 Sam. 12:14 "But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt,
the son born to you will die."

Is. 14:21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to
inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.

Rom. 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also
through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

A few of these really don't fit the bill, and we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Is. 14:21
comes from a song of vengeance that it is predicted will be sung by the Israelites; it isn't expressing
doctrine at all.

Rom. 5:19 has to do with "original sin" -- not in the same category. But the rest are good to go for our
purposes, and are supposed to stand in contrast to the three "individual" verses above.

The answer comes in two parts, for there is one answer for the Deut. cite, and another for the two cites
from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and both are found by considering social data.

Deuteronomy: Down With Pagan Justice

A key to understanding this business is a concept called vicarious punishment that is found in the law
codes of the ANE. Greenberg [Chr.SPPS, 295] offers these examples:
 A creditor who has maltreated the distrained sin of his debtor that he dies, must lose his own son. If a
man struck the pregnant daughter of another so that she miscarried and died, his own daughter must be
put to death. A seducer must deliver his wife to the seduced girl's father for prostitution. In another
class are penalties which involve the substitution of a dependent for the offerer -- the Hittite laws
compelling a slayer to deliver so many persons to the kinsmen of the slain, or prescribing that a man
who has pushed another into a fire must give over his son...

Now it is precisely this kind of punishment, which was prescribed in every law code in the Near East,
that Deut. 24:16 is intended to forbid. The verse is not a universal motto, but a time-specific law
intended as a direct counter to the practices listed above. "The proper understanding of this
requires...that it be recognized as a judicial provision, not a theological dictum." [Chr.SPPS, 296, 298]

It is of a different order than verses and situations like the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Deut. 5:9, Exod.
20:5, the destruction of the Canaanites, Achan's sin (Josh. 7), the son of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam.
12) and the vengeance of the Gibeonites on Saul's sons (2 Sam. 21, where a national treaty was violated
by God's chosen king), which all involve "direct affronts to the majesty of God." Such affronts were dealt
with quite differently than internal human affairs, and therefore, there is no contradiction whatsoever
between these kinds of verses and those that teach individual responsibility. They apply to two entirely
different contexts.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel: Calls to Action

The issue of Dt. 24:16 is thereby explained, but what about the other two cites? Some call this an
obvious "contradiction" which was maintained among the Jews for so long...and do not why, in spite of
these verses, Jeremiah and Ezekiel elsewhere in their books affirm the concept of corporate
punishment. Those who see some sort of developmental process here stand against scholarship familiar
with the texts of the period, represented by von Rad [VR.Dt, 152; see also Wein.Dt111, 299], who writes:

A thorough study of early legal history, including that outside Israel, has shown that the conception of a
general development from collective to individual liability is incorrect. The principle of personal
responsibility was by no means unknown in the earlier times.
Nevertheless, there is a developmental process of a sort. Jeremiah and Ezekiel do "transfer this judicial
provision to the theological realm" [Chr.SPPS, 296], for when they say what they do, it is not, as some
suppose, as some kind of counter to the Mosaic ethic of collective punishment. Rather, it is a response
to a saying then in currency among the exiled Jews who thought they, personally, were being punished
unfairly for the sins of their ancestors). So we argue that they are indeed offering a bit of progressive
revelation leading into individual charges for sin.

But there is more. Kaminsky [Kam.CHRB] explains that in the context of the Exile, these passages, acting
as responses to the popular proverb among the people in which they complained that they were being
punished for the sins of their fathers, is hardly to be read as a repudiation of corporate responsibility, for
both Jeremiah (2:30, 3:25, 6:11-12, etc.) and Ezekiel (9:5-6, 21:8-9) elsewhere affirm that principle. No,
what they wrote here was something quite different: And we say it served a twofold purpose -- the first
revealed by Kaminsky:

1. While in Exile, the people blamed their fathers for their situation, and regarded their situation as
hopeless, themselves as thoroughly innocent victims suffering the punishment that their fathers
deserved. But if this is how you think, how are you going to be able to get out of that mode of thinking
and do something about your problem?

The prophets, in reminding the people that they have their own sins to consider, which indeed deserve
their own punishment, and placing this reminder in the context of future hope, thereby serve to give the
people, to put it crudely, a swift kick in the behind and cease submitting to the attitude of "inevitable
and uncontrollable determinism" [Bloc.Zk, 560] that had pervaded their thinking.

One might paraphrase these warnings thusly: "Stop whining over spilled milk...you have your own sins
that deserved punishment, and now you have work to do." Or as Block [ibid., 589] puts it:

...(C)hildren may not hide behind a theology of corporate solidarity and moral extension that absolves
them of personal responsibility for their own destiny.

Or, as Matties [Matt.Zk18, 158-9] describes it:

Ezekiel understands that the concept of holiness demands complete purging, and so he articulates the
corporate guilt and judgment. But he recognizes that the basis for experience of Yahweh's saving
presence is the faithfulness of the individual Israelite. The focus of law, and here on the individual, is to
begin the work of reconstituting a covenant community...
Thus Ezekiel's goal -- and that of Jeremiah, to a lesser extent -- was "to shape the virtuous life, to
establish responsibility for moral choice, and to motivate the transformation toward a new and cohesive
social order." [ibid., 219] The purpose of these passages, then, is motivational and pastoral, and should
be understood in that context -- and therefore, offer no contradiction to verses indicating corporate
guilt and punishment.

2. At the same time, the reminder is a pointer towards the new covenant to be established with the
people: The one in Christ in which God relates to the people individually rather than corporately. Here,
then, is the true "developmental" aspect. It is a matter of progressive revelation.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel's purpose, then, was not so much theological as it was pastoral. At the same time,
they revealed that God's second covenant with the people would be on new terms. But this hardly
served as a repudiation of corporate responsibility and judgment at all.

With the alleged contradiction refuted, Skeptics are left only with their standard "arguments by
outrage": "Why should God be allowed to do what we can't and what He tells us not to do? Why do the
innocent have to suffer because of the actions of the guilty?", referring to the standard as primitive,
barbaric, etc. We can expect little else from those who have no view of eternal consequences, and who
do not recognize the right of God to do with His creation as He pleases, but for the Christian, the matter
is resolved with a single thought: If the innocent cannot die for the sake of or under the punishment of
the guilty under God's justice, then the sacrifice of Christ could not be permitted either.

Objection: When you refer to "direct affronts to the majesty of God" you're saying that while vicarious
punishment is forbidden to humans, God can indulge in it all he pleases.

Not at all. It is nowhere offered that situations like the Flood, etc. are cases of "vicarious punishment."
This objection is reading the term from the first sentence of the explanation and incorrectly bringing it
down as a descriptor of the incidents listed. It is not such a descriptor; the list was originally (many years
ago) a direct response to an item in a Skeptical publication, which incorrectly saw the listed passages as
violations of Deut. 24:16.
What these actually were, were cases of corporate punishment (though the setting and purpose of each
was different and would have to be discussed individually). Let it be indicated that objections to such
punishment are grounded in the mutation of individualism which is unique to modern, Western
nations.The ancients as collectivists considered it neither immoral nor wrong that a family or a people as
a whole would or could suffer collectively for the error of one who led the group, or that any
"innocents" within their borders (young or old) would suffer collectively. Indeed they expected
punishment to be corporate for sins committed by kings or by the group as a whole, or where a sin was
committed that affronted the majesty of the group's deity, thereby requiring a public response that was
visible to the group as a whole.

Of course, we do have a form of such punishment even today -- e.g., legal human versions of corporate
responsibility: if you sue Ford Motor Company owing to the incompetence of its CEO, the whole
company pays; and there are international applications (nation goes to war, and the peaceful farmer's
field may be trod to lifeless muck or his son drafted and killed). The Nuremberg trials provide another
sort of example. Many of the Germans accused of war crimes insisted that they were merely following
orders. As individuals, they claimed to be doing the right thing despite whatever transgressions were
laid at the feet of the German state. What law could they follow that was higher than German law?

The point is this: Judgments against the corporate entity must have consequences for whatever (or
whomever) constitutes that entity. Corporate benefit is the other side of the coin, but few Skeptics seem
to wish to concentrate on the fact that God dispenses grace to a far greater number of generations than
the number of generations who suffer owing to the iniquities of their forefathers.

By the definition of justice, it is not fair to punish the innocent for something he or she did not do.

This is once again the modern mutation of individualism speaking; the ancients would staunchly
disagree as collectivists. In this view, all who associate themselves with the corporate entity share in the
responsibility of that entity. That is how 99% of the people who have lived throughout history have
viewed matters, and we still view it that way in certain circumstances (though few protest when Ford
Motor Co. gets harmed as a whole, because their emotional sympathies are against large corporations
and with their individual pocketbooks).

Again: Modern individualism is a mutation. On the other hand, we may also add that in almost every
case cited, any individual could have done something to either get out of the punishment, or else a
figure in authority (like a parent) could have done something to keep the innocent from suffering, but
didn't.

Finally, two points. First, in terms of any idea of sparing the "innocent" such as babies and children, we
need to first consider that the ancient world was not full of tax-supported social services, nor with
individualists who thought a marginal life better than death; see more here, which also offers more on
the "sins of the fathers" subject.

Second, let us repeat what we once offered to another on the subject of David and Bathsheba, which
can be applied in turn to other instances:

David was king, and set an example for his nation. A visible judgment was required to set against any
idea that others could blithely follow in David's steps in sinning. We can hear the rising whine at once:
"Who cares? Is God an egotist?" No, God is holy, and God is concerned that the greatest number of
people will come to Him for their eternal salvation. Skeptics who tend to think only of the moment have
no conception of the out working ripple effect of individual actions (or inaction).

If having no effect at all meant that thousands who otherwise would have come to God and found
eternal life instead went to eternal condemnation, is that worth the physical (not eternal) life of one
person? For Christians this is a simple matter: The death of one man paid for the salvation of billions.
Visible judgment upon a very public offense as the means to accomplish the same, though to a lesser
extent. Let the skeptics gnaw on their sound bite; they are time out of mind and thinking in two
dimensions as usual.

-JPH

Sources

•Bloc.Zk121 - Block, Daniel. Ezekiel Chaters 1-21. Eerdmans, 1997.

•Chr.SPPS - Christensen, Duane L. A Song of Power and the Power of Song. Eisenbrauns, 1993.

•Kam.CPHB - Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Punishment in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield Academic Press,
1995.

•Matt.Zk18 - Matties, Gordon H. Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1990.
•VR.Dt - von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.

•Wein.Dt111 - Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1-11. Doubleday, 1991.

Good question…are the laws in the OT about rape and virginity indicative of a God who is either unfair
to women (or maybe even just unrealistic/ignorant)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft: May 19, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a couple of ‘famous’ passages on rape and virginity that sometimes are mentioned as being
unfavorable to women, and/or reflective of God’s “lower” valuation of women in the OT:

Questions about meaning and/or fairness can easily arise with these:
“Virginity too, seems all important for women yet for men not at all, perhaps because ‘proof’ of it can be
demanded of women? (Though now we know that a woman doesn't always bleed when she loses her
virginity- something God should have known about all along surely?).

“Then there's the law, if a woman is raped in the fields punish the man but if they have sex in the city
and she doesn't cry out punish them both. That just seems stupid to me. People react to fear in many
different ways, some people are too frightened to make a sound. There are other techniques a man
may use to keep a woman quiet such as hands over her mouth, beating her unconscious or maybe
everyone was just having a party and nobody heard her scream. In any case it doesn't say much for
God's intelligence if he passed that one!:)

and from another:

Deut.22:28-30 The NIV states that if a man meets a virgin, not pledged to be married and rapes her, he
can fork over 50 shekels to the girl's father and marry her and they can never divorce. The KJV leaves it
a little more open ... I'm not sure if it's rape or maybe date rape, as the man "seizes" her. My thoughts
were that venereal disease ran rampant, therefore, it was best for the pair to stay united at that point....
but that wouldn't go over well with some of my friends. Also, with such stringent laws on sexual
morality, could VD have even been a problem with these people?
The passages in question are both from Deut 22:13-29:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad
name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,”
15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the
gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he
dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here
is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the
town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of
silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She
shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is
true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s
house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel
by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman
must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you
shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a
town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge
the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be
married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has
committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his
neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed,
there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are
discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

There are two things we need to note about OT laws before we dig into these verses:

The biblical laws in the OT (as with the written law codes of the ANE neighbors) are not all the laws that
Israel would have ‘lived by’ in ancient times. They are only a core set of laws, and there would have
been many, many more laws needed, and many, many more details about the laws that we DO NOT
have preserved in the OT:
“The biblical law collections, even when considered in toto, fall short of including all of the legal areas
operative in ancient Israelite society. There are, first of all, categories which appear in the ANE laws but
which are absent or unregulated in the OT law collections. Many of these categories are, however,
alluded to in the Bible; thus, it is certain that they were operative in Israelite society. So, for example,
robbery (tangentially mentioned in Lev 5:21–26—Eng 6:2–7; 19:13), hire of wet nurses, lease and rental
of property, surety (cf. Gen 43:9; Prov 6:1; 20:16), hire of labor (cf. Lev 19:13; Job 7:2), bride-price and
dowry (cf. Exod 22:16; 1 Sam 18:25), and sale (e.g., Isa 24:2; 2 Sam 24:24; etc.). In connection with sale,
Jer 32:11 mentions the “sealed deed of purchase . . . and the open copy.” This custom finds parallels in
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DJD 2: 244–46), the Elephantine papyri (Porten 1968: 198–99), and the Mishnah
(B. Bat. 10:1). This type of document is ultimately derived from the practice of using an inscribed and
sealed clay envelope to contain and protect a cuneiform document; the text written on the inner tablet
was duplicated on the outside envelope.

“Some of the other “missing laws” also appear in the Mishnah. While one cannot assert that all
regulations of the Mishnah go back to the biblical period, some laws apparently do, at least to the extent
that they can be shown to have ANE parallels. For example, the Babylonian laws treat the case of how to
dispose of marital gifts and property in a situation where either the bride or groom-to-be has died
before the wedding. This case appears in LE 17 and CH 163–64. The case is not discussed in the Bible
but does appear in the Mishnah (B. Bat. 9:5). Another such case is “assault” upon the dignity of an
individual by slapping his face. This case is considered in LE 42 and CH 202–4, and in the Mishnah (B.
Qam. 8:6); this offensive act is also addressed by the NT (Matt 5:39, Luke 6:29).

“One can look again to the Mishnah for “preservation” of laws dealing with rental of houses and lease of
fields (B. Mes\. 8:6–9, 10:1–10). These activities are highly visible both in the Laws of Hammurapi (CH
42–47, E–G) and the contemporary cuneiform documents. An arrangement modeled after a field lease
may be reflected in Lev 25:15–16. Another such example is the special class of dowry property (Akk
muluµgu; Heb meáloµg) and the type of property for which the user is responsible regardless of loss
(Akk ul imuµtuµ, “they shall not have died,” said typically of livestock and thus described as s\oµn
barzel, “iron sheep,” in the Mishnah; cf. Yebam. 7:1, B. Mes\. 5:6).
“The paucity of ancient Hebrew records limits real knowledge about the use of writing in Israelite legal
practice. Scholars have noted the absence of writing; for example, in the description of Abraham’s
purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23) as well as in the redemption of Naomi’s family property
in Ruth 4:1–12. But documents were written for the redemption of family property by Jeremiah (Jer
32:6–14) and were prescribed for divorce in Deut 24:1–3, Isa 50:1, and Jer 3:8. Some scholars have seen
the use of written documents as a late development, perhaps reflecting increased foreign influences and
sophistications (cf. further Job 31:35). The biblical law collections, however, are all represented as part
of orally delivered addresses or sermons. The renewal or rereading of the law is similarly depicted; the
laws are read out to the populace in Deut 31:10–13, 2 Kgs 23:1–3, and Neh 8:1–9:3. So it would seem
that in ancient Israel, as for her Near Eastern neighbors, writing was not an indispensable feature of the
legal tradition and practice but functioned, rather, as an aid to memory (cf. Deut 31:22–26; Josh 24:26).
[ABD, s.v. “Law”)

and……….

“Israel was basically an agricultural people form the conquest of Canaan until the Babylonian captivity…,
a study of their land laws may be of some interest. First, it is well to notice that no complete system of
land laws can be built up from the Pentateuch alone; and yet no other codification of early Israelite laws
is known, except for the Mishnah, which seems to preserve additional laws in force at the time of the
destruction of Herod’s Temple. Obviously, Israel had more land laws than these two works contain;
therefore it is only reasonable to assume that in this area (as doubtless in that of commerce and
elsewhere) she simply used the common Semite law, supplementing it by specifically Israelite
regulations where such were necessitated by Israel’s revelation of Yahweh. Only some such practice can
account for the otherwise inexplicable ‘gaps’ in the Torah, here and elsewhere.” [ZPEB, s.v. “law”]
This essentially means that our few references to virginity and rape recorded in the bible are
undoubtedly not the only laws about this in force in ancient Israel, so we had better not assume they
were applied uniformly to all cases involving these topics.

Secondly, we need to understand that Israelite law was not applied ‘blindly’ and ‘superficially’ to cases
that came up.

For example, take the “rape in the city” case.

We know from the rape of David’s daughter Tamar, by Amnon—which occurred in the city—that the
‘the girl must die’ rule was obviously not enforced (although the blood-avenger Absalom eventually
executed the rapist).

This is paralleled in the Middle Assyrian Law (MAL A 12): “If a wife of a man should walk along the main
thoroughfare and should a man seize her and say to her, ‘I want to have sex with you!’—she shall not
consent but she shall protect herself; should he seize her by force and fornicate with her—whether they
discover him upon the woman or witnesses later prove the charges against him that he fornicated with
the woman—they shall kill the man; there is no punishment for the woman.” [LCMAM:157f]
Now take the case of the ‘virginity dispute’:

From the ANE we see that cases could involve character witness, self-testimony—and NOT just the
‘bloody sheet’ (a practice in most of the ANE):

“When virginity was disputed, the courts called on expert female witnesses to offer testimony. A letter
from Mari described the situation of a betrothed girl: ‘The ‘wife’ of Sin-iddinam declared as follows:
Before Sin-iddinam took me, I had agreed with [the wish of] father and son. When Sin-iddinam had
departed from his house, the son of Asqudum sent me the message, ‘I want to take you.’ He kissed my
lips, he touched my vagina—his penis did not enter my vagina. Thus I said, ‘I will not sin against Sin-
iddinam.’” In an earlier trial in Nippur, a man denied physical penetration using the same words.
Obviously, penetration was the criterion to establish whether a woman—virgin, betrothed, married or
slave—was raped or seduced, in order to determine culpability.” [OT:DLAM:135f]
Although we don’t have any records of court cases going back to OT Israel, the rabbinic writers—often
demonstrating significant continuity with ancient practice—certainly didn’t apply the ‘bloody sheet’ test
in an unreasoning fashion:

“Several rabbinic sources shed light on the legal aspects of the problem of virginity. In various cases
brides are accused of having already lost their virginity but the sages invalidate the accusation. All these
cases appear in two collections of baraitot, one in the Palestinian Talmud and the other in the
Babylonian Talmud, and the sages who appear in them, with the exception of R. Ishmael b. R. Yose, are
all from the house of the nasi. In the first story, in which the protagonist dates from the Second Temple
period, a man went before Rabban Gamaliel the Elder and claimed that he failed to find the signs of
virginity in his wife, but Rabban Gamaliel believed the wife, who claimed that she came from the Dorkti
family, which was a family in which women were known not to bleed when they lose their virginity
(bKet. 10b). The same claim was twice brought before Rabbi, who accepted the wife’s explanation and
rejected the husband’s complaint in both cases: in the first, the wife attributed her failure to bleed to
years of famine (Ibid.), and in the second the wife maintained that her hymen fell from the rigor of
climbing the steps of her father’s house (yKet. 1.1, 25a).R. Ishmael b. R. Yose, when he heard the case of
the woman ‘whose signs of virginity were no larger than a mustard seed,’ ruled in her favor and even
said a blessing over her…” [WS:JWGRP:98-99]

I wanted to point these two items out first, so we wouldn’t assume that God made ‘ignorant’ laws, or
was somehow unfamiliar with the realities of biology or of city life…
Now, let’s look at the “logic” of the importance of virginity for women …

The first thing to recognize is that this is not evidence for some kind of ‘double standard’ in sexual
ethics. I have discussed this elsewhere ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html ).

Secondly, ‘virginity’ as a condition is discussed as being applicable to both men and women in the New
Testament (e.g., 1 Cor 7.25ff, according to most commentators), so this potential issue is only relevant
to OT situations.

But the most important thing to understand about ANE virginity (and marital fidelity, also) is its socio-
economic function, in inheritance-based cultures. This is a critical element to understanding some of
these issues, so let me try to sketch out this background.
Most sedentary cultures that are land-based are built on a very fragile foundation of property
boundaries and family ownership. When land begins to be considered the ‘property’ of a family (as an
economic foundation for community life and survival), the issue of family-continuance rises to the
forefront. Issues of proper ‘inheritance’ are carefully worked out in the law codes, and even enshrined in
religion and theology:

“Both the people of Israel and their land are designated as the ‘inheritance of Yahweh.’ The terminology
is also employed outside Israel. Thus, the Ugaritic texts mention Mount Zaphon as the ‘inheritance’ of
Baal, the place Hkpt (Memphis?) as the ‘inheritance’ of the god Kothar (identified with Ptah?), and the
netherworld as the inheritance of Mot, god of death. The idea of a divine allotment of territories to the
various gods of the pantheon is implied in the reference to Moab as the land of Chemosh in the
inscription of King Mesha. At the beginning of the common era the tradition was still known to Philo of
Byblos; he wrote that Kronos gave the city of Byblos to Baaltis, Beirut to the god Poseidon, and Egypt to
the god Thoth.” [CANE:2048]

The importance of inheritance and property-transference can also be seen by noting that in the Laws of
Hammurapi, the largest section is on ‘Family Law’, and in this section some 59 of the 69 laws deal with
inheritance and transfer cases (see [OT:EML:36]).

In the ancient world, death was a constant threat, to parents and children alike. The senior
parent/couple who owned the family land (which the extended family typically shared) were essentially
responsible for two things:

1.enough “genetic” family members to ensure that the land was worked [a labor issue]; and
2. a legally-recognized heir, who would be respected by the community and who would ensure the
survival of the remaining family, after the death of the senior parents.

The need for “genetic” labor, of course, was a procreation issue (although sometimes supplemented
with semi-slave labor). The husband and wife needed to produce children who would survive to
adulthood (always a tenuous situation, with child mortality and constant risk of death/illness), and this
generally involved having as many kids as possible.

The community, of course, was critically dependent on their success, for the community relied on each
family to be more-than-independent, and to contribute to the ‘surplus’ required to fund community life,
protection, and activities. The community (as voiced in its leadership) tried to support both harmony in
the family household, as well as procreational productivity.

The issue of a legally-recognized heir, was also related to the ‘genetic’ laborers, but the legal aspect of it
made it critically important to be able to document conclusively an heir’s true paternity/genetic link to
the parents. Proving paternity is one of the major assumptions of ANE law. This example shows how
important it was:

“According to the patrilinear system, property was divided among sons or the surviving male line. The
children of a dead brother also inherited. Nasty uncles were sometimes libelous in casting slurs on the
paternity of a baby born posthumously. In the follow case, the boy’s uncles questioned his paternity
once he was old enough to lay claim to his inheritance:
Ninurta-ra’im-zerim, the son of Enlil-bani, approached the (court) and faced the court officials and
judges of Nippur, (and testified): ‘When I was still in the womb of Sin-na’id, my mother, Enlil-bani my
father, the son of Ahi-shagish, died. Before (my mother) gave birth Khabannatum, my paternal
grandmother, informed Luga, the herdsman, and Sin-gamil, the judge, (and) she sent a midwife and (the
midwife) deliver me. When I grew up, in 20th year of Samsu-iluna…(his uncles attempt to question his
paternity)…’ The court officials and the judges investigated the case. They read the earlier tablet with
the oath. They questioned their witnesses, and discussed their testimony…The witnesses who knew the
paternity of Ninurta-ra’im-zerim, affirmed (it) by oath and they (the judges) ordered the case brought
back to the assembly…(Witnesses testified:)‘Until she (Sin-nada) gave birth, they (the mother-in-law, the
herdsman, the midwife, and the judge) looked after her. We know that Ninurta-ra’im-zerim is the
offspring of Enlil-bani’”

“Such procedures suggested that the birth of important people was witnessed. There were also tablets
with baby footprints, indicating their paternity, and the seal of the witness.” [OT:DLAM:148f]

Now, in a culture in which there could be absolutely no doubt/question about the heir’s legitimacy and
paternity, the community law must strongly influence public behavior in support of ensuring that. This is
for the community a critical function, needed to insure the orderly life and continuity of the always-
fragile social order.

From a physical standpoint, of course, there is only one way to ensure that a specific child is indeed the
‘genetic’ heir of the household father: the mother must be a virgin at the time of marriage, and must be
completely faithful to the husband until at least after the specific baby is born. There is no other way
whatsoever—in the pre-DNA-testing ancient world—to be absolutely sure of this.
And the community must exert all its legal force on the populace to make sure these two items (i.e.,
virginity of a bride and fidelity of a wife) are protected by ‘high force’.

Practically speaking, what this means is that the legal system will ‘over-penalize’ violators of these. The
‘punishment will NOT fit the crime’ in such cases. And, since core survival values of a community are
normally enshrined in capital punishments, looking at these can give an observer a quick-key to what is
of critical importance to community continuity.

This means that we would expect that individuals who either violated an (1) engaged or (2) likely-to-be-
engaged virgin to get the death penalty (or alternately, be forced to marry the woman—insuring the
paternity of any subsequent children, obviously). And, we would expect that individuals who were
responsible for adultery with a married woman (either the woman herself, or a rapist) would also get
the death penalty.

Normally, rape is considered a serious crime, but is not considered a capital crime in most cultures.
“Normal”, non-community-threatening crimes are generally assigned ‘matching severity’ punishments (a
la lex talionis). [Just as law codes also distinguish between ‘misdemeanors’ and ‘felonies’]. When it is
considered a capital crime, this tells you something important about the community’s survival needs.
A good example of this might be homosexual rape in the Middle Assyrian period. This was a crime, but
not a community-threatening one, so the punishment was ‘matched’ to the crime:

“If a man sodomizes his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall
sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch [that is, castrate him]” [MAL 20]

But, almost universally, adultery carries the death penalty in the ANE—because of the criticality of being
able to prove paternity…it was a major foundation of community existence and stability.

Now, what this creates is an interesting socio-economic dynamic. The larger the household and
landholdings, the more important to the community and to the family for the absolute certainty of
paternity. This places a tremendous value on (1) demonstrable virgins and on (2) women with the
‘promise of fidelity’ (i.e., from a “good family”). The managing parents of a ‘rich’ household would
diligently try to find a mate for a son that could satisfy these two criteria.

From the other side, the parents of a daughter would obviously seek the best possible future for her.
This would generally mean trying to arrange a marriage into the most economically-stable family in the
community, to provide the girl with every possible advantage for the future. This would primarily entail
protecting her ‘demonstrable virginity’ to ensure that she would find a home in the highest-strata
families. Needless to say, if the girl was deprived of her virginity via a rapist or seducer (and didn’t marry
said individual), her probability of being sought out by families in desperate need for a demonstrable
virgin (in other words, the families with the most inheritable property and land!) would drop to zero.
This would make the task of providing for/ensuring the long-term welfare of the daughter that much
more difficult.

What this means is that “Virginity was certainly a very important asset of a marriageable girl in the
ancient Near East” [CANE:489]

[Notice, though, that this ‘use’ of virginity primarily is NOT an issue of ethics or morality to the
community! It is first of all a practical matter of ensuring orderly continuity and succession of citizenship
and protection of inter-community boundaries. Matters of “regular ethics” get assigned more ‘matching
punishments’; matters of community survival get assigned ‘capital’ punishments. For the groom’s family
it is a way to ensure orderly succession and continuity of care for the extended family. For the bride’s
family it is a way to ensure the best possible future for the daughter. Virginity was more than simply a
case of sexual purity; it had additional socio-economic impact, and this impact (common throughout the
ANE) is likely the subject/dynamic of our OT verses.]

…………………………………………………..

Excursus: This, by the way, is where polygamy sometimes came in as ‘semi-acceptable’ in the wider ANE:
the need for labor and the need for a demonstrable heir, in the case of a barren wife:
In the ANE, monogamy was the rule and standard. The exceptions made for polygamy in the law codes
show how the normal standard of harmonious monogamy was subservient to having a community-
recognized heir.

“Generally, marriage was monogamous, even among the gods.” [OT:DLAM:132]

“With rare exceptions, a man could not have more than one formally recognized wife at a time. Both
Babylonian law codes and court proceedings indicated that only under exceptional circumstances was a
man permitted to have more than one wife at the same time.” [OT:DLAM:136]

“Polygamy was probably an option for the rich although we have no instances of it (2400-2000BC)”
[OT:LIANE:20]

“Monogamy was the norm, and two or three children was average (2000-1800BC)…Kings and maybe
other very rich people had polygynous families” [OT:LIANE34]

“Monogamy continued to be the norm…Polygamy was possible, but sources do not envision more than
two wives (2000-1600BC)” [OT:LIANE:51,52]
“The Middle Assyrian ‘laws’ from shortly before 1077 BCE in the north of Mesopotamia preserve older
traditions, and they assume much the same monogamous marriage as we see in the Code of Hammurapi
from the Old Babylonian period.” [OT:LIANE68]

“Polygamy occurred among kings, but much less among private persons (1600-1100bc)”

[OT:LIANE:74]

“From the collection of Hittite laws we can see that the family was monogamous, although kings had
concubines whose children had lesser status.” [OT:LIANE:76]

“The structure of the family seems a continuation of earlier models. Rich men, and kings especially,
could afford more than one wife, but most people were monogamous (1100-626bc).” [OT:LIANE:81]

“The rich, especially kings, had several wives, but otherwise monogamy was the norm (Israel, 1100-
626BC)” [OT:LIANE:87]
“In Israel, as in most of the ancient world, monogamy was generally practiced. Polygamy was not
contrary to law or morals, but was usually not economically feasible. The main occurrence of polygamy
would be when the first wife was barren, but there are several other factors which encouraged the
practice, including (1) an imbalance in the number of males and females, (2) the need to produce large
numbers of children to work herds and/or fields, (3) the desire to increase the prestige and wealth of a
household through multiple marriage contracts, and (4) the high rate of death for females in childbirth.
Polygamy is most common among pastoral nomadic groups and in rural farming communities where it is
important that every female be attached to a household and be productive. In the Bible most cases of
polygamy among commoners occur prior to the period of the monarchy.” [OT:BBCall, at. 1 Sam 1.2]

“Most marriages were monogamous, but because of the importance of male heirs [in ancient
Mesopotamia], fathers who lacked sons had the right to marry a second wife.” [CANE:478]

But, as is noted in the quotes above, polygamy was not used as an ‘heir making device’ very often, and
instead, most cultures relied upon formal ‘adoption’ of people into the heir-position:

“If there were no children, adoption was a solution. A childless couple could also free a slave and adopt
him as their son.” [CANE:494]
…………………………………………………………….

With this background in mind—of the socio-economic criticality of being able to demonstrate
paternity—let’s make some observations about the passages in the OT, and see how they fit in with the
background sketched out above.

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad
name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,”
15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the
gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he
dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here
is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the
town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of
silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She
shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is
true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s
house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel
by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

· Here we see the death penalty for violation of the “virginity value” (in this case, by the girl)

· We also see the over-penalty assigned in the case of slander—ten years wages are paid to the
father (we don’t know if it went into the woman’s bride-fund or not, though—see below on the mohar).
· He is restricted from divorcing her, because with his ‘giving the virgin a bad name’, she will NOT be
able to re-marry into a ‘good house’ , with its needs for someone with a ‘predisposition to fidelity’. The
slander has already removed that option of ‘upward mobility’ from the woman. The law now protects
her by forcing him to provide full marital support for her for the rest of her life.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman
must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

· Here we see that the ‘proven paternity through fidelity’ principle is compromised by the adultery,
and the community ‘judges’ this as a capital crime (i.e., of highest importance).

· We might also note that in some ANE cases, only the woman is killed, but the OT does not
countenance such a double standard here.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you
shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a
town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge
the evil from among you.
· One of the more critical periods of time was the period between contracting the marriage (e.g.,
‘getting engaged’) and consummating the marriage. For all intents and purposes, the engagement event
was when ‘legal marriage’ began. Hence, the capital nature of this crime.

· This crime is a type of ‘statutory’ rape, of sorts. There is nothing about force here, and it is
essentially tantamount to regular adultery.

· We have already seen that this law was not enforced ‘blindly’ or ‘uniformly’.

· Under this scenario, proving paternity would be all but impossible in that day and age.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the
man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death.
This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl
out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

· This is a capital crime, because the man destroyed this woman’s ability to be a part of ‘normal’
community succession. Without her demonstrable virginity, she could not contribute to “unchallenged
successions”. The rapist has stolen this from her, and the punishment (capital) is ‘greater than’ the
crime.

· This DOES involve force, and is given a very high “atrocity-rating” (i.e., like murder)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are
discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

· Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by
doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a
good marriage for her.

· The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The
fifty shekels bride-price (see below on the Exodus 22.16 passage) is five years worth of average wages,
and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem
[AI:1:26]!

· The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)—
and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help
the community, by preserving her virginity.

A related passage is in Exodus 22.16, although its relationship with Deut is somewhat unclear:
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-
price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay
the bride-price for virgins. (Ex 22.16)

· This is not rape, but seduction (but it still costs the girl and the community her virginity)

· The man must pay the bride-price (mohar) for virgins—which she WOULD HAVE gotten in an
arranged marriage.

· He has to marry her, unless the father thinks it’s a bad idea: “In case the girl’s father considered
the match unsuitable for his daughter, as well he might under the circumstance, the man involved was
still to pay as a penalty a sum equivalent to the marriage price for young women eligible to be married.”
(WBC, in.loc.)

· If she didn’t marry the guy, at least she had the mohar to help with her future. Plus, she would still
likely marry, but not as “high-up” (i.e., as a non-virgin), and get an additional mohar (although much
lower).
What was this mohar or bride-price all about?

It can be thought of as a ‘pension’ or ‘social security’ for the woman. It was kept by the father (out of the
clutches of her husband!), but not ‘owned’ by him:

“Furthermore, it is probable that the father enjoyed only the usufruct of the mohar, and that the latter
reverted to the daughter at the time of succession, or if her husband’s death reduced her to penury.
This would explain the complaint of Rachel and Leah against their father, that he had ‘devoured their
money’ after having ‘sold’ them (Gn 31:15)

“A parallel, though not identical, custom existed in ancient Babylonian law: the tirhatu, though not a
necessary condition of the marriage, was usually paid over to the girl’s father, and sometimes to the girl
herself. The amount varied greatly, from one to fifty shekels of silver. This sum was administered by the
father, who enjoyed the usufruct of it; but he could not alienate it, and it reverted to the wife if she was
widowed, or to her children after their mother’s death. In Assyrian law, the tirhatu was given to the girl
herself. It was not a purchase price, but, according to two very probable theories, either a compensation
to the girl for the loss of her virginity, or a dowry intended to assist the wife if she lost her husband.”
[AI:27]

“Typical marriage customs would have included a payment made to the bride’s family by the groom or
his family. This could provide a sort of trust fund to provide for the wife should the husband die, desert,
or divorce her.” [OT:BBCALL, at Gen 29.18]
There is some evidence that this was a variable amount in Israel, and that it was negotiated by the
parents. In some of these cases of rape and/or seduction, the price being paid is typically higher than
what would normally have been paid, so this was both a disincentive for would-be rapists, and a
compensation for ”lost opportunities” for the woman.

…………………………………………………

So, where does this leave us?

1. There would have been other laws operating in Israel than just the few we have in the bible on
rape and virginity issues.

2.The laws we DO have would not have been enforced crudely, stupidly, or without ‘wisdom’ for the
situation.

3.These verses are not evidence for some kind of ethical double-standard, in either the Old or New
Testaments.

4.Orderly property succession is a survival issue for sedentary communities (in which property is held
privately, of course).

5.In the ANE, orderly property succession—for families with a wealth of property—was generally a
critical matter of proven paternity of the heir.

6.Female virginity and faithfulness in marriage was the only way to ensure proven paternity, and was
thus critical to community orderliness and survival.

7.Community legal codes created strong, over-penalties of a ‘capital’ and ‘very expensive’ nature to
force community behavior into supporting the needed order and values.
8.Actions that compromised these values (such as rape of a virgin and rape/seduction of a wife/virgin)
were dealt with severely.

9.The law codes also sought to protect the victims of violation, since the crime greatly reduced their
ability to ‘help the community’ in this way, and greatly restricted their own individual future options for
stability.

10.[Some needs for heirs were met via allowable-on-an-exception-basis polygamy, but most were met
by adoption of heirs into the family.]

11.Thus, the law code treatments of rape/virginity (in the ANE) reflect more the socio-economic survival
needs of the community (a high moral issue, of course), than the more general ethical and moral aspects
of the crimes. (The ethical and moral aspects of the crime might not be visible in the codes at all.)

12.The biblical verses we looked at seem to reflect more the socio-economic importance of
virginity/rape than the broader ethical/moral issues (dealt with in the more ‘moral instruction’ side of
Torah), and were similar to ANE codes in this regard.

13.The biblical cases also show a concrete concern for the financial security of the woman, either
violated or slandered, and implement specific protections for her (e.g., hefty mohar, guaranteed life-
time financial support).

In these cases, I think it is clear that these verses on virginity are NOT primarily about ethics or morality,
but rather a practical matter of ensuring orderly continuity and succession of citizenship and protection
of inter-community boundaries. As can be seen through the biblical (and ANE, by the way) data, matters
of “regular ethics” get assigned more ‘matching punishments’ [cf. lex talionis]; matters of community
survival get assigned ‘capital’ punishments. For the groom’s family it is a way to ensure orderly
succession and continuity of care for the extended family. For the bride’s family it is a way to ensure the
best possible future for the daughter. Virginity was more than simply a case of sexual purity; it had
additional socio-economic impact, and this impact (common throughout the ANE) seems to be the
subject/dynamic of our OT verses. [Note, though, that many/most ‘ethical issues’ also have important
socio-economic consequences attached to them—it is almost always ‘better for the community’ for us
to ‘do the right thing’]
Of course, in OT covenant law, since the Lord was the founder, ruler, and a member of the community
of Israel, every socio-economic aspect of it carried ethical dimensions too, from inheritance laws to
social justice laws. The list of ‘curses’ that the people were supposed to recite—as a community
declaration of its highest values—include a major property law (i.e., moving a boundary stone as a
capital/cursed crime-!-showing again the criticality of land laws to the culture), as well as prohibitions
against abuse of the impaired and against violation of the socially helpless (Deut 27.11ff). Notice that
‘moving the boundary’ is right up there with murder and incest:

On the same day Moses commanded the people: When you have crossed the Jordan, these tribes shall
stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph and Benjamin. And
these tribes shall stand on Mount Ebal to pronounce curses: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan and
Naphtali. The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice:

“Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol—a thing detestable to the LORD, the work of
the craftsman’s hands—and sets it up in secret.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who dishonors his father or his mother.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor’s boundary stone.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the road.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the
people shall say, “Amen!”
“Cursed is the man who sleeps with his father’s wife, for he dishonors his father’s bed.” Then all the
people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who sleeps with his mother-in-law.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.” Then all the people shall say,
“Amen!”

“Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” Then all the
people shall say, “Amen!”

I hope this helps place these verses into context. They are meant for the protection of the woman (as a
community member) and for the protection of the community (as needing stable succession processes
for survival).

Glenn Miller
May 2001

Does the triple tale of Gen. 12, 20, and 26 support the JEDP theory?

What Letter? A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U-V W XYZ

What Bible Book?GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1 Samuel2 Samuel1

Kings2 Kings1 Chronicles2 ChroniclesEzra-NehemiahEsther-JobPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastes-
SongIsaiahJeremiah-Lam.EzekielDanielHosea-JoelAmos-ObadiahJonah-MicahNahum-
HabakkukZephaniah-HaggaiZachariah-MalachiMatthewMarkLuke-ActsJohnRomans1 & 2
CorinthiansGalatiansEph & PhilippiansColossians1 & 2 ThessaloniansPastorals/PhilemonHebrewsJames1
and 2 Peter1, 2, 3 John, JudeRevelation

Keyword Search
Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Not two this time, but three: Gen. 12:10-20, 20:1-18, and 26:1-11. This triple play, each a story of a man
protecting his wife by calling her his sister (and a comedy of errors resulting thereafter), have been gold
for the JEDP theorists.

The fact that they assign Gen. 20 to E and the other two stories to J already shows the inconsistency of
the critics, for they admit a doublet within the same author -- or else posit a series of Js to allow
retention of the theory. .

The similarity of these stories, far from being proof of someone weaving together different sources,
actually (in the context of ancient literature) proves no such thing. The use of repetition was par for the
course in these contexts, and there is no reason why a single author cannot have been responsible for
all three stories. One may as well posit varying authorship for the three accounts of Paul's conversion in
Acts, but I have yet to hear of anyone thinking that more than one person wrote Acts...nor suggest that
Luke got his three stories from three different historical-traditional sources.

Beyond that there are certain discernible patterns explained far better by the premise of a single author
than by a redactor(s?) piecing together once-separate works. Garrett [Garr.RG, 133] notes within the
triad "a pattern in which a narrative element is consistently present in two out of the three accounts".
(He also notes the presence of another triad under the "meeting a woman at the well" motif -- Gen. 24
and 29, and Ex. 2; but no one uses these to reach the same conclusions as they do for our stories of
concern.)

Many writers attempt to break up the stories in terms of motifs [cf. Gor.LWS] -- this we can certainly
accept, especially under the not-too-dangerous assumption that being a wandering chieftain with a
beautiful wife, and being forced by circumstances into more civilized areas, necessarily required you to
do some kind of she's-my-sister deception in order to survive. Perhaps the reason the motifs evolved is
because they reflected a hard reality.

Practically speaking, Hoffmeier [Hoff.WT] argues convincingly that a sort of "diplomatic marriage"
custom lies behind all three stories: In order to gain the protection of the king, along with water and
grazing rights, the patriarchs, having no daughters to present for such an exchange, resorted to the ruse
with their wives. The threat was not therefore originally from the kings themselves, but from outside
forces that the patriarchs sought protection from.

This is one point in which history sets silence to the critics: Many arguments on these stories assume
that the ruler was the main source of threat.

Other than that, one author can be as easily responsible for a progression of messages (transmitted
through subtle variations in the successive stories) as two or more. It's just like we've said elsewhere
about the Q/Markan priority hypothesis compared with the Griesbach hypothesis: Critics will work with
any literary hypothesis and derive the same conclusions they would under any other hypothesis. The
literary hypothesis is just a tool that can be picked up and discarded as needed.

Not that critics don't have their own reasons for supposing multiple authors: Speiser supposed that
Abraham would certainly have learned from his first mistake with Pharaoh and not done the same thing
again with Abimelech; of this I can only suppose that Speiser himself never did the same (or same sort
of) foolish thing twice or more. Of course under the "diplomatic marriage" paradigm, we aren't really
dealing with a "mistake" in the first place but a strategem.

There is also the question of the appearance of Abimelech in both Gen. 20 and 26, which is taken to
prove two different authors; but the explanation that this either involves a dynastic name, or else that
this is the same Abimelech much older (Is there a clue of progress in his title changes from "king of
Gerar" to "king of the Philistines"? (cf. 20:2, 26:8) Is there some sign of Abimelech as an old man in Gen.
26 in his habit of being a peeping tom?), are more than sufficient.

A minor objection asks where Jacob and Esau were in Gen. 26, as they would be at least 16 at the time
and a dead giveaway to Isaac's status as a married man; this is easily resolved, for in Isaac's large party
of relatives and servants there would be more than enough options for passing the twins off as someone
else's (or as from another marriage).

Another objection, usually unrelated to JEDP issues, asks how a woman of 90 could be so beautiful as to
be desired by the kings; Jewish tradition responded, quite sensibly, that the promise to Abraham and
Sarah was fulfilled in process by reversing the aging process and making them young again -- which is
indicated in our writer's hints that Sarah was beautiful at age 90, a puzzle they expect us to figure out.

A helpful reader has added this historical note: The Nuzi tablets, contemporary with Abraham, show
that among the Hurrians marriage bonds were most solemn, and the wife had legally, although not
necessarily through ties of blood, the simultaneous status of sister, so that the term "sister" and "wife"
could be interchangeable in an official use under certain circumstances. Thus in resorting to the wife-
sister relationship, both Abraham and Isaac were availing themselves of the strongest safeguards the
law, as it existed then, could afford them.

So in conclusion, we can only remark that concerning these items, JEDP offers more reading of ancient
literature through a modern lens.

-JPH

Sources

1.Bid.EA - Biddle, Mark E. "The 'Endangered Ancestress' and Blessing for the Nations." Journal of Biblical
Literature 109/4, 1990, pp. 599-611.

2.Garr.RG - Garrett, Duane. Rethinking Genesis. Baker, 1991.

3.Gor.LWS - Gordis, Daniel H. "Lies, Wives and Sisters: The Wife-Sister Motif Revisited." Judaism Summer
1985, pp. 344ff.
4.Hoff.WT - Hoffmeier, James K. "The Wives' Tales of Genesis 12, 20, & 26 and the Covenants at Beer-
Sheba." Tyndale Bulletin 43.1, 1992.

Do Genesis 15 and 17 support the JEDP theory?

What Letter? A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U-V W XYZ

What Bible Book?GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1 Samuel2 Samuel1

Kings2 Kings1 Chronicles2 ChroniclesEzra-NehemiahEsther-JobPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastes-
SongIsaiahJeremiah-Lam.EzekielDanielHosea-JoelAmos-ObadiahJonah-MicahNahum-
HabakkukZephaniah-HaggaiZachariah-MalachiMatthewMarkLuke-ActsJohnRomans1 & 2
CorinthiansGalatiansEph & PhilippiansColossians1 & 2 ThessaloniansPastorals/PhilemonHebrewsJames1
and 2 Peter1, 2, 3 John, JudeRevelation

Keyword Search
Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

As part of our continuing work on the JEDP theory, we will be taking a look at specific passages said to
offer evidence in favor of it. One common example involves the supposed "doublet" (the same story
told twice) of Abra(ha)m's covenant with God in Genesis 15 and 17.

At first glance this seems to be a clear victory for the JEDP camp. Throughout the G15 pericope,
"Yahweh" is used. This passage is usually assigned to J and E redacted together. In G17, only "Elohim" is
used. This passage is assigned to P. Both are (so it is said) accounts of God's covenant with Abra(ha)m.

A closer look at these stories, however, and a view that keeps in mind the highly probable oral
background of these stories (which is to say, not necessarily that they began as oral compositions,
though they might have; but rather, that they were intended mainly to be read aloud), refutes the
notion of a JEDP separation.

•It is clear, to begin with, that G15 and G17 are part of entirely different storytelling units. G15's story
arguably begins with Genesis 12; but at the very least, it is clear that the extension goes back to at least
the story of Abram's war in G14. If it did not, then Yahweh's assurance that He is Abram's "shield" and
"reward" doesn't make a lot of sense. (The main assurance relates to the preservation of Abraham's line
[15:2,3,8]. We may well expect Abraham to be concerned about his lack of an heir after the pitched
battle described in G14.)
On the other hand, what of G17? The hinge point for saying that this is a doublet is verse 2, where God
announces that he will make a covenant with Abram -- in a way that seems to suggest, to modern
reading critics, that this is the first time the issue is being brought up.

But if G17 is part of an oral pericope that began with G16, or even if the stories were simply meant to be
(or had to be) read aloud, then the "reminder" of a covenant is quite understandable: It serves in
essence as a "flashback" to the actual covenant scene-enactment in G15, as an "aural cue" reminding
the listener of what preceded.

G17 cannot really be described as a repeat anyway, since G15 has to do with a covenant for land,
whereas G17 is concerned with giving Abraham an heir.

•But what of the other factor that supposedly distinguishes these stories -- the use of divine names?
Here it is worthwhile to first review the matter of divine names as a whole and explore some of the
weaknesses of the criterion, courtesy of the analysis by Whybray [Why.MP, 64ff] -- which was what
really got the whole JEDP thesis going with Astruc so many years ago. ◾The J and E division isn't
universal throughout the Pentateuch. Some critics may leave the impression in popular presentations
that the divine name division is clear throughout the Pentateuch -- but in fact, it is only good through
Genesis and a few of the first chapters of Exodus. After that, "Yahweh" is almost always used, although
"Elohim" does make appearances.

JEDPists contend that E and P stopped using "Elohim" so much after a certain point where Yahweh
reveals Himself to Moses by the name Yahweh (Ex. 6:3), and this explains why the names no longer
alternate the same way. But this explanation is countermanded not only by uses of "Elohim" later than
this passage, but also by these items following:

◾The alteration of divine names also occurs in later works in the OT, and in works of pagan literature in
reference to pagan gods. In books like Jonah and the works of the biblical historians, Yahweh and Elohim
are used back and forth, yet these are works that no one would think of dividing up in the same way.
Likewise, pagan texts vary divine names of pagan gods: Whybray offers the example of a poem that uses
the names "Baal" and "Hadad" interchangeably. This leads to the last item:

◾There are other suitable reasons for the alterations. Whybray suggests two: ◦Theological reasons. This
explanation is often used, perhaps overused, suggesting that "Yahweh" is used to express God's
covenant relation with Israel and for His acts as a personal God, whereas "Elohim" is used in senses of
power and majesty, for example. This also fits with ancient practice of honoring deity, as Neyrey points
out in Render to God [3]: "...it was a mark of honor for a Greco-Roman deity to be 'many-named'" and it
was no doubt the same in the agonistic setting of ancient Israel.

◦Stylistic reasons. To put it simply, writers (and later copyists, as some evidence shows) may have
altered divine names simply for variety, or unconsciously. Whybray points to the way passages like 2
Samuel 16 alternate referring to King David as "David," "the king," and "King David" -- apparently just for
variety. For my part, I recall reading Chuck Colson's book Born Again and being aware of how Colson (or
his ghostwriter?) switched between how he named a friend of his in the text by either first name alone
("Tom"), last name alone ("Phillips"), or by both names ("Tom Philips"). But such name-switching can
also be done unconsciously - Whybray notes that many lecturers switch between the divine names while
teaching, with no apparent motivation!

It is our contention here that theological reasons are sufficient to explain the name variation between
G15 and G17. G15 depicts God as the "covenant God" of Israel. G17, however, follows upon Abram's
attempt in Chapter 16 to give God's promise a little kick by having a child by Hagar.

And so, in G17, Yahweh appears again -- only this time, he identifies himself and says, "I am the Almighty
God!" (17:1) -- and thereafter, God is called "Elohim" for the rest of the episode. Why? Because Yahweh
is now proclaiming his power to do what Abram was trying to do on his own.

We therefore conclude that these two passages offer no support for the JEDP thesis. At the same time,
we assert that there is no reason to deny that Moses was responsible for assembling these stories:
Which is to say, as is the case with much of what is in Genesis, he certainly had sources at his disposal
which he used, for he was obviously not writing from personal experience!

A final sidebar concerning a critical divisional hinge-point deserves notice from within the text of G15
itself. It concerns verses 15:5 and 9-12:

He brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count
them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be..." He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three
years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." He
brought him all these and cut them in two, laying each half over against the other; but he did not cut the
birds in two. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun
was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him.

Critics allege an redactional foul-up as proof of multiple authors: Verse 5 indicates it is night time, and
then suddenly the sun is setting in verse 12. Of course if a redactor was this "stupid" then there is no
reason why an original author could not be also; but in fact this is a mountain made of a molehill.

One can easily see the events of verses 1-4 taking place during a sleepless night of Abram contemplating
his childlessness; verse 5 might well take place early in the morning while stars are still visible, and
verses 7-11 can be seen as a summary of events of the day time following.

An ingenious, but probably unnecessary, solution is proposed by Noegel in The World of Genesis:
Persons, Places, Perspectives - Sheffield Academic Press, 1998 - in which he analyzes the use of the
phrase 'im tukat ["if you are able"] and finds that it is used in places where the deed implied is thought
impossible, and actually serves as a taunting test of faith or ability; it is then followed upon by a
surprising turn or twist. (cf. Gen. 13:16, 1 Sam. 17:8-9, Job 33:5, 2 Kings 18:23-4//Is. 36:8) The twist
here, Noegel argues, is that Abram cannot count the stars precisely because it is day time. The solution
is interesting, but I think it is hardly necessary.

-JPH

Source

1.Why.MP - Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield Academic
Press, 1987.

Doea Genesis 21 support the JEDP Theory?

It is noted that according to information in Genesis 15-16, Ishmael ought to be a teenager by the time
Isaac was born. One commentaror goes on to argue:

Yet in Genesis 21:14-21 the text, read as it stands, seems to imply that here Ishmael was a baby.
In v. 14 Abraham puts the boy on Hagar's shoulder; in v. 15 she throws the boy under a bush; in v. 16
she says "Let me not look upon the death of the child." In v. 17 God hears the boy crying; in v. 18 God's
angel says "Arise, lift up the boy, and hold him by your hand." The NASB emends this to "by his hand,"
but we might take it to mean "in your hand" as a baby would be held.

Our subject here goes on to accuse translators of "mistranslating to fit the passages together" and avoid
the JEDP-favoring implications. Let's look at this a piece at a time and see if Ishmael really was just a
baby here:

In v. 14 Abraham puts the boy on Hagar's shoulder...

How does he get this? Let's look at the verse:

And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it
unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and
wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

Now it is supposed here that Abraham put the bread, the water, and the child on Hagar's shoulder; but
what a load for a shoulder or neck that would be! The typical water "bottle" of this age was an animal
skin that held three gallons and filled up would weigh about 30 pounds. This means it wouldn't make
any difference whether Ishmael was a baby or an adult.

The fact is that the proper antecedent in the Hebrew for "child" in this verse is "gave" - Abraham gave
Hagar the child Ishmael, last of all; an indication of profound regret at having to part with the lad. (The
word child here, incidentally, is yeled, and can refer to anything from a baby to a teenager.)

...in v. 15 she throws the boy under a bush...

Which is not a bad idea, regardless of how old the boy was. By this time it seems that Ishmael was
suffering badly from heat and exposure and would need whatever relief he would get. This verse by no
means indicates a baby: Indeed, the word "throws" here would suggest something you would NOT do to
a baby: It is the same word that might be used in the sense of "throwing" dice.
Nor does that he was under a bush mean he was a mere tyke: That was, after all, the only shade
available in a desert situation. Ishmael and Hagar had both been out in the desert for the same amount
of time; but Hagar was probably, as an adult, somewhat better able to withstand the elements. It seems
quite reasonable to suggest that, by the time she "threw" him under the bush, he was hardly able to
stumble on his own, and she wasn't doing much better, but continued to support him as best she could.
She was simply in no condition to gently lay him in the shade, but rather heaved him off her shoulder in
the general direction of the bush.

...in v. 16 she says "Let me not look upon the death of the child."

This offers no indications either way.

In v. 17 God hears the boy crying...

The word "crying" here does not equate with the crying of a baby: The word here, qowl, is used to refer
to God's "voice" in Eden (Gen. 3), Abel's blood "crying" from the ground (4:10), what Sarai says to Abram
(16:2)...obviously it holds no indication of age, and in fact, when used of what is done by humans, seems
to refer regularly to the sort of audible and undertstandable speech performed by an adult.

In v. 18 God's angel says "Arise, lift up the boy, and hold him by your hand." The NASB emends
this to "by his hand," but we might take it to mean "in your hand" as a baby would be held.

We might do no such thing. In the OT, the phrase "by the hand" is used idiomatically to refer to
leadership and has nothing to do with the age of the person involved. In Is. 51:18 it is used to refer to
Jerusalem as a weakened woman who needs guidance. In Jer. 31:32 it refers to God leading Israel out of
Egypt "by their hand". Here, God was telling Hagar to lead and guide her son- which leads directly into
the next point where it is added that Ishmael will be made into a great nation.

Thus, far from being accurate in his claim that "translators fudge the language to keep the passages
consistent," it is our JEDPist here who is behind the times.
(For a bit more on this topic, see some words by one of our associates on this page.)

-JPH

Midianites or Ishmaelites?

Throughout Genesis 37-39, there seems to be a switch bewteen terms: some verses say Joseph was sold
into captivity by the Midianites, while others say it was by the Ishmaelites. This is heralded as a
contradiction.

But is this allegation in harmony with the text? Note the following points:

• In Gen 25 both Midian and Ishmael are listed as sons of Abraham.

• Gen 37:25-28: As they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to their meal, they looked up and saw a caravan of
Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were loaded with spices, balm, and myrrh, and they were
on their way to take them down to Egypt. [26] Judah said to his brothers, "What will we gain if we kill
our brother and cover up his blood? [27] Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands
on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood." His brothers agreed. [28] So when the
Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty
shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites , who took him to Egypt.

• Note 37:36: "Meanwhile, the Midianites sold Joseph ...."

• Note 39:1: "...the Ishmaelites who had taken him [Joseph] there..."

• See also Judges 8:22 and 24, where in verse 22 the Israelites tell Gibeon that he has saved them from
the "hand of Midian", and verse 24 refers to the Midianites as "Ishmaelites". Gideon speaks to the
Midianites, and 8:24 says: "And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you, that ye would
give me every man the earrings of his prey. (For they had golden earrings, because they were
Ishmaelites.)"

It is immediately seen that the author of Genesis (as well as the author of the account of the Judges) is
using the terms "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" in a synonymous fashion. This is obvious to a reader of
the text who is not attempting to manufacture a discrepancy.

And even without this internal evidence (which should by itself be convincing in my opinion), the
argument for contradiction in these passages hinges on the hidden premise that groups can have but
one name and one name only to them. Yet this was not true then, and it is not true now. Even throwing
aside the internal evidence presented, what evidence can be adduced for the claim that a group cannot
have any synonymous names or identifications?

A general point should now be brought up. Note the internal evidence presented earlier. Now those
Skeptics who assert an error here in the autographa are in essence stating that (a) The Hebrew mind is
quite unflexible and literarily devoid of synonymoms, and hence can use one and only one name; (b)
That the Hebrew author of Genesis is so forgetful that he blows the names only a few verses apart; and
(c) That the Hebrew people as a whole are so uncritical and gullible that this "error" went unnoticed as
the "error" that it was for a very long period of time.

Can any proof be adduced for any of (a)-(c)? Without any such proof or evidence, points (a)-(c) are really
nothing but prejudiced remarks. Write a scholarly paper with the word "Blacks" (say) or "Latinos" (say),
substituted for the word "Hebrew" in (a)-(c) and see what response you get. It is really quite easier to let
the internal evidence and idiom speak for itself than to believe the necessary assumptions (quite
unreasonable in and of themselves) for the Skeptic's claim.

The evidence of Judges 8:24 is especially telling. The condition of being an Ishmaelites is associated with
the wearing of a golden earring. This suggests that "Ishmaelites" was not a racial connotation, but a
material one. It may be suggested that because Ishmael was a wanderer in the desert, the name was
attached to those who were vagrant wanderers with no home base, as might attach themselves to trade
caravans for protection. (One will notably not find "Ishmaelites" used in the Bible anywhere else except
Ps. 83:6, which offers no discerning information other than that the Ishmaelites lived in tents.)

-Eric Vestrup

Does the "water from rock" double tale support the JEDP theory?

Ex. 17:2-7 -- The people quarreled with Moses, and said, "Give us water to drink." Moses said to them,
"Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?" But the people thirsted there for water; and
the people complained against Moses and said, "Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our
children and livestock with thirst?" So Moses cried out to the LORD, "What shall I do with this people?
They are almost ready to stone me." The LORD said to Moses, "Go on ahead of the people, and take
some of the elders of Israel with you; take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I
will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it,
so that the people may drink." Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. He called the place
Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled and tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among
us or not?"
Num. 20:2-13 Now there was no water for the congregation; so they gathered together against Moses
and against Aaron. The people quarreled with Moses and said, "Would that we had died when our
kindred died before the LORD! Why have you brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness for
us and our livestock to die here? Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to bring us to this wretched
place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink." Then
Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting; they fell on their
faces, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Take the staff,
and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes
to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for
the congregation and their livestock. So Moses took the staff from before the LORD, as he had
commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to
them, "Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" Then Moses lifted up his hand
and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their
livestock drank. But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me, to show my
holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I
have given them." These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the
LORD, and by which he showed his holiness.

As an example of a doublet supposedly evidencing the JEDP theory, this seems at first glance like a
tough nut to crack -- or not. Friedman, a recent popular purveyor of JEDP, regards it as a "most
impressive example" [Frei.WWB, 198] of the outworking of the theory, although the most common
division criteria -- that of divine names -- is not in evidence here.

(Both passages are attributed by Friedman to writers who used "Elohim" originally, but now use
"Yahweh" -- the Exodus passage to E, and the Numbers passage to P.)

The upshot of the division, according to Friedman, evidences two strands, one which liked Moses (E),
and another which didn't (P). Now we are not in the least interested in Friedman's or anyone else's
psychological reconstructions of parties in ancient Israel who were ideological enemies and yet had
absolutely no objection to some later redactor splicing their stories together in an infinite variety of
ways; it is clear enough that such theorizing is strictly wishes fathering thoughts.

The question is, is there any internal, non-hypothetical, hard-data reason to see a JEDP division in these
two stories?
A simple reading of the stories rings out a definitive no -- and what criteria Friedman uses to suggest the
division are revealed rather simply as arbitrary. Let's break this up:

•These passages describe two different events -- not the same event.

One of the key assumptions of JEDP is that ancient writers are like modern writers -- they would never
repeat themselves in any way, for any reason. But the contrary is true in an oral-based culture where
access to one's folklore was for the most part by oral means.

For these passages, critics note that the line of events is basically the same, and that both conclude with
the naming of a place with the name Meribah. But two basic questions should give us pause. First,
simply under the constraints of common sense, one would expect that events would have to go in a
certain order.

This is similar to the point we have brought up against Werner Kelber regarding healing miracles here.
Thirst usually precedes a demand for water, so that we hardly expect Moses to get the water first and
then have the people complain of thirst. Likewise it is only after some event is over that we expect a
naming to take place, for the sake of memorial.

But what of the similarities? They are to be expected in an oral/aural based culture, for the purpose of
the similarities in the later story is to bring to mind the first story. Far from indicating two original
authors, these stories evidence literary craftsmanship.

A regular theme is the Pentateuch might be summarized thusly: "Israel -- A Bunch of Complainers!" And
by writing the second story in a way reminiscent of the first, the author (whether Moses or one of his
scribes) clearly hearkens back and emphasizes that theme in a way that a listening audience will
assuredly catch.

It is also significant that these similar stories -- along with connected stories about manna and quail and
a text concerned with the 40 years [Ex. 16:4-35; Num. 11:4-34, 14:21-2] -- are placed at the very
beginning of the Exodus and at the very end -- thus perhaps signifying, "Israel -- A Bunch of Complainers,
From the Beginning to the End.")
This is enough to debunk any JEDP division, but let's look at some other ways Friedman divides the text:

•Vocabulary. Friedman argues that whereas P uses terms like congregation and community, E uses the
people.

But there's a bit of a problem involved here by starting E's story at 17:2 -- congregation is used in 17:1.
This would no doubt be attributed to P or (as Friedman indicates) some P-minded redactor as a way of
saving the theory, but to do so would be to beg the question.

We have noted that such variation in wording may be the result of theological or stylistic considerations.
The latter is unlikely here, although the fact that "congregation" is used throughout Numbers (nearly the
whole book is attributed to P) suggests that it was an affectation of whoever composed the book in the
first place.

Perhaps the P thesis is half-right, and the book was inscribed by a priest -- with Moses' authorization.
But there is no reason at all to endorse the JEDP version of events, much less a psychological history the
likes of Friedman's.

Another vocabulary issue focusses on the variance in the word used to express the people's death wish:
"kill" (muwth) in E (Ex. 17:3) and "expire" (gava') in P (20:3-4). It is difficult to see why this minor
variation should be an issue. Gava' is used only 11 times in the Pentateuch; muwth is used literally
hundreds of times, sometimes within the same verse as gava'.

A short study of the use of gava' finds that is used primarily in regard to deaths that are either at the end
of one's natural life or due to God's judgment -- one suggests that gava' has a cerain nuance to it that
the critics are missing.

•Theology. It is also argued that P represents a more dignified theology (as it refers, for example, to the
"glory of the Lord") whereas E engages in anthropomorphisms (like having God standing on the rock,
17:6).

But there is a very simple reason for the difference in presentation: At the time of Exodus 17, there
wasn't any Tabernacle yet. The Tabernacle represented a copy of things of heaven, and thus was a
suitable place for the "glory of the Lord" to appear; but out in the wilderness, all there was, was a rock.
The "glory of the Lord" would by no means appear in such a mundane place for such mundane reasons.
Here is the last factor:

•Double Meribah. It is asserted that since both stories end with the naming of the place as Meribah,
someone is duplicating an account. But compare verses:

He called the place Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled and tested the LORD, saying,
"Is the LORD among us or not?"

These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the LORD, and by which he
showed his holiness.

Notice that in this first verse, there is indeed a specific process of naming going on -- but the second
verse does not follow the same pattern; it is not using the standard naming formula! Rather, what we
see here is a specific case of the aural cluemaking we have indicated above: We are told, "this is
Meribah" -- and immediately, that first story will come to mind.

It is like saying of Iraq, "It is another Vietnam" -- for we see many parallels between the two situations.
And thus is that theme of Israel's continuing and repetitive stubbornness once again brought to the fore.

We do not have the same story twice here, but a case of supreme literary craftsmanship, specially
designed for an aural-based culture.

-JPH

Sources

1.Frei.WWB - Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote the Bible? Summit Books.

2.Why.MP - Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield Academic
Press, 1987.
Does Numbers 16 support the JEDP theory?

The story of Numbers 16 is often cited by JEDP theorists like Friedman as a classical example of two tales
that were conflated by different authors to form the Pentateuch. The reader will be surprised that I
agree with them about it being a conflation of two stories about two separate events. The catch,
though, is that this can be held without any reference to the JEDP hypothesis.

As we have noted many times before, one of the major problems with the JEDP hypothesis is that it
reads the Pentateuch as though it were written by a modern writer who would presumably write in a
way that makes sense to us.

Suffice to say here that conflation of separate stories into one story was in fact a common practice by
ancient authors: There is no need to do as the JEDP theory wants and theorize that Numbers 16 was a
composite mix of J, E and P, so that once again, JEDP's hypothesis of multiple authors but a single
redactor becomes superfluous. One can just as easily begin with a single author. One also need not
assign the writing of these materials to a date any later than traditionally supposed. (For more on this
subject, see the article by Gordon, "Compositeness, Conflation and the Pentateuch" in the Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 51, 1991, pp. 57-65.)

The usual attempt is to assign all Korah material to P, while the rest concenring Dathan and Abiram is
assigned to JE. Certain tensions in the chapter are usually pointed to as evidence of divisions.

• It is said that the phrase "well-known men" is typical of the P writer. (16:2; cf. Gen. 6:4) But its use is
so infrequent (it looks to me like these are the only two places it appears) that the assertion is
statistically meaningless.

On the other hand, it is admitted that "rise up" (v. 2) is not typical of P; to solve this the omnipotent
redactor is generally invoked...an obvious attempt to "save the theory" in the face of contrary data.

Indeed, the number of "exceptions" assigned to a redactor I have noted to be rather large for this
chapter. The assignations are usually along this line: 1-2 to P, with P drawing some material from J;, or
else P rewriting material from JE; 3-11 to P (or two Ps working at different times); 12-15 to JE; 16-24 to P
(with 18 perhaps from P #2); 25-34 to JE with P insertions, or else: 25 to JE; 26-27a to P; 27b-31 to J, 32-
34 to a mix, and 35 to P (or P #2).

•From the J side, it is argued that "fields and vineyards" is typical of the J writer.
Once again, the actual occurence of the phrase is so rare that we may rightfully ask how it can be used
to support ANY conclusion. One may also ask how often "fields and vineyards" ought to be referred to in
texts having to do with religious subjects as would be assigned to P, and whether the critics have a "P
substitute" phrase used for referring to fields and vineyards...but more on this next:

• Sections are assigned to P on the basis of preoccupation with priestly matters.

Of course this is nothing more than arbitrary, just like finding a grocery list and assigning parts of it to M
(meat-eater), V (vegetarian) and S (starches), then positing a complex history in which V's list was picked
up and redacted by M, which in turn was picked up and redacted by S. Divisions by category and topic
sound persuasive if you ignore the maxim that life tends to be multi-faceted and complex.

The same paradigm often makes much of Aaron's presence in texts assigned to P, but since it is obvious
that Aaron, being the head honcho of the Levites, ought to be concerned with such matters, and would
have no relevance to any political challenge to Moses' leadership, his appearance in "P" texts alone is
just a matter of common sense, and the "substitution" of the elders in "J" texts is common sense as well.
This is would be no more unusual than depicting Billy Graham as a companion of the President at a
religious meeting, but not at a political rally.

Our conclusion is this: While the idea of conflation of two stories is correct, the JEDP theorists are
incorrect to impress this into their service. It may well be that two different scribes in the time of Moses
compiled these two stories, and that Moses himself (or under his authority) wove them together
according to the ancient paradigm.

But to rip these stories out of their paradigm and offer psychological speculation apart from evidence
(i.e., positing that P represents some sort of post-exilic power struggle within the priesthood) is to once
again read the text through a modern lens.

-JPH

Deuteronomy and the JEDP Thesis

Very little is simple about any variant of the JEDP theory. But one of the simple parts of it is what exactly
the "D" is.
As the critics parse the rest of the Pentateuch into parts portioned out to one or more Js, a fellow
named E, a more negative person named P, and heaven knows which other letters of the alphabet, the
book of Deuteronomy, following a period when attempts were made to parcel it out to J and E, has
remained since the work of DeWette in 1805 [VR.Dt, 11] a mostly, mysteriously unified whole dedicated
to a single writer/editor designated D who was reckoned to have lived in the seventh century BC, with
perhaps a few remarks interpolated by the sourpuss P.

Although there are some minor variations on the theory that place D in the time of Hezekiah or
elsewhere, for most critics, Deuteronomy is identified with the "book of the law" found in the Temple in
2 Kings 22:8-11, with the assumption that the priests of Josiah or one of the prophets put it together on
the sly and passed it off as an authentic document, managing to fool everyone into thinking it was a
genuine work of antiquity and authority which everyone immediately recognized in spite of being
radically unfamiliar with it, perhaps by using some genuinely old material.

This assumption in turn is generally used to date and analyze the remaining documents of J, E and P. The
date, origin and function of D is the "fulcrum" (as one of the earliest JEDPers, Wellhausen,
acknowledged) upon which JEDP rests: It is "primarily in relation to (Deuteronomy) that the other
documents are dated." [Man.BL, 10; cf. Wein.Dt111, lx]

Unified Deuteronomy?

Which is not to say that "D" means a unified whole. In accordance with the usual presumption that what
is written in the Bible must have evolved rather than been revealed, critics are naturally anxious to
partition this book and assign levels and layers of development however and wherever possible (just as
is done with the NT).

Typically such partitionings follow what I call the "grocery list" method: Taking a typical grocery list, one
could conceivably assert that the original list contained only fruit and vegetables and was composed by
a "vegetarian community"; this list was later picked up by an "omnivorous community" that added
meats to the lists, interspersing them throughout the list.
Finally, a "practical community" redacted the list, adding things like mops and household cleansers. Thus
we have a complex evolution of a simple, original grocery list that is not supported by a shred of textual
or physical evidence. It is simply a matter of finding categories, dividing the text according to these
categories, figuring out which order they might reasonably come in, and finally positing a clever fellow
who made the final product look like a reasonable unity.

This is how many literary critics in Biblical circles operate, although with a great deal more complexity
and many more permutations, albeit not often a great deal more logic.

How is this done for Deuteronomy generally? Here are some methods and arguments that have been
used:

• The singular and plural method. Some early critics especially attempted to divine early sources based
on Deuteronomy's seemingly pointless (to modern ears) switches between grammatical mode of
address in the second person; these switches were called Numerusweschel. This method is not pursued
as often as it once was, because: ◾ The process of separation by this method in many places, even
according to liberal scholars, does "unacceptable violence to the text" [May.Dt, 36].

◾The switch in person is also attested in extra-biblical documents, including in treaty stipulations of the
sort contained in Deuteronomy [May.Dt, 35; Wein.Dt111, 15]. Cazelles [Caz.PSDP, 208], though he offers
no examples, dismisses the switches in other documents as "sporadic and explainable" whereas he finds
Deuteronomy's switches "bewildering". But if it is an explanation for the switches in Deuteronomy he
wants...

◾... Christensen [Chr.Dt111, 33-4] shows that these changes in tense occur at key places in the text and
act as "an elaborate set of aural signals" intended to aid in reading the text aloud. These switches, he
says further, take place at critical junctures within the musical pattern set down in Deuteronomy. (See
below.)

• Concerns method. Mayes [May.Dt, 29] suggests a search for layers according to whether a text is
concerned with legal or historical matters, and supposes Deuteronomy to have originally been a law
code upon which historical and other material was layered. Not only is this an arbitrary "grocery list"
category division, it also rejects the strong evidence of Deuteronomy's unity as a treaty. (See below, for
this and Mayes' response to it.)

The unity of Deuteronomy as an original whole, on the other hand, is supported by these factors:

• The treaty form factor. See below on this.

• The musical chiasmus factor. In an extensively detailed study, Christensen [Chr.Dt111, xli] analyzes the
text of Deuteronomy and finds it to be full of "carefully balanced structures at virtually all levels of
analysis." This could be the product of late redaction as critics would undoubtedly allege, but it is far
more likely that these extensive structures point to a single mind behind the text.

Space prevents us from offering too much detail here, but here are some of the examples that
Christensen offers. To begin, the whole of Deut. itself may be arranged thusly:

A A Look Backwards (Dt. 1-3)

B The Great Peroration (4-11)

C Covenant Stipulations (12-26)

B' Covenant Ceremony (27-30)

A' A Look Forwards (31-34)

Here is another, more detailed chiasm in the text [ibid., 1ff]:

A summons to enter the Promised Land (1:6-8)

B organization of the people for life in the land (1:9-18)

C Israel's unholy war (1:19-21)

D march of conquest (2:2-25)

C' Yahweh's Holy War (2:26-31)

B' distribution of land in the Transjordan (3:12-17)

A' summons to take the Promised Land (3:18-20)

And here is another [ibid., 28ff], one which overlaps the one above -- is this more likely with a single
author, or a host of redactors over hundreds of years?

A travel notice: Horeb to Kadesh Barnea (1:19)

B report: you have reached the Promised Land (1:20)

C summons to possess the Land (1:21)

D Israel sin: request for spies (1:22)

E report: I sent the spies (1:23-4)

F report of the spies and Israel's rebellion (1:25-8)

G summons not to fear (1:29-31)

F' Israel's rebellion and Yahweh's judgment (1:32-6)

E' report: Yahweh was angry with me (1:37-9)

D' Israel's sin: they confess but act presumptuously (1:40-1)

C summons not to fight for the land (1:42)

B' report: ypu failed to enter the Land

A' travel notice: Kadesh Barnea to Mt. Seir (1:45-2:1)

Other than these, Christensen also demonstrates that behind the structure of Deuteronomy lies what
we might call for simplicity a musical balance, which also shows chiastic tendencies. It is noted that in
antiquity law codes were usually sung aloud at festivals [Chr.Dt111, lv], which greatly facilitated the
memorization process for pre-literate cultures. Christensen shows in his work that a distinctly musical
pattern lies behind Deuteronomy's text, which suggests strongly that it was originally composed as a
unified whole.

• The parallel commands structure factor. [Merr.Dt; Walt.DESL] Once the treaty parallel is established
and understood, it becomes quite clear that these are specific stipulations expanding upon each of the
general Decalogue stipulations. They are, in short, "elaborations or applications of the Ten
Commandments in order." (More on this below.)

Critics, of course, will continue to argue for piecemeal construction of Deuteronomy, asserting that its
unified nature is the work of later redactors; but this begs the question of the existence of piecemeal
sources in the first place. As it stands, Deuteronomy is overwhelmingly a unified and consistent whole
that requires no supposition of ancient priests with scissors and paste.

Exodus and Leviticus II?

Is Deuteronomy merely a repeat of laws set forth in Exodus and Leviticus? Why was it necessary to have
Deuteronomy at all?
Early critics scratched their heads and wondered if Deuteronomy was intended to replace what was
found in Exodus and Leviticus. In a sense they were correct. But Deuteronomy should not be understood
merely as a repeat of what is found in previous books. It is, rather, "an amplification and advancement
of the covenant text first articulated to Moses and Israel at Sinai nearly forty years earlier." [Merr.Dt, 22]
In explaining this, it is important to note these things:

• Deuteronomy claims its origin in the land of Moab (1:5), which places it at the END of the Exodus.
There is now a different situation into which the people of Israel are entering, and the laws are adjusted
from those of prior to the wilderness trek accordingly.

For example, laws concerning slaves in Ex. 21:2ff are different from those in Deut. 15:12ff, for the latter
assumes now that there will be settled property and people going into debt over the obligations
imposed by an organized society.

Similarly, the difference between Deut. 14:21 ("Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give
it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a
people holy to the LORD your God.") and earlier versions that don't go into as much detail is explained
by Weinfeld [Wein.Dt111, 22] on psychological grounds, but it is more than adequate to observe that
the latter reflects a nation which will be involved in commerce and settled to the point where there will
be poverty-stricken resident aliens; likewise theories on Deuteronomy's inclusion of the Transjordan in
the Promised Land territory grant [ibid., 175ff], where before it was not included, are better set aside
with the simpler explanation that the new territory could now be included under a new covenant.

Von Rad rightly notes that many former laws are applicable only to a pastoral situation [VR.Dt, 14],
which describes perfectly Israel's trek in the wilderness, whereas the latter additions reflect "a
considerably more advanced stage in economic history" -- they admit of a society where men secure
loans to carry on their business. Unlike von Rad, however, we argue that the change is due to the entry
into Canaan and the immediate premonition of a more organized society -- not because Deuteronomy,
as he supposes, was written/edited during the time of the monarchy in Judah.

It is not as though Moses and the Israelites could not have KNOWN beforehand how their more-
organized society would work; did they not have the experiences of the highly-civilized Egyptians to
draw upon? And if Moses was highly-placed in the Egyptian government as Josephus insists, would he
not also have a keen awareness of the problems of a more settled society, from a variety of political
perspectives?
• In the ancient Orient, the reiteration and reaffirmation of a covenant was required with every new
generation [Merr.Dt, 26-7]. Hence, it is perfectly in line with the available social data that the new
generation of Israelites about to embark on the conquest were presented with this "second version" of
the covenant.

• At the same time, covenant made between the suzerain and the vassal people had to be renewed by
the successors of the suzerain. The historical prologue (see below) at this time would be brought up to
date, as would the stipulations.

God of course would have no successor, but did have Moses as mediator (in a role that parallels that of
the third party in the making of ANE treaties -- Chr.Dt111, 133), and the situation of Deuteronomy is
that Moses is about to die and be replaced by Joshua. It is quite right to suppose that the text of the
covenant would be renewed and passed on. (cf. Josh. 1:7 - This also answers von Rad's query, wondering
about whether we would expect Moses, just after the command to him to ascend Pisgah before he dies,
would "launch out into a detailed introduction to his recital of the law" [VR.Dt, 48] -- according to this
cultural paradigm, this is exactly what we would expect Moses to do; see more on treaty forms below.)

In summary, it is a misperception to suppose that Deuteronomy simply repeats what has already been
written elsewhere. Deuteronomy reflects a new generation and its objectives, a generation that must be
dealt with differently. Hence also Deuteronomy may report things differently than the other books of
the Pentateuch for polemical purposes: Though critics see such differences as a result of JEDP divisions,
we simply see them as the result of a generational division.

For example, McConville and Millar [McC.TPD, 29] chalk up differences in the travel itineraries between
Deut. 2 and Numbers 20-1 as something intended "to provoke the Israelites to jealousy and expose to
them the folly of their past actions" while emphasizing that in them, Israel has a second chance here on
the plains of Moab. Such rhetorical and polemical changes, we will argue, are in fact found in several
places.

The Format of Deuteronomy

One of the key factors in dating Deuteronomy to the traditional time of Moses is its format. Earlier JEDP
theorists (followed by many today) assumed that Deuteronomy was merely a collection of hortatory
discourses by Moses followed by recitation of laws and covenant, and worked their theories upon that
basis; von Rad, for example, writing when the data we are about to present was just starting to be
noticed, supposed that Deuteronomy was "following a traditional cultic pattern, probably that of a
liturgy or cultic festival." [VR.Dt, 12, 21-2]

However, the critics were somewhat off the mark in understanding exactly how those discourses were
formatted. If the proper connection had been made years ago, this pillar of the JEDP theory would never
have been erected.

In format Deuteronomy is most compatible with Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty texts -- secular texts which
"find their florescence in a period slightly later than 1400 (BC)" and went out of style in 1200 BC.
[Merr.Dt, 23, 36] Deuteronomy contains "all the essential elements of these Hittite treaty texts and in
precisely the same order" [ibid., 28] as well as a few other additions suitable to the context (a farewell
address, itineraries, and hymns, for example -- and of course, modifications for monolatry: Where Hittite
treaties called upon the "gods" (in one case, over 50 of them - Hill.CHBI, 36) as well as "heaven and
earth" [as members of the Hittite pantheon - May.Dt, 155; cf. 382] to be witnesses, Deuteronomy calls
upon "heaven and earth" [30:19], representing the totality of creation, as a witness alone).

One does find that there is "considerable variation" [Mend.LCAI, 32] in the order and wording of this
format, but there are nevertheless key basic elements that fit a recognizable pattern-outline. Let's look
at how Deuteronomy matches up to one of these treaties [Merr.Dt, 30ff; Mend.LCAI, 32ff; Balt.CF, 9ff;
McC.TC, 28ff; Hill.CHBI, 29ff]:

1.Preamble - (1:1-5) Here were introduced "matters of setting and occasion". This part can also be called
the "titulature" and would be a place for the sovereign to introduce himself. It is found in all extant
treaties, albeit with minor stylistic variations.

2.Historical prologue - (1:6-4:40) This presented the right of the suzerain to assert rule over his vassals,
and the basis of their obligation towards him, often based on past relationships and the history between
the two parties. This would include any instances where the suzerain or a predecessor had delivered the
vassals from some enemy or had granted them special favor.

This section of Deuteronomy therefore shows that Yahweh had a claim on his people by sketching out
highlights of national life between Sinai and the present day. (Some treaties extant from the Hittite
period, however, do not have this section; it was seemingly "not an essential element of the treaty
form" - McC.TC, 31. Hillers alludes to the idea that it may have been excluded where only force was
needed to exert Hittite rule.)
3.General stipulations - (5:1-11:32) "This section spells out the principles of the relationship between the
parties of the covenant. It clarifies who the (suzerain) is, what he has done for those whom he has
chosen for covenant fellowship, what he will do for the years to come, and how they are to respond."

It also includes prohibitions of foreign relationships apart from the Hittite emperor, here matched, quite
sensibly, with the Shema (6:4-5) which disallows relations with any foreign gods; it recalls Yahweh's
theophanic glory on Sinai; for general stipulations, it contains a reiteration of the Decalogue. Much
space is also devoted to the expected response of the Israelites. In some treaties, however, this section
is blurred with the one following:

4.Specific stipulations - (12:1-26:15) Critics are fond of speaking of the "haphazard" order [May.Dt, 49-
50] and randomness of this central section of Deuteronomy, but this is countered with two arguments:
◾ As noted above, the laws do follow a pattern after the Decalogue. Although some critics
acknowledged this to some extent early on [May.Dt, 220], it was argued that there were places where a
match was not obvious or that there was overlap.

More recent exegetes have found that the correspondence is much closer than was supposed. Here's
how it all breaks down according to commandment[Walt.DESL; alternate view of Chr.SPPS, if different,
in brackets]:

1. Deut. 6-11 - This section of Deuteronomy expands upon the first commandment by emphasizing God
as the first priority and final authority.

2. Deut. 12:1-32 [12:2-13:19, viewing this as the first commandment]

3. Deut. 13:1-14:21 [14:1-21]

4. Deut. 14:22-16:17

5. Deut. 16:18-18:22 -- Some might argue that the correspondence breaks down here, for this is the
command to honor father and mother; but the basic theme of the section is human authority - and who
represents that better than fathers and mothers?

6. Deut. 19:1-21:23

7. Deut. 22:1-23:14 [22:1-12, 23:5-24:5 as bridges]

8. Deut. 23:15-24:7 -- Rules on slaves are applicable here because of the theft of one's freedom. [24:6-7,
19-22]

9. Deut. 24:8-(25:4?) -- For these last two commands there is a bit of overlap.

10. Deut. (25:4?)-26:15

◾ Other ancient codes display what is (to modern eyes!) "haphazard" arrangement. The Code of
Hammurabi progresses with an association of thought and wording, or by chronological order of
circumstances; others codes might progress by importance of matters in question, social position of the
persons or value of the objects, or by "event/counter-event" methods.

Other Hebrew codes, and Roman codes, evidence "haphazard" arrangement as well. [Cr.SPPS, ibid., and
May.Dt, 49-50, who in spite of this proceeds to assume his own modern notions of order in certain
instances.]

◾ At this point, some treaties include a clause indicating a requirement to keep a copy of the treaty in a
special place and provisions for the treaty to be read aloud. But this clause is "more often lacking than
not" [McC.TC, 38] -- one may suggest that it was only used when the treaty was to be handled in a
special way, as Deuteronomy would have been (i.e., being deposited in the Ark).

5.Blessings and curses - (27:1-28:68) A treaty like this quite naturally needed with statements of reward
and sanction according to whether or not the covenant was honored. An obvious variation from the
Hittite model acknowledges that God of course will not violate the covenant, so that there is nothing
indicating what will happen if the suzerain violates the agreements.

Also, in he Hittite forms, curses were usually put before blessings, in opposition to what is found in
Deuteronomy [Chr.SPPS, 129], but this s a variation we might expect from a kindly, concerned God
verses an earthly tyrant.

6.Witnesses - (30:19, 31:19, 32:1-43) As today, a treaty needed witnesses for certification. Deuteronomy
also ends with some appropriate contextual variants, such as exhortations to fidelity and prophetic
sections (which would obviously not appear in a secular treaty that did not have the benefit of an
omniscient God). Generally, however, this section will be placed before the blessings and curses, which
is one major way that Deut. breaks from the norm.

The implications of this data are obvious. Those who insist on a very late date for Deuteronomy must
explain how it is that this book manages to preserve a treaty form that passed away some 500-700 years
before the work was even written by their accounting, and exemplifies unity in at least two other major
ways.

How do the critics intent upon this late date explain away the format evidence? In several ways:
1.Pretending that the data doesn't exist. Many commentators say nothing about it. Others deny that
Deuteronomy has the form of a treaty; McBride [McB.PCP, 236-7], for example, boldly states that
Deuteronomy "has no true peer or parallel among the legal corpora preserved in the preceding books of
the Pentateuch, nor has there yet been discovered an Ancient Near Eastern document equivalent to it."
(He considers the treaty parallel to be an extreme position; but oddly enough, goes on to suggest Deut.
as a "constitutional" document.)

2. By "save the theory" question-begging. As Merrill wryly notes of the seventh-century date and its
proponents:

...(N)o amount of alleged parallels can dislodge it from that setting. An uprooting of Deuteronomy from
its place necessitates a total repudiation of source-critical and traditio-historical hypotheses that have
been firmly in place since the time of Wellhausen.

Some, for example, assert (without a shred of literary evidence, or perhaps with a few common parallel
phrases that could just have easily been derived from Israel to Assyria rather than vice-versa, or perhaps
have been part of a typical ANE idiomatic topos) that the Hittite treaty form survived those centuries
[McC.TC, 174].

Others like Mayes [32ff, 351] suggest that a better parallel is found in 7th-century Neo-Assyrian treaty
models, even though the match is far from sufficient: For example, although Mayes admits that a
historical prologue is more typical of the early treaties, and that later treaties were characterized by
strings of "long and colorful curses" while sayng nothing about blessings, he nevertheless insists
(without offering a parallel for comparison) that Deuteronomy fits the Assyrian model better.

Weinfeld [Wein.Dt111, 7] notes only one possible valid parallel in a treaty between Ashurbanipal and
Yauta, king of the Qederites, where the supposed historical prologue does not serve as an apology as it
does in the Hittite treaties. It may be noted that there aren't many treaties left to us that might serve as
evidence, and that some may have lost their prologues to damage; but this amounts to an admission
that the evidence for parallels is lacking.

Mayes also tries to downplay Deuteronomy as a treaty format, noting the exceptions to the typical
practice as we have, but ignoring the fact that the exceptional practices found in Deuteronomy are by
far outweighed by the typical practices; elsewhere he insists, without offering a single detail, that the
parallel to Hittite treaty format in a specific place is "far from close" [May.Dt, 163] and states preference
for the speculative findings of form-criticism.

Elsewhere, one may point to archaic linguistic features in Deuteronomy that point to an earlier date; but
these will simply be dismissed as perhaps "the result of conscious archaizing rather than an actual early
date." [May.Dt, 381] Or, faced with evidence, for example, that only Hittite treaties, like Deuteronomy,
expressed the love of the king for the vassals, whereas Assyrian treaties never did, a critic like Weinfeld
[Wein.Dt111, 8] will simply conclude that BOTH Hittite and Assyrian models influenced Deuteronomy,
thus saving the JEDP theory from extinction.

One example Weinfeld cites of Assyrian influence is to note that while the terms of 2nd millennium BC
treaties were validated by a sacrificial ritual and sometimes an oath [the cutting up of an animal was the
most widely-attested method of swearing to a covenant -- cf. Abraham's experience -- Hill.CHBI, 40], 1st
millennium BC treaties were validated by an oath alone, which is paralleled in Deuteronomy [Wein.DPS,
255], which has no ritual. But wouldn't the mass circumcision endured by the Israelites as soon as they
entered the Promised Land [Josh. 5] fit into this category?

Mayes also argues [May.Dt, 35] that Deuteronomy's historical prologue does not act to inculcate
obedience as they do in other treaties.

Really? I rather think that for a second-generation Israelite, having seen the wonders of God during the
Exodus and having his ears filled with longer versions of the tales recounted by Moses in the prologue,
Deut. 1-3 is perfectly suited to inculcate obedience.

Nicholson [Chr.SPPS, 87] tenders the unusual objection that a treaty parallel is incredible because it
would "surely have been a bizarre depiction" of the love of God expressed in Deuteronomy to use a
treaty form in which rulers expressed "love" that amounted to little more than a sort of beneficial
political expediency.

This is like saying that one cannot use a commercial format to make a beneficial public service
announcement about the dangers of cocaine because a politician has also used a commercial format to
make insincere campaign pledges to get rid of cocaine. What matters in this case is the truth of the
content, not the method of presentation. Even so, Nicholson has an anachronistic definition of love in
mind; see here.
Brekelmans [ibid., 128] also objects that the treaty form was always used when a king was exerting
influence over an area where he had no previous influence, and that wouldn't work with God. My
answer is: Agreed! But nor were any of the kings omnipotent owners of the earth. Deuteronomy does
exactly what we might expect under the circumstances.

Other critics grant an original form of Deuteronomy back to the time of Moses, or allow that significant
parts of it (like the Blessing or Song of Moses, or anything that finds parallels in Ugaritic or Cannaanite
literature [14th-12th century BC, the traditional time of Deut.; Weinfeld (Wein.Dt111) finds literally
dozens of these]) go back to ancient periods, but then assert all manner of editing, redaction and
development until the time of Josiah.

To a small degree this is not necessarily problematic: We may grant that terms that became
anachronistic, for example, were modified during transmission, and that certain explanatory notes may
have been added in transmission: Deut. 10:6-7 is a possible example, as is 3:11, and of course most
suppose that the account of Moses' death was tacked on by a scribe after the fact. (Note that assigning
authorship to Moses is usually not distinguished from authority of authorship: We may suppose that the
actual work of writing Deuteronomy was given to a scribe.)

However, it is important now to consider in turn individual passages and how they are relegated to late-
date status by the JEDP school. We will now look at such instances, with the exception of:

◦ Obvious dismissal of prophecy or prophetic warnings, such as the idea that Deut. 4:9-24 and Deut. 28
must have been written after 587 BC, because they seem to have knowledge of the Exile. [VR.Dt, 50,
176]

This, by itself, is questionable: Other treaty curses contain threats of exile, but no one would suggest a
backwritten prophecy; it is far more likely that this is just a typical threat of war and destruction.

◦ Claims of literary dependence on later works like Jeremiah, which we obviously would argue are cases
of dependency working the other way around.

Along the same lines, arguments have been made that 8th century prophets like Amos show no sign of
knowing Deuteronomy; however, this argument is tenuous at best, for there are some signs of Deut. in
these prophets, and there is no certainty in a pre-literate society that someone like Amos, for example,
would be especially familiar with the text. Nor, for that matter, is this clearly evidence of the non-
existence of Deuteronomy: Mendenhall notes [Mend.FCAI, 11ff, 47; see also Hill.CHBI, 88-9] that:
◾ Law codes, strange as it may sound to us, were not considered important in court proceedings -- so
that we do not see them referenced in such documents. Rather, they were educational tools first and
foremost, and it is local courts that did the primary work.

◾ We do not have court documents from ancient Israel -- we have prophetic documents;

◾ As of when Mendenhall wrote in 1955, and to my knowledge continuing to today, "No legal
document has been found which refers to the law of Hammurabi's code," nor is there any instance
where an idiom is used that means "against the law" or "according to the law".

◾ In contrast, the I-thou form found in Deuteronomy IS preserved in the prophetic works.

◦ With some exceptions, places where it is obvious that evolution, fallacious or form-critical literary
principles, or mirror-reading is being assumed. Examples not covered below are: Deut. 7:1-4 [VR.Dt, 67];
the idea that "positive" commandments ("You shall...") could not possibly be original; the idea that the
"golden calf" episode is a polemical backwrite of the Northern Kingdom's two golden calves [May.Dt,
200] or that Passover found its origins in a pastoral migration festival [ibid., 256]; the idea that the
blessings of Deut. 33 were not originally a unified composition because of their diverse length and
format [ibid., 397]; etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.)

A popular minor hinge point for the JEDP theory seeks to divide text based on the name given to the
location of the original giving of the covenant. We are told that D and E prefer "Horeb" (all through
Deut., and Ex. 3:1, 17:6, 33:6), whereas J and P prefer "Sinai" (although it does appear once in D, at
33:2).

"Horeb", however, means "waste place" [McC.TPD, 138], and this probably has a certain significance.
Mayes acknowledges that "Horeb" was more likely originally a regional designation rather than simply a
second name for the mountain itself, as it eventually came to be [May.Dt, 115].
We agree with this assessment: "Horeb" is used in Deuteronomy in order to detract from the idea of a
specific "mountain of God" with which there might be associations of the former generation of
Israelites. In view of the words of Deuteronomy being spoken to the new generation, it is not surprising
that the broader "waste" designation was used, in a way that emphasized the "waste" or desolation of
the previous, failed generation.

Note that of the three Exodus passages, the first two seem to designate "Horeb" in a regional way [cf.
Ex. 17:6, which speaks of Rephidim as being "in Horeb" -- was it inside a mountain? - Man.BL, 52] --
though the point remains regardless of what the preposition means; the use is regional) whereas the
third reference refers to a mountain, and this after the incident of the Golden Calf -- perhaps offering a
hint as to the reason for the double naming.

Note also that the only use of "Sinai" in Deut. refers only to the Lord coming from it, not to the apostasy
of the Israelites.

Thus the Sinai/Horeb differentiation is easily explicable under quite understandable grounds. This leaves
very little other than a broad and unsupportable generalization that the Horeb/Sinai differentiation can
mean anything in terms of defining authorship. There is no need to appeal to it at all.

There are also a couple of other "mountain" name issues used to divide the text of Deuteronomy. One
concerns the site of Aaron's death, recognized as Mt. Hor everywhere but Deut. 10:6, where a place
name is given as Moserah [see Wein.Dt111, 419].

Neither location is known today, and conservative exegetes reply that Moserah is probably the name of
a region Mt. Hor was in, rather than another name for it (perhaps even a late one; this verse has the
character of a late addition).

This makes sense, for Moserah is designated in 10:6 as a place where the Israelites travelled, and
Aaron's death is mentioned incidentally -- obviously, not all of Israel (or even a decent representative
sample) would fit on top of Mt. Hor.

A second "mountain" issue concerns the mountain where Moses went to die. Two places in Deut. say
Pisgah (3:27, 34:1); one says Mount Nebo (32:50). Critics see conflicting traditions here, but if Merrill
[Merr.Dt, 430] is correct and Pisgah is to be identified with the present Ras es-Siyaghah, which is just
north of Mt. Nebo and is geographically a part of it, or else if Pisgah is seen as a regional name
[Chr.Dt111, 60; Wein.Dt111, 180] for a range of mountains of which Nebo was the summit, then the
problem disappears.

Otherwise, no discrepancy can be proven because there is no other idea what or where "Pisgah" is --
whether it might also be a regional name, for example. However, Manley [Man.BL, 61] notes that
"Pisgah" comes from the root Hebrew word pasagh, meaning "cleave" -- so that "Pisgah" may be a
common noun designating a cleft in the rock, or a ridge with a broken outline; cf. Num. 21:20.

These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan--that is, in the Arabah--
opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab...In the fortieth year, on the
first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded
him concerning them...East of the Jordan in the territory of Moab, Moses began to expound this law,
saying:

The critics home in right away on this as evidence of non-Mosaic authorship, saying that these verses
are written from the perspective of one who has already crossed over the Jordan [Wein.Dt111, 126].

Merrill [Merr.Dt, 62n] counters that the phrase in question is a "technical expression that provides no
clue about the location of the author" and simply means "in the region of the Jordan".

But even if not, what of it? Once again we may distinguish between Moses as "author" and "authority" --
and there is no problem with supposing that the scribe who penned Deuteronomy did so after crossing
the river. The difference is that the critics want a period of hundreds of years, whereas we can deal with
a period of only days or weeks.

Also in this area, 1:3 is put down as a "priestly" verse ascribed to P because it is said that only P writes
time in this manner. But this is certainly using minor points to the advantage of begging the question.
One must show that this method of reckoning time was not an affectation of the scribe who put
Deuteronomy together at Moses' bequest, and that this method is somehow unique to the presumed
time and writer of P, before such a distinction can be accepted.
At that time I said to you, "You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. The LORD your God has
increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky...But how can I bear your
problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? Choose some wise, understanding and
respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you."

Mayes [May.Dt, 119] compares this verse and what follows to the account of the event in Numbers 11.
In Numbers, he says, "Moses is violent in his complaint to God" whereas here, "this complaint is
softened out of existence to the point that the cause of it now becomes a reason for praise because of
the fulfillment of the divine promise to the patriarchs."

All of this is done, we are told, because D's "main concern is that Moses should be exonerated from all
blame for the disasters which overtook the people." In other words, it isn't history, but psychology.

But some 40 years pass between Numbers 11 and Deut. 1; does Mayes by chance suppose that Moses
would stay just as angry that entire time? Wouldn't 40 years be sufficient for some reflection and re-
evaluation, a bit of mellowing out and divesting one's self of the temper?

And why should the anger be expressed to this second generation that wasn't in on the foul-up in the
first place? Mayes' Moses must have been one tough and unforgiving customer.

Mayes also argues that the same psychoanalysis is the reason behind Moses being the one responsible
for choosing leaders of the people in Exodus, whereas in v. 13 it is the people themselves who make the
choice.

This is hardly necessary. When Exodus says that Moses "chose" the leaders based on their ability, are we
to suppose that Moses knew every Israelite personally and was able to make the choices himself?
Exodus implies no such thing, and does not exclude the people selecting leaders and having Moses set
them over them (indicating that while they offered candidates, he made the final choices -- note also v.
15, which proleptically refers to those who were chosen as the leaders - Mer.Dt, 69-70). It may well be
that Deuteronomy is phrased differently in order to stress the responsibility of the people (which is
quite sensible, in light of Moses' anticipated death), but there is hardly any reason to go as far as Mayes
does and posit such extravagant psychological explanations where a much simpler one that does justice
to the texts will do.
Weinfeld [Wein.Dt111, 139-40], in addition to the above, also finds these alleged discrepancies between
Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1:

• In Exodus, Jethro gives Moses the idea for appointing judges, whereas in Deuteronomy it is Moses'
idea. But Deut. does not say that Moses came up with the idea all by himself at all. This is one of three
such arguments used by Weinfeld, asserting that the lack of a stated detail in a parallel record
constitutes a discrepancy, even if not contradictory.

• In Exodus, the judges are chosen for their moral qualities, whereas in Deut., it is for their wisdom. But
note that Exodus only says what Jethro recommended; it does not say how the choices were ultimately
made, and at any rate, are these not overlapping qualities to begin with? Indeed, wisdom found its
expression in moral choices, as Proverbs makes clear.

Deut. 1:22 Then all of you came to me and said, "Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and
bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to."

Num. 13:1-2 The LORD said to Moses, "Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving
to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders."

Contradiction is also found in these verses, and while some are content to use a rather clumsy
harmonization [Merr.Dt, 73], we suggest that Weinfeld's solution [Wein.Dt111, 144-5] is sufficient. The
Deut. account shows every sign of being aware of the Numbers account; and "contradiction" must be
regarded as intentional, and the polemic purposes of Deuteronomy provide an answer. Because the
sending of the spies resulted in sin by the people, it is now THEY who are given "credit" for the idea
rather than God.

Deut. 2:5 Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put
your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.

Mayes [May.Dt, 135] finds conflict here with Numbers 20:14-21, which reads:

Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying: "This is what your brother Israel says:
You know about all the hardships that have come upon us. Our forefathers went down into Egypt, and
we lived there many years. The Egyptians mistreated us and our fathers, but when we cried out to the
LORD, he heard our cry and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt. "Now we are here at Kadesh, a
town on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your country. We will not go through any
field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king's highway and not turn to
the right or to the left until we have passed through your territory." But Edom answered: "You may not
pass through here; if you try, we will march out and attack you with the sword." The Israelites replied:
"We will go along the main road, and if we or our livestock drink any of your water, we will pay for it. We
only want to pass through on foot--nothing else." Again they answered: "You may not pass through."
Then Edom came out against them with a large and powerful army.

According to Mayes, Numbers provides "quite a different overall picture" than Deuteronomy on the
Edom passage: Numbers, he says, shows Israel bypassing Edomite territory, whereas Deut. shows them
as having passed through and purchased food and drink.

However, verse 2:1, which Mayes says almost nothing about, says "For a long time we made our way
around the hill country of Seir." This would seem to indicate agreement with Numbers that Israel was on
the edge of Edomite territory. I see no justification in Deut. for the idea that Israel passed through the
middle of the Edomite territory (as they requested to do in Numbers) at all; food and drink could just as
easily be purchased on the roundabout trek on Edom's fringes from travelling merchants and motivated
entrepreneurs. [Man.BL, 57]

Mayes also prefers for this reason the LXX translation of v. 8, which has Israel going "through" Edom,
versus the MT, which has them travelling "away from" Edom. [ibid., 136] but Weinfeld asserts that this
would require "too many corrections" of the MT. [Wein.Dt111, 156]

On the other hand, Weinfeld [159] does believe that there is contradiction with Num. 20:14, for these
Edomites in Deuteronomy do not seem to be "afraid".

But fear, after all, has many possible responses, and one of them would obviously be to tell the Israelites
to stay away.

There is also an interesting parallel here to the Hittite treaties, which tell the vassals to claim their land,
but not to bother others who have received land from the king.
Our position also holds that Moses' words in 2:29 are a case of tactical duplicity on his part [Merr.Dt,
101; Wein.Dt111, 172] -- and we are well aware that Moses was not perfect.

Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, to which anyone who had killed a person could flee
if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these
cities and save his life. The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in
Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.

These verses are sometimes put down as a late addition because they seem to be out of context.
Christensen [Chr.Dt111, 69], however, shows that they fit into a chiastic structure:

A "And now, O Israel, obey Yahweh's commands." (4:1-40)

B setting apart of 3 cities (4:41-3)

C "This is the Torah" -- the Ten Words (4:44-6:3)

D "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God..." (6:4-7:11)

E Obey and be blessed (7:12-26)

E' Disobey and you will perish (8:1-20)

D' "Hear, O Israel, you are about to enter the Promised Land..." (9:1-29)

C' At that time Yahweh spoke the Ten Words (10:1-7)

B' setting apart of tribe of Levi (10:8-11)

A' "And now, O Israel, what does Yahweh ask of you?" (10:12-11:25)

This shows that the insertion of 4:41-3 is part of a schematic plan -- and why should a redactor be
credited with this, other than begging the question and assuming that there was a redactor?

Deut. 5:3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who
are alive here today.

This verse deserves brief attention, for it has been cited as problematic thusly: Does it not deny events
at Sinai actually transpired?

We've had this sort of argument before -- this verse contains a negation idiom designed to emphasize
the importance of the present covenant.

A similar matter notes several verses such as this one and asks, "Didn't the entire generation except for
Caleb and Joshua die off? How then can it be said that the present generation saw these things?"

The answer is in the common ANE precept of corporate experience and responsibility, which allowed
the blurring of generations such that it could be said that the entirety of a people, past, present and
future, could be said to have experienced a present event. (See Wein.Dt111, 237 for an Assyrian
parallel.)

5:22 These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there
on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more.
Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.
9:3 But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a
devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and
annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.

9:9 When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the
LORD had made with you, I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank
no water.

9:12 Then the LORD told me, "Go down from here at once, because your people whom you brought out
of Egypt have become corrupt. They have turned away quickly from what I commanded them and have
made a cast idol for themselves."

9:17 So I took the two tablets and threw them out of my hands, breaking them to pieces before your
eyes.

10:1 At that time the LORD said to me, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to
me on the mountain. Also make a wooden chest.

These two chapters provide a host of minor critical objections:

• 9:3 is cited as contradictory to this verse, 7:22 --

The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to
eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you.

But the problem is one of translation, for "quickly" is better rendered "easily" -- which makes sense in
context, for the point is that the Anakites are a supposedly difficult enemy to overcome. (Wein.Dt111,
375-6, 406 -- See this word also used in Eccl. 4:12.)

•Discrepancies are also cited between the accounts of Exodus and Deuteronomy on the matter of Sinai
generally, relative to order of events. These are resolved by recognizing the order of events as reported
in Exodus as topical rather than chronological, in line with occasional Semitic reporting practices: The
rebellions are being reported in this chapter in the order of "lesser to greater" in terms of seriousness
rather than chronologically. [Chr.Dt111, 191]

• 9:12 is cited as contradictory to other places where it is said that either God led the people or the
people went forth on their own. [May.Dt, 199]

Yes, of course God here slaps the "leader" role on Moses; the people are having their Golden Calf
entertainments down the mountain, and God is angry off enough to disown the whole lot of them.

• I like to note 9:17 because of a rather odd objection that once cropped up: "These were tablets that
God Himself had written on. Moses would never dare to smash such a holy object."

The purest monolatry would not recognize any object as so "holy" in the first place, but the smashing of
the tablets as right in line with the procedure which accompanied the breaking of any treaty agreement
in the ANE.

Two other parallels worth noting, which establish Deut. as a treaty form:

1.Moses is said to break the tablets "before (the) eyes" of the people, a phrase which is used the same
way regarding other treaty texts;

2.The second copy of the tablets was placed in the Ark, which corresponds to the extra-biblical practice
of placing copies of treaty texts in the sanctuaries of the treaty partners [May.Dt, 204]. This was the Ark
for the time being; later it would be the Jerusalem Temple, where the Ark was kept.

•Re the creation of the Ark: It is argued that whereas Priestly writers say a great deal about the
construction of the Ark, JE and D say little, almost nothing about it. Mayes [May.Dt, 203; see also
Wein.Dt111, 417; and the elaborate Israel vs. Judah psychological-historical explanation of Clem.DJC]
draws his own conclusions from this, but they are rather unnecessary:

This is a "grocery list" division again. Of course "P" (embodied here in Leviticus) says a great deal about
the details of constructing the Ark; who would need to know that except priests, for whom Leviticus was
basically an instruction manual? "JE" and "D", consisting of history and treaty form respectively, would
have not needed to go into such detail.
On the other hand, even Deuteronomy acknowdleges the sacred nature of the Ark, for the treaty
paradigm required that treaty documents be stored near the image of the God (Dt. 10:1-5), and the Ark
is the equivalent to that.

The fact that reference is made to Dathan and Abiram, and not to Korah, who was also part of the
rebellion (Num. 16), leads critics to suggest [Wein.Dt111, 443-4] that this is evidence of sources, where
Korah's story was a priestly tradition grafted into Numbers.

But the conclusion is unnecessary: Korah is not mentioned here because he was a priest trying to take
over religious matters, whereas the other two rebels were political, and the subject here is political
alone; hence the reference to the Pharaoh of Egypt [Merr.Dt, 207n].

Should anyone be contentious about this, we might ask: Is not a single author or authority capable of
the same motivations that critics suppose were behind the supposed JEDP sources' editing and
placement of this material?

These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your
fathers, has given you to possess--as long as you live in the land. Destroy completely all the places on
the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are
dispossessing worship their gods. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their
Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.
You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.

But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name
there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your
tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of
your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and
shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you. You
are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit, since you have not yet reached the resting
place and the inheritance the LORD your God is giving you. But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the
land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies
around you so that you will live in safety. Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling
for his Name--there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your
tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD.

These verses from Ch. 12 are taken as evidence of a late date under the presumption that it was part of
the master plan of Josiah's priests to institute a single place of worship and give that idea authority.

That this is merely a case of "mirror reading" dependent on the presumption of the truth of the very
hypothesis at issue is quite clear. Evolution of Israel's religious methodology from "many authorized
places of worship" to "one authorized place of worship" is assumed rather than proved.

I should add that one need not posit miraculous or special revelation to argue effectively that "one
place" worship forms were an early and immediate development, no more so than monotheism had to
have evolved first from polytheism. In purely human terms, why would this be a difficult step of
thought?

The centralization command, at any rate, fits precisely with suzerain-vassal treaty demands that
presentations of loyalty and tribute be brought to a single palace of the king in the capital city - Merr.Dt,
221.

More than that, however, it is hardly clear that these verses perform the function that the critics assign
to it. Often cited for the case is Exodus 20:24 --

Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your
sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless
you.

The "evolutionary" ideas of JEDP suppose that this verse allowed multiple places of worship, and that
Deut. is attempting to secede this allowance. But there are several problems with this idea [Man.BL,
123ff]:

• An "altar" is not a "high place". The big problem in Josiah's time was not a multitude of places where
people worshipped God, but a multitude of "high places" where they worshipped the wrong gods.
Centralizing the Temple cult was not an issue at all; indeed, the histories seem to take for granted that
the Temple is a central worship center already, though it did need the idols cleaned out of it.

• Different terms. The word used for "altar" in Exodus and elsewhere is not the same that is used for
"high place".

• Deut. does not forbid altars. If these verses are a countermand to Ex. 20:24, then why does Deut.
prescribe the building of an altar on Mt. Ebal? (Deut. 27)

It is also clear from the context that the command was not against altars per se, but the methods of
worship which caused the breaking of the pagan altars. There was no command against building altars
as memorials to places where God had done something unusual (as with Gideon) or in using them in
ways the pagans did not. Deuteronomy has nothing to do with removing such monuments, or with the
removal of the high places.

Chapter 13 contains a number of regulations concerning apostasy from the faith of Yahweh. Von Rad
[VR.Dt, 15] supposes that these rules must have a late source because the chapter assumes that the
apostasy is initiated by a prophet; and:

...(S)uch a suggestion can, after all, have come only from a class of prophets which was already seriously
contaminated by Canaanite syncretism; moreover the nebiim (prophets) during Samuel's time did not
possess such a leading position in the people's life.

Likewise, von Rad supposes that the misleading of an entire city is something that could only have
happened under the monarchy.

Why was a "class" of prophets necessary? Did the position of "prophet" not exist before this time? Did
not the Egyptians and the Canaanites and others well before Moses have alleged "prophets"? (Cf. Gen.
20:7 - the role of the prophet is "abundantly attested" in the ANE as one who was an "ambassador of
the gods" - Merr.Dt, 230) Are not the social roles of the charismatic and the dupes one that has existed
since time immemorial? Does syncretism wait for evolution? (Not according to the way modern cults
operate!)

Here as always it is merely assumed that Israelite belief was an evolutionary process, when in fact all of
the social and historical factors were sufficiently in place at the traditional date of Deuteronomy. There
is no need to assume evolution.
Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of
affliction, because you left Egypt in haste--so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of
your departure from Egypt...For six days eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day hold an assembly
to the LORD your God and do no work...Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you
build to the LORD your God...

Mayes [May.Dt, 255] supposes that vv. 3 and 8 above are contradictory, and that v.8 is a late addition. It
may indeed be, although there is no real reason to suppose so: The "problem" is resolved by regarding
the six days in v. 8 as describing a time following the days given in v. 3.

On a minor point, some critics allege that the use of the singular "the altar" in v. 21 indicates knowledge
of a single central sanctuary corresponding with a late date, but Mayes acknowledges [ibid., 265] that
the phrase does not always indicate that only a single altar is in mind (cf. Exod. 20:24).

These verses on regulations for kings is a particular favorite to late-date, under the assumption that the
kingship must have come first [VR.Dt, 119-20; Hill.CHBI, 155-6], and it is added that the rules seem
directed towards the known excesses of later Jewish kings, in particular Solomon.

Of course the basic answer is the same: There were plenty of kings in the ANE, and plenty of poor role
models, with plenty of common vices (as if Solomon was the only one to put a harem together!), even as
early as 1400 BC.

Furthermore, since monarchy was the standard ruling paradigm, why would it be surprising that rules
were set up in anticipation of Israel's own venture into the process? What did the critics expect? A
republic? As Merrill [Merr.Dt, 265] puts it:

...(M)onarchy was the prevalent mode of government in the Late Bronze Age throughout the eastern
Mediterranean world. It is inconceivable that Israel alone would embrace some other system even as a
theocracy.
This is the share due the priests from the people who sacrifice a bull or a sheep: the shoulder, the jowls
and the inner parts...Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who
practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft...For this is what you asked of
the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the
LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

In this chapter we have these minor issues:

•Regarding v.3, Mayes [May.Dt, 277] cites 1 Sam. 2:13 as indicating that the priestly "dues had not yet
been fixed with the precision given" in Deuteronomy; hence he argues that Deut. must reflect a later
development in this verse.

Note the context of 1 Sam. --

Eli's sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD. Now it was the practice of the priests with
the people that whenever anyone offered a sacrifice and while the meat was being boiled, the servant
of the priest would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand. He would plunge it into the pan or
kettle or caldron or pot, and the priest would take for himself whatever the fork brought up. This is how
they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. But even before the fat was burned, the servant of
the priest would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, "Give the priest some meat to roast; he
won't accept boiled meat from you, but only raw." If the man said to him, "Let the fat be burned up first,
and then take whatever you want," the servant would then answer, "No, hand it over now; if you don't,
I'll take it by force." This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord's sight, for they were treating
the Lord's offering with contempt.

This practice in v. 13 is given among a listing of things done wrong by the wicked sons of Eli. In other
words, it was a violation of the prescribed rules in Deuteronomy.

•Regarding v. 10, there is some question as to whether the "passing through the fire" belongs here, as
Mayes [ibid., 280] does not think it fits in with the rest of the actions described. He acknowledges that
Driver suggested that this was a ritual of "trial by fire" where the safe passage of the child through the
fire was looked upon as an omen.

There is no direct proof of this sort of significance to the passage, but it may be noted that this "fire
trial" is twice linked with divination in the OT (2 Kings 17:17, 21:6).
•Regarding v.16, Mayes [ibid., 282] cites differences between Deut. 5:23ff and 9:9ff which he says
"preclude...unity of authorship." However, he only names one difference: The earlier two passages, he
says, "understand the appointment of Moses as mediator between God and people as a unique act"
versus our target verses which allow for successors.

We may acknowledge that there are indeed differing emphases in each of the three areas, as would be
appropriate for rhetorical placement within the subject-coverage of Deuteronomy; but as for the
objextion itself, context is all the answer we need. Of course Deut. 5 and 9 treat Moses' mediation as a
"unique" event -- it was the first time such a thing had happened. At the same time, neither chapter says
anything that precludes such mediation happening again.

Do not move your neighbor's boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive
in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess. One witness is not enough to convict a man
accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the
testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime...

We have two different arguments to look at here:

• It is argued that 19:14 is out of place, standing in "remarkable isolation" [May.Dt, 283, 288] from the
surrounding chapters, which have to do with murder.

This is a point from one who has lived his entire life under the rubric of capitalistic property rights, deeds
of sale, bureaucracy, and security fences. False appropriation of property was a common starting point
for the crime of murder in ancient tines -- not only because of the support that the property provided
agriculturally, but because of issues of inheritance as well. [Merr.Dt, 279] This law is not out of place at
all.

• Vss. 15 and 16ff are said to be contradictory, and disproof of unity of authorship, for two reasons
[May.Dt, 289]: ◦ Because one is apodictic (a direct command) and the other is casuistic (case law) -- as
though there is some barrier that prevents the two forms from appearing side by side at the behest of a
single author. The types are found mixed together in Hittite and Mesopotamian law codes -- Mend.LCAI,
14 -- although admittedly, apodictic laws are rather rare outside the OT [McC.TC, 35; Hill.CHBI, 51], a
matter easily explained by noting that none of the other treaties contain the commands of a Deity.

◦ Vv. 16ff describes "a case involving only one witness" whereas the previous verses specify the
necessity of two witnesses.
Vv. 16ff indicate that an investigation must take place -- in other words, because there is only one
witness (suspected, as this law indicates, of being a hostile troublemaker and false accuser), the judges
must seek out more witnesses to fulfill the requirements of the previous verses for 2 or 3 witnesses.

However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works
until the city at war with you falls.

Von Rad argues that this passage must be late, for it takes for granted "an advanced technique of
siegecraft" [VR.Dt, 16]. How so? His only elaboration is that it "takes for granted a wide choice of
standing timber, which was not likely to exist everywhere." [ibid., 133]

This is an inadequate reason for assigning a late date to this verse. It does not take a lot of sense to
figure out that anticipation of varying topographies could have occurred at any point in Israel's history,
and that this rule, rather than taking for granted "a wide choice of standing timber", merely takes for
granted that where the wide choice IS available, this rule will have to be followed, and that if there are
nothing but fruit trees (Does von Rad actually know of such a place?), then too bad for siege works, at
least using the local timber.

No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to
the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you
came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a
curse on you.

A small note on this verse: Mayes argues that whoever wrote this verse must not have known the
Genesis story of the ancestry of Moab and Ammon -- for "reference to it here would have been
inevitable."

One is constrained to ask why. Mayes certainly offers no reason for such tabloid-worthy details, which
had no effect on the Israelites whatsoever, to be brought up in a serious and solemn covenant
document between the Israelites and their God.
 When you have entered the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken
possession of it and settled in it, take some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the
land the LORD your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the LORD your God
will choose as a dwelling for his Name and say to the priest in office at the time, "I declare today to the
LORD your God that I have come to the land the LORD swore to our forefathers to give us." The priest
shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then
you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down
into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But
the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the
LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So
the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and
with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing
with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me." Place
the basket before the LORD your God and bow down before him. And you and the Levites and the aliens
among you shall rejoice in all the good things the LORD your God has given to you and your household.

This passage is regarded as "not a uniform composition" [May.Dt, 332], one in which the role of the
priest in the ceremony was a later addition, for two reasons:

1. Because it contains two separate confessions, in verses 3 and 5.

This is a sign of non-uniform composition? It seems to me that many religious ceremonies involve action
interspersed with successive confessions or recitals.

2.Because, according to Mayes, in verse 4, the priest lays the basket before the altar, whereas in v. 10,
the worshipper does this.

But that isn't what v. 10 says: In verse 4, the basket is laid before the altar; but in v. 10, it is laid before
the Lord yor God, which is not the same thing at all. It suggests that at this point in the ceremony, the
worshipper places the basket on top of the altar as an offering -- which then becomes, like other
offerings, one made before God.

3. As a side note, it may be noted that Jacob here is referred to as an "Aramean" because a) his mother
was an Aramean; b) he spent 20 years living in Aram.
And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster: And thou shalt write upon
them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which
the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers
hath promised thee. Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these
stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster. (KJV)

Mayes [May.Dt, 340] asserts that verses 2 and 4 above are evidence of a lack of unified authorship, for
they suppose that the laying of the stones could be done the same day that Israel entered the land, but
it is unlikely that they could manage the entry and the laying of the stones in the same day, because the
location of the altar (Ebal) is too far away from where they were presently located on the plains of
Moab.

This is resolved by noting the OT use of the phrase "in that day" or "on that day" elsewhere in the OT,
where it simply indicates immediate action following an event (cf. 1 Kings 2:42)Thus it is indicated that it
was not precisely expected that the entry and the construction of the altar were to be done in the very
same 24-hour period.

The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from
which you cannot be cured. The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At
midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do;
day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

Mayes (May.Dt, 355; see also Wein.Dt111, 7) thinks that these verses are "impossible to explain except
in the context of Mesopotamian religion" for they contain an "association of skin diseases on the one
hand with the curse of darkness and lawlessness" on the other, and this correlates with the
Mesopotamian gods of leprosy and plague (Sin) and darkness symbolizing lack of justice and law
(Shamash), who are most often paired together at the head of the catalog of Assyrian gods.

One wonders, first of all, if Deut. has such a pairing behind it, what to make of the separating interlude
in v. 28.

Second, one may ask: Would these not simply reflect the quite typical and two most common, visible,
and/or alarming "curses" in an ancient world where pest and contagious disease control (including of
the most visible skin diseases) were non-existent, where good personal hygiene was virtually
unpracticed (being for most people practically impossible), and where government control was nearly
impossible beyond a limited geographical circle, so that social chaos and disorder was more common
than not? Why is it necessary, other than for the need to date Deuteronomy late in line with the JEDP
theory, to make this stretch into the Assyrian pantheon?

If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere
this glorious and awesome name--the LORD your God...

It is argued that these verses, because they treat Deuteronomy as a unified whole, must be late [VR.Dt,
176].

Aside from begging the question of the origin of Deuteronomy in the first place, this objection fails to
account for Deuteronomy as being in full-fledged treaty form and for other unification factors. (The
Hebrew word here does not mean a "book" in a modern sense, of course: It can mean oracle, chronicles,
provision, speech, etc.)

In chapter 33 of Deut. there is a listing of the tribes of Israel and Moses' final words on them -- with the
exception of Simeon. Where'd his people go, assuming that he wasn't dropped out in transmission?

Critics take this as a sign of a late date, saying that by the time of Deut. Simeon had been absorbed into
Judah [May.Dt, 396], but this explanation won't do, since it is clear that Simeonites were still identifiable
after the time critics assign to Deuteronomy (cf. 1 Chr. 4:34-43). Merrill proposes rather [Merr.Dt, 437-8]
that the lack of blessing here (and the lack of any territory being allotted to Levi) goes back to the
Shechem incident (Gen. 29; cf. Gen. 49:5-7), and perhaps to a decimation of Simeon due to their
involvement in idolatry at Beth Peor.

Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength
gone.

Finally, Mayes [May.Dt, 413] finds contradiction between Deut. 31:2 and 34:7, declaring that these "can
scarcely derive from the same hand", for the former indicates that Moses is no longer physically able to
lead the Israelites.
But 34:7 is hardly a full statement on the entirety of Moses' physical capacity. For one thing, the
reference to Moses' "natural force" or "strength" is too vague to be defined with any specific bodily
condition; at the same time, the bit about his eyes not growing dim refers to the strength of the servant
to persevere "until justice reigns in the earth" (cf. Is. 42:4), which is exactly what Moses did. (One might
also note that 34:7 fits the mold of a "heroic motif" [Chr.SPPS, 182ff] -- perhaps it should be taken with
the same grain of literal salt that one might take with, for example, an epitaph.)

We will close with a collection of minor arguments used both for and against Deuteronomy's
authenticity.

• The Aramaic argument. Similar to the treatment of Daniel, it was once supposed that the presence of
Aramaisms in Deut. indicated a late date. This argument is no longer considered valid, for there is ample
evidence of Aramaic influences contemporary with the traditional time of Moses (the Ras Sharma texts).
[Man.BL, 25]

• The characteristic phrases argument. Critics have cited some phrases and themes in Deuteronomy as
unique to that book and as proof of authorship differing from the rest of the Pentateuch -- for example,
memories of the past, entry into the land, and national unity.

However, an examination of these phrases indicates nothing that would not be especially expected for
the historical context of Deut. as a covenant declared to a new generation about to take possession of
the land of Canaan, which in turn would NOT be appropriate anywhere else in the Pentateuch. [Man.BL,
28]

• Missing divine names. On the positive side, if Deut. is a late document, then it is curious that so many
later names used for God found in the prophets supposedly contemporary with D are missing: "Yahweh
God of Israel"; "the Holy One of Israel", and especially "Lord of Hosts" -- a title with a military bearing
that would have gone over well in the context of an imminent conquest over those nasty pagans.
[Man.BL, 46]

Also missing are certain key late terms like the condemnation of those who "whore after" foreign gods;
Deuteronomy uses the less polemical "walk after" [Hill.CHBI, 151] -- a little hard to believe if the a point
of Deut. was to act against idolatry in Josiah's time.

• Pointless laws. If Deuteronomy is late, then the D author did a lousy job of making it relevant. For
example, Deut. 14:5 lists animals who lived in the mountains of Edom and would not be accessible to
later Israelites. Another example is the command to clean out the Amalekites, who were long dead by
this time. [Man.BL, 93, 125]

Critics, of course, may simply claim that this is one of those laws D took up from an earlier source, which
begs the question.

Conclusion

In spite of varied attempts to do so, there is absolutely no reason to re-invent Deuteronomy as a

document of the 7th century BC and not a work created under the personal authority of Moses. It is
quite likely, however, as Merrill indicates, that any amount of evidence will force a change in the JEDP
paradigm that is so preciously held in OT critical circles, where the "assured results" of speculative
literary and form criticism and the presumption of evolution are given precedence over hard data.

-JPH

Sources

1.Balt.CF - Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Fortress Press, 1971.

2.Caz.PSDP - Cazelles, Henri. "Passages in the Singular Within Discourse in the Plural of Dt 1-4." Catholic
Biblical Qarterly 29, April 1967, pp. 207-19.

3.Chr.Dt111 - Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1-11. Waco: Word Books, 1991.

4.Chr.SPPS - Chhristensen, Duane L. A Song of Power and the Power of Song. Eisenbrauns, 1993.

5.Clem.DJC - Clements, R. E. "Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult."

6.Hill.CHBI - Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Johns Hopkins, 1969.

7.Man.BL - Manley, G. T. The Book of the Law. Eerdmans: 1957.

8.May.Dt - Mayes, A.D.H. Deuteronomy. Eerdmans: 1979.

9.McB.PCP - McBride, Dean S. "Polity of the Covenant."

10.McC.TC - McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
11.McC.TPD - McConville, J. G. and J. G. Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. Sheffied Academic
Press.

12.Mend.LCAI - Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Biblical
Colloquium, 1955.

13.Merr.Dt - Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Broadman and Holman, 1994.

14.VR.Dt - von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.

15.Walt.DESL - Walton, John H. "Deuteronomy: An Exposition of the Spirit of the Law." Grace
Theological Journal 8, 1987, 213-25.

16.Wein.Dt111 - Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1-11. New York: Doubleday.

17.Wein.DPS - Weinfeld, Moshe. "Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry."

Contradictions in the David and Goliath Story Examined

The subject here iss 1 Samuel 17-18, the account of David and Goliath. Critics propose that there were
errors in the account which were best explained by there being at one time "2 or more different
versions of the story" -- one of which, a shorter version, has been preserved in the LXX (which actually
does not end up resolving all the alleged errors, but that is beside the point).

Such critical claims were composed long before there was any proper understanding of the ancient
process of oral transmission and storytelling. Let us see how this resolves seven "inconsistencies"
reputedly found in the story:

In 1 Samuel 17:55-58, when the young David approaches Goliath, King Saul asks his general, Abner, to
identify the boy - asking who his father is. Abner says he doesn't know him. After David slays Goliath,
David is brought to Saul and introduced to him. Saul asks who David is. Why do Saul and Abner fail to
recognise David? and why is it necessary to introduce David a second time to Saul? Different stories!

No -- Saul does not ask who David is; he asks who his father is. Why?

Earlier in 1 Samuel, there is a specific reason to make a note reminding us about Jesse and that David
was the 8th of the sons. Note that only the three oldest sons are named, and that they followed Saul.
Since Saul's three oldest sons served also (cf. 31:6), it is likely that there was some sort of "draft" that
requested that fathers send their three oldest sons for the sake of the war.
Thus David is being shuttled in and out of his position at court because he is needed at home to help
replace the three eldest sons who are at war. That, of course, is the point in mentioning that Jesse is a
bit on the oldish side.

Now as to the "father" verses":

As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the
army, "Abner, whose son is that young man?" Abner replied, "As surely as you live, O king, I don't
know." The king said, "Find out whose son this young man is." As soon as David returned from killing the
Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine's head.
"Whose son are you, young man?" Saul asked him. David said, "I am the son of your servant Jesse of
Bethlehem."

Again, the question is clearly, who is David's father. Note also that David was only one of Saul's armor-
bearers (16:21). We do not know how many of these there were under Saul, but if there were more than
a few, say five or six, and if David had been away from court for a while, then it is certainly not surprising
that in the heat of a pressed battle situation in which the fate of the nation is at stake, Saul happened to
forget whose son was whose.

However, we would add that the question was just as well rhetorically designed for the sake of rounding
off the story the same way it began in 17:12 --- something that makes perfect sense in an oral culture.

Now for number two:

In 18:17-19, which is missing from the LXX, [Saul] offers Merab. An explanation for the offering of two
daughters has been added to the Biblical account, to reconcile the different names in each original
version (v19 & 21b). This results in an odd and repetitious final combination.

This is cited as an "inconsistency" but there is no internal inconsistency here at all. What is the problem?
There is none, and there is no "odd and repetitious final combination."
One instance, in which all scholars agree there is a mistake in the Biblical Version, concerns Saul's
attempt to kill David. As it appears in 1 Samuel 18:10-11, the account has been misplaced by the biblical
editor.

"All scholars" say no such thing, and there is no reason to think that 18:10-11 is misplaced. The LXX is
cited as more logical because it gives Saul allegedly logical stages of consideration, but there is no need
for this -- Saul was in a prophetic ecstasy when he did this (18:10) and his actions against David there
were not germane to his heightening suspicion.

In 17:12, David and his father Jesse are again introduced to the reader.

Again, as in they were already introduced in Ch. 16. It is answered by noting that 1 Samuel 17:12 begins
a new unit that was undoubtedly originally an independent unit of oral tradition. It was told without the
previous material having been told, so that introducing the main characters anew is not the least bit
extraordinary -- it is only when the introductory formula was included in the stage when the material
was compiled in writing that it took an appearance that looked strange to our eyes.

In 17:12-31 and 55-58, [David] is an unknown shepherd-boy who happens to be visiting his bothers [sic]
when Goliath challenges the Israelites to a duel.

Incorrect, as noted above with reference to Callahan.

According to 17:25-27, David hears that whoever defeats Goliath will be given King Saul's daughter in
marriage as a reward. When David kills Goliath, Saul gives his daughter to him (18:17-19). But in 18:20ff,
Saul looks for pretexts to convince David to marry his daughter, and David insists he is unworthy. The
decision to give David Saul's daughter to marry is made well after David slew Goliath.

The text says nothing about the decision being made after David did the deed; it indicates that Saul
waited to fulfill the promise -- and why not? There was a war going on. The Philistines were on the run,
but far from finished, and they were still a threat to Israel.
Since marriage meant that a man became unavailable for a year (Deut. 24:5) of course Saul's promise to
whomever would be assumed to be delayed until the fighting was over -- why would Saul want to lose a
man, whoever it was, who would put Goliath in the ground? (That would be a good public reason of
course; privately Saul also would want to get rid of David.)

How did David kill Goliath?...According to 17:50, David knocked over Goliath with a stone, killing him
without a sword in his hand (17:50). But, in 17:51, David killed him with his sword. He killed him again!

There are a couple of points here. First, "killed" (muwth) often means "killed" but also means
"destroyed". Some have also suggested that 17:50 is a scribal gloss intended to correct the impression
that David was reliant on his armament, not God, for his victory.

I would suggest rather that a chiastic structure is at work to enable memorization of the key portion of
the story:

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew
him; but there was no sword in the hand (Hebrew: yad) of David. Therefore David ran, and stood
(Hebrew: 'amad) upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew
him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Note that this answer is not negated by saying things like, "Either David killed Goliath with a sword or
with a stone. He didn't kill him with both." The chaism is a solution in which artistic license resulting in
intentional contradiction and/or error enters the picture, so that the semantic contract changes, and
charges of "error" and "contradiction" become irrelevant. It would be like claiming that a work of Dali is
in "error" when it depicts watches as melting, or saying that a Van Gogh "contradicts" a Picasso.

-JPH

The Making of the OT:

Before Moses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A brief word about the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) is warranted at this point.

The Reader should also consult two articles written much later than this series, for additional data: (1)
On the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch [qmoses1.html]; and (2) The languages of the
Patriarchs/Moses [abespeak.html]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we are looking for in this section is data concerning HOW and TO WHAT EXTENT historical
information passed down to Moses, the content originator of the first five books of the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The authorship of the first five books of the Bible (or at least much of the content of them) is
acribed to Moses by Jesus. This is BY FAR the most important reason to take traditional Mosaic
authorship issues seriously. The antiquity and historical trustworthiness of the Pentateuch is taught very
clearly by our Lord. Consider these 'controversial' events as referred to by Jesus: • Matthew 19:4-5 (both
creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2)

• Luke 17.26f (the Noahic flood)

• Luke 17.28 (destruction of Sodom)

• Mt 12.40 (Jonah and the big fish)

• Mt 4.16 with 12.17 ("Both" Isaiahs)

• Lk 20.37 (the burning bush)

• Jn 6.32 (Manna in the wilderness)

• Jn 3.14 (the bronze serpent)

And then consider these statements of His about Mosaic origination/recording of specific passages
(from a concordance):

• Matt. 8:4 priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony

• Matt. 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your

• Mark 1:44 and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing,
• Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother

• Mark 10:3 What did Moses command you?" he replied.

• Mark 10:5 your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,"

• Mark 12:26 read in the book of Moses, in the account of

• Luke 5:14 and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing,

• Luke 20:37 of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise

• John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert,

• John 7:19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one

• John 7:23 so that the law of Moses may not be broken,

(I have dealt with the issue of was Jesus merely 'playing to the crowds' or simply mistaken, in the first
Adult Education course.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Each generation seemed to have access to historical records/information.

◦ Abraham - in Gen 18.22 he seems to be arguing from the motif of Gen 6-7.

◦ Joseph - in Gen 50.24 he is aware of Gen 15.13

◦ Moses - shows substantial familiarity with the patriarchal records

1. He argues with God on the basis of the numerous 'descendants' passages (Ex 32.13)

2. Moses' songs show familiarity

◾ Ex 15:14 - the geography and where they were headed

◾ Dt 32:32 - referred to Sodom/Gomorrah (Gen 19)

◾ Ps 90:3 - the 'dust' reference to creation passage

3. The inclusion of the Creation Week in Ex 20:11 (10 Commandments)

4. He knew about the oaths to the patriarchs (Dt 7.8 with Gen 12:2-3; 13:15; 15:5; 15:12-15; 17:1-8 et al)

5. He knew that 70 people went down to Egypt! (Dt 10.22 with Gen 46.26)

6. He knew about their origination in Meso/Syria--Dt 26.5 ("My father was wandering Aramean...")
compare with Gen 25:20--Abraham's relative "Laban the Aramean"
7. He knew the details of the judgment in Gen 19.24-25, to the inclusion of Zeboim and Admah (with
Sodom/Gomorrah in Dt 29:23)--Moses had access to detail not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Genesis 19
passage (but see Gen 14:2,8)

8. He knew the exact words of the Jacobic blessing of Joseph--"a prince among his brothers" (Gen 49.26
with Dt 33.16)

2.How could this be? How could that information be transmitted so reliably, especially BEFORE the
establishment of an institution FOR that purpose (i.e. the Levitical Priesthood) . This data would pre-date
Moses by at least 400 years.

1. The lifespan overlap of the patriarchs. (But this is probably overstated--there are known gaps in the
genealogies--see AOOT: 36-41., which would count AGAINST THIS point, but count FOR even more
repetition--the stuff of stability)

◾ Adam and Methuselah overlap by 243 years

◾ Methusaleth and Shem (son of Noah) overlap by 98 years.

◾ Shem and Abraham overlap 150 years, and overlaps with Isaac 50 years.

◾ Jacob is alive when the Israelites go into Egypt.

2. Family records were widespread (and essential) in those times

1. Genealogies - (Gen 5.1; Gen 36 - Esau)--needed as Moses/Joshua established a tribal-based economy

and priesthood.

2. The "Accounts". The word translated 'account' in the below verses is the biblical word toledoth. It was
used in the ANE as an 'ownership' and/or 'authorship' word, applying to clay tablets of family histories,
important events, legal docs, etc. It occurred at the END of a tablet, not typically at the BEGINNING. (So,
for example, Gen 11.27 is Terah's personal record of his own genealogy in 11.10-27). This word, in
keeping with ANE practices, would mark the end of tablet-type narrative structures in Genesis, and
reveal VERY ANCIENT sources! (See RKH, 543-551). These would have been more important in semi-
nomadic life (e.g. patriarchs) than in urban centers (where the common knowledge of events and
histories would have been well-known). Even 2.4 (where we normally would not consider the 'heavens
and the earth' to be 'agents') can be seen in this light, with the underlying ANE worldview of nature as
being a 'silent witness'--compare the 'stone' of Jos 24.27 and Gen 31.45f (cf. also the triumphal entry of
Jesus in Lk 19.40).

◾ Gen. 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth

◾ Gen. 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When (NOTICE--WRITTEN and a pointer back to
the 'Image' passage in chapter 1!)
◾ Gen. 6:9 This is the account of Noah.

◾ Gen. 10:1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth,

◾ Gen. 11:10 This is the account of Shem.

◾ Gen. 11:27 This is the account of Terah.

◾ Gen. 25:12 This is the account of Abraham's son Ishmael,

◾ Gen. 25:19 This is the account of Abraham's son Isaac.

◾ Gen. 36:1 This is the account of Esau (that is, Edom--the CLAN version

◾ Gen. 36:9 This is the account of Esau the father of the--the PERSON version

◾ Gen. 37:2 This is the account of Jacob.

3. There was plenty of writing back in those days

1. ANE teemed with literacy (e.g. Sumerian/Akkadian epics before Abe; highly developed legal system in
Meso)

"During the Akkadian period, the sources, now largely in the Akkadian language, are abundant for the
first demonstrable empire in history...we possess many inscriptions containing battle and campaign
reports..." (von Soden, The Ancient Orient, p. 48, timeframe=c. 2300bc, well before Abe)

"The sources for the Old Babylonian period (note: c.1950-1530 bc) are unusually numerous and
manifold..." (Soden, p.51)

"From numerous Babylonian cities as well as the kingdoms of Eshnunna and Mari we have hundreds and
even thousands of legal and administrative documents of all kinds. These documents, with their date
and oath formulas in which kings are named, along with other evidence, widen our knowledge of
history." (Soden, p. 51)
"To these documents must be added thousands of letters from private and public archives..." (Soden, p.
52)

"It is not widely enough known that in the time of Moses the Canaanites were familiar with at least eight
languages recording five completely different systems of writing" (Mendenhall, cited in PCE, 71)

2. There were even scribal SCHOOLS around then!

"Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 B.C.) was the founding ruler of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, the builder of the best
preserved ziggurat in ancient Mesopotamia, whose reign inaugurated the last great period of Sumerian
literary creativity...most of the literary and scholarly production of this period is known only from copies
produced in the scribal schools in Nippur and Ur some two to three hundred years later, i.e. between
1800 and 1700. BC." (Finkelstein, cited in Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, Volume II: A New Anthology
of Texts and Pictures, p. 31.)

3. All Sumerian and Akkadian priests could write in both Acc/Sumerian languages (PCE, 107)

4. Songs of Moses (above)

5. Scroll written by Moses for Joshua's remembrance (Ex 17.14)

6. Book of the Covenant in Ex 24.4-7

7. Other refs: Dt 27; 28.58; 29.21

4. Monuments and inscriptions abound

1. Archeological data (compare the abundance of material described and illustrated in the works
collected by Pritchard--The Ancient Near East, Princeton. A two volume anthology of texts and pictures.

2. Altars/pillars (Dt 27.1-8; Josh 8.30-32)--many of these built by patriarchs

3. Important events were written up on a stela or pillar.

5. Forms were highly memorable!

1. Quotes

2. Blessing formulae (Gen 27:27ff; 49)

3. Covenant forms (Gen 17.1-14)

4. Census info (Gen 46.8)

5. Genealogies (Gen 5; 11:10-16)

6. Instructions (Gen 49:33)

7. TONS of chiastics! (chiasm is a literary device of structure, wherein the ORDER of topics discussed is
REVERSED after some pivotal point or couplet). Chiasm facilitates memory of the material, since the
order of either 'half' of the structure can be 'calculated' from the other half, generally.

Genesis 11.1-9 : A chiasm of concepts (BAW, 73)

Human unity (1-2)

Man speaks and acts (3-4)

God comes down to see (5)

God speaks and acts (6-7)

Human dispersion (8-9)

Genesis 6.8-9: A chiasm in the Hebrew word order (BAW, 86)

Noah

found favor

in the eyes of the Lord

These are the generations of Noah

Noah was a righteous man

 perfect he was

in his generations

with God

walked

Noah

Genesis 12-20: A chiasm in Events (BAW, 95)

(A) Sarah and Pharaoh (12)

(B) Saving of Lot (14)

(C) Covenant for Land (15)

(D) Covenant for Abraham (17)

(C') Covenant for Seed (18)

(B') Rescue of Lot (19)

(A') Sarah and Abimelech (20)

(chapter 13 is inserted to explain how Lot is separated from Abr;

chapter 16--expulsion of Hagar--highlights the need for

the Seed passage)

Genesis 11-22: The entire story of Abraham (BAW, 96)

(A) Abraham's call; Promise of Seed (11:31-12.3)

(B) Sojourn in Canaan (12.4-9)

(C) Sojourn in Egypt; Denial of Sarai (12.10-20)

(D) Separation of Lot; Manifestation of Land (13.1-18)

(E) War on Sodom; Rescue of Lot by Abraham (14.1-24)

(F) Covenant Made: Land (15.1-21)

(G) Sarai's Effort (16.1-16)

(H) Covenant Made: Abraham (17.1-14)

(G') Sarah's Blessing (17.15-27)

(F') Covenant Made: Seed (18.1-15)

(E') Destruction of Sodom; Rescue of Lot by Angels (18-16-19.38)

(C') Sojourn in Gerar; Denial of Sarah (20.1-8)

(D') Manifestation of Seed; Separation of Ishmael (21:1-21)

(B') Sojourn in Gerar (21.22-34)

(A') Abraham's Test: Blessing of Seed (22.1-19)

Genesis 6.10-9.19: The Flood Story

(G. J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative"

in VT,28 (1978): 336-48 , (cited in BAW p. 105)

A Noah (10a)

B Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10b)

C Ark to be built (14-16)

D Flood announced (17)

E Covenant with Noah (18-20)

F Food in the Ark (21)

G Command to enter the Ark (7.1-3)

H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)

I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)

J Entry to ark (11-15)

K Yahweh shuts Noah in (16)

L 40 days flood (17a)

M Waters increase (17b-18)

N Mountains covered (18-20)

O 150 days waters prevail (21-24)

P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8.1)

O' 150 days waters abate (3)

N' Mountain tops become visible (4-5)

M' Waters abate (6)

L' 40 days (end of) (6a)

K' Noah opens window of ark (6b)

J' Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)

I' 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)

H' 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)

G' Command to leave the ark (15-17)

F' Food outside the ark (9.1-4)

E' Covenant with all flesh (8-10)

D' No flood in future (11-17)

C' Ark (18a)

B' Shem, Ham, Japheth (18b)

A' Noah (19)

Genesis 1-11: The Primeval History (RG, 8)--A different pattern

A Creation, God's word to Adam (1.1-3.24)

B Adam's Son's (4.1-16)

C Technological Development of Mankind (4.17-26)

D Ten Generations from Adam to Noah (5.1-32)

E Downfall: The Nephilim (6.1-8)

A' Flood, God's word to Noah (6.9-9.17)

B' Noah's Sons (9.18-29)

C' Ethnic Development of Mankind (10.1-32)

E' Downfall: Tower of Babel (11.1-9)

D' Ten Generations from Noah to Terah (11.10-26)

(used as transition to story of Abraham)

Genesis 11:27-22:24): The Abraham Cycle (RG, 28-29)

A Genealogy of Terah (11.27-32)

B Start of Abram's spiritual odyssey (12.1-9)

C Sarai in foreign palace; ordeal ends in peace and success; Lot parts (12.10-13.18)

D Abram comes to the rescue of Sodom and Lot (14)

E Covenant with Ab; Annunciation of Ishmael (15-16)

E' Covenant with Ab; Annunciation of Isaac (17-18.15)

D' Abram comes to the rescue of Sodom and Lot (18.16-19.38)

C' Sarah in foreign palace; ordeal ends in peace and success; Ishmael parts (20-21)

B' Climax of Abraham's spiritual odyssey (22.1-19)

A' Genealogy of Nahor (22.20-24)

The Story of Biblical History--a Chiasm?

A Creation of Heavens and Earth (Gen 1-2)

B Humanity's rebellion against God (Gen 3-11)

C God's Kingdom on Earth (Gen 12-David)

 D The Apostasy of Humanity (Solomon-Malachi)

E The Hidden Years (The Intertestamental period)

F God enters History in the Messiah

E' The Hidden Years (The "Church Age")

D' The Apostasy of Humanity (cf. 2 Thess 2.3)

C' God's Kingdom on Earth (Rev 20:1-6)

B' Humanity's rebellion against God (Rev 20.7-9)

A' Creation of New Heavens and Earth (Rev 21-22)

8. Sayings and customs:

◾ "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord" (Gen 10.9)

◾ "On the Mountain of the Lord it will be provided" (Gen 22.14)

◾ Custom: not eating tendon (Gen 32.31)

◾ Custom: hand under thigh on oath (Gen 24.2; 47.29)

9. Catch-phrases, literary forms, high detail

1. "Stars in the sky" (Gen 15:5): Dt 1.10; 10:22; I Chr 27.23; Neh 9.23

2. "Sand of the seashore" (Gen 22.17): 2 Sam 17.11; I Kgs 4.20; Is 10.22

3. "Dust of the earth" (Gen 28.14): 2 Chr 1.9

4. National songs (Moses and Miriam--above)

5. Public Confessional forms--"A Wandering Aramean" - Dt 26.5

6. The very, very DETAILED blessing pronouncements (like wills)--Gen 49; Dt 33

10. The hafalat samar--the campfire that 'preserves'. This is the ancient Bedouin campfire, in which the
leaders of the tribe/clan recite the traditions of the tribe. The accuracy of the transmission of these
traditions is incredible--even today! (Cf. our knowledge of the Pledge of Allegiance--those of us who said
it daily for 15+ years NEVER, EVER forget the words.) The Middle Eastern people were able to memorize
very massive words, without error.

11. One obvious question arises here. We know from Sumerian myths that the religion of the probable
home of Terah, Nahor, and Abe (Ur of Sumer, the southern site; but there is some data that their Ur was
a small northern city instead) was rather 'un-biblical' in religious beliefs, and according to Joshua 24:2,14
at least Terah worshipped false gods there. This probably reflected a mixture of true and false religion
(cf. Gen 31.19, 34f).

So how did the 'simpler and purer' tradition get into Abraham's hands, in the form of 'tablets' (see
"Accounts" above)?

Well, Terah already had as far back as Shem in HIS account (11.11-27). So the question comes down to
the tablets of Gen 1-11.10. (Now, it could be that Ab did NOT have that data, and that somehow Moses
got it instead, but as I noted above, it looks like Abraham was aware of the 'Noah found favor' motif and
used that in his 'negotiations' with God over the destruction of Sodom, so in any event, we have to get
SOME of the flood tradition to him (other than those of Sumer/Accad--having no 'sparing' passage--the
sections on 'sparing' Atrahasis et. al. have very little in common with grace!).

So where might Abraham have encountered a source of greater antiquity than his own forefathers? And
early enough in his post-Ur life to shape his Gen 18 negotiation with God?

There is actually a rather obvious choice--Melchizedek in Gen 14. This Melki-figure is one of the
strangest biblical figures we encounter. He pops out of nowhere, is greater than Abraham, receives
tithes of Ab, is a pattern for the Royal Priest-King Jesus (Ps 110), is ascribed immortality (probably) in the
Book of Hebrews, and lives in Jerusalem. He had NO REASON to encounter Abraham (Salem was not in
the 4-against-5 kings war in the passage), but sought him out. This figure serves the God who is the
'bringer forth of the heavens and the earth' (a broader Ugaritic and Phoenican parallel word for
'bara/create'--including notions of ownership. See Ancient Israelby de Vaux, vol 2., p.310 and TWOT, vol
2, p. 804). He apparently instructs Abe on the proper response to the king of Sodom's future offering (cf.
14:22ff)--he was obviously a prophet as well!--even to the point of eliciting an oath from Abraham to his
God! (14.22).
Was this individual a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Son of God? Some think so, but I personally
don't believe that makes sense in light of the Hebrews passages on him. I actually find an ancient Jewish
tradition to be quite intriguing--the Jerusalem Targum on Gen 14.18 identifies Melki as Shem, the eldest
son of Noah. According to the strict version of the genealogies, Shem would have still been alive at this
time (Shem and Abe would have overlapped by 150 years, so even with a few extra gens in there, this is
still VERY, VERY possible.) This would, of course, explain a number of things, especially why Abe paid
such deference to this character! This would also, provide an excellent opportunity for the godly Shem
to explain the ways of the Lord to the future father of the Jewish race (as a prophet, he probably was
aware of Abe's special character), and to pass down the 'accounts' he would have gotten from his
fathers before him (i.e. Noah, Adam). Thus the 'pure' stream of tradition would find its way into biblical
sources. The overall impression I get from Abram's response to Melki is that of CONVERSION, and I think
it noteworthy that the El Elyon (God most high) of Melki, is called YHWH by Abe in this passage.

3. The literary context in ANE

1. Repetition with variation/detail - the Hebrew way (can also be found in other ANE religious texts--
Akkadian and Ugaritic)

2. Gen 1-11 as a 'rebuttal' of the dominant religious tradition of the ANE

1. Sumerian history of Enki and Ninmah (circa Abraham)--has 'two' creation accounts, one of which
describes the creation of man after the 'form' of the god Enki

2. Akkadian version of the Atrahasis epic (ENKI is like YHWH; Atrahasis is like Noah)

3. Set up in the same 5 part structure of the ancient mythologies

(I have set up the sections of Gen 1-11 and the Atrahasis epic in alternating rows--the specific references
to the Atrahasis text are given in BAW, p.46ff) Atrahasis;

Genesis 1-11

A. Creation(Atra)

Summary of work of gods

Creation of man
 Creation (Bible)

Summary of work of God

Creation of man

B. First Threat (Atra)

Man's numerical increase

Plague

First Threat (Bible)

Genealogy of heaven and earth

Adam and Eve -- the fall

C. Second Threat(Atra)

Man's numerical increase

Drought

Second Threat(Bible)

Cain and Abel--genealogy

Cain and Abel--Lamech's taunt

D. Third Threat(Atra)

Numerical Increase

Atrahasis' Flood

Salvation in Boat
 Third Threat(Bible)

Genealogy

Noah's Flood

Salvation in Ark

E. Resolution(Atra)

"Birth Control"

Resolution (Bible)

Dispersion (Babel)

4. The corrective to their beliefs about over-population and the benefits of civilization!--The Gods sent
the Flood to kill off humanity because we were populating the earth 'too much':

"So the parallels observed between Atrahasis and Genesis 1-11 are no longer surprising. We find similar
parallels between Atrahasis and other primeval histories (e.g. Old Iranian Flood Tale, Zoroastrian tale of
Yima, primeval greek history). These similar parallels make us feel encouraged that perhaps Genesis 1-
11, while drawn from a common stock of tales, was written as a dissent from the civilized pragmatism of
the older Atrahasis tradition"

"Atrahasis offers population control as the solution to urban overcrowding; Genesis offers dispersion,
the nomadic way of life. Population growth is from the very beginning of the Genesis primeval history
presented as an unqualified blessing. The blessing of Genesis 1.28 finds a fulfillment in the dispersion
'upon the face of the whole earth,' which concludes the primeval history. Genesis 1-11 then constitutes
a rejection of Babel and Babylon--of civilization itself, if its continuance requires human existence to be
treated as a contingent good. For Genesis the existence of a new human was always good." (BAW, 51)

5. Gen 1-11 would have had great shock value

3. Flood and Creation accounts are widespread and share common points with the biblical narrative, but
the 'simpler' content of the Genesis account argues for an 'earlier' (pre-elaboration!) existence of it.

Consider first how much 'simpler' the Genesis account of creation is than the ANE myths:

Non-biblical Myths;

Genesis Account

The gods are identified with nature and natural forces;

God is NEVER identified with nature--He stands above it

Creation was accomplished through sexual procreation;

Creation had nothing to do with sexual procreation

Primeval darkness had a name, a personality, and deity;

Darkness was nothing more than just that.

The sea had a name, a personality, and deity;

The sea was nothing more than just that.

The abyss had a name, a personality, and deity;

The abyss was nothing more than just that.

 The sun, moon, and stars were given names and histories and powers;

They are simply called the greater and lessor lights,

and the stars are barely mentioned.

The Shabbatuwas a day of terror;

The Sabbath was a day of blessing and rest.

Man created as slave labor to feed the gods;

Man created to enjoy God's blessing.

The serpent was huge and powerful;

The serpent was small and powerless (relied on wits)

Many, many gods in very complex and tumultuous relationships;

One God, balanced and stable.

Man is formed out of some 'part' of god (e.g. blood) mixed with clay;

Man is formed of dust, in the image of God.

Now consider how the common elements BETWEEN them (esp. incidentals) seem to argue for some
REAL historical events behind them both (see PCE, 137-145): 1. The Sumerian myth has an expanse of air
created between heaven and earth; life created by divine command (some versions of the myth); man
has a clay component; the gods revealed the flood to a Noah-type figure (Ziusudra). There is one
fragment that MIGHT be about the Tower of Babel: the God "Enki...changed the speech in their mouths"
(PCE, p142).

2. The Akkadian Creation Epic (Enuma Elish) has two expanses of water (i.e. oceans); a dragon figure is
present and prominent; man is created from dust, but has something of god 'in him' (e.g. blood); there is
a water of life and a food of life.
3. The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (from Nineveh) has a flood; a Noah-figure--Utnapishtim; the Noah
figure has great longevity (e.g. immortality); Utna is saved from the flood in a multi-story boat; the boat
contains all the animals; a dove and raven are sent out to test for the existence of land after the flood;
the Noah-figure offers sacrifices after the flood.

4. The Egyptian accounts feature God 'speaking' the earth into existence, and a dragon enemy of man
and god.

5. The Sumerian king-lists show extremely high ages for their pre-flood kings (PCE, 97)

4.Some of this Data is QUITE ANCIENT, and much of it probably would not have been available in Egypt
during the lifetime of Moses (i.e. he MUST have had access to transmitted data). [Curiously, most of this
outside-Egypt data has been confirmed/illuminated by archeology]:

1. "Other texts from these towns (Mari and Chagar-Bazar) and from Alalah, Ur, Ras Shamra, and Nuzi in
Assyria throw considerable light on the patriarchal social customs. It can be seen that it was usual for a
childless couple to adopt an heir and then displace him in the event of the birth of a real son (Gen 15:4).
According to her marriage contract, a barren woman was to provide her husband with a slave-girl to
bear a son. Marriages were arranged for public purposes by the rulers of Ugarit and Qatna, as well as by
Egyptian kings, and this may be reflected in the adventures of Sarah (Gen 20) and Rebekah (Gen 26). The
special position of the firstborn son (cf. Gen 21:10ff; 48:14ff), the bridegroom 'asking' for a daughter as
bride, the use of betrothal and bride-gifts (Gen 34:12), and the stipulation of marriage-contracts that a
man might take a third wife only if the first two were barren or take a second wife only if the first failed
to give birth within seven years explain incidents in Genesis (e.g., 29:18, 27 : Jacob's possible need to
wait seven years for Rachel). Nuzi texts refer to a man's transferring his inheritance for three sheep and
uphold the validity of an oral blessing as a deathbed will. The type of sale contract involved in the
purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23) is similar to both Old Babylonian and Hittite legal texts of
this period." (D. J. Wiseman, "Archeology and the Old Testament" in EBC , vol 1., p. 316)

2. The average price of a slave at the time of the story of Joseph was 20 shekels of silver; by the time of
Moses it had risen to 40-50. (AOOT, 52f)

3. The Nuzi law recognized household gods as evidences of the inheritance of a family. Whoever had the
gods, had primary claim on that inheritance. Laban's being upset about the 'teraphim' of Genesis 31.19
makes sense in this case. (PCE, p152)

4. The Edomite lists in Gen 36:1-43 would have to have been gathered BEFORE the entry into Egypt
under Joseph--there was no interchanges between Egypt/Israel and Edom (that would have
required/facilitated transmission of this data) until David conquered them a millennium later .

5. Likewise, the power alliances of Gen 14--4 kings against 5--were a common feature of the Patriarchal
age, but NOT in Moses' time!

"the system of power alliances (four kings against five) is typical in Mesopotamian politics within the
period c.2000-1750, but notbefore or after this general period when different political patterns
prevailed. (AOOT, p45, 47)--he had to have access to historical records.6. "As is well known, Genesis is
replete with evidence indicating the antiquity of the book. In the area of tribal associations, we may
note that Reuben's position as first-born, Levi's role as a warrior, and Simeon's geographic tie to
Shechem, do not accord with later history and must therefore be ancient traditions." (Rendsburg, The
Redaction of Genesis, p. 114).

7. The absence of Yahwistic names (i.e. names that include YHWH as part of the root) in Genesis reflects
very old traditions. We first get Yahwist names in Ex 6.20 (Jochebed) and Num 13.16 (Joshua), and then
occasionally up to David's time, when they proliferate. [However, we should note that YHWH does occur
in a few Amorite names, and may be reflected in the Ugaritic lit (GANE, p. 38)]

8. The texts from MARI (South bank of the Euphrates) bears names of Abram, Jacob, Benjamin, Serug,
Terah, Nahor (PCE, p.23)

9. Abram encountered a sparsely settled Palestine (RKH, 170)

10. The Hittite legal documents demonstrate a levirate marriage custom. (PCE, 25)

11. "There can be no real question as to the immense antiquity of the source material that is to be found
in Genesis. Evidence for this includes the large number of Babylonian words that occur in the earlier part
of the book, the topographical references, such as those relating to Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 10:19),
and the number of glosses required to bring ancient names up to date (e.g. Gen 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 17;
16:14; 23.2; 35.19). Primitive geographical expressions such as the 'south country' (Gen 20.1; 24.62) and
the 'east country' (Gen 25.6), which were used in the days of Abraham, never recurred in the Old
Testament narratives as a description of the countries adjoining the south and east of Palestine, since
these regions subsequently acquired familiar and well-defined designations." (RKH, 552f)

12. Also important here are the patriarchal customs reflected in Genesis that are CONTRARY to later
Mosaic laws! (Had Moses been making this stuff up, he probably would have 'made' the patriarchs
'better behaved'!). This is strong evidence that not only was the data received by Moses, but also that it
was widespread enough so that he COULD NOT change it--EVEN to make his 'program' go more
smoothly.

◾ Abraham married his half-sister (20.12) vs. the prohibition in Lev 18.9; 20.17; Dt 27.22

◾ Jacob married his sister-in-law (28.28) vs. Lev 18.18

◾ Jacob set up a 'stone' (masseba) in 28.18, condemned in Ex 34.13; Lev 26.1; Dt 12.3; 16.21-22).

◾ The rights of the firstborn were important and protected in Dt 21.15-17, but these were overridden
often in Genesis--17, 25, 27, 38, 48, 49).
Summary: The data indicates a reliable stream of information, from earliest times down to at least the
time of Moses. The historical particulars reflect a pre-mosaic time and indicate a fixity and reliability of
transmission.

brief note about the Documentary Hypothesis...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A while back I wrote a piece that referred to some issues I had with the ole JEDP theory--the
Documentary Hypothesis...

It seems like I am not the only one. In researching the data for the AE class I am teaching on "how we
got our OT", I ran across some scholarly articles that displayed an interesting pattern. I have put the
abstracts and the dates below, in chronological order. See if YOU see the same striking progression I
saw...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Larsson, Gerhard

Title: The Documentary Hypothesis and the Chronological Structure of the Old Testament.

Journal: Z fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Year: 1985
Volume: 97(3); pages: 316-333

Surveys criticism of the documentary hypothesis and notes the more recent, synthesizing approach. This
includes studies of pericopes as units and studies of internal connections between narratives to find
common structural elements. A closer study is also made of the feasibility of using the chronological
dates to shed light on the structural design and internal connections of the Pentateuch.

_____________________________________________________________

Author: Schmidt, Ludwig

Title: Jakob erschleicht sich den vaterlichen Segen (Jacob Obtains Surreptitiously the Paternal Blessing).

Journal: Z fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Year: 1988

Volume: 100(2), pages: 159-183

Despite the debate about the Documentary Hypothesis, proposes to divide Gen 27:1-45 into two
documents attributable to J and E. E is a revision of J, and the Jehovist, who combined J though he
occasionally retained only the longer of the two versions. From 27:36 it can be concluded that 25:29-34
also belongs to E. J and E are also discovered in Gen 32:4-9, 14a and 32:14b-22 respectively.

(German)

__________________________________________________________

Author: Tengstrom, Sven

Title: Exegetisk metod och dateringsproblem i pentateukforskningen (Exegetical Method and the
Problem of Dating the Pentateuch in Recent Research)

Journal: Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok

Year: 1989

Volume: 54, pages: 207-225

Recently scholars (Van Seters, Schmid, Rendtorff, Rose, Lemche) have challenged both the documentary
hypothesis of the Pentateuch's composition and even the presuppositions supporting literary-critical
analysis itself. Likewise thus the dates of the Pentateuchal material come into question. But these
studies are not informed by modern structural and linguistic approaches. An approach to exegesis so
informed leads to dating the Yahwist's work far earlier than is usually done, well back into the
premonarchical period. (Swedish)

_______________________________________________________________

Author: van Dyk, P. J.

Title: Current Trends in Pentateuch Criticism.

Journal: Old Testament Essays,

Year: 1990

Volume: 3(2), pages: 191-202.

It is now accepted that the documentary hypothesis is hampered with serious difficulties. Redaction
history and tradition history are now considered more fitting points of departure than literary criticism
in explaining the origin of the Pentateuch. There is a preference for the view that much of the Yahwistic
material was written later than originally thought, implying a much longer period of oral and written
transmission of many of the Pentateuchal narratives. The way literary criticism and tradition history
were applied in the past is largely invalidated by current folklore research which should be used as a
corrective as well as to devise a new theory on how the Pentateuch originated.

____________________________________________________________

Author: Rendtorff, Rolf.

Title: The Paradigm Is Changing: Hopes - and Fears.

Journal: Biblical Interpretation,

Year: 1993

Volume: 1(1), pages: 34-53.

Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis has come to an end. Other major scholarly views of the 20th
cent., e.g., Gunkel's concentration on the smaller units, and Noth's and von Rad's Israelite amphictyony
are cratering. Nothing substantial, however, has replaced these views. Several contemporary scholars
advocate "fearful" concepts: Israelite religion was little different from Canaanite religion; one can write
a history of Israel without using the Hebrew Bible; more and more OT texts are exilic and postexilic, and
their historical allusions are not reliable. Still, a "hopeful" aspect of present work is the tendency to deal
with the text as it is.

When I couple this pattern with the recent works I have read...

•Before Abraham Was by Kikawada and Quinn (Ignatius: 1985), which demonstrates an INCREDIBLE
thematic unity and artistry of the composer of Gen 1-11 [every section fits into the 1-3-1 patterns of the
Atrahasis story]

•The Redaction of Genesis by Rendsburg (Eisenbrauns: 1986), which demonstrates an INCREDIBLE

linguistic unity and artistry of the composer of all of Genesis [The J and E sections share an extremely
high number of theme-words and linking-words, puns, etc.!]

"..it becomes simply incredulous that J wrote 12.1-4a, 12:6-9 about the start of Abraham's spiritual
odyssey and that E wrote 22:1-19 about the climax of his spiritual odyssey, and that these two authors
living approximately 100 years apart and in different parts of ancient Israel time and again chose the
same lexical terms. Surely this is too improbable, especially when such examples can be and have been
multiplied over and over. Admittedly, a corresponding word here or there could be coincidental, but the
cumulative nature of the evidence tips the scales heavily against the usual division of Genesis into JEP"
(p. 104-105)

I personally am convinced by these arguments that Rendsburg's conclusion is on target:

"The evidence presented here points to the following conclusion: there is much more uniformity and
much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than generally assumed. The standard division of
Genesis into J, E, and P strands should be discarded. This method of source criticism is a method of an
earlier age, predominantly of the 19th century. If new approaches to the text, such as literary criticism
of the type advanced here, deem the Documentary Hypothesis unreasonable and invalid, then source
critics will have to rethink earlier conclusions and start anew." (p. 105)

Special Topics/Cases

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The intent in this section is to take a look at a number of Special Topics and Cases that perhaps
demonstrate some of the processes and structures of the production of the OT. These are: • Hittite
Treaty forms

• The "Travelogues" of the Book of Numbers

• Israel's knowledge of Canaanite practices BEFORE the exodus

• How did Moses get Balaam's prophecies for inclusion in Numbers?!

• The issue of 'borrowing' laws--did Moses somehow "copy" Hammurabi?

• The Atrahasis theme

These issues will be representative of many, many other issues than can legitimately be raised in a
course of this type, but will also demonstrate the essential reasonableness of traditional Judeo-Christian
claims concerning the recording of God's word.

Hittite Treaty forms

We have already looked at this in detail several times, but it is worth summarizing again.

The ANE of the second millennium utilized a treaty form that has come to be called the Hittite vassal
treaty. This treaty format had a VERY specific structure, with little or no variability in the order of those
elements. It was pervasive in the ANE throughout the 2nd millennium, and an earlier form of it can be
found in the 3rd millennium as well. But in the 1st millennium, treaty forms differed substantially from
this format, and the general treaty form was essentially 'lost' to history until archeological discoveries in
the last century.

The treaty form had the following components:

1. Preamble ("These are the words...")

2. Historical Prologue. (i.e. events leading to and forming the basis of the treaty)

3. General Stipulations. (i.e. statement of substance concerning the future relationship, which (a) is
intimately related to the antecedent history, and (b) summarizes the purpose of the specific
stipulations)

4. Specific Stipulations.

5. Divine Witnesses. (i.e. various deities are called to witness the treaty)

6. Blessings and Curses (i.e. relating respectively to the maintenance or breach of the covenant).

The significance of this form for our study is that the Mosaic covenant is stated in this treaty format. In
all three public statements of the covenant (Ex 20-31; Deut 1-31; Joshua 24), ALL of these components
are present, and occur in this basic order. For example, the entire book of Deut. is in this format.
Consider the outline given by Craigie, NICOT, "Deuteronomy", p. 24:

1. Preamble ("These are the words which Moses addressed to all Israel...") 1.1-.5

2. Historical Prologue (1.6-4.49)

3. General Stipulations (5-11)

4. Specific Stipulations (12-26)

5. Blessings and Curses (27-28)

6. Witnesses. (30.19; 31.19; 32.1-43)

[Craigie also makes a reasonable case that this vassal treaty form was used in Egypt for foreign contract
labor--something like the Hebrews had there...pp79-83.]

The main implications of this for our study are:

1. The date of this material cannot be later than the 2nd millennium--which is the general traditional
view.

2. The essential unity of the material is also demonstrated by the strict adherence to the format of the
treaty form. It would have been impossible for first-millennium redactors to have 'assembled' various
bits of text together into a format that had disappeared centuries earlier.

3. The Hebrew understanding of their relationship to God would have been very explicit with such a
treaty form. In the exodus, they saw one God (YHWH) defeat another god (Pharaoh) and were offered a
relationship with the victor (instead of being 'spoiled' with the vanquished). And if Craigie is correct in
his understanding of the covenant form usage in Egypt, the Israelites would have understood their new
relationship to YHWH to be one of SERVICE to a new king.

The "Travelogues" of the Book of Numbers

The Book of Numbers presents itself as a record of Israel's wanderings in the wilderness--from the
Exodus to the preparation for entry at Jordan. One might question to what extent day-to-day record
keeping was common on such journeys, esp. since most royal military campaigns ended up being
inscribed on stone monuments.

We have a data point for this, however, in the "Annals of Thutmose III" (ANET, pp. 234-238). These
documents are carved on temple walls at Karnak and are the accounts of the Pharaoh's campaigns in
Syria and Palestine (c. 1490-1436). There are several sets of these records, with differing levels of
summarization, in other sites as well. The relevance to our study is that the Annals refer to a more
detailed account of the campaigns which was contained on a leather scroll and lodged in the temple.
(The scroll has been lost.) The leather scroll seems to have served as a portable, but fairly durable
substance on which records could be made during the travels. It is certainly reasonable that Israel (who
spent considerable time in Egypt!) could have employed a similar method.

Indeed, Numbers 33.1-2 records a SPECIFIC directive by the "new Pharaoh"--YAHWEH!--to record His
'travels':
Here are the stages in the journey of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt by divisions under the
leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2 At the LORD's command Moses recorded the stages in their journey.
This is their journey by stages:

It was known that the Israelite leadership had writing materials--Moses was instructed in Ex 17.14:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure
that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

[It should also be mentioned that the correspondence between Moses and the un-cooperative leaders
of Transjordan were standard 'messenger' formats for the time, and would have been kept in the
leadership's archives for reasons of state.]

And it may well be that the 'official' title for this travel-log was the "Book of the Wars of the Lord" (?)--cf.
Num 21:13: "They set out from there and camped alongside the Arnon, which is in the desert extending
into Amorite territory. The Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. 14 That is
why the Book of the Wars of the LORD says: "... Waheb in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon 15 and the
slopes of the ravines that lead to the site of Ar and lie along the border of Moab."

The point is: that the wanderings material was recorded is entirely REASONABLE.

Israel's knowledge of Canaanite practices BEFORE the exodus

Certain sections of the Law PRESUPPOSE some knowledge of Canaanite religion and praxis (Deut 7:5;
12.1-4; Lev 18,19). Much of this information COULD have been 'new data' from God, of course, but the
evidence indicates that the Israelites already knew EXACTLY what HE was forbidding! (In other words,
nobody was asking "hey, what's He talking about--what's an Asherah pole?"). What data do we have
that helps us formulate an understanding of how Israel had 'access' to data about Canaan? ◦ The
Israelites probably took a good bit of 'Canaanite' knowledge (and maybe even "practice"!) INTO EGYPT
with them--the record indicates they weren't necessarily as 'pure' as we might like to believe. The lives
of the Patriarchs themselves show a great amount of interchange/interplay between themselves and
the Canaanites. Many of Abraham's immediate descendants married women of the land (e.g. Ismael,
Esau, Judah, Simeon), and Judah's sexual engagement with what he thought was a 'shrine prostitute' in
Genesis 38 (with his friend right there!) is a rather lurid, but representative, example of rather
substantial familiarity with the religious customs and practices of the land. Jacob, in Gen 35, had to
instruct his 'household' to 'get rid of your foreign gods'--they had probably accumulated them since the
migration of Abraham! This information (and maybe even morals) probably went down to the land with
the descendants of Abraham.

◦ We know from archeology that there were Canaanite temples/settlements in the delta regions of the
Nile where Israel lived. One explicitly Canaanite city name is mentioned in the Scripture (Ex 14.9 - "Baal
Zephon"--"Baal (lord) of the North"), and this is attested to in ANET 249. There would have probably
been four centuries of interchanges between these two groups. (Remember, the famine that drove
Israel into Egypt was severe in 'all of Canaan'--Gen 42.5--and southern migrations into Egypt by
Canaanites would have be quite reasonable.)

◦ The Golden Calf (i.e. young bull) event in Exodus gives a glimpse of Israel's affinity to other gods. In Ex
32 the text is rather suggestive that ritual prostitution was probably involved. The bull itself might have
been a reference to one of the gods of Egypt, although this god had obviously been shown to be weaker
than YHWH in the plague on the livestock. I think it is more likely that the bull itself was understood as
the footstool of Baal--the Canaanite 'top god'--and his buddies. In Aramean sculpture, Baal is
represented as riding on the backs of young bulls. The fact that Jereboam set up identical bull figures in
the Northern kingdom, which became a center of Baal worship (to its own demise) make this association
a little tighter. And, the Baal figure (although it had a minority following in Egypt at the time) COULD
HAVE been understood by the Israelites as a candidate for the 'VICTOR' over the gods of Egypt.
Additionally, the fact that the bull was singular, but the announcement "behold your godS" was plural
(twice) indicates that more was 'present in the intention' than just the solitary calf figure.

If this association is correct, then Israel ALREADY knew both the religion AND the practices of Canaan.
They worshipped Baal and then 'rose up to play'--an English euphemism for vigorous sexual activity.

◦ In Leviticus 17.7 we see that the wandering band of Israelites were STILL engaged in polytheistic
activity-- "They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute
themselves. "--offering sacrifices to goat idols (or 'goat demons'-NIV margin).

◦ The 1st and 2nd commandments--against polytheism and idolatry--get a tremendous amount of
emphasis relative to the other 8 commandments. This emphasis makes MORE sense IF the audience had
a 'problem' in these areas (!), indicating perhaps a more Canaanite background and leaning.

◦ The reversion of Israel to syncretistic worship IMMEDIATELY after Joshua (as recorded in the book of
Judges, esp. 2.11) shows a familiarity (and comfort with?) the practices of the land.
◦ The fact that the "deception of Midian" worked suggests a strong affinity on Israel's part to Canaanite
religion (Numbers 25--see below).

All in all, the data seems to indicate not only EASY ACCESS for Israel to Canaanite religion and practices
(before and during the Egyptian bondage), but surprisingly high affinity and indeed, USAGE of that
system. This demonstrates that the knowledge of Canaanite practices that are contained in the Lev/Deut
passages WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 'novel' to Israel (and correspondingly, do not require a LATE DATE for
the material--e.g. LONG AFTER they have settled in the land).

How did Moses get Balaam's prophecies for inclusion in Numbers?!

Balaam was an international prophet of high repute (as noted in the preceding lesson). And, as most
important prophets his messages would be written down, esp. when delivered to/for royalty.

In Numbers 22-24 we have the account of Balaam's attempted cursing of Israel, in the context of
compensation from Balak. Balak, king of Moab, is VERY concerned about Israel, having seen the defeat
the Israelites handed to the Amorites. He and the Midianite elders travel to the Euphrates river to hire
the 'prophetic gunslinger' of the East--to come 'curse Israel'. Balaam eventually goes with them, but
upon seeing Israel, he issues a number of oracles BLESSING Israel--YHWH stops him from doing any
damage. [Remember, that the prophecies of Israel's blessings would have no doubt been written down.]
If the story had stopped there, all would have been well.

But Balaam still is out to help his 'benefactor', so he gives them the 'right' advice to defeat Israel: If Israel
is 'made to sin' and alienates YHWH, they can then be easily defeated in battle! (Num 31.15-16).
Numbers 25 records the sad story:

While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women,
2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. 3
So Israel joined in worshipping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD's anger burned against them.

This surprise action on the part of Israel (right after YHWH had defeated the gods of the land!) shows us
that something is odd in the text. The sexual immorality, in this Canaanite religious context, would have
included ritual prostitution. Indeed, the act described in 25. 6--probably religious copulation at the Tent
of Meeting!--is shocking in the context of the Mosaic Covenant.
How could this happen so easily? How could Israel be so easily enticed to co-worship with Moab?

I think the answer might be in 25:16-17: " The LORD said to Moses, "Treat the Midianites as enemies and
kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their
sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a
result of Peor."

Deception? What kind of deception would have worked?

What might have happened is this: Balaam takes his oracles and tells the Midianites/Moabites to
approach Israel with them. They are to explain to Israel that YHWH has blessed them THRU MIDIAN and
that a joint festival has been authorized by YHWH through Balaam. The presence of the tablets of the
prophecies of Balaam (or at least copies) would have been the PROOF of the matter. They may have
even pointed to the verses 24.8 (and contrasted themselves with the 'hostile' nations) and/or pointed to
verse 24.9b (and said "we blessed you, now bless us!").

This seems to be the best way to explain the actions of Israel at this juncture, and the best explanation
of the word 'deceive' in the passage.

The implications for OUR study are two-fold: (1) This deception and the immediate revelry that occurs
makes the MOST sense if Israel already knows the religion praxis (like they obviously did at the Golden
Calf event) and (2) It gives an interesting 'point of contact' with the written prophecies of Balaam--later
to show up in Moses' hands. [But note, the prophecies of Balaam COULD JUST AS EASILY have been
obtained when the prophet himself was killed by the Israelites in Numbers 31.8.]

The issue of 'borrowing' laws--did Moses somehow "copy" Hammurabi?

It has long been realized that the similarities between some of the Mosaic legislation and the Law Code
of Hammurabi are striking. Hammi's law is dated around 1720 b.c.--before the advent of Moses. There
are those who suggest that the Law of Moses is actually a mild type of plagiarism (instead of a divinely-
given law), and seek to assert substantial dependence of Moses on prior law collections.

There are a number of points to be made here, although MOST of the issue of borrowing will be in the
NEXT SECTION--specifically ON the subject of 'borrowing'.

1. Most parallels between Moses and Hammy are about crimes that we would expect to find legislation
on IN MOST SOCIETIES (e.g. social crimes--murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery, eye-for-an-eye). And
given, that the 'prior laws' in Hammi, that are cited as precursors to Moses' laws, show up THEMSELVES
in OTHER legal codes, demonstrates that SIMILARITY does NOT entail 'derivation'. (In other words, the
laws in Hammi ALSO occur in OTHER law codes that are in the same time period.)

2. Some of the laws in the Mosaic period have counterparts in the pre-Hammi Patriarchal period (e.g.
Levirate relationships--Gen 38.8 on levirate family relationships). So some of the laws may have come
INTO Egypt with Israel.

3. The DIFFERENCES in the laws, however, are most striking, esp. between Israel (e.g. Moses) and
Babylonia (i.e. Hammurapi). The strongest difference is in the relative worth of human life. A
comparison of the two legal collections shows that the H-code has a much higher severity for property-
offenses, whereas the M-code has a much higher severity for homicide. (but more on this later)

4. And, of course, many of the cultic laws were ANTI-laws, aimed AGAINST the religion of Canaan--cf.
esp. Lev 18,19. (Not so in the other law-collections.)

[It is very curious that we have no surviving legal codes from Egypt. It has been traditionally said that
since the "pharaoh was god, no laws were written down--his word was law". But, quite frankly, I don't
see how this could provide an adequate legal system for a nation of the size, scope, and complexity of
Egypt of that time. There MUST have been some legal codes, dealing with partnerships, inheritance, etc-
-but we have not found any so far!]

The various legal codes of the ANE would probably have been accessible to Egypt, and in some cases,
before the Israelites went into Egypt (Hittite laws). The periods in which Moses lived were considered to
be the most 'cosmopolitan' in Egypt's history (Kitchen).

There is nothing in the text or historical context to require these laws to be late.
The Atrahasis theme

We have already examined the Atrahasis epic structure and seen the deliberate parallels AND
departures from the motifs in that epic. By way of remembrance, the author of Genesis used the overall
Atrahasis epic structure (common throughout the ANE in the Middle Bronze Era--Patriarchal Period) as
the backdrop, against which he placed some POINTED changes to the epic. In other words, where the
epic said overpopulation was the problem, the Genesis author said the opposite--human life was good
and we were TOLD to 'be fruitful and multiply'.

Against a backdrop of familiarity with these epics, these small changes would have STUCK OUT in severe
relief! [A modern day example, from the US: If I took the National Anthem, which most of us have
repeated several times a week for years and decades on end, and changed ONE phrase ("under God" to
"instead of God"), a hearer would respond instantly--and understand sharply the point I would be
making. So it would be with the EPIC form--one change in content would be an amazingly clear
message.]

Now, the significance of this issue to our current study is this--whoever wrote this Genesis piece (and
maybe even the Pentateuch, since it can be shown to show the same structure--cf. Kikawada and Quinn,
Before Abraham Was, pp. 122-125) wrote it to an audience who was either 1) VERY familiar with this
epic mythology; 2) ABOUT to confront this epic mythology in a fresh exchange; or 3) both.

I submit that the intended audience was pre-Conquest Israel. They would have been familiar with the
epic from the Patriarchal traditions (it DID form a substrate to many, many of the ANE religions--
including the Canaanite traditions!), and were about to confront it AFRESH upon entering the land for
the conquest. It would make PERFECT PEDAGOGICAL sense for someone to cast their history, their
values, and even their covenant treaty forms(!) into this structure--for ease of memory and for shock
effect.

Who could do this? Who might have the literary skill? Who might have had access to actual copies of
those epics, available perhaps in royal libraries? Who might have had enough concern for the people of
Israel to create such a masterpiece of teaching, memory, vividness? Who might have had access to
writing materials and assistants? And who might have experienced an attempt at Atrahasis-type
'population control' first-hand (say in a basket of reeds in a river) , with the passion that such a memory
might create to instill these counter-values in the people? And who, upon learning of the child sacrifice
of the Canaanites, might have seen the evil-but-logically-consistent-fruit of the worldview in these epics-
-Molech--and decided to hit the issue head-on?

You can probably tell my guess ;>)

Moses. All the skills, training, opportunity, and necessary interest and commitment to create such a
document converge in him.

Good question...

...on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created Nov 9, 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently got this letter:

Now, when we say that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses, there are many questions challenging
this statement... I'll send these questions to you one by one. This is where I need your help, to begin
with.

The first question in this regard is based on the following verses:

Genesis 13: 18 says:

"So Abram moved his tents and went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he built
an altar to the LORD."

likewise, Genesis 35: 27 says:

"Jacob came home to his father Isaac in Mamre, near Kiriath Arba which is, Hebron, where Abraham
and Isaac had stayed."

Then again in in 37: 14 says:

"So he said to him, "Go and see if all is well with your brothers and with the flocks, and bring word back
to me." Then he sent him off from the Valley of Hebron."
But Joshua 14: 15 says:

"Now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath arba, this Arba was the greatest man among the
Anakim. And the land had rest from war."

Now the question is:

From Joshua 14: 15, it is obvious that the town "Kiriath Arba" was named Hebron only after the
conquest of Palestine... which was years after the death of Moses. But this name appears in the verses
quoted from Genesis... and in other verses, ascribed to Moses too. This is an evidence that Genesis, and
other books ascribed to Moses, were not really written by Moses.

How do we resolve this issue?

..............................................................................................

Well, the first thing we must be clear on is what we mean by 'Mosaic authorship'...

And, what is generally understood by that is that Moses wrote substantially all of the content of the first
5 books of the bible--the Pentateuch.

If Moses had written these books somewhere between 1400 and 1200 BC (the two main candidates for
the Exodus/Wanderings period), it would have been written in a script VERY FAR REMOVED from the
Hebrew of our existing Hebrew Bible. The originals would have been written in either (1)Sinaitic, (2)
Canaanite, or (3) North Semitic scripts. These originals would have to have been 'transliterated' into
Paleo-Hebrew during the Monarchy or Divided Kingdom (1000-700 BC). Then, this version would have
been transliterated AGAIN into Old Aramaic script during the Exile (beginning to look like the square
Hebrew characters at this time). [for a discussion of script history, see PCE, chapter 4].

During these projects of transliteration, scribes would have added some explanatory material and
updated some arcane references--to help the reader understand. These editorial 'annotations' are
generally (not always) very visible (as the ref. in Joshua illustrates), and would have been helpful to any
readers. Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch does NOT assert that Moses wrote these glosses (or the
account of his own death in Deut 34!).

This general position is stated well by the very conservative scholar Duane Garrett [OT:RTG:85-86]:
"The assertion that Moses is the principal author of the present text of Genesis need not mean that it
came from his hand exactly as we have it now. To the contrary, one may confidently assume that the
work has undergone post-Mosaic redaction. The main reason such a redaction would have taken place
was not to substantially change the book in any way but rather to make it intelligible to a later
generation of readers.

"Genesis is written in standard Hebrew, archaic forms notwithstanding. Although one may well argue
that the Pentateuch played a major role in the development of standard Hebrew, there is no reason to
think that there could not have been any revisions to keep up with semantic developments in the
Hebrew language. In addition, the location of geographical settings by names that were common in a
later period is an indication of redaction. The most well-known example is the reference to Dan as a
place name in Genesis 14:14, an obvious anachronism. But it proves no more than that the text has
undergone some revision. The same may be said of the reference to Israelite kings in Genesis 36.31.

Or, take the example of the coastal descriptors of the exodus accounts. At the time of the exodus, the
Mediterraean coast was occupied by Canaanites, not by the Philistines, who did not arrive in the Levant
until early in the 12th century as a part of the Sea Peoples migration or invasion. Yet exodus 13.17
(When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country,
though that was shorter. ) makes the anachronistic identification. This, however, is narrative
explanation, and the actual spies' report in Num 13.29, reflecting the older (and historically actual)
event, uses the chronologically correct terms for the day: and the Canaanites live near the sea and along
the Jordan." . We have a clear case, again, of the older, original forms being present, and then
annotation and explanation for somewhat later readers being added.

Now, in a minute we will look at the evidence that the bulk of the Pentateuch is written very, very early,
so this will leave us with the situation that the majority of the material 'looks early as Moses' and a
minority of the material 'looks later than Moses'. The 'looks early as Moses' material is material that
would not make much sense to a later crowd; and the 'looks later than Moses' material would be
material that was not known at the time of Moses. What are the possible ways of explaining this?

There are essentially two models:

1. The Mosaic one: that Moses wrote most of it, and that later editors made annotations and updated
geographical or detailed terms; or
2.A much later author (generally considered late-exilic or post-exilic) wrote it all, placing 'early' terms
into the document to make it look authentic.

To evaluate these models, we have to look at a couple of issues:

1.Presence of relative-dating materials (e.g. citations of/allusions to biblical texts in later materials)

2.The presence of material that would have BEST fit the context of Moses, or would have been
difficult/pointless to write later.

3.The presence of 'early' material that would have been confusing or misleading to later readers.

4.Methodological implications of both 'early' to 'late' materials (What is the most reasonable way to
account for this.)

Using this framework, we can evaluate the relative worth of the models.

.............................................................................................
The Data:

1.Presence of relative-dating materials (e.g. citations of/allusions to biblical texts in later materials)

◦Two inscribed, silver plaques that were used as amulets were found in excavations of Ketef Hinnom in
Jerusalem, dated seventh century BC (pre-exilic). They were inscribed with a formula based on the
Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6.24-26 [OT:AAI:303]. This would have required the text to have been
codified and accepted as 'authority' long before the Exile.

◦The data from spelling patterns in the Hebrew bible support both the unity and antiquity of the Pentx.
With the general principle that the more conservative the spelling, the earlier and older the work,
OT:SHB:313-314, notes this:

"The Primary History as a whole is more conservative in its spelling than the rest of the Bible, which thus
falls into two parts of almost equal size. Recognizing that this is a single continuous work that, according
to the notices at the end of the book of Kings, could have been completed by about 560 BCE, one can
attribute the generally conservative spelling found throughout this gigantic work to its early recognition
as canon. The Pentateuch is the most conservative of all. In spite of differences among the five books
which could be partly due to the fat that each existed and was transmitted as a separate scroll, and
hence probably was copied by different scribes at the same time, the Pentateuch is more uniform in
orthographic character than any other part of the Bible. (p.313)

"So far as spelling is concerned, the most conservative book in the Pentateuch is Exodus, followed by
Leviticus, Numbers, Genesis, Deuteronomy. That is, Exodus and Leviticus have by far the most old-
fashioned spelling in the entire Bible; and they are dominated by priestly material. There is a lot of P in
Numbers too, and about one quarter of Genesis is P. So, the more P, the older the spelling. This means
either that old spellings were still in use in priestly circles well after the Exile, or--more likely--that the P
document is actually a pre-exilic composition, and that the whole of the Pentateuch was complete by
the time of the onset of the Exile." (p.314)

◦The relative absence of Yahwistic names in Genesis, compared to their prevalence in the early
monarchy argues for the antiquity of Genesis [RG:114-115].
◦The events described in the Pentateuch are constantly referred to by the later books of the bible,
implying that the Pent. was earlier than ANY of the other books. A sampling of these would include:

◾Abraham, in Ezek 33

◾Abraham, in Isaiah 29

◾Amelekite treachery, in I Sam 15.2

◾Carrying Ark with poles, in 1 Chrn 15.15

◾Creation, in Jer 10

◾Deut 14.29; 16.11; 24.17, in Mal 3.5

◾Deut 15.21, in Mal 1.8

◾Deut 18.20, in Jer 28.16f

◾Deut 23.2, in Isaiah 56.3-8

◾Divorce legislation, in Jer 3.1

◾Exodus, in Hosea 11, 12

◾Exodus, in Isaiah 10

◾Exodus, in Jer 16

◾Exodus, in Micah 6,7

◾Exodus/Sinai, in Ezek 20

◾Exodus/Wilderness, in Amos 2.10

◾Garments taken in pledge, in Amos 2.8

◾Golden Calf, in I Kings 12.28

◾Israel's history, in Psalms 78, 105, 106, 135, 136

◾Jacob buys land, in Jos. 24

◾Jacob, in Jer 9, 33
◾Jacob, in Mal 1

◾Jacob, in Micah 7.20

◾Land grant to Jacob, in Ezek 28

◾Law about not punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers, in 2 kings 14.5-6

◾Letters to Trandsjordan kings, in Judges 11

◾Lev 26.33 and Deut 30.4, in Neh 1.8

◾Leviticus 17-26, in Ezek

◾Noah, in Isaiah 54

◾Plagues in Egypt, in Amos 4.10

◾Sodom, in Amos 4.11

◾Sodom, in Ezek 16.46-55

◾Sodom, in Isaiah 1,13

◾Sodom, in Jer 23, 50

◾Sodom, in Zeph 2.9

◾Sodom-Admah-Zeboim, in Hosea 11.8

◾Tax legislation, in 2 Chrn 24.6

◾The bronze serpent, in Kings 18.4

◾The creation story is referred to in 22 different Psalms

◾The Curse, in Isaiah 24

◾The Flood, in Isaiah 24

◾The Garden of Eden, in Ezek 28

◾The Garden of Eden, in Isaiah 51.3

◾Transjordan trip, in Jer 48

◾Transjordan trip, recounted in 2 Chrn 20.10

2.The presence of material that would have BEST fit the context of Moses, or would have been
difficult/pointless to write later (in late-exilic or post-exilic times).

◦The vocabulary of BH (Biblical Hebrew) is especially fitting for early Israelite culture, and strangely
enough, ONLY MAKES SENSE in light of the Wilderness Wanderings! So, HI:HHL:74-75:

"It has been pointed out that although the vocabulary of BH is very small compared to that of a living
language, due to its particular circumstances, it is especially rich in certain areas relevant to the lives of
farmers or shepherds, to mountains, clouds, every kind of naturally-occurring water and the places in
which it collects, the desert, thorns, etc. Some names of places and persons preserve interesting
grammatical and lexical features which have not survived in other sorts of written text"

◦Genesis has many refs to Ishmaelites (25.12-16; 37.25-28; 39.1) and to Midianites (25.2, 4; 36.35;
37.28, 36), but these terms virtually drop out of the record immediately. The last refs to ISHx are in Judg
8.24 and I Chr 27.30, and to MIDIANX is 1 Kgs 11.18. [This last references are well before exilic or post-
exilic times!).

◦Literary genre considerations favor a pre-monarchy date for Genesis. The Genesis episodes have
numerous feature parallels with ANE epic literature. Rendsburg points this out [RG:117]:

"These and many other parallels which could be cited demonstrate the relative antiquity of the Genesis
stories. The Ugaritic, Egyptian, and Babylonian materials are all 2nd millennium traditions...What is most
interesting is that Hebrew epic tends to disappear from the Bible after the United Kingdom. The Genesis
episodes, the Exodus account, the Conquest account, the stories of the Judges, and the rise of David are
all told in epic fashion...From 1 Kings 12 on, Israelite historiography becomes quite dry, devoid of epic
quality. This suggests, consistent with the historical material presented above, that the book of Genesis
is not to be dated later than the United Kingdom. From ca. 900 on, due no doubt to the official scribes
now active in Jerusalem, historical writing is annalistic."

◦Genesis consistently focuses on Shechem; a post-exilic author would have had more material about
Jerusalem.

◦The Joseph narratives in Genesis have distinctly Egyptian elements in them (which would make sense in
a Moses-period, but almost no sense a few centuries later in Palestine.)

◾The 20 shekels price for Joseph was the going price for a slave during the first half of the 2nd
millennium, whereas in the 2nd half of that millennium the price had gone up to 30 shekels. [OT:IIE:84]

◾Joseph's title of "overseer of the house" (Gen 39.4) matches up with the Egyptian word hry-pr
[OT:IIE:84]

◾The Egyptian personal names in the Joseph story all point to the Mosaic/Pre-Mosaic period in Egypt
[OT:IIE:85ff]: Potiphar, Potipherah, Asenath, Zaphenath-paneah.

◾The fact that Pharaoh is unnamed from Genesis to the Division of the monarch, but then called
"Pharaoh X" from then on, matches the Egyptian internal usage! [OT:IIE:87]

◾The word 'magician' in Gen 41.8;24 is recognizably Egyptian. [OT:IIE:88]

◾The description of Pharaoh's birthday (Gen 40.20) is probably the well-known 'festival of accession'
(his divine birthday), in which Pharaoh customarily pardoned individuals (such as in the baker and butler
story).[OT:IIE:89-91]

◾The story of Joseph's investiture by Pharaoh in Gen 41.42-43 matches both literary and iconographic
data from the period [OT:IIE:91ff].

◾The rise of Joseph (an Asiatic) to such a high position is paralleled by several similar rises to power by
Asiatics (e.g. Bay, Apel-el). [OT:IIE:93-94]

◾Joseph's lifespan of 110 years matches the Egyptian ideal lifespan, NOT the Hebrews' ideal! [OT:IIE:95]

◾The fact that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is not named, matches Pharonic practice of the time (not
naming his conquered foes!) [OT:IIE:109]

◾The brick making enterprise--with and without straw--is amply attested in Egyptian lit, as is the quota
shortfall phenomenon [OT:IIE:114-5].

◾The store cities seem to be Hebrew versions of Egyptian words (e.g. Pithom) [OT:IIE:119-120]
◾ The word "Goshen" is only used in the pre-monarchy texts (the latest ref is in Josh 15); all subsequent
biblical references to the area do not refer to this. So OT:IIE:121:

"it is curious that other biblical writers from the sixth century--such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who refer
to geographical terms in Egypt--do not use the name 'Goshen'. This observation is significant since
Jeremiah actually traveled to Egypt after 586 B.C., passing through the northeaster Delta and visited
Tahpanhes (Jer 43.7; 44.1). Likewise, Psalms 78, 135, and 136, which deal with the sojourn and exodus,
do not use the term 'Goshen,' even though these Psalms date to the first millennium B.C. The absence of
Goshen in clearly datable first-millennium texts undermined the argument that its presence in the
exodus narratives is indicative of a date in the seventh or sixth centuries."

◾The birth narratives about Moses are full of words of Egyptian origin (instead of Hebrew origin!!!):
basket, bulrushes, pitch, reeds, river, river-bank [OT:IIE:139-140]

◾The raising of foreigner children in the court nursery (a la Moses) is well attested in the 18th Dynasty.
[OT:IIE:143]

◾The literary genre-pattern used in telling the stories of Joseph and Moses (patterned after the
Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe) is found in sources in the 2nd and 1st millennia in the ANE, always applied to
KNOWN, existing humans--not mythic figures [OT:IEE:144].

◾All but the last couple of plagues in Exodus find perfect correspondence in Egyptian phenomena
[OT:IEE:146].
◾The Pentateuchal phrases "strong hand" and "outstretched arm" correspond to the Egyptian phrases
"strong arm" (hps) and "extended arm" (pr-c). Evidence that these derivations were in use at the time
can be seen in the Amarna Letters of Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem [OT:IEE:151].

◾The shepherd crook used by Moses in the confrontations with Pharaoh was a deliberate symbol of
Pharaonic power and rulership! [OT:IEE:154].

◾The travelogue accounts in Numbers 33 makes sense as a real geographic guide; the use of landmarks
such as mountains, valleys, streams, and springs would assist a traveler. [OT:IIE:178]

◦The structure of Genesis 1-11 is such that it appears to be a 'rebuttal' to the

Sumerian/Akkadian/Ugaritic Creation/Flood stories.

The structure and argumentation of this ancient section of Genesis appears to be a direct confrontation
with the creation/flood myths of the earlier 'foes' of Israel--esp. the Canaanites [BAW:51: "Genesis 1-11
may have been a considered response to the mythic tradition that survives for us in the Atrahasis epic as
well as the Sumerian tradition."]. This would argue that Gen 1-11 was written when these
Akkadian/Sumerian myths were the greatest threat to the nation of Israel--and THIS would have been at
the start of the Conquest.

As Israel entered the land of Canaan, and was consistently warned to avoid the religion of the
inhabitants, Genesis 1-11 would have been a primary weapon with which to arm the common Israelite.
A frequently rehearsed/discussed 'historical creed' like this would have sharply distinguished the God of
Israel from the Gods of Atrahasis and others. As such, Mosaic authorship of Genesis 1-11 as Israel is
approaching the Jordan, makes the most historical sense.

What makes almost NO sense is for this "rebuttal" to have been written after Atrahasis was no longer
the dominant treat! As the Medes & Persians overtook Babylonia, the Akkadian/Sumerian myths were
replaced by THEIR religious background [POTW:121-123]. For a late-exilic or post-exilic Hebrew to
compose a rebuttal to a superseded theology borders on the nonsensical!

◦Deuteronomy has long been recognized as a Suzerainty treaty form that was used ONLY in the 2nd
millennium b.c.! (the 1st century versions are significantly different). Accordingly, there is a strong
possibility that an exilic or post-exilic author COULD NOT HAVE even KNOWN about the format, in which
to author Deuteronomy (or the other incidences of this treaty format in Exodus and Joshua).

◦Similarly, the legal and cultural patterns present in the Patriarchal narratives simply no longer existed in
exilic or post-exilic times. The customs manifested by Abraham & Co. are most closely matched by the
society illustrated in the Nuzi tablets (of a Hurrian background peoples), dated in the first half of the 2nd
millennium BC [OT:BANE:109-130]. Not only were some of these customs OUTLAWED in the Mosaic Law
(!), it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for a very later writer to 'make them up' with such
accuracy. This material, therefore, is very ancient.

3.The presence of 'early' material that would have been confusing or misleading to later readers. This
refers to the obvious fact that a later writer would not necessarily try to confuse his/her readers
DELIBERATELY. To create archaic forms, perhaps to make a document seem more authentic, only makes
sense if the forms can be RECOGNIZED as being archaic! To be not understood at all would not help any
such purpose.]
◦One good example of this shows up in archaic Hebrew poetry. Some of the poetic material preserved in
the Pent. is incredibly ancient, and reflects syntax and semantic usages that disappeared later in the OT
historical period. So, HI:HHL:56-57:

"The poetry of the Bible, like that of other Northwest Semitic literaruters, employs a language which
differs in various ways form the language of prose, reflecting, in general, an earlier stage of Hebrew and
with a closer affinity in language, style, and content with neighboring dialects, especially those to the
north.

"Notable among the biblical passages that best reflect Archaic Hebrew are the Song of Moses (Ex 15),
the Song of Deborah (Jg 5), the Blessings of Jacob (Gn 49) and of Moses (Dt 33), the Oracles of Balaam
(Nm 23-24), and the Poem of Moses (Dt 32), as well as Ps 68 and other early psalms."

Some of these archaic features are:

◾widespread use of the third person pronominal suffix -mo (e.g. Ex 15.5,7)

◾the second person feminine suffix -ky

◾the third person singular masculine suffix -h instead of -w (e.g. Gen 49.11)

◾infinitive absolute with temporal value (e.g. Ex 15.6)

◾zo and zu used as relative particles (Ex 15.13; Jg 5.5)

◾use of the negative bal instead of lo

◾the verbal suffix -t in the third person feminine (e.g. Dt 32.36)

◾traces of the old case endings in nouns suffixed by -i or -o in the construct state (e.g. Gen 49.11; Nm
23.18)

◾Specialized vocabulary:

"Expressions used almost exclusively in poetry include hapax legomena and other rare words, which
tend to be concentrated in the oldest biblical texts. Generally it may be said that these items existed
during the archaic period of the language, later disappearing from normal use...The occurrence of so
many lexical items of this kind in a single passage is evidence of its antiquity." [HI:HHL:61]

◦Genesis has a common 3rd person singular pronoun form -hw; Joshua and later works breaks this into
masculine and feminine forms.
◦The Exodus narrative contains details that would have made NO SENSE to a post-exilic Jew (but made
perfect sense to a Mosaic-period Hebrew). So OT:EEE:44:

"Turning to the Exodus narrative itself, several points are worth noting. First, for those who doubt the
historicity of the story completely, or who suggest that it was created only in the sixth to fifth century
B.C.E. post-exilic era, a question must be asked regarding Ramesses and Pithom, the cities on which the
Hebrews labored, according to Exodus. Why did the biblical editors or redactors refer specifically to
Ramesses, when in their own era and for some three centuries earlier the capital of Egypt had been
Tanis, a city well known and often referred to in the Old Testament? From the Book of Judges onwards,
Tanis is consistently referred to as Egypt's capital. Why would a biblical editor insert Ramesses into a
newly composed story when that city no longer existed in Egypt and had not been Pharaoh's residence
or the capital for the previous four or five centuries? ...Tanis had been the Egyptian capital throughout
nearly the entire span of Israel's monarchic period. What sense would it make for Jews familiar with
Saite Egypt to invent a story about an oppressive pharaoh who had compelled their ancestors to labor
on his cities, and why fix on Ramesses for this role? In Dynasty XXVI Pharaoh's capital was Sais, and even
more pointedly, Jewish exiles in Egypt were valued for their mercenary skills and not consigned to
compulsory brick making."

◦The tribal associations in Genesis do not accord with later history--Reuben's position as first-born, Levi's
role as warrior, and Simeon's geographic tie to Shechem [RG:114]

◦Some of the Patriarchal stories are at variance with Mosaic legislation. It would be almost inconceivable
as to why a post-exilic writer would 'create' the Patriarchal lives at such "embarrassing" variance with
the Law! Some of these events are:

◾Abraham marries his half-sister (prohibited in Lev 18.9; 20.17; Deut 27.22)

◾Jacob married his sister-in-law (prohibited in Lev 18.18).

◾The eclipsing of the first-born (prohibited or regulated in Deut 21.15-17)

◾ Jacob set up a masseba (28.18), a practice outlawed in Ex 34.13; Lev 26.1; Deut 12.3; 16.21-22.

4.Methodological implications of both 'early' to 'late' materials (What is the most reasonable way to
account this.)

Hoffmeier illustrates the wisest approach to 'mixed dated' texts, in OT:IIE:121f:

"Even if we allow that Goshen is Hebrew writing for the Qederite-Arabic Geshem, this need not mean,
as Redford claims, that its use in the Pentateuch points to a sixth-century origin for the Exodus story.
The usage could indicate only the later modernization of the text. The use of Rameses in Genesis
47.11instead of Goshen demonstrates that the two were understood interchangeably and Rameses
points to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty as the period with these narratives were written or
edited. It is easier to explain the presence of a single later term or toponym in an earlier text than to
account for a name that has been out of circulation for centuries when it appears in a late text.
Methodologically, when dating a piece of literature that has had a long transmission, one should not
automatically date the origin of the text by the presence of later editorial additions. Indeed, the
anomalies need to be explained. At the same time, early indicators (e.g., the appearance of Ramesses in
Genesis and Exodus) cannot be summarily dismissed as cases of archaizing or ignored, but must be
seriously considered as evidence point to the date of the events described, when they were initially
recorded or an editorial stage in the process of transmission. The use of Rameses and Raamses in the
text of Genesis and Exodus long after the Delta Capital had been abandoned around 1100 B.C. makes
little sense."
........................................................................................

We have seen that there is a ton of internal data suggesting the antiquity of the substance and form of
the Pentateuch. Garrett sums this neatly in OT:RTG:84-85:

"In addition, a considerable amount of internal evidence for the Egyptian provenance of the Pentateuch,
together with the Pentateuch's accurate portrayal of second-millennium legal and social customs and its
tendency to use some archaic Hebrew forms, suggests that its origin antedates the Israelite monarchies.
In fact, certain forms in standard Biblical Hebrew are borrowed from second-millennium Egyptian. One
may infer that these forms were adopted during the sojourn and were made a permanent part of
standard Hebrew by their inclusion in the Pentateuch."

The next step is simply to note the external evidence--what did history say about the authorship of
these books?

Livingstone summarizes the external evidence in PCE:218-219:

"The term 'the book of Moses,' found in II Chronicles 25:4; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; and Nehemiah 8:1;
13:1, surely included the Book of Genesis and also testifies to a belief in Israelite circles in the fifth
century B.C. that all five of the books were the work of Moses. Ben Sira (Ecclus. 24:23), Philo, Josephus,
and the authors of the Gospels held that Moses was intimately related to the Pentateuch. Philo and
Josephus even explicitly said that Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34:5-12. Other writers of the New
Testament tie the Pentateuch to Moses. The Jewish Talmud asserts that whoever denied Mosaic
authorship would be excluded from Paradise."

To this may be added the explicit statements of Jesus:

•Then Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer
the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." (Matt 8.4)
•For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother
must be put to death.' (Mark 7.10)

•"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. (Mark 10.5)

•Now about the dead rising -- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how
God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? (Mark 12.26)

•"He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if
someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16.31)

•He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is
written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24.44)

•Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone
who believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3.14)

•If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe
what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5.46f)
• 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"
(John 7.19)

•Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you
circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a
child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may
not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging
by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (John 7.21ff)

Thus, the external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Mosaic authorship of the core substance (and
most of the form) of the Pentateuch.

We have seen that the internal evidence for the antiquity of the Pentateuchal materials is exceedingly
abundant, and that the external witness to Mosaic authority is virtually unanimous and very early. The
main residual challenges to Mosaic authorship are in supposed historical inaccuracies (e.g.
domestication of the camel), which I cannot go into now, but will later. The vast array of KNOWN
historical points of validation, however, should engender a sense of humility in us, before judging this
surprisingly accurate text as being in error!

Summary: The mix of archaic features (the vast majority) and later features (the vast minority) is best
explained by the model of Mosaic authorship, with subsequent editorial annotation and minor updating
of place names. The external evidence also overwhelmingly supports this conclusion.

Good question...

...but was the Pentateuch "adulterated" by later additions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Created Jan 1, 1998]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote an article on on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch? and I got this response from the
original poster...(my reply follows each major section)...

My dear Mr. Miller,

I thank you for your time and attention. I was really not expecting such a detailed response from you,
knowing how busy you really are. I stand highly obliged.

Certainly...it is a common question and one I needed to post some information on...thanks for providing
me an excuse to do the research (*smile*)
My dear Mr. Miller, after a lot of deliberation and discussion (with friends) on your points I, with due
respects, would like to make the following remarks:

1- Nobody claims that "All" of the Pentateuch is "non-Mosaic". All that is challenged is that "All" of the
Pentateuch "IS" Mosaic. The problem is not to prove that some "part" (whether substantial or nominal)
is an accurate Mosaic tradition, but rather that the "whole" is unadulterated Mosaic tradition. Your
answer has only substantiated the belief that the Pentateuch is not "completely" Mosaic. and includes
later additions which are "generally (not always) very visible".

Dear friend, it is here that I see that I should have insisted in our earlier correspondence for a better
wording of the question to me! I had no idea that this was your REAL question! The differences between
our starting points will become quite obvious as I go through your text, point by point (below)...

Nobody claims that "All" of the Pentateuch is "non-Mosaic".

We obviously have a different set of people we talk with! In the scholarly literature of the West, many
biblical scholars do not believe there even WAS a Moses! Some believe there WAS one, but that he was
NOT an Israelite! And a very large number of them believe he had NOTHING TO DO with the content or
recording of the first 5 books of the bible!

In my world, the belief that Moses had even a significant part in developing even pre-cursors to the
Pentateuch is a very minority and conservative position indeed! (And you can then image how minority
the position is that I hold--that Moses had primary responsibility for almost all of the Pentateuch!).
Had I known your friends were so ultra-conservative, I could have tried to address your question with
much different information!

All that is challenged is that "All" of the Pentateuch "IS" Mosaic.

I personally do not know a living soul who argues this, even among very, very conservative people like
myself. I know that some ancient writers believed that (e.g. that God told Moses to write the account of
his own death beforehand), but I am not aware of anyone holding to that today.

So, I cannot imagine why someone among your friends would even believe that someone held such a
position. In philosophy, challenging a position that no one holds is called 'attacking a straw man'. It is
very easy to attack a position that no one holds and win; they is no one there to defend it! But to
assume that in successfully challenging such a position, one has also successfully challenged a more
mainstream position is quite mistaken.

I can only assume that your friends have been misled by someone, with rumors and/or caricatures of
the biblical position.

Had I understood that this was the issue, I could have pointed this out without all the detail research!
(Maybe on the next question, eh friend?)

The problem is not to prove that some "part" (whether substantial or nominal) is an accurate Mosaic
tradition, but rather that the "whole" is unadulterated Mosaic tradition.

This is the same point, of course, so my response is the same...Why should I try to prove something no
one holds anyway?

The Church doesn't argue this. The Rabbinical Jew doesn't argue this. The Old Testament doesn't argue
this. The New Testament doesn't argue this. Why would someone "challenge" this?
Hmmm... perhaps I can discover a better understanding of your friends' background by your use of the
word 'unadulterated' in the remark, for that is a very value-laden term in the West.

A dictionary definition of 'adulterate' (Oxford Concise Dictionary) is this: "debase by adding other or
inferior substances" and Webster Unabridged adds "make impure by admixture; use cheaper, inferior,
or less desirable elements in manufacture".

Now, IF this is the meaning you intended to convey (and it is distinctly possible that you did NOT mean
this), then your friend has somehow decided that only Moses' exact words could/would be 'inspired by
God' and that any material added by others--even inspired prophets like Isaiah or inspired scribes like
Ezra--is therefore 'cheaper, inferior, or less desirable'.

Let's think about this position for a few moments...

First, let's note that this position will somehow assume that it has the authority and wisdom to be able
to decide that the words of Moses are greater than the words of Abraham, King David, Elijah, Isaiah,
Solomon, Daniel, or Ezra (to name a few). For example, if Ezra was 'inspired by God' and added bits to
the Pentateuch, your friends' position requires them to know already that Ezra's words were 'inferior'.
(It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how someone could defend such an outrageous and
presumptuous claim to this level of expertise!)

Next, we should note that this position will quickly be forced into defending Mosaic editing/recording of
non-Mosaic material--versus Mosaic origination of the material's content. What's the difference?
Origination would be words that Moses 'thought up'; recording would be words someone else 'thought
up' and Moses 'wrote down' (with the result somehow being 'inspired').

Why will the "only Moses' words are inspired" position be forced into the 'recording also' position?
Because all of the really important stuff was dictated/originated by God--NOT by Moses! Moses
essentially added nothing to (at least) the giving the Law of God; he merely recorded it. Therefore, if we
say that only the words Moses 'thought up himself' are inspired, then the entire "Mosaic" Law has to get
discarded--because it was NOT Moses who originated it. Even what is called the "Song of Moses" in Deut
32 was given to Moses from Yahweh in Deut 31.14.
So, very quickly your friend will be forced into expanding the category from 'only the words that Moses
thought up' to 'also the words that other people/Persons thought up'.

This should be obvious from the presence of quotations from other sources in the text. Let's note some
of these:

1. All of the speeches of the pre-Mosaic figures: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

2. All of the speeches of figures DURING Moses' lifetime--good or bad: Pharaoh, Aaron, Joshua,
Balaam(!), GOD(!)

3. All of the speeches of Moses' opponents during his career (e.g., Dothan, Balaam)

Plus, we have the specific literary sources mentioned, for example:

1. the correspondence with the Transjordanian rulers

2. the 'poets' (Num 21.27)

Now, it must be realized that the vast majority of the material in the Pentateuch is NOT "words thought
up by Moses" [even the long sermon in Deuteronomy is given in terms of 'God spoke to me...'], so
Moses actual personal words are very, very few. So, for there to be SOMETHING 'Mosaic' to preserve at
all (!), your friend's belief MUST include Moses' collection, editing, and writing down of material BY
OTHER speakers (e.g. God, Balaam, Aaron, Abraham, the Serpent of Genesis 3) and BY OTHER authors
(e.g. "poets", foreign kings, survey lists from the spies, genealogies from the Patriarchs).

Once your friend gets to this point, the cat is out of the bag...
For at this point, "inspiration" of Moses (in the production of some final document) equates to
"providential guidance" (in the production of some final document). And once this is done, there is
absolutely NO reason to judge later "providential guidance" of editors, updaters, annotators, etc as
being "cheaper, inferior, or less desirable". God's "providential guidance" is not limited to the great(!).
He uses the 'lowly things of the world' to deliver His message: simple shepherds (e.g. Abraham, David),
simple fishermen (Peter, James, John), simple scribes (Prov 25.1: "These are more proverbs of Solomon,
copied by the men of Hezekiah king of Judah:")

In short, there is nothing "extra" in Moses' work that God did not ALSO do in the work of Isaiah, David
the Psalmist, Solomon, or Daniel, or that God could not ALSO do in the lives of anonymous prophetic
historians (e.g. the Chronicler) or godly scribes (e.g. Ezra). To defend an opposite position (your friend's
position) would be virtually impossible.

Technically speaking, by the way, the 'theological doctrine' of inspiration does NOT refer to the writers,
but to the written product only. God "inspired" Moses and the prophets, of course, but only what has
survived and been recognized by God's community is what is termed 'inspired'. Moses would have
uttered many, many more words to Israel in his Desert Wanderings than shows up in the Book of
Numbers, but they are not preserved for us--does that mean those words were not "inspired"? No, it
only means they were not 'intended or inspired for us'.

It is the final form of the biblical books that the Jew and the Christian call 'inspired'--NOT any
intermediate documents or sources. What form the Pentateuch might have taken at the time of David
or Jeremiah is what God would have intended for that generation. For the generation of Ezra, the body
of inspired literature would have been larger and possibly updated or changed.

To use an illustration of this, perhaps you have seen the "Red Letter" bibles so popular in the West. In
the New Testament of these bibles, the words of Jesus are put in RED LETTERS, so that they stand out
from the BLACK LETTERS in which everything else is written. This is helpful if one is studying the words of
Jesus, of course, but this would be misleading if someone said that the RED LETTERS are 'more inspired'
than the BLACK LETTERS. In the Jewish and Christian perspective, ALL the LETTERS are 'produced'
(through the processes of history) by the Holy Spirit of God. The Jew maintains that the Holy Spirit
"oversaw the historical processes of production" of ALL the written material (i.e. scripture) of the
Tanakh/OT (e.g. Sanh 10.1; 99a) and the Christian maintains that the Holy Spirit "oversaw the historical
processes of production" of ALL the written material of the entire Bible (2 Tim 3.16: All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness")
Now, it should be obvious that any later changes to the originals should (probably) not materially
change or substantially change the original content. But note that, theoretically, God COULD remove
outdated material if He chose to do so--there is nothing requiring Him to maintain all of the material! He
certainly changed the requirements of the Law as Israel's situation changed. Several laws given in
Exodus/Leviticus are modified from their migratory-basis to a settlement-basis in Deuteronomy. And, in
the case of explanatory glosses or location-name updates, nothing in Moses original material is changed
whatsoever.

And actually, it can certainly be argued, in my opinion, that Mosaic content would be 'lost' if the names
and glosses were NOT added--the very meaning of the words and sentences and paragraphs might be
lost! Had translators and interpreters (such as Ezra and company) NOT been around, the meaning of
Mosaic original composition might not be preserved (cf. Neh 8.8: "They read from the Book of the Law
of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being
read.")

A good example of this is Numbers 12.2-3: "and they said, "Has the Lord indeed spoken only through
Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?" And the Lord heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very
humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.)" The comment about Moses' humility
was probably added as background material by someone later. Without that background material, the
conflict in the passage makes much less sense. In this case the annotation is required to preserve the
Mosaic content.

THIRD, let me point out that when you add a series introduction to a book, or a translator's forward, you
do NOT change the contents of the original author! The overall book might be considered to be slightly
different, but it would be a mistake to consider the author's work 'adulterated'. A scholarly journal
article that is reprinted in an anthology, with introduction and epilogue by someone else, does not in
anyway become 'debased' or 'adulterated'-as long as its literary unity is preserved. If, on the other hand,
an editor went in and changed the original arguments--without noting it!--then we might have a
legitimate concern over 'adulteration'. David's words in the Psalm's are not 'diluted' OR 'enhanced' by
placing a psalm of Moses (Psalm 90) in the collection. Meaning is associated with linguistic units, such as
the paragraph or section. These can, to a great degree, be "moved around" without affecting the
meaning--if the units were so constructed as to be 'mobile'. And so much of the Tanakh/OT DOES occur
in units that allow this. (The Chiasmus structure, for example, is tightly integrated, but highly 'mobile'.)
It is too easy to go beyond the data in this issue, as well. We have four types of phenomena that could
count as data for 'adulteration': orthographic/script changes, lexical changes, internal literary additions,
and inclusion in larger literary units.

Orthographic/script changes are where--to preserve the meaning of the text (!)--the text is copied into
the new alphabet. Conceptually, this is like changing the text from all lowercase letters to uppercase
letters, or from printed, block letters to a cursive hand. In this case, the words do not change in the
least. There simply is nothing magic about the shape of the letters, as long as the word itself remains
intact in the process of transcription.

Lexical changes are where word stock is updated--again, to preserve the meaning. In the Pentateuch this
generally occurs in place names. The only way that a simple word-for-word substitution could make any
difference, would be in the situations where there may be a word-play on the original word, like a place
name. So, for example, in Genesis 21.22-34, Abraham digs a well and makes an oath with a ruler
concerning it; hence, the city is called "Beersheba" (lit. "well of the oath"). This ties the place name to
the events of the text, so we would be able to detect any topographical changes in these kinds of texts.
And no problems show up. And in cases where BOTH are important (name-meaning and locale-
identification), the author is careful to leave everything in! Cf. Gen 28.18: "So Jacob rose early in the
morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on
its top. 19 And he called the name of that place Bethel; however, previously the name of the city had
been Luz."

It is important to realize how sacred these texts were to the Hebrews. As we saw in the previous post,
they left untouched some extremely old and variously confusing elements--out of sheer respect for the
sacredness of the text. Changes to lexical stock were made only when necessary, only when transparent,
and if there was the slightest doubt--they put it in as an annotation (like the comment on Luz). How
much 'dilution' or 'debasement' occurs in the case like this?! None.

Internal literary additions. Most literary additions will be of the explanatory, background, or annotation
kinds--and will accordingly be transparent (or even preservative of the original intent of Moses' words).
The word 'internal' indicated that they occur INSIDE semantic units (such as sentences, paragraphs, or
major narrative units). As transparent, they would NOT obscure the meaning of the unit, but rather
preserve it.
Inclusion in larger literary units. It is here that the discussion gets most interesting. This is where a later
prophetic editor has constructed the final form, out of Mosaic and non-Mosaic sub-units, of the
Pentateuch as we know have it. It must be remembered that nowhere is the form of the Pentateuch or
the extent of the original Mosaic traditions/documents described by God, so there is no theoretical
commitment one has to make to the present form. (That the extent or form of the Mosaic material is
not in itself a part of revealed truth can also be seen in the fact that the Mosaic law and Mosaic history
are quoted by later prophetic biblical writers, of "equal inspiration" to Moses. They obviously NEVER
duplicate the entire Pentateuch in the quote(!)-implying that extent of writing is not an issue. And they
rarely quote 'letter for letter'-implying that exact form of the writing is not an issue. Being faithful to
reproduce the meaning is what is crucial.) No debasement here.

Remember, I pointed out before that later prophets were inspired by the same God as Moses, and that
there is no real distinction whatsoever in authority or accuracy or relevance between Moses and later
(and earlier) prophets. Even the one verse that could support such a view (Deut 34.11: "Since then, no
prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those miraculous
signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt-to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole
land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in
the sight of all Israel.") was (1) obviously not written by Moses!; and (2) refers to the ministry of Moses
(e.g. quantity and extent of miracles, nature of interface with God) and makes no mention of his writings
or "his" law. Note also, that Moses and Samuel as held up as 'peers' in Jeremiah 15:1, and with Aaron
and Miriam in Micah 6:4.

Let me explain how this prophetic combining or rearranging of sub-units might work in the Pentateuch.

The post-Mosaic prophets attempted to draw the people to the covenant commitment they had made
under the ministry of Moses, and one of the means they employed to do this was the writing of
'theological commentary' on historical events. The prophets would either (1) interpret current events
according the framework set up under the Sinai covenant, or (2) get a direct revelation from Yahweh
about it, and would then confront the leaders and people of Israel with that understanding/message. In
this process they wrote Yahweh's interpretation of events down. Compare:

As for the other events of Solomon's reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of
Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the seer
concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat? (2 Chr 9.29)
Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the
chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of Gad the seer, 30 with all his reign, his power,
and the circumstances which came on him, on Israel, and on all the kingdoms of the lands. (1 Chr 29.29)

As for the events of Rehoboam's reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of
Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer that deal with genealogies? (2 Chr 12.15)

The prophet of the LORD was given prophetic insight into the patterns of Israel's national life. As such,
they would discern (as God gave them insight-cf. 2 kin 4.27) when the 'hand of the Lord' was involved
(e.g. Is 41.20; 1 Sam 5.6; Jud 14.4; 1 Kin 12.15), and when the 'hand of the Lord' WOULD BE involved
(e.g. prophecies of discipline of the nation).

The history of Israel-from start to finish-is a multi-faceted thing. It involved both hope and failure at the
same time. The exilic prophet-historian who wrote First and Second Kings saw and documented the
trends of failure, disobedience, and degeneration in the History of Israel and Judah, so that Israel would
learn from her mistakes. The post-exilic prophet who wrote First and Second Chronicles-and who used
the very material written by the First and Second Kings 'prophetic historian'-could see also the seeds of
hope and trends of redemption in that same history. The two are not 'contradictory viewpoints' simply
because the both saw legitimate trends within a multi-faceted history (as ALL history is), and they don't
actually deny the validity of the other viewpoint. They stand within the unitary prophetic tradition that
said they there would always be grace available, even in times of judgement [the Deuteronomic curses
(Dt 30) and the commitment to Solomon (I Kin 8)].

It is this prophetic pattern-detection function that God MIGHT have involved in the final form of the
Pentateuch. Although the subject matter is very, very complex [see IOTTC], let me merely make a few
remarks about the final structure of the first five books of the Tanakh/OT.

Even before the fall of Jerusalem, Yahweh had told the prophets that the Law of Moses had been
ineffective at producing a godly nation of out Israel, and that He was going to 'change the program' and
establish a New Covenant. So, Jeremiah 31.31:

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was
a husband to them," declares the Lord. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of
Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write
it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his
neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of
them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will
remember no more."

This New Covenant will supercede the Old One, and be focused on 'inwardness' [see also 32.40] and
'knowledge of the Lord' [see also Jer 24.7]. It will have no human mediators (e.g. no technical
priesthood), and no 'class distinctions'. Elsewhere in the prophets, this covenant is linked to the messiah
of the Davidic Covenant (e.g. Jer 33.14; Ezek 37.26).

Is God 'allowed' to do this?! Can He announce through Moses that there would be a "Second Moses" to
inaugurate a different covenant (Deut 18)?! Can He use the Mosaic Law to show them His high and holy
standards, and then show them through history that they cannot measure up? That they will need
something 'new', something 'of grace', something 'inward'? Of course-He even announced it before
hand.

In fact, the later prophets who had the benefit of the additional revelation from God (e.g. Jeremiah
above) and the benefit of seeing the failure of Israel to obey the Law (e.g. the author of Kings and Ezra &
Nehemiah), MAY be responsible for some of the arrangement and even internal comments in the
Pentateuch. For example, it is very easy to argue that the Pentateuch specifically shows the superiority
of faith/inwardness over life under the Law!

Moses specifically was guilty of unbelief (under the law) and excluded from the Promised Land (Deut
32.51 and Num 20), as was the entire adult Exodus generation (Num 14.11: "The LORD said to Moses,
"How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite
of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?" with 14:21f: "Nevertheless, as surely as I live
and as surely as the glory of the LORD fills the whole earth, not one of the men who saw my glory and
the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten
times-not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has
treated me with contempt will ever see it"). But the Pentateuch tells us that Abraham fulfilled the Law, a
half-millenium before it was given-because of his faith! So, Gen 26.3-5:
I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. 4 "And I will multiply your descendants as
the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the
nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My
commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Sailhamer asks the obvious question (IOTTC:260):

"How is it possible for Abraham to obey the commandments, statutes, and laws before they were given?
Why is Abraham here credited with keeping the law when in the previous narratives great pains were
taken to show him as one who lived by faith (e.g., Gen 15:6)? There has been no mention of Abraham's
having the law or keeping the law previous to this passage. Why, now suddenly, does the text say
Abraham had kept the law?"

The phrase My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws is a technical description of the
Mosaic Law (e.g., Deut 11.1). [Even the Talmud recognized this, and had to argue that Abraham had
been given ALL of the Mosaic Law during his lifetime in Yoma 28b!].

At a narrative structure level, it LOOKS LIKE Abraham and Moses are being contrasted. So, Sailhamer
again [IOTTC:265, emphasis Sailhamer]:

"It is as if the author of the Pentateuch has seized on the Abrahamic narratives as a way to explain his
concept of 'keeping the law.' The author uses the life of Abraham, not Moses, to illustrate that one can
fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. In choosing Abraham and not Moses, the author shows
that 'keeping the law' means 'believing in God,' just as Abraham believed God and was counted
righteous (Gen 15:6). In effect the author of the Pentateuch says, 'Be like Abraham. Live a life of faith
and it can be said that you are keeping the law.'

On the other hand, in the portrayal of Moses in Numbers 20, we have the opposite. We have a rather
strange sequence of events-with many, many gaps in the details-but the summary of the offense is
stated in 20.12: "But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me
as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I
have given them." Whatever the problem was, the writer of the passage quotes GOD as saying it was an
issue of unbelief-NOT law!.
To finish this example, consider Sailhamer's conclusion [IOTTC:270-271]:

"The narrative strategy of the Pentateuch contrasts Abraham, who kept the law, and Moses, whose faith
was weakened under the law. This suggests a conscious effort on the part of the author of the
Pentateuch to distinguish between a life of faith before the law (ante legem) and a lack of faith under
the law (sub lege). This is accomplished by showing that the life of God's people before the giving of the
law was characterized by faith and trust in God, but after the giving of the law their lives were
characterized by faithlessness and failure. Abraham lived by faith (Gen 15:6), in Egypt the Israelites lived
by faith (Exod 4), they came out of Egypt by faith (Exod 14:31), and they approached Mount Sinai by
faith (Exod 19:9). However after the giving of the law, no longer was the life of God's people marked by
faith. Even their leaders, Moses and Aaron, failed to believe in God after the coming of the law.

"If we have accurately described this aspect of the compositional strategy of the Pentateuch, then we
have uncovered an initial and clear indication of the Pentateuch's view of the Mosaic Law. The view is, in
fact, remarkably similar to that of Jeremiah 31:31ff. Just as Jeremiah looked back at the failure of the
Sinai covenant and the Mosaic Law which the Israelites had failed to keep, so the author of the
Pentateuch already held little hope for blessing sub lege. Jeremiah looked forward to a time when the
Torah would be internalized, not written on tablets of stone (cf Ezek 36:26), but written on their heart
(Jer 31:33). In the same way the Pentateuch holds up the example of Abraham, a model of faith, one
who did not have the tablets of stone but who nevertheless kept the law by living a life of faith. At the
same time it offers the warning of the life of Moses, who died in the wilderness because of his lack of
faith. In this respect it seems fair to conclude that the view of the Mosaic Law found in the Pentateuch is
essentially that of the New Covenant passages in the prophets.

Now, for such an authorial intent to be present, either Moses had it/wrote it, or some later prophetic
writer had it/wrote it. It is certainly reasonable to believe that Moses himself was the author of the
contrast:

•He recorded the failure himself (obviously)

•He recorded the latter "Song of Failure" in Deut 32

•Even by the time of the early Monarchy, Israel's failure was cast into the terms of "belief" and "faith"
(Ps 78.22, 32; 106:24; Is 7.9; Is 43.10; Jon 3.5!), suggesting that the contrast was part of the thinking-
culture of the times.
•Even in the divided monarchy, the post-exilic writer of 2 Chronicles portrayed one of Israel's best kings
in terms of faith (Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron 20.20: "As they set out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, "Listen to
me, Judah and people of Jerusalem! Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith
in his prophets and you will be successful.")

But it is also reasonable to believe a later prophet arranged the text in this contrasting way-to show the
need for the New Covenant-but the fact that such a 'change' is not mentioned or suggested in the
Pentateuch argues that the contrast was written BEFORE the specifics of the New Covenant had been
announced.

The point to all this is simply to argue that Mosaic material could be used in larger compositional
structures without compromising Mosaic content of 'his pieces'. And, frankly, as I pointed out before,
there is no biblical or theological reason for demanding that the Pentateuch be even 'substantially
Mosaic' (which I KNOW can easily be defended).

Mosaic authorship (except for those passages or sections that are explicitly referenced by later biblical
prophetic writers-e.g., Jesus in Mark 7.10 and Luke 20.37) is NOT an 'article of faith'-it is an historical
question. References to the "Law of Moses" or the "Book(s) of Moses" do NOT entail or require that the
books referred to by those phrases at the time be the identical originals recorded in 1400-1200BC at all.
[This discussion does not even raise the important issues of (1) did Moses edit his 'originals' over time as
well; and (2) did Moses even assemble the materials as a 'book' in his time, as opposed to various
documents in various places.]
2- As far as your points that support Mosaic authorship are concerned, I submit that they put a lot of
weight on the "YES" side of the balance... But even then, they only prove the already proven. As I said
earlier, nobody doubts that "Parts" of the Pentateuch... actually, significant "Parts" of the Pentateuch...
are authored by Moses. The problem was not to prove that. It was really to prove that the Pentateuch
has remained accurately and absolutely Mosaic and unadulterated from any one's additions and
alterations. But as you have stated, this has not really been the case.

This looks like a repeat of the above question, but to simply restate in summary form my comments
above:

1.Many people doubt that Moses had any significant input to the Pentateuch (which I tried to counter in
my article).

2.No one holds to the position you apparently asked me to 'defend'-that the Pentateuch is 100% the
same it was when Moses recorded it.

3.The 'unadulterated' term in your friends' position makes the unsupportable assumption that God
could not have given 'equally authoritative' revelation to a later prophetic editor (instead of just to
Moses).

4.That position THEN decides that Moses is somehow 'superior' to ANY later prophetic writer(!), and
without giving us any reason to believe this.

5.Your friend's position cannot be maintained for very long as soon as the actual compositional data of
the Pentateuch is examined.

6.Some "alterations" were absolutely necessary to preserve the original Mosaic content.

7.Scribes/editors went to great pains to preserve the original words of Moses.

8.Neither the Form nor the Extent of the Pentateuch is every revealed by God, nor is it likely (or
necessary) for it to have been the same in every generation.

9.God could easily have decided to incorporate Mosaic elements into a newer, literary composition to
draw out the historical dimensions of Israel's experience in the theocracy. [Although there is no strict
reason why Moses could not have foreseen this and done the literary work.]

10.The "Law and the Prophets" are of one cloth. They cannot be placed into opposition against one
another, nor can one be judged as inferior to the other. They are the disclosure of God to His people.
Overall, I would have to say that your friends' position is a bit naïve, certainly overly simplistic, and
certainly uniformed (apparently believing that people hold such a position). The varied nature of God's
revelation in history, His use of all types of the 'common folk' to achieve His purposes, and even the
notion of progressive revelation through time suggests that God is not as concerned about "preserving
Moses' words without alteration" as He is with getting HIS message through to each generation of His
people.

I hope this clears up the issue somewhat for you (and them). Sorry I misunderstood the question the
first time!

In any case, I do thank you, most sincerely for helping me, and providing me with a lot of useful material.

I suspect it was more useful to others, given the real nature of your question-but you are certainly
welcome!
Furthermore, I would like to ask you, if all the books of the Bible have the same status as that of the
Pentateuch? Do they all have such additions of later scribes etc., that are "generally (not always) very
visible"?

This is another complicated question, which I will have to defer...The main problem is that 'scribal
additions' are generally so unobtrusive and so transparent and so 'non-adulterating' (smile) as to be
undetectable. That is part of the reason it is not a big issue up front. But the practice of Textual
Criticism-especially in the later books of the Tanakh/OT and certainly the NT-is a little too complicated
for me to go into here.

One main difference we have with the NT, though, is that the time window for 'undetectable additions'
is very, very tiny. The same theological issue applies, though, that it is the final form of the documents
ANYWAY that is important, but this is complicated by the issue of the historicity of 'alleged additions'.
Sorry, but I discuss 'pious fraud' and 'made up history' topics in many other places on the Tank (esp. in
the debate with James Still). Maybe that is a good starting point for you?

Hope this helps...glenn miller

Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter?

This article is substantially revised as of September 2011 in order that it can serve as a supplement to
the above-linked TektonTV production. The revision is also performed in light of a closer examination of
an excellent case made by Pamela Reis' Reading the Lines. This source had been noted by Glenn Miller
(christian-thinktank.com) as a useful one, but I found that there was much more to be reported than
Miller offered in summary.

To start, we present the text in question, Judges 11:29-40:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through
Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the
LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet
me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt
offering." Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He
devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel
subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him
but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had
neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have
made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break." "My
father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that
the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said.
"Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may
go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because
she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had
vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of
Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Here are our key questions for this passage:

Did the "spirit of the Lord" inspire Jephthah's vow?

Did Jephthah make the vow knowing a human might be involved?

Did Jephthah actually sacrifice his daughter?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we have a very disturbing story indeed, one that
suggests that God endorsed a human sacrifice -- implicity if not explicitly -- and would also require some
explanation. However, our answer to these questions is as follows: 1) No. 2) Yes -- in fact he intended for
a human to be involved, but it doesn't matter because the answer to 3) is no.

The Role of Spirit

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through
Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the
LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet
me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt
offering."

The most disturbing question raised by critics supposes that this passage indicates that the spirit of the
Lord Himself caused Jephthah to offer his daughter as a sacrifice. Jonathan Kirsch, for example, in his
book The Harlot by the Side of the Road, uncritically accepts the view of one feminist scholar who
asserts that God was ultimately and directly responsible for the very text of the vow. Does this assertion
hold up under scrutiny?

To answer this question, let's look at other places where it is said that the "spirit of the Lord" influenced
some person to do something.

Judges 3:9-10 But when they cried out to the LORD, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of
Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he
became Israel's judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands
of Othniel, who overpowered him.

Judges 6:34 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the
Abiezrites to follow him.

Judges 14:6 The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare
hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had
done.

Judges 14:19 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck
down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had
explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house.
Judges 15:14 As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD
came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped
from his hands.

1 Sam. 16:13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from
that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah.

2 Chr. 20:14-15 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the
son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly. He
said: "Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to
you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's.

Ezekiel 11:5 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD
says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind."

As we can see from these passages, what action or saying is inspired by the Spirit of the Lord is detailed
immediately after it is said who the Spirit came upon. Therefore, if the Spirit of the Lord inspired
Jephthah to do anything at all, it was to go travelling around recruiting his army and go to war with the
Ammonites. The fact that the vow is reported seperately indicates that it was not something done under
the Spirit of the Lord at all. (However, we shall see, the objection is moot anyway, since nothing
objectionable was intended or came of the vow.)

Jephthah's Errant Vow

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter,
dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor
daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me
miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

Now the next question, the answer to which some say makes God guilty by endorsement, and Jephthah
guilty in the main: Did he make this vow knowing that a human might come walking out of his house?
It is common to appeal to Jephthah's ignorance in this case, and note that houses of the Biblical period
typically had a stockyard that surrounded the house, so that Jephthah could very well have supposed
that an animal would be the first thing to meet him. Kirsch, however, again uncritically following
feminist scholarship, dismisses this solid sociological data as "ingenious" and merely asserts that
Jephthah "knows exactly what he is doing."

But other data indicates otherwise. First, as Miller has pointed out, there are too many "incongruities in
the text/context for that":

Literal "burnt offerings" HAD TO BE male (Lev 22.18-19). Jephthah's daughter obviously wasn't.

Burnt offerings were ALWAYS associated with condemnation/evil--not thanksgiving and vows. Even the
one non-literal use of it in Dt 13.16 (in which a town is offered as a burnt offering) involves abject
judgment/condemnation--NOT at all in view in the Jephthah passage.

It is at this point that we find it useful to offer a detailed summary of Reis' case, which I have compared
to what commentaries say on this story, while also seeking out any criticism of Reis.

Initially it should be noted that Jephthah is no mere peasant. As head of a band of freebooters (11:3),
and despite having the social stigma of being an outcast (11:1-2) from his family, his reputation for war
is so great that the elders of Gilead lay aside all of this and ask him to lead their military. Given the low
honor rating he would have had in their eyes, as both an outcast and a mercenary, this can only indicate
that Jephthah is a man of substantial means and power. Though this seems an incidental point, it is
actually critical to understanding the story.

Miller as noted above pointed out certain incongruencies, and also briefly noted in his article that
Jephthah showed great familiarity with the OT text. His letter to the Ammonites indicates his knowledge
of the military history in Numbers 20-21, and the opening clause of his vow is identical to the vow
reported in Numbers 21:2, other than the name of the opposition. While this may also seem trivial, it is
not, because it closes a door for critics to argue that Jephthah didn't know that the Law forbade human
sacrifice.
So what is Jephthah planning to do with this vow? In fact, he is intending to dedicate and redeem a
person in accord with Lev. 27:2-8:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the
persons [shall be] for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty
years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of
the sanctuary. And if it [be] a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if [it be] from five
years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for
the female ten shekels. And if [it be] from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation
shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation [shall be] three shekels of
silver. And if [it be] from sixty years old and above; if [it be] a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen
shekels, and for the female ten shekels. But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present
himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the
priest value him.

What makes this especially of interest is that in verses following, animals who are declared for such
vows are considered "holy" -- set apart:

And if [it be] a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that [any man] giveth of such
unto the LORD shall be holy. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good:
and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.

Reis points out that in the Talmudic era, rabbis understood this to mean that the animal was no longer
shorn or used for work. One critic has questioned Reis on this point because of the lateness of this
interpretation, but there is more than ample reason to accept it even so. In being set apart as "holy" the
animal becomes just like the Sabbath Day -- holy, and set apart from all other animals. And of course,
the classic defining trait of the Sabbath is that it is a "no work" day.So likewise the rest of the chapter is
all about setting apart things as "holy" in a way that indicates they will be "Sabbathized" (e.g., a field is
to be possessed by the priests [v. 21], who are not agricultural laborers!).

From this, it is also to be concluded that humans covered by Lev. 27:1-8 also become "no work" entities
-- and at the very least, withdraw from normal life. Reis likewise points out that articles associated with
worship -- like the unhewn stone of the altar, and the never-yoked red heifer -- also are sanctified by "no
work" prohibitions. Finally, she comments concerning 11:39-40:
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her
[according] to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, [That]
the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Reis asserts that whereas the phrase "it was a custom of Israel" is taken to be the start of verse 40, it
should actually be the end of v. 39, indicating that the virginity of Jephthah's daughter was bound by
statute or law (which is what the word "custom" literally is) in Israel. What this means will be seen
shortly.

In that regard, Reis asserts that Jephthah's use of the term "burnt offering" ('olah) is strictly
metaphorical -- the person will become like a burnt offering in terms of utility to others in work. This is a
good point to which another may be added in confirmation: The literal meaning of the word behind
"burnt offering" offers no specific semantic content that indicates burning. Rather, the word itself is a
metaphor, which literally means something ascending. (The word is used in two places -- 1 Kings 10:5
and Ezekiel 40:26 -- to refer to someone ascending steps, who are also self-evidently not on fire.) The
sacrifice "ascends" as smoke. But of course, there are more ways to "ascend" than as ashes in the air. A
human who "ascends" as one set apart as holy does so in a thoroughly spiritual or metaphorical sense, if
any at all. Nevertheless, let us stress that those who might be tempted to raise an accusation that we
are trying to turn a horrible and obviously (!) literal event into a metaphor, would be well served to
remember that 'olah is already a metaphor -- so that accusation falls flat.

But now we turn to a point that is also critical to the story. In the Bible, the work of women includes
childbearing (Gen. 3:16). Of course, the only way to absolutely ensure that a woman never had to do
this work is to remain celibate. And thus is also explained the reactions of both Jephthah and his
daughter: On the one hand, she is making light of the fact that she will remain a virgin (or, never marry,
as the translation above couches it), instead of saying that she wishes to take her break because she is
about to die. I have noted in the past that the empahsis on virginity is entirely misplaced if indeed death
is what hangs over the daughter's head, and so it would be. However, if the vow means that she must be
excluded from the work of childbearing, then the emphasis is perfectly understandable. It also explains
Jephthah's own sadness: Now he will have no heirs and no legacy. His line -- and therefore also his
future honor -- will be non-existent, as this is his only child. (Keeping in mind that leaving descendants
was a critical honor to achieve for this society.) Finally, it explains the "statue" requiring the virginity of
Jephthah's daughter in v. 39-40: It refers to the statute of Lev. 27 indicating that one set apart no longer
does work.
In all of this, it should be noted as particularly important that Jephthah's original vow would have been a
public one -- it would have had no value or impact, and accrued him no honor, as a private oath -- and
that he made it in his own hometown of Mizpah. In that circumstance, it is inconceivable that his
daughter would not have known of it. If she did not hear it herself, village gossip would have brought it
to her ears, and more than that, word would surely have been sent to his household to get ready for
someone to jump on the chance to be the first one out. Her own words in 11:36 make it clear, too, that
she knows of the vow, in all its details:

And she said unto him, My father, [if] thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according
to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee
of thine enemies, [even] of the children of Ammon.

Jephthah's most likely intention was that one of his household servants take the chance. In any event,
the public nature of the vow is another strike against the literal "burnt offering" reading, for no one in
their right mind would have come out of the house first knowing it means a ticket to a case of the land
of the burning dead.

This leads to the final critical component of the interpretation of this story. Since Jephthah's daughter
knew of the vow, and knew what it meant, her coming from the house first was no tragic accident, but
something done intentionally. Why? Reis hypothesizes -- I think correctly -- that Jephthah's daughter
was a "spoiled child" who saw the vow as a way for her to not be given away in marriage to some other
household, remain the sole object of her father's affections, and -- I would add -- also become sole
inheritor of her father's property. Signs of Jephthah's deference in this regard are not difficult to discern.
Of course, many are familiar with the motif of an only daughter as a spoiled princess; strong signs of this
do appear in the text. For one, note again his reaction to what she does:

But take this not alone; take it with 1 Kings 1:6:

And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?

In contrast to his questioning of adult rivals with "why" challenges (11:7, 11:26, 12:3), Jephthah does not
ask his daughter why she did what she did. Additionally, note again her words in 11:36, where several
times she emphasizes that it was Jephthah's own words, and his own vow, that lay behind what
happened. In essence, this says, "If something has gone wrong here it's your fault for making the vow."
From here, we have but remaining the daughter's 2 month hiatus. There is no special tragedy in her
pleading to be allowed to go; the words used are the normal ones used for anyone asking a favor of
anyone else, including King David to his own daugther (2 Samuel 13:7). Here Reis supposes that the
daughter was taking this time off to seek relief from the vow by way of appeal to pagan deities. This may
be true, but it will have little bearing on our purposes here. We are left with consideration of objections
that remain relevant to the matter as we have now presented it.

The daughter clearly expects to be killed. I saw a movie where a girl reacted the same way.

To claim based on a movie -- that such a reaction was perfectly understandable and normal for someone
about to die is far from adequate. We cannot cavalierly assume the values of a fictional character in a
work produced in a libertarian society, onto a real person who lived in a tightly-controlled, collectivist
society.

Moreover, Jephthah's daughter is not saying that she would "never know what sex is like" -- she is saying
that she will remain a virgin, which has a broader conception than merely "I will not have the
experience" but will also have to do with not having what would be the honor of childbearing and
descendants.

Jephthah could have just had another child, so he couldn't have been sad because of all of that.

That would be far from a sure thing, given that after all this time this was Jephthah's only child. In
addition, we must factor in an infant mortality rate of around 50% and another cut before people
reached the age of 6, and Jephthah's likely age at the time, in a day when living to be 35 was unusual.

It says he "did with [his daughter] according to his vow which he had vowed". You can't get around that.

There's nothing to get around: What Jephthah would have "done" in this case would have been to pay
the redemption price (Lev. 27). But let us take this to the overliteral extent the critics seem to think is
required. Is it too much to suggest he would have adjusted his thinking in accordance with something
happening contrary to expectations, and that the later language would have adjusted implications
accordingly? What if Jephthah had arrived and someone threw a rock out of the doorway? Would he
have offered the rock as a sacrifice? What if a fly came out of the house first?

In 11:40 it says, "the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite
four days in a year" (11:40). We cannot believe that the entire nation turned out to mourn and weep
over a single girl being subject to a harmless vow.

The word for "lament" means to ascribe praise to or celebrate. Note that it is not the same word used to
speak of Jephthah's daughter "bewailing" her virginity. The word in fact appears only one other place in
the Bible in a relevant context (it appears also in Hosea to refer to "hiring" a prostitute):

Judges 5:11 They that are delivered from the noise of archers in the places of drawing water, there shall
they rehearse the righteous acts of the LORD, even the righteous acts toward the inhabitants of his
villages in Israel: then shall the people of the LORD go down to the gates.

Far from lamenting a terrible fate, the daughters of Israel were celebrating the sacrifice of a noble young
woman who served as an honorable example of someone who decided their own fate.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In August 2007, a reader advised me that this article was noted in a book titled Everything You Know
About God is Wrong. One contributor, Bobbie Kirkhart, who credentials to comment on the social world
of the Ancient Near East seem to be quite lacking (she is a "former Sunday School teacher"), had this to
say about the above's earlier edition:

For some reason Kirkhart thinks it is "obsessively important" to me that there is no evidence that the
Holy Spirit inspired the vow. How she arrives at this judgment of obsession is not explained. Presumably
there is some sort of mathematical formula or word count involved? In any event, no answer is provided
to any point made with respect to the Spirit's actual role.
It is said that I "skate around" the question of "whether God, who knows everything, knew a human
would greet Jep[hthah]." I skated around nothing: I rendered the question moot through the detailed
analysis that followed, to which Kirkhart provides no answer. Strangely she does admit that what I
provided that followed made the former issue of "little difference" but somehow she felt there was
need to say this anyway.

In terms of all those details, Kirkhart ignores just about all of it, save the point that Jephthah's daughter
lamented her virginity; and this she dismisses on the basis that:

After all, nobody facing death would care about a little thing like (virginity). Okay, well, maybe Antigone
and a few dozen other literary characters, but no nice Jewish girl in Holding's Bible.

Unfortunately, Kirkhart does not name these "few dozen" other characters, and even with the one
named, we are given no quoted line from Sophocles to validate the point. Little wonder, for as a reading
of Antigone shows, Antigone does not have upon her mind simply virginity, expressed in isolation as a
concern as with Jephthah's daughter, but a rolling host of concerns; and it seems as well that the alleged
lament over virginity has more to do with that she never married and had children:

And yet I honoured thee, as the wise will deem, rightly. Never, had been a mother of children, or if a
husband had been mouldering in death, would I have taken this task upon me in the city's despite. What
law, ye ask, is my warrant for that word? The husband lost, another might have been found, and child
from another, to replace the first-born: but, father and mother hidden with Hades, no brother's life
could ever bloom for me again. Such was the law whereby I held thee first in honour; but Creon deemed
me guilty of error therein, and of outrage, ah brother mine! And now he leads me thus, a captive in his
hands; no bridal bed, no bridal song hath been mine, no joy of marriage, no portion in the nurture of
children; but thus, forlorn of friends, unhappy one, I go living to the vaults of death.

Of course, it follows from the virginity of Jepththah's daughter that she will not have children either.
However, Kirkhart has not told the whole truth and has failed to note that all of Antigone's misery is
focussed her lack of marriage and children in the past, while Jephthah's daughter looks to that lack in
the future -- which would still be inexplicable if impending death were her fate.

-JPH
Polygamy

Past this point, our treatment of Stark becomes less detailed, as much of what he raises is already
addressed in articles by Glenn Miller or myself (links below). Stark’s next chapter begins with an
extended and uninteresting rant on Copan’s alleged inconsistent regard for Babylonian vs Biblical law on
polygamy, and a few responses to Copan’s views, but none affect our own. (Copan argues that the OT
forbids polygamy, which I would not agree with.) It seems clear that Stark is again wedded to his prior
fundamentalism, and cannot see past any options other than polygamy being always approved under all
circumstances, or never approved under any circumstances. (We’ll let Stark argue with Karen Armstrong
on that one.)

The only academic point I would add is that though Stark recognizes that Solomon’s many marriages had
political implications, he fails to reckon that David’s may have had as well, so that God blessing David
with wives amounts to saying he was keeping the peace politically in a successful way. That said, there’s
also an observation note: In his critique, Stark makes no effort at all to discuss, as Armstrong did, the
social purposes of polygamy, or the value of Biblical example on the matter. Rather, his whole section on
polygamy is a screed against Copan. One gets the immediate idea from this where Stark’s true priorities
lie.

Rape

In this case, Stark does go after the Bible too, but his critique of laws such as found in Deut. 22 represent
the same fundamentalist misconceptions as before, for example:

First, it’s assumed that just because a woman was in the city and didn’t scream, she’s not a rape victim
but a willing participant. Unlike Hammurabi’s code, the woman is not allowed to take an oath swearing
her innocence here. Apparently it was inconceivable that a rapist could cover the girl’s mouth, or
threaten to kill her immediately if she screamed, or something like that. No. If you happen to be found
under a man who isn’t your fiancé or husband, and you happen to be in the city, then you’re dead.

Er, no – once again, as Hillers observes, this is all case law, not some unbending moral code that is to be
blindly followed to the letter. An oath is just the sort of thing the elders of a village would be asking for,
in fact, when judging a case like this. Hammurabi’s code may have been more specific, but the OT is not
deficient because of it. Indeed, the addition of the oath to the Hammurabi code just as much suggests
that it was added because village elders in his land were prejudicially disposed to ignoring such oaths,
whereas in Israel they were not. (I find it quite significant that Stark makes the same error in this regard
made by C. Dennis McKinsey – one of the “fundy atheists” out there who is the least open-minded and
most intolerant of that group.) A second criticism of the law makes the same error, before Stark goes on
to spend three times as much space critiquing Copan’s argument (one I don’t follow, either).

Women as War Booty

In this case, however, Copan I find to be more on the right track in declaring Deut. 21:10-14 to be an
advantage for the woman in question. Stark’s answer to this is little more than, “yeah, right, ha ha ha”
which is about what is to be expected from someone whose harshest daily decision is whether to get his
Slurpee in cherry or grape. Stark replies that the man doesn’t have to pay a bride price, so there’s an
advantage. Uh, really? The man in question is one of Israel’s fighting men; he risked his life in battle –
maybe Stark doesn’t think an equitable price was paid?

Copan’s second point, that the man was not motivated by lust, Stark derides as well by quoting the
passage as noting that the woman was “beautiful.” Um, well, I won’t deny that lust may have been in
the picture – actually, honor was the more likely motivation – but it seems to me that all the rules here
are given as an alternative to what most armies would do, which is just rape the girl and be done with it.
If lust is part of the issue here, it’s a MLK “managed solution” that teaches respect for the woman that
would ordinarily not be granted. Other than that, Stark presumes yet again modern individualist values
on the woman; here again, it fails him that if anything, the woman might be glad to have been given a
second honorable chance at life rather than dying in battle, or being shamefully enslaved by a hostile
nation, or being left alone to starve.

A Grab at the Gonads

Stark’s next complaint has to do with Deut. 25:11-12, a passage was have discussed before (link below).
None of what he says has any bearing on our arguments, since he opts only to attack Copan’s contention
that the passage prescribes genital shaving rather than the literal loss of a hand. (Stark actually offers a
correct summary of what our view would be, near the end of the chapter, but does not as much as
critique it.) Stark is compelled in this regard to take on not Copan, but Copan’s source: Jerome Walsh,
author of an article in the Journal of Semitic Studies. I am not qualified to assess the veracity of the
linguistic arguments here but I find it interesting Stark uses no scholarly sources to respond to Walsh’s
arguments; the only “source” he offers is a “friend from Israel” (!) who claims “every Jew knows” the
linguistics don’t support Copan’s view. Walsh’s argument is labeled “ridiculous” but Stark’s only
authority for attacking Walsh’s article – written by a serious scholar for a peer-reviewed journal – is
Stark himself, who doesn’t even have a doctoral degree yet and is certainly not sufficiently accredited to
deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to someone like Walsh. One wonders if he would have
the nerve to submit his response to the Journal of Semitic Studies or even Walsh himself (assuming he is
still alive) for peer review. (Late add: Copan himself corresponded with Walsh on this; see here.)

Slavery

My gold standard on this subject remains Glenn Miller’s essay (link below), and I need say little because
Stark does absolutely nothing to answer it. Indeed, his chapters on slavery read as little better than
angry “is not, is not!” ranting, with no documenting footnotes on the issue. (What footnotes are offered
are not for validating Stark’s claims about slavery, but for supporting points unrelated to the issue of
slavery.) And needless to say, Stark offers nothing discussing the issue in terms of reciprocity or
patronage, two critical components of ANE society that governed the relationships in question.

Canaanite "Genocide"

And yes, here as well on these issues, Miller sets the standard (links below), and Stark utterly fails to
meet it. Apart from sections on archaeology upon which I can’t comment (though Stark picks his
authorities there anyway, since he certainly is not qualified to assess the evidence himself), and some
issues of authorship I’m not particular about (I have no objection to the book of Joshua as a collection of
oral, collected source material), Stark fails the test miserably. So once again, my comments will be
selective.

One critical point worthy of comment concerns the use of ancient war hyperbole (or “trash talk” as I call
it, link below). Stark doesn’t really answer this point; instead, he evades it by explaining away perceived
inconsistencies in Joshua as due to JEDP activity, and then engaging a long digression on redaction
theories which is a failure in its own right in terms of grasping literary genre. (See for example link on
Ecclesiastes below, which offers a far better explanation for the tensions in books like Job and
Ecclesiastes than Stark’s inventive theories of warring ideological parties who had no choice but to
include contradictory texts together – an especially silly thesis as well, in light of the fact that less than
3% of the population could read those texts, a point Stark himself admits, but fails to apply to his own
theory.)

Later, however, he does admit to the use of such hyperbole in ancient war texts, but carefully spins the
topic into commentary that says in effect, "well, even if this was hyperbole, what was actually done
literally was still horrible." In other words, Stark purposely evades the question of alleged contradiction -
- the reason why these other war texts were brought up in the first place -- in order to focus on an
emotional rant. (He relates this to an argument made by Copan that Israel did not go after "civilian"
targets. I would not follow this argument, for the perception of that social setting was rather that there
are no "civilians" -- which to a great extent was indeed the case; every person in a society was either a
fighting member of an army, or a potential draftee, or else grew the food or provided the supplies for
that army. The functional social diversity that would permit someone to be classified as merely a civilian
would not emerge for centuries.

In a few cases he does try to argue that some ancient texts are not being hyperbolic (as when
Sennachrib claims to have killed every soldier in an opposing army), but these instances amount to
Stark's fundamentalist attitude emerging, as he tries to interpret an ancient text in a modern way --
indeed, making an excuse for Sennacherib that is identical to the sort that he would have made for the
Bible as a fundamentalist.

Much space is devoted to replying to an argument I would not use (see above), and the rants multiply
like fungus. I also see no need to defend some of Copan's arguments, preferring my own: concerning
why the Israelites trod seven times around Jericho, for example, I prefer this, from another article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, critics often ask what good it did for the Israelites to walk around Jericho so much....Herzog and
Gichon note that this is in line with an ancient military strategem. Another example is offered by the
Roman writer Frontinus:

When Gneaus Pompey on one occasion was prevented from crossing a river because the enemy's troops
were stationed on the opposite bank, he adopted the device of repeatedly leading his troops out of
camp and back again. Then, when the enemy were at last tricked into relaxing their watch on the roads
in front of the Roman advance, he made a sudden dash and effected a crossing.
The "seven times around the city" was no mere game but a way of getting the Jerichoans relaxed and
used to the procession and giving them a sense of false security -- making them that much less prepared
for the eventual attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thus see no need for the arguments of Copan (and Hess) that this was some sort of ceremonial
procedure.

A particularly humourous point is where Stark tries to massage the war against the Canaanites into
"genocide" even though the primary intention stated was to drive them from the land. Stark opines:

This is still genocide. Go back to the start of this chapter and check the definition. The point of driving
people out of their land is to destroy them as a people.

However, as Miller points out:

Migration was not that big of a deal in that time period--the peoples are generally classified into the
"mobile" terminological groups: pastoral nomadism, semi-nomadism, transhumance nomadism, etc.
Migration and movement was a fact and way of life. With a little notice, whole tribes could migrate in
days. The Canaanites had DECADES of notice--authenticated by the miracles of the Exodus--and any
sane ones probably DID leave before Israel got there. Abandoned city structures are common all over
the ANE and Ancient Middle East from that period.

No doubt Stark himself would be too weak of body and mind to survive such dispossession, but that is
not sufficient cause to project his own weakness on others.

Amusingly, Stark makes much of the Joshua narrative being propoganda "written by the elite ruling
classes in order to serve their imperial agendas ." It does not seem to occur to him that a correct history
might just as ably service the agenda of such people; that it does serve their agendas in no way indicates
that it is not genuine history. Like most critics who make this sort of point, Stark fails to see that truth
and serving an agenda are not mutually exclusive categories.

Conclusion

Thus ends our evaluation, and a few words in close. As noted, I do not consider several of Copan's
arguments sufficiently sound, but I daresay Stark is by far less informed, more judgmental, and less
sound overall in his own presentation. In a closing statement, Stark obnoxiously suggests that his
readers "email Paul Copan and ask for an apology for his apologetics. " I would suggest that Stark does
this as a stunt to get himself unwarranted attention. He adds that his readers should tell Copan, "you’re
not interested in easy answers; you want to know how to struggle. "

Struggle? I'm sorry, but there's no "struggle" here, save for those who are either too intellectually
forlorn to comprehend the answers, or else too emotionally vested to let their rationality take over. I'd
classify Stark as deficient on both counts, though it's hard at times to say with which he is more
deficient.

Finally, Stark recommends that readers find a "community" that will self-confirm what they want to
believe. No, that's not how he puts it; he puts a spin on it which I have corrected. Stark the "former"
fundamentalist is just as much intent on insulating his fellow "believers" from dissent. As he puts it:

Find a community that doesn’t let experts speak over the top of the ignorant. Find a community that
holds those who doubt in high regard, and one that treats those with all the answers with the kind of
care appropriate to the mentally ill.

And yet like a fundamentalist never healed, Stark fails to perceive the innate self-contradiction here: He
regards his own views as "the" answer -- even if that answer is, "doubt everything." By his own
definition, he is therefore mentally ill.

The fact is that there are answers, and they are sound ones -- Stark simply doesn't like them.
Polygamy is widely condemned as repugnant, if not immoral." So says one Skeptic, who goes in to cite
instances of polygamy in the Bible, ranging from the mild (Jacob, two) to the outrageous (Solomon, who
knows?).

The common response to this is to note that God nowhere endorses polygamy; Skeptics may respond
that neither is it condemned. The only "condemnation" is implicit and by example. God created but one
Eve for Adam. Multiple wives led, for most men who were polygamists, to multiple troubles.

Then shouldn't God have said something more direct? Not necessarily. Polygamy counts as one of those
acts in the hierarchy of morals that has been reckoned at times to be a "necessary evil" -- not meaning,
as some say, that God changes his mind about what is moral, but that what is moral may be superseded
by what is moral on other grounds. To use the classic example, lying is wrong unless you have Jews in
your cellar. Then lying becomes a moral imperative.

We therefore need only show that there are circumstances in which polygamy might be a moral
imperative, and we can produce these, from a contextually neutral source. Karen Armstrong, certainly
no friend of fundamentalism, notes in her biography of Muhammed [190-2] that early Islam allowed
polygamy; it is still allowed in some Islamic circles today. Many critics view polygamy in terms of "pure
male chauvinism" and a desire to have many bed partners. In some cases there was no doubt abuse in
that direction; Solomon seems to have been a prime example, who paid the price of indiscretion via
being drawn into idolatry.

However, Armstrong notes social factors in Muhammed's time that mitigated the "evil" of polygamy,
and these factors apply just as readily in more ancient Biblical settings:

•Polygamy was Muhammed's solution to the problem of orphans and widows.

Men who died for whatever reason left behind sisters, daughters, and other relatives who needed
protection. New guardians might not be scrupulous about administering the property of orphans and
might even try to keep women unmarried so they could keep the of the deceased husband property.

Polygamy allowed an already-married guardian with better interests for the survivors to step in, in an
era before there were social, legal and governmental organizations to take up the case. Obviously these
conditions applied in the earlier world of the ANE as well.
•Armstrong notes that there was probably a shortage of men in Arabia in Muhammed's era, "which left
a surplus of unmarried women who were often badly exploited."

Such women in the ANE found themselves compelled to take up a life of prostitution, and less
scrupulous persons may resort to female infanticide.

Critics should therefore take some caution before condemning polygamy as "repugnant." The matter is
not that simple; the practice would almost certainly be repugnant in our modern nation, because none
of the social conditions exist which exert a moral influence making polygamy a "necessary evil." But
there is a vast difference between our modern world and the ancient Near East.

-JPH

The topics here are certain laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which have been declared illogical and
unfair. The reader is forewarned, however, that laws in question cover some, well, rather frank and
straightforward issues, to put it mildly, and thus by necessity we will need to follow suit.

Castration

In the first of the two articles we shall consider, a Skeptic takes to task the following OT law from
Leviticus 21:21-3--

No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to
the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the
most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the
curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.'"

It is said:

In modern civilized societies, special considerations are given to people who are physically
handicapped...Rather than showing special consideration for the handicapped, Yahweh expressed a
contempt for such people and even decreed that they were not to be allowed in his presence. Above all
else, he did not want them profaning his sanctuary.

From the start it must indeed be admitted that this chapter is pretty strict as far as who can enter the
sanctuary. For one thing, only Levites are allowed inside; and I suppose we might argue that this
indicates "contempt" for non-Levites, who could not help their non-Levite condition anymore than the
blind and deaf.

Even worse, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that once a year. Maybe everyone in
Israel should have been made a High Priest, and maybe special calendars should have been issued so
that every day was that one day when the Holy of Holies could be entered?

What, at any rate, is the point of this prohibition? No answer to an "argument by outrage" can satisfy he
who is outraged, but Christian theology avers that the rules operate as a typology of Christ. Only the
perfect lamb of God may be offered as a sufficient sacrifice; so it is that in the model of that sacrifice,
those with imperfections won't fit the bill; likewise sacrificial animals with imperfections would not fit
the bill.

Discriminatory? Of course it is. God is not politically correct. If He were, there would be no Hell. On the
other hand, the Levitical laws did permit even those with disabilities to eat of the offering. As this food
symbolized the blessings of God, it indicates that all were open to receive God's blessing equally.

Also, there is no hint of these offerings as actually providing sustenance for the Lord; rather, when the
texts refer to the food "of" God, it is asserting possession. For more on the ancient thought lines that lie
behind this picture, and the necessity of such thought in ancient times, see here.)

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Some suppose that there is some connection between these verses and those in Leviticus. Regarding the
former, one critic says:
Yahweh seemed to have a special contempt for crushed testicles. Any male who suffered such an injury
couldn't even enter into Yahweh's assembly...As my wife once said after I had read this verse to her,
"Hasn't the poor guy suffered enough? For God's sake, let him into the assembly!"

The critic seems to think that this is an extension of sorts of the Levitical prohibition against those with
damaged testicles serving at the altar, only more so, thus making it yet another, even worse, case of
discrimination. It is discrimination indeed, but it is not likely the sort of discrimination that the critic
thinks it is.

A key here is the difference in the Hebrew words used in each verse. Leviticus used the word merowach
- meaning bruised or emasculated. This "bruised" refers perhaps to a temporary injury (which would
allow the priest to serve after he recuperates -- of course, one supposes that he would be rather be in
bed anyway), or to some inborn physical imperfection, as with the rest of this section. On the other
hand, we have noted that such people can participate in the blessings of God with equity.

But what, then, of the folks referenced in Deuteronomy? The Hebrew word here describing the damage
done to the genitals is dakkah - meaning mutilated or wounded. Although some suppose that this can
refer to an accidental or genetic defect [Merr.Dt, 307], the context and the difference in language from
Leviticus suggests that this isn't a case of someone who has been through an accident or a fight and
can't help what has happened.

Rather, as our socially-informed commentators tell us, this most likely refers to someone who has
wilfully and purposefully damaged themselves, probably as part of a pagan religious ritual. And this is
right in line with a theme of Deut. 23 itself, which forbids various foreigners from entering the assembly:
The only person who would undergo such treatment would be a foreigner (in pagan practice, deformity
was "not only acceptable but frequently central to the practice of the cult", as for example were the
assinnu of the Babylonian rituals - Merr.Dt, 307) -- or else someone who so dedicated themselves to a
pagan god that they took this extra painful step to demonstrate their devotion.

Have they suffered enough? Perhaps they have -- but it would have been their own choice in the matter.
It's not surprising that God declared that anyone who went this far in devotion to false gods ought to be
excluded from the assembly of the true God. They would be unable to receive the seal of circumcision.
But then again, if they've gone as far as having their genitals destroyed in an age when procreation was
so central to corporate survival, chances are that they wouldn't be inclined towards conversion in the
first place.
Finally, there is this, focussing on Deut. 25:11-12 --

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and
she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

One critic connects this to the laws regarding crushed testicles in the previous laws; but as we have
seen, there is neither social nor linguistic basis for this argument. On the other hand, this is also said:

1."Today, if a woman's husband should be attacked, shoe would probably know that a swift way to
rescue him would be to administer a quick, hard blow between the attacker's legs, but that's today. back
in the Twilight Zone of biblical times, a woman dared not do this unless she wanted to run the risk of
being known the rest of her life as Lefty."

First of all, this law does not forbid a kick to the gonads at all -- that's not what it says, even in English,
although administrative law might have supported the same punishment had enough damage been
done. The Hebrew word here is chazaq, and it means to "fasten upon" in the same sense that is used to
describe someone taking someone by the hand and leading them somewhere (Gen. 19:16; Ex. 3:19). In
other words, this is not merely an attempt to end a fight; this is a determined attempt to do damage
above and beyond what is necessary. But is the punishment reasonable?

The Skeptics may not think so, but they do not live in an era when having heirs is particularly important:
Ancient people did not have Social Security to keep them afloat, nor did they have government
programs; there was no Meals on Wheels to deliver food to the elderly and infirm. If you wanted to
survive, you needed heirs; there was no other way.

This law should be understood in the context of what precedes it, for it makes the matter quite clear:

Deut. 25:5-9 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not
marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a
brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his
name will not be blotted out from Israel. However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife,
she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his
brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his
town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his
brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his
face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line."

Neither a man nor a woman of this period would want to live without heirs. This loss of a hand is hardly
to be construed as a severe punishment for someone who kept you from having descendants. It has
nothing to do with the rule of Deut. 23:1, since that involved self-inflicted damage with a cultic purpose.
It has everything to do with destroying a couple's means of support beyond a time when they could fend
for themselves properly.

It is also probable, given the context of the previous verses, that the "brothers" fighting here are actually
brothers in a physical sense, and are fighting over the very issue of Deut. 7-10. If this is the case, then
the wife's actions are even more in sense with the context, and that would mean that this is not just any
old fight -- and, it is probable in that case that a rescue attempt is not forbidden in principle where a
continuation of heirs is not at stake.

And thus is it appropos that a hand be lost -- for it matches equally the loss of ability to provide
descendants to be one's "hands" in old age. That it is thought of as equitable under the "eye for an eye"
rubric is demonstrated by the fact that the phrase "your eye shall have no pity" also introduces the lex
talionis laws in Deut. 19:21.

Furthermore, if our critic still thinks this rule unreasonable, he should compare it to this Middle Assyrian
parallel: "If a woman has crushed a man's testicle in an affray, one of her fingers shall be cut off." That's
just for one testicle. There's a second rule if both testicles are crushed, and the punishment is that
"both" of something of the woman's will be cut off -- we don't know what, since the text is damaged,
but you can take a guess if you want. - Crai.Dt, 315.

We should point out, too, that the Assyrians apparently didn't differentiate between a "rescue" situation
for the husband and a woman fighting a man that is beating up on her. If the Israelite law were truly
"anti-woman" it would prescribe the punishment under any circumstances. As it is, it seems clear that a
kick to the gonads was NOT forbidden when, say, a man attacked and raped a woman.

2.It is then said: "For some reason, Yahweh said nothing about the opposite situation in which two
women would be fighting, and the husband of one should grab the crotch of his wife's attacker. One can
only conclude that Yahweh, in his inscrutable wisdom, considered copping a feel to be a much worse
offense for women than men."

Tactically, "copping a feel", is NOT what is in mind in Deut. 25 at all, as we have shown --- in this
situation wouldn't make a lot of sense. On the other hand, if some man was indeed trying to "cop a
feel", then chances are some administrative version of the Mosaic laws against sexual assault would kick
in. "Copping" isn't specifically mentioned in the Mosaic law (or in any ancient law code that I know of,
for that matter), but nor are a host of other specific acts, and it is not as though the Hebrews were any
different from anyone else in legal history in determining applications where the laws lacked specifics.
As a scholar of that field notes [Hillers' Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, 88-9]:

...(T)here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was
applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws
served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they
left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local
courts without controlling them.

3."In a fight, a man's wife could not assist him by seizing his opponent's genitals, but what were
Yahweh's chosen ones supposed to do if two men were fighting and no wife intervened, yet one of the
men grabbed the other's genitals? Would this have cost the man his hand? If not, why not?"

No, it wouldn't cost the other man his hand - it would cost him his own testicles, in accordance with the
"eye for an eye" principle. It's a pretty good indication that no man would take this step against another
man. What if you tried and missed? In that case, you just opened yourself up to be the first to get a
painful squeeze in the wrong place with nothing to show for it. Even in the most violent fights, one may
note that men tend to keep to an unspoken agreement about this sort of thing; even today we think of
such a move as "fighting dirty".

Added 12/2010: A slightly different answer related by Paul Copan in Is God a Moral Monster? [121] is
that the word used of the woman's hand actually means "palm," which in turn is a known euphemism
for the pelvic area, and that the words for cutting off are used in other places to mean "shave". So the
argument goes that the actual punishment is the shaving of the pubic hair -- which would be regarding
as a form of humiliation, appropriate to the humiliation the woman heaped on the man for "copping a
feel," as the critic puts it.
Excremental Issues

The focus here is on Deut. 23:12-14 --

Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment
have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For
the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your
camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

Some have noted that this practice has sanitary applications, but the reason actually given in the text for
this practice is in verse 14. Of this it is said, "So that was the real reason for this law. If Yahweh had
stepped in anything while he was walking about in the midst of the Israelite camp, it might have
disgusted him so much that he would have turned away from his chosen ones." Then it is said:

The chosen ones were to carry paddles with them so that they could bury their excrement, but they had
with them large herds and flocks of livestock. So what about the excrement from these animals? Did
they have to bury it too? Or was a cow chip less offensive that human excrement?

Good question? Hardly. Livestock was not an issue at all:

When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure.

In short, the objection has confused the camp of the Israelite nation in the wilderness with what is
actually described here -- Israelite military parties out on maneuvers. The rules for the civilian camp are
unknown, but probably followed whatever was normal for the period, and that may have involved
sanitary procedures that were already in place.

It is no answer to say that "when the entire 23rd chapter is read, it should be apparent that the
commandments it contains were intended to apply to all Israelites and not just to the soldiers" because
"the entire 23rd chapter" is a modern, artificial division; it is clear that these verses are for solders on
maneuvers, period.
What we're talking about here, then, is parties of perhaps a few thousand men, without any livestock at
all, except, perhaps, a few horses, which would be no trouble at all to take care of.

Assuming, of course, that piles of uncovered excrement are actually what is at issue. A glance at the
Hebrew indicates otherwise, however. The word used in 23:14 is 'ervah, and it refers to nakedness (as in
Gen. 9:22, the nakedness of Noah). What concerns Yahweh here is not the excrement itself. What he
doesn't want is, to put it rather crudely and in the context of a society where publiuc nudity was
considered extremely shameful, the public sight of folks whipping it out and taking a whiz, or bending
over and taking a dump, as some less-disciplined army with less integrity might be inclined to do.

This is a modesty issue -- not applicable in places where one is able to duck into a tent, as in the main
Israelite camp; but more likely an issue for an army on maneuvers which may not have all the niceties of
habitation at their disposal -- not a sanitary one, although one might argue that sanitation was also a
concern, but one that could hardly be explained when the science of microbiology and disease
transmission was several thousand years away.

-JPH

Sources

1.Crai.Dt - Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Hodder and Stoughton, 1976.

2.Merr.DT - Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Broadman and Holman, 1994.

Good question...

...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: Created Nov 9, 1997 // UPDATED Mar 18/2004 // NT: Created Dec 30, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every so often I get a question about slavery in the Bible, or someone sends me a 'spoof' of the biblical
Mosaic regulations concerning 'slavery'. Sometimes the issue concerns Paul in the NT, as this thoughtful
quote might indicate:

"I think a lot of the problems you spill a lot of "electrons" on can be understood better by looking at the
Bible as an accommodated and historical revelation. In my judgment, the most important example of
how this concept operates in scripture is the Bible's approach to slavery, especially as it appears in Paul's
writings. Paul clearly understood that the gospel obviated all class distinctions (Gal. 3:28) but was never
willing to draw out the social ramifications of his understanding of what it meant to be "in Christ."
Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to
tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty
obligated him to manumit Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul danced
around the topic of manumission but never made it an explicit directive; accordingly, it made the
problem more difficult for later theologians. We can only imagine how western civilization might have
been changed had Paul openly stated what we now all agree on: that for one human to own another is
inconsistent with the imago dei and the freedom of the gospel.

Of course, Paul did not do so, probably for a number of reasons. He may have still been freaked out by
the "crisis" he speaks of in I Cor. 7, or he may have felt that an explicit position on manumission would
have made the gospel appear too radical (although he didn't shy away from "radicalness" in other areas
and manumission was considered by many in the Roman empire to be a noble act of kindness). At any
rate, it took theologians and activists 1900 years to finally convince Christendom of the moral
bankruptcy of slavery, and frankly, from a perspective of exegesis and Biblical theology, the fire-eaters
had a better argument in ante-bellum America than the abolitionists, largely due to the statements
made by Paul in Ephesians and Philemon."
I replied to this part of the email with a 'directional' statement...

"The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of
slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what
passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the
period and area. In the NT case, the problem is hugely complicated by the SEEMING position that ALL
socio-economic institutions are 'neutral'; that they can be either used wonderfully or abused
woefully...for example, i am called to be a 'slave to Christ'...and to obey (within conscience and
stewardship) the demands of oppressive governments...this area of cultural forms is notoriously difficult
(in my opinion) so the Philemon situation is not at all decisive or instructive for me...(i am familiar,
however, with those civil war debates, but consider much of that simply bad theological
method)...simply put, i think the problem is more complex than a simple 'Paul hedged here'...i am still
thinking through this, so dont take my comments as finished goods ...

And hence I want to come back to this issue in this series...

There are several elements of this study, which I will no doubt have to publish piecemeal ("oh no! not
ANOTHER unfinished series in the Tank!"):

1. Introductory remarks

2. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its nature, purpose, and structure.

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: the Foreign Slave.

4. The Great Escape Clause…?

5. References to slavery in later OT books.

6. The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)

.........................................................................................

1. Introductory remarks

I am a child of the Western World, and a native of the rural American South. The word 'slavery' is such a
powerful vortex of images, meanings, cries, and grief to me. Any technical discussion of any type of
forced labor or corvee becomes immediately inflamed when the word 'slavery' is attached to it, and I
suspect that many others share this association.

Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the
many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true'
slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will
be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice).

A recent example of this comes from the discussion of the Hittite culture in [HI:HANEL:1.632]:

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of
classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat
them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning
property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or
perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on
another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active."

Scholars in Cultural Anthropology are sensitive to this as well, and point out that New World slavery was
quite unique, historically:

"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide
range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and
sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment,
and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts
into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we
look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to
mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent
direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin
America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the
representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels,
textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World
slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three
elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use
exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..." [NS:ECA:4:1190f]

Generally, in the ANE, these 'fuzzy' boundaries obtain as well. "Slavery" is a very relative word in our
time period, and we have to be very carefully in no auto-associating it with more 'vivid' New World
examples. For example, in the West we would never say that the American President's Cabinet members
were his 'slaves', but this term would have been applied to them in the ANE kingdoms. And, in the ANE,
even though children/family could be bought and sold, they were never actually referred to as 'slaves'--
the property aspect (for such transactions) did NOT define explicitly the notion of 'slavery':

"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for
"slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the
social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens.
The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were
"slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of
politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not
regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]

Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that naturally occur for Westerners when
something is referred to as 'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider
'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'. New World slavery differs
substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery', which themselves differed at significant points
from OT slavery. We will try to make these distinctions clear, when they are relevant to the discussion.
With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in
America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look
at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects
of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)

· Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of
slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a
world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the
production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated
profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War
Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")

In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief
of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely
domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern
Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes
sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose
for most of ANE slavery:

§ "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt
slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
§ "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of
the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called
hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration.
Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)

§ "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt
or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for
the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)

§ "On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the
famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters
are sold for provisions…" (1.741)

§ "The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of
children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a
mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose
from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)

· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-
traders.
This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:

"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-
scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced
everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded
throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-
Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century
Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and
10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African
and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women
and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were
troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult
males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been
slaughtered outright by their African captors."

In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE
aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic
security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives,
grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and
niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-
sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been
fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the
ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they
were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:

"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers
carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them
was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs….The question
arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of
dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no
legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a
negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set
aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v.
"Slavery, ANE"]

"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned
method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows,
selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of
self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]

The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10),
if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not
slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor
projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27).
This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal
groups:

"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the
proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works."
[ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as
voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or
'conquer' etc.

· Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were
extreme.

The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no
documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the
differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-
house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme
punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than
even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to
humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here
that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders
could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the
world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…]

But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways
were a problem, as we shall see):

"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves
appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]

And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:

"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition
were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly
humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]

· Treatment : As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not
participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.

We have already noted that in New World slavery at least two-thirds of plantation slaves would have
lived in barracks (field-slaves), and not in intimacy with owners (domestics), whereas in the ANE/OT, the
vast majority of the slaves were domestics under the same roof. In the ANE/OT, we don’t have the
'gangs' of agricultural workers we will see later in Republican Rome and in the New World:
"Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household [in Israel]--there is no
indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big
estates, as in the later Roman world" [OT:I:101]

"Both types (Hebrew, foreign slaves) were domestic slaves living in their owners' homes, not members
of slave gangs working on plantations." [Notes, Jewish Study Bible, Ex 21]

· Legal Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a
bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were
no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the
occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

Theoretically, some expressions of New World slavery had some protection from outright murder of a
slave, but this was not very widely accepted:

"In the American South, 10 codes prescribed forced sale to another owner or emancipation for
maltreated slaves. Nevertheless, cases such as State v. Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v. Jones
(Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were punished for savagely
'correcting' their slaves to death." [Britannica]

And the right-to-kill differed by groups [Britannica]:

"Legally the slave was usually defined as property, and the question then was whether he was movable
property (chattel) or real property. In most societies he was movable property, but in some, real
property… A major touchstone of the nature of slave society was whether or not the owner had the
right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for salves from
ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners
into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to
demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw
their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece,
ancient India, the Roman Republic, Han China, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia,
and many parts of the American South before 1830…That was not the case in other societies. The
Hebrews, the Athenians, and the Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill
their human chattel."

Now, this restriction on an owner as to what he/she could do with their personal 'property' should make
us wonder about how the word 'property' is being used there. And indeed, the definition of 'property'--
in the context of slavery--gives Anthropologists pause:

"The definition of slaves as property runs into conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a
shorthand and abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights held by a person
(or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any given society, something (say, a person) is
'property' has meaning only to the extent that the rights involved are specified and understood in the
context of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial African societies, the
kin group had the right to sell equally its slave and nonslave members, it had equal control over the
wealth acquired by either of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the
other, and the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives, and, if prosperous enough,
could acquire slaves of their own. Here, obviously, one must look at other features to find the difference
between the slave and the 'free'." [NS:ECA:4:1191, s.v. "Slavery"]

Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the notion of 'property' when applied to people:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives,
grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and
niece" [HI:HANEL:1:665]

And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example,
can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:

"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them.
These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]

and slaves had very specific legal rights (can real 'chattel property' have such?):
"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom."
[HI:DLAM:118]

"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of
classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat
them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning
property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or
perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on
another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active." [HI:HANEL:1632]

"However, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society
was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Ancient Near East"]

One other important distinction has to do with how 'comprehensive' or exclusive was the 'property'
aspect. In other words, to what extent was a slave only property, and not also, a human, a family
member, a contracting agent. In the ANE at least, slavery was generally a mixture of these aspects--they
were not ONLY property per se [HI:HANEL:1.40]:

"A better criterion for a legal definition of slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized
as a category of property that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a person to
whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even this definition is not wholly
exclusive, since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the rules of ownership. Furthermore,
the relationship between master and salve was subject to legal restrictions based on the humanity of
the slave and concerns of social justice."

A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a modern acquisition of one business by another business.
I the employee--a 'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the values I
am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the office, my skills, my
organizational knowledge, and my career path in the firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g.,
competitor, private investor, Wall Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my life-at-the-
office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in
my country. My role and/or identity as a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited'
(e.g., if the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor). Our legal system recognizes
this in many, many contracts under the heading "Successors and Assigns". But wherever I went, the
state would still see me as a human, and prevent--as in the ANE-- my 'owner' from killing me.

· Legal Status : Slaves could not have their own property--all they had belonged to their 'owner'.

"In North America, India, Rome, Muscovy, most of the Islamic world, and among the Tuareg a
fundamental principle was that the slave could not own property because the master owned not only
his slave's body but everything that body might accumulated. This did not mean, however, that slaves
could not possess and accumulate property but only that their owners had legal title to whatever the
slaves had. In a host of other societies, such as ancient and Roman Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Talmudic
Palestine, Gortyn, much of medieval German, Thailand, Mongol and Ch'ing China, medieval Spain, and
the northern Nigerian emirates, slaves had the right of property ownership. Some places, such as Rome,
allowed slaves to accumulate, manage, and use property in a peculium that was legally revocable but
could be used to purchase their freedom." [Britannica]

[Note: As pointed out in the quote about the fuzziness of 'property' above (by the Cultural
Anthropologists), there is a little 'play' in this word, But a strict delineation of what was and what was
not 'property', and/or what was and was not 'owned', was established and determined by the governing
body of the specific situation. For example, in the ante-bellum South, it would have been the law courts
in that time and in that geographical jurisdiction which decided, and they would have invariably sided
with the slave owner instead of the slave as to whether, for example, the bed the slave slept on
belonged to him or to his owner. The relevance of this 'jurisdictional' point is threefold: (1) It is
irrelevant to this discussion as to what parties outside the legal system would have judged (e.g., Native
Americans of the time would have said that the plantation land did NOT 'belong' to the Owner, but to
the Earth--but the Southern courts would have disagreed); (2) it is irrelevant to this discussion as to
what 'relative/informal/conventional ownership' arrangements would have been held within the
community of slaves (e.g. Even though the Owner legally--according to Southern courts at the time--
owned the bed that Slave X slept in, did NOT mean that Slave Y could take it from him, under the
argument that it didn’t 'belong' to Slave X… "relative rights to usage"--very close in content to what
property really is all about--would not violate the common legal understanding of property ownership
(i.e., establish and delineated by relevant judiciary authorities)...the minors who have lived with me
might have argued among themselves whose TV set it was, but the courts would have blamed me the
dad had said TV set hurt one of their visitors); (3) it is irrelevant to this discussion what people after the
legal jurisdiction collapsed said about property ownership (e.g., Civil war soldiers after the war had
destroyed the jurisdiction structure agreeing that slave X 'owned' his bed, based perhaps on the
'informal' and relative rights of #2, would be irrelevant to the question of whether "slaves could own
property under the pre-war, pro-slavery legal system").]

"Sometimes slaves [in the ANE] were permitted to possess various kinds of property (peculium).
Naturally, a slave received the right to a peculium only in those cases when the master took an interest
in this. Such slaves were left to themselves with the payment of a fixed quitrent [tanknote: a 'quitrent' is
a fee paid by the slave to the owner, so that the slave doesn’t have to work any more for the owner,
during the period covered by this 'rent to quit working'. It's like a substitution of money for labor]. The
size of the quitrent fluctuated depending on the property of the slave, and in 1st-millennium Babylonia,
on average, when calculated in money, amounted to twelve shekels of silver a year. Such a sum was also
equal to the average annual pay of an adult hired worker regardless of whether he was free or a slave.
Sometimes a quitrent was replaced by work for the master. Temple slaves who led an independent
economic existence were also obliged to pay a monetary quitrent or provide the temple with finished
products in accordance with the established norms…In 1st-millennium Babylonia enterprising slaves
owned land, houses, and considerable amounts of movable property. They actively participated in all
spheres of economic activity, were engaged in trade, ran taverns and workshops, taught other persons
various trades, pawned and mortgaged their property, and they themselves received the property of
others as security for loans…In the legal sphere such slaves could appear as witnesses, plaintiffs, and
defendants in court. They also could have their own personal seals and take oaths. Moreover, there
were apparently no differences in the ways in which the interests of slaves and freemen were defended,
though the slaves, of course, could not engage in litigation with their masters. In affairs with a third
party, the slave could mortgage only the peculium, but not his own person." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Ancient
Near East']

· Exit : Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the
arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no
property went with the freedman.
"…in the American South manumission ws comparatively difficult and almost never happened after the
prohibition on importing new slaves…manumission was even forbidden in South Carolina in 1820,
Mississippi in 1822, Arkansas in 1858, and Maryland and Alabama in 1860…" [Britannica]

In the ANE, although some cultures had pre-built "debt-payoff-periods" (like Israel's 6 years), "chattel"
manumission was rare because it wasn’t sought after--the issues of economic security and the quasi-
family relationships that developed within the household unit created little incentive to become
'independent':

"More usually, individual autonomy has meant exposure to danger and predation; safety lay precisely in
the protection afforded by the bondage of dependence on groups and patrons. What was desirable was
not freedom but belongingness." [NS:ECA:4.1191]

[We will be semi-shocked below when we discover that manumission in Israel was either pre-scheduled
(in the case of Hebrew slaves) or anytime-you-want-it (in the case of foreign slaves)…!]

Garnsey identifies many of these elements in his understanding of what he terms 'chattel slavery'
[HI:ISAA:1]:

"A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as
well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the
process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through
marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of slavery."

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

With this framework in mind, let's consider how the Mosaic Law structured 'Hebrew slavery'...
2. The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.

First of all, we will have the same wide, wide range of meanings of the terms for 'slave' here, as we did
in the ANE. It will refer to general (and sometimes vague) subordination:

"The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household
but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher
officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a
sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. Finally, the same term
was also used in the figurative meaning “the slave (or servant) of God.” Thus, the patriarchs Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod
32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called
slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5,
etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their
slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth
3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural
that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ANE is also used
in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or
the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs
6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring
countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-
pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible >ebed/doulos and several other similar terms
are rendered “slave” as well as “servant,” “attendant,” etc. Such translations, however, might create
some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and
slaves are attested in the Bible…However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical
application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example,
Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these
“slaves” were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in
order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian
kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family.
Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the
former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When Josiah, king of Judah, had
been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30). It is
quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of
the actual meaning of the ambiguous >ebed may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham’s
household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only
conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a
freeborn person." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

In the ANE, legal systems divided 'slaves' into different categories, and prioritized interventions (social
intervention has costs, remember, and scarce resources in the ANE had to be allocated to optimize their
effect on social/community survival) around these categories:

"In determining who should benefit from their intervention, the legal systems drew two important
distinctions: between debt and chattel slaves, and between native and foreign slaves. The authorities
intervened first and foremost to protect the former category of each--citizens who had fallen on hard
times and had been forced into slavery by debt or famine." [HI:HANEL:1,42]

In the OT case, we will see a similar interest: most legislation will be about Hebrew ("native") individuals
who, for reasons of debt/famine, sell themselves into short-term slavery ("debt slaves"). Accordingly, we
will examine this class of 'slaves' first (native, debt).

Hebrew 'slavery' (i.e., a Hebrew 'servant' of a Hebrew 'master'; we will do foreigners next) occurs in a
very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that
context. Like the ANE, the context is a constant struggle for economic stability. The Mosaic law contains
numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option:

"Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice.
Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When
money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest. (Elsewhere in the ancient Near East
exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery)." [OT:DictOT5,
s.v. "Slavery"]
· There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all! (Compliance with the spirit and letter of
the covenant would have produced a society marked by righteousness, compassion, and prosperity.)

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to
possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are
careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)

This makes any economic situations involving slavery exceptional.

· But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the
poor. Some of these are:

1. He enjoins the Israelites to be generous toward the destitute (this would function to
preclude/reduce voluntary or debt slavery), in the same passage He expressed the hope of pan-success:

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is
giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded
and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I
command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
(Deut 15.7ff)

2. Interestingly, the passage above recognizes that this 'lending' (best for self-respect of the recipient)
might turn into 'giving' (best for economic good of the recipient) quickly, but that the Hebrew should not
let this obvious risk deter his heart:

"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,”
so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to
the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a
grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything
you put your hand to." (Deut 15.9)

"Moses left the realm of law for a moment to appeal to his fellow Israelites’ hearts. The law of debt
cancellation (vv. 1-6) was intended to instill a spirit of generosity within the Israelites and thus a
freedom from the love of money and things. Therefore a calculating Israelite was guilty of sin if he
refused a loan for a poor brother (v. 7; cf. needy brother, v. 9) out of fear that it might not be repaid
since the seventh year was near. Being hardened or tightfisted meant he was not trusting the Lord to
bless . . . all his work." [BKC, in loc]

3. There are numerous instructions to merchants and farmers to provide special help for the
disadvantaged (again, reducing the need for someone to sell themselves or family members).

§ The entire seventh year of the planting cycle was dedicated to the poor (and servants)!

"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the
land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild
animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex 23.10)

Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you -- for yourself, your manservant
and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)

§ They were instructed to leave the margins around the fields unharvested, and to not go over the
fields but once:

"`When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the
gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have
fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.10; 23.22; Deut 24.19f)
§ The poor were to be exempt from interest, and were to be buy food at cost.

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you
would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of
any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You
must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. (Lev 25.35ff; note the quote above that
interest rates were the dominant cause of voluntary servitude in the ANE.]

[Note: Israel was allowed to charge interest to foreigners, and to no forgive their unpaid loans in the
year of Jubilee (Deut 23.21). Tigay [JPStorah, in loc] explains the sociological rationale for this: "This
exception is similar to 15:3, which exempts loans to foreigners from remission. As Shadal notes, the
foreigner is normally a businessman visiting the country for purposes of trade, and he borrows in order
to invest in merchandise and make a profit, not to survive poverty. There is no moral imperative to remit
loans made for such purpose or forgo interest on them. Furthermore, assuming the risk of lending and
making the sacrifice that remission and interest-free loans entail are special obligations toward one's
countrymen (Heb, ahim, lit 'brothers') and for the sake of maintaining equilibrium in Israelite society.
The law does not require assuming the same risk and sacrifice toward others who do not share the same
obligation."

§ The entire Levitical tithe of EVERY THIRD YEAR was to be shared with the poor!

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns,
29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless
and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your
God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deut 14.28ff)

4. Even the sacrificial system made allowances for economic status:

"`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for
his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering..."`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to
bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and
the other for a burnt offering." (Lev 5.7,11; see also Lev 14.21)
If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the
priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford. (Lev 27.8)

5. Indeed, there was even a major structure in the economic system designed to support the poor--
the automatic cancellation of debts every seven years!

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall
cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite
or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require
payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1ff)

· Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience
of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She
is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many,
many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or
maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that
your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and
that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut
5.13f)

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for
the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I
command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year
you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14
Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD
your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God
redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15; note: this is a 'standard' case of
debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21-
-discussed below.)
· Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done'
within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the
compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God
(e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew
dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed
the historical record generally confirms).

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow
them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show
your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely
this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods
near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is
so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? "
(Deut 4.5)

19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other
nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147.19)

With this as background, I want to compare the verses we have on this institution with the preceding
description of Western antebellum slavery.

· Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.

OT: There is a very fundamental difference here. The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to
serve the poor!:

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you
would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of
any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You
must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who
brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him
work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to
work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back
to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I
brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your
God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Indeed, as we shall note below, the proceeds of the transaction went to the servant only--each 'sold
himself' to someone.

Notice that the sole motive--in the primary text before us-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can
continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at
the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.

[Even chattel slavery, however, often produced this benefit. So Garnsey [HI:ISAA:5]:

"This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative
institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically
better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly
paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or
even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere."

But this was not the POINT of such slavery, whereas in the OT context, this benefit is the SOLE
JUSTIFICATION for even allowing a watered-down, temporary, semi-servanthood.]

· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-
traders.
OT:: In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated (as in pledge
of work, in case of default of debt, cf. the case in 2 Kings 4.1 where the creditor is probably coming to
claim the children for non-payment, [BKC, in loc]) enslavement was a capital offense (unless it was a
community punishment--you were an theft/fraud offender yourself, of course). This is generally in
keeping with what we have noted earlier:

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives,
grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and
niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-
sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been
fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

§ Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to
death. " (Ex 21.16)

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the
kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10).

§ The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the
transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of 'selling oneself':

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25.39)

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes
poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year
you must let him go free. (Deut 15.12)

§ Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above),
continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave':

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6
then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and
pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex 21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is
well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become
your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)

[Note: if a person had a wife/family when he sold himself, then the wife/family went free when his
freedom occurred (If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is
to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her
children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Ex 21.3). We will discuss the various
release scenarios (with/family, w/o) below under 'Treatment".]

……………………………………………………………….

Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely bothered by that 'your
wife stays here' clause…Can you explain how the various exit scenarios looked, in the case of a Hebrew
debt-slave's going free? And is it true that a man could sell his daughter into slavery without any HOPE
of freedom for her????
Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow of this, with my typically
verbose response…smile)

Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish Publication Society version):

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without
payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his
master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the
master, and he shall leave alone." (21.2-4)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be
displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not
have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son,
he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold
from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall
go free, without payment." (21.7-11)

The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background (rel. to OT and some
ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.

First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).

1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often the father, but not exclusively--Hagar 'took a
wife for Ishmael out of Egypt', Gen 21,21) discuss and agree on a marriage/union between their
respective son/daughter, in the context of a union of families--not of individuals. (The daughter,
depending on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course):
"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the
engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the
bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable husband for her and
negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]

"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would
contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the
nature and size of the mohar, "marriage present". ." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the bride be given to one of the
groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is, the bride married into her husband's family--
she did not marry an individual." [OT:DLAM, 134f]

"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman’s father decided whom she could
marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55–58)."
["Patriarchy As An Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture",
Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]
2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently
it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment
made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride:

"The contract described in the Laws of Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented
by the fathers. For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a
considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith,
insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit
delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links
between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father, with an expected
amount the baseline, the mohar habbetulot, set at fifty shekels, but with no upper limit. "
[HI:HALOT,:2:1007; Note: this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a
hired person's labor.]
3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the
dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or
in services:

"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be services…Jacob worked seven
years for Rachel and Leah respectively. " [HI:HALOT,:2:1007]

"A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by service, as Jacob did for both his marriages
(Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel
for Calab's daughter (Jos 15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]

"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which
time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother
assumed the legal rights of 'wife'" [OT:DLAM, 133]

Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter….
1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable' , 'mercenary' act on the
part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for
his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):

· "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit
a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one
does not need to doubt their devotion to the children." [OT:LIANE, 35]

· "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from
poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one
means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household
for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]

· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary
wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more
advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the
wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]

· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in
order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents
recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl
must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still
obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no
compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very
different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that
(1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2)
it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt
from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all
[the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit
conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:

· "Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which
the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations
that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the
bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change
in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]

· "The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into
slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-
husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. … Such an
interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the
“guiding principles” for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights,
too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]
· "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status
is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her
from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in
order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. …The Torah
stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an
additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

3. The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a 'concubine'.
Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the
inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a
state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their
offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the
owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife status (in the ANE).

· "In Assyria a man could raise a concubine to the status of a wife." [OT:DLAM, 136]

· "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter
to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male
slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If
he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's
wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]
· "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived
up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the
buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if
the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or
clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]

· "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or
concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's
behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but
according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a
major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity.
Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question
concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas,
seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These
specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security
for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]

· "Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold
by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that
this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce
terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was concubinage. The regulation safeguards
the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she
proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own
concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has
failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to
redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite,
and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite
law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

[Note: one of the two main purposes of concubinage (the other being to provide an heir in a barren
marriage)--an economically very expensive expedient in the ancient world--was to keep the family from
falling below 'critical mass'. The mortality rate was so high ("as many as one in two children did not
survive to the age of five" [OT:FAI:19]), and the labor demand was so high, that additional means of
renewal (other than just the single-wife of the ideal) were sometimes necessary:

· "Those labor requirements in early Israel were especially intense for several reasons: cropping
patterns, with their seasonal demands for many hands to do certain sowing or harvesting tasks within a
relatively short window of environmental opportunity; sporadic needs for terrace maintenance and land
clearing; a constant set of time-consuming daily procedures for tending to livestock, securing water, and
transforming food products to comestibles. The number of persons needed for the family, as the
primary, self-sufficient economic unit, to perform the myriad tasks in a regime with critical labor-
intensive periods was greater than a nuclear family could supply. Extended or compound families were
essential for survival." [OT:FAI, 18]

· "Concubines are women without dowry who include among their duties providing children to the
family. Childbearing was an important function in the ancient world, where survival of the family, and
often survival at all, was tenuous at best. " [BBC, at Gen 35.21ff]
· " A concubine was a true wife, though of secondary rank. This is indicated, for example, by the
references to a concubine’s “husband” (Jud 19:3), the “father-in-law” (Jud 19:4), “son-in-law” (Jud 19:5).
Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not cohabit with a man unless married to him. The
institution itself is an offshoot of polygamy." [TWOT, s.v. concubine/pilgsh]

4. This focus on the wife-aspect of this process leads commentators to understand this passage to be
about protections for the woman, over and above the protections afforded a male slave, and there were
many 'exit clauses' for the woman--to full family membership, or to freedom:

· "When a daughter was sold into slavery by her father, this was intended both as a payment of debt
and as a way of obtaining a husband for her without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the
sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with food, clothing and
marital rights. [BBC, Exodus]

· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary
wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more
advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the
wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her
master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (cf. Lev. 25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex.
21:8); she could also redeem herself. If she married her master’s son she was to be given family status
(v. 9). If the master married someone else he was required to provide his servant with three essentials:
food, clothing, and shelter. [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
· "The expectation of seventh-year release was denied to women... Though an owner may be
unhappy with a female slave he has bought for himself, he is to permit her to be freed by the payment
of a price, apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his own family,
perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her, he has no right to sell her to “a
strange family”, a family unknown to her, perhaps even one outside the covenant community of Israel. If
he keeps her within his own family, yet takes another woman as his own wife or concubine, he is not to
deny her the basic rights which his purchase of her for himself guaranteed in the first place. … If the
owner refuses to provide the female slave with these fundamental rights, he waives his claim of
possession, and she is free to go her own way. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it
very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore
with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied
with the union. Mendelsohn has cited Nuzian sale contracts which almost exactly parallel the Exodus
provisions. Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slavebride are given in
sequence to the “guiding principles” for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had
special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]

· "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or
concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's
behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but
according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a
major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity.
Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question
concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas,
seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These
specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security
for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]

· "The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat
her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation
to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave
woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood,
she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner,
that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her
rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

· "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status
is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her
from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in
order to ensure her future security. … The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free
woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. ."
[JPStorah, Ex 21]

· "The 'amah of' the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:7-10) is an Israelite woman sold for this status
by her father. If the buyer has designated her for his son, she is treated like any other daughter in-law,
becomes a wife, and is not freed in the seventh year. If the man for whom she was acquired as a wife
did not want her, he could "redeem her" to another family but he could not sell her, for his not marrying
her was considered a betrayal. If he married another woman, he had to keep providing for his 'amah; if
not, she would go free. " [HI:HALOT:2:1008]
· "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter
to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male
slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If
he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's
wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]

· "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived
up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the
buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, these she was to treated as a daughter. And
if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food,
or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]

So, this passage is hardly 'negative': it provides an escape from poverty for a young woman, security and
protection (and upward social mobility) in the house of a better place, and all the basic legal rights of a
wife.

Now, let's turn to the odd looking 'post-release' passage, dig into the situation/background, and look at
the different scenarios…
Case 1: Single in, Single during, Single out. No issues here. The master supported the servant during the
tenure with room, board, medical care, etc; and the servant provided labor in exchange for this stability,
provision, and legal protection. Economic exchange transaction.

Case 2: Married in, Married during, Married out (with or without kids). Seems to be a bit economically
burdensome on the master/owner, especially if it was a large family that drove the Hebrew to have to
sell himself! There is no stipulation that the wife/kids have to be 'servants too', yet the master has to
feed, clothe, house, provide medical care, etc for them out of this own pocket during their tenure ("The
master would have been responsible for the maintenance of the slave's wife and children throughout
the period of his service." [JPStorah, Ex 21]). But this certainly recognizes the importance of emotional
attachments (i.e., the servant and his own family), and supports these values out of the pocket of the
owner. Grace and goodness.

Case 3. Single in, Married during, Single out (with or without kids). This is the one that seems odd at first
glance to us. Let's make some notes:

· The wife is obviously a servant too, since a free woman wouldn’t have to stay behind and the
offspring of free and slave was free in the ANE ("If a slave, either male or female, married a free person,
the children they had together would be free." [OT:DLAM, 118])

· This means that the owner paid for the servant girl himself (at typical prices of at least one-third to
one-half of all the labor output the male slave would have generated in his 6-year tenure), or, if she was
born in the household, then the owner had been paying all her support costs for years and years, with
little economic value--given marriage age was around 12-14 (the support costs being considerably more
than the male slaves output). ("If, however, his wife has married him during his servitude, obviously by
the permission and through the provision of his owner, both the wife and any children born to such a
union must remain with the owner when the “temporary” slave claims his freedom of the seventh year."
[WBC])

· Now, normally, this male servant would have to pay the mohar (bride-price, bride-present) for the
wife, but he obviously doesn’t have such resources in his circumstances. This means one of two things:
(1) the bride-price must be paid after his release; or (2) the marriage is not a 'real' one, but a siring (like
concubines sometimes functioned) to help populate the household.

We know the latter (#2, 'siring only') situations occurred, and typically did NOT generate the
emotional/commitment attachments of a real marriage [probably difficult to generate in a relationship
whose average duration would have been 36 months (half of 6 years), most months of which would
have been spent in pregnancy/nursing ("children")]:

"In the ancient Near East is was a common practice for a master to mate a slave with a foreign
bondwoman solely for the purpose of siring 'house born' slaves. In such instances, no matrimonial or
emotional bond was necessarily involved, and the woman and her offspring remained the property of
the master (e.g., Gen 17.12,13, 23, 27;Lev 22.11; Jer 2.14.; Cf Gen 14.14; 15.3; Eccs 2.7)" [JPStorah, in
loc.]

So, this should not be a serious issue for us.

But, in case emotional bonds WERE created with the wife/kids, there were at least two options open to
the ex-servant:

1. First, he could invoke the clause of 'permanent servitude' and stay forever in that situation (with
security, familiarity, family);

2. Secondly, he could negotiate a marriage/mohar payment and "get" his wife/kids. (Slaves did have
to pay betrothal fees: "… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines.
" [HI:HANEL:1, 632]

This second possibility could take several forms:

1. We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-
servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each).
2. We know that, in the ANE, future services could be accepted by an owner as payment today
("More frequently (than a slave using their property to buy freedom), the manumitted slave was bound
to support the former owner during the latter's lifetime. In Speleers 45, a slave is ceremonially
manumitted and bound by a support clause but is also said to have 'redeemed himself,' which suggests
that his future services were seen as a payment in fact, if not in law." [HI:HANEL:1,384]), so the owner
could allow the family to exit, on the basis of a services 'promissory note'.

3. The post-servant could move out (assuming he had a place to go, obviously), arrange these terms,
and take his wife/kids to himself . [In many cases of 'regular betrothal, the bride-to-be moved in with
the groom's family long before the marriage was consummated, especially if she was in childhood. This
often occurred right after the 'contract' was signed, and since we have already noted both 'promissory
notes' and 'installment plans', this is not implausible an arrangement at all.)

4. Some of the 'lavish gifts' the master was supposed to send him out with at his release (see Deut
15.15, and the discussions above/below) could be used as a/part of a bride-price to get the process
going.

These are just a couple of easily conceivable scenarios, of which there might be more. The community
thrived off healthy relationships and survived because of the fertility associated with them--they would
have had a way to keep vibrant and loving couples together.
So, this case #3 has a couple of different aspects to it, but upon analysis, doesn’t seem as 'odd' as it
appeared at first. There's just too much flexibility in the marriage processes, economic substrate, and
servant institution for this to be a real problem for them (or us).

…………………………………………………………………

§ The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a thief that was too poor to make
restitution for good stolen, and here is was strictly an economic measure:

"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. (Ex
22.3)

Presumably, the 6 year period would be enough to make restitution.

· Treatment: Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were
extreme.

OT: The Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries
around punishment/abuse of servants.
§ There are several general admonitions in the Law against harsh/abusive/oppressive behavior
toward Hebrew servants:

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule
over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has
been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything
you do. (Deut 15.18)

§ In fact, the Law assumes that the situation may be lucrative enough for some servants to decide
to stay with their masters for their lifetime.

"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' (Ex
21.5)

But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is
well off with you, (Deut 15.16)

§ The general scholarly assessment is that this domestic "slavery" was not very atrocious, went way
beyond "property only", and instead created family-like bonds:
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family
and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions.
Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household--there is no indication, for
example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the
later Roman world." [OT:I:101]

"Slave labor was used in domestic service and thus made for a close relationship between master and
servant in everyday life. In spite of the legal status, the slave' position was in practice closer to that of a
filius-familias than to that of a mere chattel." [OT:HLBT:114ff]

"The treatment of chattel slaves indicates that these slaves are considered human beings…"
[OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-
27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the
personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

§ Interestingly, when a servant was to be released at the Sabbath year (without payment of
money!), the master was to send him out with gifts of material possessions!

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year
you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14
Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD
your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

§ ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off--just like the masters.

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or
maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. (Ex 20.9)
"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest
and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed. (Ex 23.12)

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or
maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that
your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt
(Deut 5.13ff)

§ In fact, the servants were supposed to take part in the rejoicing of the cultic "parties" and trips to
Jerusalem (including the big Feasts--Deut 12.11,14):

Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name -- there you are to bring
everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the
choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD. 12 And there rejoice before the LORD your God, you,
your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants... (Deut 12.11f)

Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will
choose -- you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your
towns -- and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. (Deut
12.18)

§ Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very
accountable!

§ If a master beat a slave and the slave died, the master was held accountable under the 'life for life'
clause:
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be
punished (Ex 21.20, NIV)

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be
avenged" (JPS Tanach translation)

"If a man shall strike his slave or his maidservant with the rod and he shall die under his hand, he shall
surely be avenged." (Stone Edition Tanach translation)

§ If a master caused any type of permanent damage to a servant, the servant was given immediate
freedom:

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to
compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let
the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

§ The above prescription is hugely instructive, in comparison to the ANE: In some ANE codes, a
master could literally put out the eyes of his slaves![HI:HANEL, e.g., at Mari, 1:383; at Nuzi, 1:586]. This
represents a MASSIVE departure from 'conventional morality' of the day!

§ And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance
programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a
tooth…(smile). But in the OT, there was a huge "disincentive" to strike one's slave in the face!
[Legitimate community punishments were by rods, on the back. Facial blows were considered culpable.]
The ANE, however, did NOT have the same 'respect' for the face of slaves--besides eye-gouging, they
resorted to branding, cutting of the ears, mutilating the nose, etc-- IN THE LAW CODES!. These practices
are NOT in Israel's law codes, and they are implied to be prohibited by the focus on penalties for striking
the face.

§ And this passage is noted as being 'oddly humanitarian':

"In the case of bodily injury to slaves, whose status does not qualify them for equal compensation, the
owner whose abuse results in the loss of an eye or a tooth is to free that slave, a remarkably
humanitarian provision directed at cruelty and sadism in a slave-owner." [WBC]

§ The law allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20f), apparently under the same
conditions as that for free men:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to
bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around
outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is
completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct
result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since
the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word(s) for property, btw).

§ Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13;
26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same
act/instrument ( flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people
fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--
"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this
occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the
wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual
damage done to the free-person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus,
the 'property' attribute doesn't seem to suggest any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against
a servant. Let's structure out the parallel:

Aspect

Two "Free-brews" (smile)

Master/Slave
Victim:

Freeman

Slave

Perp:

Freeman

Master

Extent:

"Confined to bed"

"cannot get up"

(i.e., Confined to bed)

Bodily Harm:
Wounded to point of needing a 'staff';

Wounded to the point of needing medical attention and 'healing'

[Unspecified, but sounds similar to the other case]

Instrument used:

Stone or fist

Disciplinary rod

(like elders used on criminals; and parents used on sons)

Motive:

"Brawl"

Discipline

Punitive
Compensation:

Loss of time;

Cost of medical attention

(paid in 'money'--'silver')

Loss of time;

Cost of medical attention

(borne 'internally' - 'silver')

If victim dies"

Perp Executed

Perp Executed

It should be obvious that the 'slave' in this case is raised to at least as high a level as is the Free-brew!
[The context actually may raised the slave HIGHER, due to the eye/tooth passage. So [JPStorah], ""The
aggressor must indemnify the victim for loss of income, here called 'idleness', and for medical expenses
as well. This text (about the Freeman) is curiously silent on the law governing the infliction of permanent
injury." It may be only the slave who is protected in the case of permanent injury…?

§ The discipline of free men (and older sons) by the community MIGHT form the backdrop (and
boundary?) for this type of rod-usages. Here are verses to compare with this master/slave discipline:

· When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case,
acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge
shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime
deserves, 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your
brother will be degraded in your eyes. (Deut 25.1-3)

· ”I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of
men, with floggings inflicted by men. (2 Sam 7.14)

· “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him
against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me" (Is 10.5f)

· He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (Prov 13.24)

§ This Exodus passage is very instructive, because it places slaves (both Hebrew and foreign,
apparently) on a legal-protection par with full, free citizens. It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a
slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a
day or so! Notice some of the commentators on this passage:

First, the JPS Torah Commentary [JPStorah, in loc]

"This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the
entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in
social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27. The
underlying issue, as before, is the determination of intent on the part of the assailant at the time the act
was committed.

his slave The final clause of verse 21 seems to indicate that the slave in question is a foreigner.
Otherwise the terminology would be inappropriate, given the conditions under which an Israelite might
become enslaved.

a rod Hebrew shevet, the customary instrument of discipline [2 Sam 7.14 (to the sons of David!); Is
10.5,24; Prov 10.13; 13.24; 23.13-14; 26.3]. The right of a master to discipline his slave within reason is
recognized. But according to rabbinic exegesis, it is restricted to the use of an implement that does not
normally have lethal potentiality, and it may not be applied to a part of the body considered to be
particularly vulnerable.

There and then Literally, "under his hand," in contrast to "a day or two" in verse 21. The direct,
immediate, causal relationship between the master's act and the death of the slave is undisputed. The
master has unlawfully used deadly force, and homicidal intent is assumed.

He must be avenged The master is criminally liable and faces execution, in keeping with the law of
verse…The verb n-k-m is popularly taken to signify "revenge." Actually, it means "to avenge," that is, to
vindicate, or redress, the imbalance of justice. Its use in the Bible is overwhelmingly with God as the
subject, and in such cases it always serves the ends of justice. It is employed in particular in situations in
which normal judicial procedures are not effective or cannot be implemented. It does not focus on the
desire to get even or to retaliate; indeed, Leviticus 19:18 forbids private vengeance.

"Verse 21. Should the beaten slave linger more than a day before succumbing, certain new and
mitigating circumstances arise. The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the
slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of
the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is
given the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is losing his financial investment, the price of the
slave."

Then, [EBCOT]

"The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die
immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day
or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave
with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a
master could treat his slave as he pleased. When this law is considered alongside the law in vv. 26-27,
which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, viz., his pocketbook,
a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus if the
master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment
immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave
immediately, he was tried for capital punishment (vv. 18-19). The aim of this law was not to place the
slave at the master's mercy but to restrict the master's power over him (cf. similar laws in the Code of
Hammurabi 196-97, 200). [EBCOT]

Then, [OT:DictOT5]:
"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-
27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the
personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:

1. This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.

2. This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.

3. This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.

4. This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:

5. It applies primarily to the foreigner.

6. The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was
made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)

7. It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights.

§ Although the matter under discussion is Hebrew servitude, one verse about foreign slaves might
also be illustrative of the heart of YHWH in this issue of treatment:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you
wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

This passage refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their
servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done! (We will come
back to this amazing verse, but note here that it is in abject disagreement with all other ANE codes:

"According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered
if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be take advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision
is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to
Israel's own history of slaves." [HI:HANEL:2:1006]

· Treatment: As a matter of course, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not
participate in many of the 'benefits' of the owners' fortunes.

OT: We have already seen how servants were supposed to be given liberal gifts from the possessions of
their masters upon release (Deut 15.13) "according to the blessing of the Lord". We have also seen
above how they were expected to celebrate and rejoice with the household during the festivals of
YHWH.

The Rabbinic lore highlights how this was supposed to play out (B. Kid 22a):
"Out masters taught: 'Since he has fared well with there'--'with thee' in food; 'with thee' in drink. For
you may not eat fine bread while he eats coarse bread. You may not drink aged wine while he drinks
new wine. You may not sleep on soft bedding while he sleeps on straw. Hence the saying: When a man
buys a Hebrew slave, it is as though he had bought himself a master."

But one interesting verse highlights the apparent solidarity of a servant with the family household:

"`No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired
worker eat it. 11 But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave
may eat his food. (Lev 22.10)

Also, we have already cited sources pointing out that almost all servitude in this class was domestic--
they lived IN the house with the master and family. They did NOT have separate quarters, as the vast
majority in the New World context did:

"However, throughout the entire history of Israel and Judah as well as of all other countries of the ANE,
slave labor did not play a decisive role in agriculture and it was used to a very limited extent compared
to the labor provided by small landholders. As the Bible indicates, the artisan trades were also in the
hands of free persons (1 Chr 4:14, 23; Jer 37:21; Neh 3:8). For this reason, there existed no artisan
workshops based on slave labor and the decisive role in the handicraft industries was played by free
labor, especially in the area of manufacture depending upon skills. Thus, there was no predominance of
slave labor in any branch of economy, and it was used primarily for household tasks requiring neither
skill nor extensive supervision, i.e., in jobs where slaves could be employed all the year round, not those
which were seasonal in character." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Old Testament']

· Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a
bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were
no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the
occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.
OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and
anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT
preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.

§ Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of
'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable
good'.

§ Both the land and Hebrew servants belonged to God--always!

"`The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my
tenants. (Lev 25.23)

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work
as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for
you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his
own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I
brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. (Lev 25.39)

§ Accordingly, tenants and masters were held accountable to God for treatment of the Land and the
people. In the case of the Land, there were numerous prescriptions by God for them; in the case of
servants, there were likewise guidelines and limitations upon practice.
§ 'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including
labor):

"`If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other.
15 You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is
to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many,
you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what
he is really selling you is the number of crops. (Lev 25.14)

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to
bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around
outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is
completely healed. (Ex 21.18)

49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may
redeem himself. 50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year
of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of
years. 51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him.
52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption
accordingly. 53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; (Lev 25.49ff)

§ As a 'managed, but not owned' human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered
'disposable, non-human goods'. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally
accountable for how they were treated.

§ We have already noted that abuse leading to death or permanent injury was punishable under
law for the master.
§ In the case of a servant's voluntary choice for lifetime service, the local courts were required to
witness the transaction ("But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do
not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. " Ex 21.5)

§ That the servant still had full agent status in servitude is obvious from the fact that the servant
could "buy himself back" from the master (i.e. "redeem" himself):

An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem
himself. (Lev 25.49)

§ This right of self-redemption is not unique to Israel, but occurred elsewhere in the ANE:

At Emar: "Slaves might redeem themselves out of their peculium." [HI:HANEL:1,644]

"Another Assyrian document from ca. 1115 records that a slave redeemed himself from slavery for 1
mina 55 shekels of silver." [ABD, s.v. 'Slavery, Ancient Near East']

§ In the judicially difficult case of the 'serial goring' animal (Ex 21.32ff), the optional ransom value
for a dead servant is fixed at a very high rate, compared to even children (cf. redemption values in Lev
27). If the ransom were not offered by the bereaved family/master, or if the ransom price were not paid
by the ox-owner, then the ox-owner would be killed for a capital offense. This demonstrates rather
vividly the human and moral status of the servant.
§ We might also note that in the case of this goring animal, the value of the life of the slave was
placed on a par with freepersons. This can be seen in two ways: (1) that the ox was stoned--not
slaughtered; and (2) that the price was equivalent to ANE aristocracy:

(1) "The killer ox is not destroyed solely because it is dangerous. This is clear from the fact that it is not
destroyed when the victim is another ox and from the prescribed mode of destruction--not ordinary
slaughter but stoning. The execution of the ox was carried out in the presence, and with the
participation, of the entire community--implying that the killing of a human being is a source of mass
pollution and that the proceedings had an expiatory function…The sanctity of human life is such as to
make bloodshed the consummate offense, one viewed with unspeakable horror…In the law of the
Torah, the stoning of the ox (in the case of the slave) means that it was regarded as having incurred
bloodguilt, just as it had for killing a free person." [JPStorah, in loc]

(2)"This (30 shekels) is the evaluation, for the purposes of vows, of a woman between the ages of
twenty and sixty, as given in Leviticus 27:4. It is also the fine imposed by Hammurabi's laws (par 251) on
the owner of an ox that gored to death a member of the aristocracy. The same laws (par 252) impose
only twenty shekels if the victim was the aristocrat's slave." [JPStorah, in loc.]

§ We have seen above that the elders (addressed by Moses in Lev 25.53) were ordered to make
sure owners did not mistreat Hebrew semi-servants:

He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule
over him ruthlessly.

· Legal Status: Slaves could not have their own property--all they had belonged to their 'owner'.
OT:Hebrew servants obviously could have their own property.

§ The purchase price for their servanthood belonged to them (before they used it to buy their
freedom and/or their land back).

§ They could prosper and buy their own freedom (above).

§ They maintained any family and property that they had before they entered into the servant
arrangement.

We don’t have a lot of data on this, but we do have some additional data that indicates that servants
could accumulate property:

"Naturally, there were a certain number of privileged slaves. Thus, according to 2 Samuel (19:17), Ziba, a
slave of Saul’s family, had fifteen sons and twenty slaves. To judge from Leviticus (25:47–50), some
slaves of Hebrew origin could have raised the means in order to purchase their freedom." [ABD, s.v.
"Slavery, Old Testament"]

· Exit: Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the
arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no
property went with the freedman.

OT: One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how 'easy' it was to get free!
(There might be a message in there about God's attitude toward it, smile).
§ Freedom could be bought by relatives (Lev 25.49) [This demonstrates that Garnsey's 'no kinship
relations' criteria for REAL slavery did not exist in Israel.]

§ The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not (Lev
25.49)

§ Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free--without ANY
payment of money to the master:

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free,
without paying anything. (Ex 21.2; Deut 15.12)

§ Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is
actually labeled as 'to compensate', implying rights/duties/debt):

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to
compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let
the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26)

§ When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to
send them out with liberal gifts--to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again (Deut 15.13)
Summary: It should be QUITE CLEAR from the above, that the institution in the Mosaic law involving
voluntary, fixed-term, flexible, and protected servant-laborer roles was unlike "western", chattel labor in
almost ALL RESPECTS. To label it as 'slavery', except in the most general/metaphorical sense of the word,
is significantly inappropriate. God's intent in Levitus 25.39f of protecting their status and self-image was
VERY clear: ""`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not
make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you."

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".

In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two
other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much
material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the
nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one,
that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within
the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23),
such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own
territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through
covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be
put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of
conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and
destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special
rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).
We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more
'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from
the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary
residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign
nations. They were:

· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT
include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this
extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have
slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not
be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]

· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien
would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-
release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you
CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).

· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood
and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your
water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined
to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and
actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes
poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the
right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.

· It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew
servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to
highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:

§ Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of
your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD
your God. (Deut 14.21)

§ Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is
to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require
payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been
proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother
owes you. (Deut 15.1-3)
§ Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else
that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)

This shows that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than international
practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of the assembly of Israel and
participate in the covenant blessings, so this is not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such
standard cultural priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they are like
a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.

Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign
slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).

· The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past
slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be
spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife.
While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine),
the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No
mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way
of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]

· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that
they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only
an 'option'.

It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day
(e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and
protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.
But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed
humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…

Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to
brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions
of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most
remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb)
aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do
themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like
Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should
have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that
the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially
vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even
Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the
nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any
residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration
into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family
and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions.
Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to
family bonds)" [OT:I:101]
4. The Great Escape Clause…?

Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you
wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)

Most commentators understand this to be a reference to non-extradition of a foreign, runaway slave.

That is, a slave in another country runs away and flees to Israel. Israel, under this verse and under this
understanding, has to allow the runaway to live freely in the land (as a sanctuary), and cannot extradite
him/her to their former master. Commentators also note that this is in abject contradiction to ANE and
international law of the time:

· "In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations, slaves who flee their owners and
come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be
allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16)."[OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

· "Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near
Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states
to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in
the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel." [JPStorah, in
loc.]

Now, this understanding could be right, and this restrictive an application (i.e., foreigners immigrating
to Israel) is argued on the basis of the scope of the allowance ("whatever town"), but it is not clear from
the passage that it is to be taken so restrictively. Nor is the (translation supplied) 'come to Israel' very
obvious from the text.
If the passage is NOT this restrictive, then what we have here is an escape-clause that says: "if you--
Hebrew or foreigner-- run away from a master, as long as you stay within Israel, you are free, and no
one can return you to him/her."

This is exactly the understanding given in [HI:HANEL:2,1006]:

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be
returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be
taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the
surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of
turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

Think about this conclusion for a moment…Slavery was meant to serve the poor (and thereby,
contribute to community strength and health). If a master/slave relationship turns destructive, the value
is not being achieved, and it is better for the community for the relationship to dissolve. This was NOT
left in the hands of the elite to decide, through appeals and litigation and hearings etc (!!!), but was
something the slave could initiate himself/herself. There was a cost--dislocation--but this would have
been a tradeoff-driven decision anyway.

If HI:HANEL is correct, then NO situation of 'true' slavery was exempt, and the foreigner (and Israelite
alike, presumably) could live in freedom (but without the economic support substrate many sought in
voluntary slavery). I would guess, however, that this would have been of little interest to most Hebrew
debt-slaves, since they had a time-release clause already, and since they would want the local
community reinstatement process to come to closure--for reasons of community respect, status, and
sense of self-worth.

And, since this clause is based on Israel's experience in Egypt, it probably resonated with the elders of
communities, and therefore had a good chance of being honored.

"It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution"--a Great escape clause?
5. References to slavery in later OT books.

The subsequent references to slavery, semi-slavery, and forced-labor situations all reflect (1) this non-
western character of the arrangements; (2) Israelite tendency to abuse even the well-intentioned
structures of Hebrew servanthood set up in the Law; and (3) a transitional framework that will carry
over into the Greeco-Roman era.

A number of historical situations reflect this:

· The Gibeonite deception of Joshua (Joshua 9).

This is the incident in which the people of the four towns in Canaan (Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth and
Kiriath Jearim. ) deceived Joshua and the Israelites into signing a peace-treaty with them, even though
Israel was NOT supposed to do so. In retaliation for this deception, the Gibeonites were put to 'forced
labor':

but all the leaders answered, "We have given them our oath by the LORD, the God of Israel, and we
cannot touch them now. 20 This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath will not
fall on us for breaking the oath we swore to them." 21 They continued, "Let them live, but let them be
woodcutters and water carriers for the entire community." So the leaders' promise to them was kept. 22
Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, "Why did you deceive us by saying, `We live a long way
from you,' while actually you live near us? 23 You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve
as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God." 24 They answered Joshua, "Your servants
were clearly told how the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land
and to wipe out all its inhabitants from before you. So we feared for our lives because of you, and that is
why we did this. 25 We are now in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right to you." 26 So
Joshua saved them from the Israelites, and they did not kill them. 27 That day he made the Gibeonites
woodcutters and water carriers for the community and for the altar of the LORD at the place the LORD
would choose. (Josh 9.18ff)
Now, the interesting thing about this is that these cities still maintained their individual status, as the
next chapter in which Israel was politically 'forced' to defend them against a Canaanite war-alliance
(chapter 10). They were apparently placed under this conscription/forced-labor arrangement, but this
does not seem to be too abusive in the least.

What I personally find interesting about this, is that commentators often relate the 'curse' formula of
Joshua in this passage to the antediluvian curse of Noah on Canaan:

When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." 26 He also said, "Blessed be the
LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 27 May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave." (Gen 9.24ff)

This curious passage is never referred to later in the bible, unless the situations of the forced-labor of
Joshua and later of Solomon (All the people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and
Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 21 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom
the Israelites could not exterminate -- these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this
day. I Kngs 9.20-21) are oblique references to it.

IF this prophecy of Noah is fulfilled in the conscription arrangements of Joshua and Solomon, then the
'target' of the prophecy is a political arrangement and NOT a class structure (as is sometimes argued
from the passage).

· The anti-king warnings of Samuel.

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And
the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but
they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt
until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but
warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 10 Samuel told
all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the
king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and
horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands
and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make
weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and
cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to
his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and
attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take
for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18
When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not
answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king
over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and
fight our battles." (I Sam 8.6ff)

In this warning speech by Samuel to the straying nation, he points out that the ruling elite will end up
placing forced-labor and conscription services on the nation. Since this is meant to be a deterrent to the
nation, it makes sense that it was seen quite negatively. In other words, forced-labor was NOT an
acceptable state of affairs for the populace.

· The runaway slaves of Shimei

But three years later, two of Shimei's slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath, and Shimei
was told, "Your slaves are in Gath." 40 At this, he saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in
search of his slaves. So Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath. (I Kings 2.38-39)

This is the earliest passage that suggests that slaves (foreign?) were sometimes mistreated to the point
of attempted escape. Since these slaves fled to the Philistine coast for protection, it might be reasonable
to assume that they were NOT Hebrew servants. In any event, the main character of this story--the
master Shimei-was not know for his wholesome attitudes and dealings anyway! (His abuse of King David
is recorded in 2 Samuel 16.), rendering the use of this story as representative as unwarranted.
We have one other piece of data that tends to support this, however: the comment of Nabal concerning
David:

When David's men arrived, they gave Nabal this message in David's name. Then they waited. 10 Nabal
answered David's servants, "Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking
away from their masters these days. (I Sam 25.9)

Although, like the case of Shimei, Nabal is not know for his 'plain dealing' (!, cf. "His name was Nabal and
his wife's name was Abigail. She was an intelligent and beautiful woman, but her husband, a Calebite,
was surly and mean in his dealings. "), such a statement only makes sense if the social context could be
remotely characterized so. This MIGHT mean that a general abuse of the institution (although again it is
unclear if this is the semi-servant role described in the law) was occurring in a higher incidence.

· The forced enslavement of the widow's sons in the Divided Monarchy (2 Kings 4)

The wife of a man from the company of the prophets cried out to Elisha, "Your servant my husband is
dead, and you know that he revered the LORD. But now his creditor is coming to take my two boys as his
slaves." (2 Kings 4.1)

This potential forced enslavement seems to run counter to most of the provisions for the widows in
Israel, and as such would not be in the spirit of the Law in the least! (A similar situation occurs in Neh
5.5, where the Israelites are being economically forced to sell their sons and daughters to simply
maintain their living and homestead.)

· The attempted enslavement of 200,000 Judeans! (2 Chrn 28.8-15).

The Israelites took captive from their kinsmen two hundred thousand wives, sons and daughters. They
also took a great deal of plunder, which they carried back to Samaria. 9 But a prophet of the LORD
named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria. He said to
them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand.
But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven. 10 And now you intend to make the
men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD
your God? 11 Now listen to me! Send back your fellow countrymen you have taken as prisoners, for the
LORD's fierce anger rests on you." 12 Then some of the leaders in Ephraim -- Azariah son of Jehohanan,
Berekiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai -- confronted those
who were arriving from the war. 13 "You must not bring those prisoners here," they said, "or we will be
guilty before the LORD. Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his
fierce anger rests on Israel." 14 So the soldiers gave up the prisoners and plunder in the presence of the
officials and all the assembly. 15 The men designated by name took the prisoners, and from the plunder
they clothed all who were naked. They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and
healing balm. All those who were weak they put on donkeys. So they took them back to their fellow
countrymen at Jericho, the City of Palms, and returned to Samaria.

In this passage we see a victorious Northern Kingdom of Israel taking "war captives" of the Southern
Kindgom of Judah. The prophet speaks for God and specifically condemns the practice.

· The abuse of the poor by the elite in the Southern Kingdom (Amos)

Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, 5 saying, "When will the
New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" --
skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales, 6 buying the poor with
silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. (Amos 8.4ff)

One can see here that the ruling elite had begun to exploit and abuse the poor--just another example of
how we tend to take acceptable structures and exploit them for selfish ends. No exception here. The
fact that the prophets consistently rebuke these oppressive practices should indicate that God NEVER
intended them for His people at all!
· The Fiasco of Jeremiah 34!

This is one of the saddest stories in the bible--a story of hope and freedom, dashed by the greed of
men.

The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people
in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. 9 Everyone was to free his Hebrew slaves, both male
and female; no one was to hold a fellow Jew in bondage. 10 So all the officials and people who entered
into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in
bondage. They agreed, and set them free. 11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the
slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13
"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought
them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 `Every seventh year each of you must free any
fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.'
Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did
what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant
before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my
name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished.
You have forced them to become your slaves again. 17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have
not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim
`freedom' for you, declares the LORD -- `freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make
you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. 18 The men who have violated my covenant and have
not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and
then walked between its pieces. 19 The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests
and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf, 20 I will hand over to their
enemies who seek their lives. Their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts
of the earth. (Jer 34)

This was the major point in the revival under Zedekiah (with the Babylonian army outside the door!),
and illustrates both (1) God's intent for freedom and (2) Israel's failure to obey this FROM THE START.
This incident was even solemnized by another covenant ceremony! Needless to say, God's response is
quite clear in this passage, and his attitude toward permanent servitude is obvious.
· The Post-Exilic Political Situation (Ezra, Neh)

9 Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the
sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its
ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. (Ez 9.9)

"But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our forefathers so they could eat its fruit and
the other good things it produces. 37 Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you
have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress.
(Neh 9.36-37)

In this case, the term 'slavery' is being used more loosely, as a national-political term. Israel as a group
was under the authority of the Persian government. As a captive nation, they were subservient, but this
certainly was a far cry from the individualistic, western-style slavery that we are discussing.

What is interesting is that this type of 'group captivity' has a distinct analogue in what Judea will have
under the Roman government during NT times, as well as the situation in which the Church will find
itself in the same timeframe.

In other words, Israel would not have been 'free' to FULLY practice the Mosaic law under Persian rule.
Stipulations about land redemption, debt cancellation, sacrificial tithes, for example, would not be
necessarily allowed by the ruling government (although Persia is generally noted for its tolerance of
captive cultures). Similarly, in 1st century Judea, we have a Roman captive state, attempting to maintain
a large degree of cultural independence, but still struggling with the invasive and often oppressive
Roman restrictions. (The NT church will find itself 'captive' to this same Roman world, and will face
similar constraints in practicing what it knows life in the New Creation will be like.)

· The 'Status' associated with Servanthood.

 In the OT, the 'status' associated with the role of servant was directly proportional to the status of the
"master" (as it is today, in more traditional cultures). For example, the highest title of importance that
could be given to a human by God was that of 'my servant'. It is given to Abraham (Gen 26.24), Moses
(Num 12.7), Caleb (Num 14.24), David (2 Sam 3.18), Eliakim (Is 22.20), the Messiah (Is 42.1,et.al.),
Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25.9!), Zerubbabel (Hag 2.23), and the prophets (2 Kings 9.7; 17.13, et. al).

And, 'servant' could be used of virtually ANY subordinate (in the sense of authority) or anyone seeking
something from a more powerful figure, as some of the following examples might indicate:

He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be
brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to
eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way -- now that you have come to your servant." (Gen
18, Abraham to YHWH)

Then Esau looked up and saw the women and children. "Who are these with you?" he asked. Jacob
answered, "They are the children God has graciously given your servant." (Gen 33, Jacob to his brother
Esau)

Then Judah went up to him and said: "Please, my lord, let your servant speak a word to my lord. Do not
be angry with your servant, though you are equal to Pharaoh himself. (Gen 44, Judah to his disguised
and powerful younger brother Joseph)

"May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my lord," she said. "You have given me comfort and have
spoken kindly to your servant -- though I do not have the standing of one of your servant girls." (Ruth 2,
Ruth to Boaz)

Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and
grief." (I Sam 1, Hannah to the priest Eli)
David said to Saul, "Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight
him." (I Sam 17, David to King Saul)

Ahimelech answered the king, "Who of all your servants is as loyal as David, the king's son-in-law,
captain of your bodyguard and highly respected in your household? 15 Was that day the first time I
inquired of God for him? Of course not! Let not the king accuse your servant or any of his father's family,
for your servant knows nothing at all about this whole affair." (I Sam 22, a priest to king Saul)

Then David said to Achish, "If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in one of the
country towns, that I may live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?" (I Sam 27,
a fugitive David to a Philistine King)

Now there was a servant of Saul's household named Ziba. They called him to appear before David, and
the king said to him, "Are you Ziba?" "Your servant," he replied. 3 The king asked, "Is there no one still
left of the house of Saul to whom I can show God's kindness?" (2 Sam 9, Saul's servant Ziba to King
David)

Absalom went to the king and said, "Your servant has had shearers come. Will the king and his officials
please join me?" (2 Sam 13, Absalom to his father King David)

Then Naaman and all his attendants went back to the man of God. He stood before him and said, "Now I
know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel. Please accept now a gift from your servant."
(2 Kings 5, Naaman the syrian military commander to Elisha the prophet).

Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, "I am your servant and vassal. Come up
and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me." 8 And
Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace
and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria. 9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and
capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death. (2 Kings 16, the king of the
Northern kingdom to the king of Assyria)
The point of these examples is to show that the term 'servant' could refer to kings, military leaders,
patriarchs, priests, servants, and the general populace. In general parlance, it merely reflected a relative
(and sometimes temporary) position of authority or influence.

· Slavery as a 'judgment' on Tyre (Joel 3) There is one passage in which YHWH indicates his
abhorrence of slave-trading, and actually uses it as a judgment on a nation (along the lines of 'what you
reap, you sow' and 'eye for eye')

`Now what have you against me, O Tyre and Sidon and all you regions of Philistia? Are you repaying me
for something I have done? If you are paying me back, I will swiftly and speedily return on your own
heads what you have done. 5 For you took my silver and my gold and carried off my finest treasures to
your temples. 6 You sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks, that you might send them far
from their homeland. 7 `See, I am going to rouse them out of the places to which you sold them, and I
will return on your own heads what you have done. 8 I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of
Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away.` The LORD has spoken. (Joel 3.4-8).

This passage shows the divine displeasure over foreign capture of Israelites for slave trade, and of the
'repay in kind' motif of judgment concerning those nations who mistreated Israel (cf. I will bless those
who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; , Gen 12.3).

As such, it clearly shows God's displeasure toward forced servitude . (Unlike the Hebrews, the
Phonenicans DID practice 'chattel slavery'.)

These sample passages from the OT should clearly indicate that God was NEVER in favor of 'chattel'
slavery, and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor. His careful
regulation of the institution (e.g. "forced" freedom at 6 years) shows how concerned He was about
abuses. And the abuses DID surface in the nation of Israel, as the above situations indicate.
It might be instructive to remind the reader again of how different this is from New World Slavery. A
generic, scholarly statement of this would be:

"Naturally there were the usual social distinctions, e.g., “master” and “servant,” but even servitude for
the Hebrews was very different from the slavery elsewhere in the ancient Near East or from modern
concepts of slavery". [ISBE, s.v. “Law in the OT”]

But a more vivid way of seeing this would be to contrast real Israeli/Hebrew possibilities with their
analogies in New World slavery. Consider this statement of possible slave/master relations in OT Israel:

"In the absence of legal heirs, his master sometimes appointed him (a slave) as his successor (Gen 15:3).
Where the master had only daughters, he could perpetuate his name by giving one of them to the slave
and adopting him as a son (1 Chron 2:34; b.Pesahim 113a)."[OT:HLBT:115]

Now, take the phase "In the absence of legal heirs, his master sometimes appointed him as his
successor". Try to visualize this scenario in light of what you think Old South slavery was like: is it even
remotely conceivable that a wealthy, traditional Plantation owner--with a wife, daughters, brothers, but
no sons--would take one of his slaves, write him into his Will, and bequest the entire plantation (and the
future welfare of his remaining family!) to him?!! In the Old Testament, it happened; in the Old South--?

Try this one, too, of "Where the master had only daughters, he could perpetuate his name by giving one
of them to the slave and adopting him as a son". Try to visualize that one: the wealthy, spotless,
traditional Plantation owner -- with daughters but no sons--adopting one of the slaves as a son, and
giving one of his daughters to the slave in marriage?!! In the Old Testament, it happened; in the Old
South--?

No, it is entirely inappropriate and inaccurate to map the New World slavery 'social malignancy' onto
the ANE servitude systems, and especially off-base to map it onto the biblical law codes, OT ethics, and
the heart of Israel's God.

……………………………………………………
Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel slavery, and indeed, we
have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of
all men and women within the covenant community ruled by Him.

……………………………………………………………..

Pushback: "Well, Glenn, I think I can agree that this system was certainly different/better than New
World slavery, and in several areas, such a non-extradition policy, much better than ANE slavery, but
that only means its comparatively better. It's good from a human standpoint, but you have to admit its
not perfect-enough-to-be-from-a-god. I would expect a real God could have done much better, and
precluded ANY type of slavery-dependency arrangements (or whatever you want to call it).

Well, this actually runs up against a philosophical problem known as 'supererogation'. It’s a common
scenario one considers: "given some situation X, couldn't God have improved it incrementally by at least
1% more? And if He could and didn't, doesn’t this say something negative about God?" The
supererogation problem arises in such an arguement when it becomes obvious that that statement may
be too vacuous/vague to stand as an argument. For example, if X humans are good (in the biblical
system), can't God improve the universe incrementally by making just one more person (one more
instance of goodness), giving an even better X+1 persons? And then, if X+1 persons are good, couldn't
He make X+2, etc, etc, etc…you see the problem? Some goodness-sets are not bounded in themselves
but only by other constraints (e.g., resources to sustain population, overcrowding psychological
problems). But, one might ask, why can't God also make the Earth bigger, and make the resources more
abundant? He could, and then the infinite regress would continue--increase the population by 10%
more, inflate the earth by 10% more, increase the natural resources by 10%…and on and on and on and
on…
Philosophers know that such arguments are too questionable/slippery to work either positively (e.g.,
God, who already made a lot of people, could have made one more person but didn’t--therefore He is
not really interested in maximum goodness), or negatively (e.g., God, who already prevents a lot of
crime, could have prevented one more crime but didn't--therefore He is not really interested in
minimizing evil). These arguments don’t work because they do not have a 'context' in which to bound
the infinite regress.

Instead, discussions focus more on notions of 'constrained optimality' or 'best-of-all-possible-worlds".

Such notions presume some given situation, with some given boundary principles. For a whimsical
example, God could, upon each sale of a person into slavery, turn that person into a butterfly so they
can fly off in freedom. Or, God could, upon each sale of a person into slavery, kill the purchaser with
some horrible death (or turn them into a frog). But real-world discussions have to operate on the basis
of the givens (e.g., poverty occurs, dependency is a familiar part of life--given the parenting process,
some individuals have/retain more resources or skills than others), and then ask--"what is the best way
to solve for all the simultaneous constraints?" One hopes that the solution is 'aimed high' (e.g., provision
& protection for those who need it, escape and exit for those who need that, flexibility in the
arrangements, emphasis on human worth in ALL "transactions" and resultant states, prescribed
tenderness for clients and feedback mechanisms for the patrons, community benefits instead of
corrosiveness because of the institution, etc), so that the inevitable failures of us humans will yield a 'net
higher' result that we would have achieved shooting for something incrementally better.

So, its not that easy to say that what we have in the OT is NOT the 'perfect-enough' solution to the
multiple-variable problem, because of the constraints of multiple value targets, and multiple levels of
sensitivity of the human heart to others, and the different levels of selfishness and avarice in human
society. If a solution set--again, given the situation of that history and the status of the participants--is
(1) significantly better than all historical alternatives, and (2) still upholds ethical ideals which would
clearly be present in any superior-enough-to-be-from-God system, and (2) cannot be significantly
improved by systemic changes (theoretically)--and these proposed improvements could be 'tested' to
see what side-effects might be co-generated [the cure being worse than the disease, or ecosystem
'tweaking' which throws the system into a worse state], then one would have to come up with a real
data-advancing argument (and not just a supposition--"SURELY a perfect God could improve it?") to
make this into a real argument.
And, it is irrelevant to the objection/discussion here to argue that a perfect God would have made a
different situation (as a way to preclude the problems addressed in the biblical servitude laws). To argue
that God should not have allowed poverty, war, misfortune, locusts, predators, etc is an altogether
different argument than our subject of slavery. As such, as much merit as that argument could have, and
as much attention as it deserves (I have tons of pages on the Tank devoted to the various forms of that
question), it is irrelevant to our question here: "given the situation/context, is OT slavery legislation
below par for a good-hearted and omni-competent God?" Without (a) a clear description of what God
should have done differently in this given context, (b) a strong defense that this proposed set of
operations is 'worthy of a deity', and (c) some evidence/argument that these alternative approaches
would have not have produced worse problems somewhere in the overall system, then the argument
that "God could have done better" is speculation at best, and meaningless at worse (under the
supererogation problem).

………………………………………………………………..

Pushback: "We'll that's a lofty, Pollyanna view of the situation--the reality would have been quite
different than this 'easy view' of slavery, Glenn. In spite of your arguments this situation would still have
been true: Imagine a girl born to a gentile slave. By Jewish law, she is never freed, may be raped at the
master's whim until she becomes engaged (you didn’t even discuss the slave-rape law of Lev 19!!), may
be beaten regularly as long as the master is careful around the head, and may be sold -- thereby
shattering the slave family when it suits the master."

Well, let's look at your scenario and see how realistic it is, for the biblical world…
"imagine a girl born to a gentile slave": This could arise in two different circumstances: (1) the slave is a
concubine of the 'owner' or the owner's son, which would make the girl free [but not in the official line
of inheritance--remember the data about the difference between concubines and 'regular' wives]; or (2)
the slave is a wife of another slave (male) in the household. In this latter case, the owner has all the
financial, medical, legal, and training responsibility for the child indefinitely.

"By Jewish law, she is never freed": This is not actually true, on at least three counts: (1) she could,
should the situation be intolerable, simply run away and seek asylum elsewhere in Israel (as HI:HANEL
noted earlier, this essentially made this relationship 'voluntary'); (2) Jewish law only said that Israelites
COULD maintain a master-slave relationship past the 7-year mark/Jubilee mark for non-Israelites--it did
NOT say that it was automatic, necessary, free, expected, or 'standard'; and (3) there is simply no reason
to believe that an owner could not "marry her off" into marriage-based freedom (just as the Hebrew
fathers did), should times get hard or it make overall sense to do so. It is simply unwarranted to state
that 'she is never freed'. They might always seek the shelter and security of such a household, but there
are no restrictions in Jewish law upon freeing ANYONE. The only restrictions extant are that Jewish
servants MUST BE freed periodically. There are no statements mandating 'perpetual Gentile slavery' at
all!

"may be raped at the master's whim until she becomes engaged": I can see how this might have been
done under New World slavery, but this is a serious misunderstanding of the social realities of the
ANE/Biblical world, on several counts. (1) If this girl were EVER to be engaged to someone, her virginity
had to be demonstrable! If the owner EVER wanted to the 'free of the economic responsibility' for her--
for good reasons or greedy reasons-- he had better protect her virginity flawlessly. (2) There were HUGE
marital complications between regular wives and concubines--and not just about inheritance! The
rivalries described in the bible between Rachel and Leah, the prohibitions about marrying a woman and
her sister, the problems between Sarah and Hagar, and the rivalry/taunting of Hannah all illustrate the
realities of inter-family conflict over sexual 'exclusivity' and/or 'preference' of one wife over/by the
husband. This provides a strong argument against some 'accepted practice' of sex between a male
owner and a girl slave (assuming the master was married). (3) one of the earliest points of visibility into
this possibility gives us indication that the practice was quite the opposite: Sarah had to 'give' the
Egyptian servant Hagar to Abraham, before he could have sex with her (Similarly with Rachel and Leah's
female servants)--if the 'master' could have raped all he wanted, this recorded practice makes no real
sense; (4) Households struggled to survive in that world--everybody had to pull together. There was
simply not much room for animosity, subterfuge, abuse, and/or 'sabotage'. Ancient, small, households
simply did not have enough "excess resources" with which to make up for the "lost productivity" which
historically has been entailed in slave-abuse. (5) Societies (especially many ancient ones) have strong
honor/shame value structures, and the culture orients almost everything in support of those structures.
Honor is good; shame is bad--and both exists on spectra. This is true in the biblical world, as well as in
the ANE. Rape was considered a crime throughout the ANE, which varied in consequences from capital
punishment (e.g, stoning an adulterer), vicarious punishment (not in the bible, but elsewhere in the ANE
a man who raped someone else's wife had to give HIS wife to the offended husband for HIM to
rape/abuse!!!), down to simple fines and religious requirements. But in all cases it was seen as
'shameful' and NOT as something "neutral" and especially not something "honorable". Even without
some explicit penalty in the law codes, even "small" instances of sexual violation would have been (a)
easily known!; and (b) a source of lowered honor-status for the perp. The way that social values exist on
spectral lines (and not simply "yes" and "no" bifurcations) argues that some shame was attached to
even 'smaller', less community-destructive acts such as slave-rape.

This latter point, btw, can be seen in the ethical literature of pre-NT Israel. Good treatment of servants is
listed by Job in 31.13ff as one of his "good points" (illustrating the honor attached to righteous
treatment of servants): "

“If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves, when they brought a complaint against me;

14 what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?

15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Hartley notes:

"Job contends that he has treated his slaves fairly and kindly. He insists that he has never refused to
listen to a just complaint from either his male or his female slaves, including a complaint against himself.
He has accepted the responsibility of treating his slaves justly as a God-given obligation, convinced that
in the time of judgment God, either as a judge or a witness, will rise (qum) to their defense…" [NICOTT,
in loc.]

Later ethical writers hold this same point:

"Ethical writings of the period view this sexual exploitation of a defenseless maidservant as a lurking
danger. In his essay on women to be avoided, Ben Sira warns: "(Take heed, sons, … and be warned
against) having any relations with your maidservant." (41.22). Hillel supposedly said, 'the more
maidservants, the more lewdness,' (mAbot 2.7). And a parable tells of 'a royal prince who sinned with a
s slave-girl, and the king on learning of it expelled him from courth' (Gen R. 15.7, p. 140 ed Theodor-
Albeck); thus the prince's action was disapproved of not only by his father but the authors of the
source." [WS:JWGRP, 206]

The Sirach passage is very clear: "(Be ashamed…) of meddling with his servant-girl--and do not approach
her bed" [NRSV]

...............................................................
Now, let me interject a practical/cynical note about 'ethics':

Ethics has a social 'coercion' mechanism surrounding it. That is, if I disregard the 'ethics', then someone
(the violated) might "de-ethics" me back! In the ANE, this was KNOWN to apply in 'slave relations'. A
thousand years before our Mosaic law, ANE literature warned others about sex-with-slaves! So, in the
Advice from a Father to His Son, the text advises thus: "Do not have sexual intercourse with your slave
girl, she will call you 'Traitor'" [OT:RIAM:113, Bottero]. The point is clear: the slave girl has the reprisal
weapon of falsely accusing the master of rebellion against the magistrate! Who else could know what is
really going on inside the household, eh?! [This factor becomes VERY powerful in Roman times, and has
always been powerful under paranoid rulers.] This is yet another 'contraint' on owner/master behavior.
Okay, back to the more 'high moral' considerations...

............................................................

And (6) The case of children is even more strictly dealt with in the ANE law codes ["Intercourse with a
married woman is deemed rape when she has offered firm resistance (MAL A 12). By contrast, any form
of physical or psychological violence amounts to rape when the victim is a child (MAL A 55)."
HI:HANEL:556]…thus, this assumption of 'rape-at-will' is unfounded (in the culture under discussion) and
even contra-indicated by numerous and clear data points.

(you didn’t even discuss the slave-rape law of Lev 19!!) Well, that's because either (a) it supports my
view; (b) is too unclear to really comment on the issue; or (c) doesn’t deal with rape at all…"to wit":

Here is the passage in the NASV: "Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for
another man, but who has in no way been redeemed, nor given her freedom, there shall be
punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring
his guilt offering to the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22 The
priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin
which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."

1. It might not even be talking about rape at all (but seduction instead):

"The ANE laws, as pointed out above, do not have a parallel case to Lev 19:20–22 dealing with adultery
with a consenting slave wife" [ABD, s.v. "Crimes"]

2. It might be including the owner in the guilty parties, and since the crime was one of 'lowering' the
girl's desirability, this principle would apply long before she was betrothed:

"The law also is ambiguous as to who slept with the slave, the owner or another, and may include all
circumstances." [HI:HANEL:1005]

3. The absence of death penalty 'because she was a slave' is NOT due to her 'servile' status, but to her
non-married status (the capital crime version only applied to fully/legally married people--until the deal
was done, she was still under the economic rubric of the owner):
 "The present case concerns a slave woman who is about to be set free so that she can be married. The
prospective husband had not yet 'redeemed' her, that is, purchased her freedom from her master; and
the latter has not liberated her of his own accord. If at this point she has sex relations with another man,
neither of them is subject to the death penalty for she is still a slave and therefore not legally married."
[A Modern Commentary on the Torah]

4. It's also unclear who gets the punishment money--the owner or the groom-to-be. If it’s the owner
(most likely), the reason is for the continued financial support of the now-no-longer-about-to-leave-in-
marriage servant girl:

"Some legal background is required by way of explanation. The law of Exodus 21:7-11 allows a father to
sell his preadolescent daughter as a slave to another Israelite. This was usually done out of extreme
deprivation or indebtedness. When the slave girl reached marriageable age, her master were required
to do one of three things: marry her himself, designate her as his son's wife, or allow her to be
redeemed. This last option was interpreted to mean that the master could pledge the girl to another
Israelite. Although Exodus 21:8 prohibits the master from selling the girl to a non-Israelite, it does no
prohibit such arrangements as would involve another Israelite man. The latter would redeem the girl by
a payment to her master and take her as his wife… The situation projected in our passage is as follows:
An Israelite slave girl, here called shifhah, was pledged by her master to another Israelite man. The
designation had already been made, but had not been finalized by payment to the girl's master or,
possible, the man had not yet claimed his bride. Legally, the girl was still a slave and unmarried. If at this
point, an outsider had carnal relations with her, he would have caused a loss to her master because, no
longer a virgin, would be less desirable as a wife, and the prospective husband would undoubtedly
cancel the proposed marriage… In parallel circumstances, Exodus 22:15-17 stipulates that one who
seduced a free maiden who was not yet pledged as a wife had either to marry her himself or pay her
father the equivalent of the marriage price (mohar). In our case, the option of marriage was ruled out
because the girl had been pledged to another man--leaving only one way to deal with the situation. The
man who had had carnal relations with the girl had to pay an indemnity to her master to compensate
him for his loss. Presumably, since the marriage was called off, and the young woman rendered
undesirable, the owner would have to continue maintaining her in his household… " [JPStorah]

5. We can also see, btw, the honor/shame principle at work here. Whoever raped this servant girl
(including the owner, if the passage includes him) was seriously exposed to the public eye(!): there is a
public inquiry by elders and 'significant peers'; there is a public monetary transaction done 'at court';
there is repudiation by the offended groom-to-be-and-family, and there is a public religious ceremony
held in front of all for this sin!!! (This is NOT like 'telling your secret sins' to some priest in a confessional
booth!). Besides the honor-loss, there are the more tangible losses of (a) the compensation/payment;
and (b) the guilt offering [only a male sheep was allowed--a serious cost to the future of the flock, and
therefore 'pension plan' for the perp].

So, there's nothing really 'embarrassing' about this verse--it falls more into 'marriage/family' law than
into 'public crimes'

may be beaten regularly as long as the master is careful around the head: Not sure where this comes
from. The 'eye and tooth' passages are considered by commentators to be representative of all 'body
parts', just as the lex talionis ('eye for eye and tooth for tooth') is not considered to allow 'regular
beatings of free Israelites, as long as you are careful around the head'!!! And besides this, the passage
we looked at above in detail about "if he gets up after a couple of days" in no way restricted the blows
to the head area--so this 'being careful about the head' comment is off-base.
and may be sold -- thereby shattering the slave family when it suits the master: Again, this might have
been relevant in New World slavery, in which the slave community was not intimately entwined in the
household survival task, but in the ANE this was of limited applicability. You just couldn’t afford to
alienate your one or two servants by doing such a thing--it would put everyone at jeopardy. When the
girl was old enough, of course, she could be 'sold into marriage', but this isn’t normally considered
'shattering a family'--when a daughter leaves to get married. We know of fathers selling their own
daughters and sons and wives (in the Bible and in the ANE)--shattering a family due to economic
necessity--so I am not sure the situation is much different (or worse?) here with servants. One normally
wouldn’t part with someone raised, trained, fed, cared for within a household, unless it were under dire
circumstances. So, again, this has limited relevance to the culture in which we are discussing this.

So, all in all, I don’t really think the scenario in the pushback is any more 'realistic' than the ones I
documented above. The pushback scenario is much more representative of New World Slavery, but it
shows a basic lack of familiarity with both the social setting (and actually, even the Jewish law
structures) dealing with ANE/biblical "slavery". The situation described in this article, rather, is
documented well from ANE and biblical sources, so I stand by the accuracy and fairness of its
representation.

At the end of the day, Israel was just not allowed to mis-treat ANYBODY:

"Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to
brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions
of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most
remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb)
aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do
themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like
Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should
have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that
the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially
vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

………………………………………………………………………………..

6. The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul) is in another location: www.Christian-
thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

Good Question...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Updated Jan 2013 with a link to sources on Deut 21]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering
and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of
philosophy!

And even though each recorded case--regardless of scale--SHOULD 'trouble us', the case of God's
alleged ordering the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites has always been particularly disturbing to our
'status quo' of sensibilities. So, I frequently get a letter like this:

The entire concept of a God of justice and mercy ordering the slaughter of thousands of people (many
patently innocent) on many occasions I find abhorrent.

This is an issue I have always had profound trouble with and one I suspended judgment on when I began
to believe. Lately, though, it has started haunting me again, and I have been searching and praying for
an answer or insight. The responses to this problem I have seen so far (God did them a favor, they were
like cancer, or God's justice is beyond ours) seem to me to be lame or inappropriate.

Or, in a less conciliatory tone--

The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to
"his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving
them practical assistance on the battlefield.

It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded
people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". It is
almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite
love for people of all races.
And finally, a more pointed accusation:

"Is the God of the OT merely sanctioning genocide (nay commanding it)?... isn't this "god" merely an
invention for the Jews' own political land-gaining ends?

............................................................................................

So, let's look at the passages involved:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you
many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven
nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you
and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show
them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their
daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and
the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them:
Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in
the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave
alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will
teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against
the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan,
from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave
as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions -- 8 the hill country, the western
foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev -- the lands of the Hittites,
Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai (near Bethel) one

10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one

11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one

12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one

13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one

14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one

15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one

16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one

17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one

18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one

19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one

20 the king of Shimron Meron one the king of Acshaph one

21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one

22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one

23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one the king of Goyim in Gilgal one

24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all. (Joshua 12.7-24)

At first blush, it looks like YHWH is taking the initiative in the matter, and ordering Israel to wipe out 7-
10 nations--without pity and without compromise--and that He intends to give these nations' lands to
Israel for their possession. At the end of Joshua's military campaigns, a list of 31 conquered kings is
given. (The Israelites fail to obey the directive, however, and God faults them for this--and, as He
predicted, the Canaanites DO 'entice' Israel into practicing their religion.)

Obviously, there are a couple of GOOD questions hiding in here:

• Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify
territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

• Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment"
on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type
phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)

• What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if
it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
• Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?

These are NOT simple or light questions (if your heart is in right!), and so we must be VERY thorough in
our analysis of the situation. We will need to approach this issue from a number of different sides, to
make sure we have seen it clearly and from a large-enough perspective.

We will use the following question-set in analyzing the issue:

1. Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?

2. Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?

3. Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the
orders?

4. What general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?

Then, I will try to focus any insights we get onto the opening questions.

....................................................................................

1.Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?

There are a few situations in the OT in which something like this either (1) occurs or (2) is ordered:
Sodom/Gomorrah, the Flood, and the Amalekites. And we will look at one "anti-Example" that might
function as 'control data'--Ninevah.
◦ The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems similar with the main exceptions that the cities were
destroyed WITHOUT human agency, and that the vegetation was destroyed. God used some type of
natural disaster to accomplish the destruction.

There are several known facts about this situation which might prove relevant. S&G lived in a good land
(Gen 13.10-12). Abraham saved their cities once, in a masterful military maneuver (Gen 14), after which
Abraham 'witnessed' to them. They were exposed to/had access to the pure message of God through
Melchizedek--the priest-king of Salem--(who probably led Abraham to the true knowledge of God!).
Nonetheless, they were extremely evil people (and who were proud of it--Is 3.9: The look on their faces
testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.), and their crimes were both
against God (Gen 13.13) and against people (Gen 18.20). Some twenty-five years after Abraham/Melky
encounter, and several years after Lot had apparently been trying to 'moralize' the people (cf. Gen 19:9),
the outcry to God is so great that He sends two angels to destroy the city and its environs (Gen 19.24ff).
God had announced His intentions to Abraham in Gen 18, and agreed to spare the city if a few righteous
could be found. Apparently, only Lot and his family (less than the required ten!) fit the description
adequately, so the entire culture was judged and destroyed by God. The encounter involving Lot, the
angels, and the men of the city is a vivid description of the evil of the city (Gen 19), and the NT refers to
it as an example of judgment-future (2 Pet 2.6) with a special emphasis on sexual perversion (Jude 7).
The fact that 'all the men of the city' were involved in the intended assault on Lot, indicates that the
'outcry' must have come from surrounding areas--hence, the 'international' scope of their evil. The
destruction was immediate and total, including the surrounding cities and the vegetation (Gen 19.25),
and is even used as an example by our Lord in Luke 17.29.

It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes
were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a
judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in
the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed-
-as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of
being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one
innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).

◦ The Flood of Noah

This was the largest annihilation/judgment to date (although it is very difficult to estimate with
confidence the population at this time, especially given that 'violence' was at an extreme high and
correspondingly would have made homicide rates horrendously high), and involved people, animals, and
much vegetation (Gen 6-8). In a very incisive view of God's heart, we see the 'emotions' surrounding this
apparent judgment:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the
earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created,
from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of
the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them." (Gen 6.5ff)

We also see the rather violent nature of the crimes in Gen 6.13:

So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because
of them.

The story is familiar: (1) God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat for
him and his household (apparently NOT so innocent); (2) the evil/violence of the people were both
against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil
was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); (4) Noah apparently "preached righteousness" to
these people for AT LEAST a hundred years! (cf. 2 Pet 2.5); (5) this long period of preaching was an act of
patience on God's part (I Pet 3.20);(6) in spite of the warnings, there were apparently no 'changed
minds'.

Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 100 years) and at least a year of
specific 'flood warnings'; (2) their crimes were violent and pervasive to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a
judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in
the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly [the Flood was more of a
sudden-event a la tidal waves, than a gradual rising water--cf. Gen 7.11: In the six hundredth year of
Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep
burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.]; (6) the one innocent man and woman are
delivered (along with their children of the household).

◦ The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation.

This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they
waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy
everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f)

The situation is thus:

1. The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence,
distant cousins to Israel).

2. They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's
twin Jacob.

3. They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where
Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the
promises of God.

4. As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a
long journey south(!) and attack Israel.

5. Their first targets were the helpless:

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you
were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they
had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the
land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under
heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).

6. Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them:
Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go
away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all
the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam
15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to
'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!-
-would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were
not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time
(200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).
Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:

Amalek's assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand
and plan of God in Israel's life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been
given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus--Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of
their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-
19).

But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400
more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.

Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-
promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel;
(2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment;
(4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move
away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join
Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a
combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being
captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)--they are victims
of their fathers' terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the
community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their
children of the household).

[This brief summary above was objected to by a passionate writer, who asked Shouldn't the butchering
of Amalekite children be considered war crimes? (Feb 19/2000, Part one:159k), and centers mostly on
the emotionally difficult problem of the killing of the children (of Amalekites, but it would extend
generally to the Canaanites and others as well).]

◦ In each of these cases the peoples did NOT 'change behavior'--let's look at one people that DID: the
"anti-Example" of Ninevah.

In the book of Jonah, we have an 'averted annihilation'.

1. The wickedness of the city is great; prompts God to intervene (1.1-2).

The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach
against it, because its wickedness has come up before me."

2. God sends Jonah to pronounce what LOOKS LIKE an 'unconditional prophecy' (3.3f)--

Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city -- a
visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days
and Nineveh will be overturned."

3. Instead of turning a deaf ear (or even a scornful tongue) to Jonah, the people 'change direction' (3.5-
9):

The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on
sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal
robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 Then he issued a proclamation in
Nineveh:

"By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do
not let them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently
on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with
compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish."

[Notice that the 'questionable behavior' included "violence"--vs. 8.]

4. God responds to this "attitude adjustment" in grace (3.10):

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not
bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

5. (Notice that all during this judgment-time, God was still 'concerned' for Ninevah (4.10): But Nineveh
has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left,
and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?")
So, in this "anti-Example" you have a people, confronted with truth/warning, who respond and avert the
annihilation.

There is an obvious pattern here: 1. The annihilations are judgments.

2. These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!)
cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.

3. These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore,
opportunity to "change outcomes").

4. Innocent adults are given a 'way out'

5. Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).

6. Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)

7. These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

Now, an obvious question comes up here. Do we have ANY EVIDENCE that the annihilation of the
Canaanites falls into the above pattern? Do we have any reason to believe it was an exceptional case, a
judgment for exceptional violence and evil?

Very definitely.

The biblical text gives us several indications that this campaign is such a judgment:

◦Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not
their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation
they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go
to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants
will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Gen 15.13f)
Notice that Abraham cannot have the land until the 'sin of the Amorites' reaches some 'maximum
threshold'. This certainly LOOKS LIKE a judgment by God on the peoples of the Land. Also, notice that
the evil treatment by Egypt of the Israelites (enslavement and mistreatment) are NOT 'evil enough' to
warrant annihilation--only "punishment". We might therefore expect the 'sin of the Amorites' to be
more extreme than that of Egypt.

◦After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has
brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of
the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. (Deut 9.4)

◦Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the
LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (Deut 18.12)

◦"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive
out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land
vomited out its inhabitants. (Lev 18.24-25)

So this annihilation was a judgment...but what was so 'bad' about the Canaanites (and Amorites)?
Which brings us to the next point...

2.Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
What do we know about the Amorites, and the Canaanites (often used interchangeably)? What data do
we have from the sources (archeology, classical writers, ANE literary remains, biblical passages)?

1. Prior to Abraham, the land of Syria-Palestine enjoyed a very high culture, dominated by the kingdom
of Ebla.

"By the latter part of the Early Bronze Age Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in northwestern Syria had become a city-
state of 260,000 people, with lesser "vassal" cities forming a far-reaching empire. It was the center of a
vast commercial network, and records of its enterprises contain the earliest mention of such biblical
cities as Salim, Megiddo, Gaza, Hazor, Lachish, and Joppa. An indication of the city's sophisticated
planning is the audience court of the royal palace, which both architecturally and functionally mediates
the space between the quarters with private residences and those with administrative offices." (ISBE,
s.v. "City", p.707)

2. But something happened...something disrupted this advanced civilization...something destroyed the

cities...something violently did international damage, driving nations from their homes, reducing this
area to 'village life' again:

"Sudden and violent destruction occurred throughout much of the ancient world ca. 2300-2100 B.C.
Palestinian civilization returned to the village level, with many E.B. sites abandoned and others left
unfortified, a situation that continued through the early stages of the Middle Bronze period (until ca.
1950 B.C.). While many factors may have been involved, especially significant were Egyptian raids and
mass population movements, at the center of which were the Amorites."(A.C. Myers, ISBE, op. Cit.)

And again, K.N. Schoville (POTW:164):

"The urbanization of Canaan in the Early Bronze Age II (ca. 2900-2700), illustrated by sites such as Arad
and Ai, declined during the Early Bronze Age III, which ended about 2300. Walled cities were destroyed
or abandoned, and urban culture gave way to a pastoral, village way of life over the next two centuries,
Early Bronze Age IV (about 2300-2000). The reasons for such drastic changes are unclear, but three
possible causes may be suggested: (1) Egyptian military action, (2) changing environmental factors
including overpopulation, or (3) an invading horde of Amorites. The Amorites would have destroyed the
urban centers and established the variant lifestyle characteristic of the period until urbanization
flowered in the subsequent Middle Bronze Age II."
[There were probably two invasions by Amorite peoples--the one we are discussing here is the earlier,
non-urbanized Amurru--cf. ISBE:s.v. "Canaan", p. 588]

3. The Amorites were a distinctly war-culture, as well. They show up--by the name of Amorites-- in
conquest texts as early as 2200 B.C. (EBLA3:90), and by their other names in many, many places.

"The Semitic Amorites are the best known: in Mesopotamian sources they are the mar-tu (Sumerian)
and amurru (Akkadian), both of which words mean "west," and they are referred to as desert people
who "know not grain." In the third millennium B.C. the conquests of Sargon of Akkad (2371-2316)
extended to "the upper sea," meaning that he must have marched west to the Mediterranean. In the
second millennium the Amorites established their First Dynasty in Babylon in which Hammurabi (1792-
1750) was the most famous king; contemporary with that dynasty there were Amorite kings in Mari on
the Middle Euphrates. At Jericho and other sites in Canaan cultural changes toward the end of the third
millennium suggest the influx of new nomadic tribal people, probably Amorites. According to Ezekiel
16:3 Jerusalem was founded by a combination of Amorites and Hittites. Under Moses the Israelites
found the Amorites in the hill country around Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 1:19-20), then conquered two
Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, in Transjordan (Deut. 4:46-47). Joshua in turn overcame the Amorite kings
of the five cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (Josh. 10:5). In time Amorites and
Canaanites were no doubt so mingled as to be indistinguishable, and the name Amorite was used as a
general term for the inhabitants of the land, which could equally well be called the land of the Amorites
(Josh. 24:15) or the land of the Canaanites." (Finegan, MM:121-122)

4. [The Canaanite peoples were brilliant engineers, and put their skills to use building war-culture cities.
Their sites include very heavily fortified cities, and advanced design war-chariot ramps and gates. (ISBE:
s.v. "Canaan", p.588; POTW:176f; ECIAT:95)]

5. Not only did these peoples do destruction on an international scale, but they also were constantly
fighting internally [MM:129; ECIAT:193-194]

6. Not only did the Amorites do wholesale destruction to the cities and the peoples, but they somehow
also debased the 'better' polytheism of the pre-Amorite-invasion Canaanites. The pantheon of Ebla was
prior to (by a thousand years) and yet essentially the same as, that of Canaan (EBLA2:79-89). Eblaite
religion was your 'normal' polytheism of the ANE, but with some advanced traits. Pettinato points to one
(EBLA0:178-179):

"The second innovation is represented by the Eblaite conception of the divine. In spite of widespread
polytheism, it seemed to be coupled with henotheism and an abstract idea of God. Above all, the
principal god, Dagan, was raised to a role of superiority that touched upon uniqueness."

Their religious praxis was likewise somewhat refined--relative to the other ANE nations--but somehow
got 'changed' into the rather debased practices which we will below see were done in the Canaan of
Israelite times. What influenced this cultural shift in praxis?

"Nevertheless, the vicissitudes in political fortunes, after the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilization
in Canaan, were accompanied by the settlement of new peoples (Amorites, Hurrians, and others). These
new settlers brought about innovations and changes to the culture of Canaan." (EBLA2:89)

7. So, they were apparently into 'international violence', but what about these religious practices that
YHWH seemed to be referring to in Deut 12.31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way,
because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates..

Notice that the problem is NOT SO MUCH the 'other gods', but the religious RITUALS that are so bad.

So, what data do we have about their practices. Let's start with the biblical data, and check it against any
archeological and extra-biblical literary data.

◾ The Biblical Data...

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. 3 You
must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of
Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful
to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys
them will live by them. I am the LORD.

6 "`No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 "`Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not
have relations with her.

8 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's
daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 "`Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would
dishonor you.

11 "`Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is
your sister.

12 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 "`Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 "`Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your
aunt.

15 "`Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations
with her.

16 "`Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 "`Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations
with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is
wickedness.

18 "`Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is
living.

19 "`Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 "`Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 "`Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of
your God. I am the LORD.

22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present
herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 "`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to
drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the
land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and
the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done
by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the
land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does
any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my
requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and
do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" (Lev 18, repeated in Lev 20)

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any
of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will
set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech,
he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their
eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my
face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him
in prostituting themselves to Molech. (Lev 20.1ff)

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all
kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as
sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12.31)

10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, (Deut 18.10)

They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of
Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. (Ps 106.38--about Israel!)

There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices
of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. (I Kgs 14.24, cf. also Deut 23.17--No
Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.)

So, the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included: 1. Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
2. Incest

3. Bestiality

4. Homosexual practices

5. Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

◾ Let's see if the extra-biblical data supports the biblical material.

1. Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)

Sadly, Yes.

Let's look at some of the scholarly descriptions of the data:

"Its origin (human sacrifice) must be sought, evidently, in Canaanite culture (in the broad sense). Punic
and Neo-Punic inscriptions contain the expressions mlk 'mr (transcribed mokhomor in Latin) and mlk
'dm. Very probably, these phrases mean respectively 'offerings of lamb' and 'offering of man', and refer
to the sacrifice of an infant, or of a lamb as substitute. This interpretation is supported by a find in the
sanctuary of Tanit at Carthage, where archaeologists have discovered urns containing burnt bones of
lambs and goats, and, more often, of children. There is, too, a famous text of Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth.
Hist. XX 14): in 310 B.C., when a disaster was threatening Carthage, the inhabitants of the town decided
it was due to the anger of Kronos, to whom they had formerly sacrificed their finest children: instead,
they had begun to offer sickly children, or children they had bought. Thereupon, they sacrificed two
hundred children from the noblest families. There was a bronze statue of Kronos with outstretched
arms, and the child was placed on its hands and rolled into the furnace. Whether the details be true or
false, the story is evidence of a custom to which other classical authors also allude.

"These inscriptions and texts are of late date, but the molk offering is mentioned in two steles from
Malta belonging to the seventh or the sixth century B.C. The sacrificial term has not so far been found in
inscriptions from Phoenicia proper, but child-sacrifice was practised there: a fragment of Philo of Byblos
cited in Eusebius (Praep. Evang. I 10) says that the Phoenicians had an ancient custom--'they offered
their dearest children in a way full of mystery' when danger threatened the nation. Porphyry (De abstin.
II 56) says that the Phoenician History written by Sanchuniaton and translated by Philo of Byblos was full
of stories about child-sacrifices offered to Kronos in times of calamity. These texts furnish the
connecting-link with the story told by Diodorus Siculus, and we may mention also the reference to the
king of Moab's offering his son as a holocaust when his capital was under siege (2 K 3 : 27).

"The sacrifice of children, then, by burning them to death probably made its way into Israel from
Phoenicia (note: the main transmitter of Canaanite culture) during a period of religious syncretism. The
Bible mentions only two specific instances, and they are motivated by the same exceptional
circumstances as the Phoenician sacrifices: Achaz 'made his son pass through the fire' (2 K I6: 3) during
the Syro-Ephraimite War, and Manasseh did the same (2 K 2I: 6) when confronted with some Assyrian
threat which is not mentioned in the Books of Kings but which may be alluded to in 2 Ch 33:11f. Yet the
custom must have been fairly wide- spread to have deserved the condemnations uttered by
Deuteronomy, Leviticus and the Prophets. Though Phoenician texts properly so called do not mention
the word, it is possible (we say no more) that the sacrifice was called molk in Phoenicia, as in Carthage,
and that it came into Israel under this name." (AI:445-446).

Archeological evidence is firm and growing. Child sacrifice burial grounds are called tophet in the
literature, and they occur throughout Palestine and the Phoenician empire. Ahlstrom mentions sites "at
'Atlit, Tell el-Far'a (S) and Tell el 'Ajjul in Palestine" (HAP:688, n.2). He gives a description of one
monument depicting child sacrifice (HAP:op. cit.):

"The archaeological excavations at Punic Pozo Moro in Spain show a monument with a ritual scene with
a god (with an animal head) on a throne and a table in front of him. He holds with one hand a pig lying
on its back and in the other hand he has a bowl with the head and the feet of a little child (?) sticking up.
He holds this bowl in front of his mouth. To the right there is another bowl, and a god with an animal
head (horse?) holding a knife in his right hand above the bowl ready to slaughter the child. The scene (in
a neo-Hittite style) shows both animal and child sacrifices as food for the gods."

New sites recently found include Gezer, Tyre, and numerous 'high places' (POTW:171, Is 57.5-7).

These child sacrifices were practiced not only during religious ceremonies (as most of the above were),
but also during times of crisis (esp. warfare) and as dedication offerings at the building of cities/houses
(i.e. "foundation sacrifices"; cf. AI:442). So Stern (ZPEB, s.v. "war, warfare" p. 895):

"Further, to secure God's aid, the troops would make sacrifices prior to battle--sometimes even human
sacrifices...This custom seems also to have been taken from earlier Canaanite traditions, for in many
Egyp. reliefs from the late kingdom, depicting the capture of towns in Pal., the besieged are shown
throwing their children from the walls in seeking the gods' favor."

Notice that unlike so many other aberrant practices (e.g. sorcery) of the Canaanites, THIS WAS NOT
widely shared by the other ANE cultures--it was a rarity. This evil was specifically Canaanite/Amorite.
[Pushback:""But, hey, what about Abraham?!--Didn't God order HIM to sacrifice his kid? Isn't this a little
inconsistent, pal?!"]

2. Incest.

Incest was likewise NOT an acceptable ANE practice. For example, the famous Laws of Hammurabi
contain several sections on this issue (Para 154-158; LCMAM:110-111) as do the Hittite law codes (laws
189-191; LCMAM:236).

The only external data about Canaanite practice we have here (you can imagine how difficult it would be
to leave archeological traces of this around!) comes from the religious myths and 'role models' of their
gods. [It must be remembered that the religious rituals of ancient cultures were generally
'reenactments' of divine activities. For example, when a religious myth would have one god
impregnating another--producing "spring"--the humans would "re-enact" this with the cultic
prostitutes.]

For example, in the Ugaritic corpus (Canaanite), there is the story of an incestuous El:

"The second myth is often called 'The Birth of the Good and Gracious God.' It opens with a banquet at
which wine flows freely. The text is divided into sections, the tenth being the last and most crucial. El is
about to create two women who will become either his wives or daughters, depending on his ability to
impregnate them. He creates these females and seduces them, and they both become pregnant. One
bears a child called Dawn (Shahar), and the other a child called Dusk (Shalim). Later, El makes love to
these same women and they produce seven sons between them. These sons are 'the good and gracious
gods.' They are destined to be gods of fertility, and are first suckled at the breasts of 'the Lady' (Asherah,
wife of El?)." (NIEBF: 130).

With such deities to emulate, there is little wonder that God described this Canaanite practice as being
very, very real.
 3. Bestiality.

Here we have the same situation as above--it is forbidden in other ANE codes (e.g. Hittite laws 187-188;
LCMAM:236), but shows up in the Canaanite mythology, with Baal as the role model this time.

Baal is generally pictured in human form, and is often accompanied by a bull or rides upon a bull. (He is
sometimes pictured as a bull as well, but this is in drawings, not in literary texts.) In one Ugaritic text,
Baal, on his way to the underworld, has sexual relations with a young heifer (NIEBF:129; ANET:p139):

Puissant Baal complies.

He desires a calf-cow in Dubr;

A heifer in Shihlmemat-field;

Lies with her times seventy-seven,

[...]...times eighty-eight.

[See also the summary statement in ISBE: s.v. "Crimes", where it is linked to "certain pagan rites and
mythology"]

4. Homosexual practices

This appears to be an issue unique to Israel. Homosexual practice was generally not outlawed in the
ANE, and certainly tolerated in the ANE in private life (MWR:190-192). It was also part of cultic practice
(which we will treat below).

But Israel's God condemned this behavior in EVERY culture in which it was mentioned (!): ANE (i.e.
Sodom), Canaanite and Egyptian (i.e. Lev 18:3), Israelite (Lev 18, 20), Roman (Rom 1), Hellenistic (I Tim
1.9), and Greek (I Cor 6.9). [I have always found the claim that Judeo-Christianity's lack of acceptance of
homosexuality as a morally legitimate sexual expression was merely a cultural stance--not 'timeless' or
'transcultural'--to be a bit weak, in light of the above list of cultures. The range of times/cultures
included in the list above--many of which ACCEPTED it as 'okay'--would certainly count as very strong
evidence for a moral 'universal/transcultural' conviction against the practice.]

What IS interesting about this though, is that of all the practices we have in the list above, this is the
ONE practice that is NOT represented in the religious literature. So Bottero, in MWR:92: "in mythology
and theology we have not the slightest certain example of homosexual relations between gods."

5. Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

The use of male and female prostitutes is also attested and sanctioned (to some extent) throughout the
ANE (MWR:189-190), and clearly so in Canaanite sanctuaries (AI:384). So, NIEBF:130:

" The Bible and the Canaanite texts at Ugarit use the words qadesh and qedesha which mean 'holy one'--
the first masculine, the second feminine. At Ugarit these 'holy ones' were homosexual priests and
priestesses who acted as prostitutes.

"We find strong Hebrew reaction against this 'cultic prostitution' in passages such as Leviticus 19:29, 'Do
not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore,' and Deuteronomy 23:17, 'There shall be no
whore(qedesha) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel.' One of Josiah's
reforms was 'to break down the houses of the sodomites' (2 Kings 23:7)."

What is important for us to note here is that this sacred prostitution was NOT unquestioned by the
surrounding cultures. Remember that in the paradigm cases of annihilation we looked at, the culture
was UNIFORM--ALL the people (save a handful) were proponents and transmitters of the "values" of
that culture. There were no rebels, or dissidents, or minority voices.

However, in THIS situation we have the Canaanite culture TOTALLY SOLD OUT to religious prostitution,
but NOT SO the entire ANE! Von Soden, cited above, points out in footnote 36 that there was major
dissent about such practices:
"Inscriptions of the kings Merodachbaladan II and Nabonidus of Babylonia, as well as the Erra myth...,
contain references to a type of revolution in Uruk around 765, during the reign of the king Eriba-marduk.
This revolution was not caused by social conditions alone, but rather was directed against the cultic
practices of the temple of Eanna and the cult prostitutes there; it had only temporary success."

There was no such recorded "protest" in Canaanite--but rather, an 'evangelistic' posture in favor of it
that reached (successfully) deep into Israel!

◾ Conclusion:

"By 1400 B.C. the Canaanite civilization and religion had become one of the weakest, most decadent,
and most immoral cultures of the civilized world. Many of its repulsive practices were prohibited to
Israel in Leviticus 18. In view of the sexual perversions listed, it is more than likely that venereal diseases
ravaged a large part of the population. Hence stern measures were required to prevent decimation of
the Israelites by the spread of these and other diseases such as malaria and smallpox. Contagion would
be possible by sudden fraternization before immunity could develop. (ZPEB: s.v. "Joshua", p. 707).

8. So, we have international and extreme violence and unusually decadent (and destructive/dangerous)
religious practices. What other data do we have about them (or the other nations in the list)?

We have a few more pieces of data--most of it bad--about these city-nations.

◾ The Canaanites have a 'bad' reputation already around the time of Abraham.
In surveying the historical mentions for the name "Canaan", Schoville points out that the 2nd mention of
the name occurs in a derogatory context (POTW:158):

"An eighteenth-century letter from Mari provides the next evidence for the name in a phrase that
connects 'thieves and Canaanites'"

Although some understand this pejorative reference being to 'rebellious soldiers' (HAP:58), others note
that "commonly in Hebrew the root means 'to be abased, put down, subdued,' etc." (ECIAT:168n192).
Latter meanings of the root and close-derivatives center around "merchant" (e.g. Job 41.6; Prov 31.24; Is
23.8) [ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.585]. In collocation with 'thieves', it MIGHT connote "cheat"--a meaning
that would fit well with their deceptive practices in Joshua 9!

A textual piece of data to support this "cheat" understanding, might be the actions of the Hittite group
in Genesis 23. (Remember, the scattered Hittite groups in Palestine at this time were subsumed under
the term 'Canaanite' as is evident from comparing Gen 27.46 with 28.1.) In Gen 23, Abraham's wife
Sarah has died, and he needs to buy a burial field. Ephron the Hittite takes advantage of Abraham's grief
and need to secure burial property quickly, and charges him an incredibly exorbitant 400 shekels of
silver for a field (cf. Jer 32.9), AND saddles him with the 'property taxes and dues' that went with
"whole-lot" land ownership. (Abraham had only wanted to buy a 'cave'--not the whole field.) If this was
the typical 'merchant ethic' of the Canaanites, then no wonder they were grouped in with 'theives'!

◾ At the time of Jacob, the Hivites had some interaction with the Hebrews--one of the Hivite leaders
raped Dinah, a daughter of Jacob in Gen 34, and tried a subterfuge to accumulate all of Jacob's
possessions!

◾ At the time of Moses, Israel is trying to march through Transjordan--on the 'neutral' Kings Highway.
They peacefully approach the king of the Amorites with a standard 'passage through' request, but is met
with abject hostility. The encounter is narrated in Numbers 21.21ff:
Israel sent messengers to say to Sihon king of the Amorites: 22 "Let us pass through your country. We
will not turn aside into any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king's
highway until we have passed through your territory." 23 But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his
territory. He mustered his entire army and marched out into the desert against Israel. When he reached
Jahaz, he fought with Israel. 24 Israel, however, put him to the sword and took over his land from the
Arnon to the Jabbok, but only as far as the Ammonites, because their border was fortified. 25 Israel
captured all the cities of the Amorites and occupied them, including Heshbon and all its surrounding
settlements.

This was simply an unprovoked attack (with his ENTIRE army?!) on Israel. Notice also that Sihon the
Amorite had taken this territory from Moab by force already (Num 21.26)! ◾ We have ANOTHER
unprovoked attack in Numbers 21: When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that
Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them.

◾ We also know that "Canaan" (between the times of Abraham and Joshua, roughly) was basically
synonymous with Egypt's territory in Palestine! [Cf. ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.586: "Thus, the general picture
that emerges from the scattered data is remarkably consistent Canaan is a general name for the Asian
holdings of Egypt."; see also the detail in POTW:159ff]. As such, they would have known quickly about
the Exodus victory (e.g. Josh 2.8-11) AND had an interest in subjugating/destroying Israel for the
Pharaoh.

So, even the additional available data supports a very negative and abusive view of the Canaanites,
Amorites, and Company... 9. But...they also had had a long exposure to truth and influences to
'moderation' (even though they obviously did not heed them at all!).

◾ We have seen above that Canaan drew heavily from the purer stock of Eblaite theology and culture.
This would have been a long-term influence to moderation.
◾ The outstanding figure of Melchizedek ministered right in the middle of them, during the times of
Abraham--and may have been an Amorite himself!

The story of Melky is given in Genesis 14. He is a king-priest of Salem (Jerusalem) and imparts additional
theological knowledge to Abe! Awesome figure in biblical history. What is interesting is that he was right
in the middle of the Amorite presence, and would have been quite a beacon to those peoples.

But also very intriguing is the notion that he could quite possibly have been an Amorite himself. In Ezek
16.3, the prophet rebukes the Jebusites of Jerusalem with these words: `This is what the Sovereign LORD
says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an
Amorite and your mother a Hittite. (and again in 16.45). This would argue that Melky was either Amorite
or Hittite.

◾ Abraham also lived among these peoples, and had close relationships with both Amorites (e.g. Gen
14.7,13) and Hittites (e.g. Gen 23). Esau actually married Hittite wives (also called 'Canaanite'), but this
was a bad experience for the family (Gen 26.34-35 with 27.46-28.1). So, there would have been
numerous points of contact (in generally friendly settings--but cf. Israel's fight with Amorites in Gen
48.22) in which worldviews would have been 'discussed'.

◾ Of special significance would be the words of Melky upon the victory by Abraham and his Amorite
allies (Gen 14.18): Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God
Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven
and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.". This
statement that God had fought for Abram--in such a victory of striking proportions!--would surely have
registered with his Amorite companions (Gen 14.13), and been remembered in their legends.

◾ The Canaanites/Amorites would have witnessed God's judgment on Sodom and the cities of the plain!
Abraham had delivered those cities from a Mesopotamian king in Gen 14 (and perhaps the Amorite
cities in v.7), only to see them destroyed in Gen 19. Abraham (and Lot) were witnesses to the theological
understanding of a highly visible (and internationally applauded, no doubt!) action by God. The peoples
of the Land should have taken notice and warning.
◾ The above items are 400 years+ before the 'judgment' on them begins!

◾ During the 400 years in Egypt, the Canaanites would have had much interaction with Egypt, much of
which probably "went through" Goshen--the place of the Hebrews. They also were probably in constant
contact with Joseph (and the tribes) during the early famine years. (It is likely that Egyptian influence
into Palestine was expanded due to this commercial interaction.)

◾ During the 400 years, the Canaanites would have still been surrounded by offspring of Abraham--
through Ishmael and Esau, not to mention that of Lot. The nations of Moab, Ammon, Edom would have
preserved early traditions about Elohim for 'exchange' with the nations.

◾ Immediately after the Exodus, word 'got out' about the Hebrews, and made its way into Canaan. By
the time Israel made it to Jericho, a common prostitute in the city could say (Josh 2.9ff: "I know that the
LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this
country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the
Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the
Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts
melted and everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above
and on the earth below.).

Rahab had heard about the Exodus (some 40+ years earlier), the conquest of the Amorite Kings Sihon
and Og (a few months earlier), and the land-grant promise by YHWH(!)--given 400 years earlier. News
traveled fast back in those days, so they probably had at least 40 years notice of Israel's coming.
[Remember that Amalek knew of the Exodus WITHIN DAYS and attacked Israel.]

◾ Likewise, after the drying up of the Jordan and before the fall of Jericho, the whole land of Palestine
knew and individuals could have begun migrating (as was common in those days). So Joshua 5.1f: Now
when all the Amorite kings west of the Jordan and all the Canaanite kings along the coast heard how the
LORD had dried up the Jordan before the Israelites until we had crossed over, their hearts melted and
they no longer had the courage to face the Israelites..
There was an abundance of information for these people--perhaps even MORE THAN the other nations
around them had!--but they did not respond appropriately. (The other nations in the ANE seemed to
respond to 'available' truth with a degree of moderation and correspondingly did not develop the
ruthless, cruel, and degenerate practices of their Canaanite neighbors.)

Summary: These nations show up in archeology and literature as a uniquely evil and destructive
civilization, whose culpability is increased due to the abundance of truth and religious warnings which
they were confronted with, and had access to. In contrast to the vast majority of surrounding nations,
the Canaanite/Amorite cultures would not act responsibly and prudently, in matters of foreign relations
and domestic practice. The result was a destructive and malignant force, in an already difficult ANE
historical setting. If the nations of that day could have had a vote on who to 'destroy', they all would
have voted for the Canaanite/Amorite culture.

............................................................................................... 3.Were there any limits placed upon Israel in

this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?

First, I want to look at the limits placed on the Israelites--the boundary-statements. What limits did God
place on these marching orders? How exhaustive was the command-set? What implications might we
draw from these?
◦ Unlike the early Amorites, Israel was NOT supposed to destroy the cities and buildings (Deut 6.10ff).
[The main exception was Hazor--the 'nerve center' of Canaanite culture and trade--cf. Joshua 11.10,
ECIAT:94.]

◦ Unlike the Egyptians (ANET:239ff, for the campaigns of Thutmose III), they were NOT supposed to
destroy the vegetation and the trees (Deut 20.19).

◦ They were restricted from attacking Esau's land--Deut 2.4ff:

Give the people these orders: `You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers the
descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, but be very careful. 5 Do not provoke
them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given
Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. 6 You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the
water you drink.'"

[Notice that Esau 'got' that land the same way as Israel did--by conquest (Deut 2.12, 22; Josh 24.4).]

◦ They were restricted from attacking Moab (Lot's descendants)--Deut 2.9:

Then the LORD said to me, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you
any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."

◦ They were restricted from attacking Ammon (Lot's descendants)--Deut 2.19:

When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you
possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of
Lot."
◦ They were NEVER allowed to take the cultic objects--with the precious metals and stones--Deut 7.25f:

The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do
not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. 26 Do
not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly
abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.

◦ They were REQUIRED to offer peace to nations at a distance--Deut 20.10-16:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open
their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to
make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it
into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and
everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder
the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at
a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

◦ There were restrictions on how Israelite men treated female war captives (from distant nations)--Deut
12.10ff:

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and
you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you
may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and
mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she
shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell
her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

[Scholars have noted that this was an unparalleled benevolence toward women, in ANE warfare. See
remarkable.html]

So, this obviously was NOT a war of unrestrained lust, greed for expensive goods, or even "empire-
building"--God did NOT tolerate those attitudes. For example, in Joshua 7, an Israelite DID take some of
the expense idol pieces, and God held the entire community responsible for this breach.
Second, I want to look at the EXACT CONTENT of the instructions. What EXACTLY was ordered? What
were the possible responses available to the Canaanites & Co.?

◦ The first thing to notice is the wide range of words used to describe what YHWH/Israel was supposed
to do the these nations.

1. "wipe them out" (e.g. Ex 23.23)

2. "throw them into confusion" (e.g. Ex 23.27)

3. "make them turn their backs and run" (e.g. Ex 23.27)

4. "drive them out of your way" (e.g. Ex 23.28)

5. "struck down" (e.g. Ps 135.10)

6. "dispossessed" (e.g. Num 21.32)

7. "drive out" (e.g. Num 33.52)

8. "thrust out" (e.g. Deut 6.19)

9. "destroy them" (e.g. Deut 9.3)

10. "subdue them before you" (e.g. Deut 9.3)

11. "annihilate" (e.g. Deut 9.3)

12. "delivered them over to you" (e.g. Deut 7.2)

13. "defeated them" (e.g. Deut 7.2)

14. "perish" (e.g. Deut 7.20)

15. "give kings into your hands" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

16. "wipe out their names from under heaven" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

Notice that there is a HUGE difference (at first blush) between "annihilate" and "drive them out"! These
seem almost contradictory. This warrants a closer look.
◦ These words group into two categories: dispossession vs destruction. "Dispossession" would include
the words like drive out, dispossess, take over possession of, thrust out, send away (33 occurrences).
"Destruction" words would include annihilate, destroy, perish, and eliminate (11 occurrences). The
Dispossession words would indicate that the population 'ran away'--migrated out of the Land prior to
any encounter with the Israelites; Destruction words would indicate the consequences for those who
stayed behind.

◦ What then is the mix of these two sets of words? The "Dispossession" words outnumber the
"Destruction" words by 3-to-1!. This would indicate that the dominant 'intended effect' was for the
peoples in the Land to migrate somewhere else. So, consider Deut 12.29: The LORD your God will cut off
before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and
settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared
by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.".

◦ Let's look at a few examples of the "dispossession" words.

◾ From the garasl group ("drive out"):

1. Ex 23:28-30: I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of
your way... But I will not drive them out in a single year,... Little by little I will drive them out before you"

2. Ex 23.31-33: "I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out
before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your
land,"

3. Ex 33.2: "I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites..."

4. Deut 33.27: " He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, `Destroy him!'"

5. [Notice that this word is used to describe the Pharoah 'driving out' the Israelites--obviously not
annihilating them!--in Exodus 6.1: " "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty
hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country." and by Balak
trying to drive Israel away in Numbers 22:6,11.]

◾ The yarasl group ("dispossess"):

1. Ex 24.34: " I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory,"

2. Num 33.52f: " drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and
their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it,"

3. Deut 4.38: " to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their
land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today."

4. Deut 9.3,4,5: " And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly... After the LORD your God
has driven them out before you... the LORD your God will drive them out before you"

5. Deut 11.23: " then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess
nations larger and stronger than you."

6. Deut 18.12: " because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations
before you."

◾ The salah group ("send away")

1. Lev 18.24: " because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.
25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

2. Lev 20.23: " You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before
you."

This is striking--it looks more like God is planning on "moving" a nation, than on "destroying a
people"...Let's see if the evidence continues to support this...

◦ Notice in some of the above passages that 'destruction' images are mixed with 'dispossession' images.
How can these be reconciled?!
The answer comes in recognizing the intent of the 'punishment'. God was destroying a culture and its
carriers--not necessarily all the individuals in it. Roughly, it was the 'nations' that were destroyed, and it
was the 'individuals' who were driven out. With the national and cultic centers destroyed (along with
the staunchest, die-hard defenders of that culture inside those cities), the culture would simply dissipate
and evaporate in the Land. As OTHER cultures absorbed individual Canaanite families and groups, the
Canaanite cultural depravity would not have had the critical mass to perpetuate itself. [Remember,
Canaanite was a 'bad word' in the ANE.] The culture would have simply "died from starvation".

And with Canaan, this might have been the only way to do this--cf. ECIAT:192-193:

"In Canaan, however, it was at once realized by the Egyptians that native political institutions could not
be easily replaced, as they partook of a degree of sophistication (thanks to their origin among the
Amorites of North Syria and Mesopotamia) comparable with that of Egypt itself."

The Canaanite culture was strong and proved to be powerful in working against Israel from WITHIN.

◦ We have an interesting piece of data to support this approach, in the account of the "destruction" of
the Amorite country of Og (Num 21.31ff):

After Moses had sent spies to Jazer, the Israelites captured its surrounding settlements and drove out
the Amorites who were there. 33 Then they turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og
king of Bashan and his whole army marched out to meet them in battle at Edrei. 34 The LORD said to
Moses, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you, with his whole army and his land.
Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." 35 So they struck him
down, together with his sons and his whole army, leaving them no survivors. And they took possession
of his land.

Notice that the Amorites in the villages (i.e. surrounding settlements in v.32 were 'driven out'; but the
royal bloodline and national army were destroyed in v.35).

◦ That this punishment was more 'national' shows up in the frequent mention of the word "nation(s)" in
the passages, and the displacement image in Ps 44.2 is explicit: With your hand you drove out the
nations and planted our fathers...
◦ Migration was a fact and a way of life, and not that big of a deal in that time period--scholars classify
the peoples into the "mobile" terminological groups: pastoral nomadism, semi-nomadism,
transhumance nomadism, etc. Migration and movement was a common way of life. With very little
notice, whole tribes could migrate in days. [Remember how the Israelites in the wilderness would depart
whenever the cloud above the tabernacle lifted? Movement was constant and quick.] In nearby Greece,
during the Archaic period, entire cities migrated to avoid conquest [HI:URACG]. The Canaanites had
DECADES of notice--authenticated by the miracles of the Exodus--and any sane ones probably DID leave
before Israel got there. Abandoned city structures are common all over the ANE and Ancient Middle East
from that period.

◦ The amount of time God allowed to the residents to migrate was substantial--not only did they get the
Exodus information quickly, they got the 40 years of wandering, and EVEN AFTER the Conquest begun,
the penetration into the villages and smaller districts was done 'little by little' (e.g. Deut 7.22), allowing
even more time for simple villagers (and hence, not serious carriers of the culture--mainly perpetuated
by the urban 'elite' of the walled cities) to move north. Israel never was able to "sneak up on anyone"--
information flow was simply too good (cf. Rahab--Josh 2.9ff; the kings of Joshua 5; the Gibeonites of
Joshua 9; Balaam from Aram--Num 23.7 with 24.8).

◦ So Kaiser (EBC: in. loc. Ex 23.23-26): "All these nations God's Angel would 'wipe...out' (v.23), i.e.,
remove from their national, not necessarily personal, existence; for surely David had Hittites in his army
(2 Sam 23:39) and was friendly with a Jebusite (2 Sam 24:18-24). It was the worship and practices of the
gods of these nations that were strictly forbidden."

◦ Also interesting along this line is the dynastic-centered judgment in Deut 7.24: He will give their kings
into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven.. This is clearly a culture-focused
judgment.
◦ We can size the problem a little here as well. The average city size for walled cities in Palestine at the
time was 1,000-3,000 folks, with many being less than 700 (ISBE: s.v. "City"). In Joshua 12, the victory list
is given as 31 kings (generally petty kings of city-states) this would be around 70,000 people (assuming
they all stayed around--a very dubious assumption in light of the international fear of Israel at the time).

But this 70,000 is against a base of close to 2 million people! (Israel was approximately 1.6 million at the
time, and these nations are said to be 'more numerous' than Israel in a number of places--e.g. Deut
7.1,7.) This amounts to approximately 3.5% of the 'target population'. The Israelites were specifically
told to execute those who remained in the cities (Deut 20.16) and those who hid in the Land--and
therefore did NOT migrate out--Deut 7.20. Granted the Israelites were less than thorough in their
warfare, but this small percentage is a bit ridiculous! This doesn't seem like serious genocide to me--
what's going on here?

Let's put a few facts together:

1. Israel was told to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land.

2. Those Canaanites who refused to leave were to be executed.

3. The Israelites were NEVER told to hunt the Canaanites down 'throughout the uttermost reaches of the
earth' and kill them.

4. If the Canaanites had migrated to a city in a foreign land, the Israelites could have made a treaty with
them.

5. The main point was to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel's religious culture, by removing
them from the Land (e.g. Deut 20.18).

What this would strongly suggest is that the punishment on the Amorites/Canaanites is NOT
extermination but rather total expulsion from the Land!
◦ This is an altogether DIFFERENT issue now--from 'genocide' to 'expulsion from the Land'. And THIS
UNDERSTANDING makes perfect sense of a couple of other verses now:

"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive
out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land
vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the
aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by
the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land,
it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of
these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. (Lev 18.24-29; also Lev 20.22)

Notice in verses 28-29, God holds Israel to the same standard--both as a nation (vs.28) and as individuals
(vs.29)! He didn't intend to annihilate them (when they later 'went pagan'), but he warned them of
'expulsion from the Land' in the SAME WAY He did the Canaanites! For this comparison to work in the
verse, the punishment ("vomit") MUST mean expulsion.

But WAS it the same way?

Absolutely!

Not only were the warnings that God gave Israel about covenant treachery the flip-side of what they
were to enjoy in Canaan (e.g. houses and vineyards given to others -- Deut 28.30-33), but the actual
experience of Judah before her "expulsion" to Babylonia was essentially the same.

When Judah had begun to practice the same cruel and destructive practices of the Canannites--including
child sacrifice (Is 57:5; 2 Kgs 17.17), ritual prostitution (Jer 13.27), cultic homosexual prostitutes (I Kgs
15.12; 22.46; 2 Kgs 23.7), and widespread social violence (cf. Ezek 45.9; Is 59.6-10)--God judged them to
be expelled from the Land. He sent the Babylonians to 'drive them out'. They were SUPPOSED to obey
God and go into exile--the prophets told the people to surrender to 'dispossession' to AVOID BEING
KILLED!

Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you
surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned
down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon,
this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape
from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)
"This is what the LORD says: `Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague, but
whoever goes over to the Babylonians will live. He will escape with his life; he will live.' 3 And this is
what the LORD says: `This city will certainly be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon, who will
capture it.'" (Jer 38.2)

"Furthermore, tell the people, `This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life
and the way of death. 9 Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague. But whoever
goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; he will escape with his life.
10 I have determined to do this city harm and not good, declares the LORD. It will be given into the
hands of the king of Babylon, and he will destroy it with fire.' (Jer 21.8)

If the residents of Judah had surrendered to the Babylonians, they would have simply been deported
(read: "expelled from the Land"!) to Babylon--just like the Northern Kingdom had been 'migrated
forcibly' to other lands. This is basically the same motif--'migrate or be executed'. The number of people
actually killed in the attacks of Babylonia would have been small, but the number transplanted out of
the Land would have been considerable.

It is interesting to note that the Assyrians 'drove out' Israel and USED the deportation/transplantation
strategy to basically 'annihilate' a culture, without killing the mass of people--they knew that a
dispossessed people would be assimilated into larger social groups, as basically happened with some of
the northern ten tribes. The Assyrians did this routinely (HAP:601,638), as did the Egyptians (ECIAT:168),
and the Babylonians practiced a modified version of it. Deportation as a military practice has been
documented as early as the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, 2112-2004 BC (AM:367n33). So ZPEB: s.v. "exile":

"The deportation of communities was usually practiced in the ancient world for political reasons,
frequently to destroy the power of a nation considered an enemy..."

and HAP:601:

"It has been seen how the growing power of Assyria...not only became a real threat to the nations of
Syria and Palestine, but exterminated some and deported their peoples, thus breaking their power."

Notice that the above quote makes a similar distinction to my argument here--the nation is
'exterminated' but the people are 'deported'.

Interestingly, a dispossession of Canaanite population appears to be a more 'humane' way of reducing

the international impact of an already internationally-despised culture, without having to kill the
majority of the carriers of that culture.
The main differences between the expulsion of Israel and the expulsion of Canaan was in the (1)
'execution' of it; and (2) in the 'regulation' of it.

From an 'execution/implementation' standpoint, in the case of Canaan, the deportation must occur
BEFORE Israel showed up for battle; in the case of Judah, the 'migration' (initiated by surrender) would
occur before Babylon actually attacked the city. [Babylon and Assyria could afford to do this--they had
adequate resources and structures to move huge populations around. Post-wandering Israel would have
had no such option. God used 'early warning' messages to the Canaanites to get large portions of them
(apparently) to migrate north, and even gave the less-urban community more time--the "little by little"
aspect of the conquest (cf. Deut 7.22).]

From a 'regulation' standpoint, the Canaanite migration would have been much less regulated. The
migrating peoples could essentially have had some choice over their destinations, be able to migrate
without the harsh treatment of captors (not at all an insignificant benefit!), and generally settle closer to
familiar lands/languages than occurred under captors. Although it would still be a 'forced' migration,
there were many more 'humane' discretionary elements inherent in it.

Summary: The Israelites had been promised a specific area of land, since the time of Abraham. Most of
the local indigenous peoples were either descendants of Abe or very familiar with the traditions of those
people. When the "time had come," God judged the Canaanites and decreed for them to be expelled
from the Land. Their tenure was up--they were evicted. New tenants were moving in. The Canaanites
were given decades and decades of notice--in many ways and at different times. And they understood
clearly--all the records we have of their understanding of their plight is TOTALLY in line with the Land-
Grant of YHWH.

With the 'eviction notice' published, the Canaanites could decide to either vacate the premises
peacefully or deal with military force. If they vacated peacefully, they could choose their locations, mode
of travel, and not have to deal with unpleasant military overseers. If they choose to challenge Israel's
God and His expressed intentions, then they did so with complete knowledge of His power--as displayed
in Egypt.

Even though they were the 'scourge' of the earth at that time--by international consensus--God did not
desire to annihilate the people. His expressed intentions were to move them away from His people. He
gave them ample opportunity to leave peacefully before Israel arrived, and even allowed the bulk of the
'less institutionalized' to have a little longer. His people were not instructed to hunt them down in
neighboring nations at all.

Israel was severely restricted in the Conquest. They were not allowed to be simple 'land grabbers' or
'wealth seekers' or 'self-righteous' or 'land scorchers' or 'international empire builders' or 'captive-
abusive'. At the same time, they were to eliminate the threat of Canaanite destructive influence (both
spiritual and physical) if called upon.

And God allowed no double standards. When Israel began to look like 'Canaanites', God judged them IN
THE SAME WAY...and 'vomited' them from the Land as well. This expulsion was also accompanied by the
harsh measures of warfare faced by the Canaanites.

The punishment of the Amorites/Canaanites was thus one of 'deportation'--NOT one of genocide.

.............................................................................................................

4.What other general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?

Here I want to survey some of the other governance structures that are present in this issue.

◦ In the earliest promise to Abraham in Genesis 12, we read:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to
the land I will show you. 2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name
great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

This promise of protection for Abe and his descendants can be seen all through biblical history--and
therefore in the Conquest narratives.
 1. The Hivites (one of the Canaanite peoples) perpetrated rape on Dinah, the daugher of Jacob (Gen
34).

2. During the travels of Israel, Amorite peoples attempted two unsolicited and unwarranted attacks on
Israel--once by Arad, and once by Sihon (Num 21).

3. BUT THE BIG ONE was the persecution by Amorite/Canaanites WHILE IN EGYPT!

This seems a bit odd, of course, since Israel was being mistreated by the Egyptians during this period,
but nonetheless was a present factor--through the influence of the Hyksos. "A dynasty of foreign rulers
known as the Hyksos established themselves in control not only of Syria and Palestine but also of Egypt
itself during approximately the years 1650-1542 b.c." (MM:128).

Now, if you notice something, the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt during this time. I believe in the
early date of the Exodus (around the 1400 BC mark), which would make the 400 year Sojourn in Egypt
from 1800-1400 bc roughly. One can see then, that all of the Hyksos reign (the New Intermediate
Kingdom) would fall into this period. I also understand Gen 15.13 (Then the LORD said to him, "Know for
certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and
mistreated four hundred years. ) to entail a 'mistreatment' period of several hundred years (as opposed
to just the years right before the birth of Moses). According to Exodus, after Joseph died, a new king
arose that began the mistreatment. This would make perfect sense if the 'new king' was an outsider--
like a Hyksos. This would mean that the long-term mistreatment of Israel was initiated (or at least
intensified significantly) by the Hyksos. But why would I bring the Hyksos up in THIS discussion?

"Their name (Hyksos) corresponds to the Egyptian 'rulers of foreign lands,' but was also understood to
mean 'shepherd kings.' They were probably preponderantly Semitic Amorites/Canaanites." (MM:128;
see also ECIAT:106-107)

So, soon after the Hebrews go into Egypt (as welcomed guests, important contributors, and leaders), the
Amorites/Canaanites show up and start "enslaving and mistreating" them, even to the point of
programmatic infanticide (Ex 1)!
It is probably around the end of the Sojourn that the 'sins of the Amorites reached a full measure'--
international destruction, socially-destructive religious practices, cruel enslavement of an Israelite
population that reached close to two million at the time(!), and systematic infanticide.

And the Abrahamic principle--"I will curse them that curse you"--probably started kicking in here...

◦ The principle of "lex talionis"--"an eye for an eye"

This was a principle of law and justice that said that punishment must match/not exceed the crime--in
kind (e.g. Deut 19.21). It was not unique to Israel; it shows up in the code of Hammurabi as well (P.197).
It was strictly a legal motif for the legal system, and not necessarily to be the rule in personal matters or
attitudes.

How would that show up in the Amorite/Canaanite judgment?

1. They drove out cultures before them, in the early Amurru invasions; so they were driven out.

2. They caused whole cities to be abandoned; they were forced to abandon their cities in flight.

3. They won their battles on military strength; they were defeated by a greater military strength--YHWH.

4. They destroyed urban centers; their urban centers were destroyed.

5. They were unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate (Num 21.21ff); God did not allow Israel to
negotiate with them (except the Gibeonite deception in Joshua 9--against His will).

The old adage "you reap what you sow" was certainly true in this case...
 ◦ God is not unfair, partial, and does not hold double standards of ethics.

We saw above that Israel was warned EXPLICITLY not to become like the Canaanites; they DID, and
suffered the same fate--deportation.

Not only this, but at the very SECOND BATTLE in the land--that of AI in Joshua 7--an Israelite kept some
of the forbidden sacred images and God judged him, his family, and the entire nation for this breach of
covenant--just like He was judging the Canaanites...no double standard here/then, or later in the
Northern and Southern kingdoms.

◦ Individual actions ALWAYS affect the fortunes of others--for good or ill.

The nature of historical community and "cause/effect" is such that the actions of one member of a
group ALWAYS affects the others. The decisions of a parent have consequences for a child--for good or
ill. The decisions of a civic leader have consequences for the citizens--for good or ill. The decisions of an
army commander have consequences for his soldiers--for good or ill. This 'system' was set up FOR
GOOD--that we might bless the lives and fortunes of others--but anything good can be twisted into
something destructive.

In the case of parents who had the good sense to migrate, the children benefited. In the case of those
parents who chose to stay and fight, their children died too. In the case of city members who decided to
act independently of what their 'civic leaders' recommended(!), sanity saved lives. In the case of those
who simply 'followed the leaders' instead of the information about YHWH and the Israelites, lives were
lost.
The case of Rahab the prostitute is instructive. She 'rebelled' against the civic authority and saved her
life AND THE LIVES of those who came into her household (Josh 6.23). The decision of one worked for
the good of others--how the system is supposed to work.

It is always difficult to deal with the complex relationships/dependencies within the human family, and
although we rarely complain about how 'unfair' it is for a child to be benefited by the integrity and
resources of a good parent, we often complain about how 'unfair' it is for a child to be disadvantaged by
abuse or poverty of a parent. The two go together--for good or ill. You cannot even have a parent-child
relationship without a significant level of REAL and MEANINGFUL (and therefore, potentially REALLY
damaging) dependencies. It is simply inconceivable.

And, frankly, the alternative to 'dying swiftly with your parents' is NOT "obviously better"--its a close
call. In this case, let's suppose the children under fighting age (around 12) were spared but all the adults
and livestock killed, and the homes and foodstock taken. With an average age of six, homeless, without
shelter, in shock, without food, without nurture, in grief, in terror, without protection from the wild
animals, without protection from marauding bands of slave-traders, without protection from each
other, without any adult guidance--how long could they last in the wild? The Israelites had no resources
to care for them, or to route them to other nations around there. What kind of a slow-death would that
be?

Of course, this 'alternative' scenario is only a theoretical exercise, and only meant to show that the issue
is very, very complex as to 'what is best'. God chose a different path in most of history. The power of
parents--for good or ill--is consistently maintained, and always displayed before the eyes of us who are
parents. We must take this responsibility seriously--there are REAL consequences and no 'magic
escapes' for those whose lives we touch--family, friends, followers.

............................................................................................................

Now, let's restate our opening questions and try to summarize the above material in response...

•Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify
territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

We really didn't go into this side of the question, but we have enough clues in the above data to take a
stab at this:
Israel didn't really want to do this AT ALL, so why would they make it up?!

The post-Exodus Israel was a whining (e.g. Num 11.1; Ex 16.2-3), grumbling (e.g. Ex 15.24; 17.3), bunch
of folks who wanted to go back to Egypt (Num 14.1-3)! They were constantly afraid of the inhabitants of
the Land (e.g. Num 14; Deut 7.19). They never even finished the job (Judges 1.1-3.5). And besides...what
good would a forged passage or two in their sacred literature be?! It wouldn't be useful to 'appeal to' in
disputes over land. It couldn't have been written centuries later and 'inserted' into the text to give some
kind of legitimacy to Israel, because the land descriptions and details are too ancient/obscure to have
even be known/made up that later.

No, the data all indicates that IN SPITE OF ISRAEL, the land-grant orders were authentic and ancient.

•Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on
the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type
phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)

Well, first of all, since the land was supposed to be a 'present' to the descendants of Abe, it wouldn't
make a lot of sense to have it ravaged by large-scale, ubiquitous earthquakes, or totally scorched by
volcanix, or covered in rotting, disease-infested corpses!

Second, we have seen that God intended for most people to simply leave...He didn't want to kill them
all.

Finally, He didn't give it to them because they were righteous at all--He gave it to them because of His
promise to Abe...Plus, He had plans to 'grow them' into righteousness once they got into the Land.
•What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it
is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?

There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles
began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite
culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people
were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.

•Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?

I think it should be clear by now that this was neither a (1) "slaughter"; nor (2) "wholesale"! It was a
deportation, based upon a judgment that would have found consensus among world leaders of the day!
There were elements of mercy THROUGHOUT the entire deal--from the 'early warnings' before the
Sojourn in Egypt, to the 'heads up' warnings four decades before Entry, to the 'little by little' invasion
tactic for the less-institutionalized, to the careful limits on Israelite behavior. The migration of much of
the Canaanite peoples (and religious culture, unfortunately) into Phoenicia is testimony of the scale of
this migration.

When we restate the pattern of our 'control data'--judgments that seem to be 'true annihilations'--and
correlate that pattern with the Conquest data, we see similarities AND differences: 1. The annihilations
are judgments [But the conquest judgment was a deportation, not an annihilation.]

2. These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!)
cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature. [This applies to the Canaanites, plus the
additional 'load' of long-term "being a curse" to Israel.]
3. These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore,
opportunity to "change outcomes").[This applies to the Canaanites extensively.]

4. Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in additional to the extensive warnings,
plenty of time&space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived. We even have one example of a
non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]

5. Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). [This is true here as well--
everyone in Rahab's house was spared--whether they were good or evil!]

6. Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites). [In our case, the mass of people that migrated north
to Phoenicia, Rahab+household, plus Gibeonites (although through deception).]

7. These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these. [We have two other cases structured
after this deportation--that of Israel and Judah--after the same standards and structures.]

..........................................................................................

Pushback: You say that the people of Canaan and the others should have left because the land was
promised to Israel. That's like someone coming to my house and telling me to get out because God told
him that he could have it. And then blaming me because he had to kill me to "accomplish God's will." In
short, it isn't realistic to expect that people will uproot and leave their home. Even the most peaceful
folks will fight when home is what's at stake.

Fortunately, in the ancient world the situation was much more clear than the situation you describe at
the doorstep!. Each nation/state/city had their main god that was supposed to protect that specific spot
of land. The bigger the country, the bigger and more powerful the god had to be. If a foreign people
came to you and said "our god wants to take over your land" the only real way to know whose god was
bigger (and therefore which claim was 'legitimate') was to fight. If your god won, then obviously their
statement about 'change of ownership' was bogus or irrelevant. If they won, of course, the opposite was
true--and off you go (assuming they didn't kill you in the process).

But in some cases there was a short-cut to know whether their god would beat your god--by checking
the "stats" and applying the "transitive law". If you knew, for example, that your god A (deity of a local
Canaanite city-village), could be easily beaten by god B (the god of Egypt, the mightest nation on the
planet), but that god B (Egypt) was recently beaten by a more powerful god C (God of the Hebrews),
then you could easily make the A<B<C connection, and know that a head start on moving north to
Phonecia might be a good idea. The fact that this had been forecast for centuries earlier, and told
around all the nearby city campfires didn't hurt its credibility either...nor did the stories of the Hebrew
ancestor Abraham, whose exploits against the 5 Kings were still stories of wide circulation and awe...

In other words, the Israelite claims were not simple "one-off" prophetic declarations of "mine!"--but had
a long history of circulation, and were substantiated (in their minds) by the awesome victory over the
mightiest nation and pantheon on earth--that of Egypt. Under circumstances like this--given the way the
ancients understood deity--it would be extremely realistic to expect them to uproot and move their
home. There actually would be no better way to communicate the certainty of that future than by such
an extraordinary event as the Exodus, if well-publicized (which it was). If God was trying to give them a
40-year 'early warning', this was the most effective way possible to help them see the reality of that
future, and give them almost a generation to prepare and build a new life/home somewhere else (south
or most likely, north).

........................................................................................................

Conclusion: Judgment is called God's "strange work" in the OT prophets. What for us humans is the
problem of "why does God not do anything about evil and cruel people" is simply the other side of His
patience with us. He hopes that we will accept a love of the truth and a commitment to value. In love,
He deliberately "believes the best" (I Cor 13).

What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved
punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was
nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people.

Far from being the "genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites", it was instead the "firm,
yet just--and even a little merciful to the masses--removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly
through migration."

glenn miller, 2/8/97, Oct 2000

Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Modified: Oct/2000; May 2001; added a tiny comment on 'euthanasia by humans' May 2002]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received a thoughtful and impassioned response to my piece on "How could a God of love order the
annihilation of the Canaanites"...It went into more detail in one of the more emotionally difficult areas
of that piece--the consequences on the Amalekite children--and deserved to be considered carefully.
This issue is and should be a stomach-churning one for all sensitive hearts (especially Christians), and
this piece will have to proceed soberly and humbly through the many complexities involved herein.

Unfortunately, the person who sent the response in was NOT in fact the author, but had simply
forwarded SOMEONE ELSE’s piece to me! When the actual author found out about it, he requested me
to remove his material from my web site. It has taken me this long to rewrite and reorganize the
material to honor his request.

With that in mind, let's look at the statements and questions:

Does the bible actually portray God as “infinitely merciful and just” and at the same time as a genocidal
deity, contradicting itself at a deep, moral level?

Although this is not the heart of the writer's argument, let me note first:

1. The portrayal of the biblical god is not actually 'infinitely merciful and just deity' as if these were axes
on a graph, but rather that God delights more in mercy than in judgment. His basic preferences are away
from judgment (e.g., "Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of
the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil
ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’" Ex 33.11). His responses are asymmetrical: His
compassion is to "a thousand generations", but his moral outrage extends only to the immediate
household ("to the third generation"). Judgment is called His "strange, alien work" in Isaiah 28.21; His
'familiar' work is providing 'regular' environments for community life and experience, without massive
divine interventions. We are supposed to develop our selves and characters by internal decisions to
choose the good and to honor one another and to play our part in the development of others. His
normal operating procedure is to build reward/loss consequences into our consciousness and into the
workings of basic interpersonal relationships (from which we construct second-order social roles), and
then let us get on with living. Even when relationships get bad, He normally allows the 'system' to try
and correct it (e.g., peer pressure, legal systems, internal emotional pushbacks). Even in biblical history
surrounding Israel (God's most overt/visible historical actions), the amount of judgmental intervention is
tiny compared to what perhaps might have been expected on the Assyrians, for example, and the
biblical record is filled with cries of the innocent asking "why don't you do something about these
malicious oppressors, God?!" It was part of the task of the previous piece to demonstrate that the
invention in THIS case was not unjustified, although quite unique.

2. And, as for God being a 'genocidal deity', the biblical events described do not seem to match what we
think of by that term today. Even in the little section on the Amalekites, the description of the situation
doesn't even come close to what we consider 'genocide' today. Most (but not all) things considered
genocide today involve groups internal to the country in question, and they were either killed outright
by their own government (sometimes slowly through torture and abuse) or deported to a place of sure-
to-kill-them environment. Academic definitions of genocide exclude combat deaths and noncombatants
that die as a by-product of military action. It generally denotes the deliberate killing of someone solely
because of their indelible group membership (indelible is the term used for race, ethnicity, nationality
etc.--that characteristics that are 'indelible'). [For one of the major authorities on this subject, see the
work of R.J. Rummel at www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel.]

Consider some of the better-known cases:

1. The government of the Ottoman Empire deported two-thirds or more of its estimated 1-1.8M
Armenian citizens during WWI. They were forced into the deserts of present-day Syria, and most died
due slowly to starvation and dehydration. This was an internal group that was forced out of the country
into the desert to die.

2. The Nazi genocidal actions against the Jews, the Roma, etc. were also initially targeted at internal
people.

3. During WW2, the government of Croatia killed an estimated 200-350K of its internal Serbian
citizens.
4. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia killed 31% of its own population, apprx 2 million
people (although some of this would be considered 'democide' and based on 'delible' characteristics
such as political alignment, instead of 'genocide' proper).

5. In Rwanda, between 500k-1M of the Tutsi ethnic group (all internal) were killed by the Hutu
ethnic group (fighting had been going on between them for some time).

Notice how extremely different these are from the case of the Amalekites:

1. They are NOT an internal group

2. They are NOT a minority group

3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as
immigrants in Israel)

4. They are never under the government control of Israel.

5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.

Some scholars identify 4 types of genocide (Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, cited by Helen Fein, in
Encarta s.v. "Genocide"):
1. Ideological--where social homogeneity is sought, through 'ethnic cleansing' of internal 'pollutants'.
This would include examples of the Nazi Holocaust, Armenian massacres, and the Cambodian purges.
The Amalekite battle has no similarities to this, since these people were not internal 'dirt' that needed
cleaning from within Israel. [In fact, the internal Amalekites were not affected at all, apparently. They
are certainly not mentioned/singled out, like a genocidal propagandistic document would do.]

2. Retributive--is "undertaken to eliminate a real or potential threat", but again, these are "most
likely to occur when one group dominates another group and fears its rebellion or when the other group
actually rebels." The example given is that of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda. Again, this would not fit
our case, since the Amalekites are NOT a part of Israel, or even under its control--for a 'rebellion' to be
feared. The Amalekites had always been the aggressors against Israel, and Israel finally responded to this
history.

3. Developmental is where genocide is undertaken for economic gain. The case in Paraguay in the
60's-70's where they deported/killed an estimated half of the native Indian population, to allow for the
expansion of logging and cattle-raising enterprises in the nation's interior, would be an example. This
doesn't fit our case either--the desert was not a lucrative resource at all, the puny belongings of the
nomadic Amalekites (apart from their plunder of other peoples, of course) would not justify such a
military action, and the Israelites were forbidden to prosper off the 'booty' anyway!

4. Despotic-- is intended to "spread terror among real or potential enemies". Examples of this are
Ugandan presidents Idi Amin and Milton Obote, who killed hundreds of thousands of (internal)
Ugandans who opposed their power. Again, this is internal power abuse, and not at all similar to our
case.

What this means--although it would not bear on the main ethical sensitivity here--is that it is historically
inaccurate to label this military action as 'genocidal'. (This is still the case, EVEN IF one ONLY is talking
about the killing of the families of the warriors. There are none of the defining elements of genocide--as
the term is used by experts--present in the accounts of this initiative.) Let's be clear on this--I am not
exploring how to "justify a genocide", because in the first place, it is NOT genocide. [Interestingly, the
only case we have in the bible of something approaching genocide is in the book of Esther. Haman, a
prominent official, develops a plot in which the internal people will be allowed to attack, kill, and
plunder the internal Jews in the nation. This is very close to genocide, and it is quite ironic that Haman is
called an Agagite, and said to be an Amalekite by Josephus in Ant. 11.209.]

3. Philosophically speaking, we would not actually be able to get all the way to "contradiction" with this
line of argument anyway. If we succeeded in the argument, we might get to "manic-depressive" or
"schizoid" or "insane" or "fickle", but "contradictory" doesn't fit well into discussions of personal
characteristics. My mother was angry at me, compassionate toward me, intimidated by me, amused at
me--all at the same time on MANY occasions in my adolescent years, but her existence is not
'contradictory' at all. The argument/discussion below develops a moral judgment on God's behavior as
perceived negatively. This might render God immoral, and therefore inconsistent with His portrayed
character, but it would not yield non-existence in that process very easily.

To actually create a logical contradiction here, we would have to prove that God (1) clearly did
something clearly unjust in this action, and as a consequence, (2) we could never find a reason no
matter how long we thought about it, that would provide some justification for this action.

Just saying that it seems "always unjust to kill a child" is not enough—we would have to show that even
the cases in normal human experience in which someone has to do this (e.g. the horrible, but all too
frequent, situation in which a father is forced to decide in the labor room of a hospital between the life
of his child OR the life of his wife...many/most bio-medical ethics experts will side with killing the child,
to save the life of the mother/wife) the actions of the father would be "unjust" as well. For, if we even
allow ONE EXCEPTION to this "always unjust" statement, we open up the possibility that whatever
ethical principle allowed that exception MIGHT ALSO BE operative in other/this case, and we also open
up the possibility that there may be other principles that would allow such an action (e.g. mercy killing--
refugees that kill their own small children to keep them from being tortured, enslaved, mutilated,
and/or then killed horribly by their tormentors).

What this means is that an individual’s personal moral intuitions, if they run counter to moral intuitions
of other experts and peers, may need further analysis and qualification, before they could function
plausibly in constructing a logical argument of God's non-existence.

In other words, the argument that I THINK someone might make about this might look like the following:

1. The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)

2. God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)

3. The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given
situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)

4. God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)

5. The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat
controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
6. The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)

7. Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)

And at this point we would have a clear logical contradiction between statement #1 and #7, and
presumably could conclude that that God could not exist (since our concept of this God contained a
'hard contradiction').

But notice the problem--the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition
in Step 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at
constructing a hard contradiction this way fails. I have already mentioned one case in which exceptional
circumstances are generally considered by experts to apply (i.e., the labor room), and one other case
that has a high degree of probability for being another (i.e., the refugee camp), and there might be more
that could be advanced (some of which I will offer below). This, of course, puts the ball back in the
individual’s court to do one of two things: (1) show that these exceptions do NOT hold--and that the
father who chooses to terminate the baby's life, so that his wife doesn't die has committed a horrible,
unjustified, and culpable crime at the level of deliberate murder; or (2) show that although there ARE
legitimate exceptions, there could not be any valid exceptions that would be operative in our biblical
case.

But in any event, someone would still have much, much work to do, to be able to even offer the 'it is a
contradiction' position as an argument. Without such work, this objection is simple assertion,
unsubstantiated opinion (e.g, 'hunch'?), or emotional statement.
Now, let me hasten to add that I am NOT trying to get us to abandon that moral intuition at all!! Our
moral intuitions are very, very important (IMO) for our personal and community life. Our moral
intuitions form the basis of personal conscience and the basis for intersubjectively "agreed on"
community ethics (and consequent legal codes and social mores). And, I am not suggesting that this
particular moral intuition is "wrong" or inaccurate at all. Most of our moral intuitions are "statistically
reliable guides." In other words, they apply in most 'normal' situations. And, I might add, this also
applied to the biblical testament world: God was outraged at Egypt's infanticide, at Canaanite and
Israelite child sacrifice, and at the abandonment of unwanted newborns in the desert by wandering
nomadic tribes (cf. Ezek 16). This is a legitimate rule, and it is that fact that creates the tension for
morally sensitive people in this passage.

What I AM SUGGESTING, however, is that it is not the only moral rule or moral consideration that
applies here (and/or in the cases I mentioned above), and that before applying it so absolutely to this
biblical case, someone may need to apply the same level of skepticism they have about historical
documents to their own moral beliefs first. Further refinement of the implications of the moral insight
and real analysis of the situation (actual or hypothetical) needs to be undertaken to see to what extent
it applies to this specific case.

But let's get into the meat of the issue…

What was the timing of the events surrounding the judgment of the Amalekites?

Here are the timing elements:

•Israel escapes from Egypt--Amalek immediately attacks their weak and helpless.

•Soon thereafter, Amalek also makes a frontal attack on Israel, in spite of the distance, and without
provocation:

"The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Gen 14:7), otherwise known as the
northern part of the Negev (Num 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau's eldest boy) by
a concubine named Timna (Gen 36:12) and became a "clan" or "chief" in the tribe of Esau (Gen 36:15).
Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites. There is every possibility that they had known
about the promise of the land of Canaan that had been given to Esau's twin brother, Jacob; therefore,
they should not have felt any threat to their interests in the Negev had this promise been remembered
and taken seriously. After all, the promise was to be a means of blessing Amalek along with all the other
nations (Gen 12:3) if only they, like Abraham, would have believed. Instead they "came" (wayyabo') and
attacked Israel at Rephidim--some distance south of the north-central district of the Sinai where they
lived. [EBCOT, Ex 17]
Indeed, given the travel path of Israel, there would have been no reason to even suspect that Israel
would have tried to invade Palestine--this attack was altogether an act of aggression and attempted
violation.

•At that point God pronounces judgment on Amalek (including a prophetic allusion to continued conflict
from Amalek: "from generation to generation"), to oppose them as a nation and to destroy them as a
national entity sometime in the future. This has the effect of 'expanding' the original judicial charge from
only the initial atrocity to one including recurring patterns of atrocity ('from gen to gen') [we will also
see this in the discussion below on the 'walking in the sins of the fathers'.]

•Israel sins against God in Num 14, and so they are beaten by Amalek in a presumptuous attack (note:
the issue is not ethnic background!)

•Israel wanders around for 40 years in the wilderness, while information about the power of Israel's God
permeates the Land.

•As Israel is about to enter the Land, God reminds them of the instruction to destroy the Amalek nation.

•Also at this time, Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet specifically prophesizes to the King of Moab of
the destruction of Amalek (Num 24.20). Moab and Midian were closes allies of Amalek throughout
biblical history, and this prophesy would have been well known by the leadership of Amalek before they
started the next couple of centuries of oppression and violence against Israel. [That Balaam was a
famous prophet in this area has been confirmed by archeology.]

•The Amalekites undoubtedly saw the conquests of Joshua, but there is no mention of them in the
biblical record during this 10-25 year period.

•Then, beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behavior of their forefathers--
oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even
AFTER the 'annihilation' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).

•But--during these same 200-400 years--Amalekites were welcomed into Israel as immigrants! (See the
discussion on 2 Sam 1 below). There was a period of 'amnesty' and 'clemency' unparalleled in ancient
history up to this time. God gave the individuals within the nation centuries to 'get out' (or maybe even
time to reform the nation; it is possible that this judgment pronouncement was conditional without
being stated so explicitly, as was the case with Nineveh in Jonah 3.4 and as embedded in the general
principle of Jer 26.1-6 and Jer 18.7-8: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a
kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from
its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. ") As with the vast majority of the
Canaanite population, the sensible Amalekites would have migrated somewhere else. All that would
have been left at the time of Saul would have been a leadership raised and steeped in anti-Israel
violence and hatred. This is NOT some innocent nation, protecting its homeland from an invading and
greedy people. This is the sins of the fathers being continued by their children.

•It is only after 200-400 years of opportunity and influences to change, and after 200-400 years of
continued (and actually escalating) violence against Israel (who had not even been sanctioned or
ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!), that God decides to execute the judgment given earlier.
•The execution of the king of the Amalekites by Samuel (in 1 Samuel 15) shows that the judgment on
the Amalekites was not SOLELY due to the ancient, initial savagery against Israel, but also included
PRESENT atrocities as well. In fact, the initial atrocity is not mentioned at all in this judgment.

Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.” Agag came to him confidently, thinking,
“Surely the bitterness of death is past.”

33 But Samuel said,

“As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.”

And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.

Do we have any reason to believe that this “Israelite-version” of the history is reliable, and not just the
‘song of the conquering victors’, who have violently stolen the land from the innocent Amalekites and
naturally leave such ‘crimes’ out of their literature?
Basically, “yes”:

1. The biblical texts never even estimate the number of Amalekites, but they do point out that they
don't actually "have lands" that they Israelites traveled ("trespassed") through. The Amalekites were not
PART of Canaan (which would have had a million plus folks)--they were a nomadic tribe of marauding
bands, living in the southern Negev (desert region). The archeological data we have of sites in the Negev
around the time of this event indicates a very sporadic population--although mostly in the mid-central
Negev-- although widely spread out. We have evidence of about 50 'fortresses' at this time, ranging in
diameter from 25-70 meters. Isolated houses were scattered between the settlements, but we would be
hard pressed to get a total population above 10,000 people. The large numbers of troops Saul mustered
would have been due to (1) political needs to have all the tribes represented (a theme that pops up in
other places in the OT); and (2) needs to cover the wide geographical area described, even though
sparsely populated. The 'city of Amalek' was likely a cult center, not a population center per se. David
had combat with them with only 600 men later.

2. As for the Israelite's "naturally leaving criminal acts out of their own writings", anyone that reads the
Old Testament history and prophetic writings attentively could see this didn't apply to them! The OT
record is literally filled with their evil, esp. of the elites and religious authorities! And, they never seem
to have a problem describing how frequently they get defeated in battle, for the text is filled with those
events too. And the biblical writers don't have the slightest problem describing situations in which they
doubted God, accused God of various un-god-like actions (e.g. Habakkuk on how God could use the evil
Assyrians; the Psalmist on how God could avoid rescuing the innocent; how God could let evil exploiters
prosper so long), and even of leaving bad-looking-things completely unexplained (e.g. the numbering of
David's census, the breach against Uzzah). On the basis of the surface features of the text, we have NO
warrant for believing that the text 'sugar coated' the story, or functioned as propaganda or justification
(in comparison to other ANE documents of the time, especially).
3. Our every record of Amalekites in other, incidental passages (i.e., focused on other items or
characters), support the view of their vicious culture:

· They attacked the stragglers when Israel first came out of Egypt (As we pointed out in the other
piece, they had to LEAVE HOME and travel a great distance to do this.)

· They later attacked Israel AGAIN without provocation (Ex 17, coming all the way to the southern
tip of the Sinai Peninsula at Rephidim!), but were defeated. [We would think a smart group of people
would do what the Canaanites did and migrate, but they didn't.]

· They partnered with Eglon and attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (3.13)

· They participated in a 'scorched earth' policy toward Israel ["Whenever the Israelites planted their
crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. 4 They camped on the
land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep
nor cattle nor donkeys .5 They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was
impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it. (Jud 6.3)]
· This plundering is referred to in Saul's time: "He (Saul) fought valiantly and defeated the
Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered them." (1 Sam 14.48)

· Saul obviously DID not exterminate the entire tribal group (which probably ranged far south into
the Sinai area [ABD, "Negev (Iron Age)]), for they lived to continue raiding and hauling families off for
the slave trade ["David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided (lit.
"stripped") the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the
women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off [lit.
"drove them", as the cattle in v.20] as they went on their way. 3 When David and his men came to
Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4 So David
and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. (I Sam 30.1)]

· Even their treatment of their slaves looks bad : [1 Sam 30.11: "They found an Egyptian in a field
and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat—12 part of a cake of pressed
figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water
for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, “To whom do you belong, and where do you come
from?” He said, “I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became
ill three days ago.]

4. Although we have no extrabiblical records of these people at all, this 'cultural profile' of marauding
bands and slave-traders is common in the ANE. Nomadic and marauding bands were sources of constant
terror to peoples in the ANE (indeed even up to modern times!) and the wider Asian geography. Look at
some of the non-biblical mentions and descriptions of the nomadic terror:
From ancient sources:

· "[Gutians] not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land...people who know no
inhibitions...with human instinct but canine intelligence..." (The Curse of Agade) cited at [OT:DLAM:113]

· "[Amorite] a tent dweller...who eats raw meat...who has no house during the days of his life, and is
not buried on the day of his death" (Myth of the Wedding of Amurru, cited at [OT:DLAM:113])

· "Since that time the Amorites, a ravaging people, with the instincts of a beast... like wolves; a
people which does not know grain" (Inscription of Shu-Sin, cited at [OT:DLAM:114])

And scholars point out that these groups (and some of their near-modern descendents) LIVED by violent
exploitation of the sedentary population:

· "Their "campsites were regarded as threats" [OT:DLAM:113]

· "An age-old antagonism exists between the settled peoples, al- hadar, and the nomadic or pastoral
tribes, known as Bedouin (al-badiyah), but many settled tribes also have nomadic branches. In Yemen,
the fertile southwestern corner of Arabia containing more than one-third of its total population, the
same antagonistic feelings exist between city dwellers and qabilis, arms-bearing tribes mostly settled in
villages. Until after World War I the Bedouin of the northern deserts were able to keep the settled
people in constant apprehension of their raiding; the tribes would even attack and plunder the pilgrim
hajj caravans to the Holy Cities unless they were bought off or restrained by force. But modern weapons
and airplanes, which can be used to search out tribesmen in their desert or mountain fastnesses, have
altered the situation. (Britannica, s.v. "Arabia")

· "Raiding was the traditional means of supplementing the deficiencies of life in the arid zone. The
Bedouin took by force from the farmers what they lacked in foodstuffs, material goods, and even
women and children. Successful leadership in raids could be a most effective means of developing
reputation and power, a practice that to this day has not been completely curtailed. (Britannica, s.v.
"Asian Peoples and Cultures, Traditional Culture Patterns, Bedouin". Notice that they were even PROUD
of "treachery leadership"!)

· "At its highest degree of development, Central Asian nomad society constituted a very
sophisticated and highly specialized social and economic structure, advanced but also highly vulnerable
because of its specialization and the lack of diversification of its economy. Geared almost entirely to the
production of war matériel--i.e., the horse--when not engaged in warfare, it was unable to provide the
people with anything but the barest necessities of life. To ensure their very existence, Central Asian
empires had to wage war and obtain through raids or tribute the commodities they could not produce.
When, owing to circumstances such as severe weather decimating the horse herds or inept leadership,
raids against other peoples became impossible, the typical Central Asian nomad state had to
disintegrate to allow its population to fend for itself and secure the necessities for a subsistence.
Hunting and pastoral nomadism both needed vast expanses to support a thinly scattered population
that did not naturally lend itself to strong, centralized political control. The skill of a Central Asian leader
consisted precisely in the gathering of such dispersed populations and in providing for them on a level
higher than they had been accustomed to. There was but one way to achieve this: successful raids on
other, preferably richer, peoples. The military machinery was dependent on numbers, which then
precluded self-sufficiency. In case of prolonged military reverses, the nomadic aggregation of warriors
had to disband because it was only in dispersion that they could be economically autonomous without
recourse to war. (Britannica, s.v. Central Asia)

The nomadic groups in antiquity were known for their violence and war-making power, even affecting
the military "heroes" of the past:

"The second of the human factors was the nomads who inhabited the immense territories beyond the
northern frontiers. They fought constantly with the settled populations, but could nevertheless
occasionally ally with them in the face of necessity. When Alexander arrived on the banks of the Jaxartes
River, it marked the limit of the "civilized" world; beyond stretched the Eurasian wilderness. The Roman
historian Quintus Curtius recounts Alexander's meeting with a delegation of Scythians who gave him a
warning. They told him,

Just cross the Tanais [properly the Jaxartes] and you will see how far Scythia stretches. You will never
conquer the Scythians. Our poverty makes us quicker than your army, which bears plunder from so
many nations. Just when you think we are far away, then will you see us in your camp. We know how to
pursue and how to flee with the same swiftness...We seek out those deserts totally devoid of human
culture rather than the cities and the rich countryside.
"These words sum up what the nomad world represented to an empire that stretched several thousand
miles from east to west. The non-nomad population knew the threat only too well. Alexander was not
the first to cross swords with the nomads. Cyrus, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, had paid with his
life while fighting them; and Darius, believing he could take them from behind through southern Russia,
suffered a crushing defeat in his campaign against the Scythians along the shores of the Black Sea.
(Britannica, s.v. Iran)

5. And the trend line of data points on 'accurate portrayal' of biblical characters is very positive:

· When the OT tells us that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice, we have archeological data to
support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the Canaanites).

· When the OT speaks of the anti-Asiatic attitudes of Egyptians in antiquity, we have extra-biblical
literary data to support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the ancient Egyptians).
· When the OT speaks of the arrogance of the Assyrian war-lords, we have several types of historical
data to support that (i.e., this wasn't just Israel misrepresenting the ancient Assyrians).

Thus, the "control data", the non-biblical data that we do have (in related situations)supports the
reliability of the Israelite portrayal of these people.

6. And finally, Israel never actually trespassed on Amalekite territory at all. It was not in the original
land-grant at all, and even the path that Israel took on the east side of the Jordan would not have
brought them into contact with Amalek at all.

In summary, the only data we have--scattered throughout the biblical record and in many cases in
incidental mentions--supports the view of the Amalekites as being a malicious and persistent oppressor
and menace to Israel. And we don't have the traditional earmarks of a self-glorification or political-
justification document (like many of the stelae of ancient rulers).
But doesn’t this event fit the anti-biblical pattern of “punishing the children for the sins of the parents”?

Criminal actions by parents always affect the lives of their children, but in modern cultures we can shield
the children from some of the consequence. For example, in the modern world, the families of prisoners
do not go to prison with the man (or woman), because we have social institutions that can provide base
level care for them--totally unlike the ancient world. Even in exceptionally socially-conscious civilizations
(e.g. ancient Israel), the plight of the "widow and fatherless" was precarious enough; but in extreme
conditions (e.g. migration, warfare, famine, captivity), it was impossible. But even in our world, the
principle of "the families of the criminal suffer too" is very, very obvious. There are ministries and social
outreach services that specifically target the tormented world of the child of the convict. They live on,
but the consequences of the father's (or mother's) destructive behavior takes its toll...

There are two important points that need to be made clear here: (1) the relationship between "sins of
the father" and the "sins of the children"; and (2) the relationship between the sin of a ruler/king/leader
and the sins of the people/followers.

Point 1: The "sins of the fathers" and the "sins of the children":
In the OT, when a descendent is punished for "the sins of their fathers", it is normally referring to
"sinning in the same way and character as their fathers"--NOT punishment for the actual acts of the
fathers.

The biblical expression for this is "walking in the sins (or ways)of their fathers". A couple of passages will
show this:

Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, Abijam became king over Judah. 2 He
reigned three years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom. 3 And
he walked in all the sins of his father which he had committed before him; and his heart was not wholly
devoted to the Lord his God, like the heart of his father David. (I Kings 15)

Now Nadab the son of Jeroboam became king over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and he
reigned over Israel two years. 26 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his
father and in his sin which he made Israel sin.(I Kings 15.25)
In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha the son of Ahijah became king over all Israel at Tirzah, and
reigned twenty-four years. 34 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of
Jeroboam and in his sin which he made Israel sin. (I Kings 15.33)

Now the word of the Lord came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying, 2 “Inasmuch as I
exalted you from the dust and made you leader over My people Israel, and you have walked in the way
of Jeroboam and have made My people Israel sin, provoking Me to anger with their sins(I Kings 16.1f)

Then Omri and all Israel with him went up from Gibbethon, and they besieged Tirzah. 18 And it came
about, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the citadel of the king’s house and
burned the king’s house over him with fire, and died, 19 because of his sins which he sinned, doing evil
in the sight of the Lord, walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, making Israel sin. (I
Kings 16.17)

And Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord, and acted more wickedly than all who were before him. 26 For
he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in his sins which he made Israel sin,
provoking the Lord God of Israel with their idols. (I kigs 16.25)

And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him. 31 And it
came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of
Nebat, (I Kings 16.30)
Ahaziah the son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king
of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel. 52 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in
the way of his father and in the way of his mother and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who
caused Israel to sin. 53 So he served Baal and worshiped him and provoked the Lord God of Israel to
anger according to all that his father had done. (I Kings 22.51ff)

What this principle shows is that a phrase "the sins of X" would generally mean--when applied to a
descendant of X--"sins just like X did".

Point 2: the relationship between the sin of a ruler/king and the sins of the people/followers

Closely related to the above, is the principle of a nation 'following in the sins of their king'. Again, these
would be sins "like X" or even "caused/influenced/provoked by" X.

And the Lord gave Israel a deliverer, so that they escaped from under the hand of the Arameans; and
the sons of Israel lived in their tents as formerly. 6 Nevertheless they did not turn away from the sins of
the house of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel sin, but walked in them; and the Asherah also
remained standing in Samaria. (2 Kings 13.5)

In the twenty-third year of Joash the son of Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu became
king over Israel at Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years. 2 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord,
and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel sin; he did not turn from
them. 3 So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, (2 Kings 13)

And the sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them, 23
until the Lord removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. (2 Kings
17.22)

This would mean that judgment ascribed to the "sins of king X" could easily mean "sins LIKE king X" or
"sins by the people instigated by king X".

A very detailed case of the interaction between the ruler/father and follower/descendents can be seen
in the final judgment on Judah. The biblical texts sometimes ascribe the judgment to "the (specific) sins
of Manasseh" and sometimes to "the sins of Judah" and sometimes both. In all cases, though, the
character of the sins are identical (e.g. idolatrous religious practices including shedding of innocent
blood through child sacrifice)--the "like X" principle. The principles above show how this makes sense, in
such a culture.
2 Kings 21:

Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem; and
his mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the
abominations of the nations whom the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel. 3 For he rebuilt the
high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an
Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. 4 And
he built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put My name.” 5
For he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. 6 And he made
his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and
spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord provoking Him to anger. 7 Then he set the carved
image of Asherah that he had made, in the house of which the Lord said to David and to his son
Solomon, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put My
name forever. 8 “And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their
fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all
the law that My servant Moses commanded them.” 9 But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced
them to do evil more than the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the sons of Israel.

10 Now the Lord spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, 11 “Because Manasseh king of Judah
has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before
him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; 12 therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel,
‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears
shall tingle. 13 ‘And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of
Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 ‘And I will
abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they shall
become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; 15 because they have done evil in My sight, and have
been provoking Me to anger, since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.’” 16
Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to
another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the Lord. 17 Now the
rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did and his sin which he committed, are they not written in
the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 18 And Manasseh slept with his fathers and was buried
in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza, and Amon his son became king in his place.

19 Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem; and
his mother’s name was Meshullemeth the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah. 20 And he did evil in the sight of
the Lord, as Manasseh his father had done. 21 For he walked in all the way that his father had walked,
and served the idols that his father had served and worshiped them. 22 So he forsook the Lord, the God
of his fathers, and did not walk in the way of the Lord.

2 Kings 23.26f:

However, the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger burned
against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him. 27 And the Lord
said, “I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will cast off Jerusalem, this
city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’”

2 Kings 24:

In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years;
then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 And the Lord sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of
Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it,
according to the word of the Lord, which He had spoken through His servants the prophets. 3 Surely at
the command of the Lord it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of
Manasseh, according to all that he had done, 4 and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he
filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the Lord would not forgive.

2 Chron 33:

Thus Manasseh misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom
the Lord destroyed before the sons of Israel. 10 And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but
they paid no attention.

Jer 15

Then the Lord said to me, “Even though Moses and Samuel were to stand before Me, My heart would
not be with this people; send them away from My presence and let them go! ... “And I shall make them
an object of horror among all the kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, the
king of Judah, for what he did in Jerusalem...“Indeed, who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem, Or who
will mourn for you, Or who will turn aside to ask about your welfare? 6 “You who have forsaken Me,”
declares the Lord, “You keep going backward. So I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you;
I am tired of relenting! 7 “And I will winnow them with a winnowing fork At the gates of the land; I will
bereave them of children, I will destroy My people; They did not repent of their ways.

Now, when we apply this understanding to the Amalekites, a similar theme can be detected in the
biblical text. Some of the judgment passages focus on the initial (specific) cruelties of the original
Amalekites, and some focus on the present day recapitulations of those cruelties--the "like X" principle.
•So, the "sins of X" data (i.e., founders' sin)would come from:

Deut 25.17:Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, 18 how
he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint
and weary; and he did not fear God. 19 “Therefore it shall come about when the Lord your God has
given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the Lord your God gives you as an
inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not
forget.

•And the "like the sins of X" data can be seen in:

Also when the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you, you cried out to Me, and I
delivered you from their hands. (Judg 10.10)

And he (Saul) acted valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those
who plundered them(I Sam 14.48)

Then Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now
therefore, listen to the words of the Lord. 2 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what
he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. (I Sam
15.1-2) [Notice: this is a 'posture' statement, as opposed to just an 'event' statement--this "being set
against Israel" was ruthlessly maintained from generation to generation of Amalekite]
And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites
(1 Sam 17.15) [emphasis on current wickedness, not past.]

What emerges from this analysis is that any current culpability of warrior Amalekites at the time of Saul
was more an issue of "walking in the sins of their founders/fathers" than merely of some ancient event.
[The fact that Amalekites could be assimilated into Israel without execution(!) points out that it is the
actual character/actions of an individual that made the difference back then. In other words, if the
original cruel act of Amalek was the only criteria, then immigrants would be killed, not accepted! ] This
general principle is the focus of Ezek 18, of course, and makes this explicit (even though Israel complains
against God about this!):

"Yet you (Israel) say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the
son has practiced justice and righteousness, and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall
surely live. 20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s
iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the
righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21 “But if the
wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices
justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 “All his transgressions which he has
committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced,
he will live. 23 “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than
that he should turn from his ways and live?
But aren’t individuals supposed to be punished for their OWN misdeeds ONLY, and not the misdeeds of
others? (Deut 24:16, 2 Kings 14:1)

Absolutely, but we need to not make the assumption that the killing of the dependents was a
punishment on them, as opposed to a consequence of the punishment on the fathers. Morally, there is
a huge difference.

To illustrate how this works, consider the case of Rahab in Jericho. Everybody in the city knows to flee--
they have known this a long time, and only the unreasonable remain to fight (or the unable--the king
may have forced some to remain in the city against their will, perhaps even Rahab). But the passage
about Rahab's deliverance shows how the family connectedness worked for good or ill:

"Now before they lay down, she came up to them on the roof, 9 and said to the men, “I know that the
Lord has given you the land, and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of
the land have melted away before you. 10 “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the
Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites
who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. 11 “And when we heard it,
our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the Lord your
God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. 12 “Now therefore, please swear to me by the
Lord, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father’s household, and
give me a pledge of truth, 13 and spare my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, with
all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death.” 14 So the men said to her, “Our life for yours
if you do not tell this business of ours; and it shall come about when the Lord gives us the land that we
will deal kindly and faithfully with you.”

"15 Then she let them down by a rope through the window, for her house was on the city wall, so that
she was living on the wall. 16 And she said to them, “Go to the hill country, lest the pursuers happen
upon you, and hide yourselves there for three days, until the pursuers return. Then afterward you may
go on your way.” 17 And the men said to her, “We shall be free from this oath to you which you have
made us swear, 18 unless, when we come into the land, you tie this cord of scarlet thread in the window
through which you let us down, and gather to yourself into the house your father and your mother and
your brothers and all your father’s household. 19 “And it shall come about that anyone who goes out of
the doors of your house into the street, his blood shall be on his own head, and we shall be free; but
anyone who is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if a hand is laid on him. 20 “But if
you tell this business of ours, then we shall be free from the oath which you have made us swear.” 21
And she said, “According to your words, so be it.” So she sent them away, and they departed; and she
tied the scarlet cord in the window.

In this case, the sparing of the lives of the family of Rahab had nothing to do with their innocence. If
they stayed in the house, their lives would be spared as a consequence of the (reverse) judgment on
Rahab, not as a (reverse) judgment on themselves. In this case, their being spared was ONLY a
consequence of being related to another (Rahab) and being in close enough relationship to her to listen
to her pleas to stay inside.

This notion of 'blood' as responsibility for someone's death leads us in an important direction:
· Execution of a criminal was "legally" self-caused:

"Then David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord’s
anointed?” 15 And David called one of the young men and said, “Go, cut him down.” So he struck him
and he died. 16 And David said to him, “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against
you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.’” (2 Sam 1.14ff)

In this situation, we have David (the new king) telling a "young man" to execute the slayer of Saul. But
the responsibility for the death of the slayer is on himself--NOT on David, nor on the executor. In an
accountability sense, the slayer is responsible for his own death--He "killed himself". [If this principle is
applied to the Amalekites, then they are responsible for their own deaths--even at the hands of Israelite
soldiers.]

· The "blood" principle also had a visible component--the social recognition of responsibility for a
crime. In the wanton killing of a military general, for example, we see that this can apply to descendents:

"And the king said to him, “Do as he has spoken and fall upon him and bury him, that you may remove
from me and from my father’s house the blood which Joab shed without cause. 32 “And the Lord will
return his blood on his own head, because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he and
killed them with the sword, while my father David did not know it: Abner the son of Ner, commander of
the army of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, commander of the army of Judah. 33 “So shall their
blood return on the head of Joab and on the head of his descendants forever; but to David and his
descendants and his house and his throne, may there be peace from the Lord forever.” 34 Then Benaiah
the son of Jehoiada went up and fell upon him and put him to death, and he was buried at his own
house in the wilderness.(I Kings 2.31ff)

Notice that only Joab was executed; his family only had to deal with the shame and disgrace of Joab's
crime. They were not guilty per se, but they were recipients of the consequences of Joab's guilt.

· We have this even in a "pre-agreed upon" condition of execution:

"Now the king sent and called for Shimei and said to him, “Build for yourself a house in Jerusalem and
live there, and do not go out from there to any place. 37 “For it will happen on the day you go out and
cross over the brook Kidron, you will know for certain that you shall surely die; your blood shall be on
your own head.” 38 Shimei then said to the king, “The word is good. As my lord the king has said, so
your servant will do.” So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. (I Kings 2.36)

In this case we have Solomon pre-announcing the conditions under which Shimei would be executed,
and Shimei agreed. In this case, failure to keep the agreement with the authorities was accepted by both
parties as a legitimate reason for execution. Shimei agreed that "his blood" would be upon his head, not
Solomon's or the executioner. Again, he legally 'killed himself' by going back on his agreement (itself a
gracious concession by the royal family, by the way!).

· Again, death as execution is NOT the responsibility of the judge or executioner--it is that of the
criminal:

"Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood, and who does any of these things to a brother 11
(though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and
defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a
pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols, and commits abomination, 13 he lends money on interest and
takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be
put to death; his blood will be on his own head. (Ezek 18.10)

In the above case, the person who oppresses others will be put to death, but "his blood" will be upon his
own head. In other words, the death is NOT the responsibility of the judge or executioner.

· This blood responsibility also shows up in non-family relations, in which one person could
(probably) prevent the death of another:
"The word of the LORD came to me:2 “Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: ‘When I
bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their
watchman,3 and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the
people,4 then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes
his life, his blood will be on his own head.5 Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take
warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself.6 But
if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the
sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will
hold the watchman accountable for his blood.’ (Ezek 33.1ff)

Notice how this would implicate the father in the death of his family. If he knew to flee (perhaps from
other encounters with Israel, or just in general from their reputation at the time), then his failure to do
so would have brought the blood of his family down upon himself. It would have been HE who killed his
family and himself, regardless of who was the actual executioner.

What this basically means is that the father would have been actually responsible for the death of his
family, by his continued hostile actions towards the Israelites. The children were not punished FOR the
crimes of the father; rather, they were victims OF the crimes of the father.

A striking illustration of this--and an additional indication that 'genocide' is not the issue here--comes
from incidental data in the passage from 2 Samuel 1 we noted above:
"Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so also did all the men who were with him. 12
And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan and for the people
of the Lord and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. 13 And David said to the
young man who told him, “Where are you from?” And he answered, “I am the son of an alien, an
Amalekite.” 14 Then David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to
destroy the Lord’s anointed?” 15 And David called one of the young men and said, “Go, cut him down.”
So he struck him and he died. 16 And David said to him, “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has
testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.’”

Think about the implications of this passage for a second:

1.The young man here is a child of an Amalekite immigrant to Israel ("an alien")

2.Israel allowed Amalekites to become part of the community, in the category of resident-alien

3.This child of an Amalekite was likely a full-bloodied Amalekite.

4.This Amalekite was trusted enough to serve in the army of Saul.

5.Aliens were culturally integrated well enough in Israel to be expected to know the rules about killing
those anointed of Yahweh

6.This man was executed by David, not for being an Amalekite, but just as another Israelite would have
been in the same way, for the same offense.

7.Any other family members of the young man's father (and extended family, probably) would not have
suffered any harm in the attack on Amalek--because their father had the good sense to emigrate to
Israel.

8.David does not seem shocked to find an Amalekite among the troops or resident in Israel, and this
would likely imply that others had emigrated as well. [The "window" for Amalekites to migrate to Israel
would have lasted approximately 200-400 years after the pronunciation of the "destroy them" edict in
Ex 17!]
Here is a family where the father's wisdom saved the lives of his descendents--the offspring were spared
from the destruction not because of their "innocence" or their "guilt", but solely as a consequence of
the father's action.

To net this out: the family members were not being punished for the sins of the father, but rather,
suffered the consequences of the father's actions--for good or ill.

[This, of course, is no different in principle today. The children of substance abusers don't often
experience the material benefits of others (the material benefits are spent on alcohol or drugs). The
children of physically abusive parents suffer bodily and psychological harm. The children of violent
criminals often end up fatherless. They suffer the consequences of the parent's sin, and they are the
victims solely of the parents.]

Pushback: "Glenn, it seems to me you may have overstated the case for Amalekites being accepted as
emigrants into Israel. I find the young man in 2 Samuel 1 as the only example, and it doesn’t seem clear
whether he was a soldier under Saul, a POW set free accidentally in the confusion of battle, or what.
We do have the examples of Rahab and Ruth, but of course they were not Amalekites. Do you have any
further example or clarification at this point?" ... See discussion of this point at porous.html .
But why couldn’t the Israelites just ‘ignore’ the Amalekites?

Because the Amalekites wouldn’t ‘ignore’ Israel…and responsible Israelite parents would need to do
something to protect their lives…

The Amalekites were a cruel, active, and hostile force, on Israel's immediate border. Israel was
forbidden to attack other border kingdoms (by the biblical God), but Amalek had been actively
oppressing Israel for at least 200+ years (without provocation), beginning with their first week of
freedom from Egypt, to the more recent slave-capture, pillage, and scorched-earth aggressions in the
book of Judges. The only active suffering up to this point was BY Amalek ON Israel.

In spite of all reason, Amalek continued to destroy land, people, crops, cattle, and to haul off people for
sale as slaves in foreign markets--people who had only now gotten their first taste of freedom. This is
not your normal 'angry neighbor'--these are terrorists, these are slave-traders, these are vandals, these
are unreasonable aggressors (unlike the Canaanites, who mostly migrated away; or the Jebusites, who
resorted to deception).For Israel EVER to enjoy a moment's peace in the land of promise, Amalek must
be rendered non-hostile. Without some kind of self-defense action on the part of Israel, Amalek would
simply continue inflicting 'active suffering' on Israel's families, their food, their freedom. Something had
to be done--somehow Amalek must be stopped.

How could this be done? These were nomadic, desert peoples. If they had been a settled people like the
Canaanites, you could simply drive them from their country and then occupy their cities, defending
them if and when they tried to re-take the cities. But a nomadic people only built cities for religious
shrine reasons, and were not there very frequently or very long. This tactic would simply not work.

With nomadic tribes, you either (1) destroyed their leadership and warriors, or (2) you drove them out
of the territory and built fortifications around the edges of the land (keeping a military force along the
barrier). If you were a fledgling nation yourself (i.e., pre-monarchy or nascent-monarchy Israel), you
would not remotely have had adequate resources to build fortifications and provide a military force to
guard some desert-line fortifications, around a territory that was not even given to you in the land-grant
by God. [This, historically, has rarely been an option for smaller states, in territories without natural
borders such as mountains, difficult rivers, etc..]

In the face of unreasonable, consistent, and oppressive violence against your family and your kin, you
are stuck with the imperative and responsibility for serious war. It is naive at best, and morally
irresponsible at worst, to deny this. To defend one's family against unprovoked and destructive violence
is a fundamental moral obligation.
I hope it is clear by now this was not some simple 'act of territorial aggression' on the part of Ancient
Israel! This was a defensive (and exceptional) military campaign. There just were not many practical
options as to how to do this...

So, if the Amalekite aggression virtually required the elimination of the warrior-class, what practical
options for survival remained for the women/kids?

Well, if this analysis is correct so far, we are faced clearly with the problem I pointed out earlier--the
widows and fatherless kids, in the desert. This is, as pointed out above, a situation that the Amalekite
warriors put their families in--NOT the Israelites per se.

So, what options would Israel might have had concerning the fatherless Amalekite family, once the
warriors had been eliminated in battle?

There are ONLY four options to consider:

1. Take them back as slaves (or to be sold as slaves)

2. Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel.

3. Leave them there in the desert to their fate

4. Kill them there in the desert

Option 1: Take them back as slaves (or to be sold as slaves).

This was, of course, what some other nations would have done. In fact, this is what many nations would
have initiated the conflict for (see my discussion on OT Slavery for more documentation and discussion
of this, and especially the horrors of being a foreign/POW female slave). The Amalekites alone would be
an example of raids to produce slaves for re-sale in the slave trade:

"On of the most valuable spoils of battle was the people. In the UR III period some tablets recorded long
lists of women and children...Sometimes women and children were included as part of the general
massacre, but usually they became slaves." [OT:DLAM:236-7]
This was (1) against God's strong anti-slavery theme for Israel, who forbade them to make slaves,
engage in slave-trade, or turn over runaways, etc. But more importantly, (2) it was practically impossible
at the time--the country/people did not have resources to assimilate this many new people, ALL of
whom would have needed to be fed and clothed at a difficult period of Israel's history (still at the height
of Philistine warfare and Transjordanian aggression). At a practical level--as actual ancient "slave
societies" have taught us-- adult slaves generated by foreign wars often harbor revenge, and wait for
that night in which they can kill you in your sleep. The effects on societies of these types of internal
hostile elements are well-known. [Indeed, to some historians, this is why the Pharaoh suppressed the
Israelites so abusively in Egypt at the end. There were major external threats at the time, and if a
significant block of "unhappy insiders" sided with the outsiders, then the nation would easily fall.] This is
a purely-practical consideration, but one that has to be considered in understanding why this option was
not open to the Israelite nation.

In an earlier time, when Israel was united, strong, and before the population decimation/fragmentation
under the Judges, we do have a situation in which all (32,000) female children were spared and brought
into Israel. In the conflict with Midian/Moab, all unmarried female children were spared, brought into
the nation, and distributed throughout Israel. Since the normal age for marrying (and therefore, losing
one's virginity) in the ancient world was around twelve, this would have given an average age of 5-6
years for these girls. This would have made this group neither useful for concubinage (or illicit sexual
activity, as is often vulgarly suggested, and contraindicated by the practice of the normal Israelite
family), nor generally even for 'servant work'. They would be only consumers of resources, parenting,
and care for years and years, but since there were 24,000 adult Israelite males who died in the event,
the resource consumption would have balanced out. And remember, the miracles of the wilderness
stopped abruptly in a matter of weeks/months.

I might also point out that God very, very rarely uses the miraculous, never to solve systematic, long-
term infrastructure problems like welfare. There was plenty of want, hunger, thirst, disease during the
period of the Judges, but God didn't do any miracles for His own people. There were many such
situations during the Monarchy, and during the life of the Patriarchs as well--but no miracles. When
Jesus walked on earth and performed His selective miracles, there were multitudes of people who were
NOT healed, who died "prematurely" (if this is a meaningful concept), who were abused/exploited by
the Romans. The ONLY large-scale or population-wide miracles I can think of were those forty years
during the Wilderness Wanderings--a mere blip in biblical history--and they were never foreshadowed
during the famines of the Patriarchs nor repeated during the droughts and famines of Israel. Based on
this pattern, it would be unwarranted to assume that God would have 'made manna appear' for these
people IF HE REALLY CARED ABOUT THEM. The whole position of "If God really cared, He would
intervene miraculously to stop a crime, keep Paul from being martyred, reduce cheating on tax forms, or
raise everybody from the dead whenever they were killed" is highly problematic, and is subject to a
number of systemic flaws, not the least of which are related to the Problem of Evil [I have a number of
discussions about this issue on the Tank]. What this means for us is that 'appeal to miracle' as a reason
to keep this 'option 1' viable cannot be depended on. We are still stuck in the ordinary world, as God
created it.

Unfortunately, this was simply not an option in the historical situation of the time. [In today's world, it
sometimes is—as in refugee work--but it is unreasonable to expect them back then to be able to do
something that absolutely could not be supported by the limited infrastructure of the ancient and
formative societies.]

Option 2: Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel (or anywhere
else, for that matter):

Similar problem here: there were no social relief programs/processes adequate to take care of this many
dependent people. [Remember, most of these people would have been nomadic dependents (without
agricultural or industrial skills) or minor children (consumers without the ability to contribute to their
upkeep), at a time before the agricultural surpluses of Israel could support such a large group of resident
aliens. As marauders, the Amalekites did amass some gold (1 Chr 18.11) and livestock, but God forbade
the Israelite soldiers to take this with them as spoils of war (probably so Israel would not get a 'taste' of
raiding other nations for booty, and become like the Amalekites).

There were no social relief, welfare, or benevolent resources ANYWHERE in the ANE, even in the
"wealthiest" of nations. Even elderly care was a major issue, but not addressed by the public sector.
There simply was not enough resource surplus or infrastructure available to do this:

· "In spite of the government's propaganda concern for widows and orphans, there was no
systematic welfare system. The institution that dealt with the problem of young families bereft of a
father and husband is called the a-r u-a, meaning 'dedicated.' Women and children were 'dedicated' by
relatives who could no longer support them or by themselves, and they were employed especially in
weaving and processing wool. Because we have several detailed records of such persons, we know that
they usually did not live long after they had been dedicated, probably owing to the wretched conditions
in which they lived and worked. ...Women weavers were exploited extensively at Lagas; their children
no doubt died at a high rate: one group of 679 women had only 103 children, though other groups had
more. " [OT:LIANE:35]

· "Ancient society has fewer elderly, it is true, but they existed nonetheless, and had to be
supported along with many children, most of whom would not survive to adulthood." [OT:CEANE:2]
· "While it is true, as Van Driel points out, that life in the ancient Near East was in general much
shorter and death much quicker, even the few that survived into old age, or lingered on in a slow decline
of physical and mental powers, would have placed a huge burden on an economy that knew more
scarcity than surplus." [OT:CEANE:241]

· "Care of the aged does not form a separate category in the law codes; indeed, there is not a single
law that deals with the subject directly." [OT:CEANE:241]

· "Nonetheless, all the contributors stress that the role of the public sector was limited."
[OT:CEANE:244)

Let's be VERY clear about this. We take these for granted and they simply did NOT exist in the ancient
world. This was NOT in any sense an option for this situation.

Option 3: Leave them there in the desert to their fate

This, of course, is simply another form of the death sentence: a slower death through exposure,
predatory animals (and possibly slave-traders), and dehydration.

To escape from a military victor was the same as escaping to a prolonged and agonizing death, in the
ANE:

· "Battle casualties were the major cause of death among adult males. Those captured on military
campaigns most probably died of exhaustion and maltreatment. Those who managed to escape from
their victors died of exposure, hunger, and thirst." [OT:DLAM:146]

· "Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst."
[OT:DLAM:237]

[You might remember that being left in the desert to die this way was the form of execution used in the
Ottoman Empire genocide mentioned above: "They were forced into the deserts of present-day Syria,
and most died due slowly to starvation and dehydration."]
This situation is illustrated in the early story of Hagar and Ishmael. They are sent away into the desert by
Sarah/Abraham, and death was expected:

She [Hagar] went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin
was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a
bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there nearby, she began to
sob. (Gen 21.14ff)

Whether this form of death (generally taking a week or less) is any less horrible than death from a sword
(with its terror, but over in minutes) will have to be left up to the reader. It is certainly not obvious to me
that watching your loved ones die slowly and agonizingly is preferable to seeing them die almost
instantly.

And, the possibility of staying alive but being captured by slave traders is not much more attractive (if
any). Frequently in antiquity, people would commit suicide rather than become foreign slaves (whose lot
was quite different from home-born servants). Whole groups of peoples would kill themselves when
captured, to avoid this horrible fate. Bradley mentions some of the more vivid instances [HI:SASR:44f]
· Most of the Spanish tribe of the Cantabri (22 BC) killed themselves when enslaved by Rome,
cutting their own throats, drinking poison, or setting fire to their huts and dying in the flames

· The inhabitants of Xanthus (in Lycia) undertook mass suicide three times! (after being captured by
Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and M. Brutus)

· 400 Roman soldiers killed themselves at the point of capture by the Frisii (28 AD)

· The Dacians killed themselves in preference to being enslaved by Trajan.

In these cases, people obviously preferred a rapid death rather than even life-in-slavery (much less slow-
death-in-the-desert). Why would we assume the Amalekite women and children would feel differently--
especially in a culture that dealt in slave trading and apparently abused its slaves as well [above].

Again, this is not obviously preferable to a quick death, and indeed, the data from suicide seems to
indicate quite the opposite.
Option 4: Kill them there in the desert

•We do have some data from antiquity that shows that people preferred quick deaths over slow
agonizing ones, and this data also comes from suicide events.

"Men condemned to participate in amphitheater events [in the Roman empire] realized that their
deaths would be agonizing and painful. Some chose to commit suicide, and...spare themselves the
torment..." [ATRD:349]

To this, we might add the suicide of Saul in 1 Samuel 31, in which he desires to die rather than be
tortured ("abused"--cf. Jdgs 19.25).

•And we have already seen that people preferred quick deaths to 'normal' foreign slavery.

•In fact, in antiquity, people preferred quick deaths (e.g., suicides) over many adverse situations in
which they were still alive.
Biblical examples include Samson (instead of on-going slavery and abuse by the Philistines), Abimelech
(instead of dying in disgrace), Ahithophel (instead of living on with a lower status), and Zimri (instead of
facing political reprisal at the hands of his rival).

Extrabiblical data supports this as well:

· The Greeks and Romans practiced suicide for a number of reasons, and Stoicism was famous for its
"endorsement" of the issue.

· From Philo: "In Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods pious Jews are often
portrayed as taking their lives voluntarily rather than betray their religious beliefs. For example, when in
39 or 40 a.d. the emperor Gaius announced plans to have a statue of himself erected in the Jerusalem
temple, the Jews solemnly warned the Roman governor Petronius that, if this were carried out, they
would first slaughter their women and children and then kill themselves “in contempt of a life which is
not a life”" (Philo Gaium 236). [ABD, s.v. "suicide"]

· From Josephus: "Although Josephus himself delivered a lengthy speech on the iniquity of suicide in
the Jewish War (3 §362–82; but his own neck was on the line), in the same work he also praised the
heroism of the Jews at Masada who mutually slaughtered themselves rather than fall into the hands of
the Romans (7 §320–88)." [ABD, s.v. "suicide"] (note: Masada was occupied by a force of less than 1,000
Jews, including women and children, and only two women and five children chose to hide rather than
kill themselves in a quick death.]
· From later Rabbinic writers: "In later rabbinic literature there are numerous stories of suicide, and
this despite the usual claim by scholars that the rabbis opposed the practice. The Mishnah and Talmud
contain accounts of suicide and martyrdom as well as discussions relating to the rules and regulations
governing both. For example, b. Ketub. 103b relates that when rabbi Judah the Prince died a “voice from
heaven” (bat qôl) proclaimed that all those present at his death would enjoy the life of the world to
come. When a fuller, who had the misfortune of not calling on the rabbi that day, learned of this, he
killed himself. Immediately, a bat qôl announced that he too would live in the world to come...A similar
story in the Mishnah 'Abot Zar(18a) concerns the martyrdom of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion during the
emperor Hadrian’s reign. The rabbi was wrapped in a Torah scroll and set on fire; but to ensure that he
would suffer, water-soaked tufts of wool were placed upon his heart. His disciples therefore begged him
to breathe in the fire in order to hasten an otherwise gruesome death. The rabbi, however, refused, in
words faintly reminiscent of the Phaedo: “Let him who gave [my soul] take it away, but no one should
destroy himself.” The executioner then asked whether he would enter the world to come if he helped
the rabbi die sooner. When he received an affirmative response, the executioner removed the tufts of
wool and the rabbi died. The executioner then threw himself upon the fire. Suddenly a bat qôl
proclaimed that both the rabbi and the executioner had been admitted to the world to come."[ABD, s.v.
"suicide"]

So, if we except the reality of the lack of social infrastructure necessary to support such a group, this
final alternative looks like the "least painful and least dehumanizing" (judging from the data concerning
suicide in the ancient world). There is nothing laudatory about it, to be sure, but the moral difficulty was
forced on the Israelites by the Amalekite warrior aggression. The fact that the destruction of the
Amalekite warrior group was required to end the continual anti-Israelite savagery, forced the Israelites
into this situation.

What this means is that the ancients disagree with moderns over what is “morally acceptable
euthanasia”. The ancients--from the evidence of suicides--clearly believed that a sudden death was
preferable to an anticipated life of future suffering (e.g., slavery), an anticipated death by
starvation/thirst/exposure, or of torture (e.g., capture by rival rulers). Accordingly, this means that our
modern intuitions about the morality of various types and ranges of euthanasia may need further
analysis, and that although most forms of ancient euthanasia/suicide would have been painful/violent
(generally involving swords, not Socratic type poison!), they would not have been considered morally
wrong. And since, there is no explicit censure given in the bible for the suicides mentioned, it would be
premature to decide that ancient criteria for acceptable euthanasia were ‘less moral than’ modern
criteria. Even the case of 'anticipated' sufferings are sometimes allowed in the modern world, especially
in wartime situations. POW's, for example, have been known to request death from other soldiers, to
avoid a future of anticipated torture and death.

I remember vividly the first time I was confronted with this concept. It was back in high-school, pre-
Christian period, as I glanced at a scene on TV. I wasn't watching the show at all, but was struck by the
image of two heads sticking up out of level ground. As I tuned in to the situation, I saw something that
deeply disturbed my thinking. The movie was an old black-and-white Western, and the hero cowboy had
ridden up with his friend, on horseback, to this spot of level ground. What showed sticking up out of the
ground were the backs of two human heads, one an Indian squaw, and the other a "paleface" man.
They had been buried up to their necks in the dirt (rendering them immovable), next to a fire-ant
mound. The hero read the Indian sign nearby and explained to his fellow they these two had been
caught in some sexual impropriety some days back, and they were sentenced to die slowly and painfully
by fire-ant. The heads were still recognizable, but not moving or speaking, and fortunately the camera
did not show their faces (back then, but they might nowadays!). The hero took out his gun and shot the
two people, ending an agony that I still cannot think of without squirming. I remember thinking -- 'was
that really murder?'. It was deliberate, it was unprovoked, it was violent--but it was merciful.

I think now about that situation, from a anticipatory perspective. Had I been the cowboy and saw them
at a distance as they were burying the poor souls, and watched as the group of executioners stood
watch for a long time, would I have used my rifle and shot them earlier, from a distance? [Assuming
there was no real chance I could overcome the group myself, nor outwait the group, or other options.]
What would be the morally correct answer? These are complex issues, and ones that cannot be decided
on with simple words like 'never' and 'always'.
Now, before I move to the next point, we need to be clear on the above--THERE ARE NO OTHER
OPTIONS. There are no 'other ways out'. There are no 'softer choices'. To say "there must be some other
way" is avoidance, given everything we know about ancient history and the situation. For the husband
who has to decide to end the life of the baby, to save the life of his wife, "there must be another way" is
a bitter fantasy world. For the father who has to pull the plug on his brain-dead child, "there must be
another way" is a bitter fantasy world. For the daughter, who has to administer the lethal medicine to
her at-death-point mom after a long, long time of suffering and pain, "there must be another way" is a
bitter fantasy world. Sometimes there simply aren't morally 'neat, tidy, and comfortable' endings.

And, very importantly, there is NO WAY TO AVOID THE CHOICE. If you were Israel's leadership, and you
HAD to destroy the warrior class of males for all the reasons already discussed, then you would
inexorably be faced with this decision. And in our case, it was God who said 'do it this way'--the God
who makes the difficult decision about the day and manner of our own deaths, for each of us, and it was
the God who takes no delight in death (indeed, who intends to destroy it) who decided that this was
'least painful of all choices'.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Inconclusive unethical intrascript: "This makes me nervous--wouldn't this be a carte blanche approval of
human euthanasia or 'mercy killing'? Wouldn't that be a direct implication of this event (or at least of
your approach)?

Actually, this event would not bear on the subject directly, simply because the decider is God. God, of
course, is the only agent who bears last-say authority over death. God bears some kind of governance
responsibility for every moment of death. And, we know that God sometimes operates in an euthanasia
fashion, for His word says so:

The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart;

devout men are taken away, and no one understands

that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil.

Those who walk uprightly enter into peace;

they find rest as they lie in death. [Is 57.1-2]

We even speak of this in some cases of terminal illness of loved ones, speaking of "God ending their
suffering".

But Scripture generally warrants that this is a choice and decision to made by the "only wise God", a
choice that can only be safely trusted to His goodness, wisdom, and authority.
There is no clear logical warrant to move from "God has the non-derived authority to decide on the
moment and circumstances of the death of another" to "a human has the non-derived authority to
decide on the moment and circumstances of the death of another". Humans are thought to have
'derived' authority for such, in selected areas: certain forms of capital punishment, some situations of
family and self defense, and certain extreme governance situations (see the 'lifeboat ethics' discussion
below).

There are also decisions that have direct consequences in the life/death arena, but that are not in
themselves life/death decisions--many of the difficult scenarios discussed in bio-medical ethics fall into
this category (e.g., the one mentioned at the beginning of this article).

Our passage, though, is one in which the decision is taken out of the hands of the Israelites and made
explicitly by God. Our analysis of this decision here might reveal the euthanasia-like features of His
choice, but one could not draw the implication from these that humans should invariably do the same.
That would be a non sequitur.

(There are, of course, arguments that could be made on the basis of God as moral exemplar, but since
our passage is explicitly about God as governance agent, one would have to appeal to other passages,
data, sources of authority to warrant using our text for that. The differences between the moral
strictures upon God in governance and upon us as 'images of God' in individual behavior are very
significant, but something far beyond the scope of this article. )
The issue of human-decided euthanasia is a very, very complex one, in my opinion, but is also one that
our passage does not speak to in the least.

So, not only would this NOT be a carte blanche approval of human-decided euthanasia, but also this
would bear only obliquely upon the subject, if at all…

………………………………………………………….

But if we visualize the horror of the scene—mothers watching children be killed, and children watching
their mother be cut down—surely this cannot be ‘right’?!

Of course this scene is horrible(!), but to see this in perspective we would need to (1 )put this side by
side with equally vivid and emotionally stirring stories about:
1. the elderly Israelite couple, who after suffering under harsh slavery for 60 years in Egypt finally escape
miraculously with their grandchild. They gather the first material possessions they have ever owned--
given to them by the Egyptians on the night they left--and are following the main body of Israelites. They
are overjoyed by their first experience of freedom and hope for a more 'normal' life for their
granddaughter. But they are old, and the decades of physical abuse have left them weak. And so they
fall behind the main group of Israelites, and they must rest more frequently and longer. And, as the gap
widens, they see a dust cloud behind them, chasing them. They fear that maybe the Egyptians are trying
again to enslave them, so they jump up in fatigue and anxiety and begin racing toward the Israelites. But
they are no match for the marauding Amalekites, who quickly capture them. They watch in horror as
their granddaughter is stripped and evaluated for what price she might fetch at the eastern slave
market, with crude suggestions as to what 'use' she might be to the plantation slave bosses. They see
her bound and tied to the back of the horses, where she will have to walk behind their caravan until
exhausted and then thrown into a slave-cart. They are next: the Amalekites strip them of their clothes,
take their few belongings, and then cut them down with the sword. Their last images are of their
granddaughter screaming for help as she is driven at spearpoint...

2. the impoverished and undernourished young Israelite family has been able to hide their small crop so
far this growing season. Each previous year, the marauding Amalekites have burned their small crop and
killed the few livestock they used for clothes and cheese, and the family has eaten what little the wild
land could provide. They sleep under a rock cropping, in fear of detection, and take turns at night
watching for predatory animals, slave-trading bands, and the Amalekites and their allies. Harvest is
almost here, and they have actually gathered a few items already (and consumed them hungrily). They
suffer from various forms of malnutrition and exposure, and the youngest--Abigail the three-year old
little girl--cannot get up due to some unknown sickness. But hope has arisen for the first time in years,
and the parents are eager to feed their little ones the food they desperately need. As they are gathering
the first pick, with ears always alert, they hear the familiar sound of hooves...And though they run, they
are overtaken by the Amalekite raiding party. They watch as their crop is burned to ashes (the raiders
only laugh at the sight--they don't take any of the food at all), along with the feeble hope that grew
there too. But they have bigger problems now, because they did not reach the hiding place in time. The
raiders size up the family and recognize that such youth will fetch a pretty shekel in the slave markets of
Damascus. The young wife and two of the healthier children are stripped and tied together with other
captured Israelites, to be marched off to be sold to different owners in different parts of the world. One
smaller child is simply cut down--screaming in terror-- with the sword in the eyes of both parents.
Abigail begins to cry in fear from her cot under the rock, alerting the Amalekites for the first time of her
presence. The father tries vainly to defend his family as they plead for mercy, but he is rewarded only
with the anti-Israelite taunts of hate and the slash of a sword. The last thing he hears are Amalekite
words of the leader, to leave the sick Abigail as food for the wolves, rats, and ants--since she wouldn't
have any value in the slave trade.

And we would need to (2) situate this in the historical "landscape" of the day, in which the "size" of
objects in the landscape can be seen in relation to one another.

In this case, we would note:

1. The Amalekite scene examples would have occurred all in one day, and involving a maximum of one
to two thousand families.

2. The above example #1 would have occurred over the space of probably an entire year, and involved a
couple of thousand people minimum (on a exodus party of 1.5 million people)

3. The above example #2 would have occurred seasonally for over two hundred years (perhaps as long
as for 400 years), and involved easily tens of thousands of families.
So, from a perspective standpoint, the actions of the Israelites are of significantly less magnitude and
scale than the anti-Israelite actions of the Amalekites--from the standpoint of perspective. If perspective
is useful at all, then it is decidedly in the 'favor' of the Israelite response to Amalek.

But doesn’t the “justice of the biblical god” in this situation look more like the most horrific of war
crimes?

Let me see if I can clarify my response here somewhat.

1. The "justice of the biblical god" is not the sole cause of the military action against the Amalekite
warrior class in this case--it clearly includes the making of a final defense for Israel (and, actually, for
other victim nations and groups of the surrounding land—Israel would not have been the only source of
slaves and raided goods) against an unusually malevolent and violent aggressor group. As I pointed out
above from the biblical text, the cause was broader than the single verse in 1 Sam 15.2, but included the
factors in the other passages I mentioned above. In fact, if we want to question something about God's
character, we would be closer to the truth if we accused Him of "reprehensible leniency"--for He
allowed this group to terrorize Israel for 200-400 years before He dealt decisively with the issue, and He
allowed individual Amalekites to migrate into Israelite culture without penalty! This is "patience to a
fault" almost...His heart resists judgment and acts of punitive finality, and He waits as long as He can
before executing these types of actions...

2. The killing of the innocents is not the target of "justice" per se (just as damage to tents, clothes, or
animals would not be). His "justice" actions were specifically directed against the warrior class and
leadership--explicitly those that actually performed the acts of violence against Israel. Even in the main
passage in 1 Samuel 15, the leadership seems to be the main focus, as the phrase "and destroy all he
has" would indicate. Following this is a list of what is included, and it is a general list including people
and animals. It is difficult to make this order implicate the oxen as being 'guilty of atrocity' against Israel
(just as the women and children would not have actually participated in the initial raid against Israel,
typically), and probably the women/children/animals were considered by the nomadic Amalekites as
property (since these were routinely captured, sold, and traded).

3. As indicated above, the killing of the innocents would be an issue of mercy-killing (given the desert
environment and situation we discussed above), and it is the least painful and least dehumanizing of
possible outcomes--indeed, it is the course of action many people took themselves when confronted
with similar alternative futures. The innocents were victims of the warrior class' choices, not victims of
the biblical god and some evil Israelite exploitation initiative.

4. I think think label of 'war crimes' might be appropriate to this situation if it were done today with our
modern resources and infrastructure. The 'justification' of the act in the biblical case derives from it
being the more merciful/least painful of all available alternatives. In today's world, it would likely not be
this. In today's world, a combat mission could easily leave homes, infrastructure, inventories of
food/drink supplies , skilled civilian labor and civil leadership intact--destroying only the military sector
of the culture. This might have dire economic consequences, but it certainly wouldn't be life threatening
in any meaningful sense. In addition, in the modern world there are international and regional relief
organizations to help with refugees and survivors. But in the case of the ANE and these nomadic
plundering groups, ALL of the males are part of the military sector, there is no infrastructure
whatsoever, there are no inventories of ANYTHING, even the subsistence skills are in the hands of the
males (remember, they had to raid to get even the basic necessities of life for the group), most of the
transportation (e.g., camels) would have fled during the conflict, there are no relief resources
whatsoever, and they are in the middle of the desert. (Of course, this is the reason that the quotes given
earlier point out that those who escape from battle die from starvation, thirst, exposure, etc.) It is
simply incorrect to place this on a par with war crimes motivated by hate and containing malicious and
unnecessary violation of innocents (when alternative actions were clearly available). [There are war
crimes in the ANE, to be sure, ranging from cruel POW torture, to civilian mutilation/torture and then
execution, to gruesome displays of previous victims.]

But if the biblical god was indeed omnipotent, then it would seem he could have done many things
rather than slaughter so many people. And if he couldn't have done anything else, wouldn’t this show
then that He is NOT omnipotent? (aren’t we back to “God is either good OR omnipotent—but not
BOTH” kind of arguments?)

The major problem with this is theological, concerning the omnipotence of God.

The omnipotence argument can be sketched out like this:

a. God can do all things

b. Accordingly, God could have resolved the issue by some other means that extermination of the group.

c. God DIDN'T use a different method than the one involving extermination.

Therefore either:

d. God is omnipotent, but cruel (because He chose extermination rather than other presumably less-
violent paths)

or

e. God is not necessarily cruel, but He is NOT omnipotent either(because He couldn't come up with non-
cruel alternatives)
This type of reasoning is generally irrelevant, because omnipotence normally doesn't 'play' in historical
settings. God very, very, very rarely overrides normal historical causation in macro-level events. He
normally works (when He intervenes and overrides at all) from the basis of divine-heart (personal)
characteristics rather than divine-power (more metaphysical) characteristics. Another way of saying this,
perhaps, was that He generally works in history, not on history. In this case, He:

1. He tried to convince the people, for a long time, of the dangerous consequences of combating Israel.

2. He waited patiently for centuries for them to change their minds about their violent anti-Israelite
terrorism.

3. He apparently "convinced" some of them to emigrate to Israel and enjoy the blessings of His people.

4. He apparently waited until some Amalekites were away from the main body of the group (since they
show up later in the biblical record, implying some survivors who were not involved in that battle)

He normally upholds the law of cause/effect and consequences. [We have discussed this many times on
the Tank, so I won't gather all the arguments again here.] It is not a lack of omnipotence that is at work
here, but rather the principle of God holding up the law of moral consequences (within social and
cultural contexts of connections and community). He tries to make the moral universe 'navigable' for
those who try to make right and constructive choices, by allowing us to see in history (in our own lives,
or the lives of others) the consequences of moral choice and character-based behavior.
God binds Himself within His choices as well. He plays within the community rules He sets for others.
Once the historical situation eventuates, He almost always works within the confines of that situation.
These are self-imposed 'limitations', in a manner of speaking, that govern God's behavior as a member
of and participant in historical community. God's normal and preferred way of working in history is as a
personal influence (through His closest friends), although on occasion He will act as a judicial power
(e.g., in judging the Pharaoh, David, Amalek, or Israel).

To discuss these issues in the context of 'omnipotence' may be close to being a category mistake (like
talking about 'green ideas').

But isn’t this using a “you gotta see the Big Picture” approach, to avoid accepting responsibility for clear
ethical atrocities in the lives of specific individuals?
We all know of historical situations in which larger-scale perspectives have been abused, but at the
same time, they are essential for most large-scale governance issues. In situations involving conflicting
ethical demands, sometimes the deadlock can only be broken by big-picture thinking, or ethical
framework perspectives. In the case of the innocents here, we are facing a moral dilemma that
essentially consists of "do we kill them swiftly?" or "do we let them die, slowly, painfully, and
agonizingly?"--which is more merciful, given no other alternatives exist? This situation is where there
are two undesirable outcomes, and one has to make a choice (in this case it was God) as to what is the
most humane choice? [This is similar to the case of unconscious loved ones, writing in pain untouchable
by morphine, under some terminal illness, with no hope of regaining consciousness...but still suffering
horribly. In our case, however, the suffering of thirst and starvation and disease will be all conscious
until towards the end, and therefore accompanied by despair and the pains of a dying heart.]

To try to see the complexity of the governance issue let's construct a hypothetical situation. In
philosophical ethics, one of the major hypothetical scenarios one discusses is "lifeboat" ethics. The
instructor paints the "lifeboat" scenario:

You are captain of a passenger boat, responsible for the lives of your passengers, which has an accident
in the middle of shark-infested waters. No messages of help were sent before the crash, so rescue is not
expected or likely. The 30 passengers and crew all cram into the lifeboat (capacity 29), which is
immediately encircled by sharks. There are no weapons upon the lifeboat, and the raft is beginning to
sink due to the overload. The nearest island (deserted, of course) can be seen, but you cannot reach it
without at least one passenger jumping out of the lifeboat to certain death by being fought over and
eaten by sharks. You, as captain, cannot be the martyr yourself, since only you have the requisite skills
to help the 29 people survive once you get to shore, etc.
The probability of the boat sinking with 30 people is 100%, the probability of being fought over and
eaten by sharks (once in the water) is 100%, and the probability of outside intervention (e.g., rescue) is
0%.

You ask for a volunteer, to give their life to save the group. If only one person decides to give his/her life
for the other 29, then the 29 have a decent chance of making it to shore.

No one volunteers, after repeated requests. You are now forced with killing (against someone's will) one
innocent person, or letting 30 (innocent) people die in the jaws of the sharks.

What do you do?

In the classroom, this discussion proceeds then to what criteria one "should" use to decide which
passenger or crew member is to die--to save the many. It cannot be you--no matter how badly you want
to avoid the knowledge that you had to kill someone against their will--since your death would be the
one most likely to result in the death of the others (and your death would have been in vain). I repeat,
the "I will be the martyr" answer is unacceptable--for in your death, you will likely have 'killed' the
others. You, as captain, will be forced to live with your choices, which will not be easy, but will be
important to the lives of 28 other people.
Is it the one who has already enjoyed the longest life? Is it the one who has made the least contribution
to life (so far)? Is it the one who has the least probability of surviving on the island once you arrive? Is it
the one that is likeliest to be a divisive element once at shore (when unity will be essential to the
survival of the group)? Is it the most 'morally questionable' one (involving ethical judgment)? Is it one
selected by random processes (e.g., short straws)? Do you take a vote? Do you have a 'last man
standing' fight, with the people fighting to throw each other off the boat, so that only the strongest
people stay on the boat? Do you pick those with the least number of dependents back in the real world?
And so on...

Some students will try to avoid the issue altogether, by talking about 'taking their chances' on the boat,
on the sharks, or on the rate of travel toward the island. But the scenario is not constructed that way--
the 'there must be some other way' fantasy options don't exist...just as in real life tough decisions...just
like decisions public leaders in governance have to make some time...If you the captain take a chance
(especially given the odds stated above!) and lose all 30, when you could have saved some/most, this is
generally considered unacceptable (assuming you value human life, of course).

The death of the person chosen (in most ethical systems) is morally required--but it is only the "big
picture" that justifies this violation of their will. Examining the morally of killing them--without placing it
in the context of the alternative of killing 30 people--will not lead one to the ethically correct and overall
more humane choice. [In fact, in traditional ethical systems, the killing of the individual in this context is
not considered 'legal murder', but falls into 'justifiable homicide'.]
This principle can be abused, of course, as we all know from countless examples in history and in the
modern world, but this does not invalidate the principle itself--it only highlights the misuse of it. [This
principle was reportedly used by Caiaphas against Jesus in John 11:49-50!]

If you—as leader—make a moral judgment to decide NOT to make a choice, then this implies that you
would not kill the one to save the 29, and consequently, your moral judgment would kill the 30.

This moral trade-off or dilemma situation actually can be extended in the lifeboat example to an
additional (and possibly relevant) sub-scenario:

Once you have decided who to kill (to save the group), how do you kill them?

a. Do you literally throw them off the raft screaming, with them frantically trying to climb back in
(threatening to capsize the boat, feeding everyone to the sharks) or trying to pull someone else out so
they can get back in, before the sharks seize them in their jaws and drag them underwater?

b. Do you tie them up, so they cannot jeopardize the boat, and then throw them to the sharks to be
fought over and eaten alive as they try to hold their breath while sinking in the ocean?
c. Do you knock them unconscious, and then throw them in, so that they only experience the jaws of the
sharks for the brief moments the pain brings them up to terrorized consciousness?

d. Do you kill them in the boat (while they are screaming and pleading for mercy), by gunshot to the
head, snapping the neck, or strangulation/suffocation, and then throw them to the sharks, so that their
suffering is absolutely minimized?

Are ANY of these "pleasant" alternatives?-- Of course not!--they are stomach-churching, gut-wrenching,
heart-hollowing alternatives. The very exercise of thinking through this should deeply disturb any
compassionate person! My attempts at the Lifeboat scenario over the last couple of years still bring
tears and anxiety and feelings of hopelessness to my heart...But when there is no other "way out"--the
toughest choices of one's life have to be made...and these choices (and consequences--however
important and good) haunt one for the rest of their life...no question about it...But a troubled memory
and haunted conscience may be a small price to pay for saving 29 lives...

But are some of these alternatives in the lifeboat more humane than others?--absolutely. [Normally,
one selects the method that would minimize pain and minimize negative effects on the survival chances
of the rest of the group. In this case it would be the swift death in the boat, than the much more
terrifying and painful death by sharks. The implication for our case should be obvious: a swift death for
the innocents would be morally preferable to the greater-suffering death in the desert (of course, we
already saw from the ANE literature that people tended to choose this swifter option for themselves as
well).]
Now, some might propose that all must die. Some might say that you the captain discuss the matter
with the group and get agreement that all thirty sink and be eaten deliberately, rather than sacrificing
someone else, so that the 30 can die with a 'clean conscience' of not having murdered someone
(although it is quite questionable whether they would have shared your responsibility for killing the
individual--they might have simply trusted you to come up with the tough decisions and accountability
for the choices). Of course, your moral responsibilities as captain are rather different: to bring back as
many alive to their families as possible, regardless of what emotional state they are in. A group suicide
of this type is certainly not out of the ethical question, but if ANY ONE of the 29 do not AGREE/WANT TO
DIE this way, then you have done the exact same "against their will" killing as in the traditional 'sacrifice'
PLUS you have killed more people in the meantime. [A variant of this would be to not tell the 30 that the
boat will sink, until it is too late, forcing them to die "with a clean conscience" without their consent, but
this seems less 'virtuous' than the other alternatives.]

This is a vivid textbook illustration, but it shows clearly that specific moral choices must be evaluated
alongside the moral consequences of the alternative choices (and even non-choice is a choice, of
course). To not choose to do something in this case, invariably results in the death of everyone. In other
words--the "big picture".

And, by the way, this lifeboat ethics scenario is lived out in the real world constantly. I remember
engaging this puzzle as a student/reader earlier in life, and thinking through it in abstract terms. But the
"blood" in it finally registered itself with me the first time--as a business executive in a firm about to go
under, putting literally thousands of people suddenly into the jobless category--I had to decide which of
my workers I had to fire, in order to keep the other workers with a paycheck for their family...The
decision on who "to throw off the lifeboat" so the others could continue to have paychecks is one of the
more painful and distressing ones senior executives (at least the "human" ones) have to make...

W really need to see the reality of the trade-offs in complex moral situations. It is not simply the horror
of one set of examples versus the horrors of another set of examples--it really is the 'bigger picture' of
trying to maximize value and minimize destruction. It's just not as easy as decrying the death of
innocents, no matter how heart wrenching that may be to us or to God.

One modern illustration, to show how complex tough situations can be:

I have in front of me as I write this, an article from the U.S. News and World Report of May 3, 1999
(p.41). The article's title is: "Paying for Freedom: When Christian groups buy slaves in Sudan, do they
help keep the practice alive?"

The first paragraphs might easily have been written about the Amalekites:

"Arab mercenaries, riding fast horses and firing Kalashnikov rifles, swept down from the north. For two
weeks, they terrorized this settlement [Nyamlell, Sudan] of 10,000 black farmers, burning stocks of
seeds, slaughtering cattle, torching huts. Then they rounded up 400 Kinka tribespeople and marched
them away as slaves...Over the past decades, such raids have occurred hundreds of times in a civil war
between Sudan's Arab north, ruled by an Islamic government, and the mainly black south, whose people
practice Christianity and traditional African religions."

Into this scene comes an organization called Christian Solidarity International, who buys these slaves
from Arab middlemen and returns them to their families and loved ones in Nyamlell for free. Is the civic
leadership of Nyamlell thankful for these efforts to end the suffering and captivity of their sons and
daughters?--No. The civilian commissioner of the country condemns the purchasing/freeing action: "The
program is empowering some of these Arabs to continue with their acts...It may seem cruel to block the
redemption of our children, but it's necessary in order to halt the trade in the long term."

Now, who's right here? Has the leadership of the country made a bad choice--using "big picture" words
like "in the long term"? Or is the relief of immediate suffering of the captives created by the Christian
group the right choice, even though it incidentally provides economic incentive for further slave raids?

This is quite complex and simply painting a picture of the immediate suffering of an existing captive is
NOT a complete enough way to approach the issue; one MUST consider the future sufferings of future
captives as well.

In the same way, one cannot avoid 'bigger picture' thinking in difficult moral scenarios like we have with
the oppressive Amalekites and young Israel in the land. To ignore this aspect of moral thinking would
result in immature judgments and less-than-best-case results.
.......................................................................................................................................................

Summary statements:

1.The case of Amalek does not conform to known patterns of genocide, and therefore cannot
legitimately be so called.

2.Constructing a logical contradiction (disproving God's existence) in this case would be exceptionally
difficult (at best).

3.We have real-life trade-off decisions involving human life that create a presumption against the
unilateral application of the "to kill a child is always unjust" without qualification or situational variance.

4.The Amalekites had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as
well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade.

5.The biblical descriptions and accounts about the Amalekite situation have earmarks of authenticity in
themselves (e.g. verisimilitude) and control data from the ANE increase the overall credibility of these
foreign-descriptions considerably beyond initial 'historical skepticism'.

6.Nomadic groups such as the Amalekites were violent and terrifying problems all over the ancient
world.

7.The innocents were not guilty of their fathers' sins, and anything that happened to them as a
consequence of military action against the warrior class could not be construed as a punishment on the
innocents.

8.There was a solid line of anti-Semitic and misanthropic treachery/behavior by successive generations
of Amalekites.

9.The fate of the innocents was a direct result of the horrible actions of their leaders--the warrior class.

10.Amalek's acceptance into Israelite society is a clear indication of a non-genocidal military action
against a specific location of Amalek.

11.The military action was designed to completely eliminate the Amalekite presence in the desert, and
the only option was wholesale destruction of the warrior/military population.
12.There were only a couple of options as to what should be the fate of the Amalekite dependents.

13.There were no options to absorb the people into Israel, and there were no options for welfare, or
relief programs in the ANE.

14.The only two choices were leave them to die slowly/agonizingly or kill them quickly/violently.

15.People themselves normally chose to die quickly (i.e., in cases of individual suicide or group suicide)
rather than go into foreign slavery or lingering torturous death (at the hands of others or at the mercy of
the harsh environment and times).

16.God chose for them to die quickly, rather than the prolonged suffering scenarios of dehydration,
starvation, exposure.

17.The ancients considered suicide/euthanasia for anticipated (but only for certain-to-occur) extreme
and terminal sufferings to be morally acceptable.

18.The amount of atrocity and terror and violence done by the Amalekites to the Israel over those
centuries would VASTLY DWARF the actions of Israel in that one final battle.

19.In modern situations and times, this action against the innocents could likely be considered "war
crimes", but in the radically different ANE/desert situation, the label of 'war crimes' would not make
sense. [It was much more of a euthanasia-type of action.]

20.To expect God to do a random miraculous events on a frequent basis in cases like this is unwarranted
by the biblical portrayal of God.

21.The Lifeboat Ethics problem demonstrates the complexity (and emotional difficulty) of big-picture
and large-scale governance issues.

22.The Lifeboat Ethics problem also demonstrates that some types of killing are more humane that
others (with application to our case).

So, as in the emotionally-churning alternatives of the Lifeboat, I am forced to say (with heavy heart, but
probably not nearly as heavy as God's was that day--judgment has always grieved God--He knows all
about the sorrow of governance, believe me) that the swift death of the innocents, in the context of a
certain and much-more-suffering death in the desert, was the most merciful and least tragic course of
action...

Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft: May 15, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God’s cruelty or His
“nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds”. The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but
there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the
statements people have sent into me about this event:
“Speaking of which, isn't this the same God who commanded the genocide of the Midianites? The same
God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult
Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given
to their captors as sex-slaves?

And

“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered
his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the
virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the
Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this
act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify
this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the
God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The
Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites
believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of
those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a
false god.

And
The Bible is rife with examples of God's acting in a manner inconsistent with goodness… consider the
passage relating the story of Israel's war with Midian (Num. 31), wherein, as I intend to show, God
sanctions the very crimes that he should abhor, namely, murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse.

First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites: And the Lord spake unto Moses,
saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2)

Moses and the children of Israel obey: And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded
Moses; and they slew all the males. (vs. 7, my italics)

The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite
women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their
goods." Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male
children and all the unvirginal women: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17)

Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (vs. 18)
Thus, in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child
abuse.

First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and
death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he
assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all
the Midianite boys and unvirginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are
urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such
actions as these (with less accord on the issue of war itself), considering them so evil that they must be
prevented, even at high cost, and punished when efforts at prevention fail.

……………………..

These are some serious accusations to make against the God portrayed in the bible, and allegations that
should disturb the hearts of all warm-blooded people.

Right off the bat, though, there are several obvious historical errors in these brief statements, and
several assumptions that have no warrant whatsoever in either the text itself, or in the historical
background of the ANE. The passage will be difficult enough to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first
‘weed out the chaff’ among these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be
enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface the actual ethical
issues and dynamics.]
First of all, let’s look at the specific text they are referring to, in Numbers 31:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites;
afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men
from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on
Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were
furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the
priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they
made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they
killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the
five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel
captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their
goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.
And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and
the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel,
to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.

And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside
the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the
captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you
spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to
trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord.
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man
intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. “And you, camp
outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify
yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. “And you shall purify for
yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats’ hair, and all articles of
wood.”
And the division of the ‘booty’:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers’
households of the congregation, take a count of the booty that was captured, both of man and of
animal; and divide the booty between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation.
“And levy a tax for the Lord from the men of war who went out to battle, one in five hundred of the
persons and of the cattle and of the donkeys and of the sheep; take it from their half and give it to
Eleazar the priest, as an offering to the Lord. “And from the sons of Israel’s half, you shall take one
drawn out of every fifty of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys and of the sheep, from all the
animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.” And Moses and
Eleazar the priest did just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Now the booty that remained from the
spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys,
and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000.
And the half, the portion of those who went out to war, was as follows: the number of sheep was
337,500, and the Lord’s levy of the sheep was 675, and the cattle were 36,000, from which the Lord’s
levy was 72. And the donkeys were 30,500, from which the Lord’s levy was 61. And the human beings
were 16,000, from whom the Lord’s levy was 32 persons. And Moses gave the levy which was the
Lord’s offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Num 31.26ff)

……………….

Now, first let me dispose of a couple of the historical mistakes made by the objections mentioned
above, and then we can get on to analyzing the severity of the actual event.
First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one
created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!),
the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:

•Was the female pre-pubescent?

•Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for
that culture?

•Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity
for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?

Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient
cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of
clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as
was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of
course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also
indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).

For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and
sacred prostitutes:
“In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from
those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they
are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that
represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the
‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which
were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished
them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]

Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:

“Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled
in Assyria.” [OT:DLAM:135]

“The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in
Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women
were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]
In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes,
either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by
the event.

Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about
the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above--to their credit--added the word
‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]

1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years
of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have
been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks
so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous
omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent
with their ages.

And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in
Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the
mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead,
the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several
years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that
‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we
normally associate with the world ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should
not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]
2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes,
even though scholars earlier taught this:

“During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them
primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there
is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]

3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:

“This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the
Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard
prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with
slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’
because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under
discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’
applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]
4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability
is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The
Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):

“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic
revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an
exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects
which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by
lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite
camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine
period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could
conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they
thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is
hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of
childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the
prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of
sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of
childbearing age took precedence.”

[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were
capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive
the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their
interpretation.]

[I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your
pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or
property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or
‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was
to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill
them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to
others within the community.]

Third, the accusation that the Midianites were singled out for destruction “because the Midianites
worshiped a deity named Baal Peor” is not at all present in the text (actually, NO reason is given in this
passage). In fact, the reason for the warfare is explicitly given in 25.16ff as the unprovoked hostility and
treachery of Moab/Midian (which we will look at in detail below):

“The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated
you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a
Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”
The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of
Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’. Nothing at all is said about treating them as enemies because they
worshipped a different god…

So, at least we should see that some of the accusation elements above are contra-indicated by the data.
There was no need for ‘virginity testing’; rape and sexual slavery is not in the passage at all; and the
reason for the combat is not ‘disagreement over religious terminology’…

So, then, what WAS all this bloodshed about?

To establish the ‘why’ of this, we need to tell the whole story…and look at all the players: Midian, Moab,
Israel.

Who were the Midianites?

Essentially, the Midianites were descendants of Abraham through Keturah, and by the time of Numbers
31, were a ‘tribal league’ of different clans and families. Some of the kin-group lived around the Gulf of
Aqaba, in perhaps settlements, while other groups remained as nomads and raiders:

“The extreme northwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, immediately east of the Gulf of ‘Aqaba,
was associated by the classical and medieval Arab geographers with the place name Madian or
Madiama. It is generally agreed that these persevere the name of Midian, the son of Abraham and
Keturah and the ancestor of the Midianites of the Hebrew Bible.” [HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]

“The Midianites are portrayed in these [Biblical] traditions as nomadic sheep and camel herders,
caravaneers, and raiders, ranging over a wide territory to the south and east of Canaan. There is no
reason to suppose that this portrayal is not essentially correct, at least in part. However, recent
archaeological survey in northwestern Arabia—the heartland of Midian—has indicated that this is not
the whole story. There also existed, during the final centuries of the second millennium BCE, sedentary
communities that should, in all, probability, be included among the Midianites…At the site of Qurayyah
[Qurayyah is on the east of the Gulf of Aqaba, on a major trade route between Yemen and the Levant.].”
[HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]

“As indicated above the biblical evidence suggests that the Midianites ranged over a large area,
including northwest Arabia, southern Transjordan, the Arabah, portions of the Negeb, and possibly
northern Sinai. Although northwest Arabia eventually became associated with the land of Midian,
probably the range of the Midianites at one time was much larger…Further, some research has raised
the possibility that Midian refers not to a land but to an amorphous league of tribes. This league
dominated the people and areas of the southern Transjordan, Negeb, and portions of Arabia from the
Late Bronze Age until approvimately the 11th century B.C., when other people gradually supplanted the
league.” [ISBE]

“The presence of Midianite shepherd bands in the Sinai should not be a problem since the discovery of
the Mari documents. Large-scale sheepherding requires considerable travel between summer and
winter pasturages, often involving tens or hundreds of kilometers. There is no plausible objection to the
presence of shepherd bands in the Sinai who were identified or identified themselves as adherents of
the political/cultural system of the Midianites. The same is true of populations in the Jordan valley just N
of the Dead Sea. The Midianites can no longer be regarded naively as primitive nomadic barbarians; they
were a complex and cosmopolitan civilization with a highly diverse economy and, in all probability, an
extensive control system for a few decades that included parts of Palestine and Transjordan. [ABD,
“Midian”, Mendenhall]

Around the time of the exodus, the Midianites closer to Egypt (where we have the evidence of
settlements and industry), were hospitable to Moses and have a positive image in the biblical tradition
(as Kenites):

“The hospitality of Jethro to Moses is commendable, but beyond that the Midianites were a people
hostile to Israel.” [ZPEB]
“The Kenites were a Midianite tribe (Nu. 10:29; Jdg. 1:16; 4:11). The name means ‘smith’, and the
presence of copper SE of the Gulf of Aqabah, the Kenite-Midianite region, confirms this interpretation.
The Kenites first appear as inhabitants of patriarchal Canaan (Gn. 15:19). Subsequently Moses becomes
son-in-law of Reuel (Ex. 2:18), and invites Hobab his son to accompany the Israelites, coveting his
nomadic skill (Nu. 10:29). Kenites accompanied Judah into their inheritance (Jdg. 1:16; 1 Sa. 27:10). They
were spared by Saul in his Amalekite war (1 Sa. 15:6), and David cultivated their friendship (1 Sa. 30:29).
The Rechabites were of Kenite stock (1 Ch. 2:55), and were prominent in post-exilic times (Ne. 3:14).
[NBD, s.v. “Kenites”]

At the time of Numbers, the group of Midianites ‘up north’ were a dominant military force, albeit still
with ‘ethics’ of raiders/slavetraders:

“For the Egyptians, the inhabitants of the arid regions of Sinai, the Hijaz, and Transjordan seem to have
been subsumed under the term shasu and depicted as pastoralists and raiders, much as the Midianites
are depicted in the Hebrew Bible.” [HI:OEANE, s.v. “Midian”]
So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him
for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. ..36 Meanwhile, the Midianites
sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. (Gen 37:28, 36)

“Being desert people, their existence was nomadic. When some of them picked up Joseph, it was typical
of their way of life—trading, traveling, and troubling others.” [ZPEB]

“The Midianites, along with the Amalekites and the ‘people of the East,’ periodically harassed certain
tribes of Israel during the period of the Judges. Since Palestine at this time was particularly vulnerable
due to the collapse of the Canaanite city-states and the decline of Egyptian influence, groups from the
fringe areas could penetrate deeply into otherwise secure areas. Moving from the Transjordan region
into the Jezreel Valley and beyond, the Midianites preyed upon Israel, apparently during the harvest
times (Jgs. 6:1-6). The Israelites had difficulty dealing with the Midianites, who used the camel to make
long raids and retreat quickly.” [ISBE, s.v. “Midian”]

“There is evidence that Midian exercised a protectorate over Moab, Edom, and Sinai from ca. 1250-1000
BC (Eissfeldt). Often Midian opposed Israel or became a subversive influence. [But note that both Midian
and Moab at this time were vassals under the power of Sihon of the Amorites—cf. Josh 13.21]

The Midianites were allied with Moab, under the control of Sihon (who had already been defeated by
Israel):
“The expression ‘towns in their dwellings’ leads to the conclusion that the towns were not the property
of the Midianites themselves, who were a nomad people, but that they originally belonged in all
probability to the Moabites, and had been taken possession of by the Amorites under Sihon. This is
confirmed by Josh., xiii.21, according to which these five Midianitish vassals of Sihon dwelt in the land,
i.e. in the kingdom of Sihon.” (p.226)

“Moab was closely associated with the Midianites, so much so that the elders of both peoples acted as
one group when they went to the town of Pethor to bring back Baloam (Num 22:4–7). The Bible depicts
the Midianites as largely a nomadic people. The point is this: for the Moabites to have been on such
friendly terms with the Midianites, the former also were probably still largely nomadic, since from time
immemorial there has been strife between the inhabitants of the desert and the residents of the towns
in agricultural areas. Therefore the time of Moses must have been before the thirteenth century B.C.
when the Moabites began to build permanent towns. [“New Light on the Wilderness Journey and the
Conquest”—Grace Journal—V2—Spring 1961]

As a tribal league, the various tribal leaders could have radically different attitudes toward life, ethics,
and Israel. Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro) and other Kenites were allied with Israel, but those farther
north were generally hostile and predatory (cf. Heber the Kenite who was allied with Syria in Judges 5,
the Midianite/Amalekite raids, and the Midianites in our passage). The more nomadic ones seemed to
have been operating as raiders and slavetraders, wheras the less nomadic ones were more pastoralist in
culture (cf. Jethro). The ‘northern’ Midianites are often linked with the cruel Amalekites and Canaanites
in the biblical narratives (e.g., Judges 6,7).
Who were the Moabites?

The Moabites were a TransJordanian people, descended from Lot. They were generally hostile toward
Israel, and appear to be somewhat insignificant at the time of our incident. Later, however, they became
a significant nation, and was consistently hostile to Israel (along with her neighbors).

“Moab was the son of Lot by incestuous union with his eldest daughter (Gn. 19:37). Both the
descendants and the land were known as Moab, and the people also as Moabites. The core of Moab was
the plateau E of the Dead Sea between the wadis Arnon and Zered, though for considerable periods,
Moab extended well to the N of the Arnon. The average height of the plateau is 100 m, but it is cut by
deep gorges. The Arnon itself divides about 21 km from the Dead Sea and several times more farther E
into valleys of diminishing depth, the ‘valleys of the Arnon’ (Nu. 21:14). The Bible has preserved the
names of many Moabite towns (Nu. 21:15, 20; 32:3; Jos. 13:17-20; Is. 15-16; Je. 48:20ff.).

“In pre-Exodus times Moab was occupied and had settled villages until about 1850 bc. Lot’s descendants
found a population already there, and must have intermarried with them to emerge at length as the
dominant group who gave their name to the whole population. The four kings from the E invaded Moab
and overthrew the people of Shaveh-kiriathaim (Gn. 14:5). Either as a result of this campaign, or due to
some cause unknown, Transjordan entered on a period of non-sedentary occupation till just before
1300 bc, when several of the Iron Age kingdoms appeared simultaneously. Moab, like the others, was a
highly organized kingdom with good agricultural and pastoral pursuits, splendid buildings, distinctive
pottery, and strong fortifications in the shape of small fortresses strategically placed around her
boundaries. The Moabites overflowed their main plateau and occupied areas N of the Arnon, destroying
the former inhabitants (Dt. 2:10-11, 19-21; cf. Gn. 14:5). These lands were shared with the closely
related Ammonites.

“Just prior to the Exodus, these lands N of the Arnon were wrested from Moab by Sihon, king of the
Amorites. When Israel sought permission to travel along ‘the King’s Highway’ which crossed the plateau,
Moab refused (Jdg. 11:17). They may have had commercial contact (Dt. 2:28-29). Moses was forbidden
to attack Moab despite their unfriendliness (Dt. 2:9), although Moabites were henceforth to be excluded
from Israel (Dt. 23:3-6; Ne. 13:1).” [NBD, s.v. “Moab”]

Moab figures prominently in the OT period as a nation, all the way up until the exile, but after the
conquests of Babylon, Persia, and Alexander Janneaus, they are only known as a racial/ethnic group.

At the time of our incident, Moab occupies a territory thirty miles south of these events in Numbers 22-
25,31.

“During periods of national strength, the Moabites controlled land that stretched from the Zered (Num.
21:12; Deut. 2:13-14) to the vicinity of ancient Heshbon, a territory whose maximum north-south extent
was only about sixty miles and beyond whose northern frontier lay the kingdom of Ammon. When
Moabite power waned, as in the heydey of the Amorite king Sihon and during periods of Israelite control
in Transjordan, their domain was reduced to the undisputed heartland of Moab—the region between
the Zered and the biblical River Arnon (modern Wadi el-Mujib).” [POTW:319]
What was Israel doing there, at the time of this event?

Israel had come up from the Wilderness Journeys, and was camped in the plains of Moab, across from
Jericho. They were preparing to cross the river Jordan, to begin taking possession of the Land. They were
at the end of forty years of nomadic, desert existence, and were STILL in desert surroundings (the Plains
of Moab, by the Jordan). They had been resisted by the Transjordanian chiefdoms during their travels,
and had been victorious in several unprovoked combat encounters.
Israel had been forbidden by God to attack Moab, or try to take their land [Deut 2:9: Then the LORD said
to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land.
I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” ], and they had already passed by Moab’s
territory, but Moab’s chief—Balak—was nonetheless afraid of Israel, and attempted to mount an
(unprovoked) campaign against them.

Having been refused right of passage on the ‘easier’ Kings Highway, Israel had traveled north from the
Sinai peninsula through the Way of the Wilderness, just to the east of the various Transjordanian
nations of Edom, Moab, and Heshbon. The conflict with the Amorite Sihon, ruler of Heshbon, created a
passageway from the Syrian desert over to the river Jordan. This pathway would have been some 30
miles north of the Arnon river, the then northernmost border of Moab.

Since Israel had already defeated Moab’s protector nation-state (i.e., the part of the Amorite kingdom
controlled by Sihon), Balak was smart enough not to launch a ‘normal’ military attack on unsuspecting
Israel (camping down in the plain, getting last minute instructions/laws from God, and generally resting
up for the march across Jordan into Palestine), but decided to attempt to use sorcery against Israel. He
consulted with his military advisors/superiors (Midian) and they persuaded an internationally known
sorcerer/mantic to travel from Mesopotamia to Moab, to place a ‘curse’ on Israel:

The negotiation account is given in Numbers 22-24:

“Now Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. 3 So Moab was in great fear
because of the people, for they were numerous; and Moab was in dread of the sons of Israel. 4 And
Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this horde will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the
grass of the field.” And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. 5 So he sent messengers
to Balaam the son of Beor, at Pethor, which is near the River, in the land of the sons of his people, to call
him, saying, “Behold, a people came out of Egypt; behold, they cover the surface of the land, and they
are living opposite me. 6 “Now, therefore, please come, curse this people for me since they are too
mighty for me; perhaps I may be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land. For I know that he
whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” 7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of
Midian departed with the fees for divination in their hand; and they came to Balaam and repeated
Balak’s words to him. 8 And he said to them, “Spend the night here, and I will bring word back to you as
the Lord may speak to me.” And the leaders of Moab stayed with Balaam. 9 Then God came to Balaam
and said, “Who are these men with you?” 10 And Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of
Moab, has sent word to me, 11 ‘Behold, there is a people who came out of Egypt and they cover the
surface of the land; now come, curse them for me; perhaps I may be able to fight against them, and
drive them out.’” 12 And God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them; you shall not curse the people; for
they are blessed.” 13 So Balaam arose in the morning and said to Balak’s leaders, “Go back to your land,
for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” 14 And the leaders of Moab arose and went to Balak,
and said, “Balaam refused to come with us.” 15 Then Balak again sent leaders, more numerous and
more distinguished than the former. 16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the
son of Zippor, ‘Let nothing, I beg you, hinder you from coming to me; 17 for I will indeed honor you
richly, and I will do whatever you say to me. Please come then, curse this people for me.’” 18 And
Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of
silver and gold, I could not do anything, either small or great, contrary to the command of the Lord my
God. 19 “And now please, you also stay here tonight, and I will find out what else the Lord will speak to
me.” 20 And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up
and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do.” 21 So Balaam arose in the
morning, and saddled his donkey, and went with the leaders of Moab. (Numbers 22)

Balak takes Balaam up to several mountains overlooking where Israel is camped (implying that Balak is
substantially north of his territory, and is now in Amorite territory), and assists Balaam in trying to curse
Israel with powers from the local gods of each mountain. Balaam is not allowed by God to place a curse
on Israel, but instead pronounces a blessing and prophecies of Israel’s eventual rulership and future
Messiah.
Balak, disappointed that he cannot get God to help him defeat Israel and ‘drive them far out of the land’,
is angry at Balaam:

“Then Balak’s anger burned against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam,
“I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times! 11
“Therefore, flee to your place now. I said I would honor you greatly, but behold, the Lord has held you
back from honor.” (Num 24.10)

Indeed, it looks as if the “tables are turned”:

“Since Israel had defeated the Amorite king, Sihon, who had himself defeated the Moabites, the
Moabites had good reason to fear the Israelites (Num 21:23-31). Consequently, the Moabite king, Balak,
in agreement with the Midianites, hired Balaam to curse Israel. In a series of prophetic oracles, Balaam
pronounces a blessing on Israel but a curse on Moab (Num 22-24)! Specifically, Balaam prophesies of a
royal figure, designated metaphorically as a “star” and “scepter” coming out of Jacob/Israel, who would
militarily crush the Moabites (24:17). [NIDOTTE, s.v. “Moab, theology”]

The final verse of chapter 24 has Balaam leaving Balak’s presence and setting off for home, and Balak
beginning his long ride home as well. It seems that Israel is safe from an unprovoked attack by Moab
and Midian, and that they can prepare for crossing the Jordan ‘in peace’. They are dwelling ‘opposite’
Moab (22.5) and so do not have any interchanges with the Moabites/Midianites at that time. Israel
seems poised to enter the Promised Land, and get on with their destiny…
But not so…for in Chapter 25 we have an amazing story that will be remembered in shame and horror by
Israel throughout its history—the events and idolary of Baal Peor:

“The cultic center Beth Peor and the worship of the Baal of Peor became symbolic of religious apostasy
for subsequent generations (Deut 4:3-4; Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28; Hos 9:10).” [NIDOTTE, s.v. “Moab,
theology”]

Chapter 25 opens like this (translation taken from WBC):

And Israel stayed at Shittim, and the people began to have sexual relations with the Moabite women. 2
And these invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods. And the people ate, and bowed down to
their gods. 3 And Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against
Israel.

4 And Yahweh said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people, and hang them in the sun before
Yahweh, that the fierce anger of Yahweh may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of
Israel, “Put to death, each of you, those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.”
Shittim is a small village about 5 miles from the Jordan, which had been recently captured by Israel from
Sihon. Although Israel had destroyed all the ‘towns’ (fortified cities—the Hebrew in Deut 2.36 says “not
a town was too high for us”—a reference to fortifications), outlying villages and hamlets may have been
left without damage, and would have therefore presented temporary living quarters. There could have
also been some of the local populace of Amorites and Midianites there (we shall see latter that they
were occupying some of these towns).

Then, all of sudden, Moabite women (“daughters of Moab”) start showing up there--in large numbers—
having traveled in groups from the kingdom of Moab thirty miles south of there. Travel in this part of
the country, and at this time essentially was done by caravan, and under armed guards:

“Such difficulties and perils doubtlessly contributed to the fact that most international travel and
communication was undertaken by caravans; in numbers, there was some protection against alien
elements and agents. Considerable literary evidence from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor indicates that
caravans were generally large and almost always escorted by security guards, armed by the public
powers for their tasks, and that the caravanners were expected to stay strictly on the preordained route.
It was not uncommon for caravans to include as many as 100 to 200 donkeys, sometimes carrying
priceless commodities, and one extraordinary text from Mari refers to a caravan of 3,000 donkeys “
[ABD, “Travel and Communication (Old Testament World)”]

And the trip would have taken 2-3 days:

“The evidence is generally uniform and mutually corroborating that one day’s journey in the ancient
world (for efficient non-military travel) incorporated between 17 and 23 miles” [ABD, “Travel and
Communication (Old Testament World)”]

“As W. W. Hallo has calculated from the distances between known points in an Old Babylonian itinerary,
the length of a daily stage of a caravan was between twenty-five and thirty kilometers [15.5-18.6
miles].” [OT:DLAM:275]

Ezra’s caravan, for example, likely only averaged 9 miles per day [ABD, “Travel and Communication (Old
Testament World)”]

So, these Moabite women show up, with government funding and security escorts, having carefully
planned the trip, and having left all family responsibilities on indefinite “hold” back in Moab…and the
sequence of events runs like this (according to the text, which is a series of stark waw-consequtives):

1.The Moabite (and Midianite, as we know from verse 6) women show up at the Israel encampment.

2.The Israelite men immediate start having ‘regular’ sex with them--the Hebrew indicates extreme
lustful abandon. (“The verb used to describe the action of the men is one normally used to describe the
behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the people, as a man, bewhore themselves with foreign,
pagan women. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this
suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of
pagan religious systems of the day.” [EBCOT, Num 25])

3.This first reference to sex does not contain the notion of ‘sacred prostitution’—that will show up in a
later step.

4.THEN, these women invited the Israelite men to their religious sacrifices (where meat and wine would
have been served—the Israelites had not had very much meat during the 40 years in the wilderness).
These would have likely been held at the religious shrines at or around the mount of Peor (one of the
sites where Balak took Balaam), especially the shrine of Baal Peor, although smaller shrines, high places,
and even shade-trees would have fit the Baal cult.

5.The Israelite men went with them and ate the sacrificial meal.

6.Then the Israelite men would have ‘bowed down’ to their pagan gods (probably as part of the
ceremony), and engaged in ‘sacred sex’ due to the fertility nature of the Baal Peor god.

7.Then, a ‘critical mass’ of the people (i.e., “Israel” in the text)—including their leadership—were ‘yoked’
to Baal Peor.

This last step—a ‘yoking’—is likely an ancient cultic term, but we don’t have much indication of its
meaning from history. It could mean something as formal as “joining in a covenant” (in violation of the
exclusive Mosaic one they were already in!), or something as vivid as “sexual union” with the God,
through ritual intercourse (a standard fertility motif). Almost any meaning of this word, since it is
undoubtedly “worse than” just “bowing down” (v. 2), would be enough to seriously jeopardize Israel’s
protection by Yahweh.

The Baal god, as we have described in more detail in the article on the Canaanites elsewhere
(qamorite.html), had some particularly “family-unfriendly” destructive rituals:
“The Moabites worshipped the war god Cheomsh, but they must have also indulged in the fertility
religion of Baal. This cult was marked by some of the most depraved religious practices in Canaan. In
lurid and orgiastic rites, the worshippers would emulate the sacred prostitution of their gods and
goddesses, often also participating in a ceremonial meal.” [HSOBX, at Num 25]

“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next
step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the
great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]

“Baal-peor or Baal of Peor was one of the leading gods of the Moabites, Midianites, and Ammonites, but
akin to the Canaanite Baal and Moloch. The sensual rites of worship indicate a connection with the
Phoenician Baal and the Moabite Chemosh. [ABD, “Baal Peor”]

This event was almost a recapitulation—with some heightening—of the sacred orgy Israel had started
the Wandering with, back in Exodus 32, and God’s response was the same—anger at such disloyalty and
treachery.
“In a sense this chapter matches the grim account of Israel's involvement in the pagan rites of the
worship of the golden calf at the base of Sinai (Exod 32). The apostasy of Israel in their flagrant worship
of the golden calf points back to Egypt. The golden calf was a symbol of the Egyptian bull-god Apis, likely
referred to in Jeremiah 46:15. Apis was the sacred bull in Egypt, the incarnation of Osiris, the principal
deity of Egypt. Exodus 32:6 reads, "So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings
and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in
revelry." The verb translated "to indulge in revelry" (lesaheq Piel infinitive construct of sahaq; meaning
"to laugh" in the Qal--the word that forms the base for the name "Isaac") sometimes speaks of sexual
involvement. It is a euphemism for "caressing" in sexual play (as in Gen 26:8). So in this chapter Israel
engages in sexual acts of the worship of a god of Canaan.” [EBCOT, at Num 25]

One very detailed zoom-in of the situation is given in 25.6ff:

Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the
whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 7 When
Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his
hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the
Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those
who died in the plague numbered 24,000…The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite
woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. 15 And the name of the Midianite
woman who was put to death was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.
Commentators are generally quick to point out that this is VERY flagrant and VERY anti-covenant
behavior, by two leaders, signifying complete abandonment of the God who was about to give them the
Land:

“Among the Israelites, then, the Midianite and Moabite women continued to prostrate themselves in
Baal worship, imitating fertility rituals. And one day, as all the Israelites were gathered in front of the
tabernacle confessing their sin, the son of one of the leaders in the tribe of Simeon paraded before them
with a Moabite [sic] woman, headed for his tent…Reading the situation clearly, Phinehas swung into
action. By the time he reached them in the back (bedroom) part of the tent, the couple were already
involved in sexual intercourse.” [HSOBX]

“By bringing a Midianite woman to his family, this man was encouraging all of his male kin to participate
in this forbidden ritual—even though the people were supposed to be repenting for their previous
idolatry. The ‘chamber’ into which they enter appears to be in the sacred enclosure and therefore
suggests ritual intercourse. Though the ritual may have been fertility-oriented, the Israelites are not
engaging in agriculture, so it is difficult to imagine what connection that might have here. “ [OT:BBCALL]

Where did this Midianite women come from? The Moabite women would have traveled north, but the
Midianite women (and presumably the leadership, since this woman is called the daughter of a
prince/chieftain) would have also have had to have moved into the area. [For nomads, this is not much
problem, and indeed, they could even have facilitated the travel of the Moabite women from the south.]
In Numbers 31.10,11, they are said to have been in camps and in towns (which they were only
occupying at the time). This would have situated them in either (a) Sihon’s old territory, toward Moab;
or (b) Sihon’s old territory toward the east, now vacated by Israel. If the latter, they were ostensibly
attempting to engage Israel somehow.
The scale and scope of this sexual atrocity was extensive, indicating that the number of Israelite men
and Midianite/Moabite women would have been quite high:

•The plague on Israel was stopped after 24,000 Israelites were killed (presumably mostly men—they are
called the ‘sons of Israel’) [25.9]

•A large group/most of the Israelite leadership was ordered by God to be executed, until the action of
Phineas restored some stability to the situation [25.4]

•A chief leader of both the Israelites and of the Midianites are involved—in broad daylight—in this
sexually-inspired fiasco [25.14-18]

•The Hebrew text consistently draws attention to the large number of Israelites involved, by using
words like ‘the people’ and ‘the sons of Israel’.

This would have required several thousand (maybe even over 10,000) foreign women, to have
precipitated and effected such a large scale apostasy, in such a short period of time. And these women
would have had to have traveled deliberately to do just this…

And it is here at this point that the treachery of the Midianites becomes visible in the narrative: this was
deliberate strategy on the part of the Midianite leadership to use ‘sex’ as a weapon, and have Israel
abandon the protection and life-source of their God.
The verses give us the substance of the treachery and deceit:

The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated
you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a
Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.” [Num 25.16f]

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed
Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at
Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. [Num 31.15]

So, Balaam somehow is back into the picture?! Somehow Balaam advised the women on how to turn
the Israelites away from the Lord?!

“It appears that the Israelite men began to have sexual relations with the Moabite and Midianite women
(Num 25:1,6). How such liaisons began we can only guess, but they seem to be connected with the bad
advice given to the Moabites by the prophet Balaam, son of Beor. Prior to this event, the king of Moab
had hired Balaam to curse the people of Israel; because of the strong hand of God on his life, however,
Balaam had only been able to bless them. Apparently still bent on helping the Moabite king, Balaam had
stayed on in the land of Moab and Midian. Numbers 31:16 informs us the ‘[the Midianite women] were
the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the
LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people.’ (Apparently the Midianites
were in Moab giving military advice to the Moabites at this time). [HSOBX]

“Chs. 22-24 highlighted Moab’s attempt to overthrow Israel; Midian played a minor role in these
chapters. Here the reverse is true—Midian is the chief actor, with Moab taking a supporting role.”
[NICOT, Numbers, p516]

“In the further course of history, we learn that Balaam went to the Midianites, and advised them to
seduce the Israelites to unfaithfulness to Jehovah, by tempting them to join in the worship of Peor. He
was still with them at the time when the Israelites engaged in the war of vengeance against that people,
and was slain by the Israelites along with the five princes of Midian.” [KD:1:202]

“As the princes of Midian, who were allied to Moab, had been the advisers and assistants of the
Moabitish king in the attempt to destroy the Israelites by a curse of God; so now, after the failure of that
plan, they were the soul of the new undertaking to weaken Israel and render it harmless, by seducing it
to idolatry, and thus leading it into apostasy from its God.” [KD:1:203
I should also point out that for the Israelite male, the temptation/seduction was purely sexual at first—
there was literally no religious motivation to seek Baal out:

“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next
step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the
great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]

“By bringing a Midianite woman to his family, this man was encouraging all of his male kin to participate
in this forbidden ritual—even though the people were supposed to be repenting for their previous
idolatry. The ‘chamber’ into which they enter appears to be in the sacred enclosure and therefore
suggests ritual intercourse. Though the ritual may have been fertility-oriented, the Israelites are not
engaging in agriculture, so it is difficult to imagine what connection that might have here. “ [OT:BBCALL]

In other words, Israel had no religious interest in an agricultural/vegetation god—the ‘attraction’ was
purely physical…sex, then expensive meat/wine…
Only Balaam would have had the theological ‘sophistication’ to know that this would separate Israel
from Yahweh, and so make Israel vulnerable to ‘normal’ military forces.

Let’s think about the implications of this for a second, in terms of how this would have occurred:

1.Balaam cannot help Moab in military ‘curses’, but on his way home he realizes that the God who
protects Israel can inflict much more ‘damage’ than could Moab

2.He stops and counsels the Midianite princes on how to get Israel to abandon their Great Protector.

3.The Midianite princes agree to let Balaam appeal to the Midianite people (especially the women:
“they are the ones who followed Balaam’s advice”) to enlist their aid in using sex as a weapon against
Israel.

Then, one or more of the following absolutely incredible events had to have happened:

1.Either the women agreed with Balaam’s plan, and then talked their husbands into letting them
commit wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia,
and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment) [the wording of the text suggests that THIS is the most probable
historical reconstruction];

2.Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then talked their wives into committing wholesale, pre-
meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-
Israel sentiment);
3.Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then forced their wives into committing wholesale, pre-
meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-
Israel sentiment)

4.Or the chiefs/elite of Midian forced both men and women to agree on committing wholesale, pre-
meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-
Israel sentiment);

Additionally,

1.Fathers and mothers may have talked their unmarried daughters into (or forced them into)
committing wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s
paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment);

2.The Midianite power forced the Moabite women to ‘lead the charge’ (but they disappear in the
narrative after the first mention—everything else is ‘Midianite only’).

3.The government plans, funds, and orchestrates the mass caravans of Moabite women, and Midianite
migration to the area where Israel is camping.

Now, I can perhaps see this occurring on a individual small scale—I’m sure it happens today in even
‘modern cultures’ to ‘get ahead’, but to think that a culture/nation would deliberately do this marriage-
destructive, family-destructive, and de-humanizing atrocity on the scale of 5,000-15,000 wives/families
(perhaps constituting most/all of the tribal group or sub-culture involved!), is staggering. As destructive
as regular ‘ritual prostitution’ would have been to “healthy family life” in Canaanite areas in Palestine,
this action by Midian makes that look wonderfully innocent and harmless by comparison…
 And then, not content with destroying their own families (and teaching/showing the kids that
‘questionable national goals’ are more important than loyalty/intimacy in marriage), they use this to
destroy another nation’s families and marriages.

“What the fathers of Moab could not do, their daughters were able to accomplish, to bring Israel to its
knees--sexually, morally, in false worship, and in great judgment. . [EBCOT, Num 25]

And this is called a nakal—a deliberate deception:

“In every instance the essence of the meaning is to engage in deception, guile, craft through a deliberate
plan/act [NIDOTE, s.v. “nakal”]

Pre-rabbinic Jewish tradition ‘remembers’ this event in similar images [Pseudo-Philo/LAB 18:13]:

“And then Balaam said to him, ‘Come and let us plan what you should do to them. Pick out the beautiful
women who are among us and in Midian, and station them naked and adorned with gold and precious
stones before them. And when they see them and lie with them, they will sin against their LORD and fall
into your hands; for otherwise you cannot fight against them’” [OTP:2:326]
There was nothing ‘noble’ or ‘innocent’ or even ‘neutral’ about this plan—however it was actually
implemented--it was deliberate, hostile, treacherous deception and destruction. And it wasn’t even
characteristic of all of the Midianites—many of the Midianites were only ‘semi-bad’, some of them were
good, some of them were ‘okay’…but this little pocket of Midianites perpetrated this de-personalizing
and de-humanizing atrocity on their own families, on some of the Moabite women, and on many of the
Israelite families. And God said “enough”…

I struggle with trying to come up with a modern analogy to this, that communicates the atrocity
level…It’s almost like 10,000 women, in advanced stages of the Ebola virus (or perhaps AIDS, since they
would survive longer), were persuaded by their city leadership, to whole-heartedly travel to a different
city and aggressively seduce and offer “sex for free” to all the married men, deliberately concealing or
lying about the fact that they had Ebola/AIDS, and for the specific intent of inflicting the men (and their
wives and families) with this horrible and quickly fatal disease. And, this decision was supported by their
husbands and fathers (“in front of” the children), and the trip funded and planned by their government.
And this all done against a people who were no threat to them now, and were actually friends/allies of a
related group.

Why would anyone “defend” the “values” of such a sub-culture? It was not just a matter of their “own
consensual sexual preferences and ethics”—this was aggressive, deliberately destructive malice toward
others/outsiders, and self-destructive abuse of the precious gift of feminine allure…
So, what did the judgment on Midian ‘look like’ in Numbers 31?

Now let’s go back through the judgment/battle scene and see the details in it:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites;
afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men
from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on
Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were
furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the
priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they
made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they
killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the
five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel
captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their
goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.
And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and
the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel,
to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.
And Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside
the camp. And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the
captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you
spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to
trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord.
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man
intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. “And you, camp
outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify
yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. “And you shall purify for
yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats’ hair, and all articles of
wood.”

Let’s make some observations first, from the text and the historical background:

1. Only 12,000 Israelite men go into the battle. That would imply that the Midianite force would have
been estimated in the 8,000-15,000 person range. This, of course, means that we are not dealing with all
of the Midianites, but only just this small tribal sub-group (i.e., its not a genocide thing). [Other
Midianites will be attacking Israel in force within 30 years, as will Moab.]

This number would fit roughly with the estimated number of wives/mothers/daughters that would have
participated in the sexual warfare on Israel (in the 8,000-15,000 person range), providing further
support for our understanding of the scale of this action.
2. The Moabites are NOT included in this judgment—only the specific Midianites behind the atrocity
(the 5 chieftains):

“The daughters of Moab had also taken part in the seduction; but they had done so at the instigation of
the Midianites, and not of their own accord, and therefore the Midianites only were to atone for the
wickedness.” [KD:1:225]

“Moabites tried by every means to be rid of Israel. Midian, on the other hand, had no cause for
undertaking hostilities against Israel, and yet they not only joined the Moabites, but outdid them in their
hatred against Israel. [Ginzberg]

3. The combat theater is NOT Moab, but Midian—their “encampments” and the towns there were
temporarily occupying.

4. The number of women who would have been executed for their personal involvement in the
deceptive and malicious treachery might be estimated from the number of girls spared. If the 32k girls
were spared, we might estimate the number of boys at around 20k (infant mortality for males is 30%
higher than for females), and with a 3-4 kids/family ratio, we get around 12,000 sets of parents. This
12,000 number accords well with the troop count and estimates of the number of women who
approached the Israelites in the deception of Baal Peor. [And this also confronts us with the sobering
fact that the number of adult Israelites who died in the plague of judgment—24,000—roughly matches
the number of adult Midianite deaths, under this scenario. Israel did not get off ‘scot free’ from this
horror…they were the subject of God’s judgment first.]

5. The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually a small number.
According to the distribution of them, the 12,000 ‘soldiers’ received 16,000 (half of them), making an
average of between 1 and 2 per household, depending on the soliders-per-household ratio. The other
half (16,000) was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would get one. This
would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this time are still nomadic peoples
without any material base from which to live. More than one commentator has noted that this seems to
be a surprise act of mercy, and it is interesting to note that Whiston, in a footnote on his 18th-century
translation of Josephus’ account of this passage [Antiq, VII] argues that this sparing of the little girls is a
surprise of mercy, given the practical demands of this type of combat in the OT/ANE (which we will
discuss later):

“The slaughter of all the Midianite women that had prostituted themselves to the lewd Israelites, and
the preservation of those that had not been guilty therein; the last of which were no fewer than thirty-
two thousand…and both by the particular command of God, are highly remarkable, and shew that, even
in nations otherwise for their wickedness doomed to destruction, the innocent were sometimes
providentially taken care of, and delivered from that destruction”

Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had adequate economic means,
they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from hostile-but-conquered foreign cities),
but at this early stage this was quite an impossibility. They had no need for “slaves,” nor means to
support them at this time.
6. The only way they could absorb the 32,000 girls was that 24,000 (mostly) adults citizens of Israel had
died as a result of the treachery of their mothers at Peor earlier. This created some ‘capacity’ for
absorbing innocents into Israel for the moment.

7. The remaining people were the non-combat age boys (sub-12?). Philo asserted that the Israelites
actually spared the little boys, although the Hebrew text doesn’t provide much support for this (Moses
1.57):

“And they led away a perfectly incalculable number of prisoners, of whom they chose to slay all the full-
grown men and women, the men because they had set the example of wicked counsels and actions, and
the women because they had beguiled the youth of the Hebrews, becoming the causes to them of
incontinence and impiety, and at the last of death; but they pardoned all the young male children and all
the virgins, their tender age procuring them forgiveness” (311)]

According to the text, though, the number of these boys present at this scene would have been very
minimal. According to 31.9, they had already killed “every male (kal zkr—not the normal word for adult
male, or ‘man’)”. This would mean that the reference in verse 17 to kill kal zkr (‘every male’) “among the
children” would likely be a reference to any boys who had somehow ‘hidden’ or been unnoticed among
the group of captive children. Given the general statement of verse 9, this would imply that this would
have likely been a very small number of boys left.
I have discussed the situation, ethics, and unfortunate realities of children victims (in this case the boys)
in ancient warfare in the preceding pieces on the Canaanites (qamorite.html) and on the Amalekites
(rbutcher1.html), so I won’t repeat those arguments and supporting documentation here. But let me
point out again that:

1.The Midianite parents would have been legally/ethically responsible for this situation falling upon
their children—NOT the Israelites;

2.This situation was forced upon the Israelites by the unprovoked treachery of the Midianites;

3.No ANE land-based and/or blood-succession-based civilization had means for assimilating foreign
males into them, except as severely constrained/debilitated slaves (e.g., “prisoners were often blinded
en masse. When brought to their captors’ land, they could still perform certain tasks, such as carrying
water from a well or canal with a bucket and a rope” [OT:DLAM:237]);

4.All ANE civilizations recognized the military threat/risk that male slaves (even children) of foreign stock
represented. Even the case in which David ‘served’ the Philistines, the Philistine leaders were sensitive
to the issue—that David might ‘turn on his Philistine masters’ in the heat of battle (1 Sam 29);

5.There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take
in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this
event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of
exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237])

6.There would be no practical way to transport these boys to their ‘next of kin’ down south, and there
was no guarantee that they would take them in anyway. Even the Kenites, generally loyal to Israel, were
divided in policy, as Heber the Kenite’s alliance with Syria in Judges indicates. “The propensity of
pastoral nomads for raids, or razzias, both against one another and against sedentists is well attested in
the near eastern historical record.” [OT:CANE:251]

7.As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced--by the Midianite atrocity--into the difficult
situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the
ancient world, was killing them very quickly (similar to ‘euthanasia’, perhaps, which was also considered
the ‘most humane’ way of doing this, according to ANE testimony—see the discussion/documentation in
the case of the Amalekites, at rbutcher1.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

1.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with lewd ‘tests for virginity’

2.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with ‘sex slaves’ or even slavery in the sense of
New World Slavery

3.The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with a religious war against the Midianites,
“because they worshipped a different god than Israel”

4.The Midianites were a tribal league of generally nomadic peoples, with a wide variation in orientation,
ethics, and practices.

5.They were known to engage in kidnapping and international slave trading, as well as raiding and
pillage of sedentary peoples/villages.

6.The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat
from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites

7.After the Mesopotamian diviner/sorcerer/prophet Balaam fails to curse Israel, he nevertheless advises
the Midianite leadership on how to overcome Israel—by a sexual deception of a massive scale.

8.Moab transports women into the area en masse, and Midian moves into the territory east of Shittim,
to begin this initiative. Some 6,000-12,000 married women aggressively offer sex to the Israelite men
(most of whom are married), and after having sex/adultery, convince then to participate in further acts
(involving both sex and disloyalty to the Lord).
9.Israel ‘falls for it’, and likely makes a ‘covenant’ with a Canaanite fertility god of vegetation (Baal Peor),
and are judged by God (at least 24,000 Israelites die of a plague, most of which are males)

10.The Moabite and Midianite women retreat out of the area, having successfully used their sex as a
weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support, and encouragement from their husbands, fathers, and
civic leaders).

11.For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites) and
eliminate them.

12.The Israelite force of 12,000 men travel east/southeast to where the Midianite sub-group is camping,
and engage in combat. (They are NOT instructed to hunt “all the Midianites in the world down and kill
them”—just this group that did the treachery at Baal Peor.) They kill almost all of the males in this
battle, but return to the Israelite camp with the herds and property of the Midianites, as well as with the
women and (mostly girl) children.

13.Moses is shocked to find out that they spared the very women who used the sex-weapon against
them, and even brought these women back to the Israelite camp! He orders them to execute the
women, who had been involved in the treachery (but only the Midianite women—the Moabite women
are spared), and any remaining males among the children.

14.The remaining young girls—with an average age of 5 years—were spared and distributed throughout
the people, into families. They would eventually be assimilated into Israel families, but from this
moment on, they would care for them, feed them, train them, etc. for family life in Palestine.

15.The 32,000 young girls could be assimilated into Israel, largely because of the death of the 24,000
adult Israelites.

16.The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost
around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children
(especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.

17.The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping
with realities of the time.

This action/atrocity by the Midianites is an intensely sordid and depressing tale, of greater scale than
even that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of greater anti-Hebrew malice and calculating treachery than
even that of the Amalekites…The removal of this exact sub-culture (without impacting the Moabites or
the rest of the Midianites—for good or ill), while mercifully sparing a very large number of innocent
young girls, yet without sparing the guilty Israelites, seems neither cruel nor unfair nor unwarranted,
given the horrendously dehumanizing character of this crime, and given the unavoidable consequences
of conflict upon children in the ancient world…

Glenn Miller

May 2001

Ezekiel 26 and the Tyre prophecy is a flagship prooftext for those who claim divine inspiration for the
Scriptures. Let's see if it bears out under assorted criticisms and examination. I first wrote this essay
some years ago and in 2003 had some new insights and arguments to add.

Who Are "They"?

"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise.." (NIV)

This verse is pivotal to many of the arguments of each side. Our side would say that the "they" in v. 12
refers back the "nations" in v. 3-5, and were represented by Alexander the Great, who did the things
described in v. 12, thus fulfilling the prophecy. Skeptics and other critics, however, say that the "they" in
v. 12 refers to the elements of Nebuchadnezzar's forces in verses 7 and 11. Nebuchadnezzar never did
the things ascribed to "they," in verse 12 - he failed to take Tyre at all - so the prophecy, it is said, was
not fulfilled.

A key here is that the "they" in v. 12 can only refer to the "nations" in v. 3. Let's see how this is so.

•3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations
to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
Note to begin with this verse -- the being who is in charge here, who "will" do things, is the Lord God,
Adonai YHWH. YHWH is at the head of the efforts, and it is He who will "cause many nations" to come
up. The use of Adonai (which means sovereign or controller) places YHWH at the head of the nations.

•4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from
her, and make her like the top of a rock.

We see again the same pairing: they and I. The nations will scrape Tyre off, and destroy the walls, and
break down the towers. ANY nations are eligible for this action.

•5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord
GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

Once again, the I/nations pairing is made.

•6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the
LORD.

•7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of
kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much
people.

Adonai YHWH now is said to bring on a specific attacker -- Nebuchadnezzar. In our view, this brings on
the first of the nations against Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar comes WITH all these things. And now note how
the pairing changes:

•8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast
a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

Note that now the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now he -- Nebuchadnezzar, as all would agree --
who is "in charge" of the scene. And of course "he" personifies his own army here, and those things with
him (horses, etc) -- obviously Nebuchadnezzar did not do all of these things himself.

•9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

The "he" continues, and the subsuming "his" (with reference to the axes).
•10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the
noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as
men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

In one more case Nebuchadnezzar's forces are personified under himself; the horses are "his" and the
horsemen, wheels and chariots are sumbsumed under the heading of when "he" enters.

•11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the
sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

And yet again: HIS horses, HE shall slay. But now note the change in the next verses:

•12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break
down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy
dust in the midst of the water.

We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And:

•13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

We return also to "I": Adonai YHWH. And it continues:

•14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be
built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

This oracle clearly offers two pairings: the I/they of Adonai YHWH the sovereign, leading the nations; the
he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar, who though still under Adonai YHWH's sovereign
control, is given credit for being able to "will" do things on his own, with his army under him and
subsumed under his identity. The oracle therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific
actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations,
but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings
against Tyre and need not be actions of Nebuchadnezzar.

Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core
of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that
the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition,
only in these verses is Adonai YHWH the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping --
are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5.

Slaying of the enemy is ascribed throughout the oracle, as would be expected of a common element of
war.

Bottom line: "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as one of the
"nations" brought by Adonai YHWH, would have qualified to fulfill those passages, but so could any
other nation brought against Tyre in its history following.

One known proposal to refute the assertion that "they" in verse 12 refers to a plural antecedent is by
comparing it Ezekiel 29:17-20, which is alleged to be similar in structure.

In fact it is not similar in structure at all, and has quite different contents. There are no "nations" in view
in this short passage to serve as candidates for an antecedent of the pronoun "they", or anything else
that can serve as a possible antecedent. There is no chaistic structure as the above noted. There is also
no "I/They" pairing and consistent comparability of unique actions.

Let's look at the passage closely:

•17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the
month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Initially it is unreasonable to take a passage written 17 years later and compare it with the previous
oracle, as though Chapters 26 and 29 were read and written in succession as we read it now. Any such
comparison must be done critically and not on mere surface resemblances, which is all this objection
does.

•18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus:
every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for
Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

Note that "he" and "his army" are highlighted together in a way that they are not in Ezekiel 26. During
the Tyre prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar's army is personified under singular references to Nebuchadnezzar
himself, or treated as his possession, a non-personal entity in which horses and chariots are listed with
horsemen together.

That is not what is happening here: The army is allowed to have its own identity, in order to emphasize
that "every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed raw" - a simple, hyperbolic way of
expressing how much trouble the army had to go to against Tyre.

•19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of
Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages
for his army.

Nebuchadnezzar and his army are again treated as separate entities, with no subsuming at all:
Nebuchadnezzar is the head of the army who distributes the spoils, but he is not the one wielding axes
or treading the streets. Here he literally occupies only the normal role for the leader of the army.

•20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they
wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

It is this "they" which critics think paralells for Ch. 26, but there are again no "nations" or any other
possible antecedent for "they" to refer to in this short oracle. There is no comparable linguistic pattern
as in Ch. 26.

Those who reckon this as some sort of careless shift in grammar, or speak of Ezekiel "carelessly"
separating a pronoun from its antecedent by such a great space in 26, are not only anachronistic but
also ignoring the extensive linguistic pattern in the 26 oracle, which has no parallel in the 29 oracle.

At this point we bring in an argument brought to my attention, though it was not written in response to
this page. An article entitled "A Problem of Unfulfilled Prophecy in Ezekiel" by one David Thompson, at
an online location now defunct, argues thusly:

...the prediction of utter destruction is not easily separated from Nebuchadnezzar. Towers and standing
columns (massebot) portrayed in the highly schematized art of Assyrian reliefs of insular Tyre make it
quite probable that such "towers" and "columns" were distinctive features of the island city. 32 Their
appearance in verses 4, 9, and 11 make it difficult to separate the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege
from the opening general prediction of Tyre's complete destruction. This overlap between the opening
announcement of Tyre's destruction and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege in reference to an
apparently distinctive feature of island Tyre make it further probable that Nebuchadnezzar's siege here
is seen by Ezekiel as at very least including a thoroughly destructive conquest of the island, not just
mainland Tyre.

Thompson's argument rests upon the premise, however, that the "towers" and "columns" by Ezekiel
refer to specific (and literal) architectural elements. (Thompson also does not explain what the reliefs
depict the mainland city as looking like, and whether it had any such features.) Since the word for
"towers" is used in the Bible to refer to places that are merely lookouts that are higher than the rest of
the city, and since "columns" can refer to an edifice even as small as the altar set up by Jacob, I have
serious doubts about the relevance of the Assyrian relief specified.

There is no reason why the two words cannot refer to less-prominent structures, or else be understood
as metaphors for military strength.

Other points raised by Thompson about the reliability of the text itself have been dealt with by Lawhead
in a reply article and will not concern us here.

Nations Scraping and Nets

3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to
come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

Ezekiel 26:3 verse says that "many nations" will be against Tyre. Babylon, Alexander the Great, and the
Muslim crusaders are commonly cited as fulfillment. I will argue later that it is unnecessary to bring the
Muslim crusaders into the picture and that Alexander's actions sufficiently fulfilled the prophecy.

Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were
put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independent entity and acted as
a nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified (by military force) these city-states and the
regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving Alexander the unified front he
needed to go forth and conquer.

Nevertheless, this was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy.

A Skeptic once objected to this: "They were COALESCED into ONE NATION" - so the prophecy is NOT
fulfilled there. A reader however has noted:

In fact Phillip II conquered the Greeks. He was seen by many of them as being a barbaric overlord from
the North. On the death of Alexander they went back to being city states, though with a ruler of
Mecedonian extraction over them for the most part. In addition Alexander's Macedonian army had
Cretan mercenary archers, Agrianian mercenary light infantry, led by their king at the outset, but he died
before Tyre, Thracian mercenaries and Thesallian cavalry. These are in addition to the fleets of countries
that did not like Tyre because of their dominance of the Meditteranean trading.

Moreover, according to the ancient historian Arrian, author of "Anabasi Alexandri," (2.20.1-2),
Alexander got some help in attacking Tyre. Having no navy of his own to speak of, he got naval help from
his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships also came
from Enylos, Soli and Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to join in the fray and help Alexander overcome
Tyre [Flem.Tyre, 58]. Each, other than Macedon, was an entirely separate nation from those in
Alexander's land forces: a sort of ancient Gulf War Coalition

Thus, even if the first aspect I have mentioned in not accepted as a fulfillment, the second has to be - for
it involves, by the most conservative count now, 11 nations; by a larger allowance, 13 or more - and
either number certainly can be regarded as "many" in any event.

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from
her, and make her like the top of a rock.

Few would dispute that Alexander fulfilled this verse, though Nebuchadnezzar undoubtedly started the
process of breaking down walls and towers. It was Alex, though, who turned the rubble of Tyre into a
causeway to defeat the island city. Note particularly that it is the city itself which will be made like the
top of a rock.

One will of course, knowing this culture's literature, grant hyperbolic excess to the claim; it would be
unreasonable to demand that every microscopic grain be removed, and absurd unreasonable to
suppose that modern sands in the same place detract from the fulfillment, as of course sands shift and
blow about constantly, and would not be reckoned as being part of the city itself. Whatever Alexander
scraped away, dust would return to fill the void.

5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord
GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

The "spoil to the nations" part is not doubted by any critic I have yet seen. The "fishnets" part I formerly
regarded as fulfilled even in the destruction of the island city, but have now determined based on
further study that the reference is to the mainland city alone and that the "midst of the sea" reference
refers to the likely spreading of nets on the causeway -- thus the mainland city became "a place for the
spreading of nets in the midst of the sea" (though of course direct evidence for such ancient use of the
causeway, like any private action of peasant fisherman, is not documented).

Perhaps not very impressive for a coastal area, but we are sure the Skeptics would object if they thought
it was missing.

6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the
LORD. 7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a
king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and
much people. 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against
thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. 9 And he shall set engines of
war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. 10 By reason of the abundance
of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the
wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made
a breach. 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by
the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.
Little needs be discussed here. Few doubt that this reflects accurately what Nebuchadnezzar did or
could have done to the mainland city.

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break
down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy
dust in the midst of the water. 13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy
harps shall be no more heard. 14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to
spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

As noted above, we return here to the they/I pairing indicating that "nations" will do these things --
which would allow that Babylon or any other nation could fulfill these passages. However, here
Alexander is the only one who made a spoil of Tyre (Nebuchadnezzar got ripped off, per Ezekiel 29); and
only he qualified to have broken down Tyre's "pleasant houses" -- likely the good stuff on the island.

And of course only he threw all of the rubble into the water; we have already spoken of nets.

What then of "built no more"? Previously I followed the appeals that went as far as using Mulsim
Crusaders as fulfillment, but I now see than as unnecessary. It is here where I now bring in specific
insights learned from observation of ancient use of hyperbole, especially in oracles of war. Consider first
this statement from Ramesses III:

I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and
the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt
like the sands of the shore.

Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that
they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly
"trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer
seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."
Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-
existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like
that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people.

In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:

15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the
wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee? 16 Then all the princes of the sea shall
come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they
shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every
moment, and be astonished at thee. 17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee,
How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in
the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it! 18 Now shall the
isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure. 19
For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not
inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall
bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in
the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not
inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no
more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and
sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of
desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash
talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9).

Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and
modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but
uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament.

Here is an article promulgating the traditional view:

•The Fall of Tyre

Sources

1.Crai.Zeke - Craigie, Peter. Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

2.Flem.Tyre - Fleming, Wallace B. The History of Tyre. New York: Columbia U. Press, 1915.

Critics may fail to understand the book of Ecclesiates on two levels.

First, they may fail to see it as an example of proverbial literature whose statements are not to be taken
as absolutes.

Second, they fail to resolve the paradox of Ecclesiastes within this genre, and that is the subject of this
essay.

The paradoxical nature of Ecclesiastes -- a book filled with statements regarded as being in tension (for
example, on one hand mulling over the despair of life, then shortly thereafter encouraging the
enjoyment of life) -- has been variously identified as being because Ecclesiastes is either a dialogue of a
man debating with himself, "torn between what he cannot help seeing and what he still cannot help
believing," [Kidner, Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, 91], or else as the author's "challenge to
the man of the world to think his own position through to its bitter end, with a view to seeking
something less futile."

I prefer the second interpretation, but in either case, the compositional principle is the same, and
derives from the ancient Near Eastern methodology, which we might loosely compare to a Hegelian case
of combining thesis and antithesis, to arrive at a synthesis; or else, for sports fans, to a game of tennis in
which the ball is batted back and forth between opposing points to arrive at a consensus.

In this regard Ecclesiastes is related to other ANE literature with the same, or similar, content and
methodology. Works like A Dialogue About Human Misery and Pessimistic Dialogue Between Master
and Servant (on which, Murphy comments, the "dexterity the slave displays in affirming both the
positive and negative aspects of a situation is reminiscent of [Ecclesiastes'] own style" -- Murphy
commentary on Eccl, xliii] from Babylon; The Man Who Was Tired of Life from Egypt; and the book of
Job from the OT, are all examples of this genre in which problems were discussed and resolved via
dialogue.
The modern Western mind has little patience with this sort of logical construction, and it is no surprise
to see that critics have no appreciation for the implied intent of such literature: "Work out the problem
yourselves," vs. "Give me an answer, to go."

With that said, we can now answer certain charges against Ecclesiastes. Here's an example of an alleged
contradiction:

Eccl. 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Does the earth go on forever? Skeptics point to this verse in opposition:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Even on the surface this isn't a contradiction. The word used in Matthew carries the meaning of perish
or neglect (Luke 11:42 "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs,
and pass over judgment and the love of God..."); it does not automatically equate with destruction or
passing out of existence.

Even so, let's keep these words in context. Matthew, first of all, actually is an example of an oath and
essentially means "even if" heaven and earth were to pass away (and they will not), so the idea is that
Jesus' words will NEVER pass away (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary, 51). It is like
saying, "When pigs fly."

Now look at Ecclesiastes in context:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his
labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh:
but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place
where he arose.
A wooden reading of this text could raise all manner of dispute (indeed, has) with some interpreters. Is
ALL vanity? Don't we get paid for our labor? Etc. -- such objections miss, again, the proverbial nature of
the comments (see link above), but also miss the point that this is a formulation of one of Ecclesiastes'
"thesis statements" that is meant to provoke thought.

The rhetorical question -- "a typical feature in wisdom literature" [Murphy, 7] -- is meant to state the
thesis that our work generally makes us feel the way the "thesis" subject feels about life -- e.g., never
mind that paycheck; in a bad job, you still feel like nothing is accomplished.

Our key verse, verse 4, "affirms the ephemeral character of humankind, against the background of the
ever-standing earth." Or: "the permanence of the earth is merely the foil against which the restless
coming and going of human beings is outlined." The theme is monotonous repetition, "an analogue to
aimless and futile human existence."

Critics who say, "Sure, there's been new stuff under the sun; what about the moon landing?" are
thereby missing the point and are without appreciation for the genre of wisdom literature. But there is
perhaps a modern analogy we can use: Ecclesiastes is a bit like the film Groundhog Day. Parts of the film
seem to suggest that there is no value in life, and parts of the film very strongly suggest the reverse. The
theme of the film (and likewise the book of Ecclesiastes) is found in the work as a whole.

The resolution for Ecclesiastes' paradox is found in the very last verses: The answer to whether
happiness is better than sorrow is, proverbially, that each is better than the other at various times and
by various situations, because life is complex, not simple.

-JPH