Skeptic's Annotated Bible
22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
I guess oxen are worth more than sheep? What about a horse or a goat?
22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Okay, here's what this seems to be saying. If a thief breaks into your home at night and you smite and kill him, then you're okay. However, if this happens in the daytime, then you fall under the rule of Exodus 21:12 (the prohibition against killing), which I guess means that you'll be killed. If the thief doesn't have enough money to make restitution for what he stole, then he gets sold into slavery in order to pay his debt.
22:4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
Um, didn't we just say in 22:1 that if you steal an ox you have to pay 5 oxen, and if you steal a sheep you have to pay 4 sheep back? Now it's just 2 for each? Why the change so quickly?
22:5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
Seems fair enough. Unless he doesn't have a vineyard.
22:6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
Yup, sounds fair.
22:7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.
Well, it seems to me that if you're watching something for your neighbor and it gets stolen, then you're responsible for paying it back (whether you had a hand in stealing it or not).
22:9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.
A second instance of paying double for an ox or sheep, rather than the rule shown in 22:1.
22:10 If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
22:11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
22:12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
Interesting distinction: if you trust your neighbor with your beast and it dies, runs away or is hurt, then the neighbor is not responsible. But if it's stolen from the neighbor, then the neighbor is responsible for paying restitution.
22:13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
If it was, I suppose, killed by a predator and torn to pieces, then you can present the pieces of the carcass as evidence that it wasn't stolen, so you don't have to pay for it.
22:14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
22:15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.
Too many pronouns for me to make any sense of what this means. Rules for what to do if you borrow something and one of you dies before it's been returned.
22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
This is not an injunction against pre-marital sex per se, just a requirement that if you do have pre-marital sex (and she's not already engaged to someone), then you'll have to marry her.
22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Who pays? The father who refuses the marriage, or the guy who slept with the daughter? Can't resolve the pronoun references here.
22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Oh, ouch. Here we have the justification for the torture and murder of women who are accused of witchcraft. I notice there are no instructions here for how to know she's a witch, or how to kill her. Stone her? Burn her? Cut off her head?
Also, interesting that this is clearly admitting that there are witches, and thus that there is witchcraft. Also interesting, no mention of warlocks (male witches), just (female) witches. I'm so confused: should I allow a warlock to live but kill all witches? Or should I kill warlocks too? Is there a difference between a warlock and a wizard? Since people's lives are at stake, I wish this had been made so much more clear!
So very many atrocities on the part of Christians have been committed on the basis of these 8 little words, this one verse. Just goes to show the horrible power of religion to cause harm.
22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Okay, not that I agree with bestiality, but this seems like a pretty harsh judgement for what is essentially a victimless crime.
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Wow, not just killed, but utterly destroyed. God is really really concerned about people's view of other gods.
22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
Interesting that he here promises to kill you with a sword. So the crime for vexing or oppressing a stranger is death. Make no mistake about it.
What if the stranger is a witch? According to 22:21 you should not vex or oppress her, but according to 22:18, she should die. Which rule should I follow?
22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Don't charge any poor people you lend money to unreasonably high interest rates. If they're rich, you can lay usury on them all you want, just don't take advantage of the poor.
22:26 If thou at all take thy neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
22:27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
Return any clothing you borrow on the same day. I'm assuming here that this is referring to ceremonial garb, and not just normal everyday clothing.
22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods,
More reference to other gods. In this case, though, you're commanded not to criticize them or treat them in an insulting manner. Just don't sacrifice anything to them (you'll be destroyed!), or make graven images of them, or worship them first.
nor curse the ruler of thy people.
What if he's a tyrant?
22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
I think this means that the firstborn male of a household should study to be a rabbi? Hopefully it's not referring to a burnt (human) sacrifice.
22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
This would either mean making a sacrifice of the animal, or taking it to the temple and giving it to the rabbi as a sacrifice, I would imagine.
22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
Don't eat road kill. Good advice.
Okay, what I'm wondering at this point is, is it really necessary to spell out all of this in the bible? This stuff is supposed to be the word of God, the divine law of the land, official church doctrine. And it's concerned about things like bestiality, or interest rates of loans to poor people, or how many days go by before sacrificing the firstborn offspring of an ox? Not only is this stuff more or less common sense, or at least easily adjudicated by a qualified judge. But also, God must have known (being omniscient and all) that these laws wouldn't really apply for all time. When's the last time you worried about what to do with your firstborn ox? These just aren't that relevant any more. Not to mention all the crap in the last chapter about how to treat your slaves; would have been nice instead if God had said something about how one shouldn't, you know, OWN other people.
Let me guess ... you got a PhD and you think you're clever now? Please.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to discuss these texts intelligently, you'll need to study Talmud in a yeshiva for a few years.
Your blogs do date are simply ignorant.
Why scoff at education? I never claimed to be an expert in this field or invoked my degree in defense of my blogging. I can read and think, and thankfully I'm not approaching this study with a predetermined acquiescence. I can call a horror a horror without undermining a belief system; I think this is your real complaint.
ReplyDeleteI don't need years of study to understand that, for example, human slavery is bad (not to mention all of the other horrible things I've read so far). If you can go study for a few years and have your moral outrage at these atrocities diminished, then I'd say that's more like brainwashing than enlightenment. I understand you want to defend your faith, but I find so much of this indefensible. And you can say, this writing was a product of its time and doesn't apply any more (since we mostly no longer accept slavery, for example), but that's not the message of this book. It's supposed to be a moral guide for all time. You can't both argue that parts can be rejected as out-of-date (like Exodus 21) and parts are eternal (such as Exodus 20). Can you? And if you can, on what basis do you reject certain teachings?
I am perfectly willing to admit my ignorance; that's why I'm reading the bible in the first place. What I'm hoping for is that someone such as yourself can engage in a constructive dialog with me to help me understand things that I have gotten wrong or misinterpreted, or how you relate to these verses in your personal life. Not everything I've read is bad, and there's a long way to go. I also freely admit that I'm judging these verses harshly, and some of my comments are intended as facetious (such as references to Ghostbusters or Harry Potter). No reason we can't have some fun with this as we go!
So, how do you defend Exodus 20 while rejecting Exodus 21 (or do you also accept Exodus 21)? How do you reconcile the 5th plague (the "grevious murrain") in which all animals were killed, with the death of all first-born animals in the 10th plague, or the presence of chariot horses as Pharaoh chased the Hebrews out of Israel? They can't both be right. While I'd love to hear answers to these specific questions, I'm more generally interested in the broader interpretation and message. So far no one has been willing to step and and defend the indefensible.
Another thought about 22:28 "Thou shalt not ... curse the ruler of thy people."
ReplyDeleteWasn't Pharaoh the ruler of the Hebrews before they fled Egypt? And it was the sorrow of the Hebrews cursing their treatment under Pharaoh that got God's attention, reminding him to honor his agreement to Abraham/Isaac/Joseph. So, if you're not supposed to curse your ruler, then the whole story of Exodus is a sin.