Note: cod3man tried to preemptively bar me from critiquing his views here. Quote: you do not have my permission to reproduce my comment or any portion on your blog.
Fortunately, there is the fair use doctrine which can be summarized as under the fair use doctrine of the US copyright statute it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes for purposes such as commentary criticism news reporting and scholarly reports [emphasis mine]. I'm clearly critiquing his comments, so I’m on the solid ground. Apparently, cod3man only wants to discuss on Reddit, where opposing views can be suppressed by downvotes.
cod3man makes this statement, "Lichtenstein is a successful country without any military spending". And this statement "Lichtenstein exists". cod3man claims that statement one needs to be defended, and the other does not. Then cod3man boldly makes this statement: we don't need to defend the Old Testament condones chattel slavery.
I'll add statement 4: the Old Testament exists since it is analogous to "Lichtenstein exists".
cod3man's logic is that statement 1 "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" needs to be defended and two "Lichtenstein exists" does not. If that's true, then the "Old Testament condones chattel slavery" and the does and "the Old Testament exists" does not.
Why? Because "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" is the core idea, as is Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The author is supposed to focus upon the key or fundamental idea, as it's the reason the subject matter is in discussion. So it must be defended.
cod3man states a premise being taken as obvious doesn't mean you can't challenge it.
How does one do this? By critically examining the data and proposing a better explanation. Which is what I've done with all my post about the Old Testament and slavery. cod3man obviously disagrees with my conclusions, but one should argue from the data, not assert that your view is "obviously" true and needs no defense. That's irrational, unreasonable and illogical.
So why does cod3man have a problem when I do this if the Old Testament/chattel slavery idea can be challenged? Why not argue from that data instead of asserting that it's obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery? cod3man might be correct, but that needs to be shown via the data and not just asserted
It doesn't make any sense on one hand to say it can be challenged, on the other hand say it needs no defense. If something is challenged, then there is a need for it to be defended.
cod3man it is obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery anyone who reads it plainly comes to that conclusion.
One of the many problems is that we assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious context is what the text itself means to say. Like when critics see the word "slavery" they immediately think "chattel slavery", but that isn't supported by the text nor the historical/social context.
If cod3man thinks that the context shows that Channel slavery is the best understanding of the ntext, then it needs to be argued for that from the data from the start. Why go through the rigmarole of saying it's "self-evident" or "obvious" when you know you have to argue from the data?
My guess is that it's a bluff. Either critics are too indolent to do the work, or they have done the work and know the argument can't be made. So they try to bluff and bluster....
cod3man: All the scholars who study the OT say that [the OT condones chattel slavery]
First that's incorrect:
There is Paul Copan.
There's Kushner, The d'rash commentary, edited by Harold Kushner in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary p457 - Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.
There's this entry from HANEL, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a "count the scholars on your side, and who has the most wins" - it what's the best explanation from the data. What's the argument from the data, cod3man?
cod3man: The only people who deny it are people like you, who have strong external motivation to do so.
First, to assume that those who say the Old Testament equals chattel slavery do not have strong external motivation is simply false as everybody has biases including experts, including scholars, including atheists. They do not have some sort of innate ability that frees them from all bias.
Are we to think cod3man an avowed atheist, moderating 2 discussion boards promoting/defending atheism is not biased against God or Christianity?
Second, it doesn't matter; it's what the data says but what we can infer as the best explanation of the data. I know that I've said this over and over, but it's true. What is the best explanation of the data
Let's look at the argument from an atheist scholar who has argued that Exodus 21:16 concerned only Hebrew slaves. Let's not assume that this expert is correct just because he's an expert. Let's examine his argument.
Joshua Bowen wrote the book that alot of atheists and other critics reference.
The full argument can be found here: Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined
Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]
So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] in Ex 21:1 means that Ex 21:16 is about Hebrew slaves.
The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 1, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.
Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.
However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] Following Bowen's logic are these speaking of a Hebrew ox and a Hebrew fire?
This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all persons - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc
So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses.
Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave)
Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 1, the fact they are not used elsewhere, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in Exodus 21.
Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population? If there are specific laws for free Hebrews concerning these matters, where are they?
No, The best explanation is that verse 12 tacked off onto other topics that included all Hebrews.
As I said, give me an argument from the data, not what a scholar says, or what the "consensus" is
Why don't you just reply on Reddit?
No comments:
Post a Comment