Sunday, October 6, 2024
400 Years of Patience: The Moral Context of the Canaanite Judgment
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, September 8, 2024
You Can’t Choose to Believe - But You Can Choose to Fairly Weigh the Evidence
Why Belief Isn’t a Switch, but an Inference
Introduction
A frequent pushback in discussions on faith and metaphysics goes like this: "You cannot simply decide to believe in God any more than you can decide to believe an invisible pink elephant is standing in your living room." Epistemologically, the critic has a valid point: human belief is rarely a product of direct, unassisted willpower (a view philosophers call direct doxastic voluntarism). You cannot flip a mental switch and force yourself to believe a proposition you find completely absurd. However, while you cannot directly force belief, you can choose whether to honestly evaluate the evidence, test your presuppositions, and follow the arguments wherever they lead.
The Juror and the Verdict
You are serving as a juror in a courtroom trial. You cannot simply sit down on day one and force yourself to believe the defendant is guilty out of sheer willpower. If you tried, you would merely be engaging in wishful thinking or self-deception.
However, you can decide whether to pay attention to the witness testimonies, examine the forensic data, cross-examine conflicting narratives, and weigh the competing explanations. At the end of the trial, conviction is not an arbitrary decision; it is the natural cognitive result of being persuaded by the weight of the cumulative case. Belief is not the choice - the willingness to impartially examine the evidence is.
1. The Epistemic Foundation: Reason and Explanation Before jumping to grand metaphysical conclusions, every rational worldview must establish its methodological ground rules:
The Primacy of Reason: Reason is the foundational prerequisite for all intelligible human thought, discourse, and scientific discovery. Before we can evaluate evidence, construct an argument, or test a hypothesis, we must assume that the laws of logic are valid and that our rational faculties can distinguish truth from error.
If a skeptic claims that reason is not the ultimate test for knowledge - or attempts to replace it with pure sensory data, emotional preference, or cultural conditioning - what cognitive tool are they using to evaluate and defend that claim?
Any attempt to critique, dismiss, or subordinate reason must rely entirely on reason to construct a coherent objection. Reason cannot be proven invalid without presupposing its validity in the very act of the argument, making its primacy unavoidable, self-authenticating, and absolute.
Inference to the Best Explanation (Abduction): In science, historiography, forensic investigation, and daily life, we rarely possess direct, real-time observational access to past events or underlying causes. Instead, we reason backward from observed effects to the most probable cause. Rather than demanding direct empirical observation for every claim, rational inquiry relies on abductive reasoning—evaluating competing hypotheses to determine which model best accounts for the full body of data.
A superior explanation is evaluated against key epistemic criteria:
Explanatory Scope: It accounts for multiple, independent lines of evidence rather than just a single isolated anomaly.
Explanatory Power: It makes the observed data plausible and expected, rather than requiring improbable coincidences.
Plausibility: It fits coherently with what we already know about reality and causal relationships.
Less Ad-Hoc: It does not rely on multiplying unwarranted, speculative assumptions simply to keep the hypothesis alive.
When evaluating worldviews, the goal is not to demand absolute geometric certainty, but to determine which framework provides the most coherent, unified explanation of the cumulative facts of our existence.
- [ Cumulative Data ]
(Cosmic Origin, Fine-Tuning, DNA, Rationality, Moral Realism)
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[ Naturalist Model ] [ Theistic Model ]
(Brute facts, unguided matter) (Transcendent Mind / Designer)
│ │
Explains partial pieces Unifies all dimensions
with high ad-hoc cost with high coherence 2. The Explanatory Challenge: Five Foundational Questions
Any coherent worldview or metaphysical framework must offer robust explanatory power for the primary features of reality. When evaluating competing hypotheses through abductive reasoning, five foundational questions demand a credible answer:
The Origin of Physical Reality (Cosmology): Modern astrophysics and philosophical logic agree that space, time, and matter had an absolute beginning. If physical reality transitioned from non-existence into existence, what caused it?
Because physical laws, matter, and time cannot cause themselves, the cause of physical reality must transcend physical reality—being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.
Asserting that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of literal nothingness is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to magic without a magician.
The Origin of Information in DNA (Biology): Living organisms are not merely complex chemistry; they are governed by specified, digital, semiotic code inscribed in the sequences of DNA.
In every realm of human experience—whether computer software, hieroglyphics, or written language—specified instructional information originates exclusively from a conscious mind, never unguided physical processes.
Chemistry explains the ink and paper of the biological text, but physical chemistry alone cannot account for the semantic code itself.
The Validity of Human Reasoning (Philosophy of Mind): If naturalism is true, our brains are the accidental byproduct of blind, unguided, non-rational physical processes shaped solely for reproductive fitness and survival, not for truth-tracking.
If physical matter and deterministic chemical reactions dictate our every thought, rational inference becomes an illusion.
On what rational grounds can we trust our scientific deductions, philosophical reasoning, or logical conclusions if the instruments producing them were not designed to track objective truth?
The Reality of Objective Moral Obligations (Ethics): Human experience universalizes deep moral convictions—for instance, that torturing an innocent child for fun is objectively evil, regardless of what any culture or tyrant decrees.
Under strict materialism, morality reduces to socio-biological herd instinct, subjective personal preference, or chemical conditioning.
What grounds binding, objective moral duties and universal human dignity if humans are nothing more than accidental configurations of carbon molecules?
The Comprehensibility of the Cosmos (Epistemology): The physical universe is governed by elegant mathematical symmetries and invariant laws that our abstract, rational minds are uniquely capable of discovering and mapping.
Why should the physical behavior of subatomic particles and cosmic orbits correspond to the abstract mathematical deductions developed inside the human mind?
A coherent model must explain the profound alignment between the rational structure of the cosmos and the rational capacity of human consciousness.
2. The Explanatory Challenge: Five Foundational Questions
Any coherent worldview or metaphysical framework must offer robust explanatory power for the primary features of reality. When evaluating competing hypotheses through abductive reasoning, five foundational questions demand a credible answer:
The Origin of Physical Reality (Cosmology): Modern astrophysics and philosophical logic agree that space, time, and matter had an absolute beginning. If physical reality transitioned from non-existence into existence, what caused it?
Because physical laws, matter, and time cannot cause themselves, the cause of physical reality must transcend physical reality—being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.
Asserting that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of literal nothingness is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to magic without a magician.
The Origin of Information in DNA (Biology): Living organisms are not merely complex chemistry; they are governed by specified, digital, semiotic code inscribed in the sequences of DNA.
In every realm of human experience—whether computer software, hieroglyphics, or written language—specified instructional information originates exclusively from a conscious mind, never unguided physical processes.
Chemistry explains the ink and paper of the biological text, but physical chemistry alone cannot account for the semantic code itself.
The Validity of Human Reasoning (Philosophy of Mind): If naturalism is true, our brains are the accidental byproduct of blind, unguided, non-rational physical processes shaped solely for reproductive fitness and survival, not for truth-tracking.
If physical matter and deterministic chemical reactions dictate our every thought, rational inference becomes an illusion.
On what rational grounds can we trust our scientific deductions, philosophical reasoning, or logical conclusions if the instruments producing them were not designed to track objective truth?
The Reality of Objective Moral Obligations (Ethics): Human experience universalizes deep moral convictions—for instance, that torturing an innocent child for fun is objectively evil, regardless of what any culture or tyrant decrees.
Under strict materialism, morality reduces to socio-biological herd instinct, subjective personal preference, or chemical conditioning.
What grounds binding, objective moral duties and universal human dignity if humans are nothing more than accidental configurations of carbon molecules?
The Comprehensibility of the Cosmos (Epistemology): The physical universe is governed by elegant mathematical symmetries and invariant laws that our abstract, rational minds are uniquely capable of discovering and mapping.
Why should the physical behavior of subatomic particles and cosmic orbits correspond to the abstract mathematical deductions developed inside the human mind?
A coherent model must explain the profound alignment between the rational structure of the cosmos and the rational capacity of human consciousness.
Conclusion
Nobody can force themselves to believe in God on command, nor should they. True belief is never an act of arbitrary self-delusion or manufactured emotional willpower; it is the intellect’s natural, involuntary assent when confronted with compelling evidence and explanatory coherence. When we discard the caricature of faith as a blind leap into the dark and treat metaphysical inquiry as an inference to the best explanation, the central question comes into sharp focus: Which worldview actually accounts for rthe world as we find it?
Naturalism leaves us with an uncaused cosmic beginning out of nothing, digital code without an author, non-rational particles generating rational thought, binding moral obligations derived from blind matter, and mathematical laws aligning with human consciousness by sheer luck. In contrast, theism provides a single, unified, and coherent foundation: a transcendent, rational Mind who instantiated the universe, encoded life, and grounded human dignity.
The epistemic choice before us is not whether we can magically force ourselves to believe in invisible pink elephants or flip a psychological switch. The real choice is whether we possess the intellectual honesty and courage to set aside prejudice, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and embrace the explanation that best accounts for the totality of reality.
Sunday, August 25, 2024
Slave: What Ancient Hebrew Really Meant by Ebed and Amah
From Chattel to Chief of Staff: The Surprising Spectrum of Hebrew "Servants"
IntroductionModern readers encountering the words "slave" or "servant" in the Old Testament almost inevitably picture the horrors of transatlantic chattel slavery—abduction, total dehumanization, and perpetual bondage. Reading that imagery back into ancient Hebrew texts misses the complex social, economic, and spiritual realities of the ancient Near East.
In biblical Hebrew, the terms ebed (masculine) and amah (feminine) carry a semantic range far broader than modern English allows. Depending on context, they can signify a bond-servant settling a debt, a high-ranking royal officer, a trusted family heir, or a worshiper standing in honored devotion before God. Understanding these words requires peeling back modern assumptions to examine how language, culture, and covenant actually operated.
The "Boardroom to Battlefield" SpectrumThink of the modern term "contractor" or "associate."
If an entry-level worker signs a rigid, six-year employment contract to pay off an overwhelming financial debt, their daily autonomy is sharply restricted by their employer. Yet, in the very same corporate structure, the Senior Executive Vice President might formally address the CEO as "Your humble associate" or "At your service."
Both individuals share a title tied to service, but one denotes economic distress, while the other denotes premier status, loyalty, and executive authority. Calling both simply "slaves" flattens the hierarchy and erases the entire social architecture.
Core Concepts & Linguistic Breakdown1. The Root Verb: Abad (עבד) Occurring roughly 300 times in the Hebrew Bible, the verb abad fundamentally means to work, cultivate, serve, or labor. Its meaning shifts dynamically depending on the object of the action:
Agricultural Labor: To "work" a field means to plow or cultivate it (Genesis 2:5).
Labor for Another: Working for someone else can represent contractual labor (as Jacob served Laban in Genesis 29:15) or severe state oppression (as Israel experienced in Egypt under Exodus 1:14).
Divine Action & Devotion: When God Himself acts or works (Isaiah 28:21), the root denotes purposeful engagement. Service offered to God is presented not as degrading subjugation, but as a liberating covenant duty.
2. Ebed (עבד) – Masculine Servitude, Status, and Allegiance Occurring almost 800 times, the masculine noun ebed spans several distinct categories:
Economic Servitude: Debt-servitude under the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 21:2) functioned largely as an insolvency mechanism capped at six years, with stipulations aimed at protecting families and guaranteeing release.
Domestic Position & Inheritance: An ebed was often an integrated member of the household. Abraham’s chief servant Eliezer was initially in line to inherit his entire estate prior to Isaac's birth (Genesis 15:2).
Royal Administration: A king's high-ranking ministers, ambassadors, and generals were formally titled his ebedim (servants). In this context, being the king's servant was a mark of supreme political authority over ordinary citizens.
Honorific Title of Faith: The greatest figures in biblical history—Moses, Abraham, David, and the prophets—are honored with the title Ebed YHWH (Servant of the Lord). In Isaiah, the ultimate messianic redeemer is designated as the "Suffering Servant."
Polite Diplomatic Form (Ebedek): Saying "your servant" (ebedek) functioned as formal etiquette among equals or to a superior, roughly equivalent to archaic English closures like "Your obedient servant" or Dutch/German honorifics.
3. Amah (אמה) & Shiphchah (שפחה) – The Female Household Sphere The feminine noun amah (along with its related term shiphchah) refers to a female servant, maid, or handmaid:
Family Integration and Marriage: Unlike male field hands, an amah frequently entered a household through marriage or concubinage arrangements (Exodus 21:7–11). Mosaic law explicitly prohibited treating her as ordinary property; if her marital rights (food, clothing, and marital relations) were neglected, she was granted immediate freedom without financial penalty.
Expressions of Deep Humility: Women of notable standing used amah to refer to themselves when speaking respectfully to figures of spiritual or civic authority (e.g., Hannah praying before Eli in 1 Samuel 1:16, or Abigail addressing David in 1 Samuel 25:24).
Conclusion
Translating ebed and amah as a single, static English word inevitably distorts the ancient text. In the biblical world, service was the universal language of relationship. It framed financial obligations, defined royal diplomacy, and described the highest calling a human could achieve: total, voluntary allegiance to the Creator. When we restore these words to their original depth, we discover that ancient servitude was not a monolith, but a multifaceted window into ancient law, community, and faith.
Saturday, August 24, 2024
Why Deuteronomy 23:15–16 Outlawed the Fugitive Slave Trade
No Extradition, No Chattel: The Revolutionary Asylum Law of Deuteronomy 23
Introduction
In the legal landscape of the ancient Near East, runaway slaves were treated as stolen property subject to mandatory extradition, brutal mutilation, or summary execution. Surrounding superpowers enacted severe treaties to hunt down and return escaped laborers to their masters. Yet nestled within the civil statutes of ancient Israel lies Deuteronomy 23:15–16
Analogy: The Non-Compete Clause vs. The Whistleblower Asylum
Imagine an employer who demands total, lifelong loyalty from an employee, backing it up with restrictive legal contracts and state-enforced non-compete clauses that forbid the worker from ever taking another job.
Under authoritarian corporate law, if the employee runs away from an abusive boss, state marshals track them down, drag them back in handcuffs, and force them to work under increased penalties. Now imagine a neighboring territory establishing a radical constitutional clause: any worker fleeing mistreatment is granted full legal sanctuary, the old boss has zero power of extradition, and the worker is legally protected to settle down and take up employment wherever they choose. The mere existence of such a safe haven completely alters the balance of power. Even if a master wished to be abusive, knowing that mistreated workers could walk away at any moment with the full protection of the law forced employers to treat their laborers with equity, dignity, and respect.
Evaluating the Three Views on Deuteronomy 23:15–16
The Competing Interpretations Scholars and commentators generally divide into three perspectives regarding the intended scope of this asylum statute:
View 1: The law applies exclusively to foreign slaves fleeing pagan masters outside Israel.
View 2: The law applies exclusively to perpetual/permanent servants within Israel (non-Israelite servants and Hebrews who voluntarily committed to lifetime service).
View 3: The law applies comprehensively to all servants and laborers who escape mistreatment, whether foreign or domestic.
Analysis of View 1: Foreign Slaves Fleeing Outside Masters
Arguments in Favor:
Linguistic Cues: The phrasing "he shall dwell with you, in your midst" in verse 16 is frequently used in the Torah to describe the integration of the resident alien or foreigner (ger) settling peacefully inside Israelite borders (Peter C. Craigie, NICOT).
Distinctive Contrast with ANE Treaties: Extradition clauses were standard across ancient Near Eastern international treaties (such as the Hittite-Egyptian treaties and the Code of Hammurabi §§15–16, which mandated death for harboring runaway slaves). Israel declaring itself a unilateral safe harbor for foreign runaways made a profound anti-imperial statement (Eugene Merrill, NAC; Daniel I. Block, NIVAC).
Military Campaign Context: The preceding verses (Deut 23:9–14) address military encampment rules, leading some commentators to argue that encounters with foreign fugitive slaves naturally arose during wartime operations (Edward J. Woods, TOTC).
Historical Rabbinic Consensus: Ancient Jewish Targums and rabbinic commentators (such as Rashi and John Gill's citations) historically favored the foreign fugitive reading.
Textual and Logical Weaknesses:
No Demographic Limitation: The text uses the unqualified term ‘ebed ("a servant/slave") without adding "foreign" or "from outside the land."
Universal Need for Housing: A domestic, impoverished Israelite servant fleeing abuse would have needed guaranteed civil protection and a place to dwell just as urgently as a foreigner.
Analysis of View 2: Perpetual Servants Within Israel
Arguments in Favor:
Exclusion of Standard Debtors: Temporary Hebrew debt servants served a mandatory maximum term of six years and had less structural incentive to permanently abscond compared to permanent or lifelong servants (IVP Bible Background Commentary).
Textual and Logical Weaknesses:
Six Years Under Abuse Is Intolerable: Six years under a cruel, oppressive master is an immense period; civil law would not force an abused worker to endure years of violence simply because a debt clock was running.
Total Absence of Textual Exclusions: The statute contains zero legal qualifiers exempting temporary debt laborers from seeking asylum.
Analysis of View 3: A Universal Injunction for All Runaway Servants
The Decisive Evidentiary Case (Christopher J.H. Wright, NIBC):
Absolute Literary Scope: The text does not insert an ethnic, geographical, or status qualifier. It simply commands: "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you." In statutory law, where the law does not distinguish, interpreters have no right to distinguish.
Empowering the Vulnerable (
Deuteronomy 15:7–8 A Structural Check on Institutional Abuse: By eliminating extradition and granting immediate civil asylum, this law exerted immense systemic pressure on Israelite households. If an employer mistreated a servant, the servant could simply walk away and settle in the next town. Because masters had no legal authority to hunt down runaways, servitude was preserved as a de facto voluntary institution governed by mutual fairness.
Conclusion
Three Views
- This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel
- This law applies to perpetual servants/slaves within Israel
- This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters
Pros and Cons
a - Some think verse 16 (shall dwell with you, in your midst) indicates that a foreign servants/slaves who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie, New International Commentary on the Old Testament)
b - ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law would be distinctive (Merrill, New American Commentary, 312; Block NIV Application Commentary, 544).
c - The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign servants/slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, 245).
d - This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 100)
Cons for [1]
a - Israelite-born escaped servants/slaves would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.
b - Block cites not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (Block NIV Application Commentary, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.
c - The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.
d - The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but is not decisive.
Pros for [2] This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners servants/slaves within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)
a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)
Cons for [2]
a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves,
b, Six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.
Pros for [3]. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters (Wright,
New International Biblical Commentary).
a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign servants/slaves
b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign servants/slaves is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” Deuteronomy 15:7-8 This law would put pressure on the system of servanthood/slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the servants/slaves. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.
c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery/servanthood in Israel was to be of such a nature that no servant/slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition. This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.
Friday, August 23, 2024
Exodus 21:20-21 Beating Your Slave
Why Exodus 21:20–21 Is About Debt, Not Chattel Slavery
Introduction
Few passages in the Hebrew Scriptures evoke stronger initial shock than
The Damaged Machine vs. The Lost Shift
Imagine a 19th-century factory owner who owns a piece of machinery versus an employer managing an apprentice working off an apprenticeship debt.
If the owner smashes his own steam engine to pieces with a sledgehammer, the state does not arrest him for murder - a true chattel owner destroys personal property at will. But if an employer physically injures an apprentice to the point of death, the legal system intervenes with severe criminal punishment. If the apprentice survives and misses days of work, the lost labor directly penalizes the employer's financial investment in that contracted debt. Translating ancient Hebrew terms like
Linguistic Context: Servanthood vs. Chattel Terminology
A foundational error in modern debates is treating the English translation "slave" as synonymous with transatlantic chattel slavery. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the primary terms used are
These terms spanned a wide social spectrum, referring to royal court officials, temple workers, military subordinates, and day laborers. In the vast majority of domestic cases in ancient Israel, an ebed was an indentured debtor who had voluntarily contracted their labor to satisfy an unpaid debt or avoid total economic destitution.
The critical question is how the phrase "for he is his money" (kaspo hu) ought to be understood:
The Problem with "Possession by Ownership": If the law viewed the servant as disposable chattel property, the master would have absolute sovereign authority over the worker's life. Under genuine chattel law (such as Roman or transatlantic slavery codes), an owner faced no legal penalty for killing their own property. Yet Exodus 21:20 mandates that if the servant dies, the master "must be avenged/punished" (naqom yinnaqem)—a legal formula in biblical law denoting formal judicial execution for murder.
The Logic of "Possession by Debt Contract": The Hebrew phrase kaspo hu refers to the financial capital the master invested in purchasing the servant's multi-year labor contract. If the servant is injured and bedridden for one or two days, the master does not face an additional criminal court fine because the master has already incurred a self-inflicted economic loss: paying for days of contracted labor that were completely lost. The servant is not money; the servant's unfulfilled labor is the monetary investment at stake.
Corporal Discipline and Ancient Jurisprudence
Modern readers often ask why physical discipline with a rod (shebet) was permitted at all. In the ancient world, corporal punishment was the standard penal mechanism across entire societies, applied to free citizens and servants alike:
Judicial Flogging for Free Persons (Deuteronomy 25:1–3): If two free citizens had a legal dispute and the guilty party was sentenced to physical punishment, the judge oversaw a measured beating: "Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight."
Parental and Domestic Discipline: Proverbs frequently references the "rod of discipline" for children, youths, and fools. In an agrarian society without modern correctional facilities or police forces, corporal discipline was the universal disciplinary recourse for breach of contract, insubordination, or negligence.
Proportionality and Restraint: Far from giving masters free rein, the law created steep financial and legal disincentives against excessive force. If an owner struck a servant and caused permanent injury—such as knocking out a tooth or blinding an eye—the debt contract was immediately voided, and the servant was granted total legal freedom (
Exodus 21:26–27
The Broader Legal Matrix: Anti-Oppression and Sanctuary Laws
The Anti-Kidnapping Death Penalty (
Exodus 21:16 The Anti-Return Law (Deuteronomy 23:15–16): Unlike neighboring ancient Near Eastern nations (such as the Code of Hammurabi, which executed anyone harboring a runaway slave), Israel was commanded to grant absolute asylum to runaway servants: "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose... you shall not wrong him." This law effectively made institutional physical abuse self-defeating, as mistreated workers could walk away without legal extradition.
Universal Protections for the Vulnerable: Overarching moral commands explicitly protected non-native residents and contracted workers: "You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33–34).
When these intersecting statutes are synthesized, Exodus 21 emerges not as a brutal slaveholder's manual, but as an ancient labor regulation that severely checked master authority, protected human life, and enforced accountability within the reality of debt contracts.
Conclusion
The regulations in
cod3man Defends Unsupported Presumptions, and Claims No Need to Defend the Idea that the Old Testament Condoned Chattel Slavery
Who is cod3man? A Reddit poster, and moderator of three two anti-Christian Subreddits r/DebateReligion, r/DebateAnAtheist, & r/askanatheist. [I don't see cod3man listed as a mod for DebateReligion even though it's listed on cod3man's profile page......]
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)