Fundamentalists and Atheists: Two peas in a pod?

[Mike_from_NJ]

Divine inspiration means that God involves himself in a special way in a human event, guaranteeing his presence and the truth of what is communicated. When God inspires, he works within the human history he has created and with the creatures he has formed, but he protects the fragile creations from error in establishing his truth.

What I underlined, is usually where fundamentalists and atheists go off the track. Viewing instead that God works outside of human history and experience. It is an erroneous view, of God as a divine dictator that once in while uses humans like a ventriloquist.

Divine inspiration means God conveys truth in the context of the society and culture of which the author is a part of. It is one reason why we must take literary and historical criticisms into consideration when studying an interpretation. Not to explain away scripture, but to understand the truth that is being conveyed.

I must be honest I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that when God inspires that he works within human history as opposed to outside of human history. Could you provide an example of different interpretations of the same passage, one from within human history and one from without so that I can see what the difference is.

Also, the question you are responding to was about what can be said when the Bible tells us that God speaks to someone. Does that literally mean that he spoke to someone, and if so are the words we are given the ones spoken or were they paraphrased? If they were paraphrased, by what degree?

 

[Contarini]

The Church chose the books that would make up the Bible, and in doing so stated to the world that these were all true in some sense. It made a statement that it now must stand by. If I vouch for a friend I have to be sure that he or she will act accordingly. If the Church says a book is true, it had best be true.

Yes, but you said “in some sense.” These books all, when interpreted as a whole in light of the Tradition, point us to God and to how God has made himself known in the world. There’s a lot of flexibility there.

Unfortunately that is the kind of interpretation that collapses under the mildest of scrutiny. The Israelites didn’t see a glimpse of God, they spoke to him.

A text that is clearly legendary in nature says that they saw and heard some pretty terrifying things that they had trouble making sense of, so that they begged Moses to stand in between. So no, the people as a whole didn’t speak directly to God. The text is actually very clear on that.

He told the Israelites not to do as other nations do – Leviticus 20:23 “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” Yet the explanation atheists most here about immoral practices he told the Israelites to do is that he had to take into account the time and place they were in. The Israelites had escaped Egypt and were making a fresh start. If there ever was a time to start a people off fresh was then. It’s explanations like that which show why we can’t just take them as given. More often then not they are more hand wave or dodge than explanation.

First of all, you’re assuming that the laws as we have them really were given right after they left Egypt. That is not historically plausible, and I don’t know why, as an unbeliever, you would start out by imposing such an implausible set of assumptions on the discussion.

Practically all scholars, except for some very conservative ones, would agree that the OT laws largely date from a later period–indeed probably from different periods addressing different kinds of situations, collected into the form we have most likely after the Exile.

So no, they don’t represent a “fresh start.” They represent, in the form we have them, centuries of Hebrew lawmaking, very much part of its ANE culture, as codified and edited by idealistic post-exilic scribes.

Of course these texts include warnings not to be like the other nations. That doesn’t mean that the laws are uninfluenced by their cultural context.

There are no fresh starts.

Why do you start from an ultra-conservative view of the origins of the Torah that you clearly don’t believe? This is exactly why the OP compared atheists to fundamentalists.

Edwin

 

[RebeccaJ]

I must be honest I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that when God inspires that he works within human history as opposed to outside of human history. Could you provide an example of different interpretations of the same passage, one from within human history and one from without so that I can see what the difference is.

Look at the difference in how you and Contarini interpret the same passage of scripture. You are interpreting outside of history. Presentism is an error in interpretation, that uses modern values and concepts to interpret past events.

Also, the question you are responding to was about what can be said when the Bible tells us that God speaks to someone. Does that literally mean that he spoke to someone, and if so are the words we are given the ones spoken or were they paraphrased? If they were paraphrased, by what degree?

Sometimes God literally speaks to people, such as Moses on Mount Sinai. Other times God speaks to people through the Holy Spirit. Either way, the author can convey what truth is taught. We aren’t Mormons, who believe the authors of the books in scriptures were actual scribes, writing down every word, exactly as God uttered it. Or Muslims, who believe Muhammed wrote what an angel dictated. There may be certain points in scripture where something was written by the finger of God, such as the Ten Commandments, but is is VERY rare in the OT.

Paraphrasing is irrelevant to the Catholic view of the source of Scripture. Inspired, means to us, that a person can use their own words, their own experience, their own culture, to convey divine truth. Inspired, means to us, that the authors of scripture have divine protection from teaching error (infallible), including when paraphrasing.

You should also understand, that Scripture contains divine truth, but for us, it does not contain all of what God has to say to humanity. That would be found in the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

 

[Contarini]

I must be honest I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that when God inspires that he works within human history as opposed to outside of human history. Could you provide an example of different interpretations of the same passage, one from within human history and one from without so that I can see what the difference is.

Your interpretations are pretty consistently “outside of human history.”

When you assume that “the slave is his money” means “God is telling ancient Hebrews that slaves are property” you’re interpreting from outside of history.

When you use the language of a “fresh start” as if God can just wipe people’s cultural assumptions clean and start over again, you are interpreting from outside of history.

In fact, at a couple of very significant places in the story (after the Golden Calf incident and again when the Israelites refuse to go into the Promised Land in Numbers 14) “God” suggests making a fresh start and Moses talks him out of it. Which, since God can’t be talked out of things and the entire text is inspired by God, is telling us that, in fact, God doesn’t make fresh starts. God works with the sinful, rebellious, messed-up people he’s got. It’s a dramatic device in which “Moses” is actually the one speaking for God’s fullest intentions.

Also, the question you are responding to was about what can be said when the Bible tells us that God speaks to someone. Does that literally mean that he spoke to someone, and if so are the words we are given the ones spoken or were they paraphrased? If they were paraphrased, by what degree?

The story as a whole is telling us something very important about God’s purposes, but I for one do not believe that the word “literally” can apply to any speaking or acting ascribed to God outside the Incarnation.

Edwin

 

[twf]

To be fair, the Torah came before both, and it is the cornerstone of the Old Testament.

The Church chose the books that would make up the Bible, and in doing so stated to the world that these were all true in some sense. It made a statement that it now must stand by. If I vouch for a friend I have to be sure that he or she will act accordingly. If the Church says a book is true, it had best be true.

That’s why I think the questions I came up with early in the thread are a good start to make sure that any explanations given as to non-literalness of a passage can withstand scrutiny. If the Church wishes to use Sacred Tradition while also explaining why a certain interpretation is best, then it can be discussed as most anything else can. If though Sacred Tradition is used without explanation and merely as a way to stop all questioning, then there should be no surprise if atheists will not accept what is essentially an argument with no points.

Unfortunately that is the kind of interpretation that collapses under the mildest of scrutiny. The Israelites didn’t see a glimpse of God, they spoke to him. He told the Israelites not to do as other nations do – Leviticus 20:23 “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” Yet the explanation atheists most here about immoral practices he told the Israelites to do is that he had to take into account the time and place they were in. The Israelites had escaped Egypt and were making a fresh start. If there ever was a time to start a people off fresh was then. It’s explanations like that which show why we can’t just take them as given. More often then not they are more hand wave or dodge than explanation.

I agree that “Sacred Tradition” by itself is a cop-out. Certainly questioning minds are entitled to a thoughtful and reasonable response. (Though I personally may not have that response for you - but a Catholic theologian or Bible scholar hopefully would). I just wanted to make sure you weren’t approaching this from a Protestant perspective. Many Protestant groups treat the Bible as a Catechism or, to use their own words, a “manual for your life” (popular terminology in some groups). This is not the Catholic perspective. Big picture first…then details.
Yes, the Torah and the various individual books of the Old Testament were definitely written before the Church, but the Bible “as we know it” was given to us by the Church. She chose books She deemed appropriate for divine worship.
Yes, certain leaders of the Israelites spoke directly to God. Certainly figures such as St. Moses or St. Elijah had more than a mere glimpse. I meant from a Catholic perspective, in a general sense, the people of Israel didn’t understand God as fully as we Christians do today. God’s nature as a Trinity had not yet been revealed. The Second Person of the Trinity had not yet become incarnate as a man. The Gospel had not yet been preached. The Sacraments had not yet been instituted. Etc. etc. I think Contarini put it very well…mankind was not yet ready for the superior law that is the Gospel. The Torah includes detailed laws ensuring the well being of slaves, but why was slavery tolerated at all? We know from Christ Himself, in the Gospels, that some aspects of the Old Law were imperfect. Jesus declared divorce to be immoral and stated that it was tolerated simply because the people were not yet ready to accept the higher law ushered in with the Gospel:
He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8).
I’m not drawing a moral equivalence between divorce and slavery. I’m simply drawing a comparison.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The problem I have with this whole discussion is that the term “literal” can mean a lot of things. Here are three:

1. The first thing that comes into someone’s head when they read a certain phrase or passage. This is what most people seem to mean by it. This is just a bad way to read any text written in a difficult culture than your own, even before getting into the question of sacred meanings.

I’d be curious to see a dictionary that has ever defined literal as the first thing that comes to person’s head when they hear or read something.

Here are dictionary.com’s first four definitions of the word literal:

1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical:
   the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly:
   a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:
   a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
   the literal extermination of a city.

In short, it means that if a passage reads that something was said then it was said. If something was done it was done. It is not figurative or metaphorical. It is not exaggerated or inaccurate.

1. The probable meaning of the original author, as determined by historical scholarship. This is a more intellectually serious definition. But it’s still inadequate for talking even about the “literal sense” of Scripture in terms of theology. Christians, especially Catholics, read Scripture as a canonical whole, in light of the Church’s Tradition.

So it the meaning of the original author was to be figurative, by your reasoning it is literal? Are you suggesting that a passage can be both figurative and literal simultaneously?

So the actual, historic meaning of “literal” in the sense of the fourfold interpretation you describe above is:

1. The primary meaning given a passage by the Church’s Tradition.

Again, if the meaning of a passage was figurative as the term is properly used if it’s determined to be the primary meaning according to Church Tradition then it is literal. That’s a terrible misuse of language.

You’ve ignored what Della wrote when he quoted the Catechism. The Church says each passage can be interpreted in either a literal manner or one of three non-literal manners. At no point does the Church say that each primary they use should be called literal, quite the opposite.

Hence, when Catholics say “Catholics don’t read Scripture literally,” this is not actually referring to the traditional spiritual senses, although in practice I think the fourfold sense should be redefined so that there are two “literal” senses and two “spiritual” ones.

For instance, when Genesis 1:1 says “God created the heavens and the earth,” the most probable literal meaning in terms of sense 2 is that the passage is talking about God ordering pre-existing chaos. But the “literal” meaning in sense 3 is that God made the universe out of nothing. That may or may not be what the original human author(s) had in mind (most likely not), but the language still points in that direction, with its use of a word for “create” that is used nowhere else in Scripture and with the emphasis on God’s sovereignty as the source of all creation in contrast to previous creation accounts with their warring gods.

The rest of Genesis contain certain details that can not be literal or figurative. The first is the order of creation, specifically the creation of the sun and moon after the Earth. This brings up another point that I think a believer should do when stating that a passage is literal: Explaining what to do with elements of the narrative that seem not to work in either a literal or figurative reading. The second Genesis 1 detail that is troublesome is the description of a so-called firmament and of waters above the firmament.

But this doesn’t even touch what most people think of as the “literal/nonliteral” issue in that passage, namely whether the seven days are “literal.”

I’m ok with a non-literal interpretation of days, but again there needs to be an explanation as to why what is said to be created third (the Earth) is incorrectly listed as being created before what was created fourth (the sun and moon). What are the non-literal explanations for the words “third” and “fourth”?

Well, it’s really a statement denying the right of a 21st-century reader to just pick up the text and say, “it seems to mean X to me, so obviously if you don’t believe X you aren’t taking your own Scriptures seriously.”

If someone says “Catholics don’t read the Bible literally”, but won’t go further in explaining that position then the believer responding hasn’t given a reason to use an alternate reading of that passage. All I ask in such situations is to give a reasoned explanation for any reading.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(continued from previous post)

You’re assuming that there is a solid, obvious “literal” meaning in the first place, and indeed that there is a single meaning to the word “literal” itself. You don’t have grounds for assuming either of these things.

What with the word literal pretty much having a singular meaning (the four definitions I quoted were all in the same ballpark) I have to state that I do have very solid grounds for assuming such things.

Scripture is the book of the Church. We do not read it simply as a collection of ancient Near Eastern writings. And frankly most people who talk about “literal” meanings haven’t even gotten as far as that, but are just assuming that what seem like the “obvious” meanings to them are the “literal” ones, and that anyone denying that “literal” meaning must present reasons for doing so.

Nope.

Since your explanation allows for a meaning to be simultaneously literal and figurative we are going to disagree.

Well, you’re frustrated in your wholly illegitimate desire to declare yourselves the authoritative interpreters of other people’s holy books. You don’t get to do that, just as Christians don’t get to do it to Muslims, say.

I don’t think atheists wish to be the authoritative interpreters of any holy books. By being authoritative one is either the sole or final word on something. Atheists just are not going to cede the process solely to one group when discussion between those for and against is the far more reasonable process. I think Christians, atheists, and other non-Muslims have the right to interpret the Quran. If I feel that surah 109:6 saying “Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,” contradicts with surah 9:5 saying “…slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.” then I can do so. Muslim believers can then try to give a reasonable explanation as to why I am wrong.

I think the reason most unbelievers proceed this way (other than that our culture, at a popular level, predisposes people to think that this is an appropriate way to approach a text) because they notice a lot of silly Christians talking as if they just sit down with the Biblical text and inductively observe what it says about God, and build their theology solely on that. Actually nobody does that. It’s not even possible, let alone desirable. But many unbelievers in this culture not only are used to hearing Christians claim to do this, but were once Christians who did it themselves. Hence, they are conditioned to see any other approach as somehow “inauthentic” or a cop-out.

If that other approach is to say only the Church can interpret scripture and to not provide an explanation then the next logical step is to think the Church is simply incapable of providing an explanation. Proclaiming oneself to be above reproach has never been the process that leads to truth.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I guess I’m going to be talking about slavery…

My approach to that text would be to say that it clearly reflects an ancient cultural understanding that slaves are property, but that the divine revelation in the text is the protection (albeit imperfect) afforded to slaves. In other words, your flawed assumption here is that all these laws are simply and directly given by God as timeless truths.

To say otherwise would say that God changes, something Christians say God does not do. As I noted in another post God specifically told the Israelites to not follow the practices of other cultures in the area. He also gave the Israelites specific rules that no other culture had. He told them to strictly honor the Sabbath. He told them to make sure that males were circumcised. In fact, he came extremely closed to killing Moses because he hadn’t circumcised his son in a timely manner. Luckily Moses’ wife was quick with a rock (ouch!). Even if we retreat into this being figurative and not literal, it still demonstrates that God is far, far, far more concerned with following his rules on foreskin than treating people not as property.

Clearly that’s not how OT laws work.

It’s clear only when one feels the need to whitewash what those OT laws said. When applied reasonably I don’t see how we can claim God is being good or that it makes sense logistically or morally.

The traditional way to put it would be that God “accommodates” his laws, leading people on by degrees.

Parents do not teach their children this way. We don’t allow them leeway then narrow down their moral focus from there. And as I noted above, God placed certain moral absolutes on the Israelites. Another example, in Exodus 21 he told them to be responsible for their actions. If you don’t cover a pit and a neighbor’s ox falls in you are responsible for it. It’s in that same chapter that God tells the Israelites that there is no punishment for a beating a slave so severely that he or she dies a day later. It is peculiar what God not only allows but also flat out says is not wrong.

I’d go further–I’d say that God was trying to get through to ancient people the truth that slaves are not property, but that they were not yet capable of hearing that truth in its fullness, so it came through, in that particular passage, in a muffled way.

I think atheists – in fact all non-Christians and some Christians – would be hard pressed to rationalize that God stating slaves were property was an effort to state that the exact opposite. “Muffled” is a very positive, and I would dare to say inaccurate, spin on that passage. Remember that the Church says that all Scripture is true in some way. That simply can’t be the case if no literal or non-literal reading is even slightly accurate. Plus we need to remember that slaves are called property by God in another passage (Leviticus 25:45 – “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.”) as well. So it was muffled not once but twice. Also the part about beating them to death so long as they linger for a day, was that muffled as well?

But either way that law is not, in and of itself, an adequate representation of what God has to say about slavery.

Then it is not true. Not “an adequate representation”? Do you mean to say untrue, false, wrong? It can’t be 180 degrees different than what you believe is true and still be true by the standard of the Catechism.

For this to pose serious theological problems, you’d have to show that the passage was rejecting a view held by some ancient Hebrews who wanted to punish those who abused slaves even if the slaves didn’t die right away.

No. To pose theological problems we need to compare it to what Christians say are attributes of God and see if they mesh. God is good, yet he allows for brutality and the dehumanizing of people. Those concepts are in direct conflict with each other, and it doesn’t take a theology degree to see that.

But even in my sense 2, this isn’t a likely interpretation. It’s far more likely that the law was an attempt to bring some accountability to those who harmed slaves, and that v. 21 is a concession

One of the terms a person will hear quite often when listening to EWTN is “moral relativism” especially when used to define non-Catholics. It’s the idea that there is no true good or evil but only shades of difference. At the same time the idea that God was doing good by being not as cruel as some other nations in the treatment of slaves is seen as good. To be good one must not tell his people to purchase slaves. He must tell his people not to beat slaves. He must tell his people not to manslaughter slaves. Obeying the Sabbath is black or white, while harming slaves is varying shades of gray.

First of all, “God the Father” doesn’t say much in Scripture, even as a literary character.

Much of Exodus and practically all of Leviticus is a quote of God.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(continued from previous post)

“This is my Beloved Son” is about it. What is said in the OT is not said by “God the Father,” since that distinction doesn’t exist. (In traditional Christian thought, Jesus is the one who reveals God and thus the Second Person of the Trinity would be speaking in the OT too, if we are going to distinguish Persons at all. But all the works of the Trinity are indivisible anyway.) The point rather is that anything ascribed to God except the things said and done by the incarnate Jesus cannot, by definition, be said literally. You can’t speak of God literally, except in the Incarnation.

And this falls into the points I presented at the start of the thread. Why should be we take that none of what is claimed to be from the mouth of God, including The Commandments and The Burning Bush, was not actually said? Any other Christians reading this, what do you say to the idea that God didn’t say anything in the Old Testament?

God clearly allowed all sorts of things that many pious people would not expect.

This is another example of your imposing certain assumptions on the text and then demanding that Christians measure up to them. You just don’t have the right to do that when talking about someone else’s religion.

I have every right to speak my peace on the matter.

Why do you “hope” anything of the sort? It makes no sense.

It’s a hope that those who believe what the Bible says think it is true and are not willing to brush certain passages aside if they becomes inconvenient. It’s a hope that an equal level of open-mindedness comes from the apologist as is expected of the atheist.

I agree. But so is assuming that whatever meaning happens to seem obvious to you is “literal” and is the default meaning given to the text.

As I noted above, the literal meaning is the as-is-written meaning without exaggeration or inaccuracy and without figurative or metaphorical language.

I don’t really see why the believer needs to explain anything of the sort to you, unless you are seriously proposing to embrace one of them.

I went over this in an earlier post. If they don’t want to explain anything to atheists like me that is their prerogative, but it gets that much harder to convince others to convert to Catholicism or keep others from converting away from Catholicism if it can’t or won’t give reasoning for why they state what they state.

If there is a God, and if God revealed Scripture, then obviously that rules out any interpretation that is immoral or false.

If I had some ham I’d have ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
But seriously I think you are forgetting that the various Christian churches do not and have not agreed on interpretation for several different parts of Scripture. By definition and least some of these interpretations that these churches make are false.

It makes no sense to say “you must prove to me, based on some set of rules that I have invented or learned from some other group of Christians to which you don’t belong, that your meaning is more plausible than the obviously wrong or wicked meanings.”

The different points I made at the start of the thread are certainly not the be-all and end-all as to what might help believers convince non-believers why certain non-literal interpretation should be used in favor of literal ones. It’s something yours truly from New Jersey thought up during a lunch hour when pondering what questions I would ask when told to use a non-literal reading. They’re just basic guidelines to flesh out why choice A is preferable over choice B, and I’m sure others could tweak or expand on them.

Remember this whole thing started when the OP stated that atheists require a literal reading of the Bible, and I wanted to show that we’d accept a non-literal reading but only when given sufficient reason to do so. It’s not a demand for proof as you put it, but a demonstration of what atheists for the most part look for when given Biblical explanations.

Again, the problem with this whole discussion is that people don’t really sit down with the Bible, figure out what it “literally says,” and then build their religion around it. Some people claim to do this, but they are obviously not really doing it.

I think people should read a multitude of books, holy books, philosophy, art, history, literature, and seek truth where it may lead.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But your standard for what is “properly addressing it” seems to be shaped by fundamentalism.

“Properly addressing it” means to take on all aspects of what the quote says and not discard the bad parts. Exodus 20-24 has an extended quote from God that tells people not to mistreat foreigners and be kind to widows but also tells slaveowners that they can blackmail their soon-to-be released male Hebrew slaves by forcing him to choose between freedom and his family.

Apologists would look upon the good parts of any quote and not properly address it by asking us to in turn ignore bad parts of any quote.

Why exactly do you assume that God couldn’t get a message through to people through “certain aspects of what was said”?

Just as I explained above. Focus only on certain parts/aspects and throwing out the others is not an honest approach to Biblical interpretation.

Why assume that the Bible can’t be a genuine set of ancient documents, complete with (on the level of the intentions of the original authors) the sorts of flaws and limitations you’d expect of people from ancient Near Eastern cultures, but that God is getting something through to us in the Bible anyway?

Because the Catechism specifically says it is true. Besides you can’t tell an open-minded person to assume the flaws found in the Bible do not hinder its credibility. The Bible may indeed be true, but it would be in spite of itself in my opinion.

Why just rule that point of view out dismissively instead of seriously engaging it?

Don’t think because I don’t believe the Bible to be accurate that I have not been seriously engaging it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Look at the difference in how you and Contarini interpret the same passage of scripture. You are interpreting outside of history. Presentism is an error in interpretation, that uses modern values and concepts to interpret past events.

In my explanation of that passage and in my later response to Contarini I layed out my problems with why the actions of a supposedly unchanging perfectly good God don’t add up.

Sometimes God literally speaks to people, such as Moses on Mount Sinai.

You may wish to speak to Contarini, as he believes that God at no point spoke to anyone in the Old Testament.

Other times God speaks to people through the Holy Spirit. Either way, the author can convey what truth is taught.

How does one determine what is and is not a quote from God?

We aren’t Mormons, who believe the authors of the books in scriptures were actual scribes, writing down every word, exactly as God uttered it. Or Muslims, who believe Muhammed wrote what an angel dictated. There may be certain points in scripture where something was written by the finger of God, such as the Ten Commandments, but is is VERY rare in the OT.

How does one determine what is written by the finger of God and what was not? How do the two passages I’ve mentioned which has God stating that slaves are property rate in that regard?

Paraphrasing is irrelevant to the Catholic view of the source of Scripture. Inspired, means to us, that a person can use their own words, their own experience, their own culture, to convey divine truth. Inspired, means to us, that the authors of scripture have divine protection from teaching error (infallible), including when paraphrasing.

How is an open-minded person supposed to accept that the authors of Scripture are infallible?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, but you said “in some sense.” These books all, when interpreted as a whole in light of the Tradition, point us to God and to how God has made himself known in the world. There’s a lot of flexibility there.

Why should an open-minded person accept what the Church considers Tradition?

text that is clearly legendary in nature says that they saw and heard some pretty terrifying things that they had trouble making sense of, so that they begged Moses to stand in between. So no, the people as a whole didn’t speak directly to God. The text is actually very clear on that.

It’s not clear. RebeccaJ says that God’s giving of the Ten Commandments was God communicating with Moses. The Ten Commandments are told to Moses as part of his speech that runs from Exodus 20 through 24. That includes such things as that it’s ok to manslaughter your slaves, that slaves are property, and that sorcerers should be killed. You and she should determine what was and was not spoken by God and in turn tell everyone why it’s so “clear” that it’s legendary.

First of all, you’re assuming that the laws as we have them really were given right after they left Egypt. That is not historically plausible, and I don’t know why, as an unbeliever, you would start out by imposing such an implausible set of assumptions on the discussion.

Why isn’t it historically plausible for God to have given his speech in Exodus 20-24 in the span of time between when the Israelites escaped Egypt and before Moses climbed Mount Sanai. These assumptions that you say I’m imposing come from simply reading the Bible. I have to ask any Christians following this thread, do you think based on the reading of the Bible for it to have possibly occurred while the Israelites were wandered the desert?

Practically all scholars, except for some very conservative ones, would agree that the OT laws largely date from a later period–indeed probably from different periods addressing different kinds of situations, collected into the form we have most likely after the Exile.

So no, they don’t represent a “fresh start.” They represent, in the form we have them, centuries of Hebrew lawmaking, very much part of its ANE culture, as codified and edited by idealistic post-exilic scribes.

If it is not true that God gave those instructions to Moses and if it is flat out wrong as to the time when these laws came about then it should be fair to say that is inaccurate.

Of course these texts include warnings not to be like the other nations. That doesn’t mean that the laws are uninfluenced by their cultural context.

It’s explanations like these which state that God says it would be wrong to be influenced by other cultures while at the same time it is not wrong to be influenced by other cultures that many atheists find not very convincing in their contradictory nature.

There are no fresh starts.

A time when a nation is without slaves and had just escaped from slavery is as good a fresh start as any to make clear how evil slavery is.

Why do you start from an ultra-conservative view of the origins of the Torah that you clearly don’t believe?

Because we know the following pieces of information:

1. Roughly when the Torah was created.
2. That the first five books of the Bible are the Torah.
3. Roughly when the Bible was codified.
4. That B.C.E. comes before C.E.

I have no idea why you would these basic facts would be “an ultra-conservative view of the origins of the Torah” or that these facts hinge on my belief in whether I think the Torah or the Bible is accurate.

You or I don’t need to believe the Book of Mormon is correct to state that it was published after the Bible and that the Book of Mormon repeatedly quotes Romans from the Bible.

This is exactly why the OP compared atheists to fundamentalists.

I hope in these many overly verbose posts I’ve made in this thread that I’ve squashed the notion that all or even most atheists demand a literal reading of Scripture, just a well-explained one.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your interpretations are pretty consistently “outside of human history.”

When you assume that “the slave is his money” means “God is telling ancient Hebrews that slaves are property” you’re interpreting from outside of history.

In this list of translations for Exodus 21:21, eight of them have it as “the slave is his property”.

In this list of translations for Leviticus 25:45, eight of them describe slaves as property and nine of them describe slaves as possessions.

Will I get a brief, “Okay Mike, you were right on that one.”?

When you use the language of a “fresh start” as if God can just wipe people’s cultural assumptions clean and start over again, you are interpreting from outside of history.

Again, you forget that God could declare something to be unlawful since he was God. If we say that beating and killing of a slave is wrong then it is incumbent upon that which is said to be goodness itself to not lead them to do that which is wrong then get around to it centuries later (if at all). Breaking the Sabbath or dropping the Ark were punishable by death, whereas the more serious crime of slavery was not only not described as wrong but laid out in great detail as how it was done.

In fact, at a couple of very significant places in the story (after the Golden Calf incident and again when the Israelites refuse to go into the Promised Land in Numbers 14) “God” suggests making a fresh start and Moses talks him out of it. Which, since God can’t be talked out of things and the entire text is inspired by God, is telling us that, in fact, God doesn’t make fresh starts. God works with the sinful, rebellious, messed-up people he’s got. It’s a dramatic device in which “Moses” is actually the one speaking for God’s fullest intentions.

Did Abraham not convince God to reduce the number of righteous men needed not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah from 50 to 10? Did Satan not convince God to allow him to do anything he wanted to Job and his family apart from killing him? You should give a reason why a person from a neutral position must take your understanding that God never spoke to anyone in the Old Testament, and also what the true meaning of those passages are if not literal.

The story as a whole is telling us something very important about God’s purposes,

How can it tell us about God’s purposes if you disavow any action God may have done in that story?

but I for one do not believe that the word “literally” can apply to any speaking or acting ascribed to God outside the Incarnation.

Why should others believe that as well?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I agree that “Sacred Tradition” by itself is a cop-out. Certainly questioning minds are entitled to a thoughtful and reasonable response. (Though I personally may not have that response for you - but a Catholic theologian or Bible scholar hopefully would). I just wanted to make sure you weren’t approaching this from a Protestant perspective. Many Protestant groups treat the Bible as a Catechism or, to use their own words, a “manual for your life” (popular terminology in some groups). This is not the Catholic perspective. Big picture first…then details.

ok

Yes, the Torah and the various individual books of the Old Testament were definitely written before the Church, but the Bible “as we know it” was given to us by the Church. She chose books She deemed appropriate for divine worship.

I agree. But it also made a statement that every part of Scripture, the parts that they vetted and approved of, are true in some sense. It is an assertion that when questioned it should be able to back up.

Yes, certain leaders of the Israelites spoke directly to God. Certainly figures such as St. Moses or St. Elijah had more than a mere glimpse.

You may wish to discuss that with Contarini.

I meant from a Catholic perspective, in a general sense, the people of Israel didn’t understand God as fully as we Christians do today. God’s nature as a Trinity had not yet been revealed. The Second Person of the Trinity had not yet become incarnate as a man. The Gospel had not yet been preached. The Sacraments had not yet been instituted. Etc. etc. I think Contarini put it very well…mankind was not yet ready for the superior law that is the Gospel.

That should have no bearing on whether it is true in either a literal or non-literal sense. It also goes back to my question of whether what are said to be quotes from God are verbatim, paraphrases, or misquotes. If it’s sometimes the first and sometimes the second, then we’re going to need some way to when it’s verbatim and when it’s a paraphrase. If it’s a misquote can it still be true in any sense?

The Torah includes detailed laws ensuring the well being of slaves,

The following slaves would disagree:
The ones that were beaten
The ones that were killed
The ones born into slavery
The daughters sold into slavery in order to please the master of the house or one of his sons
The male Hebrew slaves that were allowed to leave after 7 years but who had to choose between leaving any families they gained in that time or signing on to be slaves for life (i.e. blackmail)

but why was slavery tolerated at all? We know from Christ Himself, in the Gospels, that some aspects of the Old Law were imperfect. Jesus declared divorce to be immoral and stated that it was tolerated simply because the people were not yet ready to accept the higher law ushered in with the Gospel:
He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8).
I’m not drawing a moral equivalence between divorce and slavery. I’m simply drawing a comparison.

At no point did Jesus say one bad word about slavery. In fact he told slaves to obey their earthly masters. The comparison fails.

 

[Contarini]

I’d be curious to see a dictionary that has ever defined literal as the first thing that comes to person’s head when they hear or read something.

Here are dictionary.com’s first four definitions of the word literal:

And the first sense refers to the “primary” meaning of the word. Which is to say, the first meaning that comes into a person’s head. Certainly that seems to be the sense in which you are interpreting Scripture throughout this discussion. You seem to think that if you pick up a translation of an ancient sacred text, you can just read it straight off and decide what the primary, most proper meaning is, and if anyone (including the community that regards the text as sacred) wants to give it another meaning the burden of proof is on them.

That’s a highly unreasonable way to read any text from another culture, and it’s an exponentially more unreasonable way to read someone else’s sacred texts.

Speaking of sacred texts, you seem to be treating dictionary.com as a sacred text, instead of a broad description of how the framers of the dictionary observe the language being used.

I probably have a lot more experience and have spent a lot more time thinking about what the word “literal” means, particularly in the context of religious discussion, than whoever wrote those definitions.

In short, it means that if a passage reads that something was said then it was said.

That’s a trite, and hence pointless definition.

If something was done it was done. It is not figurative or metaphorical. It is not exaggerated or inaccurate.

All language is figurative, one way or the other. You are proving the OP’s point very nicely. You have an extraordinarily naive view of how language works.

So it the meaning of the original author was to be figurative, by your reasoning it is literal?

In this sense, sure.

Are you suggesting that a passage can be both figurative and literal simultaneously?

Obviously it can be literal in one sense and figurative in another, yes.

Again, if the meaning of a passage was figurative as the term is properly used if it’s determined to be the primary meaning according to Church Tradition then it is literal. That’s a terrible misuse of language.

I’m sure St. Thomas Aquinas and other people who lived centuries ago and used the Latin “literalis” in this way would be really bothered if they knew that some random dude centuries later and spoke a different language anyway would be bothered by how they use the language.

You are citing the Catechism’s definition. I am telling you what the classic understanding of the terms in that context is.

If you were talking about biology or any other discipline you actually respected you would not be surprised to find “terms of art” that are also words you’re familiar with in more general contexts with a somewhat different meaning. You probably wouldn’t say it was a misuse of language. You would bow your head reverently and say, “ah, how great are the mysteries of science.” (Well, you might not do that)

Aquinas says very clearly that, for instance, when Scripture says “God’s right hand is exalted,” the “literal” (in the exegetical sense) meaning of that phrase is “God is very powerful.” Now Aquinas’ approach to language is itself not perfect, because he didn’t have enough of an appreciation of the power of metaphor and the way it can say things that can’t be boiled down into a paraphrase. But this is an important part of the context of the Catechism’s use of the fourfold sense.

You’ve ignored what Della wrote when he quoted the Catechism. The Church says each passage can be interpreted in either a literal manner or one of three non-literal manners. At no point does the Church say that each primary they use should be called literal, quite the opposite.

Actually yes, 116 says that the other senses are based on the literal, and that the literal is the sense conveyed by the words and discovered by exegesis. This is Aquinas’ definition, essentially. It does not mean that you read the words “literally” in the popular sense you’re using the term. Again, when you read “God will cover you with his feathers,” the literal sense as defined by the Catechism is not that “God is a big bird” but “God will protect you.”

The spiritual senses then take this primary sense as a symbol for other things in turn.

So, for instance, the literal sense of the parable of the Good Samaritan is not that a man had something bad happen to him on the highway, but that the neighbors whom we should love as ourselves include anyone in need, even our worst enemy. The spiritual sense then takes this basic sense as a symbol for Christ’s ultimate “Good Samaritan” act in coming to earth and rescuing us from the robbers called “sin, death, and the devil.”

Because the word “literal” can be confusing, as this discussion shows, I think “primary” is a better term to use.

 

[Contarini]

The rest of Genesis contain certain details that can not be literal or figurjative. The first is the order of creation, specifically the creation of the sun and moon after the Earth. This brings up another point that I think a believer should do when stating that a passage is literal: Explaining what to do with elements of the narrative that seem not to work in either a literal or figurative reading.

Again, these terms are fairly limited.

Genesis 1 is a theological account of creation–I have no problem calling it myth, but many other Christians do. It’s pretty clearly a critique of Babylonian creation stories. I think that even when you say “figurative,” you imagine that there must be something that the story is telling us about the order in which the universe was created.

And maybe there is. I’m open to that possibility, but as you note there are some difficulties with the idea.

The second Genesis 1 detail that is troublesome is the description of a so-called firmament and of waters above the firmament.

Troublesome to whom and why?

I’m ok with a non-literal interpretation of days, but again there needs to be an explanation as to why what is said to be created third (the Earth) is incorrectly listed as being created before what was created fourth (the sun and moon). What are the non-literal explanations for the words “third” and “fourth”?

And that’s why the whole “literal/nonliteral” discussion is unhelpful. Why do you decree that Christians must believe that the text is telling us something authoritative about the details of cosmology in the first place?

If someone says “Catholics don’t read the Bible literally”, but won’t go further in explaining that position then the believer responding hasn’t given a reason to use an alternate reading of that passage. All I ask in such situations is to give a reasoned explanation for any reading.

I’m happy to do that, ad nauseam. And I agree that just saying “the reading isn’t literal” is inadequate. As, on the other hand, is saying “I’m just reading the text literally, so why aren’t you doing the same?”

What with the word literal pretty much having a singular meaning (the four definitions I quoted were all in the same ballpark) I have to state that I do have very solid grounds for assuming such things.

Actually, even the first meaning you cite has at least three quite distinct meanings subsumed under it. The “primary” meaning may or may not be the same thing as the “strict” meaning, and the “primary” meaning may well be figurative or metaphorical.

And try applying this to Scripture, and you wind up in a hopeless morass.

Another set of difficulties that we haven’t addressed explicitly, by the way, is the difference between the “literal” meaning of a word or phrase and of a sentence or longer passage, and the further distinction between the question of whether the language is literal and (to use N. T. Wright’s terminology) whether the referent is abstract or concrete.

For instance, in Genesis 1 you’re hung up on the question of what individual words mean. But you don’t seem to have bothered to step back to ask what the nature and purpose of the passage as a whole is in the first place.

In the story of Baba Yaga, the phrase “chicken legs” really does mean that, within the world of the story, we’re to envision a hut with legs like those of a domestic bird. But that doesn’t mean that when I read my daughters the story I expect them to believe that there really is a witch who lives in such a hut (although for all I know there might be, or might once have been).

Since your explanation allows for a meaning to be simultaneously literal and figurative we are going to disagree.

Yes. It’s pretty hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who can’t handle the idea that words can mean several different things (i.e., that something can be literal in one sense and figurative in another).

I don’t think atheists wish to be the authoritative interpreters of any holy books.

Then your entire approach makes no sense at all.

By being authoritative one is either the sole or final word on something.

Which you seem to think you are, on the Bible.

Atheists just are not going to cede the process solely to one group when discussion between those for and against is the far more reasonable process.

If we are talking about what the text most likely meant to its original readers, or what its original human authors (insofar as we can meaningfully talk about them at all) most likely meant, then of course. But so far you seem very uninterested in a serious historical-critical study of the Bible–another way in which you are very much like a fundamentalist.

But atheists and other non-Christians have nothing meaningful to say directly about the canonical meaning of Scripture. That meaning is the result of a process of discernment in which Christians (and/or Jews when speaking of the OT) attempt to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the text. Since atheists don’t believe in the Holy Spirit, it is extremely odd for them to offer any opinions whatever as to what the canonical, authoritative meaning of Scripture is.

Scholars, whether Christians or not, have valuable things to say about the historical context and probable original meaning, which is one of the very important ways in which we discern the voice of the Holy Spirit in the text. So in that way non-Christians can have important indirect (name removed by moderator)ut. But again, you don’t seem very aware of OT scholarship or interested in discussing it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In my explanation of that passage and in my later response to Contarini I layed out my problems with why the actions of a supposedly unchanging perfectly good God don’t add up.

God doesn’t change. Our understanding does, and our understanding is influenced by many factors. Culture being one of those. For Christians, Jesus Christ dramatically changes our understanding.

We view Revelation as something that occurred over time, increment by increment. Our understanding of what is Revealed, grows, in time. God reveals more, over time, culminating to the perfect Revelation of Jesus Christ. But what we are seeking to understand does not change.

You may wish to speak to Contarini, as he believes that God at no point spoke to anyone in the Old Testament.

Neither of us are the Catholic Magisterium. The Magisterium doesn’t rule our every thought. We are free to come to our conclusion, in a lot of ways, about a lot of things.

How does one determine what is and is not a quote from God?

You’re still going with an idea that scripture is quoting God, verbatim. That’s your prerogative, but from my view, there are very rare instances where that actually occurs.

How does one determine what is written by the finger of God and what was not? How do the two passages I’ve mentioned which has God stating that slaves are property rate in that regard?

I think you miss the point of the Law regarding slaves, entirely. The culture included slavery, as have all cultures until relatively recently. The Law put in place unprecedented good treatment of slaves, that were not adhered to by the cultures around the Hebrews. God did not say, “thou shalt have slaves”. The Law defines how slaves should be treated. If you don’t have slaves, then this Law doesn’t apply to you.

But really, the Law doesn’t apply to you at all, unless you are a Jew, and a Jew who is not a Christian. The Law for us, is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

So in that context, of fulfillment, the Law regarding slaves was meant to bring the Hebrews to an understanding that slaves are a part of the community, of the People of God, and should be accorded treatment that excludes them from an “other than themselves” category. When we view people as “other”, we treat them poorly. Jesus amplified that, to bringing us to the understanding that there is no “other”.

Our understanding changes over time. Today, we view slavery as one of the ultimate ways to treat another person as “other”. This is not the view of slavery, from the Hebrews. They simultaneously viewed a person as a slave, and as part of the community (tribe) to which they belonged.

How is an open-minded person supposed to accept that the authors of Scripture are infallible?

That is your journey. I have no formula to give you. I can only recommend that you include prayer with your study of scripture. By that I mean, ask what God is saying to you, rather than assume what you think God is saying to you. I’m not trying to convince you to convert, or something, just this is what we do. And if you want to know the how of what we believe, then prayer is a must.

 

[Contarini]

To say otherwise would say that God changes, something Christians say God does not do.

No, it implies nothing of the kind. It implies that this particular text, taken on its own in its most probable “grammatical-historical” context, does not adequately reveal God. When taken together with the rest of Scripture and Tradition, we see that it is not in fact an affirmation that slaves are property.

As I noted in another post God specifically told the Israelites to not follow the practices of other cultures in the area.

Certainly the ancient scribes who compiled the Torah had become painfully aware of the extent to which Israel was far too much like other nations. It should be no surprise either to a Christian or to an atheist that they were not yet perfectly aware of this.

And since you don’t believe in God, your continued use of the phrase “God told” is disingenuous.

You don’t believe that God exists to tell anyone anything. I don’t believe that the Torah is direct divine speech. So why the continued pretense that both of us believe something that neither of us actually believes?

Both of us believe that the Torah was compiled by human beings. I believe that they were guided and inspired by God in so doing, and you don’t. But neither of us believes that in the Torah we are simply dealing with the direct words of God.

He also gave the Israelites specific rules that no other culture had. He told them to strictly honor the Sabbath. He told them to make sure that males were circumcised.

Circumcision was actually practiced by a number of other cultures.

In fact, he came extremely closed to killing Moses because he hadn’t circumcised his son in a timely manner. Luckily Moses’ wife was quick with a rock (ouch!). Even if we retreat into this being figurative and not literal, it still demonstrates that God is far, far, far more concerned with following his rules on foreskin than treating people not as property.

Nope. It follows that ancient people had a lot less trouble understanding that rituals were important (especially a ritual practiced by a number of cultures anyway) than that people were not property. Although I think that this way of putting it is questionable, since it presupposes some assumptions about what it means to be “people” vs. “property” that only really make sense after the Enlightenment (more on that in a minute).

It’s clear only when one feels the need to whitewash what those OT laws said. When applied reasonably I don’t see how we can claim God is being good or that it makes sense logistically or morally.

You keep using this word “reasonably.” I don’t think you are sufficiently self-critical about your standards for what is “reasonable.” The assumptions you seem to be working from (and it’s hard to discern them, because you seem unaware of them) don’t make any sense if God exists in the first place. Of course I would not expect an atheist to have a good sense of what a text inspired by God would or would not look like. But what is frustrating is that you seem to think you know, even though you don’t believe in God. And that makes no sense.

The “God” you seem to have in mind obviously does not exist. But that should have been clear from the start. Why, then, do you keep flailing away at this obvious straw man?

Parents do not teach their children this way. We don’t allow them leeway then narrow down their moral focus from there.

Actually yes. I do not expect the level of politeness and concern for others from my three-year-old that I do from my eight-year-old. Furthermore, and much more to the point, I’m sure my eight-year-old has a much better understanding of what I want of her than my three year old does.

And even more to the point, God is not literally a parent. God is not (apart from the Incarnation) of the same species we are (or of any species or category at all). God’s relationship to us is analogous to that of a parent to a child, but it’s not the same.

The basic problem here, as with most conversations I have with atheists, is that you seem to have no idea what orthodox Christians actually mean when we say “God.”

And as I noted above, God placed certain moral absolutes on the Israelites. Another example, in Exodus 21 he told them to be responsible for their actions. If you don’t cover a pit and a neighbor’s ox falls in you are responsible for it. It’s in that same chapter that God tells the Israelites that there is no punishment for a beating a slave so severely that he or she dies a day later. It is peculiar what God not only allows but also flat out says is not wrong.

If you take this as some sort of direct speech by God, unmediated by culture, of course it’s peculiar.

But again, neither of us believe that that’s what this text is. So can you see why this feels like a charade to me? And why the whole conversation is confirming the OP’s point so thoroughly? Not only do you think like a fundamentalist, but very much like fundamentalists you can’t imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

 

[Contarini]

I think atheists – in fact all non-Christians and some Christians – would be hard pressed to rationalize that God stating slaves were property was an effort to state that the exact opposite.

But of course, I don’t grant that “God states slaves are property.”

In fact, the text as a whole clearly says that the slave is not merely property. If he dies “under the master’s hand,” he is to be “avenged.” The Hebrew “nqm” means “avenge” or “punish”–the point is that it’s a strong word usually referring to killing a murderer. A person who is merely “property” and not treated as a human being is not going to be avenged when killed.

In other words, yes the text is stating the opposite of what you think it is. The phrase “for he is his silver” (the Hebrew is “ksph” which means silver or money) certainly modifies the previous sentence’s affirmation of the slave’s humanity and dignity. This would be a problem if we believed that the OT laws are perfect representations of God’s will for humanity. But we don’t. At least I don’t (I’ll let others speak for themselves).

“Muffled” is a very positive, and I would dare to say inaccurate, spin on that passage. Remember that the Church says that all Scripture is true in some way. That simply can’t be the case if no literal or non-literal reading is even slightly accurate.

But obviously that’s not the case here. The law, taken as a whole, is clearly saying that the slave is more than just “property.” But the fact that he has been bought with money is taken to give the owner some leeway, so that if the slave doesn’t die right away the owner will not be punished as a murderer. In other words, the slave is not given equal rights, for sure. But if you read the passage in a truly reasonable way, as an ancient law code, what would strike you would be the fact that the slave is to be avenged if he dies on the spot. Can you point me to other ancient Near Eastern law codes that give the lives of slaves such value?

Plus we need to remember that slaves are called property by God in another passage (Leviticus 25:45 – “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.”) as well. So it was muffled not once but twice. Also the part about beating them to death so long as they linger for a day, was that muffled as well?

Yes. Plenty of muffling. Far from perfect.

Then it is not true. Not “an adequate representation”? Do you mean to say untrue, false, wrong?

Partial.

It can’t be 180 degrees different than what you believe is true and still be true by the standard of the Catechism.

But obviously it isn’t 180 degrees different. The worth of the slave’s life is affirmed, but with a caveat that obviously would not have been there in a more perfect representation of God’s will (in which, in fact, there would be no slavery at all).

No. To pose theological problems we need to compare it to what Christians say are attributes of God and see if they mesh. God is good, yet he allows for brutality and the dehumanizing of people.

If by “allows for” you mean “permits people to do it, and even permits them to believe that he’s OK with it,” then yes–this is a subset of the problem of evil. And as you know, the most common Christian answer has to do with free will.

That would also be my answer here. God did not coerce people into the truth. God led them gradually. The God you and fundamentalists imagine, who just says “Bam–here’s what I want in black and white,” obviously does not exist.

It is not clear to me that you have even imagined the possibility of God as I believe in God. I’m trying, no doubt poorly, to jolt you into an awareness that there are other ways of thinking about God than the ones you consider possible. But as long as you are locked into your present set of assumptions, you will probably just hear this as a dishonest dodge.

One of the terms a person will hear quite often when listening to EWTN is “moral relativism” especially when used to define non-Catholics. It’s the idea that there is no true good or evil but only shades of difference. At the same time the idea that God was doing good by being not as cruel as some other nations in the treatment of slaves is seen as good. To be good one must not tell his people to purchase slaves. He must tell his people not to beat slaves. He must tell his people not to manslaughter slaves. Obeying the Sabbath is black or white, while harming slaves is varying shades of gray.

I am not a moral relativist. I believe that there are moral absolutes.

However, by the standards of EWTN and many other conservatives I often seem like a moral relativist, because I believe that our perception of goodness is always imperfect, always mediated by our culture, our personalities, etc.

And yes, that applies even to Scripture, if we are talking about selected bits of Scripture taken out of the context of the whole (the whole including not only Scripture as a whole but also the ongoing, living Tradition of the Church).

Much of Exodus and practically all of Leviticus is a quote of God.

That is certainly the literary device under which it is presented.

Edwin

 

[RebeccaJ]

I just want to clarify one thing I said.

“Our understanding changes over time. Today, we view slavery as one of the ultimate ways to treat another person as “other”. This is not the view of slavery, from the Hebrews. They simultaneously viewed a person as a slave, and as part of the community (tribe) to which they belonged.”

This has qualifiers, of course. There were different types of slavery among the ancient Hebrews. One was, what we call today, indentured servitude. In some Biblical translations, the word “servant” will be used instead of “slave”, to denote that the person was not a slave, of our modern understanding.

Then there were slaves who were, essentially, prisoners of war. I view this as analogous to people who are in prison. They are, essentially, property of the state. Having some rights, but not all the rights of those who are not in prison. But we have laws in how prisoners should be treated. So in the case of a Hebrew slave who dies under the discipline of his master, the judicial laws of the Hebrews blamed the master. But if the slave survived, the benefit of the doubt was given to the master. I see it as a matter of station, that is, a man with a good reputation, who is not slave because of debt or war against their own community, was viewed by the society as more credible than someone who was “property”.

Among the Hebrews the prisoners of war, type slaves, were often from the tribe of their long time foes, the Canaanites. Absolutely, the Hebrews viewed the Canaanites as “other”. Not deserving of any good treatment, at all. The Law made it so even their hated enemy, was afforded treatment under a form of justice.

The slavery laws being judicial not religious requirements. By that I mean, circumcision was a religious requirement. How a slave is treated was judicial. The Hebrews received both types of Law from God. In our society, especially among atheists, the two types of laws are viewed as strictly separate from the will of God. This is not the view of the Hebrews.

Even then, Hebrews would not keep a slave as chattel, and I think, Mike from Jersey, that this is where your mind/thoughts are going with the word “property”. It is not what the text is conveying. Hebrew slaves were slaves because they owed their master something. Indentured servitude, slaves, owed a dept. Prisoners of war, owed reparations for war. While owing the master something, you were their slave, but the Hebrews had a time limit of 7 years. At which point, the person could choose to remain as a slave, or was free to do something else. (Yes, people chose to remain a slave. For many, it was the only socio-economic choice, having no other means to live. And for many, they had become part of the family, and there were strong relationships formed, where the former slave didn’t want to leave, and their former masters didn’t want them to leave.)

The Hebrew experience as slaves under the Egyptians, prohibited them from ever treating any other person or tribe in the same way as they were treated. The Hebrews never kept slaves in a chattel type form of slavery.

There are other major differences, compared to the chattel type slavery that we most associate the word “slavery” to, but that is a different conversation.