You already know how perpetually amused I am by people who claim that the Bible is their guide to morality, and who imagine themselves to want to impose Biblical law on the rest of us. Once again, they very obviously have not read the book. Deuteronomy 21 is out there with the weirdest of the weird. Let us proceed.
21 If someone is found slain, lying in a field in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who the killer was, 2 your elders and judges shall go out and measure the distance from the body to the neighboring towns. 3 Then the elders of the town nearest the body shall take a heifer that has never been worked and has never worn a yoke 4 and lead it down to a valley that has not been plowed or planted and where there is a flowing stream. There in the valley they are to break the heifer’s neck. 5 The Levitical priests shall step forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister and to pronounce blessings in the name of the Lord and to decide all cases of dispute and assault. 6 Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, 7 and they shall declare: “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. 8 Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, Lord, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent person.” Then the bloodshed will be atoned for, 9 and you will have purged from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the Lord.
Okaaaaay. I don't necessarily feel that I need to point out the full absurdity of this. First of all, we have no way of knowing that the killer was from the nearest town, so there is no particular reason why the people of that town would be held responsible, and certainly not collectively. For sure it isn't the heifer's fault! And why the very specific rules about the heifer never having worked, and the unplanted valley, and the flowing stream? This is all irrelevant. It's all some bizarre made up bullshit.
Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Presumably the woman in this case gets elevated to the status of honorary Israelite, she obviously doesn't have any choice in the matter. Your soldiers have murdered her parents and now you get to rape her, her alternative being to remain a slave and possibly be raped by several men. But the Good Book tells us how to live.
The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
I am only reading the Bible, I obviously don't have the time to meaningly familiarize myself with the Talmud. However, looking briefly at some modern apologetics it appears the Rabbis essentially abolished polygamy in the early centuries C.E. They tend to justify the Torah's endorsement of polygamy as essentially a benefit for women. Women generally could not be independent economic actors, and they could not inherit if they had a brother. Viz. the story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers. They were allowed to inherit, but only so that their father's legacy could be preserved, and they were required to marry their cousins for this purpose. Note also that men were required to marry their widowed sister-in-law. Marriage was essentially an economic arrangement. As the above passage implies affection was possible but not mandatory, and it could not be allowed to interfere with the economic requirements.
A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
I dunno, this seems a bit extreme. Nowadays we send him for counseling.
Various Laws
22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
No comment.
3 comments:
Jesus Christ ... so to speak. This stuff is as barbaric as it is nonsensical.
Draconian.
Stuff and nonsense. I guess they were doing the best they could. But as with so much of human endeavor, it all falls so short of just or even adequate. Does more harm than good.
Yes, but of course it's important to remember that modern Judaism is defined by the Talmud. The Torah is basically a venerated artifact, but it's literal content is no longer honored. Oddly enough, it's fundamentalist Christians, not orthodox Jews, who claim they take the Bible literally, although obviously they don't really.
No, they don't! They observe almost none of its commandments.
As you say, most "Christians" probably haven't read either Bible.
Post a Comment