The Old Testament is wild. Helps to have a tour guide. Here are some videos I've made for my Old Testament class at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia.
"It wasn't bad slavery guys; it was happy, good time slavery." Is that what you're trying to say? Because it comes across that way, for sure. Kind of misleading don't you think?
Nice try at defending Old Testament slavery, but you failed. Basically, the Old Testament says that you (the Hebrew tribes) can buy your salves from the nations around you and the slaves are your property, and you can even give them to your children as an inheritance. Moses does tell his tribe that slaves from their own tribe should be treated better, which are the verses that deceiving spologists always cite.as though they apply to all slaves.
Thanks for watching! Yes that's right, in a separate law code (The Holiness Code), Moses provides that fellow Israelites, who have been redeemed from slavery to Pharaoh, must be treated as hired workers even if they fall into debt, effectively abolishing slavery within the Hebrew population. As you rightly say, however, the flip side of this particular restriction (see Lev 25:44-46) is that it leaves open the possibility of non-Israelites becoming slaves, either through debt, treaty, or as prisoners of war. This doesn't seem to have been very common, but in that case, the more general restrictions on slavery in the Deuteronomic Code and Covenant Code would be relevant. Every ruling Moses makes about slavery restricts slavery in some fundamental way like this. Of course, we can criticise Moses for not going further, but we also need to acknowledge that the reason we think he *should* have gone further - the reason we think slavery is wrong in all times and all places - is almost certainly his influence on us.
@@andyjuddhermeneutics Thanks for the reply. I am not criticizing Moses for not going further. I'm criticizing his all-powerful, all-loving God for not going further. Moses is just God's mouthpiece. And God chickened out.
@@andyjuddhermeneutics Do you have any substantiation for your claim that chattal slavery was not common among the [wealthy] Hebrews? It had its attractions since not only did you own that slave for his/her entire life, you also owned any children they produce, FOREVER. Hebrew slaves were a chancy investment since you had to let them go after seven years or possibly worse if a Jubilee year was coming up even sooner than that. You also could own your Hebrew slave forever if you provided him a wife and they had children that the Hebrew slave didn't want to abandon. The old nail-your-ear-to-the-door stunt.
@@alflyle9955 Yes, I believe the consensus from studies of the economies of ancient Near Eastern societies is that that slavery was never really a huge form of labour organisation, certainly not in the way we see in later Greco-Roman economies. Ancient economics is not my field, though, so very happy to be corrected on this.
I'm not familiar with you personally, but are you an Old Testament scholar? If so, then you have to know that most recognize that this is really talking about slaves from other nations that escape to Israel, and not to slaves within Israel? Making it kind of completely consistent with other laws at the time rather than a "complete reversal". All the laws you put up are discussing a slave within that nation who escapes. The only law the Bible has is a law that really could almost only apply to foreign slaves escaping to Israel, and not to slaves within Israel. Why do you believe this is wrong? I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.
Yes, great point. That's right, going back to Ibn Ezra and Rashi it was assumed that this is envisaging a non-Hebrew enslaved person because 1) they are granted a place to live in verse 7 which they wouldn't need if they were from an Israelite family and 2) it doesn't call them "your brother" as it does in Deut 15:12, and 3) if the Deuteronomic Code is after the Holiness Code (which is possible, though not certain) then Hebrews cannot be enslaved anyway. However, even if we assume this is talking only about non-Hebrew enslaved people, it is still a very significant reversal. The international system relied on mutual return of enslaved people, at least amongst allies. See for example the treaty between Hittite and Egyptians which explicitly requires the return of foreign slaves: "[If a great man flee from the land of Egypt and come to] the Great Prince of Hatti, or a town belonging to the lands of Ramses Meri-Amon, the great ruler of Egypt, and they come to the Great Prince of Hatti, the Great Prince of Hatti shall not receive them. The Great Prince of Hatti shall cause them to be brought to User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re, the great ruler of Egypt, their lord, [because] of it. Or if a man or two men-no matter who-flee, and they come to the land of Hatti to be servants of someone else, they shall not be left in the land of Hatti; they shall be brought to Ramses Meri-Amon, the great ruler of Egypt." (ANET 200)
@@andyjuddhermeneutics I think we're getting closer here. But you appear to be missing or ignoring the point that these non-Hebrews it did apply to really couldn't be the foreign chattel slaves owned by the Israelites. Which is what you were saying in your video and why I commented here. You keep saying "non-Hebrew" which I agree with, but the "non-Hebrew" can be either a slave in another nation, or a foreign slave within Israel. I really could not apply to the foreign chattel slaves owned by Israelites, but instead only slaves from foreign nations that escaped TO Israel, not from within Israel. Partly for the reason you note above. That would require a treaty with those foreign nations. Which Israel did not do. So how exactly is this a reversal of the laws surrounding Israel at the time, then those laws address escaped slaves within that nation as you showed, but Israels law applied to other nations slaves, and not to it's own? A foreign chattel slave owned in Israel was property just like in these surrounding nations after all.
@@nickbrasing8786 Not ignoring, just trying to keep it to a 5min video, and grateful for the follow up questions :) What this law means for a non-Hebrew enslaved person escaping from one Israelite town is really left to our imagination. That situation is not separately addressed anywhere in the OT law codes ... which is, in itself, strange. Other ANE law code which are full of the kind of detailed rewards and punishments you need to maintain a viable system of enslavement. Penalties for barbers who cut off slave's hairlocks. Rewards for returning a slave who has crossed the river. Procedures for establishing the ownership of a slave when under dispute. Moses provides none of that. But my observation here (which basically every commentator makes, it's not original to me) is that a positive duty to help and protect escaped slaves is unique to Torah and contradicts every other ancient law code we have. Good book which summarises the scholarly work on this is Tsai, Daisy Yulin. Human Rights in Deuteronomy: With Special Focus on Slave Laws. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Volume 464. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014.
"a positive duty to help and protect escaped slaves is unique to Torah and contradicts every other ancient law code we have" That's because other nations had treaties. You showed that yourself in your quotations. My point has always been that your video provides no context to this law as to who it does and does not apply to. Anyone not familiar with this is walking away thinking that any slave in Israel could just runaway at any time and for any reason and be free. Now THAT would have been unprecedented in the ANE as you know. But that is not at all the case. But that's what this video makes people think. And that is simply wrong as you know.
IMHO this was a good video but when it came to the end your personal opinion was totally off. The consensus today is there is likely no Moses at all and the original DH is flawed and incomplete. So I have to recommend to you and those who watched this two books that will fill in the modern scholarship on this issue. _Source Criticism_ by Joel S Baden NEW _The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis_ by Joel S. Baden
I thought your explanation of Wellhausen and the hypothesis was well done and very fair handed. However, there were certain thing you also said that sounded like you were still trying to rescue the bible as a literal instrument of god. How would an all powerful god write such a text, Wellhausen or not, which still remains with so many flaws?
You start off the video assuming the Bible is true. What if the authors were people like you? People who assuming the stories they like are true. And the ones they don't aren't. And harmonize the ones that are different but similar.
Interesting, except for the end, you just stopped at the 1970, the documentary hypothesis is still relevant, even tho the original version of it is not accepted anymore, many different amended versions of the hypothesis exist Also the consensus among scholars is that the Torah is not historical, and had many different authors, that is the overwhelming consensus, we know that with high level of certainty But then it’s hard to know what exactly happened, we have no originals, hundreds to thousands of years in the dark, no copies whatsoever, so of course it’s almost impossible to know what happened, and really hard to evaluate our level of certainty ON THE DETAILS But there was more than one author, and it’s not historical, it doesn’t fit at all with everything we know about this time period
All wrong . There is one author God ( Holy Spirit) and the humans were the writers . This devaules that scripture is God’s Holy Word . 2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
There is a thing you must take in account the contradictions in the repetitions. See the history of Joseph, the flood accounts , the two creation accounts
Now that archeology has buried the Exodus/Moses that would leave Moses out of writing anything. Project Tabs has extracted the J P E D stories from the Torah. Many are complete and stand on their own.
No discussion of the Jewish analysis which completely agrees with allegory? Nor of the similarities with Ugaritic which also employed sensual poetry as a means of worship? Seems exceptionally one sided by only focusing on Christian attitudes which are also poorly framed.
Now really... it is a 3 minute clip for non-academic Christians, not an invitation to show off their Ugaritic. However, if you're interested in Dr Wüst's original contribution to that reception history you'll find her thesis, "The Song of Songs in the Hebrew Bible: inner-biblical allusions embodied by Solomon and the Daughters of Jerusalem" (2021) illuminating, and Dr Wilson's masters course on the Megillot similarly stretching.
The Bible isn’t true, lol. I’m Jewish and don’t believe the earth is flat, that animals can talk (well parrots but they aren’t mentioned in my ancestor’s books)
The reason this matters to me is because I’m trying to understand what truly came from God and what didn’t. In Exodus when it Moses supposedly teaches about how men can have a slave wife and then marry another wife but he still needs to give her food and sexual intimacy it disturbs me and doesn’t seem consistent with God’s nature. It seems like prideful greedy men making laws and attributing them to God. This has major consequences because many Christians say that the Bible is God breathed. This would lead one to believe that the Bible reflects perfectly God’s mind and it’s ok to have more than one wife and it’s ok to treat women as nothing and that we need a man as a go between between us and God even though that contradicts what is taught elsewhere in the Bible. So much hinges on whether this book is truly God’s mind to the people or if it’s man putting words in God’s mouth. It really matters. I am much more inclined to believe the New Testament is from God rather than the Old. Jesus seems to encompass what I’ve seen if God in my life rather than the Old Testament.
Jesus was a Priest - Thank you for calling Jesus boring and the Priests who are In Person Christi boring.. By your words you will be justified and by your words (PUBLICLY I might add.. wow recklessness or excessive courage?? ) you will be condemned. To give you a 101 in Biblical studies: 1) The Priests organization system began in reality in the time of the Kingdom (David- Solomon… the old texts reflect an archaic tradition of priesthood without knowing exactly how was it organized) 2) I can’t see where in Ezekiel you make reference to the Torah or the 5 books!! The Scroll that he had to swallow is most likely a primitive form of the Torah, but not necessarily what will be gathered in 5 books, After the Exile!! 3) The Deuteronomy could not speak about Jerusalem and the Temple…It is reporting (in new forms and speeches) the period of the Journey in the desert! 4) YES, we certainly make inter-relations between Genesis and other ancient traditions of the creation story.
Thank you for calling priests boring.. Saint Padre Pio was a Priest, pretty “boring” as he was.. Saint John Vianney was a Priest.. absolutely boring.. right? Saint Iganitus Loyola was a priest.. super boring to the critics of academia? Saint John Bosco was a Priest.. inspiring youth is pretty boring.. Don’t get me started on the boring Martyr priests.. By your words you will be justified..
I personally am not very comfortable with the idea of re-interpreting the exegesis that had existed for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. But I do agree reading the literary genre with the context and historicity is the best way to understand in many ways. But when it comes to the O.T. violence and the N.T. Revelation that Satan was the god of the world I can’t help but wonder if we peg this violence on the wrong God. Satan takes Adam’s throne in Gen 3, then solidifies his authority in Job 1&2, arguably part of the council in Psalm 82,89,29,26 (if memory serves) along with Deut 32 where the nations of the people are divided amongst the gods etc. Even the 10 commandments of Exo 20 in the N.T. were said to be dispensed by angels, I just find this so interesting the possibility that Satan who is the god of the world, the prince of the air, the father of the Pharisees as said by Jesus is the one from as early as Gen 3 is the one in charge and not the Father as He sent the Son to destroy the works of the Devil as the Bible says to set us the captives free.
In regards to its dating, the biggest issue I questioned is the Hebrew script the entire Tanakh has been preserved in. It's not written in the Paleo-Hebrew script form, but rather it's a Hebrew-transliterated text that made use of the Assyro-Babylonian square-letter script that we commonly today associate as the Hebrew Alef-Bet. This alphabet system had to have been adopted at some point in the history, which would date the writings to the post-exilic period. With the scribal tradition, as alluded to in Tanakh, that reorganized its focus from either kingly, priestly, or prophetic oral traditions to now a written and recorded authority of scribes and their teachers of the Law, I see the Torah as more or less a work of Ezra's pen, rather than Moses'. It should be noted that the second temple period was the beginning of Judea, a province of the Persian Empire. (There no longer was a northern kingdom of Israel or a southern kingdom of Judah.) In other words, the second temple period was not a monarchy, but rather a governed province of the greater Persian Empire. No more kings or prophets in the second temple period, but only Levis (priestly factions), Persian-approved governors, and scribes. From the second temple period is when I believe the Tanakh began to be written.
The Cannnaites were burning their children alive as a sacrifice to their Idols People always say "why won't God get rid of evil " and when he does , we complain .
I find it quite uncritical to purport a contradiction and/or a disparate account between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2; it’s just so highly speculative and unfounded. (The details present don’t provide the necessary information to be able to derive this) 1. Part of the claim is allegedly based on the use of the Tetragrammaton in Genesis 2 as opposed to the name Elohim that was uniquely used in Genesis 1. Actually, Genesis 2 does NOT use the Tetragrammaton in contrast to Elohim, it actually uses both names! (Yes, I’m fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic) By associating both names (as opposed to one) to the creator God, on the contrary, it’s evidence that there might be more than one manner to communicate certain attributes. (The Tetragrammaton is etymologically related to the root היה or “being”, to emphasize the essence of all there is/being; the name Elohim has its roots in איל or characterizing strength, to emphasize the sheer power involved in creation ex nihilo. Why not use both names initially ? The answer is context. Genesis 1 speaks of raw creation, merely a revelation that includes all principal parts of creation; He created this, then this, and also this. Genesis 2 is clearly providing background and specific details, particularly centered around the creation of Man, in other words, fine details are being provided about the “being” that is man, hence, the Tetragrammaton which is at the root of “being” is also used. This is justified further when it’s states, “And the Lord (Tetragrammaton) God (Elohim) formed man…” (Genesis 2:7), emphasizing both names. One provides creative power, the other provides “la raison d’être(being)”, for as the verse states, “…plants had not grown yet, for there was no rain, and why was there no rain? Because man was not present yet” (paraphrase of Genesis 2:5), in other words the world’s “being” is contingent upon Adam’s “being” which is provided by the Tetragrammaton of “being”.) 2. Genesis 2 ostensibly begins by making it clear that what I’m about to recount to you is, “״אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִ֣בָּֽרְאָ֑ם “These are the toldot of heavens and earth when they were created”, the word toldot literally means “that which is derived from”; In this context it means the “derivatives” and particulars of creation. As we will see, however, these details are focused entirely upon “man”. Thus, this introductory statement grants the underpinning reason and context, namely, that we are about to discuss the essence of creation, a different perspective from Genesis 1. (Thus, even if one wants to speculatively claim that Genesis 2 was patched on later, he must deal with how the writers intelligibly preceded him with this opening statement that provides a smooth transition from genesis 1 to genesis 2) 3. The claim that vegetation preceded man in genesis 1, yet, from genesis 2 we see the opposite to be true, can also be dealt with. For Genesis 2 specifies, “And every plant of the field before it was ON THE EARTH, and every herb of the field before it GREW; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to work the ground.(Genesis 2:5) Genesis 2 specifies that the actual growth and production of vegetation necessitated man, albeit that the vegetation was present and created and waiting for Adam. To emphasize this the verb צמיחה/growth is not used in Genesis 1 only in Genesis 2. 4. The claim that animals seemed to have been created after man in Genesis 2, while the opposite is true in Genesis 1, is also not a valid argument. The answer is context. There is every reason to translate Genesis 2:19 in the past indicative tense, as “And God had already created every beast of the field, and every bird of the air…” Why ? Context. The verse specifies that the “creation of these beasts” is being mentioned here not for its own purpose, rather, it’s connected to Adam “naming every beast by name”, thus it was necessary to mention their presence and creation. This does not imply, however, that the order or creation is being conveyed, rather, since their presence is only known to us via their creation, their creation is mentioned once again and tied to the context. Further proof: As we said, Genesis 2:4: makes it lucidly clear that we are discussing particulars that were not previously discussed, thus, being that chronological order was already established in Genesis 1, there would be no reason and it would be utterly superfluous to mention chronology once again, perforce the intent is to reveal something unrelated to chronology. Moreover, just as Genesis 2:5 established that the growth of vegetation was contingent upon man, so, too, does verse 19 mean to convey that the “beasts” are entirely contingent upon man, regardless of the chronology that was already established in Genesis 1. There are too many details to discuss, nevertheless, this is the main idea. Namely, that Genesis 2 establishes a more detailed perspective regarding Man.
The truth is that we can reconcile and harmonize all the texts we want. There are no limits to the human capacity to harmonize clearly contradictory texts. It happens in all religions. Even prophecies that do not come true are reconciled with reality or different genealogies or even different numbers.
or Moses wrote the Torah...much less speculative. It is completely reasonable to believe that Moses wrote everything except where Joshua filled in the details after him or contextualized the regions he mentions for the newest generations.
Awesome work, earnd a subscription today. You should do a longer video for each of the theorized sources and get into what themes make them specific. God bless you !
I give you a B- for a sincere effort. Butchering a toddler with a sword is a nasty business that cannot be dressed up with appeals to God's judgment on nations in the abstract. Skewering a pregnant woman with a spear resists rationalization. At the same time, Jesus uses provocative, brutal imagery to shake us up (Mk 9:43-47; Jn 6:53) and never spiritualizes it for us--we have to do that for ourselves. Are we looking at something similar in historical terms in the OT? Moreover, inconsistencies abound. For example, Hittites and Jebusites are specifically placed under the ban with no exceptions made. Yet David is condemned for killing a Hittite. Later he concludes a transaction with a Jebusite with God's apparent blessing. Joshua is never said to have killed the Canaanites of Shechem, yet he is presented as being faithful. Many other such anomalies are present if you look for them. Big subject, of course. Hard to deal with in this limited space.
What is more violent, death or eternal damnation? Apart from belief in Jesus Christ all will be judged. What God has created, and is in rebellion from Him, can be destroyed justly and in any manner. His grace is demonstrated in that it's not immediate and absolute for all.
So many problems. The Old Testament is compiled around 500BC about 1000 years after Moses. The bible only got canonised 325 years after Jesus into books that your don’t know the authors but just to give it credibility the books were named after the disciples. That is after chucking aside so many other gospels that don’t agree with the councils views. The Quran is free from all these issues and corrects all the mistakes and falsehood reported in the old scripture. In fact, it is written down by those known to the prophet Muhammad PBUH a few years after his death by those who learned it from him and validated by some many others that learnt it from the prophet. So it is obviously the word of God revealed to the prophet and penned down in its original language and form. There are so many miracles in the Quran that you know that it is beyond the ability of Muhammad PBUH, an unlettered illiterate prophet from the lineage of Ismail. If only you open your eyes
Thanks, I can see that you are passionate about textual criticism! This is a video about the Pentateuch, so I won't address the other opinions you share. The Pentateuch was definitely recognised as Scripture by Jews, Samaritans and Christians long before AD 325. Ben Sirach, for example, references the tripartite division including the Pentateuch in 117-132 BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls (prior to AD 70) give evidence for a stable and authoritative base for all 5 books. The Nash Papyrus includes the 10 commandments and dates from the second century BC. Jesus and his apostles reference or quote substantially from all 5 books. I could go on, but all this to say that there is not a sliver of doubt historically that the Pentateuch was authoritative at the time of Jesus, nor that the text we have is substantially the same that he referred to as Scripture.
@@andyjuddhermeneutics Did Jesus recognize the Septuagint as authoritative? Or did he consider some Hebrew version to be authoritative but the authors of the 4 gospels thought the Septuagint was authoritative?
This is an interesting presentation, but why do you dumb it down ? eg 4:20 "Only interesting to priests, because priests are boring" No. It empowers the priesthood. That "stuff" justifies the priesthood : It says that the ceremonies are required by God. Trivializing the bible and dumbing it down is a form of propaganda. It is like the Catholic Catechism : the congregation are told to recite and stop thinking. "P" is the notation used because the Priesthood founded their authority on those segments.
