Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Newbie]

Egyptian culture flourished long before Judaism. Some 2000 years before Judaism the 42 Principles of Maat were the equivalent to the commandments.

Moses was raised in the highest levels of Egyptian society and would have known the 42 Principles of Maat by heart.

In the Bible, Moses comes down from the mountain with the 10 commandments, which seem to be a condensed version of the 42 Principles of Maat.

Moses conveniently destroys the tablets carved by God himself.

After the commandments, in Exodus, God gives numerous laws to Moses that do not resemble the 42 Principles of Maat. They are largely brutal and concern trivial affairs that do not concern a person's character, as do the Principles of Maat. For some reason God seems to want to weigh in on bull sales, hitting burglars and selling your daughter into slavery for some quick cash. At this point the Bible God's instructions stop being about moral character and become about the trivialities of civil law among goat herders.

How hard is it to see that Moses pinched the commandments from the Egyptians and then made up his own laws concerning the day-to-day grievances of an agricultural people and their slaves?

[jimwalton]

Well, you're jumping quite a few logical and historical hurdles from proposition to conclusion. First of all, there were many legal and ethical texts from the ancient Near East (as I'm sure everyone knows). They all shared certain similarities, as ethical standards in that part of the world and in that era shared ethical values, and many societies today still find points of commonality. Commonality is a far stretch from causality, or filching (plagiarism).

The Principles of Maat and the Papyrus of Ani were both ancient documents predating Moses. It's no surprise that there is overlap with things Moses said since the last several commandments deal with extremely basic ethical notions shared by most cultures: don't steal, don't lie, don't sleep around. Moses' first several commandments, however, are not to be found in the ancient Egyptian books. There is no reason to believe that Moses plagiarized his "commandments" from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It would be like me counseling a friend at college, "Don't cheat," and him saying, "Oooh, you got that from someone else."

As far as the rest of the commands, those have to be dealt with as individual principles of law and ethics, and can't just be sloughed off as "largely brutal and trivial."

[Packs a Whallop]

So selling your daughter into permanent bondage isn't brutal? Deciding the time of day you bludgeon a burglar as the key to criminality isn't trivial? Making it OK to murder a slave as long as it take more than three days to die isn't brutal? Referring to property damage done by a bull isn't trivial?

[jimwalton]

Oh my, suddenly you've jumped subjects, and instead of wanting to talk about the source of the 10 commandments, you want to dive into the "brutal and trivial" stream. OK, we can do that. Let's deal with them as individual principles of law and ethics.

> selling your daughter into permanent bondage

I'll assume you're talking about Ex. 21.7. You'll notice (at least I hope you notice), that the Ex. 21.7-11 section is about marriage. In days of arranged marriages, daughters would be given in return for a dowry. Marriage was as much an economic arrangement as a social one. You'll notice here that the sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt. As a way to protect those in poverty, and to protect the rights of the woman given to a man with this understanding, the debt would be liquidated, the daughter would have a husband, and he must treat her properly. You see in Ex. 21.8 that if the man is not pleased with her, he can't just dump her or abuse her, but must let her be redeemed by someone else in proper, legal form. If he passes her on to his son (v. 9), she becomes a daughter, not a slave. V. 10 speaks of provision of food, clothing, and marital rights. If he falters on any of these points, she is free to go (11). There is nothing about this that is brutal.

> Deciding the time of day you bludgeon a burglar

You'll have to show me where this is.

> Making it OK to murder a slave as long as it take more than three days to die isn't brutal?

This reveals a pretty serious misunderstanding on your part. You'll see in Ex. 21.12 that a fatal blow, regardless of the time it takes to die, and regardless of whether the victim is slave or free, is a capital crime. That, by the way, is the section and paragraph heading. You'll see in several verses in the section that an attack that doesn't result in death is treated with various other penalties and consequences (18-19, 22), most of which are financial since ancient Israel didn't have a prison system. In Ex. 21.20, if a man beats his slave and the slave dies, that is a capital crime (an astounding declaration of the personhood of slaves, in complete contrast to the surrounding countries). (See also v. 23, in the same context.) This certainly doesn't mean that God approves of beating, but if a person does this, and the slave dies, then the murderer is to be executed. If the slave doesn't die, the man's financial loss is the loss of the slaves work for the duration of time. The life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot legislation is applied to slaves even as it is to women, as evidenced by vv. 26-27. God doesn't approve of the beating, and if a man beats his slave and causes any kind of bodily harm, that slave is to be set free. No brutality was allowed; the law is very specific. The only "beating" spoken of here is one which is no serious injury, which we all know is not really what any of us call a beating.

> Referring to property damage done by a bull isn't trivial?

You're still in Ex. 21, I'm guessing. You're not in vv.28-29, since in those cases the bull, and even the owner (depending) is executed. Hm. I don't see in the text where property damage is being done by the bull. Maybe you're talking about v. 32 (I'm not sure). The law there is no different than v. 28. You'll need to explain your concern.

[Leo]

You said, "There is nothing about this that is brutal."

Really? Selling your daughter to pay your debts isn't brutal, as long as she gets food and clothes? Your comment on this seems to imply historical moral relativism, but this stuff is meant to be coming straight from God. "Things worked differently back then" doesn't work as an excuse, because God (and by extension Moses) should have already known that which it's taken us thousands of years to work out - that you shouldn't sell people.

You later mention the "astounding" declaration of slaves' personhood. Is it so astounding, from a supposedly enslaved people? Isn't it more astounding that God didn't speak out against slavery? Or that nobody in the surrounding countries (or anywhere else) got to hear the commandments? Your argument only works as a defence of man-made laws, not divine ones.

[jimwalton]

> Selling your daughter to pay your debts isn't brutal, as long as she gets food and clothes?

The word that is used in Ex. 21.7 is *'amah*, denoting she's a concubine. This was a marriage arrangement (as I said previously), not an arrangement of slavery. Sometimes fathers did "farm" their children out in contracted employment situations. The children were given room and board as part of the arrangement.

> Isn't it more astounding that God didn't speak out against slavery?

You'll notice that in the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. Regarding slavery in particular, the slavery in the ancient world was nothing like the system that existed in the US in the 19th century. Most slavery talked about in the Bible was debt-slavery, which was a way for someone whose crops had failed or who had suffered several bad years in a row could continue to feed his family by he or a member of his family working off the debt. It is no more oppressive than the current system of credit card debt and what people have to do to work it off.

[geraldreed]

The sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt... How come? I can't understand this. Perhaps, this is an excellent way to protect those in poverty, but it's considered as nonlegal abuse. Kindly check this article: http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/arranged-marriage-vs-love-marriage-essay

[jimwalton]

geraldreed, I read the article. It seems to have been written by someone for whom English is a second language, and it was a little difficult to follow at times. It also seemed to be somewhat of an advertisement for paper-writing services, in which I am not interested.

As to its content, however, I understand there are advantages and disadvantages to arranged marriage. But to what Bible verse are you referring when you say, "The sale of a daughter into slavery is a marriage arrangement as a way of paying off a debt... How come?" If you let me know to what verse you are referring, I would be glad to help you understand what the Bible is teaching.