Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 07-08-2011, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are some previous threads in the archives on this verse.

Numbers 5:12-31 and abortion

It is generally assumed that the "bitter water" was ergot, which was traditionally used as an abortifacient. There is an extensive discussion here.

See also Is the Bible Pro-choice?

I see nothing that supports an abortion theory. The stated purpose is a test for adultery, not abortion. It could have been divinely changed into wine for the good wives for all we know and into quinine or several of other herbal and natural concoctions that are considered emmenagogues (drugs that bring on menstruation) for the not so good. Oh my wine, ergot and quinine are equally supported by the text.

There are lots of unsupported theories, but nothing in the plain text except dirty water and ink.

The wiki indicates a possible merging of two texts.

Quote:

Secular Biblical scholars think that the ordeal is itself a fusion of two earlier rituals (pre-dating the original priestly text), one using water, and the other dust[4]. The use of dust might be connected to necromancy[4]. In other historic semitic cultures there are many instances in which holy water was regarded as taboo, and therefore that contact with it, or its consumption, was dangerous[24].

Spanky · 07-08-2011, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The bitter water was probably the abortifacient.

You know this how? The plain text does not support this conclusion.

You are correct, the ingredients for the water are actually in the text, no?

"Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water." and "The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water."

There is the recipe for the dirty water.

Was it an abortifacient? A rather superstitious one if you ask me.

John Kesler · 07-08-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Well, it's at least clear that Yahweh wasn't thinking about the well-being of the fetuses.

The focus is on the husband's rights possibly being violated. Ensuring paternity trumps preserving the fetus's life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

It would be interesting to see if we have similar laws in other ancient texts. That could shed some light on this.

The Code of Hammurabi also has a "trial by ordeal" for adultery:

Quote:

129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.

jgoodguy · 07-08-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Well, it's at least clear that Yahweh wasn't thinking about the well-being of the fetuses.

The focus is on the husband's rights possibly being violated. Ensuring paternity trumps preserving the fetus's life.

Exactly and the woman is made barren.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

It would be interesting to see if we have similar laws in other ancient texts. That could shed some light on this.

The Code of Hammurabi also has a "trial by ordeal" for adultery:

Quote:

129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.

It is all about ensuring children are the Husbands. I wonder if 132 is judicial suicide or trial by ordeal.

John Kesler · 07-08-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I wonder if 132 is judicial suicide or trial by ordeal.

The latter. An annotated version that I read explains that if the accused floated, she was considered innocent. If she sank, "the river had found her guilty."

Toto · 07-08-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...

I see nothing that supports an abortion theory. The stated purpose is a test for adultery, not abortion.

And then you link to a source that describes this as an abortifacient:

Quote:

It could have been divinely changed into wine for the good wives for all we know and into quinine or several of other herbal and natural concoctions that are considered emmenagogues (drugs that bring on menstruation) for the not so good. Oh my wine, ergot and quinine are equally supported by the text.

The state of herbal medicine in those days was not very high. Intended abortifacients might work, or might kill the woman, or might do nothing. There were also a certain number of spontaneous miscarriages, so the whole subject of pregnancy appeared to be subject to irrational forces.

Quote:

There are lots of unsupported theories, but nothing in the plain text except dirty water and ink.

...

But the intent seems clear.

hjalti · 07-08-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Dirty water and ink do not make an abortifacient do they? Your assertion is without basis.

That is true, but I think something else than just "dirty water and ink" was involved. If it was only dirty water and ink, then why would they expect the woman to swell up and all that?

Can one dare to suggest that some amount of priestcraft was involved?

jgoodguy · 07-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Dirty water and ink do not make an abortifacient do they? Your assertion is without basis.

That is true, but I think something else than just "dirty water and ink" was involved. If it was only dirty water and ink, then why would they expect the woman to swell up and all that?

Can one dare to suggest that some amount of priestcraft was involved?

One can speculate all they want. I can speculate that Yahweh changed the bitter waters into sparkling wine for the innocent, if I please.

jgoodguy · 07-08-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...

I see nothing that supports an abortion theory. The stated purpose is a test for adultery, not abortion.

And then you link to a source that describes this as an abortifacient:

They had zip for evidence too. They just speculated without evidence that it was another drug. There is equal evidence that it was LSD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

It could have been divinely changed into wine for the good wives for all we know and into quinine or several of other herbal and natural concoctions that are considered emmenagogues (drugs that bring on menstruation) for the not so good. Oh my wine, ergot and quinine are equally supported by the text.

The state of herbal medicine in those days was not very high. Intended abortifacients might work, or might kill the woman, or might do nothing. There were also a certain number of spontaneous miscarriages, so the whole subject of pregnancy appeared to be subject to irrational forces.

Except that the formula was specified in the plain text. Nothing but ink plus dirty water. Note that the mythical interpolator seems to have combined 2 formulas, one of which was plain water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

There are lots of unsupported theories, but nothing in the plain text except dirty water and ink.

...

But the intent seems clear.

Is it true that according to you each and everyone subject to this test had an abortion/miscarriage and that this purpose was hidden? That is odd in that pregnancy is not listed as a requirement for the test. Only a jealous husband is the requirement.

Toto · 07-08-2011, 12:43 PM

We don't have any indication that anyone was ever subject to this test, so it is all quite hypothetical.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2011, 12:43 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We don't have any indication that anyone was ever subject to this test, so it is all quite hypothetical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.