hjalti

Robert M. Price has a new podcast about the bible: The Human Bible

I'm sure many of the people who go to a discussion board called "Biblical criticism and history" will enjoy this, here's the description of the first episode:

John Kesler

The biblical text says that Moses's son's foreskin was the problem:

sotto voce

The problem was Moses' disobedience in not circumcising his son, as required since Abraham. Or perhaps it was the failure of bending to the influence of Zipporah, his wife, a Midianite, who did not want circumcision, or think it important. It was at any rate the wife who perceived the problem.

Moses had made excuses for not going to Egypt, citing lack of authority, and lack of eloquence, but these had been taken care of. So off he set for Egypt, everything arranged and sorted, but without considering his own state of mind; which was clearly, in the divine view, uncommitted. Neither were the consequences of a disobedient person telling Israelites what they should do to be contemplated. So circumcision was carried out by a now apparently devoted wife, who touched her husband's feet with blood, which signified the repentant attitude necessary for further progress to save Israel.

Sheshbazzar

Anyone else ever notice that Moses had a real phobia about circumcising anyone?

Supposedly he gave all of those laws and rules and regulations about when and how to circumcise, and what the penalties would be if one didn't do so, And then for the next 40 years, the rest of his entire life, did not permit even one single circumcision to be performed among his Israelite flock. :constern01:

Tenorikuma

Not at all. The conventional interpretation makes no sense when you consider that Moses is in the middle of a mission commanded by Yahweh himself. No insinuation of disobedience on the part of Moses is ever made.

However, the story does make a great deal of sense if you interpret all the ambiguous pronouns to say that God commanded Moses to kill (sacrifice) his son Gershom, as a parallel story to the Binding of Isaac. This becomes more apparent if you separate out the J source (vv. 19, 20a, and 24) from the surrounding E narrative.

sotto voce

So was disobedience of Yahweh himself a routine occurrence? It's amazing anyone gave him the time of day, if so.

Tenorikuma

Well, as noted by Sheshbazzar, it's strange that Moses didn't circumcise the Israelites for the entire forty years they were in the wilderness, so Joshua had to do the entire country all in one go before they completed their conquest of Canaan.

Welcome to the Old Testament, where the stories are made up and the sins don't matter.

sotto voce

It's not strange at all. It would have been very strange and inappropriate to have circumcised these 'Israelites'.

'The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: "How long will this wicked community grumble against me? I have heard the complaints of these grumbling Israelites. So tell them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will do to you the very things I heard you say: In this desert your bodies will fall — every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected. But you — your bodies will fall in this desert. Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the desert. For forty years — one year for each of the forty days you explored the land — you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.' I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this desert; here they will die."' Nu 14:26-35 NIV

Sheshbazzar

Neat little trick 'Moses' pulled there. Without circumcision, those being born were not subject to the terrible curses that were contained within the Law. (Ex 12:48-49 ) They were exempt, and passed over.
(Would have also meant that these could only 'observe' the Passover ritual, but not partake of it.)

If circumcision had continued, all would have been under the curse, all would have died in the wilderness, except for Joshua and Caleb. (Num 14:30, 26:65, 32:11-12)

sotto voce

They did die, and it was nothing to do with circumcision or Law. They died naturally, but not in the Promised Land.