rhutchin

It must have been a pretty good diet. The Hebrew population had increased to the point that Pharaoh was afraid that they might work with one of Egypt's enemies to conquer Egypt. It does not seem to have been that bad of a diet.

Amaleq13

It is beyond simply "possible" that the author's choice of "saved" implies more direct action on the part of the midwives than simply delaying their arrival until after the birth. That the author also tells us God rewarded them also supports more direct action than your forced interpretation. Your refusal to take the text at face value does not appear to be based on rational thought.


Yes, something more than simply being late. Under those circumstances, it would have been God saving the babies despite the absence of the midwives. I find it amusing that your faith-based reading requires you to denigrate the faith of the midwives where their fear of God only inspired them to walk slowly enough that survival was not their responsibility while a faithless reading has the women boldly defying Pharaoh for God.

That we are told the midwives "saved" the babies and that God approved of their actions suggests otherwise.

No, it is the passages in which the author tells us that they actually saved the babies and that God approved of them that requires it. An honest reading requires one to take into account everything the author tells us.

The text clearly states that they did not obey Pharoah. Your "interpretation" has less and less to do with the actual text as you attempt to defend it.

No, from the written account we are told the story that they gave to Pharaoh. That they really did arrive late is not described or even implied by the author. Only your faith requires you to read this into the story.

No, you are changing the author telling us the story the midwives told Pharaoh into the author describing it as though it happened.

This does not relate to the actual text. Your facts should read:

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives told Pharaoh they simply arrived too late to kill them.

rhutchin

We both agree that the midwives took direct action. I conclude that the midwives purposely delayed their arrival to allow a baby to be born. You conclude that the midwives were present at the birth and refused to kill the boy babies. The real issue is whether the midwives told the truth or lied as recorded in the historical account. I don’t see that the context requires that the midwives have lied.

No really. The action of being late is a legitimate action. The faith of the midwives was that God would provide for the safety of the Hebrew women in giving birth. There is no faith required to tell a lie to Pharaoh (or to anyone). It is in telling the truth (obeying both God and the command of Pharaoh) where a person gives up control of the situation where faith is required. You want the midwives to maintain control of the situation – refuse to obey Pharaoh’s instruction and then disobey God by lying about their actions – and this requires no faith (other than in one’s skills at deception).

Yep. The issue is how the midwives accomplished this.

Yep. The issue is what the historical account implies about the actions the midwives took to save the babies. Did they have to employ deception to save the babies or were they able to do so without being deceitful?

Yep. The issue is the manner in which they disobeyed Pharaoh. Did they purposely deceive Pharaoh or did they take an action that allowed them to disobey Pharaoh without being deceitful.

OK. Then the issue is whether the explanation provided by the midwives was the truth. The presumption of a truthful response is legitimate unless the context dictates otherwise. The context does not require that the midwives have lied to Pharaoh.

We have not introduced the mother or her family yet. However, if the midwives had been instructed to kill the boy babies, we might legitimately assume that they revealed this to the families of pregnant women. Consequently, we might think that the families would not call the midwife until the baby had been born and protected if it were a boy.

It is simply not necessary to assume that the midwives lied.

I think it is both (but I am not really sure what your point is.). The author is recording what the midwives said to Pharaoh and the author is providing what he believes is a reliable account.

OK. The midwives are certainly to be credited with saving the boy babies. You seem to think that simply arriving late does not involve enough effort to allow the midwives to be credited with saving the babies. I think it does. Had the midwives attended to the Hebrew women early (as they knew would be necessary) they would have put themselves in the position of having to disobey Pharaoh or kill the boy babies. They did not. Had Pharaoh pressed them as to why they arrived late, I think they could have legitimately said that the families called them only after they were certain the baby was safe.

Anat

Go to any overpopulated part of the third world and see how populations explode on very poor diets.

Typically in peasant societies, other than a narrow elite, diets are very poor.

rhutchin

Typically, yes. Today's world is not typical because of all the foreign aid from the US and other countries flowing into poor countries. Without that aid, I suspect we would see more starvation as in those countries where one group is oppressing (and killing) other groups.

Also, in Egypt, food would not be an issue if the Nile valley was as fertile as claimed. The Hebrew population would have been able to provide all their needs by themselves. Also, the Hebrew population had enjoyed favored status from the time of Joseph until the reign of the Pharaoh then ruling. That likely means that they had gained some wealth and could trade independently with other countries. It seems that the Pharaoh was not able to expel the Hebrews but was able to draft them to build cities. So, I don't think diet is really an issue that would have proved an influence on the birth rates other than to ease complications of pregnancy and birth.

Amaleq13

You conclude this despite that this does not really describe them saving anyone, that the author clearly considers this behavior to be the opposite of saving them, and that it hardly describes behavior that would garner God's approval. IOW, your conclusion requires that a single passage be taken out of context and interpreted by itself while contradicting the author.

My conclusion, unlike yours, does have the midwives actually saving the babies and does describe behavior that would garner God's approval and does agree with the author's implied opinion. I win.

No, the real issue is whether one's interpretation takes into account everything the author tells us. Yours does not while mine does.

It is not an act of salvation and, as a result, it is also not an act that would garner the approval of God. The author makes this clear when he has the midwives deny saving the babies and instead claiming to have simply arrived too late to kill them.

If the story included such a statement, your interpretation would have some support. Unfortunately for you, the story doesn't so your interpretation doesn't. The story says they save the babies. It does not say they allowed God to save them. The story simply does not agree with your "interpretation".

I want nothing but an interpretation that relates to the text and the text states that the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh and saved the babies. The text also shares with us the excuse they provided Pharaoh as they denied disobeying him. You are the only one importing your personal preferences into the text with a very selective reading.

It is only a mystery to you and apparently only because you wish to avoid the obvious. When one asserts that a midwife saved a baby, the obvious conclusion is that she did her job regardless of what she subsequently informed Pharaoh so as to avoid the consequences of disobedience. Pharaoh certainly seems to have understood this since he accuses them of saving the babies.

There is no need to import your religious beliefs about the historicity of the story into this discussion. We need only consider this as a piece of literature.

The story says they saved the babies and the story says they told Pharaoh that they didn't save the babies. This question appears to exist only for you.

I agree since no assumption is necessary as the text makes it pretty clear.

My point is that you were falsely characterizing what the text says. The author does not describe the midwives arriving late but that is how you have restated the story. The author simply tells us this is what they told Pharaoh in denying his accusation of disobedience.

Yes and the midwives are certainly described as denying that they did so when Pharaoh accused them of it.

It doesn't and the story makes that clear. Pharaoh accuses them of saving the babies and they deny this by claiming they arrived too late. Even the author of the story disagrees with your interpretation since he clearly considers arriving too late to not qualify as saving them!!

Your "interpretation" ignores the actual text and is denied by the author, himself.

Amaleq13

No response?

Is that as close to a concession as one is likely to obtain?

rhutchin

What we have is the author stating that Pharaoh charged them, “...When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him:..”

Then the author tells us that “...the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.” The midwives did not do the office of a midwife and thereby are credited with saving the babies.

When asked by Pharaoh why they had disobeyed him, the midwives responded, “...the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.”

What is it that the midwives did not do? They refused to exercise the duties of the office of the midwife. They went on strike, at least until the baby had been born. Knowing that the Hebrew women would give birth in a shorter time than Egyptian women, they responded to the Hebrew women as they would had they been Egyptian women.

God disapproves actions taken that violate His commands even where those actions are intended for a good purpose. God’s approval here is for the midwives acting in a manner that did not require them to violate God’s commands -- they did not have to lie.

Again, I see no a priori reason to conclude that the women lied. If you did not decide that the women lied, you would not be compelled to conclude that the women lied. The historical account does not require the a priori decision that the women lied nor that they be denied credit for saving the babies given the role that they played in the account.

rhutchin

Hmmm. Maybe it means that you need to get a life.

Toto

I don't understand this entire dispute.

Where did YHWH or any other god command people to never tell white lies to brutal dictators, even when necessary to save the lives of innocent babies?