Freethought & Rationalism Archive

brighid · 12-13-2002, 10:57 AM

diana,

Thank you for the other link as well. I will have to look through my insanely long list of links to see if I have anything on that. There use to be a really wonderful site .... chabad.org I think. But it's server crashed at some point and all their information was lost. The last time I looked, which admitedly was a while ago they had never restored their library. They did contact me to say they were planning on restoring it but the loss was of collassal proportions. It was one of the few places I could get Orthodox view points and Rabbanical interpretations.

The Hassidic Rabbi I am well acquainted with in Israel sometimes takes a while to get back to me given the nature of things in Israel right now, but I will see what I can dig up for you.

Brighid

brighid · 12-13-2002, 11:27 AM

Diana,

Perhaps you have come across this: <a href="http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/14.php3" target="_blank">http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/14.php3</a>

It does mention Numbers 5, but I am not sure if it is exactly what you are looking for.

Try this as well:
<a href="http://shamash.org/tanach/tanach/commentary/j-seminar/volume5/v5n46" target="_blank">http://shamash.org/tanach/tanach/commentary/j-seminar/volume5/v5n46</a>

Here is a pretty decent one specifically discussing the ordeal of bitter waters: (I have not read it thoroughly though as it is fairly detailed.)

<a href="http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/chap1.shtml" target="_blank">http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/chap1.shtml</a>

Brighid

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

galiel · 12-13-2002, 01:59 PM

I always thought it was a perfume... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

diana · 12-13-2002, 04:27 PM

From the first link:

Quote:

Both Talmuds indicate that the words in the Written Torah, �and the man is innocent (naqi) of iniquity� (Numbers 5:31) mean that only the man who is free of sexual taint has the right to subject his wife to the ordeal of jealousy. When this can no longer be generally assumed, then the institution loses its basic justification because it is a mockery of the law itself if there is a double standard of sexual purity for men and for women.

Interesting. Of course, if the man brings his wife in for the ordeal, it is assumed he is free of sexual taint. There is not equivalent test for him; his purity is assumed on the honor system. There's still a double standard.

The second two were terrific. Just what I was looking for. The first shows all the problems that the rabbis have struggled with over this particular injunction.

From the last link you gave me, this:

Quote:

Second, a man suspected by his wife of exactly the same kind of behavior cannot be taken to the Temple and subjected to the ordeal of the bitter waters. This asymmetry points to the underlying extreme patriarchy: She is his property, intended for his exclusive use, and must therefore conform to the behavioral standards he sets for her; he is not her property and so she can make no demands of him.

In a patriarchal society, a sexual act between a man and a woman is viewed as adulterous only if the woman is married to another man; if the man is married to another woman, that is of no consequence. Therefore, a married woman is allowed to have sex with her husband only, but a married man is permitted to have sex with his wife and other women as well, provided they are not married. His wife has no sexual monopoly on him. Thus a woman who commits adultery seems to be perceived as a greater disruption of the social order than a man who does the same. Society frowned upon her misconduct more than his because she betrayed not only God but also her husband, whereas a man's extramarital sex is not considered a betrayal of his wife.1

Third, if the woman under suspicion was, in fact, unfaithful to her husband, she would be punished by the waters; but the man with whom she committed this act would go free. It does not seem right to us today that if the two of them committed exactly the same sin, together; that only' one gets punished and the other does not.

Not only do we today find these to be serious inequities, but the rabbis of the Talmud did as well. If we examine closely their interpretation of the verses, as found in Tractate Sotah, we will see that they struggled with every one of these issues. Sometimes, what appear to be expansions and clarifications of Torah and nothing more are, in reality, rabbinic responses to complicated and troubling problems.

Betcherass.

Thanks, brighid! Those were precisely what I was looking for. If anything, they confirm what we've been saying about the ordeal, but from the rabbis' points of view who've tried for centuries to "explain" it.

d

diana · 12-13-2002, 04:48 PM

Wow. This gets better.

From <a href="http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/chap1.shtml" target="_blank">Rereading the Rabbis</a>, discussion of Mishnah Sotah:

Quote:

They would bring her to the Great Court in Jerusalem and attempt to intimidate her, saying: My child, wine brings one to sin; so too do frivolity, immaturity, and evil neighbors. [Confess] for His great name's sake, that is written in holiness, so that it will not be dissolved in the water. (M Sotah 1:4)

... they would bring her to the Eastern Gate... and a kohen would grab hold of her garments and rip them until he uncovered her heart (bosom) and then he would let down her hair... (1:5)

He would clothe her in black.. and remove her jewelry in order to disfigure her. And then he would bring a rope and tie it above her breasts [to keep her garments from slipping down]. And all those who wanted to see could come and see . . . (1:6)

One pays back a person measure for measure: Since she dressed herself up for sin, God will undress her; since she exposed herself to sin, God will expose her to all . . . (1:7)

Her husband would bring her minhah sacrifice in an Egyptian basket and rest it on her hands in order to tire her . . . . Rabban Gamliel says: Just as she behaved like an animal, so her offering will be [brought from] the food of an animal [barley flour]. (2:1)

If the words of the scroll had already been dissolved in the water and she then said, "I will not drink," they would pour the liquid down her throat . . . (3:3)

Immediately upon drinking her face would turn yellow... (3:4)

The harshness of these statements is appalling. They unquestionably reflect deep rabbinic contempt for a suspected adulteress. At the same time, the details of the ritual seem to have sexual overtones. Ripping off her clothes to partially expose her body is both strange and suggestive. It feeds the sexual fantasies of the bystanders, in particular the young priests (T Sotah 1:7). It is also reminiscent of the treatment of adulterous women by other cultures, who would strip them naked in public, a custom already documented in Hosea 2:5. The mishnah notes the logic of this practice: Since she broke the rules by showing her body to her paramour, she will now be forced to reveal herself to all, a kind of perverted measure for measure. The problem, of course, is that at this stage she is only accused, not yet proven guilty.

d

Vorkosigan · 12-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Great rabbincal stuff. Can anyone locate a similar Christian discussion of this difficult passage? Never mind, I found some:

<a href="http://www.epm.org/aborhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.epm.org/aborhistory.html</a>
"Numbers 5:11-31 is an unusual passage of Scripture used to make a central argument in A Prochoice Bible Study, published by Episcopalians for Religious Freedom. [7] They cite the New English Bible's peculiar translation, which makes it sound as if God brings a miscarriage on a woman if she is unfaithful to her husband. Other translations refer to a wasting of the thigh and swelling of her abdomen, but do not take it to mean pregnancy, which would presumably simply be called that directly if it were in mind.

The woman could have been pregnant by her husband, assuming they had been having sex, which Hebrews couples normally did. It appears that God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. The text gives no indication of either pregnancy of abortion. Indeed, in the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk.

The Prochoice Bible Study that cites the NEB's unique translation suggests if God indeed causes miscarriage, it would therefore be an endorsements of people causing abortions. This is a huge stretch, since neither the wife, husband, nor priest made the decision to induce an abortion, nor would they have the right to do so. The passage does not seem to refer to a miscarriage at all; but even if it did, there is a certainly nothing to suggest any endorsement of human beings initiating an abortion."

Great argument! Consisting of (1)It's not an abortion -- based on a euphemistic translation and (2) anyway, god kills the kid, not the humans involved.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Evangelion · 12-14-2002, 05:21 AM

Jess -

*snip*

Quote:

you have been insiting that it is the OP that was anti christian.

Yep. I consider it a reasonable deduction, given the tone of his posts.

*snip*

Quote:

(to put into context... this followed: How did this little sick, perverted piece of misogyny and sympathetic magic get into the bible? Do the Bible freaks believe it works? Do they still perform the ritual? Why is it so obscure among bible critics? It seems to lay out all the absurdities of the bible in one place in plain view. I think atheists should demand that the biblical literalists to defend it at every opportunity. (Then there is the bible test for leprosy.), a quote of the OP which did not include any proof of your assertion and Christianity in particular?

do I need to keep quoting you?

If you have a point to make - yep.

Quote:

Or have I made my point?

Remind me again - what was it?

Quote:

in addition, no one has a problem asking a rabbi.

Great!

Quote:

But denying that the OT is part of Christianity is laughable.

I never denied it. I've already agreed that it's part of Christianity. What I am denying, is that Christians wrote it, and that it can be called "The Christian Scriptures", when it's actually the Jewish Scriptures, which are used by Christians.

The Christian Scriptures consist of the New Testament. This was the work of the Christians. But the Christian Bible (which is another kettle of fish entirely) consists of the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures - and Christians draw their theology from both.

Do you recognise the distinction between "Scriptures" and "Bible"?

Quote:

Regardless of anything else you could post.

of course, you did deny that:

*snip*

Fallacy of equivocation. I didn't deny it at all.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]

Evangelion · 12-14-2002, 05:54 AM

diana -

Quote:

Just as with people of all groups, you will find some of us that fit your idea of "mature" and some who do not. Just because we're infidels doesn't make us automatically mature, without religious issues (quite the opposite, as you've noticed), or completely objective. Just like people in all groups, some of us are strong in some of the categories but not in others. Like yourself, we're all at different points on the learning continuum.

I see. Thanks for the heads-up.

Quote:

A special note on objectivity: I'm not sure it's possible to be completely objective about religious matters. The general rule of thumb seems to be that the more intensely you were indoctrinated as a child, the less objective you tend to be as an atheist. Theists are fond of calling those of us where were severely brainwashed as children "fundamentalist atheists," because we end up having just as difficult of a time being objective from this side of the fence as we did from that one.

Fair comment. It's just that I try to respond as objectively as possible - even going so far as to play devil's advocate from time to time - so that people won't feel that I'm ramming my theology down their throats. In return, I appreciate it if they don't slap me across the face with their skepticism.

It's a simple matter of courtesy.

Quote:

I understand how you took offense to TerryTyron's opening post, but I understood it from a different point of view. Not so much an attack as disgust and shock at what he'd just discovered.

Sure. Your mileage varies.

Quote:

I don't understand how you can consider the OT inspired, but interpret the passage in question as an entirely priestly thing that God doesn't sanction. Would you please elaborate?

Well now I'm confused, because I don't ever recalling having said that this was "an entirely priestly thing that God doesn't sanction."

Quote:

Here's an example of what I mean:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BH: then where did the idea for this ritual come from?

YOU: Allegedly, from God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegedly?

Yes. If you want an objective answer, that answer is "Allegedly." I'm not here to convince you that it's the genuine work of God; I'm here to present my beliefs in a fair and reasonable fashion.

Quote:

But the OT is inspired, isn't it?

Sure it is, and that's exactly what I believe. (Although I'll grant you that I'm currently in the process of reconsidering Biblical inerrancy, and to be perfectly frank, I think I'm about to drop it. But that's another story, and will be told another time.)

The point is that if you ask a question like "Where did the idea for this ritual come from?", I'm not going to give you an evangelist's answer ("It came from God, halleluyah!!!") - I'm going to give you an objective answer ("Allegedly, from God.") Perhaps this might strike you as unusual. Perhaps it is unusual. But it's just the way I prefer to do things - especially when I'm in the company of people who don't want to be preached at.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's what you'd expect to find in America. But I'm not an American, and I don't follow their rules. You won't find me jumping on the abortion bandwagon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the reason many of us have for using this as an anti-Xn scripture doesn't involve you.

I know. I just wanted to make that point very clear.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's genuinely concerned by his wife's pregnancy in the first place, it's reasonable to assume that the pregnancy occurred unexpectedly. Agreed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This would mean that he's either using some form of dependable birth control or he isn't doing his duty by his wife. Agreed?

Well, yeah! Of course! That's obviously a "given" in the context of Numbers 5. And of course, Jess has already supplied us with an answer to the "how would he know" issue, so that's all nice and clear now.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you can invent all sorts of conspiracy theories about "obscuring the meaning", but at the end of the day, none of them are going to be remotely credible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The theories as to why they did it are irrelevant to me. What does matter is the fact that the translations that are accepted--not just the KJV, but almost every version that's come out in the past century--are still dishonest about what this really says. To offer a translation as "accurate" when it most demonstrably is not is inexcusable.

Well, I guess I'm wondering where this charge of "dishonesty" comes from...

Look, I've been discussing this issue at another forum, which I believe some of you attend quite regularly. (It's <a href="http://www.christianforums.com)" target="_blank">www.christianforums.com)</a> During the course of the debate, I spent a little time looking up the original Hebrew, to see if this might clarify the passage in question.

The most significant words (IMHO), appear in verse 22. You will see that I have provided the code numbers from Strong's Concordance, and cross-referenced them with the definitions found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon.

Thus:

Numbers 5:22.And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels4578, to make thy belly990 to swell, and thy thigh3409 to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

In reference to 4578, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says:

מעה

mê‛eh

1) Internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly.

1a) Inward parts.
1b) Digestive organs.
1c) Organs of procreation, womb.
1d) Place of emotions or distress or love (figuratively.)
1e) External belly.

In reference to 990, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says:

בּטן

beṭen

1) Belly, womb, body.

1a) Belly, abdomen.
1a1) As seat of hunger.
1a2) As seat of mental faculties.
1a3) Of depth of Sheol (figuratively.)
1b) Womb.

In reference to 3409, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says:

רך

yârêk

1) Thigh, side, loin, base.

1a) Thigh.
1a1) Outside of thigh (where sword was worn.)
1a2) Loins (as the seat of procreative power.)
1b) Side (flank) (of object.)
1c) Base.

The meaning is extraordinarily clear. It's obviously an abortion.

Now, precisely where does your "dishonest translation" thing enter the equation? You've said that "Just about every version that's come out in the last century" is "dishonest" - but why? Could you provide some examples, please? I just want to make sure that we're on the same page.

Meanwhile, let's take a quick look at Sir Lancelot Brenton's Septuagint, which was published in the 19th Century:

Numbers 5:22.and this water bringing the curse shall enter into thy womb to cause thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot. And the woman shall say, So be it, So be it.

OK. So 'way back in the 19th Century, Brenton could see for himself that this is a clear reference to the woman's womb. This supports the "herbal abortion" hypothesis, on which we all appear to agree.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (completed in 1582 by the Catholics, no less!) agrees with Brenton:

Numbers 5:22.Let the cursed waters enter into thy belly, and may thy womb swell and thy thigh rot. And the woman shall answer, Amen, amen.

Once again, we have a clear reference to the womb - which would make very little sense if this "curse" did not refer to a a herbal abortion.

A contemporary version, published later in the 20th Century ("God's Word"), has this to say:

Numbers 5:22.'May this water that can bring a curse go into your body and make your stomach swell and your uterus drop!' "Then the woman will say, 'Amen, amen!'

Here we have an unmistakeable reference to the uterus, and the horrible effects of the "bitter water." I don't see that there's anything to complain about here.

Besides, even some of those versions which don' make any explicit reference to the womb, still take care to point out that the woman would become barren if she was found guilty. So they tacitly acknowledge that the "bitter water" had an immediate and long-lasting effect upon the woman's reproductive system, which in turn makes little sense unless we've got a case of abortion on our hands.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]

Evangelion · 12-14-2002, 06:09 AM

Bumble Bee Tuna -

Quote:

Evangelion: Why are you here?

Well I originally joined this thread because I felt that a lot of unjustified Christian-bashing was going on. After reading some of the legitimate queries, however, I was further interested by the topic, and decided to contribute, so that we might arrive at a collective understanding of the passage in question (which has always puzzled me until now, to be honest.)

Incidentally, why are you here?

Quote:

You don't intend to answer the question.

Nonsense. I've already answered the question. I did this 'way back on page 3. Now all I'm doing is checking out a few additional details, and fielding the criticism.

Quote:

You can say that the question doesn't pose a problem for your theology. Great. It doesn't pose a problem to ours, either.

Are you frustrated by the fact that this passage doesn't give me any cause for concern? Does this irritate you?

Quote:

What the thread is asking for is a fundy's interpretation.

But no fundies were answering, so the atheists and skeptics took it upon themselves to exegete the passage in question. (And quite legitimately, too, I might add.) So if the atheists are permitted to answer the question, why can't I?

Quote:

And why does the goal of the thread matter?

Well hey, I did have this idea that the thread has to have a consistent goal, otherwise it's "off-topic." And unless this thread has some kind of intelligent goal, you're hardly going to win any points for "free thinking", are you? I mean, anyone can be a jerk. You don't need to be an atheist for that.

Quote:

Christians evangelize.

But no Christian was evangelising when this thread was first started. Furthermore, I don't see how the fact that "Christians evangelise" is in any way related to the meaining of this passage of Scripture.

Quote:

We try to come up with ways to fight back. Where is the problem?

The problem is that a few people here don't seem to be interested in a proper discussion at all. But some of them are, and that's one of the reasons why I've hung around to discuss the issue with them.

Quote:

Why are you derailing this thread?

I'm not. I'm one of the people who've actually taken the trouble to address this passage in detail, whilst simultaneously sticking to the topic like glue - and just for the record, I've contributed a hell of a lot more to this thread than you have, matey. So I'll thank you to remain on topic, as the rest of us are trying to do.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]

Evangelion · 12-14-2002, 06:13 AM

Damn, I've just realised that I'd included colour tags, which this board doesn't use. Sorry about that.

12-13-2002, 11:27 AM	#102
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Diana, Perhaps you have come across this: <a href="http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/14.php3" target="_blank">http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/14.php3</a> It does mention Numbers 5, but I am not sure if it is exactly what you are looking for. Try this as well: <a href="http://shamash.org/tanach/tanach/commentary/j-seminar/volume5/v5n46" target="_blank">http://shamash.org/tanach/tanach/commentary/j-seminar/volume5/v5n46</a> Here is a pretty decent one specifically discussing the ordeal of bitter waters: (I have not read it thoroughly though as it is fairly detailed.) <a href="http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/chap1.shtml" target="_blank">http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/chap1.shtml</a> Brighid [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

12-13-2002, 01:59 PM	#103
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	I always thought it was a perfume... <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

12-13-2002, 05:44 PM	#106
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Great rabbincal stuff. Can anyone locate a similar Christian discussion of this difficult passage? Never mind, I found some: <a href="http://www.epm.org/aborhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.epm.org/aborhistory.html</a> "Numbers 5:11-31 is an unusual passage of Scripture used to make a central argument in A Prochoice Bible Study, published by Episcopalians for Religious Freedom. [7] They cite the New English Bible's peculiar translation, which makes it sound as if God brings a miscarriage on a woman if she is unfaithful to her husband. Other translations refer to a wasting of the thigh and swelling of her abdomen, but do not take it to mean pregnancy, which would presumably simply be called that directly if it were in mind. The woman could have been pregnant by her husband, assuming they had been having sex, which Hebrews couples normally did. It appears that God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. The text gives no indication of either pregnancy of abortion. Indeed, in the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk. The Prochoice Bible Study that cites the NEB's unique translation suggests if God indeed causes miscarriage, it would therefore be an endorsements of people causing abortions. This is a huge stretch, since neither the wife, husband, nor priest made the decision to induce an abortion, nor would they have the right to do so. The passage does not seem to refer to a miscarriage at all; but even if it did, there is a certainly nothing to suggest any endorsement of human beings initiating an abortion." Great argument! Consisting of (1)It's not an abortion -- based on a euphemistic translation and (2) anyway, god kills the kid, not the humans involved. [ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

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

12-13-2002, 10:57 AM	#101
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	diana, Thank you for the other link as well. I will have to look through my insanely long list of links to see if I have anything on that. There use to be a really wonderful site .... chabad.org I think. But it's server crashed at some point and all their information was lost. The last time I looked, which admitedly was a while ago they had never restored their library. They did contact me to say they were planning on restoring it but the loss was of collassal proportions. It was one of the few places I could get Orthodox view points and Rabbanical interpretations. The Hassidic Rabbi I am well acquainted with in Israel sometimes takes a while to get back to me given the nature of things in Israel right now, but I will see what I can dig up for you. Brighid

12-14-2002, 06:13 AM	#110
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Damn, I've just realised that I'd included colour tags, which this board doesn't use. Sorry about that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.