Re: [asa] Re: asa-digest V1 #6228

At 04:16 PM 10/10/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:

>David wrote: "What a heinous doctrine of scripture. On what basis
>do we "recognize" that scripture teaches things that are morally evil?"
>
>I think you have to wrestle with the scriptures. One of the texts
>that intrigues me is the 15th chapter of I Samuel.
>
>I was looking up "Amalekites" in a Nelson-published Bible a few
>years ago. Strangely, I Samuel 15 was not cited in the concordance,
>although other instances of the word appeared. Could it be that
>Nelson, a [_______] publisher, left out that reference because it
>was so problematical? I always wondered.
>
>Anyway -- read the chapter. God tells Saul to commit genocide.
>Including infants. And when Saul does not, he gets zapped for
>disobedience. History? Then what makes God any better than
>Saddam? Just a story? What moral does it teach? Maybe genocide is
>OK in some instances? I reject that conclusion, but it is a possible
>inference from the text. Or what? Have you ever heard a sermon
>based on the chapter? What was said? I am still wrestling with it
>after 5 years. Other examples can be cited; this one ought to be
>enough. ~ Burgy

@ Try this:

Exclusive and Hyperbolic Language in the Bible

Critics often attack citations in the Bible that use exclusive or
hyperbolic language. (I.e., "all", "none", "utterly") In general it
is enough to note that such language may be legitimately construed as
rhetorical, whether it be in modern times ("Everyone likes chocolate
ice cream!") or ancient times ("Cretans are always liars, vicious
brutes, lazy gluttons."). In the second case, and elsewhere, the
rhetorical principle of brevity accounts for many such phrases.
Emphasis is needed, but to spell out exceptions or to explain that
the exclusivity is made for the sake of emphasis would dull the
point. Thus exceptions can not be ruled out on the basis of exclusive
language, and contradictions cannot be asserted because of it.

Critics may complain, but they do so without knowledge of the ancient
principles of rhetoric (as expressed by writers like Quintillian) and
exaggeration (as is found typically on Ancient Near Eastern war
inscriptions and elsewhere; see below). But let us emphasize the
absurdity that will result if we ignore the nature and purpose of
exclusive language.

The laws of our country speak in exclusive terms. A sign that says
"Speed Limit 55" is absolute. It does not specify exceptions such as
ambulance drivers or people who have passengers who become deathly
sick. Yet no judge would penalize an ambulance driver or other person
who dared exempt himself from the absolute language of the law on that sign.

And yet, we see that absurdities arise when this principle is
ignored. Our [_____] [_______], obsessed with detail, produces reams
of rules in an attempt to cover "exceptions". Not long ago two heroic
laborers rescued a co-worker from death in a situation where prompt
action saved the co-worker's life; yet the powers that be in the
realm of safety regulation attempted to force the absolute letter of
the law, and imposed fines on the rescuers for not putting on safety
gear before coming to aid! The public outrage that followed was no
surprise: The man on the street recognizes the language of
exclusivity for what it is. Some critics, of course, may work for the
[____] [______]! But for the rest of us on earth, the language of
exclusion, whether ancient or modern, should be recognized for what
it is and not used to create contradiction and difficulty where none exists.

As a further demonstration, let us now consider an ancient example
from outside the Bible. First, here is a cite from the Scriptures
that is sometimes regarded by critics as problematic:
1 Samuel 15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and
utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
Critics find it odd that a people here recorded as being "utterly
destroyed" come back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1
Samuel. But compare this to an inscription offered by the Egyptian
Pharaoh Ramesses III [taken from Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of
the Sea, 27]:
I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines
were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made
non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt
like the sands of the shore.
Clearly when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent,"
he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate that
they were captured. In ancient context, then, such claims as 1 Samuel
15:8 makes are not to be taken literally either. They are no more
absolute statements than those of football fans who celebrate a
team's win by shouting, "We're #1!" -- even if the team has lost more
games than it has won!

Another example cited by critics is Luke 14:26, in which Jesus tells
use that we must "hate" others for the sake of the Gospel. Critics
want to read this as literal hate; we reply by identifying such
sayings as containing a rhetorical emphasis, not referring to literal
hate. And in fact, such rhetorical emphasis typifies ancient and even
modern Semitic cultures. G. B. Caird, in The Language and Imagery of
the Bible [110ff], notes the frequent use of hyperbole among Semitic
peoples, and notes that "its frequent use arises out of a habitual
cast of mind" which tends to view matters in extremes, or as we would
say, "black and white." The Semitic mindset is dogmatic, and despises
doubt; things are either one way or another, and there is no room for
introspection. (If I may venture a social comment, it is not hard to
see this sort of mindset emerging from all of the monotheistic
faiths, including Islam in particular.) As a result, statements like
Luke 14:26 are simply typical of this mindset that encourages extreme
forms of expression. (For more on Luke 14:26, see
<http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html>here.)

More examples may be found from Rihbany's The Syrian Christ [108ff].
I think this quote from Rihbany are sufficient:
A case may be overstated or understated, not necessarily for the
purpose of deceiving, but to impress the hearer with the significance
or insignificance of it. If a sleeper who has been expected to rise
at sunrise should oversleep and need to be awakened, say half an hour
or an hour later than the appointed time, he is then aroused with the
call, 'Arise, it is noon already...' Of a strong and brave man it is
said, 'He can split the earth.' The Syrians suffer from no
misunderstanding in such cases. They discern each other's meaning.
Rihbany offers other examples of such sayings from daily life. Here
is a welcome he received from an old friend when he came to his home:
"You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not
worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My
children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for
your pleasure." The Westerner who hears this might well be shocked
and offended, but what is being said behind the verbiage is no more
than "I am delighted to see you; please make yourself at home."
Jesus' pledge of faith moving mountains is of the same order (and
Rihbany for one takes Ingersoll mildly to task for reading the
passage literally -- noting that we have no evidence that Jesus or
his disciples ever took up on such a literal offer).

Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values concur
[52]. They note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to
precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time
by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when
dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity,
imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time"
and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will
tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."

Critics who therefore accuse the Bible of exaggeration need to
realize that they haven't signed on the same semantic contract. For
more on Biblical hyperbole and excessive language, see
<http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/jerry722.html>here.

~ James Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hyperbole.html

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 18 10:39:52 2006