Bible Passages That Seem Immoral By Today's Standards

[Red Terror]

Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God:

2nd Samuel 24:1-15:


"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah...Joab and the captains of the host went out...to number the people of Israel...So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men...Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee... seven years of famine...thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land...the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel...and there died of the people seventy thousand men." See also 1 Chronicles 21:1-14. (Same story is re-told here with some modification)

God ordered King David to conduct a census of all of Israel and Judah. (1 Chronicles 21:1-14 states that Satan [sic], not God, provoked David to count the people. The Bible can't keep its consistency or make up its mind). This was accomplished. They counted 800,000 men in Israel and 500,000 men in Judah. (The 1 Chronicles account specifies 1.1 million in Israel and 470,000 men in Judah; The tribes of Levi and Benjamin were not counted). For some unstated reason, David felt that he had performed a sin. God agreed, and gave David three options as punishment for carrying out God's orders. He chose either famine or pestilence. 70,000 men and an unrecorded number of women and children died of a plague.

It is difficult to understand why God would consider it a sin to take a census that he had ordered. God had ordered earlier enumerations without considering them sinful. By modern morality, it is difficult to see why a plague should be sent to kill citizens whose only crime was to be passively counted by government officials.

There is irony in the scripture by the apostle Paul when he says in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (WTF???)


http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl4.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3a.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm

http://theorderofthegecko.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/William_Henry_Burr_-_Self_Contradictions_of_the_Bible.pdf

http://media.isnet.org/kmi/off/XXtian/101ContradictionsInTheBible.pdf

[Drkshadow03]

I am going to respond to this with the assumption that you want help figuring out what is occurring in these passages and that you're reading this as a work of literature (as we're on a literature forum).

I think you're correct that these are immoral by today's standard, which is why it is important to remember:

These passages weren't written with today's standard in mind, but an ancient culture's standards (i. e. yesterday's standards)

The biggest issue seems to be one of interpretation. The very first words of the Samuel passage reads:




"And again [B]the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah (emphasis mine).

So he's not just "mov[ing]" or "incit[ing]" (in the NIV translation) because he wants a census done. He incites David to perform the census because He is angry with Israel and as a pretense to punish them. Besides the interesting word choice here that suggests God is moving David to perform this action out of anger with the nation, Joab's response to him questions why he would even want to do such a thing in the first place, implying that Joab understands this as a morally questionable act. Eventually David later realizes he has committed a sin. Likewise, while the Chronicles passage contradicts the previous narrative by placing the blame on Satan, what is consistent is that by doing so they are emphasizing that David's census taking was a sinful act. So at the very least all the details point in a particular direction: census = bad.

So the real question is why is taking a census considered an evil act?

The ending stands out to me when David must select three choices of punishment. David chooses the plague rather than being attacked and hounded by human enemies because he would rather "fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” (2 Sam 14, NIV translation). When considered in the relationship to the Deuteronomists (the generally ascribed authors of Samuel, Kings, and Joshua) penchant for criticizing historical figures who turn away from God or fail to follow the prescribed rules, we get some idea what might be happening here (i. e. what is the literary purpose? what are the authors trying to communicate to their audience?). Although God incites David to do it, He does so from anger. David's census of the fighting men might be seen as too secular, an unwillingness to trust in God, and instead put his faith in the abilities of men (his soldiers in this case).

[ennison]

Immoral? These things do not speak for themselves.

[Red Terror]

Looks like you're straining gnat **** out of pepper.
Sounds like a lot of Orwellian doublethink to me.


I am going to respond to this with the assumption that you want help figuring out what is occurring in these passages and that you're reading this as a work of literature (as we're on a literature forum).

I think you're correct that these are immoral by today's standard, which is why it is important to remember:

These passages weren't written with today's standard in mind, but an ancient culture's standards (i. e. yesterday's standards)

The biggest issue seems to be one of interpretation. The very first words of the Samuel passage reads:




So he's not just "mov[ing]" or "incit[ing]" (in the NIV translation) because he wants a census done. He incites David to perform the census because He is angry with Israel and as a pretense to punish them. Besides the interesting word choice here that suggests God is moving David to perform this action out of anger with the nation, Joab's response to him questions why he would even want to do such a thing in the first place, implying that Joab understands this as a morally questionable act. Eventually David later realizes he has committed a sin. Likewise, while the Chronicles passage contradicts the previous narrative by placing the blame on Satan, what is consistent is that by doing so they are emphasizing that David's census taking was a sinful act. So at the very least all the details point in a particular direction: census = bad.

So the real question is why is taking a census considered an evil act?

The ending stands out to me when David must select three choices of punishment. David chooses the plague rather than being attacked and hounded by human enemies because he would rather "fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” (2 Sam 14, NIV translation). When considered in the relationship to the Deuteronomists (the generally ascribed authors of Samuel, Kings, and Joshua) penchant for criticizing historical figures who turn away from God or fail to follow the proscribed rules, we get some idea what might be happening here (i. e. what is the literary purpose? what are the authors trying to communicate to their audience?). Although God incites David to do it, He does so from anger. David's census of the fighting men might be seen as too secular, an unwillingness to trust in God, and instead put his faith in the abilities of men (his soldiers in this case).

[mortalterror]

This thread should be moved to the religion subforum.

[YesNo]

God ordered King David to conduct a census of all of Israel and Judah. (1 Chronicles 21:1-14 states that Satan [sic], not God, provoked David to count the people. The Bible can't keep its consistency or make up its mind). This was accomplished. They counted 800,000 men in Israel and 500,000 men in Judah. (The 1 Chronicles account specifies 1.1 million in Israel and 470,000 men in Judah; The tribes of Levi and Benjamin were not counted). For some unstated reason, David felt that he had performed a sin. God agreed, and gave David three options as punishment for carrying out God's orders. He chose either famine or pestilence. 70,000 men and an unrecorded number of women and children died of a plague.

It is difficult to understand why God would consider it a sin to take a census that he had ordered. God had ordered earlier enumerations without considering them sinful. By modern morality, it is difficult to see why a plague should be sent to kill citizens whose only crime was to be passively counted by government officials.

There is irony in the scripture by the apostle Paul when he says in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (WTF???)


How do you know that God or Satan did any of these things?

[Drkshadow03]

Looks like you're straining gnat **** out of pepper.
Sounds like a lot of Orwellian doublethink to me.

I employed close-reading, which was a part of the training I received in graduate school earning my Masters in English and is a technique all literary critic use to carefully analyze and understand a text.

This may involve:

1) closely looking at details and how specific words are being used: such as my pointing out that the text shows God is inciting David to perform a census out of anger with Israel. It says so explicitly.

2) Considering how a character is being portrayed and their motivation from those details: God leads David to perform a census out of anger. God's motivation is anger.

3) Identifying patterns:

a) God incites David to perform a census from anger

b) Joab's response to David suggests that he is doing something wrong or highly unusual ("but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?" - KJV, "But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?” - NIV)

c) after the census, David's conscience leads him to explicitly declare that he sinned by having performed the census ("And David’s heart smote him after he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in having done this; but now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy slave, for I have done very foolishly." - KJV)

d) Chronicles reassigns the blame for this census from God to Satan (literally from the good guy to the bad guy, at least from a Christian perspective).

Conclusion: If you look at each element of the pattern, the text is implying that census taking of this sort is a sin.

4) Situate an analysis in previous scholarship and larger themes of a writer: The Documentary Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis) is a well accepted scholarly theory in Biblical and literary studies. It suggests the bible had multiple writers. The evidence for this tends to be linguistic and thematic. One of those writers was the Deuteronomist. The Deuteronomist style is didactic and moralistic. They are the writers behind the semi-"historical" narratives (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). Their authorial standpoint is to look back on history and try to explain disastrous events in terms of Israel or the leaderships' failure to follow God's rules. So this gives us some context of what the writers might be thinking in terms of why a King-ordered census is a sin. It seems that it is a sin because the Deuteronomist perceives something secular and disobedient to God's covenant in this census taking of military men. This reading is supported by the textual detail where David claims after repenting for taking the census and having to decide on his punishment that he'd rather put his faith in God for his punishment than the hands of men. So we see the writer emphasizing putting one's faith in God over humanity, pretty typical for the Deuteronomist.

Interestingly, Exodus 30:11-12 states - "Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them." So another possibility is as simple as them not paying the ransom money required during a census.

If there was something that didn't make sense to you, I would be happy to explain further. No need for the ad hominem attacks if you disagree. I just assumed you wanted to have a literary discussion as we're on a literature forum, which implies that we ought to use literary methods.

[Red Terror]

Yeah and I'm thoroughly without a curriculum vitae and no credentials. Well, the problem with a "close reading" of these "sacred texts" is that the latter are so elastic or plastic that any interpretation can be gleaned from them, which is why the fundamentalists desire a literal/strict interpretation. I say to them: "You want to interpret them literally?? O.K. let's see what the texts say when we interpret them literally." Hence my post.

I employed close-reading, which was a part of the training I received in graduate school earning my Masters in English and is a technique all literary critic use to carefully analyze and understand a text.

This may involve:

1) closely looking at details and how specific words are being used: such as my pointing out that the text shows God is inciting David to perform a census out of anger with Israel. It says so explicitly.

2) Considering how a character is being portrayed and their motivation from those details: God leads David to perform a census out of anger. God's motivation is anger.

3) Identifying patterns:

a) God incites David to perform a census from anger

b) Joab's response to David suggests that he is doing something wrong or highly unusual ("but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?" - KJV, "But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?” - NIV)

c) after the census, David's conscience leads him to explicitly declare that he sinned by having performed the census ("And David’s heart smote him after he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in having done this; but now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy slave, for I have done very foolishly." - KJV)

d) Chronicles reassigns the blame for this census from God to Satan (literally from the good guy to the bad guy, at least from a Christian perspective).

Conclusion: If you look at each element of the pattern, the text is implying that census taking of this sort is a sin.

4) Situate an analysis in previous scholarship and larger themes of a writer: The Documentary Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis) is a well accepted scholarly theory in Biblical and literary studies. It suggests the bible had multiple writers. The evidence for this tends to be linguistic and thematic. One of those writers was the Deuteronomist. The Deuteronomist style is didactic and moralistic. They are the writers behind the semi-"historical" narratives (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). Their authorial standpoint is to look back on history and try to explain disastrous events in terms of Israel or the leaderships' failure to follow God's rules. So this gives us some context of what the writers might be thinking in terms of why a King-ordered census is a sin. It seems that it is a sin because the Deuteronomist perceives something secular and disobedient to God's covenant in this census taking of military men. This reading is supported by the textual detail where David claims after repenting for taking the census and having to decide on his punishment that he'd rather put his faith in God for his punishment than the hands of men. So we see the writer emphasizing putting one's faith in God over humanity, pretty typical for the Deuteronomist.

Interestingly, Exodus 30:11-12 states - "Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them." So another possibility is as simple as them not paying the ransom money required during a census.

If there was something that didn't make sense to you, I would be happy to explain further. No need for the ad hominem attacks if you disagree. I just assumed you wanted to have a literary discussion as we're on a literature forum, which implies that we ought to use literary methods.

[YesNo]

Yeah and I'm thoroughly without a curriculum vitae and no credentials. Well, the problem with a "close reading" of these "sacred texts" is that the latter are so elastic or plastic that any interpretation can be gleaned from them, which is why the fundamentalists desire a literal/strict interpretation. I say to them: "You want to interpret them literally?? O.K. let's see what the texts say when we interpret them literally." Hence my post.

You admit that "any interpretation can be gleaned from" these texts and yet you insist on interpreting them literally. You might be able to make some hypothetical case against some sect of "fundamentalists", whoever they are. But that is as far as it goes.

I am not interested in a literal interpretation of any religious text. I expect those texts to contain more than their literalness and express truth even in spite of their literalness. We cannot completely objectify our subjectivity into a text. Nor can we be downloaded into a computer. So staying on the literal level misses the point. It leads to contradictions and paradoxes. I would even say it is supposed to lead to contradictions and paradoxes if theism is true.

Do you think that by picking nits with some religious sect you have undermined religion in general or even spirituality itself? The reason I ask this is because your avatar of Che Gevara suggests you might be promoting your own religious and political sect. Maybe my question can be rephrased: Are you trying to argue for atheism by nit-picking fundamentalists?

[Jackson Richardson]

I don't necessarily interpret texts literally and neither did most Christian commentators prior to the Reformation.

I could cite some far more ghastly passages than the one about the census but I don't want to give Red Terror ammunition.

But these passages have to be read in the context of a very different nature of the divine as revealed in the rest of scripture. All scripture may be written for our learning, but it is not consistent in doing so. And what we may learn from a passage like 2 Samuel 24 is how people have had very misleading ideas about God.

[Drkshadow03]

Yeah and I'm thoroughly without a curriculum vitae and no credentials.

And there is nothing wrong with lacking those credentials.


Well, the problem with a "close reading" of these "sacred texts" is that the latter are so elastic or plastic that any interpretation can be gleaned from them, which is why the fundamentalists desire a literal/strict interpretation. I say to them: "You want to interpret them literally?? O.K. let's see what the texts say when we interpret them literally." Hence my post.

I can't relate as I think most literary texts lend themselves to multiple interpretations (not just the Bible) and while I think close reading is a useful tool, I'm not claiming it guarantees definitive results (i. e. the one interpretation to rule them all and everyone else is wrong). I don't think reading a sacred book or a poem or a novel should be about finding its true meaning; however, this doesn't mean I think literary texts are meaningless.

[ennison]

I'm a fundamentalist. I don't require the interpretation you are implying.

[mortalterror]

I don't necessarily interpret texts literally and neither did most Christian commentators prior to the Reformation.

Agreed, in the early middle ages there developed a fourfold interpretive system that was something like the Jewish Pardes system of Biblical exegesis. Every passage in the bible could be interpreted in four ways: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

Consider the words of pope Gregory the Great (6th century) in his Moralia:

"But be it known that there are some parts, which we go through in a historical exposition, some we trace out in allegory upon an investigation of the typical meaning, some we open in the lessons of moral teaching alone, allegorically conveyed, while there are some few which, with more particular care, we search out in all these ways together, exploring them in a threefold method. For first, we lay the historical foundations; next, by pursuing the typical sense, we erect a fabric of the mind to be a strong hold of faith; and moreover as the last step, by the grace of moral instruction, we, as it were, clothe the edifice with an overcast of colouring. Or at least how are the declarations of truth to be accounted of, but as food for the refreshment of the mind? These being handled with the alternate application of various methods, we serve up the viands of discourse in such sort as to prevent all disgust in the reader, thus invited as our guest, who, upon consideration of the various things presented to him, is to take that which he determines to be the choicest. Yet it sometimes happens that we neglect to interpret the plain words of the historical account, that we may not be too long in coming to the hidden senses, and sometimes they cannot be understood according to the letter, because when taken superficially, they convey no sort of instruction to the reader, but only engender error; "
http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Epistle.html

[Pompey Bum]

I don't necessarily interpret texts literally and neither did most Christian commentators prior to the Reformation.

That's a gross simplification. The modern politico-religious divide has led many to assume that Biblical exegetes were historically as polarized as we are (that is, as either literalists or interpreters). But a reading of Patristic authors such as Tertullian and Origen will show ancient Christian authors employing i terpretive techniques similar to those MT associates with Gregory (allegorical, typological, etc.) yet they never question the literality of the text. These Christians had no problem deriving literal and interpretive truths from the same verses.

Directed to MT: I have read Moralia, though not since the octopus ink was wet. My memory is that while Gregory happens to treat certain Biblical verses "in the lessons of moral teaching alone, allegorically conveyed" (among the various interpretive quivers in his bow), he takes for granted the literality of the Biblical text he is interpreting. But if you have read Moralia more recently, perhaps you could remind me. Does he ever actually express skepticism about the literal truth of the Bible?

Back to JR: So no. Biblical literalism cannot be blamed on that nasty Reformation. Even Luther's Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church an allegorical interpretation in which Judah's exile was equated with the withholding of Sacramental wine from laity. (Of course that did not the historical exile never happened). A good deal of Biblical literalism as it exists today (that is, in polarity with Biblical interpretation) can be laid at the feet of the various Great Awakening movements of the 18th through 20th centuries. Those indeed were led by (pietistic) Protestants, some of whom eschewed emerging liberal interpretations of the Bible. But tarring the enormous and far from homogeneous Reformation with their brush is neither historically nor theologically valid

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am not a Biblical literalist in a modern (or even ancient) sense.

[Red Terror]

Tertullian once stated: "I believe because it is absurd." (not a paraphrase but a direct quotation) ---- meaning the tenets of Christianity and the Bible to boot.



That's a gross simplification. The modern politico-religious divide has led many to assume that Biblical exegetes were historically as polarized as we are (that is, as either literalists or interpreters). But a reading of Patristic authors such as Tertullian and Origen will show ancient Christian authors employing i terpretive techniques similar to those MT associates with Gregory (allegorical, typological, etc.) yet they never question the literality of the text. These Christians had no problem deriving literal and interpretive truths from the same verses.

Directed to MT: I have read Moralia, though not since the octopus ink was wet. My memory is that while Gregory happens to treat certain Biblical verses "in the lessons of moral teaching alone, allegorically conveyed" (among the various interpretive quivers in his bow), he takes for granted the literality of the Biblical text he is interpreting. But if you have read Moralia more recently, perhaps you could remind me. Does he ever actually express skepticism about the literal truth of the Bible?

Back to JR: So no. Biblical literalism cannot be blamed on that nasty Reformation. Even Luther's Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church an allegorical interpretation in which Judah's exile was equated with the withholding of Sacramental wine from laity. (Of course that did not the historical exile never happened). A good deal of Biblical literalism as it exists today (that is, in polarity with Biblical interpretation) can be laid at the feet of the various Great Awakening movements of the 18th through 20th centuries. Those indeed were led by (pietistic) Protestants, some of whom eschewed emerging liberal interpretations of the Bible. But tarring the enormous and far from homogeneous Reformation with their brush is neither historically nor theologically valid

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am not a Biblical literalist in a modern (or even ancient) sense.

[Red Terror]

I was being sarcastic. I wrote my Master's thesis on Shakespeare.

[QUOTE=Drkshadow03;1325330]And there is nothing wrong with lacking those credentials. QUOTE]

[Red Terror]

You're missing the point. These books of the Bible that I'm concerned with here --- 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings and 1st & 2nd Chronicles --- are supposed to be a historical chronicle of events that happened in Israel. When I read a historical account of American history, for instance, I do not look at the historical record from a literary point of view or see the texts as allegorical or symbolic or through any other literary point of view.


I employed close-reading, which was a part of the training I received in graduate school earning my Masters in English and is a technique all literary critic use to carefully analyze and understand a text.

This may involve:

1) closely looking at details and how specific words are being used: such as my pointing out that the text shows God is inciting David to perform a census out of anger with Israel. It says so explicitly.

2) Considering how a character is being portrayed and their motivation from those details: God leads David to perform a census out of anger. God's motivation is anger.

3) Identifying patterns:

a) God incites David to perform a census from anger

b) Joab's response to David suggests that he is doing something wrong or highly unusual ("but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?" - KJV, "But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?” - NIV)

c) after the census, David's conscience leads him to explicitly declare that he sinned by having performed the census ("And David’s heart smote him after he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in having done this; but now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy slave, for I have done very foolishly." - KJV)

d) Chronicles reassigns the blame for this census from God to Satan (literally from the good guy to the bad guy, at least from a Christian perspective).

Conclusion: If you look at each element of the pattern, the text is implying that census taking of this sort is a sin.

4) Situate an analysis in previous scholarship and larger themes of a writer: The Documentary Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis) is a well accepted scholarly theory in Biblical and literary studies. It suggests the bible had multiple writers. The evidence for this tends to be linguistic and thematic. One of those writers was the Deuteronomist. The Deuteronomist style is didactic and moralistic. They are the writers behind the semi-"historical" narratives (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). Their authorial standpoint is to look back on history and try to explain disastrous events in terms of Israel or the leaderships' failure to follow God's rules. So this gives us some context of what the writers might be thinking in terms of why a King-ordered census is a sin. It seems that it is a sin because the Deuteronomist perceives something secular and disobedient to God's covenant in this census taking of military men. This reading is supported by the textual detail where David claims after repenting for taking the census and having to decide on his punishment that he'd rather put his faith in God for his punishment than the hands of men. So we see the writer emphasizing putting one's faith in God over humanity, pretty typical for the Deuteronomist.

Interestingly, Exodus 30:11-12 states - "Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them." So another possibility is as simple as them not paying the ransom money required during a census.

If there was something that didn't make sense to you, I would be happy to explain further. No need for the ad hominem attacks if you disagree. I just assumed you wanted to have a literary discussion as we're on a literature forum, which implies that we ought to use literary methods.

[Pompey Bum]

Tertullian once stated: "I believe because it is absurd." (not a paraphrase but a direct quotation) ---- meaning the tenets of Christianity and the Bible to boot.

I know, Red. Unfortunately it has nothing whatever to do with my argument. It's impressive that you've read Turtullian, though. You have read him, right? Because I'm fairly sure you didn't read much of my post.

And to everyone else, I apologize for the double post, but I did not expect our friend to turn the page quite so quickly so I'll try it again:


I don't necessarily interpret texts literally and neither did most Christian commentators prior to the Reformation.

That's a gross simplification. The modern politico-religious divide has led many to assume that Biblical exegetes were historically as polarized as we are (that is, as either literalists or interpreters). But a reading of Patristic authors such as Tertullian and Origen will show ancient Christian authors employing interpretive techniques similar to those MT associates with Gregory (allegorical, typological, etc.) yet they never question the literality of the text. These Christians had no problem deriving literal and interpretive truths from the same verses.

Directed to MT: I have read Moralia, though not since the octopus ink was wet. My memory is that while Gregory happens to treat certain Biblical verses "in the lessons of moral teaching alone, allegorically conveyed" (among the various interpretive quivers in his bow), he takes for granted the literality of the Biblical text he is interpreting. But if you have read Moralia more recently, perhaps you could remind me. Does he ever actually express skepticism about the literal truth of the Bible?

Back to JR: So no. Biblical literalism cannot be blamed on that nasty Reformation. Even Luther's Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church an allegorical interpretation in which Judah's exile was equated with the withholding of Sacramental wine from laity. (Of course that did not the historical exile never happened). A good deal of Biblical literalism as it exists today (that is, in polarity with Biblical interpretation) can be laid at the feet of the various Great Awakening movements of the 18th through 20th centuries. Those indeed were led by (pietistic) Protestants, some of whom eschewed emerging liberal interpretations of the Bible. But tarring the enormous and far from homogeneous Reformation with their brush is neither historically nor theologically valid

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am not a Biblical literalist in a modern (or even ancient) sense.

[Drkshadow03]

You're missing the point. These books of the Bible that I'm concerned with here --- 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings and 1st & 2nd Chronicles --- are supposed to be a historical chronicle of events that happened in Israel. When I read a historical account of American history, for instance, I do not look at the historical record from a literary point of view or see the texts as allegorical or symbolic or through any other literary point of view.

You wouldn't read the American History work that way, assuming we're talking about a secondary source, because it is meant to be read as a secular presentation of historical events and facts. Works like Kings certainly have the veneer of an historical chronicle, but are probably better described as Historical Chronicle meets moralistic fables.

If you want to challenge those fundamentalists who read the work like a history textbook I have no problem with that. However, you specifically wrote in your original post:


It is difficult to understand why God would consider it a sin to take a census that he had ordered.

So I attempted to answer that question from a literary standpoint as we're on a literary forum. It seems we're having two related, but slightly different conversations.

[Jackson Richardson]

Back to JR: So no. Biblical literalism cannot be blamed on that nasty Reformation.

I didn't say that on this thread. The iffy bits of scripture should be taken in the context of the picture of God provided by scripture as a whole and for Christians particularly the gospels.

[Pompey Bum]

I didn't say that on this thread.

So just to be clear, JR, is it your position that Biblical literalism was normative in Christian Europe prior to the Reformation, and that it was not mutually exclusive from interpretive analysis? If not, could you refer me to the specific doctrine that establishes the orthodoxy of the point?

[YesNo]

You're missing the point. These books of the Bible that I'm concerned with here --- 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings and 1st & 2nd Chronicles --- are supposed to be a historical chronicle of events that happened in Israel. When I read a historical account of American history, for instance, I do not look at the historical record from a literary point of view or see the texts as allegorical or symbolic or through any other literary point of view.

When you read an account about the weapons of mass destruction claim made against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the early part of this century do you take everything you read as literally true because it is part of the historical record? Since there weren't any weapons of mass destruction the question of whether that history was fabricated to justify a war has to be considered.

The same thing with 2 Samuel and 1 Kings. The issue here is whether Solomon was David's son or Uriah's son. The winner of that power struggle was Solomon and his mother Bathsheba. The winners write the history to justify their success.

Historical sacred texts add complexity to the literalness of the story. Potentially some of it could be a fabrication of the literal truth to achieve a political aim at the time. Does the possibility that a sacred text could be in error or an example of deliberate lying imply that theism is false? No. It just says that these texts have to be vetted by our own subjectivity. Ultimately we will take from a sacred text only what we personally find valuable, nothing more.

Does it matter if we get things wrong? Probably not in the long run. All of us will likely get many things wrong before we are done.

[Ecurb]

I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation except my firm conviction that some participants should be either burned at the stake or excommunicated, whichever they prefer.

[YesNo]

if I remember right, Brian Moynahan mentioned in "God's Bestseller" that it could take over half an hour to lose consciousness if one is burnt alive outside so the smoke can escape. I don't know how he found this out. Perhaps observers of those burnings reported how long the victims looked conscious to them. Some of them were garroted in advance so they would be dead during the burning process, but some weren't.

Since Thomas More was responsible for burning people at the stake I've been puzzled why a Catholic pope would have ever considered canonizing him. Maybe Catholics needed to have saints in hell as well as heaven? But just because More was an ahole and just because some Catholic pope canonized him does that mean that theism is false? No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mean that Catholicism is a religion that people should abandon. One can always ignore or reconstruct the narratives of those hellish saints and, who knows, by now More may have been forgiven.

However, there is one general religious form that I think should be abandoned because its idolatry is self-destructively dehumanistic. That religious form is atheism. As an extreme it is a denial of subjectivity itself. The only things that exist for this atheism are objective idols best portrayed, in the visions of some of them, of a fanciful computer into which they could download their subjectivity and gain a form of objective immortality. I can't think of any more literal and fundamentalist text than such a computer holding their subjectivity in its dead objectivity. Atheism is the most violent religion out there both in the physical damage it has caused to other human beings (Khmer Rouge, Maoism, Naziism) and in the bedeviling trance state in which it leaves its adherents.

[Pompey Bum]

I have nothing substantive to add to the conversation except my firm conviction that some participants should be either burned at the stake or excommunicated, whichever they prefer.

Excommunication, please.

[Drkshadow03]

However, there is one general religious form that I think should be abandoned because its idolatry is self-destructively dehumanistic. That religious form is atheism. As an extreme it is a denial of subjectivity itself. The only things that exist for this atheism are objective idols best portrayed, in the visions of some of them, of a fanciful computer into which they could download their subjectivity and gain a form of objective immortality. I can't think of any more literal and fundamentalist text than such a computer holding their subjectivity in its dead objectivity. Atheism is the most violent religion out there both in the physical damage it has caused to other human beings (Khmer Rouge, Maoism, Naziism) and in the bedeviling trance state in which it leaves its adherents.

Except atheism isn't a religion.

[Pompey Bum]

Since Thomas More was responsible for burning people at the stake I've been puzzled why a Catholic pope would have ever considered canonizing him.

Well, don't over think it. More was beheaded for refusing to sign the Oath of Supremacy that acknowledged Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England. As Chancellor, he persecuted Protestants and advocates of an English translation of the Bible, torturing and burning some, imprisoning or inflicting mortification (public humiliation) on others. But Rome wouldn't have objected to the all heretic whacking. At the time the Catholic Church was losing control over huge swathes of Europe. More was a major intellectual, an international celebrity, and (to Rome) a hero and a martyr for his faith. Why would it surprise you that he was (eventually) made a Catholic Saint?


However, there is one general religious form that I think should be abandoned because its idolatry is self-destructively dehumanistic. That religious form is atheism. As an extreme it is a denial of subjectivity itself. The only things that exist for this atheism are objective idols best portrayed, in the visions of some of them, of a fanciful computer into which they could download their subjectivity and gain a form of objective immortality. I can't think of any more literal and fundamentalist text than such a computer holding their subjectivity in its dead objectivity.

How could you possibly get rid of atheism? You can't control people's convictions. And they have every right to them. Isn't it Bigfoot the real menace? :)


Atheism is the most violent religion out there both in the physical damage it has caused to other human beings (Khmer Rouge, Maoism, Naziism) and in the bedeviling trance state in which it leaves its adherents.

Not to mention 20th century Soviet Communism. But the fact that most of those political movements were intrinsically atheistic (the Nazis should probably be taken off the list) doesn't mean that atheism is inherently totalitarian or genocidal. There are plenty of moral atheists, many of whom choose atheism because they believe it to be a more moral than theism. Bertrand Russell blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And "bedeviling trance state" or notwithstanding, anyone dumb enough to wear a Che Guevara tee shirt probably isn't much of a threat in the first place.

[YesNo]

Well, don't over think it. More was beheaded for refusing to sign the Oath of Supremacy that acknowledged Henry VIII as Supreme of the Church of England. As Chancellor, he persecuted Protestants and advocates of an English translation of the Bible, torturing and burning some, imprisoning or inflicting mortification (public humiliation) on others. But Rome wouldn't have objected to the all heretic whacking. At the time the Catholic Church was losing control over huge swathes of Europe. More was a major intellectual, an international celebrity, and (to Rome) a hero and a martyr for his faith. Why would it surprise you that he was (eventually) made a Catholic Saint?

As a political attempt to gain power, it makes sense to canonize him. The problem is he did burn people at the stake.

Now, I am actually glad they did canonize him, because it nicely discredits any infallibility argument one might cling to regarding these authority figures. And for what it's worth, Protestants aren't any better with their "paper pope" as I've heard one Catholic describe the perhaps idolatrous approach to the Bible that some Protestants have.

In general one has to avoid idolatry. Popes and texts are valuable aids, but they are no complete substitution for our subjectivity.



How could you possibly get rid of atheism? You can't control people's convictions. And they have every right to them. Isn't it Bigfoot the real menace? :)

There is an 19th century text by Charles MacKay called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" that I just heard quoted this morning in some other context. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of _Crowds) I haven't read it, but I did read in the Wikipedia article that MacKay wasn't any better at avoiding economic bubbles than those he thought should have known better. One of this sayings, quoted from the same article, is the following:


"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
This statement is not quite true. We don't come back "one by one". We come back in surviving herds and those herds are created by language that we pick up sometimes without even hearing the words explicitly spoken.

I have no interest in getting rid of atheism. There is no need to. It will fall over of its own accord. I am more interested in finding the words to describe an alternative and use atheist trance ideology to make sure I don't make the same mistakes they did.

As far as the power of words go, I keep thinking about Florence Scovel Shinn's "Your Word Is Your Wand" (http://florencescovelshinn.weebly.com/your-word-is-your-wand.html) It is where I am getting the idea of an atheist trance, but we are all under a trance of some sort, all part of a herd we create with our choice of words.




Not to mention 20th century Soviet Communism. But the fact that most of those political movements were intrinsically atheistic (the Nazis should probably be taken off the list) doesn't mean that atheism is inherently totalitarian or genocidal. There are plenty of moral atheists, many of whom choose atheism because they believe it to be a more moral than theism. Bertrand Russell blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And "bedeviling trance state" or notwithstanding, anyone dumb enough to wear a Che Guevara tee shirt probably isn't much of a threat in the first place.

Atheists are moral because they are human beings, not because they are atheists. Atheism is a misunderstanding of their basic humanity.

We are all in some collective trance state that we are ultimately responsible for since the words we use reinforce whatever our preferred trance happens to be. What makes the atheist trance state bedeviling is that those outside that particular trance cannot snap their fingers by referencing reason or science because atheists think they own those concepts. When confronted with cognitive dissonance they start babbling stuff about logical fallacies and pseudoscience. That just keeps their trance state intact.

[YesNo]

Except atheism isn't a religion.

I used to think the same until I wrote that post yesterday. Then it occurred to me that atheism is a pure form of idolatry.

Idolatry reduces living subjectivity to dead objectivity. The text becomes literal. The pope becomes infallible. The computer becomes the vision of a grave in which our subjectivity can be immortalized.

When I connected those kinds of dots I saw atheism as a religion of idolatry.

[Pompey Bum]

As a political attempt to gain power, it makes sense to canonize him. The problem is he did burn people at the stake.

Yes, he sure did, didn't he?

I don't think the Popes who made More a saint were doing it to gain new power, by the way. He was beatified in the late 19th century and canonized (I think) in the 1930s. My knowledge of Papal history gets a little thin by then, but in general terms those were very conservative times for Catholics. As I said, More was seen as a heroic martyr, and his admirers probably didn't spend much time thinking about how much it would have hurt his victims to be racked and/or burned alive.


Now, I am actually glad they did canonize him, because it nicely discredits any infallibility argument one might cling to regarding these authority figures.

Not necessarily. Papal infallibility has to be invoked (you have to call it). To misquote John Cleese, he could have been being fallible in his spare time. What's really weird is that the Church of England (you know, the guys who chopped his head off) made More a saint back in the 1980s. In the immortal words of Jimmy Durante: EVERYBODY wants to get in on the act."


And for what it's worth, Protestants aren't any better with their "paper pope" as I've heard one Catholic describe the perhaps idolatrous approach to the Bible that some Protestants have.

We agree on this, YesNo. Making a fetish of the Bible (or Mother Church for that matter) is a kind of idolatry.

[YesNo]

Not necessarily. Papal infallibility has to be invoked (you have to call it). To misquote John Cleese, he could have been being fallible in his spare time. What's really weird is that the Church of England (you know, the guys who chopped his head off) made More a saint back in the 1980s. In the immortal words of Jimmy Durante: EVERYBODY wants to get in on the act."


I saw the movie where he got his head cut off. A beheading is probably quicker than being drawn and quartered which I hear can take a while, but I didn't know the Church of England canonized him as well. I wonder if that was around the time the Brits were itching to get into the EU?

[Pompey Bum]

I saw the movie where he got his head cut off. A beheading is probably quicker than being drawn and quartered which I hear can take a while, but I didn't know the Church of England canonized him as well. I wonder if that was around the time the Brits were itching to get into the EU?

Beheading was for the elite because (as long as it went well) it hurt less. Anne Boleyn was sentenced to be burned or beheaded at Henry VII's pleasure after supposedly screwing around on him. Hank went for the head. Drawing and quartering was usually the punishment for treason. It was painful and degrading. You might be castrated first if the executioner was in the mood. Then you'd be hanged by the neck until not quite dead. And then, hey, let's see what those abdominal organs look like! And there was other nasty stuff. Anyone who tried to poison anybody important could look forward to a long afternoon of being repeatedly dipped in a pool of boiling water until finally left for soup (they had a special machine for it). So it's not like the traitors and heretics had all the fun.

I don't know why the Church of England made More a saint. My guess is that it was to be nice and get people to like them. The C of E has been steadily giving up the ship for some years now. I wonder if they will cast More back into hell now that Wolf Hall is popular. Christian churches never cease to amaze me.

Speaking of which, was the movie you saw A Man for All Seasons, which portrays More as an earnest and principled scholar done to death by diabolical court schemers, or Wolf Hall (actually a miniseries), in which he is more of a Tudor Uriah Heep: creepy, fanatical, and dangerous? The last time I saw A Man for All seasons I didn't think it had aged well (though Orson Wells is still cool as Wolsey). But Wolf Hall is a memorable production, and the two books (so far) are even better.

I'm still thinking about your comments on subjectivity and objectivity. I wonder if they could be applied to my distinction between zoe (life) and psyche (personality or soul). Perhaps objectivity is what makes God unknowable. Perhaps it is what happens to us when the animal body and brain die. It would be an elegant solution to the problem of death, although not one I think many would welcome.

[ennison]

I've been away a few days and you're all still on this. Jeez!

[YesNo]

I don't know why the Church of England made More a saint. My guess is that it was to be nice and get people to like them. The C of E has been steadily giving up the ship for some years now. I wonder if they will cast More back into hell now that Wolf Hall is popular. Christian churches never cease to amaze me.

I can see why Catholics might have been tempted to canonize Thomas More, but not the Church of England. Atheists like to portray Christians as mentally challenged, but when Christians canonize a-holes like both Catholics and Protestants did, it makes me think that those atheists, in spite of everything, are not entirely wrong about everything.



Speaking of which, was the movie you saw A Man for All Seasons, which portrays More as an earnest and principled scholar done to death by diabolical court schemers, or Wolf Hall (actually a miniseries), in which he is more of a Tudor Uriah Heep: creepy, fanatical, and dangerous? The last time I saw A Man for All seasons I didn't think it had aged well (though Orson Wells is still cool as Wolsey). But Wolf Hall is a memorable production, and the two books (so far) are even better.

I saw "A Man for All Seasons" about 15 years ago, however, that was after reading Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller", and so I had little sympathy for the main character: he got better than he deserved.



I'm still thinking about your comments on subjectivity and objectivity. I wonder if they could be applied to my distinction between zoe (life) and psyche (personality or soul). Perhaps objectivity is what makes God unknowable. Perhaps it is what happens to us when the animal body and brain die. It would be an elegant solution to the problem of death, although not one I think many would welcome.

The subjectivity-objectivity ideas come from applying ideas from an introductory book on phenomenology and existentialism to Whitehead and Russell's "Principia Mathematica" keeping in mind Godel's proof of the incompleteness or inconsistency of that project. That probably doesn't help explain my point, but because of that I view the objective as "idolatrous" if it attempts to "completely" and "consistently" replace our subjectivity. That objective idolatry could be a text taken too literally, an authority structure believed to be infallible or a computer into which some future rocket scientist may be deluded enough to try to download our consciousness.

[Jackson Richardson]

So just to be clear, JR, is it your position that Biblical literalism was normative in Christian Europe prior to the Reformation, and that it was not mutually exclusive from interpretive analysis? If not, could you refer me to the specific doctrine that establishes the orthodoxy of the point?


Pre 1500 there was a very different world view in which there were no clear boundaries between the scientific and the symbolic – think of Dante. No doubt the Bible was believed to be literally true, but it was not necessarily the most important aspect. And it would not have been Biblical literalism as understood by some modern American evangelicals which is consciously in opposition to widely held views.

On consideration, Biblical literalism is irrelevant to Red Terror’s OP. There was a census, then there was a plague. Red Terror’s (understandable) criticism is of the theological view that God caused the plague because of the census.

It is a view of God that is inconsistent with the understanding of God in much of the Hebrew Scriptures (eg Isaiah or Hosea) let alone the Christian New Testament.

The C of E does not canonise saints. The date of Thomas More’s martyrdom is in the current calendar as an optional commemoration with no specific liturgical material provided

[Pompey Bum]

I've been away a few days and you're all still on this. Jeez!

Would you rather we made impressive-looking lists of books we all read 20 years ago (again). :)

[Pompey Bum]

I can see why Catholics might have been tempted to canonize Thomas More, but not the Church of England. Atheists like to portray Christians as mentally challenged, but when Christians canonize a-holes like both Catholics and Protestants did, it makes me think that those atheists, in spite of everything, are not entirely wrong about everything.

Protestants don't canonize saints, YesNo. The C of E has them just the same. JR and I discuss this briefly below.


I saw "A Man for All Seasons" about 15 years ago, however, that was after reading Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller", and so I had little sympathy for the main character: he got better than he deserved.

The men who prosecuted More was Thomas Cromwell, the hero of Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall novels. (Spoiler alert for the not-yet-published The Mirror and the Light). Cromwell followed Moore to the block a few years later. I remember the theater exploding in applause when that detail was given in the epilogue of A Man for All Seasons. And when Mantel's book (finally) comes out, hearts are going to break.
People are always confusing art for history (and history for historicity). In this case I find it a little funny.


The subjectivity-objectivity ideas come from applying ideas from an introductory book on phenomenology and existentialism to Whitehead and Russell's "Principia Mathematica" keeping in mind Godel's proof of the incompleteness or inconsistency of that project.

That probably doesn't help explain my point, but because of that I view the objective as "idolatrous" if it attempts to "completely" and "consistently" replace our subjectivity.

No, I think understand. It strikes me also that religious orthodoxies could be regarded as idolatrous insofar as formal doctrine/dogma replaces our subjective experience of the object divine.

[Pompey Bum]

No doubt the Bible was believed to be literally true, but it was not necessarily the most important aspect.

Thank you for clarifying your position and thank you for the above concession of sorts.


The C of E does not canonise saints. The date of Thomas More’s martyrdom is in the current calendar as an optional commemoration with no specific liturgical material provided

Please note that I did not say they canonized him (how could they?) But the calendar to which you refer--the one on which More was placed in the 1980s--is the the Church of England's Calendar of Saints and Heroes of the Christian Church, right? And that is pretty ironic given the history, right?

[YesNo]

It strikes me also that religious orthodoxies could be regarded as idolatrous insofar as formal doctrine/dogma replaces our subjective experience of the object divine.

Orthodoxies could, but they don't have to be. There is no way for anyone to create an real idol. All idols are false. That is, there is no way for someone to create a computer into which they could download our consciousness. The problem with the idol (or that computer) is the dehumanizing belief that it has been successfully constructed.

I'm also relieved to find out that the Church of English doesn't actually or officially canonize stuff. I was beginning to have one of those moments of shock like when I heard for the first time about the Big Bang or when I heard that no one actually went to the Moon during the Apollo missions.

[Pompey Bum]

I'm also relieved to find out that the Church of English doesn't actually or officially canonize stuff.

Don't be too relieved. It still formally affirms a torturer and persecutor as a saint and hero of the Christian Church.

[YesNo]

That spell of words creating a halo around Thomas More makes me think it is just begging to be broken.

[Jackson Richardson]

There is irony in the scripture by the apostle Paul when he says in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
[/URL]


I’ve just been reading Chaucer’s The Nun’s Priest’s Tale in the Canterbury Tales in which is quoted this same text from the Letter to Timothy (which scholarship for the last century or so would attribute to a writer far less subtle and imaginative than Paul).

For seint Paul seith, that al that writen is,
To our doctryne it is y-write, y-wis.
Taketh the fruyt, and lat the chaf be stille.


The ghastly passage from 2 Samuel strikes me as an obvious example of ( very nasty) chaf. Even the version in Chronicles had to tone it down.

[Pompey Bum]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is often cited by Biblical literalists as proof that the New Testament was divinely inspired. But since the author was writing before the texts that ended up in the New Testament had been selected and canonized as Scripture, he could not have been talking about them. Rather he is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures--and possibly to the translation his community used (the Septuagint), which was reputed to have been divinely inspired. The author does not say Scripture, of course, but ypaphn ("writing"), which can be used synonymously with Septuagint in Koine* But it cannot mean New Testament because at the time there was no New Testament as such.

Of course the literalist claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 provides a "proof text" that the letter (with the rest of the NT) is "from God"' and therefore infallible is absurd on the face of it. It is as if I were to say: "Everything Pompey Bum says so is from God and therefore infallible. Why? Because this post by Pompey Bum says so, and of course everything Pompey Bum says is from God and therefore infallible. But the text is not making such a ridiculous claim, even if some Christians do. And for the record, Pompey Bum's opinions are as fallible as the Bible.

*This idea was suggested to me by Helmut Koester, the well-known Biblical scholar and student of the great Rudolph Bultmann (I was a friend of Koester's daughter).

[Red Terror]

Not long after Jesus's death, the apostle Paul counseled total obedience to the state (the very Roman state that had crucified his savior), claiming in Romans 13.1 that "The powers that be are ordained by God." Since there exists no authority save by the act of God, it follows that those who do not submit to earthly rulers are in effect resisting celestial authority "and shall receive to themselves damnation." Preaching while that homicidal autocrat, Nero, was sitting on the throne, Paul assures his followers that the ruler is both virtuous and benign, working for the good of all and ready to punish evildoers. He deserves obedience not only out of fear "but also for conscience sake" "for he is the minister of God." So should people "render tribute" (taxes) to the authorities, for they do God's service. Soon after this, at the instigation of a rival Christian faction, Paul himself [along with Peter and a number of other Christians] is said to have been arrested and executed by the divinely-ordained secular authorities.

By Dr. Michael Parenti, History As Mystery


Romans 13:1-7 (New International Version)
Submission to the Authorities

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

The divine right of kings!!!!! Indeed this is where it started, eh??? Or was it with King Saul in the
Old Testament???? Saul or Paul???



I’ve just been reading Chaucer’s The Nun’s Priest’s Tale in the Canterbury Tales in which is quoted this same text from the Letter to Timothy (which scholarship for the last century or so would attribute to a writer far less subtle and imaginative than Paul).

For seint Paul seith, that al that writen is,
To our doctryne it is y-write, y-wis.
Taketh the fruyt, and lat the chaf be stille.


The ghastly passage from 2 Samuel strikes me as an obvious example of ( very nasty) chaf. Even the version in Chronicles had to tone it down.

[YesNo]

What are your suggestions, Red Terror, for improvement?

[ennison]

Poor old Saul. Getting the blame for the divine right of bloody kings. Yes PB, I'd prefer lists of books read, even twenty years ago. I think Nero's older than that.

[prendrelemick]

I find the Jacob/Esau story immoral, rewarding theft and trickery.