The Tragedy of the So-Called “Discovery of Noah’s Ark”

A few days ago, an organization known as Noah’s Ark Ministries International announced they had found Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat. The announcement of the discovery produced an almost universal reaction. Hundreds of news reports, articles, and posts in blogs were published, a few of these hoping that the statement about the discovery was true, but most were skeptical about the group’s announcement that they had found the Ark.

I wrote two posts showing my skepticism about the so-called discovery of Noah’s Ark (here and here). I was also interviewed by a major newspaper and discussed the findings on a morning talk-show radio program. From the beginning I was skeptical about the findings and in the end, when the so-called discovery turned out to be a hoax, my skepticism proved to be true.

The reaction of many Christians to the news that the Ark had been found raises several problems related to Christian’s credibility and the claims of the Bible.

First, let’s review the claims of the Noah’s Ark Ministries International. This organization is in business to prove that Noah’s Ark really existed. According to a report in Time Magazine, Noah’s Ark Ministries International sponsors a theme park focused on the theme of Noah’s Ark. The theme park “houses a life-size replica of the ark, accompanied by models of animals on board as well as a vivid film depicting God's wrath at a sinful mankind and the flood he sent to wash it away.”

Right here, Noah’s Ark Ministries International’s claims of discovery raises an important question: was the discovery of Noah’s Ark a publicity stunt to attract visitors to the theme park?

Noah’s Ark Ministries International is in partnership with The Media Evangelism Limited. According to Robert Cargill, The Media Evangelism Limited is in the business of using the media to promote the Kingdom of God. It is this group that filmed the discovery of the Ark and the work of the explorers on Mount Ararat.

The most damaging factor that destroys the credibility of Noah’s Ark Ministries International is that they refuse to make the evidence available to the public. They say the reason for the secrecy is that they need to preserve the integrity of the site. In addition, they refuse to make the evidence available to archaeologists and other neutral observers who have the expertise to evaluate the findings.

The most damaging thing about the so-called discovery of Noah’s Ark is what it does for the credibility of Christians to try to show that the stories of the Bible are true by producing false evidence, by twisting the truth, and by explaining away historical and scientific evidence.

Do we have to find Noah’s Ark on top of Mount Ararat to prove that the Bible is the Word of God? Will the claims of the Bible be ridiculed if there is no Ark on top of Mount Ararat?

Christians want to believe so much that they want proof of the reliability and historicity of the Biblical stories. This is the reason many Christians are willing to accept claims of discovery without checking the reliability of the evidence.

Several people have claimed in the past to have found Noah’s Ark. Some of them have even claimed of having been inside the Ark and of having brought a piece of the wood to prove that the Ark is there. And yet, to this day, no one has really shown the Ark to the world.

Some people have claimed to have found the remains of Pharaoh’s chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea and yet, to this day, in spite of videos depicting the wheels of chariots, no one has shown the chariots to the world.

The faithful want to believe and people will provide the evidence, provided that enough money is raised to defray the expenses of the exploration and maintain the organizations that sponsor these explorations. In the end, it is money or fame or both that drive the search for Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Pharaoh’s Chariots, the Holy Grail, the Cross of Christ, and many other sacred relics.

But what will the secular world say about the credibility of Christians who accept any new discovery as a proof that the Bible is true? What happens when these claims prove to be a hoax, as the most recent discovery of Noah’s Ark demonstrates? The secular world becomes less and less willing to accept the claim of Christians and less prone to accept the claims of the Bible.

Again, I want to remind some Christians of the words of Christ. Some Christians are like Thomas who refused to believe that Christ had risen from the grave unless he saw the nail marks on his hands and put his fingers on Jesus’ wounds. The need to see and touch in order to believe is what drives people to Mount Ararat.

But Jesus said to Thomas: “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me” (John 20:29).

It would be nice to find Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat, but I truly believe that nothing is there. If the Ark were to be found on Mount Ararat, many people would find another reason not to believe the claims of the Bible. The truth is: any false claim of discovery does not help the cause of God. Christians do not need to find Noah’s Ark on top of Mount Ararat to know that the claims of God on human life are real.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Archaeology, Flood, Noah’ Ark, Bible, Mount Ararat

Ordaining Women

Tzvee’s Talmudic Blog has posted the following post:

Rabbi says Martyrdom is better than Ordaining a Woman Rabbi.

According to Orthodox Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a faculty member at Yeshiva University, martyrdom is preferable to ordaining a woman as a rabbi.

After hearing that inspiring message, the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America voted to pass this resolution: “...we cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title.”

No comment. I am just passing along this information.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Women, Ordination

Inside Noah’s Ark: A Hoax

In a previous post, I mentioned a news release in which a group of explorer announced that Noah’s Ark has been discovered. The group also provided a picture of someone inside the Ark.

Mike Heiser at PaeloBabble has an update on the discovery of Noah’s Ark. Mike has posted an email that contains a message from Randall Price, a professor at Liberty University, who was involved with the effort to discover Noah’s Ark.

The following is the email posted by Mike:

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

It is sad that some people use dishonesty in order to deceive people who have good intentions. Believers must be aware of charlatans who want to deceive them for a profit. It is at this time that believers must remember the words of Jesus: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

This is the reason I wrote in my previous post that I was skeptic about this discovery.

I want to thank Mike Heiser for the information above.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Noah’s Ark

Inside Noah’s Ark

Photo: Inside Noah's Ark



Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers have announced that they have found the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Below is an excerpt from the news release:

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah’s Ark.

The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah’s Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: “It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it.”

I have blogged several times announcing that Noah’s Ark has been discovered. I was skeptic then and I am skeptic now. However that person is who is inside of the Ark (in the picture above), he is not the first one to be inside Noah’s Ark and he will not be the last.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.


Tags: Archaeology, Noah’s Ark

Doing Mammon’s Work

Jesus said: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13).

The word “mammon” is used in the Bible to describe the love of money. The word is derived from a Mishnaic Hebrew word which means “money.” Thus, the word “mammon” is used in the Bible to describe money, wealth, and greed.

This is how many translations render the word “mammon”:

“You can’t be slaves to both God and money” (Luke16:13 HCSB).
“You cannot serve God and wealth” (Luke 16:13 NRSV).
“You cannot serve God and riches” (Luke 16:13 Webster).

Jesus used the word “mammon” in the Gospel of Luke to personify the intense love of money. Thus, mammon is personified as a false god whom one serves when one is trying to enrich himself through the dishonest acquisition of wealth.

The truth of Jesus’ words is clearly seen in the results of the financial meltdown that affected banks in the USA and around the world. Banks and their CEOs are being accused of fraud and deception. The Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Goldman Sachs is a case in point.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman accusing the financial institution “of creating a complex financial product designed to fail and selling it to unknowing investors.” In addition, “Goldman has been accused of a range of misdeeds, including manipulating oil prices and using taxpayer money for handsome bonuses.”

Writing for the Observer (UK), Will Hutton discusses the truth behind the financial meltdown and the role Goldman Sachs played in it. He wrote:

The global financial crisis, it is now clear, was caused not just by the bankers' colossal mismanagement. No, it was due also to the new financial complexity offering up the opportunity for widespread, systemic fraud. Friday's announcement that the world's most famous investment bank, Goldman Sachs, is to face civil charges for fraud brought by the American regulator is but the latest of a series of investigations that have been launched, arrests made and charges made against financial institutions around the world.

Beneath the complexity, the charges are all rooted in the same phenomenon - deception. Somebody, somewhere, was knowingly fooled by banks and bankers - sometimes governments over tax, sometimes regulators and investors over the probity of balance sheets and profits and sometimes, as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says in Goldman's case, by creating a scheme to enrich one favoured investor at the expense of others - including, via RBS, the British taxpayer. Along the way there is a long list of so-called "entrepreneurs" and "innovators" who were offered loans that should never have been made. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's CEO, remarked only semi-ironically that his bank was doing God's work [emphasis mine]. He must wake up every day bitterly regretting the words ever emerged from his mouth.

I hate to disagree with Lloyd Blankfein. He was not doing “God’s work.” He was doing “Mammon’s work.”

“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have . . . pierced themselves with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:10).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Money, Mammon

Who Went Back to the City?

The book of Ruth presents a beautiful story of unselfish love. The book narrates the story of two widows who lost their husbands and became destitute. Ruth and Naomi became widows in the land of Moab and then returned to Bethlehem, the birthplace of Naomi.

The book is also a love story. It is the story of Ruth the Moabite widow who decided to leave her country and follow her mother-in-law Naomi to Bethlehem. Upon their return, Ruth met a rich man whose name was Boaz, a prominent man who was also a landowner in Bethlehem.

The love affair between Ruth and Boaz began when Ruth came to glean in the field that belonged to Boaz. When Boaz came to inspect his workers during the harvest of barley, he saw Ruth and took an interest in her.

Boaz had heard what Ruth had done for her mother-in-law and how she had decided to follow Naomi and come to Bethlehem after the death of her husband. Boaz was so impressed by Ruth selflessness that he decided to help her.

At the end of the day, when she finished gathering what she had threshed, she returned to Naomi and gave to her mother-in-law some of the food that was left over from the food she received from Boaz. Ruth worked in Boaz’s field until the end of the barley and the wheat harvests.

At the end of the harvest, Naomi realized that Ruth should marry Boaz, since he was a close relative and the family’s goel, a kinsman redeemer. So, Naomi told Ruth to dress up, put some perfume, go to the threshing floor, and spend the night there.

That night, after Boaz finished eating, he came to the threshing floor and went to sleep. Ruth slept by his side. In the middle of the night, Boaz awoke and realized that Ruth was by his side. He told her to stay there with him until morning. In the morning, Boaz gave Ruth six measures of barley and then someone went back to the city.

But, who went back to the city? It depends on what translation you read.

The Revised Standard Version reads:

“And [Boaz] said, ‘Bring the mantle you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and laid it upon her; then she went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 RSV, emphasis mine).

The New Revised Standard Version reads:

“Then [Boaz] said, ‘Bring the cloak you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and put it on her back; then he went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 NRSV, emphasis mine).

The versions disagree on who went back to the city. The following versions agree with the Revised Standard Version and say that Ruth went back to the city:

The Bible in Basic English, Complete Jewish Bible, Douay-Rheims, English Standard Version, Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh, King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New King James Version, and the Webster Bible.

The following versions agree with the New Revised Standard Version and say that Boaz went back to the city:

American Standard Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Darby Bible, English Revised Version, God’s Word for the Nation, NET Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible,New International Version, New Living Translation, Today’s NIV, and the Young’s Literal Translation.

Why such a discrepancy? Why do the versions differ on their translation? The reason is that several Hebrew manuscripts have the masculine form of the verb, “he went back to the city,” while many other manuscripts have the feminine form of the verb, “she went back the city.” In addition, the feminine reading is supported by the Syriac version and by the Vulgate.

One reason to follow the feminine and say that it was Ruth who returned back to the city is that the context seems to indicate that what follows is what Ruth did after she returned to the city. Here is how verse 15 reads and how verse 16 begins:

15 And [Boaz] said, "Bring the mantle you are wearing and hold it out." So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and laid it upon her; then she went into the city.

16 And when she came to her mother-in-law . . . (Ruth 3:15-16 RSV).

Thus, it seems that it was Ruth who returned back to the city.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


NOTE: If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog here: Subscription

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Ruth, Boaz, Naomi

The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 3

Read Part 1: The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - The Deuteronomic Law

Read Part 2: The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - The Woman’s Action


This is my third and last post on the Deuteronomic law that appears in Deuteronomy 25:11-12, the only Biblical law requiring the amputation of a woman’s hand for touching and seizing a man’s sexual organs.

In my first post I dealt with the Biblical law and its talionic principle and how the law is related to the Middle Assyrian Law § 8. The Assyrian law requires that a woman’s finger be cut off for crushing a man’s testicle during a quarrel.

In my second post I dealt with the woman’s action. According to the text, a woman intervened in a fight between her husband and another man. In order to give her husband an advantage in the struggle, the woman grabbed the private parts of her husband’s adversary, thus aiding her husband and probably saving his life.

In this final post I will focus on the severe punishment of the woman for what could be considered a justifiable intervention in the fight. The issue is whether the punishment was talionic and whether it involved the amputation of the woman’s hand.

1. Talionic

There are several ways of interpreting this difficult text. The traditional interpretation, which is accepted by most scholars, says that the woman intervened in a struggle between her husband and an assailant by assaulting the man and grabbing his genitals, thus causing irreparable damage to the man and rendering him incapable of siring children. As a punishment for her action, the woman’s hand was amputated for the physical damage she caused to the man. Her punishment is viewed as an application of the lex talionis.

If the Deuteronomic law is talionic, then the law implies that the woman injured her husband’s assailant and that she permanently damaged the man’s genitals and as punishment she received a permanent punishment. This form of punishment assumes a talionic punishment, that is, that the woman’s punishment mirrors the man’s injury.

Jeffrey Tigay said that the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text is that the law allowed the woman (or her husband) to pay a monetary fine equal to the value of the woman's hand rather than to impose the amputation of her hand. It is possible that a monetary compensation developed in Israel where the payment of fines would compensate a person in cases involving physical injury and where the law demanded corporeal punishment or mutilation.

This is the view expressed by a reader who left a comment in Part 2. He wrote:

Important to note the Rabbinical explanation of וקצותה is in line with the punishment of other physical damages, and refers only to a monetary fine. This case deals specifically with a case where there was no physical damage, only emotional pain i.e. shame.

However, this view is not supported by the Biblical evidence. The word קַצֹּתָה appears several times in the Bible and in all occurrences it carries the meaning of “cutting”: “cutting hair” (Jeremiah 9:25; 25:23), “cut off hands and feet” (2 Samuel 4:12), and “cutting thumbs and big toes” (Judges 1:7). In none of these occurrences is monetary compensation implied or present in the text.

2. Shame

The Biblical text, however, does not say that the man suffered physical injury or that he suffered any harm. It only says that the woman interfered in a fight between her husband and another man in order to give her husband temporary advantage against his adversary. If it is true that no physical harm occurred, then the punishment of the woman was disproportionate to the harm caused to the man since she only disabled her husband’s attacker temporarily. Thus, while the man suffered no physical injury, the woman would be punished with an irreversible surgical procedure.

For this reason, several authors have argued against the talionic nature of this law based on the fact that since the law does not say that the man was injured, then the principle of retaliation does not apply to this case. Under this view, the woman’s punishment was that because she shamed the man by grabbing his private parts, the woman would bear a permanent shame by going through life with her hand amputated. Thus, the harshness of her punishment was because of the shameful action of grabbing a man’s genitals.

The severity of the punishment then must be understood in the context of shame. The woman’s action brought shame on the man whose genitals were touched, brought shame on her husband who won the fight with the help of a woman, and brought shame on herself for violating the sexual mores of Israelite society.

3. Genitals

Another interpretation of the woman’s punishment was proposed by Lyle Eslinger. His interpretation is based on the use of two different words for “hand.” The word used to identify the hand that grabbed the man’s genitals is yad (“hand” v. 11) while the word used to describe the woman’s punishment is kaph (“hand” v. 12). Comparing the word kaph in Deuteronomy 25:12 with the use of the word in Genesis 32:26, 33 and Song of Songs 5:5, Eslinger wrote that the word is used to describe a man’s or woman’s sexual organ. Thus, Eslinger concluded that the punishment inflicted on the woman was not the severing of her hand, but some form of genital mutilation. Thus, he concluded that the Deuteronomic law was talionic because the woman caused permanent damage to the man.

Eslinger’s interpretation has been rejected by scholars. He used the practice of female circumcision in Egypt and Africa as evidence for his views. However, there is no evidence that female circumcision occurred in Israel or in Mesopotamia.

4. Shaving

Another interpretation of the punishment in Deuteronomy 25: 12 was proposed by Jerome Walsh. Walsh contends that Deuteronomy 25:12 should be translated “you shall shave the hair of her groin.”

Walsh’s view argues that the woman’s punishment would be a public dishonoring of the woman for publicly shaming the man. Thus, in his view, the punishment would be an application of the lex talionis since she shamed the man by touching his genitals. The view that the woman’s punishment was public depilation reduces the severity of her punishment from mutilation, a punishment that is irreversible, to one of temporary shame.

In the Hebrew Bible, exposing the genitals was an act of humiliating prisoners of war. Exposing a person’s genitals appears in Isaiah 3:17; 20:4; and Ezekiel 16:37. In Isaiah 7:20 the King of Assyria will humiliate the people of Judah by shaving “the hair of the feet,” that is, the people’s pubic hair as a way of humiliating them. Although exposing the genitals was an act of humiliation, there is no evidence that the Deuteronomic legislation requires public shaving of the genitals.

5. Deterrence

My view of this Deuteronomic law is that this punishment was never applied in ancient Israel. I believe that the law was intended as a deterrent, that is, the law intended to prevent this kind of action on the part of an Israelite woman. This implies that the law proposes to impose a severe punishment on such a shameful behavior in case this occurred in Israel. Thus, the Deuteronomic legislators were writing a law whose purpose was to deter the shameful act of a married woman touching the genitals of a man other than her husband.

My view is similar to Wilson’s. Wilson wrote: “The law is written in the most extreme language possible to provide the greatest deterrent” (p. 234). By imposing a severe threat and subjecting a woman to a shameful existence, the law presupposes that such an act will never occur in Israel.

There is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible that mutilation was performed in compliance with this law. The view that the law was written as a deterrence may explain the reason no mutilation of women is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. This means that this problem probably never arose in Israel and that the punishment was never inflicted on a woman. So, it is probable that a woman, aware of the legal consequences of grabbing a man’s genital, would avoid such an act. Wilson wrote: “If a law could be formulated in such a way that contemplation of the consequences of violating the law was sufficiently dreadful, then there would be no occasion to enforce the law” (p. 234).

My view of this Deuteroniomic law may not solve all the problems related to the proper interpretation of the text, but it probably may explain why a book that was so concerned with improving the status of women in Israelite society enacted such a severe punishment on a woman whose intention was not so evil.

WORKS CONSULTED

Marc Cortez , ” The Law on Violent Intervention: Deuteronomy 25.11-12 Revisited," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (2006): 431-447.

G.R. Driver and John C. Miles (eds ), The Assyrian Laws. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935.

John H. Elliott, “Deuteronomy- Shameful Encroachment on Shameful Parts: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 and Biblical Euphemism,” in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2006.

Lyle Eslinger, “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy XXV 11-12,” Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 269-281.

Theophile J. Meek, “Middle Assyrian Law,’ in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Jeffrey Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996.

Jerome T. Walsh, “‘You Shall Cut Off Her.. . Palm’? A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 25:11-12,” Journal of Semitic Studies 49 (2004): 47-58.

P. Eddy Wilson, Deuteronomy XXV 11-12—One for the Books,” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 220-235.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

NOTICE: If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog here: Subscription


Tags: Hebrew Bible, Amputation, Lex Talionis, Mutitalion, Women

Showing Partiality

Leviticus 19:15 reads: “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.”

This Levitical law shows that God is concerned with the righteous treatment of each person, whether that person is rich or poor. God warned the people of Israel not to violate the rights of the poor and those less fortunate individuals who were deprived of material wealth. However, God also warned the Israelites not to violate the rights of the rich. Justice for individuals, whether rich or poor, can be perverted when one group of people is treated with the kind of partiality that deprives the other group of the rights which belong to them.

In his commentary on Leviticus, S. H. Kellogg (The Book of Leviticus [New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1901], p. 400) wrote an observation on this Levitical law that is very relevant to American society today. Kellogg wrote:

A plain warning lies here for an increasing class of reformers in our day, who loudly express their special concern for the poor, but who in their zeal for social reform and the diminishing of poverty are forgetful of righteousness and equity. It applies, for instance, to all who would affirm and teach with Marx that “capital is robbery” or who, not yet quite ready for so plain and candid words, yet would, in any way, in order to right the wrongs of the poor, advocate legislation involving practical confiscation of the estates of the rich.

These words, first written in 1899, have a powerful message for our society today.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Leviticus 19:15, Partiality, Poor, Rich

The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 2

Read The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 1


In my previous post I introduced the Deuteronomic law that requires the amputation of a woman’s hand for touching the private parts of a man. Scholars agree that Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is the only law in the Hebrew Bible that specifically requires mutilation as a punishment.

In part 1 of my study, I dealt with the Biblical law, how it relates to the lex talionis, and how it parallels Assyrian Middle Law § 8. In part 2 of the study I will focus on the action of the woman. What did the woman do to deserve such a harsh punishment from the society in which she lived? In part 3 of the study, I will focus on the punishment she received.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 reads: “When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.”

The first step in understanding the action of the woman is to examine the meaning of the Hebrew word מְבֻשִׁ֤ים. The word mebušîm is a hapax legomenon, that is, the word appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.

The word mebušîm derives from a Hebrew word meaning “shame,” or “be ashamed.” The word is generally translated as “private parts” or “genitals” but it also could be translated as “shameful things” or “shameful parts.” However, the word מְבֻשִׁ֤ים itself does not indicate which part of the body causes shame. Commentators generally understand the word to be a euphemism for the male genitals.

The Septuagint seems to indicate that the woman’s attack was against the man’s testicles. The Septuagint translates the word מְבֻשִׁ֤ים as των διδὑμων, “the twins.” This expression is also a euphemism for the man’s two testicles.

The Deuteronomic law deals with a woman who became involved in a conflict between her husband and another man. She became involved in order to prevent injury to her husband, or possibly even his death at the hands of his adversary. Thus, in order to save her husband from his assailant, the woman grabbed the assailant’s genitals while the man’s back was turned.

What was the intension of the woman by grabbing the genitals of her husband’s opponent? Was her action an intentional act of momentarily disabling him in order to give an advantage to her husband? Or was the action aimed at maiming the assailant by damaging his testicles or permanently emasculating him? Or was she simply trying to disable the assailant and free her husband from the hold of his opponent?

One could argue that the woman intervened in the struggle because her husband was losing the fight or because he was in danger of losing his life and she made an attempt at saving her husband’s life by grabbing the assailant’s genitals. If the woman was trying to save her husband’s life or help him avoid serious bodily harm, it is difficult to understand the reason for the severe punishment inflicted on the woman. So, the question becomes: “Was her action justified?”

There are different ways of understanding what the woman did and the consequences of her action. One possible consequence of her action was that by grabbing the private parts of the assailant, the woman severely injured the man and damaged his testicles, and as a result, the man became unable to sire children.

The Deuteronomic law then presupposes that the damage was irreversible, thus the decree that the woman’s hand be cut off to mirror the irreversibility of the man’s injury. This interpretation asserts that the lex talionis applies in this situation.

The talionic principle requires a mirroring of the offense. Thus, if the law is taken at face value, then the law assumes that the woman damaged the assailant’s genitals causing permanent injury. However, the law does not give any indication that the man was hurt and that his private parts suffered any damage. What the text says is that the woman tried to defend her husband against his attacker and that she tried to help her husband who presumably was losing the fight. Thus, by her action, the woman was able to incapacitate the assailant and help her husband overcome the attacker and give her husband an advantage in the struggle.

Another way of understanding the woman’s action is to affirm that the woman grabbed the man’s genitals but that there was no physical damage to the man. If there was no physical injury to the attacker, then the talionic principle would not apply to this situation. If this is the case, then there would not be a parallel between the Deuteronomic formulation and the Assyrian law, since the Assyrian law explicitly says that the victim was injured and that there was damage caused by the attack.

Therefore, if there was no injury to the victim and no harm came out of the incident, the severe punishment of the woman reflects not a talionic principle, but a rejection of the woman’s sexual aggression and the offensive nature of the attack as a violation of social sexual mores present in the Israelite society.

Mores are social norms that when violated, result in extreme punishment. Negative mores are taboos which are generally supported by religious or legal sanctions. Most mores or social norms are related to behavior related to sex, the family, or religion.

The sexual norms in Israelite society declared that sexual contact between a married woman and a man other than her husband was absolutely forbidden. Thus, the punishment required by the violation of these sexual norms emphasizes the gravity of the offense of a married woman initiating sexual contact with another man.

Another way of understanding this law is that the language of the law should be taken literally, that is, the woman intervened in a fight between her husband and an assailant in order to assist her husband in a struggle by grabbing the private parts of her husband’s opponent. The punishment for the offense was amputation of the woman’s hand. This view then recognizes that the action of the woman was very offensive and deserved a severe punishment.

However, if the woman’s action did not cause permanent injury to the man struggling with her husband, then it becomes difficult to understand the disproportionate severity of the punishment of the Deuteronomic law. If by her action the woman helped her husband by briefly disabling the man attacking her husband, why then was the woman subject to an irreversible procedure of mutilation of her hand? If there was no injury to the man, then the man would recover from the woman’s attack but the woman would not be able to recover from the severe punishment imposed by the law.

It is possible then to understand that the action of the woman violated a culture of shame and that the law was designed to deter women from touching a man’s genitals and forbidding women from doing such a shameful thing. The law then was aimed at detering this kind of shameful action. The law implies that even at a time when her husband needs help, a wife was not allowed to grab the genitals of another man. The woman’s action was a violation of the man’s honor since a man’s genitals were a sign of his honor and masculinity.

If the Deuteronomic law deals with the issue of shame, then this law is addressing an act that brings shame on the man who was attacked by a woman. The woman’s action would also bring shame on her husband and on her as a woman.

To be the loser in a fight was shameful in itself, but to lose a fight because a woman interfered by grabbing his genitals was a shame that a man could not bear. Such an act would bring intense shame for that man in a patriarchal community.

The woman’s act would bring shame on the husband because he won the fight because his wife grabbed his opponent’s genitals. The action would bring shame on the woman because she violated the sexual norms of her society by touching the genitals of a man who was not her husband.

In my next post I will deal with the nature of the woman’s punishment.

Next: “ The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 3.”

Note: Full bibliographical information will be provided in the last post on this series.

Note: If you can not see the Hebrew and the Greek characters in this post, download the Biblical fonts here and install them in your computer.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.


Tags: Hebrew Bible, Amputation, Lex Talionis, Mutitalion, Women

Rape in the Hebrew Bible

Fortress Press has published a book by Susanne Scholz titled Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Rape is one of those subject that some people are reluctant to discuss in public, but rape needs to be discussed because rape is a violation of a person’s body and a violation of a person’s right.

Forced sexual intercourse happens every day in our society, and it happened also in the land of the Bible. Sexual aggression against an individual is often committed on helpless and powerless women.

In her book Scholz deals with the legacy of acquaintance rape, such as the rape of Dinah and the incestuous rape of Tamar. She also deals with the rape of enslaved women such as Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah. Scholz's book studies many other cases of rape in the Hebrew Bible.

Scholz also studies Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern laws dealing with rape, with a section of the laws in Deuteronomy.

In promoting the book, Fortress Press includes a blurb for the book: “Susanne Scholz asks how we may read the wide range of rape texts in biblical literature in order to find some redemptive meaning for women, children, and men who have been injured by sexual violence and by ‘cultures of rape.’”

I have read the introduction and the first chapter of the book. I will include this book to my reading list. I will probably not be able to read the remainder of the book until this Summer. When I finish reading Scholz’s book, I will write a post on the content of the book.

Fortress Press has made portions of the book available to the public in PDF format.

Read the Table of Contents here.

Read the Introduction here.

Read Chapter 1 here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Rape, Dinah, Tamar, Susanne Scholz

The Death of Antony Flew

Photo: Antony Flew



Antony Flew, the former atheist, died on April 8, 2010, at the age of 87. Flew was a philosopher and a well-known atheist who debated Christians on whether there is a God. Flew wrote a very influential essay, “Theology and Falsification,” which he presented at the C. S. Lewis’s Socratic Club. His essay became the basis for atheists all over the world in their debate with Christians.

Below are excerpts taken from Flew’s obituary published by the Times Online. Throughout the obituary, the writer spelled Flew’s name with an “h” (Anthony), but his name was Antony Flew.

Anthony Flew was one of the best-known atheists of his generation but he finally repudiated the label. As an academic philosopher he subjected the question of God’s existence to careful, non-polemical analysis. When he declared himself a theist in his old age he annoyed many of his admirers — which might have been the intention.

He was educated at St Faith’s School, Cambridge and then Kingswood School in Bath. At 15 he was struck by the incompatibility of divine omnipotence and the existence of evil, and lost his faith. He later identified this as the first step towards his career as a philosopher. His study of that subject was delayed by the war; he studied Japanese and served as an intelligence officer in the RAF.

In the 1960s he became well known for his atheism, speaking in public debates with energy, clarity, and courtesy. In God and Philosophy (1966) he argued that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He developed this evidentialist approach in The Presumption of Atheism (1984). His atheist image is somewhat surprising, for by the standards of today’s public atheists he was far from zealous: he showed real interest in the arguments of believers, and respect for the cultural effects of religion. In 1987 he debated the resurrection of Jesus with the US theologian Gary Habermas, declaring that the evidence for the resurrection was much better than that for other Christian miracles but still did not convince him. He enjoyed religious discussions, not because he enjoyed rubbishing belief but because he thought it important that Christian tradition was carefully reflected on.

His conversion to theism was controversial. His writing on the subject was produced in co-operation with a circle of US Christians who were accused of exploiting Flew in his old age. Critics alleged that he allowed them to influence his thought and to write books and articles in his name. His final book was There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007).

Whatever the truth of such allegations, it is clear that Flew’s repudiation of atheism was heartfelt and seems to have been largely rooted in his dislike of polemical atheism. His own atheism was always cautious, nuanced and respectful of Christian tradition.

When Flew became a theist, he was urged by atheists not to change his views about God. In his book There Is a God, Flew describes what led him to the conclusion that there is a God.

I have written several posts on Antony Flew. Four of those posts were a review of his book, There Is a God. It is a book worth reading. If you have never read Flew’s book and his journey from atheism to theism, you will enjoy reading my posts. Below is a list of my posts on Antony Flew:

Antony Flew: There Is A God

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

There Is a God: A Postscript

An Interview with Antony Flew

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.

Tags: Atheism, Antony Flew, Theism,

The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 1

The laws in the book of Deuteronomy reflect the social and religious concerns present in Judean society in the seventh century B. C. These laws also reflect the rise of humanism in Israel. As I have written in previous posts (here and here), “Deuteronomy contains several new laws and many revisions of old ones dealing with the oppressed in Israel. These laws became necessary because of the changes brought by the monarchy and by the deterioration of the social structures in Israelite society.”

Several aspects of the Josianic reform affected women for the better. With the reformulation of Mosaic laws in the days of Josiah, women became the beneficiaries of the changes introduced by the social reforms of Deuteronomy. Several new laws were enacted in order to improve the social and religious status of women in Israelite society. These new laws promoted the dignity of women and brought them relief from some of the injustices allowed by older laws.

However, one law that seems to betray the humanistic effort of the Deuteronomic reform is the law dealing with the punishment of a woman who touches the private parts of a man. The law states:

“When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

The law requiring the mutilation of a woman’s hand in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is one of the most unique laws in the Hebrew Bible. This law is unique among the legal texts of the Hebrew Bible because, outside of the lex talionis, it is the only law that explicitly requires mutilation as a punishment for a crime committed by an Israelite.

Although this is the only law requiring mutilation in ancient Israel, mutilation was frequently prescribed in other Ancient Near Eastern laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and in Assyrian laws. The Code of Hammurabi prescribes amputation for a son who strikes his father: "If a son has struck his father, they shall cut off his hand" (ΑΝΈΤ, p. 175).

The harsh punishment required by the Deuteronomic law raises many questions about the action of the woman and the nature of the injury the man suffered. Among the many questions raised in the interpretation of the text is the nature of the offense. What did the woman do that required such a severe punishment? If the wife was forced to intervene to save her husband’s life, should she in turn be punished by losing her hand? Does the law require that the punishment be literally applied or could the punishment be mitigated by the payment of a penalty?

The harshness of the punishment is heightened by the exhortation that in carrying out the punishment, the executioner should show no pity. This exhortation may signify that the sentencing of the woman could not be mitigated by the payment of a fine.

The punishment demanded by this law is similar to punishments prescribed in the lex talionis, the law of retaliation. The lex talionis formula appears in three places in the Hebrew Bible:

“If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21:23-25).

“When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured” (Leviticus 24:19-20).

“Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21).

The law dealing with a woman who grabs a man’s private parts has been considered talionic by some scholars because the punishment is consistent with the requirements of the law of retaliation since the woman’s action caused physical damage to the man’s genitals.

Other scholars reject the view that the Deuteronomic law reflects the talionic principle because there is no reference to injury in the text. The lex talionis can only be invoked when there is physical injury. The person inflicting the injury is punished with the same injury as the injured person received.

Another issue of debate among scholars is the reason for the harsh punishment for the infraction. It is possible that the writer of Deuteronomy, faced with a unique situation in Israelite society, used an Assyrian law that was probably known in the seventh century, at the time the Deuteronomic law was enacted, a law that dealt with a similar case.

Many scholars agree that the Deuteronomic law has a parallel with an Assyrian law that addresses the case of a woman grabbing a man’s testicles. The law available to the Deuterononomist was a law found in Middle Assyrian Law. The Middle Assyrian Law § 8 (ANET, p. 181) says:

"If a woman has crushed a seignior’s testicles in a brawl, they shall cut off one finger of hers, and if the other testicle has become affected along with it by catching the infection even though a physician has bound (it) up, or she has crushed the other testicle in the brawl, they shall tear out both her [. . . ]."

Since the Deuteronomic law requires the mutilation of the woman’s hand, some scholars believe that there was some kind of physical injury to the man. Thus, the primary reason for the severe punishment required by the law was because, by grabbing the man’s private parts, the woman caused physical injury to the man, thus preventing the injured man from siring children.

The problem of associating the Deuteronomic legislation with the Assyrian law is that if the man lost one or both testicles in the fight and became unable to sire children, then it is difficult to understand how the cutting of the woman’s hand would be comparable to the man’s loss of his testicles, since the talionic law requires the punishment to be comparable to the injury inflicted. The punishment inflicted upon the woman, the amputation of her hand, is not equal to the man’s injury, the loss of his testicles.

Although there are similarities between the Deuteronomic law and the Assyrian law, there are also many differences. One problem is that the law in Deuteronomy does not say that there was physical injury to the assailant’s sexual organ. Another problem is that the Assyrian law requires the loss of one finger if one testicle was damaged. However, the Assyrian law is not clear what the punishment will be when both testicles are damaged. The lacuna in the Assyrian law requires that two items from the woman be removed. Theophile Meeks (in ANET) says “both eyes.” Driver (in Assyrian Laws) suggests “both breasts.”

One benefit in comparing the two laws is the fact that the harsh punishment required by the Deuteronomic law was not unique in the Ancient Near East. The Deuteronomic law demonstrates that there was a common legal tradition in the Ancient Near East where similar punishments were required for similar crimes.

In my next post I will review the intent of the law. What did the woman do that caused her to be punished so severely? What action is this law in Deuteronomy seeking to address? And why the amputation of the woman’s hand, rather than the amputation of her fingers, as it was required in the Assyrian laws?

In part three of this series, I will study the lex talionis and how it is related to the punishment of the woman and whether the punishment was carried out literally.

Next: “ The Mutilation of Women in the Hebrew Bible - Part 2.”

Note: Full bibliographical information will be provided in the last post on this series.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Hebrew Bible, Amputation, Lex Talionis, Mutitalion, Women

Bruce K. Waltke Resigns Over the Issue of Evolution

Bruce K. Waltke, a distinguished evangelical scholar and a (former) professor of Old Testament at the Reformed Theological Seminary, has been forced to resign because he said that evangelical Christians can believe in evolution without denying the teachings of the Bible.

The issue has been all over the blogsphere. Below, I introduce a long excerpt from an article written by Scott Jaschik and published in USA Today:

When it comes to incriminating videos these days, the one of Bruce K. Waltke might seem pretty tame. It shows the noted evangelical scholar of the Old Testament talking about scholarship, faith and evolution. What was incriminating? He not only endorsed evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.

"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was — until this week — a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)

The statements so upset officials of the seminary that Waltke had to ask the BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes the idea that science and faith need not be incompatible, to remove it from its website (which the foundation did) and to post a clarification. The video was shot during a BioLogos workshop. But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.

Waltke is a big enough name in evangelical theology that the incident is prompting considerable soul-searching. On the one hand, his public endorsement of the view that believing in evolution and being a person of faith are not incompatible was significant for those who, like the BioLogos Foundation, support such a view. Waltke's scholarly and religious credentials in Christian theology were too strong for him to be dismissed easily.

But the fact that his seminary did dismiss him is viewed as a sign of just how difficult it may be for scholars at some institutions to raise issues involving science that are not 100% consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"I think it's a really sad situation, even if this isn't the first time a scholar at a religious institution has been released for unorthodox views," said Michael Murray, vice president for philosophy and theology at the John Templeton Foundation, which supports BioLogos and other efforts to bridge science and religion.

Waltke could not be reached for comment on the situation. He did issue a joint statement with the head of BioLogos in which he stood behind the substance of what he said in the video, but also said that he wished he could have provided more context, particularly his view that it is possible to believe in evolution and also believe in "in the inerrancy of Scripture."

Michael Milton, president of the seminary's Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would "undoubtedly" be considered one of the world's great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was "much beloved here," with his departure causing "heartache." But he said that there was no choice.

Milton said that the seminary allows "views to vary" about creation, describing the faculty members there as having "an eight-lane highway" on which to explore various routes to understanding. Giving an example, he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed, Milton said.

But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life) are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.

Asked if this limits academic freedom, Milton said: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view." Indeed he added that the problem with what Waltke said was as much his suggestion that religion will lose support over these issues as his statements about evolution itself. (The statement of faith at the seminary states: "Since the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God, it is the basis for the total curriculum.")

Given Waltke's role and reputation, Milton said that his resignation wasn't accepted on the spot. But after prayer on the question, Milton said, officials accepted the resignation.

Even before word of Waltke's resignation spread, his need to ask BioLogos to remove the video worried many Christian thinkers who want more public discussion about science. In his blog, Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight, the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, wrote that he didn't agree with all of Waltke's views, but very much agreed that they deserved serious discussion.

McKnight focused his praise on a quote from Waltke in the video in which he said that "to deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth. So I think it would be our spiritual death if we stopped loving God with all of our minds and thinking about it, I think it's our spiritual death."

The the article in its entirety by visiting USA Today online.

As the article says, Reformed Theological Seminary is a confessional school and the school’s curriculum is based on the view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and as such, the school teaches that evolution is contrary to the view that the Bible is inerrant.

There are many Christians who believe that evolution is compatible with Christians faith. These Christians are scientists, academics, pastors, and church members. One of my college professors, Dr. Young, a professor of Biology, taught a course on the Bible and evolution. He was a committed believer and yet he believed that evolution does not deny the view that God is the creator. He believed in what is called “theistic evolution.”

It is sad that Bruce Waltke had to resign over the issue of evolution. Those who know Waltke and those who have read his books also know that he is a committed believer. What Waltke’s resignation is teaching us is that there must be more dialogue about this issue so that Christians may discover whether faith and evolution are compatible.

On Bruce Waltke, read my post: Bruce Waltke on the Nephilim


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

NOTE: If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog here:
Subscription

Tags: Evolution, Bruce Waltke

Ancient Assyrian Treaty

Image: Assyrian Tablet from Tell Tayinat, Turkey

Credit: Image Courtesy of The Ottawa Citizen




The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that Canadian archaeologist Timothy Harrison, from the University of Toronto, has found an Assyrian tablet at Tell Tayinat, a site located in Turkey. The tablet is a treaty, dated to about 670 B.C., between King Esarhaddon and some of the Assyrian vassals.

Below are a few excerpts from the article:

Canadian archeologists in Turkey have unearthed an ancient treaty written in cuneiform that could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites.

***

The tablet, dating from about 670 BC, is a treaty between the powerful Assyrian king and his weaker vassal states, written in a highly formulaic language very similar in form and style to the story of Abraham's covenant with God in the Hebrew Bible, says University of Toronto archeologist Timothy Harrison

***

"The language in the (Assyrian) texts is (very similar) and now we have a treaty document just a few miles up the road from Jerusalem."

***

King Esarhaddon was nearing the end of his reign in Assyria when he drafted this treaty, trying to ensure a peaceful succession to the throne, Harrison said. "It was remarkable the kind of the intrigue went on." One of the reasons they made these treaties is that Esarhaddon's father was assassinated by a brother.

"So he brought together all the rulers in the Assyrian empire and essentially bound them to these treaties (to) avoid political crisis. It's a very complex document to deal with, sophisticated and intricate ... anticipating all the possibilities that might arise."

To read the article in its entirety, visit the web page of The Ottawa Citizen.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, King Esarhaddon, Tell Tayinat, Timothy Harrison, Vassal Treaty

Rahab Who Sits Still: Isaiah and Egypt

When Hezekiah became king of Judah in 715 B.C., he began to consider breaking off the Assyrian yoke imposed upon the nation during the reign of Ahaz at the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war. The people of Judah were unhappy with the heavy taxation imposed upon them in order to pay the annual tribute to Assyria.

The first attempt at independence from Assyria happened in 712 B.C. when Azuri, king of the Philistine city of Ashdod, encouraged by Egypt, revolted against Assyria by refusing to pay tribute. In order to deal with the revolt, Sargon, king of Assyria, sent his commander-in-chief to quench the revolt. The Assyrian army came to Ashdod and fought against the Philistines and captured the city (Isaiah 20:1).

In his Annals, Sargon described Azuri’s revolt:

Azuri, king of Ashdod, had schemed not to deliver tribute anymore and sent messages full of hostilities against Assyria, to the kings (living) in his neighborhood. On account of these acts which he committed, I abolished his rule over the people of his country and made Ahimiti, his younger brother, king over them.

It was at this time that YHWH commanded Isaiah to go “naked and barefoot” (Isaiah 20:2) as a sign that the Assyrians would defeat Egypt and Ethiopia and take them away into exile. The Lord said through Isaiah:

“As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt. Then they shall be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and of Egypt their boast” (Isaiah 20:3-5).

Assyria was able to defeat the Philistines because the promised help from Egypt did not materialize and the Philistines were left in the lurch to fight alone against their oppressors. In his Annals, Sargon accused Hezekiah of having joined the revolt, but since Assyria did not invade Judah, it is possible that Hezekiah heeded Isaiah’s message and did not join the Philistines.

After the death of Sargon in 705 B.C., the vassal nations under Assyrian control believed the time was ripe to break away from Assyrian domination. The Chaldeans, under Merodach-baladan revolted against the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib. Merodach-baladan sent an embassy to Hezekiah, probably to enlist Judah in the fight against Assyria.

In Egypt, the Pharaoh of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty also sent messengers to Hezekiah to join Egypt in its revolt against Assyrian oppression. Hezekiah was ready to revolt. When the Philistines refused to join the alliance against Assyria, Hezekiah invaded Philistia: “[Hezekiah] conquered the Philistines as far distant as Gaza and its territory, from their smallest outpost to their largest walled city” (2 Kings 18:8).

Isaiah believed that Hezekiah had made a bad decision. During the struggle, Isaiah counseled Hezekiah not to join Egypt in revolting against Assyria. Isaiah was aware of the mighty power of the Assyrian army. He was also aware that Egypt’s promise of help would not materialize.

YHWH sent this oracle to Hezekiah:

“Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD, who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin; who set out to go down to Egypt without asking for my counsel, to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh, and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt; Therefore the protection of Pharaoh shall become your shame, and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt your humiliation” (Isaiah 30:1-3).

Isaiah was against a political alliance with Egypt because he was convinced that human power could not deliver Judah from the Assyrian army any more than Judah could escape the judgment that was coming upon the nation. Isaiah called Judah’s alliance with Egypt, a “covenant with death” (Isaiah 28:18).

Isaiah also knew that Egypt was an unreliable ally. Just as they failed to help during the Ashdod rebellion, they would fail to help again. Isaiah said: “For Egypt’s help is worthless and empty, therefore I have called her, ‘Rahab who sits still’”(Isaiah 30:7 NRSV).

Isaiah’s description of Egypt as Rahab is very interesting. The versions disagree on how to translate the word of Isaiah: רַ֥הַב הֵ֖ם שָֽׁבֶת

Below are a few examples of how the English versions have translated the words of Isaiah:

The Complete Jewish Bible: “For Egypt’s help is worthless, pointless; so I call her ‘Arrogance Doing Nothing.’”

The Douay-Rheims: “For Egypt shall help in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I cried concerning this: ‘It is pride only, sit still.’”

The King James Version: “For the Egyptians shall help in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I cried concerning this, Their strength is to sit still.”

The NET Bible: “Egypt is totally incapable of helping. For this reason I call her ‘Proud one who is silenced.’”

JSP Tanak: “For the help of Egypt Shall be vain and empty. Truly, I call this, ‘They are a threat that has ceased.’”

The New Living Bible: “Egypt’s promises are worthless! Therefore, I call her Rahab-- the Harmless Dragon.”

By addressing Egypt as “Rahab,” Isaiah was showing his contempt for Egypt. It is clear from his oracles in Isaiah 28-33 that the prophet was against the pro-Egyptian group in Judah who was encouraging Hezekiah to revolt against Assyria. One of the reasons for his contempt was because Egypt was an untrustworthy ally, an ally whose “promises are worthless.”

Egypt’s desire was to reassert dominance in Canaan and to use the people in Philistia, Canaan, and Syria as a buffer between Egypt and Assyria. It is for this reason that Egypt sent ambassadors to Philistia and Judah to encourage rebellion against Assyria by promising military help against their oppressor. However, history has demonstrated that Egypt seldom helped its allies and it is to this situation that Isaiah’s words refer.

In the Hebrew Bible, Rahab was the personification of chaos. Rahab, as well as Leviathan, Yam (Sea), and Tannin (Dragon) represents the water-dragon, the monster of darkness and chaos. Job 26:12 says: “By his power he stills the sea (Yam); by his wisdom he cut Rahab the great sea monster to pieces.”

Rahab symbolizes evil power and Egypt was the evil power par excellence; it was the personification of chaos. It is for this reason that in the Bible, Egypt is called Rahab and Tannin:

Psalm 87:4: “Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; Philistia too, and Tyre, with Ethiopia.” Here Rahab is a reference to Egypt.

Ezekiel 29:3: “Thus says the Lord GOD: I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon (Tannin) sprawling in the midst of its channels, saying, ‘My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.’” Here “the great dragon” is Egypt. The same title is also applied to Egypt in Ezekiel 32:2.

Isaiah knew that Egypt could not help Hezekiah nor deliver Judah from the hands of the Assyrians:

“Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! The Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and the one helped will fall, and they will all perish together” (Isaiah 31:1, 3 NRSV).

The salvation of Judah was not in Egypt, but in YHWH: “The LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it” (Isaiah 31:5). Thus, in the day of battle, the old and terrifying dragon would not rise, but it would remain quiet, sitting still.

“For Egypt's help is worthless and empty, therefore I have called her ‘Rahab who sits still’” (Isaiah 30:7). Isaiah knew that Egypt was totally incapable of helping. Egypt was “the Harmless Dragon.” Egypt was a threatening dragon who roared loud and scared many people, but when it came time to help, the dragon could do nothing.

Egypt roared loud but the salvation of Israel was not in the noise of the dragon. Isaiah said: “For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel: ‘In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength’” (Isaiah 30:15).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Egypt, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Rahab

King Tut’s Foot Disorder

Discovery News is reporting that a detailed analysis of sandals buried with King Tutankhamun (King Tut) suggest that special footwear was made to accommodate his club foot. The boy king wore orthopedic sandals in order to help him deal with his foot disorder.

Below is an excerpt from the article:

King Tutankhamun might have worn some sort of orthopedic shoes specially designed to cope with his club foot condition, an investigation into the pharaoh's footwear has suggested.

Even though the mummy had been X-rayed several times, it was only recently, during a major genetic investigation into King Tut's family, that researchers found a series of malformations in the pharaoh's feet.

Apart from a foot bone disorder known as Kohler disease II, King Tut might have had seriously deformed feet which left him hobbling around with the use of a cane.

Indeed, the second toe in King Tut's right foot lacked the middle bone, making it shorter, while the left foot was clubbed, rotating internally at the ankle.

The foot condition might have required appropriate shoes with a tight strap in order to avoid them being dragged over the floor.

Read the article in its entirety by clicking here.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, Ancient Egypt, King Tut

The World’s First City

What has been called “the world’s first city” was discovered in Syria. In an article published in Smartplanet, Boonsri Dickinson, wrote that the city was built at a critical time for the development of urban life. The following is an excerpt from the article:

Before the wheel and before there was writing, there laid this urban center in the Middle East. The prehistoric city showed evidence its people traded volcanic glass, engaged in agriculture, and created copper processing.

Enter the newly discovered town of Tell Zeidan, which hasn’t been excavated in nearly 6,000 years. The city dates back to between 6000 B.C. and 4000 B.C., which is the time right before the first true city centers emerged in the Mesopotamia area. And its located at the center of major trade routes that followed the Euphrates River valley

In fact, the Ubaid people not only lived in cities, they had power and class divisions within their society. The archaeologists found artifacts such as the strainer-sprouted pitcher and a stone stamp seal of a deer that suggest the elite members of society lived a life of luxury

Read the article in its entirety here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, Tell Zeidan, Ubaid People

BibleWorks 8

I am a great fan of BibleWorks. I began using BibleWorks with version 5 and then upgraded to version 7 and enjoyed every moment of it. I have written all my posts for the blog using BibleWorks. I have even written a post on BibleWorks 7 (here). In two other posts, I mentioned how BibleWorks helped me in my research (here and here).

Every quarter I teach my students at Northern Baptist Seminary to use BibleWorks. Every quarter I teach a seminar to entering students on how to succeed in seminary and on how to do research and write better academic papers. One of the components of the seminar is on how to use BibleWorks. Most students are not familiar with BibleWorks, but when they learn how to use it, they are amazed with the amount of information BibleWorks provides and how easy it is to use all the resources available in BibleWorks.

BibleWorks now has come out with BibleWorks 8. I was fortunate to receive a copy of BibleWorks 8 for review. I have taken a seminar on BibleWorks 8 and have been using it now for three months. Next week I will write two posts on BibleWorks 8. In those posts I will introduce the contents of BibleWorks 8 and how to use this new version.

BibleWorks 8 is for scholars, pastors, and anyone who wants to study the Bible, prepare sermons and Bible studies, and do research on biblical themes or any specific topic. One of the students in my Hebrew course is a pastor who uses BibleWorks in his studies and he also is enthusiastic about using BibleWorks.

For more information about BibleWorks 8, visit their web page here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: BibleWorks

The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

Image: The Hanging Gardens of Babylon





National Geographic has a photo gallery displaying the seven wonders of the modern world and the seven wonders of the ancient world.

If you have never seen these pictures, you should visit the National Geographic online here.

I have been fortunate to have visited four of the seven wonders of the modern world.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology

The Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Constantinople. He was known as “The Golden Tongue” because of the eloquence of his sermons. Chrysostom was born at Antioch in the year 347 into the family of a military-commander. He spent his early years studying under the finest philosophers and rhetoricians and was ordained a deacon in the year 381 by the bishop of Antioch Saint Meletios. In 386 St. John was ordained a priest by the bishop of Antioch, Flavian.

Over time, his fame as a holy preacher grew, and in the year 397 with the demise of Archbishop Nektarios of Constantinople - successor to Sainted Gregory the Theologian - Saint John Chrysostom was summoned from Antioch for to be the new Archbishop of Constantinople.

Exiled in 404 and after a long illness because of the exile, he was transferred to Pitius in Abkhazia where he received the Holy Eucharist, and said, "Glory to God for everything!", falling asleep in the Lord on 14 September 407.

The Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom

If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast. If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord. If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense. If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward.

If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived therefor. If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; he gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour.

And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts. And he both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering. Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day. Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast. The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.

Note: The information about Chrysostom and Sermon is courtesy of the Orthodox Church in America.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: John Chrysostom