I have modified this work somewhat; yet it still serves to make an example of one particular Skeptic's lunacy and methodology. Our Skeptic is one we will call Skeptic X; our verse is Jeremiah 7:22. Here is what it says:

For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...

By Skeptic X's line of thinking, Jeremiah 7:22 "stands in flagrant contradiction of what the last four books of the Pentateuch say" with their many commands of offerings and sacrifices. Presumably we are to think that Jeremiah represents some "anti-cultus" faction that denies the Mosaic heritage -- some would say, that he is speaking against a recent forgery of Deuteronomy "discovered" in the Temple.

The simple answer to this notes that this is rather the use of hyperbole to effect a point. The purpose of this phrase is to show the relative importance of sacrifices, etc. in terms of inward attitudes. Indeed, were this not so, we would be constrained to ask how such an obvious "condemnation" of the sacrifices survived the so-called "cutting" since the very priests that Skeptic X accuses of creating the sacrificial law for their own benefit were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! But history knows of no such opposition to the sacrificial system in Israel; while the temple machinery was often corrupt (as in the time of Annas), there is no indication at all that the actual sacrificial practice was disdained.

Skeptics like Skeptic X, however, will have none of this. For the, the text must be read "plainly" and to them, "plainly" this means Jeremiah was indisposed to the Pentateuch. But as usual, Skeptic X and his ilk are thinking out of their time. Let's offer some background.

ANE culture, including that of the Semites, was generally pre-literate and grounded in oral transmission. Correspondingly, the use of idiom and strong, colorful expression was much more common than it is in our own modern society, especially within the context of teaching or the transmission of important messages. When Zedekiah the son of Chenannah, the false prophet, presented to Ahab two horns of iron he had made, and said that with these Ahab would gore the Syrians (1 Kings 22:11), this was more than just a comedic, Gallagher-type prop being used, or some primitive type of show and tell; it was a recognized means of communication. Likewise, Ezekiel lying on his side to symbolize Jewish punishment, and Jesus' "cleansing" of the temple. Actions and verbiage that we would consider excessive, overly demonstrative, and unnecessary for transmitting a message were essential and/or expected for ANE communication processes. Today this is preserved in the extensive use of gesticulations in some Eastern cultures, and even a few Western ones (the Italian culture for example).

(This was for several reasons - among them that these tactics encouraged memorization of the message in a social situation where few had the resources or the knowledge to just pull out a scroll and read the material again, and where there were no video cameras to record something that might need to be preserved for later.)

Relevant to our topic at hand, our point is that Jeremiah (as well as other Biblical writers - cf. Amos 5:21-5, Micah 6:1-8, Is. 1:10-17) here employs a type of idiom designed to grab the attention of his hearers and cause his message to be noticed and remembered. Within context, Jeremiah, standing upon the steps of the Temple (7:1-2a), announces the need for reform of behavior (3) and advises against seeking refuge in the mere presence of the Temple (cf. the triple cry, 7:4 -another example of a memory-enhancing and attention-getting technique). The people assumed that simply having the Temple around protected them - as though a modern person assumed that nothing bad could happen to them inside a church! In a sense the people attributed to the Temple and the sacrifices a sort of magical power to keep enemies at bay. Jeremiah's message negates this idea: How can the people sin and think that they will still be protected (9-11) the example of Israel, which thought it had similar protection, is called upon. (12-15)

Jeremiah cites the continuing sin of the people (16-20), and then sarcastically tells the people to continue violating prescribed sacrificial ritual. (21) Finally, in our verse (22), a rhetorical negation is used to bring attention to the fact that internal posture is more important than external ritual. By expressing the matter in terms of a negation, the hearer/reader is first shocked, then realizes from the admonitions following what the actual point is: As it is expressed in 1 Samuel 15:22 --

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

This sort of outrageous, rhetorical teaching technique was quite common to Semitic and ANE culture. Hence, we have Jesus' parables, with outrageous images of a beam in the eye and a Pharisee swallowing a camel; hence, similar language in Rabbinic works of the period; hence, the majestic and excessive language describing the military prowess of the Egyptian and Babylonian armies in their respective cuneiform texts; and so on, throughout the literature of the ANE. These were powerful tools of communication for the Semites - and no less so for their neighbors, their contemporaries, and for other pre-literate societies from the Hutu in Africa to the Maori of New Zealand.

This understood, Skeptic X's many remarks on Semitic context (it "amounts to nothing more than another biblicist trying to tell us that the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says") are nothing again but chauvinistic nonsense. Of course it "does not mean" what it "says" - any more than saying "I have ants in my pants" means that our dungarees are infested with Formicida. We use the idiom stated in order to more colorfully express a concept: In this case, "I am nervous/unsettled." (Of course, following Skeptic X's logic, one cannot blame a person who, hearing the idiom in question, tackles the speaker and sprays Raid down their trousers - after all, they "plainly said" that they had ants in their pants!) Our own idioms are relatively colorless and trite in comparison to those used in ANE and other oral cultures, but we still use them for basically the same reason, and there is no reason why we should not take their usage in the Bible under consideration.

Now to the hard data concerning this verse. Bright [Brig. Jer, 57] speaks for the overwhelming majority of commentators (conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike) when he writes of Jer. 7:22--

It is unlikely, however, that it is to be taken either as a categorical rejection of the sacrificial system as such, or as a statement that there was no sacrifice in the wilderness.

The point, he continues, is rather that "God's essential demands did not concern ritual matters, but the keeping of the Covenant stipulations." For this view, see also Alle.Jer, 64-5; Clem.Jer, 46-7; Huey.JerLam, 109; Thomp.Jer, 287-8.

The negation idiom emerges from the Hebrew word lo, which transliterates as "not." On this matter, the principal study has been done by Whitney [Whit.Jer 7:22, 152], who describes the usage of lo in Jer. 7:22 as "a form hyperbolic verbal irony intended to intensify the contrast between what is present in the mind of the audience and what ought to be present." Whitney shows this idiomatic usage of lo elsewhere in the OT: Gen. 45:7-8, Ex. 16:8, 1 Sam. 8:7, 1 Sam. 20:14-15, Job 2:10, Jer. 16:14-15, Ezek. 16:47 and Hos. 6:6. His conclusion agrees with that of Feinberg [Fein. CommJer, 75]:

...The negative in Hebrew often supplies the lack of the comparative - i.e., without excluding the thing denied, the statement implies only the prior importance of the things set in contrast to it.

Likewise, Laymon [Laym. IntB, 380]:

Hebrew idiom allows the denial of one thing in order to assert another, and the intention here is not wholly to deny but only to relegate to second place.

We therefore conclude with these scholars that Jer. 7:22 is in no way at odds with the Pentateuch. Skeptic X's case for disharmony is based upon his inability and/or refusal to grasp the passage in its socio-linguistic context, and it therefore fails to hold up under scrutiny.

A few points in closing. There is another incongruity if we take Skeptic X's side: In synagogue services, Jeremiah 7:22 was read at the conclusion of the reading of Lev. 6-8. [Fein.CommJer, 75] If Jeremiah 7:22 were indeed a flat condemnation of sacrifices, then how is it possible that it was attached to the end of a Jewish liturgy that gave instructions for such sacrifices? The only good answer is that it was interpreted idiomatically, and if this is how the Jews interpreted it, we should either defer to them - or else provide much, much better arguments as a counter!

Second, and along the same lines, I pointed out that history knows of no outright rejection of the sacrificial system. Skeptic X responds by asserting our passage and similar ones as proof (which we have seen, they are not), and then remarks, "I think that this is called the argument from silence." However, a silence this significant is no fallacy to argue about at all. Skeptic X's interpretation would require something tantamount to a Congressman standing on the steps of the Capitol, in full hearing of his peers, saying that the Founders did not write the Constitution; and then, his words being incorporated into the Federalist Papers as authoritative! The sort of rejection Skeptic X suggests would have resulted in an enormous split in Judaism that would have left reverberations even unto this day, or at the very least would have left significant textual-polemical or archaeological evidence. Unless Skeptic X can provide an argument better informed by socio-religious data, he cannot be given any credence here for doing more than spouting off an uninformed, "hot off the grill" opinion of his own design.

Third, there is more to Skeptic X's chauvinism. Once again remarking upon the "Semitic mindset," he writes:

...we have to wonder about the intelligence of a deity who would reveal his word in a way that could be understood by only a tribe of desert nomads who had 'Semitic minds,' and the rest of the world would just have to wonder what he meant.

Scraping the mud from this crass display of chauvinism, we have these observations:

• Re: "only a tribe of desert nomads" and "the rest of the world" - here again Skeptic X displays his abundant ignorance of basic anthropology and sociology. This sort of thinking and language I have described was also familiar to other ANE cultures: The Babylonians, the Assyrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, etc. would have understood quite clearly the point being made once informed of the particulars. Furthermore, generally speaking, negation idioms have a rich history in oral cultures around the world. Socrates was known for a sarcastic type of irony that employed negation idioms. Even today, we use forms of negation idioms, generally in the same sarcastic manner as in the OT. (An example: Someone observing heavy rain and saying, "What nice weather we're having!")
• Re: An "intelligent deity" - if Skeptic X wishes to blame anyone here, he needs to look in the mirror. It is precisely his sort of arrogant chauvinism that is responsible for cross-cultural breakdowns in communication, misunderstandings, and armed conflict.

Let us put it plainly: The Semites were here before we were, and the message was first imputed to THEM. It was critical for them, as the initial recipients, to get the message clearly, and our own arrogant presumption did not require God to wait several hundred years for Western civilization to pop up so that His message could be imputed in more "sensible" or "clear" terms. We have only ourselves to blame if we find the message of the Bible "unclear": It is we who made our language less colorful and less idiomatic than Hebrew. It is we who choose to look down on other cultures and pronounce them inferior, rather than trying to understand them.

Skeptic X, then, merely continues along the same lines. Thus if Skeptic X or any other skeptic) wishes to engage in fruitful exchange on these topics and be taken seriously beyond a tiny circle of like-minded, closed-minded sycophants, then they need to do more than just read the English text and announce their inexpert opinion. They must rather come to the texts on their own terms. Skeptics who refuse to do this show themselves to be no different than the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan who persists even today in the belief that "n-ggers" should sit in the back of the bus where they belong, or the Nation of Islam fanatic who denigrates "crackers" and "rednecks."

To see Skeptic X finally respond to this after 5-7 years, see here.

Now a few words about figurative language in the Bible. Ancient Hebrew language and literature, like that of other ANE cultures, was filled with figurative language and literary devices that no English translation can completely capture. This naturally affects greatly how we read the Bible.

Related now to the arguments of C. Dennis McKinsey, who is not cognizant in the least of the vagaries of ancient languages. He quotes several Christian writers (including non-Biblical scholar Henry Morris!) to the effect that a literal meaning should be presumed in a Biblical text unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. What he does not explore is what considerations may be taken to determine what kind of reading a text is subject to, such as genre, context, language and so on. Far too many commentators of inexpert status (such as McKinsey!) fail to take such factors into account. So, we often hear the standard objection from Genesis: Adam and Eve did not physically die from eating of the tree, as God's comment, taken with wooden literalism, would indicate ---

Gen. 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Commentators as far back as pre-Christian Judaism have read this as indicating spiritual, not physical, death. But our subject bellows: "That's not what the book says. It says they will die. Nothing is said about a spiritual death."

It has been noted that the literal Hebrew says, "Dying you shall die," which does indicate a "progressive" death. However, even if it did not -- as is the case with many cites where "death" and "die" is used in isolation -- nothing needs to be said because the context says all that is needed. McKinsey would have us believe that the writer of this story, which forms a literary unity, wrote something so blatantly contradictory in such a short space. Common sense alone therefore supports the "spiritual death" interpretation, but there is more, and this is where we come back to the overall pervasiveness of figurative language in Hebrew, combined with an understanding of the Semitic theological mindset. The account in Genesis goes on to depict Adam and Eve as losing fellowship with God. To the Hebrew mind, loss of fellowship with God is a fate worse than death, for it was the loss of fellowship with the prime source of peace. Thus the word "death" --- representing the most fearsome and irreversible fate in this life --- was chosen to figuratively describe this loss of fellowship with God.

Now we may anticipate our subject's response: "That's not what the text says!" From the perspective of a Western mind reading and English translation with a heart of stone, perhaps not. But to a Semitic mind reading in a language with a much higher level of poetic sophistication the text says that very thing. This is no expediency, as our subject alleges, but a fact of the culture that wrote the book, and no amount of chronological snobbery can change that.

But seeking to cause further difficulty, McKinsey cites other verses referring to death, and asks why they could not refer to spiritual death also. The answer is clear in two ways. First, the context: The texts cited by our subject support a literal interpretation, for they appear in contexts where physical death occurs or is imminent. Second, there is the genre of the texts where the cites appear, which are cast as pure narrative history, as opposed to the account of the Fall, which carries an "otherworldliness" about it of a sort found in other ANE literature of the time, which indicates a substance of far deeper meaning behind the narrative.

Finally, related to this: The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language to describe God, and such language is read figuratively. Our subject will have none of this, however. For him, the verses say what they say, "and no allegorical and figurative meaning can be honestly attributed." These are the words of one who has not made even a cursory study of the language, literature and culture of the ANE. Thus, we close by saying, as we did to Skeptic X: Until McKinsey abandons his preconceived biases in this regard, there is nothing more that we are obliged to say in reply to charges that come under this heading.

And now we have some comments from the Ebon Musings Peanut Gallery. His introductory material is somewhat startling, as he tells us that our answers reflect a "[retreat] behind scholarship". Perhaps it is just my personal bias at work, but it seems to me that digging deeper into the pool of knowledge regarding a given question is a solid and reasonable approach. I would reply that we should regard with suspicion a suggestion that we avoid available "scholarship" as we deal with these areas of dispute. This tactic is one of the most deplorably dishonest ones in the Skeptical arsenal: In essence, the Skeptic is telling us to put aside our thinking caps when it comes to the issue of Bible contradictions. Ebon seems afraid that if we actually think about the alleged problem that it might evaporate. Thus, when an apologist such as myself suggests a deeper understanding which might resolve the apparent contradiction, Ebon waves his hand like so: " [H]e claims the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. I think I would be justified in claiming victory right at this point." (He also fails to note that my KKK comparison was directed not against all Skeptics, but against one in particular, who he admits he knows little of, and so hardly is qualified to deny him the title.)

From here Ebon introduces an argument which is the Skeptic's equivalent of a nick-of-time cavalry charge. He notes our list of verses that also use lo as a negation idiom and says:

…But none of these verses uses the technique as it is used in the verses from Jeremiah and Psalms. They all use hyperbole and exaggerated language, but none of them blatantly contradicts one statement like this as a way of drawing attention to another. (The one exception is Hosea 6:6, but since this too states that God does not desire sacrifice and burnt offering, but rather mercy and obedience, we can throw it on the pile of contradictory verses rather than allowing Mr. Holding to circularly use it to bolster his case.)

What's the point here? Whether "blatant contradiction" (by literalist perception) is created is not at issue in the least (though in fact, this is the case: "blatant contradiction" IS "created" with what is reported in the texts; see the analysis of the other passages here). The technique remains the same regardless. Beyond that, as in several places Ebon seems oblivious to the point that intentional contradiction puts statements beyond the measure of "contradiction" and into the semantic realm of artistic license. It is like saying that a Van Gogh "contradicts" a Picasso.

Stuck beyond this for an answer, Ebon resorts to another attack:

Is the Bible, then, not universal? Is it not, after all, written to convey timeless truths that any human being can understand? Is it necessary to have a thorough education in Ancient Near Eastern languages, modes of idiom, and means of expression before we can even begin to comprehend what it is trying to tell us?

Rather ironically much the same statement was made by Skeptic X lately, and so we can provide more or less the same answer. In answer to a similar point we made, Skeptic X dropped his usual gallon of hayseed and said, "The fallacy in [Holding]'s argument is that he reduces the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time when in reality biblicists believe that it was intended for all mankind for as long as the world stands..." Well, now, excuse me, Skeptic X AND Ebon, but maybe "biblicists" in the old Church of Christ and fundaliteralist landfills have problems understanding this, but grown-up people, who read and study the Bible in terms of those who wrote it, don't. There are certain "timeless truths" in the text that are intended for all mankind, but it would hardly be possible to express the application of those timeless truths in a way that is understandable to all persons, at all times, in all ways. To use one of our favorite examples, if the Bible teaches the timeless truth that one should love one's neighbor, then one of course one aspect of that is that one loves a neighbor by looking out for their well-being. The Bible has a rule in the OT about building rims around the edge of your roof. Why? Skeptics more uneducated than Skeptic X and Ebon, like Skeptic X's good friend Dennis McKinsey, say this is a stupid rule and ask why we don't do it today; the answer is that in the time of the Bible (and in many cultures still today) people used the roof as we use a front porch, and having guards up was a way of showing love for your neighbor (and family) by being sure he would be safe and not fall from your roof. In America we almost never use our roof this way; but we live out the principle with other safety measures, like railings on balconies. So then, Skeptic X (and now Ebon), why can't we say that by pointing out this cultural variance, we are "reducing the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time" or culture, that is, people who used their roof as we use a front porch? Despite the difference in scale, the principle is exactly the same. Skeptic X and Ebon are blaming the text for their own ignorance and laziness.

And there is more. Yes, many of the truths of the Bible are universal. But the Bible itself was originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, none of which are universal languages. This is a constraint that cannot be logically got around. Whatever the origins of differing languages (whether by Babel or by human development) there is no way it could ever be made "universal" in transmission process. But the truths of the Bible are such that any human being could understand them (at least the essentials). No, this does no mean that everybody knows the Hebrew language as a result. No, it is not necessary to have a thorough education in ANE languages in order to understand the message of the Bible. But if you are going to be a nitpicky critic, you definitely will need an advanced education.

From the above, it should become apparent that Ebon is doing some moving of the goalposts. In our immediate example, we already illustrated that the communication of the timeless truths was apparent to the readers. When Jeremiah (in Ebon's eyes) says that God doesn't want animal sacrifice, animal sacrifice continues just the same quite simply because the Israelites seem to have understood the passage just as we suggest. Ebon could seemingly never accept that God could approve of describing a torrential downpour via "It rained cats and dogs." Surely somebody in the universe would think that dogs and cats were literally falling from the sky!

Ebon then asks, "… why isn't Mr. Holding demanding that all those uneducated lay believers who are getting the Bible all wrong stop believing in it until they've been trained to know what it really means?" Read more of my site, Ebon - that is exactly what I am doing, and you haven't seen it yet because you haven't looked far enough and don't have a broader view of what's out there. We also have ought against the likes of Gwen Shamblin, a Christian dietician promoting an absurd view of the Trinity. Articles like the one here are for people like her as well.

Ebon then replies to our note about synagogue services, "I agree, it is strange that the Jewish people would not have noticed this if what I argue is the case. Then again, they've also been walking around for millennia with an obvious inconsistency in the first two chapters of their very first holy book, and that doesn't seem to have bothered them too much either." And so Ebon chases himself in a circle on a matter which he has already suffered loss on.

Now, one wonders how we ought to take the following in light of the fact that we are accused of hiding behind scholarship:

Say we grant Mr. Holding everything we ask for, and accept for the sake of argument that the Psalmist, Hosea and Jeremiah were not saying what they seem to be saying. Then Mr. Holding has merely redefined the problem. If, as they all say, God values obedience and humility over blood sacrifice, then why did he command such sacrifice? Why did he ask people to do something that really wasn't all that important anyway?

Ebon is as elsewhere oblivious to the importance of symbolic action to the ancient mind, as well as the necessary connection between thought and action. On this he would profit from an escapade here -- obedience needed an outlet of expression; the sacrifices served a purpose of their own, and beyond that this paints the matter in black and white terms as though relative value means "all value" versus "little or no value". Ebon also might as well be asking why other forms of sacrifice weren't required instead of those specified. This is one of the most ridiculous and unenlightening paths of Skeptical inquiry I have ever seen. Why not give trees red leaves instead of green? What if what we think of as sin was good, and vice-versa? What if beans were peas?

|

Sources

1. Alle. JerDan Allen, Clifton, ed. Jeremiah-Daniel. Nashville: Broadman, 1971.
2. Black.Jer Blackwood, Andrew W. Commentary on Jeremiah. Waco: Word, 1977.
3. Brig.Jer Bright, John. Jeremiah. New York: Doubleday, 1965.
4. Clem.Jer Clements, R. E. Jeremiah. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.
5. Crai.Jer125 Craigie, Peter, et al. Jeremiah 1-25. Dallas: Word, 1991.
6. Fein.CommJer Feinberg, Charles. A Commentary on Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
7. Holl.Jer Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
8. Huey.JerLam Huey, F. B. Jeremiah-Lamentations. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993.
9. Laym.IntB Laymon, Charles E. The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971.
10. Thomp.Jer Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
11. Whit.Jer722 Whitney, G. E. "Alternate Interpretations of Lo in Ex. 6:3 and Jer. 7:22." Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 151-59.

    ---

    Go Home!