What is the lesson of Passover?

[Voyager]

@Frank_apisa

Okay. I’m not trying to nit-pick here, Voyager.

In my original remarks, I said: “…it really is the celebration of the Hebrew immunity from the final plague:; the slaughter of the first-born of all living things in Egypt.”

That still seems to be the case.

When I posed the hypothetical “What would you think it…” I grant I change things a bit.

I’m not disagreeing - just saying that celebration of deliverance is not equivalent to celebrating the deaths of those not delivered. That it is a celebration of deliverance is undeniable.

[DocCathode]

@Voyager

.

I recall a passage specifically mourning the deaths of the Egyptians, but I could be wrong, so I’ll not claim this until I find my copy of the Haggadah and look it up.

There’s an old Jewish folktale. When the Red Sea closes and drowns the Egyptians, the angels cheer. G-d rebukes them “How can you rejoice? My children are dying!”

Further, every year each first born Jewish son is expected to fast to remember the children killed in the last plague.

Still further, part of the Passover service involves spilling wine for each plague as a full cup is a sign of happiness.

RE The OP

I refuse to debate the exact wording of the Torah unless we do it in the original language.

[Frank_apisa]

@DocCathode

RE The OP

I refuse to debate the exact wording of the Torah unless we do it in the original language.

And what language was that?

Second question, no matter what the answer to the first:

Do you know that for sure?

[begbert2]

@DocCathode

I refuse to debate the exact wording of the Torah unless we do it in the original language.

Unless I miss my guess, this means either:

1. I dispute that the translation you are using is correct and am as we speak composing a longer reply explaining how the correct translation of the original text casts the story in a different (better?) light.

2. I don’t have an argument so I’m going to hide behind the fact you don’t know hebrew.

[DocCathode]

@Frank_apisa

And what language was that?

I’m going with Hebrew

Second question, no matter what the answer to the first:

Do you know that for sure?

No but all the evidence I’m aware of confirms it.

Even if Hebrew was not the original language, why lose information and nuance by going through an additional translation?

[DocCathode]

@begbert2

Unless I miss my guess, this means either:

1. I dispute that the translation you are using is correct and am as we speak composing a longer reply explaining how the correct translation of the original text casts the story in a different (better?) light.

2. I don’t have an argument so I’m going to hide behind the fact you don’t know hebrew.

I don’t know Hebrew either. But that doesn’t prevent from seeing that “obstinate” is not an accurate translation. The original, IIRC, is closer to “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart”. Let us look at the original Hebrew word by word rather than basing a large part of our argument on a translation.

[Frank_apisa]

@DocCathode

I don’t know Hebrew either. But that doesn’t prevent from seeing that “obstinate” is not an accurate translation. The original, IIRC, is closer to “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart”. Let us look at the original Hebrew word by word rather than basing a large part of our argument on a translation.

Actually, I think the word translates as obdurate…but “harden” is the word most often used.

Anyway: Here’s the bibliography for the texts I use for these discussions.

There are two excellent Hebrew/Jewish ones included.

If you want to use either of them…okay with me.

Tell me what passages you want…and I will type ‘em out word for word.

St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)

The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)

The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)

The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)

The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)

The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)

The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)

The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)

The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)

The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)

The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)

[begbert2]

@DocCathode

I don’t know Hebrew either. But that doesn’t prevent from seeing that “obstinate” is not an accurate translation. The original, IIRC, is closer to “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart”. Let us look at the original Hebrew word by word rather than basing a large part of our argument on a translation.

Gonna be tough to do if none of us know Hebrew.

And I don’t see any material difference between “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart” and “will make Pharaoh obstinate” - in either case it’s clear that God is the cause of the intransigence, and is deliberately driving events towards their bloody conclusion. Unless you posit there to be a subtlety of translation that actually impacts the accuracy of this statement, what need is there to table discussion pending foreign language education?

ETA: Holy rabbit crap, I think our wait is over.

[Frank_apisa]

@DocCathode

I’m going with Hebrew

Lots of talk that the “origin” myths had starts before the Hebrew versions. The “Hebrew” may have merely been translations of earlier versions.

We do not really know.

But I agree with what you say next about using as close a source as possible.

Even if Hebrew was not the original language, why lose information and nuance by going through an additional translation?

Let’s do it…and see if anything significant is changed in what transpired.

[DocCathode]

@begbert2

And I don’t see any material difference between “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart” and “will make Pharaoh obstinate”

There is a difference. The traditional interpretation is that G-d hardened his heart against fear. Pharoah still had free will, he just wasn’t terrified of G-d anymore. Absent that fear, he didn’t want to free the slaves.

The translation “G-d made pharoah obstinate” makes it clear that he lost his free will. Big difference.

[Frank_apisa]

@begbert2

Gonna be tough to do if none of us know Hebrew.

And I don’t see any material difference between “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart” and “will make Pharaoh obstinate” - in either case it’s clear that God is the cause of the intransigence, and is deliberately driving events towards their bloody conclusion. Unless you posit there to be a subtlety of translation that actually impacts the accuracy of this statement, what need is there to table discussion pending foreign language education?

Good point. I want to stay away from the rationalization language.

Christians often try to say that “fear of” their god actually means “awe of”…but that is nonsense. There is no doubt what the early Hebrews meant when they said “Be in fear of this god…”…because the god was incredibly fear provoking.

And if you read some of the passages in Deuteronomy…you sure as hell think this is a god to fear to the point of numbing dread.

[Frank_apisa]

@DocCathode

There is a difference. The traditional interpretation is that G-d hardened his heart against fear. Pharoah still had free will, he just wasn’t terrified of G-d anymore. Absent that fear, he didn’t want to free the slaves.

The translation “G-d made pharoah obstinate” makes it clear that he lost his free will. Big difference.

C’mon.

Are you trying to sell the idea that the god was trying to stop Pharoah from fearing him???

You gotta be kidding, right?

Read the whole thing in context…and the rationalizations are seen for the silliness they are.

[DocCathode]

@Frank_apisa

C’mon.

Are you trying to sell the idea that the god was trying to stop Pharoah from fearing him???

You gotta be kidding, right?

That’s your response? :rolleyes:

I cite an interpretation that’s a millenia or two old and you say “You gotta be kidding, right?”
You yourself just posted about how fearsome G-d could be.

[begbert2]

@DocCathode

There is a difference. The traditional interpretation is that G-d hardened his heart against fear. Pharoah still had free will, he just wasn’t terrified of G-d anymore. Absent that fear, he didn’t want to free the slaves.

The translation “G-d made pharoah obstinate” makes it clear that he lost his free will. Big difference.

I’m not sure that I agree that you have free will once your cognitive facilities have been altered to deaden you to all the cues you’d need to make a rational choice (like, self-preservation). It’s pretty clear in the text that this “hardening” happens in response to the Pharoah starting to make the choice that God doesn’t want him to make, and his actions are modified (that is, controlled) accordingly.

The pharoah may have been a nasty bastard at the starting point of the story, but as the plagues get rolling he becomes nothing more than God’s hand puppet, playing out the role forcibly thrust onto him.

[begbert2]

@FriarTed

Short answer- the Old Testament God sometimes deals in “rough justice”- it may seem excessive but it’s related to the offense. While enslaving the Israelites was a bad thing for the Pharoah to do, what really ticked off God enough to set in motion the events resulting in the Exodus was the slaughter of the Hebrew male babies by throwing them in the Nile. So what happens? One Hebrew couple put their baby boy in the river- in a little boat within site of Pharoah’s compassionate daughter. She brings him into the royal household… he becomes the Deliverer, and God’s first plague- the Nile & water sources become blood. The blood of the baby boys comes back to haunt Egypt. Each plague strikes at a deity in the Egyptian pantheon. Finally, the circle comes round with the Tenth Plague- the death of the Egyptian Firstborn- the avenging of the death of the Hebrew baby boys. You might not like it. We look at it & feel disturbed because we’ve filtered it through two millenia of Christian teaching of mercy and compassion. But there is a poetic symmetry to it all.

Is there any documentation that the story bothered the ancients at all?

By the way - how does each plague strike at a diety in the Egyptian pantheon? While I’m ambivalent about the connections you draw (since they’re all rather unsubstantiated speculation - Moses never declares “this is about the dead babies, jack!”), this claim piques my curiousity, as it implies that you have a neat list correlating egyptian dieties to plagues in some kind of rational manner. My curiousity wants to see this list.

[Voyager]

@DocCathode

I don’t know Hebrew either. But that doesn’t prevent from seeing that “obstinate” is not an accurate translation. The original, IIRC, is closer to “G-d hardened pharoah’s heart”. Let us look at the original Hebrew word by word rather than basing a large part of our argument on a translation.

If you pick up a Haggadah, the Hebrew is on one page and the English is on the facing page. Since it is read by many people who know both, I think it is reasonably reliable. I can read the Hebrew, but my vocabulary was never good enough to translate it, especially not considering any subtleties. And I’ve always seen it translated as “harden the heart” by those who can understand the Hebrew.

[carnivorousplant]

@DocCathode

Still further, part of the Passover service involves spilling wine for each plague as a full cup is a sign of happiness.

We were invited to Pesach by the new Rabbi. He told us spilling the drops of wine represented tears for the Egyptians who died in the plagues.

[DocCathode]

@carnivorousplant

We were invited to Pesach by the new Rabbi. He told us spilling the drops of wine represented tears for the Egyptians who died in the plagues.

That’s an interesting interpretation. But, one I’ve never heard before.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

So now we return to the horror of slaughtered children at Passover.

When you demand an explanation for this, you’re doing the same thing: you’re saying, in effect, that you can understand everything, that there is no hidden secondary, tertiary, or thousand-fold effect from this event that you cannot understand if only it’s explained to you, and you’re just as able as any God to comprehend the reasons. And since you don’t see any, then God must be capricious, cruel, or non-existent.

But surely to accept a solution is to do the same thing? I mean, from this idea, we should logically conclude that we can’t say anything about God, since we can’t see all ends. Nor could we attribute faith or lack of faith reasonable; you or I might well simply be “pawns” whose personal views are ours not because they are good for us, but rather because they are good for people in general? And considering that we are, presumably, living in the optimal scenario, which has been specifically brought about, are we not absolved of any horrifying act we perform ourselves, considering that, logically, we are part of the optimal, humanity-improving scenario whatever we do, and that selecting to do whatever act we please is the most utilitarian act?

[carnivorousplant]

@DocCathode

That’s an interesting interpretation. But, one I’ve never heard before.

You think a Modern Orthodox Rabbi would lie?