Rebuttal to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"
by Robert Turkel aka James Patrick
Holding
Turkel(1):
According to ancient conceptions, deities were associated with certain
spheres, usually of a geographic nature, but also of a social nature.
In Greek thought, this worked out with the assigning of the realm of
earth to Zeus, that of the sea to Poseidon, and that of the underworld
to Hades. In an Old Babylonian text the same spheres were divided among
Anu, Enlil, and Enki. In both the OT and in extrabiblical sources the
nature of this relationship is expressed in such phrases as "the god of
Moab", "the gods of Byblos" or "the God of Israel." Other phrases
identify the people as being of a particular deity: "the god of the
sons of Ammon"; "God of the Hebrews." The division was not always
clear-cut, and nations with multiple deities would assign various
places within their land to certain deities, and gods may have been
associated with specific tribal groups or households. Nevertheless it
is beyond dispute that land belonged to the gods.
Till(1):
Well, not exactly. What is beyond dispute is that these ancient people
believed that the land belonged to the gods, but ancient people
believed a lot of things that were ridiculous.
Turkel(2):
This is merely a diverson [sic] in context, and and [sic] will be taken
as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the
subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the
central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the
primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject (the
validity of such gods) never addressed in the original article.
Till(2):
Since this comment is not a cutting and pasting of exact comments
Turkel has made before, I left it in my reply. For one thing, I
wanted readers to notice that Turkel is so intent on hacking out
thrown-together "replies" that he doesn't even proofread for careless
errors.
As for his charge that my statement was a "diverson [sic]" that shows
evidence of a lack of capability to "address the subject at hand," what
was there to address in his statement about ancient concepts of
"spheres" or "realms" that deities ruled over? His argument seems
to be that there were ancient concepts of spheres or realms that
deities ruled over; therefore...." Therefore what? Is he
arguing that ancient people had concepts of spheres or realms that
deities ruled over; therefore, if the Hebrew deity promised that he
would give to the Israelites all of the land in defined borders but
didn't do it, this would not be a textual inconsistency in the Bible?
If this is what Turkel is arguing, I suggest that he get a basic
textbook in logic and read what it says about the non sequitur.
Turkel never has explained to us in what sense Yahweh ever gave to the
Israelites all the land he promised them. Let "give" and
"possess" mean his feudal-landlord sense of giving and
possessing. When did Yahweh ever "give" them all the land in this
sense, and when did the Israelites ever "possess" all the land in this
sense?
Till(1):
Anyway, does Turkel think that this is information that I didn't know?
Turkel(2):
While our opponent may or may not know this information, it is clear
from his arguments that he does not understand the applicability of the
information.
Till(2):
What is even more clear is that Turkel cannot take this "ancient
concept" of feudal-landlord "tenancy" and show us when Yahweh ever
"gave" the Israelites all the land he promised in this sense and when
the Israelites ever "possessed" all the land in this sense. Certainly,
they didn't possess all of this land at the time that the book of
Joshua claimed that they did. Later, the book of Joshua said that
they did not possess all of the land Yahweh had promised. Hence,
this is a contradiction in the "inspired" text. When is Turkel
ever going to address this issue?
Till(1):
I'll later show that the concept of land "belonging" to gods did not
preclude the concept of personal ownership.
Turkel(2):
While this is a good statement of intent by our opponent, it is fluff
in context, not necessary ****
Till(2):
I assume that everyone noticed that Turkel evaded this point with
another cut-and-pasted evasion. Let's see how he fares when we
come to the part of the debate in which I showed that the concept of
personal ownership was clearly present in ancient Israel.
Till(1):
For now, I'll just ask how anything he said here explains why the
biblical text says in one place that every place that the soles
of Israelite feet would tread upon would be given to them, that they
would drive out all of the nations in the land and leave nothing alive
to breathe, that they would be given the land from the Red Sea to
Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea,
etc., but texts later said that it didn't happen.
Turkel(2):
We explain this fully below,
Till(2):
Well, I urge everyone to watch to see if Turkel explained this "fully
below."
Turkel(2):
and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more than a play to
influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no
explanation. As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the
Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its
people, and their deity is such that the people were "rentors" [sic]
under contract and had certain obligations which allowed them to
continue to live in the land. Our opponent does not here refute this
point, he merely struts pompously as though he has already refuted it,
thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt [sic] the argument as
though victory has already been won.
Till(2):
I have already cited three pieces of evidence that show why Turkel's
attempt to make the land promise conditional cannot explain away: (1)
The text in Deuteronomy 9:3ff where Yahweh said that he was giving the
land to the Israelites despite their unrighteousness and rebellion from
the day they had come out of Egypt and that he had to do this in order
to fulfill the promise made to Abraham is incompatible with any
statements that may have been made elsewhere to indicate that the
promise was conditional on good behavior. (2) Suzerainty
treaties, which Turkel is making such an issue over, were conditional
on the behavior of rulers but not conditional on the behavior of the
people. (3) Even if Turkel could establish beyond all doubt
that the land promise was always, from its beginning in Genesis,
conditional on the behavior of Abraham's descendant, Turkel cannot
explain how text A and text B could both be true if text A said that
all the land Yahweh promised was possessed by the Israelites but text B
said that all the land promised by Yahweh had not been possessed by the
Israelites.
This is a simple matter of the logical law of contradiction: P and ~P
cannot both be true statements.
Till(1):
The issue here is consistency, and even Turkel himself said that "the
internal consistency of the Biblical text" is the issue, so I'll keep
looking to see if I can find where he reconciled the different texts on
this subject to make them consistent.
Turkel(2):
Again our opponent does not here refute any argument, he merely struts
pompously as though he has already refuted our arguments, thereby
manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory
has already been won.
Till(2):
This statement was obviously cut and pasted from the end of Turkel's
last comment above. I started to replace it with **** but decided
to leave it so that readers can see how Turkel evades that which he
cannot answer. When is he going to explain to us how P (the
Israelites were given all the land promised them) and ~P (the
Israelites were not given all the land promised them) could both be
true?
Till(1):
So far he hasn't, and having read all of his "reply," I know that he
didn't."
Turkel(2):
Yet again our opponent does not here refute any argument, he merely
struts pompously as though he has already refuted our arguments,
thereby manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though
victory has already been won.
Till(2):
What argument is there to refute? Turkel's "argument" seems to be
that ancient people had a feudal-landlord concept of ownership that
made "tenancy" of land conditional; therefore.... Therefore what?
I'll accept again for argument's sake that his premise is true and that
the land promise that Yahweh made to Abraham was conditional on the
behavior of Abraham's descendants. That would not explain....
1. Why Yahweh promised in Deuteronomy 9:3ff to give the
land to what had to have been the most unappreciative, disobedient,
rebellious bunch of Israelites who had ever lived and that he had to
give these ingrates the land in order to keep his promise to Abraham.
2. Why if the behavior of the Israelites at this time was not a
condition that justified Yahweh's withholding the land, less offensive
conduct of the Israelites would later become a reason for withholding
some of the land. Yahweh is not the same yesterday, today, and
forever?
3. How withholding the land for misbehavior before the Israelites
crossed the Jordan would have caused Yahweh to renege on his promise to
Abraham but withholding some of the land for misbehavior after the
Israelites had entered the land did not cause Yahweh to renege on his
promise to Abraham.
4. Why the biblical text said in some places that Yahweh had
given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them but said in
other places that Yahweh had not given to the Israelites all the land
he had promised them.
I'll try to draw a picture for Turkel to help him see number 4.
Regardless of what "giving" the land and "possessing" the land may have
meant to the ancient Hebrew mind, a written record that says in some
places that the land was given and possessed according to all that
Yahweh had promised but says in other places that the land was not
given and possessed is not a logically consistent record. It is a
matter as simple as recognizing that P and ~P cannot both be true.
Turkel(2):
Moreover, if he has indeed read all of our reply as he indicates, then
he is indeed being blatantly dishonest in bringing up cites like Deut.
9 and Josh. 11:23 and waving them around as though we have not
addressed them later in the text, in line with the order he addressed
them in his original essay.
Till(2):
I have read all of Turkel's reply, but nowhere in that reply did he
explain how P and ~P can both be simultaneously true.
1. The Israelites possessed all of the land that Yahweh promised
to give to Abraham's descendants.
2. The Israelites did not possess all of the land that Yahweh
promised to give to Abraham's seed.
The Bible made both claims, so all I want Turkel to do is explain to us
how statements 1 and 2 could both be true statements. It doesn't
matter what "possessed" meant to the ancient Hebrew mind. Let it
mean "tenancy," "occupation," "feudal possession," "renting,"
"squatting on," whatever. How could both 1 and 2 be true
statements?
Turkel(1):
The Israelites understood matters somewhat differently in light of
Yahwism, for they understood Yahweh to be the owner of all of the land,
rather than other deities being in charge of it. In Deut. 32:8-9 we
read:
Till(1):
And so if Yahweh owned all the land, given his omnipotence, he
shouldn't have had any problem making sure that the Israelites received
all the land he had promised them (from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from
the Euphrates River to the Great Sea), so why didn't he?
Turkel(2):
We explain this fully below,
Till(2):
Has everyone noticed how it seems that Turkel is always going to
explain things "below" or "later," but it seems as if I never come to
the belows and laters. Am I the only one having trouble locating
the belows and laters?
Turkel(2):
and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant,
Till(2):
I'm pretending to be ignorant? To the contrary, I claim to be
very well informed on this issue. It is one that I have studied
very carefully for decades and have debated with better qualified
opponents than Turkel. They couldn't resolve it either.
Turkel(2):
and his attempt to drag "omnipotence" into the issue and place it
against the issue of human free will, is no more than a play to
influence his skeptical readership into thinking there is no
explanation.
Till(2):
Why would the alleged omnipotence of Yahweh not be a relevant issue
here? Does Turkel perhaps think that his god Yahweh is not
omnipotent? I'll reserve further comment on this until he
explains.
Meanwhile, given the widespread assumption that the god Yahweh was
omnipotent, I am certainly asking a reasonable question when I ask why
such a deity could not have made good on his promise to give land
within defined borders to Abraham's descendants. Turkel dragged
"human free will" into this, as if human free will is to be an
explanation for why an omnipotent deity could not fulfill a promise to
which he had attached no conditions. The apostle Paul seemed to
understand a principle that apparently eludes Turkel.
Galatians 3:15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday
life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has
been duly established, so it is in this case.
16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The
Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to
your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does
not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do
away with the promise.
Paul, then, realized something that Turkel is having trouble
understanding. Once the promise was made to Abraham, the promise
had been made. Nothing done or said later could "set aside" the
covenant without making Yahweh untrue to a promise he had made.
There are several "aspects" to consider in a story that purports to be
an account of a "covenant" that an omnipotent, omniscient deity made
with a human being. If we set aside the sheer unlikelihood that
any such event ever happened and assume for the sake of argument that
it did, certain conclusions would necessarily entail: (1) If the
deity stipulated no conditions involving the behavior of the
descendants of the human party involved in the covenant, then we would
reasonably conclude that the omniscient, omnipotent party intended to
attach no conditions. (2) This would necessarily obtain
from the fact that if the descendants of the human party would later
prove to be disobedient reprobates, the omniscient, omnipotent party
would have known at the time the covenant was made that this was going
to happen and would never have wasted his time making a conditional
covenant with descendants of the human party whom the deity knew would
never be able to satisfy his conditions.
This all leads to one conclusion: the deity attached no conditions to
the covenant. This conclusion is supported by Deuteronomy 9:3ff,
a text that has this omniscient, omnipotent deity telling the
descendants of the human party that he was going to give the land to
them despite their utter moral corruption and that he was doing this in
order to keep a promise that he had made to their ancestors.
Now let's hope that Turkel addresses this problem somewhere "below."
Turkel(2):
As we noted clearly, and explain in more detail below, the Ancient Near
Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and
their deity is such that the people were "rentors" [sic] under contract
and had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in
the land. Omnipotence does not countermand the free choices of human
subjects. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely
struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby
manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory
has already been won.
Till(2):
I'm sure most readers recognized this as another cut-and-pasted comment
that Turkel has used before to detract attention from his evasion of an
argument. He says that I did not "refute" his point, but if he
thinks that, he must be reading my rebuttals as fast as he cuts and
pastes together his "replies." How many times have I asked Turkel
to let the words "give" and "possess" in the land-promise statements
mean "giving" and "possessing" in this feudal-landlord sense that he
keeps touting? After being given that concession, he has failed
to explain to us when the Israelites ever possessed in that sense all
of the land within the borders defined in various places in the
Pentateuch and Joshua.
As for his quibble that the Israelites were "rentors [sic]," I have
replied to that too, and this time around, I have quoted the opinion of
a Harvard scholar, whose "lifeblood" has been biblical studies, to show
that the so-called "suzerainty treaty," which Turkel claims the book of
Deuteronomy was, does not solve any problem for him, because the party
in power making the treaty granted land unconditionally to the
second-party people. Their leaders were bound by conditions, but
the people were given the land unconditionally.
All that aside, Turkel cannot make the passage in Deuteronomy 9:3ff
consistent with any other biblical statement that attached conditions
to the promise. It's a simple matter of the impossibility of P
and ~P both being true statements. To illustrate, let's make
Deuteronomy 9:3ff P [a promise with no behavioral conditions],
and Exodus 23:20ff and comparable passages will be ~P [a promise with
behavioral conditions]. Turkel's mission now, should he choose to
accept it, is to explain how P and ~P could both be true statements.
Maybe he has explained this somewhere "below."
Till(1):
All of Turkel's talk about "ancient conceptions" of gods and what
lands they owned hasn't done anything to explain the inconsistencies
that I identified in my article. We will see later on that he even
admits that "by itself" this "ancient concept" doesn't explain the
problems, but it took him a long time to admit it. For now, he
evades the issue with his comment immediately below.
Turkel(2):
We explain this fully below,
Till(2):
Ah, yes, it was answered "below." Let's wait and see what he said
below.
Turkel(2):
and our opponent's pretense at being ignorant****
Till(2):
The **** replaced the same cut-and-pasted dodge about "our opponent's"
strutting, but Turkel said nothing to explain how P and ~P could both
be true. Perhaps he explained it in full "below."
Till(1):
Regardless of what "ancient concepts" of deity-land-possession may have
been, Yahweh said that in some sense he was going to "give" the
Israelites all the land within clearly defined borders for them to have
as an "everlasting possession."
Turkel(2):
We explain fully below "in what sense" the land was "given," and our
opponent's pretense at being ignorant****
Till(2):
This was the same cut-and-pasted evasion. After readers have seen
it once, there is no need to waste space on it again and again and
again. Those who want to see it again can read the original as
many times as they want.
Till(1):
In what sense did the book of Joshua mean that he had "given" them all
of this land, and in what sense did the book later mean that he hadn't
give them all of the land?
Turkel(2):
We explain fully below in what sense the land has been "given," and
also explain the cites our opponent likely has in mind here from
Joshua****
Till(2):
This was the same old cut-and-pasted dodge. Let's keep watching
to see if we can spot Turkel's answer in full "below."
Till(1):
This is the problem confronting Turkel, and his time would have been
better spent trying to explain the inconsistency rather than taking us
into long cut-and-pasted tangents like the one I am now replying to.
Turkel(2):
As this tangent explains, explicates, and makes clear the context of
the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land,
its people, and their deity, and as we show the application of this
paradigm below, our opponent's pretense at being ignorant is no more
than a play to influence his skeptical readership into thinking that
the explanation has no application.
Till(2):
Well, I will ask Turkel for the umpteenth time to explain in what sense
Yahweh "gave" the land to the Israelites and in what sense they
"possessed" it. If he has answered this, I certainly missed
it. Simply saying that there was an "Ancient Near Eastern"
concept that deities owned the land and people were just "rentors
[sic]" doesn't explain a thing. When, for example, did the
Israelites become "rentors [sic]" of all the land within the borders
defined in the various versions of the land promise. How could P
(the Israelites were made "rentors [sic]" of all the land Yahweh
promised them) and ~P (the Israelites were not made "rentors [sic]" of
all the land Yahweh promised them) both be true statements?
Has Turkel answered this fully "below"? If so, we should run into
it soon.
Turkel(1):
On second sentence, re Deut. 32:8-9:
Till(1):
****
Turkel(1):
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according
to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his
people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Till(1):
And the "Most High," who owned all the land in the world, promised that
he would give the Israelites every bit of land that the soles of their
feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the
Euphrates River to the Great Sea, so why didn't he keep this promise?
Turkel(2):
We explain this fully below, and our opponent's pretense at being
ignorant is****
Till(2):
Needless to say, this was the same cut-and-pasted dodge that Turkel has
resorted to in order to evade the issue. "Below"--he is always
going to answer "fully below."
Let's watch and see.
Till(1):
That's the problem, and nothing that Turkel has said yet in this
tangent he has led us into has even begun to explain away the
inconsistency.
Turkel(2):
The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land,
its people, and their deity fully explains this non-inconsistency, for
it is such that the people were "rentors" under contract and had
certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land,
and this context establishes the nature of the promises****
Till(2):
I kept a little more of the cut-and-pasted dodge this time in order to
tie it to my reply to this, which I will now repeat for the umpteenth
time. There were no conditions attached to the original
land promise in Genesis, and the renewal of the promise to the
reprobate, morally corrupt Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:3ff
preempted any possibility of conditions being attached to the
promise. No matter how many other versions of the promise (which
were probably retrospectively written into the biblical text) that
Turkel may cite can remove this problem. Citing versions of the
promise with conditions merely establishes inconsistency in the
Bible. When text A in the Bible says P and text B in the Bible
says ~P, both statements cannot be true. I'll cite an example.
Exodus 12:40 Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in
Egypt was 430 years.
Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his
seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people,
but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does
not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do
away with the promise.
The first text says that the Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years; the
other says that the law, which was given after the Israelites left
Egypt, came 430 years after the promise that was made to Abraham.
Both statements cannot be true, and that is the situation with the
unconditional land promise as recorded in Genesis and Deuteronomy 9:3ff
and the versions of the promise elsewhere that attached
conditions. Both versions of the promise cannot be true.
In my original article, I stated this problem: "(T)he land promise
could not have been both conditional and unconditional at the same
time" (The Skeptical Review, Winter 1991, p. 4). We have come
this far and Turkel has not yet explained how the promise could have
been both conditional and unconditional.
Maybe he explained it in full "below."
Turkel(1):
Certain manuscript traditions read "sons of God" (angels) in place of
"children of Israel" but the result the same. It is the Most High who
has allotted the inheritance for each nation. Yahweh declares the
bounds of territory for the various peoples:
Deut. 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land,
no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto
Esau for a possession.
Till(1):
And this does what to explain why Yahweh promised that he would give
the Israelites all the land their feet would tread upon from the Red
Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea, and then
didn't do it?
Turkel(2):
The Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land,
its people, and their deity fully explains this issue****
Till(2):
It does? Was that explained "fully below"? Did the full
explanation "below" explain how a text that says that the Israelites
possessed all the land that Yahweh had promised them could be
consistent with another text that says that the Israelites did not
possess all of the land that Yahweh had promised them? Did the
full explanation "below" explain how a text that says that Yahweh would
drive out and utterly destroyed the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites,
Perizzites, Canaanites, and Jebusites could be consistent with texts
that say that the Israelites were unable to drive out some of the
Canaanites, Jebusites, etc.?
If so and if this is really explained "fully below," I will certainly
be on watch for what comes below. Of course, I am being
facetious, because I have already read everything "below," so I know
that Turkel didn't explain any of these problems.
The **** indicates that the rest of the statement was simply Turkel's
cut-and-pasted dodge.
Till(1):
If the Israelites were not to take so much as "a foot breadth" of Mt.
Seir, because Yahweh had given it to Esau for a possession, then why
couldn't he have made good on his word to give to the Israelites all of
the land within the boundaries described in Joshua 1:4? I'm still
waiting to see Turkel resolve this inconsistency. Maybe he
resolved it "below."
Turkel(2):
The cite of Deut. 2:5 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near
Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and
their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the
people were "rentors [sic]."
Till(2):
I will repeat for the umpteenth time that Turkel's "Ancient Near
Eastern context" does not explain anything. He has yet to explain
in what sense Yahweh "gave" the land to the Israelites and in what
"sense" they possessed it. Let these terms convey the
feudal-landlord concept that he keeps touting. Even with that
concession, he must explain to us (1) when the promise was fulfilled in
the senses conveyed by those terms, and (2) how the promise as stated
in Deuteronomy 9:3ff could have been conditional on the behavior of the
Israelites when this text describes them as a completely corrupt nation.
Furthermore, I have shown that the so-called "suzerainty" factor would
remove Turkel's claim that the "contract" between Yahweh and the
Israelites was conditional on the behavior of the Israelites, for if
this was a "suzerainty" agreement, then the land was given to the
people unconditionally. Certainly, the "sin" of just one or two
people, as Turkel contended in the first-round exchanges, would not
have nullified the agreement.
Turkel(2):
Such rentors [sic] were under contract and had certain obligations
which allowed them to continue to live in the land (and in this
respect, later oracles of judgment against Edom have relevance), and
this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as well.
Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts****
Till(2):
Turkel keeps cutting and pasting this comment, but he certainly hasn't
sustained it. In fact, he has done nothing but assert it as if his mere
assertion is sufficient to establish fact. Frank Moore Cross is a
respected scholar, whose "lifeblood" has been biblical and Near Eastern
studies, and he doesn't seem to agree with Turkel. Does Turkel expect
reasonable people to accept the word of an amateur apologist like
Turkel over the opinion of a scholar of Cross's reputation?
Turkel(1):
Deut. 2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither
contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for
a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a
possession.
Till(1):
And this does what to explain why Yahweh defined the boundaries of all
the land he would give the Israelites and then didn't make good on his
word? It seems that Yahweh could "give" land to Esau [the Edomites] and
to the Moabites, but he couldn't seem to make good on his promise to
give to the Israelites all the land he had promised within defined
boundaries.
Turkel(2):
The cite of Deut. 2:9 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near
Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and
their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the
people were "rentors." Such rentors were under contract and had certain
obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the land (and in
this respect, later oracles of judgment against Moab have relevance),
and this context establishes the nature of the promises to Israel as
well. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely struts
pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby manipulatively
attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory has already been
won.
Till(2):
Turkel seems to think that if he keeps repeating a claim by cutting and
pasting an unsupported assertion and, in this case, throwing in a
parenthetical comment about Moab, some readers will think that he is
explaining something. As I have shown, however, he explains
nothing by repetitiously asserting that an "Ancient Near Eastern"
concept of the relationship of land, people, and deity will explain why
Yahweh's land promise didn't fail. I suppose I need to take the
time here to structure a catch-all reply to whatever situation where he
may cut and paste this comment as an answer.
1. Even if we accept, his "Ancient Near Eastern concept," he must
explain why the land promise did not succeed even in the "context" of
that ancient understanding. The words "give" and "possess" had
meaning, so in the different versions of the promise in Genesis where
Yahweh said that he would "give" the land to Abraham's descendants as
an "everlasting possession," the terms "give" and "everlasting
possession" were intended to convey some kind of meaning. Turkel
says that they were used in a "feudal-landlord" sense in which the
Israelites were to be "rentors [sic]," so I have asked him to explain
to us when all the land within the defined borders of the promise was
ever given to the Israelites even in this "feudal-landlord" sense of
"tenancy." For all of his talk about having explained this "fully
below," Turkel has done no such thing.
2. Turkel claims that the "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land,
people, and deity meant that conditions were attached to the promise
and that the behavior of Abraham's descendants was a condition.
In reply to this, I have noted that (1) no conditions were stated or
implied anywhere in any of the versions of the promise recorded in
Genesis, (2) the restatement of the promise in Deuteronomy 9:3ff
declared that [a] Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites even
though they had been rebellious and unrighteous from the day they had
come out of Egypt, and that [b] Yahweh was going to give them the land
despite their unrighteousness so that he could keep a promise made to
Abraham.
3. At the time that Yahweh renewed this promise to the
Israelites, they had not even kept the rite of circumcision that Turkel
said was the "entry ritual" into the covenant.
4. The renewal of the promise to these Israelites, despite their
unrighteousness and failure at that time to be in covenant relationship
with Yahweh, would necessarily show that Yahweh did not consider the
promise made to Abraham to have been conditional to the behavior of his
descendants. It is completely illogical to argue that the
behavior of the Israelites was not a condition at the time that Yahweh
renewed this promise but then immediately upon crossing the Jordan
River, their obedience did become a condition that justified
withholding from them the land that he had promised to Abraham.
5. Despite Turkel's claim that the book of Deuteronomy was a
"suzerainty treaty," which made the land promise conditional, very
reputable scholars like Frank Moore Cross, as I have previously noted,
have cited examples from ancient treaties that show the suzerainty
aspect of the covenant meant only that the behavior of rulers was a
factor but that the land promise was unconditional as far as the people
in general were concerned.
6. Signs of retrospective editing in the book of Deuteronomy will
explain why some version of the promise attached conditions, but
regardless of what those conditional versions of the promise may have
said, they are incompatible with Deuteronomy 9:3ff, which clearly
excluded the behavior of the Israelite people as a condition for
receiving the land.
7. Even if I should concede to Turkel that he is absolutely right
and that the land promise was conditional to the behavior of the
Israelites--which is a concession that would not be supported by the
evidence--that concession would not explain the second major problem
identified in my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." That
problem is that Deuteronomy and/or the book of Joshua said that [a] no
man of the Canaanite nations would be able to stand against the
Israelites, [b] the Israelites would drive out and utterly destroy all
of the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, etc., [c] the Israelites possessed
all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [d] not one of the
promises that Yahweh made to Israel through Moses had failed, but
later Joshua and subsequent books said that [a] the Israelites
had not been able to drive out and utterly destroy some of the
Canaanites and Jebusites, [b] the Israelites had not possessed all of
the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [c] Canaanites, Hittites,
Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzites, and Amorites remained in the land as
late as the reign of Solomon. These are clear inconsistencies
that Turkel has not explained "fully below" and will not, and never
will be able to, explain fully below.
8. Number 7 is a clear case of the Bible's saying P in some
places but ~P in other places, and it is not possible for P and ~P both
to be true.
Now whenever Turkel cuts and pastes a variation of his "Ancient Near
Eastern" concept as a catch-all explanation to a problem he is
obviously evading, I will simply cut and paste my rebuttal above until
he replies to it.
Turkel(1):
Deut. 2:19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of
Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give
thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I
have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.
Till(1):
Ditto.
Turkel(2):
The cite of Deut. 2:19 demonstrates and explicates the Ancient Near
Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and
their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the land and that the
people were "rentors [sic]." Such rentors [sic] were under contract and
had certain obligations which allowed them to continue to live in the
land (and in this respect, later oracles of judgment against Ammon have
relevance), and this context establishes the nature of the promises to
Israel as well. Our opponent does not here refute this point, he merely
struts pompously as though he has already refuted it, thereby
manipulatively attempting to pre-empt the argument as though victory
has already been won.
Till(2):
Since this cut-and-paste job with "Ammon" substituted for "Moab" came
on the heels of the other, I won't need to cut and paste my rebuttal
here.
Turkel(1):
It should be noted in all three cases that the words for "give" is the
same Hebrew word as used in Gen. 12:7, 13;15 (nathan), and that the
word for "possession" is a form of the word yarash (see below). We can
clarify the nature of the land-people-deity relationship with some
illustrative Bible passages. Moving from one land to another, or
becoming part of another people, meant a change of gods for a person****
Till(1):
Well, let's just look at some passages where nathan was used.
Exodus 2:9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away,
and nurse it for me, and I will give [nathan] thee thy wages. And the
woman took the child, and nursed it.
Turkel(2):
"Give" is indeed nathan, and any concordance will show that this word
has a great variety of applications: add, apply, appoint, ascribe,
assign, avenge, bestow, bring forth, bring hither, cast, cause, charge,
come, commit consider, count, cry, deliver up, direct, distribute do,
without fail, fasten, frame, get, give forth, giveover, give up, grant,
hang up, have, lay unto charge, lay up, give leave, lend, let out, lie,
lift up, make, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print,
pull, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send out, set
forth, shew, shoot forth up, strike, submit, suffer, surely, take,
thrust, trade, turn, utter, weep, willingly, withdraw, would to God,
yield.
Till(2):
Has Turkel ever checked a dictionary to see that the English word give
"has a great variety of applications," such as, to turn over control,
to hand to, to pass over, to cause to have as an honor, to allow, to
let have in answer to, to part with for a cause, to surrender, to
yield, to concede, to put forward, to offer, to make [gestures], to
utter or emit, to put into words, to perform, to inflict or impose,
etc., etc., etc.? However, despite all of these "applications" of
the word give, when English speakers hear it in context, they have no
difficulty understanding what it means. Turkel is simply playing
a game here to try to impress the readers of his website. "Hey,"
he is saying to them, "look at me; I'm talking about Hebrew." The
ploy is one that he frequently uses to try to make his readers think
that he knows something when he really has nothing to say in support of
whatever he is arguing for.
Hundreds of Hebrew scholars working on various English translations of
the Bible have agreed that nathan conveyed the sense of "give" in the
various versions of the land promise, so Turkel accomplishes nothing by
saying, "The word used here was nathan." Did everyone notice that
when he uses this ploy, he doesn't bother to explain what the
significance of nathan is supposed to be beyond the fact that in Hebrew
the word used was nathan?
Turkel(2):
These and cites that follow are apparently intended by our opponent to
instill some meaning of nathan congenial to a modern concept of
property ownership.
Till(2):
I have certainly shown that the ancient Hebrews had concepts of
personal ownership of property that entitled them to sell or barter
their property, so all of Turkel's talk about nathan proves exactly
nothing. According to the story, Yahweh gave the Israelites land,
which was divided among the different tribes and then in turn given to
individuals within the tribes, who then possessed the land given to
them and were entitled to sell or barter it. If Turkel is going to
argue that nathan had some kind of special meaning that proves the land
promise didn't fail, he is going to have to beat what he has done so
far.
Turkel(2):
However, the great variety of applications, as well as the Ancient Near
Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and
their deity, must be considered together;
Till(2):
Well, if "the great variety of applications" [of nathan, I assume] must
be considered together with the "Ancient Near Eastern" context of the
relationship of land, people, and deity, then Turkel needs to explain
to us what "application" of nathan is relevant to this. Is anyone
else noticing that Turkel talks constantly in unexplained abstractions
that do nothing to support his position?
Turkel(2):
to merely focus on nathan and what meaning it may or may not have in
other verses is not enough.
Till(2):
Well, who brought up the issue of nathan as if it had some special
significance? Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with Turkel.
Merely focusing on nathan and what meaning it may or may not have is
not enough. Turkel needs to explain why the use of nathan [give]
in the land promises explains why the land was not given to the
Israelites as promised. He talks about nathan, but he hasn't
explained why nathan proves anything about his position on this issue.
Turkel(2):
In terms of nathan itself, like our modern word "give" it clearly
denotes transfer, with no specification in terms of the method or
permanence or nature of the "giving". One may "give" someone a back
rub, a hard time, a house, or an apartment; the things "given" are
different in terms of tangible possession and the idea of ownership,
and so "give" only connotes transfer without making any statement in
terms of the nature or permanence of the transfer. So likewise nathan.
Till(2):
Here is a good example of the kind of drivel on which Turkel wastes our
time. The examples he used with the English word give proves
exactly what I have said several times, i. e., the contexts of
homographs enable those who speak a language to determine their
meaning. If someone says, "He gave me a back rub," the context
tells what the word gave meant. If someone says, "He gave me a
hard time," the context tells what the word meant. Turkel doesn't
even attempt to explain why the Hebrew context of a statement in which
nathan was used would not have told Hebrew readers how this word, which
had "several applications," was being used. Turkel apparently
expects us to think that whenever a Hebrew speaker or writer used the
word nathan, the audience was left scratching heads trying to figure
out what was meant.
When, for example, Hebrews read Genesis 23:7-11, what reason is there
to think that they did not know what nathan meant in this context?
Genesis 23:7 And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the
people of the land, even to the children of Heth.
8 And he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind that I
should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and entreat for me to
Ephron the son of Zohar,
9 That he may give [nathan] me the cave of Machpelah, which he
hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is
worth he shall give [nathan] it me for a possession of a
buryingplace amongst you.
10 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the
Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even
of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying,
11 Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give [nathan] I thee, and the
cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my
people give I it thee: bury thy dead.
Is it Turkel's position that the word nathan was just so nebulous in
its meaning that Hebrews who read this passage just couldn't understand
what nathan meant when Abraham asked the Hittites [children of Heth] to
entreat Ephron to give him the cave of Machpelah "for as much money as
it is worth"? Is Turkel so desperate to defend the Bible against
errancy that he would argue that when Abraham asked Ephron to give him
the cave for a possession for as much money as it is worth, this was a
statement that Hebrew readers just couldn't understand because the word
nathan had a "variety of applications"?
The questions are, of course, absurd, because the context in which the
word nathan was used would have enabled Hebrew readers to
understand how this word with a "variety of applications" was being
used. It was being used to denote a request to give Abraham a
piece of property in exchange for money, and so this story obviously
shows that "Ancient Near Eastern" people at this time had a concept of
private ownership of property. That the concept of personal ownership
was known to these "Ancient Near Eastern" people is shown by what
followed after Ephron's offer to just give the cave to Abraham.
12 And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land.
13 And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the
land, saying, But if thou wilt give [nathan] it, I pray thee, hear me:
I will give thee money for the field; take it of me, and I will bury my
dead there.
14 And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him,
15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred
shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy
dead.
16 And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to
Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of
Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.
17 And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was
before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the
trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about,
were made sure
The cave belonged to Ephron the son of Zoar as his personal property,
and Abraham was asking that the personal ownership be transferred
[given] to him in exchange for money. Ephron offered to let Abraham
just have the cave for nothing, but Abraham wanting to make secure his
claim on the land paid Ephron 400 shekels of silver, after which the
boundaries of the property were defined as having been "made sure" to
Abraham.
No concept of personal ownership of property among those "Ancient Near
Eastern" people? Turkel needs to learn not to postulate
hatched-up explanations of biblical discrepancies until he has checked
to see if his "explanations" are consistent with all biblical texts.
No doubt Hebrews who read this tale of Abraham's purchase of the cave
of Machpelah understood what nathan meant as it was used here, so if
Hebrews could have read this statement and understood the meaning of
nathan as it was used in this context, why would they have had any
trouble understanding nathan as it was used in a context that came in
the very next chapter?
Genesis 24:1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and
Yahweh had blessed Abraham in all things.
2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that
ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
3 And I will make thee swear by Yahweh, the God of heaven, and
the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of
the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take
a wife unto my son Isaac.
5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not
be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son
again unto the land from whence thou camest?
6 And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my
son thither again.
7 Yahweh God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and
from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware
unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give [nathan] this land; he shall
send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from
thence.
Then when the land promise was renewed to Isaac, why would Hebrew
readers have been unable to determine from its context what nathan
meant?
Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first
famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech
king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And Yahweh appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt;
dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless
thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give [nathan] all these
countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy
father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,
and will give [nathan] unto thy seed all these countries; and in
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed....
It is noteworthy that nothing was said about "conditions" in this
renewal of the promise, but the passage did say in the very next verse
why Yahweh was renewing the land promise to Isaac.
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my
charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
In other words, as Frank Moore Cross noted in the quotation cited in
Part Four of my second-round replies to Turkel, "(T)hanks to the
fidelity of Abraham, the land is promised perpetually to his
seed." This was said in the context where Cross was explaining
that suzerainty treaties were unconditional as far as the people were
concerned.
I may as well go for overkill here and ask if Hebrew readers would have
had any difficulty determining from its context how nathan was used
when Yahweh renewed the land promise to Jacob.
Genesis 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out
of Padanaram, and blessed him.
10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not
be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called
his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and
multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings
shall come out of thy loins;
12 And the land which I gave [nathan] Abraham and Isaac, to thee
I will give [nathan] it, and to thy seed after thee will I give
[nathan] the land.
There were no "conditions" attached to the promise here either, and
there are no good reasons to think that literate Hebrews reading this
passage would not have understood what nathan meant.
Turkel(2):
Ex. 2:9 does not concern land, and especially not land "given" from a
deity to a people, so it is not a parallel for any passages relevant to
"Yahweh's Land Promise." But we would note that it does concern earned
wages. What if the nurse later bungled or fuddled on her job? Would she
still be "given" wages? If it was later discovered she was a slacker,
and rather than nursing, was out playing stick hockey, would not the
wages be demanded back? Rather than countering our case that the land
promises were conditional, Ex. 2:9 only supports our contention that
they were conditional, and shows that nathan does not offer any sense,
by itself, of permanent transference that our opponent's argument
requires.
Till(2):
Here's a good example of the kind of nonsense that inerrantists resort
to in their impossible quest to prove total consistency in the biblical
text. In Exodus 2:9, Pharaoh's daughter said to Moses' mother
"Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give you your
wages." The statement was made with the condition for receiving
the wages clearly stated: "Nurse the child, and I will give you your
wages." The promise was to pay the wages for the services
rendered. In the case of the land promise, no such conditions
were attached, and this is a point that Turkel seems unable to
understand, or at least he doesn't want to admit that he understands
it. As I noted above in quoting renewals of the land promise, no
conditions were attached. In renewing the promise to Isaac, for
example, Yahweh did not say, "Obey my commands, and I will give you all
of this land." Instead, he said, "Sojourn in this land, and I
will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy
seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath
which I sware unto Abraham thy father." The same is true of the
promise as it was renewed to Jacob and originally made to
Abraham. In none of these versions did Yahweh say, "Obey me, and
I will give you the land." He just flat-out said that he would
give the land.
Turkel is therefore comparing apples to oranges. Exodus 2:9 used
the word "give" [nathan] in a context that stated a condition: "Nurse
the child, and I will give you wages." I was quoting the text simply to
illustrate that nathan was used much in the same way that we use the
English word give. We can use it in contexts where conditions are
stated, as in, "Mow my lawn, and I will give you twenty dollars," or we
can use it in contexts where no conditions are stated, as in, "I will
give you twenty dollars."
Till(1):
Numbers 3:47 Thou shalt even take five shekels apiece by the poll,
after the shekel of the sanctuary shalt thou take them: (the shekel is
twenty gerahs:) And thou shalt give the money, wherewith the odd
number of them is to be redeemed, unto Aaron and to his sons.
Turkel(2):
Our opponent apparently means Numbers 3:47-8 and not merely 3:47. Once
again nathan does clearly connote transfer, but Aaron and his sons were
not the owners of the money; they were stewards of the money.
Till(2):
Turkel is quibbling again. I was quoting examples to show that
nathan was a Hebrew word that was used much in the same way that we use
the English word give.
Turkel(2):
This does not contradict our point, and does not have any relevance, as
it does not concern transfer of land from deity to people, nor does it
show that nathan indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our
opponent requires.
Till(2):
As I said above, I was quoting passages that used nathan in much the
same way that we use the English word give, but if Turkel is interested
in examples that show permanent, unconditional transference of land, he
can refer to the transactions in which Abraham bought property from
Ephron and Boaz bought the parcel of land that had belonged to
Elimelech (Ruth 4:1-6). If he wants examples that refers to the
permanent transference of land, he can refer to the examples of
Zelophehad's daughters (Num. 36:1-9), whose land was mandated to remain
permanently in the possession of their heirs.
Turkel's position on personal ownership of property in "Ancient Near
Eastern" times is clearly inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.
Till(1):
Judges 14:12 And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle
unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of
the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and
thirty change of garments: But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall
ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said
unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.
Turkel(2):
Here nathan is used in what is arguably a transfer of property rights,
but again, that is only established because of the context
Till(2):
Hallelujah! Maybe Turkel has finally seen the light and now
realizes that the meanings of words, whether English, French, Spanish,
Hebrew, Greek, or whatever, are always determined by context. If
he had realized this before, he could have saved us a lot of time.
Turkel(2):
(a wager -- we may note, with conditions!), not because of nathan
itself.
Till(2):
But, as noted in the example of Exodus 2:9, the condition was stated in
the context, and so the condition was stated here. My purpose in
quoting examples where nathan was used was not to argue that it was a
word that conveyed the sense of give with never any conditions attached
but only to show that the word was used in Hebrew much in the same way
that we use the English word give.
So Turkel is fighting another straw man. Conditions were
sometimes attached to the usage of nathan, but sometimes nathan was
used without conditions, as was the case in the land-promise passages
in Genesis and Deuteronomy 9:3ff. No conditions were stated
"thanks to the fidelity of Abraham," as Frank Moore Cross has noted.
Turkel(2):
This does not contradict our point, and does not have any relevance, as
it does not concern transfer of land from deity to people, nor does it
show that nathan indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our
opponent requires.
Till(2):
It did indicate permanent, unconditional transference if (1) the
promise stipulated no conditions and (2) the promise specifically
stipulated that the land would be given as an everlasting possession.
Till(1):
Judges 17:10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a
father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the
year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.
And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was
unto him as one of his sons.
Turkel(2):
Like Ex. 2:9, Judges 17:10 does not concern land,
Till(2):
The passage was quoted only to show that nathan in Hebrew was used much
in the same way that we use the English word give. It is, as
Turkel just refreshingly noted, the context that determines the meaning
of words, and I have quoted context after context to show that nathan
was used to denote the permanent, personal ownership of land.
Turkel(2):
and especially not land "given" from a deity to a people, so it is not
a parallel for any passages relevant to "Yahweh's Land Promise."
Till(2):
Well, I guess it is time to cut and paste my argument that shows that
Turkel's quibble about land given by a "deity" cannot in any way be
used to explain why Yahweh's land promise to the Israelites failed to
materialize as he had promised.
1. Even if we accept, his "Ancient Near Eastern Concept," he must
explain why the land promise did not succeed even in the "context" of
that ancient understanding. The words "give" and "possess" had
meaning, so in the different versions of the promise in Genesis where
Yahweh said that he would "give" the land to Abraham's descendants to
as an "everlasting possession," the terms "give" and "everlasting
possession" were intended to convey some kind of meaning. Turkel
says that they were used in a "feudal-landlord" sense in which the
Israelites were to be "rentors [sic]," so I have asked him to explain
to us when all the land within the defined borders of the promise was
ever given to the Israelites even in this "feudal-landlord" sense of
"tenancy." For all of his talk about having explained this "fully
below," Turkel has done no such thing.
2. Turkel claims that the "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land,
people, and deity meant that conditions were attached to the promise
and that the behavior of Abraham's descendants was a condition.
In reply to this, I have noted that (1) no conditions were stated or
implied anywhere in any of the versions of the promise recorded in
Genesis, (2) the restatement of the promise in Deuteronomy 9:3ff stated
that [a] Yahweh was giving the land to the Israelites even though they
had been rebellious and unrighteous from the day they had come out of
Egypt, and that [b] Yahweh was going to give them the land despite
their unrighteousness so that he could keep a promise made to Abraham.
3. At the time that Yahweh renewed this promise to the
Israelites, they had not even kept the rite of circumcision that Turkel
said was the "entry ritual" into the covenant.
4. The renewal of the promise to these Israelites, despite their
unrighteousness and failure at that time to be in covenant relationship
with Yahweh, would necessarily show that Yahweh considered the promise
made to Abraham to have been unconditional. It is completely
illogical to argue that the behavior of the Israelites was not a
condition at the time that Yahweh renewed this promise but then
immediately upon crossing the Jordan River, their obedience did become
a condition that justified withholding from them the land that he had
promised to Abraham.
5. Despite Turkel's claim that the book of Deuteronomy was a
"suzerainty treaty" that made the land promise conditional, very
reputable scholars like Frank Moore Cross, as I have noted above, have
noted that the suzerain aspect of the covenant meant only that the
behavior of rulers was a factor but that the land promise was
unconditional as far as the people in general were concerned.
6. Signs of retrospective editing in the book of Deuteronomy will
explain why some version of the promise attached conditions, but
regardless of what those conditional versions of the promise may have
said, they are incompatible with Deuteronomy 9:3ff, which clearly
excluded the righteousness of the Israelite people as a condition for
receiving the land.
7. Even if I should concede to Turkel that he is absolutely right
and that the land promise was conditional on the behavior of
Israelites--which is a concession that would not be supported by the
evidence--that concession would not explain the second major problem
identified in my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." That
problem is that Deuteronomy and/or the book of Joshua said that [a] no
man of the Canaanite nations would be able to stand against the
Israelites, [b] the Israelites would drive out and utterly destroy all
of the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, etc., [c] the Israelites possessed
all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [d] not one of the
promises that Yahweh made to Israel through Moses had failed, but
later Joshua and subsequent books said that [a] the Israelites
had not been able to drive out and utterly destroy some of the
Canaanites and Jebusites, [b] the Israelites had not possessed all of
the land that Yahweh had promised them, and [c] Canaanites, Hittites,
Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzites, and Amorites remained in the land as
late as the reign of Solomon. These are clear inconsistencies
that Turkel has not explained "fully below" and will not, and never
will be able to, explain fully below.
8. Number 7 is a clear case of the Bible's say P in some places
but ~P in other places, and it is not possible for P and ~P both to be
true.
Turkel(2):
But we would note that it also does concern earned wages. What if the
Levite later bungled or fuddled on his job? Would he still be "given"
wages? If it was later discovered he was a slacker, and rather than
doing his job, was out playing basketball, would not the wages be
demanded back? Rather than countering our case that the land promises
were conditional, Judges 17:10 only supports our contention that they
were conditional and contingent, and does not show that nathan
indicates permanent, unconditional transference as our opponent
requires.
Till(2):
Well, let the text speak for itself. It goes on to say that the
Levite faithfully discharged his duties.
Judges 17:11 The Levite agreed to stay with the man; and the
young man became to him like one of his sons.
12 So Micah installed the Levite, and the young man became his
priest, and was in the house of Micah.
13 Then Micah said, "Now I know that Yahweh will prosper me,
because the Levite has become my priest."
Anyway, as I have pointed out repeatedly above, Turkel is comparing
apples to oranges, because my purpose in quoting my examples was only
to show that the word nathan in Hebrew was used much in the same way
that give is in English, and so its meaning could be determined by its
usage. I was in no way trying to imply that the examples I
referred to involved the giving of land or anything remotely
similar. Furthermore, I have pointed out that the land promises
involved an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent deity, who stipulated no
conditions when he made the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so if
he had intended the promise to be conditional to the behavior of the
descendants of Abraham, he never would have made the promise in the
first place, for by virtue of his omniscience, he would have known that
Abraham's descendants would be a bunch of depraved, rebellious
ingrates. Why, then, would he have made a promise that was
conditional to something he knew at the time would keep the promise
from being fulfilled?
Till(1):
There are, of course, hundreds of other Old Testament passages that
used the word nathan.
Turkel(2):
There are actually 1833 verses that offer a total of 2027 examples of
nathan. Our opponent has not shown that any one of these contradicts
our case or uses in nathan in a way that indicates unconditional,
permanent transference.
Till(2):
Oh, yes, I have, but rather than bore the readers with tedious cutting
and pasting of what I have already said umpteen times, I will simply
refer them to my previous analysis of Deuteronomy 9:3ff, which clearly
showed that the behavior of Abraham's descendants could not have been a
condition of fulfillment, for if this had been a condition, Yahweh
could not have renewed the promise in this chapter. At that time,
he said that despite the unrighteousness of the Israelites, he was
giving the land to them in order to keep the promise he had made to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I have quoted the promise as it was
made to all three of these patriarchs, and no conditions were attached
to it.
Till(1):
A study of those other passages will show that the word was used much
in the same way that we use the word give in English.
Turkel(2):
We agree that nathan was indeed used much the same way as "give" in
English.
Till(2)
So if "we" agree that the word nathan was used in much the same way as
give is used in English, why did "we" waste so much time saying, "The
word used here was nathan," if "we" agree that the word used meant
"give"? Well, the answer is simple. "We" hoped to impress
"our" readers by making them think "we" are some kind of expert in
Hebrew.
Turkel(2);
Since we agree, it is not necessary to quote****
Till(1):
If someone gives an object, a piece of land, or an animal to someone
else, the other person "possesses" it.
Turkel(2):
The issue is not whether one who is "given" thereby "possesses"; the
issue is whether in being given -- with specific reference to the land
promise issue -- it connotes by itself a sense of unconditional
permanence. This issue our opponent has still not addressed.
Till(2):
Here is another indication that Turkel isn't really reading my
replies. If he would stop trying to cut and paste at the speed of
light, then maybe he would read what I have said on this issue. I
"addressed" it the first time around, and I have addressed it in much
more detail this round. Basically, my argument in round one was
that Deuteronomy 9:3ff, which contains Yahweh's renewal of the promise
just before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, said that although the
Israelites had been morally corrupt and rebellious from the day they
had come out of Egypt, he was giving the land to them anyway in order
to keep his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That passage
cannot be reconciled with other versions of the promise that say the
land would be given to the Israelites if they were good guys.
Thus, there is an inconsistency in the biblical text.
My expanded reply was cut and pasted just a few paragraphs above.
Readers can scroll up and see that this matter has been thoroughly
"addressed."
Till(1):
Turkel needs to explain why, if Yahweh promised to give [nathan] the
Israelites a land, with southern, northern, eastern, and western
boundaries defined, with the assurance that they would "possess"
[yarash] every bit of ground within that area that their feet would
tread upon, this promise was only partially kept.
Turkel(2):
We have already done this by demonstrating and explicating, above and
below, the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a
land, its people, and their deity, for it shows that Yahweh owned the
land and that the people were "rentors." Such****
Till(2):
As I have repeatedly shown, this "Ancient Near Eastern context" has
explained nothing. I have offered to concede to Turkel this
"feudal-landlord" concept for the sake of argument. With that
concession, I would like for him to show us when the Israelites were
ever even "rentors [sic]" or tenants of all the land promised.
The book of Joshua first says that they were but then says that they
weren't. How could Turkel's "feudal-landlord" concept explain
such an inconsistency? I'll use his terminology to present the
problem again so that he can ignore it again.
1. The book of Joshua says that the Israelites possessed in a
feudal-landlord sense all of the land that Yahweh had promised them.
2. Later, the book of Joshua says that the Israelites did not
possess in a feudal-landlord sense all of the land that Yahweh had
promised them.
Is it possible for P and ~P both to be true? That is the problem
that Turkel has tap danced around all through this debate.
Till(1):
But, of course, Turkel doesn't believe that there were any other real
gods besides Yahweh, so since he thinks that Yahweh was real, he needs
to explain why the land promise wasn't kept.
Turkel(2):
I have no opinion at this time as to whether any particular being or
other describing itself as a "god" did or did not exist. Unlike our
opponent, I remain "agnostic" on such issues without sufficient data
and do not presumptuously assume that any person who has indicated
belief in such beings are a sign of delusion.
Till(2):
If anyone had any doubts about Turkel's evasion, the statement he just
made should remove it. I think some questions are now in order.
1. Do you honestly believe that the Moabite god Chemosh may have
existed?
2. Do you honestly believe that the Babylonian god Marduk may
have existed?
3. Do you honestly believe that the Philistine god Dagon may have
existed?
4. Do you believe that the Old Testament accurately described the
god Yahweh?
5. If so, how would the existence of Yahweh, as described in the
Old Testament, allow for the possible existence of other gods like
Chemosh?
6. If not, then is it your position that the Bible erred in
saying that there is one God?
7. Do you believe the Tooth Fairy may exist?
Turkel(2):
I have also already explained the context of the Ancient Near Eastern
context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their
deity, which our opponent has neither refuted nor addressed, so that
this is merely another snide comment****
Till(2)
I won't cut and paste here my extended rebuttal of Turkel's "Ancient
Near Eastern" explanation of the land problem, since I quoted it
above. The rest of his comment was just more cutting and pasting.
Turkel(1):
Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return
from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and
where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and
thy God my God.
Till(1):
Why should this text be understood to mean any more than that Ruth, in
choosing to go with her mother-in-law Naomi, had decided that she would
also accept Naomi's god?
Turkel(2):
Our opponent, apparently realizing that this data befuddles his case,
does no more here than throw a smokescreen. The verse demonstrates the
intimate connection between land ("whither thou lodgest"), people ("my
people") and deity ("my God") that we have shown to be an essential
context for understanding the land promises. The three are intimately,
inextricably linked. We agree that in agreeing to go with Naomi, Ruth
was saying that she accepted Naomi's god. This is precisely because of
the land-people-deity relationship we have described. Our opponent has
not refuted this connection; he has merely waved it off as if to
suggest that Ruth's travel with Naomi is entirely coincidental to the
acceptance of Naomi's god. Given the relationship clearly expressed in
Ruth 1:16, the corresponding data from the Ancient Near Eastern
parallels, and a complete lack of evidence from our opponent that such
relations were merely coincidental, and not the result of an intimate
link, he has utterly failed to relieve himself of the burden placed on
him by Ruth 1:16.
Till(2):
There is absolutely nothing in Ruth 1:16 to support this "Ancient Near
Eastern" concept that land was "intimately and inextricably linked" to
gods. Admittedly, this was a view of the times, but unless Turkel
is completely ignorant of the Old Testament, he has to know that this
belief was not as deeply ingrained as he has been claiming.
Yahwism was in a constant struggle with idolatry from the earliest days
of Israelite history. The problem was so prevalent that laws were
written that imposed the death penalty on Israelites who worshiped
other gods besides Yahweh.
Deuteronomy 13:6 If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is
your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son
or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate
friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor
your ancestors have known,
7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether
near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,
8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no
pity or compassion and do not shield them.
9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first
against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from Yahweh
your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slavery.
11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do
any such wickedness.
Similar laws requiring the death penalty for those who worshiped gods
other than Yahweh were given in Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Leviticus
20:1-5, but in a culture where the "Ancient Near Eastern" concept that
Turkel keeps touting was as deeply ingrained as he claims, one would
think that worshiping gods other than Yahweh, especially the gods of
people "far away," would not have been a problem serious enough to
warrant harsh laws like these. In a society in which belief that
Yahweh owned all the land and reigned supreme over his realm was woven
tightly into its cultural fabric, worship of Yahweh and Yahweh only
would have been the norm, wouldn't it? However, if the Bible is
indeed "the inspired, inerrant word of God," Turkel should know that
this was not the case. Baal worship, right in the middle of the
land that Yahweh presumably owned was a continual problem, and not even
Elijah's and Jehu's massacres of Baal worshipers (1 Kings 18:40; 2
Kings 10:25-28) were able to stamp it out. Several references to
Baal worship were made after these massacres.
Turkel's premise is that an "ancient concept" of deity-land-people was
so deeply ingrained in the culture of the times that people thought
that when they moved into a realm or land presided over by a different
deity, they then had to switch religious loyalties and worship the
other deity, but there isn't much support for this claim in the
Bible. While the Israelites were living in the land that they
presumably knew that Yahweh owned and presided over, they still
worshiped foreign gods.
Judges 10:6 The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight
of Yahweh, worshiping the Baals and the Astartes, the gods of Aram, the
gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the
gods of the Philistines. Thus they abandoned Yahweh, and did not
worship him.
Here reference was made to five specific foreign territories or "lands"
whose gods were worshiped by the Israelites while they were living in
the land of Israel. Why would they have done this if this
"ancient concept" that Turkel keeps talking about was as deeply
instilled in the culture of the times as he claims?
Judges 8:33 As soon as Gideon died, the Israelites relapsed and
prostituted themselves with the Baals, making Baal-berith their god.
34 The Israelites did not remember Yahweh their God, who had
rescued them from the hand of all their enemies on every side....
Baal-berith was a Canaanite deity, but the Israelites of this time,
even though they were living in a time when there was presumably a
deeply ingrained belief that Yahweh owned all the land and was
therefore the god to worship, chose to worship another deity.
Throughout their "history," the Israelites engaged in the worship of
the deities of people with whom they had social contacts, and those
contacts more than any deeply held belief about deity-land-people
probably accounted for their religious choices. Solomon, for
example, who was presumably the wisest man who has ever lived (1 Kings
3:12), turned to the worship of other gods because of the influence of
his foreign wives.
1 Kings 11:1 King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the
daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite
women,
2 from the nations concerning which Yahweh had said to the
Israelites, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall
they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their
gods"; Solomon clung to these in love.
3 Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred
concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after
other gods; and his heart was not true to Yahweh his God, as was the
heart of his father David.
5 For Solomon followed Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and
Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and did
not completely follow Yahweh, as his father David had done.
Solomon lived in "the land" that Yahweh owned and presided over, and he
was presumably the wisest person who had ever lived, but he seemed not
to understand this deeply ingrained "ancient concept" that Turkel keeps
talking about, because he worshiped gods from other lands. Notice
the reference to verse 2 above, which was a marriage restriction that
had been pronounced in Deuteronomy 7:
Deuteronomy 7:3 Do not intermarry with them [the people then
living in Canaan], giving your daughters to their sons or taking their
daughters for your sons,
4 for that would turn away your children from following me, to
serve other gods.
Here was recognition of a primary factor in the religious choices of
people. Social contacts, especially one as intimate as marriage,
will have an influence on one's religious beliefs. Ezra 9 and 10
recount the purging of foreign wives from among the repatriates after
the Babylonian captivity, because these intimate social contacts had
led many to accept other gods. In telling this story, the writer
specifically referred to the marriage restriction just quoted (Ezra
9:1-2).
Social influence, then, is the most probable explanation for why Ruth
[in Turkel's proof text] told her mother-in-law Naomi that she would go
with her to Israel, where Naomi's people would become her people and
Naomi's god would become her god. It had been the social contact
with Naomi and the love that Ruth had developed for her mother-in-law
that had led her to make this choice, and not the fact that she thought
that in going to another "land" she had an obligation to worship the
god who presided over that land. As a matter of fact, the very
text that Turkel quoted indicated that Ruth had already accepted Yahweh
as her god before she and Naomi had left the land of Moab.
Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said, "Do not press me to leave you or to turn
back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I
will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
17 Where you die, I will die-- there will I be buried. May Yahweh
do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you.
Naomi and Ruth had not entered Israel when Ruth made this statement,
which indicates that she had even at that time already accepted Yahweh
as her god. After all, she had been married to Naomi's Jewish son
Mahlon while they were living in Moab, so there would have been nothing
at all unlikely about a woman's converting to the religion of her
husband. Even today some people who enter into marriage convert
to their spouses' religious beliefs.
Turkel can find nothing in Ruth 1:16 to justify his claim that Ruth
accepted Yahweh as her god because she was leaving Moab to go into
Israel, which was the realm that she understood Yahweh to
own. He'll have to go back to the drawing board and look
for more evidence to support his position.
Till(1):
In fact, if Turkel had quoted more than just this one verse, he should
have seen a definite implication that Ruth had already accepted Yahweh
as her god, even though she was still living in Moab at the time.
"Yahweh do so to me, and more also," she said to Naomi, "if ought but
death part thee and me."
Turkel(2):
This is utterly beside the point, as it does not address the intimate
link expressed between land, deity, and people in Ruth 1:16.
Till(2):
Just why is this "utterly beside the point"? If Ruth had already
accepted Yahweh because of the social influence of her marriage to a
believer in Yahweh, then Turkel cannot claim that she switched gods
just because she was going from one "land" to another. My
detailed explication above clearly shows that people of that time made
religious choices for much the same reason as people today, i. e.,
social contacts.
Turkel(2):
It is also irrelevant because it is from Ruth 1:17, and is said in
light of the certain knowledge that the ultimate destination is Israel,
and that that Yahweh was indeed God there.
Till(2):
I'd like to see Turkel prove that Ruth had not already made her
religious choice because of her marriage into a family of Yahweh
worshipers for whom she obviously had a deep affection. I'll ask
Turkel to point out the specific language in the context of Ruth's
statement that would support his claim that she made her decision to
accept Yahweh as her god only because she was going into the land where
Yahweh was worshiped. As the texts that I explicated above
clearly show, the Israelites in this "land" Ruth was going to obviously
worshiped other deities too. If they didn't understand that
living where they did in some way obligated them to worship Yahweh, how
can Turkel know that Ruth felt that entering the land of Israel somehow
obligated her to accept Yahweh as her god?
Obviously, he sees what he wants to see in the text.
Turkel(2):
Far from contadicting [sic] our point about the he [sic] context of the
Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its
people, and their deity, Ruth 1:17 only confirms it, for it shows
further that Ruth recognized that the move to Israel would mean, for
her, a change in deity to whom she owed primary loyalty as the "owner"
of the land in which she would now be a tenant.
Till(2)
My analyses of various texts above clearly show that this is simply the
balderdash of a biblicist who is desperately searching for some way to
solve a serious discrepancy in the Bible. I'll ask him again to
cite the specific language in the context of Ruth 1:16 that would show
that Ruth accepted Yahweh as her god only for the speculative reason
that Turkel has postulated.
I'm not interested in his opinion. I want to see the textual
evidence.
This section contains over 14,000 words, so I will resume my rebuttal
of Turkel's quibbles in Part Six.
