Despite various challenges we have issued for someone to write an article in response to "No Bastards Allowed" (TSR, Spring 1994, pp. 7, 12, 16), no one has yet accepted the challenge. This article focused on problems for the Bible inerrancy doctrine raised by Deuteronomy 23:2, which prohibited bastards from entering the assembly of Yahweh "even to the tenth generation." A central point of the article focused on the issue of Aaron's sons, whom Yahweh ordained to serve as priests in his assembly (Num. 3:1-3), even though they were fifth-generation descendants of the bastard Perez through their mother Elisheba (Gen. 38:24-30, Ruth 4:18; Ex. 6:23). At my debate with Jerry Moffitt last May, Marion Fox, Moffitt's moderator, told the audience that he would write an article that would present some "good answers" to the problem, but we have yet to hear from Mr. Fox. With so many "good answers" at his disposal, we have to wonder why he wouldn't have submitted his article by now. Perhaps he, like Lindell Mitchell, doesn't want to humiliate me publicly.
Despite the loud silence on this issue from those we have directly challenged to explain why Deuteronomy 23:2 doesn't destroy the myth of Bible inerrancy, we did receive two letters from subscribers who proposed similar solutions to the problem. Their explanation centered on the meaning of the Hebrew word mamzer, which is translated "bastard" in this verse. According to both letter-writers, the word didn't mean "bastard" in the sense that we assign the word in English. A mamzer, we were assured, was someone "born of a forbidden marriage."
Both letter-writers cited two authorities in support of their position, Strong's Concordance and the NIV Bible. Strong states that mamzer is "from an unused root, meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e., born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother:--bastard," and the NIV renders Deuteronomy 23:2 like this: "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation." Hence, the letter-writers concluded, only those born of forbidden marriages were banned from the assembly and not "bastards" in the English sense of the word. Both Elisheba and Aaron were of Jewish descent; therefore, Elisheba's sons were not mamzers and were qualified to enter into the assembly of Yahweh.
Obviously, a lot depends upon the meaning of mamzer, so we need to take a careful look at the word. It appears only twice in the Old Testament (Dt. 23:2 and Zech. 9:6), and both times it is translated bastard in the KJV and ASV. Most other versions translate it bastard or equivalent in Deuteronomy 23:2, but some of them give it the sense of "strangers," or "mongrels" in Zechariah 9:6. In defining "bastard," Eerdmans Bible Dictionary also indicated a degree of uncertainty:
A name given to those begotten in adultery or incest (Heb. mamzer, Deut. 23:2; NIV "born of a forbidden marriage"). This violation of marriage was such a serious offense that such persons and their descendants were denied admission to the assembly of the LORD, first in the temple and later in the synagogue, to the "tenth generation" (Deut. 23:2)--i.e., forever. At Zech 9:6 "a mongrel people" [KJV, JB "bastard"; NIV "foreigners"] refers to a nation of mixed population (1987, p. 129).Scriber's Dictionary of the Bible takes the position that mamzer "means a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child" (Vol. 1, 1923, p. 257).
So what did the Hebrew word mamzer mean? Scholarship offers us three choices: a person born of adultery, a person born of incest, or a person born of a forbidden or mixed marriage. Unfortunately for our inerrantist friends, we can give them their choice of definitions and it won't matter, because all of the definitions pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. Elsewhere in this issue, my article "More Trouble for the Perfect-Harmony Theory" shows serious inconsistency between the biblical claim that God doesn't show partiality to individuals and several passages that indicate he did on various occasions show partiality. As an example of partiality, I noted the very passage that we are now discussing--Deuteronomy 23:2. If an individual were banned from the assembly because of a circumstance of birth, it really wouldn't matter whether the person being banned had been born of adultery, incest, or a "forbidden (mixed) marriage." Any one of these reasons would make Yahweh guilty of showing partiality, because people simply cannot help the circumstances of their birth. If they are born of adultery, incest, or mixed marriages, there is nothing they can do about it. So what business does an infinitely impartial god have banning people from his assembly because of circumstances related to birth? This is something inerrantists need to explain before any other problems related to Deuteronomy 23:2 are even considered.
Something else they should try to explain is why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would choose to reveal his divine truths to mankind in an "inspired" book that no one can be sure of understanding. What does mamzer mean? If the meaning of the word is indeed obscure, this would be just the tip of an iceberg of linguistic confusion that one will encounter in studying the Bible. One may as well ask what was meant in Leviticus 6:21 or 1 Samuel 13:21 or Jeremiah 11:15 or Proverbs 22:20. These are just some of many Old Testament passages where detailed reference Bibles append footnotes to explain that some words in the Hebrew text are too obscure for translators to be sure of the meaning. In countless other cases, even when literal word-meanings are known, the language of the Bible is so vaguely and abstractly written that no one can be sure what the writers meant. Consider, for example, this statement from the prophet Ezekiel:
Then I looked , and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves' feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. The hands of a man were under their wings on their four sides; and each of the four had faces and wings. Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn when they went, but each one went straight forward... (1:4-9).This vision of the four living creatures goes on for three chapters--in fact, it's questionable where this vision ended and the next one began--and no one really knows what any of it meant. Such stuff as this has provided an endless supply of sermon fodder for preachers on cable TV who think they see signs of the end in current events--and no two ever see exactly the same thing.
In reading such passages as this, one wonders what the writers were smoking or drinking when they wrote them, and we have every right to ask if this is the best job of verbal inspiration that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could do. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy 23:2 had to mean something by the words he used, so if he were truly inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why couldn't he have said what he meant in terms so clear that no one could have misunderstood him?
The problems of divine partiality and obscurity in an inspired text aside, the statement in Deuteronomy 23:2 is incompatible with the biblical inerrancy claim regardless of which of the three previously mentioned meanings is given to the word mamzer. If the writer meant bastard in the sense of someone born of an adulterous relationship, then unquestionably, the appointment of Aaron's sons to the priesthood was inconsistent with Yahweh's decree that "bastards" would be banned from the assembly "even unto ten generations." That point has already been established, so there is no need to rehash it.
To claim that a mamzer was the offspring of an incestuous relationship will not remove the problem with respect to Aaron's sons, because Perez, the great-great-grandfather of Aaron's wife Elisheba, was, according to Jewish law, born of an incestuous relationship. Tamar, the mother of Perez, was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the father of Perez, and Leviticus 20:12 specifically prohibited "lying" with one's daughter-in-law, as did also Leviticus 18:15. So if Perez was not a mamzer in the sense of mere illegitimacy, he was a mamzer in the sense of having been born of an incestuous relationship.
Inerrantists can't take refuge in the third definition of mamzer either, for if the offspring of mixed marriages was what the writer meant in Deuteronomy 23:2, the problem of inconsistency will merely shift from Aaron's sons to David, the Israelite king who was a man after Yahweh's own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Ruth, David's great-grandmother, was a Moabitess (Ruth 4:13-22), so if a mamzer was the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David's grandfather Obed was a mamzer, and David, only the second-generation descendant of a mamzer should have been banned from the assembly. Obviously, though, David wasn't banned from the assembly, because the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles describes activities in the assembly in which David participated.
Furthermore, if a mamzer was indeed the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David's parentage was a double problem for him. Not only would the restriction on descendants of mamzers have disqualified him from entering the assembly, but the same passage specified that Moabites and their descendants "shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation" (Dt. 23:3). So poor David would have had a double whammy pronounced on him. However, the fact that neither of these restrictions was applied to David simply shows how inconsistent the biblical text is.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for inerrantists. They dig and
dig
to try to get out of the hole they are in only to find themselves
in a deeper one after they have presented all of their
how-it-could-have-
been
scenarios.
