Could this really have happened?

What I am looking for are a few examples from the Bible of narratives that don’t quite sound plausible.For example, is the following quote at all plausible?
Exodus 1:15-19The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"
The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive." Was pharaoh so dumb that he wouldn’t have asked “why do they need midwives then?Another example would be Samson.Judges 16:17-22 So he told her everything. "No razor has ever been used on my head," he said, "because I have been a Nazirite set apart to God since birth. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man."

​

When Delilah saw that he had told her everything, she sent word to the rulers of the Philistines, "Come back once more; he has told me everything." So the rulers of the Philistines returned with the silver in their hands. 19 Having put him to sleep on her lap, she called a man to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him. And his strength left him.

​

Then she called, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!"
He awoke from his sleep and thought, "I'll go out as before and shake myself free." But he did not know that the LORD had left him.

​

Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison. But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.How dumb is this passage asking us to believe that the Philistine’s were?If you read all of Chapter 16 you will see that it took a few attempts to find out the secret of Samson’s strength. So, after the secret is discovered the Philistines just sit back and watch Samson’s hair grow! Sounds just a little too silly for me.So, does anyone have any similar examples? If I could get a few for Friday it would be appreciated. I am going to discuss this with a few students and I’ll let you know how things go.I am open to the possibility that these narratives are completely plausible as I may be overlooking something, so I welcome any clarification of the cited passages, or any new passages donated by other members.Bible study for this if accepted.Brian.

Yes, those damn pyramids were so easy to build There are other probs with the midwives' tale. Two midwives for 2.5 million people is a bit silly, as is pharaoh actually asking them to help in the first place.Brian.

I thought about that and dismissed it because of what the text says earlier in the book.Exodus 1:16When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool....They do attend births. Indeed, so why did the Philistines allow it to grow back?Imagine, the only danger to you is if this guy grows long hair, you have him bound up in prison, do you let his hair grow?In fact, why wouldn't you just terminate him over at Delilah's pad?Brian.

This isnt really what it says Phat. it says that Hebrew are not like Egyptian women, they deliver before the midwives get there. If they did then they don't really need a midwive to attend the birth. Don't you think that pharaoh would be a little suspiscious that all of a sudden Hebrew women started giving birth without any midwife in attendance? Come over to the dark side Luke Brian.

I explained why I wanted these references, I made no attempt to disguise anything. The references are for an introduction to the Hebrew Bible lesson, and it is to demonstrate that the Bible is a collection of texts from many different genres. In any sane person’s mind as well I would add. Hardly apt for a biblical studies lesson. I think you are missing the point. The examples are not to highlight ”foolish mistakes’, because they aren’t mistakes. The examples demonstrate that much in the Bible cannot be taken at face value, we need to alter the way in which we read the texts, these examples reveal that the Bible includes many myths. As I already pointed out, the fact that they did attend births was the reason why pharaoh asked them to help out. Why is it impossible? It is very easy IMO to spot logical errors in the Bible. I am using good sense, it is bad sense to believe that the pharaoh or the Philistines were as dense as the Bible makes them out to be. These tales smack of folk lore. That really isn’t at all what I am claiming; I am claiming that these examples are evidence that the Bible contains folk lore and myths. It is because these stories are so illogical that it is difficult to take them at face value. Misunderstood. Brian

Why must it have been God? Why can't the story be fictional? Where do you get this from? Well, they told pharaoh a lie, so I don't know if it is lawful to tell a lie. The Bible doesn't even imply this, it clearly says that the midwives let the boys live because they feared God. it doesn't say that the Jewish women actually did give birth before the midwives arrived. How do you know this? Samson's hair was long because he was supposed to be a Nazarite. Where are you getting this from?I don't see where in the story that Samson is reconciled with God, all it says about God and the return of Samson's strength is:Judges 16:28-30 Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. It doesn't even say that God did strengthen Samson. If you notice in other passages (e.g. 14:19) the spirit of God comes upon Samson in power. This isn't mentioned when Samson topples the temple.What did he have to reconcile?Judges 16:22 But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.There would be no point in mentioning the hair growing if it wasn't crucial to the plot. Why would the Philistines have any belief in the power of Yahweh, did they worship Yahweh?The Philistines were only aware that his hair gave him strength, what did they know about any covenant?Brian.Edited by Brian, : edited to add that Covenants were indeed a dime a dozen, many nations had numerous covenants with their God (s)

Perhaps he behaved in an 'unNazarite' way because his free will was denied by God? Samson never chose to be a Nazarite. The Samson narratives are riddled with inconsistencies, mythological leitmotifs, and illogical claims, the weirdest thing about this thread is that some people actually think that Samson's adventures were real!I am now beyond the point where I am amazed at people's gullibility, I don't even shake my head in bewilderment anymore. Brian.

Because they had just had a conversation that mentioned the midwives attending births. But it states explicitly in the text that they attended births:Exodus 1:16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool,So, you are still saying that the midwives never attend births? Did midwives carry out these duties 3500 years ago in Hebrew society? Please provide supporting references. So does a little common sense. I already said that I considered exactly what you are saying, but I rejected it based on what the text actually says. You see, unlike a lot of people at this site, I actually do read the Bible and research it. Unlike some people, I do not project back in time a modern day job description onto a distant era and just assume that nothing has changed. Why would he say: "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool” if he didn’t think midwives attended the births?The midwives were ordered to kill baby boys when they were born.
God knows where your logic is mate, have you read the text and even thought about how flawed your argument is?The pharaoh orders the midwives to kill all baby boys whose birth they attend. You say that the pharaoh is aware that midwives are used after births as well. Why didn’t the pharaoh just tell the midwives to kill the baby boys at the first opportunity? He didn’t, because the text informs us that Hebrew women did have midwives in attendance.Another question might be, why did the midwives not inform pharaoh that they didn’t attend births at the appropriate time?Now, much more reasonable would be a conversation along these lines:Pharaoh: "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live."Midwives: Sorry, but we do not attend births, the Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women, they give birth before we arrive. Pharaoh I see, fine I’ll go with plan B, let’s through the babies in the Nile. It is as if some people lose the ability to read when they are faced with an insurmountable error in the Bible, because if you actually read the conversation nothing of what you claim is even reasonable.Look at the conversation with an open mind, just for a second, and you will see how straightforward it is.Right after pharaoh has ordered them to kill the babies, this is written:Exodus 1:17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.It is so obvious that they attended the births but let the boys live, they didn’t do what they were told, they did something else. Historical research is initially all about speculation, and rational narratives go a long way towards reconstructing an accurate past.And you are correct, the problem isn’t an errant or unbelievable Bible, that the Bible contains errors and impossible events has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The discussion here is about how illogical some of the narratives are. Again, all enquiries begin with speculation, and the plausibility of a text determines how trustworthy the story is. But, you don’t have to be very intelligent to see the huge error in thought here. The one big threat to your security depends on a man’s hair being short, so you allow it to grow long, Jesus even Bush could work that out. This is yet another illogical argument. But, by you logic, you would have to prove that EVERY judgement throughout history man has made has been illogical! Again, you go imposing a modern day situation back onto an ancient time. The modern day example is far more complex than the little tale we are looking at. We are told in the Bible that Samson had already slaughtered over 1000 Philistines, they know the cure, they applied the cure, then they sat back and watched the danger return. Why would they ignore them? Of course it is speculation. But, to even attempt to speculate about any Bible event means that we first need to get rid of a lot of ”background noise’. Once we rationalise a text, which allows us to reject impossible claims or to remove events from the Bible that have been demonstrated to be untrue, then from this we can examine the textual claims that remain in order to try and construct a reasonably accurate event. For these examples to be taken literally you have a huge task ahead of you. For example, for the midwives tale to be taken literally you would have to demonstrate that there were Hebrews enslaved by a pharaoh sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE. Good luck with that because after more than 150 years of intensive research, not a single scholar has successfully achieved this. You would also have to demonstrate that a pharaoh would bother consulting with slaves in this manner. You would also have to demonstrate that there was a group in Egypt at a certain time that had a extremely increased population growth rate. So, you are quite incorrect to say we can take any of these examples literally. That isn’t what I am asking. George Bush is basically a moron, but how many decisions do you really think Bush is allowed to make. Luckily he has a team of advisors and is not making decisions by himself.We know that George Bush is a moron, however, we do not even know who the pharaoh was, so how can you say he was dumb? That the pharaoh isn’t named in the Bible is a hugely suspicious omission, and yet another clue that these tales are fiction. Numerous pharaoh have shown that they were indeed extremely intelligent, so once you present the name of the pharaoh we can look at what we know of him and perhaps come to some conclusions about your stance. Everything you have said is speculation! The problem is, you haven’t read the texts properly. Plus you are starting out with a faulty premise. Who said it was?But, as I said earlier, to speculate on an event first requires that the evidence about an event is rationalised, and any unreasonable (in the historian’s opinion) claims removed.The story of the midwives reeks of fantasy, not only because of the attending a birth error, but because of many other factors.BrianEdited by Brian, : formatting of quotes

Why can’t you answer the questions?Why must it be God?Why can’t it be fictional?Two very simple questions, have a go at answering them. I can look at it from a lot more than 2 perspectives. No you can’t. This was an enquiry about the possible historicity of a biblical passage. Historical enquiry cannot include fantasy beings as an explanation for anything. This is the exact opposite of what historical research is! You do not make the story fit anything, you examine the story on its own merits and then apply what knowledge you already have and then conclude whether parts or the entire story is plausible. An historian NEVER embarks on a research topic with the attitude that they already have an accurate record of what they are investigating.What would be the point in investigating the historicity of a biblical event if you already believe that you have an accurate record? No, it isn’t an over generalised story of what happened, it is a story of what someone is claiming happened, there’s a big difference. Also, we do not know if it is over generalised or not because we do not know the author’s intentions. When taken with the rest of the prehistory books of the Bible, and placed into an historical context, there is more than enough information to make an informed conclusion. Where are we told this? Really? I thought the moral of the story was that obedience to God brings rewards, and this is why the midwives are rewarded by having their own families.You see, my conclusion is based on the text, your conclusion is based on what you imagine.Exodus 1:21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own. But, what they said to him was a lie. So, how do you consider it lawful? This is what textual analysis is mate. You do not just break the text down to what you want it to be, you break it down into as many possibilities as you can and then decide which scenario is the most plausible. God protected them so well that every boy two years old and under was thrown into the Nile, except for Moses.But, seriously, I am more inclined towards the story being the prelude of the Moses myth, and perhaps borrowing from the earlier Sargon literature. So stop making absolute statements then. You *think* this is what the story is about, just as I *think* that the story is part of the Moses story. The Book of Exodus, at face value, has been shown beyond all doubt to be fiction. Now, this does not mean that there aren’t historical kernels within the text. It is a Herculean task to filter out the exaggerations, historical inaccuracies and outright fiction from the rest of the text. To say that the story is not a myth is, at this moment in time, contrary to all of the extant evidence. Pray tell where the quote you provided mentions God providing Samson with superhuman strength. All the text says is that a barren woman will give birth to a son who will begin to Judge Israel. Anything else is just you adding to the text. Why would God leave him when his hair was cut, this makes no sense at all. If it is because the long hair was the sign of a Nazarite then what about all the other things Samson did that was against the rules of being a Nazarite. For example, he touched corpses and God did not leave him, so why should the hair be any different? Quite easily, if you critically analyse the text.First off, the text you quoted does not mention the spirit of God coming upon Samson as he carried out this superhuman feat. When God is with Samson, the text explicitly states so.Judges 14:6 The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.Judges 14:19 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house.Judges 15:14-15As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting.
The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. 15 Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.So, where in the text you quoted does the “Spirit of the LORD” come upon Samson?To save you some time, Samson does NOT need the Spirit of the LORD to carry out superhuman feats:Judges 16:3 But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate, together with the two posts, and tore them loose, bar and all. He lifted them to his shoulders and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron.Judges 15:8 is sometimes also said to be an example of Samson’s superhuman abilities without the Spirit of God upon him, but I wouldn’t argue too much in its favour: He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them. Then he went down and stayed in a cave in the rock of Etam.You really need to try reading the entire texts, these ad hoc claims of yours are contradicting the Book you allegedly follow. Nice sentiments, but unbiblical.Brian

Do you never tire if inventing things?Samson betrayed God many times before he told Delilah anything.Brian.

The 'birth hair' for a start.Midwives do not attend births.That pharaoh knew of the Israelite God.The Philistines didn't think his power would return with his hair.Covenants were not a dime a dozen.God strenghtened Samson at Dagon's temple."When his hair was cut, God left him, not his strength." So he still had his strength? Unbelievable.There are more that we will come to. I am asking you a simple question: DO you mot tire of invventing things? It really looks as if you are because your version of events is very different form the Bible's. Yes, your tremendous grasp of the text has floored me, especially the large chunks that you ignore. Don't be so harsh on yourself.Brian.

If the power was not in his hair then why does the Bible point out this:Judges 16:22But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.Come on RR, how obvious does something have to be? The hair growing back is a literary device that informs the reader that Samson has his strength back. Why else mention it?To follow your version it would be more plausible if the hair growing back was not mentioned, or the Philistines kept Samson's head shaved.Also, as I have shown you, God was not always with Samson at a superhuman outburst.Oh, and calm down, its only a story.Brian.

Nazarites were forbidden to cut their hair RR, not just Samson, but any one who decides to become a Nazarite. They were forbidden to drink alcoholand ot touch dead bodies as well.Long hair was a requirement for a Nazarite.

The stories in chapters 14-16 are not dependant on each other and can be read independently. Chapter 13 is believed to be a later addition that introduces the collection of folk tales about Samson.Judges J. Alberto Soggin. London : SCM Press, 1981.Brian.

Sorry about the delay RR, If the strength wasn't in the hair, why did Samson say it was? Why didn’t he say that the LORD will strengthen me as long as I don’t cut my hair?Samson says that if his hair is shaven then he is as weak as any other man. If his strength was from God, and God would leave him if he cut his hair, then why did Samson not say that his strength was in the LORD?If God would only strengthen Samson if he kept the long hair, a sign of a Nazarite, then why didn’t God leave him when he broke any other Nazarite vow?If the strength wasn't in his hair then how did he manage to carry off the huge city gates and take them all the way to the top of the hill? Well, I think this is where your logic breaks down. If he drew his strength from the LORD, then why would he not pray to God to strengthen him before the Philistines put him in jail and then gouged his eyes out? Why didn't he pray to Yahweh when he was on the way to jail, slaughter the Philistines, and escape? If God would only strengthen Samson when his hair grew back then it just highlights that the ”Birth Hair’ argument is flawed!Regarding your argument that the hair was nothing more than a ruse, that just takes us back to the initial argument. If the LORD wouldn't strengthen Samson until his hair was long, how would anyone know this, especially since Samson did not reveal this?Now, imagine that you are a Philistine, and this superman is running amok in your territory. You learn that the only way to subdue this man is to shave his head, you shave his head and he does indeed lose his strength. Now, AS FAR AS YOU are concerned the strength MUST have been in his hair because now the hair has gone he has no superhuman strength. When he has been lying in your jail shaven, he has shown no signs of superhuman strength, so surely you ensure that his hair doesn't grow because the last time he had hair he kicked your ass.This is the crux of the argument, if the Philistines believed that a long haired Samson is extremely dangerous, why would they have allowed his hair to grow back? I think that this possibility is so absurd, that it is a very good reason for rejecting the historicity of this particular event, it reeks of folk lore.I see your argument, but there are verses where he carries out superhuman feats and God isn't mentioned, so there is at least a POSSIBILITY that he can be superhuman without God. All I can do is present to you the text that mentions a superhuman Samson without the power of God upon him, if you choose to add to the text then that's up to you. But, for me, it makes the construction of the story far more interesting. For example, when one incident mentions 'the spirit of God' coming upon Samson and another verse doesn't, it stimulates my interest into wondering why this is so. Were several different authors involved, were certain words or phrases added later, can we see any obvious disjointed passages, why was God absent from some superhuman events, can we place Samson into a real historical context, does the story contain any etiologies, anachronisms, and so on?This is what biblical studies is all about IMO, if a researcher doesn't break down the text and then come up with a range of possibilities, then the are doing themselves and the Bible a disservice. To simply say that the power of God is mentioned in some passages that relate a superhuman feat must mean that the power of God was present in the passages that don't mention the power of God.I don't know about anyone else but that would drive me mad, how can anyone just be happy to research the Bible in such a way. I am not saying anyone here has this approach; I am speaking in general terms. Okay, the angel says,Jdg 13:5 because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite,It has been prophesised that Samson will be a Nazirite, and because of this prophecy the family know that they cannot cut his hair, since Nazirites are not permitted to do so. Therefore, whenever his hair is cut it is going to be the hair he had from birth, at least that is what I think you are saying. If it is then why would God abandon Samson when he gets his head shaved but not abandon him when he breaks countless other Nazarite vows? I understand what you are saying, but I am honestly having trouble reconciling it with the text, and with the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Ah, but how do we know this? If anything the text suggests that Samson’s hair MUST be kept short, here’s what he says to Delilah: It says, ”if my head was shaved, my strength would leave me’. Wouldn’t it make more sense to think that if his head wasn’t shaved then his strength would return?Samson did not say his strength would leave him forever, so how would the Philistines know? The power returned when his hair was long! Well, I had a class of 25 sixteen and seventeen year olds who concluded exactly the same as I did, that the Philistines could not have been that dumb, therefore it is a good reason to reject the historicity of this particular narrative. As far as they were concerned it came from his hair. Samson even said that, so why would they go getting al deep and philosophical about it when it is a very explicit claim? Yes, and they believed Samson’s power was in his hair, it was what they were told by Delilah. No I’m not, I am flabbergasted that they would be so stupid. How do you know this? How do you know what they believed? Where is there even a hint of this in the text? The problem is that there is no support for what you believe about the Philistines.From your post to Ringo: The whole point is that they wouldn’t have let it grow back, hence we have a flawed tale. How else did he pull down Dagon’s temple? Hooray!!!!!Now you are seeing the point of the thread. Since it is difficult to imagine that every Philistine in Palestine was retarded, this is evidence against the historicity of the event. It is just one piece of evidence, the entire tale of Samson (from chaps. 13-16) is rife with illogical statements.Brian.