Bret Ripley wrote:I understand where you're coming from. It's just that Ezekiel has YHWH saying "I gave them statutes ...", but we have no record in which YWHW commands his people to sacrifice their children to other gods. To be honest, the assertion that any ancient god is being portrayed as commanding his/her followers to "honor" competing gods in this fashion is extraordinary enough to require firm evidence.
I would suggest the evidence is in the context of Ez. 20
The tradition recorded in Exodus 22:29 allows Ezekiel to make sense without invoking a "statute" not in evidence.
There are a lot of things no longer in evidence. Why is that any more a problem than YHWH reversing himself? The time frame we're discussing here potentially involves a time before Exodus was compiled anyway, doesn't it?
And that's fine. But it seems to me that if we look at the biblical writings as containing these evolving human conceptualizations of God (deeply influenced by time and culture), whatever issues you may have with the texts are resolved.
Maybe, but in this case we're looking at precisely what two specific texts actually say. I don't see the hard connection between Ez. 20 and Exodus 22.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
Bret Ripley wrote:I understand where you're coming from. It's just that Ezekiel has YHWH saying "I gave them statutes ...", but we have no record in which YWHW commands his people to sacrifice their children to other gods. To be honest, the assertion that any ancient god is being portrayed as commanding his/her followers to "honor" competing gods in this fashion is extraordinary enough to require firm evidence.
I would suggest the evidence is in the context of Ez. 20
Ezekiel 20 refers to a statute ordering child sacrifice, but I don't see how the context can constitute "firm evidence" of a commandment that YHWH's followers sacrifice their children to competing gods without coming uncomfortably close to begging the question. If there were an example hinting at YHWH doing something similar outside this passage I would be more sympathetic to this interpretation.
The tradition recorded in Exodus 22:29 allows Ezekiel to make sense without invoking a "statute" not in evidence.
There are a lot of things no longer in evidence.
True.
Why is that any more a problem than YHWH reversing himself?
I don't see any problem at all with one writer who disagrees with another writer portraying YHWH as reversing himself. For that matter, neither do I see a problem with a single writer portraying YHWH as changing his mind or regretting his actions (indeed, we see examples of both in the Old Testament). I do understand how this sort of thing could pose problems for some folks, though, depending on how much freight they want to pack into ideas regarding inspiration or canonization.
The time frame we're discussing here potentially involves a time before Exodus was compiled anyway, doesn't it?
That seems possible. However, that would not mean that Ezekiel was unaware of traditions that were later preserved in Exodus.
And that's fine. But it seems to me that if we look at the biblical writings as containing these evolving human conceptualizations of God (deeply influenced by time and culture), whatever issues you may have with the texts are resolved.
Maybe, but in this case we're looking at precisely what two specific texts actually say. I don't see the hard connection between Ez. 20 and Exodus 22.
Sure. Ezekiel refers to a "statute" that may or may not refer specifically to the text that is preserved in Exodus 22 even though this remains our only known candidate. If there is no direct literary connection, it may be that both passages relate to some other tradition that involved child sacrifice to YHWH. I understand that some will reject that idea for doctrinal reasons, but I think it makes more sense and pays greater respect to the texts than does creating a commandment out of whole cloth that has YHWH commanding his followers to sacrifice their children to competing gods. As horrific as child sacrifice is to us -- and also to Ezekiel and several other Old Testament texts including some of the traditions preserved in Exodus -- commanding child sacrifice to competitor-gods combines the horrific with the nonsensical.
We have indications from external sources that Canaanites made human sacrifices to El. We also know that at some point YHWH became conflated with El. It seems at least possible that human sacrifice to YHWH existed for a time as an artifact of Canaanite El worship, but that the practice (though not necessarily the principle) was later done away with.
Here's an article discussing human sacrifice in ancient Canaan/Israel that you may find interesting:
Bret Ripley wrote:Ezekiel 20 refers to a statute ordering child sacrifice,
If we're going to scrutinize the text, it actually says "statutes" plural.
but I don't see how the context can constitute "firm evidence" of a commandment that YHWH's followers sacrifice their children to competing gods without coming uncomfortably close to begging the question.
I don't see firm evidence either way.
If there were an example hinting at YHWH doing something similar outside this passage I would be more sympathetic to this interpretation.
Do you know of an example of God changing his mind on something as serious as child sacrifices?
We may have to agree to disagree on this, because I don't think the matter can be definitively resolved, but at least I think you should be able to see my point if you read the entire chapter. The chapter is about Isreal's desire to worship idols. This theme runs strong and consistent all the way through verse 44, well past vv. 25-26. vv 25-26 are smack in the middle of this long diatribe against the worship of idols. The case you and mak are trying to make has God injecting - right in the middle of this diatribe against idols - the notion that one of his former commands was a bad command and that was the command to sacrifice to him rather than to idols. In that context, with all due respect, what you are arguing simply does not make sense to me. Can you point to any other scripture where God says a sacrifice to him is a bad thing? (I should add that scriptures that argue that "to obey is better than sacrifice" do not count, since that is a completely different question).
I don't see any problem at all with one writer who disagrees with another writer portraying YHWH as reversing himself.
If those writers were not writing under inspiration, then, sure there's no problem. But if you're attempting to use Ez. vs. Ex. to prove that point, then you are "coming uncomfortably close to begging the question."
For that matter, neither do I see a problem with a single writer portraying YHWH as changing his mind or regretting his actions (indeed, we see examples of both in the Old Testament).
In a metaphorical way, perhaps or maybe it merely appears as though God changed his mind from the human perspective or if God for some reason decided to limit himself (which sounds paradoxical). But the way I see it, the definition of an omniscient being means that he knows what lies ahead in every circumstance and therefore the concept of actually changing his mind doesn't seem to follow.
I do understand how this sort of thing could pose problems for some folks, though, depending on how much freight they want to pack into ideas regarding inspiration or canonization.
Yes, it is definitely a problem from that point of view.
That seems possible. However, that would not mean that Ezekiel was unaware of traditions that were later preserved in Exodus.
And it doesn't have to mean that if my interpretation of Ezekiel is correct. In that case, God is not referring to anything that can be found in Exodus. In that case the comment made by the commentators in my NEB makes complete sense:
The surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God, inasmuch as he directs even the evil deeds of men to their own good. Sacrifices of human infants are condemned in v. 31 and in 16:20; also in Lev. 18:21; Jer. 7:31.
Here's what v. 31 says:
When you bring your gifts, when you pass your sons through the fire, you are still defiling yourselves in the service of your crowd of idols. How can I let you consult me, men of Isreal? As I live, says the Lord God, I will not be consulted by you.
So verse 26 says:
"I let them defile themselves with gifts to idols" (at least that's how my version reads)
and verse 31 is saying:
"You are still defiling yourselves in the service of your crowd of idols."
The context is about Israel defiling themselves in their sacrifices to idols. That's why I suggest the context demands idols in vv. 25-26 rather than YHWH which would be coming out of the blue and doesn't fit with the rest of the chapter.
Sure. Ezekiel refers to a "statute" that may or may not refer specifically to the text that is preserved in Exodus 22 even though this remains our only known candidate. If there is no direct literary connection, it may be that both passages relate to some other tradition that involved child sacrifice to YHWH.
Why? Where are you getting that notion? It looks to me like Ez. is referring to sacrifices to idols, not YHWH. And it looks to me like Ex. does refer to the need to sacrifice for sins but 13:13 requires a substitution. So why would there ever have to have been an even older no-longer-extant command by YHWH to sacrifice to him without a substitution? I think the only way you (and mak) can make that stick is to demonstrate that there was definitely a time when Exodus 22:29 existed as scripture apart from the disclaimer that comes before it in 13:13. I have yet to see that.
I understand that some will reject that idea for doctrinal reasons,
But it's not just for doctrinal reasons, it's what the texts actually say.
but I think it makes more sense and pays greater respect to the texts than does creating a commandment out of whole cloth that has YHWH commanding his followers to sacrifice their children to competing gods.
But it's not out of whole cloth. If it were I would agree with you. But it isn't. The context of Ezekiel 20 is important and it is clearly about sacrificing to idols. You are trying squeeze 1 YHWH sacrifice in the middle when the specific verses you are trying to squeeze it into do not say YHWH and the surrounding verses say idols.
As horrific as child sacrifice is to us -- and also to Ezekiel and several other Old Testament texts including some of the traditions preserved in Exodus -- commanding child sacrifice to competitor-gods combines the horrific with the nonsensical.
I disagree. It makes sense in the context of the rest of the chapter. It is God becoming so exasperated that he says, in effect, fine, I'll give you what you want, go ahead and sacrifice to idols and see if you like it.
I don't like it. It's not something I would picture God doing, but, yes, it logically follows from the context.
We have indications from external sources that Canaanites made human sacrifices to El. We also know that at some point YHWH became conflated with El. It seems at least possible that human sacrifice to YHWH existed for a time as an artifact of Canaanite El worship, but that the practice (though not necessarily the principle) was later done away with.
And that would not be inconsistent with Ezekiel 20.
Here's an article discussing human sacrifice in ancient Canaan/Israel that you may find interesting:
Thanks. I'm heading out for a vacation so I may not be able to post for a while. I expect to find that you and mak have solved all these issues (meaning see things as I do) by the time I return. And I also expect mak and Nipper and Mittens to play nicely in my absence.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
It may be influenced by my being a firstborn child , i am revolted by the idea and view it with outright hostility no matter to whom it may be conceptually intended. If one considers ones own child however the same negatives arise. If I consider even a bit obnoxious neighbor child the reaction continues. No, it is unacceptable whether to twiddle dumb or some other.
I suspect that the Biblical speakers who refer to sacrifice to some other Gods are expressing their understanding that God does not desire such sacrifice so it functions as sacrifice to idols no matter who the devotee calls upon or intends the sacrifice to be for. To say it is for Molok does not require a special belief in a Molok diety, it is the speakers rejection of the idea that it is an acceptable sacrifice. ( even the Ezekiel passage makes clear however the command was made, received or understood , it was not life giving and thus would not be an acceptable sacrifice to God)
I think Ezekiel makes clear he views having received the command as a mark of condemnation and that condemnation originates from God. I am of course left wondering how that connection occurred and what if anything that means for other Biblical commands. To my mind it is entirely possible that Ezekiel does not have a full knowledge of the history of the understood command. He treats the subject with very broad generalities. If all events are understood as being from God is some fashion then even the thoughtless importing of ritual from Canaanites, grafting it into worship of YHWH could be spoken of as from God. I do not know it that is a correct description. What if Ezekiel did not know either?
However the connection happened it does suggest that the high wall between worship of Israels God and neighboring Gods was not as clear or high 1000 bc as it was 300 bc. It could make one wonder what the best paths for inspiration and direction from God were.
Gunnar wrote:I strongly disagree. Even if such tomb existed and it were possible to somehow prove that bones found in it were the actual bones of Christ, that would prove absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not Christ was literally resurrected.
This is an interesting take on it, but I just don't think I can agree with you. If it could be established that the actual bones of Christ are resting in a tomb, it would say to me that he was not actually able to conquer death.
That does not follow at all. If Christ's resurrection could have occurred even without incorporating the remains of his original corpse (for example, if it were entirely destroyed), that would have been an even more impressive and miraculous conquering of death, as I see it.
I think I have amply demonstrated that it is entirely unnecessary for any resurrected body (including Christ's) to incorporate any of the material that was incorporated in the body of the deceased at the time of death. If that actually were necessary, then the universal resurrection of all humans who had ever lived, that many Christians (including Mormons) believe in, simply would not be possible.
Yes, that may be true, it may not have been necessary, but in the case of Christ the story in the Bible reports an empty tomb. He is not here, he has risen. If what you are suggesting is true, then shouldn't the angel have said: "His body is here but his spirit has risen"?
This assumes that the story of the empty tomb, including the appearance of the angel is actually true, and not fabricated by zealots long after Christ's death. I still think the latter is considerably more likely. They may even have deluded themselves into believing it to be true. That it is possible for even rational people to fabricate detailed, false memories without realizing their falsity is well documented--especially about something they fervently wish were true.
by the way, out of curiosity, so you think Christ's spirit or soul is still encapsulated permanently in a physical body of flesh and bone or that he actually needs a physical body to fulfill his functions and responsibilities?
No.
Then why go to the trouble of resurrecting his physical body in the first place? Why was it so important to the resurrected Christ to demonstrate that he had a physical body if that was not going to be his true form from then on? Isn't that at least somewhat deceptive on his part?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Bret Ripley wrote:Ezekiel 20 refers to a statute ordering child sacrifice,
If we're going to scrutinize the text, it actually says "statutes" plural.
Okay.
We may have to agree to disagree on this, because I don't think the matter can be definitively resolved, but at least I think you should be able to see my point if you read the entire chapter.
I think I do see your point, and I understand why you'd want to adopt that particular reading. In fact, there was a time when I may have taken that same approach.
The chapter is about Isreal's desire to worship idols. This theme runs strong and consistent all the way through verse 44, well past vv. 25-26. vv 25-26 are smack in the middle of this long diatribe against the worship of idols.
Right, but I would point out that in other places Ezekiel explicitly and repeatedly references idols, but not in the place where he describes YHWH's bad statutes. Moreover, shortly before this passage (verse 18) Ezekiel portrays YHWH as explicitly prohibiting Israel from defiling themselves with idols -- the very thing your proposed reading of verse 26 has YHWH commanding.
The case you and mak are trying to make has God injecting - right in the middle of this diatribe against idols - the notion that one of his former commands was a bad command and that was the command to sacrifice to him rather than to idols.
Actually, this reading injects nothing into the text. This reading has the advantage of not injecting a "to idols" clause into verse 26, nor does it portray YHWH doing a 180 from what he had said in verse18.
I don't see any problem at all with one writer who disagrees with another writer portraying YHWH as reversing himself.
If those writers were not writing under inspiration, then, sure there's no problem.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by "writing under inspiration". If you mean something like inerrancy, then it is definitely a problem.
But if you're attempting to use Ez. vs. Ex. to prove that point, then you are "coming uncomfortably close to begging the question."
I am not trying to say anything at all about inspiration. My interest is to understand the texts.
For that matter, neither do I see a problem with a single writer portraying YHWH as changing his mind or regretting his actions (indeed, we see examples of both in the Old Testament).
In a metaphorical way, perhaps or maybe it merely appears as though God changed his mind from the human perspective or if God for some reason decided to limit himself (which sounds paradoxical). But the way I see it, the definition of an omniscient being means that he knows what lies ahead in every circumstance and therefore the concept of actually changing his mind doesn't seem to follow.
Sure, but keep in mind that not all biblical writers shared your view that YHWH was omniscient.
I do understand how this sort of thing could pose problems for some folks, though, depending on how much freight they want to pack into ideas regarding inspiration or canonization.
Yes, it is definitely a problem from that point of view.
I'm not referring to any one particular view. There are many ways to view inspiration and canonization that do not involve notions of inerrancy.
That seems possible. However, that would not mean that Ezekiel was unaware of traditions that were later preserved in Exodus.
And it doesn't have to mean that if my interpretation of Ezekiel is correct. In that case, God is not referring to anything that can be found in Exodus.
Well, Ezekiel is talking about the distant past, when YWHW brought Israel out of Egypt and were wandering in the wilderness...
So verse 26 says:
"I let them defile themselves with gifts to idols" (at least that's how my version reads)
As has been pointed out, "I defiled them" is more accurate, and "to idols" is an editorial insertion made by the translators of this version.
Sure. Ezekiel refers to a "statute" that may or may not refer specifically to the text that is preserved in Exodus 22 even though this remains our only known candidate. If there is no direct literary connection, it may be that both passages relate to some other tradition that involved child sacrifice to YHWH.
Why? Where are you getting that notion? It looks to me like Ez. is referring to sacrifices to idols, not YHWH. And it looks to me like Ex. does refer to the need to sacrifice for sins but 13:13 requires a substitution. So why would there ever have to have been an even older no-longer-extant command by YHWH to sacrifice to him without a substitution?
It is not "no longer extant" -- it is preserved in Exodus 22:29. Exodus preserves more than one iteration of the legal code (which is why there seems to be so much repetition), and the version preserved in 22:29 did not contain the substitution clause.
I think the only way you (and mak) can make that stick is to demonstrate that there was definitely a time when Exodus 22:29 existed as scripture apart from the disclaimer that comes before it in 13:13. I have yet to see that.
Before even thinking about launching into that, it would be helpful to know how familiar you are with source criticism.
I understand that some will reject that idea for doctrinal reasons,
But it's not just for doctrinal reasons, it's what the texts actually say.
Is not.
Well, the translation you quoted above certainly says that -- but the Hebrew text does not.
but I think it makes more sense and pays greater respect to the texts than does creating a commandment out of whole cloth that has YHWH commanding his followers to sacrifice their children to competing gods.
But it's not out of whole cloth. If it were I would agree with you. But it isn't. The context of Ezekiel 20 is important and it is clearly about sacrificing to idols. You are trying squeeze 1 YHWH sacrifice in the middle when the specific verses you are trying to squeeze it into do not say YHWH and the surrounding verses say idols.
That same context includes YHWH telling his followers not to sacrifice to idols. To make verse 26 about YHWH commanding Israel to sacrifice their children to idols makes YHWH out to be sort of ... well, schizophrenic.
As horrific as child sacrifice is to us -- and also to Ezekiel and several other Old Testament texts including some of the traditions preserved in Exodus -- commanding child sacrifice to competitor-gods combines the horrific with the nonsensical.
I disagree. It makes sense in the context of the rest of the chapter. It is God becoming so exasperated that he says, in effect, fine, I'll give you what you want, go ahead and sacrifice to idols and see if you like it.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that it's more than just a case of YHWH allowing child sacrifice -- Ezekiel describes it as a formal statute or ordinance (something appearing in a law code, for instance).
Also: keep in mind that in the cultural setting we are discussing folks believed that these other gods actually existed, and that making sacrifices to them was somehow empowering to these gods. This is partially what I mean when I say it would be nonsensical for Ezekiel to portray YHWH as commanding sacrifices to competing gods.
While I agree that YHWH is portrayed as expressing exasperation, the reading you propose portrays YHWH issuing contradictory commandments (don't sacrifice to idols, you must sacrifice to idols) which simply isn't explicit in the text.
I don't like it. It's not something I would picture God doing, but, yes, it logically follows from the context.
Switching gears a bit: do you think it more probable that the Ezekiel text means that God literally commanded child sacrifice, or that it means that Ezekiel thought that God commanded child sacrifice?
We have indications from external sources that Canaanites made human sacrifices to El. We also know that at some point YHWH became conflated with El. It seems at least possible that human sacrifice to YHWH existed for a time as an artifact of Canaanite El worship, but that the practice (though not necessarily the principle) was later done away with.
And that would not be inconsistent with Ezekiel 20.[/quote] Indeed, it is consistent with either reading of Ezekiel 20. It offers a possible explanation for how something horrific as human sacrifice became part of YHWH worship. Human sacrifice to El became sacrifices to YHWH (in Exodus 6:2-3, God says to Moses: "I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them"). These sacrifices were incorporated into YHWH worship as reflected in the version of the code recorded in Exodus 22:29. Later, this practice became repugnant and was abandoned. Ezekiel can be seen as engaging in a bit of theological retcon or he can be seen as contradicting himself.
Is there any indication of human sacrifice to YHWH prior to becoming cognate with El? Perhaps maklelan could weigh in on that.
Here's an article discussing human sacrifice in ancient Canaan/Israel that you may find interesting:
Thanks. I'm heading out for a vacation so I may not be able to post for a while. I expect to find that you and mak have solved all these issues (meaning see things as I do) by the time I return.[/quote] That's the spirit! I hope you have a great vacation!
And I also expect mak and Nipper and Mittens to play nicely in my absence.
They do play nicely together, in the same way that Meadowlark Lemon played nicely with the Washington Generals.
Gunnar wrote:That does not follow at all. If Christ's resurrection could have occurred even without incorporating the remains of his original corpse (for example, if it were entirely destroyed), that would have been an even more impressive and miraculous conquering of death, as I see it.
Interestingly enough, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo was born out of second century CE debates Christian apologists were having with Greco-Roman antagonists about the resurrection. At first, the resurrection was mocked on the grounds that the body decomposes and couldn't be reconstituted. Apologists argued that if God could create a human body from a drop of semen, he could reconstitute it from decomposed remains. This argument would be pushed to the extremes, and Christians would ultimately insist that God could reconstitute the body from nothing at all, which they saw as a helpful way to account for creation as well. This stood in direct contrast to the long accepted Greco-Roman notion that out of nothing comes nothing, and Christians were perfectly happy to go against them on that (even though they colluded with them on so much else).
Bret Ripley wrote:Is there any indication of human sacrifice to YHWH prior to becoming cognate with El?
It depends on how early you date the various parts of Exodus. Human sacrifice in the ancient Near East was more common in the second millennium BCE than in the first, and YHWH and El would have been conflated around the rise of the Israelite state in the 10th century BCE. The exodus tradition itself, with Moses' sojourn in Midian and references to YHWH coming from Edomite/Midianite territory, is very old and likely predates that conflation. The laws may not be, though.
LittleNipper wrote:2 Kings 16:1-20 During the 17th year of Pekah the son of Remali′ah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. Ahaz was 20 when he began to reign, and he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right by God, as had David had done. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even burned his son as an offering,[a] according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. He sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
Yeah, Francesca Stavrakopoulou's book King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice goes into plenty of detail regarding why the biblical authors and editors framed those events the way they did. When you've read that book you can come back and talk to me about it.
This lady is a self proclaimed atheist who believes that God had a wife. So, I will not be taken any lessons soon from her regarding God's Word.
2 Kings 17:1-41 In the 12 year of Ahaz king of Judah, Hoshea son of Elah became king of Israel in Samaria, and reigned 9 years ---- doing evil in the eyes of the Lord, but not in the same way as the kings of Israel who preceded him. Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up to attack Hoshea, who had been to Shalmaneser’s a person in the past who received protection in return for loyalty and service, paying him tribute. But the king of Assyria discovered that Hoshea was a traitor, for he had sent envoys to So king of Egypt, and he no longer paid tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year. Therefore Shalmaneser seized him and put him in prison. The king of Assyria invaded the entire land, marched against Samaria and laid siege to it for 3 years. In the 9th year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and took the Israelites to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes.
All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods and followed the practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced. The Israelites secretly did things against God that were evil. From watchtower to fortified city they built themselves high places in all their towns. They set up sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. At every high place they burned incense, as had the nations done whom the Lord had driven out before Israel. They worshiped idols, though the Lord had said, “You shall not do this.” The Lord warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your ancestors to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets.”
They would not listen and were as set in their ways as their ancestors, who did not trust in the Lord their God. They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their ancestors and the statutes he had warned them to keep. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the Lord had ordered them, “Do not do as they do.”
They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger. The Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left, 19 and even Judah did not keep the commands of the Lord their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced. The Lord rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.
When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the Lord and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the Lord removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.
The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns. When they first lived there, they did not worship the Lord; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. It was reported to the king of Assyria that the people he had deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria did not know what the god of that country requires. God has sent lions among them, which are killing them off, because the people did not know what he required.
Then the king of Assyria gave this order: “Have one of the priests you took captive from Samaria go back to live there and teach the people what the god of the land requires.” So one of the priests who had been exiled from Samaria came to live in Bethel and taught them how to worship the Lord. Nevertheless, each national group made its own gods in the several towns where they settled, and set them up in the shrines the people of Samaria had made at the high places. The people from Babylon made Sukkoth Benoth, those from Kuthah made Nergal, and those from Hamath made Ashima; the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned up their children in ovens as sacrifices to Adrammelek and Anammelek, the gods of Sepharvaim. They worshiped the Lord, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. They worshiped the Lord, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.
They neither worship the Lord nor adhere to the decrees and regulations, the laws and commands that the Lord gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel. When the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: “Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the Lord, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and regulations, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the Lord your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.”
They would not listen but persisted in their former practices. Even while these people were worshiping the Lord, they were serving their idols. To the writing of this record, children and grandchildren continue to do as their ancestors did.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah reigned hath Hoshea son of Elah in Samaria, over Israel -- nine years,
2 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, only, not as the kings of Israel who were before him;
3 against him came up Shalmaneser king of Asshur, and Hoshea is to him a servant, and doth render to him a present.
4 And the king of Asshur findeth in Hoshea a conspiracy, in that he hath sent messengers unto So king of Egypt, and hath not caused a present to go up to the king of Asshur, as year by year, and the king of Asshur restraineth him, and bindeth him in a house of restraint.
5 And the king of Asshur goeth up into all the land, and he goeth up to Samaria, and layeth siege against it three years;
6 in the ninth year of Hoshea hath the king of Asshur captured Samaria, and removeth Israel to Asshur, and causeth them to dwell in Halah, and in Habor, [by] the river Gozan, and [in] the cities of the Medes.
7 And it cometh to pass, because the sons of Israel have sinned against Jehovah their God -- who bringeth them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt -- and fear other gods,
8 and walk in the statutes of the nations that Jehovah dispossessed from the presence of the sons of Israel, and of the kings of Israel that they made;
9 and the sons of Israel do covertly things that [are] not right against Jehovah their God, and build for them high places in all their cities, from a tower of the watchers unto the fenced city,
10 and set up for them standing-pillars and shrines on every high height, and under every green tree,
11 and make perfume there in all high places, like the nations that Jehovah removed from their presence, and do evil things to provoke Jehovah,
12 and serve the idols, of which Jehovah said to them, `Ye do not do this thing;'
13 And Jehovah testifieth against Israel, and against Judah, by the hand of every prophet, and every seer, saying, `Turn back from your evil ways, and keep My commands, My statutes, according to all the law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent unto you by the hand of My servants the prophets;'
14 and they have not hearkened, and harden their neck, like the neck of their fathers, who did not remain stedfast in Jehovah their God,
15 and reject His statutes and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies that He testified against them, and go after the vain thing, and become vain, and after the nations that are round about them, of whom Jehovah commanded them not to do like them;
16 And they forsake all the commands of Jehovah their God, and make to them a molten image -- two calves, and make a shrine, and bow themselves to all the host of the heavens, and serve Baal,
17 and cause their sons and their daughters to pass over through fire, and divine divinations, and use enchantments, and sell themselves to do the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, to provoke Him;
18 That Jehovah sheweth himself very angry against Israel, and turneth them aside from His presence; none hath been left, only the tribe of Judah by itself.
19 Also Judah hath not kept the commands of Jehovah their God, and they walk in the statutes of Israel that they had made.
20 And Jehovah kicketh against all the seed of Israel, and afflicteth them, and giveth them into the hand of spoilers, till that He hath cast them out of His presence,
21 for He hath rent Israel from the house of David, and they make Jeroboam son of Nebat king, and Jeroboam driveth Israel from after Jehovah, and hath caused them to sin a great sin,
22 and the sons of Israel walk in all the sins of Jeroboam that he did, they have not turned aside therefrom,
23 till that Jehovah hath turned Israel aside from His presence, as He spake by the hand of all His servants the prophets, and Israel is removed from off its land to Asshur, unto this day.
24 And the king of Asshur bringeth in from Babylon and from Cutha, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and causeth [them] to dwell in the cities of Samaria instead of the sons of Israel, and they possess Samaria, and dwell in its cities;
25 and it cometh to pass, at the commencement of their dwelling there, they have not feared Jehovah, and Jehovah doth send among them the lions, and they are destroying among them.
26 And they speak to the king of Asshur, saying, `The nations that thou hast removed, and dost place in the cities of Samaria, have not known the custom of the God of the land, and He sendeth among them the lions, and lo, they are destroying them, as they do not know the custom of the God of the land.'
27 And the king of Asshur commandeth, saying, `Cause to go thither one of the priests whom ye removed thence, and they go and dwell there, and he doth teach them the custom of the God of the land.'
28 And one of the priests whom they removed from Samaria cometh in, and dwelleth in Beth-El, and he is teaching them how they do fear Jehovah,
29 and they are making each nation its gods, and place [them] in the houses of the high places that the Samaritans have made, each nation in their cities where they are dwelling.
30 And the men of Babylon have made Succoth-Benoth, and the men of Cuth have made Nergal, and the men of Hamath have made Ashima,
31 and the Avites have made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites are burning their sons with fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, gods of Sepharvim.
32 And they are fearing Jehovah, and make to themselves from their extremities priests of high places, and they are acting for them in the house of the high places.
33 Jehovah they are fearing, and their gods they are serving, according to the custom of the nations whence they removed them.
34 Unto this day they are doing according to the former customs -- they are not fearing Jehovah, and are not doing according to their statutes, and according to their ordinances, and according to the law, and according to the command, that Jehovah commanded the sons of Jacob whose name He made Israel,
35 and Jehovah maketh with them a covenant, and chargeth them, saying, `Ye do not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them,
36 but Jehovah who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a stretched-out arm, Him ye do fear, and to Him ye bow yourselves, and to Him ye do sacrifice;
37 and the statutes, and the judgments, and the law, and the command, that He wrote for you, ye observe to do all the days, and ye do not fear other gods;
38 and the covenant that I have made with you ye do not forget, and ye do not fear other gods;
39 but Jehovah your God ye do fear, and He doth deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies;'
40 and they have not hearkened, but according to their former custom they are doing,
41 and these nations are fearing Jehovah, and their graven images they have served, both their sons and their sons' sons; as their fathers did, they are doing unto this day.
