YMMV / Book of Exodus

aka: Exodus

• Alternative Character Interpretation:
  • Some theorize that the "crime" in Leviticus 20:13 is not homosexuality, but emasculation. Others point out that the wording in the verse certainly refers to sexual acts, with some contention on the subject of which sexual acts are referred to (possibly pedophilia, ritual prostitution, and/or rape of POWs, all of which were quite common throughout the Ancient World.)
  • It is commonly argued that Yahweh is the true villain in all of this. He kills masses of innocent people regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with the enslavement of the Hebrews, and even kills the Hebrews over reasons that to a modern audience come off as extremely petty.
  • Some of the scientifically-inclined readers have stated that the ten plagues are possible through a Disaster Dominoes, meaning that such a scenario is actually possible in real life even if there is no migration of people from Ancient Egypt to the Middle East:
    • The river of blood is most likely a red tide (common name for algal bloom) which can produce a decent amount of toxic which could have caused many fishes to die. (Water to Blood)
    • Frogs most likely left the Nile due to the algal bloom. (Frogs)
    • All the insects had a much easier time to reproduce with the frogs leaving the Nile. (Lice, gnats and files)
    • This could have also lead to said bugs spreading diseases one animals and humans due to frogs' absence. (Pestilence of livestock and boils)
    • Strong Hail isn't really THAT uncommon in that region, but the volcanic activities could have also changed the weather. (Thunderstorm of hail and fire)
    • Locusts also had a easier time to reproduce due to the weather. (Locusts)
    • The darkness could come from the strong hail, volcanic ash, Sandstorms or even locusts swarms. (Darkness for three days)
    • The firstborn son usually got the first and biggest portion of the meal. Due to the infected animals it would also mean that they would be way more likely to fall sick and die. Same goes for the first born (and therefore dominant) animals, and the previous plagues could have resulted in a breeding ground for various types of mold which caused their deaths. Israelites had different rules for food hygiene for their Passover meal, meaning they were not really affected by that. (Smiting of the firstborn)
• Big-Lipped Alligator Moment: The "Zipporah at the inn" episode. After God sent Moses in Egypt to deal with the Pharaoh, HE sends his angel to kill His prophet for unexplained reasons. Then Moses' wife Zipporah takes a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of their son. This apparently saves Moses. It's pretty obscure and no wonder why this is often ignored; according to The Other Wiki, even Biblical scholars are baffled by the purpose of this episode. It has notably only been included in one screen adaptation, the miniseries Moses the Lawgiver starring Burt Lancaster and there is a good reason why it is often omitted: it proves to be disturbing, especially with the child's screaming.
• Fair for Its Day:
  • While there were laws on how to deal with slaves, said laws did give slaves of the Hebrews much better lives. Fellow Hebrews who were slaves were expected to be freed after 6 years of work and generously paid at that time. Foreigners could be slaves for life but if they experienced violence at the hands of their masters they were automatically declared free under the law and a master who killed their slave/s would (under some circumstances) be charged with murder. Slavery in that context was quite different from the slavery in Egypt or the slavery in America before the Civil War and closer to indentured servitude.
  • While the rape laws were definitely unfair to actual rape victims, they also apply in the case of an unwed couple having consensual sex. One wonders how many girls used this to override any parental objections to marrying their sweethearts. "Oh, Daddy, I know you don't like Yaakov, but he ravished me last night, and now the law says we HAVE to get married!" Also, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentions that the punishment for a man raping a woman who is betrothed to another man is death and that their victim is innocent; a refreshing instance showing rape is condemned, even being a capital offense, compare to some cases today where rapists can get less than fifteen years in jail in the US.
  • The verses concerning a rapist paying their victim's father 50 shekels and marrying her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) could also be intended as a type of punishment for the rapist; they likely intended a vicious one-off encounter, but now they have to pay the father and be forced to marry someone they don't want to marry, and if they try to avoid the marriage they could be considered to "hate her", as per Deuteronomy 22:13-19, which could also lead to the rapist being whipped. While it may or may not be a fitting punishment and be difficult for the woman, there are a few deterrents for rapists and the rapist IS NOT getting off scot-free.
    • There's actually a fair bit of debate about whether or not this passage is even about rape to begin with. The Hebrew word sometimes translated as "rape" (which the KJV renders "lay hold") is about as ambiguous as can be; and it isn't even the same Hebrew word as used in 22:25-27. The Greek Septuagint uses the same words for both passages (and it's a word associated with violence, often used for rape in modern Greek).
  • If a man dies without sons, but has unmarried daughters, they can inherit his wealth/land/titles/etc., On One Condition: namely, that they marry men from their own tribe. Which was pretty radical, considering that most other societies around them wouldn't let women be inheritors under any circumstances.
  • All the rules concerning ritual purity (i.e. not mixing meat and milk products, abstaining from pork, shellfish, and meat from animals without cloven hooves, avoiding dead bodies, sequestering menstruating women, and all the ritualized bathing) might seem ridiculous and over-the-top today, but back then, they would have been an excellent way of preventing sickness and cross-contamination of foods. They knew that all of those things could make them sick, though they chalked it up to a vague supernatural concept of "uncleanliness" because they didn't understand germ theory yet. Keeping people clean in this way ensured that people didn't get sick, and that when they did, that sickness didn't turn into The Plague that could wipe out all or most of their burgeoning community. It worked pretty well in this regard, just not for the reason they thought.
  • The test for a woman whose husband thinks she might be cheating, but can't prove it. Yes, it's an awful and humiliating ordeal and no doubt would be seen today as violating her bodily autonomy. But it actually functioned as a way to protect her. In most of the societies surrounding them, if a married woman was suspected by her husband of cheating, he could just kill her, no questions asked. Even if it was a case of being Mistaken for Cheating or some other such misunderstanding, or if her husband was paranoid and suspicious for no good reason. Having a test helped to cool his jets and get proof before having her killed, and to prevent wives from being killed over misunderstandings or irrational jealousy. (Since men did not need those same legal protections, as a man sleeping with a woman not his wife wasn't considered adultery unless she was married or engaged to someone else, there was no such test for a man suspected of cheating on his wife.)
• Signature Scene:
  • Moses parting the Red Sea is considered the most defining moment of Exodus. The Ten Plagues is also a popular contender.
  • The destruction of the initial set of the Ten Commandments by Moses when he saw the worship of the golden calf.
• Unintentionally Sympathetic: The Egyptians come off this way to many modern audiences who feel the punishments all of them suffer is unwarranted, especially considering the crime of enslaving the Hebrews doesn't come off as particularly heinous compared to acts of genocide the Hebrews commit that are supposed to be in the right. It got to the point where modern-day adaptations such as The Ten Commandments and the controversial Exodus: Gods and Kings make no bones about just how bad the Hebrews had it as slaves.
• Values Dissonance: To the point most of the rules given in Leviticus are straight-up not followed by Christians, being seen as anything from outdated, viscious, or just silly. Sure there are theological reasons for why Christians do this, but even many modern Jews (for whom following the Law is a cornerstone of their religion) think they can be strange at times. At the time this was written, however, they were the norm for most civilizations (and in some extreme cases even an improvement).
  • Leviticus 19:19, however, which commands us not to wear clothing made of two different kinds of material, is often held up as the up to eleven of absurd religious commandments, at least by Christians. Observant Jews still follow it, and even use microscopy to make sure a garment isn't shatnez.
  • If you have a son or daughter who's disobedient, doesn't help with household chores (or tending crops and livestock), won't get a job, or whatever other pattern of repeated bad behavior, you can have them stoned to death.
  • Homosexual sex would get the parties involved publicly executed.
  • Women who are menstruating are considered ritually unclean, and must sequester themselves from the rest of the household and from society at large, lest they "contaminate" other people, or things like furniture.
  • If a man dies without any male heirs, his widow is to be legally married to his brother, and he will perpetuate the deceased man's lineage via the first son he has with her. No, the widow does not get a say in this... and if her brother-in-law refuses, she can publicly humiliate him and all his descendants.
  • Marriage requires the payment of a sum of money and/or goods to the father of the bride-to-be. Without this payment, the marriage would not be considered valid.
  • Only men can initiate divorce, and they could do so for any reason, good or bad. Women could not initiate divorce, even in cases of Domestic Abuse.
  • After the wedding night, the parents of the bride would go into the nuptial tent/hut/whatever, and retrieve a sheet or garment stained with blood (thought to be proof that the bride was a virgin), just in case the groom (or his family, or anyone else) tried to dishonor her (and her family) by Slut-Shaming her. If they are able to produce such "evidence", and it is the groom or his family trying to impugne her in this way, he is to publicly receive A Taste of the Lash, and loses his right to divorce her.
  • If a man suspects his wife of cheating, but can't absolutely prove it, he can take her to the Temple, remove her head-covering (and possibly some or all of her clothes) in front of the priests, and force her to drink "bitter water" as a Fidelity Test. If she's been faithful, the "water" will not harm her, but if she hasn't, she'll suffer a miscarriage or prolapse or something. (And if she didn't die an instant Undignified Death, she could be publicly executed.) There was no such test for a man accused of cheating, because a) for a man, it was only cheating if the woman he slept with was married to someone else and b) it helped prevent him from going on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge and having her executed when it was all a big misunderstanding. (The woman could confess if she had been cheating, or find a way to produce evidence that she hadn't, or her husband could just divorce her, rendering the test moot. Whether or not she was tested in this way was up to him.)
  • People with various disabilities (visual impairments, missing or injured limbs, etc.), or men whose testicles were crushed or cut off, were not permitted to work in the Temple.
  • Not only were the Israelites supposed to abstain from the practices of various Pagan religions found in the Promised Land, or worship of Pagan gods and goddesses, they were supposed to utterly exterminate all of those peoples (and overtake their land), with the belief that their God said so.
  • In Numbers 31, Moses is commanded to put to death every Midianite except the virgin girls, to keep for themselves. Make of that what you will.
• Values Resonance: Despite all of the Values Dissonance mentioned elsewhere, Moses is still revered in the modern day. There is a reason he is depicted in the U.S. Supreme Court side-by-side with Solon and Confucius.
  • Surprising as it may be, but "Love your neighbour as yourself" isn't something Jesus coined in the New Testament. It comes from Leviticus 19:18.
    Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Leviticus 19:13-18)
  • The Law contains precepts for defending the rights of foreigners living in the country. Translations vary between "sojourners" and "immigrants", but the point still stands.
  • Animal rights and environmentalism — well, aside from the whole animal sacrifice business. There are precepts for returning lost livestock to enemies (Exodus 23:4-5), taking care of baby birds who fell to the ground (Deuteronomy 22:6-7), and avoiding deforestation unless you really need wood (Deuteronomy 20:19-20).
  • The whole of Egypt getting punished for the actions of the slavers and royals. It was seen as unjustified by some parties until very recently, but with the waning of Lost Cause narrative in the United States regarding its own conflict fought over slavery there has been reevaluation. Namely that even if one doesn't directly own slaves, living in a slave-exploiting society and doing nothing to change that makes one culpable to Bystander Syndrome at best; outright shared blame at worst.

---