Responding to an accusation - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Responding to an accusation 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to an accusation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zDFCZCRyw) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-exegesis, apologetics, darvo-analysis] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zDFCZCRyw > date created: 2024-12-28 12:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: Responding to an accusation >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research comparative law codes from ancient Southwest Asia — strengthen understanding of biblical legislation context #biblical-studies - [H2] Review lexicographical resources for Hebrew terms — improve exegetical methodology #hebrew - [H3] Examine early interpretive traditions — validate hermeneutical approach #textual-criticism ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Daily Dose of Wisdom Channel](https://youtube.com/c/DailyDoseofWisdom) - [The Bible Says](https://book-reference-url) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan responds to accusations from YouTuber Brandon Maguire about misleading interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 - The dispute centers on whether this passage refers to miscarriage (McClellan's view) or premature birth (Maguire's view) - McClellan demonstrates extensive lexicographical and comparative evidence supporting the miscarriage interpretation - The video reveals significant methodological problems in Maguire's approach to Hebrew exegesis - Bottom line: Academic credentials and proper methodology matter in biblical interpretation ## 📖 Main Content This video demonstrates a clash between academic biblical scholarship and popular apologetics. McClellan, a credentialed biblical scholar, responds to Brandon Maguire's accusation that he misleads audiences about biblical teachings on abortion. The core dispute involves interpreting Exodus 21:22-25, which describes penalties for injuring a pregnant woman during a fight. Maguire argues the passage describes premature birth of a healthy child, making it pro-life. McClellan contends it describes miscarriage, with the fetus treated as property rather than a full person. McClellan demonstrates superior methodology by citing multiple lexicons, comparative ancient law codes, and early interpretive traditions, while pointing out Maguire's lack of Hebrew knowledge and misuse of research tools. The exchange reveals broader tensions between academic biblical studies and religious apologetics, particularly regarding methodology, expertise, and the relationship between biblical texts and contemporary moral debates. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=0) — [H1] Initial Response Setup - Key idea: McClellan addresses accusation from Brandon Maguire about misleading biblical interpretation - Evidence: "Popular Bible Scholar Misleads Thousands. Example provided" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=150) — [H2] Jeremiah 1:5 Argument Analysis - Key idea: God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah precedes conception, not just birth - Evidence: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" - emphasizes "before" #### ⏱️ [05:15](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=315) — [H3] Logical Implications Problem - Key idea: If prenatal personhood based on divine foreknowledge, then pre-conception personhood exists - Evidence: "It would therefore be murder to prevent that rape" - showing absurd conclusions #### ⏱️ [08:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=480) — [H1] Software and Methodology Critique - Key idea: Maguire lacks Hebrew knowledge but promotes Bible software as solution - Evidence: "It sounds like this video is just an excuse for Brandon to put on display how to use logos" #### ⏱️ [12:20](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=740) — [H2] Hebrew Term Analysis - Yeled - Key idea: The word "children" (yeled) can refer to unborn fetuses and miscarriages - Evidence: Halladay's lexicon shows "miscarriage" as meaning in plural form #### ⏱️ [18:45](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1125) — [H2] Hebrew Verb Analysis - Yatsa - Key idea: The verb "come out" (yatsa) can and does refer to miscarriage/abortion - Evidence: Multiple lexicons confirm "abortion" as valid meaning in context #### ⏱️ [22:10](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1330) — [H3] Multiple Word Problem - Key idea: Maguire wrongly assumes only specific words can mean miscarriage - Evidence: "Individual concepts can be referred to by a variety of different words" #### ⏱️ [25:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1530) — [H1] Medical Reality Check - Key idea: Premature birth in ancient times usually meant death without modern medicine - Evidence: "They didn't have ICUs. There was no hospital bill anybody was going to receive" #### ⏱️ [28:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1680) — [H2] Economic Loss Argument - Key idea: Fines require actual material loss, which healthy premature birth doesn't represent - Evidence: Deuteronomy 22:17 involves real economic damage to father's reputation and bride price #### ⏱️ [32:15](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1935) — [H1] Comparative Law Evidence - Key idea: Multiple ancient law codes address same two scenarios - miscarriage and woman's death - Evidence: "This law is found in a number of different law codes from ancient southwest Asia" #### ⏱️ [35:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2100) — [H2] Early Interpretation Evidence - Key idea: Earliest interpreters (Josephus, Septuagint, Philo) understood text as referring to miscarriage - Evidence: Josephus describes "if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges" #### ⏱️ [38:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2310) — [H3] Septuagint Interpretation - Key idea: Greek translation interprets both outcomes as different types of miscarriage - Evidence: "Not fully formed" vs "fully formed" fetus distinctions in Greek text #### ⏱️ [41:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2460) — [H1] Expertise vs. Confidence Warning - Key idea: Lack of Hebrew knowledge disqualifies confident assertions about Hebrew texts - Evidence: "If you have to get Logos to pronounce a verbal root for you in Hebrew, you very clearly don't know Hebrew" ## 📚 References - [Halladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon](https://lexicon-reference) - [Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by Klein](https://dcl-reference) - [David Wright's "Inventing God's Law"](https://book-reference) - [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities](https://josephus-reference) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - A popular YouTuber accused a biblical scholar of misleading people about what the Bible says regarding abortion, specifically focusing on Exodus 21:22-25 - The scholar responds by demonstrating extensive lexicographical evidence that the Hebrew terms in question do refer to miscarriage, contrary to the YouTuber's claims - The dispute reveals deeper issues about expertise, methodology, and the proper use of biblical languages in interpretation ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Interpretation Requires Actual Expertise** This week's discussion highlights a crucial principle for anyone engaging with biblical texts: methodology matters more than confidence. When interpreting ancient Hebrew texts, having access to software tools doesn't substitute for genuine linguistic training and scholarly rigor. The exchange demonstrates why biblical interpretation benefits from: - Proper lexicographical research using current scholarly resources - Understanding of comparative ancient literature and law codes - Familiarity with early interpretive traditions - Honest acknowledgment of one's limitations For WordPress developers and content creators, this serves as a reminder that authority comes from demonstrated competence, not just confident presentation. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on fact-checking and source verification - Education: Develop workshops on evaluating expertise and credentials online - Community management: Establish guidelines for handling disputes about specialized knowledge #### Community - Maintainers: Support systems for peer review and collaborative fact-checking - Contributors: Training on proper citation and source evaluation - Ecosystem: Standards for content accuracy and expertise verification #### FAIR - Technical independence: Importance of independent verification of claims - Policies: Guidelines for handling disputes about factual accuracy - Governance artifacts: Standards for expertise and qualification assessment ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious apologetics often prioritizes predetermined conclusions over rigorous methodology - Access to research tools without proper training leads to overconfident misinterpretation - Academic credentials provide meaningful quality control in specialized fields - Popular content creators may lack necessary expertise despite large audiences ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative lexicographical analysis across multiple authoritative Hebrew dictionaries - Historical-critical examination of ancient law codes for contextual understanding - Reception history study examining earliest interpretations of disputed passages ### ❓ Questions - How can online audiences better evaluate expertise claims in specialized fields? - What role should academic credentials play in assessing biblical interpretation quality? - How do we balance accessibility with accuracy in religious education? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive study of how Bible software affects interpretation quality among untrained users - Analysis of expertise signaling in religious content creation - Investigation of methodology training needs in popular biblical education ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Need for better methodology training in religious education - Education: Importance of distinguishing between tools and training - Security: Risks of misinformation when expertise is misrepresented - Funding: Investment needed in quality control for religious educational content ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14th grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Screenshots of lexicon entries, comparative text analysis - Improve: Infographics showing methodology differences, timeline of interpretations #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Verbal argumentation, pronunciation examples - Improve: Audio summary of key lexicographical evidence #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive definitions, terminology explanations - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, etymology explanations #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Software demonstration, research process walkthrough - Improve: Interactive lexicon exercises, step-by-step methodology checklist #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argumentation, evidence categorization - Improve: Decision trees for interpretation, logic flow diagrams #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Scholarly dialogue format, community response elements - Improve: Discussion guides, peer review exercises #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis, personal reflection opportunities - Improve: Self-assessment rubrics, independent research projects #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context, cultural ecosystem connections - Improve: Archaeological evidence integration, cultural comparison frameworks ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive video content - Improve: Alt text for lexicon screenshots, audio descriptions for visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Timestamp navigation, transcript search functionality #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard video quality - Improve: High contrast transcript options, adjustable text sizing #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive transcript format - Improve: Customizable layout options for different visual needs #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification, downloadable transcripts #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic comment functionality - Improve: Accessible feedback forms, structured discussion tools ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focus on ancient Near Eastern contexts - Improve: Global interpretation traditions, non-Western scholarly perspectives #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology with explanations - Improve: Multiple language accessibility, cultural context notes #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured argumentation, clear section breaks - Improve: Executive summary, visual argument mapping #### Representation - Present: Male-dominated scholarly conversation - Improve: Diverse voices in biblical scholarship, inclusive expert panels #### Psychological safety - Present: Professional academic tone - Improve: Community guidelines for respectful disagreement, conflict resolution resources ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong syllogistic reasoning about Hebrew lexicography - Inductive strength: Multiple lexicon evidence building toward consensus view - Causal reasoning: Clear cause-effect relationships in argumentation - Analogical strength: Effective comparisons to other legal codes #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Some personal attacks on Maguire's qualifications, though arguably relevant to expertise claims - Appeal to authority: Heavy reliance on scholarly consensus, though justified given expertise gap #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academically authoritative but occasionally condescending, particularly toward the end ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: McClellan doesn't deny the accusation but reframes it as demonstrating Maguire's incompetence - Attack: Systematic attack on Maguire's methodology, qualifications, and motives - Reverse victim/offender: Positions himself as victim of unqualified criticism rather than addressing original accusation directly - Emotional cues: Frustration and condescension evident, particularly in final segments about wasting time ## 🎯 Conclusion This exchange demonstrates the critical importance of methodology and expertise in biblical interpretation. While McClellan provides substantial scholarly evidence for his position, the defensive tone and personal attacks somewhat undermine the academic high ground he claims. The core lesson remains valid: specialized knowledge requires proper training, and confidence without competence can be dangerously misleading. For content creators and educators, this highlights the need for honest assessment of one's limitations and the value of peer review in specialized fields. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Hebrew lexicography requires comprehensive source consultation > [!quote] [Responding to an accusation](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw) by [[Dan McClellan]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "Multiple lexicons confirm 'abortion' as valid meaning in context" Demonstrates importance of consulting current scholarly resources rather than relying on outdated public domain materials. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw#H1) #xref #methodology ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Early interpretive traditions support miscarriage reading > [!quote] [Responding to an accusation](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw) > "Earliest interpretations that we have of this passage unilaterally interpret it as referring to miscarriage" Reception history provides important evidence for textual interpretation beyond linguistic analysis alone. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/J4 --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Hey everybody, I was just made aware of [00:02] a video that was posted yesterday by a [00:04] content creator named Brandon Maguire [00:06] who runs a YouTube channel with over a [00:08] million subscribers called Daily Dose of [00:11] Wisdom. Uh Brandon didn't tag me in the [00:13] video, but here's the video. It's [00:14] entitled Popular Bible Scholar Misleads [00:17] Thousands. Example provided. Thought I [00:20] would take a look and respond to what [00:22] Brandon has to say. The Bible doesn't [00:24] endorse abortion. A lot of people think [00:26] the opposite is true, that the Bible [00:27] condemns abortion. But if it if this is [00:29] the only place where it seems to [00:30] actually directly mention something [00:32] about abortion and then even then it's [00:34] probably not even about abortion, where [00:37] does this opposite idea come from that [00:39] the Bible does condemn abortion? [00:43] >> The uh actually a good question. [00:45] >> Most of the time folks who argue that [00:46] that uh the Bible condemns abortion, [00:48] they're going to appeal to a handful of [00:50] passages that suggest God has knowledge [00:53] of and concern for uh gestation. And so [00:57] you see this in for instance Jeremiah 15 [00:59] where Jeremiah says before I formed you [01:02] in the womb. I knew you and consecrated [01:06] you a a prophet to the nations and and [01:10] the [01:10] >> I formed you in the womb. I think that's [01:13] important to note. You were in the womb. [01:15] Jeremiah was in the womb. The person [01:18] Jeremiah existed in the womb. Well, I [01:21] think it's more important to acknowledge [01:24] that all this is being said about [01:26] Jeremiah prior to his conception. [01:30] And that's why I emphasized before in [01:34] that translation because it's saying [01:36] that God knew Jeremiah prior to his [01:40] conception. And this is a fact about [01:44] this passage that just scorches by miles [01:48] over the heads of everybody who thinks [01:51] they have the definitive grasp on what [01:55] the Hebrew Bible is talking about. And [01:57] they just don't because if God's [02:00] fornowledge about Jeremiah prior to his [02:04] conception means that Jeremiah was a [02:08] moral and a legal person prior to his [02:11] conception, then it means that all [02:14] people who will ever be born already [02:17] have full moral and legal personhood. [02:19] And you are not ready for the [02:22] implications of that argument because [02:24] that would mean that if a woman was [02:29] according to God's fornowledge supposed [02:32] to get pregnant and give birth as the [02:34] result of rape [02:37] that it would therefore be murder to [02:39] prevent that rape or it would constitute [02:44] murder to stop two 12y olds from [02:48] engaging in premar marital sex. If God [02:52] knew that the girl was supposed to [02:55] conceive and get pregnant and bear a [02:57] child, that God already knew, therefore [03:01] granting that child full legal and moral [03:04] personhood before their conception. [03:07] What's going on in Jeremiah 15 is [03:09] Jeremiah is boasting about how his [03:12] consecration and calling as a prophet [03:14] even precedes [03:17] his gestation. Because we see that, as [03:20] I've noted in other videos in [03:22] Mesopotamian, in Egyptian, and in other [03:24] biblical writings, that prophets and [03:27] kings will say, "I was called by God or [03:29] ordained by God from the womb." And [03:32] Jeremiah says, "I'm going to do you one [03:34] better." God knew me before [03:38] I was formed in the womb, before my [03:40] conception. That's what's going on in [03:42] Jeremiah. And no matter how many times I [03:45] point this out, it again just scorches [03:49] by miles over the heads of everyone who [03:53] imagines that they know what they're [03:54] talking about. Argument is that well uh [03:57] Jeremiah was obviously a person. [03:59] Jeremiah was a human being prior to [04:01] being born. Therefore, human life begins [04:04] at conception. Uh you also have uh in [04:07] the Psalms you have a passage about how [04:09] uh God knit me together in my mother's [04:12] womb. Uh you have the story of John the [04:16] Baptist uh the fetal John the Baptist [04:19] leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb upon [04:22] hearing the voice of Mary the mother of [04:24] Jesus. Those are the three most popular [04:27] passages that that get appealed to to [04:30] suggest that a human being begins at [04:34] conception. And the idea is uh murder is [04:37] is the killing of a of an innocent [04:40] human. Human lives begin at conception. [04:42] Therefore, abortion is murder and [04:44] therefore abortion is wrong. Um and what [04:48] this neglects to take account of is the [04:51] fact that [04:53] when we look at u you know legal codes [04:56] and legislation and stuff like that we [04:59] tend to assume that if there are [05:01] principles anywhere that they apply [05:03] universally and that everything fits [05:05] perfectly into a perfectly systematic [05:07] hole. Um and so the idea would must be [05:11] that uh you know if if over here we [05:14] treat a a a fetus as as uh somebody who [05:17] can leap for joy or something like that, [05:19] well then we could never obviously [05:22] um treat a fetus in another port uh part [05:25] of the text as as not a full legal [05:27] immoral person. Well, we would need a [05:29] really good reason to not treat them as [05:32] a full legal immoral person if a [05:34] precedent has been clearly set. So let's [05:36] see if he can give us a case for why [05:39] they aren't. But what we see throughout [05:41] the Hebrew Bible is that a fetus was not [05:43] considered a full legal and moral [05:44] person. It was considered more property. [05:47] And the most explicit uh example of that [05:50] is in the covenant code, Exodus 21, we [05:52] have verses 22- 25 where we have this uh [05:56] this peculiar bit of legislation where [05:59] it says if two men are fighting and they [06:01] they hit a woman uh and a pregnant woman [06:05] and there are two outcomes that are [06:06] addressed in this legislation. uh if the [06:09] injury causes her to misaryry then [06:12] there's a fine that is imposed by the [06:14] husband and then there are arbitrators [06:17] that are there uh to ensure that it is [06:19] exorbitant. If the um injury results in [06:24] permanent injury to the woman or her [06:26] death then it is talionic justice which [06:29] is life for life eye for an eye tooth [06:31] for a tooth. In other words, if this [06:33] injury causes the woman to die then it's [06:35] the death penalty for the perpetrator. [06:37] You see, if a pregnant woman is struck [06:41] and miscarries, the only penalty is a [06:43] fine. That proves the fetus wasn't a [06:47] person. That proves the fetus is treated [06:49] like property. But there's a very big [06:53] problem with this. [06:54] >> No, there's not. [06:55] >> We're going to show it all in this [06:56] video. [06:57] >> No, you're not. [06:58] >> We're going to analyze this carefully. [07:01] >> No, you're not. [07:02] >> What is Exodus 21 actually describing? [07:06] Shout out to Logos Bible Software for [07:07] helping to bring clarity to this [07:09] question for me. Can someone please send [07:12] the link in the description, which is [07:14] logos.com/dwan [07:17] mlelen. Um, because anyone who clicks [07:19] that link gets 60 days totally free to [07:22] explore this software. I would love for [07:24] him to be able to do so because Logo [07:26] software makes it so much easier to [07:28] analyze that beloved data and to get to [07:30] the bottom of these issues. Can someone [07:32] please hook up Mr. Mlen. [07:36] >> So, three things here. One, it sounds [07:39] like this video is just an excuse for [07:41] Brandon to put on display how to use [07:44] logos to understand the Bible better so [07:47] he can rack up some ad revenue. And uh [07:51] what he's going to demonstrate is that [07:52] he clearly doesn't know the first thing [07:53] about Hebrew, but also doesn't really [07:55] know how to effectively use Logos. [07:57] Second thing, I don't need a copy of [07:59] Logos. Uh, I wrote a dozen entries for [08:03] their Lexom Bible dictionary uh over 15 [08:06] years ago and was given a free copy when [08:08] I lived in Bellingham, Washington, which [08:10] is where Logos is headquartered and I [08:12] was a graduate student at Trinity [08:14] Western University. Uh, so I have had [08:16] Logos for over 15 years and I actually [08:19] prefer Accordance Bible software which I [08:22] was also given while I was a student at [08:24] Trinity Western University because I was [08:26] a research assistant for Marty Abeg and [08:28] tagged a bunch of Dead Sea Scroll [08:30] manuscripts for Accordance to [08:33] incorporate into their Bible software. [08:36] So I have used both for over 15 years [08:39] and I think Accordance does a much [08:41] better job for close textual and [08:43] linguistic analysis. And third thing, [08:47] something that Logos has been doing for [08:48] a while now that I don't think is a good [08:50] idea is trying to convince people that [08:53] if you just get Logos, you suddenly have [08:56] the key to open all exegetical doors. [08:59] And this leads to fewer people actually [09:02] going out and getting adequate training [09:04] in these languages. But as Brandon is [09:06] going to demonstrate in this video, if [09:08] you don't have adequate training, you're [09:11] just going to fumble the tool itself. [09:13] And it's just going to mislead you into [09:16] believing because you have this tool, [09:19] your intuitions and your [09:20] misunderstandings are now suddenly [09:22] authorized by Logos. And as we're going [09:25] to see, uh, that couldn't be further [09:28] from the truth. Two things he just said [09:30] that are not actually in the text, and [09:31] I'm going to prove it right now. [09:33] >> All right, let's see it. [09:35] The first one is the idea that this is [09:36] talking about a miscarriage. It is not. [09:39] >> It definitely is. [09:41] >> The second one is the idea that the harm [09:43] here in reference is talking about harm [09:45] to the mother only. That also is not in [09:47] the text. And I'm going to again prove [09:49] it really quick. [09:50] >> No, you're not. [09:51] >> Here. I'm going to try to go as fast as [09:53] I can. Here's the passage that he's [09:55] talking about. Um, now the version that [09:57] he was using here is right here. You can [09:58] see the NRSV. And in his version, it [10:01] says there is a miscarriage. But there's [10:03] a problem with that. That's a very bad [10:04] translation and I'm going to show why [10:06] right now. [10:07] >> Uh Brandon is not remotely qualified [10:09] enough to assess quality in Bible [10:12] translation as we're going to see. [10:15] >> If you go to, for example, the ESV or [10:17] the KJV, you can start to see uh the way [10:20] that this is translated differently. And [10:22] really the ESV is a more literal [10:23] translation. Her children come out. But [10:26] don't take my word for it. Let's [10:27] actually look at this word right here, [10:29] children. What What is that word [10:30] children? Um, what is that word children [10:34] talking about? Let me pull it up right [10:36] here for you. Let me give you the actual [10:38] um, Hebrew right here pronounced this [10:40] way. [10:41] >> Oops, sorry. Here. [10:42] >> Yelled. [10:43] >> Yelled. Okay. [10:44] >> Yelled. [10:44] >> Yelled. Now, this is the same word for [10:49] PE uh, for children outside of the womb. [10:50] And that's really important because in [10:52] Dan's translation, that's just kind of [10:54] glossed over. [10:55] >> So, a few things here. One, nothing has [10:58] been glossed over. or Brandon just [10:59] doesn't even begin to know what he's [11:01] talking about. And Brandon has glossed [11:03] over something quite important. Why is [11:06] the word for children in the plural in [11:09] this passage? Brandon is talking about a [11:11] single pregnant woman. And it says her [11:13] children come out. Why is that plural? [11:17] Does this law only apply if a woman is [11:20] carrying twins or triplets? Does this [11:24] mean all of the contents of the womb? Is [11:27] it a plural of generalization? Is it a [11:29] plural of abstract referring to the [11:31] pregnancy? Why is it plural? There have [11:34] been decades of scholarship pondering [11:36] the question of why it's plural. But [11:39] let's get to the lexographical resource [11:43] that Brandon is using. He clicked on [11:45] something to hear how this word was [11:47] pronounced because he doesn't seem to [11:48] know how it was pronounced. And it says [11:50] right under that a bridged BDB. That [11:52] means the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and [11:54] Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [11:56] that was originally published in the [11:58] 19th century. This is a public domain [12:01] lexicon which means that the version of [12:04] Logos that Brandon has is the [12:07] introductory version. It doesn't even [12:09] have a non-public domain lexicon. But [12:13] let's take a look at what Yelled means [12:15] in more up-to-date lexographical [12:17] resources. So here is hollowotes, the [12:20] Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old [12:22] Testament, probably the standard [12:23] biblical Hebrew lexicon for scholars [12:25] today. And in the red box, we have the [12:27] entry for Yelled. And if you look uh [12:31] down about a third of the way, you'll [12:32] see an M dash and the number one and a [12:35] bold boy and then male child and then a [12:38] closed parenthesis. You go down three [12:40] more lines on the right side, you get B [12:42] close parenthesis plural, boys, [12:44] children. Okay, this is addressing why [12:46] it's plural. But go down a little [12:47] further to the part that I've [12:49] underlined. Under the plural segment, we [12:52] have miscarriage. And then we have a [12:55] Samaritan penetuk version of the word [12:57] Exodus 21:22. That is our text. And [13:01] hollowot suggests that in the plural it [13:04] means miscarriage. Well, let's take a [13:06] look at some other resources. Here we [13:08] have the dictionary of classical Hebrew [13:09] by Klein's. This is volume four. Here's [13:13] the entry for Yelled or at least the [13:15] beginning of the entry for Yelled on the [13:17] left side. One of the main senses as you [13:19] can see in the underlined portion is [13:21] unborn child fetus. Exodus 21:22 and [13:25] then the Samaritan Penetuk's variant [13:27] spelling of this word. But something [13:29] interesting is if you look in the right [13:32] column up at the top, the underlined [13:33] portion, this is where Klein's is [13:35] helpful because it describes what words [13:37] mean when they're used in conjunction [13:38] with other words. And in this paragraph, [13:40] we've got this noun used in conjunction [13:43] with the verb bo to come or yatsa to go [13:46] out. And the underlined portion suggests [13:48] that when used with yatsa in the plural [13:51] specifically, it means abort. Exodus [13:54] 21:22. Now, we're going to come back to [13:56] these resources a bit later, but I just [13:59] wanted to point out that Yelled can [14:01] refer to an unborn fetus, and the [14:05] scholarship is in pretty widespread [14:06] agreement that in this passage, it is in [14:09] the plural because it is referring to a [14:12] miscarried fetus. But way more [14:15] significantly, let's go to the Hebrew [14:17] word that is literally translated to [14:20] come out here. So, so that her children [14:22] come out, but there is no harm. Okay, [14:24] let's go there to that word. And here is [14:27] how you pronounce that word. [14:30] >> Yatsa. [14:31] >> Yatsa. [14:31] >> Yatsa. [14:32] >> Yatsa. [14:33] >> Yatsa. That's the Hebrew word for come [14:36] out here. Now, what does the word mean? [14:38] Where else is it used? Well, it [14:39] literally means to come out. Um uh you [14:42] can see all the usages of it here. Um [14:45] you can see verses where it's used here. [14:47] They set forth um they come out with [14:49] great possessions. They went out [14:50] together, etc. This is not a word that [14:54] actually is talking about miscarriage [14:57] significantly. This is a word that's [14:58] used all over the place. So, here's [15:00] where things start to get a bit more [15:02] embarrassing for Brandon. He said, "You [15:04] can see all the uses of it here and then [15:07] moved on to another screen and [15:09] overlooked something quite important." [15:11] Let's go back to what that screen showed [15:14] and look in the red circle down below. [15:18] Abortion. Now, this is talking about a [15:21] specific use of this verbal root in uh [15:24] one of the psalms, but yatsa, contrary [15:28] to what Brandon just said, can and does [15:32] refer to miscarriage and abortion. And [15:35] Brandon's own 19th century resource that [15:38] he doesn't know how to use demonstrates [15:42] that. But let's take a look at some more [15:44] upto-date resources. Let's start with [15:46] Hollowot. We're in the several page long [15:49] entry for the verbal root yatsa. And we [15:51] see here on paragraph 5 expressions in [15:55] the underlined portion we have our [15:57] clause from Exodus 21:22. She has a [16:01] miscarriage. Exodus 21:22. We can look [16:05] at the theological dictionary of the Old [16:07] Testament. The entry for Yatsa starts [16:10] here and we can go down to the [16:11] underlined portion in the bottom [16:13] paragraph. Uh, in a contrasting sense, [16:16] we find the verb used for a miscarriage. [16:19] Exodus 21:22 [16:22] and Numbers 12:12. We can look in [16:25] Klein's dictionary of classical Hebrew. [16:27] Here's the very beginning of a very long [16:29] entry for the verbal root yatsa. And we [16:32] see down in the underlined portion of [16:34] fetus, come out early, abort. Exodus [16:38] 21:22 and Psalm 144:14. [16:42] And that psalm is the one that has the [16:46] form of the verb that appears on the [16:48] table that Brandon showed and forgot to [16:51] look at. So this verbal root absolutely [16:55] can and does refer to miscarriage and [16:58] abortion. It also can refer to normal [17:02] birth. An appeal to the Hebrew all by [17:05] itself is not determinative. But when we [17:09] consider it in context, scholars are in [17:13] pretty overwhelming agreement that this [17:15] passage uses the word yelled and the [17:18] verbal root yatsa to refer to causing a [17:21] miscarriage. This is the consensus view [17:25] that Brandon has entirely missed because [17:28] he doesn't know what he's talking about [17:29] and he doesn't even know how to use the [17:31] inadequate resources to which he has [17:34] access. But wait, there's more. There is [17:37] a word that actually talks directly [17:40] about miscarriage and I'll give you it [17:42] in the same book of the Bible here. [17:44] Exodus 23:26 [17:46] for example saysnone shall miscarry or [17:49] be barren in your land. Well, what is [17:51] that word? If that's not the word that's [17:53] used here, what is that word? Well, [17:54] let's take a look. It's not that one. [17:56] That's not that one. We already hit [17:58] that. It's um Let me make sure I get [18:01] this correct. Yes, it's this one here. [18:02] Ready? [18:03] >> Shahul. [18:05] >> Shahul. [18:07] That is the word that actually means [18:10] misaryry. That is the word that is not [18:13] used here. I repeat the word for [18:16] misaryry is not used here. Rather a term [18:19] for like general coming out is used [18:22] here. I wanted to put this all in one [18:25] place for you guys to see this because [18:26] this is really important. So there is [18:28] another Hebrew word nefell which goes [18:31] back to the root to fall which is [18:33] talking about a child falling before [18:36] birth a miscarriage or a still birth. [18:39] Job 3:16 says like a miscarried child [18:42] and uses this word. Psalm 58:8 says like [18:45] a stillborn child and uses this word. [18:48] Neither of these words for actual [18:51] miscarriage are used in this passage. [18:53] For Mr. Mlelen to not acknowledge that [18:56] and simply to say this is talking about [18:58] miscarriage even though it's not using [18:59] the words that would be used if it were [19:02] talking about miscarriage is is crazy [19:04] work. It it's just it's just crazy work. [19:05] Again, I don't want to imply motive, but [19:08] it's wild. So Dan is really giving the [19:10] wrong idea here to Alex in that regard. [19:13] So Brandon recorded this video and said, [19:16] "Aha, here's the word that actually [19:18] means misaryry." and then realized, oh, [19:21] there's a second word that can also mean [19:23] that. And so had to come back and do an [19:26] edit and splice in this voice over where [19:29] he's talking about another word that can [19:31] mean miscary. And what Brandon entirely [19:34] missed is that the words that occur in [19:37] Exodus 21:22 can also refer to [19:41] miscarriage because in pretty much all [19:43] languages, individual concepts can be [19:46] referred to by a variety of different [19:49] words and phrases. It's not limited to [19:52] just one word or just two words in all [19:55] instances. And in this case, as the [19:57] overwhelming majority of scholars agree, [19:59] Exodus 21:22 is using words can and do [20:03] refer to abortion and to miscarriage. [20:06] Brandon just doesn't know what he's [20:09] talking about. Also, he kind of smuggles [20:12] in, if you listen to what he said, that [20:14] the harm here is talking about harm to [20:17] the mother. Now, I don't agree with [20:19] that. That's not in the text. The harm [20:20] here is left open. It could be harm to [20:23] the mother. It could be harm to the [20:25] baby. It could be both. It's really a [20:27] terrible translation to see this as a [20:29] miscarriage. So again, Brandon is [20:32] getting rhetorically way out over his [20:35] skis by presuming to pass judgments on [20:38] translation quality without having the [20:41] first clue what he's talking about, [20:43] without having any qualification to [20:47] assess quality in Bible translation. [20:51] What we're talking about here in [20:52] actuality is a pre-mature [20:55] birth being caused by these two men [20:57] driving together and the pregnant woman [20:59] getting hit. [21:00] >> That's what Brandon needs this to be [21:02] talking about, but that's not what this [21:04] is talking about. [21:05] >> So, if there's no harm other than the [21:08] lady going into labor prematurely, then [21:10] the one who hit her has to pay a fine [21:12] accordingly for the whatever kind of [21:14] medical implications that might have, [21:15] the risk um that that introduces into [21:18] the equation, etc. So, this doesn't [21:20] really make any sense. The medical [21:22] implications of a pre-term birth in this [21:25] time period was pretty much always the [21:28] death of the pre-term child. Uh they [21:31] didn't have ICUs. There was no hospital [21:34] bill anybody was going to receive. [21:36] Depending on how far along the child [21:38] was, it was basically whether or not [21:41] they survived on their own if they were [21:44] born pre-term. Now certainly there would [21:46] have been those that did but for the [21:48] overwhelming majority again depending on [21:49] how far along the pregnancy was the [21:52] medical implication was death unless [21:55] they just happened to be far enough [21:57] along to survive. Risk is also kind of [22:00] silly because the argument is that the [22:03] fine is imposed if it's a premature [22:05] birth and it's not followed by any harm. [22:09] Which means that there's no more risk. [22:12] The risk has passed. No harm has come [22:16] therefore fine and then the other [22:18] outcome is that there is harm. So no [22:23] saying well there are medical [22:24] implications and there are risks [22:25] involved and that's what the fine is [22:27] intended to recompense or to make whole [22:30] is just making up rationalizations [22:33] without knowing anything about how any [22:35] of this would have worked in the middle [22:36] of the first millennium BCE. and he has [22:39] to pay um as the judges determined in [22:42] that scenario of of the baby just being [22:45] prematurely prematurely born. But if [22:48] there is harm, now again we don't know [22:50] if this is talking about harm to the [22:52] mother or harm to the baby or both. But [22:54] if there is any kind of harm in any [22:56] direction, then you shall pay life for [22:59] life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand [23:01] for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, [23:03] wound, wound for wound, stripe for [23:05] stripe for stripe. And that is that Lex [23:07] Talionis um principle that Mlelen is [23:10] talking about. But again he smuggles in [23:13] the the suggestion that the harm in [23:15] reference here is only harm to the [23:17] mother when actually the text I think [23:19] like leaves that question wide open. And [23:22] in the greater context of of the ch the [23:24] child coming out and not it being a [23:26] miscarriage, I think it's fair to say [23:28] that this equally applies to the [23:30] scenario of the baby being harmed, which [23:32] makes this frankly a very prolife [23:35] passage. But that only works if the [23:38] interpretation of her children go out [23:41] refers just to premature birth. And as [23:43] we've already seen, it doesn't. [23:46] >> Let's keep going. [23:47] And uh what this indicates is that the [23:50] destruction of the fetus does not result [23:53] in tallyionic justice. It's just a fine. [23:56] And what's more, there's no standardized [23:58] value that is placed on the fetus. It's [24:00] up to the husband [24:02] >> to decide what fine to impose because an [24:06] enslaved person has a standardized [24:07] value. It's 30 shekels. And you see that [24:10] elsewhere in the covenant code. 30 [24:13] shekels for the life of an enslaved [24:14] person. Uh but the hus it's up to the [24:17] husband to decide the value of this [24:19] fetus should this injury um result in a [24:23] miscarriage. It's such a twisting. It is [24:25] such a twisting of the scripture. I'm [24:26] sorry to say it. I don't mean that as [24:28] like a slur against him personally, but [24:30] it it just is such a twisting of the [24:32] scripture. And I hope again don't take [24:33] my word for it. Go to the Hebrew. [24:36] >> Brandon, you don't know Hebrew. You [24:39] don't know what you're talking about. [24:42] Um, I mean, so I want to say this, too. [24:44] Is it it's possible that he's just [24:46] reading the worst the worst translation? [24:48] It's possible that he doesn't know that [24:50] the that he's using the wrong word for [24:51] miscarriage there. It's possible that [24:53] he's just um ignoring the fact that the [24:56] that the same word for a child outside [24:58] of the womb is used for this baby inside [25:00] of the womb. It's possible that he's [25:01] just ignorant to all of that. And so, I [25:02] just want to leave that possibility [25:04] open. [25:09] But I also want to say emphatically that [25:11] the way that he's presenting this [25:13] passage is just really a twisting of the [25:16] meaning of the of the scripture. And and [25:18] this indicates that a fetus was [25:20] considered property was not considered a [25:22] full legal immoral person. And and there [25:24] are arguments about u that folks make [25:27] about why it ought to be translated a [25:29] different way to indicate that uh [25:31] >> oh never mind. [25:32] >> So he maybe he is aware of that. Let's [25:34] see. outcome is is premature birth that [25:37] isn't followed by any other injury or [25:39] anything like so. This part kind of [25:42] threw me for a second. I'm not sure [25:44] exactly what's going on here because [25:45] Brandon just got done uh waxing [25:48] rhetorical about how I seem to be [25:51] ignorant of the fact that I'm using a [25:52] terrible translation and he's got the [25:54] right translation and I just don't seem [25:57] to have a clue what I'm talking about. [25:59] And am I ignorant? I don't want to [26:01] impugn Dan's integrity, but he doesn't [26:03] seem to know what he's talking about. [26:04] And then I point out that I'm aware of [26:07] those translations and he goes, "Oh, [26:09] never mind." Which means either this is [26:13] the first time he's watching that video [26:17] or he's just kind of ad hoc saying [26:20] whatever comes to mind as he's reviewing [26:22] it again. or he wanted to get all of [26:27] those uh judgments out so that people [26:31] would be influenced by that idea and [26:35] then he would just add in some plausible [26:37] deniability by saying, "Oh, never mind. [26:39] He addressed that." I don't know which [26:41] of those three it is, but I thought that [26:44] was kind of peculiar, Dad. And the [26:46] second outcome is the actual [26:47] miscarriage. And in the book, I go [26:49] through several reasons why that's just [26:51] not a a plausible reading of the uh of [26:54] the passage. [26:55] >> So far, I think it's pretty clear why [26:57] that is a far more plausible reading. [27:00] So, you'll notice here that I reference [27:02] talking about this in the book, and that [27:04] book is the Bible says. So, what we get [27:06] right and wrong about scriptures most [27:08] controversial issues. And I have a whole [27:10] chapter that goes over the question of [27:13] whether or not the Bible says abortion [27:15] is murder. And here are the four pages [27:18] where I discuss the argument that this [27:21] passage in Exodus 21 is actually talking [27:24] about just premature birth. And I give [27:27] four reasons why that doesn't make any [27:29] sense. And Brandon obviously didn't read [27:33] the book, obviously is not engaging [27:36] those arguments, but is going to engage [27:39] a couple of the points because he found [27:41] a video of mine that talks about this. [27:43] But I did come across this short where [27:46] he addresses this exact same passage in [27:49] a little bit more detail and he gives [27:50] some of the reasons why he thinks that [27:52] the interpretation that I'm advocating [27:53] for is false. I'm now going to basically [27:57] critique his reasons against the [27:59] interpretation that I just gave. Hey [28:01] everybody, Exodus 21 22 and 23 impose [28:04] penalties should two men who are [28:06] fighting injure a pregnant woman. And [28:08] two outcomes are addressed. One, they [28:10] cause a miscarriage that incurs a fine. [28:12] two, they cause the death of the woman. [28:14] That incurs the death penalty. If your [28:17] translation suggests that the first [28:19] outcome is premature birth of an [28:21] otherwise healthy infant and the second [28:23] outcome is miscarriage, that's a [28:25] mistransation. And this is clear for at [28:27] least two reasons. One, incurring a fine [28:30] requires material loss in the penetuk [28:33] and causing the premature birth of an [28:34] otherwise healthy infant is not that. So [28:37] again, I don't want to accuse Dan of [28:39] being purposfully misleading or [28:41] purposely giving misinformation, but the [28:43] statement that he's making here that [28:44] there's no examples of economic ret or [28:47] economic uh payment for anything other [28:50] than material loss or economic loss is [28:52] just factually not true. Um to give one [28:54] example, Deuteronomy 22:17 is a scenario [28:58] where a man falsely accuses a woman of [29:01] not being a virgin. And the response to [29:04] that to that is that uh it says they [29:06] shall find him a 100 shekels of silver [29:08] and give him to the father of the young [29:10] woman because he has brought a bad name [29:12] upon a virgin of Israel. So that's not [29:16] material or economic in nature and yet [29:19] there is um like I said a fine [29:21] associated with that you know [29:23] misconduct. So um that I don't think [29:26] holds up. [29:27] >> Uh it does hold up because this is a [29:29] threat to the economic livelihood of the [29:32] father. That's why the fine is paid to [29:34] the father and not to the woman who has [29:38] been defamed. And if you look at the [29:40] details, the payment of a fine to the [29:41] father and then the perpetrator cannot [29:45] divorce the girl. That's the same as [29:48] what we have at the end of Deuteronomy [29:49] 22 where the man has raped a virgin who [29:53] is not betrothed. Why are these fines [29:56] going to the father and why is the man [29:58] being required to stay married to the [30:00] girl? Well, it's because marriage was a [30:03] transaction where one man was paying [30:05] another man for the sale of the sexual [30:09] availability and the procreative [30:10] capacities of a woman and that woman was [30:14] expected to be in shiny new pristine [30:16] condition. And to not be so is to impugn [30:21] the integrity of the father which would [30:24] result in his lost economic benefits not [30:28] only from the sale of the woman because [30:30] if she wasn't a virgin then the father [30:33] has to give back the bride price that [30:35] was paid. So the father's going to lose [30:37] a bunch of money, but then he has a [30:40] reputation of trying to marry off women [30:43] who are not virgins, which means he's [30:45] going to be economically hurt within [30:48] good upright Israelite society. So just [30:52] like with the case of raping a virgin [30:54] who is not betrothed in verses 28 and 29 [30:57] of Deuteronomy 22, there is real [30:59] economic damage being done to the [31:02] father. And there's a threat of more. or [31:04] the man is trying to extort the bride [31:06] price back from the father just because [31:09] he doesn't like his wife. So yes, there [31:12] is real actual material loss going on [31:15] here as well. You just don't understand [31:17] how family law and the economy of [31:20] ancient Israel worked. And then second, [31:22] if two men are striving and they hit a [31:24] pregnant woman so that her children come [31:26] out, but there's no additional harm, I [31:29] think it's kind of obvious that there [31:30] could be some economic or material [31:33] implications to that early delivery of [31:37] the baby. Um, I don't think that's too [31:39] much of a stretch at all to suggest that [31:41] there's going to be some economic [31:42] implications to that, especially [31:44] depending on how how premature the baby [31:46] is actually born. Like what what [31:49] economic harm is done from an otherwise [31:53] healthy premature birth where no harm [31:56] comes to either the child or the mother? [31:59] What economic harm is coming in the [32:02] middle of first millennium BCE Israel [32:05] from that set of circumstances? Can you [32:08] name one? Let's keep going. Two, this [32:12] law is being pulled from the laws of [32:13] Hammer. It's clear for at least two [32:15] reasons. One, incurring a fine requires [32:17] material loss in the penetuk and causing [32:20] the premature birth of an otherwise [32:22] healthy infant is not that. Two, this [32:25] law is being pulled from the laws of [32:27] Hammurabi, as are many others in this [32:29] chapter, even in the same order they [32:31] occur in the laws of Hammurabi. Check [32:33] it. This law is found in a number of [32:36] different law codes from ancient [32:38] southwest Asia. And in every instance, [32:40] it addresses the exact same two [32:42] outcomes, miscarriage and the death of [32:44] the woman. Okay, now this is a really [32:46] important point that I want to break [32:47] down here. In the code of Hammurabi, a [32:49] miscarriage brings about a fine. Only [32:52] the woman's death triggers the [32:54] Lexalionus life for life principle and [32:56] the unborn child is basically considered [32:59] like an economic loss. Whereas in [33:02] Exodus, the unborn are explicitly called [33:06] children as I already mentioned. Um the [33:09] harm here could apply to either. And in [33:13] either case it it brings about Lex [33:15] Talionis equal justice life for life. It [33:18] could be to the baby, it could be to the [33:19] mother. In either case, the life for [33:20] life principle kicks in. So what I was [33:23] pointing out there is that we have [33:25] precedents for this exact kind of law. [33:27] Not just in the laws of Hammurabi, which [33:31] the covenant code is adopting and [33:33] adapting, but from several different law [33:35] codes. It's always the exact same two [33:38] scenarios. that should aid us in [33:41] interpreting what we see in Exodus. But [33:44] Brandon here is saying no, it doesn't [33:46] because we've already established it [33:49] doesn't mean that which is not engaging [33:51] the concern. It's just asserting the [33:54] conclusion over the argument. Uh because [33:58] he says, well, it calls them children, [34:00] which is utterly meaningless. As I have [34:02] demonstrated, Yelled can refer to an [34:04] unborn child to a fetus, even to a [34:06] miscarriborn fetus. So that doesn't mean [34:10] that my interpretation is wrong. The [34:13] fact that the uh assone the harm could [34:16] maybe refer to the child or to the [34:19] mother is an assertion that is not [34:21] supported by any evidence whatsoever. [34:23] But once we have established that her [34:26] children go out is a reference to [34:28] miscarriage which is the most likely [34:31] reading in light of not only the [34:33] precursors that we find in the other [34:35] literature from ancient West Asia but [34:37] also in the way that both the noun [34:40] yelled and the verb yatsa are used [34:42] elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. We [34:44] already know it's talking about a [34:45] miscarriage. And so a miscarried child [34:48] can't have further harm done to it. The [34:51] harm is very clearly in reference to the [34:54] mother. And one thing I haven't pointed [34:56] out yet, but is also evidence for my [34:59] reading is that the earliest [35:01] interpretations that we have of this [35:03] passage unilaterally interpret it as [35:07] referring to miscarriage even when [35:10] they're reinterpreting other parts of [35:12] the passage. So for instance, Josephus [35:14] writing toward the end of the 1st [35:16] century CE, Jewish antiquities book [35:18] four, we have in the red box, he that [35:20] kickth a woman with child, if the woman [35:23] misarry, [35:25] shall be fined by the judges for having [35:27] by the destruction of the fruit of her [35:29] womb diminish the population, and a [35:31] further sum shall be presented by him to [35:33] the woman's husband. If she die of the [35:35] blow, he also shall die. The law [35:38] claiming as it's due, the sacrifice of [35:40] life for life. So the earliest [35:42] interpretations that we find of this [35:45] passage understand it exactly as I have [35:48] understood it. But we have an even [35:50] earlier interpretation and that's in the [35:52] Septuagent. Here's the Greek of the [35:54] Septuagent passage. And in the [35:55] Septuagent they seem to have understood [35:57] the Hebrew ass which means tragedy which [36:00] is interpreted as harm in some [36:02] translations. They seem to have [36:04] misunderstood assone as soma the Greek [36:07] word for body. Because what we have here [36:10] uh the third line down on the right [36:16] and what that means is and the child [36:20] goes out of her not fully formed and so [36:24] it is a fine if the fetus is miscarried [36:27] and it is not fully formed. It goes on [36:29] to say if it is fully formed that's when [36:33] talionic justice kicks in. So the [36:35] septuagent reinterprets both outcomes as [36:39] miscarriage. [36:40] Meaning they are interpreting goes out [36:43] as a reference to miscarriage. And we [36:46] can see this also in Pho in the first [36:49] half of the first century CE. So Moses [36:52] then, as I have said, implicitly and [36:53] indirectly forbade the exposure of [36:55] children when he pronounced the sentence [36:57] of death against those who cause the [36:59] miscarriage of mothers in cases where [37:02] the fetus is fully formed. And [37:05] obviously, it's just the fine in cases [37:07] where they are not fully formed. So Pho [37:09] is reading the Septuagent's [37:11] reinterpretation of what's going on in [37:13] the Hebrew as a reference to miscarriage [37:17] of a not yet fully formed fetus and [37:20] miscarriage of a fully formed fetus. So [37:23] all of the earliest interpreters of this [37:25] text also understood this to be [37:27] referring to either miscarriage in both [37:30] instances or miscarriage in the first [37:32] instance and the death of the woman in [37:34] the next instance. And Brandon obviously [37:36] doesn't engage with any of that. Brandon [37:40] doesn't know what he's talking about. [37:42] So, Exodus is not only not copying [37:45] Hammurabi, it's actually correcting him. [37:48] And this is a really important idea. [37:49] This is a pattern that you actually see [37:52] in the Torah is that it uses familiar [37:56] law codes and familiar moral systems and [38:00] subverts them in order to improve them [38:03] for how things go down in the Torah. [38:05] >> Uh, no. And if you want to see exactly [38:09] how the covenant code is adopting and [38:11] adapting Hammurabi's law, including [38:13] places where it keeps it the same, where [38:15] it makes it better, and even where it [38:17] makes it worse, I would highly recommend [38:18] David Wright's phenomenal book, [38:20] Inventing God's Law, as you will see if [38:24] you read that book. What's going on here [38:26] is definitely not a correction of what's [38:29] going on in Hammurabi's law. It is [38:32] perpetuating the same thing. It's [38:34] tweaking it a tiny bit, but it very [38:37] clearly maintains the two outcomes. [38:40] Miscarriage, the death of the woman. [38:42] >> So when you put it all together, the [38:44] unborn are called children. Um premature [38:47] birth is treated as serious harm. Injury [38:49] or death invokes the equal justice [38:51] lexalion life for life principle. And [38:54] monetary compensation is no longer [38:56] considered valid when we're talking [38:59] about human life here. Which again [39:00] really raises the question, why would [39:03] that property principle not be relevant [39:05] when I if the baby in the womb is just [39:08] property? Huh? Really makes one think. [39:09] So the Bible is filled with data that is [39:12] telling us that there is human life in [39:15] the womb. Also, science is telling us [39:16] that there's human life in the womb in [39:18] an incontrovertible way. You have to [39:21] really try to stretch the this verse out [39:24] of its context, make it say something [39:26] that it isn't saying, and then apply [39:27] like a crazy amount of weight to it in [39:30] order to try to outweigh the rest of the [39:33] data that is in scripture that clearly [39:35] points toward human life being valuable [39:37] and human life being within the womb is [39:40] the bottom line. So, obviously, this [39:42] argument doesn't hold any water [39:44] whatsoever. And Brandon doesn't really [39:46] know what he's talking about. Not when [39:47] it comes to biblical Hebrew, not when it [39:49] comes to the contexts here. Not when it [39:51] comes to how biblical legislation works, [39:55] not even when it comes to how logos [39:57] works. I think he kind of did logos [39:59] dirty. Uh just trying to jin up some ad [40:01] revenue for Logos. But um if you don't [40:05] know Hebrew and if you have to get Logos [40:09] to pronounce a verbal root for you in [40:11] Hebrew, you very clearly don't know [40:13] Hebrew. Please don't waste everybody's [40:16] time getting on the internet and [40:18] pretending to lecture other people and [40:20] wonder aloud if they have any clue what [40:23] they're talking about when they are [40:25] experts in that thing that you don't [40:27] know the first thing about. It just [40:29] wastes everybody's time. And maybe [40:32] you're going to make a few dollars off [40:33] of it. But if that's your priority, [40:37] do better. And the fit for this video is [40:40] Metallica and justice for  ## 📺 Video ![](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zDFCZCRyw) --- # 📝 Full Notes (Deep-Read Analysis) # 🏷️ Title: Responding to an accusation ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research comparative law codes from ancient Southwest Asia — strengthen understanding of biblical legislation context #biblical-studies - [H2] Review lexicographical resources for Hebrew terms — improve exegetical methodology #hebrew - [H3] Examine early interpretive traditions — validate hermeneutical approach #textual-criticism ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Daily Dose of Wisdom Channel](https://youtube.com/c/DailyDoseofWisdom) - [The Bible Says](https://book-reference-url) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan responds to accusations from YouTuber Brandon Maguire about misleading interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 - The dispute centers on whether this passage refers to miscarriage (McClellan's view) or premature birth (Maguire's view) - McClellan demonstrates extensive lexicographical and comparative evidence supporting the miscarriage interpretation - The video reveals significant methodological problems in Maguire's approach to Hebrew exegesis - Bottom line: Academic credentials and proper methodology matter in biblical interpretation ## 📖 Main Content This video demonstrates a clash between academic biblical scholarship and popular apologetics. McClellan, a credentialed biblical scholar, responds to Brandon Maguire's accusation that he misleads audiences about biblical teachings on abortion. The core dispute involves interpreting Exodus 21:22-25, which describes penalties for injuring a pregnant woman during a fight. Maguire argues the passage describes premature birth of a healthy child, making it pro-life. McClellan contends it describes miscarriage, with the fetus treated as property rather than a full person. McClellan demonstrates superior methodology by citing multiple lexicons, comparative ancient law codes, and early interpretive traditions, while pointing out Maguire's lack of Hebrew knowledge and misuse of research tools. The exchange reveals broader tensions between academic biblical studies and religious apologetics, particularly regarding methodology, expertise, and the relationship between biblical texts and contemporary moral debates. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=0) — [H1] Initial Response Setup - Key idea: McClellan addresses accusation from Brandon Maguire about misleading biblical interpretation - Evidence: "Popular Bible Scholar Misleads Thousands. Example provided" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=150) — [H2] Jeremiah 1:5 Argument Analysis - Key idea: God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah precedes conception, not just birth - Evidence: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" - emphasizes "before" #### ⏱️ [05:15](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=315) — [H3] Logical Implications Problem - Key idea: If prenatal personhood based on divine foreknowledge, then pre-conception personhood exists - Evidence: "It would therefore be murder to prevent that rape" - showing absurd conclusions #### ⏱️ [08:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=480) — [H1] Software and Methodology Critique - Key idea: Maguire lacks Hebrew knowledge but promotes Bible software as solution - Evidence: "It sounds like this video is just an excuse for Brandon to put on display how to use logos" #### ⏱️ [12:20](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=740) — [H2] Hebrew Term Analysis - Yeled - Key idea: The word "children" (yeled) can refer to unborn fetuses and miscarriages - Evidence: Halladay's lexicon shows "miscarriage" as meaning in plural form #### ⏱️ [18:45](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1125) — [H2] Hebrew Verb Analysis - Yatsa - Key idea: The verb "come out" (yatsa) can and does refer to miscarriage/abortion - Evidence: Multiple lexicons confirm "abortion" as valid meaning in context #### ⏱️ [22:10](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1330) — [H3] Multiple Word Problem - Key idea: Maguire wrongly assumes only specific words can mean miscarriage - Evidence: "Individual concepts can be referred to by a variety of different words" #### ⏱️ [25:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1530) — [H1] Medical Reality Check - Key idea: Premature birth in ancient times usually meant death without modern medicine - Evidence: "They didn't have ICUs. There was no hospital bill anybody was going to receive" #### ⏱️ [28:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1680) — [H2] Economic Loss Argument - Key idea: Fines require actual material loss, which healthy premature birth doesn't represent - Evidence: Deuteronomy 22:17 involves real economic damage to father's reputation and bride price #### ⏱️ [32:15](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=1935) — [H1] Comparative Law Evidence - Key idea: Multiple ancient law codes address same two scenarios - miscarriage and woman's death - Evidence: "This law is found in a number of different law codes from ancient southwest Asia" #### ⏱️ [35:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2100) — [H2] Early Interpretation Evidence - Key idea: Earliest interpreters (Josephus, Septuagint, Philo) understood text as referring to miscarriage - Evidence: Josephus describes "if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges" #### ⏱️ [38:30](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2310) — [H3] Septuagint Interpretation - Key idea: Greek translation interprets both outcomes as different types of miscarriage - Evidence: "Not fully formed" vs "fully formed" fetus distinctions in Greek text #### ⏱️ [41:00](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw?t=2460) — [H1] Expertise vs. Confidence Warning - Key idea: Lack of Hebrew knowledge disqualifies confident assertions about Hebrew texts - Evidence: "If you have to get Logos to pronounce a verbal root for you in Hebrew, you very clearly don't know Hebrew" ## 📚 References - [Halladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon](https://lexicon-reference) - [Dictionary of Classical Hebrew by Klein](https://dcl-reference) - [David Wright's "Inventing God's Law"](https://book-reference) - [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities](https://josephus-reference) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - A popular YouTuber accused a biblical scholar of misleading people about what the Bible says regarding abortion, specifically focusing on Exodus 21:22-25 - The scholar responds by demonstrating extensive lexicographical evidence that the Hebrew terms in question do refer to miscarriage, contrary to the YouTuber's claims - The dispute reveals deeper issues about expertise, methodology, and the proper use of biblical languages in interpretation ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Interpretation Requires Actual Expertise** This week's discussion highlights a crucial principle for anyone engaging with biblical texts: methodology matters more than confidence. When interpreting ancient Hebrew texts, having access to software tools doesn't substitute for genuine linguistic training and scholarly rigor. The exchange demonstrates why biblical interpretation benefits from: - Proper lexicographical research using current scholarly resources - Understanding of comparative ancient literature and law codes - Familiarity with early interpretive traditions - Honest acknowledgment of one's limitations For WordPress developers and content creators, this serves as a reminder that authority comes from demonstrated competence, not just confident presentation. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on fact-checking and source verification - Education: Develop workshops on evaluating expertise and credentials online - Community management: Establish guidelines for handling disputes about specialized knowledge #### Community - Maintainers: Support systems for peer review and collaborative fact-checking - Contributors: Training on proper citation and source evaluation - Ecosystem: Standards for content accuracy and expertise verification #### FAIR - Technical independence: Importance of independent verification of claims - Policies: Guidelines for handling disputes about factual accuracy - Governance artifacts: Standards for expertise and qualification assessment ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious apologetics often prioritizes predetermined conclusions over rigorous methodology - Access to research tools without proper training leads to overconfident misinterpretation - Academic credentials provide meaningful quality control in specialized fields - Popular content creators may lack necessary expertise despite large audiences ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative lexicographical analysis across multiple authoritative Hebrew dictionaries - Historical-critical examination of ancient law codes for contextual understanding - Reception history study examining earliest interpretations of disputed passages ### ❓ Questions - How can online audiences better evaluate expertise claims in specialized fields? - What role should academic credentials play in assessing biblical interpretation quality? - How do we balance accessibility with accuracy in religious education? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive study of how Bible software affects interpretation quality among untrained users - Analysis of expertise signaling in religious content creation - Investigation of methodology training needs in popular biblical education ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Need for better methodology training in religious education - Education: Importance of distinguishing between tools and training - Security: Risks of misinformation when expertise is misrepresented - Funding: Investment needed in quality control for religious educational content ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14th grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Screenshots of lexicon entries, comparative text analysis - Improve: Infographics showing methodology differences, timeline of interpretations #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Verbal argumentation, pronunciation examples - Improve: Audio summary of key lexicographical evidence #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive definitions, terminology explanations - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, etymology explanations #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Software demonstration, research process walkthrough - Improve: Interactive lexicon exercises, step-by-step methodology checklist #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argumentation, evidence categorization - Improve: Decision trees for interpretation, logic flow diagrams #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Scholarly dialogue format, community response elements - Improve: Discussion guides, peer review exercises #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis, personal reflection opportunities - Improve: Self-assessment rubrics, independent research projects #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context, cultural ecosystem connections - Improve: Archaeological evidence integration, cultural comparison frameworks ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive video content - Improve: Alt text for lexicon screenshots, audio descriptions for visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Timestamp navigation, transcript search functionality #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard video quality - Improve: High contrast transcript options, adjustable text sizing #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive transcript format - Improve: Customizable layout options for different visual needs #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification, downloadable transcripts #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic comment functionality - Improve: Accessible feedback forms, structured discussion tools ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focus on ancient Near Eastern contexts - Improve: Global interpretation traditions, non-Western scholarly perspectives #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology with explanations - Improve: Multiple language accessibility, cultural context notes #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured argumentation, clear section breaks - Improve: Executive summary, visual argument mapping #### Representation - Present: Male-dominated scholarly conversation - Improve: Diverse voices in biblical scholarship, inclusive expert panels #### Psychological safety - Present: Professional academic tone - Improve: Community guidelines for respectful disagreement, conflict resolution resources ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong syllogistic reasoning about Hebrew lexicography - Inductive strength: Multiple lexicon evidence building toward consensus view - Causal reasoning: Clear cause-effect relationships in argumentation - Analogical strength: Effective comparisons to other legal codes #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Some personal attacks on Maguire's qualifications, though arguably relevant to expertise claims - Appeal to authority: Heavy reliance on scholarly consensus, though justified given expertise gap #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academically authoritative but occasionally condescending, particularly toward the end ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: McClellan doesn't deny the accusation but reframes it as demonstrating Maguire's incompetence - Attack: Systematic attack on Maguire's methodology, qualifications, and motives - Reverse victim/offender: Positions himself as victim of unqualified criticism rather than addressing original accusation directly - Emotional cues: Frustration and condescension evident, particularly in final segments about wasting time ## 🎯 Conclusion This exchange demonstrates the critical importance of methodology and expertise in biblical interpretation. While McClellan provides substantial scholarly evidence for his position, the defensive tone and personal attacks somewhat undermine the academic high ground he claims. The core lesson remains valid: specialized knowledge requires proper training, and confidence without competence can be dangerously misleading. For content creators and educators, this highlights the need for honest assessment of one's limitations and the value of peer review in specialized fields. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Hebrew lexicography requires comprehensive source consultation > [!quote] [Responding to an accusation](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw) by [[Dan McClellan]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "Multiple lexicons confirm 'abortion' as valid meaning in context" Demonstrates importance of consulting current scholarly resources rather than relying on outdated public domain materials. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw#H1) #xref #methodology ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Early interpretive traditions support miscarriage reading > [!quote] [Responding to an accusation](https://youtu.be/J4zDFCZCRyw) > "Earliest interpretations that we have of this passage unilaterally interpret it as referring to miscarriage" Reception history provides important evidence for textual interpretation beyond linguistic analysis alone. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/J4 --- # 📄 Full Transcript *Auto-generated from YouTube captions · timestamps roughly every 30 seconds · [watch on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zDFCZCRyw)* **[00:00]** Hey everybody, I was just made aware of a video that was posted yesterday by a content creator named Brandon Maguire who runs a YouTube channel with over a million subscribers called Daily Dose of Wisdom. Uh Brandon didn't tag me in the video, but here's the video. It's entitled Popular Bible Scholar Misleads Thousands. Example provided. Thought I would take a look and respond to what Brandon has to say. The Bible doesn't endorse abortion. A lot of people think the opposite is true, that the Bible condemns abortion. But if it if this is the only place where it seems to **[00:30]** actually directly mention something about abortion and then even then it's probably not even about abortion, where does this opposite idea come from that the Bible does condemn abortion? >> The uh actually a good question. >> Most of the time folks who argue that that uh the Bible condemns abortion, they're going to appeal to a handful of passages that suggest God has knowledge of and concern for uh gestation. And so you see this in for instance Jeremiah 15 where Jeremiah says before I formed you **[01:02]** in the womb. I knew you and consecrated you a a prophet to the nations and and the >> I formed you in the womb. I think that's important to note. You were in the womb. Jeremiah was in the womb. The person Jeremiah existed in the womb. Well, I think it's more important to acknowledge that all this is being said about Jeremiah prior to his conception. And that's why I emphasized before in **[01:34]** that translation because it's saying that God knew Jeremiah prior to his conception. And this is a fact about this passage that just scorches by miles over the heads of everybody who thinks they have the definitive grasp on what the Hebrew Bible is talking about. And they just don't because if God's fornowledge about Jeremiah prior to his **[02:04]** conception means that Jeremiah was a moral and a legal person prior to his conception, then it means that all people who will ever be born already have full moral and legal personhood. And you are not ready for the implications of that argument because that would mean that if a woman was according to God's fornowledge supposed to get pregnant and give birth as the result of rape **[02:37]** that it would therefore be murder to prevent that rape or it would constitute murder to stop two 12y olds from engaging in premar marital sex. If God knew that the girl was supposed to conceive and get pregnant and bear a child, that God already knew, therefore granting that child full legal and moral personhood before their conception. **[03:07]** What's going on in Jeremiah 15 is Jeremiah is boasting about how his consecration and calling as a prophet even precedes his gestation. Because we see that, as I've noted in other videos in Mesopotamian, in Egyptian, and in other biblical writings, that prophets and kings will say, "I was called by God or ordained by God from the womb." And Jeremiah says, "I'm going to do you one better." God knew me before **[03:38]** I was formed in the womb, before my conception. That's what's going on in Jeremiah. And no matter how many times I point this out, it again just scorches by miles over the heads of everyone who imagines that they know what they're talking about. Argument is that well uh Jeremiah was obviously a person. Jeremiah was a human being prior to being born. Therefore, human life begins at conception. Uh you also have uh in the Psalms you have a passage about how **[04:09]** uh God knit me together in my mother's womb. Uh you have the story of John the Baptist uh the fetal John the Baptist leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb upon hearing the voice of Mary the mother of Jesus. Those are the three most popular passages that that get appealed to to suggest that a human being begins at conception. And the idea is uh murder is is the killing of a of an innocent **[04:40]** human. Human lives begin at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder and therefore abortion is wrong. Um and what this neglects to take account of is the fact that when we look at u you know legal codes and legislation and stuff like that we tend to assume that if there are principles anywhere that they apply universally and that everything fits perfectly into a perfectly systematic hole. Um and so the idea would must be **[05:11]** that uh you know if if over here we treat a a a fetus as as uh somebody who can leap for joy or something like that, well then we could never obviously um treat a fetus in another port uh part of the text as as not a full legal immoral person. Well, we would need a really good reason to not treat them as a full legal immoral person if a precedent has been clearly set. So let's see if he can give us a case for why they aren't. But what we see throughout the Hebrew Bible is that a fetus was not **[05:43]** considered a full legal and moral person. It was considered more property. And the most explicit uh example of that is in the covenant code, Exodus 21, we have verses 22- 25 where we have this uh this peculiar bit of legislation where it says if two men are fighting and they they hit a woman uh and a pregnant woman and there are two outcomes that are addressed in this legislation. uh if the injury causes her to misaryry then there's a fine that is imposed by the **[06:14]** husband and then there are arbitrators that are there uh to ensure that it is exorbitant. If the um injury results in permanent injury to the woman or her death then it is talionic justice which is life for life eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. In other words, if this injury causes the woman to die then it's the death penalty for the perpetrator. You see, if a pregnant woman is struck and miscarries, the only penalty is a fine. That proves the fetus wasn't a **[06:47]** person. That proves the fetus is treated like property. But there's a very big problem with this. >> No, there's not. >> We're going to show it all in this video. >> No, you're not. >> We're going to analyze this carefully. >> No, you're not. >> What is Exodus 21 actually describing? Shout out to Logos Bible Software for helping to bring clarity to this question for me. Can someone please send the link in the description, which is logos.com/dwan **[07:17]** mlelen. Um, because anyone who clicks that link gets 60 days totally free to explore this software. I would love for him to be able to do so because Logo software makes it so much easier to analyze that beloved data and to get to the bottom of these issues. Can someone please hook up Mr. Mlen. >> So, three things here. One, it sounds like this video is just an excuse for Brandon to put on display how to use logos to understand the Bible better so he can rack up some ad revenue. And uh **[07:51]** what he's going to demonstrate is that he clearly doesn't know the first thing about Hebrew, but also doesn't really know how to effectively use Logos. Second thing, I don't need a copy of Logos. Uh, I wrote a dozen entries for their Lexom Bible dictionary uh over 15 years ago and was given a free copy when I lived in Bellingham, Washington, which is where Logos is headquartered and I was a graduate student at Trinity Western University. Uh, so I have had Logos for over 15 years and I actually prefer Accordance Bible software which I **[08:22]** was also given while I was a student at Trinity Western University because I was a research assistant for Marty Abeg and tagged a bunch of Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts for Accordance to incorporate into their Bible software. So I have used both for over 15 years and I think Accordance does a much better job for close textual and linguistic analysis. And third thing, something that Logos has been doing for a while now that I don't think is a good idea is trying to convince people that **[08:53]** if you just get Logos, you suddenly have the key to open all exegetical doors. And this leads to fewer people actually going out and getting adequate training in these languages. But as Brandon is going to demonstrate in this video, if you don't have adequate training, you're just going to fumble the tool itself. And it's just going to mislead you into believing because you have this tool, your intuitions and your misunderstandings are now suddenly authorized by Logos. And as we're going **[09:25]** to see, uh, that couldn't be further from the truth. Two things he just said that are not actually in the text, and I'm going to prove it right now. >> All right, let's see it. The first one is the idea that this is talking about a miscarriage. It is not. >> It definitely is. >> The second one is the idea that the harm here in reference is talking about harm to the mother only. That also is not in the text. And I'm going to again prove it really quick. >> No, you're not. >> Here. I'm going to try to go as fast as I can. Here's the passage that he's talking about. Um, now the version that **[09:57]** he was using here is right here. You can see the NRSV. And in his version, it says there is a miscarriage. But there's a problem with that. That's a very bad translation and I'm going to show why right now. >> Uh Brandon is not remotely qualified enough to assess quality in Bible translation as we're going to see. >> If you go to, for example, the ESV or the KJV, you can start to see uh the way that this is translated differently. And really the ESV is a more literal translation. Her children come out. But don't take my word for it. Let's **[10:27]** actually look at this word right here, children. What What is that word children? Um, what is that word children talking about? Let me pull it up right here for you. Let me give you the actual um, Hebrew right here pronounced this way. >> Oops, sorry. Here. >> Yelled. Okay. >> Yelled. Now, this is the same word for PE uh, for children outside of the womb. And that's really important because in Dan's translation, that's just kind of glossed over. >> So, a few things here. One, nothing has **[10:58]** been glossed over. or Brandon just doesn't even begin to know what he's talking about. And Brandon has glossed over something quite important. Why is the word for children in the plural in this passage? Brandon is talking about a single pregnant woman. And it says her children come out. Why is that plural? Does this law only apply if a woman is carrying twins or triplets? Does this mean all of the contents of the womb? Is it a plural of generalization? Is it a **[11:29]** plural of abstract referring to the pregnancy? Why is it plural? There have been decades of scholarship pondering the question of why it's plural. But let's get to the lexographical resource that Brandon is using. He clicked on something to hear how this word was pronounced because he doesn't seem to know how it was pronounced. And it says right under that a bridged BDB. That means the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament that was originally published in the 19th century. This is a public domain **[12:01]** lexicon which means that the version of Logos that Brandon has is the introductory version. It doesn't even have a non-public domain lexicon. But let's take a look at what Yelled means in more up-to-date lexographical resources. So here is hollowotes, the Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament, probably the standard biblical Hebrew lexicon for scholars today. And in the red box, we have the entry for Yelled. And if you look uh down about a third of the way, you'll **[12:32]** see an M dash and the number one and a bold boy and then male child and then a closed parenthesis. You go down three more lines on the right side, you get B close parenthesis plural, boys, children. Okay, this is addressing why it's plural. But go down a little further to the part that I've underlined. Under the plural segment, we have miscarriage. And then we have a Samaritan penetuk version of the word Exodus 21:22. That is our text. And hollowot suggests that in the plural it **[13:04]** means miscarriage. Well, let's take a look at some other resources. Here we have the dictionary of classical Hebrew by Klein's. This is volume four. Here's the entry for Yelled or at least the beginning of the entry for Yelled on the left side. One of the main senses as you can see in the underlined portion is unborn child fetus. Exodus 21:22 and then the Samaritan Penetuk's variant spelling of this word. But something interesting is if you look in the right column up at the top, the underlined portion, this is where Klein's is **[13:35]** helpful because it describes what words mean when they're used in conjunction with other words. And in this paragraph, we've got this noun used in conjunction with the verb bo to come or yatsa to go out. And the underlined portion suggests that when used with yatsa in the plural specifically, it means abort. Exodus 21:22. Now, we're going to come back to these resources a bit later, but I just wanted to point out that Yelled can refer to an unborn fetus, and the **[14:05]** scholarship is in pretty widespread agreement that in this passage, it is in the plural because it is referring to a miscarried fetus. But way more significantly, let's go to the Hebrew word that is literally translated to come out here. So, so that her children come out, but there is no harm. Okay, let's go there to that word. And here is how you pronounce that word. >> Yatsa. That's the Hebrew word for come **[14:36]** out here. Now, what does the word mean? Where else is it used? Well, it literally means to come out. Um uh you can see all the usages of it here. Um you can see verses where it's used here. They set forth um they come out with great possessions. They went out together, etc. This is not a word that actually is talking about miscarriage significantly. This is a word that's used all over the place. So, here's where things start to get a bit more embarrassing for Brandon. He said, "You can see all the uses of it here and then **[15:07]** moved on to another screen and overlooked something quite important." Let's go back to what that screen showed and look in the red circle down below. Abortion. Now, this is talking about a specific use of this verbal root in uh one of the psalms, but yatsa, contrary to what Brandon just said, can and does refer to miscarriage and abortion. And Brandon's own 19th century resource that **[15:38]** he doesn't know how to use demonstrates that. But let's take a look at some more upto-date resources. Let's start with Hollowot. We're in the several page long entry for the verbal root yatsa. And we see here on paragraph 5 expressions in the underlined portion we have our clause from Exodus 21:22. She has a miscarriage. Exodus 21:22. We can look at the theological dictionary of the Old Testament. The entry for Yatsa starts **[16:10]** here and we can go down to the underlined portion in the bottom paragraph. Uh, in a contrasting sense, we find the verb used for a miscarriage. Exodus 21:22 and Numbers 12:12. We can look in Klein's dictionary of classical Hebrew. Here's the very beginning of a very long entry for the verbal root yatsa. And we see down in the underlined portion of fetus, come out early, abort. Exodus 21:22 and Psalm 144:14. **[16:42]** And that psalm is the one that has the form of the verb that appears on the table that Brandon showed and forgot to look at. So this verbal root absolutely can and does refer to miscarriage and abortion. It also can refer to normal birth. An appeal to the Hebrew all by itself is not determinative. But when we consider it in context, scholars are in **[17:13]** pretty overwhelming agreement that this passage uses the word yelled and the verbal root yatsa to refer to causing a miscarriage. This is the consensus view that Brandon has entirely missed because he doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't even know how to use the inadequate resources to which he has access. But wait, there's more. There is a word that actually talks directly about miscarriage and I'll give you it in the same book of the Bible here. **[17:44]** Exodus 23:26 for example saysnone shall miscarry or be barren in your land. Well, what is that word? If that's not the word that's used here, what is that word? Well, let's take a look. It's not that one. That's not that one. We already hit that. It's um Let me make sure I get this correct. Yes, it's this one here. Ready? >> Shahul. That is the word that actually means misaryry. That is the word that is not used here. I repeat the word for **[18:16]** misaryry is not used here. Rather a term for like general coming out is used here. I wanted to put this all in one place for you guys to see this because this is really important. So there is another Hebrew word nefell which goes back to the root to fall which is talking about a child falling before birth a miscarriage or a still birth. Job 3:16 says like a miscarried child and uses this word. Psalm 58:8 says like a stillborn child and uses this word. **[18:48]** Neither of these words for actual miscarriage are used in this passage. For Mr. Mlelen to not acknowledge that and simply to say this is talking about miscarriage even though it's not using the words that would be used if it were talking about miscarriage is is crazy work. It it's just it's just crazy work. Again, I don't want to imply motive, but it's wild. So Dan is really giving the wrong idea here to Alex in that regard. So Brandon recorded this video and said, "Aha, here's the word that actually **[19:18]** means misaryry." and then realized, oh, there's a second word that can also mean that. And so had to come back and do an edit and splice in this voice over where he's talking about another word that can mean miscary. And what Brandon entirely missed is that the words that occur in Exodus 21:22 can also refer to miscarriage because in pretty much all languages, individual concepts can be referred to by a variety of different **[19:49]** words and phrases. It's not limited to just one word or just two words in all instances. And in this case, as the overwhelming majority of scholars agree, Exodus 21:22 is using words can and do refer to abortion and to miscarriage. Brandon just doesn't know what he's talking about. Also, he kind of smuggles in, if you listen to what he said, that the harm here is talking about harm to the mother. Now, I don't agree with that. That's not in the text. The harm **[20:20]** here is left open. It could be harm to the mother. It could be harm to the baby. It could be both. It's really a terrible translation to see this as a miscarriage. So again, Brandon is getting rhetorically way out over his skis by presuming to pass judgments on translation quality without having the first clue what he's talking about, without having any qualification to assess quality in Bible translation. **[20:51]** What we're talking about here in actuality is a pre-mature birth being caused by these two men driving together and the pregnant woman getting hit. >> That's what Brandon needs this to be talking about, but that's not what this is talking about. >> So, if there's no harm other than the lady going into labor prematurely, then the one who hit her has to pay a fine accordingly for the whatever kind of medical implications that might have, the risk um that that introduces into the equation, etc. So, this doesn't really make any sense. The medical **[21:22]** implications of a pre-term birth in this time period was pretty much always the death of the pre-term child. Uh they didn't have ICUs. There was no hospital bill anybody was going to receive. Depending on how far along the child was, it was basically whether or not they survived on their own if they were born pre-term. Now certainly there would have been those that did but for the overwhelming majority again depending on how far along the pregnancy was the **[21:52]** medical implication was death unless they just happened to be far enough along to survive. Risk is also kind of silly because the argument is that the fine is imposed if it's a premature birth and it's not followed by any harm. Which means that there's no more risk. The risk has passed. No harm has come therefore fine and then the other outcome is that there is harm. So no **[22:23]** saying well there are medical implications and there are risks involved and that's what the fine is intended to recompense or to make whole is just making up rationalizations without knowing anything about how any of this would have worked in the middle of the first millennium BCE. and he has to pay um as the judges determined in that scenario of of the baby just being prematurely prematurely born. But if there is harm, now again we don't know if this is talking about harm to the mother or harm to the baby or both. But **[22:54]** if there is any kind of harm in any direction, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound, wound for wound, stripe for stripe for stripe. And that is that Lex Talionis um principle that Mlelen is talking about. But again he smuggles in the the suggestion that the harm in reference here is only harm to the mother when actually the text I think like leaves that question wide open. And in the greater context of of the ch the **[23:24]** child coming out and not it being a miscarriage, I think it's fair to say that this equally applies to the scenario of the baby being harmed, which makes this frankly a very prolife passage. But that only works if the interpretation of her children go out refers just to premature birth. And as we've already seen, it doesn't. >> Let's keep going. And uh what this indicates is that the destruction of the fetus does not result in tallyionic justice. It's just a fine. **[23:56]** And what's more, there's no standardized value that is placed on the fetus. It's up to the husband >> to decide what fine to impose because an enslaved person has a standardized value. It's 30 shekels. And you see that elsewhere in the covenant code. 30 shekels for the life of an enslaved person. Uh but the hus it's up to the husband to decide the value of this fetus should this injury um result in a miscarriage. It's such a twisting. It is such a twisting of the scripture. I'm **[24:26]** sorry to say it. I don't mean that as like a slur against him personally, but it it just is such a twisting of the scripture. And I hope again don't take my word for it. Go to the Hebrew. >> Brandon, you don't know Hebrew. You don't know what you're talking about. Um, I mean, so I want to say this, too. Is it it's possible that he's just reading the worst the worst translation? It's possible that he doesn't know that the that he's using the wrong word for miscarriage there. It's possible that he's just um ignoring the fact that the that the same word for a child outside **[24:58]** of the womb is used for this baby inside of the womb. It's possible that he's just ignorant to all of that. And so, I just want to leave that possibility open. But I also want to say emphatically that the way that he's presenting this passage is just really a twisting of the meaning of the of the scripture. And and this indicates that a fetus was considered property was not considered a full legal immoral person. And and there are arguments about u that folks make about why it ought to be translated a **[25:29]** different way to indicate that uh >> oh never mind. >> So he maybe he is aware of that. Let's see. outcome is is premature birth that isn't followed by any other injury or anything like so. This part kind of threw me for a second. I'm not sure exactly what's going on here because Brandon just got done uh waxing rhetorical about how I seem to be ignorant of the fact that I'm using a terrible translation and he's got the right translation and I just don't seem to have a clue what I'm talking about. And am I ignorant? I don't want to **[26:01]** impugn Dan's integrity, but he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. And then I point out that I'm aware of those translations and he goes, "Oh, never mind." Which means either this is the first time he's watching that video or he's just kind of ad hoc saying whatever comes to mind as he's reviewing it again. or he wanted to get all of those uh judgments out so that people **[26:31]** would be influenced by that idea and then he would just add in some plausible deniability by saying, "Oh, never mind. He addressed that." I don't know which of those three it is, but I thought that was kind of peculiar, Dad. And the second outcome is the actual miscarriage. And in the book, I go through several reasons why that's just not a a plausible reading of the uh of the passage. >> So far, I think it's pretty clear why that is a far more plausible reading. So, you'll notice here that I reference **[27:02]** talking about this in the book, and that book is the Bible says. So, what we get right and wrong about scriptures most controversial issues. And I have a whole chapter that goes over the question of whether or not the Bible says abortion is murder. And here are the four pages where I discuss the argument that this passage in Exodus 21 is actually talking about just premature birth. And I give four reasons why that doesn't make any sense. And Brandon obviously didn't read **[27:33]** the book, obviously is not engaging those arguments, but is going to engage a couple of the points because he found a video of mine that talks about this. But I did come across this short where he addresses this exact same passage in a little bit more detail and he gives some of the reasons why he thinks that the interpretation that I'm advocating for is false. I'm now going to basically critique his reasons against the interpretation that I just gave. Hey everybody, Exodus 21 22 and 23 impose **[28:04]** penalties should two men who are fighting injure a pregnant woman. And two outcomes are addressed. One, they cause a miscarriage that incurs a fine. two, they cause the death of the woman. That incurs the death penalty. If your translation suggests that the first outcome is premature birth of an otherwise healthy infant and the second outcome is miscarriage, that's a mistransation. And this is clear for at least two reasons. One, incurring a fine requires material loss in the penetuk and causing the premature birth of an **[28:34]** otherwise healthy infant is not that. So again, I don't want to accuse Dan of being purposfully misleading or purposely giving misinformation, but the statement that he's making here that there's no examples of economic ret or economic uh payment for anything other than material loss or economic loss is just factually not true. Um to give one example, Deuteronomy 22:17 is a scenario where a man falsely accuses a woman of not being a virgin. And the response to that to that is that uh it says they **[29:06]** shall find him a 100 shekels of silver and give him to the father of the young woman because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. So that's not material or economic in nature and yet there is um like I said a fine associated with that you know misconduct. So um that I don't think holds up. >> Uh it does hold up because this is a threat to the economic livelihood of the father. That's why the fine is paid to the father and not to the woman who has **[29:38]** been defamed. And if you look at the details, the payment of a fine to the father and then the perpetrator cannot divorce the girl. That's the same as what we have at the end of Deuteronomy 22 where the man has raped a virgin who is not betrothed. Why are these fines going to the father and why is the man being required to stay married to the girl? Well, it's because marriage was a transaction where one man was paying another man for the sale of the sexual **[30:09]** availability and the procreative capacities of a woman and that woman was expected to be in shiny new pristine condition. And to not be so is to impugn the integrity of the father which would result in his lost economic benefits not only from the sale of the woman because if she wasn't a virgin then the father has to give back the bride price that was paid. So the father's going to lose a bunch of money, but then he has a **[30:40]** reputation of trying to marry off women who are not virgins, which means he's going to be economically hurt within good upright Israelite society. So just like with the case of raping a virgin who is not betrothed in verses 28 and 29 of Deuteronomy 22, there is real economic damage being done to the father. And there's a threat of more. or the man is trying to extort the bride price back from the father just because he doesn't like his wife. So yes, there **[31:12]** is real actual material loss going on here as well. You just don't understand how family law and the economy of ancient Israel worked. And then second, if two men are striving and they hit a pregnant woman so that her children come out, but there's no additional harm, I think it's kind of obvious that there could be some economic or material implications to that early delivery of the baby. Um, I don't think that's too much of a stretch at all to suggest that there's going to be some economic **[31:42]** implications to that, especially depending on how how premature the baby is actually born. Like what what economic harm is done from an otherwise healthy premature birth where no harm comes to either the child or the mother? What economic harm is coming in the middle of first millennium BCE Israel from that set of circumstances? Can you name one? Let's keep going. Two, this law is being pulled from the laws of **[32:13]** Hammer. It's clear for at least two reasons. One, incurring a fine requires material loss in the penetuk and causing the premature birth of an otherwise healthy infant is not that. Two, this law is being pulled from the laws of Hammurabi, as are many others in this chapter, even in the same order they occur in the laws of Hammurabi. Check it. This law is found in a number of different law codes from ancient southwest Asia. And in every instance, it addresses the exact same two outcomes, miscarriage and the death of **[32:44]** the woman. Okay, now this is a really important point that I want to break down here. In the code of Hammurabi, a miscarriage brings about a fine. Only the woman's death triggers the Lexalionus life for life principle and the unborn child is basically considered like an economic loss. Whereas in Exodus, the unborn are explicitly called children as I already mentioned. Um the harm here could apply to either. And in either case it it brings about Lex **[33:15]** Talionis equal justice life for life. It could be to the baby, it could be to the mother. In either case, the life for life principle kicks in. So what I was pointing out there is that we have precedents for this exact kind of law. Not just in the laws of Hammurabi, which the covenant code is adopting and adapting, but from several different law codes. It's always the exact same two scenarios. that should aid us in interpreting what we see in Exodus. But Brandon here is saying no, it doesn't **[33:46]** because we've already established it doesn't mean that which is not engaging the concern. It's just asserting the conclusion over the argument. Uh because he says, well, it calls them children, which is utterly meaningless. As I have demonstrated, Yelled can refer to an unborn child to a fetus, even to a miscarriborn fetus. So that doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong. The fact that the uh assone the harm could **[34:16]** maybe refer to the child or to the mother is an assertion that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But once we have established that her children go out is a reference to miscarriage which is the most likely reading in light of not only the precursors that we find in the other literature from ancient West Asia but also in the way that both the noun yelled and the verb yatsa are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. We already know it's talking about a miscarriage. And so a miscarried child **[34:48]** can't have further harm done to it. The harm is very clearly in reference to the mother. And one thing I haven't pointed out yet, but is also evidence for my reading is that the earliest interpretations that we have of this passage unilaterally interpret it as referring to miscarriage even when they're reinterpreting other parts of the passage. So for instance, Josephus writing toward the end of the 1st century CE, Jewish antiquities book four, we have in the red box, he that **[35:20]** kickth a woman with child, if the woman misarry, shall be fined by the judges for having by the destruction of the fruit of her womb diminish the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman's husband. If she die of the blow, he also shall die. The law claiming as it's due, the sacrifice of life for life. So the earliest interpretations that we find of this passage understand it exactly as I have understood it. But we have an even earlier interpretation and that's in the **[35:52]** Septuagent. Here's the Greek of the Septuagent passage. And in the Septuagent they seem to have understood the Hebrew ass which means tragedy which is interpreted as harm in some translations. They seem to have misunderstood assone as soma the Greek word for body. Because what we have here uh the third line down on the right and what that means is and the child goes out of her not fully formed and so **[36:24]** it is a fine if the fetus is miscarried and it is not fully formed. It goes on to say if it is fully formed that's when talionic justice kicks in. So the septuagent reinterprets both outcomes as miscarriage. Meaning they are interpreting goes out as a reference to miscarriage. And we can see this also in Pho in the first half of the first century CE. So Moses then, as I have said, implicitly and indirectly forbade the exposure of **[36:55]** children when he pronounced the sentence of death against those who cause the miscarriage of mothers in cases where the fetus is fully formed. And obviously, it's just the fine in cases where they are not fully formed. So Pho is reading the Septuagent's reinterpretation of what's going on in the Hebrew as a reference to miscarriage of a not yet fully formed fetus and miscarriage of a fully formed fetus. So all of the earliest interpreters of this **[37:25]** text also understood this to be referring to either miscarriage in both instances or miscarriage in the first instance and the death of the woman in the next instance. And Brandon obviously doesn't engage with any of that. Brandon doesn't know what he's talking about. So, Exodus is not only not copying Hammurabi, it's actually correcting him. And this is a really important idea. This is a pattern that you actually see in the Torah is that it uses familiar **[37:56]** law codes and familiar moral systems and subverts them in order to improve them for how things go down in the Torah. >> Uh, no. And if you want to see exactly how the covenant code is adopting and adapting Hammurabi's law, including places where it keeps it the same, where it makes it better, and even where it makes it worse, I would highly recommend David Wright's phenomenal book, Inventing God's Law, as you will see if you read that book. What's going on here **[38:26]** is definitely not a correction of what's going on in Hammurabi's law. It is perpetuating the same thing. It's tweaking it a tiny bit, but it very clearly maintains the two outcomes. Miscarriage, the death of the woman. >> So when you put it all together, the unborn are called children. Um premature birth is treated as serious harm. Injury or death invokes the equal justice lexalion life for life principle. And monetary compensation is no longer **[38:56]** considered valid when we're talking about human life here. Which again really raises the question, why would that property principle not be relevant when I if the baby in the womb is just property? Huh? Really makes one think. So the Bible is filled with data that is telling us that there is human life in the womb. Also, science is telling us that there's human life in the womb in an incontrovertible way. You have to really try to stretch the this verse out of its context, make it say something that it isn't saying, and then apply **[39:27]** like a crazy amount of weight to it in order to try to outweigh the rest of the data that is in scripture that clearly points toward human life being valuable and human life being within the womb is the bottom line. So, obviously, this argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. And Brandon doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not when it comes to biblical Hebrew, not when it comes to the contexts here. Not when it comes to how biblical legislation works, not even when it comes to how logos works. I think he kind of did logos **[39:59]** dirty. Uh just trying to jin up some ad revenue for Logos. But um if you don't know Hebrew and if you have to get Logos to pronounce a verbal root for you in Hebrew, you very clearly don't know Hebrew. Please don't waste everybody's time getting on the internet and pretending to lecture other people and wonder aloud if they have any clue what they're talking about when they are experts in that thing that you don't know the first thing about. It just **[40:29]** wastes everybody's time. And maybe you're going to make a few dollars off of it. But if that's your priority, do better. And the fit for this video is Metallica and justice for