Orwellian

The bible is not a set-in-stone piece that accurately predicts and shapes history through divine power. Rather, the bible is a reflection of history and the fantastic. The first example given by Friedman to support this notion is how the second writer of Deuteronomy rewrites history to foreshadow and hint at the idea that Judah will be exiled. This was justified by events such as that of God’s last speech to Moses, mentioning how his people will turn to other gods and will therefore be punished.

History was rewritten to rationalize what actually occurred. This is significant because it exposes inconsistencies in god’s ability to manipulate and shape future events. In Exodus god is able to predict that Pharroh will not only say no, but god is able to also make him “obstinate”. For whatever reason, in Exodus he not only manipulates, but predicts the future; In Deuteronomy, one is lead to think that god is able to do this as well, when in fact there was a second writer who had to essentially make, for lack of a better word, edits, to cast God in a consistent light.

Nevertheless, Friedman next brings up the question: How could any exile or eternal form of punishment be justified in face of David’s covenant with god? How could the bible accurately reflect history while coexisting with this promise? The Mosaic covenant was used as a scapegoat. Though David’s dynasty was a potential guarantee, the people to be ruled over were not. The implication of this is enormous: any event resulting in an undesirable conclusion could now be justified. The bible, thanks to the 2^nd writer in Deuteronomy, now had a rational means for attributing this reason to anything that would threaten one’s faith in god. This is particularly troubling as it demonstrates the extent to which man will go in an effort to justify his beliefs, even if it entails rewriting “history”.