The Midwives of Exodus 1

[rhutchin]

I think that, before anyone talks too much about how God never likes lying, we should all take a quick hop over to, I dunno, Exodus 1 or so?

The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus, Chapter 1, Verses 15-22

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

So, uhm. Lying is apparently not always frowned upon.

That said, the number of times in my life so far when I think lying was actually morally justifiable is nearly, that is to say almost, well. One. But not actually one yet. Any day now. Probably.

What was the lie to which you are referring?

Did the midwives lie in stating that "...Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively,..."

Did the midwives lie in stating that "...[the Hebrew women] are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them."

It seems to me that one explanation is that the midwives did not attend to the Hebrew women until after the baby was born thereby allowing God to determine whether the baby would die in childbirth. It was their faith in God that led them to entrust the Hebrew women to God's care that resulted in the commendation from God.

However, maybe there is a lie here that you can explain.

[Dean Anderson]

The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus, Chapter 1, Verses 15-22

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

It seems clear-cut to me.

Pharaoh tells the midwives to kill the male children.

The midwives explicitly disobey him and save the male children alive.

He asks them why they have done this.

They reply (falsely) that they were unable to kill the male children because the Hebrew women had them quickly before they could get there.

God blesses them for their dishonest behaviour.

The reply of the midwives is a lie because it contradicts the previous sentence which explicitly says that the midwives actively disobeyed Pharaoh and that they actively saved the male children - not that they couldn't get there in time and the male children escaped them.

[Atheos]

In fairness one could argue that Yahweh approved of the midwives' treatment of the male children (in sparing and saving their lives), not of the lying.

However, Yahweh often used and abetted liars according to biblical myths. Obviously Yahweh lied to Adam and Eve about dying "in the day that thou eatest thereof" regarding the forbidden fruit. Anyone without an apologetic agenda can see that Yahweh was being intentionally deceptive when he ordered Abraham to kill Isaac. Yahweh blessed Jacob after Jacob intentionally deceived an aging and blind Isaac into thinking he was Esau so he could steal the older brother's "birthright". Yahweh sanctioned Laban's treachery in deceiving Jacob and giving him Leah instead of Rachel for 7 years of labor. Yahweh told Moses he was going to kill all the Israelites and make a great nation out of Moses (but he didn't).

Yahweh purposefully raised up Ehud for the purpose of engaging in deception and assassination (of king Eglon) (Judges 3). Yahweh was credited with being the author of Jael's little deception ("Turn in to me, my lord, fear not") and using Jael in that way to kill Sisera (Judges 4).

As long as Samson lied about the source of his strength Yahweh blessed him with superhuman strength. Once he finally told Jezebel the truth about his strength he lost it all (Judges 16). Samson also set an example for those who want to inspire suicide bombers by committing suicide in order to kill 3000 Philistines.

ETA: My point in bring up all these other examples is that if the Midwives' lie was the only time Yahweh dealt favorably with someone who lied in order to accomplish "the greater good" (whatever that might be) one might chalk all this up to a concession possibly because they were Egyptian (and therefore outside the "favored people" umbrella anyway). But examples like this can be found throughout Yahweh's dealings with his people. Negotiating deceptively and abetting liars appears to be a trait of Yahweh.

[Anat]

And then there were the three instances of Patriarchs presenting their wives as their sisters:

Genesis 12:10-20 Abram and Sarai mispresent Sarai as his sister, Pharoah pays Abraham what might be seen as a bride-price for Sarai, God punishes Pharoah. Bottom line - Abram made a fortune by lying and the only people to suffer were Pharoah and his family, who had acted naively on the lie.

Genesis 20: Abraham and Sarah in Gerar. Same lie. This time it is more obvious how the beguilled king discovers the truth, and he pays Abraham only after returning Sarah. Meanwhile God had threatened Abimelech with death despite stating explicitly that he knew the latter had acted inocently, and also causes gynecological problems in Abimelech's household that are only relieved after Abraham the liar prays on behalf of Abimelech's household.

Genesis 26:6-11. Isaac repeats the same trick on Abimelech regarding Rebecca. This time the wife-abduction is prevented in time, but Abimelech is angry that some immorality might have taken place because of Isaac's lie. In the following verses (12-14) it is obvious Isaac is successful in his harvest and is blessed by God.

[rhutchin]

The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus, Chapter 1, Verses 15-22

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.


It seems clear-cut to me.

Pharaoh tells the midwives to kill the male children.

The midwives explicitly disobey him and save the male children alive.

He asks them why they have done this.

They reply (falsely) that they were unable to kill the male children because the Hebrew women had them quickly before they could get there.

God blesses them for their dishonest behaviour.

The reply of the midwives is a lie because it contradicts the previous sentence which explicitly says that the midwives actively disobeyed Pharaoh and that they actively saved the male children - not that they couldn't get there in time and the male children escaped them.

Again, what is the lie?:confused: The midwives told Pharaoh that the babies were already born by the time they arrived (Was this the lie?). The bablies were in their mothers arms at that time. Had the midwife arrived earlier, prior to birth, the midwife would have held the baby as it came from the womb and on seeing that the sex was male, the midwife could then carry the boy to the river to be drowned. The midwives clearly tell Pharaoh that they arrive after the baby is born and then do not have the ability to take the child from the mother and kill the boy babies. Pharaoh accepts this explanation, does he not?

It is true that the midwives are to be credited with saving the boy babies. However, they did not have to lie to explain what they were doing. They told Pharaoh the truth. The Hebrew women were quick to give birth (as was likely always the case) compared to Egyptian mothers and the midwives basically timed their appearance at the mother's side consistent with that which they were doing with the Egyptian mothers. By that time, the Israeli mother had already given birth. I do not see that there is a lie here or that there must be a lie.

[Anat]

The lie is implied by "But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." The midwives did something to save the boys. It is implied they assisted at the births and let the boys live. Labor typically takes quite a few hours, though indeed in exceptional cases it can be short. On what basis would you think *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions?

[rhutchin]

The lie is implied by "But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." The midwives did something to save the boys. It is implied they assisted at the births and let the boys live. Labor typically takes quite a few hours, though indeed in exceptional cases it can be short. On what basis would you think *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions?

I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

The question at issue is whether the rationale given by the midwives is true. Did the Israeli women give birth in less time than Egyptian women? The midwives essentially seem to be telling Pharaoh that they were working according to union rules and in doing so, they were arriving after the Israeli women had already given birth. So, do we know whether *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions (compared to Egyptian women)? Should we automatically presume a lie? Women can give birth on their own and a midwife would be needed if their were complications. Maybe the midwives were saying that Israeli mothers did not have complications in giving birth that would extend the period of labor prior to the birth of the baby and require that a midwife be called.

[Amaleq13]

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

This is not implied in the passage at all but is arguably directly contradicted by the phrase "but saved the men children alive" which implies direct action on their part rather than the passive non-action you have read into the text.

[Mesa Mike]

It seems clear-cut to me.

Pharaoh tells the midwives to kill the male children.

The midwives explicitly disobey him and save the male children alive.

He asks them why they have done this.

They reply (falsely) that they were unable to kill the male children because the Hebrew women had them quickly before they could get there.

God blesses them for their dishonest behaviour.


It's not clear to me that God blessed the midwives for lying to Pharoah.
The text certainly isn't that explicit.
More likely, they were rewarded for disobeying Pharoah, and saving the babies.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

Amaleq13
This is not implied in the passage at all but is arguably directly contradicted by the phrase "but saved the men children alive" which implies direct action on their part rather than the passive non-action you have read into the text.

What was this direct action?? When questioned by Pharaoh, the midwives say that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwife arrives. What direct action do you see the widwives taking to save the baby boys?

[aa5874]

Rhutchin, the entire story is a lie. Pharoah could have killed any child he wanted. The story is absurd.

When Herod wanted to kill all the babies, didn't he just kill them! And even Herod's genocidal act cannot be traced in history.

The story of Exodus 1:15-22 is just downright ridiculous. These Biblical authors have the minds of six year old children.

[Amaleq13]

What was this direct action??

"Saved", obviously. That does not, as you would have it, suggest a passive allowing of the children to be born but an active effort on their part. IOW, they are not described as simply allowing the children to be born but actually saving them.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

Amaleq13
This is not implied in the passage at all but is arguably directly contradicted by the phrase "but saved the men children alive" which implies direct action on their part rather than the passive non-action you have read into the text.

rhutchin
What was this direct action?? When questioned by Pharaoh, the midwives say that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwife arrives. What direct action do you see the widwives taking to save the baby boys?

Amaleq13
"Saved", obviously. That does not, as you would have it, suggest a passive allowing of the children to be born but an active effort on their part. IOW, they are not described as simply allowing the children to be born but actually saving them.

Let's look at what Exodus 1 says--

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive.
18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”
19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”

The midwives claim that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwives come. This implies to me that they delay their arrival until after the child is born. When you say that the midwives actually save the boy babies, what do you think they actually do?

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin, the entire story is a lie. Pharoah could have killed any child he wanted. The story is absurd.

When Herod wanted to kill all the babies, didn't he just kill them! And even Herod's genocidal act cannot be traced in history.

The story of Exodus 1:15-22 is just downright ridiculous. These Biblical authors have the minds of six year old children.

Whether the story is true is for each of us to decide.

The challenge here is to discover what the text is telling the reader.

[Toto]

Childbirth in Biblical times was full of danger, and was not undertaken alone. It is obvious from the context that the midwives were covering up their failure to kill the male babies with a little white lie.

[Amaleq13]

The midwives claim that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwives come.

Yes and that claim conflicts with the previous statement that they had saved them.

This implies to me that they delay their arrival until after the child is born.

I agree that is what their later claim implies but that is obviously at odds with the previous description we are given of what actually happened. We are told that they saved the children even though they claimed they weren't present for the birth. That they were lying to avoid being accused of disobeying Pharaoh is rather obvious.

When you say that the midwives actually save the boy babies, what do you think they actually do?

Their jobs as midwives, obviously.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The midwives claim that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwives come.

Amaleq13
Yes and that claim conflicts with the previous statement that they had saved them...We are told that they saved the children even though they claimed they weren't present for the birth. That they were lying to avoid being accused of disobeying Pharaoh is rather obvious.

It is possible to read the statements as being in conflict but I see no a priori requirement to do this. We are told that the midwives saved the babies, so we should expect that they had a hand in accomplishing this. That the midwives are recorded to have told Pharaoh that they arrived after the baby was born allows for the midwives to have acted to delay their arrival until after the baby was born. The reader is not required to read this passage as requiring that the midwife delivered the baby and then lied to Pharoah about what had happened. The midwives did the only thing that was within their power to both obey Pharaoh and avoid killing the boy babies. They did not attend the birth of the baby but arrived afterward to see that all was going well.

[rhutchin]

Childbirth in Biblical times was full of danger, and was not undertaken alone. It is obvious from the context that the midwives were covering up their failure to kill the male babies with a little white lie.

Childbirth is a normal, natural activity that can occur with no one present to help the mother give birth. I don't see any reason to conclude that it was "full of danger" in Biblical times or non-Biblical times. There are reasons why a child or the mother might die in childbirth that would happen even if the midwife were present. About all a midwife would (or could) do is catch the baby and toss the afterbirth.

[Anat]

Childbirth and its complications is a serious source of morbidity and mortality for women in peasant societies and other preindustrial societies. Few women choose to give birth unassisted in such societies, and those who do are more often than not multiparous women.

The main source of complications is the relatively huge size of the head of the human newborn together with limitations on the width of the mother's pelvis imposed by upright walking. In other primate species the infant is born facing the mother, so she can pull it out (in some species the infant can actively hoist itself up once the arms are free), unwind the umbilical cord if it is wrapped around the neck and wipe the mucous from the infant's mouth. In human birth, with the infant usually born facing away from the mother such assistance has to be provided by another person. Midwives are essential for dealing with cord mishaps of all sorts, and for verifying no parts of the placenta have been retained (which might cause dangerous bleeding) and encourage (whether by mechanical or herbal means) the expulsion of such retained placenta remnants. These are just some of the ways midwives provide essential help at a birth in a pre-industrial society.

[Toto]

Glen Morton has an interesting comment here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/birth.htm). quoting Wenda Trevathan "There are also mechanical or physical reasons that having assistance at birth has been favored in our species. These include: the close correspondence between fetal head size and maternal pelvic size brought about by bipedalism and encephalization; the risks of injury to and infection of the perineal area resulting from too rapid delivery of the head and shoulders; the tendency for the fetus to present the occiput in a position anterior to the mother's pubic symphysis, risking injury and paralysis in the infant if it is brought forward too rapidly by the mother herself; and the helplessness of the neonate and associated greater difficulties in establishing respiration, nursing, and thermoregulation. Despite all of these difficulties, women can and have given birth unassisted for millennia, but mortality increases significantly in those cases." ~ Wenda R. Trevathan, Human Birth, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), p. 109

The increase in mortality is what drove humans to use midwives in all cultures. For instance, Trevathon says that breech deliveries occur in about 3-4% of all modern human births and that unassisted most of them would result in infantile death. . . .

[rhutchin]

Childbirth and its complications is a serious source of morbidity and mortality for women in peasant societies and other preindustrial societies. Few women choose to give birth unassisted in such societies, and those who do are more often than not multiparous women.

The main source of complications is the relatively huge size of the head of the human newborn together with limitations on the width of the mother's pelvis imposed by upright walking. In other primate species the infant is born facing the mother, so she can pull it out (in some species the infant can actively hoist itself up once the arms are free), unwind the umbilical cord if it is wrapped around the neck and wipe the mucous from the infant's mouth. In human birth, with the infant usually born facing away from the mother such assistance has to be provided by another person. Midwives are essential for dealing with cord mishaps of all sorts, and for verifying no parts of the placenta have been retained (which might cause dangerous bleeding) and encourage (whether by mechanical or herbal means) the expulsion of such retained placenta remnants. These are just some of the ways midwives provide essential help at a birth in a pre-industrial society.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth#Complications_and_risks_of_birth

"The most important factors affecting mortality in childbirth are adequate nutrition and access to quality medical care ("access" is affected both by the cost of available care, and distance from health services). "Medical care" in this context does not refer specifically to treatment in hospitals, but simply the presence of an attendant with midwifery skills. A 1983-1989 study by the Texas Department of Health revealed that the infant death rate was 0.57% for doctor-attended births, and 0.19% for births attended by non-nurse midwives. Conversely, some studies demonstrate a higher perinatal mortality rate with assisted home births.[6] It is generally accepted that in developed countries, properly assisted home births carry no greater risks than hospital birth for low-risk pregnancies. Around 80% of pregnancies are low-risk. Factors that may make a birth high risk include prematurity, high blood pressure, diabetes and previous cesarean section.

One of the most dangerous risks to the fetus is that of premature birth, and its associated low neonatal weight. The more premature (or underweight) a baby is, the greater the risks for neonatal death and for pulmonary, respiratory, neurological or other sequelae. About 12% of all infants born in the United States are born prematurely. In the past 25 years, medical technology has greatly improved the chances of survival of premature infants in industrialized nations. In the 1950s and 1960s, approximately half of all low birth weight babies in the US died. Today, more than 90% survive. The first hours of life for "premies" are critical, especially the very first hour of life. Rapid access to a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit is of paramount importance."

[Anat]

rhutchin, you are talking about an industrial society. In a peasant society nutrition is generally worse (insufficient protein and essential micronutrients due to a diet based mostly on grain) so high-risk pregnancies should be more prevalent. Also, those homebirths you cited are usually assisted by midwives.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin, you are talking about an industrial society. In a peasant society nutrition is generally worse (insufficient protein and essential micronutrients due to a diet based mostly on grain) so high-risk pregnancies should be more prevalent. Also, those homebirths you cited are usually assisted by midwives.

Yep. If the Hebrew women had good diets, did not get cesaerian sections to deliver children, and were in good health, they probably could get by without a midwife We actually do not know. From the written account, we find that the midwives arrived on the scene after the baby was born. Given Pharaoh's complaint and questioning of the midwives, we might guess that the babies (at least the boys) were not dying from complications for otherwise we would expect him to be satisfied with the behavior of the midwives.

Regardless, there is no reason to conclude that a conflict exists between the statement that the midwives were saving the boy babies and their statement that the Hebrew women gave birth before they arrived.

[Anat]

How could slaves have had a good diet?

Archaeologists have shown that once humanity moved from hunting-and-gathering to herding and peasant farming health deteriorated, life expectancy dropped, bone diseases, tooth decay etc became prevalent.

[EthnAlln]

I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.


That is "implicit" only to someone who shuts his eyes in blind faith. The VERY CLEAR implicit meaning of the passage is that the midwives deliberately disobeyed the Pharaoh and then lied about it.

But let's not get sidetracked here. The whole story is so obviously a legend concocted from the Hebrew point of view that it is foolish to treat it as serious history.


The question at issue is whether the rationale given by the midwives is true. Did the Israeli women give birth in less time than Egyptian women? The midwives essentially seem to be telling Pharaoh that they were working according to union rules and in doing so, they were arriving after the Israeli women had already given birth. So, do we know whether *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions (compared to Egyptian women)? Should we automatically presume a lie? Women can give birth on their own and a midwife would be needed if their were complications. Maybe the midwives were saying that Israeli mothers did not have complications in giving birth that would extend the period of labor prior to the birth of the baby and require that a midwife be called.

How in the world can this be a serious question now, more than 3000 years later? We don't begin to have any evidence that could decide the question, and the evidence that we do have strongly implies that the entire story was invented out of whole cloth.

[EthnAlln]

I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.


Translation: The text is inconvenient, so I'll make it mean whatever I want it to mean.


The question at issue is whether the rationale given by the midwives is true. Did the Israeli women give birth in less time than Egyptian women? The midwives essentially seem to be telling Pharaoh that they were working according to union rules and in doing so, they were arriving after the Israeli women had already given birth. So, do we know whether *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions (compared to Egyptian women)? Should we automatically presume a lie? Women can give birth on their own and a midwife would be needed if their were complications. Maybe the midwives were saying that Israeli mothers did not have complications in giving birth that would extend the period of labor prior to the birth of the baby and require that a midwife be called.

How can that be a serious question 3000 years later? We don't have an iota of evidence that anything of the kind even happened, much less what the actions and motives of the individual characters in the story were. The whole thing is so obviously concocted from a Hebrew point of view that it is absurd to take it as anything but a pious legend.

[EthnAlln]

What was this direct action?? When questioned by Pharaoh, the midwives say that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwife arrives. What direct action do you see the widwives taking to save the baby boys?

Not drowning them. Do you always have this much trouble reading?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
What was this direct action?? When questioned by Pharaoh, the midwives say that the Hebrew women give birth before the midwife arrives. What direct action do you see the widwives taking to save the baby boys?

EthnAlln
Not drowning them. Do you always have this much trouble reading?

No trouble at all. Now address the issue. Is it because the widwives were NOT present when the baby was born that they did not drown the baby as the historical account says OR Were they present at birth, contrary to that which the midwives claimed, and refuse to take the baby boys out and drown them?

Anyone can read what the text says. Would you care to speculate (and provide a logical arguemnt for your position) on what the text does not tell us?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

EthnAlln
Translation: The text is inconvenient, so I'll make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

Hardly. I amn looking at the text and using the information that it gives me. Like the man says on CSI, follow the evidence.


rhutchin
The question at issue is whether the rationale given by the midwives is true. Did the Israeli women give birth in less time than Egyptian women? The midwives essentially seem to be telling Pharaoh that they were working according to union rules and in doing so, they were arriving after the Israeli women had already given birth. So, do we know whether *all* Israelite women were medical exceptions (compared to Egyptian women)? Should we automatically presume a lie? Women can give birth on their own and a midwife would be needed if their were complications. Maybe the midwives were saying that Israeli mothers did not have complications in giving birth that would extend the period of labor prior to the birth of the baby and require that a midwife be called.

EthnAlln
How can that be a serious question 3000 years later? We don't have an iota of evidence that anything of the kind even happened, much less what the actions and motives of the individual characters in the story were. The whole thing is so obviously concocted from a Hebrew point of view that it is absurd to take it as anything but a pious legend.

OK. Then strip it down to the facts given in the text.

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives arrived after the Hebrew mothers gave birth.

We do not know how the midwives saved the babies other than by arriving after the brith had occurred.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

EthnAlln
That is "implicit" only to someone who shuts his eyes in blind faith. The VERY CLEAR implicit meaning of the passage is that the midwives deliberately disobeyed the Pharaoh and then lied about it.

But let's not get sidetracked here. The whole story is so obviously a legend concocted from the Hebrew point of view that it is foolish to treat it as serious history.

Very clear?:confused: It seems clear that we have an accurate historical account that, for some reason, you cannot accept. Why would you even care if the account is true? Why do you have to make it a false account? Are you afraid for it to be true?

[rhutchin]

How could slaves have had a good diet?

Archaeologists have shown that once humanity moved from hunting-and-gathering to herding and peasant farming health deteriorated, life expectancy dropped, bone diseases, tooth decay etc became prevalent.

It must have been a pretty good diet. The Hebrew population had increased to the point that Pharaoh was afraid that they might work with one of Egypt's enemies to conquer Egypt. It does not seem to have been that bad of a diet.

[Amaleq13]

It is possible to read the statements as being in conflict but I see no a priori requirement to do this.

It is beyond simply "possible" that the author's choice of "saved" implies more direct action on the part of the midwives than simply delaying their arrival until after the birth. That the author also tells us God rewarded them also supports more direct action than your forced interpretation. Your refusal to take the text at face value does not appear to be based on rational thought.


We are told that the midwives saved the babies, so we should expect that they had a hand in accomplishing this.

Yes, something more than simply being late. Under those circumstances, it would have been God saving the babies despite the absence of the midwives. I find it amusing that your faith-based reading requires you to denigrate the faith of the midwives where their fear of God only inspired them to walk slowly enough that survival was not their responsibility while a faithless reading has the women boldly defying Pharaoh for God. :D

That the midwives are recorded to have told Pharaoh that they arrived after the baby was born allows for the midwives to have acted to delay their arrival until after the baby was born.

That we are told the midwives "saved" the babies and that God approved of their actions suggests otherwise.

The reader is not required to read this passage as requiring that the midwife delivered the baby and then lied to Pharoah about what had happened.

No, it is the passages in which the author tells us that they actually saved the babies and that God approved of them that requires it. An honest reading requires one to take into account everything the author tells us.

The midwives did the only thing that was within their power to both obey Pharaoh and avoid killing the boy babies.

The text clearly states that they did not obey Pharoah. Your "interpretation" has less and less to do with the actual text as you attempt to defend it. :D

From the written account, we find that the midwives arrived on the scene after the baby was born.

No, from the written account we are told the story that they gave to Pharaoh. That they really did arrive late is not described or even implied by the author. Only your faith requires you to read this into the story.

Hardly. I amn looking at the text and using the information that it gives me.

No, you are changing the author telling us the story the midwives told Pharaoh into the author describing it as though it happened.

OK. Then strip it down to the facts given in the text.

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives arrived after the Hebrew mothers gave birth.

This does not relate to the actual text. Your facts should read:

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives told Pharaoh they simply arrived too late to kill them.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is possible to read the statements as being in conflict but I see no a priori requirement to do this.

Amaleq13
It is beyond simply "possible" that the author's choice of "saved" implies more direct action on the part of the midwives than simply delaying their arrival until after the birth. That the author also tells us God rewarded them also supports more direct action than your forced interpretation. Your refusal to take the text at face value does not appear to be based on rational thought.

We both agree that the midwives took direct action. I conclude that the midwives purposely delayed their arrival to allow a baby to be born. You conclude that the midwives were present at the birth and refused to kill the boy babies. The real issue is whether the midwives told the truth or lied as recorded in the historical account. I don’t see that the context requires that the midwives have lied.


rhutchin
We are told that the midwives saved the babies, so we should expect that they had a hand in accomplishing this.

Amaleq13
Yes, something more than simply being late. Under those circumstances, it would have been God saving the babies despite the absence of the midwives. I find it amusing that your faith-based reading requires you to denigrate the faith of the midwives where their fear of God only inspired them to walk slowly enough that survival was not their responsibility while a faithless reading has the women boldly defying Pharaoh for God.

No really. The action of being late is a legitimate action. The faith of the midwives was that God would provide for the safety of the Hebrew women in giving birth. There is no faith required to tell a lie to Pharaoh (or to anyone). It is in telling the truth (obeying both God and the command of Pharaoh) where a person gives up control of the situation where faith is required. You want the midwives to maintain control of the situation – refuse to obey Pharaoh’s instruction and then disobey God by lying about their actions – and this requires no faith (other than in one’s skills at deception).


rhutchin
That the midwives are recorded to have told Pharaoh that they arrived after the baby was born allows for the midwives to have acted to delay their arrival until after the baby was born.

Amaleq13
That we are told the midwives "saved" the babies and that God approved of their actions suggests otherwise.

Yep. The issue is how the midwives accomplished this.


rhutchin
The reader is not required to read this passage as requiring that the midwife delivered the baby and then lied to Pharoah about what had happened.

Amaleq13
No, it is the passages in which the author tells us that they actually saved the babies and that God approved of them that requires it. An honest reading requires one to take into account everything the author tells us.

Yep. The issue is what the historical account implies about the actions the midwives took to save the babies. Did they have to employ deception to save the babies or were they able to do so without being deceitful?


rhutchin
The midwives did the only thing that was within their power to both obey Pharaoh and avoid killing the boy babies.

Amaleq13
The text clearly states that they did not obey Pharoah. Your "interpretation" has less and less to do with the actual text as you attempt to defend it.

Yep. The issue is the manner in which they disobeyed Pharaoh. Did they purposely deceive Pharaoh or did they take an action that allowed them to disobey Pharaoh without being deceitful.


rhutchin
From the written account, we find that the midwives arrived on the scene after the baby was born.

Amaleq13
No, from the written account we are told the story that they gave to Pharaoh. That they really did arrive late is not described or even implied by the author. Only your faith requires you to read this into the story.

OK. Then the issue is whether the explanation provided by the midwives was the truth. The presumption of a truthful response is legitimate unless the context dictates otherwise. The context does not require that the midwives have lied to Pharaoh.

We have not introduced the mother or her family yet. However, if the midwives had been instructed to kill the boy babies, we might legitimately assume that they revealed this to the families of pregnant women. Consequently, we might think that the families would not call the midwife until the baby had been born and protected if it were a boy.

It is simply not necessary to assume that the midwives lied.


rhutchin
I agree. The implication is that the midwives would have been present at birth and as the baby was delivered, they would determine whether it was a boy and immediately take a boy baby out to be drowned.

It is also implicit that the midwives had decided not to be present at the birth of the baby and purposely delayed their arrival until after the baby had been born when they would be unable to get access to the child.

EthnAlln
Translation: The text is inconvenient, so I'll make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

rhutchin
Hardly. I am looking at the text and using the information that it gives me.

Amaleq13
No, you are changing the author telling us the story the midwives told Pharaoh into the author describing it as though it happened.

I think it is both (but I am not really sure what your point is.). The author is recording what the midwives said to Pharaoh and the author is providing what he believes is a reliable account.


rhutchin
OK. Then strip it down to the facts given in the text.

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives arrived after the Hebrew mothers gave birth.

Amaleq13
This does not relate to the actual text. Your facts should read:

1. The midwives saved the Hebrew babies.
2. The midwives told Pharaoh they simply arrived too late to kill them.

OK. The midwives are certainly to be credited with saving the boy babies. You seem to think that simply arriving late does not involve enough effort to allow the midwives to be credited with saving the babies. I think it does. Had the midwives attended to the Hebrew women early (as they knew would be necessary) they would have put themselves in the position of having to disobey Pharaoh or kill the boy babies. They did not. Had Pharaoh pressed them as to why they arrived late, I think they could have legitimately said that the families called them only after they were certain the baby was safe.

[Anat]

It must have been a pretty good diet. The Hebrew population had increased to the point that Pharaoh was afraid that they might work with one of Egypt's enemies to conquer Egypt. It does not seem to have been that bad of a diet.
Go to any overpopulated part of the third world and see how populations explode on very poor diets.

Typically in peasant societies, other than a narrow elite, diets are very poor.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It must have been a pretty good diet. The Hebrew population had increased to the point that Pharaoh was afraid that they might work with one of Egypt's enemies to conquer Egypt. It does not seem to have been that bad of a diet.

Anat
Go to any overpopulated part of the third world and see how populations explode on very poor diets.

Typically in peasant societies, other than a narrow elite, diets are very poor.

Typically, yes. Today's world is not typical because of all the foreign aid from the US and other countries flowing into poor countries. Without that aid, I suspect we would see more starvation as in those countries where one group is oppressing (and killing) other groups.

Also, in Egypt, food would not be an issue if the Nile valley was as fertile as claimed. The Hebrew population would have been able to provide all their needs by themselves. Also, the Hebrew population had enjoyed favored status from the time of Joseph until the reign of the Pharaoh then ruling. That likely means that they had gained some wealth and could trade independently with other countries. It seems that the Pharaoh was not able to expel the Hebrews but was able to draft them to build cities. So, I don't think diet is really an issue that would have proved an influence on the birth rates other than to ease complications of pregnancy and birth.

[Amaleq13]

I conclude that the midwives purposely delayed their arrival to allow a baby to be born.

You conclude this despite that this does not really describe them saving anyone, that the author clearly considers this behavior to be the opposite of saving them, and that it hardly describes behavior that would garner God's approval. IOW, your conclusion requires that a single passage be taken out of context and interpreted by itself while contradicting the author.

You conclude that the midwives were present at the birth and refused to kill the boy babies.

My conclusion, unlike yours, does have the midwives actually saving the babies and does describe behavior that would garner God's approval and does agree with the author's implied opinion. I win. :D

The real issue is whether the midwives told the truth or lied as recorded in the historical account.

No, the real issue is whether one's interpretation takes into account everything the author tells us. Yours does not while mine does.

The action of being late is a legitimate action.

It is not an act of salvation and, as a result, it is also not an act that would garner the approval of God. The author makes this clear when he has the midwives deny saving the babies and instead claiming to have simply arrived too late to kill them.

The faith of the midwives was that God would provide for the safety of the Hebrew women in giving birth.

If the story included such a statement, your interpretation would have some support. Unfortunately for you, the story doesn't so your interpretation doesn't. The story says they save the babies. It does not say they allowed God to save them. The story simply does not agree with your "interpretation".

You want the midwives to maintain control of the situation – refuse to obey Pharaoh’s instruction and then disobey God by lying about their actions – and this requires no faith (other than in one’s skills at deception).

I want nothing but an interpretation that relates to the text and the text states that the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh and saved the babies. The text also shares with us the excuse they provided Pharaoh as they denied disobeying him. You are the only one importing your personal preferences into the text with a very selective reading.

The issue is how the midwives accomplished this.

It is only a mystery to you and apparently only because you wish to avoid the obvious. When one asserts that a midwife saved a baby, the obvious conclusion is that she did her job regardless of what she subsequently informed Pharaoh so as to avoid the consequences of disobedience. Pharaoh certainly seems to have understood this since he accuses them of saving the babies.

The issue is what the historical account implies about the actions the midwives took to save the babies.

There is no need to import your religious beliefs about the historicity of the story into this discussion. We need only consider this as a piece of literature.

Did they have to employ deception to save the babies or were they able to do so without being deceitful?

The story says they saved the babies and the story says they told Pharaoh that they didn't save the babies. This question appears to exist only for you.

It is simply not necessary to assume that the midwives lied.

I agree since no assumption is necessary as the text makes it pretty clear. :)

I think it is both (but I am not really sure what your point is.).

My point is that you were falsely characterizing what the text says. The author does not describe the midwives arriving late but that is how you have restated the story. The author simply tells us this is what they told Pharaoh in denying his accusation of disobedience.

The midwives are certainly to be credited with saving the boy babies.

Yes and the midwives are certainly described as denying that they did so when Pharaoh accused them of it.

You seem to think that simply arriving late does not involve enough effort to allow the midwives to be credited with saving the babies.

It doesn't and the story makes that clear. Pharaoh accuses them of saving the babies and they deny this by claiming they arrived too late. Even the author of the story disagrees with your interpretation since he clearly considers arriving too late to not qualify as saving them!! :D

Your "interpretation" ignores the actual text and is denied by the author, himself.

[Amaleq13]

No response?

Is that as close to a concession as one is likely to obtain? :)

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I conclude that the midwives purposely delayed their arrival to allow a baby to be born.

Amaleq13
You conclude this despite that this does not really describe them saving anyone, that the author clearly considers this behavior to be the opposite of saving them, and that it hardly describes behavior that would garner God's approval. IOW, your conclusion requires that a single passage be taken out of context and interpreted by itself while contradicting the author.

What we have is the author stating that Pharaoh charged them, “...When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him:..”

Then the author tells us that “...the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.” The midwives did not do the office of a midwife and thereby are credited with saving the babies.

When asked by Pharaoh why they had disobeyed him, the midwives responded, “...the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.”

What is it that the midwives did not do? They refused to exercise the duties of the office of the midwife. They went on strike, at least until the baby had been born. Knowing that the Hebrew women would give birth in a shorter time than Egyptian women, they responded to the Hebrew women as they would had they been Egyptian women.

God disapproves actions taken that violate His commands even where those actions are intended for a good purpose. God’s approval here is for the midwives acting in a manner that did not require them to violate God’s commands -- they did not have to lie.

Again, I see no a priori reason to conclude that the women lied. If you did not decide that the women lied, you would not be compelled to conclude that the women lied. The historical account does not require the a priori decision that the women lied nor that they be denied credit for saving the babies given the role that they played in the account.

[rhutchin]

No response?

Is that as close to a concession as one is likely to obtain? :)

Hmmm. Maybe it means that you need to get a life.

[Toto]

I don't understand this entire dispute.

Where did YHWH or any other god command people to never tell white lies to brutal dictators, even when necessary to save the lives of innocent babies?

[Amaleq13]

Then the author tells us that “...the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.” The midwives did not do the office of a midwife and thereby are credited with saving the babies.

The king did not command them to do their jobs as midwives. The king commanded them to kill any male babies but the midwives saved them instead. Surely you can't be serious in offering this perversion of the text as a genuine argument?

When asked by Pharaoh why they had disobeyed him...

No, he asks why they saved the babies and they deny saving them.

What is it that the midwives did not do?

Kill the male babies as they assisted in their births.

Knowing that the Hebrew women would give birth in a shorter time than Egyptian women, they responded to the Hebrew women as they would had they been Egyptian women.

Setting aside the credulity required in accepting such a notion, you continue to ignore that the author has already indicated the action above does not qualify as "saving" the babies but does tell us that the midwives saved them. That alone indicates that they did something else.

God’s approval here is for the midwives acting in a manner that did not require them to violate God’s commands -- they did not have to lie.

Thank you for repeating your conclusion. Have you thought up a supporting rational argument that relates to the text yet?

Again, I see no a priori reason to conclude that the women lied.

I have to wonder if you really know what "a priori" means because it has no relevance to anything I've pointed out about the text since it all follows from an examination of it.

If you did not decide that the women lied, you would not be compelled to conclude that the women lied.

Isn't that a tautology?

I'll lay it out for you one more time:

Text evidence: The author states that they saved the babies but the midwives told Pharaoh that they didn't.

Reasoning: If the first statement is true, the second must be false.

Conclusion: They lied to Pharaoh.

Text evidence: Pharaoh accused the midwives of saving the babies but the midwives deny it and claim they arrived too late to kill them.

Reasoning: Their explanation must constitute a denial of the accusation.

Conclusion: The author does not consider arriving too late to kill the babies to qualify as saving them.

Hmmm. Maybe it means that you need to get a life.

Resorting to insults is an excellent indicator that you are quite well aware that your arguments are without merit. I'll take that as an affirmative answer to my question. :D

[Amaleq13]

I don't understand this entire dispute.

Where did YHWH or any other god command people to never tell white lies to brutal dictators, even when necessary to save the lives of innocent babies?

That sounds like it might be an a priori assumption underlying someone's preferred "interpretation".

[rhutchin]

Amaleq13
No response?

Is that as close to a concession as one is likely to obtain? :)

rhutchin
Hmmm. Maybe it means that you need to get a life.

Amaleq13
Resorting to insults is an excellent indicator that you are quite well aware that your arguments are without merit. I'll take that as an affirmative answer to my question. :D

It was not meant as an insult. I have limited time to spend here (not that I don't enjoy it, but because there are other demands on my time).

If you are going to require that people repsond to your msgs within a certain timeframe, then you need to find something else to do in between responses.

If you had a solid argument, it would seem that you would have presented it by this time. It seems that you are working on that argument (as I am for the opposite position), and that takes time also.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Then the author tells us that “...the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.” The midwives did not do the office of a midwife and thereby are credited with saving the babies.

Amaleq13
The king did not command them to do their jobs as midwives. The king commanded them to kill any male babies but the midwives saved them instead. Surely you can't be serious in offering this perversion of the text as a genuine argument?

We have--
16 And [Pharaoh] said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.[/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the part that says, “When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women...”

If Pharaoh wanted the boy babies killed, he could have sent his soldiers out to do it like Herod in the NT. It seems that Pharaoh fears the consequences of that action. Consequently, we see him directing the midwives to do that which he cannot. He does not tell the midwives to go snatch newborns from the arms of their mothers and throw them into the river. He specifically tells them to kill the boy babies as they assist in the delivery (as they do the office of a midwife). The midwives then decided that they would not attend the delivery but would only arrive afterward. In other words they acted to save the babies doing the only thing in their power to do and are properly credited for doing so.

I do not see a perversion in that which I offer and you have not made a case for it.


rhutchin
When asked by Pharaoh why they had disobeyed him...

Amaleq13
No, he asks why they saved the babies and they deny saving them.

OK. Then, when asked by Pharaoh why they did not do as he had instructed them... They explained that the Hebrew mothers gave birth prior to their arrival so that they had no opportunity to kill the babies. They do not deny not killing (i.e., saving) the babies. They agree that they have not killed the babies and explain how this had come about. They told the truth.


rhutchin
What is it that the midwives did not do?

Amaleq13
Kill the male babies as they assisted in their births.

You have not established that the midwives had to be present and had to have opportunity to kill the babies. It is possible that they were not present. I don’t think you have inside information on what actually happened and are merely assuming that which supports your argument.


rhutchin
Knowing that the Hebrew women would give birth in a shorter time than Egyptian women, they responded to the Hebrew women as they would had they been Egyptian women.

Amaleq13
Setting aside the credulity required in accepting such a notion, you continue to ignore that the author has already indicated the action above does not qualify as "saving" the babies but does tell us that the midwives saved them. That alone indicates that they did something else.

What credulity? They were midwives. They would have noticed such trends. It is you who desperately want to disqualify any action by the midwives other than that which you need for your argument. The author is not supporting you.


rhutchin
God’s approval here is for the midwives acting in a manner that did not require them to violate God’s commands -- they did not have to lie.

Amaleq13
Thank you for repeating your conclusion. Have you thought up a supporting rational argument that relates to the text yet?

Yep. Now, you just need to come up with a counter argument that works.


rhutchin
Again, I see no a priori reason to conclude that the women lied.

Amaleq13
I have to wonder if you really know what "a priori" means because it has no relevance to anything I've pointed out about the text since it all follows from an examination of it.

You basically are assuming your conclusion.


rhutchin
If you did not decide that the women lied, you would not be compelled to conclude that the women lied.

Amaleq13
Isn't that a tautology?

I'll lay it out for you one more time:

Text evidence: The author states that they saved the babies but the midwives told Pharaoh that they didn't.

Reasoning: If the first statement is true, the second must be false.

Conclusion: They lied to Pharaoh.

Text evidence: Pharaoh accused the midwives of saving the babies but the midwives deny it and claim they arrived too late to kill them.

Reasoning: Their explanation must constitute a denial of the accusation.

Conclusion: The author does not consider arriving too late to kill the babies to qualify as saving them.

Here is what it really says--:D

Text evidence: The author states that they saved the babies and the midwives explain to Pharaoh how it was not possible for them to kill the babies.

Reasoning: The first statement is true, and the second statement is true.

Conclusion: They told Pharaoh the true situation.

Text evidence: Pharaoh accused the midwives of saving the babies but the midwives, rather than deny it (because they knew that they had not killed the babies), explain how they arrived too late to kill them.

Reasoning: Their explanation fits the evidence. Pharaoh is frustrated in his attempt to kill the boy babies.

Conclusion: The author credits the quick thinking midwives with saving the babies.

[Amaleq13]

You seem to be ignoring the part that says, “When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women...”

I'm not ignoring it, I'm denying your claim that it is part of Pharaoh's command when it clearly is not. It simply informs the midwives "when" to carry out his order to kill the male babies.

If Pharaoh wanted the boy babies killed, he could have sent his soldiers out to do it like Herod in the NT.

That is an incorrect condition since the text makes it very clear that Pharaoh did want the males dead. It should read: If Pharaoh was unconcerned about being blamed for their deaths, he could have sent his soldiers out to do it.

He specifically tells them to kill the boy babies as they assist in the delivery (as they do the office of a midwife).

Yes but, contrary to your "interpretation", he does not order them to assist in the deliveries. The "when" indicates he assumed that they were going to do this anyway.

The midwives then decided that they would not attend the delivery but would only arrive afterward.

If arriving too late qualifies as saving them, why didn't Pharaoh punish them for disobedience?

I do not see a perversion in that which I offer and you have not made a case for it.

The text denies your "interpretation" and you've done absolutely nothing to change that. The author states they saved the babies. The author states they were accused of saving the babies. The author implies that arriving too late does not constitute saving the babies since he has the midwives using that as their denial of disobeying Pharaoh.

OK. Then, when asked by Pharaoh why they did not do as he had instructed them... They explained that the Hebrew mothers gave birth prior to their arrival so that they had no opportunity to kill the babies.

Exactly and, from this, we know that they deny doing what the author says they did and that arriving too late does not constitute saving the babies. IOW, the author clearly denies your "interpretation".

They do not deny not killing (i.e., saving) the babies.

It is obviously offered as a denial of saving the babies. Otherwise, Pharaoh would have punished them for disobedience.

You have not established that the midwives had to be present and had to have opportunity to kill the babies.

The author establishes this by asserting that they saved the babies and reinforces this by later asserting that God rewarded their actions. Arriving too late leaves their fate to chance or God.

It is possible that they were not present.

Only if we assume the author was a very poor story-teller.

I don’t think you have inside information on what actually happened and are merely assuming that which supports your argument.

I don't need any inside information nor make any assumptions beyond assuming the author wrote to be understood. I just need to take the story at face value.

What credulity?

It requires credulity to believe that Hebrew women give birth earlier than others.

They were midwives. They would have noticed such trends.

Good point but not one that supports your position because the excuse only works as surprising information to the midwives. Assuming that the birth-speed claim was true, it requires credulity to believe that the midwives were unaware of this and did not delay their arrival deliberately.

There can be no question that Pharaoh is depicted as quite credulous in this story.

It is you who desperately want to disqualify any action by the midwives other than that which you need for your argument. The author is not supporting you.

There is no desperation involved in taking the text at face value and everything I've said comes from no other source but the author. You seem to be projecting your own situation here. :D

You basically are assuming your conclusion.

No, I had no opinion on this passage prior to the existence of this thread. I read the passage and found absolutely no support for your "interpretation". I've simply presented what the story states in opposition to your somewhat creative attempt to rewrite it.

I am always willing to accept the interpretations of the faithful if it relates to the text. Yours simply does not.