a pound of silver
The punishments for rape are perhaps the most disturbing regulations in the Bible.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
38 comments:
I disagree, clearly when a woman screams this is rape and the word is different.
Also the following:"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out"
THEY ARE FOUND OUT indicate THEY WERE BOTH "IN" ON IT.
"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29
I've explained why I don't feel that the difference in the word makes a difference in the meaning. You've merely repeated the position I've previously argued against.
Also, a few points on "they." There is no "they" in the Hebrew here. The NLT does not add to what is not there and lets the passage speak for itself. "Found" is merely stated in the Hebrew, not "They are found." Your rendition of "found out" (presumably from the NKJV) unnecessarily adds to what is in the text. Other versions merely state "found." And even if "they are found" was the author's intention, it still does not identify guilty parties; it merely states that they are found.
All just my opinion of course.
And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
The woman without husband is the possession of her father. (I guess that was pretty obvious also). He who shamed such a woman [and her father's name] (whether with or without her will -- the text doesn't say, so both situations have to assumed here) can still redeem his action by taking her into marriage (after also paying a grievous debt to her father, under whose custody she was), so as to make up for his sin. But were she to have been married, there's no way he could've ever redeem his action (a woman can't have two husbands). Rape and adultery were punished by stoning.
Jason,
A sincere question: what apologists have you read concerning this subject and the passage(s) in question?
"And he seizes her and lies with her" doesn't sound consensual to me at all.
I just read a couple of versions of this passage on biblegateway.com and I am still agreeing with Jason overall.
DVD, it appears you selected a translation that is favorable to your position. I'm not going to dig out my Hebrew texts for this, but after reading a few English translations, it appears to hinge more on whether the girl "cries out." If she cries out to be saved then its rape, if she don't it's not rape.
Jason's right, what a stupid and immoral law. So, to the ancient Jew, the test for rape is how loudly she protests during the violation. Basically to argue for this passage is to say, "If she only silently wept, marry her off to the bastard, cause after all, she was practically begging for it."
I'm so tired of religious people calling evil good. This passage is a pathetic way to determine the guilt or innocence of a rapist. Even the verses just prior to these verses are horrible. They state that if a man marries his daughter off and her husband claims she is not a virgin, then the father has to provide proof that she was a virgin. And what is that proof? Blood on a sheet, I assume indicating the tearing of the hymen. Again, this too is an immoral test. Notice both of these tests favor the man over the woman.
Good post Jason!
Lucian, I'm not sure of your religious beliefs, but I'm glad you see that the text states (or at least implies) that a man can be redeemed by marrying his rape victim. I hope you also see this as unethical. You state that rape and adultery were punishable by stoning, but we must remember that in the OT, these punishments were not always enforced (e.g. unmarried women, prisoners of war).
Rachel, not too many address it. Paul Copan is the only one of note that does, and he pretty much agrees with Christopher Wright that rape is indeed described. There are a number of other articles on the web by some amateurs like sam shamoun, ralph allan smith, etc. who attempt a defense of the passage as not being rape. Now here's a sincere question for you: what apology have you read that you find convincing?
Phillip, that's exactly my point. Adultery passages do not say anything about seizing/holding the woman first. This one does. The only other instance in the Bible (that I know of) is also (to me) a clear case of rape. The only person I've found who attempts to argue otherwise is Alex Rofe, but I really think you have to look at the later outrage of Gen 34 in context.
Toby, I very much appreciate the backing of a psychotherapist. Your background would be invaluable in studying the formation and maintenance of beliefs. Have you ever read Cialdini or Petty&Cacioppo on these topics? I will have a book out in a few weeks that (in part) applies their findings to apologetics.
The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape.
It's not invalidated at all. Two completely different Hebrew words are used here and you're glossing over this as if it's an insignificant detail. I'm also interested in knowing where Strongs confirms these two words are "closely related synonyms" and why you've plowed ahead and concluded the two words actually mean exactly the same thing. "Poke" is a synonym of "punch" but I'm sure you'd agree they don't mean the same thing.
Nonetheless, it's awfully hard to ignore the glaring fact that 'taphas' is never used in reference to rape anywhere else in the OT...
Finally, please read Exodus 22:16-17 which is talking about exactly the same thing as Deut 22:28 except in this case, the father refuses to allow the man to marry his daughter. More importantly though, the word the author uses in this passage is 'pathah' and it means to "persuade, entice, deceive". There's no hint at physical force being used here. Instead, it's clear the man is persuading or enticing the woman to have sex with him, not forcing. We can conclude therefore that the woman in Deuteronomy 22 consented to having sex with the man.
Jason,
I haven't read what Copan says on the topic, or any of the others you named. But it seems that most, if not all, that you've read from apologists on the subject tries to say that what's being described is not rape.
However, my understanding of the passage has no problem with rape being in view in Deut. 22:28-29, in fact it would make the most sense. I think the view that Glenn Miller describes here makes the most sense of the culture and needs of the people. Try reading it and then see what objections you have.
Jason Long,
I guess I'm one of those amateurs you mentioned because the whole context of Deut. 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex and is a recap of Ex. 22:14. The context is that a man seduces a woman to have pre-marital sex therefore “defiling” (causing her to sin) her or “humbling” her. Neither of the scriptures you pinpoint describe rape. They only describe pre-marital sex.
The text of Deut. uses the language “Lay hold on her” ~ Taphas- to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch 1a2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully in this case to indicate a smooth talker...
You and most atheists interpret the word laqach as taking one forceably (sexually) against their will. You stated the following: “take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape” Your use of Laqach(took her) has much to be desired. Judah “took” (laqach) Shua and “went in unto her” (an act aka "lying with her") but it was NOT considered rape. Gen. 38:2.
Are you trying to imply that IN GEN. 38:2 the term “lay with her” would have magically made this passage suggest rape as opposed to consensual sex? Bad argument.
Rape is identified by the phrase “force or forced her” not “take”. “Force her” is found in Deut 22:25 (chazaq) [which literally means to exercise physical force and control over] and 1 Sam. 13:14 “forced her” (anah) [which literally means that he exercised physical control against her pleading and emotional outcry].
When these clear pictures of rape are contrasted to consensual sex in Deut 22:22 (lying WITH a married woman) and Gen. 34 there can be no suggestion that God’s laws of rape involved “pay, and the money makes it OK to play” as you suggest.
Just look at it. Obviously Shechem was older and seduced Dinah into sex, but look at the rest, Shechem “loved Dinah” v. 3, “his soul clave unto Dinah” v.3 (This language is repeatedly symbolic of committed love NOT lust) and further “spoke kindly unto her”[This is indicative of a relationship and not a situation where Dinah’s life is devastated or controlled by a rapist] When does a rapist speak “kindly” to their victims?
In Gen. 34 Dinah was young, got seduced, became infactuated with a man, and the seducer was furthermore NOT an Israelite. This was the problem, and how she was defiled. Her defilement was NOT that she was raped it was because she had premarital sex, and that sex was with one who was not of the “seed” of Abraham which wasa double whammy because he was further considered to be “unclean” and "godless"
Your article does a good job of providing a sensationalistic look at a serious subject but a horrible job of looking at that very serious subject in the proper context. You also fail to find the sitz im laban of the teaching, and when you do approach it, you do so irresponsibly stating that, “And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.” as if the biblical model of the relationship between men and women was somehow unique to societal norms in their time.
When the truth is that women had GREATER protections and a higher value within the Jewish and OT system than within surrounding countries.
In short, your argument is a non-starter, sensationalistic and grossly out of context.
Good for a novice reader wanting sensationalism though.
Later.
Jason,
No, I haven't studied much in that area at all. I'm pretty fresh out of my own delusion. However, I will read the references you provided. I'll make sure I order a copy of your book as well.
All the best,
Toby
Rachel: I'm glad that you're sensible enough to see that this is rape. Others obviously are not. And yes, most of the people I read attempt to argue it is not rape. Hell, just check out other comments here.
I think Miller does not even deal with the issue here. He does not even deal directly with the legitimate questions posed to him at the top of the page. He merely asserts (and references others who assert) that there were additional laws outside those in the OT that would have made the matter more just and that the laws would not have been applied blindly. If I grant Miller this without condition, he would still need to explain why God would allow the Bible to state the given crime and punishment and yet say nothing else on the matter.
I mean, this is the timeless word of the universe's creator. Additional laws of the time wouldn't make up for this oversight. This to me is a clear indication of a lack of divine inspiration. It's human fallibility. Any reasonable person would not say "kill the woman if she doesn't scream." I don't care what kind of hypothetical supplement Miller says existed, the Bible by itself is cruel and absurd here.
Jason:
Two completely different Hebrew words are used here and you're glossing over this as if it's an insignificant detail.
I'm showing that the word used for holding/seizing in cases of rape was never consistent. That's why rape is not ruled out here. Now Rachel, clearly a reasonable Christian, says it is rape. How about arguing with her, or Paul Copan, or Glenn Miller?
I'm also interested in knowing where Strongs confirms these two words are "closely related synonyms"
The confirmation is in the definitions.
taphas - lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch, (translated: take, taken, handle, hold, catch)
chazaq - to prevail upon, to be firm with, to press (translated: strong, repair, hold, strengthen, prevail)
laqach - take, seize, lay hold of, get (translated: take, receive, fetch, get)
Now if you want to argue that they're not synonyms, that's your business, but it is clear to me that in the case of the laqach rape and taphas incicent, the same idea is used. I have already stated that laqach seems to be a stronger word, but the idea is the same.
and why you've plowed ahead and concluded the two words actually mean exactly the same thing.
I guess for the same reason that apologists Miller and Copan plow ahead and conclude that they mean the same thing. The context shows that these are acts of holding and seizing. There are no acts of holding and seizing in the cases of adultery mentioned here. And no, it is not my intention to argue that they mean the exact same thing. They convey the same idea.
"Poke" is a synonym of "punch" but I'm sure you'd agree they don't mean the same thing.
I agree, but you've given no context here.
Nonetheless, it's awfully hard to ignore the glaring fact that 'taphas' is never used in reference to rape anywhere else in the OT...
Please provide me a list of other instances where laqach and chazaq (or any other word for that matter) are consistently used. Or do you want to argue that laqach isn't rape in the context of Genesis 34?
Finally, please read Exodus 22:16-17 which is talking about exactly the same thing as Deut 22:28 except in this case, the father refuses to allow the man to marry his daughter.
No, it's not talking about the exact same thing. It's talking about a man who persuades a woman into sleeping with him, not a man who holds/seizes a woman while sleeping with her. Genesis 34 is far closer in meaning than Exodus 22. I don't see the point in continuing the conversation if you can't admit that.
More importantly though, the word the author uses in this passage is 'pathah' and it means to "persuade, entice, deceive". There's no hint at physical force being used here. Instead, it's clear the man is persuading or enticing the woman to have sex with him, not forcing.
Uhhh, yeh. That's exactly my point. Exodus 22 has nothing to do with Deut 22.
We can conclude therefore that the woman in Deuteronomy 22 consented to having sex with the man.
That's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
District:
I guess I'm one of those amateurs you mentioned because the whole context of Deut. 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex and is a recap of Ex. 22:14. The context is that a man seduces a woman to have pre-marital sex therefore “defiling” (causing her to sin) her or “humbling” her. Neither of the scriptures you pinpoint describe rape. They only describe pre-marital sex.
No, you're making the same incorrect argument that the other Jason made and I have addressed above. There is an enormous difference between deceiving and seizing. I think you should know this. Exodus 22 has no bearing here. It's talking about a man who persuades a woman into sleeping with him, not a man who holds/seizes a woman while sleeping with her.
And I'm going to tell you the same thing I told him. Go argue with Rachel, or Copan, or Miller if you want to continue this delusion that Deut 22 is consensual.
The text of Deut. uses the language “Lay hold on her” ~ Taphas- to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch 1a2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully in this case to indicate a smooth talker...
No, I don't believe it does. Just look in the previous chapter (21:19) for the nearest and clearest use. 65 uses in the OT and almost the entire lot clearly mean to exercise a physical force over. Nothing even approaches Strong's idea of "wielding" or "influencing" until a couple of passages from the prophets, and even those could be debated. Your assertion that this indicates a "smooth talker" looks like wishful thinking to me. I could turn this argument right around and ask why "Moses" didn't use the exact same word in Deut 22 as he did in Exodus 22, if that's what he was doing. But I'm not going to - because I realize that more than one word can mean the same thing.
You and most atheists interpret the word laqach as taking one forceably (sexually) against their will. You stated the following: “take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape” Your use of Laqach(took her) has much to be desired. Judah “took” (laqach) Shua and “went in unto her” (an act aka "lying with her") but it was NOT considered rape. Gen. 38:2. Are you trying to imply that IN GEN. 38:2 the term “lay with her” would have magically made this passage suggest rape as opposed to consensual sex? Bad argument.
This is why I have consistently said we need to consider context. But first of all, just to be clear to those who don't know, Judah didn't rape Shua because (presumably) he wasn't homosexual. He raped his daughter. It was not my intent to imply that laqach and shakab automatically created rape, but rather that the story was long considered a story of rape.
I have little doubt that the daughter of Shuah here had no real choice in the matter (the father and Judah would have made it, remember?), and while there is no talk of defilement here like there is in Gen 34, Deut 22, and 2 Sam 13, I'm not going to argue that it's rape in the sense that Deut 22 is rape without context (even though Shuah itself means humiliation - ironic?).
One is a story with little context; the other is a rule with no real context. Gen 38 is a story with context that is much closer to Gen 34, which I see we are going to discuss in a minute.
Rape is identified by the phrase “force or forced her” not “take”. “Force her” is found in Deut 22:25 (chazaq) [which literally means to exercise physical force and control over] and 1 Sam. 13:14 “forced her” (anah) [which literally means that he exercised physical control against her pleading and emotional outcry].
So we agree that there is more than one suitable word (chazaq and anah, at least) for conveying the idea of rape. The purpose of this exercise is to see if there are more.
When these clear pictures of rape are contrasted to consensual sex in Deut 22:22 (lying WITH a married woman) and Gen. 34 there can be no suggestion that God’s laws of rape involved “pay, and the money makes it OK to play” as you suggest.
This is true only if you have established that either Deut 22 or Gen 34 is consensual. You have not. You have merely argued that there are multiple words to describe rape while denying that the idea can be extended to words that clearly show a physical holding/seizing. Describing one in more detail does not make the one in less detail less of an act.
Furthermore, Deut 22 clearly states that the man could not divorce the woman. The right of the man to divorce in cases of infidelity is removed and the necessity of continually caring for the woman are "punishments" for the action. There would be no such "punishments" from consensual sex.
Just look at it. Obviously Shechem was older and seduced Dinah into sex, but look at the rest, Shechem “loved Dinah” v. 3, “his soul clave unto Dinah” v.3 (This language is repeatedly symbolic of committed love NOT lust) and further “spoke kindly unto her”[This is indicative of a relationship and not a situation where Dinah’s life is devastated or controlled by a rapist] When does a rapist speak “kindly” to their victims?
You are arguing that a rapist does not often feel madly in love with his victim, especially when the law does not explicitly offer the victim the right to object? The passage isn't talking about her falling for him.
In Gen. 34 Dinah was young, got seduced, became infactuated with a man, and the seducer was furthermore NOT an Israelite. This was the problem, and how she was defiled. Her defilement was NOT that she was raped it was because she had premarital sex, and that sex was with one who was not of the “seed” of Abraham which wasa double whammy because he was further considered to be “unclean” and "godless"
That is your position, and I believe it to be wrong. One can easily state that he physically took her, went inside and defiled her (anah), fell in love with her, and wanted the father's persmission to marry her. You are right that they weren't upset over the forced act, but that doesn't mean the forced act did not occur, since other verses demonstrate that such nonsense was permitted in the OT. The sons were upset because it was now a no-win situation. Either the law would have to be broken or Dinah would become damaged goods (tame).
They came to a mutual agreement, yet two of Jacob's sons would not accept this and killed him.
As you can see (turning your own argument from Deut 22 against you), this is a different form of defilement because a different word from the same story is used. The defilement during the sexual act is much stronger than the defilement that Jacob and his sons were concerned with. The anah (oppression, affliction) defilement from the rape is much stronger than the tame (sexually unclean) defilement that the men were concerned with, as you have demonstrated by offering 2 Samuel. So why the change? Not to mention this is the same defilement (anah, not tame) that we see in the other cases of rape (Deut 22:29, Deut 21:14).
Now it is not my intent to appeal to authority, but this is the scholarly consensus. Arguing that this is consensual and that the original defilement (not the later defilement) came from sleeping with a foreigner places you against the majority of those even in your own religion.
Your article does a good job of providing a sensationalistic look at a serious subject
I'll skip your sarcasm.
When the truth is that women had GREATER protections and a higher value within the Jewish and OT system than within surrounding countries.
Always the same argument. Better rights than the surrounding countries but far short of what we have today. Little ole me can come up with a more ethical framework than almighty God, yet everything is better than the surrounding regions, so it's okay. Why is it do you think I can establish a clear set of rules and rights for women that everyone would agree is clearer and more ethical than what's in the Bible? Why is it I can say "Women should be able to marry who they want without the blessings of their fathers because they are free individuals. Women should have the same rights as men. Men shall not have dominion over women because they are equal. Women can have premarital sex if they want because sexuality and morality are not necessarily linked."? Why can I say that while the Bible displays nothing beyond primitive barbarianism?
It's not my intent to embarrass or attack you personally, but I read some of your blog. Your statement that "It should be noted that Darwinian Evolution is one of the most flawed and unscientific theories ever presented as such in human history" makes me seriously question your ability to interpret anything objectively and rationally. That's why I don't put much stock in your opinions here, although, in the interest of objectivity, I leave open the possibility that you are right and I am wrong.
Jason,
From your response, it would appear that you did not read past the top portion of Miller's article that I linked to. Although perhaps you did, and simply didn't comment on it. But for you to say that he does not address the issue/questions is quite incorrect. Also, you must realize that your article mentions 2 passages, although you mostly just deal with one (the one about the raped woman marrying her rapist). The answer to each will certainly entail some different details, so to apply an answer for one to the other will not necessarily work.
But let me try to summarize this. First, regarding Miller's assertion of the "other" laws or ways of applying the laws... Miller and his sources do not merely "assert" without basis that other laws likely existed regarding this issue. He and his sources give valid, credible reasons for such an assertion, specifically including other examples where certain types of laws are not found in the OT, yet they would have needed some kind of laws in those categories, so very likely they DID have such laws that simply weren't recorded.
Miller also makes the point that the law collections in the OT are given as oral sermons, meaning that likely not every single detail of every single law would have been named, or at least likely would not have been written down.
Miller also cites sources who provide examples of how the "bloody sheet" was NOT the final test of virginity, and the absence of such could be overcome by character witnesses, tesimonies, etc.
So his point is that the Law was not intended to be applied absolutely - what we see written is more of a summary/guideline of the laws. If the Law says that the woman has to be killed unless she screams, based on the above, it should be clear that "the scream" itself is not the only way to determine rape or consensual sex. The point is that if it was consensual then they should both die, but if it was rape then just the man should die.
I'll address the "victim marrying the rapist" passage in my next comment so as to keep my comments shorter and more readable.
Jason,
Regarding your main complaint in this article about the rape victim being forced to marry her rapist... I actually enjoy this passage and its discussion, because once we see the culture and situation of the people involved in this situation and how this law handles things marvelously, the whole complaint is turned on its head. And this is why I say that it seems you did not read past the top portion of Miller's article, because this is where his article really shines, IMO.
Again, his article provides much explanation and evidence, so I'll try to summarize.
1. All marriages in those days were arranged, NOT based on love.
2. Women in those days did not have the option of supporting themselves by getting a job, etc. They were supported by their fathers until they could find a husband to marry them and "take them on" (and their children) the rest of their lives.
3. Virginity was a big deal back then because of inheritance issues. If a woman was not a virgin, then the child she may carry may or may not belong to her current husband. This was a HUGE deal back then, as firstborns received certain things that the others didn't, and carrying on the family line was very important. Thus, if a woman was NOT a virgin, her desirability as a marriage partner decreased significantly.
So, to quote Miller:
"Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.
The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price ... is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem!
The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)—and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help the community, by preserving her virginity."
Jason,
Finally, you say,
"...the Bible by itself is cruel and absurd here."
The Bible should never be taken "by itself", just like we wouldn't do with any other document. It should always be studied and understood within its proper context of culture, economy, society, original authors/readers, etc.
Jason Long said: I'm showing that the word used for holding/seizing in cases of rape was never consistent.
If it's not consistent then you can't logically conclude 'taphas' means rape. The fact is, 'taphas' is never used anywhere in the OT to describe rape. Don't you find this rather telling...?
Or do you want to argue that laqach isn't rape in the context of Genesis 34?
Sure. First, the language used over and over again to describe Shechem's feelings for Dinah are of love and affection and he even sought favour in the eyes of Jacob. This is hardly a description of a rapist. Secondly, Shechem was "more honorable" then anyone in his father's house. Again, something that wouldn't normally be attributed to a rapist. Thirdly, 'laqach' is used in numerous other instances to describe men "taking" wives without any indication of rape (e.g. Gen 4:19, 11:29, 12:19, etc.). The same can be said for the dozens of other instances where fathers "took" sons, God "took" man, etc. (e.g. Gen 16:3, 17:23, 19:15, etc.). Lastly, Jacob's reaction is hardly that of a father who's daughter had just been raped. In fact, the only time he gets mad in this account is after his sons kill Hamor and the others.
No, it's not talking about the exact same thing. It's talking about a man who persuades a woman into sleeping with him, not a man who holds/seizes a woman while sleeping with her.
Of course it's the same thing. One of the definitions of 'taphas' is "use skillfully" (see Gen 4:21, Eze 21:11, 27:29, 30:21, 38:4, Amos 2:15, etc.). In other words, just like in Exodus 22, the man in Deut 22 is manipulating the woman to sleep with him. This is why the author didn't use 'chazaq' here. 'Chazaq' explicitly implies force and strength, 'taphas' doesn't. Simple stuff.
Rachel,
It sounds like when it comes to claims like prophecy and miracles, you want to treat the Bible like God's Word, but when it comes to the nastier stuff you want to treat it as a context-specific record of the opinions of a typical Bronze-age culture, and absolve God of any barbarism. I would have thought that the Creator's revelation to Man would merit more than standard anthropological critique, in all areas.
It's good, though, that you can treat at least some parts of the Bible with sociological theory and cultural relativism in mind. But then refusing to treat its religion and supernatural claims just as objectively is a tad hypocritical.
JL,
Thanks for the dialogue regarding this subject. The reason I’m holdoing my position here is because I’ve seen this bogus argument come up quite a few times on various atheist sites including this one as an argument against both Christian morality and the morality of God. As I’ve said I believe your position (atheists in general) and impositions on the scripture are flawed and your argument is at best a case of special pleading. I’ll explain:
JL ~ “No, you're making the same terrible argument that the other Jason made and I have addressed above. There is an enormous difference between deceiving and seizing. I think you should know this.”
The seizing included deceiving and seduction. All the things that we would normally expect to see in emotional response of a seduction and especially when a youth and older person is involved as we see in Gen. In context the man was assumed to have the leadership role and responsibility. That’s why the instructions were to him. That type of dialogue is consistent throughout the bible beginning with Adam.
To the point, not only did the man seize the body but he also seized the mind too. rape is not the case. The body may be taken but not the mind (so far as affection is concerned) The same is true today of anyone in that type of relationship.
I’m sure more than one person reading this figured out how to get “dem draws” or seduce a woman before...Don’t act like you guys don’t know what I’m saying and it’s TOTALLY relevant to understanding this and other scriptures regarding this topic
JL~ “Exodus 22 has no bearing here.”
Is that right? Maybe we should look and let the reader decide:
Ex. 22:16-17 ~ “16-And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”
Then
Deut 22:28-29~ “8If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Different Words: Ex. -Entice/ Deut. -find
Special note: What we are confident of from historical records is that only women of ill repute (prostitutes etc.) traveled alone or by themselves. Most women traveled with either their families or other women. Certainly not to imply that a prostitute couldn’t get raped, but it is more likely that she wouldn’t have or bring a claim. Therefore the word “find” in Deut. is more akin to “findeth” in Pr. 18:22 (mawtsaw) [indicating securing, obtaining, encounter or fall in the same condition with.] At either rate the word DOES NOT indicate “to jump” or “overpower” as you would to solidify to make the case for rape in this scripture. Therefore you would have to make a case of special pleading to use this scripture to support your claim.
Descriptive phrases: Ex- lie with her/ Deut. - lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found
The Remedy: Ex.- He shall surely endow her to be his wife/ Deut. - give unto the damsels father 50 shekles of silver and she shall be his wife
[Note: payment would have to be made…totally consistent]
If father refuses: Ex. Only- he (the seducer) shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins
Further your point about “lay hold” as used in Deut. 21:19 only proves the point that “lay hold” doesn’t necessarily mean a violent act. This also means to bring forth. In either case the body and mind come along. That’s what happened and what is being described. This is really not unusual or that complicated unless you have an agenda as it is obvious that you, as most atheists, do.
So your assertion is wrong. Ex. 22 has all the bearing for Deut. 22 and Deut. 22 is only a restatement of the Exodus passage which dealt with seduction and premarital sex NOT rape.
JL ~ ”And I'm going to tell you the same thing I told him. Go argue with Rachel, or Copan, or Miller if you want to continue this delusion that Deut 22 is consensual.
First of the people you mentioned are good people and certainly entitled to their opinion. I’ve read much of Copan’s work and he’s fantastic in my book, but I do not have to duplicate the steps which you seem to expect me and others to follow. Like an atheist, I don’t mind standing on my own especially when I believe I have good scriptural support and evidence. At any rate all of our arguments including that of Rachel (from what I’ve read) are much better than the one you and most atheists present regarding this subject.
JL~ “This is why I have consistently said we need to consider context. I have little doubt that Shuah here had no real choice in the matter (the father would have made it, remember?), but I'm not going to argue that it's rape in the sense that Deut 22 is rape.”
So far as the contrast between Deut. 22 and Gen. 38:2, you can’t argue that it’s any sort of rape one way or another because it’s not rape that is being described in either scripture.
JL~ “Furthermore, Deut 22 clearly states that the man could not divorce the woman. The right of the man to divorce in cases of infidelity is removed and the necessity of continually caring for the woman are "punishments" for the action.
Well Jason L. In light of what you are saying the scipture is more than clear that It would have been no punishment for Shechem. The scripture wasn’t about punishing in Deut. 22, it was about committing and providing a covering for the spouse. Commitment isn’t a punishment in most cases-LOL
JL ~ “So we agree that there is more than one suitable word (chazaq and anah, at least) for conveying the idea of rape. The purpose of this exercise is to see if there are more.
No I am contending that if Deut, Exodus, or Gen. passages discussed or were describing the condition of rape we would see either of these two words or at a minimum a closer variation. We do not and the conjugations of phrases that you suggest that indicate rape are not a convincing argument and certainly does not allow you to make a supportable argument for such. So in essence, you can make the argument as you do, but it is a comparatively weak.
JL ~ “This is true only if you have established that either Deut 22 or Gen 34 is consensual.
I think the evidence speaks clearly here. We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage. We have clearly identified that Exodus 22:16-17 is talking about consensual sex and that Deut. 22:28-29 is generally a restatement of the same passage with more descriptive language, thus confirming the nature of the passage dealing with consensual sex also. I think that the case is established that both Gen and Deut is dealing with consensual sexual activity and that sexual relationship outside of marriage aka sin, is what was humbling and defiling about the acts described.
JL~ And that is your position. One can also easily state that he physically took her, went inside her, defiled her, fell in love with her, and wanted the father's persmission to marry her. The Israelites were upset over the incident and demanded that the foreigner become one of them as retribution.
You miss the whole point of the scripture in the first place. The Israelites were upset because they knew the command of the Lord:
Deut. 7:3 ~ “3Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
As restated by Joshua in Joshua 23:11-12 ~ “11-Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. 12-Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:”
That was what the retribution was about. The zeal of the Lord and obedience to the command of God to not intermarry with the heathen.
JL~ “Always the same argument. Better rights than the surrounding countries but far short of what we have today. Little ole me can come up with a more ethical framework than almighty God, yet everything is better than the surrounding regions, so it's okay.”
So what would you have done Jason to make sure that people over a span of over 3,000 years would all understand exactly what you meant from the beginning? I mean would you tell the people 3,000 years ago things that they couldn’t relate to just so that we could relate to the message later 3,000 years later? Would you describe a Saab or BMW in detail in 2000 BC so that we would know what to do in 2008? Then that would be a complete waste of time wouldn’t it? Why not wait the 3,000 years later to do that?…but then what about all those others 3,000 years before that didn’t get all the information necessary for their time? Won’t they feel slighted?
So let me get it right. The atheist thinks that man should not progress in his understanding of God over time because, well, “he should just tell us all we need to know all at once.” Then we’d be left with another dilemma. If God is so vast how can we comprehend and know all mysteries about him all at once? So that just fits right into the atheist worldview doesn’t it? If god communicated all his truths all at once and I fully understood everything then he’s not really God, he’s a finite individual like me and that’s what the atheist wishes to believe…the grand delusion that there is no God…
Darn those atheists they do come up with some pickles!!!
Thanks.
This one is so that I can receive followups as I want to see this one a little closer.
Thanks.
Phillip,
I don't really know what you're talking about. But rather than broad generalizations, perhaps you could provide me with a specific or two that I could address. Otherwise, let's stick to the topic.
It's in reference to your most recent comment, via-à-vis critiquing the Bible with historical and sociological context in mind. I'm saying that if you can look at the rape laws and say "that's just a product of the time," why can you not see that the religious claims and theologies are products of the culture and the time, rather than assuming that God's hand was in it?
Rachel:
Rachel, I did read it. And he does merely assert that there are additional laws regarding rape. This is what he says: “This essentially means that our few references to virginity and rape recorded in the bible are undoubtedly not the only laws about this in force in ancient Israel, so we had better not assume they were applied uniformly to all cases involving these topics.” And he references one person who references an account of a trial regarding the bloody sheet issue (not the rape issue). All other arguments are on laws that do not exist in the Torah. He extrapolates the idea that the existence of laws on which God does not speak means that they went beyond the rules that God did provide. I have no doubt that there were laws regarding other topics, but when God provided a law regarding rape or the physical proof of virgninity, it is my position that this was the standard upheld in court. I don’t think they would have gone about changing and adding to what God has said. The Tal Ilan sources looks interesting (although I think the date will be very important), and I will have to check that one out, even though (like most of the article), Deut 22:28-29 is not discussed. It discusses the earlier portion of Deut 22. The reference immediately preceding is not applicable at all.
1. All marriages in those days were arranged, NOT based on love.
Those are not mutually exclusive, and I would never be so careless to say that all marriages were arranged, but this is irrelevant.
2. Women in those days did not have the option of supporting themselves by getting a job, etc. They were supported by their fathers until they could find a husband to marry them and "take them on" (and their children) the rest of their lives.
This is one of the moments when we have to step back and ask why they did not have the option. It was because the Torah rules and regulations wouldn’t allow it. God would not step up and declare that women were equal to men and had the right to form their own occupations. Why would a perfect, omnipotent god allow this? It makes no sense thinking that way, but it makes perfect sense if we see a primitive tribe with an imaginary god attempting to write their own rules and regulations.
3. Virginity was a big deal back then because of inheritance issues. If a woman was not a virgin, then the child she may carry may or may not belong to her current husband. This was a HUGE deal back then, as firstborns received certain things that the others didn't, and carrying on the family line was very important. Thus, if a woman was NOT a virgin, her desirability as a marriage partner decreased significantly.
I agree, but again, why did it end up being like this? And this argument is still not relevant to what is moral. Would you rather live by my idea of justice, or God’s idea of justice? In my world, virginity would not be an issue on inheritance – it would be irrelevant. Why is it do you think I can establish a clear set of rules and rights for women that everyone would agree is clearer and more ethical than what's in the Bible? Why is it I can say, "Women should be able to marry who they want without the blessings of their fathers because they are free individuals. Women should have the same rights as men. Men shall not have dominion over women because they are equal. Women can have premarital sex if they want because sexuality and morality are not necessarily linked."?
That's what I would say, not would God would say. And if people didn’t want to follow what I had to say, I would show them who had the power to do what, and I wouldn't punish people unnecessarily. Why can I say that while the Bible displays nothing beyond primitive barbarianism? Which society would you rather live in?
Things did not have to be the way we see them in the Old Testament. I have made them a different way from the beginning. Now we must ask which framework is the more moral of the two. You keep arguing within the framework of set rules and customs, as though God had to work with what was already there. God set the customs, and anything God didn’t like, he could change! God was in complete control! Please take a moment to think objectively, and stop making excuses for your religious book! If a man sees a woman who doesn’t want him, he can rape her, pay for her, and have her for the rest of his life. Do you think this is fair? Do you think silver is fair for rape? If you and your mother were living back then, do you think this would have been fair if it happened to one of you? My rules would not have permitted it. God’s rules did. Whose rules are more just?
But you see, no perfect god would allow this, and no perfect god had any hand in these rules. And no perfect god would allow the scientific mistakes, historical inaccuracies, additional cruelties, and laughable absurdities in the Bible. The ignorant people and their imaginary god were doing the best they could on their own. It’s time to stop making excuses and accept that the failures of the Old Testament demonstrate the lack of divine inspiration.
"Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.
The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of—a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price ... is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem!
The girl’s future is now assured—she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)—and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. The law has protected someone who was attempting to help the community, by preserving her virginity.”
That was quoting Miller. This is quoting me: “How is this moral?” Miller is absolutely pathetic here, but that’s what it takes to defend the Bible here. My framework versus God’s, which would you rather live in? I see no need to repost it.
The Bible should never be taken "by itself", just like we wouldn't do with any other document. It should always be studied and understood within its proper context of culture, economy, society, original authors/readers, etc.
I agree completely. Any document written by man should be looked at in this context. Rules are different however when it comes to claims of divine inspiration. We should expect a perfect, omnipotent god to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You can’t retreat into the argument that it was a product of its age when God was in complete control of what went into it. Philip is exactly right. If you fit rape laws within the context of society, you have to fit other cruelties and absurdities within the same context and see such claims for what they really are. If we say that the rules for rape are moral because they fit into the framework of people being primitive and barbaric, the rules for accepting whether Jesus was resurrected must also fit into the framework of people being primitive and barbaric – and primitive and barbaric people would believe most anything.
Jason:
” If it's not consistent then you can't logically conclude 'taphas' means rape. The fact is, 'taphas' is never used anywhere in the OT to describe rape. Don't you find this rather telling...?”
You cannot ignore my question with one of your own. You continue to argue that taphas was not used consistently for rape, but I am saying that no word was used consistently. I asked you for a list of instances of rape and which word was used. I could argue laqach was not consistently used, or chaqas or anah. What word was repeatedly used? We agree that some of those mean rape, but none are consistently used. Your argument is without merit.
First, the language used over and over again to describe Shechem's feelings for Dinah are of love and affection and he even sought favour in the eyes of Jacob. This is hardly a description of a rapist.
Jason, Shechem isn’t the one being raped. You are arguing that a rapist does not often feel madly in love with his victim, especially when the law does not explicitly offer the victim the right to object? The passage isn't talking about her falling for him.
Secondly, Shechem was "more honorable" then anyone in his father's house. Again, something that wouldn't normally be attributed to a rapist.
Jason, I am arguing that the rape of an unmarried woman was not a serious issue because there was no real punishment for it to begin with. It is then safe to say that men taking whatever women they wanted was commonplace. This is what we consistently see in societies where one group has strong dominion over another. Did we not see slaveowners sexually taking whatever slaves they wanted in 19th century America? Besides, look who else is considered honorable in the Bible: Noah the drunk, Solomon the polygamist, do I need to continue? These are no high standards. A man who forces himself on a virgin would not be excluded when it was excluded by mere marriage and monetary fine.
Thirdly, 'laqach' is used in numerous other instances to describe men "taking" wives without any indication of rape (e.g. Gen 4:19, 11:29, 12:19, etc.). The same can be said for the dozens of other instances where fathers "took" sons, God "took" man, etc. (e.g. Gen 16:3, 17:23, 19:15, etc.).”
I realize laqach has many other uses. So does anah and chaqaz, and we agree that those can mean rape, right? So why keep bringing this up? Now, again, show me where else the combination of laqach, shakab, and anah means something other than rape. I don’t believe you can because there are only two verses that do, and I’m attempting to show that they both mean rape. District Harvey has even admitted that anah means to take by force (not realizing ironically that anah was included later in the verse).
Look at context of both:
Deut 22: We have a rule in verse 25 for raping married women, so if the rule specified immediately after is not the rule for raping unmarried women, where is the rule at? You argue that 28-29 is not it, so where is it? It wouldn’t exist. So why a rule for raping married women and no rule for raping virgins? Why would God ensure that one punishment was clearly provided but not another? Why specify a punishment for just non-virgins? I have a hard time accepting that it would specify a punishment for the rape of non-virgins if one for virgins wasn’t going to be included. But I don’t have to accept that because it is specified immediately after, right where we would expect it to be. The rule is that a man who sees a woman, physically seizes her, and fucks her must pay a monetary fine and marry her because he has defiled her. Preceding sexual regulations do not include the physical taking and defilement, like we see in this supposed sexual regulation.
Gen 34: We have a prince who sees a woman, physically seizes her, fucks her, and defiles her. The later defilement (tame) that upsets the sons of Jacob is not the same (anah) as what the prince did. They are upset because they must choose between accepting a foreigner and having an unwanted domestic in Dinah. Both bad outcomes from the actions of the guy.
Further, look at words used for the rape in 2 sam 13:14. Chazaq is used to signify strength, and Anah is used to describe defilement through force. This complements Gen 34 and Deut 22 because Anah is used in both to describe that type of defilement.
Lastly, Jacob's reaction is hardly that of a father who's daughter had just been raped. In fact, the only time he gets mad in this account is after his sons kill Hamor and the others.
I have already explained that was not a serious issue. Men could take whoever they liked as long as they were willing to accept the consequences and the father didn’t refuse. The issue was that the prince took her first and asked for her later. This created a problem because they had to choose between accepting a foreigner and having an unwanted domestic in Dinah. Both bad outcomes from the actions of the guy.
Of course it's the same thing. One of the definitions of 'taphas' is "use skillfully" (see Gen 4:21, Eze 21:11, 27:29, 30:21, 38:4, Amos 2:15, etc.). In other words, just like in Exodus 22, the man in Deut 22 is manipulating the woman to sleep with him. This is why the author didn't use 'chazaq' here. 'Chazaq' explicitly implies force and strength, 'taphas' doesn't. Simple stuff.
No, it's not the same thing. Yes, one of the definitions is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) where as pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
District:
DISTRICT
The seizing included deceiving and seduction.
JASON LONG
This is a bald assertion because Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
DISTRICT
To the point, not only did the man seize the body but he also seized the mind too.
JASON LONG
Again, another bald assertion. See above.
DISTRICT
I’m sure more than one person reading this figured out how to get “dem draws” or seduce a woman before...Don’t act like you guys don’t know what I’m saying and it’s TOTALLY relevant to understanding this and other scriptures regarding this topic
JASON LONG
We are talking about the rape in Deut 22, not the deception in Exodus 22, so this is not relevant. See above.
DISTRICT
Is that right? Maybe we should look and let the reader decide
JASON LONG
Yes, it is right, so I will also let the readers decide. Deut 22 includes a physical seizing. Exodus does not. The attacker pays silver regardless in Deut 22. The father has the choice of giving his daughter away to a potentially deceptive man in Exodus. See above.
DISTRICT
What we are confident of from historical records is that only women of ill repute (prostitutes etc.) traveled alone or by themselves. Most women traveled with either their families or other women. Certainly not to imply that a prostitute couldn’t get raped, but it is more likely that she wouldn’t have or bring a claim. Therefore the word “find” in Deut. is more akin to “findeth” in Pr. 18:22 (mawtsaw) [indicating securing, obtaining, encounter or fall in the same condition with.]
JASON LONG
This is completely irrelevant because we are not debating the definition of find. However, the Hebrew word means to find, meet, or encounter. If we were to have this discussion, you cannot seriously argue that a woman would never be alone. But the find has nothing to do with the seizing, which is indicated by taphas.
DISTRICT
At either rate the word DOES NOT indicate “to jump” or “overpower” as you would to solidify to make the case for rape in this scripture.
JASON LONG
Your desperation is showing here. What word does Deut 22:25 use for “find”? Matsa. We both agree 22:25 is rape, and in this case of rape, the man first finds (matsa) the woman. What word does Deut 22:28 use for “find”? Matsa. So, it is clear from Deut 22:25 that no alternative use of “find” is needed to convey the idea of rape. Yes, the use of “jump” or “force” would solidify it, but it is not disqualified merely because it does not exclude it. Deut 22:25 does not use it, and we do not exclude it, because it is clearly a case of rape. We have already seen that there is no uniform way (from Deut 22, 2 Sam 13) for the Bible to describe rape.
DISTRICT
Therefore you would have to make a case of special pleading to use this scripture to support your claim.
JASON LONG
It is not special pleading because there are two instances of seizing, laying with, and defiling: Gen 34 and Deut 22. We could also argue that both Deut 22:25 and 2 Sam are special pleading because those are the only instances of rape being described in each respective manner. Further, it is not special pleading because of the context of Deut 22. We have a rule in verse 25 for raping married women, so if the rule specified immediately after is not the rule for raping unmarried women, where is the rule at? You argue that 28-29 is not it, so where is it? It wouldn’t exist. So why a rule for raping married women and no rule for raping virgins? Why would God ensure that one punishment was clearly provided but not another? Why specify a punishment for just non-virgins? I have a hard time accepting that it would specify a punishment for the rape of non-virgins if one for virgins wasn’t going to be included. But I don’t have to accept that because it is specified immediately after, right where we would expect it to be. The rule is that a man who sees a woman, physically seizes her, and fucks her must pay a monetary fine and marry her because he has defiled (anah) her. Preceding adultery rules do not include the physical taking and defilement.
DISTRICT
Payment would have to be made…totally consistent
JASON LONG
The difference is already explained above. Just because two outcomes both yield a payment does not mean that both outcomes are talking about the exact same thing. A speeding ticket and a parking ticket both yield monetary fines, but they are not the same thing. Paying a man for his daughter’s hand in marriage and paying a man for raping his daughter are both examples of payment, but they are not the same thing.
DISTRICT
Further your point about “lay hold” as used in Deut. 21:19 only proves the point that “lay hold” doesn’t necessarily mean a violent act.
JASON LONG
I have already said this, but as we both know, there are many definitions and translations for taphas, laqach, and chazaq. There are two instances where the idea of finding, physically holding, fucking, and defiling are mentioned: Gen 34 and Deut 22. Other uses of laqach do not include defilement, but these do.
DISTRICT
This is really not unusual or that complicated unless you have an agenda as it is obvious that you, as most atheists, do.
JASON LONG
I guess ad hominems are all that remain.
DISTRICT
So your assertion is wrong. Ex. 22 has all the bearing for Deut. 22 and Deut. 22 is only a restatement of the Exodus passage which dealt with seduction and premarital sex NOT rape.
JASON LONG
I have already explained how Exodus 22 does not relate to Deut 22. You can accept that, or not. Your choice.
DISTRICT
First of the people you mentioned are good people
JASON LONG
I merely pointed out how Christians all disagree on fundamentals yet all agree on the same conclusion. Different premises same conclusions. Almost as if the conclusion came first. Almost as if you were all nearly born believ…
DISTRICT
So far as the contrast between Deut. 22 and Gen. 38:2, you can’t argue that it’s any sort of rape one way or another because it’s not rape that is being described in either scripture.
JASON LONG
I have already stated it was not my intent to automatically say rape because there are indeed other uses of laqach. But there are two instances of laqach with known defilement. Context is important. It is difficult to compare these two without it.
DISTRICT
Well Jason L. In light of what you are saying the scipture is more than clear that It would have been no punishment for Shechem. The scripture wasn’t about punishing in Deut. 22, it was about committing and providing a covering for the spouse. Commitment isn’t a punishment in most cases-LOL
JASON LONG
The marriage would not have been a punishment, no, but not being allowed to divorce certainly would have been God’s attempt at one. And this is exactly my point. I have been consistent in saying that a man could have whatever woman he chose to defile as long as he was willing to marry and keep her. These are the rules of the OT. Women were treated as objects. Men had dominion over them. Not how I would have done things as God, but then again, I’m not an imaginary figure in the minds of primitives.
DISTRICT
No I am contending that if Deut, Exodus, or Gen. passages discussed or were describing the condition of rape we would see either of these two words or at a minimum a closer variation.
JASON LONG
WE DO SEE ANAH!!!! It is in both. Check your concordance! Here are your words: “1 Sam. 13:14 [sic, it is 2 Sam 13:14] “forced her” (anah) [which literally means that he exercised physical control against her pleading and emotional outcry].” And what do we see in Gen 34 and Deut 22?
Deut 22: “If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath (exercised physical control over – your words) her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Gen 34: “And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and (exercised physical control over – your words) her.”
So you really stepped into one hell of a debate ender there, didn't you?
And what’s worse, as I have consistently argued, we do not need to see the term for physically forcing when we have the combination of physically seizing and defiling (or even “forcing,” as you state anah means, which ends this debate), that when viewed in context, describe the exact same thing.
DISTRICT
and the conjugations of phrases that you suggest that indicate rape are not a convincing argument and certainly does not allow you to make a supportable argument for such. So in essence, you can make the argument as you do, but it is a comparatively weak.
JASON LONG
I feel I have made my case that finding/holding/fucking/defiling describes rape. There are two instances, and both are cases of rape.
DISTRICT
I think the evidence speaks clearly here. We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage.
JASON LONG
Again, you really should have checked your concordance before you embarrassed yourself here. So I'll post it again.
Deut 22: “If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath (exercised physical control over – your words) her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Gen 34: “And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and (exercised physical control over – your words) her.”
And again, yes, we have two terms that can mean rape. Sometimes they do not. There is no set standard, and there is no single word that is always used. There is more than one. There is at least two.
DISTRICT
We have clearly identified that Exodus 22:16-17 is talking about consensual sex
JASON LONG
Agreed.
DISTRICT
Deut. 22:28-29 is generally a restatement of the same passage with more descriptive language, thus confirming the nature of the passage dealing with consensual sex also. I think that the case is established that both Gen and Deut is dealing with consensual sexual activity and that sexual relationship outside of marriage aka sin, is what was humbling and defiling about the acts described.
JASON LONG
Disagreed. I feel I have made my case.
DISTRICT
That was what the retribution was about. The zeal of the Lord and obedience to the command of God to not intermarry with the heathen.
JASON LONG
And I agree that was what they were upset about. I have already explained this and you would not respond to it point by point. So here it is again.
Regarding your out of the mainstream interpretation of Gen 34:
One can easily state that he physically took her, went inside and defiled her (anah), fell in love with her, and wanted the father's persmission to marry her. You are right that they weren't upset over the forced act, but that doesn't mean the forced act did not occur, since other verses demonstrate that such nonsense was permitted in the OT. The sons were upset because it was now a no-win situation. Either the law would have to be broken or Dinah would become damaged goods (tame). They came to a mutual agreement, yet two of Jacob's sons would not accept this and killed him.
As you can see (turning your own chazaq argument from Deut 22 against you), this is a different form of defilement because a different word from the same story is used. The defilement during the sexual act is much stronger than the defilement that Jacob and his sons were concerned with. The "anah" (oppression, affliction) defilement from the rape is much stronger than the "tame" (sexually unclean) defilement that the men were concerned with, as you have demonstrated by offering 2 Samuel. So why the change? Not to mention this is the same defilement (anah, not tame) that we see in the other cases of rape (Deut 22:29, Deut 21:14).
Now it is not my intent to appeal to authority, but this is the scholarly consensus. Arguing that this is consensual and that the original defilement (not the later defilement) came from sleeping with a foreigner places you against the majority of those even in your own religion.
And now, you have admitted that “anah” would show up in cases of rape. Here it is. A less potent defiling would probably show up in cases where rape was not the issue, and as we see “tame” is the defilement that the sons were upset over, we see that they were not upset about the "anah" defilement.
And speaking of point by point, you also didn’t answer these:
Regarding your argument that taphas in deut 22 implies deceiving:
Just look in the previous chapter (21:19) for the nearest and clearest use. 65 uses in the OT and almost the entire lot clearly mean to exercise a physical force over. Nothing even approaches Strong's idea of "wielding" or "influencing" until a couple of passages from the prophets, and even those could be debated [see further the previous point about physical control over]. Your assertion that this indicates a "smooth talker" looks like wishful thinking to me. I could turn this argument right around and ask why "Moses" didn't use the exact same word in Deut 22 as he did in Exodus 22, if that's what he was doing. But I'm not going to - because I realize that more than one word can mean the same thing. It’s not an immediate disqualifier.
Regarding the feeling of Shechem for Dinah:
You are arguing that a rapist does not often feel madly in love with his victim, especially when the law does not explicitly offer the victim the right to object? The passage isn't talking about her falling for him.
Now getting back to your most recent response:
DISTRICT
So what would you have done Jason to make sure that people over a span of over 3,000 years would all understand exactly what you meant from the beginning? I mean would you tell the people 3,000 years ago things that they couldn’t relate to just so that we could relate to the message later 3,000 years later?
JASON LONG
I have already answered this, but you cut it and would not respond to it. This seems to be a familiar theme.
I said this:
Why is it do you think I can establish a clear set of rules and rights for women that everyone would agree is clearer and more ethical than what's in the Bible? Why is it I can say "Women should be able to marry who they want without the blessings of their fathers because they are free individuals. Women should have the same rights as men. Men shall not have dominion over women because they are equal. Women can have premarital sex if they want because sexuality and morality are not necessarily linked."? Why can I say that while the Bible displays nothing beyond primitive barbarianism?
DISTRICT
Would you describe a Saab or BMW in detail in 2000 BC so that we would know what to do in 2008? Then that would be a complete waste of time wouldn’t it? Why not wait the 3,000 years later to do that?…but then what about all those others 3,000 years before that didn’t get all the information necessary for their time? Won’t they feel slighted?
So let me get it right. The atheist thinks that man should not progress in his understanding of God over time because, well, “he should just tell us all we need to know all at once.” Then we’d be left with another dilemma. If God is so vast how can we comprehend and know all mysteries about him all at once? So that just fits right into the atheist worldview doesn’t it? If god communicated all his truths all at once and I fully understood everything then he’s not really God, he’s a finite individual like me and that’s what the atheist wishes to believe…the grand delusion that there is no God…
Darn those atheists they do come up with some pickles!!!
JASON LONG
I have reposted your straw man in full so that everyone can see it for what it is. We are talking about establishing a just and moral framework that would avoid centuries of needless female subordination, include clear punishments for the violation of all women (virgin or not), include a declaration that women are equal in every way to men, include a declaration that immorality sexuality and cleanliness are not linked, and allow women the same rights of men. The typical old argument that things were “this way” in the OT and that God had to work within the framework of the culture to make sure women had certain “rights” is without merit since God is the one setting the customs, rules, and regulations. He could have done things right from the beginning. He did not. He could have set things straight when they went wrong. He did not. Women suffered for centuries because of it. I could have gotten it right from the beginning, or I could have gotten it right once it wrong. No BMWs necessary.
Aiight Jason Long, you gave it a good college try, so let me bring this to a conclusion, please pay special attention as you haven't heard this before as I can tell by your argument up until this point:
JASON LONG
This is a bald assertion because Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it.
We must “read into it” the correct context of the argument which you don’t grant unless it favors your position. Failure to grant a correct and proper context only shows your bias and willingness to construct an argument which favors your position. In other words you’re being disingenuous with the text and more than deceitful, just down right irresponsible.
JL~ The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over.
This is an example. You said this now, but when it suits you you will say that it means rape, now which one is it? for example you went on a rant to this:
JASON LONG
WE DO SEE ANAH!!!! It is in both. Check your concordance!
I will admit I left myself open to that. A better statement would have been HOW is “anah” there as I believed I was talking to one who had a rational position of argumentation (but I forgot you were an atheist to begin with-did-dig-just kidding)
Jason Long~ Here are your words: 1 Sam. 13:14 [sic, it is 2 Sam 13:14] “forced her” (anah) [which literally means that he exercised physical control against her pleading and emotional outcry].And what do we see in Gen 34 and Deut 22?
Deut 22: “If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath (exercised physical control over” your words) her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Gen 34: “And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and (exercised physical control over” your words) her.”
So you really stepped into one hell of a debate ender there, didn't you?
And what’s worse, as I have consistently argued, we do not need to see the term for physically forcing when we have the combination of physically seizing and defiling (or even “forcing” as you state anah means, which ends this debate), that when viewed in context, describe the exact same thing.
So the point is clear you believe that “Anah” means rape in lieu of any other word. In fact my original comments regarding this was:
You and most atheists interpret that as taking one forceably (sexually) against their will. You stated the following: “take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape”
So far as embarrassing one’s self is concerned which one is it? Is it Anah, or the combination of Laqach and shakab? I guess you say that when we see either of them it’s rape??? Once again you seem to be interpreting as it suits your argument with no regard for the text or context. Further you said this in your original post:
JL~ “The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22).”
In essence you are making a word group argument no matter the context and I have demonstrated that that argument is unsupportable. I will further demonstrate why.
2 Sam. 13:14~ “Howbeit he would not harken unto her voice: but being stronger than she, forced her, (anah) and lay with her.”(shakab)
Note the progression in context. She was “forced” and THEN laid with. Clearly rape
Deut. 22:25~ “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her (anah) and lie with her (shakab); then the man only that lay with her shall die”
Once again the progression IN CONTEXT is that she was “forced” THEN laid with. Clearly rape.
Genesis 34:2 ~ And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her (laqach), and lay with her (shakab) and defiled her (anah)
Anah is used in a totally different sense in this passage.
The act of laying with IS NOT the act of defilement. Defilement is the product of the act of laying with. If this were rape anah would have PRECEEDED “lay with” shakab as it does in the passages mentioned above that CLEARLY outline the condition of rape.
Therefore anah to be used in this sense ONLY indicates the result of a sexual activity and in this case a consensual sexual activity.
Let me repeat IN CASE YOU MISSED this important point. “ANAH” BEFORE LAY WITH “SHAKAB” in the texts noted above that are clearly rape – 2 Sam. 13:14 & deut. 22:25) spells out the condition of rape. Anah AFTER at the conclusion of lay with (shakab) normally spells out a different condition all together and whatever we find WE DO NOT FIND RAPE in any of these texts. They describe consensual sex.
In addition, the sexual acts are spelled out with laqach and shakab DOES NOT indicate the condition of rape as you would have us to believe. In context we are to understand that he exercised his authority and control to bring her to him for sexual advances, this was not rape but a consensual act although she was a virgin and he seduced her mind by attention, money and all the other things that came along with him being a PRINCE. Next:
The text of the hour:
Deut. 22:28-29~ “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her (laqach), and lie with her (shakab), and they be found; 29-Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s fifty shekles of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled (anah) her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Once again anah is used AFTER the condition of “lie with” and in a totally different context and has NOTHING to do with rape. The word used in this context only has to do with the result both spiritually and or mentally of a premarital sexual encounter which is commensurate with what we would expect to see of a young Jewish girl and how she would be perceived within the community.
You WANT to believe otherwise but are aware that the context of your argumentation flies in the face of the proper context. You also are aware that the word anah which we’ve identified that clearly means to exercise control over also has a FIGURATIVE meaning with the same connotation and based on context the meaning is confirmed and solidified within the frame of word order.
You sir are a scripture twister to fit your arguments and have handled the texts wrongly and are promoting the wrong message of scripture to bolster your radical atheist position.
Further this event is SPECIFICALLY what was warned against in Exodus 22:16-17. You agree that Exodus 22:16 does not describe rape:
JASON LONG We are talking about the rape in Deut 22, not the deception in Exodus 22, so this is not relevant.
However Exodus 22 is the EXACT context of what we see that happened in Genesis 34. This is inescapable. Therefore if you see Exodus 22 as consensual sex, you MUST view both Deut. 22 and Gen. 34 as descriptions of the same. There is no escaping the fact. The more descriptive wording of the Deut. 22 passage does not allow you the ability to separate these passages (Ex. 22 to Deut. 22) as they were REASTATEMENTS of the SAME LAW as is common from book to book throughout the OT narratives and especially the 5 books of Moses. Even so my argument for WORD ORDER which is demonstrated by all passages STANDS!
Once again only a radical atheistic argument can be made otherwise, but that argument is UNSUPPORTED by either of the texts in any manner other than an emotional RANT
JASON LONG
Your desperation is showing here. What word does Deut 22:25 use for "find"? Matsa. We both agree 22:25 is rape, and in this case of rape, the man first finds (matsa) the woman.
The “find” (mawtsa)is not what makes this rape. The Anah along with the context or word order is what clearly identifies this rape.
Once again either you can’t keep up or won’t keep up because it doesn’t bolster your fallacious assumption. I chose to believe it’s the later.
Therefore, I have provided the evidence that scripture uses "anah" in various ways and in the related scriptures for this study "anah" is consistently and only used to describe the effects of premarital sexual union as it is used differently, BEFORE THE ACT OF LAYING WITH, to describe a rape within the scriptures that we can clearly identify that rape is being discussed....
My argument is supported by evidence NOT merely the emotion of wanting to call God's morality into question. As other's, especially Rachel has said, the way that God handled this type of condition superceeded other nations of that day and as Christians have allowed the Lord to develop methods over time a strong precident is established for the church to strive for in dealing with these and other types of situations.
Further I make no appeals to authority also I highly respect authorities such as Copan and Miller that make alternative arguments.
Later
Also so far as the "what I would have done better if I were God?" argument...we'll leave that alone...just know this you and no atheist alive or dead could have done better than God in an infinate amount of life times.
Later.
I’m going to throw my hat into the ring as a layman and freely concede that I do not read Hebrew. However, I have access to 19 OT English translations of the Bible via BibleGateway. Since translations are devised by scholars much more competent in this field then I or (presumably) anyone here, I take these to be at least as authoritative as any textual reinterpretations devised in this comments section.
Verse 25:
and the man force her and lie with her (6)
and the man seizes her and lies with her (2)
is raped out in the country
and taking hold of her, lie with her
and he seizes and rapes her
and forces her to have sexual relations
rapes her (5)
grabbed and raped her
laid hold on her, and lain with her
Verse 28:
and lay hold on her and lie with her (4)
and he seizes her and lies with her (4)
forces her to have sex
and taking her, lie with her
takes hold of her and rapes her
and forces her to have sexual relations
rapes her (4)
has intercourse with (NLT)
grabs and rapes her
caught her, and lain with her
I take it that everyone here agrees that v25 refers to rape, whereas v28 is being debated. As a self-professed layman, upon a plain reading of these phrases I find that, in v28, one does not even imply rape, nine do not explicitly refer to rape (though I do not think it an abuse of the text to read it as referring to rape), and nine explicitly refer to rape. Thus I conclude that half or even all but one group of English Bible translators, who having the power to render texts as accurately or as close to the original intent as possible, would share my conclusion that this is indeed a case of rape. Perhaps my approach appears too low-brow; feel free to tell me so.
DISTRICT
Aiight Jason Long, you gave it a good college try,
JASON LONG
Judging by how I am willing to respond point-by-point to your responses, whereas you ignored 50% of my post in my first rebuttal and 90% of my post in my second rebuttal, I would say this is a little more than a college try.
DISTRICT
so let me bring this to a conclusion,
JASON LONG
by all means
DISTRICT
please pay special attention as you haven't heard this before as I can tell by your argument up until this point:
JASON LONG
It’s wise not to belittle your opposition by telling him to pay special attention when he is willing to respond point-by-point to your responses.
DISTRICT
We must “read into it” [Exodus 22] the correct context of the argument which you don’t grant unless it favors your position. Failure to grant a correct and proper context only shows your bias and willingness to construct an argument which favors your position. In other words you’re being disingenuous with the text and more than deceitful, just down right irresponsible.
JASON LONG
Your assertion aside, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction, through argumentation and not assertion, that Deut 22 is not a retelling of Exodus 22. Ignoring it will not make it go away. You offered the bald assertion that Exodus 22 linked to Deut 22 because the seizing in Deut 22 meant a mental and physical seizing, thereby drawing a parallel to the mental seizing in Exodus 22. I retorted by demonstrating that Deut 22 did not include a mental seizing when I said this:
This is a bald assertion because Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
You didn’t respond – you merely lifted one sentence from this passage in your response: “The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over.” To which you now state:
DISTRICT
This is an example. You said this now, but when it suits you you will say that it means rape, now which one is it?
JASON LONG
I have been consistent here. I have stated that a physical seizing in conjunction with laying with and defiling constitute a rape when all such examples are viewed in context.
DISTRICT
I will admit I left myself open to that [ANAH would be seen if rape was implied].
JASON LONG
Yes, you certainly did.
DISTRICT
A better statement would have been HOW is “anah” there as I believed I was talking to one who had a rational position of argumentation
JASON LONG
So, you meant to say it or not? Be clear.
DISTRICT
So the point is clear you believe that “Anah” means rape in lieu of any other word.
JASON LONG
No, you are the one who stated that anah would imply rape when you said: “I am contending that if Deut, Exodus, or Gen. passages discussed or were describing the condition of rape we would see either of these two words or at a minimum a closer variation” and “We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage”
It has been my position that the physical seizing, fucking, and defiling (or defiling through force) are consistent with rape. Alternative ways that the Bible has shown rape is through the use of strength (chazaq), such as we see earlier in Deut 22 and the use of force (anah) through strength (chazaq) as we see in 2 Sam 13. It is clear that anah can mean force or defilement through force, as it is translated as such five times in the KJV. And it was your own words that we would see anah or chazaq if force were implied, and we do indeed see anah.
DISTRICT
In fact my original comments regarding this was: “You and most atheists interpret that as taking one forceably (sexually) against their will. You stated the following: “take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape.” So far as embarrassing one’s self is concerned which one is it? Is it Anah, or the combination of Laqach and shakab? I guess you say that when we see either of them it’s rape??? Once again you seem to be interpreting as it suits your argument with no regard for the text or context.
JASON LONG
I have no idea why you would think I have embarrassed myself. I did not commit a debate ending misstatement. I have already said that I did not mean to imply that the combination of laqach and shakab automatically implied rape, but that instead it was long understood to be a case of rape here. You are the one who said anah would imply rape, not realizing that anah was indeed in Deut 22. To answer your question (again), what implies rape here is the combination of laqach, shakab, and anah. Laqach by itself merely implies the physical seizing or holding. Anah by itself merely implies defilement or force. The combination of the three imply rape (physical seizing or holding / fucking / defiling or defiling through force). I have shown that in the two instances these occur together in the OT, rape is implied by the author.
DISTRICT
Note the progression in context [of 2 Sam 13:14]. She was “forced” and THEN laid with. Clearly rape.
JASON LONG
Yes, clearly rape.
DISTRICT
Deut. 22:25~ “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her (anah) and lie with her (shakab); then the man only that lay with her shall die.” Once again the progression IN CONTEXT is that she was “forced” THEN laid with. Clearly rape.
JASON LONG
Yes, clearly rape.
DISTRICT
Genesis 34:2 ~ And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her (laqach), and lay with her (shakab) and defiled her (anah)
Anah is used in a totally different sense in this passage.
The act of laying with IS NOT the act of defilement. Defilement is the product of the act of laying with. If this were rape anah would have PRECEEDED “lay with” shakab as it does in the passages mentioned above that CLEARLY outline the condition of rape.
Therefore anah to be used in this sense ONLY indicates the result of a sexual activity and in this case a consensual sexual activity.
Let me repeat IN CASE YOU MISSED this important point. “ANAH” BEFORE LAY WITH “SHAKAB” in the texts noted above that are clearly rape – 2 Sam. 13:14 & deut. 22:25) spells out the condition of rape. Anah AFTER at the conclusion of lay with (shakab) normally spells out a different condition all together and whatever we find WE DO NOT FIND RAPE in any of these texts. They describe consensual sex.
JASON LONG
So, let me get this straight. You wish to change your argument that “anah implies rape when used in sexual context” to “anah implies rape when used in sexual context provided that it precedes, in Hebrew word order, the act of fucking.” Is this accurate? Here is why I believe you have no basis for this new argument.
1. I reject your notion that word order has any significant impact upon the meaning of the sentence. It either means rape, or it doesn’t. We would never say that “I saw her. I took her. I fucked her. I zebbled her.” has any different meaning than “I saw her. I took her. I zebbled her. I fucked her.” Regardless of the meaning of the word in question, it means the same thing because the context is never altered. Perhaps if you provided a considerable amount of contextual examples where the meaning of a word changes according to its proximity to other words, I would consider this argument more closely. I can’t even think of any examples in the English language, although I’m sure that a few (out of millions) would pop up.
2. You and I both know that the Hebrew language, at least as utilized in the Bible, is often retrospective, especially in summary, about redescribing what has taken already taken place. Gen 1:14-16, Gen 1:27, Gen 2:3-4 come to mind. I could provide dozens if not hundreds more instances if I took the time. In these, God creates certain things of the universe, and immediately after, he is told to have created them again. He certainly did not create them again because the creation had already taken place. But the language is summary, describing retrospectively what has already taken place. I would add Deut 22:28-29 to that list because part of 29 is speaking summarily about what has taken place in 28:
“If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
And to which I will add this argument: If this passage merely speaks of consensual sex, why is the man not allowed to divorce the woman? Divorce is allowed in other instances, so why not this one? Deut 24 gives the rule for divorce. Even after the man has had sex with his wife, he may divorce her for some [ervah: uncleanness/shame] in her. Why is the man stripped of his right in Deut 22? Because the so-called consensual sex took place before the marriage? How is this relevant? Because it’s part of the punishment? If so, why is the woman not punished? Deut 24 allows the remarriage of the damaged goods, so it is not merely the fact that woman is no longer a virgin. Deut 24 tells us why the divorce is not allowed: because he has humbled/defiled (anah) her. But if anah merely has the connotation here of defiling through consensual sex, Deut 24 would not allow divorce because the woman would also have been defiled through consensual sex. Thus it should be clear that the defiling was the result of shameful force (indicative through the seizing/fucking/defiling).
3. I believe that you are merely attempting a retreat from your statement that anah would appear if rape were implied. Once I demonstrated that you had not checked your concordance, you manufactured this explanation post hoc to avoid admitting that you made an argument off the cuff that was clearly invalid. This is clear from what you said here: “We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage” If you had realized that anah was in there, I don’t think you would have made such a statement.
DISTRICT
In addition, the sexual acts are spelled out with laqach and shakab DOES NOT indicate the condition of rape as you would have us to believe.
JASON LONG
I believe I have demonstrated otherwise. Laqach and shakab imply rape when used in conjunction with anah (defilement [often through force]). If no force were implied, the author could have used the much less severe defilement term of “tame,” as we will again see.
DISTRICT
In context we are to understand that he [the prince] exercised his authority and control to bring her to him for sexual advances, this was not rape but a consensual act although she was a virgin and he seduced her mind by attention, money and all the other things that came along with him being a PRINCE.
JASON LONG
This is another bald assertion. Where does it say seduction through “attention, money, and all other things that came along with him being a PRINCE”? Is this another case of the Bible not saying something it meant to say?
DISTRICT
Once again anah [in Deut 22:28-29] is used AFTER the condition of “lie with”
JASON LONG
Agreed, but for my reasons why this is not relevant, see above.
DISTRICT
and in a totally different context and has NOTHING to do with rape.
JASON LONG
Disagreed, and I have explained my position several times previously.
DISTRICT
The word used in this context only has to do with the result both spiritually and or mentally of a premarital sexual encounter which is commensurate with what we would expect to see of a young Jewish girl and how she would be perceived within the community.
JASON LONG
I have little doubt that an unmarried girl who had sex would have been seen as defiled. Again, it is my position that the combination of a physical seizing / fucking / and defilement (anah – the more aggressive defilement compared to tame) indicates something much more sinister than a mere taking and fucking. We see this in Deut 22 and Gen 34. And my additional argument regarding the divorce rules in Deut 24 support this. And the rendition of 2 Sam 13 supports this as well.
DISTRICT
You WANT to believe otherwise
JASON LONG
I find this ironic. A man who has dedicated his life, his very existence, to defending and promoting a faith that he has likely identified with since birth is supposedly being objective. A man who was born with the same faith, yet left it after a pursuit of only the truth while desperately wanting it to be true, is being biased. My views are not easily biased; I base them on what the authors wrote in the text. If someone presents a better translation or interpretation of that text, I am more than open to accepting it. I have no dogma to defend. Apologists will typically defend inerrancy and the like no matter how grim their situation. Conditions around me play no discernable part in the conclusions that I have made about the book. I have read the Bible, studied what it means, and arrived at conclusions that are often unavoidable to anyone who is not trying to defend what they have been programmed with since childhood.
DISTRICT
but are aware that the context of your argumentation flies in the face of the proper context.
JASON LONG
So, you’re accusing me of being intentionally deceptive?
DISTRICT
You also are aware that the word anah which we’ve identified that clearly means to exercise control over also has a FIGURATIVE meaning with the same connotation and based on context the meaning is confirmed and solidified within the frame of word order.
JASON LONG
No, we have identified anah as having PHYSICAL control over. It does not have a figurative meaning with the same connotation, and I have demonstrated such with my argument that you have ignored twice:
Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
DISTRICT
You sir are a scripture twister to fit your arguments and have handled the texts wrongly
JASON LONG
I won’t call you names, and I feel I have demonstrated my position to the readers’ satisfaction.
DISTRICT
and are promoting the wrong message of scripture to bolster your radical atheist position.
JASON LONG
Glenn Miller, Paul Copan, and Rachel (and countless other apologists no doubt) also argue that this passage is one of rape. And as Reuben has showed us in his previous post, fifty percent of the translators explicitly mention rape while all but one of the balance leave the implication. Do all of these people have a “radical atheist position”? I think not.
DISTRICT
Further this event is SPECIFICALLY what was warned against in Exodus 22:16-17. You agree that Exodus 22:16 does not describe rape:
JASON LONG
I agree.
DISTRICT
However Exodus 22 is the EXACT context of what we see that happened in Genesis 34. This is inescapable. Therefore if you see Exodus 22 as consensual sex, you MUST view both Deut. 22 and Gen. 34 as descriptions of the same. There is no escaping the fact.
JASON LONG
Why do you keep making this argument when you keep ignoring my rebuttal?
Exodus 22: And if a man entice (pathah [entice/deceive/persuade/flatter]) a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Gen 34: And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took (laqach [take/fetch/seize]) her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
One is speaking of wooing and the other taking. Therefore Exodus 22 and Genesis 34 are not “descriptions of the same.”
DISTRICT
The more descriptive wording of the Deut. 22 passage does not allow you the ability to separate these passages (Ex. 22 to Deut. 22) as they were REASTATEMENTS of the SAME LAW
JASON LONG
I have shown that it is not a restatement because the idea is completely different. One is the physical taking and one is the enticement or deception. This should be clear to readers by now.
DISTRICT
as is common from book to book throughout the OT narratives and especially the 5 books of Moses.
JASON LONG
Yes, much of Deuteronomy is composed of restatements of earlier Pentateuch law (as Deuteronomy is likely Josiah’s forgery, but that’s another argument for another day). Here is one example:
Deut 5:7 – thou shalt have none other gods before me (acher elohiym paniym)
Exodus 20:3 – thou shalt have no other gods before me (acher elohiym paniym)
There are many others, including those that do not repeat word for word, but that contain the same idea. Our example is not one of those times because I have demonstrated that two completely different ideas are expressed in Exodus 22 and Deut 22.
DISTRICT
Even so my argument for WORD ORDER which is demonstrated by all passages STANDS!
JASON LONG
Assertions do not become more or less true when key words are repeatedly capitalized. It shows frustration more than anything.
DISTRICT
Once again only a radical atheistic argument can be made otherwise, but that argument is UNSUPPORTED by either of the texts in any manner other than an
emotional RANT
JASON LONG
So, to ask again, are Glenn Miller, Paul Copan, Rachel, countless other Christian apologists, and several biblical translators making unsupported, emotional, radical, atheistic rants? They make the same arguments. And does this sound like an unsupported, emotional, radical, atheistic rant:
Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
DISTRICT
The “find” (mawtsa) is not what makes this rape. The Anah along with the context or word order is what clearly identifies this rape.
JASON LONG
I am not the one who brought this red herring up to begin with. You made this argument:
DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY)
“What we are confident of from historical records is that only women of ill repute (prostitutes etc.) traveled alone or by themselves. Most women traveled with either their families or other women. Certainly not to imply that a prostitute couldn’t get raped, but it is more likely that she wouldn’t have or bring a claim. Therefore the word “find” in Deut. is more akin to “findeth” in Pr. 18:22 (mawtsaw) [indicating securing, obtaining, encounter or fall in the same condition with.] At either rate the word DOES NOT indicate “to jump” or “overpower” as you would to solidify to make the case for rape in this scripture.”
JASON LONG
To which I offered this rebuttal:
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
“This is completely irrelevant because we are not debating the definition of find. However, the Hebrew word means to find, meet, or encounter. If we were to have this discussion, you cannot seriously argue that a woman would never be alone. But the find has nothing to do with the seizing, which is indicated by taphas. Your desperation is showing here. What word does Deut 22:25 use for “find”? Matsa. We both agree 22:25 is rape, and in this case of rape, the man first finds (matsa) the woman. What word does Deut 22:28 use for “find”? Matsa. So, it is clear from Deut 22:25 that no alternative use of “find” is needed to convey the idea of rape. Yes, the use of “jump” or “force” would solidify it, but it is not disqualified merely because it does not exclude it. Deut 22:25 does not use it, and we do not exclude it, because it is clearly a case of rape. We have already seen that there is no uniform way (from Deut 22, 2 Sam 13) for the Bible to describe rape.”
JASON LONG
You tried to argue that “jump” or “overpower” would solidify my case, but I showed it was not necessary because the agreed upon case of rape in Deut 22 uses the exact word for “find” as the disagreed upon case of rape in Deut 22.
And you ignored my response when you accused me of committing special pleading, presumably because you couldn’t answer it:
It is not special pleading because there are two instances of seizing, laying with, and defiling: Gen 34 and Deut 22. We could also argue that both Deut 22:25 and 2 Sam are special pleading because those are the only instances of rape being described in each respective manner. Further, it is not special pleading because of the context of Deut 22. We have a rule in verse 25 for raping married women, so if the rule specified immediately after is not the rule for raping unmarried women, where is the rule at? You argue that 28-29 is not it, so where is it? It wouldn’t exist. So why a rule for raping married women and no rule for raping virgins? Why would God ensure that one punishment was clearly provided but not another? Why specify a punishment for just non-virgins? I have a hard time accepting that it would specify a punishment for the rape of non-virgins if one for virgins wasn’t going to be included. But I don’t have to accept that because it is specified immediately after, right where we would expect it to be. The rule is that a man who sees a woman, physically seizes her, and fucks her must pay a monetary fine and marry her because he has defiled (anah) her. Preceding adultery rules do not include the physical taking and defilement.
And you argued that Exodus 22 and Deut 22 were consistent because payment was made in both, to which you ignored my response on this as well:
Just because two outcomes both yield a payment does not mean that both outcomes are talking about the exact same thing. A speeding ticket and a parking ticket both yield monetary fines, but they are not the same thing. Paying a man for his daughter’s hand in marriage and paying a man for raping his daughter are both examples of payment, but they are not the same thing.
And you have ignored my statement on Gen 34:
One can easily state that he physically took her, went inside and defiled her (anah), fell in love with her, and wanted the father's persmission to marry her. You are right that they weren't upset over the forced act, but that doesn't mean the forced act did not occur, since other verses demonstrate that such nonsense was permitted in the OT. The sons were upset because it was now a no-win situation. Either the law would have to be broken or Dinah would become damaged goods (tame). They came to a mutual agreement, yet two of Jacob's sons would not accept this and killed him. As you can see (turning your own chazaq argument from Deut 22 against you), this is a different form of defilement because a different word from the same story is used. The defilement during the sexual act is much stronger than the defilement that Jacob and his sons were concerned with. The "anah" (oppression, affliction) defilement from the rape is much stronger than the "tame" (sexually unclean) defilement that the men were concerned with, as you have demonstrated by offering 2 Samuel. So why the change? Not to mention this is the same defilement (anah, not tame) that we see in the other cases of rape (Deut 22:29, Deut 21:14). Now it is not my intent to appeal to authority, but this is the scholarly consensus. Arguing that this is consensual and that the original defilement (not the later defilement) came from sleeping with a foreigner places you against the majority of those even in your own religion. And now, you have admitted that “anah” would show up in cases of rape. Here it is. A less potent defiling would probably show up in cases where rape was not the issue, and as we see “tame” is the defilement that the sons were upset over, we see that they were not upset about the "anah" defilement.”
And you ignored my response to your assertion that taphas can mean deception:
Just look in the previous chapter (21:19) for the nearest and clearest use. 65 uses in the OT and almost the entire lot clearly mean to exercise a physical force over. Nothing even approaches Strong's idea of "wielding" or "influencing" until a couple of passages from the prophets, and even those could be debated [see further the previous point about physical control over]. Your assertion that this indicates a "smooth talker" looks like wishful thinking to me. I could turn this argument right around and ask why "Moses" didn't use the exact same word in Deut 22 as he did in Exodus 22, if that's what he was doing. But I'm not going to - because I realize that more than one word can mean the same thing. It’s not an immediate disqualifier.
And you ignored my response to your assertion that Shechem’s emotions implied that a rape didn’t occur:
You are arguing that a rapist does not often feel madly in love with his victim, especially when the law does not explicitly offer the victim the right to object? The passage isn't talking about her falling for him.
DISTRICT
Once again either you can’t keep up or won’t keep up because it doesn’t bolster your fallacious assumption. I chose to believe it’s the later.
JASON LONG
It has been my experience that those who refuse or are unwilling to respond point-by-point are the ones who can’t/won’t keep up. You may believe as you wish. It’s a free country.
DISTRICT
Therefore, I have provided the evidence that scripture uses "anah" in various ways and in the related scriptures for this study "anah" is consistently and only used to describe the effects of premarital sexual union as it is used differently, BEFORE THE ACT OF LAYING WITH, to describe a rape within the scriptures that we can clearly identify that rape is being discussed....
JASON LONG
You simply need to refer back to my previous response to your word order argument.
DISTRICT
My argument is supported by evidence
JASON LONG
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t, as I feel I have demonstrated.
DISTRICT
NOT merely the emotion of wanting to call God's morality into question.
JASON LONG
Well, this begs the question of God’s involvement, but beyond that, I feel I have demonstrated that this passage speaks of the so-called punishments for men taking virgin women against their will. I feel I have also demonstrated who the one with likely emotional involvement would be.
DISTRICT
As other's, especially Rachel has said, the way that God handled this type of condition superceeded other nations of that day and as Christians have allowed the Lord to develop methods over time a strong precident is established for the church to strive for in dealing with these and other types of situations.
JASON LONG
And to which I offered this:
Why is it do you think I can establish a clear set of rules and rights for women that everyone would agree is clearer and more ethical than what's in the Bible? Why is it I can say "Women should be able to marry who they want without the blessings of their fathers because they are free individuals. Women should have the same rights as men. Men shall not have dominion over women because they are equal. Women can have premarital sex if they want because sexuality and morality are not necessarily linked."? Why can I say that while the Bible displays nothing beyond primitive barbarianism?
We are talking about establishing a just and moral framework that would avoid centuries of needless female subordination, include clear punishments for the violation of all women (virgin or not), include a declaration that women are equal in every way to men, include a declaration that immorality sexuality and cleanliness are not linked, and allow women the same rights of men. The typical old argument that things were “this way” in the OT and that God had to work within the framework of the culture to make sure women had certain “rights” is without merit since God is the one setting the customs, rules, and regulations. He could have done things right from the beginning. He did not. He could have set things straight when they went wrong. He did not. Women suffered for centuries because of it. I could have gotten it right from the beginning, or I could have gotten it right once it wrong. No BMWs necessary.
I think that you realize that you cannot answer this sufficiently.
DISTRICT
Further I make no appeals to authority also I highly respect authorities such as Copan and Miller that make alternative arguments.
JASON LONG
And I am merely arguing for the translation that they accept. I hope you do not think I accused you of appealing to authority. When I brought up their names, I merely suggested that all of you Christians get together and decide what means what before attempting to convince the atheists of what the Bible says. It’s hard for us to argue against twenty different positions from twenty different people who all somehow arrive at the same conclusion.
DISTRICT
Also so far as the "what I would have done better if I were God?" argument...we'll leave that alone...
JASON LONG
If it were my duty to justify an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god who uses rules and regulations that are perfectly indicative of ignorant savages, I would probably want to leave it alone as well. I trust that I need not repost my argument again. See above.
DISTRICT
just know this you and no atheist alive or dead could have done better than God in an infinate amount of life times.
JASON LONG
I have demonstrated that I have done better than what is in the OT. I have no doubt that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would establish a far better ethical system than what I have established. It is for this reason that I say that no god had anything to do with what we see in the OT.
And you have ignored my question about the shape of the earth on the other thread:
DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY)
“JL's (anti-apologetic) says that the concept wasn't there or that it wasn't specific. I say it was clearly there, although the understanding was based on what people understood in that day...”
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
District, he had two choices: a word that would have been right and not confusing, and a word that would have been wrong and not confusing. By your own admission, kadur could be interpreted not only as being ball-shapes, but also as being flat (from the encampment example). Not only would kadur be free of apparent conflict for the primitives, it would prove to be right for others later on. This would be impressive.
DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY)
“If God did reveal details that most atheists expect would validate God, then he would have certainly alienated the people of that day.”
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
No, he wouldn’t because, if it happened (and I have argued above that it likely would not), he would have foreseen it and explained it. He would state the world was ball-shaped and the he used one of his mysterious forces to hold everyone to the surface. The world is very large, and that’s why you don’t notice. This doesn't alienate people.
He would also have foreseen the thousands of people who leave his religion over such statements and made it right to begin with. No more excuses.
I’m still waiting for you to defend what you have said. Ignoring it will not make it go away. You accused me of making a sloppy assertion, so how do you explain this:
"In addition Isa. 40:22 made it clear that the Earth is circularly shaped and NOT flat"
How is it clear that the Earth is "NOT flat"? Even if I grant you that chug can also mean spherical (in addition to circular), how is it clear that spherical is meant here? There is absolutely nothing to your assertion unless we strip popular belief and replace it with contemporary understanding.
You’ve even contradicted yourself by arguing that chug was used to not confuse popular belief and allow them to maintain the belief of a flat world. How can it be clear when the passage uses a word that allowed people to continue an incorrect belief? It seems to me that you’re attempting two mutually exclusive arguments.
District, the verses Jason Long and you are looking at are only a part of the whole barbaric ancient culture in the OT. I notice you never entered this discussion. Did you miss it?
JASON LONG ~ Judging by how I am willing to respond point-by-point to your responses, whereas you ignored 50% of my post in my first rebuttal and 90% of my post in my second rebuttal, I would say this is a little more than a college try.
Jason Long, I haven’t ignored any of your argument that was at least pertinent to this discussion and to my understanding that was centered around did Deut 22: 28-30 that you say indicate rape and if so pose the critique that money was an acceptable payment for it, as if the bible promoted after the fact prostitution. You contend to both, I contend that it doesn’t indicate rape at all but only consensual sex. Then there is no secind argument from me because you have not passed go yet. I haven’t seen anything else noteworthy of attention otherwise.
I also would appreciate that you cease from cursing. It doesn’t make for good dialogue, is not courteous to those of us who are gaining an understanding that will finally put all of your atheist rants regarding this subject to bed and is further totally disrespectful to women considering the sensitivity of the topic.
Look Jason Long, I’ll cut to the heart of the argument again and will give you a introductory and beginners info in something called semantics and syntax. This is the easiest way to say what I have to say. The definitions for anah are as follows:
Anah (Strong’s 6031) has the following meanings: V - afflict 50, humble 11, force 5, exercised 2, sing 2, Leannoth 1, troubled 1, weakened 1, misc 11; 84
2a)(Qal)
2a1)to be put down, become low
2a2)to be depressed, be downcast
2a3)to be afflicted
2a4)to stoop
2b)(Niphal)
2b1)to humble oneself, bow down
2b2)to be afflicted, be humbled
2c)(Piel)
2c1)to humble, mishandle, afflict
2c2)to humble, be humiliated
2c3)to afflict
2d4)to humble, weaken oneself
2d)(Pual)
2d1)to be afflicted
2d2)to be humbled
2e)(Hiphil) to afflict
2f)(Hithpael)
2f1)to humble oneself
2f2)to be afflicted
This word comes from the word Anah which also means:
(Strong’s 6030) AV - answer 242, hear 42, testify 12, speak 8, sing 4, bear 3, cry 2, witness 2, give 1, misc 13;
1)to answer, respond, testify, speak, shout
1a)(Qal)
1a1)to answer, respond to
1a2)to testify, respond as a witness
1b)(Niphal)
1b1)to make answer
1b2)to be answered, receive answer
2)(Qal) to sing, utter tunefully
3)(Qal) to dwell
At NO POINT does the word ever reflect what you contend about sexual intercourse with the exception of “force” which is used 5 times biblically. In 2 of those times as both you and I agree this word indicates rape because it is BEFORE and in conjunction with the actions that we identify as rape. In the Deut. Scripture v. 29 the word comes AFTER the rape action and therefore is descriptive of the result of premarital consensual sex. You make the error of assuming context and making syntax irrelevant. Because of the variant meaning the ONLY way to interpret the meaning is to use the guides of syntax and semantics that are evident within the scripture.
“One of the fundamental principles of lexical semantics is that in a given context, a word will convey only one meaning (unless the writer intends ambiguity)” ~ Robert Hommel
note: 1. "When used in a context, the situation and the syntactic environment contribute to the choice between the several possibilities of meaning. The word has a specific meaning in that context" (Louw, Semantics, p. 40). "The context of the utterance usually singles out (and perhaps modulates) the one sense, which is intended, from amongst the various senses which the word is potentially capable" (Cotterell, p. 175, emphasis in original). Silva quotes Vendryes: "Among the divers meanings a word possesses, the only one that will emerge into consciousness is the one determined by context (Vendryes, in Silva, p. 139), and says this principle is "one of the few universally accepted hermeneutical guidelines" (Silva, p. 138.).
You see sex, and rape and immediately contextualize the complete conversation as such to your shame. Your assertions do not allow you to interpret the proper syntax of “anah”. You say I changed arguments NO, I actually thought I was talking to someone who actually knew what they were talking about with a biblical critique on the use of certain words and word phrases. You confidently ASSERT that the scripture says and conveys the meaning of rape but yet when we point to the syntax of the statements and grammatical use of words in statements you have NO CLUE as to what I’m talking about.
Don’t criticize the bible until you get a CLUE because you’ve displayed that you have NONE. Especially regarding this issue. This is why I said from the beginning that you handle this irresponsibly. It is incumbent upon you as the critic to make and accurate argument. You make NO ACCURATE argument, only assertions that the syntax of Hebrew is similar to the syntax of the English language etc. Sad to say this is the deficiency of your assertions.
Important point: You use Anah as if it is a descriptive verb in Deut. 22:29, describing the actions of the MAN in the sentence. It is not, nor is that intended, that’s why it comes AFTER the actions of sex as to describe the RESULTS of the sexual act. This is interpreting based on CORRECT SYNTAX. As stated part of the problem is that you confuse CONTEXT by assuming and jumping to conclusions about subject matter. That is the fallacy of your assertions.
For you to overlook these sort of grammatical importances tells me 2 things: 1- that you obviously have not consulted any linguistic references on these rather complicated issues and 2- your man Hector Avalos who is a linguist left you out on a limb to make a complete fool of yourself as he knows these basic principles and should lend himself to corrective guidance so that you can understand that WORD PLACEMENT is of high importance in writings of antiquity and especially when meaning is conveyed from one language to another.
So that’s number one.
Number two is your overall simplistic way of approaching scripture and word in general. The word anah is also used in instructions regarding the day of atonement. There are 2 scriptures (ONE IS A RESTATEMENT OF THE OTHER)
Lev. 23:27 ~ “27-Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD”
And
Num. 29:7 ~ “7-And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein:”
Now like the misguided soul that you continue to argue as, you’ll probably say these weren’t the same scriptures because one is longer than the other but as already proven you’d be wrong AGAIN and continue to look…let’s just say…bad.
Nevertheless, in both scriptures the word for afflict is “anah” Notice this has NOTHING to do with sexual intercourse or forcing anyone, but it has everything to do with a person’s body and soul or mind. This seems to be a foreign concept for you.
This is my complete argument. As stated from the beginning. This scripture (Deut. 22:28-30) does not indicate rape. The syntax and the grammatical useage of the words used do not agree with your assertions and when they do we both agree with the conclusions.
I’ll read the rest of your BOOK to me and if there is something that pertains to this argument or worth responding to I’ll get back.
Later
Thanks John, I'll check it out and thanks for you indulging my arguments on this topic.
DISTRICT
Jason Long, I haven’t ignored any of your argument that was at least pertinent to this discussion
JASON LONG
LOL. Whatever District. The proof is above, and reposted below. I feel that you are clearly unwilling or unable to answer my arguments, and as such, you dismiss them as not being pertinent to the discussion. My arguments demonstrate that Deut 22, when viewed in proper context, lead to the conclusion that it is speaking about rape. You can deal with them, or not. Your choice. Free country. But be warned, if you choose again not to respond point by point (not ninety percent), my next response will likely be only that you have not done so.
DISTRICT
and to my understanding that was centered around did Deut 22: 28-30 that you say indicate rape and if so pose the critique that money was an acceptable payment for it, as if the bible promoted after the fact prostitution.
JASON LONG
Speak English good sir. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. How can you claim to have such a terrific grasp of Hebrew when you clearly have difficulty formulating this thought in English?
DISTRICT
You contend to both, I contend that it doesn’t indicate rape at all but only consensual sex. Then there is no secind argument from me because you have not passed go yet. I haven’t seen anything else noteworthy of attention otherwise.
JASON LONG
Anyone can post such a statement regardless of the strength of the topics. I take the time to answer point-by-point because I believe every point of yours can be sufficiently answered. If my points were so weak, you should have no trouble responding to them directly, point-by-point. To me, that is the way to embarrass your opponent – not by merely asserting that they have been embarrassed. I have been in enough debates to know that when the going gets tough, those with no argument will hide from things that they can’t answer. I do not let anyone hide. I keep reposting the arguments until they are resolved. This might be a little different than what you’re used to.
DISTRICT
I also would appreciate that you cease from cursing.
JASON LONG
Umm, no. First, this is my blog. Second, I am not cursing at you; I am merely using the term “fucking” instead of “laying with” because “laying with” is a stupid way of saying “to engage in intercourse.” And it’s too vague. We are talking about the actual penetration, for which “fucking” is a perfectly suitable word. You may use whichever word you choose because words, by and of their selves, are not immoral.
While we are on the topic of requests, District, I would appreciate it if you would cease from worshipping a god who drowns little children for what they have not yet done. Now, that’s immoral, and I find it highly offensive.
DISTRICT
It doesn’t make for good dialogue,
JASON LONG
And how does my substitution of “fucking” for “laying with” detract from the dialogue? Because you have antiquated views of morality? Sir, you’re the guest on an atheist blog, at our pleasure. If you don’t like the idea of a sexual encounter described as “fucking,” you should probably find somewhere else to be.
DISTRICT
is not courteous to those of us who are gaining an understanding
JASON LONG
And how is it not courteous? You worship a god that drowns children for what they have not yet done. I think this is heinous, but you never heard me bring it before, did you?
DISTRICT
that will finally put all of your atheist rants regarding this subject to bed
JASON LONG
Whatever. Do you know what would put my “atheist rants regarding this subject to bed”? I complete point-by-point response to my arguments that sufficiently answer them.
DISTRICT
and is further totally disrespectful to women considering the sensitivity of the topic.
JASON LONG
This probably won’t sink in through your Christian bubble, but this is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen you type. You accuse me of being disrespectful to women when I am attacking barbaric rules and regulations of the Old Testament that place them under the submission of men, while you are defending God’s customs of the time merely because they are superior to surrounding areas? Please. This is absolutely pathetic. I am the one who would have exercised my power to grant them equal rights, protections, and privileges from the beginning. You are the one defending a God that does not. So please do not talk to me about being disrespectful to women. I do not support a text that places them in submission.
DISTRICT
Look Jason Long, I’ll cut to the heart of the argument again and will give you a introductory and beginners info in something called semantics and syntax.
JASON LONG
By cutting to the heart of the argument, you mean that you will not respond point-by-point and will again attempt to shift the topic off of my arguments in an attempt to have a stronger position.
DISTRICT
This is the easiest way to say what I have to say.
JASON LONG
Now that’s something that we definitely both agree on, and I give you props for it. Ignoring your opposition’s arguments and instead rehashing a different variation of what has already been said several times is definitely the easiest way to say what one has to say.
DISTRICT
The definitions for anah are as follows:
[snip]
JASON LONG
I am capable of reading an online concordance. Are you capable of responding point-by-point to my arguments? I have no quarrel with the renditions of anah.
DISTRICT
At NO POINT does the word ever reflect what you contend about sexual intercourse with the exception of “force” which is used 5 times biblically.
JASON LONG
And I have made my arguments that it does in the context of Deut 22, Gen 34, and 2 Sam 13, and you will not respond to them. I have also cited a number of biblical authorities and translators who side with me. You merely continue to repeat variations of your same argument while ignoring my responses to those arguments. You claim that my responses are not relevant, yet you do not explain why they are not relevant, much less attempt to answer them.
DISTRICT
In 2 of those times as both you and I agree this word indicates rape
JASON LONG
Agreed.
DISTRICT
because it is BEFORE and in conjunction with the actions that we identify as rape. In the Deut. Scripture v. 29 the word comes AFTER the rape action and therefore is descriptive of the result of premarital consensual sex.
JASON LONG
And I have sufficiently addressed this argument, and you will not respond to it. Here it is again, not that you will actually address it.
Here is why I believe you have no basis for this new argument.
1. I reject your notion that word order has any significant impact upon the meaning of the sentence. It either means rape, or it doesn’t. We would never say that “I saw her. I took her. I fucked her. I zebbled her.” has any different meaning than “I saw her. I took her. I zebbled her. I fucked her.” Regardless of the meaning of the word in question, it means the same thing because the context is never altered. Perhaps if you provided a considerable amount of contextual examples where the meaning of a word changes according to its proximity to other words, I would consider this argument more closely. I can’t even think of any examples in the English language, although I’m sure that a few (out of millions) would pop up.
2. You and I both know that the Hebrew language, at least as utilized in the Bible, is often retrospective, especially in summary, about redescribing what has taken already taken place. Gen 1:14-16, Gen 1:27, Gen 2:3-4 come to mind. I could provide dozens if not hundreds more instances if I took the time. In these, God creates certain things of the universe, and immediately after, he is told to have created them again. He certainly did not create them again because the creation had already taken place. But the language is summary, describing retrospectively what has already taken place. I would add Deut 22:28-29 to that list because part of 29 is speaking summarily about what has taken place in 28:
“If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
And to which I will add this argument: If this passage merely speaks of consensual sex, why is the man not allowed to divorce the woman? Divorce is allowed in other instances, so why not this one? Deut 24 gives the rule for divorce. Even after the man has had sex with his wife, he may divorce her for some [ervah: uncleanness/shame] in her. Why is the man stripped of his right in Deut 22? Because the so-called consensual sex took place before the marriage? How is this relevant? Because it’s part of the punishment? If so, why is the woman not punished? Deut 24 allows the remarriage of the damaged goods, so it is not merely the fact that woman is no longer a virgin. Deut 24 tells us why the divorce is not allowed: because he has humbled/defiled (anah) her. But if anah merely has the connotation here of defiling through consensual sex, Deut 24 would not allow divorce because the woman would also have been defiled through consensual sex. Thus it should be clear that the defiling was the result of shameful force (indicative through the seizing/fucking/defiling).
3. I believe that you are merely attempting a retreat from your statement that anah would appear if rape were implied. Once I demonstrated that you had not checked your concordance, you manufactured this explanation post hoc to avoid admitting that you made an argument off the cuff that was clearly invalid. This is clear from what you said here: “We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage” If you had realized that anah was in there, I don’t think you would have made such a statement
DISTRICT
You make the error of assuming context and making syntax irrelevant. Because of the variant meaning the ONLY way to interpret the meaning is to use the guides of syntax and semantics that are evident within the scripture.
JASON LONG
And I have asked you repeatedly to demonstrate how the definition changes according to word order. And I have asked you repeatedly to respond point-by-point to my arguments. So far you have done neither.
DISTRICT
“One of the fundamental principles of lexical semantics is that in a given context, a word will convey only one meaning (unless the writer intends ambiguity)” ~ Robert Hommel [note snipped]
JASON LONG
And I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that in the two or three instances in which seizing/fucking/defiling(forcing) occur, rape is conveyed.
DISTRICT
You see sex, and rape and immediately contextualize the complete conversation as such to your shame. Your assertions do not allow you to interpret the proper syntax of “anah”.
JASON LONG
And yet, you will not answer my arguments point-by-point, even though I have answered everything you have said. Why do you continue wasting my time and your time by telling me what you think I’m doing instead of directly answering my arguments point by point?
DISTRICT
You say I changed arguments NO
JASON LONG
Yes, you did on one occassion. Here is what you said:
“We have at least 2 words that could be used for rape (chazaq and anah) which are not even remotely hinted to in either the Gen. Deut. Or Exodus passage.”
Then you said this:
“A better statement would have been HOW is “anah” there”
It’s not as though you mistyped or miscommunicated your thoughts. You were misinformed and changed your argument. It was first your argument that anah was not remotely hinted at in the passages; it was then your argument that the word order made anah distinct from the actions. You changed your argument. I don’t need you to admit it because it’s clear to anyone still following this thread.
DISTRICT
I actually thought I was talking to someone who actually knew what they were talking about with a biblical critique on the use of certain words and word phrases.
JASON LONG
You can’t hide the fact that you complete blew your own argument by attempting to belittle my understanding of the text. Regardless of what you thought of me and my talents, your opinion of me had no basis for your mistake. You said there was not a hint of anah in the passages, then when I showed you that you didn’t know what you were saying, you changed your argument and said anah was not an action because it occurred later. You never would have said there was no hint of it if you had actually looked at the text in depth. I feel that this sufficiently demonstrates to the readers who wasn’t familiar with the text.
DISTRICT
You confidently ASSERT that the scripture says and conveys the meaning of rape but yet when we point to the syntax of the statements and grammatical use of words in statements you have NO CLUE as to what I’m talking about.
JASON LONG
And I have sufficiently answered your arguments on word order and grammar, point by point. Can you say the same?
DISTRICT
Don’t criticize the bible until you get a CLUE because you’ve displayed that you have NONE.
JASON LONG
Do you feel that this helps your argument?
DISTRICT
Especially regarding this issue. This is why I said from the beginning that you handle this irresponsibly.
JASON LONG
And I have demonstrated otherwise, to which you would not answer point by point.
DISTRICT
It is incumbent upon you as the critic to make and accurate argument.
JASON LONG
What on earth are you talking about? My position is in line with the majority of secular scholars, Christian scholars, and biblical translations. I am not the critic of what the majority thinks – you are. My original argument was over the unfairness of the difference between raping a married woman and raping an unmarried woman. It was you who wished to make a non-mainstream argument that the passage was not speaking of rape. District, you are the one who criticizes the rendition accepted by the majority in your camp.
DISTRICT
You make NO ACCURATE argument, only assertions that the syntax of Hebrew is similar to the syntax of the English language etc. Sad to say this is the deficiency of your assertions.
JASON LONG
Clearly a straw man. Please demonstrate where I have made such a statement that the syntax of Hebrew is similar to the syntax of English. I merely pointed out that in English, the only language in which I am fluent, the meaning conveyed is not significantly impacted by word order. I asked for examples. You provided none.
DISTRICT
Important point: You use Anah as if it is a descriptive verb in Deut. 22:29, describing the actions of the MAN in the sentence. It is not, nor is that intended, that’s why it comes AFTER the actions of sex as to describe the RESULTS of the sexual act.
JASON LONG
Why don’t you check your parsing information, District? You might learn something new. Anah in Deut 22:29 is in the Piel Perfect verb form. A piel perfect verb is one that describes the completed intentional action of the subject in the past, whether just completed or completed at some point in the past. Every major biblical translation renders the sentence as a descriptive verb of the man’s past actions because they know what they’re doing for the most part. They state that “he humbled/violated her,” not that “she has been humbled/violated.” The former would be a descriptive verb; the latter would be a descriptive result. They all utilize the former because this is was the text clearly indicates. The translators merely disagree on whether it was force or not. And when viewed in proper context, which is what I have been sharing with you, the anah was part of an idea used to convey a forced defilement.
DISTRICT
This is interpreting based on CORRECT SYNTAX. As stated part of the problem is that you confuse CONTEXT by assuming and jumping to conclusions about subject matter. That is the fallacy of your assertions.
JASON LONG
And I feel that I have demonstrated otherwise, your assertion aside.
DISTRICT
For you to overlook these sort of grammatical importances tells me 2 things: 1- that you obviously have not consulted any linguistic references on these rather complicated issues
JASON LONG
And I feel that I have demonstrated otherwise. The difference between you and I is that I will respond point by point as to why your arguments is wrong. I will not say that you are wrong, I will show where I think you are wrong. I will not ignore your argument and then say things like “you obviously have not consulted any linguistic references.” I will demonstrate using linguistic references why my argument is stronger than yours, and I will point out when you ignore my responses.
DISTRICT
and 2- your man Hector Avalos who is a linguist left you out on a limb to make a complete fool of yourself as he knows these basic principles and should lend himself to corrective guidance
JASON LONG
I believe this to be pathetic. I’m sure Hector, whom I have never spoken to before posting an anecdote for him earlier today, has much better things to do than follow and chime in on a pretty much dead thread that would take an hour or more to get caught up on. I find it humorous how you will dedicate time to posting such nonsense when that time could have spent on formulating a point-by-point rebuttal to my arguments. You will notice that I never take the time to drift off topic when there are actual arguments to be dealt with. Do I see things like “you notice that the other Jason has abandoned this topic and left you out on a limb to make a complete fool of yourself as he now knows his position is not attainable”? No. I am close enough to reality to realize that he no longer has interest in the thread. To suggest that someone who has not been involved in the thread, and to my knowledge has never even read the thread, has “left [me] out on a limb to make a complete fool of [myself]” seems to me to be reminiscent of throws of defeat.
DISTRICT
so that you can understand that WORD PLACEMENT is of high importance in writings of antiquity and especially when meaning is conveyed from one language to another.
JASON LONG
Word placement is of high importance in writings of antiquity? Demonstrate how. Don’t assert – demonstrate. How could something be of high importance based on the age of the language, and not the type of it? From your statement, one must assume that word placement is of importance due to the age of the language more so than the actual language. I would strongly disagree with your insinuation. Perhaps you should reword what you have said.
DISTRICT
Number two is your overall simplistic way of approaching scripture and word in general.
JASON LONG
And I feel I have demonstrated otherwise.
DISTRICT
The word anah is also used in instructions regarding the day of atonement. There are 2 scriptures (ONE IS A RESTATEMENT OF THE OTHER)
Lev. 23:27 ~ “27-Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD”
And
Num. 29:7 ~ “7-And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein:”
JASON LONG
Okay.
DISTRICT
Now like the misguided soul that you continue to argue as,
JASON LONG
District, please show some maturity when speaking to me. This is like the sixth or seventh ad hominem you’ve hit me with. I have stuck to the arguments and have not tried to attack your character or intentions. You may disagree with what I have said, but you can at least be respectful. I have not called you names I would normally call people who hold the positions you profess in your blog. I merely ask you to extend the same courtesy.
DISTRICT
you’ll probably say these weren’t the same scriptures because one is longer than the other
JASON LONG
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
DISTRICT
but as already proven you’d be wrong AGAIN and continue to look…let’s just say…bad.
JASON LONG
It is my position that no serious informed person, Christian or not, would say that I have looked bad at any point in this thread. It seems to me that you’ve been reduced to setting up straw men to attack. Why are you attacking this hypothetical “The two verses differ in length, therefore they are not the same” argument instead of arguments that I’ve actually offered? I think I know the answer to this.
DISTRICT
Nevertheless, in both scriptures the word for afflict is “anah” Notice this has NOTHING to do with sexual intercourse or forcing anyone, but it has everything to do with a person’s body and soul or mind. This seems to be a foreign concept for you.
JASON LONG
And here we have a straw man. Please demonstrate where I have ever said that anah had no other meaning than a sexual one. I have never said anything of the sort, therefore you are attacking a position that I do not hold. You are clearly confused here. The closest I can think of is where you had originally attempted to argue that taphas, not anah, had some sort of connection to the mental seduction of a victim – an argument which I feel that I completely demolished in my response, which you have yet to address (along with several other arguments I might add).
DISTRICT
This is my complete argument.
JASON LONG
That is apparent.
DISTRICT
As stated from the beginning. This scripture (Deut. 22:28-30) does not indicate rape.
JASON LONG
I feel I have demonstrated otherwise.
DISTRICT
The syntax and the grammatical useage of the words used do not agree with your assertions and when they do we both agree with the conclusions.
JASON LONG
I feel I have demonstrated otherwise with my arguments (not assertions, you may want to check the definitions there). Of course, you may not have noticed my arguments, seeing as how you would not address them, so I’ll post them again just in case you missed them. Again, ignoring them will not make them go away.
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
Your assertion aside, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction, through argumentation and not assertion, that Deut 22 is not a retelling of Exodus 22. Ignoring it will not make it go away. You offered the bald assertion that Exodus 22 linked to Deut 22 because the seizing in Deut 22 meant a mental and physical seizing, thereby drawing a parallel to the mental seizing in Exodus 22. I retorted by demonstrating that Deut 22 did not include a mental seizing when I said this:
This is a bald assertion because Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
You didn’t respond – you merely lifted one sentence from this passage in your response: “The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over.”
--
I find this ironic [that I want rape to be in the OT]. A man who has dedicated his life, his very existence, to defending and promoting a faith that he has likely identified with since birth is supposedly being objective. A man who was born with the same faith, yet left it after a pursuit of only the truth while desperately wanting it to be true, is being biased. My views are not easily biased; I base them on what the authors wrote in the text. If someone presents a better translation or interpretation of that text, I am more than open to accepting it. I have no dogma to defend. Apologists will typically defend inerrancy and the like no matter how grim their situation. Conditions around me play no discernable part in the conclusions that I have made about the book. I have read the Bible, studied what it means, and arrived at conclusions that are often unavoidable to anyone who is not trying to defend what they have been programmed with since childhood.
--
No, we have identified anah as having PHYSICAL control over. It does not have a figurative meaning with the same connotation, and I have demonstrated such with my argument that you have ignored twice:
Deut 22 does not speak of deceiving. Only Exodus 22 speaks of deceiving. I feel that you are reading what you want into it. The seizing of Deut 22 only meant to use physical power over. One of the definitions of taphas is to use skillfully, but it is never translated as such because it is not talking about “using skillfully” in the sense of manipulating but rather in the sense of “physically mastering.” In places where the definition of “using skillfully” can be applied, it is usually translated as handling, but always in the sense of “using skillfully” by exercising complete physical control over (e.g. handling a harp, handling swords) - never in the sense of manipulating. There are plenty of other words for that. Taphas is not one of them. Thus the taphas in Deut 22 cannot be the same as the pathah in Exodus 22 because taphas in these instances clearly means to exercise physical control over (took/seized/wielded) whereas pathah means to deceive. Therefore, Deut 22 is not a restatement of Exodus 22. Great attempt, but it doesn’t work.
--
Glenn Miller, Paul Copan, and Rachel (and countless other apologists no doubt) also argue that this passage is one of rape. And as Reuben has showed us in his previous post, fifty percent of the translators explicitly mention rape while all but one of the balance leave the implication. Do all of these people have a “radical atheist position”? I think not.
So, to ask again, are Glenn Miller, Paul Copan, Rachel, countless other Christian apologists, and several biblical translators making “unsupported,” “emotional,” “radical,” atheistic rants?
--
Why do you keep making this argument when you keep ignoring my rebuttal?
Exodus 22: And if a man entice (pathah [entice/deceive/persuade/flatter]) a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Gen 34: And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took (laqach [take/fetch/seize]) her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
One is speaking of wooing and the other taking. Therefore Exodus 22 and Genesis 34 are not “descriptions of the same.”
--
And you ignored my response when you accused me of committing special pleading, presumably because you couldn’t answer it:
It is not special pleading because there are two instances of seizing, laying with, and defiling: Gen 34 and Deut 22. We could also argue that both Deut 22:25 and 2 Sam are special pleading because those are the only instances of rape being described in each respective manner. Further, it is not special pleading because of the context of Deut 22. We have a rule in verse 25 for raping married women, so if the rule specified immediately after is not the rule for raping unmarried women, where is the rule at? You argue that 28-29 is not it, so where is it? It wouldn’t exist. So why a rule for raping married women and no rule for raping virgins? Why would God ensure that one punishment was clearly provided but not another? Why specify a punishment for just non-virgins? I have a hard time accepting that it would specify a punishment for the rape of non-virgins if one for virgins wasn’t going to be included. But I don’t have to accept that because it is specified immediately after, right where we would expect it to be. The rule is that a man who sees a woman, physically seizes her, and fucks her must pay a monetary fine and marry her because he has defiled (anah) her. Preceding adultery rules do not include the physical taking and defilement.
And you argued that Exodus 22 and Deut 22 were consistent because payment was made in both, to which you ignored my response on this as well:
Just because two outcomes both yield a payment does not mean that both outcomes are talking about the exact same thing. A speeding ticket and a parking ticket both yield monetary fines, but they are not the same thing. Paying a man for his daughter’s hand in marriage and paying a man for raping his daughter are both examples of payment, but they are not the same thing.
And you have ignored my statement on Gen 34:
One can easily state that he physically took her, went inside and defiled her (anah), fell in love with her, and wanted the father's persmission to marry her. You are right that they weren't upset over the forced act, but that doesn't mean the forced act did not occur, since other verses demonstrate that such nonsense was permitted in the OT. The sons were upset because it was now a no-win situation. Either the law would have to be broken or Dinah would become damaged goods (tame). They came to a mutual agreement, yet two of Jacob's sons would not accept this and killed him. As you can see (turning your own chazaq argument from Deut 22 against you), this is a different form of defilement because a different word from the same story is used. The defilement during the sexual act is much stronger than the defilement that Jacob and his sons were concerned with. The "anah" (oppression, affliction) defilement from the rape is much stronger than the "tame" (sexually unclean) defilement that the men were concerned with, as you have demonstrated by offering 2 Samuel. So why the change? Not to mention this is the same defilement (anah, not tame) that we see in the other cases of rape (Deut 22:29, Deut 21:14). Now it is not my intent to appeal to authority, but this is the scholarly consensus. Arguing that this is consensual and that the original defilement (not the later defilement) came from sleeping with a foreigner places you against the majority of those even in your own religion. And now, you have admitted that “anah” would show up in cases of rape. Here it is. A less potent defiling would probably show up in cases where rape was not the issue, and as we see “tame” is the defilement that the sons were upset over, we see that they were not upset about the "anah" defilement.”
And you ignored my response to your assertion that taphas can mean deception:
Just look in the previous chapter (21:19) for the nearest and clearest use. 65 uses in the OT and almost the entire lot clearly mean to exercise a physical force over. Nothing even approaches Strong's idea of "wielding" or "influencing" until a couple of passages from the prophets, and even those could be debated [see further the previous point about physical control over]. Your assertion that this indicates a "smooth talker" looks like wishful thinking to me. I could turn this argument right around and ask why "Moses" didn't use the exact same word in Deut 22 as he did in Exodus 22, if that's what he was doing. But I'm not going to - because I realize that more than one word can mean the same thing. It’s not an immediate disqualifier.
And you ignored my response to your assertion that Shechem’s emotions implied that a rape didn’t occur:
You are arguing that a rapist does not often feel madly in love with his victim, especially when the law does not explicitly offer the victim the right to object? The passage isn't talking about her falling for him.
--
Why is it do you think I can establish a clear set of rules and rights for women that everyone would agree is clearer and more ethical than what's in the Bible? Why is it I can say "Women should be able to marry who they want without the blessings of their fathers because they are free individuals. Women should have the same rights as men. Men shall not have dominion over women because they are equal. Women can have premarital sex if they want because sexuality and morality are not necessarily linked."? Why can I say that while the Bible displays nothing beyond primitive barbarianism?
We are talking about establishing a just and moral framework that would avoid centuries of needless female subordination, include clear punishments for the violation of all women (virgin or not), include a declaration that women are equal in every way to men, include a declaration that immorality sexuality and cleanliness are not linked, and allow women the same rights of men. The typical old argument that things were “this way” in the OT and that God had to work within the framework of the culture to make sure women had certain “rights” is without merit since God is the one setting the customs, rules, and regulations. He could have done things right from the beginning. He did not. He could have set things straight when they went wrong. He did not. Women suffered for centuries because of it. I could have gotten it right from the beginning, or I could have gotten it right once it wrong. No BMWs necessary.
I think that you realize that you cannot answer this sufficiently.
--
And you have ignored my question about the shape of the earth on the other thread:
DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY)
“JL's (anti-apologetic) says that the concept wasn't there or that it wasn't specific. I say it was clearly there, although the understanding was based on what people understood in that day...”
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
District, he had two choices: a word that would have been right and not confusing, and a word that would have been wrong and not confusing. By your own admission, kadur could be interpreted not only as being ball-shapes, but also as being flat (from the encampment example). Not only would kadur be free of apparent conflict for the primitives, it would prove to be right for others later on. This would be impressive.
DISTRICT (PREVIOUSLY)
“If God did reveal details that most atheists expect would validate God, then he would have certainly alienated the people of that day.”
JASON LONG (PREVIOUSLY)
No, he wouldn’t because, if it happened (and I have argued above that it likely would not), he would have foreseen it and explained it. He would state the world was ball-shaped and the he used one of his mysterious forces to hold everyone to the surface. The world is very large, and that’s why you don’t notice. This doesn't alienate people.
He would also have foreseen the thousands of people who leave his religion over such statements and made it right to begin with. No more excuses.
I’m still waiting for you to defend what you have said. Ignoring it will not make it go away. You accused me of making a sloppy assertion, so how do you explain this:
"In addition Isa. 40:22 made it clear that the Earth is circularly shaped and NOT flat"
How is it clear that the Earth is "NOT flat"? Even if I grant you that chug can also mean spherical (in addition to circular), how is it clear that spherical is meant here? There is absolutely nothing to your assertion unless we strip popular belief and replace it with contemporary understanding.
You’ve even contradicted yourself by arguing that chug was used to not confuse popular belief and allow them to maintain the belief of a flat world. How can it be clear when the passage uses a word that allowed people to continue an incorrect belief? It seems to me that you’re attempting two mutually exclusive arguments.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,
I do not mean to detract from the very specific items of the debate at hand, but I am hoping to get a response to my previous post. I realize that Jason Long has written a rather *long* response to sift through, and that your earnestness to do his “BOOK” justice may keep you from commenting on my thoughts.
So not to belabor the point, but I am sitting here at my computer reading and re-reading chapter 22 in my trusty ESV Bible (which my Hebrew Scriptures professor Dr. Stanley Walters will not let his students do with out), and I’m trying to not have an atheist agenda, or an evangelical agenda, or whatever other variety of agendas, and I’m staring at the same verses with a mild fear that I haven’t stared at them long enough, but each time I do so this is what I see:
v.22 – Consensual sex between man and wife of another man
v.23 – Consensual sex between man and fiancé of another man
v.25 – Man rapes fiancé of another man
v.28 – Man rapes a virgin who is not betrothed
Perhaps I have here missed out on the nuances of biblical interpretation, but then I again wonder why it is so easily read in this way. I turn to other translations, and I find that they too are so easily read thus, and half much more explicitly so. Your thoughts?
Reuben,
Thanks for your comments and I hope to address the issues you raise with this response and commentary.
Jason Long,
Thanks for your indulging my arguments regarding this subject. Be sure that I haven't made anything up and will address the only things that I consider to be of importance in this conversation. I don't follow atheist detractions to well no matter how lengthy they are and your's are rather lenghty.
One observation I have is that I am glad that you are arguing the "majority" Christian position which is at least a step in the right direction. With the exception of your total misunderstanding of the reasons for the scripture and what "payment" had to be made for, you're on track to be a successful Christian apologist.
So far as the "circle of the earth" statement and God revealing the shape of the earth to be circular, that's a dead argument and one that I have adequately addressed and you've responded to.
Now let's proceed back to Deut. 22:28-29.
I have held and continue to hold that the word found in v. 29 "Anah" indicates the shame or condition of being "humbled" that befalls the "damsel" and is NOT a restatement or description of a sexual action that you continue to irresponsibly hurl around with foul language.
My argument not only is scripturally sound but it plainly makes more sense than anything that you've said so far. Now you misunderstand my statements initially and I must take time to address them.
I said that "anah" was not even remotely hinted to or used and I stand by that statement. Although we see "anah" in v. 29 and in the Genesis 34 passage we do not see "anah" in v. 28 describing any type of sexual action. (neither does it do that in Genesis)Therefore my statements from the beginning are ON POINT, you simply question the accuracy because you believe that "anah" in v. 29 or "humbled" and "violated" in Genesis describes a sexual action or function. That is not the case as "anah" is only descriptive of the results not the cause in BOTH cases.
One rule is that the Bible did not and does not describe violent sexual actions graphically as you suggest and describe them in this thread. If you think it does you can render some references for consideration. I don't know of any.
To the point Michael Martin made and makes the same mistakes that you make. His criticisms are exactly like yours and I'm sure he is where you got this whole bogus concept from. In response to Michael's position (and vicariously yours) I submit the following:
"Beyond the misinterpretation of these matters, (Michael) Martin misses two of the most important points of the passage. First, the girl here has not been “raped” in the way that we think of rape. Ancient Israel was an agricultural society. People lived in villages in which everyone knew their neighbors. The case being described here is not analogous to our modern situation where a total stranger violently attacks a woman. Rather, it is like what has been called “date rape.” The young woman knows the man who forced himself on her. If the crime can be proved, she has the choice of forcing him to be hers (eye for eye justice), if she so wishes."
Let's stop there for a minute. You say to me rape is rape and force is force. I agree, however, it has been my contention from the beginning that this scripture describes a consensual relationship and sexual arrangement that "went bad" or NOT the way both parties intended for it to go. ie: the man (in this case) took control overwhelming the woman either mentally or emotionally as I have contended from the beginning. I said "used skillfully" not that the man used her skillfully but that he was tactical and knew how to subdue his subject. That's the case I make and you offer nothing other than the "majority" opinion against my position and say that "I made it up"...I don't care but you offer no defence to my argument other than emotional appeals and appeals to authority.
To the point of scripture, in the end the "No" DIDN'T mean "Yes" BUT she said "Yes" up to a certain point and even possibly throuought the event. That's my total argument. This was consensual.
Once again, this scripture does not describe a man overpowering a woman like you contend. You, like Michael Martin, want to believe that the Bible then endorses and encourages that she then has to be paid for like a prostitute by the rapist, and continually abused. Your whole concept is twisted and absurd. There's more:
"She may also refuse, in which case the man would have to pay a heavy fine without obtaining a wife (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).Second, if the girl does decide to marry the man, “he cannot divorce her all his days.” This is an important aspect of the punishment for the man. He must marry the woman, providing for her for the rest of his life. By saying that he cannot divorce her, de facto control of the family is put in her hands. She cannot be “forced to submit to him” after they are married. Even if she disobeys him, refuses to take care of the house, or even refuses to live with him, he has no right of divorce. Thus, he will have to win her affection and submission, or suffer her lordship. Again, the principle of eye for eye justice comes to play in the judgment."
So it is interesting that what you see and misrepresent as "barbaric" is actually a much better way to handle a seducer that wanted the "draws" so bad he couldn't wait...make him live in what he has done. That's NOT babrabism, that's taking responsibility for one's own actions even if they were done out of lust. Here's more:
"This, then, is a law that takes "date rape" much more seriously than we take it in the modern world. This is not an example of the Old Testament showing light regard for the woman's rights. On the contrary, her rights are protected and her future is guaranteed."
Like I said we (you and I)can't pass go because you're intent on perpetuating a fallacious argument.The word "anah" is out of place and does not describe what you believe it does and does not lead to any of the more obvious conclusions that it would if it were placed elsewhere
Special note: Since the question of rape committed by a total stranger is not part of this law about “date rape,” we might ask how the law of Israel treats it. The answer is that rape of that sort is never spoken of directly. It seems to me most likely that violent rape by a stranger would have been dealt with according to the laws about kidnapping and assault, for which the maximum penalty would be death. commentary provided courtesy of Rev. Ralph A. Smith at BERITH.org
I mentioned to you about the placement of words and syntax. You said give some examples and there are some that come up within Hebrew that change entire meaning of passages and take one passage one way or another using the same words. Let me simplify this instead of carring on with some technical jargon. I'll switch languages to make the point.
In French the phrase "God bless you" is "Que Dieu vous benisse" that phrase literally translated word for word is(Que) "that" (Dieu) "God" (vous) "you" (benisse) "bless".
There is a difference between saying "God bless you" and "That God you bless" The difference is obvious and the word order translation would need to be deciphered. That's where syntax and word order comes in (as well as context) when the word is moved or arranged the meaning becomes clear. In this case instead of a statement which seems like the beginning of a prayer, the statement is much more clear when the word is placed in the proper order.
In Deut. 22:28-29, I contend that "anah" in v. 29 was placed there to describe the woman and NOT the actions of the man and that the writer knew and understood this concept. This is the case from language to language. Syntax is essential in modern languages and is essential in languages of antiquity.
I won't give you any more lessons for free. Find out additional info and pay for it as I have.
In essence I'll conclude my observations in this thread as your statements, like mine, will essentially continue to be the same.
Reuben I will be glad to address any specific questions you have regarding my interpretation of this and related passages if they were not addressed in this response.
Thanks and c-ya round the way!
I forgot to add this:
Once again, I see NO scriptural reference that the punishment for rape WAS NOT DEATH. I do see ample refrences that the punishment for rape was death.
This is another support to my contention overall that this scripture (Deut. 22:28-29) IS NOT defining what we call rape, but is only defining a relationship that went too far BEFORE marriage and ended up sexually.
Later.
As I stated earlier, I would likely not respond to anything further if you failed to answer my response point by point because it's not a debate when you don't respond to your opposition's statements. I rest my case.
Post a Comment