Freethought & Rationalism Archive

douglas · 03-02-2007, 09:12 PM

I'm having a disagreement on another forum that I could use some help with. It involves this verse from Deuteronomy:

Quote:

28`When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, 29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

There's some debate about the meaning of the hebrew words used for "caught," which is "Taphas." The apologists seem to think this word and verse should not be interpreted as depicting a rape, but a consensual relationship.

What do you think? My understanding of Hebrew is weak, and I'm not sure how to tackle this one.

Amaleq13 · 03-02-2007, 11:22 PM

From The Blue Letter Bible
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

None of that sounds consensual to me.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-03-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

From The Blue Letter Bible
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

None of that sounds consensual to me.

That pretty much says it all, though I'm always curious as to why so many apologists always turn to a different translation of the word than the translators of their own, or multiple versions of the Bible have presumably scholarly arrived at. Well, not so much "curious" anymore; more like "not surprised."

They are, at least, indirectly accusing the scholars who have taken great consensual (no pun intended) toil in properly translating the texts into the most "god breathed" English translation they could possibly come up with of a fraud, or remarkable incompetence. It means that teams of presumably devout theologian translators couldn't arrive at the word "caught," with all it implies in this context, properly. What's the support for such a slight?

Particularly in light of the following line: "because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days."

He "caught" her and he "humbled" her. That's rape. And the sentence for the crime is freely given; "he is not able to send her away all his days."

If the context were "consensual" then how did "he" humble her, or catch her and why would he be sentenced to not being able to send her away "all his days?"

It's as if the apologist's goalposts are made of balsa.

Some cross to bear.

Nazaroo · 03-03-2007, 12:47 AM

If you believe in evolution, especially cultural evolution, what is the problem?

It obviously wasn't rape back then. You are looking at and judging the behaviour of ancient idiots with modern anachronistic glasses.

rape shmape.

How else could the tribe of Benjamin perpetuate itself after they all promised no one would give them a hoe in marriage?

Some fathers were probably praying,

"Take my daughter for instance.
...no really, take her!
She complains about the dishes,
and costs a lot to feed."

Others were probably muttering under their breath:

"My son/daughter is a gross and smelly as me!
How will I ever marry them off?
I know...I'll get the neighbour's boy drunk and
lead him into the tent....then aha!

You break, you buy, sucker!"

spin · 03-03-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Show some balls.

Show some decorum.

spin

spin · 03-03-2007, 01:36 AM

Rape, as we know the idea, didn't exist at the time the text was written in the culture. Just think that women not so long ago were the possessions of their family (ie their father) until they got married when they functionally became the property of the husband. (Goods and) chattel. The plot mechanism of Wuthering Heights, circa 1850, was based on iniquitous inheritance and marriage laws. Women died at the end on the 19th c. in efforts to gain women the right to vote.

In Deut 22:21 a young woman whose "virginity" was not "intact" could be stoned.

The verse cited in the OP 22:28 is a parallel with a prior verse 22:25, in which a promised virgin was forced. The major difference between these two verses is that the woman in 22:28 is not promised. The act of the male should be seen to be the same, just the circumstance of the virgin being promised is different.

Rape was an attack on the family and the value of the daughter. You destroyed the value of the daughter through rape.

Obviously these verses are dealing with rape, but with an extremely different view of society behind it.

One should not retroject modern ideas onto such a statement in an ancient text. If someone is foolish enough to think that the morality of that book is appropriate to today's society, they are probably not interested in any criticism you might have to say about it.

spin

Nazaroo · 03-03-2007, 05:09 PM

However, from a political point of view, it is extremely relevant that the various views on the status and rights of women, children etc. cannot be simply grouped 'by date' as though there were an orderly 'evolution' of ideas.

Just as in any downtown city, where one will find a 'modern' computer store firing out boxes of the latest technology right next to a shoe repair or 'greasy spoon' that hasn't changed its ideology or practices in 50 years,

So you will also find in every society, even the most modern one, a wide spectrum of conflicting ideas in circulation, all at various stages of development or elaboration. This is largely based upon cultural barriers and religious beliefs, as well as natural intelligence skills and educational differences.

So that we can really question how 'anachronistic' an idea is, even when it is thousands of years old. Projecting backward is wrong and truly 'anachronistic', but there is no avoiding the beliefs and ideas of those around us, even when they originated thousands of years ago.

luminous · 03-04-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

One should not retroject modern ideas onto such a statement in an ancient text. If someone is foolish enough to think that the morality of that book is appropriate to today's society, they are probably not interested in any criticism you might have to say about it.

The Christians I know cannot admit that anything in the OT is immoral, or that there's something wrong with the OT. They reason that if God inspired the OT, it cannot be immoral or inferior. God just decided to deal "differently" with the people of that time. That's why I think that it is important to show that the morality of the OT is inferior to the ideas of morality that we have today.

I have a hard time having a discussion on OT morality with Christians because even though they admit that the morality of some parts of the OT would be unacceptable to them today, I cannot get them to agree to the logical conclusion: that the morality of the OT is inferior or immoral. I don't know how they can logically maintain that OT morality is unnaceptable but not immoral or inferior. What do you think? Am I missing something?

Nazaroo · 03-04-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Am I missing something?

Not all Christians are fundamentalist idiots (?).

Solo · 03-05-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Rape, as we know the idea, didn't exist at the time the text was written in the culture. Just think that women not so long ago were the possessions of their family (ie their father) until they got married when they functionally became the property of the husband. (Goods and) chattel.
.....

In Deut 22:21 a young woman whose "virginity" was not "intact" could be stoned.

The verse cited in the OP 22:28 is a parallel with a prior verse 22:25, in which a promised virgin was forced. The major difference between these two verses is that the woman in 22:28 is not promised. The act of the male should be seen to be the same, just the circumstance of the virgin being promised is different.

Deut 22:21 sanctions the stoning of a woman who has been given in marriage but is not a virgin. But...
"...if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27).

The point is not she was engaged but that she was raped ! In the ancient Jewish law that was assault on the honour of her family; it did not recognize the woman as having a "legal identity" but she was protected ! If she was was engaged, the rapist destroyed the father's contract and would be killed. If she was not, he could buy his way into marrying her. Deut 22:28 stays silent on the woman's consent. She would be considered complicit if she did not actively resist, and even if she did and failed, in most instances the ancients considered her honour to have been compromised (as e.g. in Lucretia).

I strongly disagree that the idea of "forcing a woman" did not exist in antiquity, or that the legal implements were indifferent to it beyond the consideration of her father's reputation.

Quote:

The plot mechanism of Wuthering Heights, circa 1850, was based on iniquitous inheritance and marriage laws.

Mantrimonial Property Acts were enacted starting 1830's to better protect women's property in marriage. These existed previously through equity arrangement which considerably modified the common law's "couverture" rights of her husband. (see Mary R. Beard's "Woman as Force in History (or via: amazon.co.uk)" for excellent refutation of the feminist lies and distortions of women's historical standing). By the close of 1880's the protection of married women's property was such in most anglo-saxon jurisdiction that their endowment could not be touched even if the family was starving.

Quote:

Women died at the end on the 19th c. in efforts to gain women the right to vote.

...you should have said "died of natural causes".
The single death in the suffrage struggles occured in 1913 when Emily Davison threw herself under the King's horse at the Derby with the cry "suffrage for women" !. She had previously hurled herself down a prison stairwell but survived.

Quote:

One should not retroject modern ideas onto such a statement in an ancient text. If someone is foolish enough to think that the morality of that book is appropriate to today's society, they are probably not interested in any criticism you might have to say about it.
spin

One should not retroject modern or currently fashionable ideas onto any historical period.

Jiri

03-03-2007, 12:47 AM	#4
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Was 'marriage', now 'rape' If you believe in evolution, especially cultural evolution, what is the problem? It obviously wasn't rape back then. You are looking at and judging the behaviour of ancient idiots with modern anachronistic glasses. rape shmape. How else could the tribe of Benjamin perpetuate itself after they all promised no one would give them a hoe in marriage? Some fathers were probably praying, "Take my daughter for instance. ...no really, take her! She complains about the dishes, and costs a lot to feed." Others were probably muttering under their breath: "My son/daughter is a gross and smelly as me! How will I ever marry them off? I know...I'll get the neighbour's boy drunk and lead him into the tent....then aha! You break, you buy, sucker!"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2007, 11:22 PM	#2
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	From The Blue Letter Bible 1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield a) (Qal) 1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch 2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands) None of that sounds consensual to me.

03-03-2007, 01:36 AM	#6
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Rape, as we know the idea, didn't exist at the time the text was written in the culture. Just think that women not so long ago were the possessions of their family (ie their father) until they got married when they functionally became the property of the husband. (Goods and) chattel. The plot mechanism of Wuthering Heights, circa 1850, was based on iniquitous inheritance and marriage laws. Women died at the end on the 19th c. in efforts to gain women the right to vote. In Deut 22:21 a young woman whose "virginity" was not "intact" could be stoned. The verse cited in the OP 22:28 is a parallel with a prior verse 22:25, in which a promised virgin was forced. The major difference between these two verses is that the woman in 22:28 is not promised. The act of the male should be seen to be the same, just the circumstance of the virgin being promised is different. Rape was an attack on the family and the value of the daughter. You destroyed the value of the daughter through rape. Obviously these verses are dealing with rape, but with an extremely different view of society behind it. One should not retroject modern ideas onto such a statement in an ancient text. If someone is foolish enough to think that the morality of that book is appropriate to today's society, they are probably not interested in any criticism you might have to say about it. spin

03-03-2007, 05:09 PM	#7
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	However, from a political point of view, it is extremely relevant that the various views on the status and rights of women, children etc. cannot be simply grouped 'by date' as though there were an orderly 'evolution' of ideas. Just as in any downtown city, where one will find a 'modern' computer store firing out boxes of the latest technology right next to a shoe repair or 'greasy spoon' that hasn't changed its ideology or practices in 50 years, So you will also find in every society, even the most modern one, a wide spectrum of conflicting ideas in circulation, all at various stages of development or elaboration. This is largely based upon cultural barriers and religious beliefs, as well as natural intelligence skills and educational differences. So that we can really question how 'anachronistic' an idea is, even when it is thousands of years old. Projecting backward is wrong and truly 'anachronistic', but there is no avoiding the beliefs and ideas of those around us, even when they originated thousands of years ago.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.