Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crownboy · 10-25-2002, 04:56 PM

I'm having a discussion with someone on another board about whether the bible endorses/makes light of rape or not. I used the scripture at Deut. 22:28, 29, using the NIV bible:

Quote:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered
, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

This seems pretty straight foward to me. I guy can rape a (unowned) virgin, pay a fine, and have her. Not a fair thing, IMO. Imagine a woman having to live out her life with a person like that. However, I got a reply that indicated that maybe the verse was translated wrong. Here's the reply:

Quote:

This is a simple wrong rendering of the Hebrew in the NIV Bible. If you bothered to look, you'd see it for yourself. Let me show you here:

Deut 22:25
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

See the word rape here? It is Hebrew word #2388, which is the definitive word for rape in Hebrew, AND THE MAN DIES FOR IT:

OT:2388
chazaq (khaw-zak'); a primitive root; to fasten upon; hence, to seize, be strong (figuratively, courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify), obstinate; to bind, restrain, conquer:

YOUR example is a DIFFERENT Hebrew word, it is word #8610:

OT:8610
taphas (taw-fas'); a primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably:

It is a term used for seduction not rape. A woman seduced goes WILLINGLY DUDE. So your arguement here falls flat.

Is there any merit to this argument? The reason I ask is because I know the NIV bible is a conservative translation respected by many fundamentalist (Pat Robertson endorses it

), and I find it hard to believe that the one hundred plus scholars who worked on the translation missed a chance to make the "bible look good" when they had a clear shot to. I'll try and look this up myself, but I also know many of you guys on the Sec. Web know alot on these subjects and you may be able to help me out. (the thread can be found <a href="http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=39288&site=3&page=1" target="_blank">here</a>, BTW. I use the same screen name as here.)

Your imput will be greatly appreciated.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: crownboy ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: crownboy ]</p>

Vinnie · 10-25-2002, 08:16 PM

First off, to ask if the "Bible" endorses rape is to assume its consistent in its message. As Raymond Brown said, "There is unity to the collection; yet one should be cautious of statements claiming "The Bible says . . ." even as one would not state, "The Public Library says . . ." when one means to quote from Jane Austen or Shakespeare.

On an individual level there are punishments for rape throughout the text. So the answer is that the "Bible" or these individual books or passaged do not view rape in a positive light at all. Isn't the death penalty mandated in Dt 22:25? The girl was pledged to be married and the man was to die for raping her. Now if the girl was not pledged to be married the man had to marry her (v. 28). This may seem like making the issue "lighter" or "toning down" rape but the death penalty was alread given earlier. Also, the man had to pay a large some of money. The fifty shekels of silver was equivalent to 5 years of labor. Take into account avaerage life spans then which were probably much shorter and this is a very significant amount of money.

Also the man had to marry her and could never divorce. In that culture he had violated her and it would have been very hard after that event for her to have found a good or respectable marriage partner. He cheated her of a well off husband so no he has to become it. This secured her future and she now has a garanteed support source.

The passage in Ex 22.16 speaks of seduction rather than rape.

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Remember that these laws were not carried out superficially either. There seem to be quite a few statements which portray rape as an evil crime. The one in Dt 22 puts it on par with murder! Simply reading the text and not accepting superficial commentary on it would reveal all this.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 10-25-2002, 08:24 PM

""""""""I guy can rape a (unowned) virgin, pay a fine, and have her. Not a fair thing, IMO. Imagine a woman having to live out her life with a person like that. However, I got a reply that indicated that maybe the verse was translated wrong. Here's the reply:"""""""""

Imagining a woman having to live like that today is totally anachronistic. It does not take into account the HUGE cultural differences. Also, as stated the fine was very large, five years of wages! And it was not so much a matter of "he could have her" but that he now had to support her and could not divorce her because he stole her "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 (Miller, ThinkTank)".

Further, many would distinguish between casuistic and apodictic laws here. They were not carried out superficially anyways. Try miller's piece on this for more information:

<a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html</a>

Vinnie

Jack the Bodiless · 10-26-2002, 02:37 AM

crownboy:

Your correspondent is wrong. It is quite clear from the context that Deut. 22:28-29 refers to rape.

The Biblical attitude to rape is that it is ALWAYS a crime against a MAN: the husband, or betrothed, or (if the victim is young) the father. Note the "not betrothed" part in Deut. 22:28-29 - as she's a virgin and unbetrothed, she is her father's property, hence the father gets the money as compensation.

Single women without male guardians are fair game. That's why it's OK to "marry" captured virgins after their male kin have been exterminated:

Quote:

Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Furthermore, men are frequently punished in the Bible by having their wives raped. Even God will use this form of punishment:

Quote:

Isaiah 13:15-16 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

A lot can be gleaned about the Biblical attitude to rape by searching for the word "rape" in the SAB's <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html" target="_blank">Insults to Women in the Bible</a> page.

Vinnie · 10-26-2002, 04:43 AM

Quote:

hence the father gets the money as compensation.

Can you substantiate that claim?

cloudyphiz · 10-26-2002, 05:41 AM

verse 29 says:
he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.

how much more substantiation are you looking for?

-gary

Sojourner553 · 10-26-2002, 05:02 PM

I clipped this from a discussion on this board by Hinduwoman. (I thought it was appropriate here. Sorry I didn't keep the link

Quote:

quoted from Hinduwoman
In OT, rape was not a human-rights violation, but a violation of property rights more like ; that is why if the girl was a virgin the rapist had to marry her --- no one would take damaged goods. Similarly in Koran, a man who commits adultery with another man's wife/property is punished, but he can rape as many of his slave-girls with Allah's permission, because they are his legal property.

In modern society we allow women to have lovers on the grounds her body is her own and she has the right to choose to do what she likes with it, while in Islamic countries they still kill women for it, even for being raped.

Too many people interpret the morality of biblical writers through their own contemporary (western) culture/values, instead of the morality of the culture that wrote the Old and New Testament. This is a perfect example.

Sojourner

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Butters · 10-26-2002, 05:13 PM

Posted by Sojourner,

Quote:

Too many people interpret the morality of biblical writers through their own contemporary (western) culture/values, instead of the morality of the culture that wrote the Old and New Testament. This is a perfect example.

Sojourner

So then you agree that morality is not objective, but culturaly relative?

case · 10-26-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:
<strong>So then you agree that morality is not objective, but culturaly relative?</strong>

Good question. Here's another one: if rape was moral back then, is abortion moral now? If morality is dictated by culture, I don't see why it shouldn't be.

Jeremy Pallant · 10-26-2002, 09:20 PM

I would add to this discussion an observation regarding Lot's treatment of his daughters when the mob came to take the visiting angels. His offering of his virgin daughters to the crowd certainly does not take into account how they might feel about it as human beings, but is more reminiscent of the offering up of property.

A similar story is related in Judges, chapter 19, though on this occasion the virgin daughter is refused, and the concubine taken instead, used all night, and then murdered by her master and dismembered.

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

10-25-2002, 08:16 PM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	First off, to ask if the "Bible" endorses rape is to assume its consistent in its message. As Raymond Brown said, "There is unity to the collection; yet one should be cautious of statements claiming "The Bible says . . ." even as one would not state, "The Public Library says . . ." when one means to quote from Jane Austen or Shakespeare. On an individual level there are punishments for rape throughout the text. So the answer is that the "Bible" or these individual books or passaged do not view rape in a positive light at all. Isn't the death penalty mandated in Dt 22:25? The girl was pledged to be married and the man was to die for raping her. Now if the girl was not pledged to be married the man had to marry her (v. 28). This may seem like making the issue "lighter" or "toning down" rape but the death penalty was alread given earlier. Also, the man had to pay a large some of money. The fifty shekels of silver was equivalent to 5 years of labor. Take into account avaerage life spans then which were probably much shorter and this is a very significant amount of money. Also the man had to marry her and could never divorce. In that culture he had violated her and it would have been very hard after that event for her to have found a good or respectable marriage partner. He cheated her of a well off husband so no he has to become it. This secured her future and she now has a garanteed support source. The passage in Ex 22.16 speaks of seduction rather than rape. If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. Remember that these laws were not carried out superficially either. There seem to be quite a few statements which portray rape as an evil crime. The one in Dt 22 puts it on par with murder! Simply reading the text and not accepting superficial commentary on it would reveal all this. Vinnie

10-25-2002, 08:24 PM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""I guy can rape a (unowned) virgin, pay a fine, and have her. Not a fair thing, IMO. Imagine a woman having to live out her life with a person like that. However, I got a reply that indicated that maybe the verse was translated wrong. Here's the reply:""""""""" Imagining a woman having to live like that today is totally anachronistic. It does not take into account the HUGE cultural differences. Also, as stated the fine was very large, five years of wages! And it was not so much a matter of "he could have her" but that he now had to support her and could not divorce her because he stole her "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 (Miller, ThinkTank)". Further, many would distinguish between casuistic and apodictic laws here. They were not carried out superficially anyways. Try miller's piece on this for more information: <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html</a> Vinnie

10-26-2002, 05:41 AM	#6
cloudyphiz Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: rochester, ny, usa Posts: 658	verse 29 says: he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. how much more substantiation are you looking for? -gary

10-26-2002, 09:20 PM	#10
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	I would add to this discussion an observation regarding Lot's treatment of his daughters when the mob came to take the visiting angels. His offering of his virgin daughters to the crowd certainly does not take into account how they might feel about it as human beings, but is more reminiscent of the offering up of property. A similar story is related in Judges, chapter 19, though on this occasion the virgin daughter is refused, and the concubine taken instead, used all night, and then murdered by her master and dismembered.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.