Yep. DNFTT.
Ummm…
You spout this out and then ask the subsequent poster for a cite? His post WAS a cite. Where the heck is yours?
I like this part: “I don’t know the answer to your question.”
No shit, Sherlock. Thanks for your addition to the signal-to-noise ratio in GQ.
Well, read the story of Dinah in the Book of Genesis, if you want to see how seriously the ancient Israelites took the crime of rape.
Short version: her brothers slaughtered the man who did it, along with his freinds, family and followers.
I don’t say this to justify what they did, merely to show that rape was NOT a mere property crime to the Israelites.
I’m truly sorry. His post was a cite, I just wanted an electronic reference to the exact quotation, for reasons I’ve already stated. We oughtn’t exactly imagine that everyone on earth has a family bible sitting on, wherever they put them. I have no access to one, nor do I want to have access to one, for reasons already explained. I’m not Christian.
Astorian if you read the story of Dinah as presened in the Bible, as opposed to the Sunday School version we are mostly familiar with, you will see that there is no mention of rape.
Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. 2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and violated her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl as my wife.”
Note that there si only mention of violation, as in the sense of her no longer being a virgin. In the context of Schechem loving Dinah and speaking tenderley to her, proposing marriage etc as oposed to her running away screamig rape seems an unlikely, though possible, translation.
You don’t know the answer, yet you feel compelled to post:
Your comment adds nothing to the question and it shows intolerance and bigotry, neither of which are allowed on this board.
You are done in this thread. And if you make another such post on the board, you will lose your posting privileges.
I’m going to ask the other posters to ignore **Not In Anger **'s posts and return to the original question:
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Well, actually, the defiling/violation/humbling (depending on the translation) of Dinah always follows the clause or sentence explaining that Shechem took her, not that he seduced her.
Barring a Hebrew scholar popping in with an explanation that the original might mean something other than rape (a word that in English comes from the verb to “take”), I think your explanation is a bit weak. Falling in lust/love with a woman after the fact is all very well, but that is not the event that is described in Genesis 34.
The selection cited on rape, earlier, is a bit longer than the quoted citation (NIV):
God doesn’t seem to mind when Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:8), though maybe that’s justified by the fact that they wanted to rape his guests, who were angels in the form of male humans. The fact that they were his guests and that they were angels is at least as significant as the fact that they were male. Lot specifically mentions that he will not surrender the angels because they “have come under the protection of my roof”, and it seems that the purpose of the rape is humiliation and not sexual gratification (see Genesis 19:9).
According to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, if a virgin who is pledged to be married (as Lot’s daughters were; Gen. 19:14) is raped in a town, then both rapist and victim are to be put to death. This is because the woman could have cried for help and chose not to, thus betraying her future husband. Lot’s daughters may be a special case, because all the men of Sodom (Gen. 19:4) were in the crowd, and no one would have been able to help them.
This may all be moot because Lot is offering his daughters to the crowd, essentially giving them consent to have sex with them. So maybe it’s not rape at all – but I imagine Lot’s future brothers-in-law would have some recourse against him.
Several translations seem to indicate that it was all the men of Sodom that were in the crowd. I assume that this would include Lot’s future sons-in-law. If not, then they must have lived in Gomorrah or been killed in some other way, because Genesis 19:32 says that Lot’s older daughter tells her sister that there are no men to lie with them. The solution to this is incest.(Genesis 19:33-38; compare Leviticus 18:17*, 20:14)
*: “'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter…that is wickedess.”
References (NIV): Genesis 19, Deuteronomy 22
Roches if you read the full story from Judges mentioned above you wil find an almost identical incident where a man offered his concubine up to be raped in order to protect himself. No guests, no angels. In that case the crowd accepted the offer and woman was packed raped and then beaten to death.
Of course. A woman was her father’s or husband’s property. She could only be taken if her owner did not consent. That establishes nothing.
As I noted when i made that quotation “There are other bits on Deuteronomy about raping women who are engaged or married, but they could be interpreted as condemning the use of another man’s property as much as rape.”
Sorry,you are making that assertion without foundation (or only based on the popular notion that women in ancient Israel were property that, however popular, has not been established, here). Your interpretation may mean that the clear reading does not establish a genuine rape in your opinion, but you have provided no evidence for your assertion, either.
I submit that the relationship of women in Israelite society was more complex than you have portrayed it and that reinterpreting the “taking” to be a removal of Dinah from her father rather than accepting it as a standard reference to rape as we understand it needs more support than you have provided.
Bear in mind- the man who raped Dinah was willing to marry her and to pay her family a dowry. By the standards of the time, he was being very generous.
So, IF the ancient Israelites had regarded rape as a mere property crime, they should have jumped at the chance to marry their defiled sister off. IF Dinah were merely chattel in the eyes of her father and brothjer, they’d have shrugged and said, “Oh well, at least he’s willing to pay for the damage he caused to our property.”
But they WEREN’T willing to treat a raped sister simply as damaged goods to be paid for.
Which sparked the aforementioned war against the Benjamites.
Er, if he was forced to marry her because he raped her in the first place, why would he hesitate to rape her again?
And again and again and again?
shudders
Hmm, seems like there is mention of raping a virgin, but no-one has mentioned raping a wife yet.
It’s all very well to say that society was differant then to now, but since there are those who claim to take the bible quite literally, I wonder if they also hold to stoning the victim to death, and if they don’t then why not ?
…and if they do it just provide more evidence of the tosh that this book id filled with.
If that’s the case, then don’t ask for a cite. Where do you think the cite will be if the OP is asking questions about the bible?
Sorry for the last post. I replied before I had read the post from DrMatrix
Well gee, I wonder why I said “rape seems an unlikely, though possible, translation.”
Tom you seem to be going to great pains to scratch for alternatives and then restate at great length what I have already said.
Firstly I don’t think that anyone would want to live in such a relationship. Rememeber he was obliged to support this woman but she could promise to make the lives of any future wives such ell hat no one else was likely to mary him.
Secondly there were apparently fairly easy ways for a woman to ensure that he didn’t once she was married. No cite to hand, but I heard a Rabbi discuss this at length. In those days a woman essnetially controlled the cleanliness status of the household. By telling everyone that her husband had forced himself on her while she was menstruating she could essentially render him unemployable for at least one week every month. I suspect an accomomdation would rapidly be reached, you don’t fuck with me and i won’t fuck with you.
Yes we still have the same problems associated with the domestic violnce menatlity, but probabaly no more so than any other marriage.
Tomndebb: “…barring a Hebrew scholar popping in…”
Here I am.
In Hebrew (this is a rough transliteration:
“v’y’schav itah u’ya’ena” “and slept with her and ___.”
I specialize in Modern Hebrew, not Biblical, so I’m not sure what the last word means… perhaps another member who is more versed in Biblical Hebrew can help with this.
the word is spelled yud-ayin-nun-heh, but the closest I can find to that is “ostrich” or “answer”, neither of which is even remotely close.
To violate/rape (same word) is l’anos, the root being ayin-nun-samech. It’s possible that there is a connection between the words, but as I said, my grasp of Ancient Hebrew is quite limited in scope. The grammar especially confuses me. It seems to all be written in future tense.
Any friendly folks with further knowledge than myself?
Wow… I just found an online Hebrew lexicon.
- (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
- to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down
- (Qal)
- to be put down, become low
- to be depressed, be downcast
- to be afflicted
- to stoop
- (Niphal)
- to humble oneself, bow down
- to be afflicted, be humbled
- (Piel)
- to humble, mishandle, afflict
- to humble, be humiliated
- to afflict
- to humble, weaken oneself
- (Pual)
- to be afflicted
- to be humbled
- (Hiphil) to afflict
- (Hithpael)
- to humble oneself
- to be afflicted
- (Qal)
The word is in the first verb form (Qal, Pa’al in Modern Hebrew), so I just spend two posts covering absolutely nothing.