Need help from the bible scholars

Factual Questions
141

The question is about what the Bible says, not what later commentary says. We are hardly literalists. The moral evolution of Judaism is accomplished in no small measure by the interpretation of the Bible.
That the tribes were cursed is poor enough justification. First, the curse appears to have come from them being in our way. Second. quite a bit later we were the “cursed” tribe for Christendom and Nazidom, so justifying mass murder on that basis isn’t going to work.
However as I said, the question is what the writers of the Bible wrote, not how it was interpreted hundreds of years later. While we know that the stories were legends, there is no way of knowing what the writers and editors thought.

Same diff. The Bible is indeed somewhat more against rape than against killing the other.

I said commanded, you said required. Same thing. Indeed, the Bible does not support massacring your friends. How enlightened. It does support massacring your enemies, especially if you call them cursed. And especially if you say God commands it.
Do you really think that the writers of the Bible thought that the Exodus was made up? People today think it was real. When I was somewhat more observant than I am today I celebrated Pesach every year, and when I was a kid I definitely believed it was real. In Hebrew School no one claimed that the creation really happened - but our “history” book taught Exodus.

I guess you’ve read nothing I’ve written in the past 13 years. I became an atheist the moment I discovered how the Bible was actually written. And plenty of the Bible is a call to action, and plenty of people today do things as required by the Bible.
The OP’s question was not about whether the Bible commanded people to kill, but whether the Bible said it was okay in certain circumstances. And it does.
At the time the editors worked putting cities to the torch was no big deal. I’d be hard pressed to believe that they found it morally wrong. Now, Judea was more likely to be torched than to do the torching, but I’d like to see evidence they found it morally wrong. They could have easily omitted those sections of the story, after all.
Think of the morality of the Jericho story. How would the lone survivor and her family feel after seeing all their friends and relatives and fellow townspeople slaughtered? Judas had nothing on her. (Now that would be a great book.) If the editors thought it wrong, they could have brought up this point. But the way it was written God enabled the massacre by knocking down the wall and Joshua’s army did it and all (surviving) lived happily ever after.
And of course later interpretation in a more enlightened age says nothing about the intent of the editors.

142

One tiny quibble. The guy being ugly seems to imply that the woman would have some say in who she married. If for some reason the father didn’t want to basically sell the woman to this guy, then he has a great way of getting her despite that. Given the minor offenses with major penalties, I doubt his social standing would even suffer.

143

I believe the point you’re missing is this:

Rape in English common law was a hanging offense, regardless of the circumstances of the female victim. When prison came along, it was a 20-year or more sentence. Whether it got prosecuted properly, whether it applied to spousal rape, etc. -does not matter. It was a crime against the woman and the crown.

The rules about rape in the bible, by contrast, are not to protect the woman - they are to shield the patriarch and family from shame and being cuckolded, and the risk of violence when men tried to settle fights over women. Taking another man’s wife was wrong - logically, it could lead to some very nasty fights and disrupt public order. Taking his maidservants, also bad. They were his property to “take”. Taking his daughters - well, you broke it, you bought it. (Unless it was Lot. He couldn’t even give them away… Whereas threatening to rape angels - fire and brimstone.)

The context is fairly simple for the time. There was no “independent living”. Without police, law and order, etc - a woman had to live in the household under the protection of a man. To be fair, most extended families lived together for the same protection. Even today, looking out for the extended family and the (related) clan is the primary concern of many middle eastern societies.

Taking a man’s wife meant he risked the embarrassment of being forced to raise someone else’s child. Similarly, if you knocked up his maidservant.

For daughters - well, they were married off. An ex-virgin daughter was difficult if not impossible to unload on someone else. Plus part of the problem was the warped insecure male mentality. Did she ask for it? Would she go back for more? Hence, the option, the person who first defiles the single woman keeps her. It seems the girl’s consent was irrelevant.

(Or there’s the rural Pakistani option, simply kill the woman who brought shame on her family by being the victim of rape…)

Plus, even in biblical times, I’m sure there was the whole he-said-she-said issue - what do you do when the only evidence is conflicting testimony an the only punishment is death? Kill a man who may be a family’s source of food and protection based on the word of a mere woman? (Plus, in that judgemental society, she would have reason to lie…) Simplest solution all around was make the man responsible for the woman.

(And oddly, marrying a widow was not considered accepting “damaged goods” - presumably because, once you were sure she wasn’t carrying the dead guy’s child - well, it’s not like she’s going to sneak off and fool around with him.)

144

You should hardly be lecturing someone on fallacies. Rape being okay means it is okay in certain circumstances, not always. And it clearly was.
Saying that it is okay for a starving child to steal bread from a well stocked bakery is hardly claiming that theft is always okay - but it is indeed saying that theft is not always wrong.

You think they payment was a penalty? I think it was payment to the father for the effective taking of his property, or the damaging of his property, since virginity was a valuable thing at the time.

145

No, it’s like claiming it was OK in the Iliad because doing it clearly propitiated the gods, at least temporarily. And even that grossly understates the case, because Agamemnon’s sacrifice really is a one-off thing in Greek myth, and Agamemnon clearly met a bad end because of it, while killing babies is part of God’s eternal law in the Hebrew Bible, and the people who did it (according to the Bible) were honored and rewarded for it. Moses was punished for hitting a rock with his staff, but not for slaughtering babies. Joshua, in personal command of several baby-killing massacres, was honored without exception.

A much better analogy to Agamemnon would have been Jephthah, who made an idiotic vow to sacrifice whoever he saw coming out of his door when he returned home from battle, as if he expected his house to be full of Ammonites. Of course it was his daughter, and being an honorable man, he had to sacrifice her.

Nobody would claim that that means the Bible thinks sacrificing your daughter is OK. It’s evidently meant as a cautionary tale against being an idiot. But surely even you can see the difference between a one-off anecdote like that story, and a formal commandment from God that was never rescinded.

And yet, you continue to try to portray the Law of Moses as a one-off anecdote. You are not doing your credibility any favors here.

Anyone who’s read any of my posts on religion knows that I think the Bible is fiction, so obviously I’m not claiming that killing babies was OK in historic ancient Israel. I’m claiming it was OK in the Hebrew Bible, because the Hebrew Bible clearly commanded it – in the same Law of Moses, and with the same authority and permanence, as the Ten Commandments. The fact that it didn’t command that all babies at all times be killed is no more relevant than the fact that all people at all times weren’t enslaved in the US. The US still condoned slavery, and the Hebrew Bible still condoned killing babies.

146

You’re just flailing now. 50 shekels is ten times five shekels no matter what era you’re in, so I’m on very firm ground saying that the fine was ten times the nominal fee paid to the priests on the occasion of the birth of your firstborn son. And since the fine was paid to the father, and not the woman or the authorities, it is clearly compensation for depriving the father of a cook and seamstress and possible alliance-former, rather than something punitive.

That law is not a prohibition; it merely gives rules to follow in conducting a proper rape. I can’t play 18 holes at the local golf course unless I pay $150, which is probably comparable to that fine. That is hardly a prohibition, and the simple fact is that there is NO prohibition in the Hebrew Bible against the rape of an unattached woman, while there are prohibitions against dozens of very trifling offenses.

But all of that is beside the point, because it’s a law regarding Israelite women. There is no question that the rape of enemy women is condoned, and that’s all the OP needs. Again, the fact that rape is not condoned against all women at all times does not change things.

147

Is rape actually ever condemned for itself in the OT? I mean, a case where rape without adultery is condemned, or a case where adultery + rape gets a stiffer sentence than adultery alone? Every single passage I’ve seen condemns adultery without a mention of whether or not the woman consents to it.

148

There’s Susannah, an apocryphal text from the Old Testament.

But again, the main context is “bearing false witness” and Susannah is married, so it’s an inducement to commit adultery, an offence against the husband too.

I suspect the issue was that any claim of physical rape (i.e. force) is likely to deteriorate into a he-said-she-said and require the judge to decide who was telling the truth - so the simple offence was for the woman to have sex with anyone other than her husband (or master). If a man has sex with a married woman or “maidservant” then he hath offended the husband/owner. If a man has sex with an unattached women, then he bought her unless her family wants to take care of her (since odds are, nobody else will want her).

The bit about “in the city/in the country” makes it possible for the woman to claim being forced as her defence. If she could have raised alarm and did not, she is assumed to be complicit.

149

It’s pretty bizarre that a rape victim would even need a defense. And it’s pretty bizarre that an omniscient God is too dumb to think of any of several ways that a woman could be raped without being allowed to scream. Maybe they didn’t have rufies back then, but they had blows to the head, knives to the throat, and choking. It only took a lump like me a couple seconds to think of those, and I don’t consider myself an expert on rape techniques.

150

Then anything today which is punishable by a mere fine is not “prohibited?” You would say it’s not prohibited to go 90MPH in a 50 zone, since all you have to do is pay a fine? :rolleyes::dubious:

151

We’re not talking about today’s society, when in most countries and states, the death penalty isn’t an option even for the most heinous crimes. We’re talking about the Law of Moses, where the death penalty is invoked for all kinds of things, including being a “stubborn or rebellious” child, gathering sticks on the Sabbath, tolerating apostasy, and consensual premarital sex (only if you’re a woman, of course). Oh yeah, and for being a rape victim yourself, inside the city limits.

In that context, prohibited actions result in your execution. A fine is a regulation, or at most a discouragement, not a prohibition.

Even in the example you gave, a driver can’t go 90 as often as he wants. He may get a warning for his first offense, followed by fines that escalate with each additional offense, followed by his license being taken away. If he keeps driving even then, he’ll eventually go to jail.

There is no such mechanism in the Law of Moses. Evidently, a man with enough money can rape (unattached) women as often as he pleases, and the fine for the 100th woman he rapes is the same as for the first, unless he has to add a room to his house to accommodate his extra wives.

To put it another way, if you tell me that if I commit rape, I’ll go to jail for a long time, I consider that a prohibition. If you tell me that if I commit rape, the girl has to marry me, and I only pay a small fine, I consider that a bargain, especially with all the expensive dinners and shows I won’t have to bother with.

152

But if he intends to marry them anyway, why rape them first?

153

That is a divine mystery, but I would imagine that she may have a doting father who actually takes her wishes into account when choosing a husband for her. Or the father and groom might have different ideas about the proper age for a wife.

154

Keep in mind the problem - this is a pretty short list of offenses and very limited in the nuances or details.

The problem is that the laws back then were for maintaining social order. They didn’t have police per se, and some offenses tended to create blood feuds if not settled. The list shows what the resolution of many offenses would be, so as to satisfy “justice” and prevent blood feuds which turn into vendettas and tit-for-tat murders. If an offense was so serious the offender might be killed by the offended party and his clan, then the law would judge the appropriate outcome to preserve order - decree the death penalty if warranted.

In context, many offenses and punishments made sense. There was no room for someone to set out and “make their own way in the world” for example. A man who left his father’s house had no money, no assets, and no place to live and was as likely as not to end up a bandit in the hills - hence the death penalty for insulting your father. (It did not hurt that it was a patriarchal society).

Also keep in mind, from what little I’ve read, there is no specific offense of rape. The social position of women was fairly low on the social totem pole. Sex out of wedlock is forbidden - and a man having sex with a “pre-owned” woman was an offense against the “owner”. The punishment was intended to satisfy the husband/owner’s need for revenge.

Whether the woman was forced does not seem to have been a separate crime. This obviates the need to make a decision who was lying, and possibly deserved death, based on the say-so of their opponent. In the days before blood-typing and DNA, and even fingerprinting, a simple defence of “she’s lying, it wasn’t me” was probably enough to create doubt. If the old story about the American south refusing to believe black witnesses against white people is true, imagine what weight a patriarchal society would give to a woman’s testimony against a man?

For unmarried women, the problem was that most men did not want to marry a woman who had had sex with someone else. Deep in the average insecure male’s mind, no doubt, was the lingering doubt that the woman was complicit; after marriage, she would still seek out other men. She could be carrying someone else’s child, she might still make him a cuckold. Women who did not marry were a burden on the father’s household, then needed support from their brother(s) when father died. So a defiled woman was a burden on the family, hence the requirement for the offending male to take her on.

Onan took on his brother’s wife, since a woman needed a man to look after her. Also note the story of Mary and Joseph - despite the admonition that a woman who lies with a man in the city be stoned, Joseph *"…her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily" *The law was obviously considered a bit too strict even in those days.

155

Many people seem to be mistaking “removal from lawful guardianship” (basically eloping) which was the original meaning of “rape” (and continued to be for the longest time) and sex without consent. These were two distinct offences, most notably for the Romans, who called the former “raptio” and the later as “stuprum”, we use a term derived for the former to refer to the act of the later.
So can someone decipher what the term meant in the actual Hebrew of the time?

156

Exactly. Is there in fact anywhere in the Old Testament (or even the New) the specific offense of forcing a woman against her will?

The King James concordance does not have the word “rape”. It has “ravish” which includes both rape and a form of lust

157

Deut 22:25 says (ASV): “But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:”

It’s the verse I referred to in a previous post; the link gives the entire chapter for context. The “damsel” is specified as a betrothed virgin, so again, the purpose is to protect the man she’s betrothed to, not the woman. An unbetrothed virgin who is raped gets to marry her assailant, as shown in verses 28-29.

It’s also interesting that verse 23 deals with the parallel case of a betrothed virgin having sex with a man in the city (verse 25 was in the field), and does not mention force, as if it’s obvious that the slut must have wanted it. The woman is condemned to death, because a legitimate rape cannot occur in a city, since the woman’s screams would have been sufficient to prevent it. Again, the omniscient Yahweh has evidently never heard of a knock on the head.

And unless there is a verse contradicting it somewhere else, verse 22 implies that there is also no such thing as the legitimate rape of a married woman. Any wife found with another man is to be executed, period. Protecting her husband’s line.

This is also the chapter where a woman is condemned to death if she cannot prove, after the fact, that she was a virgin on her wedding day. However, if she CAN prove it, then her husband has to pay her father 100 shekels, for questioning the father’s ability to raise a proper daughter. Note that is twice as much as the father gets for having his virgin daughter raped before she is betrothed, showing that the rape of a virgin is considered exactly half as bad as a mild slander (but neither is considered serious, since nobody is executed).

Remember this when “enlightened” apologists tell you that the Bible is not intended to be a science text, but it is worth its weight in gold for the moral instruction it contains. IMHO the morals are worse than the science.

158

What does the original (you know, not English) say.

159

וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ ׳אֶת־הַנַּעַר׳ ״אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲרָה֙״ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּ֖הּ לְבַדּֽוֹ׃

Hope that helps. That’s the same verse (Deut 22:25) from the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript. Obviously, it’s much younger than the true original.

160

Were the old testament Hebrews in the habit of “betrothing” a woman well before puberty, as is common in a lot of traditional societies? I.e. once a guy has dibs on her, long before she’s of usual mating/marrying age age, then she’s spoken for and that means whatever happens later is an offense against the fiancée and the father?