Sorry for the delay. I don’t think this excerpt from Deuteronomy was included to show that the Bible condones rape (of non-Israelis). You might be thinking of Zechariah 14:2, which does condone rape (of non-Israelis). Indeed, just a few verses before this, the Bible suggests killing rapists (of Israelis) with rocks. This one is more about bizarre, cruel and nonsensical punishments for rape (of Israelis).

“…patah is much closer to taphas (used in v.28-9) than chazaq or laqach. The latter two are used to describe rape in Deut. 22:25 and Gen. 34:2…” That wasn’t my finding at all. I’m using Strong’s lexicon and the Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon. What source are you using? For these words, at least, both lexicons seem to more or less agree on the definitions. chazaq seems to be sort of a wild card word, like “thingy”, but taphas and laqach are almost synonymous, and none of the three seems to have much in common with pathah. I’m hesitant to post the definitions because of what it’ll do to the size of the post, but that seems to me to be the best way to go.

taphas(the word in question):
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)

pathah(agreed to indicate consensual sex):
1. to be spacious, be open, be wide
a. (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b. (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2. to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a. (Qal)
1. to be open-minded, be simple, be naive 2. to be enticed, be deceived
b. (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c. (Piel)
1. to persuade, seduce 2. to deceive
d. (Pual)
1. to be persuaded 2. to be deceived

laqach(agreed to indicate non-consensual sex):
1. to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
a. (Qal)
1. to take, take in the hand 2. to take and carry along 3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away 4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept 5. to take up or upon, put upon 6. to fetch 7. to take, lead, conduct 8. to take, capture, seize 9. to take, carry off 1a
2. to take (vengeance)
a. (Niphal)
1. to be captured 2. to be taken away, be removed 3. to be taken, brought unto
b. (Pual)
1. to be taken from or out of 2. to be stolen from 3. to be taken captive 4. to be taken away, be removed
c. (Hophal)
1. to be taken unto, be brought unto 2. to be taken out of 3. to be taken away
d. (Hithpael)
1. to take hold of oneself 2. to flash about (of lightning)

chazaq(agreed to refer to non-consensual sex):
1. to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore
a. (Qal)
1. to be strong, grow strong 1a
b. to prevail, prevail upon 1a
c. to be firm, be caught fast, be secure 1a
d. to press, be urgent 1a
e. to grow stout, grow rigid, grow hard (bad sense) 1a
f. to be severe, be grievous
1. to strengthen
g. (Piel)
1. to make strong 2. to restore to strength, give strength 3. to strengthen, sustain, encourage 4. to make strong, make bold, encourage 5. to make firm 6. to make rigid, make hard
h. (Hiphil)
1. to make strong, strengthen 2. to make firm 3. to display strength 4. to make severe 5. to support 6. to repair 7. to prevail, prevail upon 8. to have or take or keep hold of, retain, hold up, sustain, support 9. to hold, contain
i. (Hithpael)
1. to strengthen oneself 2. to put forth strength, use one’s strength 3. to withstand 4. to hold strongly with

Hopefully that comes through without monstrous formatting errors.

“Since Deut. 22:25 denotes rape with chazaq, why switch to a different verb to describe the same thing just three verses later?”
Short answer: Who knows? Given the age of the document it’s impossible to say if the words were originally different, much less that this was a clue that a different situation was being described. We don’t even know that both of those verses were written at the same time by the same person. Where I live, most people refer to a soft drink as “a coke” or “a soda”. I can travel fifty miles and suddenly a soft drink is universally known as a “pop” and what was a “bag” has become a “sack”. Each of those words are being used as synonyms but they also have a range of other meanings attached to them. This problem is compounded if you look at modern day legal code. Despite the fact that modern law is written recently in a living language, the wordings of laws are generally so vague that the enforcement of those laws is based on precedent rather than interpretation and logic. No worthwhile effort has been made to agree on or standardize definitions, so it is actually more reasonable to base enforcement on tradition rather than the written text of the law. And that’s recent, living law. Honestly, in my opinion, everything we’ve discussed up to this point is as good as conjecture. This is one of the reasons atheists find religion incomprehensible, and consider the belief that the Bible should be taken literally to be laughable, and then very, very frightening. But I digress. Boy did I digress. And I started all that with “Short answer:”. That’s a little embarrassing.

“So v. 28 speaks of both of them being discovered, but why do so if only the man has committed the crime?”
Could be, but do you have other evidence of this being the linguistic convention at the time? Is there a pattern of use that supports this hypothesis?

I’m going to skip ahead a little bit before I finish, but I promise I’ll come back to the points I’m skipping.

“And to underscore my case, I haven’t yet found a scholarly commentary on this chapter of Deuteronomy that confirms the skeptical claim. Perhaps you’ll have better luck. ”
I haven’t seen many scholarly and skeptical arguments for Biblical interpretation in general. I would suspect that the necessary combination of an in-depth knowledge of ancient Hebrew coupled with an authoritative knowledge of Biblical interpretation is a course of study the irreligious wouldn’t find appealing. To be honest, I’m glad there isn’t a lot of scholarly work to go on for this argument. I’m learning more this way than I would otherwise, and if I make a fool of myself, it’s not like I squandered an expensive education.

Finally (for now):
“Wouldn’t that mean the Bible doesn’t condone rape?”
I addressed this above in the same post. Way, way above. This chapter isn’t objectionable because it condones rape, it’s objectionable because it suggests bizarre and needlessly cruel punishments. Not just the marrying your rapist thing, either. These people had blades and ropes. Why were they executing people by throwing rocks at them? Are we supposed to believe that loving, caring, and perfect God suggested the death penalty by a slow, painful, public and almost comically barbaric method? Well, actually, feel free to answer that at a later time. I think we have our hands full enough with the existing arguments.

Regards,
A.F.

Regards,
A.F.

“All three verses use the Hebrew word shakab, “lie down” to reference intercourse.
Verse 25 prefaces shakab with chazaq, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 28 prefaces shakab with taphas, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 22 does not preface shakab.”
I’m glad you’re willing to actually look at the Hebrew used in the different passages, but let’s look at the context of each verse. You’re not entirely incorrect to see these words as synonymous, but this is not always the case.

“It’s also interesting to note that 2 Samuel 13:14 references rape clearly by using the phrase “violated (‘anah) and lie down with”. This is similar to “grabbed and lie down with”, or a forceful verb followed by shakab which is found in Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28. Genesis 34:2 refers to rape with laqach and shakab, “take and lie with”. The other verses I was able to locate in the old testament use only ‘anah without a modifier to indicate rape, with the exception of Zechariah 14:2, which uses shakab in conjunction with the destruction of a city.”
So far, so good. But here’s something to chew on. The point of listing Deuteronomy 22:28 on this “naughty Bible verses list” is to demonstrate how evil God is. But notice how Dinah’s family reacts to her being raped in Genesis 34:2 – “…Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in[a] Israel…”(v. 7) That hardly sounds like approval from God or his people.

“Exodus 22:16 uses patah (seduce or convince) and shakab, which is a similar structure, but the modifying verb is less forceful than “grab” or “violate”, and I’m told this law does not describe rape in any event.”

Based on my research, it appears that this verse is a parallel to Deuteronomy 22:28-9, and patah is much closer to taphas (used in v.28-9) than chazaq or laqach. The latter two are used to describe rape in Deut. 22:25 and Gen. 34:2, and you acknowledged that those two interactions were not consensual.

Since Deut. 22:25 denotes rape with chazaq, why switch to a different verb to describe the same thing just three verses later? I think it’s because v. 28-9 are not discussing rape. A few notes from the context: “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered…”

“It is also interesting and somewhat more relevant to note the use of ‘anah in Deuteronomy 22:24 and 29, translated as “humbled” or “violated” depending on the version. As I said above,‘anah is used as an idiom for rape in other places in the old testament.”
Deut. 22:24 is describing adultery, though. And “…she was in a town and did not scream for help…” This also fits the data about the marriage laws I mentioned above.

“While I don’t generally like stepping outside a given book for Biblical context, in this case at least three other books encompassing all the clear old testament references to rape (that I could find) support that use for ‘anah, and 2.5 out of 4 other books support the forceful verb followed by shakab formula to indicate an idiom for rape.”
But there are more relevant words than just anah, and none of the verses that we agree describe rape use taphas, which is used in Deut.22:28.

And to underscore my case, I haven’t yet found a scholarly commentary on this chapter of Deuteronomy that confirms the skeptical claim. Perhaps you’ll have better luck.

“Lastly, a few of the sources I consulted indicated that 50 shekels of silver was an extremely steep fine, amounting to something like 8-10 years wages. While this is less severe than a death sentence, it does indicate that the people of that time considered whatever they were describing to be a serious crime with damaging repercussions for the woman in question
Wouldn’t that mean the Bible doesn’t condone rape?

“It seems nonsensical to me that marriage to someone who had committed a serious crime against you would somehow equate to justice, especially if the criminal in question was recently impoverished. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the crime in question was rape, but it does tend to indicate that the morality of this verse is dubious. In any event, it’s interesting to consider.”
The article I linked above goes into this in detail. The purpose of the law was to ensure that the woman, whether raped or seduced (though I say seduced), would be provided for later in life. The bride-price was paid to her father in the event that her new husband illegally abandoned her, which would explain why it was so high (my NIV says 1 1/4 pounds of silver).

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Cameron

Within Deuteronomy 22 what I came up with was one clear reference to consensual sex, 22:22, one clear reference to non-consensual sex, 22:25, our passage in question, 22:28, and 22:23, which is kind of iffy. So the relevant verses are 22:22 (consensual), 22:25 (non-consensual), and 22:28 (in question). By “clear” here I mean relatively clear from the context.

All three verses use the Hebrew word shakab, “lie down” to reference intercourse.
Verse 25 prefaces shakab with chazaq, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 28 prefaces shakab with taphas, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 22 does not preface shakab.

So, just based on that, we see a tendency to indicate non-consensual sex by prefacing “lie with” with “grab”, and we see that 22:28 does so.

It’s also interesting to note that 2 Samuel 13:14 references rape clearly by using the phrase “violated (‘anah) and lie down with”. This is similar to “grabbed and lie down with”, or a forceful verb followed by shakab which is found in Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28. Genesis 34:2 refers to rape with laqach and shakab, “take and lie with”. The other verses I was able to locate in the old testament use only ‘anah without a modifier to indicate rape, with the exception of Zechariah 14:2, which uses shakab in conjunction with the destruction of a city. Exodus 22:16 uses patah (seduce or convince) and shakab, which is a similar structure, but the modifying verb is less forceful than “grab” or “violate”, and I’m told this law does not describe rape in any event.

It is also interesting and somewhat more relevant to note the use of ‘anah in Deuteronomy 22:24 and 29, translated as “humbled” or “violated” depending on the version. As I said above,‘anah is used as an idiom for rape in other places in the old testament.

While I don’t generally like stepping outside a given book for Biblical context, in this case at least three other books encompassing all the clear old testament references to rape (that I could find) support that use for ‘anah, and 2.5 out of 4 other books support the forceful verb followed by shakab formula to indicate an idiom for rape.

Lastly, a few of the sources I consulted indicated that 50 shekels of silver was an extremely steep fine, amounting to something like 8-10 years wages. While this is less severe than a death sentence, it does indicate that the people of that time considered whatever they were describing to be a serious crime with damaging repercussions for the woman in question. It seems nonsensical to me that marriage to someone who had committed a serious crime against you would somehow equate to justice, especially if the criminal in question was recently impoverished. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the crime in question was rape, but it does tend to indicate that the morality of this verse is dubious. In any event, it’s interesting to consider.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards,
A.F.

A Raped Woman Must Marry Her Attacker

“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.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Two things to note immediately: the verse doesn’t actually speak of rape; people who claim otherwise are finding something in the text that isn’t there. Secondly, v.25 of the same chapter actually does speak of rape – “… and the man forces her and lies with her…”

I suggest the two verses are describing different scenarios, one in which the woman is actually raped (v.25) and another in which the encounter is consensual (v.28-29). If not, why not use the same wording in both verses? Also, in the verse that clearly speaks of abuse, the man is to be punished for his crime.

That should get us started.

I’ve done some more research and everything I turn up online seems to agree with you that there was no distinction between clergy and laity at the time. That doesn’t agree with scholarly sources I have consulted in person, and based on this passage I would not have reached that conclusion, but the bulk of the evidence agrees with you, so I’ll concede the point. It does, however, make this passage read more like Jesus expects everyone to give up their family. It clearly describes giving up everything one has and taking up one’s cross. Then again, the passage does end with salt losing its flavor, which makes no sense, so maybe I’m expecting too much.

As far as my interpretation not squaring with the context, it is my contention that the context does not square with the context. The analogy of the tower and the analogy of the warring kings both speak to resource management and prudent planning, but the rest of the parable is about sacrifice. Nowhere within the parable does it say that the solution is to humble yourself and put your trust in God, and Jesus was never shy about saying to humble yourself and put your trust in God when that was the message he was getting at. In fact, in the analogy of the warring kings, the solution is provided.

None of the ten commandments says to help others. What did I say about the new testament? In fact, I had a whole paragraph and a summary there and you picked one sentence out of it and ignored the rest. Bad form.

What I was doing with the PETA and CNN analogy is called re-framing the argument. You change a component of a statement and analyze how the meaning of that statement changes. The statement was “Your loyalty to [group] comes before your family, friends, yourself, and all worldly things, because you can’t build a tower without a strong foundation, and you can’t fight a war with a weak army.” I invite you to substitute an organization for [group]. Also, feel free to to provide a re-framing of the parable which contains all the elements of the parable (I left out the salt because, like I said, it made no sense, and the cross-bearing made the sentence very unweildly.) As a rule it should condense the parable down to one sentence. Or, alternatively, you could choose not to do so. I would not mind. No offense intended to you or your faith, but I’m getting fairly sick of Luke 14.

You cautioned me against treating the parable as “a literal, word-for-word instruction.” I’m pretty sure I never did that. I have assumed that there is a meaning to be had from this passage, and I am aware that Jesus isn’t telling us to build a tower, throw out the salt, and assemble an army. At least I really hope that’s not what He’s saying. If He is, we have bigger problems than some questionable scripture. I’m aware that some of this is allegory, but at some point you have to take a meaning from the scripture. If you ignore what is implied and, in some cases, flatly stated, and then simply substitute your own meaning, what was the point of writing any of this down in the first place? At that point, you may as well just shake the Bible around and say, “Don’t bother reading it. I just says to be nice and go to church.” That cavalier handling of what is, supposedly, the word of God is what a lot of atheists find more objectionable about the Bible than any of the bloodshed and barbarism contained in it.

With regards to Hector Avalos, I have a great article on the subject that I’ll be publishing as soon as Google gets back to me, which should be inside the next decade. In the mean time, if there’s a thread going on somewhere I’d be willing to comment.

Regards,
AF