# Deut 22 and Ex 22



## T.A.G. (May 3, 2011)

Exodus 22:16(I) "If a man seduces a virgin[d] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price[e] for her and make her his wife. 17If her father utterly refuses to give her to him,(J) he shall pay money equal to the(K) bride-price for virgins.



Deut 22:28(Q) "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. 

I assume you believe these two passages are the same? Why do you believe Deut 22 uses the word Pathah and not the word for seduces? Deut 22 shows the woman is guilty of a sin as it states "they are found" and not "he was found" which would make sense if it was seduction and this word is used in the case where Joseph was being seduced in Gen 39. However, the LXX does seem to translate it rape, and the word in the hebrew is not to seduce...care to give any insight?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 3, 2011)

Why should you assume that I or anyone else assumes perfect identity between the passages? That's a curious assumption, in my view.

The first thing to note about the two passages is their divergent contexts. The Ex.22 passage is still in the wider context of direct divine exposition of the whole Decalogue, beginning at Ex.20:22. The attention of the greater passage (following the order of the 10C) is to the protection and maintenance of God's honor and propriety, and then that of his servants. The taking of the girl, in this context, is looked at from the standpoint of a form of personal assault or expropriation against her father or guardian (so say K&D on the passage). This focus explains why the rights of the father are highlighted in v17, to refuse to award the girl's hand in marriage; although he should still be compensated regardless. The scenario contemplates a complicated situation, with the daughter turned against her father (to some degree).

The vv in Deut. are not even the whole of the lesser context, which goes back to 22:23. Besides the huge context of Moses' own part-by-part exposition of the Decalogue, one must also consider this book in terms of the entrance into the land about to be undertaken. The transition from the life of nomads to life settled on the land involved a degree of legal adjustment.

The *case-situation* envisioned in this passage is indeed quite similar to the case in Ex.22. But the focus in this passage is not according to the establishment of rights, honor, and propriety in the servants of the Lord, on the occasion of the constitution of the national charter. The focus is on general equity of the nation, and the individuals within it, on occasion of the new settlement. The principals in all the second-scene are the two who lie together, and the father-figure or even beau is slightly less prominent.

Three cases are considered in this passage, and the attention is on the individuals concerned in a violation. The conditions are laid out, the woman is betrothed; the persons are found in evidence of impropriety; no obvious signs of assault among the evidence. The first scenario assumes that a woman taken suddenly by force in a city will cry out and be delivered by her neighbors. If she does not cry out (she is not tied up, no rags are stuffed down her throat) then the judges should presume consent, which constitutes adultery (seeing she was betrothed), and not rape.

In the second scenario, the assumption of the conditions are changed from city life to country. Since the woman reports a rape, assuming other evidence and witnesses, the man alone is deemed guilty.

The third scenario --the subject of the primary question--is related (this time) to the other two. In this case, the woman is not betrothed (a major change in category in that culture), and the city/country conditions are not brought into the judgment as significant. A factor that goes unmentioned here is the presumption of responsibility for protection on the part of the father: he is expected to prevent such things happening to his daughter; and if such a thing happens, he bears some responsibility for her injury.

This scenario presumes the assailant's story is: consent was given (since no one witnessed a kidnap). The language of the scenario presents the situation in the worst light for the man: in other words, assume that it WAS a kidnap of sorts. However, just because it may have been does not allow the judges to presume that it was. The situation is more of a he-said, she-said situation by the time all stand before the judges.

Consider the possibilities, at least the following: 1) the woman claims she was taken by force, the man denies it. 2) the woman admits she went willingly with the man, because she doesn't want to see him killed, for whatever reason. 3) the woman claims she was seduced, the man admits it; and he's someone the father was considering for a son-in-law. 4) the man claims the woman seduced him, but he's now in love with her; the woman may admit it, or perhaps she denies it. And more could be conceived.


Tyler, O think your assumption regarding the "they are found," rather than "he is found" is unwarranted. Just prior in Dt.22:25-27, mention isn't made of him or her or them being found, only that the man stands accused of rape. That "they are found" says nothing specific about the condition of the woman. It remains an open question, and is set before the judges to decide. Everyone is in trouble, since the situation is a bad one. Who is guilty? Who can say for sure? The possibility of marriage is one method by which the situation can be resolved, not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction. But it is a resolution that allows some wrongs to be identified, and ameliorated. It allows for mercy, for some guilty to escape with life.


The LXX describes the incident as involving "force," the Gk. word having a wider field of application than simply "rape." As I said, the Heb. term is a strong term, and it paints the man in a bad light, perhaps worse than the woman. However, the judges may not be able to state this fact with certainty. If if WAS a kidnapping, then the man should die for kidnapping. The situation is presented as a complicated issue, with potentially conflicting reports.


The bottom line for me is this: neither context of your two original scenarios is simply a regulation that is tossed out for compliance. The second set is not simply a rerehearsal of the original in Exodus. They are situated in larger contexts, and each serves an informative purpose for that use in particular. Naturally, there is a wider field of application for the cases than the context in which they are presented, but let us not forget these are CASES. They are applications of God's moral will, and especially for the nation of Israel in her ANE settings.


----------



## T.A.G. (May 3, 2011)

Thanks so much for your reply, I think understanding that these are case laws and God's application of the 10 is a really good point to remember, along with the context of rights of servants and properties vs right of equity as you stated.

I am still a little fuzzy on where you stated

"A factor that goes unmentioned here is the presumption of responsibility for protection on the part of the father: he is expected to prevent such things happening to his daughter; and if such a thing happens, he bears some responsibility for her injury."

and more important, where do you find 

"This scenario presumes the assailant's story is: consent was given (since no one witnessed a kidnap)."

Are you assuming this because if one was raped that would presuppose kidnapping, which would according to other laws mean automatic death penalty? Or is there also more? Regardless interesting...

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

Also are you saying no obvious signs of assault among the evidence in reference to the last case law that you listed or in reference to those who are engaged?

Last question from your response, you say the word isnt rape but has other meanings as well, I realize this but majority of the time it is used in reference to those forcing one against their will etc. *Why is that and how does your interpretation fit this?*


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 4, 2011)

What I try to do is apply some rational standards to the text. I assume the text stands as written, that it was meant to be understood by its original readers/recipients, that it was meant to be used for judgments, that people are different culturally but not inherently different by nature.

As for what I said about the father: I'm synthesizing a great deal of biblical data on households and responsibility, etc., as well as input from the more widespread ANE culture. If you are a student of Scripture, you need to be aware of the cultural milieu in which Israel operated for over 1500 years. When I say the father has some duty to prevent this kind of harm to his daughter, I am simply stating a general *fact* of human responsibility, taking into account the specifics of the Hebrew culture as the Bible describes it, in the larger context of the ANE.

If an ancient Israelite man lost his daughter's honor this way, that'd be a major shame on his face, far worse than today when many modern fathers blithely send their daughters off to college believing them to already be "experienced" or bound to get "experience." Some of this protectiveness is still has strong cultural currents in the M.E., and other parts of the world.

As for the assailants story: again, assuming the ancient court-of judgment scene where cases like this are actually tried, you have to set it up in your mind. You have (at least) two parties to judgment. Here's the girl, there's the guy, there's the girls father. Now, what are the possible attitudes present? What are the possible pleas? Who stands with whom? What assumptions are safest for the judges to begin with?

The guy may be facing the death-penalty for kidnapping, depending on the witnesses, the evidence, what the girl says. The minimal facts of the case are that the man is accused of having lain with the girl inappropriately. His best defense, if the intercourse is not in dispute, is that the occasion was consensual. But the witnesses may say that they saw him take the girl by the arm and propel her away. Was it force? Was it contrary force? Was it simply hurry?

The set-up for the case lets the situation look as bad as possible for the guy, but it still allows for an outcome that is short of the death-penalty appropriate for a proven kidnap and/or rape. Why? because beside the guy, the father or the girl may prefer a different outcome. Lacking the requisite evidence or witnesses, proof of the worst-case scenario may be lacking.

The case presented doesn't include this: that the evidence and witnesses are all against the guy. It simply tells us that a man seized an "available" woman, and took her to bed. Can't you imagine a situation where this takes place in the modern world, say at a nightclub, or a campus drinking-party? It ends up being his-word, against hers, maybe. Perhaps she can hardly deny her culpability. It could be that the best course, for all concerned, is that the two numskulls get married--no possibility for getting out of it by divorce later, either. Or maybe the father just demands satisfaction (in $$ terms), no wife in the bargain, and takes his girl home with him. Maybe that's better than the man's blood to him? Maybe the guy gets sold into slavery to pay this debt?


The situations are presented for different reasons (in Moses' contexts), and they each present a slightly different situation: one where the situation is no doubt consensual, but the man is deemed the instigator (Ex.22), and one where the consent is more ambiguous, at least to start with (Dt.22).

I think an analysis of the situation in 2Sam.13 (read for yourself) might lend itself to an understanding (though not likely a good application) of the second case. This is a "worst-case" scenario, in which undoubtedly a rape occurred (hideous to think of it), and it was just as surely against the incest-laws, Lev.18:11. Tamar under threat of attack begs Amnon to request her as a wife from David rather than forcing her, and afterward she cries out against--as she calls it--the _worse injustice_ of casting her out. I don't know whether she hoped the king would somehow compel an indissoluble marriage, per the Dt.22 law, and so salvage some dignity from this tragedy, by an after-the-fact solution.

Despite the lack of true parallels, that event does show us a woman, in the Heb./ANE situation, who is a victim, who nevertheless apparently prefers a marriage to her captor, rather than a more ambiguous settlement, one very likely to end in spinsterhood.



Direct answers to other questions:
1) I mentioned "signs of assault" because I find it hard to imagine if someone were (for example) found tied and gagged, whether in a city or field, that the assumption would be that the girl (betrothed or otherwise) was on a lark. The situation, before the court, presumes there is ambiguity, it presumes that there's some question or contention that this was/wasn't a kidnap. I'm not saying there aren't guys who beat up their wives and girlfriends and often the women don't immediately press charges at the first chance; but if you find the girl and she's got two black eyes, fat lips, cuts and blood and other injuries, that's points for her in most jury's eyes if she says she was never willingly with the guy. "Try talking your way out of that one, pal."

2) It isn't used the way you have listed it as "most of the time" when we find it in NT Scripture. The word (I believe it is participle of biazo) generally refers to all sort of force and aggression (see only Mt.11:12; Lk.16:16), but you need a context every time. The LXX is simply making a very literal rendering of the Heb. original, which is to lay hold or seize. I glanced at the Liddell-Scott Gk Lexicon, and I don't even find "rape" listed as a gloss. But, its possible that in some context (and this one is a candidate), forcible intercourse is the understandable result. But I fail to see how the LXX is going to tell us better than English what the Heb. intends, instead of preference to the Heb.

The woman is forcibly taken off, but strictly speaking, we don't know whether she's unwilling, compliant, consensual, or anything else. The word "taphas" (seize) isn't so connected to the "lies (with)" as to make it a compound idea (construct-chain). The verbs are distinct but consecutive, separated by the vav. But one simply can't state that the force and the intercourse are coterminous. And I've given already some scenarios that demonstrate that rape is not a necessary conclusion from the language.

Another that comes to mind is the notion that the "seizing" could very well be in connection with her present guardian (father). That is, she is "seized" from his protection (which maybe she resented). How much force, and what kind, are the sorts of questions that the judges must determine.

I'm not saying that taking her from the father IS the probable sense. I'm saying that to say that this verse is definitely talking about a rape-scenario IS reading a specific definite sense into words that are susceptible of alternate, legitimate understanding. The courtroom scenario is the place where this case is interpreted and judged. And in the case judgment preserved for us, the man is given a monetary penalty, he keeps the woman as wife (without possibility of divorce), the woman is presumably willing to stay in that situation, and the father of the girl is mollified. Seems clear to me, they decided the case wasn't strictly kidnapping, however much force was involved, and who was victimized, by what means.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2011)

Man, Thanks Bruce for all the hard work.


----------



## KSon (May 4, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Man, Thanks Bruce for all the hard work.





Thank you indeed brother for taking the time, thereby edifying the brethren on the board.


----------

