# Hebrew in Exodus 21:22-25 and Abortion



## urcmember (Jan 14, 2010)

Hi,

I think this is the best category for this post, I also thought perhaps languages or exegesis might be appropriate.

Anyway, the ESV translates it like this: 
22"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and(A) he shall pay as the(B) judges determine. 23But if there is harm,[a] then you shall pay(C) life for life, 24(D) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Whereas the KJV translates it like this: 
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

NIV:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
-uses miscarriage in footnote

NASB:
22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall (A)pay as the judges decide. 23"But if there is any further injury, (B)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24(C)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 

My main question is in the original is it more clear who the "yet more injury/mischief" is referring to? The more modern translations especially the ESV seem to imply that perhaps it is talking about "her children" or both mother and child. The KJV however seems to be very clear that it is talking about the just the pregnant woman.

Of course more importantly perhaps is what "so that her fruit depart from her" means. The newer translations opt for premature birth, but this is kind of a no-brainer, the real question is was it a successful premature birth or a miscarriage as the NIV footnotes. The KJV seems to imply miscarriage.

The next question would then seem to be, what's the fine for? If the passage is talking about a miscarriage then is it for that, or is it just for hitting a woman?

It would seem that if a fine is imposed for a man causing another man and his wife to have a miscarriage then at least as far as civil law is concerned an unborn child is not afforded the same status as one that has been born. That is, only a fine for their life, not life for life. This is the way the KJV seems to handle it.

On the other hand if the ESV is closer to the original it would make a pretty good case that anyone who harms or kills an unborn child should be hurt or killed. 

Unfortunately I haven't been trained in handling original languages so I thought I'd ask the experts.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 14, 2010)

"If no mischief follow" is "if the baby is born but mother and baby are well".

Otherwise both mother and baby are to be treated as full individuals. If the mother dies a life is to be paid for by capital punishment. If the baby dies a life is to be paid for by capital punishment. If mother and/or baby is damaged monetary reparation and restitution are to be made in lieu of similar damage to the offender.

The fact that this case law deals with _wilful wrecklessness in injury/murder _respecting a pregnant woman which the offender(s) knew to be pregnant shows _a fortiori_ that _even more deliberate injury _ of a pregnant woman and/or her baby was to be dealt with at least as severely.

Presumably whether the men _knew_ the woman was pregnant, or could reasonably be expected to have known the woman was pregnant, would have been materially relevant, as Tim V points out below.


----------



## TimV (Jan 14, 2010)

Whether right or wrong, historically it's been treated as a lesser crime if a miscarriage has occurred before the baby has formed, or is animated, and that time frame is about 40 days after conception.


----------

