| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894149. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:29 am |
 |
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | I fear that Google is not your friend. |
I shall remember that if I decide to use it, then. I tend to stick to Google Scholar for sources but haven't done so yet in this thread.
| exnihilo wrote: | | Marriage was not for love it was for social status and advance, the man she had sex with might have been attractive enough for a fling but unsuitable for any number of reasons as a husband - to the woman as much as to her father. |
This does not answer the point at all. The 'law' makes no sense whatsoever if interpreted as you choose to do so.
You claim that the fact that 'seize' is used instead of a more descriptive term for rape means that the passage refers to a kidnapping, an elopement, or a 'fling'. You claim that it is a consensual act and not rape.
The passage refers to a single woman being 'seized' by a man. The punishment is that he has to pay off her father and marry the woman. Well, how nice. If the woman likes the man (and presumeably vice-versa) then it is hardly a punishment. This assumes that everything is consensual.
If she doesn't like him then we are back to where we started, the woman is forced into a marriage with a man she dislikes because he had sex with her. If she doesn't like him then why did she have consensual sex? Maybe he managed to trick her? That is rape. Maybe she was too young or uneducated and didn't know better? That is rape. Maybe she was simply overawed by his status and power and didn't feel she should resist? Still rape, I'm afraid. She was not giving informed consent.
Does it punish the man that he has to marry the woman? Hell no. He just adds her to his household and treats her like a slave. Job done. He can even marry again if he wishes (polygamy not being condemned by god at this time, even King David had several wives). The wife cannot marry again, of course, and may not divorce.
| exnihilo wrote: | | You've taken an ignorance of the original text, added some sloppy translation and a dose of modern bias and arrived at a conclusion that cannot really be justified. |
It's called 'interpretation'. When the bible is as inconsistent as it is, making any sort of logical sense is nearly impossible. My 'ignorance' is in reading exactly the same words as are written down in practically every English bible. The words say that an unengaged rape victim must marry her rapist. I call that a justified interpretation.
The 'modern bias' as you call it is actually the translation that has been going since the bible was translated into English. The word used is 'rape'. It is your redactive translation that is more modern, and that is distinctly dodgy as it is trying to make sense of the bible to better suit C21st tastes.
'Can't have rape being rewarded so let's try to reinterpret this word to get rid of the misogeny.'
| exnihilo wrote: | | I have no doubt that you're quite proud to be ignorant of the Bible, and fair enough as it's largely meaningless to most of us, but if you're going to deride a source text for what it says, rather than merely what you think it represents, then the onus is on you address what it actually says. |
Given that you are trying to overturn an interpretation that has held sway for centuries, your argument is rather thin there. You have chosen to interpret a word in a more generous light than the one in which it was originally translated. It is interpretation as the word 'seize' taken literally means that a man must marry a women should he catch hold of her elbow.
Your source itself was not an original but a copy. Your translation of the copy assumes that the copy is word for word what was said in the original. It then assumes that the use of the word is far cosier than the translation given by the original translators. It then puts a positive spin on the whole passage.
That is not what the vast majority of English-speaking people read in their bibles. They read that the bible says that a rapist should marry his victim.
Last edited by Sadurian Mike on Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:41 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
| masterfroggy
|
| 894154. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:40 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | Sadurian Mike wrote: |
So why use a different word? All through the rest fo the bible the phrase 'lay with' is used to denote having sex. Suddenly we see rape being discussed and they change to a more appropriate word. It is not 'a man who lays down with another man's betrothed', it is 'a man who grabs a woman and has sex with her'. If they didn't want the difference to be clear then why change the language all of a sudden? |
I fear that Google is not your friend.
כי ימצא איש נער בתולה אשר לא ארשה ותפשה ושכב עמה ונמצאו
ונתן האיש השכב עמה לאבי הנער חמשים כסף ולו תהיה לאש תחת אשר ענה לא יוכל שלחה כל ימיו*
Read the passage in Hebrew again and you'll see that shakab, 'to lie with' is used in the same verse. The addition is of the word taphas which has a meaning similar to, but not the same as chazaq which is the word 'to seize'. The same word, taphas, is, for example, used in Jeremiah and there it's normally translated as 'deal with'. Chazaq appears in the passage immediately before (and in every other case) which deals specifically with rape, so as you say why change the word if not to convey a different shade of meaning*?
Note that in previous passages (and elsewhere) specific reference is made to the woman screaming and/or resisting. In this passage the words are "and they are found out", which implies a degree of consent and clandestine behaviour. You ask why a woman would be 'forced' to marry a man she voluntarily had sex with which again simply demonstrates ignorance of the period. Marriage was not for love it was for social status and advance, the man she had sex with might have been attractive enough for a fling but unsuitable for any number of reasons as a husband - to the woman as much as to her father.
|
Well it seems you are saying, [in the bible] there are different kinds of Rape. unwanted rape where the woman is screaming and/or resisting, and unwanted rape where the woman is not.
Last edited by masterfroggy on Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:42 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894155. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:42 am |
|
|
Mike, you are just flat out wrong and you are consistently ignoring what I've said. I'd invite you to read again what I said, and to try to read the OT as it was actually intended not according to some C17th Christian translation but with understanding of the period and alongside the Talmud which, I assure you, is not a C21st apology.
What the 'vast majority of English speakers' read is neither here nor there when what we're discussing here is what the text actually says! And the interpretation you give has not 'held sway for centuries' or those provisions would be in Jewish and Christian law and they are not because they don't mean what you assert they do and the people who actually understand the Bible as a whole were aware of that. I'm not a lone voice here and it is you who is introducing modern baggage to the discussion, not I.
Masterfroggy, no, I'm saying that the word used in the situation where a woman screams or resists is different to the word used when she does not, and they appear in passages right next to one another it is, therefore, entirely sensible to assume that the author intended a different meaning when he chose a different word. Please note that at no point anywhere else in the Bible is rape in any sense condoned, this passage is referring to a specific set of circumstances which do not constitute rape.
Last edited by exnihilo on Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894158. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:49 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | You are just flat out wrong |
No, I am interpreting the sources differently.
| exnihilo wrote: | | and you are consistently ignoring what I've said. |
No, I am arguing against them.
| exnihilo wrote: | | I'd invite you to read again what I said, and to try to read the OT as it was actually intended not according to some C17th Christian translation but with understanding of the period and alongside the Talmud which, I assure you, is not a C21st apology. |
You miss the point again.
The bible is a loose collection of largely unconnected translated scribblings. The English translations we have today are the authorised translations of those scribblings. That means that the religious authorities have agreed that the translation is the authorised one.
The original language is open to interpretation. It is obviously capable of mistranslation. That means that you can interpret it pretty much whichever way you please to suit whatever spin you want to put on it.
The original translations, the authorised translations, read that a rapist must marry his victim.
You are trying to say that it is not a rapist but a kidnapper and seducer who is punished in this way. I am pointing out how that really doesn't help the misogyeny of the situation so we are back to where we started. |
|
|
|
|
| masterfroggy
|
| 894159. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:49 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: |
Masterfroggy, no, I'm saying that the word used in the situation where a woman screams or resists is different to the word used when she does not, and they appear in passages right next to one another it is, therefore, entirely sensible to assume that the author intended a different meaning when he chose a different word. Please note that at no point anywhere else in the Bible is rape in any sense condoned, this passage is referring to a specific set of circumstances which do not constitute rape. |
Yes, that's what I said different word used for "Aggravated rape" and just rape. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894162. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:54 am |
|
|
| As I've said all along that I make no excuses for the misogyny of the times I really don't see your point. I have absolutely not said kidnapping, which demonstrates that you either do not read or do not understand what is written. If your argument is based entirely on an 'authorised' translation and takes no account of the original text, the supporting documents, or any understanding of the associated scholarship you render this entire discussion pointless. |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894164. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:55 am |
|
|
You ninja-edited whilst I was replying, so let's address the additions you made.
| exnihilo wrote: | | And the interpretation you give has not 'held sway for centuries' or those provisions would be in Jewish and Christian law and they are not because they don't mean what you assert they do and the people who actually understand the Bible as a whole were aware of that. |
When was the last time you saw an English court sentence a rapist to be stoned to death? In fact, when was the last time a English court sentenced anyone to be stoned?
No, they haven't. Yet the interpretation of the bible is pretty clear on that point. Just about everyone needs to be stoned.
As I said a while back, the bible is so inconsistent that it would be impossible to follow its instructions to the letter. That doesn't mean that each passage has been misinterpreted, just that most people sensibly don't follow its instructions.
| exnihilo wrote: | | it is you who is introducing modern baggage to the discussion, not I. |
I've got news for you, we are living in a modern world. If the bible is no longer valid then let's chuck it out and be done with it. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894165. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:56 am |
|
|
| masterfroggy wrote: | | exnihilo wrote: |
Masterfroggy, no, I'm saying that the word used in the situation where a woman screams or resists is different to the word used when she does not, and they appear in passages right next to one another it is, therefore, entirely sensible to assume that the author intended a different meaning when he chose a different word. Please note that at no point anywhere else in the Bible is rape in any sense condoned, this passage is referring to a specific set of circumstances which do not constitute rape. |
Yes, that's what I said different word used for "Aggravated rape" and just rape. |
No. Again you ignore all the text surrounding the word and therefore miss the meaning. Where a different word is used, different criteria are applied, and a different punishment is prescribed it is evident that a different 'crime' is being discussed.
In this case the crime is not one of forced sexual intercourse at all, but one of infringement of property rights. As I said, the idea of women as property is abhorrent to us but that's how it was at the time and to ignore that is to entirely miss the point of the verse. |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894166. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:57 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | As I've said all along that I make no excuses for the misogyny of the times I really don't see your point. I have absolutely not said kidnapping, which demonstrates that you either do not read or do not understand what is written. |
You claim that the word 'seize' is used in the sense of taking property. Taking a TV would be theft, taking a person is kidnapping. It was you who made the association with a woman being property. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894167. Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:57 am |
|
|
| Sadurian Mike wrote: |
| exnihilo wrote: | | it is you who is introducing modern baggage to the discussion, not I. |
I've got news for you, we are living in a modern world. If the bible is no longer valid then let's chuck it out and be done with it. |
A spectacular missing of the point. We live in the modern world, but we don't discuss Roman law as though it were written yesterday, or any other culture's law. The point here is what the text meant at the time of writing and according to the mores of the day.
And property is a shorthand there. A daughter was not property in the sense that a slave was. You're trying to force a modern perspective onto an entirely different situation. If you do that you cannot understand the time. The job of the historian is to attempt to understand the past, surely?
I assume that you wanted to go to read Russian and German sources because you understand that reading in translation necessarily puts one at a remove, even in modern history and the very much more so when we're talking about an ancient culture. |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894171. Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:01 am |
|
|
'Mising the point'?
Really?
A woman commits suicide a few days ago because a country imposes an Old Testament-style law on marrying her rapist. The bible still carries passages which appear to support this practice.
How is this 'missing the point'? |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894173. Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:04 am |
|
|
That is exactly what the last two pages are about.
Go back to something you understand, I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
|
| masterfroggy
|
| 894174. Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:05 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: |
And property is a shorthand there. A daughter was not property in the sense that a slave was. You're trying to force a modern perspective onto an entirely different situation. If you do that you cannot understand the time. The job of the historian is to attempt to understand the past, surely? |
The point of studying the past is to teach us about the mistakes and how to avoid them; you need one eye on the past, and one on the future.
Living by the rules of the past knowing that they were flawed and unworkable is not learning, not moving forward, it just makes it worse, the people who were forced to live like that, they didn’t know any better, We do know better, don’t we…
Whilst neither Hebrew word means ‘Rape’ as a single word, they do mean taken in context “to take seize and to have force someone to have sex with you”, which is to all intent and purposes, rape. |
|
|
|
|
| Sadurian Mike
|
| 894175. Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:07 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | And property is a shorthand there. A daughter was not property in the sense that a slave was. |
So explain again how 'seize' is more to do with property than assault then. Would they have used a different word had a slave girl been raped?
| exnihilo wrote: | | You're trying to force a modern perspective onto an entirely different situation. |
We are living in the modern world. I am well aware that times and cultures change, but the bible is still being touted as a manual for living lives. When people today get affected by what was written thousands of years ago, you need to put a modern persepctive on it. As it stands, that modern perspective is that rapists should marry their victims because that is what is written in the bible. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 894176. Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:07 am |
|
|
The point being that in context they do not mean that.
Again:
1) I do not condone rape.
2) I do not say people should live according to the Old Testament laws.
I do however say that people should actually understand a thing before they venture forth an opinion on it. You'll not find a Biblical scholar who puts the interpretation you are on that verse, but what would they know? |
|
|
|
|
