Victims,
Captives, and Slaves
A Note About Bible
Versions
 |
George Cattermole, The Scribe
|
Before getting into the last of the objections to the
biblical model of marriage, I wanted to address translation issues and Bible
versions because one of the objections I am going to deal with is based on a
bad translation instead of a cultural misunderstanding. Many criticisms leveled
against the Bible are based on a very superficial reading of the scriptures and
are usually based on a face value reading of a verse or passage from one
translation that seems to support the critic’s agenda.
There are several problems with taking any verse or
passage in any modern language version of the Bible at face value. The Bible
was not written in any modern language. The Old Testament was written in
biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek.
The Bible was also written in a different era, to different people, in a
different country, with different cultural ideas, traditions, and linguistic colloquialisms.
We tend to look at their cultures with confusion and sometimes in disgust. It
should be pointed out that many of those cultures thought they were very
culturally advanced and might have viewed us as barbaric. In 1,000 years from
now, historians may look back on us in much the same way.
When studying the Bible, it is important to understand
that many modern Bible versions are not, in fact, formal translations, and,
with the exception of interlinear Bibles which show the original language with
each word transliterated, no Bible is a strict, literal, word-for-word,
translation, not even the King James Version, which the King James translators
pointed out in their preface.
In the translation process, translators often use what is
called dynamic equivalence. Dynamic
equivalence is used when a single foreign word carries a bigger idea than a
single English word can communicate, or a colloquialism is used that, when literally
translated, would not be understood by the intended audience. Different Bible
versions use more or less dynamic equivalence depending on what kind of
translation the publishers are going for and who their intended target audience
is. The result is that there are essentially three kinds of Bible versions.
The first kind of Bible version is the formal
translation. Until the 20th century, all Bible versions were formal
translations. In this kind of Bible version, the translators try to avoid
dynamic equivalence as much as possible and attempt to create a word-for-word
translation. Formal translations include the English Standard Version (ESV),
the King James Version (KJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New
King James Version (NKJV), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV), to name just
a few.
The second kind of Bible version goes to the other end of
the spectrum and uses a lot of dynamic equivalence. These versions attempt to
give more of a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought paraphrase of the Bible
rather than a word-for-word translation. Personally, for the most part, I can’t
stand these kinds of Bibles. They tend to be dumbed down, filled with agenda
driven language based on the theology of the interpreter, and end up being just
plain wrong in many cases. I have a hard time even typing a capital “B” when
referring to these kinds of Bibles. Paraphrase Bibles include the Easy to Read
Version (ERV), God’s Word version (GW), the Good News Bible (GNB) also called
Today’s English Version (TEV), The Living Bible (TLB), and the New Living Translation
(NLT). I have a real problem with the New Living Translation because it is not
anywhere near a translation. It is an updated version of the Living Bible which
is a paraphrased interpretation at best. To call this version a translation is
just plain dishonest.
While it is important, when studying the Bible, for a
student to be able to paraphrase the Bible for themselves, this requires a
deeper level of understanding than a paraphrase Bible can give. These
paraphrase Bibles tend to skim the surface of theological issues and students
of these Bibles only attain a superficial understanding of God’s Word.
The third kind of Bible falls in the middle. They combine
formal, word-for-word translation with thought-for-thought or phrase-for-phrase
dynamic equivalence while trying to remain an actual translation. There is no
conscious effort either way. While some of these Bibles can be unreliable in
places, the translators attempt to be faithful to the original languages as
much as possible. Examples of this kind of Bible are the Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB), the International Standard Version (ISV), the New
International Version (NIV), and the New English Translation (NET Bible). I’m
also not a fan of this third kind of Bible, but they’re not as bad as the
paraphrase Bibles.
 |
Emile Wauters, Scholar at the
Table, 1865-1867
|
When a person approaches the study of the Bible, they
should, as often as possible attempt to compare as many versions as possible. Yes,
even though I don’t like them, it’s a good idea to compare paraphrases too. Many
versions are available freely online at www.biblegateway.com.
Additionally, there are many original language resources at www.biblehub.com, www.blueletterbible.org, and www.scripture4all.org.
Other resources available to students of the Bible are
Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, and a multitude of
historical and archaeological references. Many of these resources are freely
available on the internet as well. www.e-sword.net
has a full, free to download, bible and reference software package. For more
complete reference libraries, Logos Bible Software has Bible and reference
packages that if purchased as a printed library would be worth thousands of
dollars. Their cheapest package is $250.00.
In addition to studying a passage in the context of the
entire Bible, it is important to utilize these resources wherever and whenever
possible to expand the context of the passage being studied. Without
understanding the cultural, historical, scriptural, and linguistic context of
the words, verses, or passages being studied, it is very easy to come to an incorrect
interpretation of the scripture. Critics of the bible begin with their
criticism and then find a translation that fits their agenda, completely
ignoring the underlying context of the verse.
The old saying is true, “A text without a context is a
prooftext for a pretext.”
Forced Marriage of
Rape Victims and Rapists
 |
Eustache Le Sueur, Rape of Tamar, c.1640
|
Throughout this series, I have sought to dissect the
original languages and culture while also looking at other relevant scriptures
to help gain a deeper understanding of why the criticisms are baseless. The
criticism of a rape victim being forced to marry their rapist is based on many
of the modern translations that use the word “rape” in Deuteronomy 22. Consider
the New International Version rendering of this passage.
28 If a man happens to
meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall
pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he
has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
– Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
Some of the other modern English versions that translate
this passage similarly include God’s Word Translation (GWT), Good News
Translation (GNT), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HSCB), International
Standard Version (ISV), Living Bible (LB), Names of God Bible (NOG), New
English Translation Bible (NET Bible), and The Message Bible (MSG).
At face value, Bible critics are correct to condemn this
passage. The Skeptics Annotated Bible has symbols indicating that these verses
are advocating injustice against women. I am surprised that they don’t have the
symbol for absurdity there as well. Who, in any era, would worship a god that
allowed such horrors to be perpetrated on any person?
The biggest problem is that there is no word in the
original Hebrew text that could legitimately translated “rape” in this verse.
Any version that uses the word “rape” is using dynamic equivalence based on a
superficial understanding of the wording of the verse. A more literal
word-for-word translation would be:
28 If a man finds a
virgin maid who is not betrothed and he grasps her and has sex with her, and
they are found, 29 then the man that had sex with her shall give to
her father fifty kecef (shekels of silver), she shall become his wife and because
he humiliated her, he shall not be able to divorce her for all of his days.
Formal translations render this verse similarly. Even so,
the phrase “and he grasps her” seems to indicate that force is involved.
Without any other context, it sounds very much like rape is involved.
Many modern translators utilize context cues to determine
what the original languages are trying to communicate. The result is an
interpretation instead of a translation. When other cues and context clues are
ignored, the interpretation ends up being wrong. As I will demonstrate, modern
translations that use the word “rape” in this passage have interpreted the
intent of the verse incorrectly and therefore the translation is wrong.
The first thing to do is look at the word translated
“rape” in Deuteronomy 22:28. The Hebrew root word is תָּפַשׂ (taphas) and rendered here as וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ
(utphasah). The root word can mean to grasp, to catch, to hold in order
to use, to use skillfully, and according to James Strong, it can also mean to
manipulate.[i]
The sense of taphas does not include force or violence. If the idea of violence
of force was being communicated here, a more appropriate word would be חָזַק
(chazaq) which is the word used in Deuteronomy 22:25.
But if a man find a betrothed
damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her:
then the man only that lay with her shall die.
– Deuteronomy 22:25 (KJV)
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.
– Deuteronomy 22:25 (NIV)
Formal translations render chaqaz either as “take hold”
or “force,” and paraphrases use the word “rape.” In this verse, rape is clearly
indicated because the penalty is death.
The second thing to look at is the last phrase in verse
28, “and they are found.” This is really the most
important key to this passage. Instead of “He is found,”
the writer says, “they are found.” Deuteronomy 22:28 is
showing that both parties are mutually involved in the act. In other words,
it’s consensual. Utilizing those clues, we can begin to see that the man didn’t
force the woman, but rather a colloquialism for seduction is being
communicated.
The Common English Version took these contextual clues
into account and paraphrased the passage more appropriately.
28 Suppose a woman isn’t
engaged to be married, and a man
talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, 29
they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of
silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.
– Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (CEV)
This is not a simple inference either, but is the
position held by Old Testament scholars for centuries.
18th Century Theologian John
Gill
“and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so
is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from
this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing
her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and
so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of
love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not
without her consent:”[ii]
James B Jordan
At first sight, this seems to allow
for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb “seize” is a
weaker verb than the verb for “force” used in the same passage (v. 25) to
describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam.
13:11). ImpIied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that
she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern random rape
would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death
penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27.[iii]
Charles Foster Kent was an Old Testament Scholar and
Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature at Yale, placed Deuteronomy 22:28-29
with Exodus 22:16-17 under the heading “Seduction” in his book, Israel's Laws and Traditional Precedents.[iv]
The third key to guide our interpretation is to look at
this verse in the context of the rest of the Bible. The purpose of Deuteronomy
is not to replace any of the previously given laws. Instead, Deuteronomy
records Moses’ final sermons prior to his death as Israel prepares to enter the
Promised Land. The statutes contained in Deuteronomy do not replace The Law as
it has already been given, but rather it reiterates and augments it. So, when
we read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it has to be in the light of previously existing
statutes within The Law.
16 And if a man entice a
maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be
his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he
shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
– Exodus 22:16-17
Whether or not Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is referring to rape
becomes a non-issue when taken in the light of Exodus 22:16-17. The father
could refuse to allow his daughter to be married to someone he didn’t approve
of. Exodus 22 clearly deals with seduction and consensual sex and the father
can forbid his daughter to marry the man who seduced her. Would any good father
allow his daughter to marry a rapist? No. Why then would anyone think that the
Bible would force a rape victim to
marry her rapist? Even though a father had a final say in who he would allow
his daughter to marry, the daughter was traditionally consulted as well as to
whether or not she would want to be married to the intended groom (Genesis
24:57-58).[v]
To say that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 advocates a rape victim
marrying her rapist is nothing more than agenda driven nonsense based on sloppy
hermeneutics, ignorance, or dishonesty.
Let me play the devil’s advocate here for a second and
assume that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does mean a rape victim has to marry their
rapist. This situation doesn’t work out well for anyone. The rapist is stuck
with a woman he really didn’t want to marry in the first place because he is
prohibited from divorcing her. On top of that, he’s going to have to sleep with
one eye open for the rest of his life (Judges 4:12-22).
Female Prisoners
of War
 |
James Tissot, The Women of
Midian
Led Captive by the Hebrews, 1896-1900
|
There are two passages regarding the handling of female
prisoners of war that are controversial—Numbers 31:18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14.
These two passages are controversial because it seems to imply that women were
forced into marrying their captors. The verse in Numbers 31 has very little, if
anything, to do with marriage and the passage in Deuteronomy 21, rather than
being oppressive of women serves two purposes—the first is to regulate a
situation that God did not intend, and the second purpose is to protect women
in such situations.
Numbers 31:1-18 is controversial for a whole slew of
reasons I’m not going to address because of the theme of this series. This is
why I’m only going to address verse 18.
18 But all the women
children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves.
– Numbers 31:18
This verse comes at the end of a major battle with the
Midianites. Moses gives several instructions regarding the handling of the
prisoners of war and finishes with this verse. This verse is actually not
referring to marriageable or marriage-age women. The term “women children” is
translated from the Hebrew words הַטַּ֣ף בַּנָּשִׁ֔ים
(hataf banashim) from the roots טַף (taph) and אִשָּׁה (ishshah) respectively.
The word ishshah is rendered “women” in most
formal translations, but also means “female.” What is most important in this
verse is the Hebrew word taph which is translated “children” here. In
the King James Version, taph is most
commonly translated “little ones” meaning very young children. In the Young’s
Literal Translation, Robert Young transliterated taph as “infants”.
and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a
male, ye have kept alive for yourselves.
– Numbers 31:18 (YLT)
The consistent interpretation of this text is that it is
not talking about marriageable age women, but very young girls. They were
probably kept as handmaids and would have been raised and trained in Jewish
culture to become wives later on.
Because there are so many issues to address in Numbers
31, rather than dealing with this particular verse, I’m going to move on to
Deuteronomy 21:11-14, because it goes into greater detail regarding the
handling of female prisoners of war.
11 and seest among the
captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have
her to thy wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 and she shall
put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house,
and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go
in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And
it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither
she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make
merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
– Deuteronomy 21:11-14
One thing to remember when reading this passage is that
God already told the Israelites not to take wives of foreign nations.
1 When the Lord thy God
shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast
out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the
Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when
the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and
utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy
unto them: 3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy
daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take
unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me,
that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled
against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
– Deuteronomy 7:1-4
God was less concerned with the issue of international or
interracial marriages as he was about interfaith marriages. God was worried
that interfaith marriages would result in Israel turning to false gods. As
scripture records, God’s concern about interfaith marriages was justifiable as
I discussed in a previous post (link).
In the ancient world, warfare usually ended with the
defeated nation becoming tribute to the victor and often, the victorious nation
would take slaves from the defeated nation. God knew that this would occur and
that men, being men, would see an attractive female and want her to be his
wife. This would almost always result in an interfaith marriage. God knew that,
just as in the case of divorce, His people would not obey him concerning
interfaith marriages and so He regulated it.
Interestingly, in regulating this kind of marriage, God
not only recognizes the basic humanity of captives, but also raises any female
prisoner of war who becomes a Hebrew’s wife to full citizenship status within
Israel.
First, after she is captured, if a man wants to take her
as a wife, she is given a month to mourn her family (Deut. 21:13). Second, once
she is married to a Hebrew man, she becomes a full citizen of Israel with all
the normal rights of a wife and woman within that culture (Exodus 21:10). If,
at any time, her husband decides to divorce her, she cannot be sold as a slave,
but must be let go free (Deut. 21:14).
I have to admit, I wouldn’t want to marry a woman from a
country I defeated, especially if the war was responsible for her family’s
death. I would probably have a hard time sleeping if I was married to such a
woman. However, in every war, there are those who collaborate with the enemy.
 |
Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Escape from
Rahab's House, 1860
|
In the Book of Joshua, chapter 2 we read about a
Canaanite woman named Rahab who collaborated with Israelite spies as they
gathered intelligence for the impending Battle of Jericho. As part of her
collaboration, she made a deal with the spies to save her and her family during
the battle (Joshua 2:12-14). When the Battle of Jericho finally occurred, Rahab
and her family were saved (Joshua 6:17, 23) and became citizens of Israel
(Joshua 6:25).
Rahab’s profession is described as a harlot (Darby,
Douay-Rheims, ERV, KJV, NASB, YLT), or a prostitute (ESV) and was almost
certainly an adherent of one of the Canaanite cults. Not only was she allowed
to become a citizen, but she also married a Hebrew man named Salmon and became
an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5). So, it is likely that she became a
Hebrew proselyte. In the case of a convert to the Jewish faith, a foreign
marriage would not violate The Law because Jewish converts essentially became
de facto citizens of Israel.
Rahab wasn’t necessarily a prisoner of war and she
probably didn’t have to shave her head. However, in circumstances such as this,
the regulation concerning female prisoners of war would have been applicable.
Marriage Between
Slaves
2 If thou buy an Hebrew
servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for
nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if
he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his
master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife
and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children; I will not go out free: 6 then his master shall bring him
unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post;
and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him
for ever.
Exodus 21:2-6
The criticism of this passage is, once again, based on
imposing a modern view of marriage on the Ancient Near Eastern view of
marriage.
When a woman was sold into slavery, the amount paid to
the girl’s family was seen as a bride price and woman became either the wife of
the man purchasing her or his daughter if he was given to his son. A man who
bought a female slave, had no intention of giving her to a son, had no son, was
already married, or married after he bought a female slave, would still be
required to provide for her as a wife in all respects, including “her duty of
marriage” which means to have sex with the expectation of procreation (Exodus
21:10). If he was unwilling or unable to perform her “duty of marriage” he
could give her to a male slave to perform the “duty of marriage” (Ex. 21:4)[vi]
or he had to let her go free (Ex. 21:11).
Because marriages, especially within slavery were not
based on romance or love, the separation of husband and wife may not have been
as traumatic as we, in modern times might expect. Even so, Exodus 21 indicates
that intimate relationships did develop between slaves. While Exodus 21 only
shows one option for male slaves who wanted to remain with their wives married
during servitude, there were actually two options.
The first option, found in Exodus 21:4-6, is that the
man, rather than going free, elects to remain in permanent servitude to his
master. When we think of slavery today, we imagine the American antebellum
South and the horrific and inhuman treatment of African slaves. With that kind
of imagery, it would cause us to think that a slave actually electing permanent servitude has some
kind of Stockholm syndrome. Slavery, as the Bible regulated it, was nothing
like the slavery practiced in pre-Civil War America. Biblical slavery more
closely represented indentured servitude, but slaves were still better treated.
They lived in the home, much like family. With that understanding, it is easier
to understand how a person, especially someone with little or no other
financial support could freely volunteer to be a slave for life.
The second option would have been that he could go free,
in which case his wife would be retained by his previous master. However, he
could make a contract with his previous master to purchase his wife’s freedom.
Since a female slave was considered a wife or a daughter, this would have been
much like a marriage arrangement. He could stay on as a free servant like Jacob
did with Laban and serve for a predetermined amount of time to earn the bride
price (Genesis 29), or he could go out and raise the funds himself and return
to redeem his wife and children at a later date.[vii]
12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew
man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in
the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13 And when thou sendest
him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14 thou shalt
furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy
winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give
unto him.
– Deuteronomy 15:12-14
Deuteronomy 15:12-15 not only required a slave to be set
free in the seventh year, but also required a slave owner to “furnish him
liberally” (Deut 15:14) with livestock, a share of crops, and wine. The idea
was to prevent a person from having to sell themselves back into slavery at a
later date. However, a man could negotiate the terms of his manumission to
include his wife and children at the expense of the normal manumission gifts
which would then be seen as the bride price.
Exodus 21 seems to leave a freed slave no hope of ever
seeing his wife and children again unless he chooses to remain a slave.
However, in the light of the rest of scripture and the culture of the time, we
can see clearly that was not the case.
[i] Strong,
James. "H8610 תָּפַשׂ." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. 1593. Print.
[ii] Gill,
John. "Deuteronomy 22 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition on the Whole
Bible." StudyLight.org. StudyLight.org, 1999. Web. <http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=022&verse=028>.
[iii] Jordan,
James B. "Chapter 8 'Faithfulness'" The Law of the Covenant.
Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984. 149. Print.
[iv] Kent,
Charles Foster. "Seduction." Israel's Laws and Traditional
Precedents. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907. 118. Print.
[v] Schauss,
Hayyim. "Ancient Jewish Marriage." The Lifetime of a Jew Throughout the Ages of Jewish History. New
York, NY: Urj, 1998. My Jewish Learning.
Web.<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/#>.
[vi]
Sarna, Nahum M. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish
Publication Society, 1991. 119. Print.
[vii]
Westbrook, Raymond, and Gary M. Beckman. A History of Ancient Near Eastern
Law. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 384. Print.
