Printable View
And, if they do, how should/does a modern man who wants to lead a virtuous life (in accordance with his faith), deal with it? How do eg. people who hold the Bible in high regard handle the fact that Eve conspired with the Snake to lure Adam into pomuvory? Is it just a story/factual account or does it serve to illustrate a deeper truth about women?
I know there are a number of believers here, I'm just curious as to how you (and those you know) approach these issues :)
So because one woman was an evil temptress once upon a time (or however you want to frame that allegory), all women must also be the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There are also plenty of examples of women in the Bible who were righteous/virtuous/good, you know.
I realise this! At the same time, women getting good men into trouble also seems to be a popular theme! Could it not be that the Bible and its counterparts, with their stories, are trying to tell us things about life? Or at least that the stories end up subtly influencing the way many believers approach life?
But women get good men into trouble, not that it is really their fault. But "cherche la femme" works in real live often enough. It's not suprising that fiction uses inpiration from real live situations.
So as someone who believes in personal responsibility, Adam was 100% at fault for his sin. Eve was 100% at fault for her sin. Eve doesn't take the blame for Adam's sin, its all on Adam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If not that, then what do you suppose the objective of a religious text is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Isn't the Old Testament full of early Israelite tribe rules? Stone gays to death, raped women must marry their rapists, no sex before marriage, the ten commandments, etc. Content-wise it seems to be nothing more than an explanation for how the world came to be, and early Israelite tribe rules used to make the tribe larger and more powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Raped women must marry their rapists? I'd like to see the chapter and verse on that one.
Indeed, the OT/Torah is essentially the tale of the Israelite tribes, but for those who view it as a "religious text," it is also a guide on how to live one's life.
EDIT:
He's probably referring to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Of course, no other English translation mistranslates the Hebrew (taphas and shakab) to imply forcible sexual conduct, so one might come to the conclusion that NIV is just a bad translation. Or if one has an axe to grind against the Bible, one might use it to say the Bible condones rape. <shrug>
and god was 100% responsible for his. Namely stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Well, it's actually an open question what is meant by u'tfasah in that passage. The verb itself means, roughly, 'grabbed' or 'took', with an implication just short of theft. So, he 'took' her and slept with her; what does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Clearly a man had sexual contact with an unmarried virgin. Clearly a reasonable punishment is to pay a 'bride price' (presumably because virgins fetched larger dowries), even if said sexual contact was consensual. Yet the question remains about the rest of the punishment and description 22:29; why must he marry her, and why can't he divorce her? It would seem from the context that she is considered 'damaged goods' and may be largely unable to find a husband. Thus, the law mandates he must marry her. Yet why can't he divorce? Well, it would be a simple matter for him to marry and then divorce her to circumvent the punishment. Nevertheless, it seems odd that consensual sex would result in such a steep price to the man without some cost to the woman as well.
That being said, it's hard to read this as consensual sexual contact. The second verse uses the term 'ina as the reason for his punishment. ('For he has done X to her', where X is the meaning of 'ina.) It's not very clear from its few examples in scripture what precisely this word means. It is used in the story of Dinah (Jacob's daughter) to describe what Shechem did to her; the common understanding is rape. In modern Hebrew, it's an (uncommon) term for rape. Yet in fact it's unclear whether it means that particularly. It does have a negative context - torment, torture, force, violate, etc. - but it's not entirely clear what it actually was supposed to mean. I have heard it speculated that 'ina means simply to 'deflower', or take away a woman's virginity, without the context of force. I was not convinced by the reasoning, but it's possible. Yet combining the context of u'tfasah and 'ina, it seems likely that this is indeed talking about a case of rape. It's not 100% clear, though, since it's a bit surprising that this only discusses rape of a virgin. I have seen it read both ways.
If that is true, it does seem horrifying that a woman would be forced to marry their rapist. However, a close reading of the verse actually would seem to indicate the opposite. The verse is directed as a punishment against the rapist - something along the lines of 'you break it, you buy it'. It does not, however, indicate that the woman is remotely forced to consent to marrying him - the rules are all directed at constraining the man's rights, not the woman's. I imagine in some societies a rape victim might wish to take the guaranteed option of marriage (with all of the rights that accrue to her) over a near-impossible attempt to marry someone else. It doesn't seem like she is forced to, though - it's just an option.
I don't think we're talking about societies and an era where choice was a massive feature of women's lives in the first place. I read that passage, even with a very uncharitable interpretation, and I don't think the author sat down intending to say 'woman should be forced to marry their rapists'. Rather, I think that it simply never occurred to him that the woman would want or should have a choice in the matter. As you say, it reads like the author thinks he's doing a victim a favor.Quote:
I imagine in some societies a rape victim might wish to take the guaranteed option of marriage (with all of the rights that accrue to her) over a near-impossible attempt to marry someone else. It doesn't seem like she is forced to, though - it's just an option.
Enh, well, there are a couple other verses in that chapter which clearly regard rape, and death by stoning, which use different Hebrew words. (As well, those particular words are used in other passages which are translated in the sense of "have sex with" not "rape.") If "rape" was what was meant, then I'd think the wording would have been more clear, and that the NIV translation wouldn't be the only English translation to use "rape" in that passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Of course, as mentioned, it's all complicated by the fact that women didn't actually have a choice in it anyway - they were their father's property, and married whom he dictated, which was nigh impossible if they weren't a virgin. Hence the monetary damages and the ~"you break the hymen, you're responsible for the woman so long as you live" thing.
You seem to be over analyzing this and taking it out of context. As Cain said, women were essentially property in the Bible. Women actually had no rights, and were of little importance besides giving birth for men. Every time a child is born, it is always male in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
And yet, even the Old and New Testaments (written by male scribes in paternalistic cultures) couldn't erase or minimize the importance of women. Every time a child is born, it's borne from a woman. Even if it's an "immaculate conception".Quote:
Originally Posted by Knux897
Right because this is seen as the only thing women are good for in the Bible... again women are treated as property.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35"
Women aid the Israelite tribe by providing more soldiers... it's a bit barbaric for this century don't you think? Retroactive continuism doesn't change the context.
You know, I thought about trying to correct the crazy, but then I thought... "why bother?"Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's no big surprise that ancient cultures treated women (or certain racial groups) as property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knux897
The American Southern Baptist Church still prescribes to that type of 'wives submit to your husbands' philosophy. The Roman Catholic Church still refuses to ordain females as priests. What's your point?Quote:
"...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35"
Women aid the Israelite tribe by providing more soldiers... it's a bit barbaric for this century don't you think? Retroactive continuism doesn't change the context.
Just a guess, but that the importance of women in ancient times and the Bible is on par with the importance of cattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
That's not true, the ancient Egyptians treated women much better than many of the other civilizations of ancient times. The Israelite tribe was notorious for brutality in it's stories once Egyptian migrants brought down the war god Yahweh from the mountains and incorporated him into early Israelite culture. The Old Testament is the tribal guidelines and rules for the Israelites and clearly shows their perspective: the more people we have, the easier it is to kill our rival tribes and steal their resources. Women are closely protected simply because they helped the population grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Okay, so from that perspective women were a protected group as a means to an end. More women meant more babies, which meant the possibility of more future soldiers...and the ability to fight and kill rival tribes for xyz. Ancient Egyptians treated certain women with a reverence and idolatry, but it didn't convey to all women. Being a royal slave was once considered a historical honor, but by today's definition that might be considered misogyny. Or at the very least, exploitation based on gender.
Where in the world do you get this from? If you have machinery in a factory, you obviously want to protect it so it keeps producing goods. Women in Israelite tribal society had less status than animals. And you completely pulled your opinion on Egyptians out of nowhere. The ancient Egyptians were known to be an exception in the ancient world when it came to women; people married out of love and passion and women generally had more freedom and rights and even power which you just don't see in most of the other ancient civilizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Er... that chapter has one other case of rape, and while it uses a different language (ALSO not a common language for rape; it says v'hehezik bah, which roughly translates as 'and he takes hold of her'), it is also in a different context, coming after several clauses. There simply doesn't appear to be a consistent term for rape in the Bible; it's difficult to make a convincing case for a commonly used word to describe the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Furthermore, it's actually much MORE believable it's talking about rape in the context of the passage. Just before this case is the famous case of the na'arah hameorasah (roughly, the betrothed woman), who is implicated in adultery if she had sex in the city without calling out, but if it occurred outside a populated area is assumed to have been raped if there is no evidence to the contrary. From there it segues directly into a discussion of another seemingly forcible encounter (tfisah does imply a level of force) with an unbetrothed virgin. I don't think it's foolproof logic by any means, but it's certainly suggestive. Understanding the passage as talking about rape - regardless of whether an accurate translation should use the word - is not unreasonable in context.
First of all, that's not true - either about women having no rights or the only children being born being male (I believe the first named was Dinah, and the first unnamed was in the early geneologies in Genesis saying people birthed 'sons and daughters'). Secondly, you have to use a great deal of analysis to dissect what the text means. While Hebrew has continuously been studied or used since the writing of the Hebrew Bible (ranging from 2200 to 3500 years ago), its context and connotations have definitely changed. Furthermore, the text is clearly terse and formalistic in its phrasing, making it difficult to understand without careful forensic analysis. Whether one believes it's handed down to Moses as a complete work from God or a stitched together text by a group of deuteronomists, it still requires careful analysis to have any sense of what it was actually talking about. I presented the most likely scenarios based on fairly common argumentation; if you think THIS is serious analysis, you haven't seen people take on the really puzzling sections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knux897
I'm very curious to see a source for this contention. I don't necessarily think you're wrong - certainly the role of women in the Bible is not large, and many of the passages are clearly directed at men. Yet where is your source for the Israelite tribe being 'notorious for brutality', or this 'war god' being brought down from the mountains?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knux897
Also, I'm very curious what meta-analysis you've read of the OT or Torah in particular suggesting that it is a book aimed at developing a warlike culture with the simple goal of population growth and raiding for resources. I have yet to see that reading and am curious where you got it from - I suspect it would be an interesting analysis.
I didn't say "notorious for brutality", but "notorious for brutality in their stories", as the Bible clearly shows (all the genocide, massacre, etc.) From what I've seen, the Israelite tribe wasn't necessarily brutal in their methods of warring (or at least any different from other tribes in their methods). Yahweh wasn't originally part of the early polytheistic religion of the Israelites, but was brought to them from the mountains of Edom, as a storm/war god. It may not be directly related, but this could be one of the potential reasons he appeared as a burning bush on a mountain. The Kenite hypothesis and the introduction of Yahweh to the Israelites is thought to be the inspiration behind Exodus. As there is no archaeological evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt, the Kenite hypothesis states that a figure named Moses (and perhaps a small group of Egyptian migrants with him) traveled from Midian (or Midia?) through the mountains of Edom and brought his knowledge of Yahweh to the Israelites and other tribes of Canaan. Yahweh was originally thought to be a servant to the creator or master god El, and this is apparent in most translations of the Torah. It isn't really until the King James Bible that this is smoothed over.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I never said that the Torah was aimed towards promoting Israelite culture, war or population growth. Taken at face value, it's just a collection of stories from early Israelite culture that happen to reflect the mentality of the tribe. For example, with population growth is reflected in the marriage customs. No sex before marriage (possible loss of a warrior or mother to the tribe), stoning of gays to death (either homophobic tendencies which I doubt, or it is unproductive to the tribe), etc. The same goes for "the raiding of resources" category. Again from what I've read, the Israelite tribe didn't necessarily go around eliminating or stealing from other tribes (even though the Torah would like us to think so), but it wasn't uncommon for these tribes to be in conflict or rival with one another. It's no different from the thousands of regions, countries, tribes, organizations, etc. who have competed in the past or today. With population growth comes power, trade and security, which the tribe easily would have wanted. This is reflected in the ten commandments and other various rules set down in the Torah.
I don't necessarily have a single source for all of this, I've just put it together from various sources of speculation, archaeology and analysis of the Bible.
So, in other words, they weren't. A reading by most observers would recognize that there's plenty of conflict, but not necessarily much in the way of brutality. The notable exception would be Amalek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knux897
I'm well aware of the Kenite hypothesis, but I was completely unaware that he was an Edomite god of war. To be honest, I've never heard of that, and it was kinda central to the picture you were painting. (Caveat: I have not read the primary sources on the Kenite hypothesis, so anything is possible.)Quote:
Yahweh wasn't originally part of the early polytheistic religion of the Israelites, but was brought to them from the mountains of Edom, as a storm/war god. It may not be directly related, but this could be one of the potential reasons he appeared as a burning bush on a mountain. The Kenite hypothesis and the introduction of Yahweh to the Israelites is thought to be the inspiration behind Exodus. As there is no archaeological evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt, the Kenite hypothesis states that a figure named Moses (and perhaps a small group of Egyptian migrants with him) traveled from Midian (or Midia?) through the mountains of Edom and brought his knowledge of Yahweh to the Israelites and other tribes of Canaan. Yahweh was originally thought to be a servant to the creator or master god El, and this is apparent in most translations of the Torah. It isn't really until the King James Bible that this is smoothed over.
This is entirely different from what you said above. Above you claimed this: "The Old Testament is the tribal guidelines and rules for the Israelites and clearly shows their perspective: the more people we have, the easier it is to kill our rival tribes and steal their resources. Women are closely protected simply because they helped the population grow."Quote:
I never said that the Torah was aimed towards promoting Israelite culture, war or population growth. Taken at face value, it's just a collection of stories from early Israelite culture that happen to reflect the mentality of the tribe. For example, with population growth is reflected in the marriage customs. No sex before marriage (possible loss of a warrior or mother to the tribe), stoning of gays to death (either homophobic tendencies which I doubt, or it is unproductive to the tribe), etc. The same goes for "the raiding of resources" category. Again from what I've read, the Israelite tribe didn't necessarily go around eliminating or stealing from other tribes (even though the Torah would like us to think so), but it wasn't uncommon for these tribes to be in conflict or rival with one another. It's no different from the thousands of regions, countries, tribes, organizations, etc. who have competed in the past or today. With population growth comes power, trade and security, which the tribe easily would have wanted. This is reflected in the ten commandments and other various rules set down in the Torah.
I just don't see the OT as clearly showing that at all. Sure, I'm confident you could pull out a half dozen examples to fit your pet theory, but it would ignore huge amounts of text. It's very possible to construct a coherent theory about the sources of OT thought - just look at Wellhausen's masterpiece - but I'm afraid you haven't done it.
Nevertheless, I don't want to derail the thread further, so feel free to respond but I'll try to refrain from giving a counter response.
Why, though, when the tangent is more interesting than the OP.Quote:
Nevertheless, I don't want to derail the thread further, so feel free to respond but I'll try to refrain from giving a counter response.
The genocide of Jericho, the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. doesn't reflect a brutal mentallity?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
EDIT: Were the Amalek related to these occurences? If so, then my mistake.
Sorry if I've been unclear, the Torah doesn't directly reflect what I've said, and I used it poorly. I don't see any particular reason to stop this discussion though, interpreting ancient works certainly correlates with the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin