translation, interpretation and clarification
Having only recently become fairly fluent in a second language, and having previously lived with understanding of only one language, I’m amazed at the different styles of expression available, even between two quite closely-related languages. As I teach English, I get quite a lot of translation requests from my students for words or expressions that I can’t accurately express in English. Individual expressions that can carry meaning in several situations where in English we would use various combinations of wildly different words depending on the context. Or individual words specific to the culture that can only be translated by a description in English. I guess these are obvious points, but living with it on a day to day basis has really been a revelation to me.
Even in our native tongue, when discussing ideas or stories with someone, it is typical to interject for clarification. The words we utter don’t immediately enter the heads of others with the clarity we feel as they leave our mouths. Our brain interprets and processes information, influenced by our experiences and our expectations of what the person is saying. In a face to face or online discussion with someone the to and fro of clarification can be quite lengthy, even on rather simple matters.
Every major piece of literature that has been written has endless study guides and spin-offs of academics interpreting and clarifying what the original text was saying and why, providing insight into the personal lives of the authors, their motivations, experiences that influenced them and how the culture they were living in affected their writing. They don’t all agree. Everyone has a new angle, and it seems that every generation discovers something ‘new’ that the previous generation misunderstood – as if the further we move from someone’s words, the more clarity we get. However, once the author is dead, no-one can say what the original meaning of their text actually was or what they hoped the reader would understand from their words. It’s all speculation based on our best guess, given the relevant words at our disposal.
Given the problems we have with translation and interpretation, and our constant need for in-depth clarification, I’m thinking that a collection of books written between two and four thousand years ago by around 40 different authors and in three different languages, has the potential to have more than a few problems. There have been 450 translations of the Bible, just into English. Here are some extracts from just three commonly used translations:
King James: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife.
New English Translation: Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife
Complete Jewish Bible: “If a man comes upon a girl who is a virgin but who is not engaged, and he grabs her and has sexual relations with her, and they are caught in the act, then the man who had intercourse with her must give to the girl’s father one-and-a-quarter pounds of silver shekels, and she will become his wife
We’re probably all familiar with the idea that if a woman is grabbed, lain hold of or overpowered in a sexual act, this is rape. We might not all be familiar with the idea that she should marry her rapist, but then the rules of a benevolent god might not always make sense to us, or indeed be ‘moral’ in even a psychopath’s universe. The interesting thing to note here is that ‘lay hold’, ‘grab’ and ‘overpower’ are three very different verbs to be using for one language. They convey very different levels of force. Even so, imagine my surprise to be involved in a discussion with a Christian who believes that there is a mistranslation here and the Bible is referring to consensual sex. It seems that translation and interpretation errors know no bounds.
Unfortunately for our society, a lot of Christians these days are oblivious to some very basic facts about language and understanding. They believe that their deity has delivered a book that is divinely inspired – both in its original form and its widely varying translations. The believe it has a correct interpretation of these different yet correct translations, without the possibility of referring to the original authors. Is it just me struggling with a second language, or does this seem rather far-fetched?
Not far fetched at all. I’d be inclined to say that not only have you gotten right but that those whose translation of the words is benign are themselves capable of justifying the very acts which you and I find vile in order that they would not be punished for committing them.
That is to say, in gentlest possible terms: It takes a fucking rapist asshole to justify raping women in the name of your god. If I might interject with a slightly off topic comment, that very book has nothing bad to say about those who would rape a child. The Koran is even more vile about it.
LikeLike
That’s a good point, it’s frightening what the Bible could be used to justify.
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m just tainted now… it’s already been used to justify every kind of evil. I/we should discount for that alone… sigh
LikeLike
What in the world does this discussion have to do with justifying rape? That’s the most unfounded idea imaginable. I argue that Deut. 22:28 is talking about seduction rather than rape….how the hell does that equate to trying to justify rape?!
LikeLike
Dude, do you just sit down and decide to be obtuse out of spite or did someone piss in your cheerios today?
LikeLike
You assert that identifying a particular passage as a discussion of consensual sex rather than rape is a way of justifying rape. That’s definitely the verbal equivalent of urine in my Toasty Os.
LikeLike
Statutory rape…. mean anything to you?
LikeLike
Yes, I know what statutory rape is.
Are you saying that Violet is wrong about 22:28 describing forcible rape, and that I’m wrong about it describing consensual sex, and it’s actually talking about statutory rape? What would make you think that?
LikeLike
What is clear to conclude is that consensual sex is only consensual when both parties have the freedom to exercise the choice. Women have not had social privilege until LONG after the ink of that book was long dry. At the time of it’s writing any sex with a man’s daughter was considered theft and rape because the daughter’s ‘partner’ has sullied her and now must pay for her livelihood and compensate the father who can now not sell her off. Is it theft if a man runs off with a pubescent 12 year old girl who ‘wants’ to go with him? In the context of most societies up to quite recently, the male in that instance is guilty of both rape and theft.
By your definition a man who fucks a sheep that likes it is having consensual sex. There is more to the rule being given than simple desire. Rape is rape. It does not have to be violent to be rape. The appropriate way to have intercourse with the girl is being violated – this is statutory rape. The way it is written it also covers violent rape. You might take care to notice that at no point in the Christian bible is a woman permitted to determine her own lovers … except for harlots and whores.
LikeLike
I dont think you say where this verse occurs. Can you give the citation of the quote?
LikeLike
Welcome back Louis! Interesting question as ever (for people who can’t use Google). Deuteronomy 22:28
LikeLike
Nope, not far fetched at all. There is definitely a problem which theists would want to sweep under the carpet.
LikeLike
The divine inspiration clearly only goes so far …
LikeLike
Or the divine got tired after inspiring a few people and then they screwed his message!
LikeLike
Holy crap! Great post, Language of the “church” defies reason or explanation.
Check out these posts I wrote a few months ago….
http://notestoponder.wordpress.com/?s=sharia+law&submit=Search
🙂
LikeLike
Thanks! Will try and have a look later today.
LikeLike
No, I agree with you. No matter how good the editorial committees of the bible have been since its divine inception, I can’t but think that the bulk of its meaning got lost in translation. Add to that the politically inspired editing over time, and what you have at best is a truly interested record of politics through the ages.
LikeLike
It would be so interesting to know the full history of the editing!
LikeLike
Shane thy didn’t use Wikipedia
LikeLike
There’s no such thing as “lost in translation” when you still have the original language and plenty of people who are fluent in the original language.
LikeLike
If you refer to the translation of documents that were written centuries after the words were spoken, or millennia in the case of the old testament, than you are absolutely right.
LikeLike
Of course I am. =P
LikeLike
🙂
Just for fun. This is what Wikipedia says about this: The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary). The oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus). The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic text, which modern editions are based upon, date to the 9th century CE
LikeLike
One wouldn’t expect papyrus and vellum to last much longer than that. But the nice thing is that we have enough independent manuscripts to use genetic text analysis and reconstruct/date the originals.
LikeLike
I read that ‘discussion’, and I cannot for the life of me see any way that the verses in any other version could be interpreted as consensual.
He is a Silly Person -which is worse than a dickhead….
LikeLike
Aw, I think he means well. He just has a big pair of blinkers he can’t get rid of. What do you think of the bird?
LikeLike
Today’s desktop. What is it? don’t say hummingbird!
Aren’t you packing yet?
LikeLike
At this point, my computer is likely to be smashed if I’m caught. Sssh, I’m like any sneaky addict. 🙂
LikeLike
By whom?
LikeLike
Not very imaginative, are we?
LikeLike
The postmodern idea is that the text has multiple meanings, independent of the intention of the author. Different generations will have different views of, say, the teacher Bradley Headstone, and each may be “right”.
On that verse, there was the idea that if a woman was not a virgin before marrying, she was spoilt and no man would marry her, which survived in Europe until quite recently. So this is a mitigation of a worse horror, rather than a rule made up to be monstrous.
LikeLike
I think there are almost valid arguments for its use for those with faith, and that certainly sounds more plausible that the inerrant divine rulebook. I think the chapter just shows that women were treated like cattle.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right. The chapter shows that the ANE Hebrew culture absolutely treated women like property. The question is this: did the chapter encourage this treatment, or pull away from it?
LikeLike
We’ve discussed this before, but just in case you forgot … it continues the general treatment but adds the commonsense angle of how to get good value out of your cattle.
LikeLike
Except for the “he is not permitted to divorce her” restriction. What does that have to do with women-as-property?
LikeLike
What? You’re switching your argument. You agreed with this. Don’t have time for silliness.
LikeLike
I agree that the chapter evidences a particular cultural attitude; I don’t agree that it encourages that attitude.
What’s your answer to my question?
LikeLike
Wonderful article, Violetwisp! I really like the build up to the point you’re making. Not being able to ask for clarification from the original author or speaker can really make matters complicated and when trying to make sense of the bible, looking at the time and culture in which it was written might be a better idea than seeing these texts as the ‘rules imposed by a benevolent god’. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks! Clarification is such an important point, and I think there are still often lingering doubts.
LikeLike
That’s the exact problem with fundamentalism.
LikeLike
So you keep saying but I think you’ll find that most versions of Christianity (except Quakers as far as I know) extract rules from this rulebook. Most of them try to use a bit more common sense than the fundamentalists, but often there’s not that much in it. ‘Inerrant’ and ‘inspired’ can get similar results. How many denominations are you familiar with, in terms of church membership or attendance?
LikeLike
(Virtually) all versions of Christianity use the Bible to learn information about God. But this specific practice….pointing to individual passages, claiming inerrancy, and turning them into absolute rules….is quite recent.
I grew up in or was a member of at least ten denominations, and I’ve regularly visited or extensively studied around two dozen more.
LikeLike
(in one state in the USA?)
LikeLike
Two actually.
LikeLike
What a crappy, ill-conceived, poorly written scattering of heathen drivel. The lord maketh no mistake… you just haven’t tuned in correctly. I’ll pray for you.
LikeLike
Thanks John, your love always shines through. 🙂
LikeLike
Well someone had to stop the love-fest going on above 🙂
LikeLike
There’s certainly a conceptual challenge here. Even if you’re a maximally competent divine author, your words are still going to be subject to reinterpretation and alteration, well-meaning or otherwise. So I guess the best idea would be to make sure you have two or three copies of all the really important stuff in case one of your examples gets misinterpreted. Hmm, I wonder if there are any examples of that. **cough Exodus 22:16 cough**
Where’s that last quote from?
I think it’s patently disingenuous not to explain that the immediately preceding verse very obviously talks about rape, and this verse uses a different, somewhat ambiguous term that’s been translated in about a dozen different ways. It’s REALLY not that hard to grab a concordance and learn all this for yourself; that’s why I always laugh when people throw fits about translations.
LikeLike
Doesn’t say much for your god if it couldn’t even state what it meant clearly, without ambiguity. Rather pathetic, actually….
LikeLike
Human language is ambiguous. Period. The best way to overcome ambiguity is to give multiple examples of the same point so that misinterpretations will fall to the wayside.
LikeLike
Oh what bollocks! Are you trying to say your Middle Eastern god is that incompetent that it can’t even get a message across?
That’s hilarious!
LikeLike
No, I’m saying that a competent author would provide multiple versions of the same statements so as to reduce the probability of sincere misinterpretation.
LikeLike
Don’t change the subject. the Middle Eastern god you believe in couldn’t even impart a simple message. That’s pathetic!
LikeLike
Where is this coming from?
LikeLike
Same place it always comes from…. i find the belief in the gods utterly preposterous, and anti-human. Here, not sure if you ever saw this post but i’ll copy it here… It’s short enough:
Apologetics is the rather ambitious attempt to defend the claim that the bible is the inerrant word of an infallible, omnipotent god. By extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity. Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognisable to all sentient creatures regardless of locale or epoch, and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omnipotent, no mind-set at all.
Now here comes that awkward moment for the bible-wielding fundamentalist. If this claim were in way true there wouldn’t be apologists practicing apologetics. It’s as simple as that.
LikeLike
“Apologetics is…the claim that the bible is the inerrant word of an infallible, omnipotent god.”
Good thing I’m not an apologist then.
LikeLike
Yes you are. You defend, quite vigorously, the existence of the Middle Eastern god.
LikeLike
You just defined apologetics as defense of the claim that the bible is the inerrant word of an infallible, omnipotent diety. That’s not the same as arguing for the existence of a deity.
Maybe you need to reword that to say “fundamentalist apologetics”?
LikeLike
Oh don’t get technical. You have one source for your belief in the Middle Eastern god, the bible, so it stands.
LikeLike
What’s there to get technical about? I’m just going by the very specific definition you provided. Is the definition overly narrow?
LikeLike
How about you skip the deflection and side steps and address the point of the post….
LikeLike
I agree with the point of the post. It’s really stupid and self-defeating to pretend that the Bible is a set of infallible inerrant propositions that can be fractally quote-mined without losing truth value.
LikeLike
And yet you cling to the Middle Eastern god whose only mentioned in this book… i find that completely odd.
LikeLike
That’s because I see the Bible as the product of divine interaction with man, rather than a set of propositions provided by God.
LikeLike
It’s your right, but i see that as an excuse. My point being, if a god existed and really wanted to leave a message (while it hid somewhere else) it should be able to do so and leave no room for doubt.
Alas, seems people will always be in the business of making excuses for magical sky men they’ve never seen.
LikeLike
I find it quite silly when people think they can or should make excuses for God. It makes no sense whatsoever. Judges 6:31, anyone?
Is it possible for anyone to communicate through the medium of human language without the potential to introduce ambiguity?
LikeLike
It seems that the real difference between this verse and the preceding verses is not so much in whether the sex was rape or consensual, but in whether or not the woman in question is already betrothed or not. Already someone else’s property? Stone her. Not yet spoken for? Congratulations. You just bought yourself a bride.
LikeLike
Stone her? The preceding verse says “She is innocent and has done nothing wrong.”
LikeLike
Wait. Weren’t you just complaining about people not reading in context? Back up a few more verses.
LikeLike
Right, I’m well aware that the penalty for adultery was capital punishment. You claim that the passage doesn’t care whether it was consensual or nonconsensual, but that’s the exact distinction between 23-24 and 25-27.
13-19 protects women from slander (rather progressive).
20-21 describes the penalty for prostitution (understandable given a culture without birth control or STD protection).
22 and 23-24 describe the penalty for adultery.
25-27 protects rape victims and provides the death penalty for rapists.
28-29 describes the provisions for an unattached couple who sleeps together before marriage, possibly in the context of an illegitimate pregnancy (“and they are discovered” would seem to indicate this).
LikeLike
Most of the time as I browse through these comments I am somewhat offended by the way that certain individuals seem to “pick on” poor physicsandwhiskey. But I think I am starting to understand. Do you deliberately mis-read what people are saying?
It is true that there is a distinction between consensual sex (stone them!) and non-consensual sex (she is innocent!) in some of the verses preceding the verse in question. My point was not to discount that, but to focus on the difference in this verse, which you claimed earlier was about the ambiguity of a word which some have translated as rape. I simply stated that I didn’t think a straight-forward reading of this verse would focus on the difference of the woman’s willingness to submit to the sexual advances, but rather that the focus on this verse seems to be that the woman has not yet become the property of another man.
If two women are raped inside the city, and neither cries out but both are somehow discovered, possibly because they are now with child, but perhaps because they are rescued, the woman who is already property is stoned, and the woman who is not yet property suddenly becomes property.
LikeLike
There is certainly a presumption that women were treated as property. No doubt about it. But that was part of the culture, not part of what is being prescribed here.
The question for us is whether the text bolsters the cultural abuse (strengthening the women-as-property theme) or works against cultural abuse (by giving women additional rights and thus weakening this theme).
A woman can either be married/betrothed or single; a sexual act can be either consensual or nonconsensual. So there are four possibilities: married and consensual, married and nonconsensual, single and consensual, single and nonconsensual.
Our text here describes only the first three instances; it does not mention the fourth instance. So it is not immediately clear whether the rape of a single woman would be treated similarly to the second instance (the rape of a married woman) or the third instance (consensual sex between single people). However, because the reasoning given for the second instance (“it is the same as when a man rises up and murders his neighbor”) would apply exactly the same, it’s likely that this would be applied.
The other important point is the repeated refrain that “he must not divorce her all the days of his life” in a variety of instances. This in no way bolsters the women-as-property interpretation; it’s a clear restriction on the man and thus enhances women’s rights contrary to the culture. That’s what I come away with, anyway.
LikeLike
Thank you for that thorough and well-expressed response.
I agree with you that there are four potential cases in the married/single consensual/nonconsensual matrix. I’m confused why you think god wouldn’t cover all of them. I also disagree that if one is left out it’s the unmarried and nonconsensual case.
I would argue that an omniscient god wouldn’t leave one possibility undiscussed, unless of course it was impossible that it might occur. Thus I think a fair reading is that it doesn’t matter to god if it’s consensual or not. Discovered sex = married. But if god did somehow forget one of the possibilities, I think the text is more likely indicating that the sex in question is nonconsensual. Grab? Lay hold? Overpower? You could possibly argue it’s talking about statutory rape if the rape verb itself is weaker than in other verses, but I don’t think it lends itself to an interpretation that it’s consensual.
I also think that the proscription of divorce in such a case is a move to strengthen women’s rights in a culture that arguably didn’t allow for many. I’m confused, though, why you think that’s the more important point. Was god trying to slowly improve upon the existing culture? That would lend itself more toward the idea that god is man-made but beneficial. Or are you saying we evaluate truth based upon how progressive it is? I don’t think it makes sense that an unchanging god would be either less or more progressive at different stages of cultural development. As long as he’s dictating the laws, why not dictate the eternal variety?
LikeLike
Right, I agree that one would have expected all four scenarios to be addressed. But there are more possible scenarios. What about a woman who is raped in the city but does scream? What if the woman “in the field” is married rather than betrothed? I’d argue these scenarios are not ignored, but are implied by context.
The OT ordinances are set up like caselaw; each example offers an underlying principle. With the betrothed-in-the-city example, there’s nothing uniquely special about being in a city or not screaming; the point is that a betrothed woman who consents to sex is committing adultery. In the betrothed-in-the-field example, there’s nothing inherent in a field; it’s the principle that a woman who is raped must not be held to answer for it (the example of a betrothed woman is used because adultery carried a greater penalty). There’s always going to be SOME situation that hasn’t been specifically covered; treating all these examples as principles lets aII address all possibilities rather than just the ones specifically defined. It’s the same way modern caselaw works.
I can see how one might argue for a “doesn’t matter whether it was consensual” view here. To me, that only works if take “and they are discovered” to mean something a little more serious, something modern readers wouldn’t pick up on but the original audience would immediately understand. If “and they are discovered” is a euphemism for pregnancy, then suddenly verse 28 means something entirely different: that if you knock up a single girl, you’re responsible for supporting her whether it was consensual or not. In this understanding, it’s basically the same as child support laws.
Now, I can already hear the objection (and, indeed, you hinted at it in your post): why would something only make sense to the ancient Hebrews and not to modern readers? Aren’t the scriptures supposed to be eternal truth? Answer: no, they aren’t. We don’t live in an ANE patristic Hebrew culture. I see no reason to accept the notion that the Bible is a collection of truth propositions which are eternally and broadly applicable; that’s an artifice of fundamentalism from the past two centuries and has no place in reasoned discourse. It doesn’t matter whether we properly understand every verse every time; what matters is how God interacted with people through history.
Of course, the “child support” interpretation doesn’t exactly mesh with Exodus 22:16, so I find it less likely.
You suggest that if God was progressively improving the culture, this would make it all seem more man-made. I’d agree, except for one thing: religion doesn’t do that. Man-made religion invariably strengthens cultural edifices and benefits people in power. My central argument (explained in more detail here) for the authenticity of Christianity is that the Jewish and Christian scriptures consistently go against what we would expect from ancient religious systems in terms of cultural progress. I argue that this trend is too complete and too pervasive to be explained in any way other than divine revelation.
When discussing divorce, Jesus explains (in a surprisingly modern fashion) that the reason for progressive revelation is the hardness of the human condition. It takes lots of time to break down cultural barriers from the inside out.
LikeLike
I’m glad we got that cleared up. For a minute there I thought there was a reason that I was discussing cultural norms and progressive laws of a nomadic society that lived thousands of years ago in the middle of nowhere.
As for the idea that religious progress is somehow more elite than secular progress, I suppose you can show that, absent Christianity or Judaism, all societies failed to advance? Or advanced at a far slower pace?
LikeLike
“For a moment there I thought there was a reason that I was discussing cultural norms and progressive laws of a nomadic society that lived thousands of years ago in the middle of nowhere.”
Haha!!
There’s certainly no reason why any ANE civil laws would produce some sort of direct moral imperative on us today, that’s for sure. They have definite historical value, of course.
I argue that the direct teachings of the Judeo-Christian scriptures were markedly more progressive than the existing cultural trends they coexisted with. In contrast, other ancient religious systems either parroted contemporary cultural trends or actively opposed them.
As science and knowledge have made the world a smaller and smaller place, ideas like gender equality and abolition and liberty and the brotherhood of mankind have emerged and gained strength. This is a natural outgrowth of increasing knowledge and prosperity, but it’s hampered by social structures that benefit from prejudice and discrimination. God used the revelation of the scriptures to reveal his purposes and plan for humanity by breaking down these barriers more quickly than would have otherwise been possible.
LikeLike
@Frogman.
Now you appreciate why P & W gets ‘picked on’
For a supposedly savvy person he can sometimes be a real dick and he behaves the same on every single post he visits, yet ‘fesses up, to this behaviour in his very own About page.
I think he still has secret email correspondence with Ken Ham.
LikeLike
Be nice. I think his earnestness is cute.
LikeLike
The only ‘Earnest’ I have been vaguely interested in is Hemingway.
Partly because I am a writer, but even if I wasn’t, he writes much more interesting fodder than our resident Ken Ham reject.
While he has been tolerated of late I will no longer countenance his nonsense.
You are yet to be sufficiently baited by our little Crispyun friend.
It is only a matter of time…..;)
LikeLike
Spammed …
LikeLike
Oh dear, methinks I am going into Spam once more…..
LikeLike
Indeed! Lots of treats of me in my Spam tin today!
LikeLike
We have secret trysts and stuff.
LikeLike
PeW, it’s like you didn’t even read or understand the post.
1. Even if *your* translation is correct, your god allowed the rape translation in his inspired book for all to follow and believe it was his good work in law-making. Bad god, sloppy god, distracted god, weak god, no god – you call it.
2. Please take 30 minutes if you have them to go to through the various English translations in Biblegateway and note the verbs:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=KJV
How many indicate a measure of force or outright rape? How can so many translators be that stupid (even assuming you don’t believe they are divinely inspired)?
3. The Exodus verse you are trying to claim is parallel is one isolated scenario that is NOT covered in the Deut verse we’re looking at, which systematically and clearly goes through lots of possible sex scenarios. Please have a look at Frogman’s comment below to think about the ramifications for any woman who was seduced or overpowered.
4. Reflect on the idiocy of any god that allowed almost 2000 years of the wrong understanding to float around and then sent the divine understanding to *you*, an understanding that is so *obvious* that no-one agrees with you.
5. I appreciate you taking the time to comment and taking so much abuse from everyone. You’re a patient man and I appreciate you’re trying to find sense but are still hampered by your upbringing. Keep records of these conversations for a good laugh in 5 years’ time. 🙂
LikeLike
1. I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. You would expect God to magically stop anyone from ever mistranslating any text related to Christianity?
2. Confirmation bias (having previously heard that the Bible commands women to marry rapists) is a very good explanation for why various translators missed this. And the word used is “take” or “take possession” or “hold onto”. It’s easy to see how this could be interpreted as a reference to force, especially if you don’t spot the contrast with the preceding verse.
And this has been translated in quite a few ways:
“seizes her and lies with her” (ESV)
“talks her into sleeping with him” (CEV)
“lay hold on her, and lie with her” (RSV)
“hath caught her, and lain with her” (YLT)
“taking her, lie with her” (DOUAY-RHEIMS)
So it’s clearly not just me.
Alleging that this “takes her and lies with her” must mean rape is akin to saying “take a wife” always also means rape.
3. The Exodus verse is absolutely a parallel, because it describes the exact same situation (with the exception of one different word) and provides the same basic provisions.
4. I can see how you might think this is the case. But take a look at the bottom of this page, which provides commentaries on this passage. They all agree it’s a consensual act. Meredith Kline, Matthew Henry, J. A. Thompson, Charles Foster Kent, and Keil and Delitzsch all state that it is consensual. I’m not making anything up here; you’re the one advancing an interpretation at odds with centuries of commentary and scholarship.
5. Thanks for not participating in the abuse! 🙂
LikeLike
1. I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. You would expect God to magically stop anyone from ever mistranslating any text related to Christianity?
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Did your god God forget to add “only if you get the right translation” on to the end of that? The NIV is the post popular version in English and it says ‘rape’! That is spreading a lot of bad ideas.
2. “And this has been translated in quite a few ways” I know. That’s why I asked you to do the exercise you didn’t do. Most of them suggest a degree of force and some explicitly state ‘rape’. Do you really think that many translators are that stupid and suffer from confirmation bias? Not very professional and suggestible but good with languages? Translate the Bible!! God won’t help you, he’s busy finding Pastor Tom’s wife a parking place down at Walmart.
3. “The Exodus verse is absolutely a parallel, because it describes the exact same situation (with the exception of one different word) and provides the same basic provisions.” Grrrr. That annoys me. You can clearly see the context is different. It provides the same provisions because as you very well know, consensual and non-consensual sex made no difference to the rule writer. If you shag her, she’s yours! (unless she was sworn to someone else in which case you die)
4. “I’m not making anything up here; you’re the one advancing an interpretation at odds with centuries of commentary and scholarship.” I’m advancing the interpretation FROM THE MOST COMMON ENGLISH SPEAKING BIBLE and many others. All the other Christians you cite are just so horrified that their god would suggest such a clearly evil thing that they’re scrabbling to find some sense in it and willing another interpretation on to the words. Just another fine example of the malleability of your faith.
LikeLike
1. Do you believe any substantive discrepancy between two translations is de facto proof that Christianity is false?
2. The word taphas certainly suggests physicality (isn’t all sex physical?), but it’s markedly different from the word used to denote rape in the preceding verse. That’s why translating this as rape is so ridiculous.
3. What do you think of the conversation with frogman on this possibility?
4. Why are you depending on a translation when you can just drop over to an online concordance and look it up yourself?
LikeLike
Does anyone else find it odd that the rapist only has to pay her father and marry her if he is caught in the act? As the woman being raped, would you try to call for help in such a situation, knowing that if someone comes to your aid you will be forced to marry your attacker, or would you keep quiet and hope nobody notices so that you won’t be stuck with the jerk for the rest of your life? Oh. Wait. Didn’t I read that if she doesn’t cry out, she will be stoned to death? Hm. I guess you call for help. Right?
LikeLike
Fantastic observation!! I think you should give that a post. Let’s see if physicsandwhiskey can find a nice translation, interpretation (without need for clarification) that makes it all seems less ridiculous!
LikeLike
Someone has already done a far better job than I could of that here: http://www.heterodoxy.com/godhatesrapevictims/
LikeLike
The Jewish caveat is hilarious! So if they’re not caught in the act is it cheaper? 😀
LikeLike