Well maybe what the WTS is trying to say is "You women have never had it so good. Look at what used happen. So shut up and be thankful for the table scraps we throw you."
Women will be able to become teaches in the Jo Ho organization I figure in about another 50 or so years....maybe 60.
NOT ALLOWED TO RAPE....BUT
by tijkmo 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
EvilForce
-
tijkmo
lehaa....yeah that what crossed my mind as i was writing it
blondie...i wanted to post that bit from draw close to god book...but couldnt....i was still going to group at the time and so i answered that the paragraph does not explain :14...i stopped going to group soon after..i was just upsetting everyone
-
IT Support
(Apologies for the interruption: I was away yesterday.)
I have no argument that, in the OT, women were viewed as possessions, their status being no better than that of a slave. They were also brutal times and life in general was cheap and expendable. WT's pathetic justification of such OT practices is demeaning and evidence of their lack of any scholarship and understanding of the background to the Hebrew scriptures.
I understand where tijkmo's coming from and have felt the same way myself.
However, in specific relation to Deuteronomy 21:14, I was responding to the suggestion that the expression "after you have humiliated her" referred to rape (or forced sex--not that I can see any distrinction myself).
When I said that, while 'humiliated' could refer to rape, I did not think it necessarily had to do so in this specific instance (based purely on reading the passage), Euphemism responded:
I would respectfully disagree. My point was that the phrase is an idiom, similar to 'sleeping with' in contemporary English.
I'm sure you could find plenty of uses of the term 'sleep' that had no sexual significance. And yet, if I wrote "John wanted to marry Susan, and so he slept with her", no one would reasonably argue that 'sleep' did not signify sex in this case.The context will often indicate whether a word is being used idiomatically. However, it seems that 'humiliated' was not actually used idiomatically in this verse.
My Hebrew Interlinear Bible transliterates 'anah as 'abased,' with a Strong's Concordance number of 6031. The English translation to the side is "because you have humbled her."
According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the meaning of 6031 'anah is:
abase self, afflict(-ion, self), ... chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, ... submit self, weaken, X in any wise.
So, 'anah can mean to '(sexually) force... ravish.' This is evident in, for example, the translation of Lamentations 5:11:
They ravished 14 the women in Zion, [and] the maids in the cities of Judah. [KJ]
However, this meaning is not automatic and, getting back to Deuteronomy 21:14 again, while the translators obviously had the option of translating the word this way, they decided that 'humbled,' or 'abased' was more accurate.
Although this sounds like I'm defending the WT position, I would repeat what I said earlier:
While I have no interest in trying to defend, or support, the inspiration of the Bible, I equally feel we shouldn't make it out to be worse than it already is!
-
tijkmo
yeah it support......i see where u coming from...tis a bit like the account re dinah that says that she was 'defiled' implying it was forced although there is nothing in the account to indicate that she wasnt a willing participant
-
Euphemism
IT Support... in the other cases in Deuteronomy that I cited, where the context makes clear that sex is being referred to, the KJV still translates the word as 'humbled'; so I wouldn't take their translation as a strong indicator. If I get a chance to look up any scholarship on this verse, I'll post it here.
P.S. I completely understand that you're not defending the Witnesses or the OT. I share your sentiments in caring more about accuracy than about supporting a particular viewpoint.
-
IT Support
Euphemism,
in the other cases in Deuteronomy that I cited,
To recap, you quoted the following verses:
Deu 22:23,24 "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.
Deu 22:28,29 "In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl?s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.
You then stated:
where the context makes clear that sex is being referred to, the KJV still translates the word as 'humbled'; so I wouldn't take their translation as a strong indicator.
As you say, in both instances the context clearly indicates that the 'humiliation' referred to is sex (even if not necessarily rape). The first verse (referring to adultery) specifically says that the man "lay down with her." The second verse (possibly fornication or rape) again very specifically says the man "lies down with her."
Whereas no such similar specific wording appears in Deuteronomy 21:14:
And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.
Interestingly, in Deuteronomy 22:23, 24, the transliteration is "abased" but with a Strong's Concordance number of 6030 (also 'anah) which is defined as:
give account, ... (cause to, give) answer, ... cry, hear, Leannoth, lift up, say, X scholar, (give a) shout, sing (together by course), speak, testify, utter, (bear) witness.
I'm no scholar, so I'm probably missing something significant here. But, for the life of me, I can't see any connection between the definition and it's use in the verse. Verses 28 and 29 again use 6031.
If I get a chance to look up any scholarship on this verse, I'll post it here.
Thanks, that would be interesting.
-
Euphemism
I apologize for the delay in responding. It wasn't until this week that I had occasion to stop by the local University library.
I am not knowledgeable enough about Hebrew to argue on the original language, so all I can do is cite scholarly opinion on the subject.
I consulted two conservative--but not fundamentalist--commentaries: the New International Commentary published by Eerdmans, a famous Evangelical publishing house (volume on Deuteronomy by Peter C Craigie, published 1976), and the Jewish Publication Society's translation and commentary (commentary by Jeffrey H Tigay, published 1996).
The New International Commentary says (on page 282):
If, after the consummation of the marriage, it was not successful (from the husband's point of view), because of some kind of incompatibility, then the husband could divorce the woman. The woman, however, was to have certain rights; she was free to go where she wants (lit. "according to her desire"). THe man was not free to sell her as a slave for money, or to treat her as merchandise; that is, she could not be given in exchange for some other person or goods. The rights given to the woman seem to be designed as some sort of compensation for the losses incurred by the marriage and subsequent divorce.
The JPS commentary says (on pages 194-5):
Establishng a sexual relationship imposes obligations on the husband. If he should later change his mind about the captive, he must treat her as a free woman and release her; he may not sell her or treat her as a slave (cf. Exod 21:7-11). A similar provision is known from Arabia of the time of Mohammed: once a woman became pregnant by her captor it was not proper for her to be sold in the market or even ransomed to her own people. There, however, pregnancy was the determining factor; here it is the sexual relationship as such. This provision would have had the effect of causing a man to thnk twice before marrying a captive, since the marriage would diminish her potential economic value to him.
Most of what I otherwise found was expository commentary, which tended to gloss over the issue. My search was certainly not exhaustive, but I did not find any scholarship contradicting the above.