Does God condone sexual assault - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Does God condone sexual assault? 🔗 **Source:** [Does God condone sexual assault?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5uvabG47VA) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-criticism, sexual-violence, ancient-law] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5uvabG47VA > date created: 2024-12-28 15:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Does God condone sexual assault? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Review biblical Hebrew scholarship on sexual violence laws — comparative analysis needed #research - [H2] Examine NIV translation accuracy claims — verify against Hebrew manuscripts #translation - [H3] Study ancient Near Eastern marriage contracts — contextualize property rights framework #historical ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Does God condone sexual assault?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5uvabG47VA) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan refutes claims that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes consensual sex rather than rape - The passage about marrying one's rapist is correctly translated and reflects ancient property-based marriage laws - Consent wasn't a recognized concept in ancient Near Eastern sexual frameworks - women were viewed as passive objects - Scholarly consensus confirms these verses address sexual assault, not consensual intercourse - The different penalties reflect social status of victims (married/betrothed vs. unmarried), not nature of the act ## 📖 Main Content This video analyzes Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin must pay her father 50 shekels and marry her without possibility of divorce. A content creator argued this describes consensual sex, claiming the NIV translation as "rape" is inaccurate and that the passage would contradict earlier verses about rape if both described sexual assault. McClellan systematically dismantles these arguments through Hebrew linguistic analysis, contextual examination, and extensive scholarly citations. He explains that ancient marriage was a property transaction where women's sexual availability was purchased from male guardians. The legal framework addressed property crimes against men who owned women's reproductive capacity, with women as secondary victims. The Hebrew verbs "chazaq" (verse 25) and "tapas" (verse 28) are synonyms meaning "to grab" or seize forcibly. Claims that "tapas" suggests gentleness are refuted by examining every biblical occurrence - when applied to persons, it always indicates force. The context of being "found" doesn't imply consensual secrecy but rather legal discovery of the crime. Multiple authoritative biblical commentaries and the Anchor Bible Dictionary confirm scholarly consensus that these verses address rape. The different penalties reflect the victim's social status: death for violating marriage contracts versus fines for damaging unmarried women's market value. McClellan notes that similar Middle Assyrian laws and later Jewish tradition allowed fathers to refuse the marriage arrangement, making enforcement unlikely. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=0) — [H1] Challenge to biblical interpretation - Key idea: Content creator questions how God could condone rape victim marrying rapist - Evidence: "If you want to tell me where that's at, we can pull it up and look at it because God is not condoning rape" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=75) — [H2] Translation accuracy dispute - Key idea: McClellan defends NIV translation against claims of inaccuracy - Evidence: "Using the rendering rape is a bit more interpretive than a more literal translation would be. However, this is an accurate translation" #### ⏱️ [03:20](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=200) — [H2] Contextual argument presented - Key idea: Opponent argues verses 25 and 28 describe different acts to avoid contradiction - Evidence: "This doesn't say anything about him forcing himself upon her or her crying out like that other verse did" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=285) — [H1] McClellan's counter-argument introduction - Key idea: Both arguments lack Hebrew competency and ignore actual context - Evidence: "Neither of these arguments has any basis in any kind of competent grasp of the Hebrew or of sound biblical exegesis" #### ⏱️ [05:30](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=330) — [H2] Actual contextual structure revealed - Key idea: Deuteronomy 22:22-29 addresses three categories based on women's marital status - Evidence: "Already married, a virgin who is betrothed, a virgin who is not betrothed. That's the actual variable" #### ⏱️ [06:45](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=405) — [H1] Consent concept challenged - Key idea: Consent wasn't recognized in ancient sexual frameworks - location mattered, not willingness - Evidence: "The act of sex was something that an active sexual agent, overwhelmingly a man, did to a passive sexual object" #### ⏱️ [08:20](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=500) — [H2] City vs. field distinction explained - Key idea: Location determined presumed ability to stop assault, not actual consent - Evidence: "If it happens in a city, she didn't cry for help... It's not about consent. It's about whether or not this is a location where she should have stopped it" #### ⏱️ [10:15](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=615) — [H1] Property crime framework revealed - Key idea: Sexual assault laws protected property rights of men who controlled women's sexuality - Evidence: "What we've got going on here is a property crime... whoever asserts legal possession of this woman's sexual availability and procreative capacities" #### ⏱️ [12:30](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=750) — [H2] Marriage as transaction explained - Key idea: Ancient marriage involved purchasing sexual/reproductive access from male guardians - Evidence: "Marriage was a transaction. It was a man purchasing from another man... the sexual availability and the procreative capacities of a woman" #### ⏱️ [14:10](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=850) — [H2] Penalty structure rationale - Key idea: Different punishments reflect property value, not act severity - Evidence: "The property rights of the man who stood to benefit financially... was not considered as serious, but it was still a violation" #### ⏱️ [15:45](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=945) — [H1] Hebrew linguistic analysis begins - Key idea: Examination of actual Hebrew verbs disproves consensual sex theory - Evidence: "The verbal root chazaq... can mean to be strong. It can also mean to grab" #### ⏱️ [17:20](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=1040) — [H2] Synonym verification - Key idea: Both Hebrew verbs (chazaq and tapas) mean forcible grabbing - Evidence: "When the object of the verbal root tapas is a person, every last time it is involuntary, it is force" #### ⏱️ [18:30](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=1110) — [H2] "Found together" argument refuted - Key idea: Being discovered doesn't imply consensual secrecy but legal evidence - Evidence: "They have to be found otherwise this is just accusations... because the act is now definitely known by the agents of the law" #### ⏱️ [20:00](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=1200) — [H1] Scholarly consensus presented - Key idea: Academic sources unanimously interpret passage as describing rape - Evidence: Multiple citations from JPS Torah Commentary, New Oxford Annotated Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary confirming "rape of an unengaged virgin" #### ⏱️ [23:15](https://youtu.be/K5uvabG47VA?t=1395) — [H2] Practical enforcement speculation - Key idea: Laws likely weren't enforced literally - fathers could probably refuse marriage arrangement - Evidence: "In probably every last instance, the father, the brother, or even the master probably could have and hopefully would have just said, 'No, I'll take the money'" ## 📚 References - [JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy](URL) - [New Oxford Annotated Bible, 5th Edition](URL) - [Anchor Bible Dictionary](URL) - [Walter Brueggemann's Deuteronomy Commentary](URL) - [Carolyn Pressler: Sexual Violence and Deuteronomic Law](URL) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The biblical passage about marrying one's rapist reflects ancient property-based marriage systems where women were commodities traded between men, not consensual relationship laws - Hebrew linguistic analysis confirms both disputed verses use synonymous terms for forcible seizure, with scholarly consensus interpreting these as sexual assault cases - Different legal penalties reflected the social status and "property value" of victims rather than distinguishing between consensual and non-consensual acts, since female consent wasn't recognized in ancient legal frameworks ## 📰 Newsletter A biblical scholar recently addressed controversial claims about rape laws in Deuteronomy 22, providing crucial context for understanding ancient legal frameworks. The passage requiring rapists to marry their victims reflects property-based marriage systems where women's sexuality was owned by male guardians. Through Hebrew linguistic analysis and extensive scholarly citations, the response demonstrates that both disputed biblical verses use synonymous terms for forcible seizure. Academic consensus confirms these describe sexual assault, with different penalties reflecting victims' social status rather than consent levels. This highlights the importance of understanding biblical texts within their historical context rather than imposing modern values. Ancient legal codes prioritized property rights over individual autonomy, making direct application to contemporary ethics problematic. For deeper biblical scholarship resources, explore university theology departments and peer-reviewed biblical studies journals. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational resources about historical-critical biblical methodology - Education: Develop workshops on ancient Near Eastern legal contexts - Community management: Moderate discussions about sensitive religious topics with scholarly grounding #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Establish guidelines for academic discourse in religious debates - Community Engagement: Support scholarly dialogue between religious and secular communities - Strategic Alignment: Promote evidence-based approaches to controversial religious claims #### Community - Maintainers: Support biblical scholars producing accessible educational content - Contributors: Encourage citation of peer-reviewed sources in religious discussions - Ecosystem: Foster respectful dialogue between different religious traditions ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Biblical interpretation without Hebrew competency leads to apologetic distortions of textual meaning - Ancient legal codes prioritized property protection over individual consent in sexual assault cases - Modern religious communities resist historical-critical analysis that challenges traditional interpretations - Scholarly consensus can effectively counter popular but unfounded biblical interpretations ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative linguistic analysis of Hebrew terms across biblical corpus - Survey of academic biblical commentaries and dictionaries for consensus views - Historical comparison with contemporary ancient Near Eastern legal codes ### ❓ Questions - How do modern religious communities reconcile historical biblical contexts with contemporary ethical standards? - What role should scholarly expertise play in public religious discourse? - How can academic biblical scholarship better reach popular religious audiences? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive analysis of consent concepts across ancient legal traditions - Study of how biblical translation choices reflect theological agendas - Investigation of Middle Assyrian law parallels with biblical sexual assault statutes ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Religious teachers need Hebrew competency for accurate biblical interpretation - Policy: Academic standards should govern religious claims in educational settings - Education: Biblical literacy requires understanding ancient cultural contexts, not just modern applications - Security: Misinformation about religious texts can fuel harmful ideologies and practices ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 14-16 #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Text citations, commentary screenshots, verse comparisons - Improve: Timeline of ancient legal development, Hebrew text examples, comparative charts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration - Improve: Audio version with Hebrew pronunciation guides #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Technical definitions, scholarly terminology, linguistic explanations - Improve: Glossary of Hebrew terms, analogy to modern legal systems #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step argument deconstruction - Improve: Interactive Hebrew text analysis tools, hands-on translation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argument structure, scholarly citations, linguistic evidence - Improve: Decision trees for biblical interpretation, methodology flowcharts #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response to community debate, scholarly consensus references - Improve: Discussion forums for biblical scholars, peer review processes #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis, personal research depth - Improve: Self-guided study materials, reflection questions on interpretation methods #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context connections, cultural ecosystem understanding - Improve: Anthropological frameworks, social evolution of legal systems ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive video content - Improve: Transcript with Hebrew transliterations, image descriptions for text screenshots #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Timestamped navigation, chapter markers #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast text overlays - Improve: Larger font options, color-blind friendly highlighting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Scalable transcript format, adjustable subtitle sizing #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Hebrew pronunciation captions, scholarly citation formatting #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video engagement - Improve: Interactive citation lookup, searchable transcript ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Ancient Near Eastern comparative context - Improve: Multiple cultural perspectives on marriage laws, diverse scholarly voices #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology, respectful treatment of sensitive topics - Improve: Content warnings for sexual violence discussions, trauma-informed framing #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured argument progression, clear topic transitions - Improve: Visual outline, processing time acknowledgments #### Representation - Present: Female scholars cited (Carolyn Pressler) - Improve: More diverse scholarly perspectives, marginalized community impacts #### Psychological safety - Present: Academic rather than personal attacks, focus on scholarship over identity - Improve: Explicit community guidelines, support resources for trauma survivors ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Hebrew linguistic analysis logically supports rape interpretation - Inductive strength: Multiple scholarly sources converge on same conclusion - Causal reasoning: Clear connection between property-based marriage systems and legal penalties - Analogical strength: Effective parallels to Middle Assyrian laws #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Some personal attacks on opponent's competency rather than pure argument focus - Appeal to authority: Heavy reliance on scholarly consensus, though appropriately qualified #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic authority with some condescension toward opponent's claims; confident and well-supported but occasionally dismissive ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns observed in McClellan's response - Attack: Some attacks on opponent's Hebrew competency and motivations - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal detected - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Strong scholarly confidence with some academic superiority ## --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] How can you justify a god that says that [00:03] a rape victim should have to be wed to [00:05] her rapist? [00:06] >> If you want to tell me where that's at, [00:07] we can pull it up and look at it because [00:08] it God is not condoning rape. [00:10] >> All right, let's see it. [00:12] >> This one says, "If a man happens to meet [00:13] a virgin who has not pledged to be [00:15] married and rapes her and they are [00:16] discovered, he shall pay her father 50 [00:18] shekels of silver, he must marry the [00:20] young woman, for he has violated her. He [00:23] can never divorce her as long as he [00:24] lives." So, I wanted to pause to address [00:26] the fact that this content creator put [00:28] on the screen between asterisks bad [00:30] translation. Now, this is the NIV, which [00:33] is a bad translation in a lot of ways, [00:36] but this is not one of them. Using the [00:39] rendering rape is a bit more [00:41] interpretive than a more literal [00:43] translation would be. However, this is [00:46] an accurate translation. And this [00:48] content creator very clearly neither has [00:50] the training nor the expertise to [00:52] competently assess quality of [00:55] translation. It's a bad translation for [00:57] them because it disagrees with their [00:58] dogma. And as we're going to see, their [01:00] dogma is not based on anything remotely [01:03] approximating again a competent grasp of [01:07] the issues surrounding the [01:09] interpretation of this passage. Back up [01:11] just a couple of verses. [01:12] >> I don't have the whole thing. That one [01:15] got verse. If we back up to verse 25, it [01:17] says, "But if a man finds a betrothed [01:19] young woman in the countryside and the [01:21] man forces her and lies with her, then [01:23] only the man who lay with her shall die. [01:25] But you shall do nothing to the young [01:26] woman, there is the young woman no sin [01:28] deserving of death. For just as when a [01:30] man rises against his neighbor and kills [01:32] him, even so is this matter." For he [01:34] found her in the countryside, and the [01:35] betrod young woman cried out, but there [01:37] was no one to save her. In verse 25, [01:39] here's a man forcing himself on her. [01:41] She's crying out. She obviously doesn't [01:43] want to do it, and he ising her, right? [01:45] And it says specifically that man should [01:47] be put to death. Now if we go down to [01:48] the verse 28 which is the very next [01:50] verse. It says if a man finds a young [01:52] woman who is a virgin who is not [01:53] betrolled and he seizes her and lies [01:55] with her and they are found out then the [01:57] man who lay with her shall give to the [01:59] young woman's fathers 50 shekels of [02:00] silver and she shall be his wife because [02:02] he has humbled her, he shall not be [02:05] permitted to divorce her all the days of [02:06] his life. This doesn't say anything [02:08] about him forcing himself upon her or [02:11] her crying out like that other verse [02:12] did. So this is actually in the context [02:15] them sleeping together, not her like [02:18] crying out to get out of it and not him [02:20] forcing himself on her. It doesn't use [02:22] that same terminology. So it would [02:23] almost contradict itself if it's saying [02:25] hey if the man raps her here then he [02:27] should be put to death but if he rapes [02:29] her here then he shouldn't. It [02:30] contradicts itself. Basically she's [02:32] giving consent and they're lying [02:34] together and he's saying in that [02:35] instance then they should actually marry [02:37] one another. [02:38] >> So this content creator's argument has [02:40] two different parts. The first part is [02:43] an appeal to this notion that we have [02:45] two different cases and if they're both [02:47] cases of rape, they must contradict each [02:49] other because one merits the death [02:51] penalty and one does not. And that [02:53] simply can't be. So obviously the second [02:55] case is not rape. And then that is [02:58] supported by the notion that the fact [03:00] that the language in reference to the [03:02] sexual act itself differs between these [03:05] two cases must indicate that the [03:07] language in verse 28 refers to something [03:09] other than rape. And neither of these [03:12] arguments has any basis in any kind of [03:15] competent grasp of the Hebrew or of [03:17] sound biblical exugesus. Uh this is [03:20] nonsensical and it betrays this content [03:22] creator's abject ignorance of both [03:24] biblical Hebrew and sound exugesus or [03:27] hermeneutics. And it's also wildly [03:29] misleading because the content creator [03:31] says, well, let's look at the context [03:33] and then entirely ignores the context. [03:37] But let's take a look at the actual [03:38] context. We're actually looking at eight [03:40] verses here as part of this sense unit. [03:42] Deuteronomy 22:22 down to verse 29. And [03:46] this sense unit has three different [03:48] parts. The first part addresses what [03:51] happens when a man sleeps with a woman [03:54] who's married already [03:57] and the outcome is execution of both of [04:00] them. Notice this verse doesn't make any [04:02] reference whatsoever to consent. The [04:04] second part talks about what happens [04:06] when a man finds [04:08] a virgin who is betrothed in the city. [04:13] And then the next element of this second [04:15] part is what happens if a man finds a [04:17] virgin who is betrothed in the open [04:19] field. So we've got two different sets [04:21] of circumstances regarding a man having [04:25] sexual intercourse with a virgin who is [04:27] betrothed. And then the third part are [04:30] the last two verses. And this is what [04:32] happens if a man sleeps with a virgin [04:35] who is not betrothed. So the three [04:38] different parts of this sense unit are [04:42] already married, a virgin who is [04:44] betrothed, a virgin who is not [04:46] betrothed. That's the actual variable. [04:49] Now the middle section causes confusion [04:52] because it divides it into two different [04:53] parts addressing what happens if it's in [04:55] a city, what happens if it's in the open [04:57] field. It has the illusion of addressing [05:01] consent, but it's not addressing consent [05:03] because consent wasn't really a thing [05:05] back then. Because the act of sex in the [05:09] ancient world was not a mutual activity [05:10] that two equal partners engaged in. The [05:12] act of sex was something that an active [05:15] sexual agent, overwhelmingly a man, did [05:18] to a passive sexual object in the Bible, [05:22] usually a woman. And the consent, the [05:26] autonomy, the agency of the passive [05:28] sexual object did not matter because it [05:33] doesn't say anything about consent here. [05:35] It's all about where it happens [05:37] irrespective of consent. Because in [05:40] order to conclude that this must be [05:42] about consent, you must conclude that if [05:45] a woman didn't consent in a city, rape [05:48] can't happen. Because that's what the [05:50] passage says. If a man finds, and by the [05:54] way, that is the verbal root mata, [05:56] finds. This is not something that has [05:59] been set up beforehand. If a man finds a [06:02] woman and lies with her and it happened [06:04] in a city, kill them both because she [06:06] didn't cry for help. But you notice it [06:10] doesn't say if she doesn't cry for help. [06:11] It just says if it happens in a city, [06:13] she didn't cry for help. So, it's not [06:16] about consent. It's about whether or not [06:18] this is a location where she should have [06:21] stopped it or could have stopped it, [06:24] which just betrays the abject ignorance [06:25] of the authors of this part of [06:27] Deuteronomy because there are countless [06:30] different reasons that a man could [06:33] successfully complete a sexual assault [06:35] in a city. She could have cried out. [06:37] Maybe nobody heard her. Maybe her voice [06:40] was not loud enough. Maybe he had his [06:42] hands over her mouth or on her throat. [06:44] Or maybe she was so terrified she could [06:47] not cry out. There are numerous [06:49] different reasons that she would not [06:50] have consented [06:52] and this law would still condemn her [06:55] because it is not actual juristp [06:57] prudence. It is the literary performance [06:59] of God's righteousness and justice and [07:01] order. God has thought of everything [07:03] because we've even accounted only in [07:05] these four verses for what happens if it [07:09] happens in the city versus if it happens [07:11] in the open field. Because you if you [07:12] notice if it happens in the open field [07:15] the text presumes she cried out but [07:17] nobody was around. In other words, in [07:20] both instances the woman doesn't want it [07:22] to happen. But the question is just is [07:25] she in a circumstance where she could [07:27] stop it. If it happens in the city she [07:30] is in a circumstance where she could [07:32] stop it but she didn't. If it happens in [07:34] the open field she's not in a [07:36] circumstance where she could stop it and [07:38] she tried but she couldn't. And this is [07:41] a little bit of a fine point to put on [07:43] this, but this is not the crux of the [07:45] entire argument. But if you'd like more [07:47] detail, I talk about it in chapter 8 of [07:48] my book, The Bible Says So, where we get [07:50] right and wrong about scriptures most [07:52] controversial issues. But I'm going to [07:54] talk about some scholarship that [07:56] demonstrates that this is not really [07:57] about consent. But that brings us to [08:00] verses 28 and 29, which are about a [08:02] virgin who is not yet betrothed. And [08:04] here's why the punishment is different. [08:08] It is the death penalty if she is [08:09] married or betrothed. It is only a fine [08:13] if she is not betrothed. And the reason [08:15] is that in all three cases, what we've [08:17] got going on here is a property crime. [08:20] And it is a property crime whose main [08:22] victim is whoever asserts legal [08:26] possession of this woman's sexual [08:28] availability and procreative capacities. [08:31] And it is either going to be her husband [08:35] to whom she is betrothed or already [08:37] married or it's going to be her father, [08:40] her brother, or her master. Whoever [08:42] stands to benefit financially from her [08:46] marriage because they're going to [08:48] receive the bride price. Because in this [08:50] time, marriage was a transaction. It was [08:52] a man purchasing from another man again, [08:55] father, brother, master, something like [08:57] that, the sexual availability and the [09:00] procreative capacities of a woman. And [09:02] she just happened to go along with it. [09:05] She was not an autonomous social or [09:07] sexual agent. She was a commodity. She [09:11] was being bought and sold. Now, that may [09:14] sound pretty ugly to you. It is. But [09:17] that's the reality of the situation [09:18] because what's going on here is the [09:21] marriage contract was considered the [09:23] most sacrosanked kind of social contract [09:26] that one could enter into into this time [09:28] because that was the context for [09:30] procreation for carrying on one's line [09:34] and for the survival and the thriving of [09:36] the social community. Now, the property [09:38] rights of the man who stood to benefit [09:41] financially from the sale of the girl's [09:44] procreative capacities and sexual [09:46] availability was not considered as [09:48] serious, but it was still a violation of [09:50] his property rights because it robbed [09:52] him of that future financial benefit. [09:54] Which is why the first penalty is that [09:57] he must be made whole by the payment of [09:59] an elevated bride price. And there's a [10:02] secondary punishment, which is basically [10:04] that she is now damaged goods. And so [10:07] the perpetrator must account for that [10:10] and must marry her so that she can be a [10:14] part of decent proper Israelite society [10:17] because she has no social identity [10:19] outside of the potter familas either of [10:22] her own immediate family meaning father, [10:25] brother, master or as the wife of the [10:30] potter familius of a household. So in [10:32] order to have some kind of functional [10:34] social identity, she needs to be [10:36] attached to one or the other. And [10:38] because the rapist has violated her and [10:42] rendered her damaged goods, she's not [10:44] eligible for proper Israelite marriage. [10:47] And so the perpetrator is responsible to [10:50] marry her and is not allowed to divorce [10:52] her. So there is consideration of her [10:54] well-being, but it is only secondary [10:56] because the primary concern is that he [10:59] violated the property rights of the man [11:02] who stood to benefit financially from [11:04] selling her to a husband. Let's go on to [11:08] the Hebrew, the question of the [11:11] similarity between the two different [11:13] references to the sexual act. This is [11:15] Deuteronomy 22:25. And this is what is [11:19] translated in the translation that this [11:21] content creator provided uh forces her. [11:25] And the verbal root is kazak and it is [11:27] in the heil stem. And then it is [11:29] followed by the inseparable prefix bet [11:33] along with the object suffix the he [11:36] which indicates third feminine singular. [11:38] The zikba and this just means he grabbed [11:42] her because kazak can mean to be strong. [11:46] It can also mean to grab. Uh it is not a [11:50] term of art for sexual assault [11:53] necessarily. In fact, you can look in [11:54] Proverbs 7:13 and you have a woman who [11:57] does the exact same thing to a man and [11:59] then kisses him and the man is like, [12:01] "I'm down." So, it is not a term of art [12:04] for sexual assault or rape, but it does [12:08] mean he grabs her. This is verse 28. We [12:11] have a different verb tapas. It means [12:15] the exact same thing only you do not [12:17] need the inseparable prefix bet prefix [12:19] to the object suffix. You can put the [12:22] object suffix directly on the verb with [12:24] the verbal root tapas. These are [12:27] synonyms. Tafas also means to grab. Now [12:30] there are folks who will suggest that [12:32] this can mean to hold or something like [12:35] that like he's caressing her, he's [12:37] gently petting her, he's fondling her, [12:40] something like that. That is pure and [12:42] utter nonsense because you can look at [12:43] every last occurrence of tapas in the [12:45] Hebrew Bible and while it can mean hold, [12:49] it only means it when what is being held [12:51] is an inanimate object. When the object [12:54] of the verbal root tapas is a person, [12:57] every last time it is involuntary, it is [13:02] force. There's absolutely no case to [13:05] make from the Hebrew that this is not [13:07] referring to sexual assault or rape. [13:10] This is very clearly referring to sexual [13:13] assault or rape. Now, there's another [13:15] argument that is sometimes made that [13:17] this content creator does not bring up, [13:19] and that's the fact that they are found, [13:22] that the two of them are found together. [13:24] And the notion is that, oh, they have [13:26] done this in secret together, [13:29] therefore it must be consensual. And [13:32] that is pure and utter nonsense as well. [13:34] You'll notice in the very first verse, [13:36] verse 22, where it says, "If a man is [13:39] discovered lying with the wife of [13:40] another man, only the man is the one [13:42] being found in that occurrence." And [13:45] consent is not addressed at all, but [13:47] both of them are put to death in that [13:50] instance. And in verse 28 in this [13:53] translation it says if a man meets a [13:54] virgin who is not engaged and seizes her [13:56] and lies with her and they are [13:58] discovered. The meets is rendering the [14:01] verbal root matsah which means to find [14:03] which is the exact same thing that we [14:05] see above. He has found her. In other [14:08] words, this is not something that was [14:09] pre-planned. Uh and it says they are [14:12] found but they have to be found [14:14] otherwise this is just accusations. The [14:17] whole reason they are found is because [14:20] the act is now definitely known by the [14:23] agents of the law. That's why they have [14:25] to be found. Now, it doesn't say they're [14:27] found in the middle section of this [14:30] context. And that's because you've got [14:33] the two different questions of where it [14:35] happened in the city or in the open [14:38] field. This is kind of silly because the [14:40] authors are using uh lexical variety and [14:44] are telling their stories in a variety [14:46] of different ways. But this is very [14:49] clearly a question of rape. And if this [14:51] content creator wants to engage my [14:54] argument, if he wants to try to make the [14:56] case that I'm wrong here, I'm your man. [14:59] I've got the time. But before we get to [15:01] that, I want to share some scholarship [15:03] that demonstrates it is the consensus [15:05] view of the majority of scholars that [15:07] this is a reference to rape. First, [15:08] let's look at the JPS Torah commentary [15:11] series volume on Deuteronomy by TIG. We [15:14] look at the appropriate verse here, [15:16] verses 28 and 29. The section is labeled [15:18] rape of an unengaged virgin. And you can [15:21] read that if you like, but I want to go [15:22] down to the second to last line. The [15:24] present law deals with a more severe [15:26] offense where the girl is not a willing [15:30] participant, but a victim of rape. Now I [15:33] want to look at the New Oxford annotated [15:35] Bible, the fifth edition down in the red [15:37] box. These conditions correspond to [15:39] Middle Assyrian laws section A55, which [15:42] implies forced rape. In contrast, Exodus [15:45] 22:16-17 [15:47] specifies intercourse with but not [15:49] forced rape of a virgin who is not [15:51] engaged. The conflation of these two [15:52] models in this law blurs the distinction [15:55] between consensual and non-consensual [15:57] intercourse on the woman's part because [16:00] again, consent wasn't really a thing. [16:02] She was a passive sexual object. She did [16:05] not get to say when sex did or did not [16:07] happen. Let's look at the Ankor Bible [16:09] dictionary. Uh this is Westbrook's entry [16:12] on punishment and crimes. And the part [16:15] on rape has a section B rape in the [16:18] Bible of the biblical codes. Only [16:20] Deuteronomy discusses rape preserving a [16:23] fragment of the traditional scholarly [16:24] problem. Rape of an unattached girl [16:27] leads as in Middle Assyrian law section [16:29] A55 to forcible marriage with no divorce [16:33] and payment of a set bride money. 22 28 [16:38] and 29. Let's look at Walter Bugamman's [16:40] Deuteronomy commentary on this. In the [16:42] red box, the woman has been raped, but [16:44] she is not even acknowledged in the [16:46] settlement except that she is assigned [16:48] to a lifelong partnership with her [16:51] rapist. We can look at Dwayne [16:53] Christensen's word biblical commentary [16:55] volume on Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. [16:58] In the structural analysis, this part of [17:02] this chapter is labeled rape of an [17:04] unengaged virgin. The man is fined. And [17:07] then you'll see the translation here, [17:09] the second line, and he seizes her and [17:12] he lies with her by force and they are [17:15] found. And the commentary uh further [17:18] elaborates on this. The law concludes [17:19] with the statement that the rapist must [17:21] marry the girl and that he may not [17:23] divorce her all his days. Once again, we [17:25] have a law that runs contrary to common [17:27] practice. For in subsequent Jewish [17:28] tradition, in cases of both seduction [17:30] and rape, both the girl and her father [17:32] can refuse the marriage. So now we're [17:34] talking about Exodus 22. Tig has noted [17:36] parallels in middle Assyrian laws where [17:38] the rapist must pay triple the normal [17:40] bride price and marry the girl if the [17:42] father is willing without right of [17:44] divorce. If the rapist has a wife, a [17:46] typically Mesopotamian measure for [17:47] measure punishment is added. The girl's [17:49] father can have the rapist's wife raped [17:51] and then keep her. We can go to Mark [17:53] Biddles's Smith and Hellless Bible [17:55] commentary volume on Deuteronomy. In the [17:57] red box, rape of a single woman. The [17:59] case law now takes up the issue of [18:01] illicit relations with an unbro. [18:04] Several provisions of this law are [18:05] troubling. First, it apparently deals [18:07] not with consensual sex, but with rape, [18:09] seizes her. Yet the penalty for the man [18:11] is merely that he pay the bride price of [18:13] 50 shekels of silver to the woman's [18:16] father and marry the woman. The economic [18:18] value of the woman's virginity to her [18:19] father outweighs the injury and [18:22] humiliation suffered by the victim [18:24] herself. Like the case of the falsely [18:25] accused woman, this victim is virtually [18:27] condemned to live out her life as the [18:29] wife of her attacker. Now let's go into [18:32] more detailed discussion of this [18:34] particular issue. A feminist companion [18:37] to Exodus to Deuteronomy by Athelia [18:40] Brener has a wonderful article by [18:41] Carolyn Pressler on sexual violence and [18:44] Deuteronomic law and there are a few [18:45] pages that discuss this. However, [18:47] Pressler a couple years before this in [18:49] 1993 published the view of women found [18:51] in the Deuteronomic family laws. And you [18:54] can go check out the seven pages [18:56] starting in the middle here, section C, [18:58] violation of an unbrothed girl, [18:59] Deuteronomy 22:28-29, [19:02] for a wonderful discussion of what [19:04] exactly is going on here in the context [19:07] of how they conceptualized not just [19:10] human sexuality, but also the notion of [19:12] marriage in this time period. So, to be [19:15] brief, this content creator doesn't have [19:17] the first clue what they're talking [19:18] about. They obviously don't know Hebrew. [19:20] They're obviously not looking at this [19:22] closely. They're just jumping as quickly [19:24] as they can to the considerations they [19:26] have seen used before to make it appear [19:29] to equally uninformed people that this [19:32] cannot be about rape. However, when you [19:34] consider the Hebrew of this passage, [19:36] when you actually consider the context, [19:38] when you set it within [19:42] ancient West Asian juristprudence and [19:45] conceptualizations about human sexuality [19:47] and about the nature of marriage as a [19:50] social contract, it all falls together [19:53] that this is very clearly about rape and [19:56] the difference in the penalties has to [19:58] do with the social status of the victim, [20:01] not with the nature of the act itself. [20:04] If the woman is married or betrothed to [20:07] be married, she has already been entered [20:10] into a specific kind of social contract [20:13] that makes her the property of a man and [20:16] that is violated by her rape that merits [20:20] the death penalty. If she is a virgin [20:22] who is not yet betrothed or married, the [20:25] only violation is of the property rights [20:28] of the father or the brother or the [20:30] master or whomever stands to benefit [20:33] financially from the bride price that [20:35] would be received at the signing of the [20:37] marriage contract. The secondary victim [20:41] is the woman in the sense that she is [20:43] rendered ineligible for proper Israelite [20:46] marriage. And that is addressed in this [20:48] particular law by the requirement that [20:51] the perpetrator marry her. Now again, [20:54] Exodus 22:16-17 [20:56] provides a provision where the father [20:58] who is to receive the elevated bride [21:00] price can take the money and keep his [21:03] daughter. Neither of these laws were [21:05] probably enforced or enforcable in [21:08] ancient Israel. These are probably [21:11] propaganda, scribal exercises, things [21:13] like that. But if any legal rubber ever [21:16] hit any legal road regarding either of [21:18] these laws, it's almost certain that the [21:21] girl's father would have had the right [21:23] to refuse to give her up to the [21:25] perpetrator. So, is this really a law [21:29] that demands a woman marry her rapist? [21:32] uh indirectly, but in reality, probably [21:36] not. In probably every last instance, [21:39] the father, the brother, or even the [21:41] master probably could have and hopefully [21:44] would have just said, "No, I'll take the [21:46] money and I'll keep the girl as well." [21:49] This content creator obviously doesn't [21:50] know what he's talking about. is [21:52] obviously just putting dogma over data [21:54] and is obviously also posting this to [21:56] just jin up attention and clicks by [21:59] pretending to dunk on the kind of person [22:02] that this content creator and his [22:03] audience obviously thinks wouldn't know [22:06] the first thing about the Bible and [22:08] couldn't possibly be right because [22:10] they're the kind of person that they [22:12] would never respect. And for that, if [22:15] they had the capacity for shame, they [22:17] should be ashamed. And the fit for this [22:19] video has been the Mola Hellboy.