Missing Mosaic Laws...

[Moral Orel]

The law was suppose to protect people from evil. But if the people had an evil heart, even though they kept the law, they were still bad people. So with the new testament the attempt was to have the virtues born within the spirit.

Absolutely. That's why the Bible talks about knowing what's in people's hearts. If you never rape people just because you don't want to get in trouble, but you really, really want to, you're still pretty darn rotten.

That's where I see the problem in the old laws. It didn't offer protection. Even if people couldn't understand why it was wrong, they still would have been told not to do it by anyone who knew it was.

If Moses was the real author and not God, I don't fault him for not thinking of it either. I mean, if you think about sex, regular consensual sex, it's fun. It feels good. So unless you understand the deep psychological trauma that accompanies sexual abuse, why would you think it's a big deal to force someone to do something that's fun? No one understood psychology back then. Most of the time the only scars from abuse are on the inside, so how would people learn that it's bad? They made sure to make laws where they could see harm.

That's why adultery was illegal because of tearing up families and not being sure of paternity, and why sex with unmarried virgins was wrong, because as we discussed it was harm to the father and to the girl who couldn't get a husband after that. What other harm could they have really noticed?

 

[golgotha61]

There is no word for "rape" in ancient Hebrew. Your translation is an interpretation of the events, and not an accurate one. I use the ESV because it attempts to be as literal as possible in its translation and it uses the word "knew". I haven't bothered looking into exactly which Hebrew word they used, because "rape" doesn't exist in ancient Hebrew, so it can't matter.

If there is no word for rape in ancient Hebrew, how would we know definitively that rape takes place among the ancient Israelites? I mean, if there was no word to describe something in that language, then that “something” must not have existed. Otherwise, there surely would have a been a word to describe something as horrible and of such a cultural concern as rape.

 

[Moral Orel]

If there is no word for rape in ancient Hebrew, how would we know definitively that rape takes place among the ancient Israelites? I mean, if there was no word to describe something in that language, then that “something” must not have existed. Otherwise, there surely would have a been a word to describe something as horrible and of such a cultural concern as rape.

No, it just means their culture didn't care that much about it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Moral Orel]

When you borrow a part of a religion without including the bits and pieces that define that religion and make it work, then yes, you can run into the problems you are experiencing. I guess it is because the culture that “borrowed” it from us didn’t care that much about it.

Can I ask, what is the current general consensus (if there is one) on the divine inspiration for Mosaic Law? I'll admit I haven't studied a lot about Judaism. Mostly just how it relates to Christianity, which isn't a good idea of what Judaism actually is, but good enough for how Christians relate to it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is not one.

Orthodoxy believes it is 100% Devine and unchanged.

Conservative believes it was Devine but has been changed.

Reform believes it is man-made.

The other groups of Judaism believe various versions of these answers.

Interesting. To the topic at hand, are there more laws written elsewhere on the crimes in question? Are those laws likewise under contention as to their divine authorship?

In my research on this topic, I found that actual laws against rape were rare and took till nearly modern times to really develop in any concrete form. It would be interesting if there really were much older laws than what I've been able to find thus far.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[golgotha61]

No, it just means their culture didn't care that much about it.

I still don’t understand how one can know if an act took place in the Bible without that Bible claiming the affirmative. If there was not word for the act, how do you know definitively that the act occurred? I am conscious of the fact that you favor the ESV translation and our discussion concerning inaccurate interpretations.

My posture with you yesterday was wrong and I apologize. I hope that you will forgive my insensitivity.

My pastor taught on the 7th commandment this morning and I was amazed at the seeming coincidence that he would teach on what you and I had been discussing. So, I was intent on what he had to say about the law’s treatment of adultery.

According to my pastor, the law concerning adultery encompasses all of the sexual sins. He defined adultery as pursuing sexual pleasure outside of God’s design. This would include all the sexual sins.

So, the punishment for committing adultery is justifiably applicable to those other sexual sins as well. God mitigated the full force of the punishment that was applicable in order for the new nation to be able to continue to progress and to remain in existence. If God had not done this, then the full force of this particular law of adultery would have been unbearable and the nation of Israel would have suffered.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are other laws but Christians would not consider them Divine in origin. Nonetheless, they are the laws that governed and still govern Jewish Communities. Not all laws have to be from God.


The modern laws are not any better.

https://www.rainn.org/news/97-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment-rainn-analysis-shows

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/cevallos-rape-sentence/

Oh I know. I think that stating something is illegal and ascribing a punishment has to be at least some deterrent to committing a crime. I think more so when the source of that law is religious in nature, because then those who believe in the religion know they're going to be caught and held accountable in one way or another. Some might say that rape is generally a crime of passion, and therefore wouldn't be affected as much, but the fact is that most rapes are perpetrated by serial rapists, not college kids confused on the ethics of consent.

So what should it mean to Christians if the laws they consider to be divine in origin were incomplete without the laws that they consider to be man-made? Men needed to fill in the gaps that God forgot? It's not as though we're talking about crimes that need new laws because things are new, like cyber-terrorism or the like.

It seems like an all-or-nothing proposition to me. If God was necessary to tell people how not to steal, He was definitely necessary to tell people not to commit crimes that have almost no directly observable harmful consequences. If we think that people wrote laws as they saw fit from guidance by some basic defining principles, then it just seems to fit a lot better to me. But that's just my theory.

 

[Moral Orel]

I still don’t understand how one can know if an act took place in the Bible without that Bible claiming the affirmative. If there was not word for the act, how do you know definitively that the act occurred? I am conscious of the fact that you favor the ESV translation and our discussion concerning inaccurate interpretations.

Because we know things happened in history that the Bible doesn't mention. Not everything that ever happened is in the Bible, just the things that the people who wrote the Bible (or God) finds important enough to transmit over the millennia it's been in existence.

So, the punishment for committing adultery is justifiably applicable to those other sexual sins as well. God mitigated the full force of the punishment that was applicable in order for the new nation to be able to continue to progress and to remain in existence. If God had not done this, then the full force of this particular law of adultery would have been unbearable and the nation of Israel would have suffered.

Even if it was justifiably applicable, they didn't apply it. Like we talked about prostitution and fornication, even if in a spiritual sense they knew it was wrong, and even if in a legal sense they could have prosecuted people, they didn't. So what reason is there to assume that they enforced these other crimes in the legal sense to deter the crimes?

 

[golgotha61]

Because we know things happened in history that the Bible doesn't mention. Not everything that ever happened is in the Bible, just the things that the people who wrote the Bible (or God) finds important enough to transmit over the millennia it's been in existence.

The historical records of ancient Israel are authoritatively contained in the OT; in the Bible. So, what ground do you have to maintain that something happened in ancient Israel if it is not referenced in the Bible? What extra-biblical records are you referring to?

Even if it was justifiably applicable, they didn't apply it. Like we talked about prostitution and fornication, even if in a spiritual sense they knew it was wrong, and even if in a legal sense they could have prosecuted people, they didn't. So what reason is there to assume that they enforced these other crimes in the legal sense to deter the crimes?

I am not saying that they enforced them although the Judges account in chpts 19-20 seems to give credence that if the act were severe enough, that God would sanction punishment. What I am saying is that God was intentional in mitigating the full force of the law of adultery for the reasons that I gave. It was not forgetfulness on man’s part but it was grace on God’s part.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There are other laws but Christians would not consider them Divine in origin. Nonetheless, they are the laws that governed and still govern Jewish Communities. Not all laws have to be from God.


The modern laws are not any better.

https://www.rainn.org/news/97-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment-rainn-analysis-shows

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/cevallos-rape-sentence/

From what I saw, he's asking you if there are other Jewish religious sources that forbid rape. Rather than answering, you dodged the question and deflected blame at modern society.

 

[Moral Orel]

From what I saw, he's asking you if there are other Jewish religious sources that forbid rape. Rather than answering, you dodged the question and deflected blame at modern society.

Nah, he means there are more laws like in the Talmud, which is the oral tradition to Judaism, but Christians don't recognize that as divinely inspired. They only give credit to the written Old Testament. He knew I'd know what he meant.

 

[Moral Orel]

The historical records of ancient Israel are authoritatively contained in the OT; in the Bible. So, what ground do you have to maintain that something happened in ancient Israel if it is not referenced in the Bible? What extra-biblical records are you referring to?

I mean that the Bible doesn't talk about everything that ever happened, not just historically-worthy of documenting things. They have plenty of laws about things which they never record actually happening as a part of some story. As far as rape is concerned, there are stories in the Bible that today we would call rape, but I ask if they considered it rape then by saying, "was that really rape?". The story of the Levite, considered anachronistically is rape. But did they consider it rape if the man is apparently allowed to consent for the slave? Same for Lot. What he wanted to let happen to his daughters we would consider rape. But consent belonged to him to be given away, not his daughters.

As far as molestation goes, the Bible never gives an age of consent. Average age of marriage for girls was about 12, so that's already right on the border. We know that ancient civilizations like the Greeks practiced pedastery. We know that even today criminals who have engaged in the act didn't always do it because they felt an attraction for children, but because of other factors that are going to exist in any time period, such as simply being unable to find a proper mate. It would be ridiculous to assume that there just weren't any child molesters back then.

I am not saying that they enforced them although the Judges account in chpts 19-20 seems to give credence that if the act were severe enough, that God would sanction punishment. What I am saying is that God was intentional in mitigating the full force of the law of adultery for the reasons that I gave. It was not forgetfulness on man’s part but it was grace on God’s part.

Look at it this way, "don't steal" is based on "don't covet". So of course God isn't going to stone to death every person that covets anything, but they make a special term for a special extension of coveting and punish people for that. Making a special term (rape and molestation) for a special extension of adultery would allow you to punish people for doing the worst kinds of sexual crime without decimating your population. The technique was used for a minor crime like theft, but the technique wasn't used for a major crime like rape. I would hope that rape wasn't so prevalent that criminalizing sex without consent would decimate the population...

As has been pointed out by a few Jewish posters, things were addressed in other sources like midrashim (maybe the Talmud too, they didn't specify), but that would mean men needed to correct God, since Christians don't acknowledge other Jewish writings as divinely inspired.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nah, he means there are more laws like in the Talmud, which is the oral tradition to Judaism, but Christians don't recognize that as divinely inspired. They only give credit to the written Old Testament. He knew I'd know what he meant.

Yeah, that's what you were asking for, and he didn't provide the references from there that show rape is outlawed. You wanted to see that there is some Jewish source going far back into history which outlaws rape, and not only does there not appear to be one, but there is in fact no word for rape. Likely because the concept of mutual consent was beyond them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It’s ok, Nihilist has a thing for me and apparently has a problem letting things go.

I'm not bringing up anything from past conversations, but it appears you are. Your implication is unwarranted. Ask people what I do with them on these forums if I have a problem with them. They'll tell you that I put them on ignore and happily move on with my life. I have no trouble letting anything go. If you are inclined to continue your behavior, do me a favor and let me know now so I can deal with it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here are some bits of Jewish law regarding rape. I included some definitions for the unusual words.


A rodef (Hebrew רודף, lit. "pursuer"; pl. רודפים, rodfim), in traditional Jewish law, is one who is "pursuing" another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing. (Wikipedia)


6172. ervah

ervah: nakedness

Original Word: עֶרְוָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: ervah
Phonetic Spelling: (er-vaw')
Short Definition: nakedness (Strong’s Concordance)



“The laws of a rodef apply whether a person is pursuing a colleague with the intent of killing him, or a maiden that had been consecrated with the intent of raping her, as reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26, which establishes an equation between murder and rape, stating: "Just as when a man arises against his colleague and kills him, so too, is this matter i.e., the rape of a consecrated maiden."

“"The consecrated maiden cried out, but there was no one to save her." Implied is that if there is someone who can save her, he must do so, using all means including taking the life of the pursuer.”

“one may save a man from being raped by killing the intended rapist.”

“If a person pursued a woman forbidden as an ervah, took hold of her and inserted the head of his organ within her, he may not be slain, even though he has not concluded sexual relations. He must be brought to court. The person should not be killed until he is brought to court, convicted and executed.”

“If a man was pursuing a woman forbidden as an ervah, and other men were pursuing him to save her, and she tells them, "Let him be, so that he does not kill me," they should not listen to her. Instead, he should be intimidated and prevented from raping her, by maiming his limbs. If he cannot be prevented by maiming his limbs, his life may be taken, as explained above.”

“When a person could prevent a murder or a rape by maiming the rodef's limbs, but did not take the trouble and instead saved the victim by killing the rodef, he is regarded as one who shed blood and is liable for death. Nevertheless, he should not be executed by the court.”

Thank you for investigating this. Any idea how far those sources go back?