When is abortion - homicide, when is murder of a human not homicide?

[Subduction Zone]

Understood.



I didn't start by posting a translation I began be posting the Hebrew text and pointing out it did not say "to her".

I only posted the interlinear text that uses a concordant approach because it seemed you were examining translation, rather than the actual text.

The initial point of presenting the Hebrew text was to note two things:

a. It doesn't say "to her" which your first expert did say.

b. It used a word for children, the usage of which indicates significant development, usually used of children outside of the womb.

I also agreed that such concordant views do not address idioms well. But it does help you to see what words are used. That is important because even idioms start with the text as it reads, and then knowledge of usage becomes key. If you wish to demonstrate the presence of an idiom you need to show such usage. And I invited you to do so.

I also noted previous legislation regulating striking people, noting that there would be no need to spell that out again in regards to the woman, and this scenario is spelled out to address the circumstance with the children. I also pointed out that striking someone non-fatally can involve having to pay a monetary amount.

When you indicated I was an amateur so you saw no need to take it seriously, I then posted expert analysis.

These are all discussions of the particulars. That is what I am looking for, discussion of the particulars. If you intend to only post expert opinions, but not then evaluate the basis for their statements, I see little point.




And yet some modern ones do not read in the new way.

Please, the Hebrew does not count at all since you do not seem to be able to read it and I definitely can't. I am ignoring the rest. Don't start with an epic fail if you want a response.

 

[tall73]

Please, the Hebrew does not count at all since you do not seem to be able to read it and I definitely can't. I am ignoring the rest. Don't start with an epic fail if you want a response.

You don't need to believe me. I posted the analysis of experts, indicating similar issues, and you hand waived those as well.

And yes, I want a response. And I want it to be on the actual text.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't need to believe me. I posted the analysis of experts, indicating similar issues, and you hand waived those as well.

And yes, I want a response. And I want it to be on the actual text.

You posted the analysis of those with an agenda. Tell me, what were their qualifications and what are their personal beliefs?

 

[tall73]

You posted the analysis of those with an agenda. Tell me, what were their qualifications and what are their personal beliefs?

So far you have indicated:

- You only trust experts. So you post their translations.
- You don't trust my experts because they are biased. So you reject their translations. Yet you do accept your experts, because they are not biased, even though their translations started showing up after a cultural shift on the question.
-You reject the interlinear because it is too simplistic. But you don't accept the Hebrew text because it is too complicated.
- you reject the analysis of my experts because they are biased. Your experts gave no analysis, so we cannot evaluate it. And they are presumed to be unbiased. This is handy because their logic cannot be evaluated.
- You reject arguments on other legislation in the text that speaks to context. No reason given. I am an amateur so there is no need.

And then you ask me to find the agenda of the experts I am presenting. You just alleged their agenda. Don't you know it?

 

[tall73]

You posted the analysis of those with an agenda. Tell me, what were their qualifications and what are their personal beliefs?

Sure. And you please do the same for those who provided your translations:

These are from Wikipedia. You can look up the sources if you doubt the material.


Franz Delitzsch - Wikipedia


Carl Friedrich Keil - Wikipedia

From the resource info:

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Johann Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) was professor of Biblical Exegesis and Oriental Languages at the University of Dorpat.
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) was professor of Old Testament at the University of Liepzig.

Published in 1866-1891

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far you have indicated:

- You only trust experts. So you post their translations.
- You don't trust my experts because they are biased. So you reject their translations. Yet you do accept your experts, because they are not biased, even though their translations started showing up after a cultural shift on the question.
-You reject the interlinear because it is too simplistic. But you don't accept the Hebrew text because it is too complicated.
- you reject the analysis of my experts because they are biased. Your experts gave no analysis, so we cannot evaluate it. And they are presumed to be unbiased. This is handy because their logic cannot be evaluated.
- You reject arguments on other legislation in the text that speaks to context. No reason given. I am an amateur so there is no need.

And then you ask me to find the agenda of the experts I am presenting. You just alleged their agenda. Don't you know it?

I try to avoid those with an agenda on either side.

The rest of your post is just a serious of strawman arguments. I cannot take anyone seriously that uses such strategies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. And you please do the same for those who provided your translations:

These are from Wikipedia. You can look up the sources if you doubt the material.


Franz Delitzsch - Wikipedia


Carl Friedrich Keil - Wikipedia

From the resource info:

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Johann Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) was professor of Biblical Exegesis and Oriental Languages at the University of Dorpat.
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) was professor of Old Testament at the University of Liepzig.

Published in 1866-1891

Sorry, but your interlineal Bible is far more recent than that. They may have had an early hand in the work that you quoted, but the dates that I saw of your source were far far more recent.

 

[tall73]

I try to avoid those with an agenda on either side.

Great. So post their names and background.

The rest of your post is just a serious of strawman arguments. I cannot take anyone seriously that uses such strategies.

Oh really? So far you reject every source but those of your own choosing.

But let's look at the two sources of your choosing:

Your first text:

If a man strives and wounds a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then he shall be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then you shall give life for life.”

Your second text:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsibleeHeb. “he.” shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning."


Your first text inserted "her" which is not in the text.

I pointed out the lack of that word in the text. You ignored it, saying the Hebrew can't be read by us.

The interlinear pointed out the lack of the word in the text. You ignored it saying it was too simplistic.

My experts pointed out the lack of this word. But you ignored it because tthey are biased.

But then....your own second text leaves it out, because on that point your second text is more literal. Do you ignore that as well?

Every translation involves decisions about literal translation or dynamic equivalents. But you won't even comment about whether that word is in the text, when this is a key aspect of your version of the translation.

So do you admit the word is not in the text?

 

[tall73]

Sorry, but your interlineal Bible is far more recent than that. They may have had an early hand in the work that you quoted, but the dates that I saw of your source were far far more recent.

The experts I quoted were older. They commented on the Hebrew text.

The interlinear is more modern. And it is not a translation. It was mean to show the Hebrew at the word level.

 

[tall73]

I try to avoid those with an agenda on either side.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
DELITZSCH, FRANZ:

Christian Hebraist; born at Leipsic Feb. 23, 1813; died there March 4, 1890. He was not of Jewish descent; although, owing to his rabbinical learning and his sympathy with the Jewish people, and from a misunderstanding of his relation to his Hebrew godfather (whom he called "uncle"), a Jewish ancestry was often attributed to him. He devoted himself early to Semitic studies, was made assistant professor at Leipsic in 1844, and was called as professor to Rostock in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and in 1867 to Leipsic, where he spent the remainder of his life. His services to Hebrew philology and literary history and to Biblical exegesis were great. As an Old Testament critic he was progressive: beginning as a bulwark of conservatism, he gradually moved toward the modern position (for example, in regard to the documents of the Pentateuch, and the dates of Deuteronomy, Isaiah [xl.-lxvi.], and Daniel). In Biblical psychology his work was less satisfactory, and has not met with favor. As a student he became deeply interested in post-Biblical Hebrew literature, and even his Biblical commentaries are full of citations from rabbinical and Neo-Hebraic works. In 1837 he worked out a catalogue of the Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts in the Leipsic Rathsbibliothek (published 1838). In conjunction with Steinschneider he edited and annotated Aaron ben Elijah's '"Eẓ, Ḥayyim" (Leipsic, 1841); though his chief work in this branch was his "Zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Poesie" (Leipsic, 1836), a history which is still of use. Mention should also be made of his "Jüdisch-Arabische Poesien aus vor-Muhammedanischer Zeit" (Leipsic, 1874); "Jesus und Hillel" (3d ed., 1879); "Jüd. Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu" (3d ed., 1879; Eng. transl. "Jewish Artisan Life," London, 1877); and his edition of Weber's "System der Altsynag. Theologie" (Leipsic, 1880).

Delitzsch's principal publications, besides those already mentioned, are his "Pentateuch-Kritische Studien," in "Zeitschr, für Kirchliche Wissenschaft," 1880, 1882; and the following commentaries: OnGenesis, 1852, 1853, revised ed., 1887; Job, 1864; Isaiah, 1866, 1889; Psalms, 1867; Proverbs, 1873; Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, 1875. These commentaries, though they follow the Masoretic text without attempt at emendation, are exegetically strong.

Delitzsch was also active in other lines of Biblical science. He took part in the revision of Luther's translation of the Bible, instituted by the government of Saxony in 1873; he collaborated with Baer in the publication of a revised Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the Baer-Delitzsch text, unfortunately left unfinished); and, in connection therewith, produced a series of studies (from 1871 to 1886) on the Complutensian Polyglot. Delitzsch was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Semitic movement in Germany, and was one of the foremost opponents of Rohling, defending the Jews against the blood accusation. In 1841 he made a public declaration on this subject in the Waisenhaus-Kirche in Dresden, and in 1882 published a responsum ("Christliche Zeugnisse Gegen die Blutbeschuldigung," p. 12). In this connection he wrote "Rohling's Talmudjude" (7th ed., 1881); "Was D. Aug. Rohling Beschworen Hat?" (1883); "Schachmatt den Blutlügnern Rohling und Justus" (2d ed., Erlangen, 1883); "Neueste Traumgeschichte des Antisemitischen Propheten" (Erlangen, 1883). This did not prevent him from repelling what he considered unjust attacks upon Christianity in the Jewish press ("Christentum und Jüdische Presse," Erlangen, 1882). His interest in the Christianization of the Jews led him to found in 1886 at Leipsic the institution which, after his death, was called the "Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum"; and for them he translated the New Testament into Hebrew (1877), with the aid of J. E. Salkinsohn. His son Friedrich Delitzsch is noted as an Assyriologist; he is professor of Assyriology at the University of Berlin.


The source quoted from is later in his life, when he was more progressive. And if you read through it you will see this evidenced in his reference to sources, etc. I chose this commentary because it is one of the more thorough and scholarly approaches, but it has one author who is not a conservative. It is also helpful because it is before the modern abortion debate.

His co-author by all accounts is more conservative, so they bring together a variety of views. But I am pretty sure both can tell if the word "her" appears in the text. And they are aware of the usage for the word for child. Both of these were quoted.

 

[tall73]

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible

There is another complication here that is brought up in some of the literature, translation notes, etc. that goes beyond the terminology, and looks more at the theory of liability. The penalty of life for life would usually apply to intentional killings.

This scenario is not clearly seen as intentional. Rather it is more of a liability issue where the woman appears to be unintentionally caught up in a fight. Otherwise it could mention a simpler scenario where one person strikes a pregnant woman.

In that respect either party having life for life would be strange, because the scenario would usually not call for it. In that context the death penalty would not necessarily be imposed even if it were an adult, because of recourse to a city of refuge (to prevent retribution killing).

The liability here would be for reckless behavior. Some suggest the reason for the rule of life for life applying here despite it being unintentional is because a woman with child had excess value to a person without child, resulting in restitution for an unintentional death to the child (lesser penalty than intentional), but life for life if both the child and woman were lost (greater than unintentional if adult killed), despite the unintentional nature of the act, due to the loss of two lives. Either way that is complicated.

I am looking at reviews of ancient near-eastern literature for similar legislation.

At this point I think it is fair to say given that consideration that I will retract my initial statement. It is unclear that this refers only to the life of the child or the life of the mother, as this would usually not result in such a judgment in an unintentional act.

So I will a agree that it is at least unclear that this has as direct a bearing on the question as initially thought, and I will give it more study. The literature is interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
DELITZSCH, FRANZ:

Christian Hebraist; born at Leipsic Feb. 23, 1813; died there March 4, 1890. He was not of Jewish descent; although, owing to his rabbinical learning and his sympathy with the Jewish people, and from a misunderstanding of his relation to his Hebrew godfather (whom he called "uncle"), a Jewish ancestry was often attributed to him. He devoted himself early to Semitic studies, was made assistant professor at Leipsic in 1844, and was called as professor to Rostock in 1846, to Erlangen in 1850, and in 1867 to Leipsic, where he spent the remainder of his life. His services to Hebrew philology and literary history and to Biblical exegesis were great. As an Old Testament critic he was progressive: beginning as a bulwark of conservatism, he gradually moved toward the modern position (for example, in regard to the documents of the Pentateuch, and the dates of Deuteronomy, Isaiah [xl.-lxvi.], and Daniel). In Biblical psychology his work was less satisfactory, and has not met with favor. As a student he became deeply interested in post-Biblical Hebrew literature, and even his Biblical commentaries are full of citations from rabbinical and Neo-Hebraic works. In 1837 he worked out a catalogue of the Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts in the Leipsic Rathsbibliothek (published 1838). In conjunction with Steinschneider he edited and annotated Aaron ben Elijah's '"Eẓ, Ḥayyim" (Leipsic, 1841); though his chief work in this branch was his "Zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Poesie" (Leipsic, 1836), a history which is still of use. Mention should also be made of his "Jüdisch-Arabische Poesien aus vor-Muhammedanischer Zeit" (Leipsic, 1874); "Jesus und Hillel" (3d ed., 1879); "Jüd. Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu" (3d ed., 1879; Eng. transl. "Jewish Artisan Life," London, 1877); and his edition of Weber's "System der Altsynag. Theologie" (Leipsic, 1880).

Delitzsch's principal publications, besides those already mentioned, are his "Pentateuch-Kritische Studien," in "Zeitschr, für Kirchliche Wissenschaft," 1880, 1882; and the following commentaries: OnGenesis, 1852, 1853, revised ed., 1887; Job, 1864; Isaiah, 1866, 1889; Psalms, 1867; Proverbs, 1873; Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, 1875. These commentaries, though they follow the Masoretic text without attempt at emendation, are exegetically strong.

Delitzsch was also active in other lines of Biblical science. He took part in the revision of Luther's translation of the Bible, instituted by the government of Saxony in 1873; he collaborated with Baer in the publication of a revised Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the Baer-Delitzsch text, unfortunately left unfinished); and, in connection therewith, produced a series of studies (from 1871 to 1886) on the Complutensian Polyglot. Delitzsch was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Semitic movement in Germany, and was one of the foremost opponents of Rohling, defending the Jews against the blood accusation. In 1841 he made a public declaration on this subject in the Waisenhaus-Kirche in Dresden, and in 1882 published a responsum ("Christliche Zeugnisse Gegen die Blutbeschuldigung," p. 12). In this connection he wrote "Rohling's Talmudjude" (7th ed., 1881); "Was D. Aug. Rohling Beschworen Hat?" (1883); "Schachmatt den Blutlügnern Rohling und Justus" (2d ed., Erlangen, 1883); "Neueste Traumgeschichte des Antisemitischen Propheten" (Erlangen, 1883). This did not prevent him from repelling what he considered unjust attacks upon Christianity in the Jewish press ("Christentum und Jüdische Presse," Erlangen, 1882). His interest in the Christianization of the Jews led him to found in 1886 at Leipsic the institution which, after his death, was called the "Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum"; and for them he translated the New Testament into Hebrew (1877), with the aid of J. E. Salkinsohn. His son Friedrich Delitzsch is noted as an Assyriologist; he is professor of Assyriology at the University of Berlin.


The source quoted from is later in his life, when he was more progressive. And if you read through it you will see this evidenced in his reference to sources, etc. I chose this commentary because it is one of the more thorough and scholarly approaches, but it has one author who is not a conservative. It is also helpful because it is before the modern abortion debate.

His co-author by all accounts is more conservative, so they bring together a variety of views. But I am pretty sure both can tell if the word "her" appears in the text. And they are aware of the usage for the word for child. Both of these were quoted.

I still do not see why you claim to have referred to this one particular scholar. He died over a century ago which makes contributing to a modern discussion well nigh impossible. If you are referring to a work that he started there have been many changes to that over the years. One can see that by the new date affixed to the one source that I thought you may have been referring to. If you want to cite him as a source you need to be able to demonstrate that he wrote what you quoted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is another complication here that is brought up in some of the literature, translation notes, etc. that goes beyond the terminology, and looks more at the theory of liability. The penalty of life for life would usually apply to intentional killings.

This scenario is not clearly seen as intentional. Rather it is more of a liability issue where the woman appears to be unintentionally caught up in a fight. Otherwise it could mention a simpler scenario where one person strikes a pregnant woman.

In that respect either party having life for life would be strange, because the scenario would usually not call for it. In that context the death penalty would not necessarily be imposed even if it were an adult, because of recourse to a city of refuge (to prevent retribution killing).

The liability here would be for reckless behavior. Some suggest the reason for the rule of life for life applying here despite it being unintentional is because a woman with child had excess value to a person without child, resulting in restitution for an unintentional death to the child (lesser penalty than intentional), but life for life if both the child and woman were lost (greater than unintentional if adult killed), despite the unintentional nature of the act, due to the loss of two lives. Either way that is complicated.

I am looking at reviews of ancient near-eastern literature for similar legislation.

At this point I think it is fair to say given that consideration that I will retract my initial statement. It is unclear that this refers only to the life of the child or the life of the mother, as this would usually not result in such a judgment in an unintentional act.

So I will a agree that it is at least unclear that this has as direct a bearing on the question as initially thought, and I will give it more study. The literature is interesting.

I do not see how your shifting interpretation would help either side.