[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 10

Bill Rea bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz
Sun Jan 20 16:04:02 EST 2008


Karl wrote:-

>You have added an interpretation that goes beyond the text, and on the
>basis of your interpretation then making judgments.
>
>In Hebrew the text leaves open more than the possibility that the sex
>was consensual.

Ah, the old ``reading into the text'' accusation. Perhaps the boot is
actually on the other foot and you're not seeing what's there. I
checked two lexicons, two commentaries and eight translations.
Of the translations, three were Jewish and five were Christian.
Of the Christian one was from a liberal viewpoint, three were
conservative including the NIV which is specifically for Evangelicals
and one I'm not sure of its background. All of them portray this
as being forced sex. Some do translate the action as ``rape''.
The reason they do this is obvious. The most natural reading of
the passage is the sex is forced upon the unbetrothed young woman.
That reading is supported by the lexicons. Also, you should consider
the context of the passage its in. The context supports a reading
that the sex was forced even if the actual words didn't, which in
this case they do.

Perhaps those philosophical presupposition thingys are stopping you
from seeing things clearly.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list