Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

Bryant,

The relevant text is specifically verse 25, which says that he lay hold 
of the girl and slept with her, putting himself as blame, while verse 26 
says that she did nothing wrong, even though she would have gone against 
her betrothal if she had done it willingly. This text is clearly 
referring to a rape, but the verses above are not, in which the man took 
her as a wife after lying with her. The question has nothing to do with 
the meaning of שכב but rather with the combination of החזיק and שכב. I 
hope this helps. (All the rest of the citations you gave are apparently 
secondary in relation to the issue in question.)

Jason


Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Dear Bill,
>
> כִּֽי־יִמָּצֵ֨א אִ֜ישׁ שֹׁכֵ֣ב׀ עִם־אִשָּׁ֣ה בְעֻֽלַת־בַּ֗עַל וּמֵ֙תוּ֙
> גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם הָאִ֛ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִם־הָאִשָּׁ֖ה וְהָאִשָּׁ֑ה וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥
> הָרָ֖ע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ ס
> 23 כִּ֤י יִהְיֶה֙ נַעֲ֯רָ֣ בְתוּלָ֔ה מְאֹרָשָׂ֖ה לְאִ֑ישׁ וּמְצָאָ֥הּ אִ֛ישׁ
> בָּעִ֖יר וְשָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּֽהּ׃
> 24 וְהֹוצֵאתֶ֨ם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אֶל־שַׁ֣עַר׀ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֗וא וּסְקַלְתֶּ֨ם 
> אֹתָ֥ם
> בָּאֲבָנִים֮ וָמֵתוּ֒ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֗ עַל־דְּבַר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־צָעֲקָ֣ה 
> בָעִ֔יר
> וְאֶ֨ת־הָאִ֔ישׁ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּ֖ה אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥
> הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ׃ ס
> 25 וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֮ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה
> וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב
> עִמָּ֖הּ לְבַדֹּֽו׃
> 26 וְלַֽנַּ֯עֲרָ֮ לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂ֣ה דָבָ֔ר אֵ֥ין לַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֖ חֵ֣טְא מָ֑וֶת כִּ֡י
> כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ יָק֨וּם אִ֤ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וּרְצָחֹ֣ו נֶ֔פֶשׁ כֵּ֖ן הַדָּבָ֥ר
> הַזֶּֽה׃
> 27 כִּ֥י בַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מְצָאָ֑הּ צָעֲקָ֗ה הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֮ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה* וְאֵ֥ין
> מֹושִׁ֖יעַ לָֽהּ׃ ס
> 28 כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נַעֲ֯רָ֤ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ
> וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
> 29 וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הַֽנַּעֲ֯רָ֖ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים
> כָּ֑סֶף וְלֹֽו־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל
> שַׁלְּחָ֖הּ כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃ ס
>
> [ Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology.
> electronic ed. Stuttgart; Glenside PA : German Bible Society; Westminster
> Seminary, 1996, c1925; morphology c1991, S. Dt 22:22-29]
>
> Relevant transliteration (from Logos Bible Software)
> šakab (7 / 212)
> Deut 22:22 yimaṣēʾ ʾiyš šokēb| ʿim-ʾišah bəʿulat-
> baʿal ûmētû gam-šənêhem haʾiyš hašokēb ʿim-
> Deut 22:23 ûməṣaʾah ʾiyš baʿiyr wəšakab ʿimah.
> Deut 22:25 bah haʾiyš wəšakab ʿimah ûmēt haʾiyš
> ûmēt haʾiyš ʾǎšer-šakab ʿimah ləbadow.
> Deut 22:28 ʾorašah ûtəpašah wəšakab ʿimah wənimṣaʾû.
> Deut 22:29 wənatan haʾiyš hašokēb ʿimah laʾǎbiy
>
> שָׁכַב (šakab)
> 3. of sexual relations, lie with: subj. man, c. עִם Gn 30:15, 16; 39:7, 
> 12, 14
> (J), Ex 22:15 (E), Dt 22:22 + 8 times Dt., 2 S 11:4, 11; 12:11, 24 Lv 
> 15:33; c.
> אֶת fem. with (MT אֹתָהּ, etc., orig. אִתָּהּ, etc., v. Dr 2 S 13:14 and II.
> אֵת, p. 85a supra), Gn 26:10; 34:2, 7; 35:22 (all J), 1 S 2:22 (om. G 
> and mod.),
> 2 S 13:14 Ez 23:8 (fig.), Lv 15:24 (שָׁכֹב יִשְׁכַּב), Nu 5:19, also (c. acc.
> cogn. שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע) v 13 Lv 15:18; 19:20; c. acc. (sf.) fem. Dt 28:30 Kt (v.
> [שָׁגֵל]); c. אֵצֶל fem. Gn 39:10 (J); c. אֵת vir. (sodomy), Lv 18:22; 20:13
> (both H; c. acc. cogn. מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁח); c. עִם־בְּהֵמָה Dt 27:21 Ex 22:18
> (E); subj. woman, c. עִם vir. Gn 19:32, 34, 35 (J) 2 S 13:11; אֵת vir. 
> Gn 19:33,
> 34 (cf. 1 e supra).
> [Brown, Francis ; Driver, Samuel Rolles ; Briggs, Charles Augustus: 
> Enhanced
> Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed. Oak 
> Harbor, WA :
> Logos Research Systems, 2000, S. 1012]
>
> 2381 שָׁכַב (šākab) lie down.
> Derivatives
> 2381a שְׁכָבָה (šĕkābâ) coating.
> 2381b שְׁכֹבֶת (šĕkōbet) copulation.
> 2381c מִשְׁכָב (miškāb) couch.
> šākab appears most often in the Qal primarily with the meaning “to lie 
> down (in
> death)” or “to lie down (for sexual relations).”
> Whenever the derivatives of šākab (see below) are used in a context of 
> sexual
> relationships, those relationships are illicit (Gen 30:15, 16; II Sam 
> 11:11 may
> be exceptions). This is no less true with the verb šākab itself. In 
> one instance
> it is used in legal statements that forbid certain types of sexual 
> liasons.
> Exodus 22:16 [H 15] outlaws fornication: “If a man seduce a virgin who 
> is not
> betrothed and ‘sleep/lie’ with her he shall pay her price and make her his
> wife.” Deuteronomy 22:22 advocates the death penalty for two people 
> caught in
> adultery: “If a man is caught ‘sleeping/ lying’ with another man’s 
> wife both
> must die.” Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 use šākab in the statement that 
> prohibits
> homosexual relationships: “The man who ‘lies’ with a man … they must die.”
> Finally in Deut 27:21 “lying” with animals is cursed by the Law.
> It is sobering to notice that for the above sexual aberrations usually 
> the death
> penalty was prescribed. To be sure, the Bible does not tell us to what 
> degree
> the punishment was enforced across the board. But why do the 
> Scriptures inveigh
> so forcefully against tampering with the sexual relationship. Could 
> not at least
> one reason be that Israel was surrounded by cultures in which such 
> practices
> were par for the course at the human or even at the divine level? 
> Perhaps one of
> the most degrading features of pagan religions is the way in which 
> religious and
> sexual expression were often one and the same thing. It was, however, 
> not a
> sacramentalizing of sex but rather an eroticizing of religion.
> Apart from legal texts šākab is used in narrative sections that describe
> incidents of inappropriate behavior. The daughters of Lot made their 
> father
> drunk and then ‘slept’ with him (Gen 19:32ff.). One of Abimelech’s 
> subjects
> almost inadvertently committed adultery with Rebekah (Gen 26:10). The 
> verb is
> used to describe the rape of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, by Shechem (Gen 
> 34:2, 7).
> Reuben “slept” with his father’s concubine Bilhah while Jacob was 
> absent (Gen
> 35:22). The sons of Eli engaged in amorous pursuits in their free time 
> (I Sam
> 2:22). Amnon violated his half-sister Tamar (II Sam 13:11, 14), 
> emulating, no
> doubt, the activities of his own father with Bathsheba (II Sam 11:4).
> By contrast when the Bible makes reference to a sexual relationship 
> that is
> within the boundaries of God’s will it usually uses a phrase such as 
> “Adam knew
> his wife and she conceived” (Gen 4:1, 17) or “Abraham went in unto 
> Hagar and she
> conceived” (Gen 16:4). The latter phrase is used even in Gen 38:18 of 
> Judah and
> Tamar, father-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively, where Judah 
> denied Tamar
> her levirate rights.
> [Victor P. Hamilton, pp. 921-922 in Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert 
> Laird ;
> Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of 
> the Old
> Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 921]
>
> Bryant says:
>
> It is apparent from even the above sources that Tanakh is very 
> explicit about
> illicit sexual intercourse. Furthermore, since God is holy, He expects His
> people to follow His commandments, statutes, laws, etc. The Israelites 
> were to
> be totally different in comparison to the nations that they were to 
> dispossess
> per God's command. This is especially true with regards to sexual 
> relations and
> idolatry. As Victor Hamilton says above, "It is sobering to notice 
> that for the
> above sexual aberrations usually the death penalty was prescribed. To 
> be sure,
> the Bible does not tell us to what degree the punishment was enforced 
> across the
> board. But why do the Scriptures inveigh so forcefully against 
> tampering with
> the sexual relationship. Could not at least one reason be that Israel was
> surrounded by cultures in which such practices were par for the course 
> at the
> human or even at the divine level? Perhaps one of the most degrading 
> features of
> pagan religions is the way in which religious and sexual expression 
> were often
> one and the same thing. It was, however, not a sacramentalizing of sex but
> rather an eroticizing of religion." It is a violation of the 
> commandment, "Thou
> shalt not acommit adultery." This applies in its literal, figurative and
> spiritual senses. See also the entire prophecy of Hosea regarding how 
> adultery
> is understood by God.
>
> This is not a question of ancient views versus modern views.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III