Let's start with the understanding, Achilles, that you are wearing me out. I haven't seen any information yet that destabalized the logic behind my conclusion... but the sheer amount of text you are throwing at me is tiresome. You need to shrink your responses if you wish for me to continue further... I simply don't have time to respond to this degree of minutia.
Before I (briefly) respond to your post, I want to go ahead and lay out the reasons why Deut. 22:28-29 cannot possibly be referring to rape. You have ignored the actual passage(s) under discussion and have based your entire (mis)interpretation off of one Hebrew word which you have used out of context.
"28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young womans father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." Deut. 22:28-29 (NRSV)
I have ignored nothing. I have quoted and responded to every line of text sent my way.
1) The woman's father is involved
In Torah law a woman's father has the right to give her in marriage or the right to refuse to give her in marriage. It is assumed (because the Torah does not cover absolutely every circumstance - if so, it would be impracticably long) that the woman's father is there to do her will and make sure she does not get manipulated into marrying someone or marry someone who's a "bad character." Consider:
" 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Ex. 22:17 (NRSV)
The father has the unconditional ability to refuse to give his daughter to someone in marriage. That, in and of itself, is sufficient to prove that this passage cannot be talking about rape. No father would give his daughter (or anyone else) to someone who raped them. The fact that the father gives his daughter in marriage in this circumstance shows that the woman has complied with the act and indeed wishes to get married.
The verse in Deuteronomy does not give the father an option. The verse in Exodus does. The verse in Deuteronomy refers to a physically initiated encounter, using a term that refers to overwhelming physical force. The verse in Exodus refers to a verbally initiated encounter that does not refer to overwhelming physical force. In the deuteronomical law, covering a different type of encounter than in Exodus, the father is not provided with any choice - just like the woman and physically initiated male - but instead is given monetary compensation without any decision-making necessary.
2) The phrase "they are found"
You will note in the passage under consideration the phrase "they are found" is used. This means that they were both complicit in the act; if the passage were describing rape, then the phrase "he is found" would have been used.
The term "taphas" means to seize / capture / detain / arrest / kidnap. The woman has not simply been raped, but has in fact also be taken. The person who takes her can only be discovered if the girl is also discovered. Forensics and persuasive investigation are non-existent in the bible.
3) Similarity to Ex. 22:16-17
The passage in question is very, very similar to Ex. 22:16-17 which indicates that it is most likely an elaboration of the same law:
"16 When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Ex. 22:16-17 (NRSV)
"28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young womans father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." Deut. 22:28-29 (NRSV)
Notice the similarity of the passages above. Notice also that Deuteronomy is in fact an elaboration upon the law of Exodus, adding that the man will not be able to divorce her all of his days. Deuteronomy also adds the monetary fine for pre-marital intercourse to the law in Exodus.
The two laws deal with separate scenarios. One deals with seduction, the other with physical force. If we wrongly supposed the two laws are the same with Deuteronomy being the elaboration, it would present grave problems in our logic since Exodus elaborates on the father's decision-making opportunities, while Deuteronomy does not. It very much seems that you are trying to make these two laws be the same, when they are not. Jewish authorities on the Torah do not agree with you and never have. It would make little sense to see these as the same law in different forms if they deal with tangibly different scenarios and have never been seen as being the same law.
4) "Taphas," a less intense word, is used instead of "chazaq"
The word indicating rape has taken place in Deuteronomy 22:25 is "chazaq":
"25 But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. " Deut. 22:25 (NASB)
This is talking about an indisputable case of rape. If the author wished to indicate that v. 28 was referring to rape he would have used the same word, chazaq. The fact that he doesn't indicates that the passage is not referring to rape.
Taphas is not a less intense word. This again shows that you do not understand Hebrew. Your belief that a lexicon is sufficient for a layperson to understand a
very difficult ancient language is one reason that you err so much.
Taphas refers to overwhelming force that refers to seizure. As an illustration, imagine that taphas refers to going onto your neighbor's property and taking it from him. Chazaq refers to overwhelming force that is used to attack. As an illustration, imagine that chazaq refers to going on your neighbor's property and damaging it.
The less intense word that simply means to hold or to touch something is tamak. Tamak is not used in this verse. For anybody who has studied Hebrew, it is obvious that Deuteronomy would use the word "tamak" if this was any sort of normal holding or touching of the woman. Taphas was used purposefully to indicate that the girl is taken / seized / captured / kidnapped / detained / arrested.
5) Ezek. 29:7 shows a use of taphas toward a human which is not negative (note that "taphas" is parallel to "leaned")
It has been alleged by Biblical critics that whenever "taphas" is used toward a human it always means something incredibly negative, like to overpower with force. This simply isn't true, as Ezek. 29:7 shows:
This is untrue. I have never alleged that taphas always means something incredibly negative. If a criminal experiences taphas, then that is likely a good thing. If a person is about to fall off a cliff and then experience taphas from a rescuer, that is a good thing.
"When they took hold (taphas) of you with the hand,
You broke and tore all their [j]hands;
And when they leaned on you,
You broke and made all their loins [k]quake." Ezek. 29:7 (NASB)
In this instance, "taphas" is used not in a negative sense but in a positive sense of taking hold of someone (with the hand) for help. Obviously here the intent cannot be negative nor is the intent to overpower by force or else the word couldn't have been used when the individual (Israel) is seeking help. In one of your responses you indicated that it must be violent because Egypt broke when Israel "taphas" her, but this ignores the way the word is being used in the passage. Note that the word is parallel to "lean" here in this passage. The debate here is over the use of the word, not the result of the action, as Biblical critics are claiming that the word is only used in an incredibly negative sense like "overpower." The fact that the word is used in parallel to "lean" here in this passage proves that the word can be used of humans in a positive sense. Here the Israelites have no intent to break Egypt to pieces or to cause anything negative to happen to Egypt; they are simply seeking help.
I grow tired of explaining Hebrew scripture to you. In this verse, the people hold onto the person's hands so strongly that their hands are broken. They did not let go. This is why taphas is used here. It could have been correctly translated:
"When they seized (taphas) you with the hand,
You broke and tore all their [j]hands".
or
"When they clenched you (taphas) with the hand,
You broke and tore all their hands."
No matter what, the feeling that is conveyed by the Hebrew is that they have strongly secured the person's hand, and that while still clenched their hands were broken and torn. Their hands are broken and torn by holding on (and it is implied the person's hand was removed, thus breaking it).
The next part is about them leaning on the person and when he removes himself, their loins (pelvis) are shaken by the person removing himself as a balance/support. This simply refers to a weak person trembling with their stability removed.
I think that if you wish to understand scripture at the level you portend to have, you really should take some classes on biblical Hebrew. It would help you to understand these passages.
Thus the use of the word "taphas" in this passage shows that it does not always have a negative connotation when referring to human beings. This means, obviously, that the word "taphas" in Deut. 22:28 does not have to be used in a negative sense (the sense used when speaking of enemy cities or people), but can rather mean that the man took hold of the woman with the intent to lie with her; i.e., he initiated the sexual act. The woman then complied with this act as the rest of the evidence in the passage shows.
I have shown how you are wrong based on no knowledge of Hebrew.
6) Chazaq, not taphas, is always used for rape in the Bible
Taphas is not once used in any rape case in Scripture. Instead, in indisputable rape passages, we find the word "chazaq" being used.
"11 When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold (chazaq) of her and said to her, Come, lie with me, my sister. 12 But she answered him, No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! 13 As for me, where could I [e]get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the [f]fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you. 14 However, he would not listen to [g]her; since he was stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated her and lay with her." 2 Sam. 13:11-14 (NASB)
Again, this is referring to an attack, not to a seizure / kidnapping / capture. The woman is not taken anywhere, she is simply attacked. Had she been captured, taphas would have been used.
Here chazaq, not taphas, is used of the rape of Tamar.
"25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took (chazaq) his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." Jdg. 19:25 (KJV)
Chazaq is not being used for rape here. It is being used for a highly immoral man (yet supposedly righteous before Yahweh according to the bible) forcibly
giving his sex slave girl to a gang of rapists (whose actions kill her). The Hebrew imagery of chazaq in this sentence is that she is thrown out to them with his strength.
Note that there is one passage in Scripture where taphas is used of a sexual situation:
"12 She caught (taphas) him by his garment, saying, Lie with me! And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside." Gen. 39:12 (NASB)
Here "taphas" is used for when Potiphar's wife attempts to get Joseph to sleep with her. Notice that in this passage Joseph does escape and is not raped by her. Thus, in every passage of Scripture that deals with rape, chazaq, not taphas, is used. Had the author wished to indicate that Deut. 22:28 was referring to a rape, he would have used chazaq. He did not.
Taphas is used for nothing sexual here (it isn't a sexual word). It is used for grasping / holding / seizing / capturing the fabric so hard that when he leaves his clothes are ripped from him.
Again, please study Hebrew and respect the text enough to read it for what it says, rather than imprinting it with your own predetermined beliefs.
More in the next post...