Rape not in the Ten Commandments

[Spoonist]

Guys, guys, guys. Stop bickering over semantics. Of course rape is prohibited by the ten commandments! It's commandment #8, thou shalt not steal. Because at the time, women were the property of men, and having sex with another man's woman was stealing his property.

Agreed, that was what I said in my first postin this topic.
Its clear from Deu 21 where the rape of a non-pledged virgin is punished by marrying her and give the father virgin price 50 shekel. While if someone after marriage claims the daughter was not a virgin and is proven wrong by the marriage bedsheets the fine to the father is 100 shekels.
So its the fathers property that is in question.

So rape is still not prohibited, only limited.

Its worse. Its sometimes encouraged or required. Deu 20 & 21, Jud 21, Num 31, Sam 12, etc.

Which is why its not in the decalogue. Rape is OK in the biblical context.

[Kanastrous]

after all, you can beat a slave to death as long as it takes more than 24 hours for him to die.

Chapter and verse?

[Spoonist]

after all, you can beat a slave to death as long as it takes more than 24 hours for him to die.

Chapter and verse?

I think serafina is misremembering this passage:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

[Serafina]

Hmm, ok, i really misremebered that

[Kanastrous]

As repellent as all things slavery-related are to us today, I think it's worth trying to remember that at the time of their composition the Mosaic slavery laws were actually progressive: no slave could be held for longer than seven years unless they clearly and explicitly expressed a desire to remain in that role, with an unpleasant and painful ritual prescribed for any person who made that choice. And these rules gave slaves greater protections than anything applied by surrounding contemporary societies.

Of course by modern standards it's still brutish and distasteful. But in its time it was progress, and creating the concept that slaves had rights at all was a necessary step toward eventually realizing that slavery itself had to go.

[Liberty]

As repellent as all things slavery-related are to us today, I think it's worth trying to remember that at the time of their composition the Mosaic slavery laws were actually progressive: no slave could be held for longer than seven years unless they clearly and explicitly expressed a desire to remain in that role, with an unpleasant and painful ritual prescribed for any person who made that choice. And these rules gave slaves greater protections than anything applied by surrounding contemporary societies.

Do we have any proof that this was the way they actually did things, though? After all, the Old Testament was not even written down (or for the most part, thought up) before the seventh century B.C., and Israel was almost constantly under foreign occupation after that (Babylon, Greece, Seleucid, Roman). At the same time, the laws being referred to here were supposedly written around 1400 B.C. So really, were they ever actually followed?

[Kanastrous]

It's a reasonable question, but it could as easily be applied to observance of *any* of the laws promulgated in the OT, couldn't it?

[Liberty]

It's a reasonable question, but it could as easily be applied to observance of *any* of the laws promulgated in the OT, couldn't it?

Except for not eating pigs. Apparently, unlike all the surrounding areas, there are no pig bones in Israelite archaeological sites.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As has already been pointed out, a disturbing number of fundamentalists don't consider it rape if it happens within the bonds of marriage. In fact, a fair number of them consider it a sin if the woman says "no."

In their minds, the one saying no adultery means no rape, since it's just not possible to rape your wife. Modern laws be damned.

[Liberty]

As has already been pointed out, a disturbing number of fundamentalists don't consider it rape if it happens within the bonds of marriage. In fact, a fair number of them consider it a sin if the woman says "no."

In their minds, the one saying no adultery means no rape, since it's just not possible to rape your wife. Modern laws be damned.

Another thing to point out is that a lot of fundies say women who are raped were "asking for it." I mean, if they'd just worn a longer skirt, or had a male relative with them, it wouldn't have happened, after all.

[Kanastrous]

Damn whores, running around with vaginas. Leave 'em at home, ladies!

[Spoonist]

As repellent as all things slavery-related are to us today, I think it's worth trying to remember that at the time of their composition the Mosaic slavery laws were actually progressive: no slave could be held for longer than seven years unless they clearly and explicitly expressed a desire to remain in that role, with an unpleasant and painful ritual prescribed for any person who made that choice. And these rules gave slaves greater protections than anything applied by surrounding contemporary societies.

Of course by modern standards it's still brutish and distasteful. But in its time it was progress, and creating the concept that slaves had rights at all was a necessary step toward eventually realizing that slavery itself had to go.

Your conclusions does not follow history. Mosaic slavery laws hindered the freeing of slaves. First of course in Israel, then in roman context, then in frankish context, then in crusader context, then in british empire context, then in the US. So even if they where 'progressive' the fact that they where mixed with religious law made them harder to get rid of when society wanted to because clergy and fundies claimed that it is gods will that slaves be kept.
Also your tidbits are a little off. The seven years are for hebrews only, foreign slaves where for life. Also what is missing is why a hebrew slave would want to remain a slave when he could be free, which is mentioned in the passage. It is if he wants to keep his wife and kids. If he selects freedom they default to the owner. Again its also clear that this is for males only because women are lumped in with other property like ox and sheep.
Now given the narrative context the hebrews had just left egypt and slavery themselves because they found it too harsh. Then directly after that it does not even cross their minds to give it up. Why? Because the guy in direct contact with their god tells them its OK. Plus in the context of war laws theirs are harsher, because when other contemporaries would seek to capture as many as possible for slavery, the israelites are ordered to kill all males. So their contemporary proggressiveness can be debated.

Its telling that nordic/baltic peoples more easily gave up domestic slavery when christanized (sp?) than their mediterranean counterparts. Mostly because the OT was less spread there than the NT because books where too expensive.

[hongi]

As repellent as all things slavery-related are to us today, I think it's worth trying to remember that at the time of their composition the Mosaic slavery laws were actually progressive: no slave could be held for longer than seven years unless they clearly and explicitly expressed a desire to remain in that role, with an unpleasant and painful ritual prescribed for any person who made that choice. And these rules gave slaves greater protections than anything applied by surrounding contemporary societies.

First of all, there's no evidence that this seven year freeing thing ever happened in ancient Israel. What's written in the Bible and what people did are two different things.

Second, you really need to prove it. But I bet you don't have an indepth knowledge of ancient Near East codes of law to discuss it anyway. Nor do I. In which case please don't make this claim unless you're really sure.

[someone_else]

oh well, the ten commandments don't say a shit about gays, nor rule out raping your pets. Also, they don't say a lot about raping children.

That said, I'll go rape my sheep.

Anyways, any guy that calls himself "Christian" should know what Jesus said about the commandments in the Gospels.

Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And He said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Assuming that noone in his right mind wants to rape himself, this pretty much rules out rape.

[Liberty]

First, Roman slavery, I believe, wasn't as harsh as slavery in the American south. It was not race based, and it was (relatively) common for slaves to save up and buy their freedom. In addition, these freed slaves' grandchildren would be full citizens.

Now given the narrative context the hebrews had just left egypt and slavery themselves because they found it too harsh. Then directly after that it does not even cross their minds to give it up. Why?

Actually, no reputable archaeologist or (legitimate) biblical scholar actually thinks that the hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, and then left, as the Bible says. In fact, most scholars dismiss the historicity of anything before King David.

Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And He said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Assuming that noone in his right mind wants to rape himself, this pretty much rules out rape.

This assumes that "your neighbor" includes females as well as males. At the time, women were still property, so can we actually assume this?

[Channel72]

As repellent as all things slavery-related are to us today, I think it's worth trying to remember that at the time of their composition the Mosaic slavery laws were actually progressive: no slave could be held for longer than seven years unless they clearly and explicitly expressed a desire to remain in that role, with an unpleasant and painful ritual prescribed for any person who made that choice. And these rules gave slaves greater protections than anything applied by surrounding contemporary societies.

First of all, there's no evidence that this seven year freeing thing ever happened in ancient Israel. What's written in the Bible and what people did are two different things.

Second, you really need to prove it. But I bet you don't have an indepth knowledge of ancient Near East codes of law to discuss it anyway. Nor do I. In which case please don't make this claim unless you're really sure.

No, I think Kanastrous makes a fair point. Reading the Assyrian or Babylonian law codes really puts the Hebrew law codes into perspective. While it's all barbaric by modern standards, the Hebrew laws concerning slavery were progressive for their time. Just read through any of the various Assyrian law codes published in James Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Start with the Middle Assyrian Laws on page 180. Excerpts such as the following really put the Hebrew law codes in perspective:

If either a male or female slave has received something (stolen) from the hand of a master's* wife, they shall cut off the nose (and) ears of the male or female slave, thus compensating for the stolen (property), while the master shall cut off his wife's ears.

Compare this to Exodus:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye's sake.

So in Exodus the slaves at least have some minimal rights which separate them from pure chattel. Plus, if you think the Bible is misogynistic, try reading how the Assyrians treated women:

Apart from the penalties for a master's wife which are prescribed on this tablet, when she deserves it a master may pull out the hair of his wife, mutilate or twist her ears, with no liability attaching to him.

In general, the Assyrian and Babylonian law codes were a lot more brutal than the Biblical codes. So in that sense, the Hebrew law codes were at least progressive for their time. Now, whether or not the Hebrew law codes were actually enforced or widely practiced is difficult to say. Obviously, the disparity between legislation and enforcement in practice is an ongoing problem in all historical studies. Many of the law codes in Exodus 21-23 obviously derived from surrounding Ancient Near Eastern codes, and are generally assumed by scholars to be part of the "E" strand of the Old Testament, thus dating them to around 850 B.C.E. This indicates that if these laws were effective at all, they would have been put into practice at the time of the divided Hebrew monarchy. So a good case can be made that the codes which ultimately ended up in Exodus were derived from earlier, actual law codes used at that time.

But of course, this is far from certain, which is why I wouldn't go as far as Kanastrous and say that the laws concerning slavery in the Torah actually paved the way for the abolition of slavery. That would be an enormous stretch, considering that slavery was practiced for centuries after Israel ceased to exist. But I would agree that the law codes in Exodus concerning slavery are, as written, comparatively progressive compared to the laws of the surrounding empires.



*The actual translation uses the word "seignor" instead of master.

[eyl]

First, Roman slavery, I believe, wasn't as harsh as slavery in the American south. It was not race based, and it was (relatively) common for slaves to save up and buy their freedom. In addition, these freed slaves' grandchildren would be full citizens.

Wouldn't this depend on the time period, though? My understanding is that treatment of slaves in the Roman Republic was much harsher than in later periods - and even that early period followed the Mosaic Code by a number of centuries at least.

(apologies if this is a double post, my original one seems to have disappeared)

[Liberty]

Now, whether or not the Hebrew law codes were actually enforced or widely practiced is difficult to say. Obviously, the disparity between legislation and enforcement in practice is an ongoing problem in all historical studies. Many of the law codes in Exodus 21-23 obviously derived from surrounding Ancient Near Eastern codes, and are generally assumed by scholars to be part of the "E" strand of the Old Testament, thus dating them to around 850 B.C.E. This indicates that if these laws were effective at all, they would have been put into practice at the time of the divided Hebrew monarchy. So a good case can be made that the codes which ultimately ended up in Exodus were derived from earlier, actual law codes used at that time.

I'm confused. Where is the justification for the last sentence?

[Broomstick]

First, Roman slavery, I believe, wasn't as harsh as slavery in the American south. It was not race based, and it was (relatively) common for slaves to save up and buy their freedom. In addition, these freed slaves' grandchildren would be full citizens.

Not just that - one of the Caesars (I forget which one exactly) was either the grandchild or great-grandchild of slaves. Needless to say not everyone was such a social climber but have a slave parent was much less an impediment socially than it was in the antebellum US. Or post-Civil War US.

[Channel72]

I'm confused. Where is the justification for the last sentence?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was referring to an aspect of the documentary hypothesis, which constitutes the general scholarly consensus regarding the authorship and dating of the Torah. The slavery laws in Exodus come from a segment called the "Book of the Covenant", (Exodus 21-23). Scholars agree that this portion is part of the "E" strand of the Torah, so therefore it can be dated to around 850 B.C.E. That would date the laws to the time of the Hebrew monarchy, when Israel and Judah were both relatively stable political entities, so it's not much of a stretch to argue that these laws were actual laws used at the time.

Additionally, the laws as written are obviously very old. This is clear from their "ad hoc" case-law nature. Scholars of the Ancient Near East have long noted something peculiar about most Ancient Near Eastern law codes, which should be obvious to anyone even after a cursory study. If you read any of the Mesopotamian law codes, you immediately begin to notice an interesting pattern: they're not like the Biblical Decalogue, nor are they like modern, prescriptive laws which take the form of "It is illegal to do X" or "You must do X." Rather, they're written to address certain specific circumstances, and are always expressed as conditional statements, generally in the form of "if/when X happens, and also Y happens, then the penalty is Z." Some of them are so ad hoc that they seem to have been written in order to address some particular situation that actually occurred, such as this bizarre law from a Hittite law-code:

If anyone steals a door in a quarrel, he shall replace everything that may get lost in the house. He will also give 1 mina of silver and pledge his estate as security.

Most of the laws in Exodus 21-23 are exactly like this. In fact one particular law regarding oxen seems lifted almost directly from an old Babylonian law-code called "The Laws of Eshnunna", which even predates Hammurabi.

Exodus 21:35: When one man's ox butts another's and kills it, they must sell the live ox, share the price, and also share the dead beast. But if it is known that the ox has for some time past been vicious and the owner has not kept it under control, he must make good the loss, ox for ox, but the dead beast is his.

Law of Eshunna 53-54: If an ox gores another ox and causes its death, both ox owners shall divide the price of the live ox and also the meat of the dead ox. If an ox is known to gore habitually and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge of its owner, but he does not have it dehorned, it gores a man and causes his death, then the owner of the ox shall pay two-thirds a mina of silver.

So the point is, far from being invented by the later priests who eventually compiled Exodus, the laws in the "Book of the Covenant" have all the signs of actual Ancient Near Eastern laws which were lifted from an actual law code, similar to the many other law codes known from surrounding nations. The fact that the language of Exodus 21-23 identifies it as part of the "E" strand also indicates that these laws date to the time of the Hebrew monarchy, where they could very well have been the law of the land.

But again, I must stress that this is, of course, far from certain.

[Liberty]

So the point is, far from being invented by the later priests who eventually compiled Exodus, the laws in the "Book of the Covenant" have all the signs of actual Ancient Near Eastern laws which were lifted from an actual law code, similar to the many other law codes known from surrounding nations. The fact that the language of Exodus 21-23 identifies it as part of the "E" strand also lends credence to the fact that these laws date to the time of the Hebrew monarchy, where they could very well have been the law of the land.

But again, I must stress that this is, of course, far from certain.

That's very interesting. And I am familiar with the documentary hypothesis (I read Who Wrote the Bible, which is very good at laying it out). Also, I just read the book The Bible Unearthed, which argues that the Bible was written down after 720 BC, but admits that some of the strands and stories went back further, they just weren't compiled until later. Still, I hadn't thought of the similarity to other Ancient Near Eastern law codes in that way, and I see your point.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This assumes that "your neighbor" includes females as well as males. At the time, women were still property, so can we actually assume this?

It is very difficult to say what Jesus might have meant by that and in fact it is of course not certain if he ever even said that. You can come make some conclusions based on internal textual criticism in the way of the Jesus Seminar, but I haven't check the Seminar's opinion on that particular passage and in any case its just a consensus decision of a certain group of people, who are not even all professional Biblical scholars or historians (this is the main criticism of the Jesus Seminar), although most of them certainly have a degree in relevant fields. If we assume the passage was actually said by Jesus of Nazareth, what he meant by it would have to be based on what kind of thinker he actually was. Needless to say, there are many different views:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

if we go forward the Saint Paul, we can be fairly certain that he would have condemned rape, but probably primarily because it would have been a sign of lust and weakness of the flesh. Paul thought that the ideal condition for a Christian was celibacy and he allowed marriage only if you absolutely positively had to have sex with someone, for which marriage was the least sinful way. He also wanted to limit divorces as much as possible and so Paul can be seen as the originator of the strict monogamist ideals of Christianity. Ironically his high respect for celibacy was partially forgotten after the first century and only later regained its prominence particularly in the Western parts of the Church, which lead to the celibacy demand to all Roman Catholic priests.

[Spoonist]

What's written in the Bible and what people did are two different things.

But when relatively comparing them to others the same thing applies to the others. So it makes sense to actually compare the intent of the law as written.

Now given the narrative context the hebrews had just left egypt and slavery themselves because they found it too harsh.

Actually, no reputable archaeologist or (legitimate) biblical scholar actually thinks that the hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, and then left, as the Bible says.

Wich is why I used "narrative context".

[someone_else]

This assumes that "your neighbor" includes females as well as males. At the time, women were still property, so can we actually assume this?

It is very difficult to say what Jesus might have meant by that and in fact it is of course not certain if he ever even said that.

You know, there are no actual real unquestionable proofs of Jesus existence either.
Also, the same reasoning can be applied to the rest of the bible. It may just be a fantasy book (the genesis certainly is not realistic) written by some kind of old-times clown. We'll never know.
Either you accept the book as decent reconstruction of what happened or this entire discussion does not make more sense than one talking about morals taken from Harry Potter books.
Usually you can only do it by faith, 'cause scientific proofs are scarce at best and you can find enough theories to fill the Enterprise-E's teleport memory buffers.

About the guy above nitpicking on neighbours, I have a couple more snips where jesus elaborates better.

(luke 6) 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

(mattew 7) 9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Ok, "others" can be "only males" too if you want to nitpick again, but from what I remeber Jesus treated the women in the same way he treated men. And was really nice with children "let the children come to me" or something along these lines. I'm sure he never said something like "the women must obey to men" and other such maschilist claims, but he never said something feminist either. I think that probably would have angered too much people and sunk his plans of actually converting them to his religion, just to correct a nuisance that would adjust itself with time (as it already happened for most of the world and is still in-process everywhere else).

if we go forward the Saint Paul, we can be fairly certain that he would have condemned rape, but probably primarily because it would have been a sign of lust and weakness of the flesh. Paul thought that the ideal condition for a Christian was celibacy and he allowed marriage only if you absolutely positively had to have sex with someone, for which marriage was the least sinful way.

So Saint Paul is responsible of that annoying puritanical madness.... Good to know.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This assumes that "your neighbor" includes females as well as males. At the time, women were still property, so can we actually assume this?

It is very difficult to say what Jesus might have meant by that and in fact it is of course not certain if he ever even said that.

You know, there are no actual real unquestionable proofs of Jesus existence either.
Also, the same reasoning can be applied to the rest of the bible. It may just be a fantasy book (the genesis certainly is not realistic) written by some kind of old-times clown. We'll never know.

I am very well aware of the fact that there is no unquestionable proof of Jesus' existence, but it does not follow that we should accept everything the Gospels tell us either true or untrue as long as there is no good proof of his non-existance, either. The resurrection story and some of the more fantastical miracles are obviously fantasy, but some other parts of the Gospels, or at least the synoptic Gospels, might actually contain authentic sayings of certain Jesus of Nazareth. Declaring defeat before even trying to find out the historicity of different parts of the Gospels is not rational, and if historians usually did that, we could just say that we don't know much about ancient history for certain and stop at that. Even archaeological evidence has to interpreted before it can tell us something.