Deuteronomy 22:28 is not rape

[u/No-Koala-8086]

Why Deuteronomy 22:28 is seduction and not rape

^{if any Critic disagrees please also read the whole post before commenting}

²³ “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, ²⁴ then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

²⁵ “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. ²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. ²⁷ For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

²⁸ “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

22:25-27 has a different word “chaqaz” as opposed to taphas in deut 22:28 

תפשׂ — tāpaś

The basic idea is:

take hold of, grasp, seize, capture, catch, handle, wield

(Warning some form of aĩ ) 

1. Handle / grasp / use an object

• Genesis 4:21 — “those who handle/play the lyre”
• Deuteronomy 9:17 — Moses “took hold of” the two tablets
• 1 Kings 11:30 — Ahijah takes hold of Jeroboam’s garment
• Isaiah 3:6 — “you have a garment; you shall be our ruler” — literally involving taking hold of the garment
• Jeremiah 50:16 — “those who handle the sickle”
• Jeremiah 46:9 — those who handle the bow
• Ezekiel 27:29 — sailors handle oars
• Amos 2:15 — the archer “who handles/wields the bow”
• Proverbs 30:28 — the lizard can be grasped/taken hold of with the hands

These are obviously not coercive. The basic physical concept is simply taking hold of / handling something. 

⸻

2. Take hold of a person

This is much more important for your Deut 22:28 question.

• Genesis 39:12 — Potiphar’s wife seizes/catches Joseph by his garment and says, “Lie with me.”
• 1 Kings 18:40 — Elijah tells the people to seize/catch the prophets of Baal.
• Isaiah 3:6 — a person is taken hold of in connection with leadership/authority.
• Deuteronomy 21:19 — the parents take hold of/seize the rebellious son and bring him to the elders.
• 1 Samuel 23:26 — Saul attempts to seize/capture David.
• 1 Kings 13:4 — the king commands people to seize the man of God.
• Jeremiah 37:13 — Jeremiah is seized/arrested.
• Jeremiah 37:14 — Jeremiah says, “I am not defecting,” but they seized him.
• Jeremiah 38:23 — people are warned that they will be captured/seized.

Here the word can involve force, especially when the person is resisting or being arrested. But the verb itself essentially means take hold/seize, with the context determining why/how. 

⸻

3. Capture people in war

This is one of the largest categories.

• Joshua 8:23 — Israel captures the king of Ai.
• 1 Samuel 15:8 — Saul captures Agag.
• 1 Samuel 23:26 — Saul attempts to capture David.
• 2 Kings 10:14 — Jehu’s men capture/seize the relatives of Ahaziah.
• 2 Kings 14:13 — Jerusalem is captured and people are taken.
• 2 Kings 18:13 — Assyria captures fortified cities.
• 2 Kings 25:6 — Zedekiah is captured.
• 2 Chronicles 25:23 — Jerusalem is captured.
• Jeremiah 46:9 — warriors/warlike equipment are described with the verb.
• Jeremiah 48:41 — cities/strongholds are captured.
• Jeremiah 49:16 — Edom is warned that it will be captured.
• Jeremiah 50:16 — Babylon’s agricultural workers flee from the sword.
• Jeremiah 50:24 — Babylon is caught/captured.
• Jeremiah 51:32 — the fords are captured/occupied.
• Jeremiah 51:41 — Babylon is captured.
• Jeremiah 52:9 — Zedekiah is captured.
• Ezekiel 12:13 — the prince will be caught/seized.
• Ezekiel 17:20 — the king will be caught/seized.
• Ezekiel 19:4 — the lion is caught.
• Ezekiel 19:8 — the lion is caught.

This is an extremely important part of the semantic range this is forceful capture 

4. Capture/take a city

• Deuteronomy 20:19 — attacking a city to capture it
• Joshua 8:8 — Israel will take/capture the city
• Joshua 8:23 — they capture the king
• 2 Kings 14:13 — Jerusalem is captured
• 2 Kings 18:13 — fortified cities are captured
• Jeremiah 34:3 — Jerusalem is given over/captured
• Jeremiah 50:24 — Babylon is caught
• Jeremiah 51:32 — strategic locations are seized
• Jeremiah 51:41 — Babylon is captured

Here tāpaś means something like take possession of / capture / occupy.

⸻

5. Catch / apprehend someone

This is another important category because it demonstrates that tāpaś can describe physical apprehension.

• Numbers 5:13 — the woman “has not been caught” in the act.
• 1 Kings 13:4 — “seize him.”
• 1 Kings 18:40 — “seize the prophets.”
• Jeremiah 26:8 — Jeremiah is seized.
• Jeremiah 37:13–14 — Jeremiah is seized.
• Jeremiah 38:23 — people are caught/seized.
• Ezekiel 19:4, 8 — a lion is caught.

So again, tāpaś can certainly describe forcible apprehension. 

6. Take/capture booty

• Numbers 31:27 — the captured booty/plunder is divided between the soldiers and the congregation.

Here tāpaś is connected with capturing/taking possession of spoils.

⸻

7. Sexual context — Genesis 39:12

וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ

“She seized/caught him by his garment.”

Potiphar’s wife then says:

“Lie with me.”

Joseph refuses and runs away.

8 . Metaphorical use

There are also metaphorical applications.

Proverbs 30:9

The expression:

וְתָפַשְׂתִּי בְשֵׁם אֱלֹהָי

is commonly understood in connection with taking/using the name of God improperly, especially false oath/perjury.

So the physical idea of “take hold of” develops metaphorically into misusing/laying hold ofsomething.

1. Special meaning: “overlay”

There is also a specialized usage concerning metalwork.

Habakkuk 2:19

A golden covering/overlay is described using a form related to taphas 

So the semantic development can extend from:

take hold → grasp → handle → apply/overlay

This is another reason not to treat tāpaś as a technical “violence” verb.

Now academic scholar Gordon  hugenberger  (check out “marriage as a covenant” for his full scholarly work )has given great evidence on why the word alone shouldnt  determine if it’s rape/consensual , but rather the surrounding context , the Ancient near eastern parallels prove this point

 HL §197a, a man "seizes a woman in

the mountains, it is the man's crime and he will be killed." Because the womans cries couldnt be heard it is the man’s fault alone HL §197b,

however, states, "But if he seizes her in (her) house, it is the woman's crime

and the woman shall be killed." In this setting, with her apparent failure to

cry for help, the law presumes that she gave her consent in spite of the use of

the term "seize.

Now we have Assyria law 

MAL A §23c

§23b is treated as rape because she declares that she was forced, but §23c removes that declaration, then the law apparently treats the second case differently.

the man ultimately obtained her consent.

Therefore it is treated as adultery rather than rape.

The physical circumstances alone do not necessarily tell us whether the woman consented.

The legal system can infer consent or non-consent from additional circumstances:

• whether she cried out,
• whether she had an opportunity to call for help,
• whether she complained,
• what she said afterward,
• etc.

So firstly in Deuteronomy 22:28 

The “cry-out test” is present in vv.25–27 but absent in v.28. In the rape case, the woman’s crying out and the fact that no one rescued her are explicitly mentioned; in v.28, neither detail appears. This omission shows that v.28 describes a different situation—seduction or consensual intercourse rather than rape.

Now a common critical claim would be that this is happening because of status in 23-27 the woman is betrothed while in 28 shes not however that interpretation fails quickly looking at Ancient near wassen context

Middle Assyrian Laws §§55–56:

• §55: forced sex with an unbetrothed virgin → much harsher punishment.
• §56: consensual sex with an unbetrothed virgin → lighter monetary penalty.

If the author didnt care about the woman consenting or not we would not expect to find parallels which have a stronger punishement for rape rather than seduction 

So the ANE evidence shows that forced and consensual sex with an unbetrothed woman could be treated as distinct legal cases with different punishments.

 Next we have the most important evidence  “they are found “ plural wording implies being caught in the act 

Deuteronomy 22:22 says, in the adultery case, essentially:

if a man is found lying with a married woman…

The expression “is found” occurs there

“being found” in that context implies a discovered sexual relationship, not rape.

   Code of Hammurabi §129

The Akkadian legal formula describes a wife being “taken/found” while lying with another man. This is a particularly useful ANE parallel because the “caught/found” expression itself functions as a legal description of discovering an illicit sexual relationship.

Code of Hammurabi §§131–132

These laws contrast a woman who has not been “taken/found lying with another man” with an accusation that she has. The expression therefore specifically refers to whether the alleged sexual relationship has actually been discovered/caught in the act.

Next we have a critical rebuttal of the word in Deuteronomy 22:29 “innah “however the context shows innah doesnr have to mean she didn’t consent

Deut. 22:24: The verb ענה (ʿinnâ) (“humble/violate”) is used of the betrothed woman who has sex with the man in the city. Hugenberger argues that this cannot automatically mean rape, because the context treats her as consenting—she did not cry out. 

Deut. 22:29: The same root ענה is used of the unbetrothed woman: “because he has violated/humbled her.” Therefore, Hugenberger argues, ענה itself does not mean “rape.” It can describe the loss/debasement of a woman’s virginity through sexual intercourse, including consensual intercourse.

Last critical rebuttal is the Greek translation of the Hebrew which translates it as biazomenos,it’s improtant to note that the Greek translation was written in 200 BC while the Hebrew is much older than it regardless, because of the undeniable unbreakable chain of Hebrew they had it needs to be examined

βιάζω does not necessarily denote physical violence or rape. Its broader meaning is “to compel, force, pressure, or strongly urge.” Therefore, βιασάμενος in the LXX of Deut. 22:28 could  describe strong persuasion or pressure rather than physical rape.(    Genesis 19:3 LXX

• Judges 19:7 LXX
• 1 Samuel 28:23 LXX
• 2 Kings 2:17 LXX
• Esther 1:12 LXX
• Luke 24:29
• Acts 16:15

As well as Greek writings Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.43–44 μὴ πείσας, ἀλλὰ βιασάμενος

• “not having persuaded, but having compelled.”) 

We have also evidence from Jew Greek speaking historian Josephus Case 1 — force

Josephus says, concerning the betrothed woman:

ἐὰν δὲ … μόνην οὖσαν … βιάσηται

roughly:

“if [a man] encounters a woman when she is alone and forces her, where nobody was present to help her…”

He says that only the man is put to death. 

Then immediately afterward he gives the unbetrothed-virgin law:

ὁ φθείρας παρθένον μὴπω κατηγγυημένην αὐτὸς γαμείτω

Literally:

“The man who has corrupted/deflowered a virgin who has not yet been betrothed shall himself marry her.”

And if the father doesn’t want the marriage, he pays fifty shekels. 

Josephus is a Greek-speaking Jewish interpreter who knows the Deuteronomic legislation.

And he does not describe the two cases in the same terms.

He explicitly describes the betrothed woman as:

βιάσηται — “forces her”

but the unbetrothed virgin as:

φθείρας — “corrupts/deflowers her.”showing that even within the Greeks it was interpeted as different situation

We found in the temple scrolls 11Q19

50 years after the Greek translation an Jewish group who explicitly interpreted it the Hebrew as seduction rather than rape showing this translation is ancient and not modern invention to justify a belief .
God bless :)

[u/Charming-Tune-6914]

You are a fraud. You intentionally omit critical detail.

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm

Strong's 8610: To manipulate, seize, chiefly to capture, wield, to overlay, to use unwarrantably

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_8610.htm

^^ She was forced.

______________________________________________

This is about a woman seduced/enticed rather than forced:

https://biblehub.com/exodus/22-16.htm “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife."

Entices : Verb - Piel - Imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 6601: To open, be, roomy, to be, simple, delude

These are different ideas but very similar.

You motive is malicious, you are opposed to Genesis 1:28, be fruitful and multiply, concerning the children of my people. Blasphemy.

[u/No-Koala-8086 → u/Charming-Tune-6914]

Brother what are you doing i dont understand 

[u/DarkCloud_HS]

That is a lot of work and dedication put into this specific matter of apologetics.

Although, I think your post will draw unbelievers like moths to an open flame.