Vereist de Bijbelse wet dat een meisje met haar verkrachter trouwt?
Nee. Maar sommige moderne bijbelvertalers willen je dat laten denken.
28 If a man finds a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, grabs her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady’s father fifty shekels of silver. She shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28-29WEB
This is not a case of rape, despite the fact that certain translations (e.g. NIV, HCSB, ISV, NET) choose to translate the Hebrew verb "taphas" (meaning "catch" or "lay hold of") as "rape." Woods writes:
While the NIV and many other versions treat this as a case of rape too, the terminology here is different, which points rather to a case of seduction with the expression and they are discovered (v. 28b).[1]
The previous case (vv. 25-27) -- which actually is rape -- uses a different Hebrew verb[2]: khazaq, which indicates "overpowering by strength." Greg Bahnsen writes:
The Hebrew word tapas ... simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in the hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for handling the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; Ezek. 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer.46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for taking God's name (Prov. 30:9) or dealing with the law of God (Jer. 2:8).[3]
Additionally, the verse specifies that this act is “discovered.” The girl did not report this as a rape, but the couple is “found out” in some way. Further, this case does not indicate that the girl “cried out”, as in the parallel case of rape. If this were rape, the girl would have testified that she cried out, it would be indicated in the case summary, and the rapist would have to be stoned. Instead, the case is treated similar to another law on fornication (Exod. 22:16-17). The girl in the case is considered as complicit in the sin, because she did not cry out.
Tolken hebben dit vers lang verkeerd begrepen. De jurist William Blackstone kondigde in 1769 in zijn Commentaren de "trouwen met haar verkrachter"-interpretatie af, waarbij hij generaties van toekomstige juristen verkeerd informeerde over Gods wet:
[Verkrachting] door de Joodse wet,19 werd gestraft met de dood, voor het geval dat de jonkvrouw verloofd was met een andere man; en, voor het geval dat ze niet verloofd was, moest een zware boete van vijftig sikkelen worden betaald aan de vader van de jonkvrouw, en zij moest de vrouw van de ravisher zijn hele leven lang zijn; zonder die scheidingsbevoegdheid, die in het algemeen was toegestaan door de Mozaïekwet.
Blackstone's interpretatie werd letterlijk opgenomen in het artikel over "Verkrachting" in de Derde editie van de Encyclopedie Britannica (1796)[4] waar het duurde tot (tenminste) de Elfde editie (1911).
- ↑ Woods, Deuteronomy [Tyndale Old Testament Commentary], 242
- ↑ despite the fact that it is translated with the same Greek verb in the Septuagint translation
- ↑ Bahnsen, "Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?" Online at https://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe152.htm
- ↑ Macfarquhar, Encyclopedie Britannica, vol. 16, p.7
