@RandalRauserKing David didn't have an affair with Bathsheba. He raped her. There is no willing consent when the king orders that a civilian wife be brought into his presence.
True. Of course, that's a narrative description, not a divine command.
Numbers 31 describes God commanding that all Midianite men, boys, and nonvirgin women be killed. That's genocide.
i) In context, I assume this wasn't a campaign to eradicate the Midianites as a people-group from the face of the earth, but at most the Midianite adults who are captured at this particular locality. Indeed, the virgins were exempted and there are further historical references to the Midianites in the OT. As one OT scholar has noted (in private email):
ii) There is some ambiguity as to who the Midianites were, and it has been suggested that they might not have been so much a distinct ethnicity as people who could either be associated or intermingled with various peoples, such as the Moabites, Amalekites, etc. It may be that they should be regarded as a confederation of different peoples as opposed to a single ethnicity.
iii) It is particularly directed against the Midianites on account of their attempt to corrupt the Israelites, as recounted in Numbers 25. Notice the association with the Moabites in this episode. Indeed, we can might well understand that this was not a matter of “ethnics,” but a matter of “ethics.”
iv) Because the concern in Numbers 31 is particularly against those Midianites who were involved in the Midianite/Moabite incident in Numbers 25, we cannot say the action was directed against all Midianites.
v) As well, we have to take into account what is certainly to be understood as the hyperbolic character of both the language and the narrative. Indeed, after this account, there are still Midianites who have to be contended with, as evidenced by the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Isaiah.
"but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (v. 18) A terrified 13-year-old who saw her family killed doesn't consent. That's rape.
i) The statement in Num 31:18 is notably terse. Probably because it takes for granted the more detailed war bride context of Deut 21:10-14. In other words, they're not sex slaves. Rather, it was meant to be understood within the kind of framework envisioned in Deut 21:10-14.
ii) Likewise, isn't the tacit implication that Midianite virgins can be distinguished from Midianite wives because the virgins haven't reached sexual maturity, and so they're not yet eligible for marriage, but will be married off when they hit the age at which Jewish females usually got married?
iii) Is that an enviable situation for females to be in? Certainly not. But as I've mentioned before, these were warrior cultures. If the men are killed, the females are totally vulnerable. They can starve or turn to prostitution. Rauser fails to consider the plight of unattached females in the ancient Near East.
The commands doesn't represent an ideal. Rather, they address a situation in which some things have already gone terribly wrong. So this is damage control. I've discussed the dilemma in more detail elsewhere:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/02/when-bible-rubs-us-wrong-way.html
iv) What does Rauser think it was like to be a woman in a heathen culture like the Midianites? They were much better off becoming Jewish wives.
For a modern comparison, consider the forcible taking of young Chibok schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014. They didn't consent either.
Which piggybacks on his dubious interpretation of Num 31:18.
Christians need an honest conversation about biblical atrocities.
Rauser needs to have an honest conversion about why he pretends to be a Christian when he repudiates biblical revelation. He suffers from a makeshift position that isn't consistently Christian or secular. He abodes fanatical confidence in his moral intuitions, even though the Bible writers don't share his intuitions. So what makes his intuitions true?
Rauser suffers from a Messiah complex. His self-appointed calling in life is to single-handedly redefine Christianity along progressive lines. That's doomed to fail. It will never replace biblical Christianity. And his alternative is just a hodgepodge of secular humanism with some residual Christian motifs and paranormal anecdotes.
We modern people have a very difficult time putting ourselves into the mindset of ancient people. As if there's always a good option available. Your post called to mind a comment by Jack Lundbom on Deuteronomy 21:11:
ReplyDelete"In wartime, particularly if defeat was imminent, women would dress up in their finery to make themselves attractive to enemy soldiers. But the woman envisaged here is possessed of natural beauty and therefore has a better than average chance of escaping the indignities commonly suffered by women in wartime."
Lundbom, J. R. (2013). Deuteronomy: A Commentary (p. 598). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
It is very interesting that women of the time apparently made the effort to attract enemy soldiers. I take it they were trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Other possibly relevant comments can be found under the relevant verses here: https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/commentary-on-deuteronomy-21/
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's a great point. I wondering whether there may have been an understood cultural agreement (or at least expectation) among various Semitic groups (not just the Israelites) that the thing to do with the maidens after war would be for the victors to make the maidens of the losing side war brides. Possibly out of an understood expression of mercy and/or as the rightfully earned trophies of war. Such that the maidens wouldn't be as greatly horrified by the prospect as would moderns.
DeleteFor all we know many of the parents of the maidens, if they were still alive, would often encourage their daughters to accept such treatment, despite initial and understandable resistance. Since it would be for their best earthly interest.
Their maiden daughters surviving and likely having progeny would be the last consolation the parents would/could have before they were executed.
DeleteThe post you linked to "When the Bible Rubs Us the Wrong Way" is very good. It expresses my personal convictions.
ReplyDelete"X needs to have an honest conversion about why he pretends to be a Christian when he repudiates biblical revelation. He suffers from a makeshift position that isn't consistently Christian or secular. He abodes fanatical confidence in his moral intuitions, even though the Bible writers don't share his intuitions. So what makes his intuitions true?"
X suffers from a Messiah complex. His self-appointed calling in life is to single-handedly redefine Christianity along progressive lines. That's doomed to fail. It will never replace biblical Christianity. And his alternative is just a hodgepodge of secular humanism with some residual Christian motifs and paranormal anecdotes."
I know you like to use X=Dr Rauser above as an exemplar of an opposing position. For myself, for whatever reason, my X would be a pop-progressive writer like Rachel Evans or some emergent type. People who pose and publicly demand that we examine the difficulties that they sometimes act like they're the first to discover. Or they just use their metrosexual urban hipster moral conditioning as the basis for declaring that large tracts of Christianity need to change, get with it, and act in a way of earning the approval of Evans or Bell or other progressive/emergent writers. But why is their moral conditioning privileged? How does the fact that something shocks their sensibilities really matter in ascertaining truth?
I say all this as somebody who personally wrestles with a lot of OT issues like these and finds various parts of the OT very difficult. I probably have the same issues that Dr Rauser has. However, as I must remind myself, Christianity is not a Golden Corral or Sizzler buffet where one can just keep the things that appeal to their sensibilities and discard or wave away the things that shock sensibilities. I don't know if Rauser does this, but I'm talking about the standard liberal approach to handwave difficulties away.
I can only speak anecdotally, but what I understand of "progressive Christianity" is that regardless of what it claims to be, it is in actual practice and result a temporary rest stop on the road to atheism. My experience that it is as you say "a hodgepodge of secular humanism with some residual Christian motifs and paranormal anecdotes" matches yours. Not sure if this is generally true though. The deconversion stories I've read seem to have "progressive Christianity" as an intermediate phase of their evolution towards atheism.
BTW, I've always wanted a serious, non-smug, well-studied "progressive Christian" to interact with in person and see if I really understand their position.