Copied with permission from www.christianthinktank.com
The passage will be difficult enough to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first ‘weed out the chaff’ among these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface the actual ethical issues and dynamics.]
First of all, let’s look at the specific text they are referring to, in Numbers 31:
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian. “A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.” So there were furnished from the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them, a thousand from each tribe, to the war, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with them, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods, they plundered. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire. And they took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. And they brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.
Without employing imagination I don't see specific words indicating some of the things about a wild raping in mass of women.
I also have to reconsider the matte of a test for virginity. According to this researcher what I formerly imagined as examining the internals of the captive women may not have been the case.
Copied with permission from same website.
Now, first let me dispose of a couple of the historical mistakes made by the objections mentioned above, and then we can get on to analyzing the severity of the actual event.
First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbis (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:
Was the female pre-pubescent?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?
Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’ ) ; as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).
For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:
“In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]
Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:
“Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT : DLAM:135]
“The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]
In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.
I am no longer sure that the women were checked in their internals by the Israelites.
Cont. below
Copied with permission from www.christianthinktank.com
[ his bolding, not mine ]
Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above--to their credit--added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]
1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.
And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the world ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]
2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:
“During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]
3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:
“This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]
4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):
“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”
[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]
[I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem ( or ‘ban’ ) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]
Bolding of Steve Miller.
@sonship saidFirstly sonship, as an atheist, I obviously do not believe 'a God' will be enacting justice at 'any time.' As a consequence, my understanding of good and bad is not in the hands of a divine being. As an individual, I am by no means perfect and all humans (myself included) are capable of good and bad actions and thoughts. That said, I consider myself a 'good person' and 'do not' fit right in with bad people, when these bad people we are referencing are guilty of rape or murder. That your religious outlook puts you in the same category as such despicable human beings is a further reason why I want nothing to do with religion.
Before you gloat saying "Yea! Get those bad people!"
Consider this.
It is now where I am 3:46 PM. If God should enact justice upon all the world for the next one half hour, where do you think you and I would be at 4:16 ?
We fit right in quite well with "bad people".
3 edits
A post was removed by me because I can no longer stand by the assumptions made in them with certainty. As I wrote:
I am no longer sure that the women were checked in their internals by the Israelites.
Of course I am not so naive as to realize the words were still referred to by debaters in their posts, which I think is fair. That I cannot remove. That I ONCE said something, is fair for someone to point out. I don't have to help their case by indicating I still feel that way when I suspect it was a mistake.
Copied with permission: www.chritisnthinktank.com
So, these Moabite women show up, with government funding and security escorts, having carefully planned the trip, and having left all family responsibilities on indefinite “hold” back in Moab…and the sequence of events runs like this (according to the text, which is a series of stark waw-consequtives):
The Moabite (and Midianite, as we know from verse 6) women show up at the Israel encampment.
The Israelite men immediately start having ‘regular’ sex with them--the Hebrew indicates extreme lustful abandon. (“The verb used to describe the action of the men is one normally used to describe the behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the people, as a man, bewhore themselves with foreign, pagan women. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of pagan religious systems of the day.” [EBCOT, Num 25])
This first reference to sex does not contain the notion of ‘sacred prostitution’—that will show up in a later step.
THEN, these women invited the Israelite men to their religious sacrifices (where meat and wine would have been served—the Israelites had not had very much meat during the 40 years in the wilderness). These would have likely been held at the religious shrines at or around the mount of Peor (one of the sites where Balak took Balaam), especially the shrine of Baal Peor, although smaller shrines, high places, and even shade-trees would have fit the Baal cult.
The Israelite men went with them and ate the sacrificial meal.
Then the Israelite men would have ‘bowed down’ to their pagan gods (probably as part of the ceremony), and engaged in ‘sacred sex’ due to the fertility nature of the Baal Peor god.
Then, a ‘critical mass’ of the people (i.e., “Israel” in the text)—including their leadership—were ‘yoked’ to Baal Peor.
This last step—a ‘yoking’—is likely an ancient cultic term, but we don’t have much indication of its meaning from history. It could mean something as formal as “joining in a covenant” (in violation of the exclusive Mosaic one they were already in!), or something as vivid as “sexual union” with the God, through ritual intercourse (a standard fertility motif). Almost any meaning of this word, since it is undoubtedly “worse than” just “bowing down” (v. 2), would be enough to seriously jeopardize Israel’s protection by Yahweh.
The Baal god, as we have described in more detail in the article on the Canaanites elsewhere (qamorite.html), had some particularly “family-unfriendly” destructive rituals:
“The Moabites worshipped the war god Cheomsh, but they must have also indulged in the fertility religion of Baal. This cult was marked by some of the most depraved religious practices in Canaan. In lurid and orgiastic rites, the worshippers would emulate the sacred prostitution of their gods and goddesses, often also participating in a ceremonial meal.” [HSOBX, at Num 25]
“It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next step was a formal association with a particular god. That god was Baal-Peor. Baal was the name of the great Canaanite god of vegetation.” [NICOT, Numbers, p517]
“Baal-peor or Baal of Peor was one of the leading gods of the Moabites, Midianites, and Ammonites, but akin to the Canaanite Baal and Moloch. The sensual rites of worship indicate a connection with the Phoenician Baal and the Moabite Chemosh. [ABD, “Baal Peor”]
Explicit sexual activity is mentioned in the story in regards for the reason of God instructing vengeance to be taken on the Midianites.
3 edits
Removing a post several hours after you had written it and after three people had replied to it seems to me to lack integrity.
Atheist Dan Barker (of Freedom From Religion Foundation) in a debate with Charles White protested that books he (Barker) had written should not be used in the debate.
His reasoning was that it was only fair that the words used in that current debate be used, an unrealistic request.
I am not going that far. I am just not sure I stand by words previously written about some technical aspect of the treatment of the Midianinite virgins. I do not say referring to them is not allowed.
I just don't HAVE to give the impression they are still my present thoughts about something.
Firstly sonship, as an atheist, I obviously do not believe 'a God' will be enacting justice at 'any time.'
For me that is totally unrealistic. I see an link between the maintenance of the physical universe with the divine maintenance of the moral universe.
A Deist or Atheist would see no connection.
A Theist (and certainly a biblical onee) expects the connection between the two - creation and moral balance, is inevitable with the Creator.
As a consequence, my understanding of good and bad is not in the hands of a divine being.
So you can identify perhaps a good molecule or a bad atom that is responsible for our moral dilemma?
In an Atheistic likely materialistic universe what is the real meaning of morality? Rape then is not REALLY wrong. Maybe just unconventional.
I think by denying an Ultimate Moral Governor you borrow from the seriousness of Gods kingship but have no replacement other than fleeting opinion.
If man is the measure of all things, which man?
Now, I would like to continue. But I cannot and must stop writing at this moment for the rest of the day probably.
@sonship saidYou should have left the post there. People had replied to it. You should stand by what you post, not hide what you post or dissemble about what you posted when you get cold feet. You could have explained yourself without deleting. As soon as you saw that people had read your post and replied to it, you should have sensed that deleting it was not appropriate. It's poor form on your part sonship.
@FMFRemoving a post several hours after you had written it and after three people had replied to it seems to me to lack integrity.
Atheist Dan Barker (of Freedom From Religion Foundation) in a debate with Charles White protested that books he (Barker) had written should not be used in the debate.
His reasoning was that it was only fair that the wor ...[text shortened]... ed.
I just don't HAVE to give the impression they are still my present thoughts about something.