As we said in our first post, our book, "The Bible Now," deals with the Bible's role in five current controversial issues. For these posts, we shall give one small example from each of the five. Our purpose is (1) to shed light on that particular case itself and (2) to teach method in treating biblical texts.
A reminder: We are Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) scholars, and we are writing only in the area of our expertise. We trust that some of our colleagues who are New Testament scholars will take up these questions in their area as well. Very few scholars on earth have professional expertise in both Testaments. Scholars of Rabbinic texts and of the Quran may contribute their learning as well.
Our first topic is abortion. Our treatment of some of the well-known passages -- for example, of the commandment against murder in the Ten Commandments, and of the one passage in the Hebrew Bible that clearly, unquestionably refers to abortion (there really is one) -- require more space than we can possibly reduce to a post. So, for this first post, we've chosen one classic text of manageable size.
The fighters who strike a pregnant woman
People sometimes derive law about abortion from a biblical law in which someone, in the course of a fight, strikes a pregnant woman, and she goes into labor. Here is the text, which we have translated from the Hebrew (also in the light of the Septuagint Greek text and the Qumran Dead Sea scrolls text) as literally as possible:
And if people will fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her children [or: her child] go out, and there will not be an injury, he shall be penalized according to what the woman's husband will impose on him, and he will give it by the judges. And if there will be an injury, then you shall give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a hurt for a hurt. (Exod 21:22-25)
Caution! The meaning of this law is unclear in several different ways, and learned scholars have questioned its meaning over two millennia. Two men (or is it more than two? And are they necessarily men?) are fighting, and they cause a miscarriage (or is it a premature labor? And is it one or is it both/all of them who cause it?) by somehow striking the woman, and this results in injury or death to the woman (or is it to the baby?) The law may mean: the woman loses the child, and the question is then whether there is any injury to the mother or not. Or it may mean: the child is born alive, and the question is then whether there is any injury to the child.
Viewing the Bible in the context of the ancient Near East is often valuable in understanding the biblical stance on such issues. In this case, the Law Code of Hammurabi, Middle Assyrian Law and Hittite Law all contain similar cases (though they are not necessarily connected to people in fights). The Code of Hammurabi states that if a man strikes the pregnant daughter of another man and causes her "to drop that of her womb," he is to pay 10 shekels of silver for the fetus. But if the woman dies, then the daughter of the man who struck her is to be put to death. The exception is if the woman is the daughter of a commoner or a slave, in which case the man is simply to pay a fine for the death of the woman (and nothing for the fetus alone).
Hittite Law provides for monetary compensation in the same situation. The amount of the compensation depends on the status of the pregnant woman's father.
Middle Assyrian Law also describes the punishment of a man who causes a miscarriage. However, the laws there demand compensation for both the fetus and the mother. If the father of a household causes another man's wife to miscarry, then the man whose wife has miscarried can cause the perpetrator's wife to miscarry in turn -- and he has to give the victim a child from his own household. However, if the woman dies, then the perpetrator is to be put to death, in addition to a child from his household being given to the victim's household. If the woman miscarries but does not die, and her husband has no sons, then the perpetrator is executed; unless the fetus is female, in which case he only needs to give her a child from his household in recompense.
The details in each of these cases vary, and the penalties in some of the ancient Near Eastern cases would strike most of us as repugnant. What is common to all of these similar cases, though, is that the question of injury is with regard to the mother, not to the miscarried infant. This probably suggests that the biblical law, too, is about the degree of harm to the mother after she loses the child, not about the degree of harm to the infant after being born alive. The law's severe consequences, in that case, are about the harm to a mother, not to a fetus. But all should acknowledge that this is, at most, probable but still not certain.
Moreover, this biblical passage is not about abortion. It is about accidental miscarriage. It is about the unintended consequences of a fight. Involving miscarriage rather than abortion, and being about unintended consequences rather than about a procedure whose consequences are planned, this law is an extremely difficult precedent on which to base any view: either for abortion or against it. The goal at best, therefore, is not to get a direct ruling on abortion from it. Rather, people on both sides of abortion debates seek to find some basic principle in the case that might then apply to the question of abortion. That is a good approach. But the passage is just too uncertain even for that. It simply cannot be the basis for a definitive answer to such an important issue. William Propp's superb two-volume commentary on the book of Exodus includes a detailed treatment of this law's many uncertainties, which go even beyond the ones we listed above. A reading of those pages will show why no one should rely on this enigmatic passage to form a view on abortion. (Propp, Exodus 19-40, New York: Doubleday, The Anchor Bible, 2006, pp. 221-230.)
And for heaven's sake, don't take the famous eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth, burn-for-a-burn passage literally. Nobody gets burned in this case, and, if the issue is injury to the child, newborns don't have teeth. From the earliest texts that interpreted this principle in antiquity, this passage was understood to establish that punishments had to be in proportion to the crime, not that courts mutilated anybody. But we'll have to leave that famously misunderstood line for another occasion. For now, the point is a caution against trying to derive too much from complex ancient texts.
'The Bible': History Channel, Mark Burnett Creating CGI 10-Hour ...
Richard Elliott Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interview with Richard Elliott Friedman, author of The Bible with ...
No one has a right to determine whether a woman remains pregnant but that woman. It is as wrong to kill a fetus that is wanted as it is to force a pregnancy that is not.
Because it is the woman's body that is obligately involved in the pregnancy, it is the woman's choice.
It is also true that Jesus urged us to be a city on a hill, leading a life that showed God's light to others. I won't listen to someone tell me that my religion is false; why should I expect a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. to listen to me tell them that their religion is false? Living so that God's light is visible in me just might get their attention, however.
Of course, it is really hard work, and nowhere near as much fun as proclaiming other peoples inferiority.
My prediction: the apocalypse will spell the abominations out crystal clear. That won't be a compliment to humankind or scholars that lost the oral history and the Noachide laws.The secularization and Hellenism game will be fought again. One thing humans love--"Infinite Jest". The perpetual "NO"
What we know is that commandment and covenants were often handed down in truncated form. using symbolic such as hieroghlyphs as mnemonics often accompanied by determinative notes.
It would be much like today: the word 'murder' or killing is sufficient as a mnemonic to represent a commandment when discussing abortion and assisted suicide in most religious communities.
I'd marvel at your interpretation of a student's cheat sheet and the essay that results from such mnemonic tricks.. A copy of the cheat sheet and a grade report of 'A" would suggest malfeasance on the part of the teacher: There's no way some scrawling on a desk or sneaker could lead to a highly developed essay good enough to merit an 'A'.
.
Here's one:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
Plenty more where that came from.
I don't know of anyone who treats this topic lightly but ultimately the decision must be the women's, not some writing from a 2,000 odd year old book.
The way the religious orders treat abortion is nothing more than exerting their power over women and keeping them in their place as no higher than cattle.
It's a power issue of control and no more to keep women downtroden and why modern women allow themselves to still be treated like a second class citizen at best is beyond me.
I hear the words infanticide and the ten commandments in this piece and your god broke nearly every rule in the book when he ordered the mass murders of men, women and children on many occasions so is it ok for your god to commit such acts of atrocities towards mankind while the rest of us have to stand in awe of his power?
The bible is a mass contradiction in terms throughout and abortion as viewed through the eyes of religion is not for the welfare of the fetus but for the power it wields over women and keeping them in their place, nothing more.
I believe that religion has always focused on What God wants, and what God feels and how God sees things. Yet it is humanity that is doing the suffering and struggling with the day to day obstacles that they face.
Morality is really a poor tool for honesty and dialogue. If indeed human beings have "free will" and the power of choice then everything that takes place with Humanity must necessarily include Humanity's point of view not Just God's.
Most moralists argue that God is much wiser and more powerful than humans therefore "What HE says is correct" That viewpoint has not produced very good results in the World - nor are we sure that this is indeed true.
Unfortunately, the Monotheistic faiths have perpetrated a one-sided conversation between God and humanity.
Humans have to demand a fuller explanation for their existence on Earth. They have got to demand a better understanding of the nature of consciousness, emotions, and experience itself. When God pushes us in the Monotheistic scriptures WE Humanity need to push back.
The fundamentalist response to God is the same response that an abused child often has to an abusive parent. The response is based in self-hatred/loathing of personal weakness and flaws. Monotheistic narratives produce that effect on many people.
So while many "enlightened" people faith look down on their frightened counterparts - they often fail to acknowledge the inherent problems in the messages found in their holy books. Back to abortion and suicide.
They are ways to challenge God. They are attempts to revoke the inevitability of further heartache and pain. They are an indictment of the biological and psychological stresses of life. This is why - in my view, abortions and suicides are a normal part of the human response to life.
There is no moral judgement for those who engage in such activities.
I don't believe in a personal, anthropomorphic deity, so the feedback idea is not one that would have occurred to me. I certainly agree about no judgement.
Um, how do you like abortion is feedback.
Also, if you'd pardon the satire of your view, I'll illustrate some of the absurdity of your view. Life sometimes does suck. When a man get' laid off, should his wife and him seek pregnancy that is later aborted to send a message about how much life (with loosing one's job) sucks? Surely I don't think you mean that. You either need to clean up or reject this "feedback" theory of abortion.
James' message was one of the clearest, most realistic views from a faith point of view I have ever seen or read. I am sorry that the forces at work in your vision have altered it to the point of this sick understanding you have proved.
No, what is common to all of these laws is that they are all about the harm done to the husband, the man. All of these laws are about how the husband is compensate for the loss of his child or wife. I doubt that it would even have occurred to people at this time and place to question whether or not the husband, the man, had a right to do with his wife or child as he pleased.