Rape in the Hebrew Bible

[3] Johannes Pedersen's work Israel, Its Life and Culture (1926, 1940), commonly cited by scholars for information about Israelite sexual mores, never mentioned rape, only 'forbidden degrees of relationship'.

In one camp are scholars such as Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, who concerning "Women's Status" in The Bible Now (2011) wrote: "What should not be in doubt is the biblical view of rape: it is horrid.

Even in modern English, the verb 'to rape' does not necessarily always refer to sexual violence, but could be used metaphorically to describe being subjected to a deeply unpleasant yet non-sexual experience.

[46] Phyllis Trible (1984) was the first scholar to suggest that the story of Hagar in Genesis 16:1–4 was a rape narrative,[47] a conclusion later supported by some feminist biblical researchers such as J. Cheryl Exum[48] and Suzanne Scholz,[49] but rejected by others.

[50] Trible rejected that idea, reasoning that it simply meant 'oppression'; womanist theologian Delores S. Williams (1993) accepted it as the sexual violation of her physical integrity; Scholz concluded that 'the story does not provide a clear answer'.

"[51] Gerda Lerner (1986) has suggested that because the Hebrew Bible takes for granted Lot's right to offer his daughters for rape, we can assume that it reflected a historical reality of a father's power over them.

[54] Mary Anna Bader (2006) notes the division between verses 2 and 3, and writes that "It is strange and upsetting for the modern reader to find the verbs 'love' and 'dishonor' together, having the same man as their subject and the same woman as their object.

"The rape of Dinah is narrated in a way that suggests there are social forces at work, which complicate the initial seal violation and will make problematic the resulting male responses.

[...] The abrupt transition from rape to marriage, however, creates a tension in the reader's mind...the unresolved issue of punishment anticipates the response of Simeon and Levi.

While many translations render this as "he spoke tenderly to her" (NRSV), Scholz followed Georg Fischer (1984), who noted the same phrase in the Hebrew Bible always appears when "the situation is wrong, difficult, or danger is in the air",[c] and should be understood as "to try to talk against a negative opinion" or "to change a person's mind".

Therefore, Scholz argued that Shechem tried to calm down Dinah after the rape and to change her negative opinion by talking to her, and rendered the last part of verse 3 as "He tried to quiet down the young woman.

"[72] Therefore, Rapoport regards Genesis 34 as condemning rape strongly, writing, "The brothers' revenge killings of Shechem and Hamor, while they might remind modern readers of frontier justice and vigilantism, are an understandable measure-for-measure act in the context of the ancient Near East.

'[74] Reformed theologian, Tremper Longman III, refers to the Ten Commandments for the reason behind Joseph's rejection of the advances from Potiphar's wife: "Adultery would also be sin against God.

[81] Rabbi and scholar Shaye J. D. Cohen (1999) argued that "the implications of Numbers 31:17–18 are unambiguous [...] we may be sure that for yourselves means that the warriors may 'use' their virgin captives sexually", adding that Shimon bar Yochai understood the passage 'correctly'.

"[88] The idea that the captive woman will be raped is, according to Reeder, supported by the fact that in passages like Isaiah 13:16 and Zechariah 14:2, sieges lead to women being "ravished".

"[84] According to Kawashima (2011), by treating her as a wife, rather than as a slave, the law seeks to compensate for the soldier's having "violated her" by his failure to procure her father's approval, which was precluded by the state of war.

Yamada pointed out that there was no death penalty for either party in this latter scenario, but a marry-your-rapist provision, which he compared to Shechem's offer of marriage including a bride price after raping Dinah in Genesis 34:12.

[102] Similarly, theologian Charles Ellicott (1897) interpreted Deuteronomy 22:28–29 as a law concerning the offense of premarital intercourse through 'seduction', also comparing it to Exodus 22:16–17 which mentions that the woman's father can turn down this offer of marriage.

She wrote that:[113]since this narrative is not a 'historical' or 'accurate' report about actual events, the answers to these questions reveal more about a reader's assumptions regarding gender, androcentrism, and sociopolitical practices than can be known about ancient Israelite life based on Judges 19.

[...] Predictably, interpreters deal differently with the meaning of the story, depending on their hermeneutical interests.Yamada believes that the language used to describe the plight of the concubine make the reader sympathize with her, especially during the rape and its aftermath.

"Thus, the narrator's elaborate description of the woman's attempt to return to the old man's house highlights for the reader the devastating effects of the preceding night's events, emphasizing her desolate state.

[124] Kawashima (2011) notes that "one might interpret [Tamar's] remarkably articulate response as mere rhetoric, an attempt to forestall the impending assault, but the principle of verisimilitude still suggests that David, as patriarch of the house, is the legal entity who matters" when it comes to consenting to his daughter's union with Amnon.

[135][e] Most scholars have interpreted this as something that happened to the protagonist in a dream rather than in real life, pointing out that she says in verse 2: 'I was sleeping but my heart was awake', usually reasoning the scene should be understood as a metaphor.

[139] Fiona Black (2001) commented: 'The "finding" and stripping, beating and "wounding" of a woman at night by a group of men is extremely suggestive of rape … and this is a possibility that should not be excluded from this scene'.

[137] Exum cited Moreau's painting in support of her analysis that this verse does indeed describe sexual assault, but it is so gratuituous and random that its inclusion in the story may defy explanation.

[150] Some of the main arguments for this reading include the fact that the very similar phrase of "uncovering the nakedness" of a person in Leviticus 18 and 20 always refers to sexual activity (and is commonly translated as such[151]), and the women in Ezekiel 16:39 and 23:26 do not consent, but are submitted to this sexual activity by coercion as one of several violent acts (also including mutilation, robbery and murder) of "punishment" (Ezekiel 16:38,41; 23:24,45,49) perpetrated by invading foreign men.

"[153] Conversely, Corrine Patton (2000) argued that "this text does not support domestic abuse; and scholars, teachers, and preachers must continue to remind uninformed readers that such an interpretation is actually a misreading" and that "the theological aim of the passage is to save Yahweh from the scandal of being a cuckolded husband, i.e. a defeated, powerless, and ineffective god.

"[155] Regarding Jeremiah 13, Scholz (2010) wrote, "The poem proclaims that the woman brought this fate upon herself and she is to be blamed for it, while the prophet sides with the sexually violent perpetrators, viewing the attack as deserved and God as justifying it.

[161] Scholz reasons that 'the sentence "I will sexually violate you" uses the Hebrew verb nābal in the piel, which appears also in rape narratives such as Gen 34:7, Judges 19–21, and 2 Sam 13:12.

[160] Scholz, Francisco O. García-Treto, [citation needed] and other scholars have commented that this poem, in which God presents himself as a rapist who violates and humiliates a woman in order to punish her, 'is particularly abhorrent to modern readers', adding that 'these verses in the book of Nahum must be treated as dangerous territory'.