Board index ‹ Paul the Apostle

[Secularist]

Do you think Paul was at the intersection of Old Testament misogyny and Jesus’s radical feminism?

Jesus was a revolutionary and not a misogynist. Not only did he hang out with women, which was unusual at the time, but he even hung out with prostitutes. He treated women as equals.

Paul, a man of his time, found himself trying to balance the acceptance of patriarchal norms (trying not to rock the cultural boat) and this new radical full acceptance of women. He had strong opinions but also allowed women to take a bigger role in the church.

[jimwalton]

I think you're wrong in considering that the OT was misogynistic. Perhaps if you cite some passages we can discuss them.

[Secularist]

Wouldn't you say that patriarchy and misogyny are related?

[jimwalton]

No, they're not related. Carol Myers, in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2014, pp. 51-54, 66, 68, writes,

"Consider the concept of patriarchy. Typically this concept has been taken to imply near total male domination in families and in other social institutions. But anthropologists, classicists, feminist theorists, theologians and others who have more recently studied the concept have shown that this understanding of patriarchy does not take into account that women often had considerable agency in certain aspects of household life and that women's groups and institutions had their own hierarchies. Moreover, focusing so exclusively on the supposed subordination of women can result in overlooking other inequalities that were a result of social class or caste. Servants, slaves, and people of other ethnicities held inferior positions in ancient Israel. And men who were not of the priestly tribe were excluded from the national priesthood.

"To get a balanced view of Israelite society in the Iron Age, the broader picture must be considered. Patriarchy is a term that was invented millennia after the Iron Age and is probably unsuitable for characterizing ancient Israel.

"A more accurate term, although it may initially seem to be a jarring neologism, would be what recent anthropologists are calling "heterarchy." This concept allows for multiple but different ranking systems in any given society. Heterarchy recognizes the existence of inequalities in multiple areas of life but also understands that these inequalities were not necessarily all-pervasive."

[Secularist]

I forget where in the Old Testament, but if a man is sleeping with a woman and wants to marry her, And offers to pay the non-virgin price, the father gets to insist on him paying the virgin price because he took her virginity.

[jimwalton]

You're in Exodus 22.16-17. This is not a case of misogyny. The text is written to protect women from sexual abuse and financial ruin. It actually shows that women were significant, and not otherwise. There is a similar text in Deuteronomy 22.28ff.

Paul Copan writes, "As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price—a kind of economic security for her future—would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn’t a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away. This passage is far from being demeaning to woman." Both passages suggest two courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.

2. The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

"Again," Copan concludes, "we don’t see a lack of concern for the woman. Her wellbeing is actually the underlying theme of this legislation."

[Secularist]

Why is there an assumption that the man “seduced” an unmarried woman?

[jimwalton]

There is no such assumption. In this case, the evidence is such that he DID seduce her. That's what the text is dealing with—where a man actually seduces an unmarried woman. Deuteronomy 22.28ff. is an expansion on this case, where it shows that the courts should take into consideration whether the woman was consenting or whether she was forced. The court should examine whether or not the woman was acting against her will. If it's a case of two consenting adults, the judgment is to be different than if it's case of seduction or rape. In all of the cases, the text is far from being demeaning to the woman (misogynistic), contrary to your initial question and apparently your assumption. Instead, it protects her rights and her dignity.

The term translated "seduces" is patah. John Walton explains,

"This term implies that the woman, though perhaps duped, has given her consent. Admittedly, the ancient concept of consent was not as precise as that used by modern legal system, which assume that certain types of seduction deprive the woman of her rights to give or not give consent. It is difficult to determine where ancient Near Eastern legal systems drew the line, but it seems fairly clear that this law assumed some level of consent on the part of the woman."

[Secularist]

Deuteronomy 22:28 refers to the man “seizing” (not seducing) a woman. Some translations use the word “rape”. So essentially if a man rapes a woman, then he has to pay the father money in order to marry her.

[jimwalton]

Deuteronomy 22 (assuming you have read the whole chapter and are familiar with the context) is four scenarios of sexual impropriety, involving both false accusations and true ones. A judge is to take the evidence into consideration as he renders a verdict and punishment. The whole idea is protect the women from sexual abuse and life-ruining accusations.

Verses 13-19 are a false accusation. A new husband accuses his bride of premarital promiscuity. If she is innocent, damages are due. If she's guilty, she is to be punished.

Vv. 20-21 are a true accusation—a case of consensual sex with a married woman. If both are guilty, both are punished.

Vv. 22-24 are about consensual sex with an engaged virgin. If both are guilty, both are punished.

Vv. 25-29 are about the seduction or rape of an engaged virgin. If the man is guilty of rape, he is executed. If he is innocent, damages are due.

So, your question is about v. 28. There's a lot of dispute about the translation of the word (patah: It means "to persuade; tempt; allure."). It is often argued to mean sexual intercourse without specifying whether it is consensual or not, and in fact, is translated this way elsewhere in the Old Testament. So maybe this isn't even about rape to begin with.

Sandra Richter, in her journal article "Rape in Israel's Word...and Ours," writes,

"The writer goes to lengths to distinguish this final law from the case of rape previously discussed (vv. 25-27). The girl in this verse could have been manipulated or be under what we would consider a proper age, but not assaulted. Therefore, this law is designed not to punish the man for a violent capital crime, but to protect the young woman from the economic and legal insecurities that this irresponsible man has introduced. She becomes a wife in perpetuity—an apt consequence for our 'walk-away Joe.' The seducer must offer a handsome mohar for a girl who may now no longer be able to attract a spouse."