|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Judges 19:28... "Get up; let's go"
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
Verse nominated by Winds of Change
"So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Get up; let's go.' But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home." (Judges 19:25-28, in context)
Winds of Change comments: This guy had sent his concubine out to a mob, who raped her all night long, and all he has to say to her first thing in the morning is, "Get up, let's go"??? Grrr!!
How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!
[ 31. July 2009, 10:57: Message edited by: Simon ]
Poll information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 37 user(s) have voted.
You can't view the results of this poll without voting.
| |
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Verse 30 goes on to say: 'Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"'
Verse 28, and the rest of the passage, is horrible but it is not an instruction on how to behave. It is clearly an example of the terrible fallen state of Israel in a period where it had no King, no Judge, no law and no God. The context of the verse shows that this is the most terrible thing imaginable, and the whole of Israel cries out against it.
Or would you prefer to whitewash Israel's history, and claim that nothing bad ever happened?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
No, I'm not for a whitewash treatment, but it's deeply disappointing that this repellent incident comes with absolutely no editorial comment. Equally troubling is the neutral attitude of the two leading male characters in the story: the Levite and the owner of the house.
The owner of the house, anxious to avoid his guest being subjected to homosexual rape, says to the gang: "Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish." So much for parental affection.
The Levite then delivers his concubine to the gang as a way of avoiding harm to himself. His action ensures that she is tortured to death, while he stays safe inside the house. He has no interest in her fate the next morning. He ends up by dismembering her dead body, which cements his contemptuous view of her. Essentially, he's party to her murder.
All of which suggests that the outrage generated in Israel had nothing to do with the fate of the woman as a human being, but with the sexual threat to the Levite, and maybe also the loss of his "property" (i.e. the woman). We're left to guess, actually, as the inadequate author of the Book of Judges fails to tell us what the outrage was about. He shows no outrage himself at the Levite and the house owner, most likely because he thought their actions reasonable.
I suspect that very few people would be prepared to read out this passage in a church service. In what sense the author of Judges can be thought to be writing the Word of God, I'd be interested to know.
[ 29. July 2009, 13:26: Message edited by: Simon ]
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
No, I'm not for a whitewash treatment, but it's deeply disappointing that this repellent incident comes with absolutely no editorial comment.
Is any comment required? Surely even the most disgusting specimen isn't going to take this as a divine manual on sexual relations.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
A truly horrible passage. And I can't believe the part where he cuts her up and sends bits of her around the country isn't included in the original submission!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
I think comment is required, actually. Not because some insect might think this is an example of best practice in sexual relations, but because not to comment is heartless and inhuman. It was the lack of editorial comment which made me feel sick when I first read this story as a young Christian. It's a sin of omission.
[ 29. July 2009, 13:41: Message edited by: Simon ]
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Chuck Palahniuk writes this way. He describes the most horrifying, heart-tearing incidents in a chillingly detached way, and it makes the read about ten times more unbearable as a result. There's a book of his that I had to remove from my room after i read it once because i didn't even want the book jacket to remind me what was in it.
Not saying that was the creative intent of this particular author, but I know what you mean about the impact, Simon.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
I think comment is required, actually. ... It's a sin of omission.
Much of the "history" books and passages of the OT are written without commentary. The practice of having to make the obvious comments on every story (as seen in our newscasts today, wich are about 5% news and 95% commentary/opinion) is a fairly new practice of telling us what to think about every situation, rather than allowing us to intelligently decide.
This is one of the biggest complaints I have read on the Ship against some churches - they tell us what to think/believe - and yet this is what you want the Bible writer to have done.
So what is it? Do you want our opinions to be spoonfed to us, or do you want us to come to our own conclusion?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So what is it? Do you want our opinions to be spoonfed to us, or do you want us to come to our own conclusion?
Blimey, any chance of some shades of grey, or is it just black/white?
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
I think comment is required, actually. Not because some insect might think this is an example of best practice in sexual relations, but because not to comment is heartless and inhuman. It was the lack of editorial comment which made me feel sick when I first read this story as a young Christian. It's a sin of omission.
I think, for the author, the horror was so obvious that it went without saying. I'm not sure if this is historical or some sort of Quentin-Tarantino morality play, but it's obviously supposed to be an example of truly horrendous human behavior.
In a sense, the lack of vocal narrator at this point highlights the horror of it, which seems to be the point of the story. There's only the tagline at the end "There was no king in Israel at the time; everyone did as was right in their own eyes."
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
No, I'm not for a whitewash treatment, but it's deeply disappointing that this repellent incident comes with absolutely no editorial comment.
I think the editorial comment comes two chapters later: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)
The story is, on one level, monarchist propaganda - this is the sort of thing that a (good) king is appointed to stop, to be the final (righteous) arbiter of such disputes.
On another (and to me, more interesting) level, I think the writer really means that everyone did as he saw fit - the atrocities that follow this incident result not from men acting wickedly, but, by their own standards, righteously. The householder was trying to protect his guest. The 11 tribes were trying to avenge an outrageous wrong. The Benjamanites of the other cities were trying to stay loyal to their own kin. And the result of everyone doing what they think right is that following one brutal murder, thousands are slaughtered in battle, following one rape, six hundred women are forced into marriage to the rapists, following an affront to one Levite in God's service, a festival in honour of the Lord ends with two hundred worshippers being abducted. The sinful city of Gibeah is destroyed (that is the women and children die - most of the men, who had started the mess, are spared) - but so is Jabesh Gilead, a town that took no part in the conflict at all. It's the story of an almighty fuck up.
I think it's supposed to be uncomfortable - if we don't ourselves internally condemn all of those who allowed the first rape to happen, we won't grasp the outrage that drives the Israelites to take revenge - and to see how everything that follows does so horribly, but understandably, because there is no final moral authority to decide between all the competing claims of loyalty and justice in such a situation.
[X-posted with Bullfrog]
[ 29. July 2009, 15:16: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
CofE lectionary, certainly for Morning Prayer last year, skipped this story. We stopped reading Judges at the end of chapter 18, and missed out the joys of what the NJB entitles The crime at Gibeah and the war against Benjamin. But the rest of Judges and Joshua are pretty horrific anyway.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
No, I'm not for a whitewash treatment, but it's deeply disappointing that this repellent incident comes with absolutely no editorial comment.
I think the editorial comment comes two chapters later: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)
The story is, on one level, monarchist propaganda - this is the sort of thing that a (good) king is appointed to stop, to be the final (righteous) arbiter of such disputes.
On another (and to me, more interesting) level, I think the writer really means that everyone did as he saw fit - the atrocities that follow this incident result not from men acting wickedly, but, by their own standards, righteously. The householder was trying to protect his guest. The 11 tribes were trying to avenge an outrageous wrong. The Benjamanites of the other cities were trying to stay loyal to their own kin. And the result of everyone doing what they think right is that following one brutal murder, thousands are slaughtered in battle, following one rape, six hundred women are forced into marriage to the rapists, following an affront to one Levite in God's service, a festival in honour of the Lord ends with two hundred worshippers being abducted. The sinful city of Gibeah is destroyed (that is the women and children die - most of the men, who had started the mess, are spared) - but so is Jabesh Gilead, a town that took no part in the conflict at all. It's the story of an almighty fuck up.
I think it's supposed to be uncomfortable - if we don't ourselves internally condemn all of those who allowed the first rape to happen, we won't grasp the outrage that drives the Israelites to take revenge - and to see how everything that follows does so horribly, but understandably, because there is no final moral authority to decide between all the competing claims of loyalty and justice in such a situation.
[X-posted with Bullfrog]
I find this argument compelling.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I wouldn't want a moral comment on the story--I just don't think anything would be adequate to the horror. Rather like an awful baby cannibalism case we have in the news at the moment--I don't see it mentioned on Ship, and I assume that's because everyone who has seen it mentioned is so utterly heartsick that any comment would be ... not inadequate, not minimizing, what's the word I'm looking for? All you can do is say "Lord have mercy" and look away.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Judges 19:1-2 quote:
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her father's house in Bethlehem, Judah.
The bitch obviously deserved it. Screw her. And kill her while you're at it.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Another possibility is that by only telling the story and supplying minimal comment, the author refuses to resolve the story for us (whether this is the author's intention or not), thus allowing our horror and outrage to settle deeply in us and perhaps stir us to action against injustice. Just hopefully not the sort of action depicted here. Hopefully leaving it unsettled will cause it to unsettle us, and confront any part of us that would respond to violence in kind.
But I think I'm with Simon on this one - I would prefer a little more guidance from the text. It's possible that the descriptions of all the fallout - the many deaths and the destruction - are meant to provide that guidance, but given the Bible's ambivalence about whether violence is ever justified, and about the status of women, I'm not sure this passage can be read that way. I just submitted this past Sunday's lection (2 Sam. 12.1-14 IIRC) where Nathan confronts David for his sin of killing Uriah to get Bathsheba, because that passage understands violence against women to be a crime against or punishment of the man who owns her. David is chided for stealing a man's wife, not for raping her; and is threatened by God with the "punishment" of having his wives raped and stolen. Now, that's in a different book of the Bible, but my point is that our contemporary standards of what is obviously wrong aren't necessarily shared by biblical authors and aren't necessarily going to be found in the text by people who don't share our assumptions.
sharkshooter's concern with commentary telling people how to think is interesting, but if any source should tell us how to think, I would hope it would be the Bible.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
One of the stories I hate the most. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
There's a haunting portrayal of it in Carol Lynn Pearson's "Mother Wove The Morning".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Women in the OT are chattel. That's the bottom line. Whether a woman's owner treats her like his beloved, a friend, a sex toy, a pet, or a beast of burden is pure happenstance. There doesn't seem to be much of an innate, cultural value in treating a woman well. If her presence prevents her owner from being assaulted, that's what she's good for. He can always buy another one.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I've been through the OT plenty of times, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see where you're getting that. Seems like a bald assertion to me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Perhaps, I did state it a little baldly. There is the bright and shining example of Ode to the Perfect Wife in Proverbs, although the feminine in the rest of Proverbs is either generally a temptress or Wisdom personified as a female. And now I've just had a re-read of the story of Jacob, and although Laban was a grasping, manipulative, old fart, perhaps part of the reason he conned young Jacob was to see that his less matrimonialy attractive daughter had a chance at a family. The last thing he did before leaving Jacob with a great part of his- Laban's- wealth, was exact a promise that Jacob would treat his daughters well, and left them with kisses and blessings. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Maybe it comes down to how cold and bleak OT life was, and when you are on the second or third tier life looks really chilly.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
not in the verse itself, but immediately before it we have quote:
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
This sounds very similar to the story of Sodom in Genesis 19: quote:
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
Is offering your daughters to rape mobs being presented as normative behaviour here? I know a lot of people have said that, by presenting it without comment, the author is inviting us to feel horrified ourselves. I wonder how much of that horror is projected from a 21st century viewpoint, where women are seen as humans with rights rather than property.
You can read horror and disapproval into the passage, but I'm unsure to what extent it comes out of it.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The context of those stories is horror. I think it reasonable therefore to expect more-of-the-same as a proper reaction with regard to the women-offering. And I do think the first readers/hearers would have felt the same.
Scripture is unusual for spelling out its moral points so rarely. You mostly get clear judgments when a point might be otherwise debatable, e.g. David's census. But when the sin is obvious, Scripture usually lets it pass un-commented upon. Unusual restraint!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Lyda Rose, thanks for that. I do think there were a helluva lot of men in those days (as now, sadly) who considered women to be chattels and treated them as such--and twisted Scripture and the Law to the support of their own evil attitudes. But there's a constant thread of cases which remind us of how it's supposed to be. Deborah the national leader, brave and enterprising Ruth, wise Rahab, Tamar the clever and determined, Sarah the strong-minded, Rebekah who chooses her own destiny (and even Laban the jerk has to defer to her!), the daughters of Zelopehad who brought suit for their just legal rights, Miriam the national leader, Huldah the prophetess, Esther the (rather bloodyminded) politician, Jehosheba the savior of the realm... okay, some day I'm writing a book. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Oh, I'd been well aware of the biblical heroines. It just seemed that on a human level, in so many stories, women had been subjected to casual cruelty. In fact, I think that old Abraham was the one who pissed me off most: all those shenanigans with Sarah used as bait, and Hagar used as a baby machine and the women played against each other in the fertility stakes...grrr!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
My experience is that old texts tend not to give much in the way of commentary at all.
e.g. Hesiod has the gods cutting off the giants' testicles and throwing them into the sea, whereupon they become a giant seashell from which Aphrodite is born. (For some reason Botticelli omits the first part of the story.) Hesiod never troubles to explain why. Not even on a logical level, let alone a moral one.
And then I have read, or attempted to read, Norse sagas which are reduced to total incomprehensibility because the bard thinks that, when Hrothgar slays Thorgild, you will remember that twelve chapters earlier there was a single sentence explaining that Thorgild slew Hrothgar's brother Fred, even though none of the relevant characters have been mentioned since.
And the Mabinogion is even worse. It's the kind of work where some worker of magic steals all the towns in Dyfed and won't give them back until the prince of Dyfed does some wholly irrational action. Never mind the moral logic of this, just any kind of logic would be a start.
Now someone is going to ask: "What exactly is the connection between the literary norms of Ancient Greece, Medieval Wales, or Medieval Iceland, and those of the Ancient Hebrew text under discussion?" Which allows me to respond: "Exactly, so why do you think 21st-century literary norms are relevant either?"
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Oh, I'd been well aware of the biblical heroines. It just seemed that on a human level, in so many stories, women had been subjected to casual cruelty. In fact, I think that old Abraham was the one who pissed me off most: all those shenanigans with Sarah used as bait, and Hagar used as a baby machine and the women played against each other in the fertility stakes...grrr!
True enough, though it seems to me Sarah did most of the fertility manipulating.
You're right about casual cruelty, too, though I very much regret to say that it's just as common today. At least in my experience. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there," yes; but not SO differently that we must stare at one another in dumb incomprehension across the years. If that were the case, we would have chucked the classics ages ago.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Was that addressed to me? All I'm saying is that, just because we might expect some kind of commentary there, that doesn't mean the Ancient Hebrews would necessarily have looked for one.
I'm certainly not suggesting we should regard the passage as impenetrably mysterious.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
... i.e. I was responding specifically to this post, not to the passage as a whole.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sorry, my misunderstanding. I thought you meant (like so many I deal with elsewhere) that "as we are outside the original interpretative community we shall never know what was meant," and might as well take our toys and go home. Bleah.
[ 12. August 2009, 10:29: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
Stories of outrages that are presented in a more-or-less neutral way are often more shocking and powerful than those which are openly emotive and judgemental. See, for example, Primo Levi's description of the Nazi concentration camps -- one of the rare accounts that does not use words like `butcher' and `monster'.
But that effect does surely rely on the reader having some kind of moral compatibility with the writer. We don't need the writer of Judges 19 to tell us that rape is a villanous act. But I do wonder to what extent the writer, in his culture, would have agreed.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But this story is not really presented in a neutral way. Everyone in the story seems shocked and horrified. The whole of chapter 20 is abut their reaction (or over-reaction). The rest of Israel demand that the criminals are handed over for punishment, the Benjaminites refuse, so they start a war. (Which is pretty much the way these things were handles in segmented societies all over the world till pretty recently - and still are in Afghanistan and adjacent areas)
"Hand over those scsoundresl so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel" sounds like a comment to me.
At Greenbelt (in the bar afterwards) I said I thought the woman was dead when found in the morning, but we couldn't remember if that was explicit. In verse 20.5 the Levite claims that she was already dead.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Has anyone ever heard this passage preached on? I did when I was about 14, at a school chapel program (the guest speaker obviously thought the shock value of a text we were unlikely to have heard before would at least wake us up). He did take the text about "every man did what was right in his own eyes" as the interpretive framework for the story and basically said, When everyone sets their own standard of right and wrong, this is the kind of thing that happens.
I have some of the same problems with the way the story is told that others have expressed here, but I will guarantee you that out of years of attending chapels and assemblies in a Christian school, that is the one and ONLY sermon I still remember vividly.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DagonSlaveII
Shipmate
# 15162
|
Posted
The only reasoning that I can see for offering your daughters up to be raped:
1. Is if hospitality means that you do everything possible to save guests in that situation, even sacrificing family members. As the concubine was also a guest, this wouldn't hold up to the OP storyline, but it would do for Sodom and Gomorrah.
2. Is if somehow the greater sin would be to butthurt a man.
*shrugs*
--------------------
Thanks for all the prayers for my not-yet-family. Please continue to pray for my future Brother-in-law's mum, she is still in the hospital, although doing better.
Posts: 138 | From: Houma | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
Ditto to Eliab's post.
(This passage is another problem for postmodernism: The Gibeah incident through the Benjaminite's bride-grab is what happens when everyone does what is right in their own eyes: resident evil gets larger and larger until it expresses itself at a national scale.)
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
