Genesis Genesis 9 In Genesis 9:22, just after the
Genesis flood narrative, it is written that
Ham, a son of
Noah, "saw" his father's "nakedness", a phrase which elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible can mean "had sex with". Some interpretations conclude that Ham had sex with Noah, perhaps even "
sodomised" him in his sleep. The same explanations are found in three Greek translations of the Bible, which replace the word "see" in verse 22 with another word denoting homosexual relations. Because of what happened, Noah put a curse on Ham's son Canaan and his descendents, the
Canaanites.
Genesis 16 Phyllis Trible (1984) was the first scholar to suggest that the story of
Hagar in
Genesis 16:1–4 was a rape narrative, a conclusion later supported by some feminist biblical researchers such as
J. Cheryl Exum and Suzanne Scholz, but rejected by others. Some have even considered the possibility that verse 16:6 is saying that Sarah "raped" Hagar as well, since the verb used,
inah in the pi'el, is sometimes used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to mean "to rape", "to mistreat" or "to oppress" (amongst other things), depending on the context. 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".
Genesis 19 ,
Lot and his daughters Genesis 19 features an attempted
gang rape. Two angels arrive in
Sodom, and
Lot shows them hospitality. However, the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he give them the two guests so that they could rape them. In response to this, Lot offers the mob his
two virgin daughters instead. The mob refuses Lot's offer, but the angels strike them with blindness, God eventually destroys the city, and Lot and his family escape. Genesis 19 goes on to relate how Lot's daughters get him drunk and have sex with him. As a result, the
eponymous ancestors of
Moab and
Ammon, recurring enemies of Israel, were born. A number of commentators describe their actions as rape.
Esther Fuchs (2003) suggests that the text presents Lot's daughters as the "initiators and perpetrators of the incestuous 'rape'."
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.
Genesis 34 In Genesis 34,
Shechem had sex with
Dinah, but how this text is to be exactly translated and understood is the subject of scholarly controversy. Most modern scholars claim that it describes rape, and many modern translations render it as 'raped' (or with similar verbiage of sexual forcing), while some earlier commentators also proposed
elopement.
Linguistic analysis 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." Later, she writes that "The narrator gives the reader no information about Dinah's thoughts or feelings or her reactions to what has taken place. Shechem is not only the focalizor but also the primary actor ... The narrator leaves no room for doubt that Shechem is the center of these verses. Dinah is the object (or indirect object) of Shechem's actions and desires."
Frank M. Yamada (2008) argues that the abrupt transition between Genesis 34:2 and 34:3 was a storytelling technique due to the fact that the narrative focused on the men, a pattern which he perceives in other rape narratives as well, also arguing that the men's responses are depicted in a mixed light. "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." Contrary to Bader and Yamada, however, Scholz (2021) asserted that, despite being a passive object, Dinah rather than Shechem is central in the narrative, and the verbs in verse 3 are widely mistranslated.
dabaq, frequently translated as 'to love (someone)', is never translated like that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but as 'to cling to (someone)' (Ruth 1:14 NRSV), 'to keep close to (someone)' (Ruth 2:23 NRSV), 'to remain close to (someone)' (Psalm 101:3 A. A. Anderson), 'to retain (the inheritance)' (Numbers 36:7,9 NRSV), or 'to keep something (possession)' according to
Wilhelm Gesenius. Scholz concluded: "'to love' is entirely inadequate. A better translation emphasizes spatial closeness: "Shechem stayed with Dinah" or "Shechem kept Dinah", in the sense of not allowing her to leave." In the given context, the middle verb
aheb is better translated as 'to lust after (someone)' or 'to desire (someone)' rather than 'to love (someone)', as this feeling is sexual rather than romantic and entirely one-sided from a controlling subject to a sexually forced object. The third verb is part of a phrase, ''way-ḏab-bêr 'al-lêḇ han-na-'ă-rā'', literally meaning "and he spoke to the young woman's heart". 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", 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."
Historical-ethical analysis Shechem's rape of Dinah in Genesis 34 is described in the text itself as "a thing that should not be done." Susanne Scholz (2000) writes that "The brothers' revenge, however, also demonstrates their conflicting views about women. On the one hand they defend their sister. On the other hand they do not hesitate to capture other women as if these women were their booty. The connection of the rape and the resulting revenge clarifies that no easy solutions are available to stop rapists and rape-prone behavior. In this regard Genesis 34 invites contemporary readers to address the prevalence of rape through the metaphoric language of a story." In a different work, Scholz (2010) writes that "During its extensive history of interpretation, Jewish and Christian interpreters mainly ignored Dinah. ... in many interpretations, the fraternal killing is the criminal moment, and in more recent years scholars have argued explicitly against the possibility that Shechem rapes Dinah. They maintain that Shechem's love and marriage proposal do not match the "scientifically documented behavior of a rapist". Scholz (2000) argued that Dinah's silence does not mean she consented: "The literary analysis showed, however, that despite this silence Dinah is present throughout the story. Indeed, everything happens because of her. Informed by feminist scholarship, the reading does not even require her explicit comments." Rabbi and scholar
Burton Visotzky (2010) stated that the story describes a
marry-your-rapist rule:It was a society in which the victim's shame had to be accounted for, and marriage did erase the shame attendant upon the loss of virginity. But this is shame of an empathically male construction and stunningly lacking in sympathy for the woman victim. There is little face to be gained from the dubious honor of marrying your rapist. At least Dinah's brothers agree with this last point, if not with how I arrived there. ... I do not believe rape was an issue for them. Shame and control were their buttons. Rape is one of ours.Sandra E. Rapoport (2011) argues that "The Bible text is sympathetic to Shechem in the verses following his rape of Dinah, at the same time that it does not flinch from condemning the lawless predatory behavior towards her. One
midrash even attributes Shechem's three languages of love in verse 3 to God's love for the Children of Israel." She also put forth that "Shechem's character is complex. He is not easily characterized as unqualifiedly evil. It is this complexity that creates unbearable tension for the reader and raises the justifiably strong emotions of outrage, anger, and possible compassion." 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."
Genesis 39 (1854) A rare Biblical instance of sexual harassment and assault perpetrated against a man by a woman may be found in Genesis 39. In this chapter, the enslaved
Joseph is repeatedly propositioned by the wife of his master Potiphar. Joseph refuses to have sex with her ("although she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not consent" (Genesis. 39:10)), as he has no marital right to do so and it would be a sin against Yahweh (Genesis 39:6–10). In his chapter on Genesis 2 (named "The Nature of Marriage and the Gift of Sex"), Longman writes that "sex is God's gift to married couples"; Joseph's actions therefore demonstrated respect for Potiphar's marriage, although they were ultimately motivated by obedience to the creator God, Yahweh. Joseph's experience - harassment / assault, false accusations and imprisonment before eventually being released, promoted and honoured - is commonly seen as a 'type' of Christ (see
Typology (theology)) and, for Longman III, it demonstrates the major theme of (the rest of) Joseph's story: "God can bring salvation even using evil acts of those who want to harm God's people".
Numbers 31 Midianite women, children and livestock taken captive by Israelite soldiers after all Midianite men had been killed and their towns burnt. This has been interpreted as a passage making rape "a normative practice in war". 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'. On the other hand, he noted that other rabbinical commentaries such as B. and Y. Qiddushin and
Yevamot claimed "that
for yourselves meant 'as servants.' Later apologists, both Jewish and Christian, adopted the latter interpretation." In addition, the Israelite soldiers were immediately commanded to purify themselves and their spoils, including the captives, in Numbers 31:19 so they could be reminded of how "disruptive" death was.
Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 20 Deuteronomy 20:14 indicates that all women and child captives become enslaved property:
Deuteronomy 21 Deuteronomy 21:1014 states: This passage is grouped with laws concerning sons and inheritance, suggesting that the passage's main concern is with the regulation of marriage in such a way as to transform the woman taken captive in war into an acceptable Israelite wife, in order to beget legitimate Israelite children. Caryn Reeder (2017) notes, "The month-long delay before the finalization of the marriage would thus act in part as a primitive pregnancy test." 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". David Resnick (2004) praises the passage for its nobility, calling it "evidently the first legislation in human history to protect women prisoners of war" and "the best of universalist Biblical humanism as it seeks to manage a worst case scenario: controlling how a conquering male must act towards a desired, conquered, female other." He argues that after the defeat of her nation in war, marrying the victors "may be the best way for a woman to advance her own interests in a calamitous political and social situation." 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.
Deuteronomy 22 Scholz (2021) stated that the texts of Deuteronomy 22:25–29 'are widely recognized as rape legislation', while Deuteronomy 22:22–24 as well as Deuteronomy 21:10–14 "are more contested and are not usually characterized as rape laws". The
NIV renders them as follows: Cheryl Anderson, in her book
Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive Bible Interpretation (2009), said that:Clearly, these laws do not take into account the female's perspective. After a rape, [the victim] would undoubtedly see herself as the injured party and would probably find marriage to her rapist to be distasteful, to say the least. Arguably, there are cultural and historical reasons why such a law made sense at the time. ... Just the same, the law communicates the message that faith tradition does not (and should not) consider the possibility that women might have different yet valid perspectives.Verse 22:22 does not specifically address the wife's complicity, and therefore Adele Berlin's interpretation (2008) is that even if she was raped, the law dictates she must be put to death since she has been defiled by the extramarital encounter. Yamada opined that Deuteronomy 22:23–24, which commands punishment for the engaged virgin woman if the act takes place in the city, was not about rape, but adultery, because the engaged woman was already considered to be the reserved property of her future husband. He also argued that the Deuteronomic laws treat women as the property of men, and that "the Deuteronomic laws ... do not address the crime of rape as sexual violence against a woman as such", but as an economic crime against her father or (future) husband. Because it was the father's prerogative to marry his daughter off to a man of his choice, payment of a
dowry of fifty shekels of silver to the deflowered woman's father is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 as a restitution for her unplanned loss of virginity. 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. Regarding 22:25–27,
Craig S. Keener (1996) considered it a rape scenario, comparing it to the
Laws of Eshnunna §26. He noted that "if no one else was present as a witness of her innocence but she was clearly violated, biblical law assumes [the woman's] innocence without requiring witnesses (22:27); she does not bear the burden of proof to argue that she did not consent. ... If the couple definitely had intercourse, the man was guilty either way, but if the woman
might have been innocent, her innocence must be assumed." Davidson (2011) added, "Thus the Mosaic law protects the sexual purity of a betrothed woman (and protects the one to whom she is betrothed), and prescribing the severest penalty to the man who dares to sexually violate her." Finally,
anah/inah is almost universally translated as "to humble" in older English translations, but almost always as "to violate" in modern translations. The
Good News Translation even rendered the passage as "he forced her to have intercourse with him", and
God's Word Translation made it "he raped her". Irrespective of whether or not the woman had given consent to the sexual act, or will give consent to marriage, the man is required to marry her by paying her parents a
dowry to settle the matter. Theologian
John Gill (1746–63) observed that a different verb is used in 22:28 (
tāphaś) than in 22:25 (
ḥāzaq,
chazaq) for "to lay hold on". He thought the former was more 'enticing' and 'loving' (comparing it to Exodus 22:16, which he deemed consensual) and the latter more 'forceful' and 'violent'; he concluded that verse 25 described rape and verse 28 consensual sex. 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. However, even though almost all scholars agree that Exodus 22:16–17 describes a consensual situation, it does not specify that the man "violated" the woman, whereas Deuteronomy 22:29 does. The Hebrew word used here for "violated" is
anah or
inah, which (depending on the context) can mean "to rape, to force [sexually], to defile, to violate, to ravish, to mistreat, to afflict, to humble/humiliate, to oppress, to subject/submit/subdue, to weaken". Valerie Tarico (2015) was critical of Deuteronomy 22:28–29, saying that "The punishments for rape have to do not with compassion or trauma to the woman herself but with honor, tribal purity, and a sense that a used woman is damaged goods."
Deuteronomy 28 Deuteronomy 28:15–64 contains "curses for disobedience"; things that will happen, according to verse 15, "if you do not obey Yahweh your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you." In particular, Deuteronomy 28:30 states: "You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit." (New International Version). Steymans (2013) concluded that this text was therefore probably written between the death of
Esarhaddon in 672 BCE and the probable adoption of the Book of Deuteronomy by king
Josiah in 622 BCE. After noting that differences in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible make it unclear whether or not the concubine was dead the following morning ("the narrator protects his protagonist through ambiguity"), Trible writes that "Neither the other characters nor the narrator recognizes her humanity. She is property, object, tool, and literary device. [..] In the end, she is no more than the oxen that Saul will later cut in pieces and send throughout all the territory of Israel as a call to war." Scholz notes the linguistic ambiguity of the passage and the variety of interpretations that stem from it. She wrote that: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. The woman's raped and exhausted body becomes a symbol of the wrong that is committed when "every man did what was right in his own eyes." The image of this woman struggling to the door demands a response from the participants in the story."
2 Samuel 2 Samuel 11 Some scholars see the episode of
David's adultery with
Bathsheba in
2 Samuel 11 as an account of a rape.
David and Diana Garland suggest that: Since consent was impossible, given her powerless position, David in essence raped her. Rape means to have sex against the will, without the consent, of another – and she did not have the power to consent. Even if there was no physical struggle, even if she gave in to him, it was rape. Other scholars, however, suggest that Bathsheba came to David willingly.
James B. Jordan notes that the text does not describe Bathsheba's protest, as it does Tamar's in 2 Samuel 13, and argues that this silence indicates that "Bathsheba willingly cooperated with David in adultery". George Nicol goes even further and suggests that "Bathsheba's action of bathing in such close proximity to the royal palace was deliberately provocative".
2 Samuel 12 and 16 Yahweh is displeased with the fact that David has arranged for Bathsheba's husband
Uriah the Hittite to be killed in battle, and that David has taken Bathsheba as his wife (2 Samuel 11:26–27). He sends
Nathan the prophet to inform David that he will receive divine punishment for taking away / seizing (
laqach) Uriah's wife as his own wife (
2 Samuel 12:9). Not only would Yahweh strike the newborn child of Bathsheba and David with illness so that it died after seven days (2 Samuel 12:13–18), but Yahweh says that he would let someone close (
rea) to David take away / seize (
laqach) all his wives and have him sleep with / rape (
šākab) them in broad daylight (literally "in the eyes of the sun") for everyone in Israel to see (2 Samuel 12:9–12). In
2 Samuel 16:20–23, this man close to David turns out to be his son
Absalom, who is rebelling against his father and seeking to seize the kingship for himself. His advisor
Ahithophel tells Absalom: Sleep with (
bô +
el, literally "come/go (in)to") your father's concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute.' So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with (
bô +
el) his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (2 Samuel 16:21–22 NIV). Scholz (2021) pointed out that interpreters such as McCarter and Anderson did not view Absalom's acts with David's concubines as rape, but that he 'illegally claimed' or 'royally married' them. On the other hand,
Ken Stone (1994) entertained the possibility of rape, as "there is no reason to think that these women would have been willing participants." Thomas Bohache (2006) went even further, stating: One can quite plausibly conclude that what we have in 2 Samuel 16 is a representation of rape, which is understood within the logic of the narrative of 2 Samuel as having been initiated by God. When considered from that point of view, the story in 2 Samuel 16 is arguably one of the most disturbing texts in the Bible and needs to be evaluated critically on the basis of the fact that it incorporates (as does much of 1 and 2 Samuel) obviously patriarchal notions about the sexual use of women. In this instance, moreover, such views are not simply presupposed by the narrator or held by male human characters, but are projected onto the male divine character, Yhwh. Inasmuch as Yhwh uses the rape of ten women to humiliate, and thereby punish, David, Yhwh seems no more concerned about the actual fate of those women than are Absalom, Ahithophel or for that matter David.
2 Samuel 13 In
2 Samuel 13,
Amnon tricks his half-sister
Tamar to come into his bedroom alone, seizes her by the hand and tells her to go to bed with him, but Tamar refuses and resists, telling Amnon to marry her first; however, Amnon proceeds to overpower her and rape her anyway. Literally, the Hebrew text states 'he forced/violated (
inah pi'el) her and laid (
šākab) her'. Although Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2002) claimed that Tamar consented and in fact is to blame for what happened, Reis is not an academically trained scholar, but a
presuppositional apologist, and her views are generally rejected by scholars. 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. When, after the rape, Amnon tells Tamar to leave, she says: "No! Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me" (2 Samuel 13:16 NIV), indicating that her expectation, in accordance with the conventions of the time, is to remain in his house as his wife. She opined that "Sympathy for Tamar is not the narrator's primary interest. The forcefulness of Tamar's impression is drawn out, not to illuminate her pain, but to justify Absalom's anger at Amnon and subsequent murder of him." Cooper-White also states that after the incestuous rape, the narrative continues to focus on Amnon, writing, "The story continues to report the perpetrator's viewpoint, the thoughts and feelings after the incident of violence; the victim's viewpoint is not presented. ... We are given no indication that he ever thought about her again—even in terms of fear of punishment or reprisal." Trible allocates another chapter in
Texts of Terror to Tamar, subtitled "The Royal Rape of Wisdom". She noted that Tamar is the lone female in the narrative and is treated as part of the stories of Amnon and Absalom. "Two males surround a female. As the story unfolds, they move between protecting and polluting, supporting and seducing, comforting and capturing her. Further, these sons of David compete with each other through the beautiful woman." She also wrote that the language the original Hebrew uses to describe the rape is better translated as "He laid her" than "He lay with her." Scholz (2010) wrote that "Many scholars make a point of rejecting the brutality with which Amnon subdues his [half-]sister", going on to criticize an interpretation by Pamela Tamarkin Reis that blames Tamar, rather than Amnon, for what happened to her. Regarding the rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel, Rapoport states that "
Amnon is an unmitigatedly detestable figure. Literarily, he is the evil foil to Tamar's courageous innocence. ... The Bible wants the reader to simultaneously appreciate, mourn, and cheer for Tamar as we revile and despise Amnon." Regarding the same passage, Bader wrote that "Tamar's perception of the situation is given credibility; indeed Amnon's lying with her proved to be violating her. Simultaneously with increasing Tamar's credibility, the narrator discredits Amnon." Trible opined that "[Tamar's] words are honest and poignant; they acknowledge female servitude." She also writes that "the narrator hints at her powerlessness by avoiding her name."
Song of Songs 5:7 and
Exum interpreted
Gustave Moreau's 1853 painting
The Song of Songs as depicting the watchmen's sexual assault of the female protagonist in Songs 5:7. Readers of the
Song of Songs, generally interpreted and celebrated as an erotic poem of perfect love, have long struggled to understand the meaning of verse 5:7, with Exum (2012) writing: "Because what happens in Song 5.7 seems out of place in the idyllic world of the Song, this verse has long been a stumbling block for commentators." The female protagonist in chapter 5, speaking in the first person, says she was waiting for her lover to visit her home in Jerusalem, but he did not appear. When she went looking for him, "The watchmen found me, Those who go the rounds of the city; they struck me, injured me, took my wrap from me, the watchmen of the walls." In a parallel episode in Songs 3:1–5, the woman also meets the watchmen, but here they do not do anything; instead, the protagonist finds her lover soon afterwards. 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. 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". Exum stated that whether or not it is a dream should not be the question, but rather: "Why did the poet, whose creations the lovers are and whose poem is a carefully crafted work of art, choose to depict such an outrageous incident in a love poem?"
Michael V. Fox (1985) noted that
Gustave Moreau's 1853 painting
Le Cantique des cantiques ("The Song of Songs") has visualised the scene of Songs 5.7 as sexual aggression as well, since the woman is beaten and injured by the watchmen, and some of her clothes are stripped away (although it is unclear what
rə-ḏî-ḏî means, and what else – if anything – the woman might have been wearing). 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.
Prophetic books Scholars such as Kate Blanchard, and Scholz have noted that there are several passages in the
prophetic books, such as the
Book of Isaiah,
Book of Jeremiah, and
Book of Ezekiel, that utilize rape metaphors. Blanchard expressed outrage over this fact, writing: "The translations of these shining examples of
victim-blaming are clear enough, despite the old-fashioned language: I'm angry and you're going to suffer for it. You deserve to be raped because of your sexual exploits. You're a slut and it was just a matter of time till you suffered the consequences. Let this be a lesson to you and to all other uppity women."
Isaiah 3 On Isaiah 3:17–18, Scholz (2010) wrote that there is a common mistranslation of the Hebrew word
pōt as "forehead" or "scalp". Also often translated as "genitals" or "secret parts", Scholz believes that a more accurate translation of the word in context is "
cunt", as first suggested by
J. Cheryl Exum's
The Ethics of Biblical Violence against Women (1995). They and other scholars such as Johnny Miles (2006) conclude that this stripping of women's clothes to expose their genitals refers to sexual violence as God's punishment for women's arrogance and pride.
Ezekiel 16 and 23 Sandra Lynne Gravett (1994) argued that a proper understanding of the phrases used in Ezekiel 16:39 ( ''wə-hip̄-šî-ṭū 'ō-w-ṯāḵ bə-ḡā-ḏa-yiḵ
; usually translated as "They will strip you of your clothes" (NIV)) and Ezekiel 23:26 ( wə-hip̄-šî-ṭūḵ 'eṯ- bə-ḡā-ḏā-yiḵ''; usually literally translated as "They will also strip you of your clothes" (NIV)) leads to the conclusion that they mean "They will (also) rape you". 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), 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. On Ezekiel 16, she wrote, "These violent words obscure the perspective of the woman, and the accusations are presented solely through the eyes of the accuser, Yahweh. God speaks, accuses his wife of adultery, and prescribes the punishment in the form of public stripping, violation, and killing. In the prophetic imagination, the woman is not given an opportunity to reply. ... God expresses satisfaction of her being thus punished." 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. ... It is a view of God for whom no experience, not even rape and mutilation in wartime, is beyond hope for healing and redemption." Regarding Ezekiel 16,
Daniel I. Block wrote that "the backdrop of divine judgment can be appreciated only against the backdrop of his grace. If the text had begun at v. 36 one might understandably had accused God of cruelty and undue severity. But the zeal of his anger is a reflex of the intensity of his love. God had poured out his love on this woman, rescuing her from certain death, entering into covenant relationship with her, pledging his troth, lavishing on her all the benefits she could enjoy. He had loved intensely. He could not take contempt for his grace lightly."
Jeremiah 13 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. Rape poetics endorses 'masculine authoritarianism' and the 'dehumanization of women,' perhaps especially when the subject is God." Amy Kalmanofsky (2015) opined that Jeremiah 13 treats the naked female body as an object of disgust: "I conclude that Jer 13 is an example of obscene nudity in which the naked female body is displayed not as an object of desire, but of disgust. In Jer 13, as in the other prophetic texts, Israel is not sexually excited by having her nakedness exposed. She is shamed. Moreover, those who witness Israel's shame do not desire Israel's exposed body. They are disgusted by it." F. B. Huey, Jr. (1993), commenting on Jeremiah 13, wrote, "The crude description is that of the public humiliation inflicted on a harlot, an appropriate figure for faithless Judah (cf. Isa 47:3; Hos 2:3,10; Nah 3:5). It could also describe the violence done to women by soldiers of a conquering army. ... Jeremiah reminded [the people of Judah] that they were going to be exposed for all to see their adulteries."
Hosea 2 (
Yahweh) grabs
Gomer (
Israel).
Bible Historiale (1372). In chapter 2 of the
Book of Hosea, the prophet
Hosea (who is compared to the god Yahweh) is portrayed as fantasising about how he will punish his ex-wife
Gomer (who is compared to the
Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)) for leaving him for another man. In the first half, Hosea is afraid to lose control over his wife's sexual behaviour, and when he does lose control, he accuses her of being a 'whore'/'adulteress' (in the same way that Yahweh accuses the Israelites of '
idolatry' for worshipping other gods such as
Baal), and threatens Gomer with severe physical and psychological violence, which includes a sexual component according to several scholars. In the second half, Hosea imagines how he will accept his ex-wife back with open arms as if nothing has happened and the world will be created anew, with language that refers to the
Genesis creation narrative; a perfect reconciliation. According to Weems (1995), the poem claims that Hosea is "the true victim in the marriage", namely "a man driven to extreme behavior by his unfaithful wife"; it rhetorically presents his actions as all her fault, and seeks to convince the audience to side with the 'humiliated husband' rather than the 'battered wife'. Scholz (2021) focused on the verb
pathah in Hosea 2:14 (2:16 in Hebrew texts), which is usually translated as 'to allure/entice/persuade/seduce/attract' or 'to trick/deceive/mislead'. But in this verse, as well as in Judges 14:15 and Judges 16:5, the verb is in the
pi'el, which adds force or coercion; therefore, some Bible translations such as
NRSV,
NIV and
ISV translate
pathah in these verses as 'to coax'. Scholz reasoned that in both these Judges verses (about Samson and Delilah) and in Exodus 22:16 (about premarital sex; unclear if forced or consensual),
pathah refers to sex, and so verse 14 should be translated as "Therefore, behold, it is I who will enforce sex on her." Scholz reasons that "the sentence 'I will sexually violate you' uses the Hebrew verb in the
piel, which appears also in rape narratives such as
Gen 34:7,
Judges 19–21, and
2 Sam 13:12." Moreover, Nahum 3 mirrors other Hebrew prophetic poems in which a city (with Nineveh here being representative of the
Neo-Assyrian Empire) destroyed by a foreign enemy is portrayed as a sexually promiscuous woman who receives sexual violence and the resulting shame as a just punishment for her sins. Even though the Israelite god Yahweh had no previous relationship with Nineveh that the latter could be 'unfaithful' to, it is presented as revenge for the
Assyrian conquest of the northern
Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and the
Assyrian captivity in the 730s BCE. Scholz, Francisco O. García-Treto, 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".
Zechariah 14 The
Book of Zechariah depicts the god Yahweh as the defender and protector of Jerusalem, for example in the verses 2:9 and 9:8. Peterson (1995) wrote: 'In v. 8 the author adopts the language of military encampment to describe the way in which Yahweh will be present at Jerusalem and against any enemy forces'. The only exception is in the last chapter,
Zechariah 14, where Yahweh is prophesied to rally all the nations against Jerusalem, which will fall to a siege and its women will be raped. This sudden change of Yahweh's stance from defender to attacker of Jerusalem has puzzled scholars. Boda (2004) stated that Zechariah 14 does not indicate why Jerusalem is subjected to this violence, "but one must assume that it is linked to misdeeds of the people in the city." Foster (2012) said: "My argument is that, as one follows the justice discourse in Zechariah, we find the reason given in the whole of Zechariah for this judgment on Jerusalem". [...] "[W]hen the people fail to do justice, the past judgments of YHWH catch up with the present generation, with wars and siege and rape and exile". == Personified capital cities threatened with rape ==