Abortion in the Old Testament

[Sandi]

OP–since you want to know what Jewish thinking on this is, why not contact a rabbi or go to a Jewish mb and ask there? I’d be interested in hearing the answers you get.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Haydock Catholic Bible commentary, 1859 edition, on Exodus 21:22:Ver. 22. But live herself. So Josephus also reads, Antiquities iv. 8. But Philo and the Septuagint have, “of a child unformed;” and ver. 23, “But if the child be formed, (exeikonismenon, animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;” as if all were referred to the child, which the Vulgate explains of the mother. To destroy the life of either was punished with death. “She who first taught the art of expelling the tender fœtus, deserved to perish by his own malice.” (Ovid) (Calmet) — The precise time when the soul begins to animate the body is so very uncertain, that, after conception, the person who should cause a miscarriage wilfully, would expose himself to incur the guilt of murder. Josephus, contra Ap. ii., shews how the Jews abhorred such wickedness. The Romans punished it with death. (Haydock) — Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci. (Tertullian, apol.) Onkelos says, that “if the mother should die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges: but in case the mother died, he should render life for life:” (Calmet) in which decision he agrees with the Vulgate. (Haydock) — The Hebrew is ambiguous, “If death ensue not.” (Calmet)
The Septuagint is a 2nd-century-B.C. Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. Philo and Josephus are first-century-A.D.Jews.

Josephus says in his work iiAgainst Apion,, 25:The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean.

 

[Atreyu]

OP–since you want to know what Jewish thinking on this is, why not contact a rabbi or go to a Jewish mb and ask there? I’d be interested in hearing the answers you get.

Who said the OP wanted to know the Jewish thinking on this? I thought the OP already knew the Jewish thinking, and wanted to know what the Catholic take on it was. That was my impression…

 

[Valke2]

I guess the reinvention/reinterpetation of the Jewish bible without any regard to the jewish tradition or methods for understanding Torah is one of the major differences between the two faiths.

It is as if someone were to come along today and form a new relgiion based on the Christian bible and explain what the bible teaches without any regard for Christian doctrine or tradition.

If a religion taught that the God hovered over the earth in Spirit and imparted knowledge to their prophetess, ALyssa, stating "the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was Jesus because Jesus tempted the Jews to stray from their covenantal relationship wiht God. "If one were to try to argue otherwise, based on the traditions and teachings of their religion, the person could answer that the religion of the Newest Testament is not required to acknoweldge or be bound by the teaching of the Church or christainity,

 

[Atreyu]

I guess the reinvention/reinterpetation of the Jewish bible without any regard to the jewish tradition or methods for understanding Torah is one of the major differences between the two faiths.

It is as if someone were to come along today and form a new relgiion based on the Christian bible and explain what the bible teaches without any regard for Christian doctrine or tradition.

If a religion taught that the God hovered over the earth in Spirit and imparted knowledge to their prophetess, ALyssa, stating "the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was Jesus because Jesus tempted the Jews to stray from their covenantal relationship wiht God. "If one were to try to argue otherwise, based on the traditions and teachings of their religion, the person could answer that the religion of the Newest Testament is not required to acknoweldge or be bound by the teaching of the Church or christainity,

On the contrary, Christians believe that Jews lost any formal credibility they once had after the Resurrection. I haven’t said that too well. What I’m trying to say is that once upon a time, the Jews were sitting on the seat of Moses and what they said had authority. After the Resurrection, the Church was built on Kepha (Peter) and his successors, and so now they are the ones with the authority. Therefore anything that has developed out of Jewish tradition since then, is not binding on Christians. Indeed, I have some reason to believe that Jewish tradition actually changed after the time of Jesus - I’m thinking here of the numbering of the Ten Commandments. Without getting into a whole different discussion, in my research into how the various numbering systems came into being, I found that Augustine possibly based his numbering system upon an earlier, Jewish tradition. Was this the original system that Moses had in mind when he (or whoever it was) wrote Exodus? Well I’m not trying to claim that it is, just that it is quite possible that the Jewish numbering system has changed since the time of Christ. From my point-of-view, I would always assume that Jewish tradition has changed since then. I mean, I just take that as a given.

If you take the passage on its own, there is nothing to suggest that a miscarriage of the baby results in a fine for the cause of the miscarriage. It is quite possible that it is a premature birth that results in a fine for the one who caused it. Without more Scriptural evidence, and with explicit Catholic traditional evidence that abortion is wrong (namely, in the Didache, for example), a Catholic would have no reason to believe in the traditional Jewish interpretation of the passage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I guess the reinvention/reinterpetation of the Jewish bible without any regard to the jewish tradition or methods for understanding Torah is one of the major differences between the two faiths.

It is as if someone were to come along today and form a new relgiion based on the Christian bible and explain what the bible teaches without any regard for Christian doctrine or tradition.

If a religion taught that the God hovered over the earth in Spirit and imparted knowledge to their prophetess, ALyssa, stating "the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was Jesus because Jesus tempted the Jews to stray from their covenantal relationship wiht God. "If one were to try to argue otherwise, based on the traditions and teachings of their religion, the person could answer that the religion of the Newest Testament is not required to acknoweldge or be bound by the teaching of the Church or christainity,

You have totally lost me here; Jesus wanted to correctly align Judaism. The people and leaders denied that thus Christianity was born as a separate entity. In our gospels, at Jesus’ death the earthquake/veil splitting is the symbolic writings of Apostles acknowledging they could no longer be Jews. I am sure this was painful for them.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Onkelos says, that "if the mother should die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges:…

I made a transcription error in this part; it should actually read:Onkelos says, that "if the mother should not die of the stroke, the offender was to satisfy the husband by paying a fine, to be awarded by the husband, or by the judges:…

I apologize for my error.

 

[Valke2]

You have totally lost me here; Jesus wanted to correctly align Judaism. The people and leaders denied that thus Christianity was born as a separate entity. In our gospels, at Jesus’ death the earthquake/veil splitting is the symbolic writings of Apostles acknowledging they could no longer be Jews. I am sure this was painful for them.

THat makes no sense to me. My understanding was that everyone agreed the apostles remained jews. And that the followers of Jesus for the first hundred years or so remained Jews (other than those that were never Jewish to begin with).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I guess the reinvention/reinterpetation of the Jewish bible without any regard to the jewish tradition or methods for understanding Torah is one of the major differences between the two faiths.

It is as if someone were to come along today and form a new relgiion based on the Christian bible and explain what the bible teaches without any regard for Christian doctrine or tradition.

If a religion taught that the God hovered over the earth in Spirit and imparted knowledge to their prophetess, ALyssa, stating "the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was Jesus because Jesus tempted the Jews to stray from their covenantal relationship wiht God. "If one were to try to argue otherwise, based on the traditions and teachings of their religion, the person could answer that the religion of the Newest Testament is not required to acknoweldge or be bound by the teaching of the Church or christainity,

You have totally lost me here; Jesus wanted to correctly align Judaism. The people and leaders denied that thus Christianity was born as a separate entity. In our gospels, at Jesus’ death the earthquake/veil splitting is the symbolic writings of Apostles acknowledging they could no longer be Jews. I am sure this was painful for them.

THat makes no sense to me. My understanding was that everyone agreed the apostles remained jews. And that the followers of Jesus for the first hundred years or so remained Jews (other than those that were never Jewish to begin with).

I suspect the issue here is whose teaching the Apostle followed, Rabbi’s, and Pharisee or Jesus? The Apostles (mostly) certainly wanted to be Jews but could not follow the Rabbi’s, or Pharisee right? The Apostles also wanted to accomplish Jesus’ work so they mostly preached to the Jews, and are reported to have used Synagogues however how they preached in Synagogues different from Rabbi’s, and Pharisee is a bit of a mystery to me.

The issue at contention is the Old Testament is relevant to us, but not as taught by Rabbi’s or Pharisees rather as taught by Jesus. Jesus upheld the 10 Commandments, changed divorce, emphases the honoring God, and added treat your neighbor as yourself. So the issues at hand for us in not how the passage was taught, but how should the passage have been taught? Hope that helps

 

[Purgation_Road]

I’m sorry I haven’t been more involved in the discussion. I nevertheless appreciate the many thoughtful posts. Some brief observations.

Valke2, I agree with Atreyu that a post-resurrection jewish interpretation of the Bible is not all that helpful. I won’t say completely unhelpful because the jewish perspective is always something to be considered. Nevertheless, I cannot take a jewish interpretation as definitive nor ascribe much authority lest I couldn’t be Chrisitian, i.e., jews deny christ is the messiah.

The other things I’m wrestling with is if miscarriage is what was meant, why was the normal word for miscarriage not used?

I also agree with Atreyu that if the accidental, as opposed to intentional, injury of a person triggered lex talonis then your interpretation means the passage is redundant.

If I have more time later I’ll post more. Thanks.

 

[Valke2]

I also agree with Atreyu that if the accidental, as opposed to intentional, injury of a person triggered lex talonis then your interpretation means the passage is redundant.

If I have more time later I’ll post more. Thanks.

Accidential is not even contemplated in the sense that the intent behind the fight between the two men is to cause injury or death. That the actions result in the death of the mother would not make them accidental as we understand the term. The law in the US is very similar. Many states have laws that if, during the commission of certain felonies, such as Arson or robbery, someone is killed, then you are guilty of felony murder, even if you had not intention of killing the person and even if you weren’t the person who did the killing.

Some Bible translations, supported by conservative Christian denominations, translate miscarriage as “premature birth.” And they interpret verse 23 to include death of the newborn. However, this translation is rare. religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm

Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation [premature birth]. They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear:

Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”

Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence – it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.” religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

The original Hebrew word used is “yatsa” which means “lose her offspring”.

In short, the interpertation that the verse does not refer to a miscarriage is one that is heavilhy politicfally motivated by the anti-choice/pro-life movement. Which really is unnecessary since the passage can’t rationally be used to support pro-choice simply because it does not require life for life for a miscarriage, especially in light of the traditional jewish opposition to abortion in all but very limited circumstances.

 

[Valke2]

BTW, what does the KJV say. All of a sudden that’s not the version quoted by most christians here?? Why is it that Jewish interpetition is not binding but the entire argument here relies on the meaning of the Hebrew text?

While it may not be reqauired to accept Jewish understanding of their scripture, the fact that for thousands of years, this is the understanding held by the people who were given the Torah, and that only recently, in the context of the political debate on abortion, has an alternative interpetation been pushed by conservative christians, should tell you something.

 

[Atreyu]

BTW, what does the KJV say. All of a sudden that’s not the version quoted by most christians here?? Why is it that Jewish interpetition is not binding but the entire argument here relies on the meaning of the Hebrew text?

KJV?! How long have you been here, Valke? You do know we’re Catholics, right? We don’t put too much stock into the KJV. I’m pretty sure the “official” version of the Bible for the Catholic Church is the Vulgate. I’m really not sure how the Vulgate renders this passage… However, I prefer the RSV. Surprisingly, the RSV renders the passage with the word “miscarriage”, instead of “premature birth” or some such. I’m really quite surprised that so many Bible versions render the passage this way. I wonder if it was the Vulgate itself that has caused this translation error (as I see it)? Here’s Exodus 21:22:
si rixati fuerint viri et percusserit quis mulierem praegnantem et abortivum quidem fecerit sed ipsa vixerit subiacebit damno quantum expetierit maritus mulieris et arbitri iudicarint
I don’t know Latin, but it’s easy enough to figure out that the operative word is “abortivum”, which is supposedly translated to English as “prematurely born”. Then there’s the KJV:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
The English Revised Version renders the passage in much the same way. The American Standard Version of 1901:
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Now the RSV is based on the ASV, the ERV, the KJV and the Masoretic text. The OT of the RSV (published 1952) seems to be the earliest version of the Bible I have found in English which translates the word to mean “miscarriage”. I’m really quite interested as to why they chose to render the passage this way. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t come from any traditional translation. The only one I don’t know how to check is the Masoretic text. The page I linked to above referenced “the Hebrew Bible”. Forgive my ignorance Valke, but is this synonymous with the Masoretic text?

While it may not be reqauired to accept Jewish understanding of their scripture, the fact that for thousands of years, this is the understanding held by the people who were given the Torah, and that only recently, in the context of the political debate on abortion, has an alternative interpetation been pushed by conservative christians, should tell you something.

Hmm, and the early Catholics didn’t have the Old Testament? Or you’re implying the Catholic Church has only had this interpretation of the passage in recent times. I’ve tried to find some instances of church fathers discussing this topic, but have been largely unsuccessful. The only reference I could find was one from Tertullian:
The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion (A Treatise on the Soul, 37)
This is ambiguous. However, what is not ambiguous is that the Church has always considered abortion to be intrinsically evil. Perhaps there has not been much consideration of this passage because it has always (by “always”, I mean “early on”) been taken as a given by Christians that abortion is wrong? Possibly, the fact that the Vulgate and other translations of the Bible have rendered the passage so unambiguously meant that noone felt the need to comment on it.

See the page I linked to in my first post in this thread to see references from the early church fathers on abortion. Of particular interest is the Didache (written probably near the close of the first century):
The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child

 

[Valke2]

KJV?!

Hmm, and the early Catholics didn’t have the Old Testament?

Of course they did. I dont’ believe, however, that a discussion of abortion vs. miscarriage as it pertains to the verse was ever recorded prior to this century.

 

[Atreyu]

Update: Here’s how the Douay-Rheims Bible renders the passage:
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
It would seem to be that this is the first instance of the use of the word “miscarry/miscarriage” (the DR OT was published in 1609). I’m curious as to why the RSV and others would follow the Catholic DR and not the Protestant KJV in this matter.

Purgation Road, you said:

I also agree with Atreyu that if the accidental, as opposed to intentional, injury of a person triggered lex talonis then your interpretation means the passage is redundant.

I’m confused. I don’t know where I mentioned the difference between intentional and accidental injury? I’m quite happy with the explanations Valke has given that this constitutes an intentional harm to the woman/child. However, I don’t really see that the difference between intential harm and accidental harm is discussed in this Biblical passage?

The reason I was saying that the Jewish interpretation of the passage is redundant, is because it is obvious that if any harm comes to the woman, then lex talionis applies. This we know from other passages in the Bible. So I don’t really see why we would have this very specific situation of a woman who has come to harm and then prematurely gives birth to her child - if she is harmed, then lex talionis applies. Eh? Of course it does, we already know that! Therefore, I think it makes more sense that this passage is explaining that lex talionis applies if any harm is done to the child, who is born prematurely.

 

[Atreyu]

Of course they did. I dont’ believe, however, that a discussion of abortion vs. miscarriage as it pertains to the verse was ever recorded prior to this century.

Whereas the Jews have discussed it - I see what you’re saying now. Sorry about that. However, my comments still stand about the Vulgate being unambiguous. That is, if the translation of the word is unambiguously what I have claimed it to be! I think we’d need someone schooled in Latin to settle that matter…

 

[Valke2]

Update: Here’s how the Douay-Rheims Bible renders the passage:
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
It would seem to be that this is the first instance of the use of the word “miscarry/miscarriage” (the DR OT was published in 1609). I’m curious as to why the RSV and others would follow the Catholic DR and not the Protestant KJV in this matter.

Purgation Road, you said:

I’m confused. I don’t know where I mentioned the difference between intentional and accidental injury? I’m quite happy with the explanations Valke has given that this constitutes an intentional harm to the woman/child. However, I don’t really see that the difference between intential harm and accidental harm is discussed in this Biblical passage?

The reason I was saying that the Jewish interpretation of the passage is redundant, is because it is obvious that if any harm comes to the woman, then lex talionis applies. This we know from other passages in the Bible. So I don’t really see why we would have this very specific situation of a woman who has come to harm and then prematurely gives birth to her child - if she is harmed, then lex talionis applies. Eh? Of course it does, we already know that! Therefore, I think it makes more sense that this passage is explaining that lex talionis applies if any harm is done to the child, who is born prematurely.

OR, lex talionis does not apply. ANd the verse is here to emphasis that the fetus does not require eye for eye. There are plenty of redundancies in the 5 books of Moses.

 

[Valke2]

Whereas the Jews have discussed it - I see what you’re saying now. Sorry about that. However, my comments still stand about the Vulgate being unambiguous. That is, if the translation of the word is unambiguously what I have claimed it to be! I think we’d need someone schooled in Latin to settle that matter…

I’ll see if I can improve my latin through the power of google…

 

[Atreyu]

I’ll see if I can improve my latin through the power of google…

Hehe! The other thing we should do is to check the Greek of the Septuagint. I don’t really know how to do that though…

 

[Redbandito]

Of course they did. I dont’ believe, however, that a discussion of abortion vs. miscarriage as it pertains to the verse was ever recorded prior to this century.

Exactly! So what is the point of trying to debate “abortion in the Old Testament” by an appeal to this verse? Clearly the author had no intent to answer the question of abortion in this text, or it would have likely been used “prior to this century” to justify such a position.

The reality is that ALL life from conception to natural death is equal in human dignity. While a fetus might not have had the utilitarian value of a woman (thus the difference in punishment), this in no way proves that the woman’s life is INTRINSICALLY more valuable to God.

And just for the record, there are MANY Jews, Orthodox and otherwise, who believe abortion is intrinsically evil. With the division amongst Jews these days, it is quite presumptuous to attempt to speak for “ALL Jews.” Much like it would be quite presumptuous for me to speak for all Christians. The difference between Judaism and Catholicism, as my Jewish dad points out so frequently, is that there is an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church. That does not exist today in Judaism. Thus, Judaism is much like Protestantism in it’s appeal to the Scriptures. Each man for himself. Sorry to take us off topic, but it is an important point to make.

Finally, the Catholic Church does value the woman’s life. Thus, in a case where the woman’s life is in mortal danger, a moral medical procedure could be performed in an attempt to save the woman’s life, as long as all efforts were made to preserve the child’s as well.