I don’t know if it is a mistranslation, as I’m not familiar with the Hebrew word for rape. I’m just going off of what the text says. Either way though, it’s the same principle. The man has made the woman no longer desirable for marriage, so he needs to provide for her.
Your post made me curious. According to this there isn’t a Hebrew word for rape. It’s referred to as “the thing that should not be done”.
Terminology like this suggests that absence of the particular word was not due to ignorance or moral deficiency as in the skeptic’s accusations, but rather that the ancient Hebrews were just as repulsed by rape as we are today. Far from being a white elephant in the room that nobody wanted to talk about, it shows that not only could they not utter it, their method of describing it was in terms of something so unimaginably awful it should never be done.
…it’s noteworthy to point out that in all three cases, not only does the rapist does not marry his victim, but instead they all receive some of the most brutal retribution in the Bible. After Dinah had been violated, but before two of her brothers killed every man in the city, the deed is mentioned as “a thing that should not be done.”
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
