|
Reconstructing Rape for the Olden Days...The Challenge of Biblical Rape Laws for Biblical Studies
Susanne Scholz (Merrimack College)
The paper examines the epistemological divide that currently exists in biblical studies and that is part of larger developments in western intellectual discourse. We are in the midst of moving from an empiricist-positivist epistemology, characteristic of the modern western worldview, to a postmodern epistemology. The former assumes objectivity, value neutrality, and universality whereas the latter recognizes the contextualized, particularized, and localized nature of all exegetical work. The drama of this divide is particularly visible when scholars examine rape laws in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. Examples illustrate the epistemological divide, as it emerges in research on biblical rape laws (Deut. 21:10-14; 22:22-29) and ancient Near Eastern rape laws (Eshnunna, the Code of Hammurabi, Middle Assyrian laws, and Hittite laws). The discussion of these laws demonstrates that exegetes are divided on how to classify the laws and how to relate them to legal codes, women, and sexuality in general. The debate is if the biblical and ancient Near Eastern laws can be called “rape” laws. Is it anachronistic to use this charged term when contemporary terminology shapes the meaning of the ancient codes? When interpreters speak from a post-modern perspective and connect their interpretive interests with their social, political, economic, or religious locations, the hesitancy to read these laws as rape codes diminishes since it is understood that readers create meaning. Yet when exegetes read from an empiricist-positivist conviction, their interpretations promote socially and politically conservative notions about sexual violence. The rape laws turn into regulations about adultery. Since the epistemological divide is currently insurmountable, proponents of both perspectives are unable to communicate across the exegetical divide. The goal of the paper is to acknowledge this epistemological divide, especially as it emerges in biblical rape texts, and to invite biblical scholars to openly address our epistemological differences as the reason for different interpretations. Among the questions raised are: What are the political, economic, and religious issues involved in interpretations that exclude the existence of rape laws in biblical times? And what do exegetes gain from interpretations that consider sexually violent acts as legally legitimate in ancient Israelite society? The paper does not resolve the conflict or offer a compromise, which is neither available nor desirable, especially not in the case of rape codices. All that can be currently done is to examine biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature according to one’s respective epistemological convictions, and to acknowledge the connections between one’s epistemology and one’s approach to rape laws in ancient Israel.
|
