I thought it could have done without () the ‘third reason’ because it is not clear that, in the circumstances, the skeptical interpretation would result in something ‘morally heinous’. JP Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.html#dt2228) usefully notes:

“First, our subject objects that the victim may not want to marry the rapist. In modern times this would be a sensible objection; but for the ancients, this was a highly viable and indeed merciful solution. The victim would no longer regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. The rapist is here being required to provide that support.

It is quite unlikely in this social context that the victim would refuse this arrangement; indeed, they might well demand such an arrangement. This is not a matter of having the rapist be one’s loving partner, or cohort for further sexual relations.

Second, it is asked why the father gets money rather than the victim. This is related to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she goes on to support of her own means, and now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return – hence the dowry.

The effect of the dowry was to make up for that loss of essential support, and in light of the first item above, payment to the father is quite fair, for it is his family that must now continue to support the girl for the rest of her life.”

This passage refers to a seduction and not rape. I do wish that atheists would occasionally do some research and stop acting like sheep from the ‘shocking OT atrocities’ fold….

The second (and far more annoying) of the two recommendations came from talk_religion in this entry. The piece of apologetics they link to says “oooh btw the verse in the Bible doesn’t say girls must marry their rapist” and then goes on to say “stu…

Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist? Interesting, discuss….

I found this very very interesting. discuss?…

Regarding Deut. 22:28-29 — If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her … He must marry the girl… There is … another explanation here that is worth a look……

If rape or seduction had occurred her economic value would be destroyed, almost guaranteeing that she could not find a husband to care for her.

By forcing her seducer to pay the bride price and take her to wife the law ensured that she would be taken care of. That doesn’t imply that he had any further right to her person, and I’m sure that the father and local men would be quite interested in ensuring her well-being.