Dealing with embarrassing passages in the Bible

[firedragon]

Are you saying that a wife can't be raped? No consent means no consent. A slave wife cannot consent.

Related question: do you think forced marraiges are legitimate?

So first she was just a slave that was raped.
Then it was a "possible marital rape".
Now its an illegitimate forced marriage.

Anything else?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So first she was just a slave that was raped.
Then it was a "possible marital rape".
Now its an illegitimate forced marriage.

Anything else?

Just sum it up as immoral oppression.

 

[firedragon]

Just sum it up as immoral oppression.

So the fourth one "Immoral Oppression".

So far you have brought in 4 different arguments to demonise Abraham and Sarai as rapists etc etc, based on her having been a slave, who married Abraham and had a baby. Nice.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So the fourth one "Immoral Oppression".

So far you have brought in 4 different arguments to demonise Abraham and Sarai as rapists etc etc, based on her having been a slave, who married Abraham and had a baby. Nice.

No, not a fourth one. A summation. You do know the difference don't you?

 

[firedragon]

No, not a fourth one. A summation. You do know the difference don't you?

Ah a summation. So bottomline is that by hook or by crook you want to impose oppression into the character of Abraham as depicted in the Bible. There is no other motivation for you, so even though the text does not say they raped that girl, or anything the sort, you want it to be rape no matter what. How ever you wish to do it, you will impose it. Even if there no evidence whatsoever. Causal fallacy.

 

[Harel13]

Oh of course we know it. The only people who supposedly don't know it are those who are in denial about what slavery is.

And we are not talking about the indentured servitude that the Torah regulates. We ARE talking chattel slavery here.

Note that Hagar was not of the sort of slaves that feared running away from their masters, seeing as she eventually did this. And yet, this only happened as a reaction to what Sarah did to her. Not to being "raped" by Abraham as you seem to hold.

Also, I don't know if this holds any water by you, but Rashi says that the term "לקחה" (Lekacha, took her) means that Sarah worked to convince her to marry Abraham, i.e., she was not forced to marry him.

 

[Rival]

Also, I don't know if this holds any water by you, but Rashi says that the term "לקחה" (Lekacha) means that Sarah worked to convince her to marry Abraham, i.e., she was not forced to marry him.

Wouldn't have marrying Abraham been incentive enough, because it would have benefitted Hagar to do this? The term describing her condition changes, iirc.

 

[Harel13]

Wouldn't have marrying Abraham been incentive enough, because it would have benefitted Hagar to do this? The term describing her condition changes, iirc.

That's a good question. Rashi wrote:

"ותקח שרי AND (SARAI TOOK [HAGAR] — She took (won her over) by kindly speech saying, “Happy are you in that you will be privileged to consort with so holy a person as this” (Genesis Rabbah 45:3)."​

It would suggest that Hagar did not want to marry Abraham for some reason, though I'm not sure what that reason is.

 

[Harel13]

@Rival I'll see if I can find an explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do we know whether or not Hagar consented?

It is a good point, but she was purchased.

There is an absence of focus on much of what women thought, felt or cared about in the early parts of the Bible. That is sort of telling about how women were regarded as citizens. We know of Noah and his sons, but their wives didn't even rate being named in the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find your interpretation of the story to be horrifying.

There is very little detail provided in the Bible for this story. This leaves much of the story left open to one’s own interpretation and understanding. One can fill in the blanks with all things horrible, evil, and immoral; or, one may put their faith in God, believing the Bible to be the word of God, and attempt to understand the story from a higher, spiritual, and moral point of view.

I believe Abraham to be an obedient faithful prophet of God. I believe Sarah to be obedient and faithful to God. Hagar may have been Sarah’s maid, which may mean a servant or a slave, but that does not mean she was automatically treated horribly by Sarah or Abraham. Since the two were faithful, moral, and God-fearing, I believe they would’ve treated Hagar with a great amount of respect and valued her as a person, and not as an animal. I don’t believe Hagar was given to Abraham to wife, against Hagar’s will. I don’t believe Abraham would rape her, either. It’s quite an insult for you to say such a thing about him.

I sort of find your interpretation horrifying in part.

What is it that you consider to be horrible treatment of someone that you have purchased beyond the objectification of being purchased? There seems no way that a slave would have a choice in the matter of becoming a sex toy.

Rape doesn't require physical force or violence to be rape. You merely have to have sex with someone against their will. If she really didn't want it, it was rape. Since she was owned as property and mindset of ownership is that you can do what you want with your property. There is no consideration of the value of that property as a person from the start of the owner/slave relationship.

 

[Rival]

I'm not really sure I like the insinuation that the man called a Friend of G-d and who perpetuated monotheism is being called a rapist. If you truly believe Abraham is a rapist, then I recommend you just toss out the whole Tanakh, because otherwise you're suggesting G-d approves of this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just now noticed this is in the "Same Faith Discussion" section. My apologies for posting if it is against the rules.

 

[dybmh]

she was purchased

Do you have a source for this? The story I recall is that Hagar was an Egyptian princess who was given as a gift from Pharaoh.

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/hagar-midrash-and-aggadah#pid-13222

The Rabbis present Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaiden, as an Egyptian princess whom Pharaoh king of Egypt gave to Sarah as a gift. She grew up in the home of Abraham and Sarah, and converted. Sarah initially had to persuade Hagar to marry Abraham (to compensate for her own barrenness), but Hagar quickly became accustomed to her new status, taking advantage of it in order to vex Sarah and disparage her in the eyes of others. The midrash tells that Abraham grew close to Hagar and ceased viewing her as a handmaiden.​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have a source for this? The story I recall is that Hagar was an Egyptian princess who was given as a gift from Pharaoh.

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/hagar-midrash-and-aggadah#pid-13222

The Rabbis present Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaiden, as an Egyptian princess whom Pharaoh king of Egypt gave to Sarah as a gift. She grew up in the home of Abraham and Sarah, and converted. Sarah initially had to persuade Hagar to marry Abraham (to compensate for her own barrenness), but Hagar quickly became accustomed to her new status, taking advantage of it in order to vex Sarah and disparage her in the eyes of others. The midrash tells that Abraham grew close to Hagar and ceased viewing her as a handmaiden.​

You got me there. I was assuming she was property paid for and not property received as a gift.

 

[Firelight]

There is no consideration of the value of that property as a person from the start of the owner/slave relationship.

You must have the same brand of crystal ball that “Indigo” has.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You must have the same brand of crystal ball that “Indigo” has.

Not your brand though right.

 

[Firelight]

Not your brand though right.

I don’t have a crystal ball.

 

[JustGeorge]

**Moved to Religious Debates**​