tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post3899505010651432410..comments2023-09-23T05:56:35.265+12:00Comments on MandM: The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part IIMandMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-313985329682634922009-04-17T12:23:00.001+12:002009-04-17T12:23:00.001+12:00You're right that the statement that there is "no ...You're right that the statement that there is "no harm" is ambiguous. But I can't accept your all-too-easy recourse to comparable aNE laws - because there <I>are no</I> easily comparable laws. <br /><br />This is not a case of changing a single word in legal phrases which always refer to a man intentionally striking a pregnant woman. This is a case in which a quite different scenario is being discussed - a woman is accidentally struck during a fight between two or more men. This is not a case of intentional homicide at all (as in the aNE laws mentioned), but at most of negligent homicide (if "harm" results). It is more in line with the distinction made between intentional and unintentional homicide in Exod 21.12-14 in this respect. The immediate context of Exodus 21 is much more relevant that broadly similar aNE laws. <br /><br />So, to utilise your analogy, the aNE cases aren't like a simple change in drinking age from 21 to 18. They are more like the difference between laws against drinking under 18 and laws against offering alcohol to a minor for the purposes of seduction. The entire situation being presupposed - the facts of the striking of the pregnant woman - are fundamentally different. So, while comparable laws would be great - if they existed - to explain the ambiguity, unforunately they don't exist. And we are stuck with an ambiguous text. Was the law intended to apply both to harm of the pregnant woman only? Or to harm of the pregnant woman and baby? The answer is uncertain, but importantly the text does not explicitly restrict itself to the pregnant woman only. It just speaks about there being "no harm".<br /><br />The 'lack of harm' in verse 22 is of course hypothetical. The two protases ("if there is no harm..." / "if there is harm...") decide whether the man who strikes the pregnant woman is to be fined, or is liable to the more significant punishments set out in verses 23-25. Whatever the precise nature of the two sets of punishment, the punishment for there being "harm" resulting is most likely to be the more severe punishment. So, verse 22 is only hypothetical - if there is no harm, a fine should surely (emphatic, as a result of the absolute infinitive) be paid, but only if there is harm resulting should one of the <I>severe</I> penalties be applied. As this is the case, your (somewhat speculative, but probably correct) argument that most babies wouldn't have survived an early labour in the ancient world has little or no cogency. So what if a hypothetical doesn't often come to pass? It's a hypothetical! The more serious consequences of the law lie in verses 23-25, which is where the focus of the law is. If harm results from the negligent strike, that is when the man receives the more serious penalties.<br /><br />The aNE laws don't help us with the problem of ambiguity, due to the significantly different nature of the law in Exod 21:22-25. As a newborn baby and woman are both in view when the verse comes to say "if there is no harm", it would be very unusual that the presence of a dead baby could be described simply as "no harm". Can an unborn baby not be "harmed"? So, I conclude that the Exod 21:22 applies to harm caused to both mother <I>and</I> baby.Deanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-60793190826574887432009-04-17T10:31:00.001+12:002009-04-17T10:31:00.001+12:00I am not convinced by your argument. You wrote
“l...I am not convinced by your argument. You wrote <br /><I>“literally "and her children go out" (weyaṣe'u yeladeha). So, all that is being described is that there is a series of events: men fighting, men striking a pregnant woman, child or children being delivered. There is nothing in the text (leaving other contextual considerations aside for the moment) that indicates this is a dead baby or a live baby being delivered.”</I>Thats correct, the problem is that while the phraseology literally only means “baby comes out” this phraseology is exactly the type of phraseology used in ANE laws to describe a miscarriage. Other laws also simply state that the “baby comes out” in the same context to refer to a miscarriage and never to refer to a premature birth. Hence in a legal context this phraseology refers to a miscarriage.<br /><br /> An analogy might help here, suppose I told you that in New Zealand the drinking age is 18, you told me that in another jurstiction it was 21. Our language literally says “drinking age” alcohol is not mentioned. Yet we both know that the phrase refers to the age one is allowed to drink alcohol because that is how the phrase “drinking age” is used in discussions on this topic. <br /><br /><I>The statement is simple and unqualified: "...and there is no harm." The verse does not qualify this as "no harm" to the mother or "no harm to the baby. It is unqualified and absolute: "no harm". The result of the men striking the pregnant woman, in this casuistic law is that there is no harm. Period.</I>I was well aware of this point, but again I don't think its conclusive. The fact it is unspecified means it could refer to either the women or the child or both. The language then is ambigious hence we need to look elsewhere for clarity as to who and here the cultural context suggests its the mother. First, In every other law from the period where this distinction is drawn it is between harm to mother causes by an induced miscarriage and no harm caused to the mother. Second, as stated above the phraseoloy used in the previous sentence is the phraseology used in legal texts to designate miscarriage and third, it is extremely unlikely if possible at all that any legislator would envisage a live birth, this is not modern neo-natal wards, in that culture if a child is born as the result of such a blow they die. To suggest that the legislator decided to depart from the normal practise, did so using the same language used to describe the normal, in order to accommodate a contigency which would never occur seems to me far fetched. Its far more plausible to suggest they were simply following the paradigm. <br /><br /><I>So what of the comparable aNE laws which do in fact refer to miscarriage? Do they in fact alter this interpretation? No: there is a significant difference between those laws and this law.</I>Ok here there is a misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is not that the ANE laws refer to a miscarriage so the torah must. My argument is that the ANE laws used the same phraseology as the torah to refer to a miscarriage. That is significant, to determine what a phrase means one needs to do more than simply transliterate it, one needs to look at how the phrase in that culture in similar contexts. <br /><br /><I>The aNE laws refer to incidents occuring between a man and a pregnant woman, when the man deliberately strikes the woman. By contrast, the biblical law in Exod 21:22 refers to an incident between two men, in which a pregnant woman is accidentally struck. Whereas intent is assumed in the aNE laws discussed by Russell Fuller, the biblical law is only dealing with negligence. Exod 21:22 has deliberately changed the scenario which governs in the aNE laws. So the aNE reader would be on the lookout for the law to differ in other respects as well.</I>I agree these differences exist, I noted it in the text, this point however reinforces my case, we know this because the author has clearly used language <I>which differs from the standard cases</I>. <br /><br />To return to my “drinking age case” if there was a law in the surrounding culture that put the drinking age at 21 and I come across a new law that states “the drinking age is 18”. Then we would assume that the new law meant that the legal age to drink alcohol was 18. We would not employ the logic you use and argue that because there is a difference in age“ the reader would be on the lookout for other differences as well” and then intepret the phrase “drinking age” to refer to drinking orange juice. We would on the contrary assume that the phrases meant the same thing in the two laws unless the law explictly stated otherwise. <br /><br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <A HREF="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/04/foundations-of-alexandrian-argument_16.html" REL="nofollow">The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part VI</A>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-79840921126999737442009-04-17T08:41:00.001+12:002009-04-17T08:41:00.001+12:00Glenn:"...those who insists that this verse refers...<B>Glenn:</B><I>"...those who insists that this verse refers directly to a premature birth: They attempt to be more specific than the text will allow... While it may be true that in many or most cases such force would cause the child to die, this only means that in most cases it would result in a miscarriage (or death soon after birth), it doesn't mean the text is correctly translated as "miscarriage.""</I><B>Deane:</B>I think you're quite right, Glenn. <br /><br />Furthermore, as verse 22 refers to the scenario in which there is "no harm" and verses 23-25 refer to the scenario in which "harm" does result, miscarriage can only occur in vv. 23-25.Deanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-56971118786274666252009-04-16T19:13:00.001+12:002009-04-16T19:13:00.001+12:00I think the interpretation of Exod 21:22 as a deli...I think the interpretation of Exod 21:22 as a delivery/birth - <I>without any further indication of miscarriage</I> - has rather more going for it than you conclude. <br /><br />The three reasons concerning language are good reasons in themselves. The description in Exod 21:22 of what happens to the pregnant woman as the result of being hit is literally "and her children go out" (<I>weyaṣe'u yeladeha</I>). So, all that is being described is that there is a series of events: men fighting, men striking a pregnant woman, child or children being delivered. There is nothing in the text (leaving other contextual considerations aside for the moment) that indicates this is a dead baby or a live baby being delivered.<br /><br />But one further reason for concluding that the baby is unharmed (which Russell Fuller did not observe in his article) lies in the very next statement in Exod 21:22:<br /><I>welo yeyeh 'ason</I>. The statement is simple and unqualified: "...and there is no harm." The verse does not qualify this as "no harm" <I>to the mother</I> or "no harm to the baby. It is unqualified and absolute: "no harm". The result of the men striking the pregnant woman, in this casuistic law is that there is no harm. Period.<br /><br />So what of the comparable aNE laws which do in fact refer to miscarriage? Do they in fact alter this interpretation? No: there is a significant difference between those laws and this law. The aNE laws refer to incidents occuring between a man and a pregnant woman, <I>when the man deliberately strikes the woman.</I> By contrast, the biblical law in Exod 21:22 refers to an incident between two men, in which a pregnant woman is <I>accidentally struck.</I> Whereas <I>intent</I> is assumed in the aNE laws discussed by Russell Fuller, the biblical law is only dealing with <I>negligence.</I> Exod 21:22 has deliberately changed the scenario which governs in the aNE laws. So the aNE reader would be on the lookout for the law to differ in other respects as well. The distinction in the biblical law between wilful and unintentional acts has just been made in a previous law: Exod 21.12-14. So, there is a very good reason why Exod 21.22 should <I>not</I> be forced to be read as simply a reproduction of those earlier aNE laws. Fuller's argument is, I think, quite weak.<br /><br />So Exod 21:22 sets out a law for a premature birth where no harm has resulted (to mother or baby). Exod 21:23-25 then sets out the law for a premature birth where harm does in fact result (to mother or baby). There is no good ground for reading 'miscarriage' into Exod 21:22.Deanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-897956062273304642009-04-10T14:10:00.001+12:002009-04-10T14:10:00.001+12:00The other issue is one of chronology (aside from t...The other issue is one of chronology (aside from the fact I would not call Job a later example than Genesis :) ).<br /><br />The common dating places Hammurabi prior to Moses, but a good argument can be made for Egyptian chronology being a complete mess, and hence other Near Eastern chronologies that depend so heavily on Egypt. I am working on a post that suggests, following biblical chronological priority, that Hammurabi can be dated to the time of Moses at the earliest, not several centuries beforehand. Thus Moses cannot be dependant on Hammurabi. They could refer to earlier laws and Genesis suggests that aspects of the Mosaic law were known before Sinai.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2009/04/prayer-and-pledge-for-real-change.html">A prayer and a pledge for real change</a>bethyadanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-22092589155616145892009-04-10T14:03:00.001+12:002009-04-10T14:03:00.001+12:00I am not certain which way I go with this verse, b...I am not certain which way I go with this verse, but my previous comment remains, using transliterations helps the discussion. In this case one should just say child comes out. The problem with "miscarriage" is that it implies death, whereas come out does not. Then the discussion is around whether the harm is to the mother or the child. The ESV states<br /><br />When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm<br /><br />I am not certain how much can be made of the plural for child.<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2009/04/prayer-and-pledge-for-real-change.html">A prayer and a pledge for real change</a>bethyadanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-32450056392305596972009-04-09T23:30:00.001+12:002009-04-09T23:30:00.001+12:00My position for years (and still now) has been tha...My position for years (and still now) has been that the RSV commits the same type of error as those who insists that this verse refers directly to a premature birth: They attempt to be more specific than the text will allow.<br /><br />Let me put it this way: If, in ancient Israel, there was a fight and one of the men involved harmed a woman, causing her to go into premature labour and her child did, as a result, come out and also survive, I think - and perhaps you'll agree, Matt, that this law in Exodus could correctly be invoked. Likewise, if the force caused a miscarriage, this law could also be invoked. While it may be true that in many or most cases such force would cause the child to die, this only means that in most cases it would result in a miscarriage (or death soon after birth), it doesn't mean the text is correctly <i>translated</i> as "miscarriage."<br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/dear-john/">Dear John</a>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-34430978050697808942009-04-09T22:52:00.001+12:002009-04-09T22:52:00.001+12:00Hi Mark
While I consider abortion in most circums...Hi Mark<br /><br />While I consider abortion in most circumstances to constitute homicide without justification, this specific series does not defend this claim, it mere rebuts a particular argument made by Beverly Harrison (and numerous others) against the traditional casuistry. <br /><br />As to your argument about the text you make I actually address that point in a latter post. <br /><br /><br />Recent blog post: <a href="http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/04/jp-moreland-on-faith-and-reason.html">JP Moreland on Faith and Reason</a>Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-89831338863822244952009-04-09T12:28:00.001+12:002009-04-09T12:28:00.001+12:00I assume that these essays have been presented to ...I assume that these essays have been presented to provide an argument against abortion, but I don't believe they do.<br /><br />Certainly if a woman, who wants to be pregnant, is struck by another person so that she loses her fetus at whatever stage of development it may be, she has suffered a loss, an injury and is entitled to compensation and the person responsible should be punished.<br /><br />However what if a pregnant woman wanted to lose her fetus and arranged for someone to strike her in such a way that she miscarried. She would in that situation not have suffered a loss or injury so she would not be compensated and the person who carried out the act would not be punished because he complied with her request.<br /><br />The text relates to the injury to the woman, to her person or to the fetus she wanted to keep, it makes no mention to the death or injury to the fetus separately.Mark.V.noreply@blogger.com