Answer to J.P. Holding's Wheel of Stupid: Marriage in Numbers 31, Deut. 21

 
Skeptics have long pointed out the sexual immorality implicit and explicit in Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21.  In Numbers 31:18, Moses says the Hebrews may spare from massacre the virgin girls "for yourselves", and in Deut. 21:10-14, the rite for marriage to a female war captive gives no sign of concern for the possibility that the woman might not wish to marry the Hebrew man who just massacred her family.

Holding responds to some of these concerns at Wheel of Stupid Biblical Marriage Series 3 (Numbers 31, Deut. 21)

Unfortunately, many of his videos have commenting disabled, showing us that he intends to offer rebuttal to skeptics in a forum that prevents the reader from conveniently seeing how skeptics respond.

So I respond to that video here.

Numbers 31

    13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.
 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
 15 And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?
 16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
 19 "And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day.
 (Num. 31:13-19 NAU)

  ====================
Here's the backstory:  In Numbers 25, Israelites give in to sexual sin with the Midianites.  There, Moses orders the death of Israelites so involved.  In Numbers 31, God allegedly requires Moses to take "full" vengeance (31:1) on the Midianites.  The Hebrew soldiers make Moses angry as they return from said war with living captives (women and children and some men), and Moses' solution in  31:17-18 is controversial and implies Moses approved of sex within adult-child marriages.

Holding asks why did Israelspare 32,000 virgins in Numbers 31, and parodies the atheist answer as “because they wanted lots of sex”.  Holding then gives the following text:

“Actually since girls were normally married at this time by age 12, that “virgins” here would have been an average age of 5 years old.”

First, Holding cites no sources to substantiate his assertion that girls in the days of Moses were normally married by age 12.  For example, there is absolutely nothing in the Law of Moses that says what age the girl should be married.  Holding here is probably merely drawing upon a generalization by ANE scholars that 12 was the average age of marriage, but given how much the bible-god hates the ways of the pagan nations of the ANE, it is not very biblical to just assume whatever was true for everybody else in the ANE was likely true for Moses too.  If one combines his lack of documentation, with the childish cartoon nature of the video, one gets a pretty clear idea of the mental status of the people Holding is trying to convince, and its certainly not skeptics like myself who have researched these issues. 

Second, many conservative Christian scholars still revere the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary, because what it has to say about the bible remains very scholarly despite its having been written in the 1800’s.  After acknowledging King Ahaz fathered a child at 10-11 years old, they recognize the question this will pop into the mind of the reader, and they go on to cite documentary evidence that prepubescent marriage was normative for middle-eastern families, and this evidence forces Holding, without a rebuttal otherwise, to admit ancient Hebrews were willing to allow marriage at even younger ages than 12:

2 Kings 16:1–4. On the time mentioned, “in the seventeenth year of Pekah Ahaz became king” see at 2 Kings 15:32. The datum “twenty years old” is a striking one, even if we compare with it 2 Kings 18:2. As Ahaz reigned only sixteen years, and at his death his son Hezekiah became king at the age of twenty-five years (2 Kings 18:2), Ahaz must have begotten him in the eleventh year of his age. It is true that in southern lands this is neither impossible nor unknown,33 but in the case of the kings of Judah it would be without analogy. The reading found in the LXX, Syr., and Arab. at 2 Chron. 28:1, and also in certain codd., viz., five and twenty instead of twenty, may therefore be a preferable one. According to this, Hezekiah, like Ahaz, was born in his father’s sixteenth year.
------33 In the East they marry girls of nine or ten years of age to boys of twelve or thirteen (Volney, Reise, ii. p. 360). Among the Indians husbands of ten years of age and wives of eight are mentioned (Thevenot, Reisen, iii. pp. 100 and 165). In Abyssinia boys of twelve and even ten years old marry (Rüppell, Abessynien, ii. p. 59). Among the Jews in Tiberias, mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen are not uncommon (Burckh. Syrien, p. 570); and Lynch saw a wife there, who to all appearance was a mere child about ten years of age, who had been married two years already. In the epist. ad N. Carbonelli, from Hieronymi epist. ad Vitalem, 132, and in an ancient glossa, Bochart has also cited examples of one boy of ten years and another of nine, qui nutricem suam gravidavit, together with several other cases of a similar kind from later writers. Cf. Bocharti Opp. i. (Geogr. sacr.) p. 920, ed. Lugd. 1692.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentaryon the Old Testament. 

(Vol. 3, Page 283-284). 

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Third, and perhaps most important, if the biblical descriptions of pagan perversions is true (i.e., if the pagan "pass-your-children-through-the-fire" was describing pagans literally roasting their children to death, Deut. 18:10), then we have a rational basis to conclude that these people were so corrupted that not only did they approve of all forms of sex (penetrative and non-penetrative) but that they also had little regard for age  (i.e., pedophilia).   What exactly is the moral difference between throwing one's 5 year old girl into a fiery furnace, and allowing her to be used sexually?  The point is that the pagans likely allowed pedophilia, in which case some of the prepubescent girls would have participated in the sexual sin at Peor, or tried, meaning Moses' willingness to generally spare all the prepubescent girls was grounded in something other than his belief that they remained from of his sexual sin.

These considerations prompt questions Holding doesn't go near answering:

Why does Moses think the existing virginity of these girls makes them worthy of sparing?  Did he think their hymens remaining intact after the sexual sin at Peor (ch. 25) constituted proof that they did not sin sexually with the Israelites?  What fool thinks an intact hymen negates the possibility that the girl engaged in sexual relations?  Wasn't Moses a married man who surely knew that sex and thus sexual sin can take place without penetrative vaginal intercourse?  Or is there a distinct possibility that in the Hebrew mind, only vaginal intercourse qualified as "sex"?

Holding, who thinks the Jews scrupulously preserved the oral traditions that are behind the Pentateuch,  also doesn't tell his readers how the Babylonian Talmud (oldest ancient Jewish commentary on the OT) answers the question of how the Hebrews could tell which girls were virgins in this episode.  Holding and Glen Miller avoid the fire by positing that the clothes of virgin girls would have been different, but alas, the Talmud at Yebamoth 60a-b says Moses had them pass before the ceremonial frontplate and their virgin-status or lack thereof was determined by whether they blushed from embarassment, a thing he would hardly have done if their dress was the conclusive deciding factor:

  It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13  for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14  and Phinehas15  surely was with them. And the Rabbis?16  — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen.17  If so,18  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day19  should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,20  but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,14  but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently21  it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit22  for cohabitation.23  It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man;20  Scripture speaks of one who is fit23  for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? — As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him,24  it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.23
Whence did they know?25  — R. Hana26  b. Bizna replied in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: They were made to pass before the frontplate.27  If the face of anyone turned pale28  it was known that she was fit for cohabitation; if it did not turn pale28  it was known that she was unfit for cohabitation.

 The same source continues on, mentioning the Hebrews capturing 400 virgins in Judges 21, and explaining the Hebrews knew they were virgins by making the girls sit on the mouth of a wine-cask, and if a girl's breath smelled like wine, she was judged a non-virgin.  Interestingly, some of the Rabbis felt this earlier barbaric test should have been applied in the case of the Midianite virgins:

Similarly, it is said, And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him;29 whence did they know it?30 R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate!31 — R. Kahana son of R. Nathan replied: It is written, for acceptance,32 for acceptance but not for punishment. If so, the same should have applied at Midian also!33 R. Ashi replied: It is written, ‘unto them’, implying unto them34 for acceptance but not for

punishment; unto idolaters,35 however, even for punishment.36

13.    She is not regarded as a harlot.

14.    Num. XXXI, 18.

15.    Who was a priest.

16.    How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?

17.    Not for matrimony.

18.    That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.

19.    So long as she has 'not known man'.

20.    Num. XXXI, 17.

21.    To reconcile the contradiction.

22.    I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.

23.    Not one who had actually experienced it.

24.    Implying that any grown-up woman is not to be spared, even if she hath not known man.

25.    Which of the Midianite women, referred to in the texts quoted, was, or was not fit for cohabitation.

26.    Cur. [edd.], 'Huna'.

27.    [H] the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead. V, Ex. XXVIII, 36ff.

28.    Lit., '(sickly) green'.

29.    Judges XXI, 12.

30.    Cf. supra n. 1 mutatis mutandis.

31.    As was done in the case of the Midianites (v. supra).

32.    Ex. XXVIII, 38, referring to the front-plate.

33.    Why then was the test there performed before the plate?

34.    Israelites, as were the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead.

35.    As were the Midianites.

36.    By the front-plate.

I think this is the part where Holding stops being so confident that the Jews were able to reliably preserve their oral traditions.

Holding next asserts

 “Therefore, this passage (Numbers 31:18) would have nothing to do with any concepts of marriage – and not surprisingly, it says nothing about marriage either.”

The objections are easy and many:  Several conservative Christian commentators assert the spared girls were intended for marriage or concubinage, that is, Holding is giving the false impression to the naïve viewer that his opinion is standard among conservative scholars.

Update: June 12, 2017:  From the wayback machine, I uncovered an old 2015 post of mine at theologyweb.com that the owner of that site deleted, a thread to which Holding had repeatedly replied.  In that thread, in my first post,  I quoted a conservative inerrantist Christian scholar who said the girls of Numbers 31:18 were spared for purposes that included marriage. 

You will say they were only spared to do housework, but bible-believing commentators have already asserted that this sparing in Numbers 31:18 was for purposes that included marriage:

Women who had known men sexually, whether Midianite or sinful Israelite men, were to be considered unclean, since they were the main instrument of Israel�s demise at Baal Peor. Only the young girls would be allowed to live so that they may be taken as wives or slaves by the Israelite men, according to the principles of holy war (Deut 20:13�14; 21:10�14).

Cole, R. D. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3B: Numbers (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 499).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 The point is that when Holding, in his 2017 video, asserts that the sparing in Numbers 31:18 had nothing to do with marriage, this was two years after he was correctly informed that conservative Protestant inerrantist scholars exist who say the sparing was for purposes involving marriage.  That is, Holding expresses his denial position with great confidence despite his knowledge that other conservative Christian scholars disagree with said denial.  It boils down to simple dishonesty.  If Holding wasn't such a dogmatic jerk, so consistently incapable of distinguishing his beliefs from the voice of God, he would probably have made more clear that his denial of marriage-motive in Numbers 31:18 is an interpretation that other inerrantist scholars disagree with.

------------end of update.

The following are from properly credentialed bible scholars, while Holding has no formal education in the bible beyond a master's in library science:

 Only the young girls would be allowed to live so that they may be taken as wives or slaves by the Israelite men, according to the principles of holy war (Deut 20:13–14; 21:10–14). By this they could be brought under the umbrella of the covenant community of faith.
Cole, R. D. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3B: Numbers (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 499). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

31:17–18. rationale for who is put to death. The criteria used to determine who would be executed were two: (1) all the boys must be killed to prevent them from presenting a military threat in the future, and (2) all nonvirgins must die since they have already been contaminated by sexual contact with a proscribed people. Virgins represent an “unplowed field” and may be adopted through marriage into the Israelite tribes (see Judg 21:11–12). It is also possible that they were enslaved or used as concubines. These young women were presumably innocent of the seduction of the Israelites by Midianite women at Baal-Peor (Num 25).
Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Nu 31:18-24). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The adult males are slain, including the king, princes, and Balaam. The women and children are taken as captives along with much booty. Moses is angry with the military leaders when he sees the Midianite women. They, on Balaam’s advice, had turned Israel away from the Lord. He commands the officers to kill all the boys and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgins and little girls are spared; they will be assimilated into the congregation of Israel by marriage. Thus, in the midst of vengeance, there is compassion.
Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library (Nu 31:1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Only the virgins were spared, because they could marry Israelites and thereby be assimilated into the Israelite community.
Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968]; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

The young virgins were spared for marriage (Deut. 21:10–14) and slavery (Lev. 25:44–46)
Hughes, R. B., Laney, J. C., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (Page 65). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

 Deuteronomy 21:1-14

10 "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,
 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,
 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
 13 "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
 14 "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
 (Deut. 21:10-14 NAU)

Holding then asserts the following about the regulations in Deut. 21:10-14 for marrying female war captives:

 “In reality, Deut. 21:10-14 is a step up on other law codes of the day which allowed women captured in war to be indiscriminately killed, mutilated, and raped.”

 First, it doesn’t matter if that is true; the Hebrews being slightly more civilized than their pagan neighbors is not the issue:  the problem is the arguments that indicate this marriage regulation takes no concern for the woman’s feelings, ever, which means the sexual consummation it authorizes constitutes rape (to say nothing of the fact that the guy she would be having sex with was part of the mob that had just killed her family and kidnapped her [in 2015 Holding at theologyweb.com, in a post that has since been removed from public access, said it was “personal honor” that would convince such a woman to become willing to have sex with the guy who just killed her family, though he offered no historical, biblical or sociological evidence that a sense of honor would ever cause a woman to replace her disgust for her family's killer with feelings of sexual arousal]).

  Theologyweb Does your God approve of Rape?
04-15-2015, 01:25 AM #277
jpholding
03-26-2015, 08:16 PM #134
Quote Originally Posted by B&H View Post
Can you think of any plausible argument that a woman might consent 
willingly and freely to sex with a man who is part of the mob that just killed her family?
 ----------Holding: Yeah, stupid...it's called "personal honor".

 
 Holding learned his honor-culture stuff from Context Group co-founder Richard Rohrbaugh.  See my other blog article quoting Rohrbaugh as saying Holding has obviously perverted the Context Group's work on honor/shame societies, and that Holding gives Christianity a bad name and needs serious psychological help

Second, Holding’s effort to argue that this law did not approve of rape, runs counter to the way at least one Christian bible committee translates it. The American Bible Society produced the "Good News" bible, and that one explicitly puts rape into v. 14:

14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

Such a Christian translation committee would surely not have rendered this verse to clearly connote rape, if as Holding would insist, the evidence against the rape interpretation was obvious and powerful.
There are contextual reasons to support the rape interpretation:  1) like a rapist, the guy who wrote this law shows no concern whatsoever for whether the woman desires to be married, the rite is to begin if the man desires to marry her; 2) the law is allowing for a man who was part of the army who just killed that woman's family, descreated her idols and carried her off as prisoner of war, to marry her, so it is safe to assume the author is allowing the man to become married to, and thus have sex with the very type of woman most unlikely to ever have sexual feelings for the man, thus further implying lack of consent on her part.

There are grammatical reasons to support the rape interpretation:  In v. 14, the standard translation is "you have humbled her", with the Hebrew anah laying behind "humbled".  This anah appears in the following passages where the context clearly indicates "rape": 

 2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (Hebrew: anah). (Gen. 34:2 NAU)

 24 "Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish  (Hebrew: anah) them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man." (Jdg. 19:24 NAU)

 11 When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, "Come, lie with me, my sister."
 12 But she answered him, "No, my brother, do not violate  (Hebrew: anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing!
 13 "As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you."
 14 However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated  (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2 Sam. 13:11-14 NAU)

 7 "They have treated father and mother lightly within you. The alien they have oppressed in your midst; the fatherless and the widow they have wronged in you.
 8 "You have despised My holy things and profaned My sabbaths.
 9 "Slanderous men have been in you for the purpose of shedding blood, and in you they have eaten at the mountain shrines. In your midst they have committed acts of lewdness.
 10 "In you they have uncovered their fathers' nakedness; in you they have humbled  (Hebrew: anah) her who was unclean in her menstrual impurity.
 11 "One has committed abomination with his neighbor's wife and another has lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law. And another in you has humbled his sister, his father's daughter.
 (Ezek. 22:7-11 NAU)

 10 Our skin has become as hot as an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
 11 They ravished  (Hebrew: anah) the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah.
 12 Princes were hung by their hands; Elders were not respected. (Lam. 5:10-12 NAU)

 The standard lexicons say anah can refer to rape:

  Koehler - Baumgartner lexicon:

 —2. to do violence to: a) to rape a woman Gn 342 2S 1312.14.22.32 Ju 1924 205 Lam 511; to abuse Ezk 2210f; bעִנָּה מִשְׁפָּט ( to violate justice, bend, bow Jb 3723; c( to overpower someone Ju 165f. 19 ï nif. 3. כֹּחַ to break Ps 10224, to cram someone’s feet into fetters 10518 (:: W. Thomas JTS 16 (1965 !):444f);

 Holladay lexicon; 

1. oppress, make s.one feel his dependence Gn 1513 & oft.; humiliate Nu 2424, (of God) humble, subdue 1K 1139; ±innâ mišp¹‰ violate justice Jb 3723; humiliate (a woman by forced marriage) Dt 2114; ±innâ nafšô, humble onesf., mortify onesf. (by fasting) Lv 1629; — 2. violate, rape (a woman) Gn 342; — 3. overpower Ju 165f; force s.one into (b®) s.thg Ps 10518.

 Harris says in his Theological Wordbook:

 This verb is applied to the forcing of a woman including a captive woman later rejected (Deut 21:14) or cases of pre-marital relations (Deut 22:29; Gen 34:2). It can be a capital offence (Deut 22:24).

 The rape interpretation of Deut. 21:14 may also be sustained from the larger context of general Hebrew morality, which was barbaric to say the least, in which case we do better to pause before blindly assuming the ancient Hebrews felt the same way about sex as modern white Christian evangelicals. Hebrew patriarchs felt burning to death was appropriate:

 24 Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry." Then Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!" (Gen. 38:24 NAU)

 Moses commands the burning death of a priest’s daughter if she has pre-marital sex:

 9 'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Lev. 21:9 NAU)

 God’s will for Achan, expressed before Achan was executed, was to have him and his children burned to death for stealing that wedge of gold, whether Joshua brought about their death by burning or by stoning is irrelevant to the specific desire of God that the burning be the mode of death.

 15 'It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has committed a disgraceful thing in Israel.'" (Jos. 7:15 NAU)

Holding continues:

 “The strictures humanize the woman and undermine the assumptions which normalized the harsher treatment.  In that sense, it was an effort to reform as well as legislate morality.”

If Holding means that the Hebrew God's approval of rape was an attempt to reform morality, then yes.  Rape is immoral unless it is approved by Mr. Bible-god.