Exodus 21.12-29 (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=31031421) is a good start to look at here. (A good first step in understanding a scriptural reference is to open up your view a bit and read the context, and not just the one or two lines that someone has quoted to you.) Now the link I've given you is from an online version of the NRSV which is my own preferred translation. It was published less than 20 years ago based on all available biblical archeology, most notably the dead sea scrolls. The Preface (http://bible.oremus.org/nrsvae/reader.html) to the NRSV gives an informative precis on Bible versions.
On to the meat of the matter. I'll note that in the NRSV, the phrase translated in the quote you give as "and she gives birth prematurely" is rendered more succinctly for our purpose as "so that there is a miscarriage." It may also be helpful for us to recall that in the context of 7th to 5th century BCE, premature birth doesn't mean a week in the NICU and careful monitoring by a board-certified neonatologist.
Backing up a bit, let's look at what comes before and after. At verse 12, we see a distinction between premeditated murder, punishable by death and manslaughter, punishible by exile.
Kidnappers, patricides, matricides and the like are dealt with without comment, but then we have an interesting bit about a quarrel that results in a convalescence that the injured party eventually recovers from fully (walks around outside with the help of a staff), in which case the assailant is liable only for his loss of time and cost of care.
Next we have a limit on the ability of the slave-owner to kill their slaves. This passage may be useful in an argument in the present day since it comes immediately before the one we're concerned with. It says that if the slave dies immediately from injuries from a beating from his or her owner, the slave-owner shall be punished, but if they survive a day or two, there is no punishment, "for the slave is the owner's property." Clearly, any present day biblical literalist can be called to task for asserting that this is just.
There are two more paragraphs following the story we're concerned with that may be interesting.
The first indicates an example of eye for an eye justice. It goes back to the beating of slaves and says that if a slave owner destroys the sight of an eye or knocks out a tooth of the slave, then the slave shall be set free as compensation.
The last concerns the liability of the owner of an ox for the death of a person gored by the ox. A first offense should result in the sacrifice of the ox (though it's meat should not be eaten.) If the ox is a repeat offender (and the owner has been warned, but hasn't sacrificed the animal) both animal and owner should be put to death.
Going back to our story. There are a couple elements of the scenario that are important in my understanding. One, the combatants appear to have injured the pregnant woman inadvertently. She was an innocent bystander. Second, there does seem to be the stark distinction you originally read between the consequences to injury to the fetus and the woman. The woman has the benefit of the traditional proportionate punishments of eye for eye, etc. whereas the miscarriage results only in a fine.
However, be careful about how fine a point you put on this. Recall that the first of these stories laid out a difference in punishment between premeditated murder and accidental deaths.
* Disclaimer: I am not a rabbi, nor do I play one on TV. I wear no priestly collar, and have not been ordained by any recognized religious organization, denomination, or group. Biblical exegesis provided represents the thoughts of this author only. Any use by any other party is to be considered entirely independent and unrelated, without permission or the need for such. Use at your own risk.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OK, I'll bite a bit more*
Date: 2006-11-20 02:58 pm (UTC)On to the meat of the matter. I'll note that in the NRSV, the phrase translated in the quote you give as "and she gives birth prematurely" is rendered more succinctly for our purpose as "so that there is a miscarriage." It may also be helpful for us to recall that in the context of 7th to 5th century BCE, premature birth doesn't mean a week in the NICU and careful monitoring by a board-certified neonatologist.
Backing up a bit, let's look at what comes before and after. At verse 12, we see a distinction between premeditated murder, punishable by death and manslaughter, punishible by exile.
Kidnappers, patricides, matricides and the like are dealt with without comment, but then we have an interesting bit about a quarrel that results in a convalescence that the injured party eventually recovers from fully (walks around outside with the help of a staff), in which case the assailant is liable only for his loss of time and cost of care.
Next we have a limit on the ability of the slave-owner to kill their slaves. This passage may be useful in an argument in the present day since it comes immediately before the one we're concerned with. It says that if the slave dies immediately from injuries from a beating from his or her owner, the slave-owner shall be punished, but if they survive a day or two, there is no punishment, "for the slave is the owner's property." Clearly, any present day biblical literalist can be called to task for asserting that this is just.
There are two more paragraphs following the story we're concerned with that may be interesting.
The first indicates an example of eye for an eye justice. It goes back to the beating of slaves and says that if a slave owner destroys the sight of an eye or knocks out a tooth of the slave, then the slave shall be set free as compensation.
The last concerns the liability of the owner of an ox for the death of a person gored by the ox. A first offense should result in the sacrifice of the ox (though it's meat should not be eaten.) If the ox is a repeat offender (and the owner has been warned, but hasn't sacrificed the animal) both animal and owner should be put to death.
Going back to our story. There are a couple elements of the scenario that are important in my understanding. One, the combatants appear to have injured the pregnant woman inadvertently. She was an innocent bystander. Second, there does seem to be the stark distinction you originally read between the consequences to injury to the fetus and the woman. The woman has the benefit of the traditional proportionate punishments of eye for eye, etc. whereas the miscarriage results only in a fine.
However, be careful about how fine a point you put on this. Recall that the first of these stories laid out a difference in punishment between premeditated murder and accidental deaths.
* Disclaimer: I am not a rabbi, nor do I play one on TV. I wear no priestly collar, and have not been ordained by any recognized religious organization, denomination, or group. Biblical exegesis provided represents the thoughts of this author only. Any use by any other party is to be considered entirely independent and unrelated, without permission or the need for such. Use at your own risk.