Each book of the Bible containing part of Mosaic Law has at least two passages that explicitly, distinctly refer to men and women and then use male nouns or pronouns in translations like the King James Version to refer to both of them as a whole, which I provided the verses for in part one. Two pertain to equivalence in the physical mistreatment of men and women (slaves in the case laws) and how the punishment for mistreating one is the same as that for mistreating the other (Exodus 21:20-21, 21:26-27). Two pertain to the levitical skin disease laws and how men and women alike are to be examined and, if needed, sent outside of the camp (Leviticus 13:29-39, Numbers 5:1-4). One is about how the obligation to make restitution in applicable cases is for offending men and women, with their punishment being identical (Numbers 5:5-7). One is about how men and women can voluntarily make a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:1-21). Two are about how men and women who commit the same class of sin, in these examples either enticing someone to worship other gods or going further and carrying this out, are to be executed as applicable--again receiving the same punishment as with Numbers 5:5-7 (Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 17:2-7). Two others, like Exodus 21:20-21 and 26-27, mention male and female servants and state that Hebrew servants have to be released every seven years, while foreign servants do not (with the exception of those encompassed in Leviticus 19:33-34), since this particular obligation is to one's own countrypeople (Leviticus 25:44-46, Deuteronomy 15:12-17). Lastly, one of them is about how Israelite men and women are to obey Mosaic Law and, if they follow other gods, would be opposed by Yahweh (Deuteronomy 29:18-20).
Without relying on the logically necessary equivalence (independent of the Bible) of men and women committing or being victimized by the same act, the gender equality at the outset of the Bible (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2), or other such things (like, though it never followed from Exodus 22:18 that only a female sorcerer should die, as opposed to also a man doing the same thing, Deuteronomy 18:9-11 expands this to men), the aforementioned verses above already demonstrate that even an older, more conservative translation of the Bible establishes it is speaking of male and female victims or perpetrators of various sins and then uses subsequent masculine language. There are of course ramifications for the many commands like that Leviticus 19:13, which says to pay one's workers the day of their labor and uses male language for them. There is no Biblical injunction against female workers or prescription of male employees--not that it is necessary, but it also says to not add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32). In fact, some of the aforementioned verses like Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, and Deuteronomy 15:12-17 make it plain that it is permissible for both genders to work as servants, including to pay off debts (see also Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15).
Due to cultural stereotypes and the prevalence of complementarian heresy, some people read various portions of the Torah's commands and think that the male nouns and pronouns of verses like Leviticus 19:13 would mean that men must be workers because they are allegedly more suited to it. I have dealt with similar people who both accept or reject the Bible while thinking it teaches things like this. On one hand, if this was what it taught, the Bible would be sexist against women, prescribing for them directly or indirectly either reliance on a man for provision or death, since they would supposedly not be to work outside the home. On the other hand, it would be sexist against men, confining professional labor to men, treating them as if they are just a means to the end of labor, a human pack mule to be worked. Only one example is enough to demonstrate not only that the Bible would have to command such things for men and women alike to be consistent with reason, but that it also does often refer to men and women by words like "man" or "men," meaning person or people, which is for the sake of consistency how someone would have to interpret passages that do not specify that they only address men or women. Women are not exempt from commands that do not literally depend on having male genitalia, which is almost none of them: men are not held to a higher moral standard than women despite being people as they are.
The kind of idiotic literalism holding to the contrary, where the sexist interpretation does not logically follow even from what the text says even as the text itself clarifies otherwise, could distort how someone approaches texts like Exodus 21:12-25. The original text in Hebrew for verses like Exodus 21:12-25, which address murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, attacking or cursing one's parents, physical assault and battery resulting in neither death nor permanent mutilation, and physical harm to a pregnant woman is supposed to be gender neutral with the wording (except for the words father and mother and the victimized pregnant woman of 21:23-25) as reflected in some more recent English translations. Even if unnecessary or default masculine wording is/was part of the original wording in Hebrew, in light of the many examples listed in the first paragraph, without relying on the other reasons mentioned here [1] for why such verses would have to be gender egalitarian, these laws are not saying men (or women) can be permissibly hurt in such ways by women or that men can murder or batter non-pregnant women without deserving the same penalties.
However, if male slaves should not be abused as is so with female slaves and likewise deserve immediate emancipation for such treatment (Exodus 21:26-27), it could only follow that logical consistency would require that free men and women be of equal guilt for committing the same acts against each other or equal victimization by the same acts, just as logical necessity would already dictate is the case independent of whether the Bible is true; the act is the same and men and women can both commit or suffer it. The Bible does not say it is fine to treat male servants more harshly than female servants because their bodies or stereotypical "mental toughness" can take it, or that it takes more mistreatment than it does for women for a man to deserve to go free. The same would by extension be true of other physical assaults in other contexts. Just Exodus 21:26-27 alone would require that a woman who unjustly attacks or injures a man has also committed the same broad class of sin in Exodus 21:23-25, unless the Bible said otherwise, which it does not.
Aside from everything else that is relevant inside and outside the Bible, if Exodus 21:26-27 treats the assault of a male and female servant as of an equal nature, why would this not be the case with 18-19 whether or not masculine or gender neutral language (which the original text is consistent with) is used? If Exodus 21:28-32 emphasizes the equality of neglectfully allowing a previously dangerous animal to kill a free man or woman, a son or daughter, or a male or female servant--a triple emphasis on explicit gender equality in a matter less sinful than intentional murder--along with Exodus 21:20-21 treating murder of a male or female slave by abusive corporal punishment identically, why would this gender equality not be the case with Exodus 21:12-14 even if it seems in some translations to speak of male murderers and male victims? It would not matter even if it did speak specifically of male-male murder in light of Exodus 21:20-21 and 28-32, because gender equality is still literally taught in the latter verses concerning murder or neglect leading to death anyway!
The King James version of the Bible, like many other translations, does not have to always use exclusively gender neutral words to talk about men and women together as a translation like the NIV is more likely to do. There are not just other laws to clarify commands having nothing to do with something being sinful or prescribed because someone is male or female (like with Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:9-11), but also the 10 diverse, aforementioned instances where male and female people are spoken of in relation to some moral issue only to be jointly referenced as if they are men due to the male words. One of these would already establish that this is what the default meaning of passages that summarize a command as entailing an obligation to or for men. Repeated emphasis on this throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy reinforces what would be apparent from Genesis 1:26-27. Obligations having nothing to do with actual anatomy, like circumcision, could only be for both men and women since something that is good (or evil) and can be done by all is good (or evil) for all.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment