Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Vetus
Testamentum
brill.com/vt

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law: a Cross-Cultural

Perspective

Avi Shveka
Ariel University
avishveka1@gmail.com

Avraham Faust
Bar-Ilan University
avraham.faust@biu.ac.il

Abstract

It is commonly held in recent scholarship that biblical law, like the society in which it
was generated, did not regard premarital sex as a severe offence. The law of the slan-
dered bride (Deut 22:13-22), which determines that a bride that was found non-virgin
on her wedding night shall be killed, has therefore become during the last decades a
riddle for biblical law researchers, who try to explain the girl’s sin in various ways. We
claim that this view ignores the wealth of ethnographic data that shows that harsh
treatment of premarital sex is common, especially in patrilineal and patrilocal soci-
eties (as was ancient Israelite society). Moreover, a reexamination of other biblical
laws regarding sexual conduct in light of the same ethnographic data shows that they
reflect the very same attitudes. The different laws are not contradictory but rather
complementary—all reflecting a typical patriarchal, androcentric, traditional society.

Keywords

biblical law – premarital sex – slandered bride – virginity – Israelite society –

marriage – anthropology

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/15685330-12341397

2 Shveka and Faust

1 Introduction

It is a common opinion in recent scholarship that biblical law is lenient in its

attitude towards premarital sex. According to this common view a premarital
sexual act, by itself, was not considered in ancient Israel, nor viewed by the
biblical legislators, as a severe offence, surely not as a capital one. This view
relies primarily on the laws dealing with seduction or rape of an unbetrothed
girl (Ex 22:15-16; Deut 22:28-29), which both state only that the man who had
sexual intercourse with such girl should pay to her father the normal bride-
wealth and marry the girl.1 The only law that seems incompatible with this
view is the law about the slandered bride (Deut 22:13-22), more precisely the
last part of this law, which determines that a bride who was found not to be a
virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned to death. During the last decades
this law has increasingly become a problem, even a riddle, for most scholars
who deal with biblical sex laws, and who tend to presuppose that premarital
sex, per se, was not an issue for the biblical legislators.
Our aim in this paper is to show that this common view, while embedded
within recent approaches and sensitivities, creates an artificial problem when
none really exists, as it ignores the available information from traditional soci-
eties in many parts of the world, and especially in the Mediterranean and the
Near East. The abundant ethnographic data at our disposal does not only show
that harsh treatment of premarital sex is common, especially in patrilineal and
patrilocal societies (as was Israelite society), but that it fits also with the other
biblical laws regarding sexual conduct, which all reflect a typical patriarchal,
androcentric, traditional society.

2 History of Research

As noted, our claim concerns the current state of research in the field. Until
a generation or two ago, most scholars had not seen any difficulty in the fact
that biblical law demands the death penalty for a girl who did not preserve
her premarital chastity, and did not attempt to explain what sin is the bride
executed for. In 1895, for example, Driver writes “She is to pay the penalty of her

1  Most scholars dealing with these laws translate the Hebrew word ‫ נערה‬as a “girl”. The word
“girl”, however, is demeaning, and some prefer to use “young woman” instead. We decided to
follow most scholars not only because this is the common (although not exact) translation,
but also because it is more in line with the patriarchal discourse in which the Israelite legal
system (like most ancient legal systems) was embedded, as seen in this article.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 3

sin openly”,2 without bothering to clarify what this sin is.3 Eighty years later,
Craigie does give some explanation, but still in a manner that doesn’t hint that
there is something problematic concerning this law.4 The turning point in the
scholarly approach in recent decades resulted from two main factors: increas-
ing awareness of biblical scholars of the later Jewish legal tradition, and the
rise of feminist criticism of the Bible, which questioned the importance of vir-
ginity on a theoretical level.

2.1 Jewish Tradition and Its Influence

The currently dominant view about the biblical attitude to premarital sex has,
in fact, an ancient precedent in the traditional Jewish interpretation of the
Bible, as held by the Rabbis and reflected in Jewish Halakhah at least since
the Tannaitic period (ca. second century CE). According to rabbinic Halakhah
premarital sex is no sin, at least not one prohibited by the Torah. This view de-
pends not so much on the laws about seduction and rape, as on the formalistic
legal approach of the Rabbis. In order for a punishment to take place there
must be an explicit and clear prohibition of the crime in the Torah, and in
the case of premarital sex there seems to be no such explicit prohibition. The
Rabbis, therefore, interpreted the second part of the law of the slandered bride
(hereafter LSB) as a case of a charge of adultery; i.e., as a case in which the hus-
band claims (for some reason, only after the marriage) that his bride had sex
with another man while betrothed to him, and there are witnesses who have
seen the act. He is punished in the way described in the first part of the law
when his witnesses are proved false.5
Obviously, this reading of the law has little to do with the biblical text it-
self. According to the text the husband’s sole claim is that he did not find his
wife virgin at the wedding night; and the legal procedure described, i.e., tak-
ing out the blood-stained sheet and presenting it before the elders, indicates
clearly that this is the only thing that matters—that virginity in marriage is the
only thing that should be proved, or refuted. The law seems then indifferent
to the question whether the woman had sex before or after her betrothal, that
is, whether she had committed adultery or experienced premarital sex. Both
cases are regarded, apparently, as capital sins.

2  Driver 1895:256.
3  Other commentators who did not provide any explanation of the nature of the girl’s sin in-
clude, for example, Bertholet 1899:69-70; Smith 1918:263-265; Von Rad 1964:141-143.
4  Craigie 1976:293.
5  See Sifre Deuteronomy 235-236; Talmud Bavli, Ketubot 44a-46b; Talmud Yerushalmi,
Ketubot 4, 4.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

4 Shveka and Faust

The Rabbis coped with the apparent irrelevance of this legal procedure
to the charge of adultery by the traditional rabbinic methods of Midrash.
According to one dominant opinion, for example, the spreading of the gar-
ment is a metaphor; the judges should investigate the matter until the truth be-
comes clear like an unfolded garment.6 Clearly, this is not a legitimate path for
modern scholars. For some of them, however, the fact that rabbinic Halakhah
did not interpret this law according to its simple meaning served as an indica-
tion that this law is unrealistic and could have not been followed in real life.
The first major challenge to the straightforward understanding of LSB was
posed in 1977 by Alexander Rofé, who presented a whole arsenal of arguments
against the plausibility of death penalty for premarital sex within biblical leg-
islation. He claimed that the two parts of this law are incompatible with each
other; that the law is incompatible with other biblical sex laws; and that it
stands in contrast to the entire body of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) legislation.
The rejection of the literal meaning of this law by the Rabbis was taken by Rofé
to indicate that they, too, acknowledged its incompatibility with the biblical
legal system.
Rofé was not the first scholar to argue that the two parts of the law do not
integrate,7 but he established this claim on a broader argumentative basis. Not
only do the two parts, allegedly, differ in style, there is a legal inconsistency
between them. The punishments to which the husband is exposed when his
claim is proved false seem more appropriate for a civil charge. If the husband’s
charge is one that can lead to the girl’s death, one would expect the punish-
ment to reflect the severity of this outcome, i.e., that the slandering husband
will be put to death, in accordance with the principle of lex talionis and with
the law of false witnesses (Deut 19:16-21).
More importantly, Rofé has claimed that a rule by which a non-virgin bride
should be executed is incompatible with other biblical sex laws—those dealing
with seduction or rape of a single girl (Ex 22:15-16; Deut 22:28-29). According to
both laws, the girl is not punished at all for the act, while the sentence of the
male partner—to pay to her father and marry her—seems to fit a civil matter
rather than a criminal one. What then if the act was not discovered and the girl
remained silent because of the shame? Will she be executed for the very same
act, if discovered after marriage? Rofé himself posed this question as rhetori-
cal, assuming, apparently, that a positive answer is unacceptable. As we will
see below, while most scholars do not share this assumption, the attempt to

6  Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Nezikin 13; Sifre Deuteronomy 237.

7  Already Phillips 1973:148.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 5

explain how a positive answer is possible has become the main focus of atten-
tion in the research of biblical sex laws ever since.8
Rofé arguments against the plausibility of such a death punishment in
Israelite society serve him to considerably undermine the significance of the
law of verses 20-21. In his opinion, this passage is a late, secondary addition to
the main law, which “reads more like a moralistic amplification than a piece
of legislation” and expresses “the stringency of a writer who was more preach-
er than jurist”.9 According to Rofé, then, this passage is not a real part of the
biblical legislation, and does not reflect the legal norms exercised by Israelite
society.
During the last decades, scholarly attitude to LSB has changed consider-
ably. Commentaries on Deuteronomy usually show awareness of the questions
raised by Rofé, especially the apparent inconsistency between vv. 20-21 and
other sex laws. While this question has received a prominent place in scholarly
discussion, Rofé’s solution gained little support. In his influential commentary
on Deuteronomy, Tigay suggests to solve this dilemma by assuming that this
ruling was not meant in fact to be actually practiced, and was written more for
what may be termed educational purposes.10
This view depends on another apparent difficulty in LSB, mentioned by
many scholars. The legal procedure described, of spreading out the sheet of
the wedding bed, does not seem to actually prove anything. It cannot truly
prove the girl’s innocence, because the blood can easily be falsified by her par-
ents; nor does it prove her guilt, because the hymen can break in ways other
than sexual intercourse. According to Tigay, “One might, then, theorize that
verses 20-21 of the present law are not intended for enforcement but are sim-
ply a rhetorical means of condemning premarital intercourse and of deterring
girls from engaging in it. By implying that nonvirgin brides can be executed,
it would provide ammunition for parents to use in warning their daughters
against unchastity …”11
Tigay’s position, like Rofé’s, was influenced by the Jewish tradition. In his
opinion, the rabbinic view of this law (like that of the law of the rebellious son)
is, in fact, a quite accurate reflection of the way it functioned in the biblical

8  Rofé’s claims about the attitude to premarital sex in ANE legislation, too, rest entirely on
the same argument—namely, that the relatively lenient rulings in cases of seduction or
rape of a virgin do not allow the assumption that premarital sex was considered a capital
offence. We will examine this argument later.
9  Rofé 1987:142.
10  Tigay 1996:476.
11  Tigay 1996:477. This position was adopted by some later commentators of Deuteronomy,
e.g., Christensen 2002.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

6 Shveka and Faust

period itself. As he puts it, “If this hypothesis is correct, in practice matters may
have been handled more or less as the halakhah prescribes, in agreement with
the other pertinent laws about sexual offences and judicial procedure: only
fornication during engagement would have led to execution, and then only on
the testimony of two witnesses.”12

2.2 Feminist Criticism

The currently dominant scholarly view about premarital sex in biblical law
was also influenced by feminist critical reading of the Bible. Probably as part
of the broader attempt to undermine and criticize the cultural importance of
virginity as a tool of male domination,13 feminist biblical scholars have chal-
lenged the importance of virginity as an essential cultural concept in the bibli-
cal world.
A preliminary step in the development of this approach was already made
in 1972 by Wenham, who argued that the meaning of the Hebrew word ‫בתולה‬
is not “virgin”, as was universally accepted, but “a girl of a marriageable age”. No
word in biblical Hebrew, then, indicates a woman who has never experienced a
sexual act. Retrospectively, this suggestion provided an essential foundation for
several feminist studies, who claimed (years later) that virginity was not much
of an issue in Israelite society. So, for example, writes Tikva Frymer-Kensky:

Western culture after the Bible has put so much emphasis on virginity
and has attributed such importance to the biological condition of vir-
ginity (the ‘intact virgin’ with the unruptured hymen) that we take such
emphasis for granted and rarely ask ‘why’? Why should society place such
great stock, or indeed care that its young women be virgins at marriage?
Adultery can wreak havoc in society, but premarital chastity?14

It is no surprise, then, that at the beginning of this paper Frymer-Kensky

states, “as is now generally well known, the term normally translated ‘virgin’,
betûlâ, means a girl of marriageable age.”15 In a similar vein, Adele Berlin writes
(regarding this same law), “the commonly accepted meaning of bĕtûlâ is ‘a
young girl of marriageable age’. Her physical status of virgin or nonvirgin is

12  Ibid.
13  E.g., Valenti 2009. See also Schlegel 1991, which opens “One way to assess a woman’s au-
tonomy is to ask whether she controls her own sexuality. Thus, the prohibition on pre-
marital sex for females is often considered a measure of men’s control over women’s lives.”
(Schlegel 1991:719).
14  Frymer-Kensky 1998:81.
15  Idem., p. 79.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 7

not specified”.16 In reality, however, this understanding of the word ‫ בתולה‬is

far from being commonly accepted. True, lately it found its way into Biblical
Hebrew lexicography (DCH). But many scholars explicitly reject it,17 and many
more simply ignore it.18 In a forthcoming paper, one of the present authors
examines the semantic question in detail, and shows that Wenham’s approach
to the matter suffers from serious methodological flaws, and his arguments
do not meet basic linguistic criteria. The relative popularity of this suggestion
seems, then, to result from the fact that it matched the view that virginity was
not an important concept in the biblical period.
The text of LSB does not contain the word ‫בתולה‬, but the abstract noun
derived from it, ‫בתולים‬. According to Wenham, this word does not mean “vir-
ginity”, as traditionally understood, but rather “adolescence” or “tokens of ado-
lescence”. In the specific context of LSB this word refers, in his opinion, to the
blood stain of menstruation, which indicates that a girl has reached the age
when she is capable of getting pregnant. Wenham takes great pains to explain
how can the law, on its two parts, make sense according to this suggestion, but
his interpretation to this law is rejected even by most scholars who accept his
opinion about the word ‫בתולה‬.19
How does Frymer-Kensky cope, then, with the law of 22:20-21? In her view,
“there is good reason to suspect that this law was not expected to be followed”.
Rather, she suggests, this law “lays down a theoretical principle”.20 This view is
based on the claim that the legal procedure described in the first part of the
law is practically useless, because the parents can always falsify a blood stain
if they want to. Therefore, claims Frymer-Kensky, “the girl will die only if the
parents are so enraged that they will show the elders clean sheets”.21 The issue,
then, is not about sex, but about the girl’s relationship with her parents, espe-
cially her father. The conflict the girl has with her parents, while in this par-
ticular case relates to sex, is not different, in essence, from the conflicts a son
may have with them. Indeed, Frymer-Kensky compares this law with the law
of the rebellious son (Deut 21:18-21), concluding that “by offending against the
hierarchical obligations children owe parents, the son and the daughter have
endangered the hierarchical family system upon which society rests.”

16  Berlin 2009:103.

17  In the context of LSB, see, e.g., Rofé 1987:136 (n. 11); Pressler 1993:25-28; Anderson 2004: 43;
Edenburg 2009:46 (n. 8); Reeder 2012:48 (n. 112).
18  E.g., Craigie 1976; Tigay 1996; Otto 1998; Wells 2005; Fleishman 2008; Malul 2009; Koller
2010.
19  Exceptions are Phillips 1981:7; Burnside 2003:138-147.
20  Frymer-Kensky 1989:93.
21  Idem., p. 95.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

8 Shveka and Faust

According to Frymer-Kensky, then, LSB functions on two levels, one straight-

forward and one hidden. On its surface, the concern of the law is in establish-
ing sexual norms; but as the sentence depends on ridiculous legal procedure,
this straightforward reading was actually never meant to be taken seriously.
This approach is close to that of Tigay and others surveyed above.

2.3 Recent Debate

An intensive tide of interest in LSB (Deut 22:20-21) took place between 2005-
2010, and several articles attempted to solve the riddle that the law had become.
Interestingly, all these studies shared some presuppositions that differentiated
them from previous research. On the one hand, they all shared the view that
was already becoming mainstream, that premarital sex per se was not a cause
for concern in Israelite society and could not have been much of an issue for
the biblical authors. On the other hand, however, they were not satisfied with
the way scholars dismissed the law of Deut 22:20-21 as unrepresentative, or as
only deterrent and declarative. Rather, these studies sought to understand it as
a consistent part of the biblical sex legislation, by explaining that the crime for
which the girl is executed is something different, more severe, than the mere
engagement in premarital sexual activity.
The pioneer of this trend was Bruce Wells, who suggested that the sexual act
in which the girl was involved, although occurring before she was married or
betrothed, is nevertheless “a violation of the husband’s rights […] that is simi-
lar to the violation of adultery.”22 That is because the girl not only experienced
premarital sex but also deceived her husband by pretending to be a virgin. In
Wells’ view, this combination of what he defines as “pre-consummation sex
plus deception” is an offence akin to adultery.23 The essential weakness of this
approach was noted by Fleishman: “Wells, however, does not provide other
instances in biblical law where two transgressions not punishable by death are
merged under certain circumstances into one more severe crime punishable
by death.”24
According to Wells, then, the sin of the girl is against her husband. Two addi-
tional papers, dedicated to this very same question, were published soon after
by Josef Fleishman (2008) and Adele Berlin (2009). Both took a somewhat op-
posite direction, claiming that the girl sinned against her father. Fleishman,

22  Wells 2005:47.

23  A somewhat similar opinion was presented by Nelson, who suggested that the sin of the
girl is not merely the act of intercourse she had, but rather “marriage under a false pre-
tense of virginity” (Nelson 2002:271).
24  Fleishman 2008:194.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 9

who takes a legalistic approach, explains the sin to be in fact the crime of
cursing a father and a mother, explicitly stated in Exodus (21:17). In his view,
“one may interpret the girl’s sin as severe damage to the parents’ honor. Such
behavior is a criminal offence whose punishment is death set by the law in
Exod xxi 17.”25 Fleishman then compares LSB with the law of the rebellious
son. In his opinion this comparison “strengthens the theory that the girl is sen-
tenced to death for denial of her parents’ authority”.26
Why is the girl’s unchaste behavior a “severe damage to the parents’ honor”?
In trying to answer this question, Fleishman presents a position that appears
to us as somewhat self-contradicting. In his opinion, “parental strictness was
deemed crucial in educating the daughter to refrain from engaging in sexual
relations before marriage. Parents were obliged to provide appropriate train-
ing in adhering to the moral code.”27 This may well be true; but, if that was
indeed the moral code, why couldn’t those norms be reflected in legislation
as well? Fleishman goes on, explaining that this code “enhanced the status of
the family and its economic power, and gave the husband sense of security
that any child who emerged from the woman’s womb was his”.28 Again, these
arguments may be valid, but in that case, they seem to be good enough reasons
why premarital sex should be regarded as a crime in the first place, and there
is no need for explanations such as that the sin for which the girl is stoned is
“cursing her father”.
How does Fleishman cope with the fact that the girl’s sin is defined in the
text itself by the verb ‫לזנות‬, usually translated “playing the harlot”? Here the
comparison with the law of the rebellious son comes to his aid. The rebellious
son is called ‫( בן סורר‬Deut 21:18), and, Fleishman argues, “the meanings of the
verbs ‫ סרר‬and ‫ זנה‬in various contexts are synonymous”.29 It is not basically
about sex, then; like the rebellious son, the unchaste girl is executed for deny-
ing the authority of her parents.
The view that the law of the unchaste bride and the law of the rebellious
son are essentially two variations on one idea is also the basis for Adele Berlin’s
interpretation. As she concludes:

“Sleeping around” by a daughter is the equivalent of “gluttony and drunk-

enness” by a son. These cases imply repeated and extreme forms of these

25  Idem., p. 199.

26  Ibid.
27  Idem., p. 196.
28  Ibid.
29  Idem., p. 201.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

10 Shveka and Faust

behaviors by rebellious children who are heedless of their parents. In

other words, these children are juvenile delinquents. The boys get drunk,
join gangs, and engage in petty crime and sexual exploits (exactly what
Proverbs warns against); the girls sleep around and get pregnant.30

Though Berlin does not put this law into the framework of a formalistic legal
act such as “cursing the parents”, she, too, sees its rationale as belonging to the
realm of parents-children relationship rather than to that of sex. The more cru-
cial difference between her view and Fleishman’s is that Berlin does not see the
focus of the problem in the parents’ honor and reputation, nor does she think
that the problem arises only when the girl is found not to be a virgin when
married. In her view, the problem is precisely the girl’s delinquent behavior
while still in her father’ home, and this behavior cannot be limited to a single
sexual act. In her words, “The loss of virginity per se is not the issue. The issue
is promiscuous premarital sex; the woman is being called a slut.”31
The view that the girl is stoned because of promiscuous sex has, however,
no basis in the text. The husband’s claim and the following legal procedure
are aimed to decide just one thing—whether the girl was at marriage a virgin
or not. The fact that the girl was not virgin, if established, says nothing about
the number of sex encounters or partners she had, and surely not about other
patterns of behavior. The only ones who can testify that the girl was “sleeping
around” are her parents—but it is most unlikely that they would do so, admit-
ting by that they deliberately cheated the husband into marrying a girl who
was supposed to be a virgin but was not.
Meir Malul also believes that the issue is between the bride and her hus-
band, but unlike Wells and others who followed this path, he believes that the
crime is not adultery. Rather, Malul suggests that it is the attempt of a woman
who was “defiled” before marriage to obtain for herself a higher social status
than she actually deserves, that is, the status of a married woman, rather than
remaining “a deserted, and practically socially-dead, woman”,32 as ancient
Israel’s social norms require her to do. Malul relies in this interpretation on
the term ‫נבלה‬, which, he claims, defines “undermining of the foundations of
civilized society and striking at its fibers”.33 However, this interpretation, too,
does not account for the second half of v. 21, ‫לזנות בית אביה‬. These words imply

30  Berlin 2009:112.

31  Ibid., p. 111 (italics in original).
32  Malul 2009:454.
33  Idem., p. 456.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 11

clearly that the ‫ נבלה‬mentioned in this verse refers precisely to the girl’s sexual
activity, which took place while in her father’s house.
The most recent article on this law that we are aware of was published by
Aaron Koller. He supports the view that the girl’s sin was against her father; by
having sexual relations without his knowledge, she had flouted the parental
authority. Following Frymer-Kensky and many others, Koller argues that this
law is analogous to the law of the rebellious son. He argues that the bride’s
crime “was not a sexual crime at all, but the same crime committed by the
incorrigible son: the non-virginal bride is subverting power structures and un-
dermining hierarchies”,34 concluding that “the issue is not sex, but power”—a
statement which echoes a central concept of contemporary feminist thought.
Although the solutions proposed by all these scholars differ considerably,
they all agree about defining the problem. The point of departure for the
discussion is that premarital sex per se was not considered a capital crime in
biblical Israel, and it cannot be assumed that the author of this law regarded
it as such.35
Thus, Fleishman begins his discussion with the question, “What was the
girl’s sin that precipitated such a harsh sentence by the court?”36 adding that
“Neither of the two parts of the law, Deut xxii 13-19 or ibid., 20-21, clarifies for
what transgression the woman is sentenced to death by stoning at the entrance
to her father’s house. This issue is a matter of dispute.” The reason given by the
text itself, ‫לזנות בית אביה‬, is ignored, as if it is obvious that it explains nothing.37
Adele Berlin writes, “most shocking is the death penalty for premarital un-
chastity, seeming to contradict the law of the unbetrothed woman. It appears
to make sense only if the accused bride had already been betrothed at the time
of her sexual act …”38 And Meir Malul summarized the state of research as
follows:

The law of the delinquent daughter in Deut 22:13-21 has been a crux
interpretum for generations, and many interpreters have lent a hand in

34  Koller 2010:287.

35  To be sure, not all scholars, even today, share this view. In studies which discuss this law
in the context of broader issues, the author often treats the ruling of 22:20-21 as if it does
not deserve special explanation. See, e.g., Edenburg 2009; Pressler 1994; Matthews 1998. In
articles devoted to LSB, however, this view rules almost unanimously.
36  Fleishman 2008:192.
37  Later, Fleishman (2008:194) flatly states, “an unattached female who had sexual inter-
course, and likewise an unmarried prostitute, are not punished with the death penalty,
nor perhaps with any other punishment.”
38  Berlin 2009:109.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

12 Shveka and Faust

the attempt to solve the enigma presented by this law. The main difficulty
facing the reader of this law is the exact nature of the crime that was
supposedly committed by the daughter, for which, if proven to be true
(vv. 20-21), she deserved such a harsh punishment of death by stoning.39

We will conclude with Koller, who opens his discussion by presenting “the
most difficult question regarding this law: What did this bride do to deserve
the death penalty?”, adding that “even if it could be known that it was sexual
activity which resulted in the torn hymen, if the sexual act was either coerced
or prior to betrothal, there is no crime to speak of.”40

3 Virginity in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Is it, indeed, so obvious that premarital sex is “no crime to speak of”?
In our view, the current scholarly discourse ignores a large array of evidence
that is extremely pertinent to the discussion, i.e., the ethnographic evidence.
The use of ethnographic analogies (drawn mainly from the present, or the re-
cent, recorded past) does not involve an arbitrary selection of examples that
fit a certain case and are then used to “illustrate” it, but rather a systematic
examination of the ethnographic record in order to see, first of all, what is the
range of known human behaviors and attitudes.41 Ethnography can therefore
show us what are the various possible views and attitudes toward pre-marital
sex; moreover, it might allow us to find common denominators between the
various case-studies, and sometime even to decide which type of behavior (or
attitude) from within the wider range of known behaviors (and attitudes) is
more likely in a certain context.42

39  Malul 2009:447.

40  Koller 2010:280.
41  See McHugh 1999:17-18; Hodder and Hutson 2003:194; Orser and Fagan 1995:49-51; Faust
2007:7; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; also Humphreys 1981; Ucko 1969; Bloch 1981. As Morris
(2000:251) noted “(C)omparative reading does not prove anything … but it suggests some-
thing of the range of psychological, sociological, and cultural factors we need to keep in
mind”.
42  As McHugh (1999:17) noted, “(E)thnographic evidence simply represents a mean of
broadening this knowledge, with the particular advantage of coming from societies that
may be closer in structure to these seen archaeologically”. Scrutinizing the ethnographic
data can therefore reveal not only which types of behaviors and attitudes are statistically
more common worldwide, but also which are expected in specific contexts, i.e., in a cer-
tain region or type of societies (see also Hodder and Hutson 2003:194; Orser and Fagan
1995:49-51). We will exemplify this below.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 13

The claim that virginity cannot be an important issue, or that premarital

sex cannot be significant, is at odds with vast anthropological and historical
evidence which indicate that in many societies throughout the world virginity
is of utmost importance, and that premarital sex can lead to serious conse-
quences, and even death. Not only is this a world-wide phenomenon, espe-
cially among patrilineal and patrilocal societies (like ancient Israel), but in the
Mediterranean and Middle Eastern worlds this is the norm, and losing virginity
was severely punished (below).43
Sherry Ortner opens her classic study, “The Virgin and the State”, with this
statement:

In an extraordinarily wide range of societies in the world one finds a

peculiar “complex”: ideologically it is held that the purity of the women
reflects on the honor and status of their families; and the ideology is en-
forced by systematic and often quite severe control of women’s social and
especially sexual behavior. One sees that pattern manifested among peas-
ant societies in Latin American and around the entire Mediterranean
area, among pastoral nomadic tribes of the Middle East and southwest
Asia, among the castes of India, and among the elites of China.44

Many societies world-wide, then, give much value to virginity,45 and according
to Broude, negative views toward premarital sex, which could lead to extra-
marital pregnancies, is by far more common in patrilineal and patrilocal soci-
eties, because in such societies an illegal child is simply faceless and is lacking
social identity.46
We stress that specifically in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean—
the most relevant geographical\cultural context of the present discussion—
virginity is highly prized,47 and premarital sex is viewed very negatively, and
is harshly punished with scorn, shame, and even death—the so-called “honor
killing” (which in traditional societies are often viewed as justified and their
perpetuators are sometimes not punished!)48

43  This is, of course, not a universal feature, and Broude and Green (1976:415) found out that
for 24% of the 200 societies they studied “virginity has no value”.
44  Ortner 1978:19.
45  E.g., Ortner 1978; Broude and Greene 1976; Broude 2003:3-4.
46  See Broude 2003:3-8.
47  E.g., Ortner 1978:19; Schneider 1971:1, 2, 21; Kulczycki and Windle 2011:1443; Baron 2006:1;
Abu-Odeh 2010, and more below.
48  E.g., Sadik 2000:27, 29; see also Abu-Odeh 2010:921; Baron 2006:4, and many others.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

14 Shveka and Faust

Indeed, the importance of virginity in this region is so well-known that it

is surprising that it needs to be demonstrated. Kressel et al. (1981) studied the
topic from anthropological perspectives, and bring a wealth of examples not
only as to its significance among the discussed societies, but also of the severity
of its breach. Gültekin claims that “(E)xplicit sexual contact, traditionally, has
been forbidden for females until marriage, as are most other relationships and
interactions with males”, adding that “A woman’s virginity is considered her
and her family’s most important asset”,49 and that “… an ‘honorable woman’
is one who has protected her virginity until her marriage”.50 The importance
of virginity in these societies is stressed by many others.51 Not only is virgin-
ity important, however, but premarital sex might lead to the murder of those
involved, and especially the woman. Such “honor killings” are common in the
Middle East,52 and “occur throughout the region among diverse ethnic popula-
tions and are not restricted to Muslims”.53
Notably, “honor killings” result not only from extramarital sex, but also from
premarital sex. Kressel et al., for example, note that “Many non-virgin brides
are killed following the weddings, once it was discovered that they were not
virgin.”54 Moreover, in her legal study of “honor killings and the construction
of gender in Arab societies”, Abu-Odeh claimed that the “killing of a woman by
her father or brother when she is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding
night” is “the paradigmatic model of honor killing”.55 Examples for the killing
of non-virgins or of women involved in premarital sex are abundant. Gültekin
brings quite a few examples in which the woman or girl (some of the women
involved are very young), and sometimes the man, were killed.56
This applies not only to consensual sex. Ouis states that “If a girl becomes
a victim of sexual abuse and perhaps gets pregnant, she can be … killed in the
name of honour. There are many testimonies from the region about this prac-
tice” (more below).57 The importance of virginity can also be seen in the many

49  Gültekin 2011:73.

50  Idem., 74.
51  E.g., Schneider 1971: Glazer and Abu Ras 1994; Baron 2006; Ouis 2009; Sakalh-Uğurlu and
Glick 2010; Abu-Odeh 2010.
52  Baron 2006:1, 11; see also Abu-Odeh 2010; Kulczycki and Windle 2011; Gültekin 2011:70;
Broude 2003:4-5.
53  Baron 2006:1, see also Gültekin 2011:70.
54  Kressel et al., 1981:151, note 10.
55  Abu-Odeh 2010:916 (emphasis added), also pp. 917, 921; Baron 2006: 1.
56  Gültekin 2011:80-82, and also general statement on p. 75. See also Kulczycki and Windle
2011; Gültekin 2011, and many others.
57  Ouis 2009:467. For cases in which premarital sex and lost virginity lead to “honor killing”,
see also Glazer and Abu Ras 1994; Cook and Dickens 2009; Kulczycki and Windle 2011.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 15

attempts to surgically restore virginity (hymen restoration).58 Notably, “honor

killing” is still an important issue even today; a recent UN report suggests,
“As many as 5,000 women and girls are killed annually in so-called ‘honour’
killings”.59
Before proceedings, we note that the “logic” behind this practice can be di-
vided into two, probably related, aspects.
The first is the family’s honor. This is not the place for a lengthy discussion
into this topic, which was the focus of many studies, but when a female mem-
ber of the family is involved in “illegal” sex, whether premarital or extramarital,
this shames the family, and hurts its honor.60 The shame brought on the family
must be amended, and killing the perpetuator, who brought the shame, is one
such solution. This is the reason why females are so guarded in these societ-
ies, covered with cloths, shielded in the domestic sphere, and are married at a
young age—all to prevent them from shaming the family.
The second aspect is economic. A woman who is not a virgin, in a society
that places a very high value on virginity and where bridewealth is important,
is not marriageable. As terrible as it sounds, she is viewed as a damaged goods.
Thus, in addition to the shame she brought on her family, her bridewealth is
lost. Baron noted that “In case of illegal defloration, Peters found that women
sued men for compensation equal to their bridewealth, often negotiating the
sum in court”.61 She showed that “Court records in Ottoman Egypt from the
seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries reviewed by Amira Sonbol frame rape
as a case of property rights in which the female victims or their guardians sued
under Islamic law for payment of compensation and punishment”62 (more
below). To some extent, this is a monetary transaction. The one who took the
virginity of the woman has to pay for the monetary loss involved.

58  Van Moorst et al. 2012; Gültekin 2011:75; Cook and Dickens 2009; Bekker et al. 1996.
59  Sadik 2000:5. A recent “real life” example was recently reported by Sana Ejas, in the
News Eye media outlet of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (21 October 2016). The article
reports a phenomenon in which women use various herbs to “conceal any pre-marital
loss of virginity” in order to save themselves from honor killings, and reported that “a
bride was allegedly killed by her husband on the wedding night for not being a virgin, in
the Jacobabad district of Sindh province” (https://www.thenewseye.com/fears-of-honor
-killing-compel-brides-to-use-virginity-herbs/; retrieved on 18 July 2018).
60  E.g., Kressel et al. 1981; Glazer and Abu Ras 1994; Gültekin 2011; and most of the above-
mentioned studies.
61  Baron 2006:6.
62  Idem., 4. See also Broude 2003:4; Gültekin 2011:80.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

16 Shveka and Faust

It is likely that the two aspects are interrelated, and the stress on honor is
related to certain economic structures,63 but this is irrelevant for the present
discussion.64
Notably, not only is virginity important in many societies world-wide, but
most of the above-mentioned examples were taken from traditional Middle
Eastern societies, which shared many social features with ancient Israel, in-
cluding being patrilocal and patrilineal,65 and operated within a similar en-
vironment. The reality in these societies did not result from the Bible and its
influences, but rather from the social framework.
Not only is there nothing unique or strange in a social pressure to maintain
virginity, but given the above, such attitudes toward virginity and premarital
sex are to be expected.66 It appears, then, that the law regarding the slandered
bride fits nicely into the traditions that prevail in the Mediterranean and the
Near East.
Before continuing our anthropological discussion and showing that the rest
of biblical sex legislation also fits nicely with this tradition, we would like to
briefly discuss the attitude to virginity in ANE legal tradition.

4 Virginity in the Ancient Near Eastern Legal Tradition

The importance of virginity is also reflected—despite contra claims (like that

of Rofé 1987)—in ANE law codes, which are most relevant when discussing the
biblical law. Already in the Sumerian laws of Lipit-Ishtar (twentieth century
BCE) we read, “If a man claims that another man’s virgin daughter has had
sexual relations but it is proven that she has not had sexual relations, he shall
weigh and deliver 10 shekels of silver” (LL33; translation of Roth, 1995).
The Assyrian law (MAL A55) states that if a man rapes a virgin single girl—
and only a virgin—her father shall take the wife of the fornicator and rape her;
if the fornicator has no wife, he should pay the father triple the price of a virgin.
Only in addition to this brutal punishment, the father may, if he so wishes, give
his daughter as wife to the fornicator, and the latter is never allowed to divorce
her (the reasons for this ruling will be discussed below). The law further states

63  E.g., Schneider 1971; Schlegel 1991.

64  Notably, even if the cause for the importance of virginity was to maintain power relations
then there is no reason why losing it will not lead to severe punishment, but the exact
reasons behind the importance of virginity are beyond the scope of this article (see the
above-cited literature).
65  For Israelite society, see, e.g., Reviv 1993; Faust 2012.
66  Compare Hodder and Hutson 2003:194; Orser and Fagan 1995:50.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 17

(A56) that if the act (of premarital sex) took place with consent, the fornica-
tor’s wife shall not be raped, but the father “will do with his daughter whatever
he wishes” (kî ḫadiuni eppaš). As similar formulas appear in other laws in the
same codex which deal with adultery, and which state that the cuckold hus-
band can do with his wife as he wishes, it is clear that the meaning here is
that the father can punish his daughter in whatever way he finds appropriate,
even by death.67 This is, indeed, the common understanding of this sentence
in the scholarly literature.68 This law clearly implies that in the ANE premarital
sexual act was considered a transgression that could lead even to the death of
the girl.69
The Assyrian laws concerning seduction or rape of a virgin unbetrothed girl
are thus much harsher, in fact, than their biblical equivalents (Ex 22:15-16; Deut
22:23-24).70 Nevertheless, these laws too do not prescribe the death penalty to

67  M AL A 14 uses the phrase “kî libbišu eppassi” (he will do with her as he wishes), and both
MAL A 16 and MAL A 23 use “kî libbišu emmid” (he will punish her as he wishes). These
phrases all occur within the context of wife who consensually committed adultery, in
varying circumstances. The standard punishment for adultery in the ANE, as stated ex-
plicitly also in the preceding law (MAL A 13), is death; and it is clear from the context that
the basic dilemma facing the cuckolded husband was whether to execute his wife or let
her live. This dilemma is explicitly presented in the Hammurabi code, when dealing with
the same case (LH 129). The phrase kî ḫadiuni eppaš, appearing in MAL A 56, is identical
in meaning to the phrase kî libbišu eppassi. Both words mean in this context “will”. There
is no justification, then, to interpret the occurrence of this phrase in MAL A 56 differently.
68  For example, Driver and Miles 1935:60; Phillips 1980:242; Ries 1980:397. Lafont (1999:130),
however, believes that the father’s authority to punish his daughter certainly did not in-
clude the option to kill her, since, she claims, the Assyrian woman was not subject to the
absolute control of her husband or her father. Even if this claim is true in general, how-
ever, Assyrian law clearly gives the husband authority to decide the death sentence for his
wife in cases of sexual transgressions, and there is no reason to think that the father did
not exercise a similar authority. Rofé’s attempt to interpret this clause as referring to the
father’s right to marry his daughter to whomever he wants (Rofé 1987:140) does not fit the
wording of the law, and is clearly apologetic.
69  The lack of a similar law in the Hammurabi Code is probably due to the special nature of
this specific transgression and to the different character of the two legal codes. Unlike the
Middle Assyrian Law Code, the Hammurabi Code is concerned only with criminal laws
punishable by society; it does not intervene in conflicts within the private sphere, such
as transgressions whose punishment is subject to the decision of the paterfamilias. The
possibility of punishing a woman according to her husband’s decision is mentioned in
the Hammurabi Code only when such punishment implies the punishment of another
man—the adulterer (LH 129). The expression “he shall treat her as he wishes”, quite com-
mon in MAL, does not appear even once in the Hammurabi laws.
70  It is quite surprising, then, that Rofé relies on MAL A55-56 to claim that ANE legislation
reflects lenient attitude to premarital sex (Rofé 1987:139). Admittedly, Rofé relies (note
17) on Finkelstein (1966:357), who dismisses this part of the law “as a piece of typically

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

18 Shveka and Faust

both parties involved in such sexual act, but instead recommend—at least in
the case of a non-consensual act—that they should marry. Can such ruling be
accommodated with the attitude toward virginity in the Near East described
above, and, more specifically, with the biblical LSB?

5 Marriage with Seducer and Rapist Reexamined

Examining the practices in the Near East and the attitude toward premarital
sex show that the various biblical laws fit very nicely together, and there is no
inconsistency between them.
As horrible as it might sound to a modern, Western audience, in many tra-
ditional societies, when an unmarried woman was involved in a sexual act,
willingly or under force (rape), the simplest solution to the family’s honor (and
the financial damage, below) would be to marry her to the man with whom she
had sex, even her rapist.71 Thus, Baron notes that “Girls were often offered the
choice of marrying the rapist; when they did, the complaint was withdrawn”.72
Gültekin quotes a case in which a young, “cognitively disabled” girl was raped,
and “The brothers of the girl offered her in marriage to the man”. The man
refused twice, and the brothers shot him and threw their sister into the river.73
Such examples are abundant, and Ouis notes that in the Middle East and North
Africa “the female victim’s honour is saved if the rapist marries her”, adding
that “If a girl becomes a victim of sexual abuse and perhaps gets pregnant, she
can be forced into a marriage to cover up for the crime by marrying the rapist”.74
Notably, laws that cancel the punishment of a rapist if he marries his victim
were common even in the late 20th century in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin
America, and are still practiced in a few countries even today.75
If marrying the one with whom the woman had sex, or the rapist, is not
possible, marrying her to another man76 might also save the family’s honor,
especially if nobody knows of the affair. Still, Gültekin notes that while “the
possibility of marriage between couples may decrease the likelihood of an
honor killing … the economic power of a family is very important in finding

Assyrian ‘calculated frightfulness’”. It seems to us, however, that these views ignore the
relevant anthropological material.
71  Glazer and Abu Ras 1994:280-281; Gültekin 2011:80.
72  Baron 2006:4.
73  Gültekin 2011:81-82.
74  Ouis 2009:456. See also idem., p. 465; and Leatherman 2007:63.
75  E.g., Boesten 2007; Ilkkaracan 2007; Mor 2015.
76  See Gültekin 2011:81.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 19

a solution for the ‘problem’”.77 What is important is the family’s honor, and if
marriage can hide the shame, the family will opt for marriage. If not, the girl
will be killed.78
The various laws described in the Bible are therefore not “contradictory”,
one showing harsh treatment of premarital sex and the other a more lenient
one. Rather, both are actually two sides of the same approach—one that
sees virginity as of utmost importance. Thus, premarital sex (for an unmar-
ried woman; men were treated differently, but this should not be surprising
in androcentric societies) should lead to death, unless of course, this can be
amended. Marriage can save the family’s honor, and minimize the damage,
and paying the bridewealth minimizes (or even eliminates) the financial dam-
age. There is nothing lenient about it, and the wishes of the girl are of no im-
portance. This is why she is being married to her rapist, if he will only agree.
If, however, the loss of virginity is exposed, as is the case of slandered bride,
the damage is done, the economic loss cannot be amended, and the loss of
honor can only be amended by death: “Only her bleeding in death can erase
the shame brought about by her failure to bleed in sex on her wedding night”.79

Conclusions

In summary, when one acknowledges that premarital sex was indeed viewed
negatively in Israelite society—in accordance with the values of practically all
Middle Eastern and Mediterranean societies, and many patrilineal and patrilo-
cal societies in general, then all the biblical testimonies seem to fit together
very nicely.
The laws regarding seduction and rape of an unbetrothed girl (Ex 22:15-16;
Deut 22:23-24) deal with cases in which the incident is known (there is a trial),
but the damage can still be repaired, since (1) the identity of the “offender” is
known, and (2) the girl has not yet been given or promised to another man.
Thus, marrying the girl to the seducer or rapist saves (or at least minimizes the
damage to) the family’s honor,80 while the paying of the bridewealth elimi-
nates the financial damage. The logic behind these laws is that virginity is so
important that the seducer or rapist must remove the shame he brought on the

77  Ibid. For the importance of power, see also Ilkkaracan 2007:258-259.
78  Ouis 2009:467, and many examples above.
79  Abu-Odeh 2010: 917. See also Baron 2006:1; Cohan 2009:225-226, 230.
80  From a legalistic point of view, since the woman would be the wife of the only man she
has ever had, the marriage can be considered to have retroactively taken place from the
time the couple had their first intercourse.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

20 Shveka and Faust

girl’s family by marrying her, and to pay for the economic damage he caused
the family.
LSB applies the same logic to a very different case. Here, the damage is al-
ready done, and in the most effective way, by inflicting the ultimate shame on
the family’s honor, i.e., when a woman “is discovered not to be a virgin on her
wedding night”.81 There is no way to hide it, or to “turn back time” and maintain
the family’s honor. Therefore, in accordance with the norms in other Middle
Eastern societies, the only way to restore the honor of the family is by killing
the one who shamed it—the woman who did not keep her virginity.82
Thus, an examination of the traditional customs in the Middle East does not
only solve the problem of LSB, but also shows that it is in line with other bibli-
cal laws, and there is no inconsistency between them.

Bibliography

Abud-Odeh, L., “Honor Killings and the Construction of Gender in Arab Societies”,
The American Law of Comparative Law 58 (2010): 911-952.
Anderson, Cheryl B., Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construc-
tion of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deutoronomic Law (JSOTSup 394),
London: Sheffield, 2004.
Baron, Beth, “Women, Honour, and the State: Evidence from Egypt”, Middle Eastern
Studies 42 (2006), pp. 1-20.
Bekker, M. H. J., J. Rademakers, I. Mouthaan, M. De Neef, W. M. Huisman, and
H. Van Zandavoort, “Reconstructing Hymens or Constructing Sexual Inequality?
Service Provision to Islamic Young Women Coping with the Demand to be Virgin”,
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 6 (1996), pp. 329-334.
Berlin, Adele, “Sex and the Single Girl in Deuteronomy 22” in N. Sacher Fox et al. (eds.),
Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of
Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2009, pp. 95-112.

81  Which Abu-Odeh (2010: 916) suggests leads to the “the paradigmatic model of honor kill-
ing” (ibid.).
82  Notably, the author of LSB, too, was not interested in executing “sinning” young women,
and aimed to minimize the occurrence of such cases. Thus, in order to deter husbands
from bringing such accusations in the first place, he devoted the main part of the law
(Deut 22:13-19) to imposing severe sanctions on a man whose complaint was not con-
firmed in court. Nevertheless, once such an accusation was brought forward and sus-
tained in court, the norm concerning premarital sex would be enforced by the death
sentence.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 21

Bertholet, Alfred, Deuteronomium (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament),

Freiburg: Mohr – Siebeck, 1899.
Bloch, Maurice, “Tombs and States” in Humphrey, Sarah C. and King, Helen (eds),
Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death, London:
Academic Press, 1981, pp. 137-147.
Boesten, Jelke, “Marrying your Rapist: Domesticated War Crimes in Peru” in
D. Punkhurst (ed.), Gendered Peace: Women’s Struggle for Post-War Justice and
Reconciliation, London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 205-228.
Broude, Gwen J., “Variations in Sexual Attitudes, Norms and Practices” in C. R. Ember,
M. Ember and P. N. Peregrine (eds.), New Directions in Anthropology, Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003, pp. 3-24.
Broude, Gwen J., and Sarah J. Green, “Cross-Cultural Codes on Twenty Sexual Attitudes
and Practices”, Ethnology 15 (1976), pp. 409-429.
Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Faust, Avraham, “Chronological Separation, Geographical
Segregation or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronol-
ogy”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322 (2001), pp. 1-10.
Burnside, Jonathan P., The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law (JSOT Sup
364), London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Christensen, Duane L., Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002.
Cohan, J. A., Honor Killings and the Cultural Defense, California Western International
Law Journal 40 (2009): 178-252.
Cook, Rebecca J., and Bernard M. Dickens, “Hymen Reconstruction: Ethical and Legal
Issues”, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 107 (2009), pp. 266-269.
Craigie, Peter C., The Book of Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1976.
Driver, G. R. and J. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, Oxford, 1935.
Driver, Samuel R., Deuteronomy, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895.
Edenburg, Cynthia, “Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex
Laws (Deuteronomy 22:13-29)”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009), 43-60.
Faust, Avraham, “Rural Settlements, State Formation, and ‘Bible and Archaeology’”,
Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 4-9 (2007), pp. 22-25.
Faust, Avraham, The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II, Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Finkelstein, J. J., “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws”, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 86 (1966), pp. 355-372.
Fleishman, Joseph, “The Delinquent Daughter and Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy
xxii 20-21”, Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008), pp. 191-210.
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible”, Semeia 45
(1989), pp. 89-102.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

22 Shveka and Faust

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, “Virginity in the Bible”, in V. Matthews et al. (eds.), Gender and
Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 262), London and New
York: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, pp. 79-96.
Glazer, Ilsa M., and Wahiba Abu Ras, “On Aggression, Human Rights, and Hegemonic
Discourse: The Case of a Murder for Family Honor in Israel”, Sex Roles 30 (1994),
pp. 269-288.
Gültekin, M. N., “Tradition, Society and the Concept of Honor: Stories on Implementa-
tion”, Eurasian Journal of Anthropology 2 (2011), pp. 70-84.
Hodder, Ian and Hutson, Scott, Reading the Past, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Humphrey, Sarah C., “Introduction: Comparative Perspectives on Death”, in Humphrey,
Sarah C. and King, Helen (eds), Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and
Archaeology of Death, London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 1-13.
Ilkkaracan, P., “How Adultery Almost Derailed Turkey’s Aspiration to Join the Euro­
pean Union”, in Richard Parker, Rosalind Petchesky and Robert Sember (eds.),
Sexpolitics: Reports from the Front Lines, New York: Sexuality Policy Watch, 2007,
pp. 247-275.
Koller, Aaron, “Sex or Power? The Crime of the Bride in Deuteronomy 22”, Zeitschrift für
altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16)2010), pp. 279-96.
Kressel, Gideon M., Alessandro Bausani, Joseph Ginat, Roger Joseph, A. M. Khazanov,
Simha F. Landau, Emanuel Marx, and Moshe Shoke, “Sororicide/Filiacide: Homicide
for Family Honour [and Comments and Reply]”, Current Anthropology 22 (1981),
pp. 141-158.
Kulczycki, Andrzej, and Sarah Windle, “Honor Killings in the Middle East and North
Africa: A Systematic Review of the Literature”, Violence Against Women 17(11) (2011),
pp. 1442-1464.
Lafont, Sophie, Femmes, droit et justice dans l’antiquité orientale: Contribution à l’étude
du droit pénal au Proche-Orient ancien (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 165), Freiburg,
Switzerland: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
Leatherman, Janie, “Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict: Complex Dynamics of
Re-Victimization”, International Journal of Peace Studies 12 (2007), pp. 53-71.
Malul, Meir, “What is the Nature of the Crime of the Delinquent Daughter in
Deuteronomy 22:13-21? A Rejoinder to J. Fleishman’s Suggestion”, Vetus Testamentum
59 (2009), pp. 446-459.
Matthews, Victor H., “Honor and Shame in Gender-Related Legal Situations in the
Hebrew Bible” in idem et al. (eds)., Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the
Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 262), London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998, pp. 97-112.
Mayes, Andrew D., Deuteronomy (NCB), London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

Premarital Sex in Biblical Law 23

McHugh, F., Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practice
(British Archaeological Reports), Oxford, 1999.
Mor, T., “Feminist Rule of Law Reform and Health Impact of Legal Systems Premised
on Women as Communal Gauges of Honor,” University of Baltimore Law Review 44
(2015): 237-320.
Morris, Ian, Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece,
Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Nelson, R. D., Deuteronomy (OTL), Louisville, Kentucky, 2002.
Orser, Charles E. and Fagan, Brian M., Historical Archaeology, New York: HarperCollins,
1995.
Ortner, S., “The Virgin and the State”, Feminist Studies 4(3) (1978), pp. 19-35.
Otto, Eckart, “False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women
from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy”,
in V. Matthews et al. (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient
Near East (JSOTSup 262), London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998,
pp. 79-96.
Ouis, Pernilla, “Honourable Traditions? Honour Violence, Early Marriage and Sexual
Abuse of Teenage Girls in Lebanon, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and
Yemen”, International Journal of Children’s Rights 17 (2009), pp. 445-474.
Phillips, Anthony, Deuteronomy (Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge, 1973.
Phillips, Anthony, “Another Example of Family Law” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980),
pp. 240-245
Phillips, Anthony, “Another Look at Adultery”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
20 (1981), pp. 3-25.
Pressler, Carolyn, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW
216), Berlin: de Grutyer, 1993.
Pressler, Carolyn, “Sexual Violence and Deuteronomic Law”, in Athalya Brenner-Idan
(ed.), A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Feminist Companion to the
Bible 6), London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, pp. 102-112.
Reeder, Caryn A., The Enemy in the Household: Family Violence in Deuteronomy and
Beyond, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012.
Reviv, Hanoch, The Society in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Hebrew), Jerusalem:
Mosad Bialik, 1993.
Ries, G., “Kapitaldelikte” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archäologie Vo. 5, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1980, pp. 391-399.
Rofé, Alexander, “Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of Covenant”,
Henoch 9 (1987), pp. 131-159. (first published in Hebrew: Beit Mikra 68 [1977], pp. 19-
36; reprinted in: Rofé, A. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, London: T&T Clark,
2002, pp. 169-192.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24

24 Shveka and Faust

Roth, Martha Tobi, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Society of
Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 6), Atlanta, 1995. (2nd Edition
1997).
Sadik, Nafis, The State of World Population 2000, Lives Together, Worlds Apart: Men and
Women in a Time of Change, United Nations Population Fund, 2000. (https://www
.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/swp2000_eng.pdf).
Sakalh‐Uğurlu, Nuray and Peter Glick, “Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward
women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey”, The Journal of Sex Research 40
(2010), pp. 296-302.
Schlegel, Alice, “Status, Property, and the Value on Virginity’, American Ethnologist 18
(1991), pp. 719-734.
Schneider, Jane, “Of Vigilance and Virgins: Honor, Shame and Access to Resources in
Mediterranean Societies”, Ethnology 10 (1971), pp. 1-24.
Smith, George A., The Book of Deuteronomy in the Revised Version, with Introduction and
Notes, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1918.
Tigay, Jeffrey H., Deuteronomy (JPS), Philadelphia, 1996.
Ucko, Peter, “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains”,
World Archaeology 1 (1969). 262-280.
Valenti, Jessica, The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting
Young Women, London, UK: Hachette, 2009.
Van Moorst, Bianca R., Rik H. W. van Lunsen, Dorenda K. E. van Dijken, and
Concetta M. Salvatore, “Backgrounds of Women Applying for Hymen Reconstruc-
tion, the Effects of Counseling on Myth and Misunderstandings about Virginity, and
the Results of Hymen Reconstruction”, The European Journal of Contraception and
Reproductive Health Care 17 (2012), pp. 93-105.
Von Rad, Gerhard, Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium (Das Alte Testament Deutsch
8), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Wells, Bruce, “Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and False Accusation
in Deuteronomy”, Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005), pp. 41-72.
Wenham, Gordon J., “Betûlāh: A Girl of Marriageable Age”, Vetus Testamentum 22
(1972), pp. 326-348.

Vetus Testamentum (2019) 1-24