Page 1 of 2

Why Plural?

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:44 pm
by davew
Exod 21:22 reads in part "if her children go out" when she gets hit while two men are fighting. The question of whether we're talking about miscarriage, premature birth, or whatever, isn't really at issue for me here. My question is, why is YLDYH plural? One assumes that the vast majority of pregnancies will be singles, so would the law only apply if she's carrying twins or better? (rhetorical question) I'm having trouble finding anything that addresses it. What do you all think?

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:34 pm
by Jemoh66
Hi David

Maybe the idea here is that she can no longer bear children. In that the injury has put a stop to all the children she might have born. I haven't looked at the passage yet. Just shooting from the hip with my iPhone.

Jonathan E. Mohler

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:05 pm
by Isaac Fried
ויצאו ילדיה means, methinks, she lost everything, with the penalty set according to the number of children lost. It is remarkable that the HB does not consider causing the death of an unborn child murder. In fact, one may deduce from this passage that with the permission of her husband a wife may abort her pregnancy with impunity.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:52 pm
by kwrandolph
davew wrote:Exod 21:22 reads in part "if her children go out" when she gets hit while two men are fighting. … My question is, why is YLDYH plural? One assumes that the vast majority of pregnancies will be singles, so would the law only apply if she's carrying twins or better? (rhetorical question) I'm having trouble finding anything that addresses it. What do you all think?
Not only is the noun plural, but the verb is too.

My 2¢ is that this refers not to just the child, but the whole process of giving birth. In the same manner as “deaths” plural is used in Isaiah 53:9 to refer not just to the death, but also the preparation of the body and the burial as well, so could this be a reference to the total act of giving birth, not just the child alone?

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:13 pm
by davew
I get what you're saying, but I just don't see it. This seems like a really strange place for such a plural. One of the joys of living in wherever I am at the moment is lack of resources; what do some of the commentaries say?

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:35 pm
by Jemoh66
This is from the NET Bible notes:

tn This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) “her children come out” reflects a birth and not the loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration. The word אָסוֹן (’ason) is translated “serious damage.” The word was taken in Mekilta to mean “death.” U. Cassuto says the point of the phrase is that neither the woman or the children that are born die (Exodus, 275). But see among the literature on this: M. G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JETS 20 (1977): 193–201; W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22–25,” WTJ 41 (1978): 108–23; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22–25,” VT 27 (1977): 352–60.

Jonathan E. Mohler

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:38 am
by markofcain
Here are 5 possible interpretations found in an article in The Master’s Seminary Journal 11/2 (Fall 2000) 169-190 entitled "THE ABORTION DILEMMA" by Michael A. Grisanti, Associate Professor at the Master's Seminary
Scholars have suggested five interpretive alternatives.
  • In the first place, some scholars conclude that this form of the noun is a plural of abstraction "with the sense ‘the product of her womb,’ an apt term for an inadequately developed baby." Sprinkle adds that the plural of abstraction "is used proleptically in anticipation of, or foreshadowing, the fatal outcome."

    Secondly, the plural could allow for several children and either sex.

    Thirdly, some regard it as a generic plural used with a view to including both contingencies (vv. 22-23).

    Fourthly, it might refer to a woman's capacity for childbearing. If this is the case, the verse is not relevant to the issue of abortion.

    Finally, it could indicate "natural products in an unnatural condition."
I don't have time to weigh in on this currently, but I wanted to add these possible interpretations to the mix.

Does any one have access to Victor Hamilton's Exodus commentary on this verse?

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:05 am
by davew
Thanks for the references. My goal is to avoid the whole abortion question (for now) and just zero in on the syntax etc.

Also, I'm not sure what "natural products in an unnatural condition" means.

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:54 pm
by Kirk Lowery
Dave, a friendly reminder to include your first and last name in your posts. You can put it in your signature (set in the User Control Panel) like I have below, then forget about it. ;-)

Re: Why Plural?

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:36 am
by markofcain
davew wrote:I'm not sure what "natural products in an unnatural condition" means.
The phrase means the "existence of an element/matter/thing outside of its usual and expected location."

When Cain slew Abel his blood cried out. The noun "blood" is plural and one explanation for the plural form is that it is a "natural product in an unnatural condition."

Genesis 4:10
וַיֹּאמֶר מֶה עָשִׂיתָ קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן־הָאֲדָמָה׃

So, in this context of the unborn child, the usual and expected location is the womb. When the child (singular) is not in that expected location, the plural (children) is used.