The NRSV uses the word ‘miscarriage’ in Exodus 21:22. Do you think the translators’ use of the word ‘miscarriage’ was appropriate?
I would like to quote Exodus 21:22-24 from the New Revised Standard Version, followed by two other popular translations.
NRSV: “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a MISCARRIAGE, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determines. If any HARM FOLLOWS, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth , hand for hand, foot for foot.”
NKJV: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she GIVES BIRTH PREMATURELY, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any HARM FOLLOWS, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
KJV: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her FRUIT DEPART FROM HER, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any MISCHIEF FOLLOW, then thou shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
You can see there is a big difference between the NRSV and the other two translations. The word “miscarriage” means “stillborn”; in other words, “the child dies.” This is supported by the following definition of “miscarriage” from a modern dictionary: “the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of an accident.” If one accepts the rendering in the NRSV they would have to conclude, as we have said, that “the baby dies.” The passage would then be teaching us that if the baby dies and the mother is okay (“no further harm follows”), the offender will only have to pay a small fine. But “if any HARM FOLLOWS” (to the mother), he will be punished according to the harm done. If she dies, he dies; if she survives, he will be punished according to the exact injury she has suffered.
I believe the context does NOT support this rendering and interpretation, for the context supports the view that the “harm that follows” refers to the child, and not the mother. The NKJV and the KJV both speak of the mother “giving birth prematurely” as a result of being hurt by the men who were fighting. They go on to present two scenarios; in the first scenario “no harm follows.” The baby is born prematurely but is able to survive without any harm coming to it. The one who struck the mother and caused the premature birth will be still be punished for hurting the mother and causing a premature birth. In the second scenario “harm follows”; in other words the baby does suffer harm. The man who struck the blow to the mother will be punished “according to the crime.” If the baby dies, he will be put to death (life for life). If the baby doesn’t die but suffers some kind of injury, he will suffer accordingly.
Let me end by saying that the NRSV rendering has been used by pro-abortion advocates to support the view that if a baby comes out of the womb stillborn; it’s not a punishable offense. They refuse to look upon the “fetus” as a person and thus they believe the NRSV justifies their view. They are DEAD WRONG, for God sees the baby in the womb as a real PERSON. Psalm 139:13-16 declares, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret…Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.” (284.3) (DO)