Does Deuteronomy 22:27-29 say the rape victim ought marry the rapist?

[] Ⅰa – Context

First, let us look at Deut 22:22 says:

If a man is found lying with a woman, another man’s wife, then the two of them shall die, the man lying with the woman and the woman too. And you shall purge out the evil from Israel.

So the case presented in Deut 22:22 is referring to the act of ADULTERY, hence this is the prohibition of consensual sex between 2 parties, with one or both being married.
Now, the code presents the case Ⅱ in Deut 22:23-24 which states:
²³ If there should be a young woman, a virgin who is betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, ²⁴ then you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones and they shall die — the young woman on the basis that she did not cry for help in the city, and the man on the basis that he humiliated his neighbor’s wife. And you shall purge out the evil from your midst.

In Case Ⅱ this sexual act is assumed to be consensual between both parties with “Lies with her” with nothing else implying consent. This is especially clear, “Although rape could take place in the city, the case in question is not an example of rape, for if the woman had cried out for help, help would have come. Because there was no evidence that the woman had called for help, it could be assumed that she had consented to the advances of the man.” The punishment perscribed for this is also death because it is assumed that it is consensual due to her not crying for help in the city.

1. Now, in Case Ⅲ in Deut 22:25-27 it states:
2. ⁵ But if it is in the countryside that the man finds the betrothed young woman, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die; ²⁶ but you shall not do anything to the young woman; the young woman has not committed a capital crime, for as when a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so it is in this case, ²⁷ for he found her in the countryside; the betrothed young woman cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her. Here, is the first example of the punishment for rape. There are two major differences in this case compared to the other two:
   • Ⅰ) It occurs in the countryside; hence regardless of whether he cries out no help will come.
   • Ⅱ) It is a clear example of rape, in Case Ⅱ it states “Lies with her”, here in Case Ⅲ it says “the man SEIZES her”.
   Hence; Case Ⅲ states that the man is the only one punished for this crime because he violated the woman and is considered a crime against the husband.

1. Now, in the example of Case Ⅳ, Deut 22:28-29 states:
2. If a man finds a young woman, a virgin who is not betrothed, and he takes seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he humiliated her. He may not divorce her all his days. In this Case, there is only one distinction between this case (Ⅳ) and case (Ⅲ) it is that the woman is NOT betrothed. This example is very CLEARLY parralel to Case Ⅲ just with the distinction being between she is not bethrothed and in this case it is not a major crime since the punishment is a mere 50 shekels and is considered a crime against the father; hence why he is obligated to pay the father

1. [] Ⅰb – The Translation
2. First, let us establish that the word תָּפַשׂ (taphas) does take on different meanings depending on the verbal root it occurs in and the context of the passage, however he sneakly tries to say “Tapas can mean to use, take hold of or wield. The word tapas doesn’t imply force.” In Hebrew, words occur in Seven Binayanmin (Visualized in the image)

1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

 1a) (Qal)

      1a1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

      1a2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use 
               skilfully

1. The second meaning “to wield” is used when in reference to inanimate objects or tool. The second meaning is when it is in refernece to a person, hence the use of תָּפַשׂ in Deut 22:28 has to be in reference to “to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch” which all refer to unconsensual acts. Now, considering this we will look at Ⅱ (Interpretation’s in Antiquity)

[] Ⅱ – Interpertations in Antiquity

In Antiquity, Deut 22:28 has always been understood as “Rape” or the “Use of Force”, I will present Rabbinical Sources, and Manuscripts.

First, The LXX which dates back 1000+ years translates תָּפַשׂ to “βιασάμενος” which means “using force”, hence we know that even hundreds and hundreds of years ago it was understood as rape.

Ibn ʾĒzrāʾ a 11th century Jewish Exegete also comments directly saying:

THAT IS NOT BETROTHED. Our verse deals with rape, not with seduction.

Philo Judaeus (d. 45–50 CE) also believes this to be a clear cut of rape

[] Ⅱ – Interpretations in Modern Academia

1. Robert Alter states:
2. “however odd it may seem to modern eyes in permanently binding the rape victim and the rapist, is to decree that the manmarry the woman without possibility of divorce, and that he pay a bride- price to her father. It is not clear whether there was a standard bride-price in Israelite society, but fifty weights of silver sounds generous.”

The JPS Torah Commentary states:

“Where the girl is not a willing participant but a victim of rape.

Susanne Scholz states:

“This fourth case describes the rape of a single young woman and stipulates that her father has to receive financial compensation as a remedy for the rape, a solution that is found also in the Code of Hammurabi §156 and MAL 55. The biblical law orders that the rapist marry the young woman “because he raped [‘innâ, הנע] her” (v. 29).”

…

“Here Deuteronomic law is considerably harsher than ancient Near Eastern law, specifically §156 of the Code of Hammurabi, which allows the raped woman to marry whomever she wants. The biblical law is also more restrictive than MAL 55, which gives the father of the raped woman several options, including one in which his daughter can be married off to the rapist.”

1. Peter C. Craigie states:
2. “28-29 (iv) The rape of a single woman. The man uses force on the woman, who is a virgin and is not betrothed to a man; the two are discovered while the crime is being committed. In this case, the man must pay damages to the father, in the amount of fifty pieces (shekels) of silver, and he must marry the woman. The penalty is less severe than in the case of adultery with a married woman or a betrothed woman, since this crime does not involve a breach in a relationship in the sense that it does with adultery. By insisting that the man marry the woman, the law protected the woman and any child that might be born as a result of the union. The woman was protected further by the law in that the man was prohibited from divorcing her.”