The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.

Now that's some stunning philosophical wrangling right there. "This passage makes me feel squicky because it seems like God is doing something immoral. I will therefore do anything I can to interpret it in a way that makes me feel not squicky. I will explicitly admit to doing this and even pretend that it's intellectually defensible by giving it a fancy name."

Does this hermeneutical principle also apply to the countless genocides the God of the Bible committed or commanded (see: the Flood, the slaughter of the Midianites, etc)? The torture visited upon good people for no reason (see: Job)? The non-proportional punishments given for various crimes (see: Adam and Eve, Lot's wife, the kids mocking Elisha, the vast number of crimes whose Biblical punishment is stoning, etc)?

But hey, we're talking about what is probably meant in the Hebrew original text, I guess. One argument here says that Deut 22:28-29 is merely restating a law given first in Exodus 22:15, which states "But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss." ... probably meant 22:16, which states "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife." What evidence is there for this assertion?

The rule in Exodus says: a man who seduces a virgin must pay her father the bride-price, and if her father refuses to give her up, he must still pay it. The rule in Leviticus says: a man who "takes hold of and lays with" a virgin must pay her father the bride-price and marry her, and may never divorce her. What, aside from interpretation for the explicit purpose of denying that God endorses rape, makes you think these two laws are at all related?

Edit: Oh, and since we're also bringing in the context of surrounding passages: Deut 22:23-24 refers to what happens when a man sleeps with a virgin who is betrothed and in town; Deut 22:25-27 refers to what happens when a man sleeps with a virgin who is betrothed and in the countryside; Deut 22:28-29 refers to what happens when a man sleeps with a virgin who is not betrothed. These are three linked passages whose variables are whether the virgin is betrothed and where the act takes place. Whether the act is forcible or not doesn't seem to factor into it, or there would be six or seven entries here, not three.