1. Relevance of the Bible today: a rational perspective.
Attitudes to marriage and divorce have deep roots in Christian teaching both in Europe and in Africa. To be properly critical, we need to ask searching questions about the relationship between modern attitudes and religious texts. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is a foundation document of Judaism and Christianity. Attitudes to this range from conservative to critical, the former believing the Bible be inspired word of God, the latter denying this. I suggest that we approach the Bible as an historical document, without supernaturalist assumptions.
The Bible has a cultural relevance even if it has no personal authority for an individual. All the good and moral things of life are claimed to be Christian (or Jewish) even if they are just common sense social rules. The Bible also contains material which is contrary to common sense, such as the curse or poison ordeal for a woman's adultery (Numbers 5) so the texts have no extrinsic authority. . The task for education is to examine religious texts such as the Bible to gain some understanding about the time for which they were written. There is no guarantee that any of it will apply to modern day issues.
2. The Bible as history: some issues
There has been optimistic assumptions in conservative theological circles that the Hebrew story as set out in the Old Testament really happened in history. Their theological underpinning is the doctrine of divine inspiration, that is that the Bible is the word of God. That is what I was brought up to believe, but even as a teenager that never made any sense. The creation timescale of big bang to humans within six days is a case in point. Genesis paints the picture of all human peoples as one big family, being refined in the telling to the Hebrew family. There are some contemporary monuments produced by victorious monarchs in Egypt and Mesopotamia and eventually these begin to mention some kings that we know about. We actually cannot have any certainty about whether Joseph, or Moses, or even David were real people whose stories described what they really did. They are stories, folk tales, much like King Alfred and his cakes, Robert the Bruce and his spider, and Robin Hood's merry men. Whether David wrote psalms or Solomon wrote wisdom books must be open questions.
What we do know is that someone created and recited the studies. These people lived in time, had their own interests and theologies, and had reasons for writing. Most were men, and powerful men, and their writings were designed to persuade. That is, the writings were political. I recognize the Bible as history only in this precise sense.
3. Hermeneutics: applying the Bible for today.
I have great hesitation in this aspect. Times now are different from time then. Where texts assume the best in human nature, such as love and social justice, an application is easy to see. However much of the Old Testament has a much more dubious message, even on occasion advocating genocide. Preachers pick out a verse here or there to hang a sermon on, but this is not the same as applying a whole text. New Testament verses are more commonly used for preaching, and are much more appropriate in format. My general assumption as that hermeneutic applications will be very limited.
The Old Testament does not easily translate to marriage today. Polygyny is assumed, the royal family being rather excessive. There are slave marriages, prejudices against intermarriage and harsh judgements on female sexuality and homosexuality. The place and status of women is mixed, but in general demonstrates neglect
4. Divorce in the Bible: some issues.
We see relationships terminated in an unsatisfactory manner, such as Hagar's expulsion, left to die with her child. Divorce is not presented as a great issue, though there are not many examples. The law in Deuteronomy 24 mainly preventing remarriage afterwards. There are a few metaphorical uses in the works of the prophets.
Saturday, 6 May 2017
Marriage, God's Sacred Institution?
May Day 2017. Republican Congressman Randy Weber has just spoken to a Christian conservative rally in America. "Father we've trampled on your holy institution of holy matrimony" referring explicitly to same sex marriage, sometimes called marriage equality. This is by way of a fact check.
Across the world girls barely teenagers are married to someone of their family choice, someone they may previously they have only met briefly and sometimes not at all. The illusion of consent may be promoted, although in reality the girl may feel that the match is a fait accompli, and that saying no will heap trouble on themselves. Or there may be no pretense of consent.
It has been a modern aim to set a minimum age of 16, the effect of which is to disrupt the girl's education and future career prospect. Such marriages give the husband unfettered sexual access resulting in a career of childbearing which prevented social progress. There is a class divide, since wealthy families can encourage their daughters into law of medicine and hire very cheap servants to look after the children. Families who marry their daughters at 16 in many cases take them out of school just before their GCSE exams resulting in early pregnancy and no qualifications. Across the world, this happens in all religions.
It is clear that marriage is a social institution to protect a daughter's sexuality and fertility to serve family needs. The husband may be a cousin to keep matters in family. In large extended families there may be dozens of eligible family members and parents may seek an early understanding even when the daughter is very young. The function of such marriages may be to promote migration to the west.
The tradition of making one's own choice of a spouse is in historic terms a recent phenomenon. In the west we take it for granted when from a global perspective we shouldn't do so.
So how does this relate to marriage being a holy institution? The context is an attack on same sex marriage based on the assumption that marriage is ordained for the production and upbringing of children. I have been married for almost fifty years, so i have no ax to grind. Maybe my choice of PhD, on marriage in the Bible (Old Testament) was influenced by my getting married as a student. We didn't I am afraid fulfill the stated purpose of marriage as we had no children. Marriage created a status in law providing tax and pension advantages and security if a spouse died. When a broader range of relationships became regarded as socially acceptable, it became increasingly difficult to prevent same sex couples having the same benefits.
Not all include themselves in regarding this as acceptable, and in particular conservative Christians and in America the 'Bible Belt' of fundamentalist Christians, represented here by Weber. The new President did a deal for votes which may lead to this minority attitude attacking same sex relationships. Although there is no chance of influencing conservative Bible interpretation, I am engaging here in an analysis of its basis. Brought up by evangelical Christians, I challenged their position even as a teenager and suffered the full wrath of offended believers.
Marriage was declared a sacrament by the early church and this influenced the language of the marriage service. One passage seems to prevent divorce, regarding remarriage after divorce as adultery. A parallel passage adds the words "except for porneia" (porneia possibly meaning fornication here) causing the early exception in law to cases where a guilty spouse had committed adultery. There is no great narrative evidence for marriage practice in the New Testament, Jesus not being presented as being married. With asceticism in the wings, marriage was on occasion not even advised, with Paul suggesting that it was for people without self control. In the Old Testament, marriages are arranged by Abraham for Isaac and in cases when a husband of a child-bearing wife died, she was passed on to the next son. That it is true that many instances subverted traditional custom this was not within the context of marriage being a holy institution. It was a social institution which was protected to some degree by law and custom.
Same sex relationships are criticised via an ancient 'law' from the Holiness Code fixing the death penalty to homosexual sexual relations. This came in a long list of sexual offences, including incest and adultery but we do not know if this was ever an exacted law. Some of the discourse around gay bishops presumed that they are not sexually active. The story of Onan in Genesis 38 appear to imply that the purpose of the sex act is to impregnate, and any deliberate waste of sperm is itself a sin. This has had an effect on some Christian views of birth control. Paul also condemned homosexuality in the New Testament.
Evangelical Christian assumptions are based around this muddled mess of folklore and church order and realistically has no place in modern discussions. I can hear evangelicals shouting back at me on Adam and Eve, so that will take a separate post. Then Abraham, and then the rest.
Across the world girls barely teenagers are married to someone of their family choice, someone they may previously they have only met briefly and sometimes not at all. The illusion of consent may be promoted, although in reality the girl may feel that the match is a fait accompli, and that saying no will heap trouble on themselves. Or there may be no pretense of consent.
It has been a modern aim to set a minimum age of 16, the effect of which is to disrupt the girl's education and future career prospect. Such marriages give the husband unfettered sexual access resulting in a career of childbearing which prevented social progress. There is a class divide, since wealthy families can encourage their daughters into law of medicine and hire very cheap servants to look after the children. Families who marry their daughters at 16 in many cases take them out of school just before their GCSE exams resulting in early pregnancy and no qualifications. Across the world, this happens in all religions.
It is clear that marriage is a social institution to protect a daughter's sexuality and fertility to serve family needs. The husband may be a cousin to keep matters in family. In large extended families there may be dozens of eligible family members and parents may seek an early understanding even when the daughter is very young. The function of such marriages may be to promote migration to the west.
The tradition of making one's own choice of a spouse is in historic terms a recent phenomenon. In the west we take it for granted when from a global perspective we shouldn't do so.
So how does this relate to marriage being a holy institution? The context is an attack on same sex marriage based on the assumption that marriage is ordained for the production and upbringing of children. I have been married for almost fifty years, so i have no ax to grind. Maybe my choice of PhD, on marriage in the Bible (Old Testament) was influenced by my getting married as a student. We didn't I am afraid fulfill the stated purpose of marriage as we had no children. Marriage created a status in law providing tax and pension advantages and security if a spouse died. When a broader range of relationships became regarded as socially acceptable, it became increasingly difficult to prevent same sex couples having the same benefits.
Not all include themselves in regarding this as acceptable, and in particular conservative Christians and in America the 'Bible Belt' of fundamentalist Christians, represented here by Weber. The new President did a deal for votes which may lead to this minority attitude attacking same sex relationships. Although there is no chance of influencing conservative Bible interpretation, I am engaging here in an analysis of its basis. Brought up by evangelical Christians, I challenged their position even as a teenager and suffered the full wrath of offended believers.
Marriage was declared a sacrament by the early church and this influenced the language of the marriage service. One passage seems to prevent divorce, regarding remarriage after divorce as adultery. A parallel passage adds the words "except for porneia" (porneia possibly meaning fornication here) causing the early exception in law to cases where a guilty spouse had committed adultery. There is no great narrative evidence for marriage practice in the New Testament, Jesus not being presented as being married. With asceticism in the wings, marriage was on occasion not even advised, with Paul suggesting that it was for people without self control. In the Old Testament, marriages are arranged by Abraham for Isaac and in cases when a husband of a child-bearing wife died, she was passed on to the next son. That it is true that many instances subverted traditional custom this was not within the context of marriage being a holy institution. It was a social institution which was protected to some degree by law and custom.
Same sex relationships are criticised via an ancient 'law' from the Holiness Code fixing the death penalty to homosexual sexual relations. This came in a long list of sexual offences, including incest and adultery but we do not know if this was ever an exacted law. Some of the discourse around gay bishops presumed that they are not sexually active. The story of Onan in Genesis 38 appear to imply that the purpose of the sex act is to impregnate, and any deliberate waste of sperm is itself a sin. This has had an effect on some Christian views of birth control. Paul also condemned homosexuality in the New Testament.
Evangelical Christian assumptions are based around this muddled mess of folklore and church order and realistically has no place in modern discussions. I can hear evangelicals shouting back at me on Adam and Eve, so that will take a separate post. Then Abraham, and then the rest.
Adam and Eve
As promised in my last post on marriage, this is a discussion of Adam and Eve the first married couple and the ancestor/ancestress of the human race. If you find stuff problematic, its probably because you need to up your education.
The Bible (Old Testament) starts with creation, all taking place in seven days which includes a rest day. God, whatever His/Her qualities, found creation quite tiring. Humanity was created on day six, a day after sea monsters, although as we know human monsters are much more fearful than sea monsters. Except this primal being was a vegan, eating only vegetation so was probably reasonably calm and empathetic. Humanity was created male and female, which medieval Jewish writers thought meant hermaphrodite, beings with dual gender. This is because in the next chapter God divided them into two different sex beings by cutting the primal being up. The male was called man,'adam, the woman Eve or 'issah, woman as she came out of man's side. The same logic could have claimed that man came out of woman's side as they were equally divided. Sure we regard them as two separate contradictory creation stories, but the same writer or editor placed the stories side by side and had an agenda. And it was a patriarchal agenda - Adam, the man, needed a playmate, not vice versa. The marriage and childbearing side does not happen yet, this is a result of sin. Without that the two would have enjoyed an eternal love affair.
They lived in a garden called Eden, whose location is specified through rivers. It was in ancient Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq. There was a marsh there, studied by Wilfred Thesinger in The Marsh Arabs, well worth following up. The dictator Saddam Hussein drained the marsh to destruction to starve out the local population, though it is now recovering.
So to our romantic couple. There were two sacred trees that must not be touched, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Everything else was available for food. So the first couple was to be deprived of knowledge and were not to live for ever. The US President will be relieved by the former and depressed by the latter. Give human's something to think and worry about and they will get depressed. Far better just to party all day and night. who needs education. Adam was fine about that since there was food aplenty, and no doubt drink too. The woman was not so sure. She wanted to see through this shallow life. There must be more than naked dancing and eating bananas. She was prodded by a thought, described as a serpent within her or hanging off the tree branch, or indeed walking over since the serpent then had legs. This voice said Wait, surely knowledge must be a good thing to have? Wouldn't it be good to see and think as Gods? Why should the Gods have it all to themselves. And she saw that the fruit is good. So she picked and ate, and gave to Adam who was a mite peckish and ate without much thought.
The soundtrack crashes since the world as it was has ended and a new order has come in. (Remember a myth in those days was rather like a soap today). Before the conservative Christian voice gets me in their cross-hairs, let me quote exactly - "And the LORD God said, The man [i.e. human] has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever" (Gen 3.22 NIV).
Hold it there. Humans have wisdom equivalent to God, understanding good and evil, so God's only edge is eternal life. Eve fought for it in principle, but Adam benefited because of his greed. God's goal is achieved through banishment, far away from this equally attractive tree. The first symptom of the new knowledge was to cover their nakedness - their frolics were over, they now took to underwear and skirts. In the story it doesn't make much sense, unless they don't want God to see them naked - but it explains why the human race cover up. Mostly.
But hold on. Eve discussed wisdom and thought the fruit good to eat. God's position was a exercise of power, Do as I say or you will surely die. And the rebellion caused divine panic. The man would have to eke food out of the soil as a farmer, the woman would bear children in pain, and the serpent would slither and be in danger of being trodden on, and endanger human heels. Thus human marriage as we know it started with a curse. We have no idea how humans reproduced before this (they were told to be fruitful and multiply) but it is clear that marriage as we know it is a punishment. Across history, Eve has taken the bulk of criticism for the situation as the one who ate the forbidden fruit and persuaded her man to do likewise.
Two verses are interesting:"For this reason a man will leave his mother and his father and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2.24); and "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" (Genesis 3.16). The first we could read as location of the couple. Robertson Smith long ago suggested he went to live with her family. Those were times of extended families so if it means setting up a separate home, it may have relevance to tent communities. Or it could refer to relationship - before the husband was responsible for his parents, and now his wife. However there is no indication that he ceased to be responsible for his parents. So in deciding on an answer we have to take full note of the phrase "one flesh". The New Testament made something of it in terms of divorce: "What God has joined, no man should put asunder". Marriage is thus a special relationship, different from consanguinity. We can't change our blood relatives, but have to broaden our relatives through marriage (affinal kinship). This presupposes affection between husband and wife,
In this 'myth', the experienced world is given some explanation. On death, the body returns to dust is one of these; the relationship between humans and snakes are another. This explanation of marriage is an ideal, a couple in love. The second quotation offers the flip side, patriarchy. The rule, or mastery, or hegemony may be benign, but maybe not. A patriarch in the stories that follow have the power of life and death.
As a model for 21st century relationships, all this is a non-starter..A woman's husband may be her choice or her families, but the man you thought you knew does not always turn out well. Better quick divorce than long-term pain. Marriage should be entered into with concent, but it is a rolling consent. One act of consent cannot define the next 20 or 50 years. if either side no longer consent years later, then rearrangement of relationships is in order. It is the maintenance of children which may complicate decisions..
Genesis 1-3 do set up an ideal. Husband and wife helps each other, loves each other, discusses with each other. Until things were disrupted, their relationship was good, no embarrassment. The gaining of 'knowledge' disrupted this. Nakedness became a problem, and animals had to he killed to provide clothing. Humans ceased to be vegans and became carnivores. God however preferred non-thinking creatures to be without knowledge or intellect. The 'Fall' into sin may not therefore have been a fall at all but a positive development of intellectual life.
The Bible (Old Testament) starts with creation, all taking place in seven days which includes a rest day. God, whatever His/Her qualities, found creation quite tiring. Humanity was created on day six, a day after sea monsters, although as we know human monsters are much more fearful than sea monsters. Except this primal being was a vegan, eating only vegetation so was probably reasonably calm and empathetic. Humanity was created male and female, which medieval Jewish writers thought meant hermaphrodite, beings with dual gender. This is because in the next chapter God divided them into two different sex beings by cutting the primal being up. The male was called man,'adam, the woman Eve or 'issah, woman as she came out of man's side. The same logic could have claimed that man came out of woman's side as they were equally divided. Sure we regard them as two separate contradictory creation stories, but the same writer or editor placed the stories side by side and had an agenda. And it was a patriarchal agenda - Adam, the man, needed a playmate, not vice versa. The marriage and childbearing side does not happen yet, this is a result of sin. Without that the two would have enjoyed an eternal love affair.
They lived in a garden called Eden, whose location is specified through rivers. It was in ancient Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq. There was a marsh there, studied by Wilfred Thesinger in The Marsh Arabs, well worth following up. The dictator Saddam Hussein drained the marsh to destruction to starve out the local population, though it is now recovering.
So to our romantic couple. There were two sacred trees that must not be touched, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Everything else was available for food. So the first couple was to be deprived of knowledge and were not to live for ever. The US President will be relieved by the former and depressed by the latter. Give human's something to think and worry about and they will get depressed. Far better just to party all day and night. who needs education. Adam was fine about that since there was food aplenty, and no doubt drink too. The woman was not so sure. She wanted to see through this shallow life. There must be more than naked dancing and eating bananas. She was prodded by a thought, described as a serpent within her or hanging off the tree branch, or indeed walking over since the serpent then had legs. This voice said Wait, surely knowledge must be a good thing to have? Wouldn't it be good to see and think as Gods? Why should the Gods have it all to themselves. And she saw that the fruit is good. So she picked and ate, and gave to Adam who was a mite peckish and ate without much thought.
The soundtrack crashes since the world as it was has ended and a new order has come in. (Remember a myth in those days was rather like a soap today). Before the conservative Christian voice gets me in their cross-hairs, let me quote exactly - "And the LORD God said, The man [i.e. human] has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever" (Gen 3.22 NIV).
Hold it there. Humans have wisdom equivalent to God, understanding good and evil, so God's only edge is eternal life. Eve fought for it in principle, but Adam benefited because of his greed. God's goal is achieved through banishment, far away from this equally attractive tree. The first symptom of the new knowledge was to cover their nakedness - their frolics were over, they now took to underwear and skirts. In the story it doesn't make much sense, unless they don't want God to see them naked - but it explains why the human race cover up. Mostly.
But hold on. Eve discussed wisdom and thought the fruit good to eat. God's position was a exercise of power, Do as I say or you will surely die. And the rebellion caused divine panic. The man would have to eke food out of the soil as a farmer, the woman would bear children in pain, and the serpent would slither and be in danger of being trodden on, and endanger human heels. Thus human marriage as we know it started with a curse. We have no idea how humans reproduced before this (they were told to be fruitful and multiply) but it is clear that marriage as we know it is a punishment. Across history, Eve has taken the bulk of criticism for the situation as the one who ate the forbidden fruit and persuaded her man to do likewise.
Two verses are interesting:"For this reason a man will leave his mother and his father and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2.24); and "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" (Genesis 3.16). The first we could read as location of the couple. Robertson Smith long ago suggested he went to live with her family. Those were times of extended families so if it means setting up a separate home, it may have relevance to tent communities. Or it could refer to relationship - before the husband was responsible for his parents, and now his wife. However there is no indication that he ceased to be responsible for his parents. So in deciding on an answer we have to take full note of the phrase "one flesh". The New Testament made something of it in terms of divorce: "What God has joined, no man should put asunder". Marriage is thus a special relationship, different from consanguinity. We can't change our blood relatives, but have to broaden our relatives through marriage (affinal kinship). This presupposes affection between husband and wife,
In this 'myth', the experienced world is given some explanation. On death, the body returns to dust is one of these; the relationship between humans and snakes are another. This explanation of marriage is an ideal, a couple in love. The second quotation offers the flip side, patriarchy. The rule, or mastery, or hegemony may be benign, but maybe not. A patriarch in the stories that follow have the power of life and death.
As a model for 21st century relationships, all this is a non-starter..A woman's husband may be her choice or her families, but the man you thought you knew does not always turn out well. Better quick divorce than long-term pain. Marriage should be entered into with concent, but it is a rolling consent. One act of consent cannot define the next 20 or 50 years. if either side no longer consent years later, then rearrangement of relationships is in order. It is the maintenance of children which may complicate decisions..
Genesis 1-3 do set up an ideal. Husband and wife helps each other, loves each other, discusses with each other. Until things were disrupted, their relationship was good, no embarrassment. The gaining of 'knowledge' disrupted this. Nakedness became a problem, and animals had to he killed to provide clothing. Humans ceased to be vegans and became carnivores. God however preferred non-thinking creatures to be without knowledge or intellect. The 'Fall' into sin may not therefore have been a fall at all but a positive development of intellectual life.
Marriage in Genesis
Genesis, the account of early Hebrew ancestors, describes many curious aspects of family life. The final Genesis editor believed in monogamy, one wife to one man ensuring clear legitimacy of offspring. However look beneath the surface and things are not so clear. It is worth saying that the children of the patriarchs represent historic tribes. The oddest story depicts the origin of the tribes of Moab and Ammon. Their distant kinship with the Hebrews is marked by their father being Abraham's nephew Lot. The destruction of Sodom led to Lot hiding in a cave with his two daughters. Believing all men to have been killed, they seduce their father through drink and become pregnant. These tribes therefore are give less than prestigious origins. Abraham seems not too concerned about the legitimacy of his children. The safety of his skin came first. He was afraid that the Egyptian Pharaoh might be attracted to Sarah, so he declared her as his sister, so Pharaoh had a relationship with her. She might have become pregnant out of wedlock. The same thing was repeated later with the Philistine king Abimelech. There is no preciousness here for legitimacy (blood kinship) or 'purity of blood'. Abraham's son Isaac did the same with Abimelech, in what may be a parallel tradition. Abraham's wife Sarah could not have children so a slave woman Hagar bore Ishmael on Sarah's behalf; but Sarah was jealous and Hagar with baby thrown out to die. They survived and Ishmael became the ancestor of Arabs. Sarah did have a son in peculiar circumstances. Three strangers (angels) appeared and announced it, and she overhearing it laughed because of her age. Isaac, the son's name, is derived from the word laugh. Even with this precious child born, Abraham set out to sacrifice him.
In terms of marriage, a wife was sought for Isaac from his distant kin. When it was fixed, the two had not met. She was Rebekah who had the twins Esau and Jacob, who were always at war with each other. The marriage of Jacob was within family, although he ended up with two sisters. Esau married women his parents disapproved of and their descendants became the Edomites (Genesis 36). Jacob, although the younger twin, tricked the birthright from his brother. In the meantime Sarah had died and Abraham had another wife, Keturah: the children of this union were more tribes Arab tribes. The narrative is careful to say that they did not inherit. So Abraham is named as the ancestor of all semitic peoples.
It is with Jacob that problems arise. His twelve sons and one known daughter were given birth to by his two sister wives Leah and Rachel and their two slave women Bilhah and Zilpah. The editor has interfered with the narrative to declare Rachel the main wife, the others simply bearing children to him (Genesis 46). This underlined the illusion of monogamy in a ludicrously polygynous text, in which it was not even the first married who was so honoured. The effect of this is to declare a simple line of legitimacy from Abraham, through Isaac, Jacob and the Rachel sons Joseph and Benjamin. Joseph had an Egyptian wife Asenath and had two sons Ephraim and Manasseh - again the younger became the firstborn. No firstborn in the story was the oldest son, emphasising that this was not a dynasty. When Rachel died, Bilhah is termed 'concubine', (Hebrew pilages). The oldest son Reuben had sex with her, perhaps as a take-over bid, and was condemned for doing so. Incest and adultery rules perhaps did not cover concubines.
Two other stories are of relevance. Dinah was raped or seduced in the fields by a Canaanite boy named Shechem (clearly representing the city of that name). It led to a serious marriage proposal which was disrupted by a massacre led by the two sons Levi and Simeon (Genesis 34). The theology behind the story opposed intermarriage with Canaanites, as we also find in texts like Deuteronomy. Genesis 38 is a Judah story, Judah's oldest son was married to Tamar but died childless, so she was married to the next son - who also died childless. The type of marriage is called 'levirate', marriage to brother-in-law. The widow had a poor status, and wished if possible to become a mother, a much higher status. Judah tried to prevent Tamar marrying his third son in case he died too. Tamar countered by getting herself pregnant by Judah himself, seducing him by dressing as a cult prostitute. When the pregnancy was discovered Judah sentenced her to death, but she had take tokens from Judah proving he was the father and received her reprieve. She received theological justification also: Judah is said to comment "She is more righteous than I". She bore twins, Perez and Zerar. There is often interest in what names mean. This narrative integrates this into the story (we call this aetiology). Perez is said to mean 'broke out', and Zerah 'scarlet'. In the story, Zerah put his hand out first and had a scarlet thread attached, but Perez pulled him back and broke out first. Another case of firstborn ambiguity. Perez appears as an ancestor Ruth, and therefore of King David, and of Jesus (or more accurately Joseph) simply because his name has priority in the biblical family tree of Judah.
In terms of marriage, a wife was sought for Isaac from his distant kin. When it was fixed, the two had not met. She was Rebekah who had the twins Esau and Jacob, who were always at war with each other. The marriage of Jacob was within family, although he ended up with two sisters. Esau married women his parents disapproved of and their descendants became the Edomites (Genesis 36). Jacob, although the younger twin, tricked the birthright from his brother. In the meantime Sarah had died and Abraham had another wife, Keturah: the children of this union were more tribes Arab tribes. The narrative is careful to say that they did not inherit. So Abraham is named as the ancestor of all semitic peoples.
It is with Jacob that problems arise. His twelve sons and one known daughter were given birth to by his two sister wives Leah and Rachel and their two slave women Bilhah and Zilpah. The editor has interfered with the narrative to declare Rachel the main wife, the others simply bearing children to him (Genesis 46). This underlined the illusion of monogamy in a ludicrously polygynous text, in which it was not even the first married who was so honoured. The effect of this is to declare a simple line of legitimacy from Abraham, through Isaac, Jacob and the Rachel sons Joseph and Benjamin. Joseph had an Egyptian wife Asenath and had two sons Ephraim and Manasseh - again the younger became the firstborn. No firstborn in the story was the oldest son, emphasising that this was not a dynasty. When Rachel died, Bilhah is termed 'concubine', (Hebrew pilages). The oldest son Reuben had sex with her, perhaps as a take-over bid, and was condemned for doing so. Incest and adultery rules perhaps did not cover concubines.
Two other stories are of relevance. Dinah was raped or seduced in the fields by a Canaanite boy named Shechem (clearly representing the city of that name). It led to a serious marriage proposal which was disrupted by a massacre led by the two sons Levi and Simeon (Genesis 34). The theology behind the story opposed intermarriage with Canaanites, as we also find in texts like Deuteronomy. Genesis 38 is a Judah story, Judah's oldest son was married to Tamar but died childless, so she was married to the next son - who also died childless. The type of marriage is called 'levirate', marriage to brother-in-law. The widow had a poor status, and wished if possible to become a mother, a much higher status. Judah tried to prevent Tamar marrying his third son in case he died too. Tamar countered by getting herself pregnant by Judah himself, seducing him by dressing as a cult prostitute. When the pregnancy was discovered Judah sentenced her to death, but she had take tokens from Judah proving he was the father and received her reprieve. She received theological justification also: Judah is said to comment "She is more righteous than I". She bore twins, Perez and Zerar. There is often interest in what names mean. This narrative integrates this into the story (we call this aetiology). Perez is said to mean 'broke out', and Zerah 'scarlet'. In the story, Zerah put his hand out first and had a scarlet thread attached, but Perez pulled him back and broke out first. Another case of firstborn ambiguity. Perez appears as an ancestor Ruth, and therefore of King David, and of Jesus (or more accurately Joseph) simply because his name has priority in the biblical family tree of Judah.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
David and Jonathan
I am beginning a review of a book asking whether the story of David and Jonathan, who 'loved' each other, is relevant to gay Jews and Christians. These comments are by way of preparation, before reading the book.
First, the story is a story and not factual, so we need to consider why the biblical author found this to be a theme worthy of exploring. Jonathan was son of King Saul, who dynastically might expect to be the next king. However, Saul is depicted as the first king, before the dynastic principle was established. The Samuel narrative is antagonistic to Saul, who has black moods, attempts to kill David, and finally consults a spirit ('witch') in Endor. The reader knows that David will be the next king, because Samuel anointed him, but we cannot be sure that Saul does. Before Samuel, the Judges narrative vilifies Saul's tribe, Benjamin, through the story starting with the rape and murder of a Levites' concubine. But for the grace of the other tribes, Benjamin would have been wiped out. Viewed as political propaganda in the writer's own period in the 4th century BCE, this story cuts the tribe of Benjamin down to size. Saul had many faults and many stupid policies: but his fundamental crime was to have offered sacrifice himself in Samuel's absence. At its heart, then, this story is about priestly monopoly.
Into this background, David the future king, and Saul's son Jonathan have a positive and friendly relationship which utterly contrasts with the fear and suspicion that Saul had. The whole story is one of bloodthirsty battle between Israelites and Philistines, and civil war between Saul and David. David is presented as an innocent party, not killing Saul opportunistically in order to take the throne. Even when given the throne by an Amalekite, Saul's killer who wished to ingratiate himself, he avenged Saul's death by killing him. So his hands were seen to be clean. David had married Saul's daughter (the bride price had been 100 Philistine foreskins, set to ensure David was killed) and treats Jonathan as the closest of brothers. Saul himself was the problem, not his family or his troops. "An evil spirit from the LORD tormented him" (I Sam 16.14)The friendship was instant - "the soul of Janathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam 18.1). Jonathan made a covenant with David, and gave presents of clothes and weapons. He "delighted much in David" (19.1) and warned him that Saul had put out orders to kill him. They make another treaty of loyalty before David escaped "Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul" (20.17).
The treaty bound together David with Saul's house in perpetuity, thus protecting Benjaminites in the author's own day. The savage critique of monarchy under Saul should not adversely affect tribal relations at the time when the story was told.
First, the story is a story and not factual, so we need to consider why the biblical author found this to be a theme worthy of exploring. Jonathan was son of King Saul, who dynastically might expect to be the next king. However, Saul is depicted as the first king, before the dynastic principle was established. The Samuel narrative is antagonistic to Saul, who has black moods, attempts to kill David, and finally consults a spirit ('witch') in Endor. The reader knows that David will be the next king, because Samuel anointed him, but we cannot be sure that Saul does. Before Samuel, the Judges narrative vilifies Saul's tribe, Benjamin, through the story starting with the rape and murder of a Levites' concubine. But for the grace of the other tribes, Benjamin would have been wiped out. Viewed as political propaganda in the writer's own period in the 4th century BCE, this story cuts the tribe of Benjamin down to size. Saul had many faults and many stupid policies: but his fundamental crime was to have offered sacrifice himself in Samuel's absence. At its heart, then, this story is about priestly monopoly.
Into this background, David the future king, and Saul's son Jonathan have a positive and friendly relationship which utterly contrasts with the fear and suspicion that Saul had. The whole story is one of bloodthirsty battle between Israelites and Philistines, and civil war between Saul and David. David is presented as an innocent party, not killing Saul opportunistically in order to take the throne. Even when given the throne by an Amalekite, Saul's killer who wished to ingratiate himself, he avenged Saul's death by killing him. So his hands were seen to be clean. David had married Saul's daughter (the bride price had been 100 Philistine foreskins, set to ensure David was killed) and treats Jonathan as the closest of brothers. Saul himself was the problem, not his family or his troops. "An evil spirit from the LORD tormented him" (I Sam 16.14)The friendship was instant - "the soul of Janathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam 18.1). Jonathan made a covenant with David, and gave presents of clothes and weapons. He "delighted much in David" (19.1) and warned him that Saul had put out orders to kill him. They make another treaty of loyalty before David escaped "Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul" (20.17).
The treaty bound together David with Saul's house in perpetuity, thus protecting Benjaminites in the author's own day. The savage critique of monarchy under Saul should not adversely affect tribal relations at the time when the story was told.
Two book reviews
Two Bibliographic Short Reviews:
Milton Eng, The Days of our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel (LHBOTS, 464; New York/London: T & T Clark International, 2011.
This is a lexical study of primarily male terms for the young, mature and elderly. Female terms are subordinated within an androcentric book structure. The first chapter deals with lexicography and semantics (“the meaning of words”). This study focuses on the range of potential meanings for particular terms such as boy, child, young man, man and old man, set within the context of other semantically related terms. Terms are considered only when the context is age-related. Chapter 2 briefly sets the life cycle (including life expectancy) in the context of the ancient near east, and less understandably Greece. Chapter 3 studies terms for the young, by which is meant pre-maturity, focusing particularly on na‘ar, yeled and taph. Chapter 4 concentrates on terms for mature men, with semantic studies of ‘ish, ‘adam and geber. Chapter 5, on the aged, covers zaqen and a range of related terms and phrases. His general conclusions support to use of modern linguistics in textual study, and in particular semantic profiles and semantic domains, calling for these to be included in the methodologies of new lexicons. There is much of interest in the detail of this book; but this reviewer would have liked to see a better gender balance, and less of the superficial comparisons with other unconnected socio-historical contexts and periods, from the stone age to the Industrial Revolution.
Matthew A.Thomas, These are the Generations: Identity, Covenant, and the ‘Toledot’ Formula (LHBOTS, 551; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011),.
This study examines the use of Toledot (“these are the generations of…”) in Genesis, Num. 3:1, the generations of Aaron and Moses, and Ruth 4:18, the line of David.Although recognizing the diachronic emphasis on sources in earlier studies, Thomas focuses on the possible intentions of the author of the final text. The toledot formula is viewed as a series of headings to focus the story of national origins. The inclusion of Ishmael and Esau is explained as their inclusion in the covenant, and the theme of reconciliation of brothers (Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers). In Gen. 2.4, the generations of heaven and earth is humanity, created from or ‘begat’ by the earth/dust (see p.73). Thereafter there are four further main headings, covering Adam, Noah, Shem and Jacob, characterised by the formula without waw. Subsequent subheadings begin with waw (e.g. of Terah, Ishmael, Isaac and Esau) forming a chiastic sequence. I am unconvinced by his addition of Isaac and Levi to make seven ‘narrowings’ of descent. Theses do not always make good books, and there is a substantial amount of repetition, loose writing, and redundancy. Thomas roots the study in form criticism, assuming antiquity, whereas his explanations relate more to redactional structuring. He works within a theological paradigm, affirming the unity of Torah teaching. The inclusion as family of Ishmael (Arabian tribes) and Esau (Edomite tribes) might be construed as a response to exclusivist tendencies under Nehemiah and Ezra, giving the structure a late date.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Date of Genesis - Gary Rendsburg
Gary Rendsburg reconstructs Israelite history without the Old Testament from inscriptions. An early Egyptian reference to Israel in the 2nd millennium BCE, to various kings and cities, to the phrase 'house of David' as presumed ancestor/king, to the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns which led to displacement and exiles. He concludes therefore that OT historical narratives are rooted in real events. He divides scholars between those that assume the basic historical truth of the story (maximalists) and those who treat most elements as fiction (minimalists), identifying himself as a maximalist.
His 1986 book on Genesis dates the final version (redaction, or editing) to the period of David and Solomon. He accumulates details as being appropriate for this time - details of early Philistines, placenames and genealogies. There remains however (even if we accept this view) the issue of whether a traditional text was re-edited by post-exilic collectors (6th to 5th century) who were piecing together the old in order to recreate a new religious order. Our options are that the post-exilic scribes sumply collected, or put old traditions in a new redactionary framework, or made most of the material up as cultural fictions to validate their new order.
Rendsberg finds traces of old material. In particular, he posits an Israelite (northern) dialect with distinct vocabulary and grammar. If that can be confirmed, that is an interesting development. But I have argued elsewhere that a key term in this narrative-as-family-tree, the concubine has to be taken into account. The word for concubine, pilegesh, is a greek loan word. The feminine of pallax, 'young man' is pallakis, 'young woman' or 'concubine'. Though it now is defined as a secondary wife, the word pallakis starts out as 'a man and his girl', as we would say. The problem is that a Greek loan word assumes a period of Greek influence. Whilst we know that this began in earnest in the 4th century BCE around the time of Alexander the Great, pushing it back into the 12th century BCE or earlier is nonsensical. There were, it is true, some small Greek enclaves further north on the Levant coast, and Greek ships undoubtedly landed in Philistine sea ports in Palestine, but this is not enough to influence family customs in the interior. The slave wife whom Rachel gave to Jacob (whose children were regarded as legitimate) is named as a concubine after her mistress Rachel's death. Reuben had sex with her, which seems to have been an attempted coup d'etat which went down badly. This is from the layer that called Jacob 'Israel', which I take to be a late validation of Israelite claims. Abraham also had concubines (Gen 25) who were paid off and sent away so that their children would not inherit. Although this may not seem significant, it illustrates that something is happening in the editorial shaping of this late redaction. Material such as that contained in Genesis was represented on various occasions: whilst there may well be early material, we also have to take account of later manipulation.
His 1986 book on Genesis dates the final version (redaction, or editing) to the period of David and Solomon. He accumulates details as being appropriate for this time - details of early Philistines, placenames and genealogies. There remains however (even if we accept this view) the issue of whether a traditional text was re-edited by post-exilic collectors (6th to 5th century) who were piecing together the old in order to recreate a new religious order. Our options are that the post-exilic scribes sumply collected, or put old traditions in a new redactionary framework, or made most of the material up as cultural fictions to validate their new order.
Rendsberg finds traces of old material. In particular, he posits an Israelite (northern) dialect with distinct vocabulary and grammar. If that can be confirmed, that is an interesting development. But I have argued elsewhere that a key term in this narrative-as-family-tree, the concubine has to be taken into account. The word for concubine, pilegesh, is a greek loan word. The feminine of pallax, 'young man' is pallakis, 'young woman' or 'concubine'. Though it now is defined as a secondary wife, the word pallakis starts out as 'a man and his girl', as we would say. The problem is that a Greek loan word assumes a period of Greek influence. Whilst we know that this began in earnest in the 4th century BCE around the time of Alexander the Great, pushing it back into the 12th century BCE or earlier is nonsensical. There were, it is true, some small Greek enclaves further north on the Levant coast, and Greek ships undoubtedly landed in Philistine sea ports in Palestine, but this is not enough to influence family customs in the interior. The slave wife whom Rachel gave to Jacob (whose children were regarded as legitimate) is named as a concubine after her mistress Rachel's death. Reuben had sex with her, which seems to have been an attempted coup d'etat which went down badly. This is from the layer that called Jacob 'Israel', which I take to be a late validation of Israelite claims. Abraham also had concubines (Gen 25) who were paid off and sent away so that their children would not inherit. Although this may not seem significant, it illustrates that something is happening in the editorial shaping of this late redaction. Material such as that contained in Genesis was represented on various occasions: whilst there may well be early material, we also have to take account of later manipulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)