Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Deborah and Jael - Israel's "sexy deliverers"?

Thread: Kerygmania: Deborah and Jael - Israel's "sexy deliverers"? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000657

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

The relationship between the Deborah story and the modern controversy on women in leadership is a tricky one. There is much profit to be made on both sides of the fence from citing Deborah as an example of a "female leader of Israel" by the left-wing, and a "prophetess who deferred real leadership to a man" by the right-wing.

However, the best approach to studying any narrative passage in the Bible is to go through the literary and historical processes before drawing theological conclusions. What did it mean to the original audience?

If the Deborah story is a product of the so-called "Deuteronomist school" in Josiah's day and context, then we can summarize the author's intent of the Deborah story as the following:

"Because of Israel's declining morality and faith, there were no men who were willing to deliver Israel from their enemies. Despite this, the LORD was able to use two women to accomplish His goal of delivering Israel. Unfortunately, Jael's actions and Deborah's symbolism, while achieving a righteous end, foreshadow Israel's national future of paganism and prostitution."

To arrive at this conclusion, consider that any interpretation of the Deborah story has to take into account the following:

(a) the large theme of exile and restoration from Deut-Kings (+ Jeremiah),
(b) the smaller theme of increasing defectiveness of the Judges themselves as the cycles progress from Othniel (Judah) northward to Samson (Dan), (especially once we cross into the northern kingdom with Deborah) and
(c) the treatment of women in the OT as a whole, which is almost always framed with double-entendres and sexual connotations.

So here are the points that define the interpretation of the Deborah story:

1) The author and audience of Judges viewed Deborah's female gender as her "defect". (and Jael's also)

Being a woman is apparently worse than being left-handed (Ehud) while not as bad as being doubly unfaithful (Gideon). [Big Grin]

(Based on her placement between the two, and based on the larger treatment of women, it is an unavoidable conclusion that is not easily accepted from the left-wingers who would reject it out of disgust or the right-wingers who would view such an assertion as inappropriate for "inspired scripture".)

2) In the context of "womanhood as a defect", the author describes Deborah unwittingly leading Israel "like a woman" - on a high hill, under a green (palm) tree, offering the direct council of the diety. (All of which were characteristic symbols of the Asherah fertility cult.)

Now while Deborah is clearly stated to be a prophetess of YHWH and not one of Asherah, the author has taken care to make her look dangerously close to the fertility goddess on the high hill under her Tree of Life, and presumably that is what makes her council so attractive to the "sons of Israel", and foreshadows their eventual attraction to the real cult leaders (Deut 12:2, Jer 3:6).

The same kind of ambiguous sexual imagery is present in the Rahab story, where the two spies "spend the night" in her brothel, even though the reader knows that nothing sinful happened, the point being that whether Israel realizes it or not, the inclination of their subconscious actions leads them ever closer towards corruption and idolatry.

3) In the same way that Deborah "leads like a woman", Jael "wages war like a woman".

That is, not with swords and chariots, but by inviting the enemy into her "tent", satisfying him with her "bowls of milk", covering him with a "rug", and then killing him as he lays "between her feet".

In summary, despite their "gender defect", these women were able to accomplish God's goal in the short-term, but their actions and symbols foreshadowed the seeds of a longer-term debauchery that would result in the eventual exile of Israel.

So does any of this translate over to the modern debate over women leaders? Yes, and it has the effect of subverting both sides of the spectrum.

1) The liberals are right in asserting that Deborah and Jael were examples of women leaders who were the deliverers of God's people. However, in their zeal for "egalitarian progress" in the area of church leadership, they often trivialize or overlook the negative effects that sexuality itself can have on a woman's ability to lead men over the long term.

2) The conservatives are right in asserting that there are some tasks (like fighting battles) for which women are not cut out. However, they are wrong in concluding from this that God has never called and will never call a woman to leadership positions as a matter of "Biblical principle".

So in summary, the message I glean from this story by itself is that women leaders will be ineffective in contexts where their sexuality itself proves to be a distraction, (and I hope everyone finds that point to be inarguably true).

But when combining that point with the fact that there is "no male or female in Christ", then given the renewed heart that comes through faith in Jesus by his people, there does exist areas where the weaknesses of the flesh can be held in check (under the power of the Spirit), and where women certain can and should be called to leadership roles (including what we Baptists would call "senior pastors").

Comments?

[ 22. January 2008, 10:10: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

This is why it's now considered best to hire only lesbians as pastors.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

Interesting post, as always from you, BWSmith, however, I’m afraid all I take from the Jael, and/or, indeed, more so, I should say, from Judith (my avatar by Gustav Klimt [Smile]

but same idea) is that men can be made fools of in wine and the offer of sex. Which is to say, in more general non-gender-specific-terms, that we may all be prone to let down our usual defences in the face of something that is immediately, superficially attractive even if it is detrimental to us in the longer term.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
There is much profit to be made on both sides of the fence from citing Deborah as an example of a "female leader of Israel" by the left-wing, and a "prophetess who deferred real leadership to a man" by the right-wing.

Does anyone seriously claim the latter? As far as I can see from my reading of the text, Deborah does not defer leadership to anyone:

quote:
Judges 4:4-5: And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

quote:
v9: [S]he said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.

quote:
However, the best approach to studying any narrative passage in the Bible is to go through the literary and historical processes before drawing theological conclusions. What did it mean to the original audience?

You'd need to have some way of identifying the original audience reliably in order to pull that one off. I'm not sure you've done this accurately, and I think your conclusions are in error as a consequence.

quote:
If the Deborah story is a product of the so-called "Deuteronomist school" in Josiah's day and context...

That's a big 'if'. I remember from my college classes on this subject that although the final editing of Judges may be from this era, the narrative content is among the oldest in the Bible. The positive depiction of women in this story - and it is a very positive depiction, with both the hero and the villain eclipsed by the two heroines - indicates to me that its original audience was one more disposed to view women positively. This suggests in turn an earlier composition, closer to or perhaps even in the pre-royal era itself.

quote:
...then we can summarize the author's intent of the Deborah story as the following:

"Because of Israel's declining morality and faith, there were no men who were willing to deliver Israel from their enemies. Despite this, the LORD was able to use two women to accomplish His goal of delivering Israel. Unfortunately, Jael's actions and Deborah's symbolism, while achieving a righteous end, foreshadow Israel's national future of paganism and prostitution."

Is that a quotation from anywhere specific? I can't trace it, and I also can't justify it from the text. Judges does not seem to me to be a unified narrative, but a thematically-connected series of tales about Israel between the conquest of Canaan and the rise of the Kings. It seems strongly historical, rather than didactic, in form, and the women in the narrative do not seem to have any connection to the motif of Israel as God's erring wife found in later prophetic writings.

quote:
To arrive at this conclusion, consider that any interpretation of the Deborah story has to take into account the following:

(a) the large theme of exile and restoration from Deut-Kings (+ Jeremiah),

Not so. The exile theme in Deuteronomy points to the later redaction of that text, but there is no reason to suppose that Judges 4-5 was written so late, and may very well predate Kings, and certainly Jeremiah. Accordingly, no such contextualisation is possible or helpful.

quote:
(b) the smaller theme of increasing defectiveness of the Judges themselves as the cycles progress from Othniel (Judah) northward to Samson (Dan), (especially once we cross into the northern kingdom with Deborah) and

This point definitely needs expansion. Without shown working to illustrate that your placement of the Judges narrative in this progression, I can't tell its validity. However, as the division into northern and southern kingdoms is centuries after the era of the Judges, this again presupposes a much later composition of the Deborah narrative than I am prepared to admit.

quote:
(c) the treatment of women in the OT as a whole, which is almost always framed with double-entendres and sexual connotations.

That's hardly peculiar to women in the OT! The text is littered with double-entedres and puns of all kinds - a staple of the literary style of early Semitic languages generally. That said, the approach to sex and sexuality in the Deborah narrative is of importance for the interpretation.

quote:
So here are the points that define the interpretation of the Deborah story:

1) The author and audience of Judges viewed Deborah's female gender as her "defect". (and Jael's also)

Being a woman is apparently worse than being left-handed (Ehud) while not as bad as being doubly unfaithful (Gideon).

Based on lines such as Judges 4:9 cited above and these:

quote:
Judges 5:7: The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.

quote:
vv23-24: Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty. Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.

I would argue that in this story, the femininity of Deborah and of Jael at the least is accounted a strength and not a defect. Jael has trumped all the men of Meroz, and Deborah has overruled Barak and overthrown the army of Jabin. The text is quite clear that these women are to be praised and exalted for acting for the Lord.

quote:
(Based on her placement between the two, and based on the larger treatment of women, it is an unavoidable conclusion that is not easily accepted from the left-wingers who would reject it out of disgust or the right-wingers who would view such an assertion as inappropriate for "inspired scripture".)

I find this view to be artificially structuralist, highly forced, and distorting. The stories of the Judges are generally stories of triumph, and no unrighteousness is attributed to Deborah or to Jael. (Barak, though, is painted as a coward.) Your assertion that your conclusion is 'unavoidable' is baseless and misleading, and not conducive to clear debate.

quote:
2) In the context of "womanhood as a defect", the author describes Deborah unwittingly leading Israel "like a woman" - on a high hill, under a green (palm) tree, offering the direct council of the diety. (All of which were characteristic symbols of the Asherah fertility cult.)

It seems somewhat redundant to point out that a woman leads like a woman. There's no direct evidence to equate Deborah's tree in Ephraim with an Asherah pole, and worship in high places seems to be a common device in the worship of the region generally.

quote:
Now while Deborah is clearly stated to be a prophetess of YHWH and not one of Asherah, the author has taken care to make her look dangerously close to the fertility goddess on the high hill under her Tree of Life, and presumably that is what makes her council so attractive to the "sons of Israel", and foreshadows their eventual attraction to the real cult leaders (Deut 12:2, Jer 3:6).

Except that, as I've argued above, there's no particular reason to believe that the story was written as late as Deuteronomy or Jeremiah. In Jeremiah's day, as we see from the text of Jeremiah itself, the worship of Asherah was largely urban. The identification of the Asherah pole with a 'Tree of Life' seems excessively syncretic, and without direction foundation in text or archaeology. Asherah's identification with Lake Genessareth / Galilee suggest she may not have had a strictly cthonic/arboreal character at all.

quote:
The same kind of ambiguous sexual imagery is present in the Rahab story, where the two spies "spend the night" in her brothel, even though the reader knows that nothing sinful happened, the point being that whether Israel realizes it or not, the inclination of their subconscious actions leads them ever closer towards corruption and idolatry.

This seems at odds with the interpretation of the Rahab story, at least in NT times - the references to Rahab in Hebrews 11 and James 2 are approving. Again, Rahab is a heroine, and although her profession is dishonorable (unlike Deborah and Jael!) she is preserved by God and by Israel. The transforming and redeeming power of God is revealed here - not condemnation.

quote:
3) In the same way that Deborah "leads like a woman", Jael "wages war like a woman".

That is, not with swords and chariots, but by inviting the enemy into her "tent", satisfying him with her "bowls of milk", covering him with a "rug", and then killing him as he lays "between her feet".

The sexual imagery is clear here, I agree. The repeated 'at/between her feet' motif in Judges 5 shows that Sisera has been defeated by Jael in a sexual manner. Freudians could have much to say about the penetrative quality of the tent-peg, too. But as the song in Judges 5 emphasises, Jael is to be praised highly. The would-be rapist Sisera (so depicted in Judges 5:30) has been overcome in his weakness - Jael has turned his evil intent against him, and penetrated him for good.

quote:
In summary, despite their "gender defect", these women were able to accomplish God's goal in the short-term, but their actions and symbols foreshadowed the seeds of a longer-term debauchery that would result in the eventual exile of Israel.

I don't see it. I think the story is several centuries older than you make it out to be. I think it has no connection to the cult of Asherah. I do not think the heroines are depicted as defective in any way - each of them has a distinctive strength which corresponds to a weakness of a male character. Deborah's effective command answers Barak's cowardice; Jael's sexualised defeat of Sisera answers the Canaanite's rapacious intentions. And I don't see the foreshadowing. The story is one of victory and deliverance, and only by artifically projecting a later, more negative view of women back onto it inappropriately can you arrive at the mistaken conclusion that it portends doom.

quote:
So does any of this translate over to the modern debate over women leaders? Yes, and it has the effect of subverting both sides of the spectrum.

Personally I consider it an excellent biblical precedent for both female leadership and a broad view of sexuality, but I'd rather not flog dead horses here in Kerygmania.

quote:
1) The liberals are right in asserting that Deborah and Jael were examples of women leaders who were the deliverers of God's people. However, in their zeal for "egalitarian progress" in the area of church leadership, they often trivialize or overlook the negative effects that sexuality itself can have on a woman's ability to lead men over the long term.

I'd invite you to explain on the 'Headship' thread in Dead Horses what you mean by the second sentence here.

quote:
2) The conservatives are right in asserting that there are some tasks (like fighting battles) for which women are not cut out. However, they are wrong in concluding from this that God has never called and will never call a woman to leadership positions as a matter of "Biblical principle".

That, on the other hand, does not take a genius to spot. See my very first comment on your depiction of conservative readings of this story.

quote:
So in summary, the message I glean from this story by itself is that women leaders will be ineffective in contexts where their sexuality itself proves to be a distraction, (and I hope everyone finds that point to be inarguably true).

You must be kidding. Jael is victorious precisely because her sexuality is a distraction. Deborah's sexuality doesn't enter into the narrative at all. Again, I'd be grateful if you dropped the rhetorical devices about unarguable truth. In my opinion, the view of women leaders as compromised by their sexuality is an oppressive myth, cultivated by (usually strongly sexualised) male leaders. I have never, ever heard it from a woman.

And you have not viewed the story 'by itself' but wrongly projected back ideas from Deuteronomical texts onto the narrative. This is not an isolated view, but a contextualised one, and one which in my opinion does not merit that context.

quote:
But when combining that point with the fact that there is "no male or female in Christ", then given the renewed heart that comes through faith in Jesus by his people, there does exist areas where the weaknesses of the flesh can be held in check (under the power of the Spirit), and where women certain can and should be called to leadership roles (including what we Baptists would call "senior pastors").

How generous. Take it to the 'priestly genitalia' thread in Dead Horses, where it belongs.

T.

[Moo; fixed code]

[ 27. April 2007, 13:48: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This is why it's now considered best to hire only lesbians as pastors.

Actually, that would contribute even more to the problem, since the problem is not what's in the mind of the shepherd, but that of the flock...

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This is why it's now considered best to hire only lesbians as pastors.
Actually, that would contribute even more to the problem, since the problem is not what's in the mind of the shepherd, but that of the flock...

Now whatever do you mean by that?

T.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This is why it's now considered best to hire only lesbians as pastors.
Actually, that would contribute even more to the problem, since the problem is not what's in the mind of the shepherd, but that of the flock...
Now whatever do you mean by that?

T.

Oh, no, no , no, we are not going to have that particular discussion here.

*HOSTING*

Now, the reason I find this particularly annoying is that I am going to have to copy- paste two links to dead horses threads into my warning, which is time-consuming.

Nah, forget it. They are both on page one of Limbo-- "Priestly Genitalia" or "Homosexuality and Christianity," take your pick. "Living as a Christian Homosexual" might be good, too.

In any case, please limit your discussion to the dynamics of the situation described in the verse quoted, or in terms of the culture at the time indicated in the verse.

*THANKS IN ADVANCE*

Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host.

[ 27. April 2007, 15:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
There is much profit to be made on both sides of the fence from citing Deborah as an example of a "female leader of Israel" by the left-wing, and a "prophetess who deferred real leadership to a man" by the right-wing.
Does anyone seriously claim the latter? As far as I can see from my reading of the text, Deborah does not defer leadership to anyone:

Yes, oddly enough, my inspiration for this post is an article that was in the June 2001 Bible Review called, "Why Deborah's Different". (Not available online, as far as I can tell...)

http://www.easycart.net/ecarts/bib-arch/BR_Back_Issues_2001.html

The article was written by the associate dean of the department of religion at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) within a year of the SBC's new 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that formally declared that women could not be senior pastors. (I interpret this article as written within the context of that contemporary debate.)

Mr. Block makes his antifeminist agenda clear in his opening paragraph:

quote:
Why Deborah's Different, Daniel I Block

Abstract: In the popular mind, Deborah was a devout woman who led the ancient Israelites to military victory. But the portrait of her in the Book of Judges shows her role to have been not primarily militaristic but prophetic.

"Some see her as an ancient Israelite Joan of Arc, a devout maid who led her people to victory against a hated national foe. Others picture her as the prototype of the modern militant feminist, who challenged the forces of an oppressive patriarchy as she delivered Israel from the Canaanites. Most readers simply admire Deborah as the only woman in the series of local chieftains - usually translated "judges" (in Hebrew, sopetim) - who protected Israel during the turbulent days before the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.

But is this how the biblical author saw Deborah?

When we try to put aside our modern biases and read Deborah's story afresh, we find that the image of Deborah in the mind of the ancient authors was very different. She functioned primarily as Yahweh's representative."

Other points include:

quote:
The Bible never identifies Deborah as a warrior or deliverer (savior); rather, it calls her a "prophetess" (nebia) and describes her as "judging" Israel....

On the surface, Deborah appears to have acted like a deliverer...Deborah's own actions seem to point to a role as deliverer...But upon closer reading, the presentation of Deborah as a savior of her people is more apparent than real...

This woman may appear on the surface to be a deliverer - but is this a longstanding misreading? If Deborah was not a deliverer, what was her role?

Barak marched off to battle, with Deborah, the symbol of Yahweh's presence, at his side....It is evident from the account of the ensuing battle that in the mind of the narrator Deborah played no real military role...She accompanied Barak into battle, as a recognized spokesperson for the commander in chief, as his prophet.

That was her role, no more and no less.

To those of you in the C of E, this may seem like a lot of energy spent for the purposes of interpreting Deborah as an incredibly boring Biblical character, but if you are familiar with the recent Southern Baptist battles, you will recognize that this article has a very specific context and agenda here in the USA (women pastors), stated with the conviction that those who are correctly reading between the lines of their Bibles are the ones who are kicking women out of the pulpit...

Ironically, he claims that his opponents are the ones who are seeing their own face in the well, whereas he, the Southern Baptist leader coming to the fundamentalist conclusion, is the one reading the story "afresh".

(That's why I thought it would be good to sort out the meaning of the story as best I see it, not with the claim to be "objective", but with my biases and presuppositions stated up front.)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Host hat on

quote:
Originally posted by BW Smith
To those of you in the C of E, this may seem like a lot of energy spent for the purposes of interpreting Deborah as an incredibly boring Biblical character, but if you are familiar with the recent Southern Baptist battles, you will recognize that this article has a very specific context and agenda here in the USA (women pastors), stated with the conviction that those who are correctly reading between the lines of their Bibles are the ones who are kicking women out of the pulpit...

Kelly has told you here that discussions of women's role in the church and homosexuality belong in Dead Horses. Any discussion of what the Southern Baptists are doing which does not belong in Dead Horses belongs in Purgatory.

Also the concept of 'correctly reading between the lines' of the Bible is not one we want to introduce into Kerygmania.

Host hat off

Moo, Kerygmania host

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
However, the best approach to studying any narrative passage in the Bible is to go through the literary and historical processes before drawing theological conclusions. What did it mean to the original audience?
You'd need to have some way of identifying the original audience reliably in order to pull that one off. I'm not sure you've done this accurately, and I think your conclusions are in error as a consequence.

quote:
If the Deborah story is a product of the so-called "Deuteronomist school" in Josiah's day and context...
That's a big 'if'. I remember from my college classes on this subject that although the final editing of Judges may be from this era, the narrative content is among the oldest in the Bible.

Right, and that's the big problem of 19th-century source criticism: ultimately there are no rules on what gets to count as "editing" and what is "earlier content". It is not possible to excavate earlier "documents" from later works.

So in order to play it safe, I assume as a rule of thumb that nothing in the "primary history" (Gen-Kings) made it through to us today without the approval of the "Dtrs and the P's", and as such, the whole thing is effectively a "post-exilic work".

Since Judges has large sections of "Deuteronomic" language, it's safe to understand all the major judge cycles as arranged under, and functioning to support, a Dtr framework and theology.

The Deborah account is particularly intriguing because it sets its own source beside it, and its content and message does not contribute to the Dtr themes, so I prefer to read the prose Deborah as a reworking of the (somewhat debaucherous) poem that reinforces the imagery of moral decline.

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
The positive depiction of women in this story - and it is a very positive depiction, with both the hero and the villain eclipsed by the two heroines - indicates to me that its original audience was one more disposed to view women positively. This suggests in turn an earlier composition, closer to or perhaps even in the pre-royal era itself.

And that's one of my largest points: are Deborah and Jael really depicted as positively as people assume?

That's part of the larger question - are any of the post-Othniel judges depicted positively? Ehud has a "sinister" left-handed brutality about him. Gideon is faithless. Jephthah makes rash oaths. Samson is a Philistine skirt-chaser. It seems like this pattern would create the expectation of a negative characterization for the women, so we have to examine the depiction of Deborah's judging and Jael's tactics.

If this is written in the same context as Jeremiah 3, where Israel is described as going on every high hill and under every green tree and "being a harlot there", then how is the same reader supposed to react when reading about Deborah sitting under a palm tree and the "sons of Israel" are going up to her?

(The memory of Josiah's men slaughtering and burning the priestesses and cult prostitutes of Asherah would still have been fresh in the minds of the older generation.)

And while the blunt sexual connotations of the poem are toned down in the prose description of Jael's seduction of Sisera, they are not gone, and in the context of Jeremiah, would a 5th-century Jew really have interpreted this whole scene as a positive?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

In view of the fact that I now have an image in my mind of Kelly with a tent-peg shaped axe, I’m going to avoid Jael for the moment and stick to Deborah (the narrative section is in Judges 4:1-16; 5:31d). Not having seen Block’s article, I’m going on the information BWSmith helpfully provided.

The issue as I see it is this. Block concludes that Deborah was (merely) a prophetess (4:4), not a saviour. She could not, therefore, be taken as a model for female leadership in the church. It is true that in the narrative section she is nowhere described as a saviour. However, I would take issue with the conclusion that Block comes to – on these grounds:

Firstly, structurally the narrative matches the surrounding episodes:-
There is a common heading: “The Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the Lord”;
There is a handing over of Israel to foreign powers; and
There is a common ending: “The land had peace for 40 years.”

The Deborah episode, then, certainly looks to me like one section of a larger and coherent set of accounts, joined together in holy matrimony by structured linguistics. What applies to one could equally apply to another.

Secondly, Judges 2:16 specifically refers to judges being raised up by the Lord to “save” (yasha, ישׁע) Israel out of the hands of raiders. The section precedes the list of such judges and it is in this context that Deborah’s account appears.

Thirdly, Deborah is said to be a Judge (4:4 – shophetah: feminine participle of shaphat, שׁפט). This term is used in the 2:16 section to describe those who were to save Israel from the raiders.

All in all, as far as Debbie is concerned, I would have to count her as among the saviours.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
(b) the smaller theme of increasing defectiveness of the Judges themselves as the cycles progress from Othniel (Judah) northward to Samson (Dan), (especially once we cross into the northern kingdom with Deborah) and
This point definitely needs expansion. Without shown working to illustrate that your placement of the Judges narrative in this progression, I can't tell its validity. However, as the division into northern and southern kingdoms is centuries after the era of the Judges, this again presupposes a much later composition of the Deborah narrative than I am prepared to admit.

I got this from the intro to Judges in the New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed):

quote:
Judges 1.1-2.5 introduces the reader to the pattern of Israel's increasing failure to drive out the Canaanites, which will be mirrored in the degeneration of the "cycles" section. It also reveals the geographic sequence pattern of Judah to Dan reflected in the major judge cycles (Othniel to Samson).

So the major judge geographies look like this:

Othniel (Judah)
Ehud (Benjamin)
Deborah (Ephraim)
Gideon+Abimelech (Manasseh)
Jephthah (Gilead)
Samson (Dan, whose tribe would subsequently move to the far north)

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
...the major judge geographies look like this:

Othniel (Judah)
Ehud (Benjamin)
Deborah (Ephraim)
Gideon+Abimelech (Manasseh)
Jephthah (Gilead)
Samson (Dan, whose tribe would subsequently move to the far north)

The raiders, on the other hand, come from countries arranged roughly from north to south - the opposite direction. Does the NOA Bible make anything of this? The scheme also seems to miss out some of the judges: Shamgar, Tola, Jair. etc. This is presumably because we lack geographical data for them, yet they do form part of the final text and I would have thought that any intended schema should take account of their placement in the order.

Nigel

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I would argue that in this story, the femininity of Deborah and of Jael at the least is accounted a strength and not a defect. Jael has trumped all the men of Meroz, and Deborah has overruled Barak and overthrown the army of Jabin. The text is quite clear that these women are to be praised and exalted for acting for the Lord.

Yes, but it is precisely because their femininity is a defect that it is the source of their victory.

Ehud is able to stab King Eglon because he is left-handed and not properly searched. (And left-handedness was considered evil in the ancient world, noting that "sinister" is Latin for "on the left".)

Samson is able to defeat more Philistines in his death than he did in his life because of his propensity for getting captured and subdued.

In both cases, the "defect" is what yields the victory, which is not to say that the author of Judges is necessarily praising Ehud's left-handedness or Samson's idiocy.

And the same holds true for Jael. She only defeats Sisera because she is a woman, (which is not the same as making a recommendation that all women go out and seduce whatever Babylonian general is marching by...) Rather, it's making the point that the victory came about through the will of YHWH, despite the defectiveness of the deliverer.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
...the major judge geographies look like this:

Othniel (Judah)
Ehud (Benjamin)
Deborah (Ephraim)
Gideon+Abimelech (Manasseh)
Jephthah (Gilead)
Samson (Dan, whose tribe would subsequently move to the far north)
The raiders, on the other hand, come from countries arranged roughly from north to south - the opposite direction. Does the NOA Bible make anything of this? The scheme also seems to miss out some of the judges: Shamgar, Tola, Jair. etc. This is presumably because we lack geographical data for them, yet they do form part of the final text and I would have thought that any intended schema should take account of their placement in the order.

Nigel

I think Shamgar is placed before Deborah out of necessity, since he also appears in the poem.

Between Gideon (Manasseh) and Jephthah (Gilead), we have Tola (Issachar, just north of Manasseh), and Jair (Gilead), so they fit the scheme nicely.

Somewhat trickier are the three minors that appear between Jephthah and Samson (Dan):

- Ibzan of the Bethlehem between Asher and Zebulun (fits the scheme)
- Elon of Zebulun (fits the scheme)
- Abdon - from Pirathon in Ephraim (doesn't fit the scheme)

NOTE: One of the Levitical cities of Asher is "Abdon", which is halfway between Bethlehem (of Asher) and Dan if travelling along the shore (around the mountains that would prevent a direct trip to Dan from Bethlehem). It could be that the author chose to put the account of Abdon the judge here with the city in mind, (just as he has the city of Dan in mind in his placement of the Samson story, even though the actual account takes place before the move north).

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

As I read it, the ongoing theme of the book of Judges is: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

The time of the judges was a time of falling; God would raise up a new judge and they'd rally the nation for a generation (perhaps two) and then they'd fall back down again; it's happening at a one of the low times in Israel's history (trying to avoid stepping into Dead Horses terrain).

Jael is a smart, strong, brave, patriotic woman.

I always wonder if Deborah thought the credit for conquering Sisera would go to her (She said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman." Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. - Judges 4:9)...

quote:
BWSmith said:
Yes, but it is precisely because their femininity is a defect that it is the source of their victory.

I don't see their feminity as a defect from the text but I infer it's an additional judgement upon Israel at that time: they were so separated from God that there were no men for God to raise up as judge, the men were not willing.

I think you may be applying 21st century gentile attitudes about scripture/texts here and not considering the Hebrew tradition of careful, unchanged copying. I do not believe Judges should be read as "post-exilic" - at least doesn't make any sense to me, knowing what I know about the Jews and The Book.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Jael is a smart, strong, brave, patriotic woman.

Not patriotic - she was a Kenite, not an Israelite. But she was the enemy of the enemies of Israel.

quote:

quote:
BWSmith said:
Yes, but it is precisely because their femininity is a defect that it is the source of their victory.
I don't see their feminity as a defect from the text but I infer it's an additional judgement upon Israel at that time: they were so separated from God that there were no men for God to raise up as judge, the men were not willing.

I'd agree with that - the Bible is often a story of male heroism, and it's worth paying close attention at times when that tradition fails.

quote:
I do not believe Judges should be read as "post-exilic" - at least doesn't make any sense to me, knowing what I know about the Jews and The Book.

Agreed - this was what I had understood as well, from my college studies on this subject.

T.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Ehud is able to stab King Eglon because he is left-handed and not properly searched. (And left-handedness was considered evil in the ancient world, noting that "sinister" is Latin for "on the left".)

"The ancient world" covers a long time and a lot of diverse cultures. I'm not at all convinced that the writer of Judges thought Ehud's left-handedness a defect. I think that it is mentioned either because the historical Ehud was actually left-handed and the writer knew it, or it is an artistic detail added to him because he was a Benjaminite, a member of a tribe which had (or which the writer imagined had) a strong tendancy to left-handedness (Judges 20:16).

quote:
And the same holds true for Jael. She only defeats Sisera because she is a woman, (which is not the same as making a recommendation that all women go out and seduce whatever Babylonian general is marching by...) Rather, it's making the point that the victory came about through the will of YHWH, despite the defectiveness of the deliverer.

I think you're on stronger ground here. The fact that a woman, and a foreigner, is the one appointed to strike the fatal blow is significant. The significance in the text is that following from (and implicitly consequent on) Barak's lack of faith in Deborah's word, he is told that the glory of the battle will not be his. Barak won't kill Sisera, and he won't be able to claim even the vicarious triumph of having one of his soldiers do it.

It's possible that the writer of Judges also thought it a judgment on Sisera himself: Abimelech (9:54) thought it the ultimate disgrace to die at a woman's hand, and while Abimelech is hardly such a sympathetic character that the audience can supposed to agree with him, I think they would at least have understood his point of view, and seen that his (and Sisera's) death might be thought shameful.

That doesn't mean that we are expected to think badly of Jael - her femininity is a reproach to Barak and to Sisera, but not to her. I think it is significant that although to a modern reader, killing a helpless enemy appears rather base and cowardly, there isn't even a hint of that in Judges. On the contrary, a cold-blooded killing is seen as something that requires a fair bit of nerve - Jether's failure to commit murder (8:20) is something that the writer feels the need to excuse "because he was still a youth".

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
(quoted from Block) Barak marched off to battle, with Deborah, the symbol of Yahweh's presence, at his side....It is evident from the account of the ensuing battle that in the mind of the narrator Deborah played no real military role...

I cannot see any reason to think that Deborah deferred to Barak in anything except actual physical fighting. She was the Judge of Israel, the people come to her, she summons and appoints Barak, tells him where to recruit and assemble, orders the disposition of the troops, and gives the command when it is time to attack. Mount Tabor is about 12 miles from the Kishon river on my map, so it seems a fair inference that the Israelite scouts in the valley were reporting to Deborah, not to Barak, for her to make that call. Every single decision that a military commander might be expected to make, comes from, or through, Deborah. She's in charge.

I cannot see how anyone can read the text as it is presented and think that Deborah played no military role. And (unlike Jael) there's no clue that I can see that God was making any particular point when he chose a woman for a role of military leadership. I think he chose her because she was the right person for the job.

quote:
So in summary, the message I glean from this story by itself is that women leaders will be ineffective in contexts where their sexuality itself proves to be a distraction, (and I hope everyone finds that point to be inarguably true).

Well if you would concede that the book of Judges teaches that male leaders are at least as prone to be rendered ineffective by their sexuality (the troubles caused by Gideon's profligacy, the downfall of Samson, and the rapists in Gibeah) then I suppose I agree that the same might be true for women. I don't think Deborah is any sort of proof of it.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab
And (unlike Jael) there's no clue that I can see that God was making any particular point when he chose a woman for a role of military leadership. I think he chose her because she was the right person for the job.

Unless he was making the point that women are capable of military leadership.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

..or the overarching point is that desperate times allow people in all kinds of positions show what they are made of.

... and that it is particularly memorable when somebody of whom not much is expected becomes a person to whom we are indebted.

[Fixed my own spelling, and added another thought while I was here.]

[ 29. April 2007, 23:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's possible that the writer of Judges also thought it a judgment on Sisera himself: Abimelech (9:54) thought it the ultimate disgrace to die at a woman's hand, and while Abimelech is hardly such a sympathetic character that the audience can supposed to agree with him, I think they would at least have understood his point of view, and seen that his (and Sisera's) death might be thought shameful.

Oh, definitely. Sisera's tombstone reads, "Killed by a girl (neener neener neener)."

quote:
That doesn't mean that we are expected to think badly of Jael - her femininity is a reproach to Barak and to Sisera, but not to her.

Exactly. And this is possible because women's lower position in society is simply taken as a given in this text -- it doesn't reflect badly on any particular woman; it's simply the way things are. Jael is celebrated: "Most blessed of women be Jael, // the wife of Heber the Kenite, // most blessed of tent-dwelling women" (Judges 5:24).

quote:
I think it is significant that although to a modern reader, killing a helpless enemy appears rather base and cowardly, there isn't even a hint of that in Judges.

And it seems to be okay elsewhere in the OT. Throughout Joshua, the Israelites leave no survivors. This shows their dominance and by extension God's greatness, as he has promised them the whole land; it isn't meant to show that the Israelites are homicidal maniacs who shoot people in the back and don't know when their enemy is already beaten.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Teufelchen, thanks for reminding me about Jael being a Kenite (reading for content? huh?!).

ETA: I must say, I'm always thrown by the title of this thread; I think it applies more to Rahab...

[ 30. April 2007, 05:01: Message edited by: Lynn MagdalenCollege ]

Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :

My father deliberately chose my middle name as Deborah in reference to this story: he was a Zionist.

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy that my middle name refers to a cold-blooded murderer. Since I discovered the text (via the wonderful 'The Harlot at the Gate' exegesis of 'difficult' Biblical stories) I have been entirely averse to camping. [Eek!]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hermes66:
My father deliberately chose my middle name as Deborah in reference to this story: he was a Zionist.

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy that my middle name refers to a cold-blooded murderer.

Jael was the 'murderer'. Deborah was the prophet.

T.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Jael was the 'murderer'. Deborah was the prophet.

And judge. I think her being a judge is more important.

Moo

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Jael is a smart, strong, brave, patriotic woman.

Yes, but then the million-dollar question is, if the reader is in this situation, should they do the same thing?

Does the author of Judges advocate Jael's actions?

And my suspicion is that he would not, for the same reason that he wouldn't advocate getting captured by Philistines in order to collapse their temple from the inside....

[ 30. April 2007, 14:52: Message edited by: BWSmith ]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
(Left-handedness was considered evil in the ancient world, noting that "sinister" is Latin for "on the left".)
"The ancient world" covers a long time and a lot of diverse cultures. I'm not at all convinced that the writer of Judges thought Ehud's left-handedness a defect. I think that it is mentioned either because the historical Ehud was actually left-handed and the writer knew it, or it is an artistic detail added to him because he was a Benjaminite, a member of a tribe which had (or which the writer imagined had) a strong tendancy to left-handedness (Judges 20:16).

I think the running joke in Judges on the Benjaminites (from Ehud through the battle in ch.20) is that "Benjamin" literally means, "son of my right hand".

So what would it mean if the "son of your right-hand" was left-handed? It probably was not a complement to them...
[Smile]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

What if it was a challenge to them to think differently?

I mean, if one assumes God is in control, God therefore made the Benjaminites predominantly left handed.

[ 30. April 2007, 15:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by BWSmith:
Does the author of Judges advocate Jael's actions?

I thought the author was just recording what happened, not making judgment calls.

And as the last line of Judges observes, this was just the way things went before they could establish a proper monarchy. I'm not sure that that means that everything that went on was bad, it's just that it was how things were happening.

And it's funny to me that the entire story is rife with the assumption that men can never be sexual objects, only subjects. Jael is powerful because she attracts Sisera. Samson is weak because he's attracted to Delilah.

Possibly a tangent, I note that they hand picked an army of left handed slingers to knock out the Benjaminites (Judges 20:16). Have southpaws always been such superior pitchers?

Also, that whole war at the end, and its aftermath, seems to involve enough sex and violence to make good Hollywood film. It almost reads like a black comedy.

ETA changes after I realized what BWSmith was actually posting.

[ 30. April 2007, 15:36: Message edited by: mirrizin ]

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Jael is a smart, strong, brave, patriotic woman.
Yes, but then the million-dollar question is, if the reader is in this situation, should they do the same thing?

Does the author of Judges advocate Jael's actions?

And my suspicion is that he would not, for the same reason that he wouldn't advocate getting captured by Philistines in order to collapse their temple from the inside....

I disagree with you here (well, assuming I read your post correctly!) - I think Jael's actions are correct and I don't see anything in scripture to indicate otherwise. We are really uncomfortable with the thought because we live in a very different world. But, in her world, what were her options? Let him turn aside, be refreshed, sleep, and go on his way - in which case she's given aid and comfort to the enemy of Israel, who will go away and raise up another army and bring another war in the future. How is she going to disable this guy? He's a big strong warrior; she can't overpower him. She can't risk attempting to tie him up and have him wake up during the process. Best thing she can do it kill him with what is at hand (and if a tent peg through the temple doesn't kill you, you aren't human!).

Samson is a whole other story, a very tragic story of someone tremendously gifted by God who was unwilling to be submitted to God - Samson is out of control, which made him a lousy judge. The fact that he ends up a blind captive in the enemy's temple is the logical end of the road he was determined to walk (I mean, give me a break! He keeps going back to Delilah, which literally means "woman of the night," gives himself into the power of this Philistine prostitute and she pouts because he keeps telling her tall tales about the source of his strength - she comes right out and says, "tell me your secret so that I might be able to destroy you" - sheeeesh! (Judges 16:6)

I see them as very very different stories, offering very different lessons to us to learn.

Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
Originally posted by Hermes66:
My father deliberately chose my middle name as Deborah in reference to this story: he was a Zionist.

I'm not sure I'm entirely happy that my middle name refers to a cold-blooded murderer.
Jael was the 'murderer'. Deborah was the prophet.

T.

*embarrassed after quick and easy re-read.

Phew. That's a relief; Deborah's cool, not cruel.

[Smile]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I think Jael's actions are correct and I don't see anything in scripture to indicate otherwise. We are really uncomfortable with the thought because we live in a very different world. But, in her world, what were her options? Let him turn aside, be refreshed, sleep, and go on his way - in which case she's given aid and comfort to the enemy of Israel, who will go away and raise up another army and bring another war in the future. How is she going to disable this guy? He's a big strong warrior; she can't overpower him. She can't risk attempting to tie him up and have him wake up during the process. Best thing she can do it kill him with what is at hand (and if a tent peg through the temple doesn't kill you, you aren't human!).

But reread the account again:

quote:
"Most blessed of women is Jael,
The wife of Heber the Kenite;
Most blessed is she of women in the tent.

He asked for water and she gave him milk;
In a magnificent bowl she brought him curds.

She reached out her hand for the tent peg,
And her right hand for the workmen's hammer.

Then she struck Sisera, she smashed his head;
And she shattered and pierced his temple.

Between her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay;
Between her feet he bowed, he fell;
Where he bowed, there he fell dead."

a) The "magnificent bowl" in which she gives him "milk" are her breasts.
b) The tent peg is a phallic euphemism, (with the original poem implying that she simply hit him in the head with the hammer while her other hand was occupied).
c) "Feet" were a Hebrew euphemism for "genitals", such that "between her feet" effectively means that she murdered him while he was "between her legs".
d) The prose account adds that "she covered him with a rug", which is also suggestive.

So it's in that context that I asked my question. Is the author of Judges recommending that women have intercourse with the enemy for the purpose of killing them?

(And that's how the Jael account ties into the Deborah imagery. If Deborah looks like a priestess of Asherah, with her high hill, palm tree, and attraction to the sons of Israel, and Jael is seducing the enemy in order to defeat him, the big point to be taken is that Israel is defeating the enemy out of their sinfulness rather than righteousness, and this would eventually catch up to them in 1-2 Kings.)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BW Smith
c) "Feet" were a Hebrew euphemism for "genitals", such that "between her feet" effectively means that she murdered him while he was "between her legs".

"Feet" is occasionally used to mean genitals, but if you look in a concordance you will see that it is almost always used to mean simply 'feet'.

The only Bible verse I can find where 'feet' means genitals is Isaiah 6:2

quote:

Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.

Here are all the occurrences of the word 'feet' in the Old Testament. Can you show me any place, aside from the verse I have quoted, where it means genitals?

I think you are building a very elaborate theory on very little evidence.

Moo

[ 01. May 2007, 00:33: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Sometimes a rug is just a rug, you know....

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
a) The "magnificent bowl" in which she gives him "milk" are her breasts.
b) The tent peg is a phallic euphemism, (with the original poem implying that she simply hit him in the head with the hammer while her other hand was occupied).
c) "Feet" were a Hebrew euphemism for "genitals", such that "between her feet" effectively means that she murdered him while he was "between her legs".
d) The prose account adds that "she covered him with a rug", which is also suggestive.

So it's in that context that I asked my question. Is the author of Judges recommending that women have intercourse with the enemy for the purpose of killing them?

I think you've read too much commentary on the Song of Songs-- What translation are you reading? Looking at the Hebrew, it's not a "magnificent bowl" but rather a skin. Deborah's song IS poetry and she waxes very poetic, as was the style - but don't turn the poetic language (which served its own purpose) into the straightforward account. Likewise, cover doesn't have a sexual connotation. A tent peg isn't a phallic euphemism when the people are actually living in a tent, you know? It's a practical tool. This same item is referenced repeatedly in the subsequent verses; it doesn't make any sense to read "tent peg" as "phallus." As for Jael's feet, it's pretty clear that feet means feet.

Besides which, the Hebrews were just not that squeamish about references to sex - the OT is a pretty bawdy book, you know? If Jael had seduced Sisera, there would be no qualms in telling the story that way.

I do note that Jael's husband is a Kenite, but perhaps she was Hebrew? In any case, her husband was on good terms with Sisera, so this is a very bold move on her part.

TubaMirum [Big Grin]

(--not to mention cigars).

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

The Hebrew word for "feet" appears 247 times, if one wants to work their way through the OT...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

..and to supplement LynnMagdaleneCollege's findings, here is the last Kerygmania version of the Great Foot Debate, in Limbo.

[ 01. May 2007, 04:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

wow... they're debating feet in Limbo... *shudder*

I've been reading too much Dante. [Razz]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
a) The "magnificent bowl" in which she gives him "milk" are her breasts.

"Butter in a lordly dish", as the AV has it, does not seem so evidently sexual. If LMC is right about the Hebrew, 'skin' is even more un-suggestive. And in any case, the insistence on milk suggests hospitality rather than sex, unless we are to conjecture a second-millennium BC lactation fetish.

quote:
b) The tent peg is a phallic euphemism, (with the original poem implying that she simply hit him in the head with the hammer while her other hand was occupied).

The verse in question mentions that she had 'pierced and stricken through his temples'. As we know from other stories in Judges, it's quite possible to say things like 'his skull cracked and his brains fell out' if that's what's meant. The penetration imagery here is suggestive of sexual humiliation for Sisera, but it's also directly indicative of the 'nail of the tent' (not especially phallic) fixing his head to the floor.

quote:
c) "Feet" were a Hebrew euphemism for "genitals", such that "between her feet" effectively means that she murdered him while he was "between her legs".

I'd like to know how Moo knows that 'feet' even has this connotation in Isaiah 6. The feet are often associated with uncleanness or contempt, but (as far as I know) do not directly indicate genitals. That said, the imagery here is again one of sexual humiliation for Sisera, precisely because he had intended to get between the Israelite maidens' legs, and instead falls between the Kenite woman's feet. I see juxtaposition rather than direct reference.

quote:
d) The prose account adds that "she covered him with a rug", which is also suggestive.

Suggestive of hospitality, as much as of anything else. If you mean it's directly suggestive of bedclothes, I don't think that's especially suggestive of seduction and sex; if you mean that 'rug' is symbolically suggestive, I think you may be projecting.

quote:
So it's in that context that I asked my question. Is the author of Judges recommending that women have intercourse with the enemy for the purpose of killing them?

No, the Deborah narrative praises Jael for using the skills of a tent-keeper - hospitality, welcome, nail-driving - to defeat the enemy of Israel by stealth.

quote:
(And that's how the Jael account ties into the Deborah imagery. If Deborah looks like a priestess of Asherah, with her high hill, palm tree, and attraction to the sons of Israel, and Jael is seducing the enemy in order to defeat him, the big point to be taken is that Israel is defeating the enemy out of their sinfulness rather than righteousness, and this would eventually catch up to them in 1-2 Kings.)

And if you don't think Jael has sex with Sisera, and don't think Deborah's tree represents an Asherah pole, the entire pattern unravels.

T.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen
I'd like to know how Moo knows that 'feet' even has this connotation in Isaiah 6. The feet are often associated with uncleanness or contempt, but (as far as I know) do not directly indicate genitals.

Good question. I have heard people insist that this was the correct interpretation, and I foolishly went along with it.

I conceded that verse for the sake of argument. There were so many others where feet means feet that I felt I could afford to give that one away. Mea culpa.

Moo

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by BWSmith:
So it's in that context that I asked my question. Is the author of Judges recommending that women have intercourse with the enemy for the purpose of killing them?

Again, why do we suppose that this story is normative rather than just telling a story? I see no reason to read this as an admonition for Israelite women to drive tent pegs through the cranial structures of their enemies. I think it's just a story of an ally who did just that in a particular circumstance for entirely circumstantial reasons.

Later in Judges, as I'm sure you're familiar, they tell a story about a man who throws his concubine and virgin daughter to a horde of "perverts" rather than get anally raped himself. Then, when he finds his concubine's corpse, he cuts her into 12 pieces and sends one piece to each of the tribes of Israel to foment a war. And after the war, the Benjaminites, being womanless, are told to go raid a neighboring tribe's party in order to steal the women for themselves, that the tribe may continue to exist.

I certainly hope that the book of Judges is not to be read normatively! [Eek!]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

The interpretation of "feet" as "genitals" is straight out of the commentary notes of the Oxford Annotated NRSV.

There are a number of ideological reasons why some readers might not be open to this kind of interpretation, such as:

a) too anti-feminist
Any interpretation that suggests that Jael "copulated" with Sisera cheapens her role as a warrior on par with men and reinforces the stereotype of women as sex objects.

(And because misogynistic thinking needs to be subverted, the church is better served by a chaste Jael than a seductive Jael, regardless of what the original audience may have thought).

b) too catholic
The "plain, literal reading" of the word "feet" must be THE meaning, because the whole "Scriptura" is supposed to be "Sola" understandable as-is by uneducated laypersons without need for the clergy.

(That is, the tiny notes at the bottoms of the Bibles from "the scholars" are useful as long as they reinforce what every reader already believes, but they are free to be dumped the moment they suggest something upsetting and unintuitive like "feet = genitals in the original Hebrew".)

c) too vulgar
Any interpretation that suggests that the subject at hand is really "naughty bits and the things they can do" is automatically a "projection".

(Presumably, the Bible is too "divinely inspired" to address such worldly things as sex.)

d) too anti-historical
Since it is impossible for Biblical stories to simultaneously be "anecdotal historical data from real events of the past" AND "a story with literary devices to communicate a theme", any interpretation that reads the Bible with an eye for literary devices is automatically "reading too much into the story".

(It is better that the story make no sense at all than for it to make perfect sense within a theme, because in our experience it is the "real data" that looks noisy and the "fiction" that has thematic coherence.)

Regardless of the above, I hope that one would be open to considering what the text would have meant to the original audience (as best we can determine who that was) and shape one's own interpretation to have some sort of continuity with "their view".

Because of the reality of the incarnation, Christianity is committed to history, and to history it must go to find truth.

[ 01. May 2007, 21:00: Message edited by: BWSmith ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Yes, indeed. It's all our fault for not swallowing (Ooooh! That could be taken a certain way, couldn't it?) this (apparently very inaccurate) reading hook, line, and sinker....

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, indeed. It's all our fault for not swallowing (Ooooh! That could be taken a certain way, couldn't it?) this (apparently very inaccurate) reading hook, line, and sinker....

No one's asking anyone to "swallow" anything, but rather to recognize that it is a well-documented interpretation that is considered valid by a majority of scholars in the field, and hence something to at least take seriously, even if you disagree.

If you don't like it, that's fine. I didn't invent this interpretation, I just happen to agree with it, and I hope others find it fruitful as well.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

BWSmith, I've found that *for me* it's useful to go back to the original language with as much knowledge as I can muster (and to that end I'm currently studying Hebrew with a local rabbi) and to also consider the various filters with which people and organizations and churches read scripture - lots of filters, lots of agendas.

I'm pretty convinced that scripture lets you know when it's meant to be taken metaphorically (e.g., Song of Songs "I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots."), that some portions are clearly historical (but not exhaustive and not meant to be), and some are profoundly mystical. I believe scripture is the best commentary upon scripture, the best tool by which to understand it, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Who is, as far as I'm concerned, the ultimate Author, *breathing* the message though the various human authors). Every generation has its own take and we can look back and giggle at some of the goofy interpretations of the past and yet rarely consider that our current understanding may be just as goofy.

You've set out an interesting interpretation of Judges and, by and large, the Ship isn't convinced. That's okay - it's not a point over which anyone need divide or take offense; we don't have to agree and it doesn't even require elaborate reasons why we don't agree.

In my opinion, the translational philosophy which informs the RSV and NRSV is not as sound as the translational philosophy of the NASB or even the NIV. Clearly YMMV.

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

In response...

a) Why assume that chastity and seduction are the only options to all women? To get into feminist critique mode, are we constructing a dichotomy where the only options are the chaste mother and the slattern whore? Are women, biblical or otherwise, really so tidily packaged?

b) Yeah, there is more than one way to read the bible. I tend to suspect, almost instantly, anyone who says that theirs is the truth to the exclusion of all other readings. Often, the reading says more about the reader than the document itself.

c) Of course the bible is loaded with vulgarity. It was written by people, you know! Why is this a shocking revelation?

d) Yes, the bible is both narrative and history. How one parses those two roles is up to the original. It's a touchy thing.

I'm sure what the text meant to the original author is meaningful, but I don't know that that is a guarantee of a reading that is in line with God's will.

I think God is in history, but God is also in now and in the future (or I hope so, at least...I'm kind of wasting my time here if She is not). I think there's more to the bible than ancient Hebrew history, though that history is a big part of the bible.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BW Smith
The interpretation of "feet" as "genitals" is straight out of the commentary notes of the Oxford Annotated NRSV.

I don't acknowledge the infallibility of the commentary notes of the Oxford Annotated NRSV. I would like to hear the reason for their statement.

Here is the text of Isaiah 6:2

quote:
Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.

I don't see why this should not be interpreted as meaning they covered their feet.

Moo

[ 02. May 2007, 01:39: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

We just read that Isaiah 6 passage in EFM and were given the "feet=genitals" reading in the materials.

I don't know if that's authoritative or not - the materials are put together at Sewanee, if that means anything - but I sure did like that thread in Limbo! [Biased]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The interpretation of "feet" as "genitals" is straight out of the commentary notes of the Oxford Annotated NRSV.

Like Moo, I'm very keen to know why. Feet and shoes have their own 'unclean' connotations, without adding a euphemistic association.

quote:
There are a number of ideological reasons why some readers might not be open to this kind of interpretation...

Some of us may actually have studied this text for ourselves, of course, and have scholarly opinions, as well as ideologies.

quote:
a) too anti-feminist
Any interpretation that suggests that Jael "copulated" with Sisera cheapens her role as a warrior on par with men and reinforces the stereotype of women as sex objects.

On the contrary. I think that the text certainly indicates that Jael acted seductively towards Sisera, and it's not wholly unreasonable to suggest she had sex with him. I do think, though, that it's not intrinsic to the narrative to read it in that way, and that if the intent were to make us think so for sure, it would be more explicit. Judges is pretty explicit when the need arises.

I also feel that the caricature of feminism as sex-negative is unhelpful. Jael is quite explicitly praised in a superlative manner in chapter 5. Any choice to believe that she did or did not have sex with Sisera has to take that into account. If she did, then it was a positive use of sex, since it led to the defeat of the enemy. If she did not, so much the better for the virtue of chastity. Expecting feminists to exalt the virtue of female chastity is probably not a hope worth clinging to.

Sisera is explicitly presented as a would-be rapist - a danger to women, their virtue and their chastity. If Jael willingly has sex with him in order to put an end to his ambitions, I would view that as an act of considerable courage, and not at all an impairment of Jael's putative warrior status. Certainly the text of chapter 5 makes it clear that sexuality, if not sexual intercourse, is a key element both in the mechanism and the shamefulness of Sisera's death.

quote:
(And because misogynistic thinking needs to be subverted, the church is better served by a chaste Jael than a seductive Jael, regardless of what the original audience may have thought).

Female chastity is a virtue often promoted by societies that are patriarchal (in the anti-feminist sense), and female sexuality is often (though not always) celebrated by feminists. Misogynistic thinking needs to be overthrown, not merely subverted. And in my view, it would be better to do so by embracing the biblical message that we are all one in Christ Jesus than by coming up with spurious interpretations of chapters from Judges.

quote:
b) too catholic
The "plain, literal reading" of the word "feet" must be THE meaning, because the whole "Scriptura" is supposed to be "Sola" understandable as-is by uneducated laypersons without need for the clergy.

That's quite a stretch, too. To take another example, your interpretation of the 'lordly dish of butter' as breasts is not merely not the plain meaning of the text - it does not seem a plausible reading of it at all. Your characterisation of this kind of linguistic jiggery-pokery as 'catholic' will, I expect, be as unrecognisable to Roman Catholic posters as it is to this liberal Anglo-Catholic.

quote:
(That is, the tiny notes at the bottoms of the Bibles from "the scholars" are useful as long as they reinforce what every reader already believes, but they are free to be dumped the moment they suggest something upsetting and unintuitive like "feet = genitals in the original Hebrew".)

The original Hebrew says a lot of enlightening things that may not be apparent from a translation without notes. I'm just not persuaded that 'feet' unambiguously means 'genitals' here or anywhere else. If 'feet' were actually rendered by the Hebrew word for 'genitals', I do not think that every translation would, for the main text, put 'feet'.

quote:
c) too vulgar
Any interpretation that suggests that the subject at hand is really "naughty bits and the things they can do" is automatically a "projection".

(Presumably, the Bible is too "divinely inspired" to address such worldly things as sex.)

No. Judges is pretty explicit when it needs to be, and Song of Songs more so. There are plenty of sexually suggestive or explicit passages in the Bible. And sex is not more or less worldly than, say, dinner. I just see no particular reason to think that sex is unambiguously, unavoidably intended in this narrative, where it is not mentioned.

quote:
d) too anti-historical
Since it is impossible for Biblical stories to simultaneously be "anecdotal historical data from real events of the past" AND "a story with literary devices to communicate a theme", any interpretation that reads the Bible with an eye for literary devices is automatically "reading too much into the story".

No, although you're somewhat closer to my meaning with this one. I would avoid, unless convincing persuaded otherwise, any interpretation of the historical sections of the Bible where the narrative becomes wholly subordinate to some larger authorial scheme. I've already said that I think the image of the tent-peg piercing Sisera's temples is intended as a sexual analogue.

quote:
(It is better that the story make no sense at all than for it to make perfect sense within a theme, because in our experience it is the "real data" that looks noisy and the "fiction" that has thematic coherence.)

But the 'hospitality rather than fucking' interpretation does not make 'no sense at all' - it makes perfectly good sense. I'm not convinced that your vision of a wider, doom-portending narrative structure in Judges makes 'perfect sense', or any sense at all. You've deliberately projected a negative view of womanhood onto two chapters where the women are explicitly the heroes, re-read the story in that light, and then claimed that this reading helps to construct the 'doom-laden' interpretation of Judges. There's nothing at all in these two chapters themselves which would lead us to read them in the negative way you expect.

quote:
Regardless of the above, I hope that one would be open to considering what the text would have meant to the original audience (as best we can determine who that was) and shape one's own interpretation to have some sort of continuity with "their view".

My view is that the original audience for the text in more or less its current form existed some time considerably earlier than the reign of Josiah. Accordingly, I do not think that the 'sex-negative' reading of chapters 4-5, and the 'doom-laden' reading of Judges as a whole, makes sense in context.

quote:
Because of the reality of the incarnation, Christianity is committed to history, and to history it must go to find truth.

Indeed.

Your reading of these two chapters seems to rest heavily on two things:

1) That Jael has sex with Sisera. As I've indicated, although this is an entirely plausible reading, it is not so explicitly stated or unavoidably indicated as to render an interpretation that rests on it compelling.

2) That Deborah is invested with the imagery of an Asherah priestess. I do not find this remotely persuasive, and do not think you have presented evidence which would lead any reasonable person to agree.

T.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

BWSmith:

quote:
... (That is, the tiny notes at the bottoms of the Bibles from "the scholars" are useful as long as they reinforce what every reader already believes, but they are free to be dumped the moment they suggest something upsetting and unintuitive like "feet = genitals in the original Hebrew".)

Teufelchen:

quote:
The original Hebrew says a lot of enlightening things that may not be apparent from a translation without notes. I'm just not persuaded that 'feet' unambiguously means 'genitals' here or anywhere else. If 'feet' were actually rendered by the Hebrew word for 'genitals', I do not think that every translation would, for the main text, put 'feet'.

I get this mental image of a bunch of ancient Israelites squidging around like some sort of gastropod on their genitals.

"Oooh, look at him, what big genitalia he's got!"

"Yes, and you know what that means -- He's probably got big feet, too!"

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

In case anybody's interested, I did find some "Biblical Romance stories" online - a kind of Harlequin Midrash, I guess - and there's one there about Jael and Sisera. Lot's of torn bodices and heaving bosoms, etc.:

quote:
Sisera came into the tent and she bade him to lie down, and she covered him with a blanket. She also lie down in her own bed, waiting to see if he would fall asleep. But Sisera could not sleep. He knew that the men of Israel would eventually discover his whereabouts and kill him. And his fear was transformed into a passion wherein he wished to lose himself. So Sisera arose from his bed and slipped into the bed of Jael. When she protested, he silenced her by dint of his strength. She begged him, "My lord, do not so to a woman who has hidden you in her tent." He replied, "Ah, but I wish to hide in your arms. Am I not a man of valor? Have I not sped? Shall I not divide the prey? To every soldier a damsel or two. To Sisera a prey of the spoil. A prey of the softness of a woman. Be still and submit to me, for I am a mighty soldier. And you are meet for me."

And he poured all of his remaining strength into her body, for she was widowed young, and her face and body were still pleasing to men. Sisera was spent but he still trembled in fear for his life. He said to her, "I am thirsty. Give me please some water to drink." Jael said to him, "Now sleep, my lord, and you will be well hidden here with me." So she prepared milk for him into which she had poured a potion, and he drank. Shortly he was overcome with sleepiness. As he drifted off, he repeated,
"Baal has failed me. He has not been strong against YHWH." He closed his eyes and as he fell into the trance, she said to him, "Yes, all the gods of Canaan are as non-gods to Him, for He is strong. My father's house left off from following the Baalim, for they wished to worship the God of Israel. So am I named for Him, for my name means 'YHWH is God', and I am the servant of YHWH, and you have defiled me before Him this day with your uncircumcision." Then she arose, and as he slept, she drove a spike through his head so that he died there in her tent. Then Jael went out and met Barak and Deborah and told them that Sisera lay dead in her tent. So the Israelites prevailed against the Canaanites after that day more and more, by JHVH's power, until they killed Jabin, king of Canaan.

It does bring some interesting possibilities to mind, I must say .... [Biased]

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

wow... I should've known, Biblical bodice-rippers.

And Janine, [Killing me]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

Are you saying people read that sort of stuff for fun, TubaMirum? I've seen better writing in primary school, although not on such a theme!

T.

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
No one's asking anyone to "swallow" anything, but rather to recognize that it is a well-documented interpretation that is considered valid by a majority of scholars in the field, and hence something to at least take seriously, even if you disagree.

If you don't like it, that's fine. I didn't invent this interpretation, I just happen to agree with it, and I hope others find it fruitful as well.

I must admit I thought it was what was commonly accepted amongst scholars when I was studying Ruth at Oxford Uni (only as an undergrad tho), both from the commentaries and the Dons. That's not to say there weren't other interpretations, but that was what was held to be the commonly held view.

(re: feet being a euphemism for genitals )

[ 03. May 2007, 12:53: Message edited by: Emma. ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

My problem with the theory is that the OT frequently makes very specific references to genitals. Why should they start using euphemisms?

Not only does the OT specifically mention genitals when that is the topic, there are also discussions of other matters where sexual terms are used as metaphors, e.g. Ezekiel 23:19-20,

quote:
Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

Moo

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My problem with the theory is that the OT frequently makes very specific references to genitals. Why should they start using euphemisms?

Maybe for the same reason that we sometimes use specific references at times, and at other times use euphemisms?

The instance you quoted was an abstract reference to Israel's apostasy, where a specific reference is appropriate (for prophetic shock value), whereas actual narratives of a specific story are better suited for euphemisms, where the words would not derail the story.

(Maybe also because "The Old Testament" is not a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi?)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith
whereas actual narratives of a specific story are better suited for euphemisms, where the words would not derail the story.

The use of euphemism implies that the topic has to be handled very delicately. The use of explicit language throughout the OT indicates to me that they did not feel the need to use euphemism. I don't believe that overtly sexual language would have derailed the story for the listeners of those times. They were accustomed to calling a spade a spade.

Moo

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The use of euphemism implies that the topic has to be handled very delicately. The use of explicit language throughout the OT indicates to me that they did not feel the need to use euphemism. I don't believe that overtly sexual language would have derailed the story for the listeners of those times. They were accustomed to calling a spade a spade.

Then that would raise the question of whether "The Old Testament" is a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi.

Perhaps the prophetic author(s) of Ezekiel were used to calling a spade a spade, but the authors of Judges, working with earlier poetic material, were probably more inclined to get creative...

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
On the contrary. I think that the text certainly indicates that Jael acted seductively towards Sisera, and it's not wholly unreasonable to suggest she had sex with him. I do think, though, that it's not intrinsic to the narrative to read it in that way, and that if the intent were to make us think so for sure, it would be more explicit. Judges is pretty explicit when the need arises.

My reason for thinking that Jael probably did not have sex with Sisera – put yourself in this position:

Your day started badly – a subordinate told you that the Israelites were assembling an army to defy your master, and you realised that they needed to be crushed – and fast – if King Jabin’s authority was to be upheld. But you weren’t too worried – your 900 hundred iron-clad chariots were a formidable army, and you had proved on many raids that Israel has nothing to rival them.

After half a day’s march up the valley, the Kishon in full flood on your left flank, you reach a confluence of streams feeding into it, opposite Megiddo and Taanach. It might be raining, and visibility is poor. Your chariots are at the head of your column of march, and your scouts are out in strength, but have not yet sighted the enemy. You cross the stream in front of you with a few men to get a better sight of the valley as it turns south, and no sooner have your chariot wheels cleared the muddy banks, there’s a shout from behind you, and ten thousand screaming Israelites come charging out of the dead ground to the north and smash through the hastily formed line of infantry. Your charioteers do their best to break the enemy, but are hemmed in, facing uphill, on soft ground, and can do little to turn the tide. You can’t see what’s happening at the rear of the battle, but where you are, it does not look good. Your second in command looks at you with fear in his eyes: “We can’t hold them, master. We just have to hope the rearguard know their work, and will beat them.” Already, the Canaanite ranks near you are wavering – there are men trying to swim the Kishon for safety, and Israelite dartsmen and slingers are picking them off at leisure. Your deputy speaks again “We’ll be overrun in minutes - you should save yourself while you can, master”. And indeed there are men coming across the ford now, spears stained with blood, and screaming the name of their god.

You turn your chariot away, but the pace is slow – maybe the wheels are clogged, or one of the ponies has been hurt, but it’s clear that you’ll do better, and be less easily seen, on foot. You run for it. You risk one look back, after a mile or so, and see the last of your elite charioteers dragged down and clubbed to death in the mud, while far beyond, the broken remnants of your infantry stream away to the west. You stumble on, expecting at any moment to hear the battle shout behind you, and to feel the shot stone in your back.

But no foe comes near you, and by the end of the day, you have taken your bearings and made your way to the tents of Heber, a Kenite outsider who has made his peace with King Jabin, presenting him with tribute and flattery in exchange for safety. Heber himself seems to be away, but his wife greets you as lord, and invites you to rest here without fear.

You aren’t safe, of course. Heber’s loyalty was never more than pragmatic, and he won’t risk his life for you. You are alone, and there is a victorious enemy army out looking for you. And your future looks bleak - Jabin’s rule was strong, but the loss of your army will be a severe blow to him, and who knows whether his subjects will answer his call while the Israelites remain unsubdued. But at least the horror of today is over.

What’s more likely – than you finish the drink offered you and collapse into an exhausted sleep; or that you calculate how long you think it’ll take Heber – the man whom you are now forced to trust for your survival – to get home from the pastures, and decide that that gives you just long enough to try to fuck his wife?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What’s more likely – than you finish the drink offered you and collapse into an exhausted sleep; or that you calculate how long you think it’ll take Heber – the man whom you are now forced to trust for your survival – to get home from the pastures, and decide that that gives you just long enough to try to fuck his wife?

Y'know, my position till now was ,"Nobody knows either way and why does it really matter?" but you just convinced me.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Then that would raise the question of whether "The Old Testament" is a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi.

Perhaps the prophetic author(s) of Ezekiel were used to calling a spade a spade, but the authors of Judges, working with earlier poetic material, were probably more inclined to get creative...

I think the story which begins at Judges 19:22 is as explicit as Ezekiel.

Moo

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

No, Moo, not quite - nothing about "emissions"... [Biased]

Seriously though, that passage is one of the most disturbing in scripture. Lot offering his virgin daughters in Gen. 19:8 is right up there, but in that case the men refuse the daughters.

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Seriously though, that passage is one of the most disturbing in scripture. Lot offering his virgin daughters in Gen. 19:8 is right up there, but in that case the men refuse the daughters.

I agree, and the ensuing war is just plain insane...(as I think I posted before).

But then, the punchline of the whole bloody massacre/sex fest was "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."

So maybe it's all just really extreme evidence to underline the oh-so-understated punchline at the end of the book.

But then, in Samuel, God expresses resentment against the monarchy (sorry I can't think of the exact citation). Hmmm...

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Yes, I think it's the great underlining of "see how stupid you are when you live in anarchy?"

1 Sam. 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them." I find that pretty clear: God's ideal was that Israel obey Him as king, which clearly they did not, during the time of the judges.

But I can empathize with the Jews: it's hard to maintain a close and accountable relationship with an invisible Being. He gives us directions and wants us to get on with it and yet not drift away into doing our own thing and ignoring Him. It's a challenge.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
1 Sam. 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them." I find that pretty clear: God's ideal was that Israel obey Him as king, which clearly they did not, during the time of the judges.

This, I think, is the thing about Judges: the judges themselves are the prime ministers of God's kingship over Israel, but the people don't recognise this, and do as they please. This leads to them being subject to other kings - their neighbours - and so they demand an earthly king of their own, to protect them. They were not satisfied with God's kingship: how do they expect human kingship to be better?

T.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Accepting what Teufelchen said about the antiquity of the composition (and the poetic piece in chapter 5 has many hallmarks of antiquity – e.g., obsolete language and syntax), I understand what BWSmith says about a final redaction of this book – though am pretty open on when that happened. I agree that authors, particularly authors in those times when the process of writing was expensive and time consuming, must have had a pretty good reason for putting on papyrus the words they used. I would think that the author of Judges intended to get a particular message across and that there was a reason for his decision to include both the narrative and the poetic versions of the Sisera episode in his work. Why? Why not use the narrative version on its own, which would fit with the style of the rest of the work? What was so special about the poetry that merited taking up all that extra expensive ink and time to include? One way to answer these questions is to try and answer another: What does the poetic section have that the narrative doesn’t?

Well, it has poetry, of course (yes, it’s always best to state the obvious up front). Is that significant? It does what Hebrew poetry does best – pulls the reader into the action, taking him and her through the stages by using rising parallelism. It raises a smile – especially that corking verse 27:

quote:
At her feet he sank,
he fell - there he lay;
At her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell –
Destroyed!

It is possible that the author felt that the effort involved in including chapter 5’s material was worth it simply because it was effective poetry, but as I say, that’s a pretty significant investment. Is there something else?

New elements in chapter 5 include the gloating against Sisera and his people; and the note of accusation against those in Israel who didn’t show up for the fight. The former may simply be expected as part of the nature of poetry – all that figurative and rhetorical language, etc. The latter is more significant, I think. The battle involved the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, principally. The poem specifically names other tribes as being less than helpful here: Reuben, Gilead, Dan and Asher.

Whatever the reason, I think the significance lies elsewhere than in the story of either Deborah or Jael. I suspect there was no intent to allude to sexual behaviour in here because the aim of the piece is to leave Sisera extremely dead. Usually when we have euphemisms, the prime object of the euphemism (e.g. Ba’al “going aside” in 1 Kings 18:27 as a possible reference to the privy) is subject to one activity only: the euphemism connotes a single activity. With Sisera, the activity is his death – I assume that’s not in doubt? It doesn’t seem likely that the ‘tent peg’ would connote a form of sexual activity at one and the same time as it denotes a literal tent peg. Sisera either suffers an unexpected favour from Jael, or he is equally surprised by a hole in the head. I can’t really see how it can possibly be both.

And on a separate note: I am no expert in the arts of Karma Sutra, so I will need guidance from someone who is and who can tell me the hypothetical position that would be needed by a first party to engage in a sexual activity while trying to hammer a peg into the head of a second party. Just can’t picture it at the moment, I’m afraid.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
And on a separate note: I am no expert in the arts of Karma Sutra, so I will need guidance from someone who is and who can tell me the hypothetical position that would be needed by a first party to engage in a sexual activity while trying to hammer a peg into the head of a second party. Just can’t picture it at the moment, I’m afraid.

I'm no expert either, but I think this is theoretically possible from something as simple as a normal female superior position. However, the text tells us that Sisera was asleep at the time of the attack, which would be unlikely in such circumstances. Which further inclines me to your view - one action only is intended here, and as that's definitely nailing, it can't also be screwing.

T.

[ 04. May 2007, 14:18: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

I suppose the nailing could have come after the screwing...

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
They were not satisfied with God's kingship: how do they expect human kingship to be better?

Well said.

Apropos of Nigel, did ancient Israel write the Torah and Tanach on papyrus? I believe the Torah is always on parchment, isn't it? hmmm. I'll try to remember to ask Rabbi about Elijah on Mt Carmel, about that... but (I'm considering) even here in the USA, "do you need to go?" is perhaps the most common euphemism, used by mothers with young children.

I just don't see a lot of editing work done by the Jews in regard to these writings, even in the ancient past. The work is far too unflattering to have been edited by focus people, you know?! [Eek!]

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
The work is far too unflattering to have been edited by focus people, you know?!

Unless the point of the text was to make the era of the Judges look bad. It brings to mind a possible parallel in Chinese history where the only evidence we have of the Shang dynasty is polemics made using them as negative archetypes by the Chou dynasty, which of course took over after they fell.

This could have been a form of political propaganda. I'm not saying that it is, but it's a possible theory that would explain the really negative stories.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Although, on the lines of "focus people" editing the Bible, has anyone read Stefan Heym's novels The King David Report, which is about exactly that? I'm sure it's not the way it really happened and there is nothing remotely scholarly about it, but it does make you think about Biblical spin-doctors editing the text...

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Damn, missed the edit window...

I also wanted to say that, speaking (as I just was) of Biblical fiction, and speaking as someone who has written fiction about this particular Biblical story...

Eliab, that was awesome! Loved it.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Trudy,

Thank you. [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Unless the point of the text was to make the era of the Judges look bad. It brings to mind a possible parallel in Chinese history where the only evidence we have of the Shang dynasty is polemics made using them as negative archetypes by the Chou dynasty, which of course took over after they fell.

This could have been a form of political propaganda. I'm not saying that it is, but it's a possible theory that would explain the really negative stories.

I think the closing chapters of Judges are propaganda, but I think the message is a lot more subtle than simply that standards were low in the bad old days.

I'm inclined to take the writer literally when he says "every man did what was right in his own eyes". He really means it.

Once past the initial (and inexcuseable) rape (which is told a with literary allusion to Lot's story, though may of course have its own historical basis), everything that happens can be seen, and I think is meant to be seen, as people doing "right" (*) on some level, but with terrible results because there is no central authority to decide between conflicting principles.

The host was "right" to try to protect his guest, even at such a terrible price; the Levite was "right" to seek justice for his concubine's death; the other tribes were "right" to feel outrage; the Benjaminites were "right" to defend their tribesmen from mob vengeance; the other tribes were "right" not to give their daughters in marriage to rapists and the condoners of rape - and they were "right" to grieve for the consequences of that vow once the war was over; and consequently, the reunited nation of Israel was "right" to seek to preserve one of its tribes by taking women from a recalcitrant city, and then when that did not suffice, "right" to evade the oath by a staged abduction. The irony being that all these "right" decisions end up with the nation that set out to punish one rape and murder actively condoning a mass slaughter and rape on a vastly greater scale.

The tension, though, is not between "good and evil" or "us and them", but between principles of tribal loyalty and justice which the reader is supposed to have some sympathy with on both sides. I think the effect is meant to be similar to that of a Greek tragedy, or an Icelandic blood-feud saga - people who in different circumstances might have been friends being driven to appalling acts by conflicting moral principles which they are not able to escape.

I think the point of the propaganda is that the King is meant to be the resolution of those conflicting principles, the person who unites and regulates the best instincts of the nation, not merely the one who restrains its wickedness. The general message is that there are circumstances where even good people can't be trusted, and that without sound guidance, good intentions can do great harm.

Modern applications of the principle are not difficult to find.

(* "right" here not meaning that I personally endorse it, just that it is possible that a good number of the writer's audience would be expected to see that someone might in good faith endorse it).

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
one action only is intended here, and as that's definitely nailing, it can't also be screwing.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Apropos of Nigel, did ancient Israel write the Torah and Tanach on papyrus? I believe the Torah is always on parchment, isn't it?

Well, the use of papyri for writing pre-dates that of parchment. Use of the latter seems to have started up in earnest around the 3rd century BC, when papyrus became scarce. One of the oldest fragments of the OT we have is the Nash Papyrus (actually four fragments), dating to somewhere around 167-37 BC. The majority of the Dead Sea scrolls are parchment, with only a few on papyri, and these scrolls date from about 150 BC to AD 50. So it seemed likely to me that the Hebrew Scriptures were recorded on papyrus before copies were made on parchment.

Although the scribes were pretty faithful to the text they were copying, it is the case that the earliest Old Testament texts were subject to changes. Scribes tended to annotate, correct, add or remove portions of the text. Texts found that date prior to c. AD 100 show quite a few differences (hence the need for textual criticism) and it wasn’t until after that date that a unified text came into existence and rules for copying began to develop in earnest.

Back on the issue of intention: critical self-reflection (or reflection on one's ancesters) may have been behind the text of Judges. In the same way that the Pharisees said that if they had been alive in the time of the prophets, they would not have persecuted them (see Matthew 23:29-30), so perhaps Judges reflects a mentality that in effect says, "If we had been alive in those days we would not have stayed behind when our brothers from other tribes were in danger, we would not have left it to a woman to have to kill our enemy; shame on our ancesters!"

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

Eliab:

Thanks for the explanation of the Judges story. That does make a lot of sense.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Some of that (textural changes) I think relates to the dynamic of an oral language which becomes a written language (e.g., the later addition of vowel marks, which still don't exist in a Torah scroll).

My understanding about annotations is that they happened *in the margins* as it were, and were not inserted into the text, and contained questions and clarifications about a particular passage (e.g., either 1 Kings 7:23 or 2 Chron. 4:2 have an inserted he, which changes the mathematical value of the word-- there's a notation about that extra he but it isn't removed).

What's your source for adding/removing portions of the text? That's not something I've heard before--

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Some of that (textural changes) I think relates to the dynamic of an oral language which becomes a written language (e.g., the later addition of vowel marks, which still don't exist in a Torah scroll).

My understanding about annotations is that they happened *in the margins* as it were, and were not inserted into the text, and contained questions and clarifications about a particular passage (e.g., either 1 Kings 7:23 or 2 Chron. 4:2 have an inserted he, which changes the mathematical value of the word-- there's a notation about that extra he but it isn't removed).

What's your source for adding/removing portions of the text? That's not something I've heard before--

You’re absolutely right LMC about the oral tradition; that’s a factor that has come into its own in recent decades, particularly through the work of Kenneth Bailey and James Dunn (admittedly in relation to the NT, but I feel applies just as well to OT studies). Even at a larger scale than words, the oral passing-on of stories allows for the chief characteristics of a story – its core – to be retained over time, while permitting variations in the lesser details – the non-core elements.

The process of placing emendations and clarifications in the margins became a rule in rabbinic times, after the fall of Jerusalem; the strict rules we usually associate with the Masoretic School reached their height during the middle medieval period. Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"...

A useful article that provides an oversight of OT textual criticism work is that by Bruce Waltke, “Aims of OT Textual Criticism”, in the Westminster Theological Journal 51.1 (Spring 1989): 93-108. Happily that is one that can be found on the web. Just in case you cannot access this, I’ll quote a few passages from the article that demonstrate the sort of issues faced when reviewing two or more manuscripts (MSS) covering the same passages in Scripture.

quote:
“The Qumran MSS validate conjectural emendations by containing original readings not found in the traditional MSS. For example, 4QSam(a) contains about three lines introducing chap. 11 of 1 Samuel heretofore known only partially in Josephus.”

“John Sanders noted: ‘There is no early biblical manuscript of which I am aware no matter how ‘accurate' we may conjecture it to be, or faithful to its Vorlage, that does not have some trace in it of its having been adapted to the needs of the community from which we, by archaeology or happenstance, receive it.’”

“The welter of conflicting readings in the Qumran scrolls prior to the fixing of the text sometime between 70 BC and AD 100 also suggests to canonical critics that the text was fluid and flexible, capable of being moderately adjusted and made relevant to the times. According to them, restraints on the text, such as the canonical proscription against adding or taking away from the text (cf. Deut 4:2; 31:9ff; Josh 24:25–26; 1 Sam 10:25) were balanced with the need to shape it in accordance with what communities thought God was doing in their times.”

“The functions of scribes and text critics became confounded after the text became stabilised at the turn of the first century AD for after that time scribes no longer sought to modernise and relativise the text but only to preserve it. Thereafter scribes sought to restore the text by means of the ketiv-qere (i.e. alternative traditional readings), sebir (i.e. expected readings to be rejected), and tiqqune sopherim traditions. Later on the Masoretes added the Masorah, the vowels, and the accents to preserve it.”

What the research demonstrates is that prior to the first century AD scribes felt more free to amend the texts they were copying than did their successors, who were subject to more rigorous rules. Things become even more fluid when we look at the translations (e.g. Greek LXX and the Samaritan), where changes were made for theological and geographic reasons as well.

Of interest in the Waltke article is the comparison between 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, where the same psalm appears in slightly different forms. This is an example from within MSS (rather than just between MSS) where variations from a scribal tradition can be seen.

If you are interested in further reading on this subject, the following are materials that I grew up with – which means they are not exactly hot off the press, but nevertheless they are still valid pieces of research:

* Cross, Frank Moore. "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts." In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
* Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
* McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

I’m sure there are more recent works as well, though I haven’t had the chance to check and see. OT research lags a bit behind its NT counterpart on this.

I'd better also make it clear - in case I'm giving anyone the wrong impression - that these early changes to the Hebrew texts were not entirely random or profound; someone once calculated that at least 80% of the content of MSS we have at our disposal so far show agreement with each other. Of the remaining 20%, the vast majority of the alterations are not of a significant nature. They include, for example, the likes of early attempts at vocalisation (the matres lectionis). Just occasionally we land up with a meaty choice between variants. An example from the OP text is Judges 5:7a – part of the poetic section. When we compare that verse in assorted English translations, we can see that the translators had to take a decision about which reading to follow.

quote:
The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel. [NASB]
Village life in Israel ceased... [NIV – footnote = ‘warriors’]
The peasantry prospered in Israel, they grew fat on plunder. [NRSV]
The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel. [AV/KJV]
Gone was freedom beyond the walls, gone indeed from Israel. [NAB]
Warriors became fat and sloppy, no fight left in them. [Message]

So the issue here is, are we talking about warriors, peasants, villages, inhabitants, or what?

Nigel

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Sorry - I forgot; there is a good up to date text book, covering both OT and NT textual critical work and aimed at first-year uni students: Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results, Downers Grove, Il.: IVP, 2006.

Although slightly disjointed (at least I found it so - presumably because it had to tie in to a uni course), it is a very decent place to kick off study and his excurses contain very helpful wrap-ups.

Anyway - enough; I'm through!

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Nigel, thanks for the rich post (which I haven't had a chance to fully unpack yet--) but you said: Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"... - how does that reconcile with the accuracy of the Great Isaiah Scroll, which comes from Qumran? Or are you arguing that the exactitude in copying is only a post-diaspora phenomenon, thus explaining the Great Iaiah Scroll?

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.

On how many occasions besides Judges 5 is there an opportunity for the OT to refer to female genitalia?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

In SOS they seem to keep referring to female genitalia as "a garden."

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.
On how many occasions besides Judges 5 is there an opportunity for the OT to refer to female genitalia?

That's not what the rabbi was addressing; he was referencing both Biblical and Talmudic uses of metaphoric language for genitalia and, according to him (and he's a *very* brilliant guy, serious linguistic scholar, fluent in Hebrew and Arabic) "feet" is ONLY a metaphor for male genitalia, never female. So it has no bearing on how many times before Judges 5 there is opportunity...

Kelly, my rabbi mentioned the overflowing cup (of wine) which is commonly described as the navel and he said, "now THAT's the vagina." Okay--

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Nigel, thanks for the rich post (which I haven't had a chance to fully unpack yet--) but you said: Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"... - how does that reconcile with the accuracy of the Great Isaiah Scroll, which comes from Qumran? Or are you arguing that the exactitude in copying is only a post-diaspora phenomenon, thus explaining the Great Iaiah Scroll?

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran are a good place to go, because the web comes to our rescue again: facsimiles of the Great Scroll (Qa) have been placed on a site for everyone to look at – link here for the main directory. Take as an example Isaiah 40, if only because I’m partial to that chapter! I’m hoping you are able to open the link, because this is fun (ignores memos to get out more) and it is not necessary to read Hebrew to see what the scribe was doing. Those red arabic numerals in the facsimile are most definitely a later recension! They have been added by the web site's author to show where the verse divisions occur.

Underneath the facsimile is a short explanation of the various differences between this page and the same passage now in the Biblia Hebraica (BHS – based on the early 11th century Codex Leningradensis). There are some marginal notes, some superlineal emendations, some alterations to words (e.g. the divine name) and some words that are just different to those found in the BHS. It’s worth having a flick around other parts of that Isaiah scroll.

As to accuracy, that’s always a bit relative. There appear to have been degrees of ‘accuracy’ (in the sense of rules to govern the copying of manuscripts) at all times, but the accuracy that we usually think of when talking about the Jewish Scriptures and scribal work belongs to the era post-rebellion – after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and even more so after the failed Bar-Kokhba revolt (AD 135). The Diaspora Jews (bolstered in their numbers now by those who had fled Israel) recognised the need to fix the canon of their Scriptures and build a definitive text that could be used across the world by Jews. I’m sure that the debates with the early Christians had something to do with this, too; the Christians were notorious for waving the Scripture texts under the noses of the Jews to show how those Scriptures pointed to Jesus. The texts most in use for this purpose tended to be the Greek translations and this seems to have been behind the drive by rabbis to establish a definitive Hebrew/Aramaic text.

A definitive text required rules for copying and checking, partly to counter unintentional changes e.g., the scribe missing a line or confusing similar letters, but also the regulate intentional changes e.g., to harmonise, clear up difficulties, or ‘correct’ theology. A key principle in these rules for changes was that the main text should not be changed; any emendations were to be placed in the margins or at the foot of the page. This contrasts with the earlier approach which saw – as in the Qumran scrolls – a freedom to change the very text itself.

By the 10th century AD these rules had become fixed and the scribal schools were pretty good at adhering to them. This great tradition lasted pretty much up to the invention of the printing press, after which the need for manuscripts dwindled (though still in use today in Judaism).

I haven't been able to find a web site containing facsimiles of the book of Judges. If, however, you are able to access the BHS at some time, you could take a look at the footnotes (the critical apparatus) and see how that MSS compares with others.

Nigel

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Kelly, my rabbi mentioned the overflowing cup (of wine) which is commonly described as the navel and he said, "now THAT's the vagina." Okay--

See, I'll buy that because there is actually some logic involved.
[Big Grin]

Female genitalia are quite a bit like a cup. They are nothing like feet.

And as I said on the other thread I linked, I don't see why it needs to be such a black and white issue as to the feet thing. Yes, there are things that we call "balls", for instance, but sometimes we really are actually using the word to describe a game of ping-pong.

Same goes for bowls of milk, gardens, etc.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0