Let's get real about Bible stories...!

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Penelope

Dream,

Originally Posted by Penelope

This is very helpful what you say.

You are claiming, if I got this correct, that Ezekiel is utilizing a time-honored rhetorical strategy to nudge the straying Jewish people back onto the righteous path.

The "adulteress woman" is a literary conceit with a deep cultural history. It is an age-old image which helps bend the listener's ear to Ezekiel's message. And it is a complex, plastic image. Malleable. In one instant it means "you are being bad." In the next instant, it means "you are capable of being forgiven."

Very fluid symbolism. That's cool.
(Was Jewish culture that sophisticated then?)

This sounds, Dream, like Postmodern esthetic theory (or one major branch of it).
T.S. Eliot in his fin de siecle poetry and James Joyce in his novels of the collective unconscious used this precise literary conceit. Except utilizing global literary traditions as layer upon layer of internal reference.

If this is Ezekiel's strategy too, but more narrowly within the Jewish literary tradition, then ...
1. I can begin to appreciate what he is doing.
2. This is a literary conceit (Postmodern theory) I disapprove of.

Many Postmodern writers on the Visual Arts claim that art only refers to art only refers to art only refers to art.
Art is a closed room - containing all past triumphs of artist genius - but there are no windows.
Nothing exists outside of the tradition.
No "reality."
No truth.

Likewise Ezekiel, the way you have described his rhetorical method, Dream.
There is no (independent) truth for Ezekiel. Only continuity of (here, Jewish literary) tradition.

There is only "literature," if you accept this manner of interpreting Ezekiel's message. (Nothing to learn that you don't know already - from "the tradition.")
There is no truth.

That is unacceptable to me, Dream.

(Without truth, there is no genuine meaning to any of this.
In that sense, there is no Revelation. There is no God.)

At least, in my disrespectful way, I am scratching about for truth.
(Somewhere in the Bible, I expect to find it.)

Maybe we have started with a difficult passage. The, uh, truth is I am not sure what you mean by scratching around. I really hope you don't expect me to defend the concept of God. I merely point out that 'Zeke is not likely to have been anti-woman because of the tradition (yes including a complex literary tradition). He is not saying that women are evil or should not have freedom. That is not the truth you can get out of this passage. Zeke is saying Israel of his day left the right way, left reason in the sand. She left a reasonable husband, not an unreasonable one.

The trouble between men and women is automatic. We men get annoyed with women sometimes because we don't like being corrected, though we often benefit from said correction. We don't like being told. We like this about a woman but not that. It goes both ways. This is one source of all kinds of tension between the sexes, a truth -- an understood truth in Ezekiels culture. We cannot have this without that and must learn to appreciate that both are good. It is just like I cannot talk to you without the color teal being involved. To stem the suffering that comes from such true facts of life, we get married. We learn to appreciate the good things in life, instead of criticizing all the time. We smile just because its a sunny day instead of griping about the heat.

[Dream]

I am not saying it would be OK to criticize someone for canceling a marriage. That is not your business or mine, and that is not what Ezekiel is saying. The L-RD is saying Israel has left a wealthy, good looking, loving and reasonable spouse - the L-RD. Who in their right mind would want to leave under those circumstances, but that is what Israel was doing. He is calling for them to return.

[Penelope]

Dream

You have nice poetry to the way you talk.
Makes me want to believe, trust the validity of everything you say.
Relax. Enjoy life.
Go with it.

Boy - in high school - got me that way.
Very alluring voice. Apologies that I seem compelled to keep asking just a few more questions ... before I bite down on your very-tempting bait, Dream. I keep looking for the hook.

But keep it up anyway.
I love listening to the lyricism of your voice.

& & &

("Scratching around" - this isn't about Feminism, or man/woman, or whether Ezekiel is a misogynist or not. Whatever it is about ... it goes deeper!!)

[Penelope]

My name is Connie

Hi. I'm Connie.
This sort of starts out as a sweet story.

I come from Jerusalem. Well, Dad lives there.
I've been kind of hanging out in Bethlehem.
I meet this Levi guy. Country kid.
He's young and kind of sweet.
He talks me into going back with him to his ranch, in the Ephraim Hills.

But once there, it gets to be a drag - pretty quick.
Ya know?
There's Levi. There's Levi's herd. Then next door, more of Levi's herd. And in the neighborhood in the other direction? ... You guessed it. More herd.
It's just Levi, me, and ... uh, the herd.
(Well, Levi does have a servant kid. So not much work I need to do.)
Life here? ... Like, boring!
But figure Levi will marry me. Sell some of his herd, get a second place in the city.
Doesn't happen. (Months pass, couple years - nothing!)

Drifter passes thru.
Get to talking with him. Talking and ...
Well maybe we do something we shouldn't have.
Can't face Levi. (But his kid servant'll snitch, for sure.)

Hitch a ride with the drifter back to town.
Dad puts me up. Need to figure things out.

What do you know?
Yeah.
Levi arrives with his servant and two donkeys.
(You'd think he'd bring three mules if he wanted me to go back with him.)
Levi isn't angry. Surprise of surprises. He is real sweet and tender.
He and Pop get along fine.

I have till morning to decide. That's when Levi says he heads home.
A full day's journey.
But next morning Pop talks Levi into hanging around, and drinking, and stuff, with him. They become great buddies. So I have another day before the moment of truth. Next morning same thing happens. So come the fifth morning and we don't leave, I figure I have another day to figure my options.
But round noon, Levi says he's leaving. Definite.
I have to decide on the spot.

Pop hands me my bag already packed.
"Connie. You are Levi's responsibility now. Not mine."

Not halfway back to the Ephraim Hills, it is turning dark.
The servant points to the town of Jebus.
"I won't stay with filthy Canaanites." (People not of our race.)
So we press on, to Gibeah. (Benjaminite town.)
"Uhf. But at least we have the same color skin."
But no one offers lodging. So we settle down by the well.
Old Ephraim suddenly appears, geezer from Levi's countryside.
But been living in Gibeah. Invites us to stay, at his place. Nice guy.
His teenage daughter Molina helps me settle in.

Once down for the night, there comes a ruckus outside. Gang of toughs are banging on the door. Old Ephraim answers.
"Bring out the man (Levi) who came into your house so we can have relations with him," I hear them say. With Levi? Who are these guys?!
But the old man, bless his heart, protests.
"The man Levi is a guest in my house. Please do not dishonor me."
He shuts the door but the gang pounds, louder still.
Old Ephraim calls thru the door.
"Here is my virgin daughter (Molina) and the man's concubine (Connie). Please let me bring them out that you may ravage them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit an act of folly against this man (Levi)."
The toughs keep pounding on the door.
In the dark of the bedroom, suddenly someone grabs me and tosses me out into the courtyard. The toughs abuse me and gang-rape me, continuously, through the night.

Nearing dawn. They leave.
I crawl to the stoop of Old Ephraim's door, half-dead.
But no one opens to let me in and care for me.
Not Levi. Not Old Ephraim.
Dehydrated, I go into shock. By cock's crow I am dead.

"Get up. Let's go," Levi says to my corpse, packing the donkeys to leave.
No answer from me? ... Like, duh!
Levi throws my carcass over the donkey and heads home.
Once home, Levi grabs a kitchen knife and cuts my cadaver in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and mails them throughout the country, to each of the twelve tribes.

The twelve tribes are incensed at this crime against Levi.
They demand that their Benjaminite brothers hand over the culprits who committed this vile insult to Levi's dignity.
(They could go ask Old Ephraim for the gang-members' names. But no.)
These are men. And men are always spoiling for a fight. Any old excuse will do.
(War, of course, comes.)

I have been just a pawn in all this.
(In the letter he sent ... ?
The one soiled by my rotting flesh ... Levi does not even see fit to mention me by name.)
My name is Connie. My name is Connie.

- Judges 19-20

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Penelope

All I see is "literature," Marsh. (Possibly bad literature.)
I don't see the truth beneath the literature.

And, so far, you have not shown me an avenue to that truth.

(Without truth, there is no genuine meaning to any of this.
In that sense, there is no Revelation. There is no God.)

What a crock! I haven't shown you the truth? How can one person show another person the truth? The very concept indicates that you are not interested in finding any truth, Penelope; you're just interested in deconstructing scripture as if it were paperback fiction. The Bible is an avenue to spiritual truths, but have you read it? Have you come to it with an open mind, read it, and then tested it? Or have you come to it with the end already decided upon?

Prophets are people who have spoken words God has given them to speak. If Ezekiel had not proven himself to be a prophet to the people of his time, why would his words still be on record after thousands of years?

Ah, but then you'd say that you're not convinced that Ezekiel even existed. Actually, I think it's clear that you are convinced that he did not exist, because God does not exist, and if there is no God then there can be no prophets so there can be no Ezekiel.

Stop beating around the bush and come out and say what you mean for God's (who does not exist) sake!

[Penelope]

the Hebrew Scriptures – the Old Testament of the Christian Bible

I have been told by well-meaning semi-religious friends, that when I read this Book – I should read it as great literature.

I read literature for pleasure. I'd rather read Faulkner.

I have read the Qur'an from cover to cover, and much of the Christian New Testament. Slogging thru them might be tedious, like working one's way thru historical sources of any kind. Yet it is not hard going.

The Old Testament, though, is a nightmare!

I have a choice.
1. To try to deeply empathize, and embed myself within the original anthropological context of the texts. Or ...
2. To read the texts with a modern eye.

Frequently, I become so deeply appalled by what I read, that whatever empathy I have mustered – takes flight.

I am not a doctrinaire feminist nor multiculturalist, by instinct. I have an open mind. But the degree of misogyny and racism I find there is unendurable. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. I cannot be objective and overlook what is pushed - often page after page - in my face. Nor just sigh, and focus instead upon other issues within the text. No.

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings. In the times of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites could not raise vast armies (100,000 from each tribe? Get real!). This is pure bunk. (An inflated back-projection by writers after the supposed glory days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.)

Some evidence suggests that the Israelites did not need to invade the Holy Land. They were already one of its indigenous peoples.

Migratory Israelites of this early period, other evidence suggests, took to the hills where they and their flocks would be safe from the armies of the region's two super powers (Egypt & Assyria). During the good years, when there was rain – and the grass grew – the Israelites could go down in the valley and trade with the farming peoples there. In bad years, they would raid these same people for supplies. Then as a power vacuum developed thru the region, the Israelites moved down into the valley and integrated with the peoples there. Some trading of trinkets and sharing of customs, some intermarriage – this is what being a good neighbor is about. (Not reviling the customs of one's neighbors - which Scribal writings written later would lead us to believe.)

And the best archeological evidence suggests that the Israelites were good neighbors with the established farmers there. The Israelites were not - as the Scriptures trumpet-gloriously - sacking walled town after walled town, executing every last male (over the age of 12) in those defeated towns and taking the women and youngsters as slaves. Why did later scribes feel it necessary to make out that the Israelites before David's time were so warlike, so savage? So uncompassionate, so utterly cruel? What was the point of perpetrating this lie? Was it merely to fire-up the fighting spirit of later generations for conflicts they then faced?

Or was it just something which developed entirely during these later times? ... Phallocentric bravado? A hatred of women? A hatred of all other races?

A hatred of peace?

& & &

I am a modern reader of Sacred scriptures – from various religious traditions. I cannot keep my emotion tied up and tumbled into a closet. This ain't no secular pastime, for me. I am not after "old but good" literature.

I am after truth.

& & &

There is some truth in this Book. I know there is!

But how much underbrush am I going to have to clear away first?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

you're just interested in deconstructing scripture as if it were paperback fiction.

Come on now. There really is no call for insulting fiction writers the world over in this way!

[Dream]

Lets slow down. I am not even sure what response you are looking for, Penelope; but no I have not said everything. I will humor a fellow seeker though we are strangers. Many great truths are most easily found in Proverbs.

As for THE truth, I really think that we are all going to die and that only ideas and children live on, but I will not use the Bible to try to prove it to you here. I think ghosts don't exist. I would prove this to myself, but I refuse to prove it to you. I cannot explain away psychic phenomena, because I have experienced them slightly. I think mothers that have children who have died should not be forced to think about death unless absolutely necessary, and I think whoever values the Bible should be allowed to do so unmolested. It is valuable, powerful, probably the best hope for the future of the world. Its greatest value is in showing how to live with others and how to appreciate being alive. More and more people can live together peacefully, and when someday death is destroyed the Bible will be one of the tools used to do it. The future is bright. The present is ours.

It is also fun to torment Tao Equus with the Bible.

I believe in life, life, and more life. Part of being alive is preparing the next batch so they know how to live. This is not atheism but theism. Every second is good and unique, yours forever. There is no easy way to get another person to see your point of view. When a friend is stuck, sometimes you have to make a choice. Between the dead and the living, choose the living.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Penelope

I have an open mind. But the degree of misogyny and racism I find there is unendurable. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. I cannot be objective and overlook what is pushed - often page after page - in my face. Nor just sigh, and focus instead upon other issues within the text. No.

Yes, but you mentioned you were reading it with an anthropological context in mind - in which case, we're reading about a potentially bronze age culture, and one for which harsh survival in the deserts, between mighty empires, is a recurring theme.

When you look towards cultures attributed to similar time scales - Mycenaean, Hittites, Assyrian, even Egyptian, we are not looking at cultures big on equality, mercy, or the value of human life.

Originally Posted by Penelope

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings.

Indeed - it makes them pretty unique as religious writings, I think.

Originally Posted by Penelope

In the times of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites could not raise vast armies (100,000 from each tribe? Get real!). This is pure bunk. (An inflated back-projection by writers after the supposed glory days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.)

There have been interesting arguments from Christian apologetics that many of these figures can be significantly reduced if it's accepted that a basic misunderstanding of the early numbering system was carried through in later copies. 'Fraid my sources on this subject are offline.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Penelope

I'm not a moron. I get that. (Give me some credit here.)

you have to understand, penelope, that we get all sorts here. some people ride in with very clear opinions, big chips on their shoulders and a Point To Make. this is a dialogue site, which means, in my experience, asking questions in an open way, not in a "have you quit beating your wife?" kind of way.

now, in terms of your agenda, i couldn't say. i could probably hazard a guess at this point, but my most important point is this. when engaging in polemic about someone else's sacred texts, it is as well to be aware of a) what the texts actually say and b) what they actually mean according to the people who hold them sacred. now in reference to this:

The luxurious woman, which God's-intermediary-Ezekiel addresses, is not a person. She is a symbol for all Jerusalem – rich and prosperous and reverting to pagan ways. At least, in Ezekiel's mind. The infant city which God picked up from the dirt of the desert, then clothed in riches and made mighty. And which is now turning away from God.

in fact, she is a symbol for the jewish people. our relationship to G!D is seen like a marriage in which we are, essentially, the very worst kind of cheating spouse. it is significant, incidentally, that the jewish people are seen as a sort of "collective woman", not as a man, but that is probably a different discussion. the issue here is one of betrayal, of G!D's Feelings of abandonment, of understanding how we hurt One we profess to love.

This story Ezekiel spins is a product of poetic license. Is literature. Literature is, by definition, fiction. I am not interested in "literature," where the Bible is concerned. I am interested in truth. Where is the truth here?

i would certainly disagree with your definition of literature. my undergrad mentor once gave the rather pithy definition that "literature is writing which contains something more than just the story". now, certainly, the Tanakh has literary qualities, but then again so does legislation, or history. both have at least some relationship to truth, if not a straightforward, clear-cut one. in terms of what you are interested in, you have not made it clear what you would consider the criteria for "truth" - you have thrown it out there as if it was obvious, when in fact it is something that taxes the best of philosophers and takes up thousands of books, so i would certainly pick you up on that.

Ezekiel wants to destroy the luxury. And he blames women for it.

that is not what the Text actually says, however. the Text speaks of "you". so what is the "you"? how can you deduce from the actual wording that he means "women", not the jewish people?

It is quite clear that Jewish women are considerably more powerful now, in 600bce, than they were in Moses' time.

how? have you heard of the daughters of zelophechad?

Ezekiel hates their clothes, their jewelry, their ability to travel, their independent life-style.

again, the actual Text says "you", not "they".

Ezekiel saw it on the streets of Jerusalem everyday.

ezekiel didn't write it in jerusalem, though. he wrote it as an exile, i think you'll find. so, from his PoV, he was talking about why the exile had taken place and blaming it on the people's *religious* faithlessness, the hurt of which is conveyed by comparing it to the hurtfulness of *marital* faithlessness.

His imagery is too vivid for it to be otherwise.

really? i think you'll find that, for example, shakespeare did not in fact live in ancient rome, yet he seemed to have no trouble casting vivid imagery in those terms.

Ezekiel wants to turn the clock back to the good-old-days of deprivation, when men's wickedness was more worrisome than woman's legal - but seemingly sinful - ways.

this is assertion and, again, not based in the actual Text.

Turn the clock far back in time when women were invisible, because women didn't even have a stake in Jewish society.

again, the daughters of zelophechad give the lie to this. the laws of marriage, divorce and property enshrined in the Torah quite simply do not reflect such an analysis. women, from the earliest times, managed households, engaged in business deals and owned goods and property in their own right, not merely as a chattel of their husbands. women were prophets and leaders - look at miriam and deborah. i'm not saying it was a sort of feminist utopia but the Text does not support this position.

This is the subtext of Chapter 16, as I read it. This is its truth.

actually, it comes across as you reading a subtext into it that not only isn't there, but isn't consistent with how women are seen elsewhere.

It hurts to feel I am ... not taken seriously.

you will be taken seriously if you support your assertions and engage seriously with the Text.

Originally Posted by Dream

The woman of Ezekiel 16 is best understood when overlaid as a template upon other Biblical women accused of adultery -- all of the 'Tamars'

i'm not sure this is true either, there are two tamars, the one from kings and the one from genesis. the tamar in kings is a bit of a victim, but is not punished for it. the one in genesis is quite an assertive person, who uses the system to extract her from an invidious position as the despised wife of two sinners and one non-entity, to become instead the source of the bloodline of the messiah himself.

In fact, vs. 52 could be an allusion to Jacob's two wives, Leah and Rachel.

no, if you look further up in v.46, the older sister is "samaria" and the younger "sodom"; these are clearly non-jewish, albeit related "peoples", who are, despite their general presumption of wickedness, by comparison with "jerusalem" shown to be worthy of praise after all. in other words, by israel's poor conduct it has made G!D Feel compassionate towards peoples that would normally be held up as very bad indeed.

Originally Posted by Penelope

I do not know, for instance, if Ezekiel even existed or not. Is there any independent evidence (outside the Bible) that he did? (Say in Babylonian records?)
You see, I don't myself know. But it seems, to me, like an important question to ask.

that is an important question for bible scholars, of course. for a jewish believer like myself, it is obvious that *someone* existed and that they wrote this book, so whether he was really called ezekiel or not hardly matters compared to what he has to tell us, which is of far greater interest.

There are a multitude of people, places, and events in the Bible which have been verified by archeology. But there is also much that couldn't possibly have happened, too.

again, that is very much dependent on where your starting point and axioms are, as well as what you would consider to be true. if your standard of truth is a scientific one of reliably-dated evidence supported by independent verification in peer-reviewed publications, then, yes, i dare say almost anything would fall short that was written more than about 500 years ago. however, proof is not, philosophically speaking, the same thing as truth. it is simply a measure of the balance of probabilities and the reasonableness of a hypothesis. this is not my measure of the "truth" of sacred texts, however. my measure of their truth is whether they can be shown to be reliable prophecies which can teach us something about why the world and humanity and the jewish people are the way they are and, in this, ezekiel has a great deal to offer us.

Ezekiel is described as "a prophet."
What does that mean?
1. That he genuinely "saw into the future"?
2. That he is a madman (a paranoid schizophrenic)?
3. That he is conservative moralist?
4. Or just a "loud mouth" as I describe him.

from my PoV, it means that he received a high level of inspirational vision from the Divine which was subsequently written down. not as high as moses, incidentally, but higher than, say, habbakuk. we have technical ways of defining the level, based mostly on ezekiel chapter 1, which properly understood, is actually the gold standard manual for prophetic experience.

I suppose it could be argued, Chapter 38 - "Valley of Dry Bones," that Ezekiel anticipated modern genetics. He foresaw a time when the dead Jewish people - their bones scraped for DNA and put in test-tubes - are then brought back to life. Or, rather, a genetic clone of the original person. Do we, today, cite Ezekiel as a religious reference in support of human cloning?

i dare say some people might, it sounds a bit jurassic park for me. i would prefer to see it as a people that was symbolically "dead" returning, symbolically, to "life". therefore we would have to understand what the statuses of "dead" and "living" signify in terms of ezekiel's perception of how he understood what he had been shown.

"His message is a transmission from God." We have only Ezekiel's word for it. Hundreds of thousands of schizophrenics down through the ages have made this claim.
Did they all have a pipeline to God? If not, what makes Ezekiel different?

firstly, you don't actually have evidence that "Hundreds of thousands of schizophrenics down through the ages have made this claim", because i don't believe that has been documented. we believe it because that was the conclusion the sages (and the church) came to during the process of the canonisation of the jewish Tanakh and the christian "old testament" respectively. our sages received this tradition from their teachers - and the chain of tradition goes back to moses. that is, if you trust the sages not to have lied. fundamentally, this is what we mean by faith. either one trusts the people who have got us where we are today, or one doesn't. it isn't really faith in G!D, as such - it's trust in people.

Very fluid symbolism. That's cool.
(Was Jewish culture that sophisticated then?)

if that is a serious question, then you really need to learn a bit more about jewish culture. the answer to that is "yes - and it may surprise you to learn just how much".

2. This is a literary conceit (Postmodern theory) I disapprove of.

you are entitled to your own opinions, naturally.

There is no (independent) truth for Ezekiel. Only continuity of (here, Jewish literary) tradition.

philosophically - and here, i would appeal to robust philosophical method rather than to postmodern literary fidgy-widginess - there is no such thing as "independent" truth, not least because there is no such thing as "independence" either.

At least, in my disrespectful way, I am scratching about for truth.
(Somewhere in the Bible, I expect to find it.)

well, that is pretty commendable. i wouldn't say that is far different from my opinion, but the difference may be that you're not that clear about what truth might actually be.

If the typeface bugs you, look to your own writing, my son ...
You use the same font as I. Yes, TE ... "Verdana." And, yeah, most of the guys I know ... prefer to see the world in black & white, too. (Why is that?)

it's not just guys, penelope. it's because it's easier on the eyes. have you ever heard of "usability" or the "human-computer interface"? why do you think most books aren't in coloured inks? sheesh. talk about a subtext.

The Old Testament, though, is a nightmare!

I have a choice.
1. To try to deeply empathize, and embed myself within the original anthropological context of the texts. Or ...
2. To read the texts with a modern eye.

Frequently, I become so deeply appalled by what I read, that whatever empathy I have mustered – takes flight.

this is because you have avoided a choice you haven't noticed, namely:

3. to try to understand how people who love the texts read them within their *current* anthropological context, which includes (at least if you trust the sages) the original context within it.

have you heard of prof. james kugel's "four assumptions"? you might start with those. in fact, his "how to read the bible" is where i suggest you should go to understand why you think you only have those two choices - and what the other choices might be.

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings.

hmph. i would suggest that this might be due to your not especially understanding how jewish people actually relate to our own sacred writings.

might i respectfully suggest that the first thing to do is to stick not just to this broad brush approach, but to start with the essentials. rather than rewriting vast swathes of NaKh in rather tendentious and accusatory, terms, pick one verse, just one (from Torah preferably) and then we can start to work on unpacking its context, meaning and significance.

b'shalom

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Dream

The woman of Ezekiel 16 is best understood when overlaid as a template upon other Biblical women accused of adultery -- all of the 'Tamars'

Originally Posted by Bananabrain

i'm not sure this is true either, there are two tamars, the one from kings and the one from genesis. the tamar in kings is a bit of a victim, but is not punished for it. the one in genesis is quite an assertive person, who uses the system to extract her from an invidious position as the despised wife of two sinners and one non-entity, to become instead the source of the bloodline of the messiah himself.

Maybe 'Best understood' isn't the best way to describe it. I can see why it isn't clear what I meant. There are differences between those Tamars. Also I include more women in there as 'Tamars' than just those that were called Tamar, so it is a simplification.

[Penelope]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Yes, but you mentioned you were reading it with an anthropological context in mind - in which case, we're reading about a potentially bronze age culture, and one for which harsh survival in the deserts, between mighty empires, is a recurring theme.

When you look towards cultures attributed to similar time scales - Mycenaean, Hittites, Assyrian, even Egyptian, we are not looking at cultures big on equality, mercy, or the value of human life.

I,B
This is what I call the ...
Big Dog in the Neighborhood Theory of History.

The assumption is:
Dog with the biggest bark and biggest bite rules.
The smaller dog is cowed by the big dog, but this smaller dog will nonetheless lord it over the very smallest dogs (in just the same way as they were lorded over by the biggest dogs). The smallest dog will bark once and run, to prove (only to themselves) their virility.
Cruelty is the name of the game. Everyone is cruel, it is the only game in town. The strongest are the most cruel.
A Darwinian "survival of (not so much the 'fittest' as) the fiercest," as applied to Late-Bronze/Early-Iron Age history.

& & &

Take as counter-example the American Great Plains, circa 1700ce:

The successful Native American tribes who lived in the region - Pawnee, Mandan, Caddo, Arikara, Hidatsa, others - grew corn along the Mississippi or Missouri or Platt rivers, and would trek on foot a day or two into the Plains to hunt bison. These buffalo herds numbered in the millions. No tribe traveled deep into the grasslands of the "great American desert" due to the scarcity of water and wood, there. None lived there. Best historical indications are, that each of these tribes had their own territory (stretch of river, and its fertile land), traded with each other, got along well together. (And women were valued agriculturalists.) Life was good.

Then came the horse.
During the 1700s, the Spanish started trading the horse for corn, buffalo hides, and precious metals in Spanish-controlled Texas and New Mexico. Herds of wild horses were also making their way north from Mexico proper.

Jump 150 years into the future.
The horse cultures of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache dominate the Southern Plains while the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Blackfoot dominate the Northern Plains. These are migratory cultures without clear-cut territory, who grow to be mighty and feared. They raid - at will and without serious reprisal - the corn-growing agriculturalists/hunters at the fringes of the Great Plains. These migratory peoples are proud, fierce, and cruel. These tribes, as they grew strong, had developed a contempt for "weakness." Their culture would develop rules of behavior which were not just cruel toward any people they consider "weak," but toward their own women, as well. Women can be traded with or stolen from other tribes, like horses. (Between their horses and their women, the horse was by far the more important.)

The "weaker" tribes welcome French and British traders, and Spanish missionaries to their home territory. Later welcome the Americans, too. These bigtime allies become their protectors against the warlike migratory tribes. These peaceful peoples settle intentionally around Spanish missions or American forts - behind whose walls they can retreat in safety to when the raiders come. To cement this relationship, Pawnee warriors (for instance) will scout for the American cavalry, making the "blue-coats" a much more effective military organization. (The Pawnee people by mid-19th century suffer greatly, and face possible extinction as a people - due to continuous raiding by the Sioux.)

& & &

In my own backyard, the Pacific Northwest, sustenance was easy west of the Cascades. Tribes would burn off sections of forest to create small prairies, to make hunting game easier. Seafood and edible vegetation was plentiful. Life was good. They got along well with other tribes in the neighborhood, because each stuck to their own territory.

The only fear they had were of fierce masked raiders coming down from Alaska in their big boats with colorful totem imagery. These raiders plundered these peaceful peoples' villages every summer, and killed stragglers for the fun of it - those who weren't quick enough to hide in the forest at first sign of danger.

The arrival of Russian and Spanish ships and traders, later British and Americans with their trading posts, provided refuge for these peaceful peoples. And these big ships with white sails eventually scared off these raiders in their blood-colored rowboats from plying the same waters.

For peaceful peoples, history is a series of calculated compromises.
Big dogs belong to the Devil. Not God.

& & &

What I'm thinking is, I,B, that the original Israelites in 1200bce got along well with their fellow Canaanites (in a land much more fertile than it would be 600 years later, or today). Paid their taxes to the big dog in the neighborhood (Egypt or Assyria). But chose not to behave like them. Just ran for the hills when the big dog gets really mean. But they refused to engage in the dog-eat-dog competition. The Israelites, like their fellow Canaanites, were great survivors at the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age.

And maybe it was this well-practiced survival skill which made it possible for Diaspora Jews to persevere successfully within the harsh confines of alien cultures in Europe and around the Mediterranean.

Whereas the firebrand ethic - which rose-up the Jewish people to armed rebellion against their Roman and previous masters, and each time proved a fatal failure - was a product of the Jewish people belatedly buying-into this patriarchal big-dog ethic. An ethic started sometime after the onset of the Babylonian Captivity. Then, load-mouth Jewish scribes (like Ezekiel) started to promote this firebrand ethic. They would steal fierce, virile stories from all the big-dog Iron-Age cultures of the region - changing names of characters and locale to an Israeli Canaan of several centuries prior.

& & &

I may be wrong, I,B.
But I think you can see that a good case can be made for this interpretation of Israelite history. Particularly, from what we are beginning to learn from archeological evidence.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Penelope

Best historical indications are, that each of these tribes had their own territory (stretch of river, and its fertile land), traded with each other, got along well together. (And women were valued agriculturalists.) Life was good.

is that an operational definition of "good" that you expect to be universally valid, including during the bronze age in the middle east?

For peaceful peoples, history is a series of calculated compromises.
Big dogs belong to the Devil. Not God.

well, i think that would rather depend on what they actually do. you are assuming that all big dogs always in the end turn out to be unjust, or whatever it is. now, according to this theory, our policy of non-confrontation with, say, sennacherib, nebuchadnezzar, alexander the great, or indeed pompey magnus started off OK, but then went sour on us, to quote lando calrissian: "this deal's getting worse all the time". i can see how this might be quite an interesting thread to follow. the question would then be OK, you've got your big ally, what happens when it does go sour?

on the other hand, we acquired the persians as masters when they overthrew the babylonians and that turned out rather well, in that cyrus the great allowed us to return to the land and rebuild the Temple; that relationship didn't really go sour as an overall thing despite a number of localised problems, as per the book of esther. how does the theory hold up in the face of that example?

Whereas the firebrand ethic - which rose-up the Jewish people to armed rebellion against their Roman and previous masters, and each time proved a fatal failure - was a product of the Jewish people belatedly buying-into this patriarchal big-dog ethic.

that isn't the case - what you have there is the weak and corrupt hasmonean dynasty, with little popular support, bolstering their internal muscle by inviting the romans in and then succumbing to their overwhelming power - the jewish *people* actually didn't have any say in it, it was the ruling class that got into bed with the romans; there is no evidence that the *people themselves* with particular relevance to who eventually became the leadership - i.e. the sages - being distinguished by their wish to have no part of roman domination, NOT in order to impose their will on their local enemies. the jews never thought they could dominate rome, we just wanted them off our backs. i am not sure how this works with your theory, but you may be able to argue otherwise, i rather like this theory.

An ethic started sometime after the onset of the Babylonian Captivity. Then, load-mouth Jewish scribes (like Ezekiel) started to promote this firebrand ethic. They would steal fierce, virile stories from all the big-dog Iron-Age cultures of the region - changing names of characters and locale to an Israeli Canaan of several centuries prior.

you see, dress this up any way you like, it still comes across like you really want to paint my culture as made up of a bunch of knuckle-dragging, vainglorious, lying plagiarists. now you seem to be determined to make ezekiel out as one of these despite your lack of support from the actual Text, as i've already pointed out (to which you have not actually responded, incidentally) but i struggle to see how this narrative can be applied to jeremiah, hosea, amos, job or even isaiah, let alone the way in which Torah itself is interpreted by the sages.

i suggest, therefore, that your case isn't nearly as convincing as you think, given that it appears to be based on a tendentious misreading of a number of minority sources (which, in the case of samson, are not exactly held up by the tradition as behavioural exemplars) rather than how we actually approach the texts in question.

i still like the "big dog" theory - it doesn't necessarily explain everything, but it is quite interesting.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Penelope]

BB

Today, Sunday (21 June), is Father's Day here in America.
(If you, yourself, are a father, BB, I commend you. It is very difficult work. Being a good one, that is.)

This is the third year I and my two children are celebrating Father's Day without their father. (Les, yes, was a good one!)

Les is being eaten by the fish somewhere at the bottom of the South China Sea. The small airplane he was in, disappeared off the face of the earth a month shy of three years ago. (Due to this vicissitude, I could be bitter toward God. Or refuse to see Deity within the scheme of things. But neither response is how I view life. Whatever my personal theology is, it is not a reactive one.)

Les lived most of every year in East Asia, teaching (university level) and helping an American company set up business offices in Taipei, Shenzhen and other Mandarin-speaking boom-cities in Asia. Les's resume said on it "Fluent in Mandarin." Which was true for business meetings and social events, where everyone enunciated clearly. But I saw Les falter countless times encountering street Mandarin, and particularly so when some regional dialect was involved.

Les got back home to our house in the American Pacific Northwest, several times a year for a week or two. Once a year we'd vacation with him in Asia. The kids and I did spent one year with Les overseas (Penang). Aside from that very unusual year, the four of us had not lived together as a traditional family since the year we bought the house. Emails and the daily phone call were the glue that cemented our family. But the day-to-day family decisions were largely up to me. (Entirely so, now.)

& & &

BB, I am humbled by the care and detail you have given to my postings - all the more so because they are postings which you obviously consider immature, half-thought out, perhaps callous. You have given me lines of research to follow up, much to read. Things I do need to try to understand. I sense something deeply felt and nuanced in how you understand your tradition. And responding to you, deserves the same care on my part.

(And you expect a timely reply from me? J)

It was almost a game, in college. I would propose a "broad sweep" idea. The guys would attack my idea by detailing me to death. It was a strategy, on their part, to win the debate.
("I see 20 problems with that argument." I carefully answer each of these 20 debate points. Then they come back, "I find each argument questionable at 20 different junctures." Now I have 400 answers I need to give.)
The guys (its mostly a guy thing, a male thing) - they never got that I am not "into winning." It is not the reason I make arguments. Victory ("winning") is very hollow. Beyond an ego-boost, it leaves you nothing (well, leaves me nothing, anyway).

My vibe is, BB, that "winning" is not your gambit here. Perhaps that your "detailing me to death," above, is out of scholastic habit. Not a matter of "scoring points for your side." This isn't a soccer match (not football), for you either - is my gut feeling.

One of these days, I will locate a verse we each can analyze in our different ways. Till then ...

Bear with my "broad swath" a little longer:

& & &

Yesterday morning (Saturday), I would like to have sat down and spent a couple hours replying, BB. But the cherries on our cherry tree had turned dark red ripe. And the weather report said rain this afternoon or evening. It became a case of pick them or lose them.

So Troy and Brandi and I got out the chairs and ladders and buckets and bent coat-hangers to grab branches by, and picked everything we could reach off the high branches. At noon, we marched around to the neighbors with samples, inviting them to come pick as many they wished from the lower branches. Several neighbors did. This was a gonzo crop, by far the biggest crop this tree put out.

Les and I planted the tree the year we moved into the house. Growing, it put out small batches of cherries each June. Three and half years ago, I pruned back the upshoots and the various wayward, ungainly branches. The next June, no cherries. Zero. I thought I'd killed the tree. "No, it'll be alright," Les reassured me. Les was right, but he never lived to see it. Bumper crop now.

This is just a tree, BB.
But this cherry tree is valued. Not for itself, really. But, instead, because it has become an important part of our family lore. Means something to me and Brandi and Troy.
This family lore is emotionally satisfying to the three of us, because their father, my husband, is still a present force in our present-day life. But there is no Deity in this cherry tree, no deep truth. It is a fiction the three of us have constructed, one that makes us happy.

There is, on one side, the tree. And there is, on the other side, the literature (a story) about the tree. They are not connected (except incidentally). Me and my children have made a choice to connect them. You see?

This is not truth. It is lore.

& & &

Originally Posted by George Washington...?

I cannot tell a lie. I cut down that cherry tree.

Did George Washington in his youth cut down a cherry tree, and then own up and take responsibility for it?

It is a lessen in good values. But it also portrayed this sober, somber Father-figure as having a bit of shenanigans in him as a youth (which is doubtful, if you read his biographies). Most historians doubt the truth of this story. Even before Washington died in 1799, a great deal of lore had grown up around him. He was the "Father" of a struggling young republic, a nation trying to define itself and who it was. Stories were begged, borrowed, stolen, or invented out of whole cloth.

In this struggle at this moment in time, the truth was less valuable to the American people than some family (or familial) lore, to unify it, provide a sense of common purpose.

But time passes and this initial survival-need fades. But the lore sticks around like a spider's web in your hair. This near-worship of George Washington, now, belies what made him a great human being in trying human times. That's why historians find the need to separate the lore from the truth. What does it take to create a great human being in difficult historical times? Almost all lore outlives its usefulness in helping us to understand how the world genuinely works. The formula of lore is, in the end, too easy. Real life is g'damn hard work!

& & &

(The deep effect my children's father had on Troy and Brandi ...
And the deep effect Les had on me as a person ...
- even if mostly, this decade, via long-distance telephone -
Has nothing to do with that cherry tree in our yard.)

& & &

To the degree that they actually did exist, the Patriarchs and Prophets of Judaism/Christianity/Islam and all other religions deserve to be known by how these individuals actually were, as people. As struggling human beings in difficult historical times. Known not by all the lore that continues (like a cobweb) to surround them. Not by their cherry-tree stories, as nice and amusing as these anecdotal stories are.

Enough time has passed, BB. Can't you see that? The lore does them - does every one of them - no justice!

So far, BB, all I can see is clutter. All I can see is the lore.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Penelope

The guys (its mostly a guy thing, a male thing) - they never got that I am not "into winning." It is not the reason I make arguments. Victory ("winning") is very hollow. Beyond an ego-boost, it leaves you nothing (well, leaves me nothing, anyway).

I don't know about "winning", but I do enjoy playing.

How does one win in a forum?

It reminds me of Cowboys and Indians, where one would cry, "Shot you!"

And the other would reply, "Did not!"

"Did too!"

"Did not!"

"Did too!"