[b-hebrew] Kadeshah & Tanakh

david.kimbrough at charter.net david.kimbrough at charter.net
Thu Jul 15 01:37:18 EDT 2004


Karl,

You are quite right that the Tanakh preserves many stories 
that contain morally questionable activities.  However, the 
general rule is that these are identified and 
editorialized.  So and so did evil in the sight of the Lord 
is a common enough phrase.  Hezekiah did good on the other 
hand.  The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was very great Genesis 
18:22 says. Achen son of Zerah sinned against the Lord God 
when he stole the silver causing the defeat at Ai. Ham was 
wrong to see his father's nakedness.  &c &c &c.

Genesis 38 does not condemn Judah for visiting a zonah as 
it does not condem Samson when he makes use of the services 
of zonah in Gath (Judges). Rather Judah's hypocracy and 
dishonstry is condemned.  Judah had promised that Tamar 
would marry his third son but did not, leaving her 
childless.  Judah did not keep his word.  Judah used (he 
thought) a zonah without a thought but he condemed Tamar to  
death for being a zonah.  That is hypocracy.  Judah admits 
as much.  Tamar gets the children Judah promised by her own 
means.

The Tanakh editorializes constantly about what is right and 
wrong.  It never condems a man for the use of a zonah 
(unless it is associated with worship) but woman who is a 
zonah (or kadeshah) is always condemned.  Only in Genesis 
38 is the irony of this double standard noted.


> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
> Date: 2004/07/15 Thu AM 12:24:26 GMT
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kadeshah
> 
> David:
> 
> You are assuming that ancient Israel?s historians would 
not write anything unless they approved of them, which was 
the practice of much of the ancient Levant. Others take the 
understanding that those historians were so demanding of 
historical accuracy that they included, warts and all, 
failings of the patriarchs as well as their greatnesses. 
The second understanding allows accurate records to be made 
without assuming approval of what is condemned elsewhere.
> 
> If we take the traditional view that all of Tanakh is to 
be counted as context for all other parts, then Malachi 3:6 
that says that God doesn?t change also includes his 
condemnation of immorality. In that regard, what Judah did 
with Tamar was wrong. In fact, so wrong that there was no 
need to dwell on it.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <david.kimbrough at charter.net>
> 
> > While later traditions certainly condemns the ritual 
prostitutes, in Genesis 38 Judah thinks nothing too much 
amiss of making use of what he thinks is a road side *
kadeshah*, who is, of course, is actually is daughter in 
law Tamar.  Whenever Genesis 38 was writen, the author (and 
audiance) obviously did not think using the services of *
kadeshah* too taboo or the author would not have had one of 
the patriarchs doing so.
> > 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 
minutes free! 
> http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list