Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Kadeshah & Tanakh

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
  • To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Kadeshah & Tanakh
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 5:37:18 +0000

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page