Esther and Herodotus, part six.

Now we know what has been happening between the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter two. The text tells us that King Xerxes' anger has cooled off since the banquet of chapter one and he realizes he has banished the queen from his presence.  Who will take Vashti's place? After all, he needs someone to keep him warm at night when he is in the mood for female company. (It seems that seducing his relatives didn't work out too well for him.)  The king's advisers propose an empire wide search for beautiful virgins to fill his harem. The girls are to be placed under the care of the king's eunuch who will see that they get full beauty treatments. The one girl who pleases the king, after he tries them all, will get to be queen. What luck! For the king. Of course, he heartily approved of this plan.

Did this happen? Who knows. It seems a risky undertaking, especially for the girls, considering the temperament of Xerxes queen Amestris/ Vashti. It is highly unlikely that any of these girls that Xerxes has gathered will actually become queen, even Esther. That's not how things worked. The queens were almost always royal family, with known connections. Marriage for a king was usually strategic and political. If this story happened, Esther would have been one among many concubines. Herodotus tells us that the Persians "marry each one several lawful wives, and they get also a much larger number of concubines." The wives were to bear royal children who would be in line for the throne or to marry other royals. The concubines had a lower status.

Enter Mordecai and Esther. We are told their family background and how Esther came to be in Mordecai's care. (See Esther and Herodotus, the main characters )  the implication is that Esther herself is of royal Jewish lineage. Perhaps that is supposed to lend credence to the unspoken claim that she deserved to be the king's wife. According to the story, Esther was beautiful, of course. She was one of the many virgin girls taken to the palace in Susa. Do you think she would have had any say in the matter? Could she have refused? The Eunuch in charge of the harem was very pleased with Esther. He made sure she got extra special beauty treatments and food. She was given seven (!) maids from the palace and the best place in the harem, all before the king had even seen her.

Next, we are told that "Esther  had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so." Why did he do that? First of all, the fact that no one knew of Esther's lineage is a clear tell that she was not ever a wife or queen of Xerxes. Second, it seems obvious that if anyone in the palace cared what her lineage was, they would have found it out. Since it appears to have been a non issue to them, Esther was clearly not going to be a wife or queen. Mordecai need not have worried. Esther was a beautiful woman, that's all that was necessary for the king's purposes. (Let's be real. Sex.) The secret identity is just a part of the story's plot line. Nevertheless, we are told that every day Mordecai walked back and forth near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was and what was happening to her.

What was happening to Esther? Twelve months of beauty treatments: "Six months with oil of myrrh and six months with perfumes and cosmetics." This was to prepare her for her first encounter with the king. It was probably also a precaution to make sure she was not pregnant and had no diseases. When it was her turn to go to the king, she could take anything she wanted from the harem to the king's palace. She would go in the evening, and in the morning she would be taken to another part of the harem, no longer a virgin. This other domicile was the dwelling place of the concubines, another obvious tell that Esther was never a queen or wife. Esther would not return to the king unless he had been pleased with her. Hmm. To please the king or not to please the king, which would be better...or worse?

Till next time.

1 Peter part five

We are at 1 Peter 3:7. The author has just finished expounding on how slaves should obey their masters and wives should submit to their husbands, even the bad ones. Now we arrive at the message to husbands. Husbands are not told to submit but to be considerate and respectful to the wives as weaker partners and co-heirs of "the gracious gift of life." Is that earthly life or eternal life? Why should husbands treat their wives well? So it won't hinder their prayers!

Finally, says the author, they should all live in harmony, with love compassion and humbleness. Sounds okay. They should also not "repay evil with evil, or insult with insult." That's okay too. What should they do instead? Blessings for everyone! They bless other people so they can inherit a blessing. That would be lovely, if a blessing was actually a thing and not just magical mumbling.

In order to convince the readers to be good to everyone, the author quotes Psalm 34:12-16, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the lord is against those who do evil." This is pretty much what the Psalm actually says. So, be a good person and god will hear your prayers. If you aren't, he won't. A simple carrot and stick philosophy.

Next, the author asks, "Who is going to harm you if you do good?" Boy, he is naive, isn't he? However, he says, "even if you suffer for what is right, you are blessed." Blessed. That lovely word that doesn't mean a whole lot but sounds like you won a prize. The readers are next told not to fear what "they" fear. Presumably the "they" is those who do evil. Instead, the readers are to set apart Christ as lord in their hearts. If  Jesus lives in their hearts, whatever that means in reality, it will provide them with something. Sort of?

The reader is always to be ready to tell people who ask the reasons for their strange beliefs, but they must be gentle and respectful, so no one can say anything mean about them. No fire and brimstone the first time they bring it up. Also, if no one asks, do they need to tell? The slanderers of  good christians should be ashamed of themselves. Anyway, "it's better, if it is god's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." Really? Does it feel any different? I can see saying that it is better to do good than to do evil, but suffering is suffering. None of it is good. Why would it be god's will for any people, good or evil,  to suffer?

Because...Christ suffered. He was righteous, and he died to bring them, the unrighteous, to god. "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit." In what sense was he actually alive? What does being alive by the spirit entail? Is it real life, or Memorex?

We will stop there because the next section is going to need its own separate post. Till next time.

1 Peter part four

We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.

Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9,  "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.

Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.

The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?

Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.

Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!

Hebrews part eighteen

We are now at Hebrews chapter thirteen, the last chapter. The end is in sight! In this chapter, the Hebrews are told to continue loving each other as brothers, because they might entertain angels without knowing it. They also need to remember those in prison and those being mistreated, as if it were they themselves suffering. What good will being remembered do for the people who are actually suffering?

The author goes on to say " marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed be kept pure." That means nobody gets to have sex with a non spouse. Why? Because God hates adulterers and the sexually immoral. What is the difference between an adulterer and a sexually immoral person? I don't know, maybe they are the same thing. I was wrong when I previously wrote that Jesus said nothing about sex. He was clearly against adultery and lust.

The readers are also told not to love money. They need to be content with what they have, "because god has said I will never leave you or forsake you." (A quote from Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 31:6) What good is god's invisible presence when you have no food or shelter or means to obtain it?

The Hebrews are also told to say with confidence, "The lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me." (Psalm 118:6-7) In case you didn't already know, man/mankind can do a lot of harm, to other people and property, in spite of a god who is supposed to be a helper. At many times, there are legitimate reason to be very afraid. It's almost like there is no god.

The readers are also told to remember their leaders who spoke the word of god to them.(Like maybe the author of this book?) The leaders are providing an example of life and faith that needs to be imitated. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Amen. That means every believer should be living and believing the exact same way. "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Like stories about crucified and risen saviors, who became invisible heavenly high priests, and sprinkle their invisible blood, making people have eternal life?

Next, the Hebrews are to that it is good for their hearts "to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Huh? First of All, what in tarnation is grace? How can it strengthen a heart?  Second, what do ceremonial foods have to do with anything? The author appears to be sharply veering right back into his  high priest and temple metaphor, or the heavenly reality of which that earthly stuff is a shadow. He speaks of people having no right to eat from the altar they minister at. Presumably he is talking about the earthly high priests.

Again, the author talks about the earthly high priest carrying the blood of animals into the holy place. He says the bodies of the animals were burned outside the city, after the sacrifice. Then the author somehow associates this with Jesus "suffering outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." So, likewise the believers should bear the disgrace Jesus bore by being outside the city. (Presumably Jerusalem) They don't need the city, because they are looking for the enduring city that is to come. Hmm. This seems like the kind of thing outcasts might say.

I'm going to revise my ruminations and guess that this book may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem after all, in the infancy of Christianity.  It definitely appears to be pre synoptic gospels, and maybe even pre Paul.

Till next time.

Mark part seventeen

We are at Mark 9:38. John tells Jesus that the disciples saw someone casting out demon's in Jesus's name and they told that person to stop. Remember Jesus's name was the same as Joshua of the old Testament. He surely wasn't the only person in first century Israel with that name either. Could people have been trying to cast out demons in the name of Joshua without realizing there was a specific living person with that name who might claim a monopoly on exorcisms? Jesus told John not to stop the people who were doing that, because if they could do a miracle in Jesus's name, they had to be on his side. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Tell that to all the "true christians" who think that just being for Jesus is not enough.

The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.

We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.

Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)

Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one.  Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian  women have just as much right as a man to divorce.

This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?

We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.

Submission, respect, and the study of theology part 2

Last time, I talked about how when we do a bible word study, the average person does not have a masters degree in theology, nor a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, unless they want to rely on what someone else tells them a text means, they must take the translated text at face value, or use the tools available to the general public. Since I do not want to place my eternal fate in another person's hands, I prefer to use the latter methods of bible study. That is what most protestant christians do and what I, as an atheist, do in my writings here on this blog.

Thankfully, the internet gives us many bible study tools that were not always readily available to the masses in the past.  I do not accept that there are people who have more authority when it comes to bible interpretation than I do. Mostly because I believe that the bible is a human product, not divine in any way. It only matters what you believe it says, if you think you have an interest in it being truly the work of a god with some kind of power over your life. Even when that is the case, how do so many different versions of christianity have different answers to the same questions?

The person with whom  I was discussing Ephesians 5 not only said I was committing "root fallacy" when it came to the translation of phobetai as a cousin to fear. They also said that submission in this passage did not mean obedience or subjection as to a king or god.

According to this person:
"And from my study of the Greek text regarding "submission" it s not about rote obedience, but "to lovingly yield ones own interest in behalf of another" - and is implied from the mutual submission in 5:20. . . it's more about not seeking one's own way to the detriment of the other person than anything else, and not a complete abdication of will."

My response:
"How do you know what the usage and meaning of the time were? Source that supports this assertion, without biased interpretation? And how do you explain the clear statement for the wife to submit to the husband in Everything, if not a complete abdication of the will? Those words submit/submission are translated as obedience in other passages. Frankly, to me, you are reading the passage through rose colored glasses."

Lets look at the Greek interlinear for Ephesians 5 (link). Go to the end of the chapter and read from about verse 20. In the Greek there appears to be only two places with a word that actually means submission (verse 21) or subjection (verse 24). My NIV uses the English word submit four times. Verse 21 has the Greek "hypotassomenoi." Here is the Strong's concordance entry for that word. (Link) When I click on the word itself (link), I find that this form of the word only appears in the NT twice. The other time refers to servants being in subjection to masters. 

The word in verse 24, "hypotassetai." has the same Strong's entry as the previous word.  When I click on the word itself (link), I  find a total of five occurances. Not one appears to have a connotation of "lovingly yielding ones interests on behalf of another." I maintain that the person with whom I was discussing this passage was looking at it with rose colored glasses--they saw what they wanted to see. 

Both of the words appear to mean subjection with an implication of obedience, as to a higher authority. I am convinced that this passage means exactly what it appears to mean: Paul is telling wives to obey their husbands in everything. Christian wives do not have personal autonomy. That is unacceptable.

Ephesians chapter 5, part 2

*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not  healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.

*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.

*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary.  What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?

*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.

*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church.  It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church."  This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.

*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves,  and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)

*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect"  would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?

Proverbs 31, part 3 and wrap up

We left off at verse 24:

*The wife of noble character "makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes." This lady is a one woman factory. She obviously doesn't have toddlers. When does she eat and sleep?

*"She is clothed with strength and dignity (I'm picturing the statue of liberty); she can laugh at the days to come." This lady is not worried about the future, she's prepared.

*"She speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue." I wonder if less perfect people get a little tired of her.

*"She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness." We get it, she's a busy lady. I know I'm getting tired just reading about this paragon of virtue.

*"Her children arise and call her blessed." When do they ever see her or get to spend time with her? "Her husband also, and he praises her." Of course he does, he doesn't want to lose his meal ticket. See women of the world, this is all you have to do to get your husband to praise you. Earn it.

*"Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Not only that, you are a figment of some man's imagination. A woman certainly didn't write this passage.

*"Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears Yahweh is to be respected." What does that mean? Is the author saying that a god fearing woman will try to emulate this example of perfection? How does one show that one  fears Yahweh? By working one's self to exhaustion? We are not told that this woman prays or performs any kind of religious rituals.

*"Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate." What reward has she earned? Not rest. Looks like praise is the reward. Not only praise, but praise at the city gate. Who is at the city gate? All those shiftless men who sitting around just talking religion and politics. Industrious women aren't hanging around the city gate. Who gets to hear and reap the social benefits of the public praise of this woman? Her husband.

I have read this passage sarcastically because I don't think it should be taken seriously. It is one man's description of an ideal wife, who doesn't exist.  Supposedly it has traditionally been read by husbands to their wives at Sabbath meals. What a load of guilt to lay on a woman who might not measure up, as is likely.

We don't know exactly when this was written, or by whom. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, divine inspiration, original sin, or a messiah. There is only a passing mention of Yahweh. No where in the bible is there an equal passage about a noble husband. Most women probably wouldn't have been able to read it. Since men were  in charge of  public scripture reading, and were the ones who wrote the scriptures, it's not surprising. The Bible is conspicuously missing a woman's point of view.

Proverbs 31, part 2

We left off at verse 16.

*A wife of noble characer "considers a field and buys it",without asking her husband! "Out of her earnings (she's a working woman) she plants a vinyard." This lady invests in the future. This lady manages her own finances and property. Imagine that.

*"She sets about her work vigorously, her arms are strong for her tasks." This lady is admired for her physical strength! She is not required to be dainty and appear weak to appease her husband's ego.

*"She sees that her trading is profitable." This lady knows market rates and how to keep from getting swindled. She gets what her products are worth. "Her lamp does not go out at night." She works long hours.

*"In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers." She keeps busy and is not afraid to work.

*"She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hand to the needy." This lady is generous and compassionate to those less fortunate than herself.

*"When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet." She is prepared for the winter weather and makes sure her family is dressed warmly.

*"She makes coverings for her bed. She is  clothed in fine linen and purple." This lady is industrious and wealthy.

*So, what does her husband do? "Her husband is respected at the city gate where he takes his seat among the elders of the land." In other words, he sits on his butt all day talking with other similarly lucky men who have overworked wives to run thier households and make their clothes. If she were to stop doing all that stuff she does so well, it wouldn't be so good for his reputation.

To be fair, a woman of that time most likely would not have considered her position to be unjust or oppressive. There were no modern sensibilities about equality, independence, overwork, and emotional labor.  Plus, this is an *ideal* woman of the time. The likelihood of any one woman having all these attributes seems pretty slim. Even though the woman in Proverbs 31 is part of a patriarchal system, she has appears to have a considerable amount of freedom, compared to what the modern Christian fundamentalist patriarchy would give their wives. I don't see anything about deferring to her husband or asking his advice when she is capable of thinking for herself.


To be continued...

Ruth chapter 4

After reading chapter 4:

*That was fast! We are already on the last chapter of Ruth. Now we see Boaz arranging for his marriage to Ruth. He finds the kinsman-redeemer who has a closer claim than he does. In the presence of ten elders, he explains that Naomi is selling the land of their "brother" Elimelech. Does this mean Boaz and the other man are actually younger brothers of Elimelech, Boaz being the youngest? The other man is willing to redeem the land until Boaz explains that there is another piece of property that goes along with it, the dead man's widow, which technically is Naomi, not Ruth. But I suppose Ruth would be part of the package, since it appears that once a family owned a woman, she was theirs to do with what they wanted. Boaz also told the other man that if he took on all this "property," he would be responsible for maintaining the name of the dead. This would mean he was obligated to produce  children for a dead man with the dead man's widow, as in the story of Tamar back in Genesis.

*The other man was unwilling to take this on because of legal implications regarding the property he already owned,  probably his current wife and children. So, he took off his sandle and handed it to Boaz, which is said to have been a way of concluding legal transactions in those days. Boaz was told he could buy the "property" himself. Then Boaz reminds the ten elders that they are witnesses and that he now owns the dead men's property, including Ruth. He owns Naomi too, even though the text doesn't say so, which gives her the security of a good home for the rest of her life. The elders  agreed to be witnesses of the transaction and gave Boaz a blessing saying may his offspring be famous in Bethlehem and may his family be blessed like that of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah. Judah was also much older than Tamar (He was her father-in-law and a kind of kinsman redeemer, even if reluctantly.) Of course the author of this story already knew that Boaz's descendant was claimed to be King David. That increases the likelihood that he put these words into the mouths of the witnesses. See, another prophecy conveniently came true! Funny how that works.

*Ruth and Boaz became husband and wife, and Yahweh "enabled"  Ruth to concieve. She had a son, because Israelite women seem to disproportionately bear sons. The local women praised Yahweh and blessed Naomi, again prophesying Ruth's son would become famous. Naomi took care of her grandchild like she was its mother. The other women even said, "Naomi has a son."  Hopefully Ruth was okay with that. The boy was named Obed, and became the father of Jesse, the father of David.

*Lastly, we are given a geneology from Perez, the Tamar connection, to David. Ten generations from Judah, a son of Israel (Jacob), in Genesis, to David, forefather of the Judahite monarchy. This appears to be problematic. A generation is approximately 22-32 years. We have been told the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. (Exodus 12:41) David's ancestors from that era would have been Perez, Hezron, Ram, and Aminidab. That is an average generation  of 107 years. The time of the judges supposedly lasted at least 350years from scriptures we have read so far. We may find out more later. David's ancestors from that period would have been from Nashon (also mentioned in Numbers 7), Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse.  That is an average generation of 70 years. 780 years altogether, at normal human reproduction rate, would have produced at least 25 generations, unless they all took after Abraham and produced children at a very advanced age. What is the likelihood of that?

Ruth chapter 3

After reading chapter 3:

*One day, Naomi decides to take matters into her own hands and find Ruth a permanent home. She thinks Boaz is a good prospect because he is a relative of her husband's. Lots of sources assume this has to do with Levirate marriage, where a brother of a widow's deceased husband is obligated to marry the widow and produce heirs for his older brother. But it doesn't seem to fit the circumstances of this story. Naomi does call him a kinsman, which suggests that the kinsman-redeemer tradition may have included more than land. Women were property as well, after all.

*Anyway, Naomi tells Ruth to wash her self, put on perfume, and dress in her best clothes. Then she is to go to the threshing floor, where Boaz is, and secretly watch him eating and drinking until he goes to sleep. Then she is to creep up to him, uncover his feet, and lie down. This is obviously a proposal of some kind. There are lots of opinions about this floating around. Some people have suggested that "feet" is a euphamism for genitals. Others say that it just means Ruth got under the covers with him, which is risky/risqué enough. There is the natural tendency to think this could have gone very wrong. A jewish perspective is found here.

*Ruth did what Nomi told her. In the middle of the night, Boaz was startle and discovered Ruth. He naturally wanted to know who she was. She told him and them requested that he spread the corner of his garment over her, because he qualified as a kinsman redeemer. It seems to imply that she is proposing that he take her as a wife and possibly may imply that she is offering to give him the right to redeem the family lands in exchange for her body. I don't know how else to put it.  This would be in Boaz's benefit as well. He would become richer in fact, if not in verbal technicality. Traditional semantics would say any children or profits would be in Ruth's dead husband's name. It seems Boaz was willing to live with that, and with Ruth. Boaz was flattered that she chose him, an obviously older man. Plus, she has a very good reputation as a hard worker.

*However, Boaz tells Ruth that someone else has a closer family relationship, with the right of first refusal. He will go see if that man wants Ruth. If he doesn't, then Boaz will take her. Ruth has become a commodity. Meanwhile, she is to remain sleeping near him. Early in the morning, she got up to go and Boaz told her not to let anyone know she had been there. I can see why. It certainly looks like something was going on. I'm sure neither one of them wanted to be stoned to death. Then Boaz sent Ruth home to Naomi with a shawl full of barley. Down payment on a bride price? Next Naomi assured Ruth that she just needed to wait, Boaz would not rest until the matter was settled that day. Boaz wanted Ruth.

Ruth chapter 1

After reading chapter 1:

*The story starts off in a once-upon-a-time way: "In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land." Right away, this tells us the story was not written when the judges ruled, which would mean it was written  some time after the institution of the monarchy. Then we are told about a family of Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. There was Elimelek the father, Naomi the mother, and their sons, Mahlon and Kilion. The family was living in Moab, presumably to escape the famine. The father died there, and the sons married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. After10 years, the sons both died, leaving the three women alone, which probably was not a good thing in those days. They had no children.

*Deuteronomy 23:3-6 forbids alliances with Moabites and their descendants. In the book of Ruth, Yahweh seems to have no problem with the marriage of an Israelite to a Moabite. I've seen suggestions that that is really the whole point of the story. Now, I wonder if some contradictions in the various bible books are done on purpose, like a duel of different Israelite ideologies.

*An interesting feature of this story, and many of the Old Testament stories is that the names of the main characters have Hebrew meanings that give the story added dimension. According to my study bible, Elimelek means "God (El) is king." Naomi is "pleasant." Mahlon may mean "weakling." Ruth is similar to the Hebrew word for "friendship." Kilion and Orpah are not defined, and other sources seem doubtful about definite meanings.

*Because her husband and sons were dead, and she had heard that Yahweh was finally providing food for his people,Naomi decided to go back to Judah. She told her daughters-in-law to go back to their families of origin and get new husbands. She said a tearful goodbye, but they said they would go with her. She wondered why they would do that when she didn't have any more sons to give them as husbands. (See Levirate marriage) Then she says her lot is a bitter one and Yahweh is against her. Orpah kissed her and left, but Ruth clung to her. Naomi urge Ruth to return to her family. Then Ruth said those famous lines, "Where you will go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my god." Then Ruth made an oath that Yahweh could punish her if she should ever leave Naomi. So Naomi stopped telling her to leave.

*They traveled on to Bethlehem. When they got there, they caused quite a stir. Naomi told her old friends to call her "Mara" (meaning bitter) because her life was so bitter. She also told them Yahweh brought misfortune upon her. No fake praise in the face of disaster for her.

*When Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem, the barley harvest was just beginning. This would make it early spring, around the time of Passover.

Judges chapter 21

After reading chapter 21:

* We have finally reached the last chapter of Judges! The story of the last two chapters continues: Back at the beginning of chapter 20, when the Israelites gathered at Mizpah, apparently they made a solemn oath to Yahweh that not one of them would ever give a daughter to a Benjamite in marriage. Now, after the battle, they are again at Bethel, where they are bewailing the loss of one of the tribes of Israel. Really? They purposefully conducted a battle in which over 65,000 armed men, and whole towns full of people,plus their animals, were killed, and now they are grieving for the lost tribe of Benjamin? They ask why this should have happened! Good question. A little too late, though.

*The next day they built an altar (Isn't that a no-no? Or does this story take place before that restriction?) and presented burnt offerings to Yahweh. Then they asked who wasn't present in the roll call of the tribes of Israel at Mizpah. (As if they didn't know.) Those people "deserved" to be put to death. Show up or die. Well, in chapter 20 we saw that the Benjamite tribe wasn't there, so I guess the implication is that they deserved to die. In spite of that, the Israelites are now worried about how the remaining Benjamites will get wives, since they vowed not to give them their daughters as wives. Not to mention, all the Benjamite women have been killed...by the Israelites. The mind boggles.

*Somehow, the Israelites realized that no one from Jabesh Gilead had been represented at the assembly in Mizpah either. (Maybe they didn't get the memo.) So, the Israelites sent 12,000 armed men to Jabesh Gilead. Guess what they did. They slaughtered every living human, men, women, and children......except the virgin young women. They took them to the camp at Shiloh. (Wait a minute, I thought they were assembled at Mizpah. Or was it Bethel?) Why? To give them to the remaining Benjamites as wives! Problem solved. Well, almost.

*Next, the assembly sent a message of peace to the remaining Benjamites who were in hiding. The Benjamites returned and were given the young women of Jabesh Gilead as a consolation prize. How nice. (???) There was a problem, though. There were not enough young women to go around. Awkward. Everyone was sad for the Benjamites. The Benjamites needed heirs so that a tribe of Israel would not be wiped out. (And whose fault was that?) That pesky oath was preventing the Israelites from giving the Benjamites wives. They didn't want to be cursed for breaking the oath. That would not be good.

*Not to worry, they had a solution. They instructed the Benjamites who were still single to go to the annual festival of the Lord in Shiloh. While there, they were to hide in the vinyards, waiting and watching for the girls of Shiloh to come out and join the dancing. Then, they were to rush out and seize a wife and take her back to the land of Benjamin. (Where have I heard a story like this before? ) When the fathers and brothers complained, they were asked to be kind and help out the Benjamites, because they didn't have wives after the war. Plus, technically, the oath was not broken, because they didn't give away the girls, they were taken.  Then the Benjamites rebuilt their towns, and everyone else went home. The end.

Joshua chapter 14

After reading chapter 14:

*Samson is now grownup up. He went to Timnah and saw a Philistine woman that he wanted to marry. His parents would have preferred he marry an Israelite woman, not a woman from those "uncircumcised Philistines." But Samson insisted that she was the one he wanted. Plus, Yahweh was secretly causing this infatuation just so there would be a confrontation with the Philistines.

*The family travelled to Timnah, presumably to acquire the bride for Samson. When they came to the outskirts of the town, Samson was attacked by a lion. Samson got a rush of the Spirit of the Lord (sounds more like adrenaline to me) and tore the lion apart with his bare hands, but he didn't tell his parents about it. I don't know how they could have missed seeing it. Then he went on to the town, talked with the woman, and decided he liked her.

*Later, Samson  and his parents went back to Timnah so he could marry the Philistine woman. On the way, he decided to take a look at the dead lion's carcass and found that some bees had made a honeycomb in it. He scooped out honey with his hands and ate it as he went along. He also gave some to his parents but didn't tell them where he had gotten it from.

*There was a wedding feast which typically lasts seven days. Samson was given 30 companions, presumably similar to groomsmen. He told these companions that he was going to tell them a riddle. If they could guess the answer by the end of the feast, they would be awarded thirty complete sets of clothes. If they could not guess they would have to give him thirty complete sets of clothes. Sounds fair. Not. They foolishly agreed. The riddle was "Out of the eater, something to eat; out of the strong, something sweet." This obviously refers to the lion and the honey. Of course no one but Samson would know that. The game was rigged.

*After three days of trying to guess the answer to the riddle, the men went to Samson's wife and threatened to burn her and her father's house if she didn't get the answer to the riddle for them. In order to get the answer, his wife played the "you don't love me if you won't tell me" card. Samson refused to tell her so she cried for the rest of the feast. On the seventh day, he got tired of her persistence and told her. She told the riddle to the men of her town. They told Samson the answer just as the feast was coming to an end. Of course he knew where they got the answer from.

*Again, Samson recieved a rush of power from the Spirit of the Lord. He went to Ashkelon, another Philistine town, killed thirty men, stole their clothes, and gave them to the men who had given the answer to the riddle. He left the wedding and went back home. His wife was given to the equivalent of the best man.

*In previous stories the Spirit of the Lord helped people to prophesy, make laws, and win wars. This time it seems to have just been used to make Samson a killing machine. It sounds to me more like Samson had anger and entitlement issues. The cheater hates to be cheated.

Deuteronomy chapter 25

After reading chapter 25:

*More miscellaneous rules and laws:

-Disputes are taken to court where judges will decide a suitable number of lashes with a whip for the guilty party. No more than forty lashes, or the person may be degraded. (What does degraded mean in this context?)

-Let your ox eat some of the grain it is treading  while it is working.

-A widow must not marry outside her husband's family. She has to marry his brother, if he has one. Any children she has are considered the dead husband's, so his name will not be "blotted out." This is what is known as Levirate marriage. It was common practice in many parts of the East. However, if the brother doesn't want to marry the widow, she can accuse him in the presence of the village elders, take off his sandal, and spit in his face. Then his family will be called "the family of the unsandaled." Big whoop.

-If a woman's husband gets in a fight and the woman tries to help by grabbing the other man's private parts, she gets her hand cut off as punishment. Wow.  This seems pretty harsh, but remember chapter 23 says that no one with damaged testicles could participate in the assembly of the lord. After all, Yahweh cares more about men's testicles than women's hands.

-Merchants must use accurate and honest weights.

-The Israelites are to remember their grudge against the Amalekites and destroy them when they take over the promised land.

Deuteronomy chapter 24

After reading chapter 24:

*More miscellaneous rules and laws:

-A man  can give his wife a certificate of divorce and make her leave his house, if he finds something indecent about her. No definition of indecent. There is also no mention of a woman being able to do this, of course. The man owns the house. Anyway, if she gets married again, she becomes "defiled." Then, if the second man divorces her, the first guy is not allowed to remarry her. That would be detestable. However, there appears to be no reason a third guy couldn't have his turn.

-A newlywed man doesn't have to go to war for a year, so he can make his wife happy. (In other words, impregnate her.)

-Millstones cannot be taken as security for a debt because it would deprive the owner of a way to make a living. What do you know, a good rule!

-No kidnapping, enslaving, or selling fellow Israelites on penalty of death. Nothing is said about non-Israelites.

-Obey the Priest's rules about leprous diseases.

-Be considerate to the poor when they are offering a pledge.

-Do not take advantage of hired hands, Israelites or foreigners. Pay their wages on time.

-Children and parents cannot be put to death for each other's sins. Each is to die for his own sin. (If your child works on the sabbath, they die, not you. So, no worries, right?)

-Orphans, widows, and foreigners are to be treated justly.

-When harvesting, don't  go back over the fields and vinyards a second time. Leave what was missed for the orphans widows and foreigners to glean.

*Well, some of today's laws weren't as strange or disturbing as usual. In fact many were downright compassionate.

Deuteronomy chapter 22

After reading chapter 22:

*Verses 1-12 are a series of odd laws that seem to have nowhere else to go:
-Give lost animals and personal property back to their rightful owners. No "finders keepers."
-Help a fellow Israelite restore a fallen animal to its feet.
-Noone must wear the clothes of the opposite sex, God detests people who do that. (The obvious inference would be that some people did this at that time.)
-Wild bird eggs can be harvested from nests, but the mother birds must be left alone.
-A railing must be built around the edge of a roof, so that the owner of the house won't be liable if someone falls off the roof.
-Do not plant two kinds of seeds in a vinyard or the vinyard will be defiled.
-Do not yoke an ox and a donkey together.
-Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
-Make tassels on the four corners of your cloak

*The rest of the chapter contains some rather barbaric marriage rules. Basically, if a man expects to be marrying a virgin, he better get one. If he doesn't like his wife, he can yell foul after the marriage and the bride's parents have to provide proof of the bride's virginity in the form of a cloth stained with blood from the wedding night. If there is no proof, the woman is to be stoned to death at the door of her father's house by the men of the town. If there is proof of her virginity,  it is to be shown to the village elders and the accusing husband is to give his father- in- law 100 silver shekels. Then he can never divorce the woman. Poor woman.
-If a man sleeps with another man's wife, they must both die. No exceptions.
-If a man sleeps with a virgin in town, who was pledged to be married, they must both be stoned to death. 1. Because she belonged to another man. 2. Because she was in town and didn't scream. Um, how do they know this in advance? What if she was threatened with death if she screamed?
-If a man rapes a virgin in the countryside, who was pledged to be married, only the man is to be killed. After all,  she screamed bloody murder and no one could hear her. That makes her innocent. Again, how do they know this? She could have been quite willing and no one would know the difference.
-If a man rapes a virgin who is not pledged to be married, he must give her father fifty shekels of silver and marry her. This marriage is for life, no divorce permitted. Poor woman. Unless, the two of them cook up this scheme so that the father could have no choice but to agree to the marriage.
-A man may not sleep with his father's wife. We would say "duh" but if this wasn't an issue, why is it mentioned? Reuben, son of Jacob (Israel), did this very thing in Genesis chapter 35.

Lesson: It's safer for a woman to be raped in the country, especially if she was already pledged to be married. Then she gets to live and won't have to marry her rapist.

Deuteronomy 21

After reading chapter 21:

*The first 9 verses are the rules for atoning for an unsolved murder with no eye witnesses. The elders of the nearest town take a heifer that has never been yoked, to a valley that has not been plowed, by a flowing stream. Then they break its neck, wash their hands over it, and declare their innocence. This will supposedly absolve them from the guilt of the shedding of innocent blood that is floating around that area.  What a waste of a good heifer. Wait, the priests are there too. I'm sure they will find some use for that young cow carcass. Veal scaloppine.

*Verses 10 -15 are about captive wives acquired through war and conquest. Let's be clear. These were women  taken away from their homes by force, and without their consent. If an Israelite is attracted to a beautiful captive, he can just take her for his "wife." First, her head must be shaved, her nails trimmed and her old clothes replaced. She is to be allowed to mourn for her father and mother for a month. How generous, considering they were probably murdered by the Israelites. After that the Israelite man can go to her and be her husband. In other words, he can sexually use her. If he doesn't like her, he can let her go wherever she wishes. In other words, he can abandon her. He can not sell her or treat her as a slave (?!) because he has dishonored did her. So, he can't make any money from her, but he can save money by getting rid of her. How do you think the "dishonored" woman would feel about that? Is there any limit to the number of throw away wives?

*If an Israelite man has two wives and loves one more than the other, he must still give priority of inheritance to his first born son, no matter which wife bore the son. The first born gets a double share.

*If an Israelite man has a rebellious, stubborn,  disobedient, drunken son, he will be brought to the elders at the gate by his parents. All the men of the town will stone him to death. This will put fear into the rest of the Israelites. No kidding. I guess stoning dispenses with the need for jails.

*Last, if a guilty person has been hung, his body must not be left up overnight. He is to be buried the same day, because anyone who is hung is under God's curse and the curse can spread. We wouldn't want that to happen.

Exodus 22

After reading chapter 22:

*We are given various penalties and restitutions for stealing animals.

*We are told that anyone who defends their home from a break in is not guilty of bloodshed if they kill the offender, unless the sun has risen. Being able to see the person makes all the difference. It doesn't tell you what you should do instead. A theif must make restitution. If he can't, he is to be sold as a slave.

*We are given various penalties and restitutions for destruction of crops.

*We are given instructions for instances of illegal possession of someone else's property, plus instructions for safekeeping or borrowing another person's property, and the responsibilities of the caretakers.

*If a man sleeps with a virgin who was not promised to someone else, he must marry her and pay her family the bride price. If her father won't let him marry her,  he still has to pay the bride price. The girl has no say in the matter.

*Sorceresses are not allowed to live. What about sorcerers? Why is this just the female version? Not to mention, sorcery is the stuff of superstition and fantasy.

*Anyone who sacrifices to any God other than Yahweh is to be destroyed. Because burning a piece of meat and saying words to a non-existent being is worthy of death?

*The Israelites are not to mistreat or oppress the foreigners among them, because the Egyptians mistreated them. They are only allowed to mistreat and oppress their Hebrew  slaves.

*If a man mistreats a widow or an orphan, God will kill him so that his wife  becomes a widow and his children orphans. I don't think this punishment fits the crime. In this case, the wife and children are left without support because of the actions of a cruel man. The man doesn't have to live with any consequences. On the other hand, they may actually be better off without him.

*Money is to be lent without interest. Cloaks are not to be held as a pledge  overnight because they are needed to sleep in. After all, God is compassionate. If you say so.

*Do not blaspheme God. Blasphemy is one of those concepts that is hard to pin down. It is usually taken to mean don't say anything bad about God, like "he doesn't exist."

*Do not curse the ruler of your people. It's a good thing most Christians consider the Old Testament laws to be passé, or they would be in trouble. Another thing, at this time the Israelites didn't even have a ruler.

*Do not hold back offerings from your graineries or vats. They didn't have graineries or vats at this time. They didn't grow grain or grapes for wine till many years later. They were supposedly still living in the desert, subsisting on quail and manna.

*Give Yahweh your first born sons, sheep, and cattle on the eighth day of their lives. (?)

* If you want to be god's holy people don't eat meat killed by wild animals, feed it to the dogs. There is no quicker way to lose holiness, and your lunch, than eating carrion.

Edited.

Biblical marriage

Since this has been a hot topic in recent years, I thought we could cover marriage a la Genesis before we move on.

* Adam and Eve are never formally married. After them, marriage is called "taking a wife" which implies that it is a man's decision.

*Cain had to have married either his sister or a supernatural being, if we are to believe that Adam and Eve were the first male and female humans ever. Seth would have had the same choices as Cain. Anyone in the second generation would have had to marry a sibling or the child of two siblings. A third generation person might have had three generations to choose from: the second, third, and fourth, depending on how many children each generation produced.

*Abraham married his half-sister. Nahor married his niece. Isaac, Esau, and Jacob married cousins. Jacob's first two wives were sisters.  I don't suppose we should count the relationship of Lot and his daughters. The children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth would have had extremely limited choices in spouses.

*A bride was purchased with material goods in the case of Rebekah, and seven years of labor in the cases of Rachel and Leah. Jacob was given two more wives by Rachel and Leah. These women had been slaves. Sarah also gave her slave to Abraham.

*We have examples of love and consent with Rebekah and Isaac, and Rachel and Jacob. Abraham loved Sarah. Jacob did not consent to marry Leah and did not love her. I don't imagine he loved his wives' slaves either since he was willing to sacrifice them first if there was an attack. The slave wives don't appear to have had any choice in matter.

*Abraham, Esau, and Jacob, each had more than one wife or partner  at a time.

*Isaac and Esau did not marry their wives until the age of forty. Jacob was around fifty..

*When Tamar's husband Er died, she was expected to marry the next unmarried brother and produce an heir for her dead husband. When the second one died, she was expected to wait for the next unmarried brother, a child, to grow up so she could marry him and produce an heir for her dead husband.

*Many of Abraham's descendants married Canaanites, which was generally frowned upon.  For some reason, relatives back in Haran were more acceptable, even though they were not Yahweh worshippers. Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian priest of Ra, and that appears to have been okay.