Today’s post is by Victoria Mildenhall who published another piece recently, on a story of Lot (Genesis 14). Here Victoria focuses on a different story from Genesis: the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38). In terms of rape culture, this story raises questions, including, “what is a qedeshah (often translated ‘sacred prostitute’ or ‘temple prostitute’)?” and “what can we make of the levirate law and Judah’s treatment of Tamar?”
Victoria studied for her undergraduate degree with the Open University and went on to complete two Masters degrees in Ancient Religion with Theology and Criminology. She is due to begin a PhD at Leeds University under the supervision of Johanna Stiebert (Biblical Studies) and Sam Lewis (Criminology and Criminal Justice), focusing on models of justice in the Bible that respond to instances of sexual violation.
Introduction
Chapter 38 of Genesis interrupts the Joseph story cycle and does not feature Joseph at all (see Wünch, 2012; Kim, 2010). Instead, one of the two central characters is Judah, Joseph’s older brother. As a son of Jacob, Judah is privileged by birth.[i] The text appears to be aimed at a readership who approves of him, a mature Israelite male, as a community leader. This presupposes an audience who is Israelite and accepts, even assumes, patriarchal authority.
Following a close textual examination, I will examine the complex legal tangle involving Judah and Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law. Apart from Judah’s unnamed wife, who plays little active part in the story and dies early on (38:2-5, 12), Tamar is the only female character among males – Judah, Hirah, Judah’s three sons, Tamar’s father, and Tamar’s twin sons. As Mieke Bal points out, Tamar comes to be viewed by the adult men in the narrative as a lethal woman, and Judah almost succeeds in having her killed by burning (1987, p.100). The narrator, however, seems sympathetic towards Tamar. Ultimately, Tamar is vindicated and becomes established as a biblical matriarch.
The Story
The chapter begins with Judah going to settle near “a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah.” He sees and takes (that is, marries) a nameless Canaanite woman (the daughter of one Shua); and they have three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Judah “takes” a wife for Er (38:6) but Er is wicked and killed by YHWH (38:7), leaving behind his wife, Tamar. Judah demands that Onan fulfil the levirate law – that is, the duty of a levir (brother-in-law) when a brother has died without progeny – by impregnating Tamar and making an heir for the deceased Er (38:8).
The levirate law is discussed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and may have been practised in the ancient world within and outside of Israelite communities (von Rad, 1972/1978, p. 359; Alter, 2006, n.p). As Johanna Stiebert notes, this law is in tension with Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21, where it is written that a man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife or “take” her, both euphemisms for sexual activity (2016, p.46). In Deuteronomy, however, this is recommended practice when a man with a brother dies and his widow is left childless.[ii]
Onan has sex with Tamar but deliberately spills his semen on the ground to prevent Tamar from bearing a child who would not be considered his (38:9). YHWH kills Onan too (38:10). Now Judah fears Shelah could die as well (38:11). Judah, disingenuously, tells Tamar to live as a widow at her father’s house until Shelah becomes old enough to fulfil a levir’s duty (38:10-11).
Next, Judah’s wife dies, and he goes into a period of mourning. When this has passed, Judah, with Hirah, goes to Timnah to shear sheep (38:12). Tamar is told this, and she covers herself with a veil before sitting on the side of the road. Tamar has acknowledged that although Shelah is now old enough, she has not been given to him (38:14). So, she covers her face, leading Judah to assume that she is a zonah (“prostitute,” from the root z-n-h) (38:15).[iii] Providing his seal, staff and cord in lieu of payment, Judah has sex with Tamar; she becomes pregnant from the encounter (38:16-23).
Judah sends the payment of a kid-goat with Hirah, in order to recover his items given in pledge. The townspeople, however, when Hirah asks about a qedasha (“temple prostitute”, 38:21) tell him there isn’t one. Judah, fearing mockery, resolves to let the woman keep his things.
Three months later, Judah is told that his daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of “playing the whore” (a verb derived from the root z-n-h) and that she is pregnant. Judah demands that she be burned to death (38:24). At this point, Tamar declares that she is pregnant by the owner of the pledge she produces: the seal, cord and staff (38:25). Judah recognises the items and states that Tamar is more righteous than he, since he did not give her his son, Shelah (38:26). Tamar is reprieved and gives birth to male twins, Perez and Zerah (38:27-30).
Tamar and Canaan, Exogamy and Death
There is little in the way of introduction to Tamar. I get the impression that she is young; she is at least one generation below Judah. She is given to one man (Er) and then another (Onan). Both fall foul of YHWH and die (38:7, 10). Shelah is withheld from her. There is no information about who Tamar’s parents are; they never speak while she is at her natal home (38:11), even when she is in crisis (38:24). There is no mention of Tamar having siblings or friends. She is told of her father-in-law’s movements (38:13) and she is talked about (38:24) – but by whom is not disclosed. All this creates the sense that Tamar is quite alone. Her powerless aloneness is in stark contrast with Judah’s authority and influence. Judah has a friend, Hirah, and possessions (sheep), as well as markers of power (a signet and staff). Judah exercises control over his wife, sons, Tamar, and in the local community. He has authority to give Tamar to his sons (Er, Onan) or to withhold her from his son (Shelah); he can send Tamar away to her father’s house and he can have her brought out from there to face execution.
Tamar’s origins are not stated. Victor Hamilton raises the theory that she is an Aramaean from Mesopotamia (1995, p.433) but it is probable that like Judah’s own wife (38:2), Tamar is from the local community and, therefore, Canaanite. Lack of clarity regarding Tamar’s ethnicity might derive from the narrator’s efforts to downplay Tamar’s (undeclared) Canaanite background in the light that she, through one of her twin sons, is ancestor to King David. Seth Kunin, however, considers the omission to affirm Tamar’s Hebrew origin, with the passage highlighting the dangers of Judah’s own exogamy (1995, p.148). Judah, after all, marries a Canaanite woman and loses his sons without progeny.
Indeed, exogamy, particularly between Israelites and Canaanites, is negatively depicted in multiple biblical passages (e.g. Genesis 24:2-4; 28:6-9), with Canaanites much maligned (cf. Leviticus 18:3). Calum Carmichael suggests that some of the laws regarding the mixing of produce, materials, or animals, which seem peculiar, even impractical – for example, the prohibition of ploughing an ox with an ass – are actually metaphors for the prohibition of sexual relations between Israelites and Canaanites (1982, p.402-3), which is a plausible theory.
On balance, I believe that the omission of details regarding Tamar’s family suggests that she is a local Canaanite who goes on to be “brought in” to Israel. Her Canaanite origins are resolved by legitimising her – as righteous and as a mother to sons who are ancestors to great figures in Israel’s history.
In the narrative, death and barrenness become attributed to both Judah’s exogamy and to Canaan. Death haunts Canaan, compatible with a trope in scripture that associates Canaan with prohibited sexual acts and idolatry (e.g. Leviticus 18). Judah’s wife dies and YHWH kills two of Judah’s sons born to her: Er and Onan; both of them die childless.
There is no comment on Er’s crime, but Onan is guilty of sexual aberration: he has sex with Tamar but avoids impregnating her, which is his duty (38:8-9). There are inter-textual links here with the earlier narrative of Lot, who also marries an unnamed woman who may be Canaanite: she also dies, and their children, too, commit sexual offences (Genesis 19). Researchers have examined the similarities between the narratives of Tamar/Judah, and Lot and his daughters, as well as Ruth/Boaz, with deception involved in every case to instigate sexual congress (Stiebert, 2016, p.146; Rashkow, 2000, p.111-112; Bal, 1987, p.98). Lot, like Judah, demonstrates the dangers of exogamy and of attempting to integrate into a Canaanite community – that is, according to the biblical ideology, promoting Israelite values and theology.
Tamar, Judah, and his sons
As part of this ideology, danger is inevitable when Judah marries a Canaanite woman and when he selects Tamar for Er, his eldest son. Neither Er, nor Tamar, has a say in the matter; the text lacks detail and assent, unlike with the courtship of Rebekah and Isaac (Genesis 24:8, 57-58). Robert Alter points out with reference to Er and his unknown offences that there is a biblical pattern of the eldest son being reckless or wild (2006, n.p) – Cain, Esau, Reuben… After Er is killed by YHWH, Judah orders Onan to “go in” to Tamar to produce a child that will belong to Er. Onan is uncooperative; Tamar, once again, has no say in the matter.
Alter observes that Tamar does not complain to Judah about Onan’s offence (1995, n.p). When Onan, like Er, is killed by YHWH, Judah views Tamar as dangerous (38:11, Bal, 1987, p.100).[iv] Judah promises Tamar that she will be given to Shelah, his youngest and only remaining son, when he is of age. He must be very young. His name comes from a root that means “to be silent or quiet,” which is appropriate, as Shelah does not speak, and, like his brothers, has no say in his father’s matchmaking (Jeansonne, 1990, p.100). Judah, arguably, feminises all three of his sons through his micromanagement and control.[v] He also asserts control over Tamar, his daughter-in-law.
Judah is preoccupied with Tamar’s womb and fertility; he gives no consideration to the rest of her: Tamar is not consulted or offered the protection of marriage, for instance. Onan, too, diminishes Tamar; he has sex with her, as instructed, but ejaculates on the ground rather than provide her and his deceased brother with a child (Stiebert, 2013, p.130). Yet Tamar, whose inner life and agency are nullified by Judah, is the one who goes on to take charge of her fertility and to manoeuvre the man obsessed with her womb to impregnate her – without realising it. Moreover, Tamar bides her time and brings about that Judah not only publicly exonerates her but pronounces her more righteous than himself. Tamar turns the tables.
Tamar – zonah and qedeshah
Judah is worried about the fate of Shelah if he marries Tamar, and commands Tamar to go and live as a widow at her father’s house. It was not Tamar who displeased YHWH; and she submitted to Judah’s orders – but it is Tamar whom Judah regards as the reason for Er and Onan’s deaths. Judah overlooks his older sons’ actions, or the possibility of them behaving in aberrant ways, and is complicit in thwarting Tamar’s prospects of having a child or remarrying. It is not entirely clear if Judah is deceiving Tamar intentionally and never intends for Shelah to fulfil the levirate duty, or if he initially intends to honour this duty and then changes his mind. That Judah sends Tamar away rather than keeping her in his household as a betrothed daughter-in-law, suggests he is absolving himself of responsibility towards her.[vi]
Judah’s wife dies and he goes into mourning. Shelah might also be in mourning for the loss of his mother and brothers, but focus is on Judah. After the appropriate period, Tamar “is told” (by an anonymous messenger) that Judah is going to Timnah to shear his sheep (38:13). In biblical texts sheep shearing is associated with festivities, eating and drinking (Alter, 2006, n.p; Hamilton, 1995, p.439).[vii] Judah’s attendance at the festival signals to Tamar that the mourning period is over for Judah, and perhaps also for Shelah. It appears that during this time, Tamar has had no direct contact or communication from Judah.
Tamar puts off her widow’s garments, covers herself with a veil, and sits on the side of the road. Her intention in donning the disguise is not stated and we are left to guess. Did she expect to be perceived as a zonah, a prostitute, and if so, a qedeshah, a sacred one? Did she intend to entrap Judah or Shelah? The choice of disguise makes a point: Judah has already treated Tamar like a sex object, giving her to Er, then commanding Onan to have sex with her. To me, this calls to mind Genesis 34, the narrative of the rape of Dinah by Shechem. Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, react to Jacob’s rebuke after they kill Shechem and his family by stating, “Should our sister be treated like a zonah?” (34:31). Judah has treated Tamar like a prostitute, and this is how he sees her now, sitting by the side of the road that leads to the festival, albeit without recognising her as his daughter-in-law.[viii] Judah’s proposition is brusque: he approaches Tamar with the words, “Come, let me come in to you” (38:16). Ilona Rashkow proposes that when she is called a qedeshah (38:21) this refers to the cult of Asherah or Anat (2000, p.57), while von Rad posits that the cult would be that of Astarte (1972/1987, p.359).
Given that Judah had been attending a sheep shearing festival, it might be odd that he sends a kid-goat as payment, rather than a lamb. Three possibilities occur to me. First, it could be that a kid-goat was a standard and appropriate payment; this means there is nothing particularly significant about the payment. A second reason might be that the narrator is indicating through symbolism that Judah believes Tamar to be a Canaanite shrine prostitute. This may allude to a link between goats and prostitution, as in Leviticus 17:7, “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves.” Rashkow also observes that Judah promises a kid-goat that Tamar never receives, just as she never receives Judah’s son, Shelah (2000, p.39).[ix] This second reason reflects badly on Judah: it shows him as a man propositioning a sacred prostitute from a non-Israelite religion.[x] A third possibility, that lets Judah off the hook more, is that the goat is apt in Canaanite and Israelite settings, because the narrative is taking place in a time when the goddess Asherah is associated with YHWH, possibly as divine consorts. Recent archaeological discoveries of inscriptions of “YHWH and His Asherah,” such as from Kuntillet Ajrud, have prompted enquiry, particularly as the inscription uses Asherah as a personal name rather than referring to the asherah with a definite article (or asherim, in the plural) as a cultic object (as at Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:13, 16:21).[xi] On balance, I think this third possibility is least likely, but it is worthy of consideration.
Judah does not have the payment of a kid-goat to hand, and it is here that Tamar seizes the opportunity to take a pledge. Her request is for his seal, cord and staff, all of which are most likely of far greater value to Judah than a kid-goat, as they are symbols of his identity and authority. The seal, or signet, is a personal sign and identifier (rather like a passport in present times); it takes the form of a small, inscribed cylinder, usually worn around the neck, that can be pressed on damp clay to seal agreements (Alter, 2006, n.p; von Rad,1972/1987, p. 360). A cord is symbolic in its capacity to bind, and also has practical purposes, such as when pitching a tent (Exodus 35:18) or for measuring (Psalms 78:55); the word also occurs in the expression to be bound by cords of sin (Psalm 5:22). It appears that Tamar has the measure of Judah and has bound him to her one way or another. Finally, Tamar takes Judah’s staff, a symbol of his authority and in the Hebrew Bible, a symbol of power.[xii]
In Genesis 49:8-12 Jacob, on his deathbed, addressing his sons in turn, summarises Judah’s character and foretells his fate. Jacob notes Judah’s staff (49:10) as a symbol of his authority, which points back to Genesis 38 – where Judah certainly asserts his authority over his sons and Tamar. For Tamar to take the pledge, she is essentially taking some part of his identity and authority and holding him to ransom. Another aspect underscored by Jacob that is relevant to Genesis 38 is Judah’s love of wine (49:11). It is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis 38 – but is likely to be part of sheep shearing festivities.[xiii] Even though Tamar is veiled when Judah propositions her, we might ask how Judah does not recognise her as his daughter-in-law. This seems particularly odd when we read that Judah and Tamar are intimate (38:18). Did Tamar remain veiled throughout? Did Judah never find her voice familiar? Drunkenness appears to be one good way to account for this oddity.
Wine and viniculture also have significant associations in the Hebrew Bible with Canaan and with destruction. At Genesis 9:20-22, Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk and is humiliated, most probably in a sexualised way, by his son, who is referred to as “Ham, the father of Canaan.”[xiv] And at Genesis 19:33-38, Lot is plied with wine by his own daughters who have sex with him while he is drunk. In some traditions, the locations of Sodom and Zoar (Genesis 19) are in Canaan. This would make Canaan associated with both wine and sexual offences.
Later, Judah attempts to make payment (38:20). He does not go himself but sends his friend, Hirah the Adullamite. The narrator draws our attention to this character for a second time. Is Hirah the partner in crime or a bad influence on Judah? At the start of the chapter, it states that Judah “went down” to settle near Hirah (38:1). This is a topographical reference but also one that can be metaphorical. A descent is depicted elsewhere as a metaphor for behaviour that removes one from God (e.g. Isaiah 14:15).
When asking local people if they have seen the prostitute by the side of the road, Hirah uses the term qedeshah (38:21) which incorporates the Hebrew root q-d-sh, meaning “holy.” Perhaps Hirah is referring to a shrine prostitute, an officiate of a religious cult, which is juxtaposed with the term zonah, used elsewhere to denote a prostitute, sometimes in a derogatory way, or in association with idolatry. Perhaps Hirah views the qedeshah as superior to a zonah; perhaps qedeshah is a euphemism for zonah. The local people tell him that they have not seen a qedeshah in the area, and Hirah reports back to Judah. Judah makes the decision not to say anything lest they both become a laughingstock. Hamilton suggests that the risk lies in being viewed as weak for being robbed by a common prostitute (1995, p.448).
Next is another period of time where, once again, Tamar is left waiting, as a widow at her father’s house, without contact or communication from Judah. He neither cancels the betrothal to Shelah nor fulfils it. Around three months later, Judah is told that Tamar is pregnant “and has played the zonah” (38:24). The messenger clearly delights in the gossip, using incendiary terms, “Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom” (NRSV, 38:24). Anonymous messengers stir up trouble and make things happen (38:13, 24). How does the messenger know when Judah is going to Timnah so that Tamar sits on the side of the road at just the right time? How does the messenger know that Tamar is pregnant due to prostitution when Hirah reports that nobody saw her? Should we take the messenger to be divine or supernatural? Or is the messenger a narrative device, filling in gaps for the audience to advance the action?
The Legal Case
The messenger’s words have swift and violent effect. Judah demands that Tamar is brought out and burned. James Kugel observes that the situation is a legal matter and Judah the judge and executioner (2006, p.171) – without any recourse to evidence to either support or deny the accusations of “whoring” or pregnancy. There is no room, for instance, for the possibility that Tamar could have been raped or that the gossip is untrue. To bring someone out is to remove them from the protection of their house and to expose them before their community for prosecution (cf. Deuteronomy 22:21).
If Judah is charging and condemning Tamar for adultery, by virtue of sex with another man while betrothed to Shelah, then the punishment would more likely have been stoning rather than burning (Deuteronomy 22:21, 24). The punishment of death penalty by burning occurs in two other scriptural locations: for incest with a mother-in-law (Leviticus 20:14) and for prostitution by a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21:9). It is not stated that Tamar is the daughter of a priest, and any charge of incest is also not explicit. There is, however, some dramatic irony here: after all, if not a priest’s daughter, Tamar is taken to be a qedeshah, literally “a holy woman,” and Judah does (albeit unknowingly) commit incest with Tamar (Leviticus 18:15). Hence, if unwittingly, the punishment is, on one level, apt.
Tamar’s family members do not appear, even though Tamar has been living in her father’s house. As Tamar is brought out, she sends word to her father-in-law and produces the pledge, stating that she is pregnant by the man to whom the items belong. Tamar knew that at some point she would need to prove the legitimacy of her pregnancy and now, with a cruel death imminent, is the climactic time to hold up the signs of Judah’s identity and status. Judah has no option but to accept the situation. He declares, “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son, Shelah”. He is not saying she is right or he is wrong – but he is drastically changing the verdict.
William John Lyons observes that the feminine form of tsedeq (“right/eous”) is used in Genesis 38:26, which is unusual (2002, p.195-6). Women are not usually called tsedeq in the Bible. The same form of tsedeq is, however, used for Esther, Sarah and Rebekah in Rabbinic traditions. Stiebert observes another inversion, namely of sexual norms, in the story of Tamar, which also applies to the agency exercised by Ruth (2013, p. 212). Both Tamar and Ruth are in exogamous unions with Israelite men, widowed, and later, following some trickery and subterfuge, joined to another man who is related to their deceased husband. Both are brought into Israel and legitimated through their male offspring. Acting under their own initiative carries risks; their actions could either bless or damn them. Given the limits of their agency due to their gender and ethnicity, it is questionable whether either has much free will. In both instances, Tamar and Ruth maximise what little opportunity they have.
The possible legal complexities intimated in the story of Genesis 38 can be summarised as follows:
- If Tamar was betrothed to Shelah at the time of her pregnancy, then both Judah and she have committed adultery and incest. Additionally, Tamar committed prostitution. Judah, if he believed the woman with the veil to be a Canaanite qedeshah, committed idolatry. Both are guilty.
- If Judah released Tamar from betrothal to Shelah on sending her back to her natal home, then Tamar has committed no crime in terms of Israel’s law: she has reverted to the laws of her father’s house, which is Canaanite. Incest, moreover, would not be at issue, because, at the time of their sexual encounter, there was no longer a familial relationship. Judah, however, has committed idolatry by visiting a Canaanite shrine prostitute. Tamar is not guilty, but Judah is.
- If Judah maintained that the situation regarding betrothal to Shelah was suspended but valid upon their sexual union, and if he were to claim that he was deceived into committing incest, then only Tamar is guilty of deliberate incest. Judah is still guilty of intending to commit idolatry, but as Tamar was only pretending to be a shrine prostitute he is not guilty of the violation itself.
- If Judah accepts that he fulfilled the levirate duty himself, then neither he nor Tamar has committed incest and Judah’s offence of idolatry is nullified as the sexual congress is subsumed under the levirate law. Neither is guilty.
To save his reputation, Judah accepts responsibility for Tamar’s pregnancy, which also saves Tamar. The cord that Tamar took as part of the pledge emphasises that they are bound together. Possibly indicating the legal casuistry and fragility of this resolution, Judah does not risk having sex with Tamar ever again (38:16). Tamar, whom Judah may still suspect of having played a role in the deaths of his sons Er and Onan and who tricked him and jeopardised his reputation, remains risky.
Throughout the chapter, Tamar comes to signify a range of female archetypes of the ancient world: virgin, wife, widow, whore, priestess, mother, matriarch. Each of these roles is determined in some way or other by Judah. Judah gives her to his firstborn son, Er; afterwards, he hands her over to Onan; he sends her to be a widow in her father’s house; he takes her to be a qedeshah; he makes her a mother; she becomes a matriarch in the lineage of David (Ruth 4:18-22).
The subtext of the story is that although Judah has power and authority in the story, it does not match YHWH’s. Moreover, the full significance of the events is not clear until generations later. Tamar, the more righteous one, is part of a story much bigger than just her own. Against the odds, she, like Ruth an outsider, acquires a noble role in the community and history of Israel.
Tamar, the righteous Canaanite woman, is both contrasted and brought together with a corrupted Israelite patriarch. Judah’s exogamy is problematic for the narrator. Possibly indicative of this, Judah’s first two sons do not just die, they are killed by YHWH for wickedness. But Tamar is raised up as a tenacious Canaanite and she and her progeny are rewarded.
WORKS CITED
Alter, R. (1996) Genesis: Translation and Commentary. W.W. Norton and Co. Inc.. New York.
Bal, M. (1987) Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Indiana University Press, Indiana.
Bergsma, J. and Hahn, S. (2005) “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan: Genesis 9:20-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.124 (1), pp.25-40.
Carmichael, C. (1982) “Forbidden Mixtures.” Vetus Testamentum, vol.32 (4), pp.394-415.
Dever, W. (2005) Did God Have a Wife? Eerdmans Press, Michigan.
Doedens, J. (2013) “Ancient Israelite Polytheistic Inscriptions: Was Asherah Viewed as YHWH’s Wife?” Sarospataki Füzetek, 1-2, pp.42-54.
Greenough, C. (2021) The Bible and Sexual Violence Against Men. (Rape Culture, Religion and the Bible Series), Routledge, London.
Hadley, J. (2000) The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge University Press, London.
Hamilton, V. (1995) Genesis 18-50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. W.B Eerdmans, Michigan.
Jeansonne, S. (1990) Women of Genesis. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
King, P. (1989) “The Marzeah: Textual and Archaeological Evidence.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (20), pp.98-106
Kim, D. (2010) A Literary-Critical Analysis of the Role of Genesis 38 Within Genesis 37-50 as Part of the Primary Narrative. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
Kugel, J. (2006) The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children. Princeton University Press, Oxfordshire.
Kunin, S. (1995) The Logic of Incest: A Structural Analysis of Hebrew Mythology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (185), Sheffield Academic Press.
Lyons, W. J. (2002) Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (352). Sheffield Academic Press.
Olyan,S. (1988) Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. The Society of Biblical Literature, Georgia.
Rashkow, I. (2000) Taboo or Not Taboo: Sexuality and Family in the Hebrew Bible. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
Stiebert, J. (2016) First Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible. Bloomsbury, London.
Stiebert, J. (2013) Fathers & Daughters in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Von Rad, G. (1972/1987) Genesis. SCM Press, London.
Wünch, H. G. (2012) Genesis 38: Judah’s Turning Point: Structural Analysis and Narrative Techniques and their Meaning for Genesis 38 and its Placement in the Story of Joseph. Old Testament Essays, vol.25 (3) pp.777-806.
[i] Judah is born to Leah, and is the fourth son of Jacob. His name refers to praising (YHWH) (Gen 29:35).
[ii] Note Matthew 14:3 (also Mark 6:17-29 and Luke 3:19-20) where John the Baptist condemns Herod for marrying his sister-in-law, Herodius, when his brother Philip was still alive. It may be, then, that the law applies only in the case of a deceased brother.
[iii] The NRSV uses the translations “prostitute” and “temple prostitute” for zonah and qedeshah. There is a case to be made for using the designation “sex worker” rather than “prostitute.” I will follow translations of the NRSV here. It is important to note that words of the root z-n-h, are sometimes clearly derogatory, not simply descriptive. In such cases “harlot” and “whore” (cf. 38:24) are used. As a verb, this root can also refer to idolatry rather than sexual activity. With the word qedeshah (literally, “holy woman”) there is some discussion as to whether it actually signified what has sometimes been labelled “cultic prostitution” or whether this indicates discriminatory attitudes – of either or both biblical writers or interpreters.
[iv] Gerhard von Rad cites Tobit 3:7 as another example where a wife is blamed for the deaths of her husbands (1972/1987, p.358).
[v] For an interesting examination of feminisation of men in the Bible, see Chris Greenough (2021).
[vi] Judah’s ability to determine Tamar’s fate, even after she has left his household to live in her natal home, as ordered (38:11, 24-25), signifies his authority.
[vii] See also 1 Samuel 25:2-8 and 2 Samuel 13:23-24 for other examples of sheep shearing festivities in the Hebrew Bible.
[viii] Victor Hamilton (1995, p.442) refers to Assyrian law and suggests that by donning the disguise she could have been an unmarried sacred prostitute, a female slave, or a prostitute not attached to a cult.
[ix] Note also that kid-goat links Genesis 38 to the Joseph cycle. In Genesis 37:31, Joseph’s brothers dip his coat into goat blood as a way of deceiving Jacob into believing that Joseph has been killed.
[x] Deuteronomy 23:17 which may, however, come from a different (perhaps much later) time prohibits any among the “daughters of Israel” becoming a qedeshah, translated “temple prostitute” in NRSV.
[xi] There is now a wealth of research into the relationship between YHWH and Asherah, particularly in the context of the sacred feminine in early Israel. Judith Hadley offers a comprehensive examination of archaeological discoveries alongside the biblical associations (2000, see especially pp.54-77). Saul Olyan focuses on the Canaanite associations of Asherah as a goddess (1988). William Dever concludes that Asherah is an Israelite goddess associated with YHWH worship as part of early folk religion (2005, pp.212-213). Additionally, Dever believes that asherah/asherim were never idols, but that they were used for meditative focus. Another relevant text by Jacob Doedens suggests that Asherah was an Israelite goddess who was part of a more complicated landscape of polytheism among early biblical YHWH worshippers (2013, pp.42-54, p.53).
[xii] Consider, for example, that in Exodus 4:2-5 YHWH tells Moses to throw his staff on the ground; the staff becomes a serpent and then turns back into a staff, signifying YHWH’s dominance over earthly rulers. In Exodus 7:17, Moses stretches out his staff to part the waters of the Nile at YHWH’s command. The staff is a symbol of the authority of tribal leaders in Numbers 17.
[xiii] Canaanite festivals appear to have included excessive drinking. Philip King discusses several examples, including the marzeah, a wine-drinking festival for mourning the dead that honoured the Canaanite pantheon of El. Archaeological evidence for rites that included drinking were found also at Kuntillet Ajrud (1989, pp.98-106). Scriptural examples of Canaanite festivals that involved imbibing wine are found in Isaiah 28:7-8, Jeremiah 16:5-8; Hosea 7:14 and Amos 6:4-7. In some of these passages, the prophets repeat prohibitions of attending the Canaanite festivals that centre on viniculture because they involved also some forms of worship. The repeated prohibitions suggest that these were a problem.
[xiv] John Bergsma and Scott Hahn examine four possible options including voyeurism, castration, paternal incest and maternal incest (2005, pp.25-40)
