The Bastard Kings of Israel

[StuartJ]

Jesus is said to have been descended from the David kings.

The Davids were no longer on the throne in Jesus' time.

In what looks to me to be political propaganda from a faction that took over from the Davids, Jesus' ancestry is shown, in early biblical writings, to be illegitimate.

[bluethread]

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her. Leviticus 18:15

Scripture is very clear here.

Genesis 38:

Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar pretends to be a prostitute.

Judah buys her services for a goat.

Tamar falls pregnant with twin boys by her father-in-law.

At the birth, Zerah thrusts his hand out of his mother's vagina.

The quick-thinking midwife ties a scarlet cord around the protruding hand and declares that this is the first-born.

However, the hand is withdrawn and there is an intrauterine kerfuffle and then Perez emerges from the vagina.

Perez is the progenitor of the David line of kings.

So there we have it on clear scriptural authority:

Harlotry

Incest

Usurpation

First, She was pretending to be a harlot, directed at being impregnated by Yehudah. So, there was no real harlotry going on.

Second, Presuming that the laws of the Covenant after the deliverance from Egypt applied before the Covenant was written, let's look at the law. What is the reason for the law? In the very next verse it also says, "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." Yet, this whole thing comes about because Yehudah would not permit his third son to impregnate Tamar, after his first two sons had died for having sex with her without impregnating her. What is that all about? Deut. 25:5 codifies the principle explicitly referred to in the Tamar passage, "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." Why this exception? Her husband is dead. How can this still be his nakedness, if he is dead? So, there really is no incest here. The purpose is to provide the widow with a son to provide for her and so that her late husband will have an heir.

Third, I am aware of no "usurpation" law in HaTorah, with regarding a first born. That is tradition, and tradition that is ignored several times in the Scriptures. If you can find a reference, I would be happy to look at it. So, none of these objections is valid.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 21 by bluethread]

"Scripture" is written by humans.

I suggest it is often deliberately written so it CAN be taken various ways.

You have picked the point about "real harlotry".

That, and the other points I have made, are arguable.

The intent, I suggest, of the human writers who were slandering the Davids.

Clever politics.

NOT the Word of God.

Be careful about the supposed chronology of biblical events.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 19 by bjs]

Using nothing but the biblical writings as the primary - and indeed only - reference, I am freely discussing Christian theology.

No, not really. The first post in this thread started there, but then your responses went off on tangents about a “shred of evidence� and silliness about political propaganda. I responded to the first post. If you have nothing left to say about the original topic then I, at least, will not bother with your tangents that have nothing to do with Christian theology.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 22 by StuartJ]

That post did not address my objections, but merely rejected them out of hand, because, in your view, what is written can be taken in various ways. This is nothing but obfuscation. If the chronology of events is in question, please show that to be the case. If you are referring to Tamar's husband, or should I say husbands, since she had three in succession, were dead, that is indeed the case. Therefore, there is no adultery.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

Much of the biblical writing can be taken in various ways.

Hence the reason for this forum.

The nasty Tamar and Judah tale broke the "Law of Yahweh" about men and their daughters-in-law. The writers, as they often do, look like they have left it open for debate in this fiction as to who is to blame. Clever fiction writing.

Why is it included in the supposed "Word of God" ...?

Looks like political slander to me.

Especially when not a single person of faith demonstrates that they are dealing with the "Word of God".

The "Laws" were supposedly given to the possibly fictional Moses character about half a millennium after the tacky Tamar Turns a Trick story.

But have a bit of a think about how historical fiction is written ....

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 25 by StuartJ]

According to the law, she was no longer his daughter in law after her husband died. So, no adultery or breaking of that law, either. Because her husband was dead.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 26 by brianbbs67]

Which law ...?

We're dealing with a comparatively minor technicality here.

I put it to you that you are dodging the main - and easily recognisable - topic ....

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 26 by brianbbs67]

Which law ...?

We're dealing with a comparatively minor technicality here.

I put it to you that you are dodging the main - and easily recognisable - topic ....

2 laws. From the decalogue, "thou shall not commit adultery" and from the law of Moses , " thou shall not have sexual relations with your daughter in law"

Not dodging just eliminatinating the exteraneous, so we can argue the core. Which you have stated as political in motive. I don't see how that can be proven or disproven based on evidence from the Torah. I can only prove the law was not violated. Before its brought up, there was not a law against having sex except under certain conditions, like family ties and adultery. A single man and woman seemed to have been free to do so, but promiscuity was discouraged socially.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 25 by StuartJ]

According to the law, she was no longer his daughter in law after her husband died.

You didn't quote the law that states that.

I suggest you are inventing bits of Bible to suit yourself.

Very common amongst the faith community ....

Now ... about demolishing the hypothesis that this nasty little story looks like political propaganda ...?

Yes, of course, you can't prove it either way.

Nor can you prove that it is or isn't the Word of Yahweh - but that doesn't stop the faith community from insisting that it is.

Nor does it stop them from dodging admitting they can't supply a shred of evidence to back this and numerous other nasty stories that relate to a single culture only.

It's simple:

No evidence for Yahweh in the nasty stories ...

... leaves the door wide open for the hypothesis that the nasty stories are slanderous propaganda from the political opponents of the David royal family.

Who may have been Sons of God

Just like Jesus the David ....

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

Much of the biblical writing can be taken in various ways.

Hence the reason for this forum.

That is why I use standard literary criticism, i.e. historical, grammatical, and cultural context, to interpret a passage. I have not merely stated an opinion, but presented arguments based on what is actually written in HaTorah. On what do you base your arguments?

The nasty Tamar and Judah tale broke the "Law of Yahweh" about men and their daughters-in-law. The writers, as they often do, look like they have left it open for debate in this fiction as to who is to blame. Clever fiction writing.

If by the "Law of Yahweh", you mean the laws written down in Sinai, as you noted below, those laws were not written down until much later. So, we are left witth determining the oral tradition at the time of Yehudah, the man.

Why is it included in the supposed "Word of God" ...?

Looks like political slander to me.

I think that one reason this passage is included in Genesis is to show that the written law was not given out of thin air, but was, to some extent, a codification of earlier tradition. The story implies both the law of the near kinsman and the law against prostitution are such laws. However, prior to the written law, we have no record of a law against incest in HaTorah. Do you have a reference that indicates that?