Status of Women In The Pentateuch

by Rapunzel 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Rapunzel

  I have a few questions in regard to a couple of bible passages that I have recently read. I was hoping that someone may kindly elucidate a few issues.

  In Romans7:7, Paul quotes the Decalogue, specifically Exodus 20:17, which reads - "You shall not covet your's neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."

  There is a parallel passage in the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, verse 21 - "You should not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not desire your neighbor's house or field, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything that belongs to him."

  Isn't it sad to see that a woman is considered merely as chattel? In these verses, a man's wife is "lumped in" with a man's slaves, property, and livestock. It is patently obvious from reading these scriptures that a woman is viewed simply as another piece of a man's property. And these are purportedly the "words of God." It reminds me of a quote by the French philosopher, Voltaire - "If God has created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.

  Another question that I have concerns a passage in Leviticus, chapter 12, regarding the "uncleaness" of childbirth. In Leviticus 12:1-5, it reads - "The Lord said unto Moses, 'Tell the Isrealites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleaness as her menstrual period. On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised, and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood...If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she shall be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood.'"

  In this passage of Leviticus, the math is quite simple. According to this passage, a woman is made doubly, and precisely double, "unclean" in giving birth to girl as she is in giving birth to a boy. Fourteen is exactly the double of seven; and sixty-six is exactly the double of thirty-three.

  My question is: Exactly how [or why] is this so? Why, exactly, would a woman be considered doubly unclean simply for having given birth to a female baby? In fact, how is a woman rendered unclean at all simply for having given birth? After all, this is simply a totally natural process. If women did not give birth, there would be no humanity.

  I ask you again, in terms of biology or physiology, or whatever, how is giving birth to a girl any different than giving birth to a boy? How is a woman rendered any more "unclean" [not to speak of doubly unclean] by giving birth to a female as opposed to a male?

  I wonder how the so-called "Master of the Universe" could pronounce such inanities, such nonsense. After all, God is supposed to be the omniscient [all knowing] Creator of everything. How could God be so ignorant of such a basic biological fact as this: Giving birth to a baby girl in no way defiles a woman more than her giving birth to a baby boy. I could possibly imagine how bronze-age nomadic people could be so ignorant as to believe such nonsense. But, if one is to believe the scriptures, this idea is coming from God himself. In pronouncing a woman as being doubly "unclean" simply for having given birth to a girl, doesn't God appear...well...ignorant? How could God announce such a ridiculous notion? Surely God knows his own creation. Surely God knows that a woman is rendered no more "unclean" by giving birth to a girl than in giving birth to a boy.

  While in no way condoning such a blatantly and abhorantly oppresive idea, I am able to put myself in the position of these biblical "patriarchs." I am able [while in no way condoning] to imagine their saying: "Women shall be second, or even third, class in society; they shall be subjugated to males." What I don't understand is their couching their oppression in the words of God. They should at least be honest about it. These "patriarchs" are portraying God as a fool.

  That is why I posted this thread. My question is simple: Just how does a woman's giving birth to a baby girl make her doubly unclean than if she gives birth to a boy? What is it about a baby girl that doubly "defiles" the mother in the process of giving birth?

  Could it be that these bronze-age nomads intuitively knew something that escapes, or has escaped, us? Did they have some "special knowlege" in regard to the birth process, some knowledge that we have since lost?

  As a more general question, I would like to ask how menstruation makes a woman "unclean"? I never could figure that one out. Doesn't it kind of make you think it was males - who had not the slightest idea of what they were talking about - who "wrote" the Bible? Which brings up a point - If it truly was a question of ignorant men - ignorant men lacking the slightest modicum of knowledge in the domain of biology or the other physical sciences - writing and editing the Bible, maybe,,,just maybe...we modern people should not be "biblio-slaves." Perhaps an unquestioning, naive, and intellectually servile attitude toward the Bible would constitute nothing more than immoral form of self-enslaving idolatry.

  By the way, I just happened to read Exodus, chapter 22, verses 1 and 2 that mention if a thief is caught and beaten to death during the night, there is no "bloodguilt." However, if a homeowner catches a thief in the daylight and kills the thief, then the householder does indeed face bloodguilt. Why is this so? Doesn't it send a message to thieves that if they intend to burgle, they had better do it in daylight, when there is effectively a "ban" on killing them in place?
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello Rapunzel,

  I'm a bit embarrassed at replying to your post as I know you have an excellent sense of historical context and are aware of practically every point I might make. For instance, (1) that the notion of wife as quasi "property" ("bought" from her father), and the resulting assimilation of adultery with theft, are common to most civilisations in high Antiquity, especially the Ancient Near East; (2) that the formal ascription of all kind of ritual, civil or penal laws to a specific pronouncement by the tutelary deity (in spite of their actual origin in popular custom over generations) is very usual too (cf. the older Hammurabi Code, supposed to have been given by the god Shamash to Hammurabi); (3) that the priestly concept of ceremonial "uncleanness," or "sin," originally bears no connotation whatsoever of moral flaw (as in the later Jewish or Christian use of those terms), but is, as it were, the "flip side" of the "sacred" triangle consisting in the essential "mysteries" of the cycle of life: birth, sex and death -- in which the "woman" occupies a central yet ambivalent place (from the perspective of the prevalent male-dominated understanding, of course). So I don't really find any of those Bible features surprising (and I don't think you really do either).

  Btw, difference of perspective is not only a matter of time. Incidentally, from a European perspective I would tend to think the law you mentioned last (about the thief in Exodus 22) might be slightly "superior" to the current notion in some strata of American society (if I gather correctly) that you may kill to defend your property under any circumstance...
• 

  ldrnomo

  I feel that this circumstance is because of the situation that took place in the garden with Eve. She was decieved by the snake (Satan) and then enticed Adam to comply. So this berating of women stems from the degree of blame placed on a woman for frustrating the purpose of God by rebelling in the garden.

  LD
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi Narkissos - If you say that I have "an excellent sense of historical context," I fear that you may be credting me much more than I deserve. While, in general, I am able to following your very well-written posts, I have nothing which even approaches your knowledge of history and the bible. For example, I was generally aware of what you mention in your first point [ your point number one regarding the wife as property]. As for the Hammurabi Code, I am aware of it [for example, I have read that it provides some vague concept of what we moderns would call "human rights'] but I have never read the original text in its entirety. As for your third point which establishes the dichotomy between "ceremonial" and "moral" sin and transgression, I only know of this through an recent, earlier post of yours in which you engaged in a dialogue on this issue with another poster.

  In any case, it is obvious that you read my post very carefully and in its entirety, and I thank you for it. As you may have surmised, there was, in my post, an unstated subtext in the "background" [Is this not always the case? It seems that there is often a "message" in the background]. The "message" in the background of my post was one of anger. Specifically, I was angered by certain homophobic comments that have recently been posted. It seems that people are very fond of citing the injunction at Leviticus 18:22 which says "you will not lie with a male as with a female" [Incidently, it says nothing at all about a woman having sex with another woman as if she were a man. I wonder if lesbianism is ever specifically banned in the Bible]. However, they rarely mention Leviticus 19:27, which forbids clipping one's hair "at the temples" or cutting one's beard. Leviticus 19:28 forbids tatoos. Leviticus 19:25 says that people have to wait five years after planting a fruit tree until they eat from it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids the sowing of a field with two kinds of seed and the weaving of clothing with two different kinds of thread.

  It seems that the all of the injunctions in the book of Leviticus, except the one at 18:22, are easily forgotten and/or neglected. I can only wonder why this is so.
• 

  Narkissos

  I did miss the subtext...

  Incidently, it says nothing at all about a woman having sex with another woman as if she were a man. I wonder if lesbianism is ever specifically banned in the Bible

  Indeed, I don't think it is ever mentioned or even alluded to. From which we might infer that, strictly speaking, our modern notion of homosexuality (implying an equal, or at least symmetrical treatment of both sexes/genders) stands well beyond the scope of all Bible texts and contexts.

  Which leads me, in turn, to your notion of 'Biblio-slavery'. Of course it would be pointless to look for ready-made recipes for living in the Bible. None of the Bible texts was addressed to us or referring to the society we live in. But I wonder if that's the real point. Are people referring to "Bible authority" desperately trying to live by the Bible texts no matter what odd things they might say, or using them to justify their extant way of life, opinions and prejudice? Maybe it's only a matter of (short) time before the scriptural arguments for homophobia join the scriptural arguments for witch-burning, slavery, same-race marriage or sexual discrimination in the dustbin of Christian history...
• 

  Rapunzel

  Narkissos - As for the idea that homophobia will, in the not-too-distant-future, join other outrages against decency such as slavery and witch-burnings, all that I have to say is - Qu'il soit ainsi, alors!

  In regard to the other point you make, I definitely think that people use [or rather, misuse/abuse] the Bible to justify and rationalize their own extant beliefs and prejudices. They pervert [if I'm not mistaken, the verb pervert derives from the Latin the Latin prefix per + the verb vertire, which means "to turn"] the scriptures to fit their prejudices and biases.

  I find it indeed interesting that the Bible seems not to mention lesbianism anywhere. With all its proscriptions, injunctions, commanments - all of its thou-shalt-nots - it seems that the writers/redactors of the Bible were not even able to imagine a situation in which a woman might feel erotic attraction toward another female. The Bible must contain literally thousands of laws, both compelling people to do certain things while forbidding them to do other things, and yet the Bible never once mentions lesbianism. For me this is absolute proof positive that the Bible is a book by men, and essentially for men.

  In regard to the word, homosexuality, I seem to remember that - as a word - it entered the English language at a very late date. I don't remember exactly what point in history, but it seems to me that it was after the Renaissance, perhaps in the 17th or 18th century.