_Judah and Tamar_
(Yahwist).
Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a Canaanitish
wife, who bears to him three sons, ‛Er, ’Ônān and Shēlāh (¹⁻⁵).
‛Er and ’Onan become in succession the husbands of Tamar (under the
levirate law), and die without issue; and Judah orders Tamar to remain
a widow in her father’s house till Shelah should reach manhood (⁶⁻¹¹).
Finding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate stratagem,
by which she procures offspring from Judah himself (¹²⁻²⁶). With the
birth of her twin sons, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, the narrative closes (²⁷⁻³⁰).
The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being in the
main a legendary account of the origin of the principal clans
of Judah. To this historical nucleus we may reckon such facts
as these: the isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes
(see on verse ¹); the mixed origin of its leading families;
the extinction of the two oldest clans, ‛Er and ’Onan; the
rivalry of the younger branches, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, ending in the
supremacy of the former; and (possibly) the superiority of these
two (as sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson).
See Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme
in Kanaan_ 79 f.; where, however, the ethnological explanation
is carried further than is reasonable.――It is obvious that the
legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of
the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of Judah
from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a reunion.
Although Priestly-Code, who had both before him, represents
Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to Egypt
(46¹²), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage
is to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine.
Where precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs,
we cannot certainly determine. It is possible that the figure
of Judah here is simply a personification of the tribe, which
has never been brought into connexion with the family history
of Jacob: in this case the events reflected may be assigned to
the period subsequent to the Exodus. It seems a more natural
supposition, however, that the legend ignores the Exodus
altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which
the occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his
immediate descendants (see pages 418, 507).――On some touches of
mythological colouring in the story of Tamar, see below, pages
452, 454.
_Source._――The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic
narration, free from redactional manipulation. The following
characteristics of Yahwist may be noted: יהוה, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; רע בעינו, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰;
הבה־נא, ¹⁶; הכר־נא, ²⁵ (37³²); כי־על־כן, ²⁶; ידע; ²⁶; further, the
naming of the children by the mother, ³⁻⁵; and the resemblance
of ²⁷ ᶠᐧ to 25²⁴ ᶠᐧ. Since the sequence of 39¹ on 37³⁶ would
be harsh, it is probable that chapter 38 was inserted here by
Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ (Holzinger).
=1‒5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.=――=1.= _went down
from his brethren_] Since the chapter has no connexion with the
history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or where the separation is
conceived to have taken place. From the situation of _‛Adullām_, it is
clear that some place in the central highlands is indicated. Adullam
is _possibly ‛Īd el-Mīye_ (or _‛Aid el-Mā_), on the border of the
Shephelah, 12 miles South-west of Bethlehem and 7 North-east of
Eleutheropolis (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 193; Smith,
_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 229). It is marked on the
Palestinian Survey map as 1150 feet above sea-level.
The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital
importance in the early history of Israel. The separation is
described in Judges 1³ ᶠᶠᐧ; in the song of Deborah (Judges 5)
Judah is not mentioned either for praise or blame; and his
reunion with Israel is prayed for in Deuteronomy 33⁷. The
rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage
between south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of
the stronger infusion of foreign blood in the southern tribe.
The verse suggests that the first Judahite settlement was at
‛Adullam, where the tribe gained a footing by alliance with
a native clan named Ḥîrāh; but Meyer (_Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstämme_, 435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous
occupation of the region round Bethlehem, and deals merely with
an extension towards the Shephelah. It is certainly difficult
otherwise to account for the verb ירד (contrast וַיַּעַל, Judges 1⁴);
but were Judah’s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gunkel’s
emendation, וַיָּרָד, ‘freed himself’ (see on 27⁴⁰; compare Hosea 12¹),
would relieve the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose
narrative.
* * * * *
=1.= ויט] LXX ἀφίκετο the precise force here of נטה, ‘turn
aside,’ is doubtful. The change of עד to אל (Ball) is unnecessary
(compare 1 Samuel 9⁹).
* * * * *
=2.= A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites is represented
by Judah’s marriage with or _Bath-Shûa‛_ or _Bath-Sheva‛_ (See on
verse ¹²). The freedom with which connubium with the Canaanites is
acknowledged (contrast 34. 24³) may be a proof of the antiquity of the
source (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=5b.= _in Kĕzîb, etc._] It is plausibly
inferred that Kĕzîb (= _’Akzîb_, an unknown locality in the Shephelah,
Joshua 15⁴⁴, Micah 1¹⁴) was the centre of the clan of Shelah; though
LXX makes all three births happen there.
* * * * *
=2.= וּשְׁמוֹ] LXX וּשְׁמָהּ. See on verse ¹².――=3.= ויקרא] Better as
verses ⁴ᐧ ⁵ ותקרא (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Hebrew MSS).――=5.= שֵׁלָה] LXX Σηλώμ; compare
the gentilic שֵׁלָנִי, Numbers 26²⁰.――והיה] is impossible, and _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהי little better. Read
with LXX וְהִיא.――בכזיב] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
בכזבה, compare כֹּזֵבָא, 1 Chronicles 4²².――אתו] LXX אֹתָם.――Nothing can
be made of the strange renderings of ⁵ᵇ in Peshiṭtå and Vulgate:
(‡ Syriac phrase); _quo nato parere ultra cessavit_ (compare
29³⁵ 30⁹).
* * * * *
=6‒11. Tamar’s wrong.=――=6.= _Tamar_, the Hebrew word for date-palm,
occurs twice as a female name in David’s family (2 Samuel 13¹
14²⁷). There is therefore little probability that it is here a
personification of the city of the same name on the South border of
Palestine (Ezekiel 47¹⁹) (so Steuernagel). A mythological origin is
suggested on page 452 below.――As head of the family, Judah chooses a
wife for his first-born (24³ 34⁴ 21²¹), as he is also responsible for
the carrying out of the levirate obligation (⁸ᐧ ¹¹).――=7.= No crime
is alleged against _‛Ēr_, whose untimely death was probably the only
evidence of Yahwe’s displeasure with him (Proverbs 10²⁷).――=8‒10.=
_’Onān_, on the other hand, is slain because of the revolting manner
in which he persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed
to his brother. It is not correct to say (with Gunkel) that his
_only_ offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother’s
interests.――=11.= Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on the pretext
that his third son Shelah is too young to marry her. His real motive
is fear lest his only surviving son should share the fate of ‛Er and
’Onan, which he plainly attributes in some way to Tamar herself.――_in
thy father’s house_] according to the law for a childless widow
(Leviticus 22¹³, Ruth 1⁸).
The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed
widely in primitive times, and is still observed in many
parts of the world. In its Hebrew form it does not appear
to have implied more than the duty of a surviving brother to
procure male issue for the oldest member of a family, when
he dies childless: the first-born son of the union is counted
the son, and is the heir, to the deceased; and although in
Deuteronomy 25⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ the widow is said to become the wife of
her brother-in-law, it may be questioned if in early times the
union was more than temporary. It is most naturally explained
as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of some kind of
polyandry, in which the wife was the common property of the
kin-group (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_²,
146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be relaxed with the
advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Deuteronomy 25⁵⁻¹⁰ is
essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply
with the custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of
’Onan: the sanctity of the obligation is so strong that he does
not dare openly to defy it; yet his private family interest
induces him to defeat its purpose. It is noteworthy that the
only other historical example of the law――the analogous though
not identical case of Boaz and Ruth――also reveals the tendency
to escape its operation.――See Driver, _A critical and exegetical
commentary on Deuteronomy_ 280 ff. (with the authorities there
cited); also Engert, _Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer_,
15 ff.; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 66 ff.
Judah’s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of ‛Er
and ’Onan (_v.s._) may spring from an older form of the legend,
in which she was actually credited with death-dealing power.
Stucken and Jeremias recognise in this a common mythical
motive,――the goddess who slays her lovers,――and point to the
parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit (3⁸). Tamar and Sara
(_šarratu_, a title of Ištar) were originally forms of Ištar
(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 381 f.).
The connexion is possible; and if there be any truth in Barton’s
speculation that the date-palm was sacred to Ištar (_A Sketch
of Semitic Origins_¹, 92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an
explanation of the name Tamar.
* * * * *
=7.= יהוה²] LXX ὁ θεός.――=8.= יַבֵּם] Deuteronomy 25⁵ᐧ ⁷†;
denominative from יָבָם, the _terminus technicus_ for ‘husband’s
brother’ in relation to the levirate institution.――=9.=
והיה אם] ‘as often as’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _o_.――שִׁחֵת
(sc. _semen_)] in the sense of ‘spoil,’ ‘make ineffective’
(Brown-Driver-Briggs).――נְתָן־ for תֵּת] only again Numbers 20²¹;
compare הֲלֹךְ, Exodus 3¹⁹, Numbers 22¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=10.= אשר עשה]
LXX, prefix הַדָּבָר.――=11.= שְׁבִי, וַתֵּשֶׁב] Ball al. propose שֻׁבִי, וַתָּשָׁב,
after Leviticus 22¹³; but see Isaiah 47⁸.
* * * * *
=12‒19. Tamar’s daring stratagem.=――=12.= _Bath-Shūa‛_] See the
footnote.――_was comforted_] a conventional phrase for the effect
of the mourning ceremonies; see Jeremiah 16⁷.――The death of Judah’s
wife is mentioned as a palliation of his subsequent behaviour: “even
in early times it was considered not quite _comme il faut_ for a
married man to have intercourse with harlots” (Gunkel).――On the
_sheep-shearing_, see 31¹⁹.――_Ḥîrāh his associate_] (see verse ¹)
is mentioned here because of the part he has to play in the story
(verses ²⁰⁻²³).――_went up ... to Timnah_] This cannot be the
Danite Timnah (Joshua 15¹⁰ 19⁴³, Judges 14¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵), which lies lower
than ‛Adullam. Another Timnah South of Hebron (Joshua 15⁵⁷), but
unidentified, might be meant; or it may be the modern _Tibne_, West
of Bethlehem, though this is only 4 miles from ‛Adullam, and room has
to be found for ‛Enaim between them (but _v.i._ on verse ¹⁴).――=14.=
_her widow’s garments_] Compare Judith 8⁵ 10³ 16⁸.――She assumes the
garb of a common prostitute, and sits, covered by _the veil_ (see
below on verse ²¹), by the wayside; compare Jeremiah 3², Ezekiel 16²⁵,
Epistle of Jeremiah 43.――=15.= _for she had covered her face_] This
explains, not Judah’s failure to recognise her, but his mistaking
her for a harlot (see verse ¹⁶).――=17.= _a kid of the goats_] Compare
Judges 15¹. The present of a kid on these occasions may be due to
the fact that (as in classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to
the goddess of love (Pausanias vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer’s Note, volume
iv. 106]; compare Tacitus _Histories_ 2, 3, and Lucian, _Dialogi
Meretricii_ 7. 1) (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.= The master-stroke
of Tamar’s plot is the securing of a pledge which rendered the
identification of the owner absolutely certain. _Seal_, _cord_, and
_staff_ must have been the insignia of a man of rank amongst the
Israelites, as seal and staff were among the Babylonians (Herodotus
i. 195)¹ and Egyptians (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 228 f.). The
_cord_ may have been used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town
Arabs (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 36), or may
have had magical properties like those occasionally worn by Arab men
(Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 166). For illustrations of
ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 82,
179 f., 228 ff.
¹ Σφρηγῖδα δ’ ἕκαστος ἔχει καὶ σκῆπτρον χειροποίητον· ἐπ’
ἑκάστῳ δὲ σκήπτρῳ ἔπεστι πεποιημένον ἢ μῆλον ἢ ῥόδον ἢ
κρίνον ἢ αἰετὸς ἢ ἄλλο τι· ἄνευ γὰρ ἐπισήμου οὔ σφι νόμος
ἐστὶ ἔχειν σκῆπτρον.――Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
* * * * *
=12.= בת־שׁוּעַ] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1
Chronicles 2³ = בת־שֶׁבַע (compare 1 Chronicles 3⁵ with 2 Samuel 11³
etc.), through an intermediate בת־שֶׁוַע. LXX, both here and verse ²
(but _not_ 1 Chronicles 2³), gives שוע as the name of Judah’s
_wife_.――רֵעֵהוּ] LXX, Vulgate רֹעֵהוּ, ‘his shepherd,’ wrongly.――=13.=
חָם] ‘husband’s father,’ 1 Samuel 4¹⁹ᐧ ²¹†. Smith (_Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_², 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a
distinct trace of ba‛al-polyandry; the correlative is _kanna_,
“which usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the
Ḥamāsa is used ... to designate one’s own wife.”――=14.= וַתְּכַס] so
Deuteronomy 22¹², Jonah 3⁶. Read either וַתִּכָּס, Niphal (Gunkel), or
וַתִּתְכַּס, Hithpael, with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
(as 24⁶⁵).――בפתח עינים] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Vulgate _in
bivio itineris_, and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ take the meaning to
be ‘at the cross-roads’ (of which there are several on the short
way from ‛Aid el-Mā to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is
tempting to think that these versions are on the right track,
though their rendering has no support in Hebrew usage. If עינים be
a proper name it may be identical with the unknown עֵינָם of Joshua
15³⁴, in the Shephelah.――וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ] LXX וְהוּא לֹא נְתָנָהּ לוֹ, better.――=15.=
end] LXX + καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν.
* * * * *
=20‒23. Judah fails to recover his pledge.=――=20.= It is significant
that Judah employs his _fidus Achates_ Ḥirah in this discreditable
affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc., than run the risk
of publicity (verse ²³).――=21.= _Where is that Ḳĕdēshāh?_]
strictly ‘sacred prostitute,’――one ‘dedicated’ for this purpose to
Ištar-Astarte, or some other deity (Deuteronomy 23¹⁸, Hosea 4¹⁴†).
This is the only place where קדשה appears to be used of
an ordinary harlot; and Luther (_Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 180) points out that it is confined to the
conversation of Ḥirah with the natives, the writer using זוֹנָה.
The code of Ḥammurabi (§ 110) seems to contemplate the case
of a temple-votary (_ḳadistu_, _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 423; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 380) separating herself for private prostitution; and
it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites,
though not in Israel.――That the harlot’s _veil_ (verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹)
was a symbol of dedication to Ištar the veiled goddess (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 276, 432; _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 109) is possible,
though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling of
Ištar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which
rests on a primitive sexual taboo (compare the bridal veil 24⁶⁵).
* * * * *
=21.= מקמהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå המקום (verse ²²). If this reading be accepted, there is
no reason to hold that עינום (if a place-name at all) was Tamar’s
native village.――הִוא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
ההיא; but see 19³³ etc.
* * * * *
=24‒26. The vindication of Tamar. =――=24.= As the widow of ‛Er, or
the betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery, and it falls to
Judah as head of the family to bring her to justice.――_Lead her out_]
a forensic term, Deuteronomy 22²¹ᐧ ²⁴.――_let her be burnt_] Death by
burning is the punishment imposed in Ḫammurabi, § 157, for incest with
a mother, and was doubtless the common punishment for adultery on the
part of a woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty
of stoning was substituted (Leviticus 20¹⁰, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ,
Ezekiel 16⁴⁰, Jonah 8⁵), the more cruel death being reserved for
the prostitution of a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21⁹; compare
Ḫammurabi § 110).――=25.= By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes
her justification as public and dramatically complete as possible.
Addressing the crowd she says, _To the man who owns these things,
etc._; to Judah himself she flings out the challenge, _Recognise to
whom this seal, etc., belong!_――=26.= _She is in the right as against
me_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _b_³; compare Job 4¹⁷ 32²)] _i.e._, her
conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by Judah.
To suppose that incidents like that recorded in ¹²⁻²⁶ were of
frequent occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty
of the father-in-law under _any_ circumstances to marry his
son’s widow, is to miss entirely the point of the narrative.
On the contrary, as Gunkel well shows (365 f.), it is just
the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the
writer’s obvious admiration for Tamar’s heroic conduct. “Tamar
shows her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice,
and her determination by any means in her power to secure her
wifely rights within her husband’s family. To obtain this right
the intrepid woman dares the utmost that womanly honour could
endure,――stoops to the level of an unfortunate girl, and does
that which in ordinary cases would lead to the most cruel and
shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on the issue.
At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages her
part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy
goal.”――It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect
discredit on the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah’s behaviour
in as favourable a light as possible, suggesting extenuating
circumstances for what could not be altogether excused; and
regards that of Tamar as a glory to the tribe (compare Ruth 4¹²).
* * * * *
=24.= כמשלש] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ more
correctly כמשלשת.――=25.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§§ 116 _u_, _v_, 142 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the
Tenses in Hebrew_ § 166 ff.――לְאיש] construct state with clause
as genitive; Holzinger al. point לָאיש.――החתמת] feminine only
here.――הפתילים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הפתיל (as verse ¹⁸).――=26.=
כי־על־כן] see on 18⁵.
* * * * *
=27‒30. Birth of Pereẓ and Zeraḥ.=――The story closely resembles that
of Rebekah in 25²⁴⁻²⁶ (38²⁷ᵇ = 25²⁴ᵇ), and is probably a variation of
the same originally mythical theme (see page 359).――=28.= The _scarlet_
thread probably represents some feature of the original myth (note
that in 25²⁵ ‘the first came out _red_’). The forced etymology of
_Zeraḥ_ (verse ³⁰) could not have suggested it.――=29.= _What a breach
hast thou made for thyself!_] The name _Pereẓ_ expresses the violence
with which he secured the priority.――=30.= _Zeraḥ_] An Edomite clan in
36¹³ᐧ ³³. On the etymology, _v.i._
To the name Pereẓ, Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient
Israel_, 357) aptly compares Plutarch’s account of the birth
of Typhon, brother of Osiris: “neither in due time, nor in
the right place, but _breaking through with a blow_, he leaped
out through his mother’s side” (_De Iside et Osiride_ chapter
12).――The ascendancy of the Pereẓ clan has been explained by the
incorporation of the powerful families of Caleb and Jeraḥmeel,
1 Chronicles ⁵ᐧ ⁹ (so Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
i. 158 f.); but a more obvious reason is the fact that David’s
ancestry was traced to this branch (Romans 4¹⁸⁻²²).
* * * * *
=28.= ויתן־יד] _sc._ הַנֹּתֵן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _e_); LXX + ὁ
εἷς.――=29.= ויהי כְּמֵשִׁיב] An ungrammatical use of the participle.
Read with Ball ויהי כְּמוֹ הֵשִׁיב (compare 19¹⁵).――פרצת――פרץ] cognitive
accusative. The rendering as a question (מה = ‘why’: Delitzsch,
Dillmann, Driver) is less natural than that given above; and to
detach עליך פרץ [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עלינו]
as a separate exclamation (‘A breach upon thee!’) is worse.
LXX (τί διεκόπη διὰ σὲ φραγμός;) Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take the
verb in a passive sense.――ויקרא] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ותקרא (so verse ³⁰).――=30.=
זֶרַח] as a Hebrew word would mean ‘rising’ (of the sun, Isaiah
60³) or ‘autochthonous’ (= אָזְרָח). A connexion with the idea of
‘redness’ is difficult to establish. It is commonly supposed
that there is a play on the Aramaic זחריתא (which is used here by
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, and is the equivalent of Hebrew שָׁנִי),
and Babylonian _zaḫuritu_ (so Delitzsch, Driver, Gunkel, al.);
but this is not convincing.
* * * * *