Followers

Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriarchy. Show all posts

Thursday, October 26, 2017

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 4)


All rights reserved. If you borrow, please cite this page. This information represents 35 years of research.



Sultan Jamal ul-Kiram (seated at center), with his chiefs. 
They are holding knob sticks or rods as the sign of their rank.
Also shown US Army officer and some visiting Muslims.
Photo taken in Mindanao c. 1899-1901


Alice C. Linsley

In seeking to understand the social structure of the biblical Hebrew, we must investigate numerous features such as descent, inheritance, right of rule, residence, form of government, and ultimate authority for decisions. 

Feminists claim that the biblical Hebrew had a patriarchal social structure, but they are unable to prove this. In feminist and gender studies, patriarchy refers to the universal oppression of females in male-dominated societies. This is an ideological definition, and one which lacks empirical evidence.

In The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 1), we saw that for the feminist claim to be true, the social structure of the biblical Hebrew would be characterized by these 6 conditions:

1. descent is traced through the paternal line only (Part 2)
2. inheritance rights come through the father's lineage only (Part 3)
3. right to rule is vested with males only (Part 4)
4. patrilocal residence; that is the bride lives with the groom's clan/family (Part 5)
5. governed by a council of all males (Part 6)
6. ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, a chief or a king.

In Part 2 (Descent), we investigated whether the Hebrew social structure traces descent through the paternal line only and discovered that this is not the case.

In Part 3 (Inheritance), we investigated the claim that only men were permitted to inherit among the biblical Hebrew. We found that the inheritance laws among the biblical Hebrew are more complex because the ruler had two first born sons. Provision was made for both sons to receive an inheritance. Additionally, grants were made to the sent-away sons of concubines. Daughters could petition to receive inheritance. By levirate marriage a widow was able to preserve her deceased husband's holdings for his son. In an extremely archaic practice, inheritance rights were attached to whoever had possession of the clan ancestor figurines. These were stolen by Rachel who knew that her husband Jacob (Israel) had no inheritance.

Having found that the feminist claim of patriarchy does not apply to the Hebrew patterns of descent and inheritance, we move to the question of the right to rule among the biblical Hebrew to see if it fits the pattern of absolute patriarchy.


Overview

Among the biblical Hebrew the first born son of the principal wife ruled over his father's territory upon the death of the father. These were regional kings, not high kings whose territories we would consider empires. Abraham is an example. These rulers carried rods as a sign of their rank. Below is the image of a ruler-priest (tera-neter) holding a rod (Petrie 1939). This ruler-priest served the Creator, the High God, who was called Anu in Akkadian (the equivalent of El Elyon in Hebrew).

Annu refers top "those of royal blood"
according to Gwendolyn Leick
(Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology, 1998, p. 7)
The first born son of the second wife, a patrilineal cousin, served as a vizier in the court of his maternal grandfather's territory. Abraham's first born son, Joktan, is an example.

Other sons and the sons of concubines received grants which enabled them to become chiefs in areas where they did not pose a threat to the first born sons. Ishmael is an example.

Some of these sent-away sons ruled over kingdoms that they gained by conquest, negotiation, and marriage. This was the case with Nimrod, a Kushite kingdom builder (Gen. 10:8).

Some sent-away sons are noted for being city builders. The Hebrew phrase וַיְהִי בֹּנֶה עִיר may be translated as [Cain] "he existed as a builder of a city" or "he existed, building a city." He named his city Enoch, after his father-in-law and the first born son of his cousin wife (Gen. 4:17). Nimrod, the son of Kush (Gen. 10:8) built the cities of Erech and Accad (Gen. 10:10).

The most protected and most desired lands were areas where copper and gold were collected. If these were acquired, the son's right to rule was established by virtue of wealth and power to control much desired commodities. It is significant that the oldest chacolithic sites are places where the Horite Hebrew rulers were established: Predynastic Lower Nile and the shrine city of Jericho (9000 BC). The next oldest sites are in Mesopotamia: Harran, Eridu, Lagash, Mari, Nippur and Ur (5000-4000 BC). Abraham's father, Tera, controlled a territory between Harran and Ur.

Among the Horite Hebrew one woman was especially honored: Hathor. Her image and name appear at many ancient shrines and temples. She is the foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, who is venerated by Christians.

Hebrew women ruled their households and exercised considerable influence in their social circles as the wives of ruler-priests. Some women ruled in Israel as judges and queens.

Now we will look more closely at each of these situations.


Right to rule of the first born son of the first wife

Analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew refers that the Hebrew ruler-priests maintained two wives in separate households. The principal wife was the bride of the man's youth and his half-sister. Sarah is an example. The first born son of the half-sister wife was the ruler's proper heir. Sarah's inability to have a son posed a serious problem for Abraham. When Isaac was born, Abraham rejoiced to have a proper heir. Isaac ruled after Abraham's death and his territory extended on a north-south axis between Hebron and Beersheba and on an east-west axis between Engedi and Gerar. Isaac was a ruler of prestige and great wealth.

Keep in mind that "These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel.” (Genesis 36:31) Their smiths were among the most elite metal workers of the ancient world. Edom was rich in copper and the patroness of their mines and smelting operations was Hathor. She is the overshadowed one (Luke 1:35) who brings forth the son of God, Horus, from whom the Horite Hebrew or Horim are named. A temple dedicated to Hathor was discovered at the southwestern edge of Mt. Timna by Professor Beno Rothenberg of Hebrew University.

There is little doubt that Hathor was venerated among the Horite Hebrew. The Chalcolithic works at Timna in the foothills along the western fringe of the southern Arabah Valley include smelting works, slag, and flints found to be identical to those discovered near Beersheba where Abraham spent much of his time. The metal workers of Timnah and Beersheba were kin, and the patroness of their mining and smelting operations was the mother of Horus. Rothenberg concluded that the peoples living in the area were "partners not only in the work but in the worship of Hathor." (Timna, p. 183)


Right to serve as a chief (vizier) in the territory of the maternal grandfather

The first born son of the second wife became a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather. He was named after that ruler. This explains why there are two named Esau, Enoch, Lamech, Nahor, Joktan, etc. This is the "cousin bride's naming prerogative" and it is a distinctive feature of the social pattern of the biblical Hebrew.

An example is Joktan. He had a right to rule as an official in his maternal grandfather's territory. He was Abraham's first born son by his cousin wife, Keturah. 


Right to rule by conquest, negotiation, and marriage

Royal sons who were not first born received grants and were sent away to gain territories of their own. Abraham is an example. He was the youngest son of Terah. When Terah died, Abraham's older brother Nahor ascended to the throne.

Abraham left Haran in search of a territory of his own and, following God's leading, he gained a territory in Edom between Hebron and Beersheba. This involved marriage to Keturah, a descendant of Sheba, and aligning with some regional chiefs who were kinsmen: Mamre, Eschol and Aner (Gen. 14:13). They are called "Amorites" in Genesis 14:13.

The word is Am-urru refers to people of the high places. Urusalem (Jerusalem) means high place of peace. Ur-shu is the ancient Egyptian word for a sentry posted at a high place. These "high place" allies joined their forces with Abraham's army of 318 trained warriors (Gen. 14:14). This confederation of about 1300 warriors raided the contingent of Elamites who had taken Abraham's nephew captive. Abraham relinquished his share of the booty to his allies (Gen. 14:24) and received the cleansing rite after combat from Melchizedek, the high priest of Jerusalem.

Genesis 6 speaks of Hebron, where Sarah resided, as a holding of Anak. Anak's father was Arba and Hebron was called Kiriah-Arba (Gen. 23:2). This is likely related to the Akkadian kiprat arba, meaning four regions/four peoples. In addition to Anakim, this same region was populated and controlled by Hittites, Horites, and Jebusites. The clan of Het lived in Kiriath-Arba (Gen. 23:3,7) and the sons of Het are designated as Hittites in Genesis 23:2-11. The Hittites recognized Abraham the Horite ruler of Edom as a great prince among them (Gen. 23:6). Indeed, Genesis 13:2 describes Abraham as very wealthy.

Most of the heroes of the Bible were sent-away sons to whom God delivered a kingdom. These speak of the Son who was sent by the Father to transfer us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:12-14)

Just as Abraham established his kingdom through marriage to Keturah, so Jesus Christ will come as the Divine bridegroom (Mat. 9:15, 25:6), and this time of fasting will become the time of feasting at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-9).


The Rule of Women
Examination of the biblical data reveals that Hebrew women ruled their households and exercised considerable influence in their social circles as the wives and daughter of high ranking priests.

The responsibilities of the Hebrew ruler's wife are described in Proverbs 31. This woman is the wife of a city elder (like Ruth) and a respected figure in her own right. She is the mistress of her house and a decision maker. She buys and sells merchandise, and “makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.”

Feminists insist that the Hebrew woman's condition under Patriarchy is one of subjugation. Instead, we find strong, dignified, multi-talented, caring women who make a mark for themselves in the world. They invest wisely, oversee servants, and manage real estate. Some are so important that they are named in the Genesis king lists: Naamah, Anah and Oholibamah, are examples. Anah is called a "chief" in Genesis 36.

Some women are consulted by priests and kings as in the case of Huldah. Deborah judged in Israel from her tamar between Bethel and Ramah. No telling how often wives saved their husband’s estates from destruction, as did Abigail. The Wise Woman of Abel Beth-Macaah is praised for saving her entire city.

Women also ruled as queens. The August 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) reports on a Judean queen named Salome Alexandra who ruled alone from BC 76-67. Archaeologists have discovered her palace in Jericho. Salome was one of two women to rule Judea alone. She is the only woman mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. She is responsible for some of the religious reforms that shaped second-Temple Judaism, and her reign is viewed as a golden age in the Talmud. Queen Salome Alexandra was so admired that generations of mothers named their daughters "Salome" in her honor.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 2)


All rights reserved. If you borrow, please cite this page. This information represents 35 years of research.



Alice C. Linsley

Patriarchy is often held up as an explanation for why no women served as priests among the Hebrew. The argument assumes that the social structure of the biblical Hebrew was patriarchal, following the lead of feminism and gender studies. Anthropologically, social structures are much more complex than generally presented in feminist literature. This is evident when we examine the biblical data to see if the Hebrew social structure is characterized minimally by the six conditions listed below.

In the most general sense, patriarchy refers to rule by men. However, this rule takes various forms. A pure patriarchy would have these conditions:
1. descent is traced through the paternal line only
2. inheritance rights come through the father's lineage only (Part 3)
3. right to rule is vested with males only (Part 4)
4. patrilocal residence; that is the bride lives with the groom's clan/family (Part 5)
5. governed by a council of all males (Part 6)
6. ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, chief or king. (Part 7)
Anthropologists never have found an absolute patriarchy or an absolute matriarchy. In an absolute matriarchy, the six conditions would be vested with the ruling females (matriarchs).

Today we will investigate whether the Hebrew social structure reflects the first condition: patrilineal descent.


Descent patterns of the biblical Hebrew

A pure patriarchy would trace descent through the paternal line only. This is not a characteristic of the biblical Hebrew. Instead, they had a pattern of double descent. One expression of this is the twin entrance pillars of Solomon's temple. They are named Boaz and Jachin and the pillars commemorate Solomon's righteous ancestors on his maternal and paternal sides. Boaz was Solomon's great great grandfather on his father's side and Jachin was his great great grandfather on Bathsheba's side.

Jachin (Yachin/Yaqtan/Joktan) is the name of Keturah's father and her first-born son. The cousin bride named her first born son after her father. Keturah is Abraham's cousin. She resided in Beer-Sheba, the well of Sheba (not the well of seven). One of his Jachin's descendants is Bath-Sheba, Solomon's mother.

The biblical Hebrew had a double unilineal descent pattern. This pattern pertains to more than ancestry. The Hebrew descent pattern also reflects the rights and responsibilities of the matriarch and the patriarch.

In a double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways. The full names of ruler-priests often included the names of their mothers. Among the Horite Hebrew, ntjr designated God or the divinely appointed king. The Virgin Mary's father was Joachim, Son of Pntjr (Pa-netjer). Pntjr is the name of Joachim’s mother. It is a matronym. Evidence for this as a female name is found in archaeology. A limestone stela (1539-1291 BC) bearing the names of Pekhty-nisu and his wife, Pa-netjer, is on exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum.

In the Hebrew double unilineal descent pattern the inheritance of land, the right to rule, and claim to wells pertained to the patriarch, while responsibility for movable objects such as tents, herds, and flocks pertained to the matriarch. In the ancient Hebrew culture, as in the Bedouin culture today, the family tent was owned by the wife. This is the pattern described in Scripture.

The patriarchs dug wells, defended wells, formed treaties over wells, and restored wells that collapsed or were vandalized. The east-west axis of Abraham's territory likely extended between the waters of Engedi to the wells he dug in Gerar.

Sarah's residence in Hebron was fitting the wife of a wealthy ruler. Hebron was a fortified city in Abraham's time. These stairs and walls are 4500 years old. Archaeologists believe the stairs led to Hebron's gate.



However, Sarah's herdsmen would have lived in tents that they moved, as needed, to new pasturage.  Their pattern appears to be that of transhumance, a type of pastoralism in which flocks are moved cyclically with the changing seasons, moving livestock between fixed summer and winter pastures. Vertical transhumance involves movement between higher pastures in summer and lower valleys in winter. The herders have a permanent home in the valleys, typically in tents or sheep cotes such as the one show below. These had a beehive shape and were considered sacred places. 2 Samuel 7:8 describes the sheep cote as a dwelling place (naveh).


Stone sheep cote in Zanuta,West Bank
Photo: Emil Salman


Transhumance should not be confused with the nomadism of some itinerant populations who go where the work is found, such as the ancient metal workers (Kenites, Beja, etc.). Once Abraham arrives in Canaan his movements are always on a north-south axis, usually between two fixed settlements: one in Hebron and the other in or near Beersheba. The flocks were tended by his wives' servants. Abraham and Issac were responsible for maintaining water sources in Ein Gedi and Gerar (on an east-west axis).

The Hebrew pattern of double descent is also evident in the cousin bride's naming prerogative. Patrilineal cousin wives named their first born sons after their fathers. This is reflected throughout the Bible, beginning with Genesis 4 and 5 where we note that Lamech's daughter, Naamah, married Methuselah, her cousin, and named their first born son after her father.




Naamah belonged to the household of Methuselah, but her first born son belonged to the household of her father, after whom the son was named. Lamech the Younger served as a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather. This pattern is a characteristic of the Horite Hebrew ruler-priest caste. It explains why there are two men named Enoch, two named Lamech, two named Nahor, two named Joktan (Yaqtan), two named Esau, and two named Korah.




In the pattern of double unilineal descent there is a symmetrical division of responsibilities between the matriarchs and the patriarchs. The book of Ruth alludes to this. Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to return to their "mother's house" so that they can prepare to remarry and have families (Ruth 1). The mother's house is responsible for wedding preparations and setting up new households. 

Contrast this to the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38). Judah's sons who were married to Tamar die one after the other. He refuses to fulfill the law of levirate marriage by providing Tamar another son to marry. Judah tells Tamar to return to her "father's house" which was to relinquish his responsibility to her father. The father's house negotiated the terms of marriage and if the father did not give the woman to be married, she remained in his house.

In Part 3, we explore the Hebrew pattern of inheritance, one of the most complex areas of investigation. We will discover that the pattern does not fit that of an absolute patriarchy.



Friday, October 6, 2017

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew


All rights reserved. If you borrow, please cite this page. This information represents about 35 years of research.


Alice C. Linsley

It is often asserted that the social structure of the biblical Hebrew was patriarchal. Rarely has this assertion been challenged. In this series on The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew, I do not hesitate to challenge the Feminist-Marxist narrative. I show that the six conditions necessary for a society to be patriarchal did not exist among the biblical Hebrew. The imposition of the Feminist-Marxist hermeneutic on the Bible leads to distortion and misinformation.

The feminist interpretation is poorly informed, narrowly focused, and unsubstantiated by anthropological studies. The typical Feminist narrative runs like this: "the Hebrew scriptures presents Israel as a patriarchal society. Legal codes conceive of men as the sole legal actors. Women are regarded as men's possessions on a par with oxen, asses, and servants. Women are sexual abused and valued mainly for their reproduction of offspring. Even the sign of the covenant between God and Israel is an expression is male circumcision."

Clearly, this cherry picking approach to Scripture advances the feminist agenda, but it does not accurately represent the biblical Hebrew whose wives and daughters were women of social influence, prestige, and wealth. Some even served as the heads of their clans.

Before Israel existed, the wives and daughters of the Hebrew rulers listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 ruled over large royal households, arranged royal weddings, owned property, and assisted in the building of kingdoms.

The Hebrew had a distinctive marriage and ascendancy pattern that has been established through anthropological research using kinship analysis. Though the wives are not always named, their presence is evident in analysis of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew.

As to the claim that circumcision pertained to men only, it should be noted that here is evidence that some females were circumcised. Male and female circumcision is understood only in the context of the binary worldview of the biblical Hebrew. I will not address this topic in this series simply because it is impossible to discuss female circumcision rationally in the present highly-charged political climate.

Hebrew wives were essential to the establishment of a territory. The ruler-priest had two wives living in separate settlements at the northern and southern boundaries of their territories. Without these wives, there was no way to establish his kingdom and maintain his territorial boundaries. To cite an example, Abraham's territory extended between Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba. The wives' separate settlements were on a north-south axis.

In the social system of the biblical Hebrew, wives exercised considerable influence over their settlements. Sarah ordered her servant Hagar to leave the settlement and Abraham had to concede. Among the biblical Hebrew all movable property such as tents and flocks belonged to the wife who ruled over her settlement.

Cousin brides named their first-born sons after their fathers. Those sons belonged to the households of their maternal grandfathers. The biblical Hebrew had a double unilineal descent pattern. This pattern pertains to more than ancestry. It reflects the rights and responsibilities of the matriarch and the patriarch. In a double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways.

Many mistakenly believe that the Hebrew priesthood began with Aaron. Aaron and the Levites are not the first priests. Their service follows the practice of their Horite Hebrew ancestors.

The Horite Hebrew were a royal caste of priests known from ancient documents and archaeological discoveries going back to at least 3800 BC. Melchizedek was the ruler-priest of Salem (Jerusalem) and his ministry to Abraham (Gen 14) represents a long-standing custom of ritual purification following combat. Analysis of the biblical kinship pattern of the Hebrew ruler-priests suggests that Melchizedek was the maternal uncle of Abraham's second wife, Keturah.




Josephus calls the descendants of Abraham by Keturah "Horites" and quoting another ancient historian, speaks of them as "conquerors of Egypt and founders of the Assyrian Empire."

Moses's entire family were Horite Hebrew priests.They are descendants of Seir, the Horite ruler of Edom (Gen. 36). Aaron and Korah were his brothers. Korah means "shaved one" and refers to a priest. Here is a diagram of Amram's Hebrew clan. Also note that Anah, a female, is listed in the lineage as a chief.



The patriarchal system

Patriarchy is given as an explanation for why there were no female priests among the Hebrew. This is a false picture of the biblical Hebrew and one which should be corrected. Using the anthropological definition of patriarchy, I will expose that falsehood.

The term "patriarchy" is one of the most abused anthropological terms. In feminist and gender studies, patriarchy refers to the universal oppression of females in male-dominated societies. This is not a scientific definition. It is an ideological definition, and one which lacks empirical support.

In the most general sense, patriarchy refers to rule by men. However, this rule takes various forms. A pure patriarchy would have these conditions:
1. descent is traced through the paternal line only (Part 2)
2. inheritance rights come through the father's lineage only (Part 3)
3. right to rule is vested with males only (Part 4)
4. patrilocal residence; that is the bride lives with the groom's clan/family (Part 5)
5. governed by a council of all males (Part 6)
6. ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, a chief or a king (Part 7)
It should be noted that anthropologists never have found an absolute patriarchy. Neither have they found an absolute matriarchy.  In an absolute matriarchy, the six conditions would be vested with the ruling females (matriarchs).

Image result for Image of the Hebrew ruler priest
A tera/terah is a priest. The priest carries a staff, sign of his ruler status.

Anthropologically, social structures are much more complex than generally presented in feminist literature. This is evident when we examine the biblical data to see if the Hebrew social structure is characterized by the six conditions listed above.

In Part 2 we investigate whether the Hebrew social structure traces descent through the paternal line only. We will discover patterns that have been ignored by feminists and that challenge common interpretations of even Bible scholars.


Related reading: Horite Hebrew Rulers With Two WivesThe Substance of Abraham's FaithThe Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 3); Who Were the Horite Hebrew?; Samuel's Horite Family; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Question of Patriarchy


Alice C. Linsley

While some feminists consider the Bible outdated and chauvinistic, through the lens of the sciences of anthropology and psychology it appears to be quite accurate in its descriptions of human behavior. Due to their bias, feminists miss some significant details that serve their cause of elevating the status of women. Bible scholar Jane Schaberg (University of Detroit Mercy) finds the Bible to be a source of valuable information about the role and experience of women during Biblical times and she is a feminist.

Feminist scholarship, writes Schaberg in her Biblical Views column for the November/December issue of BAR, aims to turn the old, male-dominated understanding of the Bible on its head and thereby reveal new insights into the lives of often-marginalized women in the ancient world.

Likewise, while feminist scholarship on the Bible does not necessarily aim for complete objectivity, which Schaberg calls an "impossible ideal," it does aim for fairness in assessing the scriptural texts. Feminists also focus attention on issues that have often been sidelined in biblical studies, like slavery, gender equality and sexuality.

It is assumed that the ancient laws were enacted to subordinate women and Genesis 3:16 is often quoted to support this view. "Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband and he will rule over you." This relationship of subordination is not established by Horite Hebrew Law, though Horite Law recognizes this arrangement. The subordination of the female to the male is a direct result of fear, the first emotion described after the Fall. When men are fearful they become aggressive and defensive of their turf and family. When women become fearful, they tend to get "clingly" and surrender their wants/needs in order to preserve the relationship.

Feminists argue that patriarchy is the result of universal oppression of women by men. They want to make men the oppressors, and ignore the effects of fear on males and females. In the biblical worldview patriarchy came as the result of fear entering the male-female relationship after disobedience (Gen. 3:10).  Because of fear, the woman's desire is for her husband and he "rules" over her (Gen. 3:16).  In her seminal book, In a Different Voice, Harvard psychology professor Carol Gilligan demonstrated through her research how this is so.

The feminist worldview and the biblical worldview are contradictory.  This is especially evident when addressing the question of patriarchy.  Patriarchy is the universal norm.  Feminists will argue that this isn't true by pointing to soft patriarchal societies where line of descent or rights of inheritance are traced through females.  A true matriarchy is characterized by the following conditions:

* line of descent must be traced through the mothers
* rights of inheritance must be figured through the mothers
* political power must be vested with ruling females
* females must have the final say in deciding matters for the community

It is a matter of fact that, after eighty-five years of ethnographic studies, no true matriarchal society has ever been identified by cultural anthropologists.