Learn About the Early Hebrew

 

Dr. Alice C. Linsley

The application of kinship analysis, a tool of cultural anthropology, has proven extremely useful in identifying the features of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew, the ruler-priest caste that believed in the Father God who has a son and whose Spirit generates life. Understanding their social structure sheds light on many of the more difficult passages of Scripture. Therefore, I recommend my book "The First Lords of the Earth: An Anthropological Study" (Amazon).

 
Chapters 1 and 2 explain the empirical, data gathering method of Biblical Anthropology.

 
Chapters 3-5 present what is known about the early Hebrew (4000-2000 BC), drawing on the available data. Specifically, these chapters look at the Hebrew caste and moiety system, the oldest known site of Hebrew worship along the Nile, and what the Hebrew believed.

 
Chapter 6 clarifies that the social structure of the early Hebrew was not patriarchal, as is often claimed, and chapters 7-13 demonstrate the gender balance of their social structure using the biblical data.

I was able to make a rather complex subject easy to understand. I hope you will buy the book and discover answers to some questions, such as:

• Was the social structure of the biblical Hebrew patriarchal?
• Who were the Horite Hebrew and the Sethite Hebrew?
• Where is the oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship?
• Were the Hebrew in Canaan before Abraham's time?
• Why did many high-status Hebrew men have two wives?
• What was the difference in status between wives and concubines?
• What types of authority did the biblical Hebrew recognize?
• How did the Hebrew acute observation of the order of creation inform their reasoning?
• If Judaism is NOT the faith of the early Hebrew, what did they believe?

I hope you will find the book helpful and informative. The sequel describes the lives of the "First Ladies of the Earth" and will be available in August 2024.

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Final)

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


Dr. Alice C. Linsley

Five Features of the Hebrew Social Structure

The social structure was not patriarchal. Hebrew women ruled as clan chiefs, were prophets, owned property, operated businesses, and inherited.

When it comes to understanding the Hebrew gender distinctions implicit in Scripture, we must dismiss the false narrative that the social structure of the biblical Hebrew was patriarchal. It was not. See the Introduction to this 7-part study.

In anthropology, a patriarchal social structure is defined by the following 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. The right to rule is vested with males only (Part 4)

4. A pattern of patrilocal residence; that is, the bride lives with the groom's clan/family (Part 5)

5. The ruling body or governing council consists exclusively of males (Part 6)

6. Ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, a chief or a king (Part 7)

None of these conditions are true of Abraham’s Horite Hebrew people. In fact, the Horite Hebrew appear to be unusually respectful of their women compared to other ancient populations. 

Descent
The biblical Hebrew traced their lineages through both the male and female lines. This is why Luke and Matthew give two genealogies for Jesus. This double unilineal descent pattern is expressed in the entrance twin pillars of Solomon’s temple. One pillar was called Boaz, after Solomon’s paternal great great grandfather and the other pillar was called Jachin after Solomon’s maternal great great grandfather.

The biblical Hebrew traced lineage both patrilineally and matrilineally, with a particular focus on prominent or "righteous" ancestors. Both male and female ancestors are remembered, though it is more common for male ancestors to be named in the biblical texts. 

Inheritance
Inheritance was passed down through both the mother and the father. The inheritance laws among the biblical Hebrew are 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. If a land owner died without a male heir his land was to go to a ranking daughter (Numbers 27:8). If he died without a son or daughter, the land was to go to his brothers.

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  “teraphim” which were ancestor figurines.

The Right to Rule

The right to rule depended on one’s rank and authority more than one’s gender. Rank and authority were determined by the antiquity of the clan and its reputation. According to Genesis 36:31, the Horite Hebrew “are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel.” That being the case, the Horite clans of Edom were especially respected. Jeremiah notes that the rulers of Edom and Teman of Edom were renown for their wisdom (Jer. 49:7).

The biblical data reveals that Hebrew women ruled their households and exercised considerable influence in their social circles as the wives and daughters of high-ranking priests. These women invested wisely, had servants, managed real estate, and owned property. 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.

Residence: Scripture indicates that the biblical Hebrew had at least four residential arrangements: patrilocal, matrilocal, neolocal, and avunculocal. The residence of married couples depended on the social position of the groom. 

The residence of widows depended on their eligibility to remarry. Widows who were not eligible to remarry lived in the households of their fathers. This is why Judah told Tamar to return to her father's house (Gen. 38:11). On the other hand, Naomi told her widowed daughter-in-law to return to their “mother’s house” in the hope that they would remarry (Ruth 1:8).

Some widows resided in the Temple precincts or at shrines. Anna is an example. She was a widow for 84 years. "She never left the temple, but continued to worship there night and day with times of fasting and prayer." (Luke 2:36-38)

Upon the death of Terah, Abraham's older brother ruled over Terah's holdings in Mesopotamia. Abraham became a sent-away son. Sent-away sons, like Abraham and Jacob, often lived in the households of their maternal uncles. This is called "avunculocal residence.” This is why Jacob was sent to live with his maternal uncle Laban.

The clan to which the individual belonged was not based on where the person resided. It depended on the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Hebrew people. For example, upon her marriage to Methuselah, Naamah belonged to her husband's clan, but her first born son belonged to the clan of Naamah's father, Lamech the Elder. That is why the son was given the name Lamech.

Governance
It is not true that the ruling body or governing council consisted exclusively of males. Ruling persons included males and females, and gender was not the only factor in determining who would govern.

In determining who should govern, the status and antiquity of one's clan was a factor. Certain Hebrew clans were known to produce rulers. Among them were the clans of Ram, Sheba, and Shobal. Other clans, such as the clan of Asher, were known to produce prophets, and still other clans, such as the clan of Caleb, produced great warriors.

Totems can be used to trace ancestry, the relationship between clans, marriage ties, and prominent rulers. The rank of the clans depended on their animal totem. The totems represented the position of planets and constellations. The lion is one of the four figures of Ezekiel's merkabah (solar chariot), a six-spoke symbol that appears on the ossuary boxes of the high priests and their family members. The lion was associated with the Sun. Therefore, the lion clans were preferred when selecting a high king. These clans included the clans of Judah and Shobal.

1 Chronicles 2:50 gives Hur as the firstborn son of Caleb and Ephrathah. Hur is associated with the Horite settlement of Bethlehem. Hur’s first born son was Shobal, a high-raking Horite Hebrew chief.

Women also ruled. Salome Alexandra ruled over Judea from BC 76-67. She was one of two queens who ruled in Judea. Huldah served as a royal adviser to the king. She lived in Jerusalem with her husband, Shallum, who was in charge of the priestly vestments. The narrative in 2 Kings 22 reveals the high esteem with which she was regarded by the king and the people.

Deborah's ruled over Israel from her oasis that was marked by a large date nut palm. It was between the settlements of Ramah and Bethel. The people had to go out to her for counsel, just as people had to travel to the wilderness to consult with John the Baptist.

The first born son of the ruler-priest's second wife (usually a patrilineal cousin) became a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather. Abraham's son Joktan (Yaqtan) was a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather, after whom he was named. This first born son of the second wife was named after his maternal grandfather. This explains why the Bible speaks of two men named Joktan, Esau, Enoch, Lamech, Nahor, etc. This "cousin bride's naming prerogative" is a distinctive feature of the social pattern of the biblical Hebrew.

Anah is listed as a clan chief among the Horite Hebrew of Edom. She was the mother of Oholibamah and Dishon. The clan totem for Dishon was the gazelle.

Finally, we glimpse the powerful influence of the royal mother in the story of Bathsheba appearing before King Solomon. When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. (1 Kings 2:19)

Ultimate Authority

For the Horite Hebrew ultimate authority is expressed in the pervasive representation of the High God by the sun, the great light that gives light to the world. Abraham’s Horite Hebrew people perceived the High God as having male qualities. He (Ra or Ani) was called the father of a divine a son (Horus or Enki). He was believed to appoint by overshadowing, and to inseminate the earth.

We are not inclined to worship God in the same way or to agree on every point of theology. Nevertheless, there is an overarching Tradition upon which all who follow Jesus Messiah agree: that God has self-revealed in the God-Man Jesus, the Son of God, who came into the world to save sinners, to overcome death, and to restore perfect communion with the Father. This is the unique claim of Christianity.

To that claim, we must add that the Messianic Tradition is received, not invented. The Messianic Faith has very deep roots in the religious yearnings of archaic populations. The Church builds and edifies its members by continually resourcing in the Messianic tradition received from our spiritual father Abraham and his Horite Hebrew people.

Related reading: 

Five Features of the Hebrew Social Structure; Horite Hebrew Rulers With Two Wives; The Ministry of Hebrew Woman at the Sun Cities; The Hebrew were a Caste; Hebrew Names and Titles

Hebrew Rulers with Two Wives

Alice C. Linsley

Many Hebrew rulers had two wives. Among them were Lamech the Elder, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Esau the Elder, Amram, Jesse, Elkanah, Ashur, and Joash. Abraham's two wives were Sarah (his half-sister) and Keturah (his patrilineal cousin). They resided in separate settlements in Hebron and Beersheba. 

In 1 Chronicles 4:5, we read that "Ashur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah."

In 1 Chronicles 4:17-18, we read that Mered had two wives, and one was "Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, whom Mered had married."

In 2 Chronicles 24:1–3 we read:

"Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

Caleb fathered children by his wives Azubah and Jerioth (1 Chronicles 2:18,19). From Caleb came Hur and Salma, both of Bethlehem. From them came Elimelech who married Naomi. Their kinsman was Boaz who married Ruth. Their son was Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David.

The antiquity of the custom of ruler's having two wives is evident in the case of Hor-Aha (c. 2925–c. 2775 BC). His wives' names were Benerib and Khenthap. Khenthap is said to be the mother of King Hor Djer in the Cairo Annals Stone. 

A Custom for Rulers Only

Having two wives pertained only to Hebrew men who ruled over territories. The custom was a sign of the man's status as a ruler. The settlements of the two wives were at the borders of the ruler's territory. Abraham's territory was between Sarah's settlement at Hebron and Keturah's settlement at Beersheba. 

None of the marriages of the Hebrew rulers can be called "biblical" and therefore cited as models for Bible believers because this pattern pertains only to Hebrew ruler-priests, the "first lords of the earth". It is not a biblical pattern for marriage. It is a pattern for royal Hebrew persons beginning long before Judaism emerged. These were regnal marriages involving a bride and a groom from related Hebrew clans or between half-siblings (endogamy). Royal marriages are prone to irregularities because of the necessity of a proper heir, and political complexities.

Related reading: The Pattern of Two Wives, The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of the Horite Hebrew; The Wives' Settlements Mark the Boundaries; Understanding "Biblical" Marriage Practices

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 6)

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

Alice C. Linsley

Part 1 of this series addresses the Feminist claim that the biblical Hebrew had a patriarchal social structure. This unfounded assumption is the basis for attempts to justify the innovation of women priests. Since women were denied the opportunity to serve as priests among the patriarchal Hebrew the Church should ordain women to correct that social injustice.

It should be noted that arguments in favor of women priests come primarily from New Testament professors whose focus precludes a wider investigation into the historic roots of the Church's priesthood among Abraham's Hebrew people. Among them are William Witt and N.T. Wright.

The College of Bishops of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) noted in a recent statement that women's ordination is an innovation without sufficient Scriptural warrant to make it a normative practice. This was the conclusion of the ACNA house of bishops after consideration of a 5-year study of the question. Dr. William Witt served as one of the advisers to the study group. He argues that women were denied the opportunity to serve as priests among the Hebrew because of patriarchy, and to correct that social injustice the Church should ordain women.

However, examination of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew reveals that the argument has no basis in fact. The social structure of the biblical Hebrew is not patriarchal because it is not characterized by these 6 conditions of absolute patriarchy:

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 or near the groom's clan/family (Part 5)
5. governed by a council of all males
6. ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, chief or king. (Part 7)

In this article we explore the claim that the social structure of the biblical Hebrew was characterized by the governance of males exclusively.

One of Dr. Witt's arguments is that the contemporary view of male "headship" (complementarianism) is not the biblical view of the relationship of male and female. I agree with him. The headship argument acknowledges the equality of men and women and also asserts a permanent hierarchy with men in authority over women. This does not describe the social structure of the biblical Hebrew. There are examples of women serving in roles of authority over men. 

Refutation of this misguided headship view does not support women's ordination because, after all is said, not a single women served as a priest among the biblical Hebrew, nor can one be found in the Bible.

It is also a fact that the Hebrew priests were not the final decision makers in ancient Hebrew society. These priests were under rulers who were not priests. Of the 24 priestly divisions, none was assigned to David's own Bethlehem because his sons served as the rulers over all the priestly divisions (2 Sam. 8:18).

Further, final decisions concerning governance were made by kings and queens. The Hebrew priests were in the service of these rulers. A Judean queen named Salome Alexandra ruled from BC 76-67. She was one of two women to exercise sole rule over Judea. Archaeologists have uncovered her palace in Jericho. Salome is the only woman mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the religious reforms that shaped second-Temple Judaism were implemented under her rule.

Wise women were consulted by kings. Huldah is an example. She lived in Jerusalem with her husband, Shallum, who was in charge of the priestly vestments. The narrative in 2 Kings 22 reveals the high esteem with which she was regarded by the king and the people.

Deborah ruled as a judge in Israel (Judges 4). She was the fourth to rule after the death of Joshua. Her husband was named Lapidoth, a variant of Lapidos. It is likely that he was of the ruler-priest caste as his name has a Sumerian/Akkadian root that refers to a box or arc (pid). Deborah's place of judgement was marked by a large date nut palm between the settlements of Ramah and Bethel. This means that people had to go out to her for counsel, just as people had to travel to John the Baptist in the wilderness.

Women ruled over their clans. Among them were Anah and Oholibamah. Anah is called a "chief" in Genesis 36. The wives of Hebrew priests ruled their households and exercised considerable influence in their social circles.

The first born son of the ruler-priest's second wife became a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather. This son was named after his maternal grandfather. 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. Here we have a glimpse of the powerful influence of the mother. Such power is portrayed in the story of Bathsheba appearing before King Solomon. 

When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. (1 Kings 2:19)

In the final segment of this 7-part series, we will explore the nature of ultimate authority and whether this is exclusively vested with male biblical figures.

Related reading: Dr. William Witt's Response; Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David; The Priesthood is About the Blood; Why Women Were Never Priests; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 5)

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

Alice C. Linsley

Part 1 of this series addresses the Feminist claim that the biblical Hebrew had a patriarchal social structure. This argument is used to support the ordination of women to the priesthood among Anglicans. The argument maintains that women were denied the opportunity to serve as priests among the Hebrew because of patriarchy and to correct that social injustice the Church should ordain women.

A detailed examination of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew reveals that the argument has no basis in fact. The social structure of the biblical Hebrew is not patriarchal because it is not characterized by these 6 conditions of absolute patriarchy:

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 or near the groom's clan/family
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

In this article we explore the claim that the biblical Hebrew practiced patrilocal residence (point #4 above). Patrilocal residence or patrilocality refers to a system in which a married couple resides with or near the husband's parents. In other words, the bride leaves her family or clan. However, this is not a characteristic of the biblical Hebrew because they practiced endogamy which means the bride and groom are close kin. As half-siblings (Abraham and Sarah) or patrilineal parallel cousins (Jacob and Leah) the bride and groom have the same relatives in their extended families.

The clan to which the individual belonged did not depend on where the person resided. It depended on the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Hebrew people. For example, upon her marriage to Methuselah, Naamah belonged to her husband's clan, but her first born son Lamech the Younger belonged to the clan of Naamah's father, Lamech the Elder.

Further, the evidence of Scripture indicates that the biblical Hebrew had at least four residential arrangements: patrilocal, matrilocal, neolocal, and avunculocal. The residence of married couples depended on the social position of the groom. The residence of widows depended on their eligibility to remarry.

Patrilocal residence

Among the biblical Hebrew it was customary for the first born son of the principal wife to ascend to the throne of his father and to reside in the territory over which he ruled. This meant maintaining two separate households, one for the principal wife and another for the second wife. Abraham's territory extended on a north-south axis between Sarah's residence in Hebron and Keturah's residence in Beersheba. As the proper heir to Abraham's holdings, Isaac ruled over Abraham's territory and resided at both settlements. When he first met Rebekah, he was residing in Beersheba. This would have been where his first wife was living. She was Isaac's half-sister (as was Sarah to Abraham). This is also where Abraham spent the last years of his life.

Edom (Idumea) extended between Hebron and Beersheba.

As Abraham approached his death, Isaac had not taken his second wife, a prerequisite for ascension to his father's throne. According to a long observed Hebrew custom, the heir's second wife was a patrilateral cousin. Therefore, Abraham enjoined his servant to seek a wife for Isaac among his Aramean kin in the territory of Abraham's older brother Nahor.

Abraham's servant asked what he is to do if the woman refused to come back to Beersheba with him. Abraham answered: "If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine. Only do not take my son back there." (Gen. 24:8) As the proper heir to Abraham's territory, Isaac was not to leave Abraham's territory in Edom. Upon marriage, Rebekah was to reside with her husband in his father's territory (patrilocal residence). Patrilocal residence applied to the proper heir and his wives, but not to all married couples.

Widows who were not eligible to remarry lived with or near their fathers. This is why Judah told Tamar to return to her father's house. "Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, 'Live as a widow in your father's household..." (Gen. 38:11)

Some widows resided in the Temple precincts or at shrines. Anna is an example. She was a widow for 84 years. "She never left the temple, but continued to worship there night and day with times of fasting and prayer." (Luke 2:36-38)

In the ancient world, some women attached themselves to shrines or temples once their husbands died. This is still a custom in Africa and India. The Hindu scholar, Dr. Shubhash C. Sharma, explains: "The same type of consideration, as … for young girls, is generally applicable to adult women, especially the widows, when they decide to live in temples and religious places... Note that even though the widows living in such places (temples etc.) might number in several thousand they still represent an extremely small minority relative to millions of Indian widows."

Matrilocal residence

Widows who were eligible to remarry went to live with or near their mothers. This is why Naomi told her daughters-in-law to return to their mothers. "Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, 'Go back, each of you, to your mother's home." (Ruth 1:8)

Neolocal residence

The first biblical reference to residence is found in Genesis 2:24. "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife." The context is a garden in Eden from which the man and the woman are sent away.

Likewise, Cain was sent away and he built a city named Enoch, in honor of his son Enoch. This city was away from his natal home and appears to be an example of neolocal residence. Neolocal residence pertains to sent-away sons. These are the sons who venture from their homes to gain a territory of their own, often with the help of kinsmen living in the region.

Most of the heroes of the Bible were in similar circumstances: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David. Abraham moved to Hebron where he had familial contacts. Jacob moved to Paddan-Aram where he initially had familial support. Moses moved to Midian where he had a kinsmen in Jethro, and David sought refuge for his parents with the king of Moab, who was a royal kinsmen.

Before he died, Abraham gave grants to all his sons and sent them away from Isaac, his heir. These sent-away sons had establish neolocal residences in places where they could maintain their households.

In some instances, the sent-away sons received assistance from their maternal uncles. If they take up residence with or near their maternal uncles, it is called avunculocal residence. Avunculocal residence is common in matrilineal societies, as it brings the adult males of a matrilineage together as a single residential unit.


Avunculocal residence

Upon the death of Terah, Abraham's older brother ruled over Terah's holdings in Mesopotamia. Abraham became a sent-away son. Sent-away sons, like Abraham and Jacob, often lived with or near their maternal uncles. This is called "avunculocal residence" and Abraham's visit to the prophet at Mamre may have been directed by his maternal uncle who was a ruler in that territory. Abraham's mother was said to be the daughter of a Hebrew ruler of Nebo. He is called Kar-Nevo/Nebo in the Talmud. Kar/Har Nebo refers to Mount Nebo. From Mount Nebo sentries would have been able to survey all of Palestine.

Likewise, Jacob was sent away to live with his maternal uncle Laban. There he gained the wealth and wives he needed to establish himself in another place (neolocal residence). He set out for his natal home in Edom, but after making peace with his estranged brother Esau, he finally settled in the area of Shechem. Shechem later became the first capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.


Related reading: Abraham's Maternal Line; Isaac's Second Marriage; Jacob's Journeys; Where Abraham Spent His Old Age; The Bible and Anthropology FB Forum; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy

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.

Related reading: Dark Sky and Howling Wind; The Serpent of Moses's Staff; Geologic Studies Confirm Biblical Data; Who Was Melchizedek?; The High Places; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 3)

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 biblical Hebrew. Why should this matter? It matters because it isn't true. It matters because this is the basis of Dr. William Witt's argument for the ordination of women. He served as a consultant to the ACNA task force that studied the question of women's ordination for five years. Dr. Witt's argument is that women were not priests because of patriarchy and Anglicans should correct that injustice by permitting women to be ordained.

Anglicans who push for women's ordination on the basis of this argument should check the facts. Anthropologically, the social structure of the biblical Hebrew is much more complex than generally presented in feminist literature and gender studies. Examination of the biblical data reveals that the Hebrew social structure is not characterized by these 6 conditions of absolute patriarchy:

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, chief or king.

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 investigate whether the Hebrew social structure reflects the second condition: patrilineal right of inheritance.

In an absolute patriarchy only men inherit property and the right to rule territories. It is often said that the rights of inheritance of the biblical Hebrew follow primogeniture, but that is not accurate. 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. Let's now look at each of these situations.

The right of primogeniture for the principal wife's first born son

The rights of primogeniture applied only to the first-born son of the first wife (the half-sister). This son assumed the rule of his father's territory and control of all property. Because of the Hebrew had a double unilineal descent pattern, his wives and their servants were responsible for flocks, herds, tents, and other moveable property. The story of Jacob is interesting in that he was a servant of Laban and as such, he shared responsibility for his wives' flocks and herds (Gen 30). 

If the sister wife does not produce a son to be the patriarch's heir, the man could appoint the first born son of a concubine to be his heir. Sarah being infertile, Abraham appointed Eliezer, the son the concubine Masek.

To better understand the right to rule among the biblical Hebrew, we should should separate the right to rule from the question of inheritance. However, the two are related in the case of the first born son of the first bride, the half-sister wife. Her son ruled in the place of his father and inherited his father's territory. Abraham's proper heir was Isaac, the son of Sarah, Abraham's half-sister.

It is curious that Isaac's first wife is not mentioned in Genesis. The first born son of this wife would have been Isaac's proper heir. Esau is the first born of Isaac's cousin bride and as such, he was not Isaac's proper heir. He was a chief in Edom, but it does not appear that he ruled all of Edom in Isaac's place.

If Isaac followed the pattern of his Horite Hebrew ancestors, he had a wife before he married Rebekah. She would have been his half-sister. Abraham's urgency to fetch Isaac a cousin wife was so that Isaac would have the two wives necessary for Isaac to rule Abraham's territory upon his death.

The Messianic expectation concerning The Bridegroom coming for his bride and taking His eternal throne is foreshadowed in the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Horite Hebrew ruler-priests.

Sent-away sons

Inheritance grants were given to the sons of concubines. Abraham gave grants to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from the territory of his proper heir, Isaac (Gen. 25:6). The heroes of the Bible are men who left their homes and relied on God for provision of their own territories: Cain, Nimrod, Abraham, Moses, David... the Son of God, Jesus Messiah.

The practice of sending away sons drove the expansion of the Horite Hebrew into new territories. Before dying, the sent-way chiefs arranged for the transfer of property to their sons. The right of rule was bestowed on the first born son the principal wife. The principal wife was usually the first wife, the bride of the man's youth, and also a half-sister, as was Sarah to Abraham.

Women could inherit property

Zelophehad's five daughters were Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. According to Numbers 27 they inherited property after petitioning Moses to render a judgement on this dispute. The dispute is connected to Moses's half-brother Korah who challenged Moses's authority, and pertains to a land holding of Manasseh. In the Book of Chronicles, Zelophehad (Tzelofhad) is listed as a son of Manasseh whose land holdings were in Egypt.

Zelophehad's daughters argued that the name of their deceased father would be lost among his people were they not to inherit. However, Zelophehad's name would be perpetuated through one of his daughters. Were she to marry a patrilineal cousin, she would name her first born son Zelophehad, after her father, according to the cousin-bride's naming prerogative. Sons did not perpetuate the father's name among the biblical Hebrew.

Moses granted the five daughters' petition to inherit their father's holding, and we read this law: "If a man dies without a son, then the inheritance shall pass to his daughter." (Num 27:8)

This account comes from the Deuteronomist, a source dating to the later Neo-Babylonian period (c.700-300 BC). The purpose is to explain the assignment of tribal holdings in the Promised Land. However, as this story comes before the entrance of the Israelites into the Promised Land, where was Zelophehad's holding? The clan of Manasseh had deep roots in Egypt. It is possible that Zelophehad's holding was in Egypt, but this does not serve the Deuteronomist's narrative. He would have us believe that all the Hebrew people left Egypt, never to return there.

According to Shammai Feldman's "Biblical motives and sources" in "Journal of Near Eastern Studies" 22 (1962), this narrative is a fiction created to illustrate laws of inheritance. To express this another way: "This section of the chapter is a good example of a law embedded in a narrative, or a narrative created for the sake of a law." (The Schocken Bible, p. 796)

Many scholars regard the account of Zelophehad's daughters as an example of accretions added to an earlier source. This would explain the contextual incongruities. Though scholars note problems with the story of Zelophehad's daughters, it is almost certain that the daughters of Hebrew rulers had the right to petition to inherit property. Ancient documents from Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Nile Valley attest to the fact that women could inherit property, even when there was a proper male heir (Hebrew Study Bible, p. 338).

Numbers 27 clarifies that daughters could inherit land. If a land owner died without a male heir his land was to go to a ranking daughter (Numbers 27:8). If he died without a son or daughter, the land was to go to his brothers.


Levirate marriage and inheritance rights

Levirate marriage is extremely ancient practice in which the widow of the deceased brother marries one of his brothers. Levirate marriage is practiced by societies with a strong clan and caste structures in which exogamous marriage is forbidden. The practice is found among the cattle-herding Nuer and Dinka of the Nile. It also is found among the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, and in the Punjab-Haryana region of Pakistan, and among peoples of Central Asia such as the Saka and Kushan. It appears that the rulers of these regions were served by Horite Hebrew ruler-priests.

In the Punjab-Haryana region, if the levir (dewar) refused to redeem his brother's widow, she would spit in his presence and remove one of his sandals. Subsequently, the people of the town would refer to him as "the one without a shoe".

This sheds light on the redemption of Ruth and the transfer of her husband's inheritance at the city gate of Bethlehem.

Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel. (Ruth 4:7)

In Genesis 23:10, we read that Abraham settled the purchase of a burial cave at the city gate; (literally, in the presence of "all who came in at the gate of his city.")

Rights of inheritance through levirate marriage could be declined. This sometimes happened if acceptance of the widow as a wife endangered the inheritance or ruler status of the levir's own heir. This appears to be the case with the man who was first in line to redeem Ruth. Judah also refused to fulfill the levirate law when he denied Tamar and later recognized that, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn't give her to my son Shelah." (Gen. 38:26)

Teraphim

Hurrian/Horite law placed importance on the possession of the teraphim (Heb. תְּרָפִים). This is usually rendered "household gods" in Bibles, but these were ancestor figurines usually kept at the family hearth. One was exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum in 1986. This was a rare showing of a figurine from the Chalcolithic Period, showing holes around the circumference of the head.

During the Chalcolithic Period, the Horite Hebrew were involved in the mining of copper and the fabrication of copper artifacts in Israel, Southern Europe, Spain, and England. Hathor was the patroness of metal workers. Her name means the "tabernacle of Horus," the son of the God. A temple dedicated to Hathor was discovered at the southwestern edge of Mt. Timnah by Professor Beno Rothenberg of Hebrew University. Timnah is the site of some of world's oldest copper mines. The mines were worked almost continuously until the Roman Period.

The teraphim that Rachel hid in her camel bags were figurines of Terah and his principal wife. Hundreds of these figurines have been found in Israel. Many have been found in David's Zion. There were holes around the top of the heads of the figurines. The hair of Terah and the hair of his wife were woven through these holes. Possession of these ancestor figurines represented a claim to inheritance.

When Jacob proposed a plan to escape from servitude to Laban, his two wives were quick to support him, saying: "Are we still likely to inherit anything form our father's estate? Does he not think of us as outsiders now?" (Gen. 31:14) Laban sons had became jealous of Jacob, saying, "Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our father; it is at our father's expense that he has acquired all this wealth." (Gen. 31:1) Clearly, Jacob's wealth was that of his wives, their servants and their flocks and herds. Other than his initial grant as a sent-away son, Jacob had no inheritance coming from Isaac. Nor from Laban. That is why Rachel stole the ancestor figurines.

In Part 4, we explore the right to rule among the biblical Hebrew, and discover that the pattern does not fit that of an absolute patriarchy.

Related reading: The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 1); The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 2); Abraham's Sons; Evidence of Castes in the Book of Ruth; Why Zipporah Circumcised Her Son; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy

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.

Related reading: The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 1); Horite Hebrew Rulers With Two Wives; Descent Patterns; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of Abraham's Horite Hebrew People; Glossary of Anthropological Terms; Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy