CHAPTER XXXVIII.
_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.
* * * * *