 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Women's Rights by Signature Books; Salt Lake City
|
|||
|
In a metronymic marriage the husband joined his wife's family, and the children took the name of the mother or her father. Other indications a marriage was metronymic were the absence of bride-price, dowry, or contract; the wife remaining in her father's house; a stipulation that the father's inheritance passed to the daughter's children1; the use of kinship terms between father-in-law and son-in-law such as “father” and “son”2; the husband seeking permission of the father-in-law for decisions; and similar acts of deference to the father-in-law. In an erebu marriage the groom was adopted into the wife's family and became a permanent member of her father's household with the children belonging to the wife's father.3 In either case the husband became subservient to the wife's father. Rachel and Jacob Did Rachel and Jacob have such a marriage? The circumstances of Jacob's flight from Padanaram after many years of service to Rachel's father Laban raise the question. It seems clear that when Laban hired Jacob as a shepherd under a contractual arrangement, he did so at least with the proviso that Jacob would be working for the hand of Rachel not for wages. This arrangement at best deviated from the norm. It seems possible that Laban had no sons at this time, although he did later at the time Jacob wanted to leave Padanaram. If he were without sons he would have had a greater interest in keeping his daughters close to home (Gen. 31:1). Cyrus Gordon suggests that Laban adopted Jacob by betrothing and marrying him to Rachel. Gordon cites a documented case in a Nuzi community probably two or three centuries after Jacob. The father wanted to provide for his daughter's security by ensuring her access to his estate after his own death, so he adopted a man as his son and then married him to his daughter: “The adoption tablet of Nashwi son of Arshenni. He adopted Wullu son of Puhishenni. As long as Nashwi lived, Wullu shall give (him) food and clothing. When Nashwi dies, Wullu shall be the heir. Should Nashwi beget a son, (the latter) shall divide equally with Wullu but (only) Nashwi's son shall take Nashwi's gods. But if there be no son of Nashwi's, then Wullu shall take Nashwi's gods. And (Nashwi) has given his daughter Nuhuya as wife to Wullu. And if Wullu takes another wife, he forfeits Nashwi's land and buildings. Whoever breaks the contract shall pay one mina of silver (and) one mina of gold.”4 While this contract provides for the adoption of a son-in-law and the creation of an erebu marriage, it does not fit the facts of Jacob's case. Similarly the fact that there was a contract, that Jacob served Laban for fourteen years as a bride-price for both Rachel and Leah, and that each received a handmaid as dowry seems to argue against metronymic marriage. At the end of his bride-price service, Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee” (Gen. 30:26). Why did Jacob have to request what was already his? Perhaps Jacob was putting Laban on notice. Perhaps Jacob was trying to flatter Laban, knowing that he could not leave without his consent—for practical rather than legal reasons. Laban would later try to justify himself by arguing that Jacob's marriage was a metronymic arrangement. However, I am convinced both men knew that it was not technically so. Laban responded by persuading Jacob to continue working for him, “for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake” (Gen. 30:27). They negotiated a new contract, and Jacob worked at least six more years (vv. 28-34). During this additional period, Jacob prospered and “increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses. . . . And Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and behold, it was not toward him as before” (Gen. 30:43; 31:2). The Lord appeared to Jacob and instructed him to return to the land of his fathers (31:3). Jacob explained this decision to Rachel and Leah: he had served their father faithfully, but Laban had changed his wages ten times. God had intervened, rewarding Jacob with abundance and leaving Laban with little. Rachel and Leah also complained that their father had cheated them—probably out of a proper dowry and bride-price. They agreed that God had consequently taken their father's flocks and given the increase to them and to their children (Gen. 31:16). Their wholehearted support of Jacob indicated that they did not have the feeling that he had become a member of their father's household nor that his children by them were legally Laban's—both characteristics of a metronymic marriage. Knowing that Laban would never agree to let him leave, Jacob escaped when Laban was off shearing his sheep, taking all of his possessions (Gen. 31:20). Rachel stole the teraphim or household gods of her father, a foolish act which enraged Laban and gave him additional cause to pursue Jacob. The Nuzi contract quoted above appears to suggest that the gods were somehow attached to the inheritance rights of sons. However, since they were leaving, it may be that Rachel feared the teraphim might help Laban to divine where they had fled. After three days Laban heard of the departure of Jacob and his daughters. He assembled “his brethren” (Gen. 31:23)—probably his servants and local townsmen—and took up the pursuit. This band seems to have been a sizeable number, for Laban does not bother with tact. Instead he immediately set up a court. Laban was the accuser or plaintiff. Jacob was the accused or defendant. The people, of whom Laban had the greater number, would sit in judgment. Laban wanted to prove that he was justified in pursuing Jacob and forcing him to return to Padanaram. His complaint included two charges. The first, stated four ways, was the offense of leaving without permission, a violation of the metronymic commitment that required Jacob to recognize Laban as his father and required Jacob's subservience. “Thou hast stolen away unawares to me,” Laban said, stressing that he had a right to participate in their departure. “Thou hast . . . carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword” (Gen. 31:26), an accusation of kidnapping. “Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me[?]” (v. 27). Laban was clearly suggesting that Jacob's clandestine behavior proved his guilt. “Thou . . . didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp. And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters” (vv. 27-28). Laban speaks in possessives here, accentuating his claim to this family, as though Jacob's children were his own flesh and blood as much as Rachel and Leah were. Second, he presented his most valid legal complaint, “Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?” (v. 30) Jacob was stunned. He knew nothing of any stolen gods, nor did he believe anyone in his entourage had them. Therefore, in the presence of all, he articulated the law regarding the theft of sacred things: “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live.”5 Thus Jacob himself passed the death sentence on Rachel. Laban searched the camp with vigor, beginning at Jacob's tent. Then he went into the slave-wives tents. Next he searched Leah's tent and finally Rachel's. By now he must have been very anxious because theft of the gods was his most valid charge. If he could find them, he would not need to prove the metronymic marriage charge and could compel Jacob to return to Padamaram with his family and flocks. As he entered Rachel's tent Rachel feigned her menstrual period and sat on the container where she had hidden the gods, thereby contaminating the area and preventing a search. Laban searched the rest of the tent diligently but found nothing. When the court reconvened, Jacob vented years of pent-up righteous indignation as he refuted Laban's charges. He first challenged Laban to put all he had found that was his before the witnesses/court (Gen. 31:37). When Laban was unable to produce the teraphim, the capital offense charge was dropped. Then Jacob focused on his contract, how he had served Laban and fulfilled his contract more faithfully than was required. If he could convince the witnesses that his was a contract relationship, the charge of metronymic marriage would not stand up. “And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban” (Gen. 31:36). Before his shepherd peers Jacob forcefully outlined his compliance with the contract and Laban's failure to comply. During the twenty years of contracts, Jacob was attentive during the birthing season so that no newborn lambs or kids were lost. He did not eat the young rams. He deducted from his increase animals lost through an act of God (which he did not have to replace), animals stolen by day (which he was obligated to replace), or animals stolen by night (which he was not obligated to replace). He suffered heat and cold to preserve the flocks, suggesting that Laban had not supplied proper clothing as was his due. And Laban for his part had used his power unjustly in changing his wages ten times and plotting, except for the intervention of God, to strip Jacob of all that he had lawfully earned and send him away empty (vv. 38-42). Laban in a last effort to save face reiterated his argument for a metronymic interpretation of Jacob's marriages, which would mean that Jacob's property was rightfully his own: “These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and these cattle are my cattle, and all that thou seest is mine” (Gen. 31:43). However, he must have known that the convened court would not uphold him. Nothing but the use of force would maintain his claim. Therefore, Laban conceded defeat and invited Jacob to enter into a final covenant with him. They agreed never to harm each other (Gen. 31:52). Laban added language that was standard in ancient marriage contracts, typically written by the father of the bride: if Jacob abused his wives or took additional wives, Laban would not be bound by the covenant (v. 50). The next day Laban arose, kissed his daughters and grandchildren, and returned home. Thus the question of the metronymic marriages of Jacob was put to rest. Rahab: Harlot of Jericho Rahab was called a “harlot” (Jos. 2:1), yet she was later honored by New Testament writers Paul (Heb. 11:31) and James (Jas. 2:25) as a woman of great faith. Furthermore, commentators identify her with Rachab (Matt. 1:5), the mother of Boaz.6 If this is so, her historical importance extends far beyond the city of Jericho. Still, we must also point out that there is no evidence that at the time of this narrative Rahab was married. However, she represents an interesting class of women, who on other occasions participated in a form of metronymic marriage. Her story provides a pattern which we can assume applies to women whose stories we do not have. When Joshua invaded Canaan the first city in his path was Jericho. He sent two spies ahead to reconnoiter the city. They found shelter in Rahab's house. Her house must have been some sort of public establishment, for they ate and lodged with her (Jos. 2:1). She was called a harlot (zonah in Hebrew; Jos. 2:1).7 Her Babylonian counterparts during the time of Hammurabi8 and a century and a half later under Ammisaduqa9 were translated as “ale-wives.” Such women chose not to belong to traditional family units. These women owned their own public establishments, where they offered lodging, meals, alcoholic beverages, and sometimes themselves. They contracted metronymic marriage-like liaisons with their patrons and sometimes “married” more than one patron—something called “nair polyandry”.10 Such a relationship safeguarded the woman's independence. The visiting patron had the privilege of the woman's bedroom, but all the property, including any that he might bring to the relationship and any children born of their union, belonged to her and could be inherited by her father's descendants. These women were not generally held in high esteem, for the Old Babylonian law dealt harshly with them. The law regulated the prices they could charge for alcoholic beverages11 and set the death penalty for dishonesty12 or overcharging.13 Priestesses were burned to death if caught plying their trade as sacral prostitutes in a wine shop14 or even consuming alcohol in a tavern.15 The Code of Hammurabi subjected female innkeepers or ale-wives to additional royal regulation. Recognized as sources of information valuable to the king, the women were required to report and even arrest suspicious visitors. Section 109 records, “If outlaws have congregated in the establishment of a woman wine seller and she has not arrested those outlaws and did not take them to the palace, that wine seller shall be put to death.”16 If such a statute were in force at the time of Rahab and if her profession were that of an ale-wife, it would explain why the king of Jericho sent men to ask her about the Israelite spies. She admitted that they had come to her but lied and said they had left. Actually they were hiding on her roof under sheaves of flax. She breached her legal obligation to the king and supported the spies. Why? It appears that she, a Canaanite, had become converted to the God of Israel. As she told the spies: “I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath” (Jos. 2:9-11; italics added). Rahab placed the two Israelites under oath to spare her and her family because she protected them: “Swear unto me by the Lord, since ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token: And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death” (Jos. 2:12-13). The spies agreed (“our life for yours”; Jos 2:14) and told her to identify her house by a scarlet cloth in her window and to have all her family inside during the attack. Joshua ratified this agreement and charged his army to spare Rahab and her family (6:17). On the day the walls of Jericho fell, all the men, women, and children of the city were slain except for Rahab and her family (v. 23). According to Jewish tradition, Rahab was one of the four most beautiful women in history along with Sarah, Abigail, and Esther. This same tradition holds that after the destruction of Jericho, Rahab married Joshua and became the progenitor of at least eight prophets including Jeremiah.17 Christian tradition, documented in the New Testament (Matt. 1:5), asserts that she married Salmon and became the mother of Boaz. Whatever her past may have been, she earned the acclaim of Christians and Jews alike.
|
|
1. John Van Seters, “Jacob's Marriages,” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): 386. 3. R. T. O'Callahan, “Historical Parallels to Patriarchal Social Custom,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 6 (1944): 399. 4. Cyrus Gordon, “Biblical Cistons and the Nuzu Tablets,” The Biblical Archeologist 3 (1940): 1:5. 5. Gen. 31:32; see, for example, Code of Hammurabi 6, in James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 166. 6. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible Containing the Old And New Testaments with a Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1830), 2: 41; R. F. Brown, “Rachab in Mt. 1, 5 Probably Is Rahab of Jericho,” Biblica 63 (1982): 79; contra J. D. Quinn, “Is PAXAB in Mt. 1, 5 Rahab of Jericho?” Biblica 62 (1981): 225. 7. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 246. 8. G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, eds., The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 1:202-205. 10. Lewis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1967), 159-61. Nair polyandry is “a metronymic family headed by the wife, who maintains her own apartment in the midst of her own tribe and has a number of husbands visiting her successively for a specific period of time” (ibid., 160). 11. “If an ale-wife has given 60 sila of coarse liquor on credit, at the harvest she shall take 50 sila of corn.” Code of Hammurabi 111, in Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2:45. 12. “A taverness or merchant who [. . .] dishonest weight shall die.” Edict of Ammisaduqa 18, in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 528. 13. “If an ale-wife does not accept grain for the price of liquor (but) accepts silver by the heavy weight or (if) she reduces the value of beer (given) against the value of corn (received), they shall convict that ale-wife and cast her into the water.” Code of Hammurabi 108, in Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2:45. 15. “If a priestess (or) a high-priestess, who is not dwelling in a cloister, opens an ale-house or enters an ale-house for liquor, they shall burn that woman.” Code of Hammurabi 110, in Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2:45. 16. Code of Hammurabi 109 in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 170. 17. Megillah 14b-15a, in I. Epstein, ed. and trans., The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1948), 86. |
|Joseph Smith | Book of Mormon | Mormon Temples | Mormon Polygamy | contact us |
| Copyright © Signature Books, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this text or graphics may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from Signature Books, LLC |