Chapter III: WHO WROTE GENESIS?

3.1 Thoughts On A Garden

The first chapter that appears in the Bible is a good introduction to the complexity of authorship and interpretation of many parts of the Bible. It is not the first chapter that was written, timewise. Although it purports to tell about the first events that took place in our salvation history, it is a relatively recent addition to the Hebrew scriptures. The legend of the origin of the world circulated in many similar forms through many cultures and religions and is very old, but the words that this legend uses are Hebrew words of about the sixth century BC.

Thus Genesis begins "In the beginning." First we are told how God created a good earth and good human beings, and then we have a scene set in a beautiful garden where all is seemingly bliss. The name of this garden is Eden, which means pleasure or delight. Genesis 2:8 tells us that this garden is in the east, but this may be a mistranslation. It is now felt by some scholars that the mistranslated phrase actually means "in primeval times."¹ We are doubly confirmed that "in the east" is a mistranslation, as the lands west of the Tigris and Euphrates were at one time called Edinna, and thus we can assume the phrase "in primeval times" as the more probable translation of Genesis 2:8. Another possibility to be considered is that the myth originated in an area west of Edinna which would make the designated direction correct.

By using this phrase the author lets us know that we are dealing with mythical origins. In our day it is the custom to begin a fairy tale with "once upon a time." As soon as we read "once upon a time," we know that we are going to be reading a bit of make-believe. We probably get a similar message from the phrase "in primeval times." The author is telling us that this is a story that happened before there were reliable witnesses. It is a legendary story, where animals talk. It is like an Aesop fable. It is a story that intends to explain why things are the way they are through the use of anthropomorphisms that we are not expected to take literally.

This legendary place of pleasure is a spot where four rivers rise. Two of these rivers are known, the Tigris and the Euphrates. The other two, the Pishon and the Gihon, are unknown to us, but their names mean riverlike sorts of words, like source and bubbling. There are four rivers, as there are

four directions to the compass. Perhaps the author is telling us that wherever humankind had its start, it flowed out to the four corners of the earth. The known earth at that time went as far as Cush (Ethiopia) mentioned in verse 2:13. In this manner the author includes all the races as made by God, implying that the black race of people from Ethiopia have their origins in this same type of humanity that is represented in this legendary garden. All of us are made of the same dust of earth with the same ego tendencies, and are inspirited with the breath of the same God. The author of this story appears to be a universalist, and has neatly set down a scene in which all human beings can place themselves.

The earth is barren in Genesis 2:5, but God causes many trees to grow in Eden (2:9), the most notable of which are the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. One might ask the purpose of God planting these trees if he did not intend for humankind to use them. It reminds one of the catechism question, "Why did God make me?" The answer to this question is that God made me to know, love, and serve him on earth (tree of knowledge) and to be with God in heaven (tree of life). The author of the garden story seems to be telling us that God made these trees to be associated with the humanity he had just designed. In telling us what went wrong with God's plan, the author will have to give certain human attributes to God, like authoritarianism, and annoyance at being disobeyed. The author can take these liberties as they fit in with the cultural notions of the time, and do not affect the primary message of the story.

As it is a fable, we know that there is no living biological tree that imparts either eternal life or omniscient knowledge. However, readers or hearers enculturated with the wisdom of the ancient Near East knew exactly what the author was describing in the discussion of the tree of life. Like ourselves, they had meditated on life and death. They had turned some of their kings into quasi gods to make them immortal. The Egyptians believed in after life, and preserved their kings in giant food-filled tombs. At first this after life was just for rulers, then extended to the nobility, and then finally admitted for the commoner. The Babylonians did not follow this trend. For most of them, there was no after life, and thus they were more concerned with justice in the present. The Jews, living mid-way between Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, had adherents to both positions. The Saducees were a Jewish group in the time of Jesus who said there was no resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33), and even today there are Jews with this belief.

The early Babylonians based their non-belief in life after death on the Gilgamesh epic which told how Utnapishtim and his wife acquired a plant

that would give them eternal life. Just at the moment when Utnapishtim had this gift securely in hand (or in mind), a serpent snatched the life giving plant away.² Later Babylonians in a practical manner located their tree of life on earth comparing it with a wise king enthroned by his god, leading his people to loving community. The Babylonian king Assarhaddon³ declares, "My kingdom shall be as salutary for the flesh of men as the plant of life."⁴ We Christians also contain that same notion in our religion when we consider Jesus as bread of life assisting us to share in loving community. For us, Jesus is the wise leader who re-opens the way to the tree of life.

A second tree that we must look at in a symbolic way is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Certain interpreters have seized on the words good and evil as having something to do with sin. For the author, the expression "knowledge of good and evil" most likely means knowing all there is to know. To know all there is to know does not specify quantities of good or quantities of evil, but merely omniscience, the knowledge of all things.⁵ When we talk about forbidden fruit as evil, we have missed the point. The Hebrew usage of the expression good and evil as a balance that means all things that go on in the world, is found in other places in the Bible (II Samuel 14:17 as compared to II Samuel 14:20).

The serpent, a Canaanite symbol for life and fecundity, is a very controversial item in this fable. The author is of the Jewish faith, and firmly believes that God is the only God in all the earth. There are no other gods, not even lesser gods. There is no other being with supernatural powers for good or evil. The Jew is to take seriously the command in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no gods except me." The author is not allowed to believe in a devil, yet has the problem of presenting what went wrong with the world. He is deriving his material from the folk lore of Assyria and Babylonia, which was heavy on gods and goddesses. Early Mesopotamian religion has Shaghan, the serpent god.⁶ In late Sumerian liturgies we find the serpent goddess Sataran.⁷ In Egypt the snake was both a symbol of royalty and a powerful evil god Apophis.⁸ In India the serpent has been a symbol of perfection and wisdom. As this is a fable, the author is allowed to introduce the serpent, but he is not allowed himself to think of this snake as personalized evil or magical power, and he doesn't want us to think of the serpent in this manner either.

The author gives us freedom to interpret this serpent symbol he has introduced, but we are not to give it god-like abilities. Many interpretations have been given to it down through the centuries. It has something to do with what went wrong with the world and with humanity, after God did such a good job of creation. Philo, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, saw

what was wrong with the world as sensual pleasure, and pinned this appellation on the snake.⁹ Buddhism, too, has a similar thread, representing the egotistical pleasures by the demon Mara.¹⁰ The author of the Book of Revelation, also speaking figuratively and apocalyptically, and not going against the First commandment by creating an evil god-type, brings Satan into the picture as the symbol of what is wrong with the world (Revelation 12:9-15). Satan is whatever impedes humankind from entering into holy community. The author of Revelation gives us his faith that we shall solve the problem of what is wrong with the world (Revelation 20:2). We must be sure to take this intelligent serpent in a figurative sense. The author of Genesis also believes there will come a day when human offspring will crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15).

Adam and Eve were banished from the garden (Genesis 3:24). To guard the tree of life, God posted cherubs (from the Assyrian word Karibu), mythical creatures who had the head of a human, the feet of an ox, the wings of an eagle, and the body of a lion.¹¹ Creatures like these were used as art forms to guard the entrances to pagan temples. Similar creatures are described by Ezekiel when he has a vision of the majesty of God by the river Chebar in Babylon. The cherubim in Ezekiel's wheeling vision, besides having hoofs like oxen and wings, each has four faces, a human's face, a lion's face, a bull's face, and an eagle's face (Ezekiel 1:6-10). In a second vision of Ezekiel in the year 592 BC,¹² the cherubs or supporters of God's throne or chariot, are described similarly (Ezekiel 10:14). It is highly likely that Ezekiel and one of the re-editors of the Garden story were fellow exiles in Babylon who had been impressed with the architecture of the pagan temple to Astarte. They took these literary opportunities of prophecy and folk tale to describe the holiness of their God in terms that their contemporaries could understand. Ezekiel and this editor-author may even have lived in the same priestly exile community near the Chebar River, gone to the same home synagogue, and discussed their literary endeavors and their theology together.

For these authors the cherub was a representation of the awesomeness of the holy, and the difficulty of finding the way to the true presence of God. A later day addition to this theme is found in the description of the four New Testament gospel authors as human, ox, eagle, and lion, implying that eternal life and the holy are found in the words of the gospels. Thus, humankind finds its way back into the Garden where the tree of life grows, through contemplating the message of Jesus. In Genesis 3:24 the humans are banished, but not hopelessly so. The cherubs are put on guard, but Ezekiel describes cherubs as having the hands of men under their wings

(Ezekiel 1:8 and 10:8). Human beings such as the gospel authors, with the message of loving community, can symbolize the guardian cherubs who guide their fellow humans back into the Garden. We also might interpret these cherubs as priestly guardians of the holy, human dispensers of the religious, who have both the power to lead other humans closer to God, or the elitist ability to exclude the other, and to prevent humanity from approaching its destiny of freedom and love. Jesus castigates this latter type of guardian when he complains that the Pharisees are blind guides of the blind (Matthew 15:14), and that they prevent entrance to the kingdom of God (Matthew 23:13). For the authors of the time of the Babylonian captivity, the cherubs and the snake are not to be taken literally, but are representations used for theological purposes.

The author of the garden story did not expect his audience to believe in talking snakes or mythical animal-human guardians. Some of his theological message is very obvious. He says that the One God made a creation that was good for God's purposes; humankind has some part to play in all this, but human knowledge isn't quite enough to bring this creation to fulfillment.

There may be two or three writers involved in compounding this theology.¹³ One of these editors is given credit for the construction of the account of creation in Genesis I. In this imaginative, not necessarily scientific, but theologically truthful description, the author is very careful to tell us that the sun and moon are not gods, as was the belief of some of the Babylonian population that surrounded the Hebrews. He describes purposefully how the only God, the One who existed from the beginning, created all these material things that we see, water, light, animals, and the human being. Thus animals are not gods but only creations of God, and are not to be worshiped as gods. Humankind was pictured in Assyrian mythology as being part god, or descended from a fallen god or goddess, and the Genesis editor wants to correct this Assyrian misconception. In the Genesis theology, humankind is from the dust of the earth, yet its animation comes from the breath of God (Genesis 2:7). We are assured by this author or authors that God created a good world and good human beings (Genesis 1:31). However, something seemed to have gone wrong, and it wasn't because a snake literally talked.

The Genesis writers are inspired by God. If we really want to get the message that God is sending us, we should understand something about these authors. It would help if we had an acquaintance with the authors' cultural backgrounds. We certainly should have proper interpretations of language. Words may mean one thing in one time and culture and have an

entirely different meaning only a generation later. Take the word hollywood for example. It no longer means a peaceful wood full of evergreen bushes, but quite the opposite. A drastic change took place in the Hebrew language before and after the Babylonian exile, when the addition of vowels coupled with Assyrian tainted spellings, changed the appearance of many words and place names. In our interpretations of scriptures, we must also keep in mind the value of paper; often abbreviations were used or whole words dropped to save space, as writing materials were scarce.

Finally, for a better understanding of God's message, it isn't always necessary to know history, but we should at least be aware whether we are reading factual history or myth. It would also help to know something about the time, place, and person of each author, in order to better hear what God is saying to us.

3.2 Moses As Author

Having had our Bible for so many hundreds of years, it is rather difficult to visualize a time when there was no Bible, yet God still spoke to the people. Many inspired words of God to the community, were not written down. People kept these precious words in their hearts, and if all those who remembered, died, then the word was forgotten. When the ability to communicate by writing was a rare gift, prophets and story tellers flourished, whose purpose was to entertain, inform, and most importantly to keep God's word before the community. Abraham had no Bible, no written word, but he had a great faith. One place he found God's word was in strangers who came to his tent. Today we can still hear God speaking in the people who cross our pathway, yet we are also the privileged possessors of a book that contains God's words to many generations. With all this reinforcement, we still can't boast too many individuals who measure up to the faith of Abraham. Perhaps Abraham's great faith was in part because he had to search out answers for himself and could not depend on the theological underpinnings of others.

Abraham had heard stories that told of the beginnings of the earth, and his descendents told and retold these stories, and also the tales that told of the exploits of their tribal ancestors. Some of these "in the beginning" stories had been set down by other cultures, as also were tales of a great flood, but the Hebrews probably didn't commit anything to sheepskin, until Moses wrote in the desert, using his knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphics. What he wrote may have been simple tribal regulations and a description of the high points of the Exodus journey. He also may have written down stories of the ancestors, or these may have been transmitted totally by word of mouth. Women who had tedious tasks such as the weaving of

cloth or the preparation of food, would gather into groups and make the time go faster by listening to one of their number tell about interesting events in the lives of their matriarchs and patriarchs. These stories were told and retold for countless generations and may not actually have been set down in writing until the time of Solomon.

Oral traditions moved rapidly in early civilizations due to the aid of both fighters and traders. Homer in the 9th century BC had heard of the literary ability of Moses through folk legend, and celebrated him by describing him as the father of Orpheus, a mythical character famous for music and poetry. Writing also flourished due to the necessity for traders to keep records. The people in Canaan in 2000 BC had a script based on Egyptian hieroglyphics.¹⁴ The Tale of Sinuhe is a story recorded in the 20th century BC which related the adventures of a young Egyptian exploring Palestine.¹⁵ Both the written and the oral traditions give us much factual insight into the life and history of the times they described. The monumental works of Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey, were proved to contain many reliable historical facts by the German archeologist Heinrich Schliemann.¹⁶

Homer was a great poet. We know that he was a man, and that he was blind. We assume that most early poets were men (Sappho perhaps being the exception who gave credence to the rule) and that those who first dreamed up the stories of creation were men, but these are notions that we have absorbed from being the products of a patriarchal society. As the creation stories came out of a period of powerful goddesses, the singers of their exploits may well have been either male or female proponents. Women have been endowed by a generous God with a poetic ability equal to that of their male counterparts, although frequently they have been denied opportunity for expression, except in nursery rhymes, or while dancing or singing for the enjoyment of men.

Noting the equal involvement of Adam and Eve in the Garden story, it seems reasonable to believe that women had a hand in weaving (or a voice in relating) parts of this story or flourishes on it. Most of us have always assumed that the original author of the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible, was a male, either Moses himself, or scribes drawn from the Levitical priesthood. The traditional ancestor tales predate the priesthood and the time of Moses. Stories told about the birthing problems of Sarah and Rachel seem to be directed to female audiences and were most likely embroidered upon (females do embroidery) by a female relator. Notice how many story telling words have to do with the tasks of women. We speak of "the thread of a story," of "weaving a tale," of "spinning a yarn." The great

mythical singers, the Muses and the Sirens, were female.¹⁷ Women had a great deal to do with keeping the oral tradition intact. Women story tellers were just as capable of putting theological touches on their tales as was a priestly relater. Women were products of the same seemingly unreasonable world, and equally anxious to make some sense out of creation. Hence, scribes may have been busy for centuries preserving the wise Pentateuchal words of earlier women.

We also assume that the post-Pentateuchal authors are all men, but our judgment is led astray by the long genealogical lists of male names, necessary in a society where property and job-status were traced through the male line. The patriarchal structure of Hebrew society somehow makes us assume that women could not write or accomplish worthwhile tasks. Even today when picking up a news bulletin describing work done in American prisons, one is confronted with a list of men's names telling what political office they have held, what books they have written, and what outstanding contributions they have made to finance and education. Near the end of the same article is a line, "A great many women have also worked in the female department of the City prisons." No names are mentioned. One hundred lines of print are given to the male, and one single line suffices for the female.¹⁸ The article is typical of a patriarchal society. Women consider themselves fortunate when they are allotted a single line.

So it is with the Bible. If any credits for authorship are given, they are handed out to men. If something in the Bible is of doubtful authorship, it is quite possible that it is a male cover-up of a woman's work. I would like to formally challenge this notion that the Bible is written by men, for God speaks through both men and women, and wherever there were men, there were also women, and wherever you have a talented woman, appreciative men will get her ideas into the public view. She may not get credit for the ideas, but the important thing is that the message from the Holy Spirit has been given to the world.

We have a notable exception to crediting biblical writings only to men. The Song of Deborah is acknowledged to be very ancient material. It is probably some of the oral tradition carried along by the weaving and spinning women, when patriarchalism wasn't quite as explicit as it is today. Down through the ages, the song has remained assigned to Deborah, and the male co-star Barak is humble beside her. Jael, another female, is described in this Song as putting a tent peg through the head of the enemy leader (Judges 4:17-22). One wonders how such militant feminine material was allowed to remain and why the whole story was not assigned to Barak. Perhaps women transcribers were influential in keeping this female material

in its original form. One must look carefully in the Bible for the work of female hands. For every great man that is mentioned, we might check carefully to see if there is not an equally great woman hidden in his shadow.

We accept Moses as the great law giver of the Hebrew people. We picture him at the foot of the mountain holding up the stone tablets of the law. Today when so many are literate, we are inclined to dismiss lightly that this man had the ability to read and write, as stated in Exodus 17:14 and 24:4. As a clever young man brought up in the household of the pharaoh, Moses may have received training as a scribe, so that he could be useful to his patron, by keeping records of accounts.

Traditionally, Moses is credited with the material in the first five books of the Bible. This material may have been preserved in both oral and written form. One date for Moses' death is the second half of the 13th century BC. His writings were left in the care of both the Levitical priests and the leaders of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24). Eliezer and Gershom, as sons of Moses, may have preserved their father's work. Joshua, as the new leader of the people, may have transmitted this material. They may have passed it on orally, or inscribed it on sheepskin. The people may have sung some of these words as songs at festivals or even in public drinking places. To insure knowledge of God's Word by the community, instructions were left for the laws to be read every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10).

Were any women involved in the setting down of these traditions, or in their oral transmission? Moses had a wife, Zipporah, and as her name is mentioned in the Bible, we know that she must have been an important person. Aaron also had a wife named Elisheba, who was a Jewish woman and not a foreigner like the wife of Moses. The prophetess Miriam may also have been responsible for some of the Exodus material. These women may not have received proper credit for their oral or written contributions to God's word, due to the greater male authority placed in Moses. Moses and the sons of Israel are credited with a victory song in honor of Yahweh (Exodus 15:1-18). How do we explain that two verses later, in Exodus 15:20, Miriam is allowed to lead the women in the refrain, which is exactly the same wording as the beginning of the part credited to Moses? Joyful women may have been the first ones to proclaim this poem, and then later authorship was assigned to the male leader of the group. We should encourage more leadership of the Miriam type in our world today and give whole hearted credit to this leadership.

3.3 Literature In The Days of David and Solomon

The Jewish practice of using scribes, who often wrote for another or assembled another's materials, is also significant in understanding the

Bible. In the tenth century BC, three hundred years after Moses, we find Solomon reigning prosperously over the Hebrew tribes. There was peace in the land, and Solomon patronized the arts. His most notable accomplishment was the building of the temple in Jerusalem, and on his staff were both priests to formalize the religion of the God of David and also scribes and court recorders to preserve the liturgy and the history of the people of God. I Kings 4:3 names the scribes Elihoreph and Ahijah, and the court recorder Jehoshaphat (who was also recorder under David, according to II Samuel 20:24). Much of what was set down at this time is credited to Solomon or woven together to reflect glory on this supposedly wise king. I Kings 11:41 mentions a record called The Acts of Solomon. This is probably some of the material put together by Jehoshaphat and his associates. It is reflected in I Kings, where we are given The Last Days of David; Solomon, The Sage; Solomon, The Builder; Solomon, The Trader. The commentary about Solomon's problems is a later insert.

The Bible is eager to give credit to its sources of information. Besides II Samuel 20:24 and I Kings 4:3, we are also informed about Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, in II Samuel 8:16. I Chronicles 29:29 tells us that the history of David was written in The Annals of Samuel The Seer, The Annals of Nathan The Prophet, and The Annals of Gad The Seer. There are many other annals and prophecies mentioned in the Bible, assigned to various authors.¹⁹

Possible other books worked over at the court of Solomon, along with the early Pentateuchal material, were I and II Samuel, and sections of Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. The Proverbs as we know them, were put together after the Babylonian Captivity, about 600 BC, but much of the book is older. Some of it came out of Egypt with the tribes and may have been relayed in the original Moses material. In Solomon's day, being able to quote proverbs was a sign of an intelligent and gifted individual. Solomon had 3000 proverbs at his fingertips, and also knew 1005 songs (I Kings 5:12). Proverbs 1:1-17 is dressed up to sound like Court of Solomon material, but may have been written during the Babylonian exile by someone who wanted to use the authority of Solomon's name. We have to be very careful in concluding anything definite about dates of editorial inserts. Only through much tedious sleuthing, have biblical scholars come up with tentative suggestions about dates for composition of various sections.

The Book of Ruth may have had its origin at Solomon's court. Ruth was the mother of Obed. Obed was the father of Jesse. Jesse was the father of David. Thus what is being set down is a story that tells of the loyalty and goodness of Solomon's great great grandmother, even though she was a

foreigner. Ruth may have been a fictitious character, as Solomon took many foreign wives, which was necessary in his position as potentate of the Near East. This story may have been written to quiet the anxieties of a political group of purist Hebrews among his subjects who felt that foreign women were a threat to the community and to the religion of Israel. Solomon may have been causing a scandal to the conservative elements of his population, and the story of Ruth may have been an early attempt at opinion molding. Another possibility is that this story was told as part of the educational process of the young princes. The finer nuances of Jewish laws and customs are included in this tale, and the princes were brought up to be both warriors and judges in the land. The education of David's sons and thus the education of Solomon were given by Jonathan, King David's uncle, and Jethiel, son of Hachmoni, according to I Chronicles 27:32.

The Song of Songs may have been re-edited at this time. It seems to consist of fragments of a great love song or marriage festival recitation, originating back in the days when man and woman were considered more nearly equal than they were in the days of Solomon. These fragments are interwoven with references to Solomon and Jerusalem, to make the reader think that the great lover of the story is really the great king. Of course since it was revised in the time of his reign, the book is attributed to Solomon in its first verse: "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's."

3.4 Interesting People At The Courts of David and Solomon

The scribes of David and Solomon did a great service to their people and to succeeding generations, by collecting and expanding the Pentateuchal material. Those who study the origins of the Bible today, have a special name for the person of that time whose style is dominant in many of the early ancestor tales. The section of the Pentateuch attributable to him or her is called the J-document, or Yahwist material, as the name of God preferred by the author, was Yahweh. As German scholars were predominant in this particular biblical study, I will use the German spelling of Jahweh, and shall call this person who wrote the J-document, the Jahwist. The preferred name of God used in a similarly re-edited document coming out of the northern kingdom of Israel shortly before the exile to Babylon, was the ancient name Elohim, one meaning of which is God of the mountain. This Elohist section of the Pentateuch, has been designated the E-document. This E-document relates the bare essentials of a story. The J-author is more verbose, a born story teller, a professional who was evidently accustomed to speaking before audiences, and also one who displayed a keen interest in the role of women.

The Bible clues us in to certain story tellers and writers in the days of

David and Solomon. The prophetic communities, which contained both men and women, were groups who usually possessed a scribe who was employed in setting down prophecies. In the days when the judges ruled over Israel, there was an attempt by the community to educate some of its members, for we are told that "out of Machir come governors and out of Zebulon, they that handle the pen of the writer" (Judges 5:14). As some of these judges were women,²⁰ we assume that this education was not restricted to men.

I Chronicles 23:4 may be exaggerating a little in favor of David and the Levitical priests, but it reports that when David was an older man, there were six thousand Levites who were scribes and judges. We suspect that Samuel, the prophet who anointed David and his predecessor Saul, as kings, could write, as he reportedly wrote a pamphlet on "The Rights and Duties Of A King"(I Samuel 10:25). Not all kings could read and write. We do not know if Saul could write. In order to be a good king, it was necessary to have a prophet near-by to read directives to you. We think that David could write, and also that his general Joab could read, as we are told that a battle message was exchanged between them by the carrier Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, that led to Uriah's death (II Samuel 11:14). Of course, some other person could have written this message. We are told of Solomon's wisdom (I Kings 5:9-14), but he had no need to write this wisdom down. As king he could afford scribes to jot down his every wise word. He and his brothers had been educated in warfare, diplomacy, and the legalistics of the day by David's relative Jonathan who was described as "both a shrewd man and a scribe," and by an individual named Jethiel, evidently unrelated to David as closely as Jonathan, who perhaps may have been recruited from prophetic origins (I Chronicles 27:32). Scribal guilds as a source of educators, may be the Sopherim of I Chronicles 2:55.²¹ The Tirathites, Shimeathites, and Sucathites may be priestly or prophetic communities having to do with the names Tikvah (a place), Shemaiah (a prophet), and Succoth (a name having to do with tents or tabernacles, and also with women, which may describe a women's prophetic community). David and Solomon may have used these outside communities for the purpose of the education of their subjects.

Besides outside groups of scribes, there were also scribes working in the palace in an official capacity. Jehoshaphat is mentioned as being the important recorder during both the reign of David (II Samuel 20:24) and that of Solomon (I Kings 4:3). It was probably his duty to set down all the official happenings in the king's reign. He may be the same individual mentioned in I Kings 4:17 as an administrator, perhaps working two jobs

for a demanding king. He is called the son of Paruah or perhaps of Pharaoh, which might mean, not that he was the son of the Egyptian king, but that his scribal skills were of Egyptian origin.

II Samuel 8:17 states that Seraiah was court secretary under David. Old spellings of names did not use vowels, so unless the name was a fairly common one, there was plenty of room for misinterpretation of rendering. Consonants were also done with individual design, as there was no standardized printing. Individuals may have written their own names with grand flourishes. When we consider the signatures on doctors' prescriptions today, we can readily understand how the handwritten name could become garbled in Old Testament times. The court secretary Seraiah previously mentioned may be the same individual as Shemaiah, the son of Nethanel, named as a scribe near the end of David's reign in I Chronicles 24:6. As Nethanel was a brother of King David, we may be observing nepotism. An ancient king may have felt safer when surrounded by near relatives.

Also mentioned in I Kings 4:3 are Solomon's scribes Elihoreph and Ahijah who are described as sons of Shisha. A similar name, Sheva, is used in II Samuel 20:25. In Semitic son can be used to denote membership in a group or guild. To be a son of Shisha might mean you belonged to a writers' guild. It also might mean that you belonged to an order of prophets. Ahijah may have been a person from the prophetic community of Shiloh, as we hear of an individual named Ahijah of Shiloh in I Kings 11:29-40. The term son of Shisha may also mean that Elihoreph and Ahijah were hired from Egypt whose king was Shishak at that particular time. Because of our ignorance of the times and the culture, there are many diverse speculations that we can make about the personalities behind these scribal announcements in the Old Testament.

Some historians feel that since Solomon hired workmen from the surrounding countries to work on his building projects, that he also hired foreign scribes, and this may be true, yet there were many available writers in the prophetic communities of the Hebrews. If there were ancient manuscripts set down in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which differed a bit from the local Canaanite writing, it might have been necessary to find some skilled Egyptian translators. Another explanation for the possibility of Egyptian scribes is to be found in I Chronicles 2:34-41. A Hebrew named Sheshan had no sons, so he married one of his daughters to an Egyptian man named Jarha, who was a servant (probably a scribe) in his household. From Jarha came a long line of scribes, including Nathan who prophesied to David in the Bathsheba affair, and Elishama who was scribe under Jehoiakim, the Judean King famous for burning Jeremiah's prophetic scroll (Jeremiah 36:12).

Attai, son of Jarha, is father of Nathan, and is mentioned as a trusted soldier of David (I Chronicles 12:12). Thus there may be a genealogical basis for calling scribes sons of Shisha.

David seemed to make it a matter of public policy to hire officials from both the north section of his realm and the south section. Thus he employed Abiathar as priest from the north, and Zadok who was active at Gibeon in the south.²² Solomon may have followed this custom and employed scribes from both parts of the country. As Ahijah was from the north, Elihoreph may have been associated with a scribal group from the south. Elihoreph is a mystery person; I Kings 4:3 is the only place where the name is mentioned in the Bible in that precise form. We find the name Eliehoenai in Ezra 8:4 as descended from Zerahiah of the tribe of Pahath-Moab, and the similar name Elioenai in I Chronicles 4:36 and Ezra 10:22.

An interesting personality that we hear a lot about in the reign of David, is his army commander, Joab. The later history of David's reign according to the Chronicler scarcely mentions him, yet II Samuel and the beginning of I Kings have Joab concerned with almost every event in the life of David. These two biblical books mention the name of Joab's mother and brothers, but never the name of Joab's father. Joab's mother is Zeruiah, one of the two daughters of Jesse, and thus is David's sister. As she has three sons, Joab, Asahel, and Abishai, she may also have had female children unmentioned in the genealogical lists. Many children sounds like a fairly stable marriage, but the name of her husband is not given in Samuel or Kings. There is a possible explanation in I Chronicles 4:12 where Joab, the son of Seraiah, is mentioned as having to do with the Geharashim, or craftsmen (also described in Nehemiah 11:35). It may be that before David became famous, his sister Zeruiah was betrothed to a lowly craftsman, Seraiah, and the royal family did not want to acknowledge this humble tie. Again the Joab in I Chronicles 4, may be an entirely different person. In I Chronicles 12:3 Ahiezer and Joash, sons of Shemaah, desert Saul in Gibeon to join David. If this Joash is army commander Joab, and if Shemaah is a poor rendering of Seraiah and Ahiezer is a poor rendering of Asahel, this verse may confirm the approximate name of Joab's father. On the other hand I Chronicles 4:12 may be writing about Joab, the son of the woman Zeruiah, as another spelling of Seraiah. This Seraiah may not be mentioning a man's name but a woman's name, and I Chronicles 12:3 may be referring to yet another corruption of the name Zeruiah.

Names in genealogical lists can be rather deceptive. Often the word that we thought meant "son of" is used to mean simply "of" and may be referring to female offspring. Thus we must not be put off with genealogies

emphasizing the male, but should keep up our search for possibilities of the female in biblical history. We must take off our patriarchal glasses and admit that salvation history may have contained many creative female minds, some well hidden behind our English translation of "son of."

David's army commander Joab, being a good Hebrew, was undoubtedly married. Do we read anything in the Bible about his wife? We hear much about the wives of David, and we hear much about Joab himself. From the stories related about him in II Samuel and I Kings, it can be seen that Joab lived a rugged individualistic type of life. He may have been associated, at his home base, with a community of crafts people and back-to-nature artists who told stories while shaping their pots and weaving their tents. His sisters, wife, and children, may have remained with this community. As commander of the army, he seems to have inspired loyalty from his soldiers. At one point David became annoyed with Joab and fired him, and appointed as army leader, the son of his other sister. Joab seethed with jealousy, and took the first opportunity to slay his rival cousin and get back his job. His uncle David was helpless before the situation that developed and was evidently fearful of Joab's influence with the troops, so he returned nephew Joab to the job of army commander. Unfortunately, later in his life, Joab supported the wrong son of David for successor and was slain on the altar by the order of his cousin Solomon (I Kings 2:34). Where upon Joab "was buried at his home in the wilderness" (I Kings 2:35).

One of Joab's friends from his wilderness retreat, may have been a story teller from Tekoa. When David's son Absalom killed David's other son Amnon as punishment for the rape of Absalom's sister Tamar, Joab brought his storyteller friend to David, in order to arrange for Absalom's forgiveness (II Samuel 14:1-24). If we examine this tale carefully, we can see that it is the same type of story telling that is evidenced in the Garden story; also the same as the Sarah and Rebekah stories, and the story of Bathsheba. These stories are typical of the skill of the Jahwist-editor of the Pentateuch. The story of Cain and Abel has certain things in common with the problem of Amnon and Absalom. Cain's punishment is banishment, and Absalom has also been banished. The phrase "discerning good and evil" used by the story teller from Tekoa in II Samuel 14:17, is the same language used by the author of the Garden story in Genesis 3:5. It seems that the writer relating the story about the woman from Tekoa uses the same type words and is most likely the same person as the Jahwist-editor of the garden story. Seeing that the Jahwist-editor knows so well all that went on at this meeting between the woman from Tekoa and the king, I would like to suggest that the Jahwist-editor is this identical person, the

woman from Tekoa. The actress at David's court relating this make believe incident about herself and her two feuding sons, just might be the same person as the story teller who wrote it down.

I would like to set down some further possibilities that I have drawn from this incident which is related as happening at David's court. I see the Wise Woman of Tekoa presenting herself as the person who influenced King David to forgive his son Absalom. It may be that in the time of King David this Wise Woman gained fame as a teller of tales. In the prophetic or craft community at Tekoa, she may have been the skilled carrier of the tradition. As the possessor of this traditional knowledge, this Wise Woman may well have been brought to the school room to teach proverbs to the king's sons. It may be to her that Solomon owed his ability to quote 3000 proverbs and his reputation for wisdom.

3.5 The Jahwist Editor

A woman storyteller from a prophetic community would be the logical explanation for the deft way in which the Jahwist relates the tales of women. The Jahwist is credited with the basic story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:4b-3:24, with stories of Sarah (Genesis 11:28-30; Genesis 12:10-20) with the problems of Lot's daughters (Genesis 19:30-38), with Isaac's wife Rebekah (Genesis 24:1-67), with much of the material having to do with Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:1-31)(Genesis 30:25-43), with the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34:1-31), with Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:1-30), and with the temptation of Joseph by Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:1-23), yet not with the interpretation of dreams by Joseph. We find the same style in the Book of Samuel where Hannah has a problem becoming pregnant (I Samuel 1:1-28). We find the touch of the Jahwist in the story of Saul who is depicted in a rather derogatory manner on the day of his acclamation as king (I Samuel 10:22), and also in his consultation of the witch of Endor (I Samuel 28:3-25).²³ There seems to be a personal interest by the Jahwist in the relating of the killing of Joab's brother Asahel, who "could run as fast as a wild deer" (II Samuel 2:18-32). We are even told that the young man was buried in the family tomb at Bethlehem. The Jahwist may have been at the tombsite in person to comfort the young man's mother Zeruiah or his wife. The Jahwist tells us of David's love affair with Bathsheba, and as Joab is an important part of this story, we suspect that the Jahwist's source of information is Commander Joab. More serious is Joab's involvement with Absalom, and the whole affair with Amnon, which is also in Jahwist style with Joab as probable source.

Bible scholars believe that the Jahwist lived at least up to an early point in the reign of Solomon. We have a Jahwist type tale in the story of

the two women in the same bed with the two babies. One of the women smothers her baby and each woman insists that the remaining baby is hers (I Kings 3:16-28). This tale may have originally been David material, transferred to Solomon's name when he became king, to give him status. However, if the Jahwist were so fond of Joab, it is hard to believe that she would willingly say such good things about Solomon who had ordered Joab to be killed.

Another reason sleuthing Bible scholars believe that the Jahwist was still active in the reign of Solomon, is that in Jahwist material in Genesis 27:40, the author predicts that Esau or Edom will shake free of its bondage to Jacob. Early in the reign of Solomon, Hadad the Edomite returns from Egypt on the death of his persecutors David and Joab (I Kings 11:14-22). The Jahwist may still have been active at Solomon's court, saying or writing appropriate things about the new king, to prove his or her loyalty to the new king, and to protect his or her own life, and the best interests of other out-of-favor friends or relatives.

As it is possible to pinpoint a time and place of operation for the Jahwist editor or author, there should be some mention of this personage in the Bible, as a great story teller who entertained people at David's court. If this person were a man, we could single out the scribes Jehoshaphat, Ahijah, or Shemaiah as possibilities. The scribe Elihoreph, who might be a man or a woman, could also be considered. From the feminine interests of the Jahwist story teller, we have a deep suspicion that this person is a woman. From her interest and her knowledge of the actions of Joab, we suspect that she is somehow affiliated with this commander of David's army. As we search in the Bible for a woman with literary ability, who is also a friend of Joab, we are struck by the story in II Samuel 14, that introduces us to the Wise Woman of Tekoa.

In researching this story of the Wise Woman more fully, we find that the incident takes place after David's son Absalom killed his half brother Amnon as punishment for the rape of Absalom's sister Tamar. An interesting side fact is that Amnon was heir apparent, and Absalom had his eye on the throne. David had banished Absalom for the crime, and Joab was put in the position of being asked for assistance by the new heir apparent Absalom. Joab was placed in a difficult spot politically. Today we have laws that a murderer cannot inherit, and today Absalom would have been disenfranchised. David could have had Absalom executed legally, but had been very gentle towards his son and only banished him. Absalom wanted to get back into David's good graces, and back into line for the throne, so he put pressure on Joab.

Joab "sent for a clever woman who lived in Tekoa" (II Samuel 14:1). This is a woman that Joab knows will put on a good act and tell a good story. This woman is a friend, perhaps even a relative, who will do Joab a favor, even though there is a bit of a risk involved. If David discovers her deception, and becomes angry, he could dispose of her lightly. The woman pretends that she is the mother of a son who has killed his brother. Her near male-relatives want to punish her remaining son, and thus inherit his property. She wants her son's legal rights established by the king, so that she herself will be secure in her old age. She thus gets David to agree that the son who committed the murder will come to no harm. Then she turns the tables on David, and asks him to consider the legal rights of his own son Absalom (which include throne rights), although Absalom is likewise a murderer. She wins her case, but David becomes suspicious and does recognize her as an associate of Joab.

It seems highly likely that we have here in this story, the very woman whose identity we are seeking as the Jahwist editor. Not only is she a great lawyer, as she argues the case of Absalom very cleverly, but the Wise Woman from Tekoa is also very probably the Jahwist editor of Genesis and the celebrated story teller at David's court. As she is described as wise, she may have had the ability to write down her stories herself, or David may have been impressed with her acting ability, and advised his scribes to busy themselves taking down her words. He may have sent her to the classroom run by his relative Jonathan, to have her tell her stories to his sons, the princes. Jonathan may have written her stories down, as we know that he was able to write. Jonathan may also have heard her story about Ruth, and written down his own version of the tale.

As the story of Ruth is a story about women, it is possible that it came from the mouth of the Jahwist. As Joab was a nephew of King David, his mother Zeruiah being a daughter of Jesse who was David's father, Joab and his friend or relative from Tekoa would also be interested in Jesse's ancestry and knowledgeable about it. Thus the Wise Woman from Tekoa would certainly have the information to set down or to make up a credible tale of Ruth.

3.6 The Elohist Editor

In considering personages at the court of David, there is the possibility that the Jahwist editor of the Book of Genesis may be the woman described in II Samuel 14 as the Wise Woman of Tekoa. Bible scholars agree that the Jahwist wrote major portions of Genesis, but there are other authors and editors who also made additions. A lesser portion of the work is credited to an author called the Elohist by today's scholars because his favorite name

for God was Elohim. The Elohist is associated with the northern kingdom of Ephraim, and he calls the covenant mountain, Mount Horeb, rather than Mount Sinai. The people of the land of Canaan are referred to by him as Amorites rather than Canaanites.²⁴ It is my belief that the Elohist tradition had its start at the courts of David and Solomon, and that the originator of this tradition had the privilege of hearing the tales of The Woman of Tekoa. I would like to propose that the scribe Ahijah mentioned in I Kings 4:3 rose in prominence to become the controversial prophet Ahijah of Shiloh, that he laid the corner stone for the Elohist tradition, and that his compiler is the contributor to the Elohist section of the Pentateuch.

Who is this compiler? Could she be a woman? If we investigate the life of Ahijah, we may learn something about the Elohist editor.

The first mention of the name Ahijah in the Bible is at I Samuel 14:3. He was acting as priest, a combination oracle and army chaplain, for King Saul who was fighting the Philistines near Gibeah. Ahijah's lineage is given as the descendant of Ahitub, who was the descendant of Phinehas the son of Eli. In the days of Saul, who had been anointed king by Samuel, the priests who were descended from Aaron through the priest Eli, had a malediction hanging over their heads. During the Exodus, God had chosen Aaron's sons to serve as priests for all time, but the sons of Aaron's descendant Eli, had proved to be such inefficient servants of the Lord, that God regretted this choice. Because of God's promise to Aaron, God does not totally wipe out the line of Eli. He leaves a remnant of them to be priests. "Yet I will keep one of your descendants alive, and he will serve me as priest. But he will become blind and lose all hope and all your other descendants will die a violent death" (I Samuel 2:33).

Thus while there was status in being a Levitical priest, there was also this discouraging prophecy against the sons of Eli. King Saul was the instrument God used to fulfill the second half of the I Samuel 2:33 prophecy. Saul feared that the priests who were Eli's descendants, were deserting him for David, so he killed all of them that he could get his hands on. In David's reign there was a reorganization of the priesthood ostensibly due to this slaughter of priests at Nob (I Samuel 22:11-19).

Another priestly line mentioned, seems to start with Zadok, the son of Ahitub (II Samuel 13:32).²⁵ II Samuel 8:15 states that David's male relatives were priests, which may only imply that they played the important priestly role of advisor to the king. A full priestly role would have been frowned upon as tribally they were not Levites.²⁶ However, if there were a shortage of priests and male priestly heirs were not available, Levitical daughters would be allowed to marry non-Levites in order to bring posterity

to a tribe.²⁷ After the slaughter of the priests at Nob, females from the tribe of Levi may have been the tenuous link in the chain of the Aaronic priesthood. This might have been the situation at the start of David's reign, so his plugging of relatives into the priesthood may have been excusable. However, we are not told the name of the woman who may have been the matriarch for the Zadok line of priests. Her name was certainly not Zadok as this gentleman is described as performing priestly duties in II Samuel 8:17. Perhaps this female link is hidden under the name of Ahitub. This woman may have been a daughter of Hophni or Phinehas (I Samuel 2:34), the notorious sons of Eli. Wherever the name Ahitub is mentioned in the Bible, it is only associated with someone who is the progenitor of priests, and never as an active priest. Ahitub would be a good name for a woman who filled in for slaughtered brothers, as one of its meanings is "my brother is good."

Of the men mentioned as sons of Ahitub, Ahijah, as faithful army chaplain for Saul and also son of both Ahitub and Eli, may have been killed with the rest of the priests at Nob, or he may still have been on Saul's good side and escaped from the political scene. If he escaped, he is probably the gentleman, Ahijah of Shiloh, who lived to blind and hopeless old age, fulfilling the first section of the prophecy made to Eli (I Samuel 2:33).

In I Kings 4:3 we hear of an Ahijah as court secretary under Solomon. This Ahijah, the scribe, may be the same person as Ahijah of Shiloh, as a scribal history of this period is entitled "The Prophecy of Ahijah of Shiloh" (II Chronicles 9:29). This is probably the same individual who prophesied in favor of King Jeroboam in I Kings 11:29-39. Thus, when the northern tribes revolted against Solomon, Ahijah found it convenient to leave Jerusalem and to go north with Jeroboam and the Ephraimites. He returned to the priestly village of Shiloh (the home of his ancestor Eli).²⁸

However, Jeroboam, the king of the northern tribes, did not live up to Ahijah's expectations for him, and deserted the God of his fathers, setting up two bull calves of gold for his people to worship (I Kings 12:28). Ahijah, and more importantly, God, considered Jereboam no longer fit to be king. When Jeroboam's son became ill, his mother, Jeroboam's wife, went laden with gifts to the prophet Ahijah at Shiloh to ask if God would heal her son (I Kings 14:1-19). Ahijah was blind, so he could not see the woman, yet God told him that this was Jeroboam's wife, and he gave her the message that her son would die, and that her husband's dynasty would be destroyed.

As Ahijah was blind, he did not write down the particulars of this interview. Who was the assistant to the prophet, who wrote down this incident, and God's prophecy against Jeroboam?

If we search out the identity of the original transmitter of the Elohist tradition of the Pentateuch, it seems that Ahijah of Shiloh has all the proper qualifications. If he were in residence at the courts of David and Solomon, he must have had an acquaintance with the folk stories of the Jahwist story teller, the woman from Tekoa. After hearing her tales, he could have transmitted his own more sedate versions. When the kingdom fell apart and Ahijah had to flee northward for safety, he may have had to leave his scribal treasures behind, but he carried in his mind, stories and prophecies which he could dictate to another.

As we said before, the Elohist editor of the Pentateuch has certain characteristics. He prefers Elohim for the name of God. This name has certain plural connotations of the totality of God²⁹ and means "divine being.^"30 The Elohist gives prominence to northern folk heroes, such as Joseph and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and is concerned with the priestly business in the shrines of Bethel and Shechem in northern Israel. He is not too concerned with the royal line of Judah and the kingdom of David.

Ahijah is given credit for certain written material (II Chronicles 9:29), yet in his old age he was blind, as described in I Kings 14:4 and as prophesied in I Samuel 2:33, and he could no longer see to write. Someone else must have set down the story of Jeroboam's sick son, and the prophecy concerning the downfall of Jeroboam's dynasty. Perhaps Ahijah had a son who wrote it down for him, or perhaps seeing it was foretold in I Samuel 2:33, that he would lose all hope, that this descendant of Eli had no sons. Having sons was the early Hebrew's way to achieve immortality. If you had no sons, you had no chance to be alive in your posterity, and you might well have it said about you, that you had lost all hope.

Today we think of the model Catholic priest as not having a wife, but in Solomon's time, all good Jewish priests had wives. They were expected to have families, so that there would be priests to take over the duties of the priesthood from their fathers. Jobs were handed down, guild-like, from father to son. If you had no sons, you might have to use a daughter.

If anybody did any writing for Ahijah in his blind old age, it seems likely that it was not his sons. It may have been left up to his wife or daughter or a male or female member of the Shiloh prophetic or priestly community to write down the words of the aging prophet. Again we have a possibility of a feminine transmitter of biblical material, for in the Elohist sections, a woman may be doing scribal duty for the prophetic community at Shiloh.

The story of womanly interest told about the wife of Jeroboam has a Jahwist flair. Could the wife of Joab also have retreated to the northern

kingdom on the ascent of Rehoboam to the throne in Jerusalem? Some intermediary male or female scribe, with a northern upbringing, may have combined material brought from the south, with the political interests of the northern kingdom and with a slightly different theological emphasis.

In the David and Solomon era, we have two writers who both contributed much to the Book of Genesis, the Jahwist authoress from near Jerusalem, and the Elohist compiler who seems to have used materials acquired through both the Jerusalem Kingdom and the northern Kingdom of Israel. The most likely candidate for the Jahwist with her tales of womanly concerns, is Joab's friend, the woman from Tekoa. A possibility for the Elohist writer is someone near to Ahijah in the Shiloh community.

If we consider Moses as another possible contributor to Genesis, we have mentioned three Genesis authors, and we still haven't assigned the theological material in the first chapter of Genesis to any one of them. We will have to trace the history of the Hebrews into the Babylonian captivity of the sixth century before Christ, in order to find the writers concerned with the necessity for Sabbath rest and the notion of One Holy All-encompassing God.

NOTES

1 William F. Albright, Yahweh and The Gods of Canaan (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), p. 97.

2 William F. Albright, From The Stone Age To Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1946), p. 148.

3 The country of Babylonia was dominated by Assyrian kings, of whom Assyr-Haddon ruled from 680 to 668 BC. He followed Sennacherib of II Kings 19:35-37. (This information is from Encyclopedia Americana Vol. II , 1949 edition, p. 430.) The words of Esarhaddon (Assyr-Haddon) were probably recorded in the time of his follower Assyr-Banipal (668-626 BC) who patronized the arts.

4 Peter Ellis, The Men and The Message of The Old Testament, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 99.

5 ibid.

6 William F. Albright, loc.cit., p.143.

7 ibid., p. 144.

8 W. S. McCullough, Interpreters Dictionary of The Bible, Vol. IV (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 290.

9 ibid.

10 Paul Carus, History of The Devil (New York: Land's End Press, 1969), p. 107.

11 Peter Ellis, op.cit., p. 100.

12 Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition (New York: Doubleday, 1968), footnote p. 1181.

13 Peter Ellis, op.cit., p. 5; also E. A. Speiser, Anchor Bible, Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. xix.

14 John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), p. 38.

16 Greece, Foto Olympic (Athens: Dekopoulos, no date), p. 6.

17 Bella Debrida, "Drawing From Mythology In Women's Quest For Selfhood" in The Politics of Women's Spirituality, Editor Charlene Spretnak (New York: Doubleday, 1982), pp. 139-140.

18 Correctional Association of New York, News Bulletin # 2, October, 1984, pp. 2-3.

19 Solomon's history is recorded in The History of Nathan The Prophet, The Prophecy of Ahijah of Shiloh, and The Visions of Iddo The Seer (II Chronicles 9:29). Rehoboam, the king of Judah after the split of north and south, has his history related in The Annals of Shemaiah The Prophet and Iddo The Seer (II Chronicles 12:15). His son Abijah is described in The Midrash of The Prophet Iddo (II Chronicles 13:22), and we may assume that Shemaiah passed on, and is no longer recording. The history that tells about the son of Abijah, King Asa, no longer mentions Iddo, but is called The Book of Kings of Judah and Israel (II Chronicles 16:11). Isaiah, the son of Amoz, is mentioned as one of the contributors to this Book of Kings under the later king, Hezekiah (II Chronicles 32:32). Other unnamed seers along with King Manasseh have material in the Annals of Kings (II Chronicles 32:18). The Prayer of Manasseh is found in some editions of the Apocrypha, so the Chronicles are setting down sources some of which are able to be substantiated, as noted in Jerusalem Bible, Readers Edition (New York: Doubleday, 1968), in the footnote on page 491.

20 Deborah is a noted example of a female judge (Judges 4:4).

21 Jacob Myers, The Anchor Bible , I Chronicles (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), p. 16.

22 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society In Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), p. 265.

23 Could the Witch of Endor be someone from the same prophetic community as the Wise Woman of Tekoa, or perhaps the identical individual?

24 Peter Ellis, op. cit., p. 101.

25 I Chronicles 27:32 gives Jonathan as King David's uncle. I Chronicles 6:9 lists Azariah as son of Johanan in the line of Zadok.

26 Men of other tribes had the option of becoming Levites. See John Bright,op. cit., p. 163.

27 Daughters could legally produce male heirs for their fathers, if there were no sons. See Numbers 27:1-11 and the example of Sheshan in I Chronicles 2:34.

28 I Samuel 1:3.

29 E. A. Speiser, op. cit., p. 7, # 26.

30 ibid., p. xxii. Other thoughts on the subject might include that Elohim, meaning "All That Is," finds a following in panentheism, while Yahweh, meaning "I Am Who Am," has adherents in process theology.

Chapter IV: THE TOUCH
OF A WOMAN'S HAND

4.1 Authorship of The Pentateuch

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are called the Pentateuch. This is a compilation of several distinct authors. First it contains original Moses material which was transmitted both in writing and orally. Some of this oral material is contained in the ancestor tales. We have discussed the Elohist version and the Jahwist version of this material. A little later an author termed the Deuteronomist added the Book of Deuteronomy which contains laws and information collected from prophetic and priestly sources in the north of Israel.¹ Next a person connected with the southern nobility of Judea, wove in the Priestly material (which consists of the regulations, land divisions, legalities, and genealogies largely found in Exodus 25 through Leviticus to Numbers 10) with the Jahwist and other material, giving us the Mosaic-Jahwist-Elohist-Deuteronomist-Priestly Pentateuch (M-J-E-D-P Pentateuch) in the 6th century BC which is essentially the Pentateuch that we have today.

The organization of Genesis is credited to the Priestly author. His, is the "In the beginning" prologue.² He includes both the Jahwist and Elohist thoughts on The Garden, updating their theology to his day, and throws in a few genealogies as he goes along, to emphasize that the Jews are God's chosen people, chosen to bring God's enlightenment to the nations. He inserts the Priestly traditions at the appropriate points in the Exodus story, and strives to set down all the available material. He leaves out nothing. Thus we are often left with puzzling little pieces that don't quite fit, such as the mention of circumcision in Exodus 4:24-26. Our editor may be working with damaged manuscripts. It is difficult to sort out the true Moses material, when working through all of these overlays.

Most people assume that these inspirited embroideries on the work of Moses were done by male scribes as they were thought to be the select group who possessed education. People visualize saintly looking males with doves hovering over them or halos around their heads, putting down on scrolls the word of God as it came to them in their time and in their

culture. Suppose some historical situation developed, so that it became convenient for women to do some of the scribal work? How would women have revitalized Moses for their contemporaries? Women often see situations differently than men. Men's minds can be more legalistic and dualistic. Men see facts, while women are often more intuitive. Like God, the Pentateuch has both motherly and fatherly aspects. Consequently, I should like to suggest that its final compiler, the Priestly author, may be a woman working under the guidance of a man, or may be a woman striving to please a patriarchal community.

I would like to try to prove to you that there may have been still other women among the biblical authors, so that people today can think of women as being equal to men in their knowledge of God, and as equally beloved by God. If people contemplated the feminine aspects of God, as well as the masculine, and acknowledged the presence of women as important in religious history, it might help to make our society less patriarchal.

There are problems in our present day world that would be alleviated if men and women were more accepting of each other. Many men treat women as if they were somehow deficient in mental or physical quality, or as if the women had been created solely to gratify men's sexual appetites. Many women act as if men were just little boys grown up, who still didn't know enough to wash behind their ears. Because of these attitudes, we have womanly poverty, in our own country and in the third world. We have a vast prison system to contain those men and women whose maturity has been stunted by a social and educational system that does not suit their needs or build their self image. We find that in our society women and men do not respect their own bodies, or the bodies of others, and that they promote the legislation of infanticide and abortion clinics to gloss over their own insecurity and irresponsibility. Some of us do not respect each other's minds, and we allow the flow of indecent literature and degrading telecommunications. We have men engaging in confrontational nuclear politics. If women were accepted equally with men in community leadership, the whole world would benefit from the more relational female viewpoint.

If our patriarchal society could accept the idea that women's God-guided hands set down some of the wisdom in the Bible, perhaps they could also see the need for women's guidance in our culture today. For this reason I want to reemphasize my position that the Jahwist editor of the Pentateuch is a woman. Next, I should like to discuss the feminine identity of the Deuteronomist. Then I would like to propose the possibility of a feminine author for the Creation Story of Genesis 1. Finally, I would like to examine the possibilities of the feminine in the ancient traditional Moses material.

4.2 The Feminine Identity of The Jahwist

That the Jahwist author, whom many have presumed to be a male, has the distinct possibility of being a woman, is rather startling and unsettling, when the majority of our society assume that a gray bearded patriarch is responsible for the wisdom set down in the Pentateuch. I believe that this person was a woman in David's court, who was on familiar terms with his wives and concubines. We hear about Abigail, Michal, and Bathsheba, the wives of David. We don't hear much about Solomon's wives. David seemed on fairly good terms with most women. His early life as a fugitive from Saul, probably broadened his perspective in regards to the oppressed. This woman author may have served in his court in a semi-official capacity as scribe, near the end of David's reign, and Solomon may have allowed her to stay on, as writer-historian, particularly if she had been a beloved and honored teacher.

We would like to have a name to put on this nameless wise woman who is our candidate for Jahwist editor, and it seems that her identity must be hidden somewhere in the Bible, very obvious to those who knew her, but hidden to us, the uninitiated, under the dust of the centuries. The name Elihoreph for the scribe of I Kings 4:3 means God of youth.³ Could we stretch that to mean teacher of youth about God, or giver of God to youth? Could we push the meaning of son of Shisha as an interpreter of Egyptian script, whether male or female, to a female member of the guild? If women's names are not customarily mentioned in genealogical lists, and the name Elihoreph or a similar name, Eliehoenai, does not appear very frequently in the Bible, it may be the name of a woman. Could it be the name of the wise woman teacher, on King Solomon's payroll as a setter down of tradition?

In Ezra 8:5 Eliehoenai son of Zerahiah is mentioned as a clan returning from exile. The word son in genealogical records does not always mean son, but may mean descendant. Daughters were not usually put on genealogical charts, so when feminine names are mentioned, transcribers would include them as sons. Even a well known family like Saul's, has his daughters Meribbaal and Michal as sons (I Chronicles 8:33-40; 9:35-44), yet correctly as daughters in I Samuel 14:49-51. Thus in Ezra 8, we may have a rough approximation of Elihoreph, daughter of Zeruiah, making her a sister to Joab, or a daughter-in-law of Zeruiah, married to Joab or his brother.

Another possible link to the identity of the Wise Woman becomes evident if we look at the school room situation. I Chronicles 27:32 reports that Jehiel son of Hachmoni assists David's relative Jonathan in teaching

the princes. When we see that Hachmoni means wise, and ask ourselves of what wise person this man might be the son, we could conclude that Jehiel is guild-like following in his mother's footsteps as teacher. As the Wise Woman may have taught the young princes her knowledge of proverbs and ancestor stories, Jehiel is also the possessor of this body of knowledge, as son of his mother, and qualified to be tutor.

It may be possible to trace the identity of the Wise Woman of Tekoa by tracking out the name Jehiel, a definite personage in the reign of David. Jehiel seems to be a young man given certain positions of prominence, as befitted one with a close blood relationship to the king. Jehiel is described as one of a select group of singers at festival time (I Chronicles 15:18). He was considered to be a Levite who went before the ark (I Chronicles 16:5). In certain circumstance Levites could be appointed from other tribes as well as being born Levites.⁴ Jehiel is spoken of as a son of Ladan and Gershom, which are guild type names, rather than family names, and these guild names have to do with his Levitical religious duties (I Chronicles 23:8). Those in charge of the treasury are described as Jehielites in I Chronicles 26:22. They are probably Jehiel's descendants taking over this responsible treasury job of the Ladan-Gershom guild. Next we hear of Jehiel as the son of Hachmoni, being put in charge of the royal children (I Chronicles 27:32) and in I Chronicles 29:8 Jehiel is again mentioned as in charge of the treasury.

To perhaps tie in Jehiel with Joab, it is necessary to go to the post-exile book of Ezra which contains genealogical information. Among the families returning to Jerusalem with Ezra is a man called Obadiah whose lineage traces back to Jehiel the son of Joab (Ezra 8:9). Thus Jehiel of David's Jerusalem is perhaps both the son of Joab and the son of Hachmoni or the Wise Woman. From this we have a possible indication that the Wise Woman of Tekoa is the wife of Joab, the army commander of King David. This would explain why Joab figures so prominently in the stories related about David; it is his wife who is writing them down. It also might explain why this woman continued to write after the murder of her husband by Solomon. She did not want her sons to suffer the same fate as their father. Another son of Joab is mentioned in I Kings 4:6, where it is stated that Eliab son of Joab is commander of Solomon's army (though Eliab may be a different version of the name Jehiel). Keep in mind that what I am presenting here is only a possible explanation, not an absolute proof.

I have suggested elsewhere that the Wise Woman of Tekoa may have dictated, but seeing that her style is so consistent, I would like to venture that she wrote down all her literary endeavors by her own hand. Future

writers incorporated her gems pretty much unchanged into their editorial assemblies. Her theology, which enabled her to live philosophically under the bloody times of David and Solomon, is reflected in her writings, and helps to serve as evidence that these writings are self-produced. Where did she get the basic material for her stories? She may have heard them orally in a prophetic or craft community. There was also written material preserved, because she tells us in the Bible about the problems her group had translating some of this Moses' material. This difficult material may have been preserved through copies, either by the hands of priests or by the prophetic community. Some of these transcriptions may have been ancient songs to pagan gods, reworded to praise the God of David, and set down as Psalms rendered in David's name.

The Jahwist editor has a story to tell us that lets us know there were problems with translation. Moses, coming out of Egypt in the Exodus about 1300 BC, knew Egyptian writing forms and had a predominantly Egyptian vocabulary. Later writers at David's and Solomon's courts were more cosmopolitan, and set things down in a Canaanite-Hebrew script derived from the Phoenicians.⁵ Three hundred years after the Exodus, there were similarities, but there were also differences. The Jahwist editor in telling us the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), lets us know that the editorial group is having a bit of a problem with translation. As usual, she comes up with a good story that keeps God as the prominent stage director. She explains deftly how Egyptian words and symbols, got to be different from Assyrian words and writing, and the theological reason behind the whole proceeding.

There definitely was written tradition, not only because there was difficulty in translating (as the Jahwist found it necessary to relate the Babel story), but also because three hundred years separated Moses from Solomon. Moses obviously could write, and as he could write, he was probably glad to teach others this skill. As he and others could write, they were proud of this accomplishment and used it. They had the necessary materials, sheepskin for paper, and carbonated goo for ink, and writing had been in vogue since 2000 BC in Egypt. It was a status skill that people were proud to pass on, and proud to receive. There were also the priestly and prophetic communities as types of schools where this skill could be practiced. Side by side with this skill of writing, story tellers from these communities added details that they had heard and remembered. Many different stories of human beginnings on the earth were circulated, and Hebrew priests and prophets tried to sort out the ones that were appropriate for their monotheistic communities.

4.3 Visiting Royalty

It would be nice if we could search out a name for the Elohist editor, or better identify her (?) personality. We believe that there is some connection with Ahijah, the scribe, and with the northern religious community at Shiloh. What educated woman might have had ties with this prophetic community?

When Jeroboam's wife went calling on Ahijah as she was concerned about her sick son, she brought gifts with her (I Kings 14:1-20). Even though she was disguised, the blind Ahijah recognized her, and gave her a very disturbing prophecy. How did she feel when she was told her son would die and her husband lose his throne? Did she take her gifts back home with her?

This was a very religious woman, and she seemingly accepted God's word. Her husband Jeroboam had made an altar in his northern capital, so that his subjects would not feel that they had to worship in Jerusalem. This new altar had led to idolatrous behavior on the part of the people. It seemed that Jeroboam's political motivations were drawing his people away from the worship of the one true God. The queen doubtless understood all this, and could see disaster ahead. Believing Ahijah's prophesy, she may have ensured her future by continuing to bring gifts to the prophetic community, so that when the calamity occurred, she would have a place that would receive her. Prophetic communities did take in and help those scorned by society.

What did queens and princesses do, when the world discarded them? In Hebrew society they were not usually slaughtered like their important male counterparts. Perhaps the younger ones could contract a marriage, and thus be supported by a husband. The older ones were deprived of the male relatives who had formerly supported them and were usually unaccustomed to doing dusting and gardening. Perhaps if they were educated women, as might be possible with some queens and princesses, they could do scribal work in a prophetic community.

The Elohist author is interested in the tribes descended from Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. It is interesting that Jeroboam is an Ephraimite, the son of Nebat (I Kings 11:26). If we go back to the game we are playing, and search in this situation for what a particular woman in biblical history might have done in a difficult situation, we could imagine that this discarded queen may have continued a friendly relationship with the Shiloh community. If she did take refuge and do scribal work there, her reporting would necessarily reflect her northern religious view of the God of the covenant mountain, her interest in the tribe of Ephraim, and stories about Joseph in Egypt.

4.4 The Deuteronomist Editor

Looking at the Pentateuch, we find that the Adam and Eve story is largely of Jahwist construction, yet the creation story that precedes it, comes from a different hand. The Hebrew plural name for God is used in Genesis 1:26, as if the Creator of the universe is conceived differently from the God who created Adam and Eve. Another editor is on the scene, combining the material of both Jahwist and Elohist, and covering it with another layer of theology.

In investigating who wrote Genesis, we have traveled timewise through the reigns of David, Solomon, Rehoboam, and Jeroboam. We have concluded that there was original Moses material, both oral and written, as Moses and his associates could write, and as community groups told stories for information and recreation. We also tentatively concluded that there was Genesis material set down by a lady called the Jahwist, and other material termed Elohist, some of which I have speculated may be attributable to dethroned royalty. This discarded queen may have coordinated material which originated in other shrines of northern Palestine. However, besides these feminine speculations, there still are other writers represented in the first five books of the Bible. In order to more fully answer the question of who wrote the Pentateuch, we will have to continue our journey in time through the reigns of the various kings of Israel and Judah, and onward through the years of exile of the Jewish tribes in the country of Babylon.

After the end of Solomon's reign, when the ten northern tribes split off from the two tribes near Jerusalem, the kingdoms of the north and south continued on together, side by side, sometimes at war with each other, sometimes in alliance against a common enemy. In the north the Elohist material was studied and repeated, together with rules and regulations describing religious duties of the priests and people.

The political situation of the Near East at that time was such that the enlarging Assyrian empire decided to assimilate the smaller feuding states in the Palestinian area. This was accomplished with less strain for the Assyrians by over-running one kingdom at a time. In 722/721 BC when the Assyrians under Shalmaneser and Sargon destroyed the northern kingdom, priestly families from the north, fled to their fellow Hebrews in the south for sanctuary, bringing their Elohist and legal religious material with them, so that they could continue to practice their religion. They also brought with them their anguish at being forced from their homeland, and their belief that a just God was punishing them for their sins. They urged their Judean relatives to fear God and mend their ways, so that a like calamity

should not happen to Jerusalem and the southern kingdom.

This urge to reform is spoken of in II Chronicles 34:3. King Josiah came to the throne in Jerusalem when he was only eight years old. He was but a lad of sixteen, when he decided to purge his kingdom of her idol worship. Josiah's religious reforms took place ten years before the discovery of the "Book of The Law" pertaining to the rites to be performed in the Jerusalem temple. This religious material of the southern kingdom had probably been hidden by a devout priest, under the demoralizing reign of some Jerusalem king who didn't worship God according to the way of David. The finding of this "Book of The Law" took place in Jerusalem about 622 BC, almost one hundred years after the fall of the northern kingdom of Samaria, and then King Josiah was able not only to continue the structural repair of the temple as he had been doing, but he was able also to reinstate the old rituals. II Chronicles 34:15 describes how this book is found in the reign of Josiah by Hilkiah the Priest. Huldah, the wife of Shallum, is consulted by the important leaders of the kingdom about this precious find. In order to understand why a group of men would make inquiries of a woman, about such an important matter as the finding of the word of God to his people, we must pause and think about librarians.

The way humanity works, is that when you go into a library, you usually find a woman in charge. This isn't always the way, but being a librarian seems to be an accepted womanly position, as there are housewifely tasks connected with straightening up the bookkeeping place. It is highly likely that women have been in library positions, since the invention of books, in situations where there were both males and females in the community. (For instance, one certainly would not expect to find a woman in the library belonging to a group of contemplative monks.)

As there were both men and women in the early Hebrew community, it was necessary to have a woman around the place where books or scrolls were kept, in order for her to dust them and keep their containers clean. If a man had hauled a scroll out to study it or copy it, and had gotten called away inadvertently, it was necessary to have a woman there to roll up the scroll and put it away safely, so that mice or insects wouldn't nibble it, or dampness damage it. If a woman had to put scrolls away, it would be handy if she could read, so that she could put the scrolls in their proper containers. If she could read enough to sort out the scrolls from their title sentences, she could easily take off from there, and become capable of reading the whole scroll.

Back in BC when there were organized temples and shrines, religious materials such as priests' vestments, offering utensils, and scrolls to be

read from, were kept in a special spot referred to as a wardrobe. We have the same attachments to our altars today, where a priest puts on his official robes. We might call it a vestry or a sacristy. In Hebrew times the vestryman was a Levite. Certain families of Levites handed down this vestry duty in a guildlike manner from father to son. Other associated duties had to do with keeping the store rooms of grain and other votive offerings. The overseer of the temple treasury was also from the same Levitical clan, and had to be an exceptionally trustworthy man, as he had a very responsible job.

In their patriarchal society, only a man would be assigned to these important jobs, but his wife and family were expected to assist, at least with the dusting. Even the celibate male priests of our day are expected to get a woman to dust the altar, although the altar when it is being used for services, has certain legal restrictions against women. As jobs were handed down from father to son, family names keep reappearing in the biblical records, as names of those who are room guardians or gate keepers. The same is true for scribal families and priestly families. Obed-Edom seems to be the original gate keeper name (I Chronicles 26:1-8). As the generations slip by, and the owner of the name Obed dies, his grandson or great grandson will be given the same name. Another popular name for those with gate keeper duties, is Shallum (I Chronicles 9:17, 19, 31; Ezra 2:42).

II Chronicles 34 describes how King Josiah was having repairs done to the temple, so that he could have his people worship the Lord their God in a proper manner. The priest Hilkiah in overseeing the repair duties, came across the Book of The Law that had been secreted somewhere in the temple. This Book of The Law was probably not just the legal skeleton of the Moses' material, but may well have been legal material, cult material, land assignments, and also the ancestor stories transcribed by the Jahwist. This incident that took place about 622 BC was a landmark event in the composition of our Bible. The Holy Spirit was truly taking care of God's people, for without these Hebrew traditions given with Jahwist insight, we would have been left with only the sterner Elohist side of God. Hilkiah the priest, upon discovering the Book of The Law, gave it to Shaphan the secretary or scribe, who in turn, took it to King Josiah and read it to him. Perhaps this king could not read. King Josiah called all his important men, his minister of state, the head priest of the Jerusalem shrine, his scribe, and the son of his scribe (just to be sure to get every important word down), and Abdon son of Micah who might be the resident prophet, and he asked them for an opinion on the important book that had been found. They decided to consult a woman.

This same incident is reported similarly in II Kings 22:10-20. In order

to explain why a group of important men run to a woman with their weighty problem, the author states the qualifications of this woman. Huldah is described as a prophetess, the wife of Shallum, the keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem in the new town. The associated guild names or ancestor names are Tikvah and Harhas in II Kings, and Tokhath and Hasrah in II Chronicles.

Firstly, Huldah is described as a prophetess. As the king has his own private prophet, Huldah must be a very honored woman, a legend in her time, even before her death. Most prophets are persecuted while they live, and given honor only after their prophecies come true, usually after their demise.

Secondly, Huldah is the wife of Shallum, who is in charge of the wardrobe, which contains the vestments, utensils, and scrolls of the priestly community. In present day terms, she might be described as the wife of the librarian. She has access to certain books. Before we question which books, we should go on to the third fact, that Huldah lives in the new town. When so many refugees came from the north at the time of Shalmaneser's destruction of Samaria, they couldn't be accommodated inside the walls of Jerusalem. As late comers, they had to set up housekeeping outside the walls. This explanation that Huldah came from the new town area, meant that the group she lived among, was probably the group whose parents had come from the northern kingdom. This group got as close to Jerusalem as they could, and preached repentance and reform to their fellow Hebrews of the south. They were well informed about God's will, as they had brought with them from their destroyed northern homes, their priestly regulations and their Elohist traditions. By 622 BC the people of the southern kingdom had heard all about these "newcomers" and their books of legal regulations and ancestor traditions. These tales and laws of the "newcomers" may have been codified and put out before the public, early in Josiah's reign. They were probably what instigated Josiah's reform. Thus when a Book of The Law was discovered in the Jerusalem temple, all the important men rushed to show it to the person called Huldah who had had a hand in the codifying and editing of the legal and folk traditions from the north.

In implying that this codifier of law was a woman, Huldah the wife of Shallum, I am only making a suggestion. No prophet works in a vacuum, and this woman must have received encouragement and assistance from her husband and other members of the community. It is hard to visualize the process of organizing all the rules and regulations transcribed on decaying parchments and transported from the northern shrines, when we glance through our present day Book of Deuteronomy. It seems that this

book was not produced by a hand guided by a mind in a trancelike state. There is no claim for dictation by an angel. Whoever did this compilation must have worked "like a dog" gathering information and then consulting those who might be able to give enlightenment on the old customs. This person must have also prayed to God frequently for guidance and strength. I wish that more people would be interested in studying the beginnings of our Bible, so that we could understand the problems of previous times that led earlier people to propose certain ideas of God. If more research were done on biblical authors, we of today might be led to treat the Bible as a loving, guiding friend, instead of as an inflexible authority.

If Huldah were the editor of this northern biblical material, what must have been her feelings to hold and to recognize the Jahwist material, and to compare it with the material that she had assembled from the northern shrines! There is a further explanation about Shallum that may help to describe where he acquired this library of scrolls. Huldah's credentials state that she is the wife of Shallum, son of Tikvah, son of Harhas in II Kings 22 (Tokhath and Hasrah in II Chronicles 34). If we consider Harhas to be a name applied to the shrine at Beth Shemesh, and Tikvah to be the city of Tirzah, then we may read this phrase to mean that the library that Shallum keeps, came from the priestly or prophetic communities at Tirzah and at Beth Shemesh.

There may have been such a community at Tirzah. Names of places change over the centuries, and spellings may vary due to conquerors mispronouncing or giving their own language preference. When Ahijah, to whom I have assigned the possibility of initiating some of the Elohist tradition, left the kingdom of Rehoboam in the south, he returned to the northern shrine of Shiloh. Shiloh was near Tirzah which was the capital of the northern kingdom before the construction of the king's palace in the city of Samaria. The priests or prophets or ex-rulers at Ahijah's Shiloh, who compiled the Elohist material, may have stayed in the same area, and taken on the name of the near-by city of Tirzah. I Chronicles 2:55 mentions the Tirathites as being some of the Sopherim or wise people. As Ahijah's retreat at Shiloh was only a short walk to Tirzah (I Kings 14:17), this place may be the Tikvah or Tokhath where the scrolls were preserved.

Harhas may be a pagan name given to what had been a Hebrew shrine at Beth Shemesh.⁶ If the Hebrew shrine were taken over by the pagans, it would be appropriate to drop the Hebrew name. Beth Shemesh was the scene of a battle between Israel and Judah (II Kings 14:11). It had belonged first to one country, then to the other. When Shalmaneser overran the northern kingdom, the priests and scribes may have retreated to their southern

border, and stayed at Beth Shemesh until further harassment prodded them on to Jerusalem. Harhas is a name meaning temple of the sun, and the place may have been put to use as a pagan religious site by peoples whom the conquering Assyrians had relocated. Writings procured from the Beth Shemesh prophetic community might well be described as coming from Harhas. The writer of II Kings 22:14 may be telling us that Huldah is the authority on the written materials that have come from the northern shrine of Tirzah via the priestly community at Beth Shemesh.

In order to inspire such respect from the men of her generation, Huldah must have been a fabulous scholar, and also a holy woman of unimpeachable character. Leonard Swidler, a man of our generation, is so impressed with this portrayal of character that he terms Huldah the foundress of biblical studies.⁷ As we know that there was a talented compiler of biblical material about this time in Hebrew history, who has been given the name of the Deuteronomist by biblical scholars for the construction of the Book of Deuteronomy, I should like to equate Huldah with this person.

The Deuteronomist editor worked about 650 BC, shortly before the Jerusalemites were taken off to their Babylonian exile. Jeremiah the Prophet, who wrote the biblical Book of Jeremiah, shows a certain amount of Deuteronomist influence. We learn that Jeremiah had an uncle named Shallum (Jeremiah 32:7) and a father called Hilkiah of a priestly family (Jeremiah 1:1). Knowing this information and plugging it back into the incident at the court of King Josiah in II Kings 22, we see that these people who surrounded the king, had certain relationships, that Hilkiah as brother or brother-in-law of Shallum, knew Huldah very well, and that the reforming prophet Jeremiah, as Huldah's nephew, probably had a very solid theological background. Under these influences, Josiah was naturally led to be an ardent reformer, and to respect the wisdom and the prophecy of the woman Huldah.

4.5 Carried Away to Babylon

The Deuteronomist, who I am equating with Huldah, was responsible for the Book of Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist is also given credit by biblical scholars for the editing of the books of Joshua and Judges. In II Kings 22 Huldah is given the Jahwist material to add to her collection. She may have had the opportunity to work this material into the Pentateuch. She may have been the editor who combined the Jahwist material with the Elohist material, or she may have started on the project and been interrupted by events leading up to the Babylonian exile of the Jerusalemites. Huldah worked out of a loving community. Her husband supported her. Her relatives admired her. Her sons and daughters couldn't help but be impressed with her capabilities. Her nephew Jeremiah obviously learned from her and assisted her to the

utmost of his ability. The combining of the Deuteronomist version of the Pentateuch with the new found Book of The Law of Judea may well have been a community project. It is doubtful that Huldah and her friends completed this project. It would have been a very time consuming job, and political events intervened so that those who might have assisted Huldah, were in fear for their lives. Josiah was killed in battle with Egypt, and his sons who ruled after him, were either in deep difficulty with foreign powers, or not interested in the word of God to such an extent that they persecuted Huldah's nephew Jeremiah.

Josiah, the friend of Huldah and Jeremiah, died about 608 BC, and the people agreed that his twenty three year old son Joahez should be king. Joahez was displaced by his half brother Eliakim by a foreign potentate who renamed him Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim ruled eleven years before he got into trouble, and then was replaced by his eighteen year old son Jehoiachin about the year 597. This year was the time of the first deportation to Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar took young Jehoiachin and his mother and wives, plus many of the important people of Jerusalem, and hustled them off to Babylon. This was really a very fortunate circumstance for Jehoiachin, because although at first he was kept in captivity, he finally became an honored guest at the king's table, and the elite of Jerusalem who were carried away with him were able to form a strong faith community. Less fortunate was the next king who was appointed puppet ruler in Jerusalem. He was a younger son of Huldah's friend King Josiah, called Zedekiah, who ruled for about eleven years, only to see all his sons put to death. Jeremiah prophesied very actively in this reign, but Zedekiah refused to listen to him. In 587 BC the temple was destroyed and a second deportation to Babylon took place. Many of the remaining Jews fled to Egypt and other surrounding territories.

In the land of Palestine, there remained the poor and the landless, a ruined temple, and a city with broken down walls. All the elite had been deported or destroyed. What must it have been like to be dragged off under guard from their houses and farm lands? It is said that the Holy Spirit allowed the temple to be leveled in the good weather, so that the people would not perish because of cold, on their long despairing trek. Imagine the hard journey made by those accustomed to soft living. Did they have wagons or tents? Where did they live when they got there? What place did they get to? What did they take with them? One of the items they took in either the first or second deportation was the Book of The Law that had been discovered in the temple during the reign of the reformer Josiah. The material that was passed on by Shallum and his wife Huldah, was also

transported to Babylon, probably by members of the same gate-keeper and scribal guild families. Shallum had a son called Maaseiah who was an important official in the temple (Jeremiah 35:4) who may have had charge of these valuable scrolls. We also hear about a scribe named Shemaiah, whose job it may have been to copy these manuscripts.

The name Shemaiah used in the Bible often seems to connote a mysterious writer. One gets the impression that a person might sign his name as Shemaiah if he didn't want to admit his real name. This "Shemaiah" was evidently a person in the first deportation to Babylon in 597 BC, and he wanted to believe that his group would soon be allowed to return to their beloved Jerusalem. He took it upon himself to protest against a letter that Jeremiah sent to the Babylonian exiles telling them that they would be away from their homeland for seventy years (Jeremiah 29:4-23). Shemaiah suggested that they place an iron collar around Jeremiah's neck (Jeremiah 29:26). Jeremiah repays Shemaiah's letter about the iron collar by prophesying that Shemaiah won't have any male descendents to return to Israel after the seventy years of captivity (Jeremiah 29:32). What does a scribe do when he has no sons to whom he can pass on his guild type trade?

The scribe Shemaiah may have had to lean on the women in his family if he was so unfortunate with his sons. Back in his former home in Jerusalem, this scribe had worked in the temple with all the other scribes. In Babylon there was no such status filled place to work. You worked in your tent or in your mud hut. You worked with your wife and family right there beside you, in close quarters. If the Babylonian ruler knew that you had the skill of writing, he might summon you to his palace to record his documents. This might take you away from the job of copying the "Book of The Law," for a time. You might enlist the aid of your family at home, so that the work of copying the word of God might go on. Women weren't expected to write, so they wouldn't be called to the king's presence to do scribal duties. A scribe could teach his wife or daughters the writing trade at home, and they could do the copy work without arousing suspicion. Being a part time scribe for the Babylonian king had certain advantages. You might be able to explain to him the plight of your people, and the goodness of your God. If the king were a reasonable man, he might be influenced by your evangelizing. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, mentions two cases where Jews were able to become friends with future Babylonian kings, who later assisted them with supporting documents in their temple rebuilding.⁸

Later day legends of the Jews speak of the name Shemaiah ben Nethanel as somehow tied in with the Pentateuch of Moses, as if a scribe

by this name had given fullness and structure to the original Moses material, somewhere along the line, in the compilation of the Pentateuch.⁹ Shemaiah of the Babylonian exile may have headed up a scribal community that edited the Pentateuch in its final form. Thus his group may have gone under the name of Shemaiah ben Nethanel. Nethanel means "gift of God" and those who gave the Pentateuch would be scribes who gave the gift of God to the people. When Jeremiah wrote his prophecy against this Shemaiah of the exile community, he called him derogatorily "Shemaiah ben Nehelam," which means a person who is a dreamer or deluded. If an anonymous writer sent a letter to Jeremiah, using the name of a legendary talented scribe, Jeremiah could have used humor in replying with a name similar to the famous historical name, yet decidedly different. The situation would be similar to someone signing their letter The Gifted Anonymous Writer and having someone else respond writing to The Ungifted Anonymous Writer.

Two other places in biblical history where we might place a Shemaiah ben Nethanel are both spots where a scribe that brought honor to Moses, may have been active. In Numbers 1:8 Nethanel, a prince of the tribe of Issachar, is listed as one of the scribes who helps with the first census of Israel. (If we are to believe that all these census assistants could write, we can see that there was no problem with copying scrolls or writing histories.) A Nethanel guild member may have been an early biographer of Moses.

The second spot is more specific. The Chronicler has Shemaiah ben Nethanel registering tribal descendants in the days of David (I Chronicles 24:6). This may be an artistic touch that the Chronicler thought appropriate to illustrate scribal duties, or he may have heard that a Moses editor was active then (the Jahwist) and given that editor a complimentary name, or there may have been a real person, Shemaiah, in the time of David.

The Chronicler and the author of I Kings have a strange prophet in their histories concerning the time of Rehoboam (I Kings 12:21-24 and II Chronicles 11:1-4). Everyone obeys this person, and if he functioned in the days of David and again under Rehoboam forty years later, he must be either a revered elder or a fictitious explanation as to why two opposing armies decide not to fight. The structure of the Hebrew language is such that often it is difficult to tell whether it is a woman or man that is being talked about. If the scribal name of Shemaiah in this instance is being deferentially bestowed upon a woman elder of the community, this person heading off the suicidal battle between the two opposing clans may be the editor, by then quite elderly, that we believe to be the wife of Joab. Legends of the Jews, in connecting the name Shemaiah ben Nethanel to Moses,

may be giving us a clue to the re-editing of the Pentateuch that took place both in the time of David and Solomon, and to the final re-editing which took place during the Babylonian captivity, by a community of scribes under the guidance of someone who disagreed with Jeremiah's political views.

Shemaiah was not the only named writer of the Babylonian period. Jewish literature flourished in the oppressed time of the captivity. Can this be because women (who are as equally endowed as men with creative ability) were given the household opportunity of using their talents? Women were superfluous to the scribal set-up in the male dominated temple, but in Babylon, gifted women had the chance to serve God with their abilities. Shemaiah may have had a talented wife, daughter, or female relative who applied her genius to the organizing of God's word. The name Shemaiah may have been the protective anonymous covering for the talented wife or daughter of a scribe.

There is another reason for suspecting the voice of a woman in the Babylonian captivity writings. Some of this material has a womanly ring. Psalm 137 laments, "Beside the streams of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion." The first half of this Psalm very likely had its beginnings in a group of refugee women doing their laundry by the riverside. It is conceivable that men would weep, but it is much more likely that these captives were the female section of the community. To them we owe the first gentle part of the song, and after the song gained popularity, some male singer, breathing out vengeance and too macho to cry, added the threat of smashing babies on rocks ( Psalm 137:9).

All the known Hebrew scriptures were revised during the stay in Babylon, and we don't know who did it. John Bright in A History of Israel describes the exilic situation and the tremendous amount of scribal work done. Deuteronomy and Joshua to II Kings, the material of the Deuteronomist, was reedited and given additional commentary. The prophetic works were assembled and enlarged to include vindicated prophecies. The Priestly code that contained the practice of the Jerusalem temple, was set down, so that in event of a return, descendants would have full information on ritual. The Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch which started at the Creation story and continued on to describe the giving of the ordinances at Sinai, was composed at this time.¹⁰ History does not give us any name to credit for this vast accomplishment. Can the identity of the main compiler of this work be hidden, because she was a woman?

We have the names and know the style of prophecy of many exilic writers. Our Bibles contain the books of the prophets Habakkuk, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Obadiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel. None of these books

contain quite the same style as is manifested by the final editor of the Pentateuch whom we term the Priestly author. There may be similarities of style and content between the Priestly author's material and the second section of Isaiah, and also similarity of content with the Priestly author and Ezekiel. Is it possible to date these writings more precisely? Haggai and Zechariah both have prophecies to encourage the grandson of King Jehoiachin, Zerubbabel, who might be termed the pretender to the throne (Haggai 2:2 and Zechariah 4:6). The second part of Isaiah goes beyond the time of Zerubbabel and mentions Cyrus the Persian as God's instrument to destroy Assyrian domination (Isaiah 44:28). Thus a good date for pin-pointing the writing of this second section of Isaiah, is between 550 and 540 BC, mid-exilic, when Cyrus was the ground of the hope for a Jewish return. In dating the prophet Ezekiel, who is either a priest or son of a priest, we find that he left Jerusalem with the first group of exiles in 597 BC and prophesied rather regularly for about thirty years. Not only did the conditions of the exile promote the possibility of feminine scribes, but our present day model of synagogue was initiated at this time. Looking at the captivity in hindsight, it can be seen as a period of dramatic rejuvenation in a stagnant religion. Forced contact with the Babylonians created renewed interest in the creation traditions.¹¹ Hebrew women confronting the more feminine religion of Assyria, may have searched for and found womanly qualities in the masculine warrior God who led their ancestors out of the land of Egypt. In such an atmosphere a woman may have been encouraged by an open-minded community, to use her talents. Perhaps a group of women undertook a joint literary venture under the guidance of a male overseer.

Later history gives us a documented example of such a joint venture, in the translation of the Bible into Latin, supposedly by Jerome. St. Marcella and "the girls,"—Fabiola, Paula, Blaesilla, and Paulina, were the women who worked on this project. Jerome generously dedicated his commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel to the lady St. Eustochium, "because she learned Hebrew and spoke it with no accent."¹² We assume she used this faultless Hebrew to give us her Latin translation of The Suffering Servant of Isaiah (with the help of the Holy Spirit, of course). In thinking about the translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, we must keep in mind that Greek and Hebrew are both languages that often hide the female gender in the all-encompassing male word. Some of these able women translators as they came out of a patriarchal society, may have inadvertently hidden possible female interpretations from later readers. Yet we must give credit where credit is due, and affirm that these women made an excellent translation for their time and culture. They did the work on the Vulgate, but

according to their societal customs, a man's name, the name Jerome, was put on their accomplishment.

4.6 A Little Child Shall Lead Them

In picturing a group of scribal women working industriously in Babylon, it is important to realize that there is no way to confirm this situation. Women's names are rarely mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures, and if they did write something, it would have to be affirmed by a male, as women were not legal witnesses. One woman is mentioned as living about mid-exile time, but we are given no reason for her name being set down in I Chronicles 3:19. The heir to the Jewish throne, Zerubbabel, had one daughter named Shelomith.

At another spot in Chronicles we come across the name Shelomith as a person of the Gershom-Ladan guild, who is in charge of everything that was dedicated for use within the temple (I Chronicles 26:28). This Shelomith is supposedly connected with the time of David, but often the Chronicler sets his actors in the days of David in order to illustrate to his post-exile audience how things should be done. Shelomith is a gate-keeper guild name, related to Shallum. Members of this guild "were responsible for the Covenant Box, the table, the lamp stand, the altars, the utensils the priests use in the Holy Place, and the curtain at the entrance to the Most Holy Place. They were responsible for all the service connected with these items" (Numbers 3:31). As we look from these early duties described in Numbers 3, to the situation in Babylon where friends met at the home of Ezekiel and formed a synagogue community, and where women in the homes had more opportunity to participate in service to the Lord than had been possible for them in the temple, we wonder if a young woman might fulfill the duties of scribe, book keeper, and guardian of religious articles in the home synagogue. Such a capable woman might be honored with the guild-type name of Shelomith.

My proposal is that this person Shelomith, the daughter of Zerubbabel, is the Priestly author whom Bible scholars credit with the Creation Story of the first chapter of Genesis, and with the total re-editing of the Pentateuch. My theory is that not only was the author of Genesis 1, a woman, but that this Shelomith was a very young woman who sat at the feet of the elderly Ezekiel and absorbed his wisdom, and may herself have had privileged enlightenment from God. She may have been barely past her teen age years when she wrote Genesis and coordinated the final edition of the Pentateuch. As this editor has so often been designated by (P), standing for Priestly Author, or one from the priestly community at Babylon, I should like to

continue to designate her with a (P), yet let the (P) stand for the Peaceful One, as her writings inspire us towards an active pursuit of peace. Not only are her writings peace directed, but the name she is called in the Bible (I Chronicles 3:19), Shelomith, a variation on Shallum or Solomon or Salome, has the meaning of Peace.

I should like to offer a word here about the origin of my women- writers-of-the-Bible theory. We accept that Augustine's conversion was due in part to a small voice he heard while he was in a semi-dream like state, saying, "Take and read."¹³ He read, and he found inspiration. My theory comes from the same sort of direction. Modern psychologists tell us that our subconscious transmits well at a point between our sleeping and our waking, where we have one foot in our conscious and the other in our subconscious. If one prays for guidance from the Holy Spirit, an answer may come in this sleeping-waking moment when the mind is less cluttered with other things, and at its most receptive and perceptive. The Holy Spirit sends her inspiration for a particular time and place. I believe that if you or I sincerely ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, she will give us the inspiration that is good and proper for us at our particular station in life. If those around us disagree with our inspiration, it becomes necessary for us all to listen humbly to one another's ideas and seek for God speaking in each other. Through consensus the loving community can come closer to the heart of God.

In my search for inspiration on women who may have contributed to the biblical collection, I sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I am a woman and have a deep inner wish to believe certain things about the strengths and capabilities of women, my inner thoughts tend to help confirm me in my beliefs. As my opinions are tilted in a certain direction, I have a tendency to draw conclusions that support my direction. The whole community would gain more wisdom on the subject and would aid in the overcoming of personal biases such as mine, if persons with varying opinions consulted the Spirit and discussed their findings with each other. I am hopeful that more people will meditate on the place of women in biblical history, let their ideas be known, and open their minds to each other's proposals.

In my puzzling over the connection between Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Genesis 1, during a moment of half-sleeping, half-waking, the words, "A little child shall lead them," (Isaiah 11:6) came to my mind. Then I thought of Shelomith, the daughter of the pretending king of Judah, Zerubbabel. In the home synagogue, wouldn't she be everyone's favorite and the recipient of special privileges? Wouldn't it be logical for her to become the friend

and companion of the lonely widower, Ezekiel? Did not Ezekiel claim to have protected a baby girl (Ezekiel 16)? What would be the position of a female child, in a royal family where the king's sons were taken to be eunuchs at the Babylonian court? If descendents of David could not produce male heirs, would the Jewish patriarchy track lineage through the female line? On the other hand, would captive female royalty be expected to live in the harem of their conquerors?

There is another story placed during the Babylonian captivity. This tale of Esther and Mordecai describes a Jewess who became a member of the harem of the conquering royalty. The name Esther means secret or hidden. The name Mordecai means contrition or bitter bruising with sorrow.¹⁴ The young maiden Esther found favor with the king. The elderly male relative Mordecai cares for her, as her parents are out of the picture. Due to this relationship, God's people are served and saved. This story fits in with the Ezekiel-Shelomith theme of an elder in charge of a young maiden, or it may be relating a true history of other individuals.

Ezekiel, the son of the priest Buzi, is a pessimist. He is the prophet who saw the vision of The Wheel, representing the glory of God, by the banks of the river Chebar, or Kabaru, near the Babylonian city of Nippur. Ezekiel seems to have certain problems and sufferings. Not only is he exiled in the first deportation of 597 BC, but he loses the wife he loves dearly, nine years later, and is told not to mourn her (Ezekiel 24:17). At one point he is paralyzed, even to the point where he is unable to speak (Ezekiel 3:25). Perhaps in this state, he undergoes the lying on one side and then the other for the sum total of four hundred and thirty days described in Ezekiel 4:4-6. Another affliction he mentions is trembling (Ezekiel 12:17). He does have the respect of the community who come to him in his house and listen to his advice (Ezekiel 8:1, 14:1, and 20:1). He laments for Judah's kings who will never be strong again (Ezekiel 19:14), and he is firm on keeping the Sabbath holy (Ezekiel 20:20), which is a theme of Genesis 1. Other similarities between Genesis and Ezekiel are found in the trees of Eden (Genesis 2:9 and Ezekiel 31:18) and the karibu animals as guardians of the holy (Genesis 3:24 and Ezekiel 1:5). Ezekiel compares Judah and Samaria to two prostitutes, Cholah and Cholibah (Ezekiel 23), which also may be a way for him to tell a young virgin in his care, the facts of life. The name Ezekiel (other forms are Jehezkel and Hezekiah) means God strengthens.

4.7 The Peaceful Author and The Book of Isaiah

Besides the similarities in Genesis 1 and Ezekiel, we can also note a common spirit visible in Genesis 1 and the second section of Isaiah. Many biblical scholars have wondered about The Suffering Servant Songs in the Book of  Isaiah.

Of particular interest is the Fourth Song that seems to describe a return from death (Isaiah 53:8-10).¹⁵ For Jews in the sixth century BC who believed that an individual lived only in his descendants, this must have been a new theological conception. Scholars Mowinckel and Haller suggest that the Servant is a kind of Anti-Cyrus figure. At first, Cyrus, the Persian who overthrew the Babylonians, is predicted with joy (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1), but he still remains a worshiper of false gods, and is therefore a disappointment. Thus after the initial enthusiasm for Cyrus, Isaiah turns to a savior figure who accomplishes God's dream for Israel through another means, that of teaching, prophecy, and finally, suffering and death.¹⁶

The Book of Isaiah is divided generally into three major parts. It began by being the work of a prophet who was a contemporary of King Uzziah who reigned from 784 to 742 BC, a bit before the fall of the northern kingdom of Samaria when the land was generally prosperous. Chapters 1-39 of Isaiah are primarily the work of this early prophet. The exceptions to this authorship are parts that describe the exiled community, about which early Isaiah had no knowledge. The writer of Isaiah 10:5 knows that Assyria has already attacked. Isaiah 10:20 predicts the return of a few exiles. Isaiah 11:2-9 knows about the exilic community, and predicts a new Davidic king and a peaceful Judean kingdom. It contains the line, "A little child shall lead them," and then speaks more of the return of the exiles. These verses may have been set down as either something that occurred during exilic times, that was a special case, or they may relate to a special custom of the exilic community which recognized leadership abilities in a childlike individual (as Jesus did in Matthew 18:2). These inserted parts in the first section of Isaiah may have been put in by one of the people who wrote the remainder of the Book of Isaiah. The second part of the Book of Isaiah, chapters 40 to 55, is authored by an unknown person living under the exile, and contains the Suffering Servant Songs. Again, some portions of this section may be by other individuals. The writer of the third section of Isaiah was a post-exilic person who knew about the return from Babylon and the rebuilt temple.

The parts of Isaiah designated as Suffering Servant Songs are 42:1-4, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, and 52:13 to 53:12. I wish to attribute them to the name Shelomith, the Peaceful One, who I believe wrote the final edition of the Pentateuch, and its introduction in Genesis 1. If we consider that she was a woman, we can believe that she would not be listened to, if she shouted and raised her voice, or made loud speeches in the streets (as stated in Isaiah 42:2). However, she knew in her heart that distant lands eagerly awaited her teaching (Isaiah 42:4), the compilation of the word of God that

would be her gift to humanity. She believed that her words were as sharp as a sword and that she was like an arrow ready for use (Isaiah 49:2), that God had made her a light to the nations so that all the world might be saved (Isaiah 49:6). She knew full well the responsible job she had been given. We treasure our Bibles, and she was instrumental in giving us this treasure. Our Bibles teach us of God's Messiah, and through the diligence of this author, this light is given to the world. She set down her thoughts of God. "Every morning he makes me eager to hear what he is going to teach me" (Isaiah 50:4).

There are certain advanced theological similarities between Second Isaiah and Genesis 1. In Genesis the heavens are created, and in Isaiah 40:26 God creates the stars. There is the challenge to false gods in Isaiah 41, and in Genesis we are assured that the sun and the moon are not gods, but merely creations of the only God. The most striking feature about both works is their optimism. In Genesis there is a good God who creates good. In Isaiah even death can not destroy the goodness of a good man. Even though the good man is dead and entombed (Isaiah 53:9), he will see his descendants, live a long life, and God's purposes will succeed in him (Isaiah 53:10). This is affirmed in Ezekiel 18.

Ezekiel, whose wife died early in their marriage, may have had some experience of life-after-life that he tried to communicate to his community. The writer of Isaiah 53:7-9 must have understood his philosophy. Perhaps she is describing the death of Ezekiel in this passage, where a man is arrested, sentenced, led off to die, and placed in a grave with evil men. She set down emphatically for her present generation and for us in the future that after a life of suffering, the good man will again have joy (Isaiah 53:11). This peaceful author had known a suffering prophet and had accepted his strange ways and afflictions. The bitter pessimism in the Book of Ezekiel is transformed into loving, living words in Second Isaiah and the Pentateuch. Through Ezekiel's sufferings and prayers and the support of a loving community, the Peaceful One is able to accomplish a momentous task.

The most likely date for the Second section of Isaiah, is between 550 and 540 BC, as it knows of the conqueror Cyrus. As Zerubbabel's daughter, the earliest possible birthdate for Shelomith is 565 BC. Ezekiel's prophecies stop about 567, and his work has no knowledge of Cyrus. Friendship between Shelomith and Ezekiel could have taken place after 565 when he may have been too afflicted to write. The Servant Song may have been written about 20 years later by the Peaceful One, to commemorate her friend Ezekiel.

There were many prophets and scribes doing duty in Babylon, and

the Peaceful One doubtless worked out of a community that gave her support and criticism. However, the originality of her theology and the thoroughness of her work, coupled with her optimism, lead us to believe that this compiled Pentateuch was the creation of one person who was seeking to please God, as God's guidance came through a beloved elder. The writer and her revered friend accomplished a monumental task for the good of the world.

NOTES

1 Peter Ellis, The Men and The Message of The Old Testament (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 175.

2 E. A. Speiser, Genesis (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor, 1983), p. 3.

3 Alexander Cruden, Complete Concordance (Philadelphia: Lippincott, no date), p. 710.

4 Implied in Judges 17:5, in II Samuel 8:18, and in Isaiah 66:21.

5 T. W. Manson and H. H. Rowley, A Companion To The Bible (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), p. 18.

6 R. Seguineau and O. Odelain, Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in The Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981).

7 Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Women (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), p. 88.

8 William Whiston, Works of Josephus Vol. II (Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1865), p. 207, Zerubbabel as friend of Darius, p. 221, Esdras as friend of Xerxes.

9 Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of The Jews Vol. VI (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968), pp. 269, 270.

10 John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 350.

11 Walter Rast, Tradition History and The Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 71.

12 Olga Hartley, Women and The Catholic Church (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1935), pp. 14, 15.

13 Augustine, Confessions (London: Sheed and Ward, 1949), p. 141.

14 Alexander Cruden, loc.cit., p. 714.

15 John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor, 1968), p. xxxix.

16 ibid., p. xlviii.

Chapter V: A BLACK WOMAN
SAVES THE JEWISH RACE

5.1 Laying The Ghost of Shemaiah

It is possible for the word of God in our Bible to come through women as well as men. With other Bible scholars I agree that the combination of authors which is mainly responsible for the Pentateuch can be lined up as M-J-E-D-P. However, I will give a slightly different interpretation for each of the initials. Starting from the end, I have suggested that the Priestly author, a young lady by the name of Shelomith, should be called the Peaceful One. (D) still stands for the Deuteronomist, the prophetess Huldah. (E) is the Elohist who may or may not be an Ex-queen from among the Ephraimites in northern Israel. (J) stands for the Jahwist (or Yahwist, but I prefer to use the German spelling) and (J) also stands for Joab's wife. The (M) could stand for Moses or for some involvement of Moses' wife. I would like to suggest that we change the (M) to (Z) in order to emphasize that it is just as likely that Moses' wife Zipporah wrote down the early material, as that Moses himself wrote it down. It seems that as Moses is the one who is being written about, that someone other than Moses wrote the material. Most of the early Moses' material is information about Moses after he met up with his wife. The stories that are in the early written tradition, are things that Moses' wife would know about, and are given from an observer viewpoint.

Perhaps other people could write, besides Moses and his wife. I have mentioned the name of Shemaiah ben (son of) Nethanel as a legendary biographer of Moses. It is true that there is a scribe Nethanel mentioned (Numbers 1:8) who knows how to write and who could have had a son who logged the long journey through the wilderness. However, I would like to lay the ghost of this Shemaiah. Shemaiah is a scribal name, and it seems that the early Hebrews recognized that Moses was not writing about himself, and that someone near Moses was telling the story. They may even have suspected that it was a woman. It may be that whenever there is a possibility of a woman scribe, she is given a male scribal non-de-plume, as females in Hebrew culture could not be legal witnesses. Shemaiah is a dominant name in the scribal guild line and has the meaning of "hears and obeys," so was a good name to pick for mysterious authors. When the name

Nethanel is added, it is complimentary; it means that what you wrote is God-given. Nethanel means "gift of God." Shemaiah ben Nethanel is a good name for a woman writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

When there is a possibility of a woman author, as the wife of Moses, and the wife of Joab, we find the Talmud tradition suggesting this mysterious scribe, Shemaiah. Another scribe is given credit for helping with the Prophecy of Ezekiel. We are told to "revere the memory of Chananiah ben Chiskiyah for had it not been for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, because of the contradictions it offers to the words of the law."¹ Chananiah reconciled the discrepancies with three hundred bottles of oil! The name Chananiah ben Chiskiyah is a possible Assyrianized version of Shemaiah son of Shishak. Shishak seems to have been an appropriate scribal guild name ever since the time of David. We may have here a pseudonym for a female editor, perhaps Shelomith, the Peaceful One. The fact that one hundred bottles of oil were used to smooth the works of Ezekiel, makes one suspect that there is something fictitious about the whole explanation. It might make us dubious about the reality of any Shemaiah. When the name Shemaiah is used we begin to suspect a non-de-plume. We already have two examples, one in the time of David, which may be the Wise Woman from Tekoa; and the other in the time of the Babylonian Captivity, which may be Shelomith, the Peaceful One. Let's investigate the possibilities of a Shemaiah type in the time of the Exodus.

5.2 The Wife of Moses

Hopefully, I have opened up the possibility of female authorship in the final exilic edition of the Pentateuch. Let's go back to the Pentateuch traditions themselves and see what they tell us about a woman's place in the community. The Talmud gives us a notion of the respect that Moses had for women. It has him saying that humans would never have sinned, if God had only given the directions about the trees in Eden, to Eve, instead of to Adam. Moses was a humble man, and would have been the first one to admit that he couldn't have led the people out of Egypt without female assistance.

Moses was a flesh and blood man, and he had a wife. We women know how heavily men lean on women, particularly their wives, for support and comfort. We may have the impression that Moses' wife was an ordinary little shepherd girl whom he picked up, by engaging her in conversation by a well. Josephus states that Moses' wife was the daughter of a king. The Bible says her father was a priest, and no ordinary priest, but a man whose name is given as Reuel, meaning a "friend of God." To be known as a friend of God, back in those days, meant that God had taken a liking to you and obviously blessed you with the goods of this world. This

gentleman was well-heeled. His daughter would be a good marriage prospect for an educated man coming from the court of the pharaoh. As daughter of a prosperous and holy man, Moses' wife had access to the religious and cultural stimulation of her day. She knew by heart the stories of history and genealogy that were related by visiting minstrels or by the story tellers of her own household.

Moses married her, not just because of the secular power of her father, but because she was a charming woman. He was accepted as son-in-law as he was an Egyptian courtesan (Did he tell his in-laws that he was a murderer?), and he surely made himself useful to Reuel with his writing talent, setting down accounts, or even priestly regulations. He may have taught his wife to write, or she may have learned how to do it, just from watching him.

If a group of people today are having a meeting, and a secretary is needed to take notes, it is inevitably a woman who is asked to do the writing. In the desert Moses had to judge the people from morning to evening; he didn't have too much time to write anything down. If he had any inspired words, he may have passed them on to his wife-secretary. Looking at this from a woman's viewpoint, there is no reason for us to believe that all the inspired words came from Moses. Women are just as capable of thinking great thoughts as men are, although generations of men have been slow to admit it. Let's be impartial and suggest the possibility that some of the work which was attributed to Moses, both in composing the tradition and leading the people, was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the mind and hands of his wife. The historical picture shows that all the God-inspired actions of Moses took place after he teamed up with this remarkable woman. His record in Egypt pre-Zipporah, sketched Moses as a quick tempered young man who had difficulty relating to his own people.

We know several things about the wife of Moses. Biblical names give clues to character, and her name, Zipporah, has many possible meanings. In the feminine it means beauty or trumpet. The masculine word zippor can have the various interpretations of bird, sparrow, crown, desert, goat, or early in the morning.² Through her father Zipporah could trace her lineage back to Abraham. This father is variously known as Jethro (E-source, Exodus 3:1), Hobab of the family of Reuel (J-source, Numbers 10:29), and simply as Reuel, a religious man of Midian (Exodus 2:16-18). Midian was the descendant of the woman Keturah who mothered six of Abraham's sons (Genesis 25:1-2). In order that his son Isaac not be troubled by land disputes with these sons of lesser importance, Abraham gave gifts to them and sent them in an easterly direction. Midian ended up in northwest

Arabia, where his descendants may have remembered Abraham's God and his covenant of circumcision. In Judges 1:16 Hobab is also called a Kenite, which is a term used for the guild of metal workers and miners. Hobab himself is never referred to as a black, but his daughter Zipporah is called a Cushite (Numbers 12:1), a name reserved for dark skinned people, as from the land of Ethiopia. Perhaps Zipporah's mother was a black woman.

Moses, having killed a man in Egypt, fled from the punishment due to him, into the land of Midian. Our heroine, one of the seven daughters of Jethro (seven means he had all the daughters he needed, and might imply he had no sons), had started to water her father's flocks, and been pushed aside by certain rough male shepherds. Moses took this opportunity to befriend the young ladies (of whom there may only have been two [Koran XXVIII:23]). We don't know if Moses discouraged the male shepherds by physical force or persuasive words, but his valiant action won him the position of official shepherd and also the hand of Zipporah in marriage.

5.3 A Priestess of The Rite of Circumcision?

In marrying Zipporah, Moses became acquainted with the shepherding area of the Sinai wilderness, observed the phenomenon of manna, heard the folk tales of the Midianites, and learned about their respect for the God of Being for all men (Exodus 3:14). He kept in mind his Hebrew relatives, and received his father-in-law's permission to return to Egypt. He put Zipporah and his first born son on a donkey, and they set out on their journey (Exodus 4:20). Jethro, as priest, surely gave this family all the religious support they needed for a proper ceremonial send-off, yet something was lacking, for as they went, forces that are difficult to understand, tried to do away with Moses. These forces were somehow overcome by the performance of the sacred religious rite of circumcision (Exodus 4:25, 26). This rite as described also in Joshua 5:2, is performed by a sharpened flint instrument, and Zipporah, as daughter of a priest, doubtless knew the proper words to say, and had the skill to perform the operation. The circumstances of Moses' infancy were not conducive to circumcision, and Moses at this point in his life may have been near death from a preputial infection. Translators of this passage are uncertain as to whom the he pronouns refer, but one thing is certain:— the life of Moses is spared as a result of Zipporah's deed. Her performance of the rite of circumcision on either her son or her husband, saved the situation. Moses was able to serve the Hebrew Exodus only because of the skillful and inspired action of a black woman.

In the female oriented religions of the ancient Near East, circumcision may have been regularly performed by a woman on her infant, and only later given into the custody of the male priesthood. The words, "You

are a bridegroom of blood to me," may have been the ritual words said by a woman who married an uncircumcised man. Having been raised in the pharaoh's household, Moses may not have been circumcised. Other religious symbolism is evidenced in the sprinkling of the blood. Leviticus 17:11 affirms that "blood which is life takes away sins." Could this be a compensatory act for the homicide that Moses had committed earlier? There is also the possibility that this passage is dealing with a formal consecration of Moses to the service of God, performed by his wife as priestess, where the anointing with blood purifies Moses for his destined work. In making Moses pleasing to God, either through healing skill, personal inspiration, or through proper performance of a religious ritual, Zipporah saved Moses' life, and thus enabled him to rescue the Hebrews from slavery and to assist them in becoming a people.

5.4 The Dismissal

Being the wife of an important man is never easy. If it's difficult today to be black and a woman, think what it must have been like 3300 years ago, wandering in the desert! Certain Hebrews considered Zipporah an outsider and resented her influence with Moses. Miriam, the prophetess, complained against Zipporah (Numbers 12:1), and the Lord punished Miriam for her prejudice by temporarily turning her skin as white as snow with leprosy. Some biblical interpreters see the diseased whitening of Miriam, as opposed to the healthy darker skin of Zipporah, as a sign of God's judgment against all forms of discrimination.

At the next instance of Hebrew rebellion, God offers to strike down these unruly people and to make of Moses (we assume with Zipporah) a great nation (Numbers 14:12; Exodus 32:9, 10). Moses is tempted to accept the offer, but he can't bear to desert those who are trusting God and himself to lead them to freedom. Does the fact that Moses opts for the Hebrews when given this choice, mean that he has to send his own family away? We know that at some point in the desert wanderings, Zipporah was dismissed, because later she returns bringing her father with her (Exodus 18:2). Jethro gives much good managerial advice to Moses, and then in the E-tradition tales, he returns to his own territory. In the J-tradition Moses tries to persuade his father-in-law to be their guide (Numbers 10:29-32), and it is later reported that a group of Kenites did go along with the Israelis (Judges 1:16). Could the cloud by day and the fire by night, as a sign of God's protective guidance, have been the signal fires set by Zipporah's trail blazing relatives?

5.5 Other Possible References to Zipporah

There may be other places in the Bible where we can find information about

Zipporah. Looking at the Book of Ruth, we come across a wonderful expression of love from a person of one tribe to a person from another. It is used today by blacks and whites to affirm their solidarity. It was supposedly used first by a Moabite daughter-in-law to confirm her devotion to her dead husband's mother. Where did the scribe who wrote at Solomon's court, or the redactor of Captivity times, get this choice tidbit? They supposedly had access to material handed down from Moses' time, where two people, perhaps Moses and Zipporah, might have had the opportunity to address these words to each other:— "Don't ask me to leave you. Let me go with you. Wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Wherever you die, I will die, and that is where I will be buried. May the Lord's worst punishment come upon me if I let anything but death separate me from you" (Ruth 1:16).

Everyone thinks of Moses as the great law giver, but it is possible that he was also the great lover of the Song of Songs. If we look closely at the Song, we may find traces of Zipporah there. Solomon's scribes were not as successful as they would have liked to have been, in up-dating the love song to the days of Solomon. Women were rather oppressed in the days of Solomon, but it hadn't always been that way. In the beginning, Adam and Eve were described as being equal but different, helpmates, side by side. It may have been something like that in the thirteenth century BC when the Exodus took place, but in Solomon's time his women were collected together in a harem, and none of them was his equal. At least their daily needs were cared for. Other women in Solomon's culture had a harder time of it. If they were widowed and had no sons to support them, they had to cozy up to the next male kin of their deceased husband. Thus they would have a chance of becoming pregnant with a male child who could support them in their declining years. Women who had only daughters, were as badly off as women who had no children at all, in regard to financial stability. From the days of the wandering tribe with community support for all in need, Israel had come to a point where women could not inherit property, but were themselves property.³ The collective command of God to God's people, to honor their fathers and mothers, had degenerated into giving honor to certain authoritative males, and forcing women into prostitution to keep their stomachs filled. Our female writer of the Book of Genesis tells us about this situation in the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38), which although told about a pre-Exodus individual, reflects a post-Exodus society.

The Song of Songs, as earlier material, speaks of a free-ranging love affair, where the woman runs after the man, just as much as the man seeks

out the woman. She takes him to her mother's house, not her father's. In this arrangement we catch a glimpse of a society where women could own property, as in Exodus times when Israel was still under the influence of the Egyptian culture in which women had rights as well as men.

We picture Moses as law giver, but we must remember that he had a human side. If he was capable of writing down history and law, he (or his wife) could have easily set down love poetry in gentler moments. These fragments might have been preserved with the legal and historical documents. The scribes of Solomon's day, valuing these writings from an earlier generation, would have put this material that they considered sacred, to good use, by attributing their sentiments to the king they served, and by inserting them into their tenth century BC liturgies.

In the eight century BC, The Song of Songs was read on the eighth day of the Passover celebration, which custom may have gone back for ages, even pre-Solomon. It may have played a part in the drama of the thirteenth century BC, and been a ship's captain type of marriage ceremony, for the unwedded of the original Exodus. Circulating through the Near East, parts of it may have been recited to bless marriages other than Hebrew, and to celebrate festivals to strange gods and goddesses. Besides its liturgical value, the Song was a celebration song, at banquet halls and at joyous public gatherings. The priestly leaders of the people tried to discourage this unseemly use of holy material. Even today we are instructed that this material refers to God and God's love for his people. Unfortunately, we don't often find God's people reciprocating so responsively.

The Song has an elusive geographical background. As the people who sang the Song moved around, they had to change a few words here and there, to fit their new locale. Place names come from Judea, Israel, Transjordan, and Syria. At one moment we are in the desert, and then we are confronted with a city environment. The bit about the watchmen on the walls of the city (Song 5:7) may have been inserted by the scribes of Solomon, to warn young women as to what might befall, if they took the Song too seriously and went out seeking their beloved in the middle of the night. The desert topography was of a safer pre-Solomon time, and nothing too serious would happen to a woman strolling around under the desert stars.

Reading through the Song we find a startling fact. This couple is inter-racial! The woman says, "I am black, but beautiful" (Song 1:5). She describes the man as "white and ruddy ... his head is golden ... his locks ... black as a raven; ... his belly is ivory ... his legs, alabaster ..." (5:10, 11, 14, 15). This black and white situation brings to mind the anger of Miriam, the prophetess, directed against a dark skinned woman (Numbers 12:1). The

Song 6:12 and 7:1 calls the woman a Sulamitess. Perhaps this can refer to a beautiful young woman, Abishag of Sulen, who became the wife of the aging king David. She won the beauty contest for all Israel, and thus her name may be an addition from Solomon's day. If we search further back into history, we find a tribal family in Numbers 26:42 called the Suhamites. The Suhamites may be descendents of Suham, or of a similar sounding name, Cham, who was also Ham, son of Noah (Genesis 5:31). Ham's descendents settled in Arabia and Africa. They are rumored to have been the ancestors of the black race. This interpretation of the word Sulamitess would fit in with the "black but beautiful" theme. Ham is the father of Cush, which ties in with the condemnation by Miriam. As Zipporah was black, we have our first piece of evidence that the Song may at one time have been the love song of Moses and his wife.

Another positive fact that favors the Moses' theory, is the occupation of the couple. We know that Zipporah was a herder of goats, because she met her husband while waiting to water her flock (Exodus 2:16). We know that Moses also herded for his father-in-law. The two people in this poem have the occupation of herders. In 1:7 the woman inquires, "Where will you lead your flock to graze?" The man answers that she should take her flock to graze close by the shepherd's tents. Herding was the occupation of many people in those early times, but it certainly was not the occupation of King Solomon (or his wives), so it is obvious that an editorial hand is putting in the king's name, without changing other details of the poem to correspond.⁴ Who are the herder-lovers? It is not likely that most of those who herded sheep and goats would be important enough people to rate their special place in an inter-racial love-song.

The love described in this Song seems very committed, but Moses and Zipporah had a problem with their togetherness. Moses "dismissed" his wife. This seems like a very sad end for such a burgeoning love affair. Exodus 18:2 describes Moses' father-in-law coming to the camp in the desert:— "Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, brought Moses' wife Zipporah - after she had been dismissed - with her two sons." Looking at the verb "dismissed" or the translation "he had sent her home," we note that they do not say that he had put her away or that he had divorced her. They may connote a simple permission. We ask ourselves for what reason Zipporah was allowed to return home. There is an answer in The Song of Songs. Verse 6:12 describes how in the spring time the woman was stricken with a terrible homesickness and wanted to be back among her own people. When a great leader has a beautiful black wife, who is lonely among all those whiteys who don't understand her, what does he do? He gives her permission to return to her own.

But they all miss her. All the women of Zion sing out for her to come back (Song 6:13). The woman wonders why the man wants her back. He has probably missed her cooking, but he says jokingly, "Because you dance so beautifully!" Zipporah could have been the leader of the women dancers in their campfire evenings under the desert stars. The name Zipporah has as one of its meanings "trumpet." Could Zipporah have had anything to do with the original sound effects that later accompanied the covenant drama described in Exodus 19:16 and 20:18? Zipporah may have had other parts to play in the original Exodus story. Song 3:6 questions, "Who is she that goeth up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices ...?" It continues on to describe King Solomon's warriors holding swords. It may be describing the attendants at a wedding festival in the desert. The first section about a pillar of smoke sounds like a throwback to Exodus 13:21. "The Lord went before them to show the way by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire." It has been suggested that this pillar of fire and cloud was the signal fire of friendly Kenites who were the pathfinders of Moses as he led his people through the desert. As Zipporah was a Kenite, she may have been the adventurous woman who helped to set the signal fires. At some point, this signal fire or pillar of cloud that represented a guiding Yahweh, ceased to lead the people, and at some point, Zipporah got homesick, and returned to her childhood home. On the other hand, both pillars in the Song and in Exodus may be referring to liturgical incense, used in a religious ceremony or wedding. We must keep in mind, however, that women are very capable of leading wilderness expeditions. In our own days we have the example of Sakajawea leading the Lewis and Clark exploration.

Another verse that causes us to think that Moses may be the Beloved, is Song 1:9. The Song ranges back and forth from desert to city. Solomon was a city lad. He doesn't fit in with the possible translation, "To my company of horsemen, in pharaoh's chariots, have I likened thee, my love." Pharaoh is another time and place than Solomon's Jerusalem. Who would be in with a company of pharaoh's horsemen, and also be a sheep herder? Moses seems like a likely candidate.

Song 8:2 has the woman taking the man to her mother's house. This was not likely to be King Solomon. Women would be taken to his house, never the other way around. Verse 5:16 has the woman calling her man friend. This is the highest tribute of a wife to her husband and none of Solomon's wives would have dared to call him friend. The equality of the Adam and Eve story is reflected in Song 7:10, "I to my beloved, and his

turning is towards me." They equally turn to each other.

The Song ends on the same note of equality. The couple are back in the desert. The choir sings, "Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?" It can represent Israel leaning on its God, or it can speak of Zipporah, side by side, with her husband.

5.6 Prejudice Against Sons of A Black Woman

Moses had many problems in leading the Hebrew people, but one particularly grave problem he had to face was that of leadership after his death. If we probe beneath the protective M(Z)-J-E-D-P cover of the Pentateuch, we find reference to this. With so many editors participating in the construction of the present Pentateuch, and considering the fragmentary nature of the material they possessed and the difficulty of precision when using targums, it is easy to see that names may have been slightly misspelled (at the very least), that genealogies may have been confused, that material intended for the lips of Moses may have been placed on the lips of Abraham, and that stories may have been altered to suit the necessities of the time of the editor. Scroll material was very hard to come by, and names (that the writer thought were obvious) and secondary words may have been omitted altogether in order to save space. Due to the scarcity of paper, a page might be written over with a different story, using the spaces between the lines. Those who specialize in deciphering old manuscripts are accustomed to sorting through several sets of writing on the same page. Even in Korea in 1950 a school child was expected to use his paper four times, twice in pencil written first horizontally, then vertically, and twice in ink over the lighter pencil markings. Thus, there is plenty of room for confusion when taking information off old manuscripts. However, all these deficiencies were overseen by the Holy Spirit, and used for the greater glory of God. In like manner, it is the Holy Spirit who uncovers these deficiencies in proper time for the further glory of God and the edification of God's people.

Moses was a great leader. In his time and culture, the sons of the great leader usually assumed the position of the father upon his demise. Moses had at least two sons. One was Gershom (meaning I am a stranger in a strange land), and the other was Eliezer (meaning God helps). Moses was married to a black woman. His children must have been on the dark side. Perhaps one was darker than the other. Perhaps Gershom had his name, as his blackness reminded Moses that Moses was a foreigner. Perhaps Moses saw Gershom as a foreigner. Eliezer may have been the lighter, or may have been born in a more acceptive phase of Moses' life, as his name has a more positive sound.

Neither of these sons is mentioned as the great leader who followed Moses. This choice fell upon Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim, a man who had been an assistant of Moses from his youth. Moses and Aaron in agreeing to have all Levites be the religious specialists of the community, drafted their own offspring into this service. I Chronicles 23:14 states that Moses' sons became priests.

Some feel the Bible implies that Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were all from the same family unit. This is not the case. They all may have been Levites, and thus from the same tribal unit, but their brother/sister relationship more likely stems from the fact that they were brother and sister prophets. Aaron and Moses were both from the tribe of Levi, and in establishing prophetic and religious leadership, they settled on the tribe of Levi to provide it. As Aaron was appointed the leader of the religious services, as opposed to Moses' position as judge and commander, the priests are referred to as sons of Aaron as well as being termed Levites. Moses' sons are included in the sons of Aaron, as they are from the tribe of Levi. In the land apportionments, Gershom's descendents are given a Levitical portion of the land (Joshua 21:6).

The first Levitical priest was Aaron himself. Aaron had four sons, by a pedigreed Hebrew wife, Elisheba, but unfortunately two of these sons somehow offended God and died (Numbers 3:4; Leviticus 10:1-7). The problem of alcoholism is mentioned, and Aaron was requested not to mourn them. One of the remaining sons was named Eleazar, which may be a mix-up with Eliezer, son of Moses, who acted in official capacity as son of Aaron.

It seems that Eliezer (or Eleazar) wasn't expected to fill the leadership shoes of his father Moses. In two sections of the Pentateuch, we have men lamenting that they don't have a son to succeed them. We have Moses praying to the Lord asking who shall be his successor (Numbers 27:15-17). The Hebrew belief was that one achieved immortality through one's offspring. To have progeny was the greatest gift that a person could receive from God. Abraham particularly wanted offspring by his primary wife Sarah, so that he could believe the child was really his. Abraham lets fall the phrase, "I have no offspring but Eliezer the Damascene" (Genesis 15:2). If Damascene refers to a foreign looking person, as from the city of Damascus, perhaps this line should have been put on the lips of Moses, who may have been lamenting the unacceptability of dark skinned leadership for the early Hebrew community.

All things didn't go well in the desert with Moses. The people revolted for various reasons; they were hungry; they wanted a piece of the

leadership; Miriam objected to the color of Moses' wife. Can it be that the people he guided, in their pristine Hebrew unity, objected to Moses' colorblindness, that he learned at Pharaoh's court? In his youth in Egypt Moses had come to see that the black royalty from southern Egypt were welcomed equally at the king's residence, with the white royalty from the north.⁵ The pharaoh himself may have been multi-racial. The pharaoh's daughter who fished Moses from the Nile, may have been dark. Moses had grown up without racial prejudice and married a black woman, but he may have had his doubts in the desert when some of his fellow tribespeople were biased, and he may have felt slightly hurt that as a light colored father, he was given no light colored sons. God comforted Moses in regards to leadership by sending Joshua. In this instance the Bible gives us an example of present fulfillment of prophecy, and future fulfillment of prophecy. The immediate fulfillment to Moses is Joshua, son of Nun. The future fulfillment is Jesus, prophet, priest, and king. It is interesting that the name Joshua can be equated with the name Yeshua or Jesus, and that the meaning of this name is salvation. God's salvation led the people to the promised land in Joshua. ALL people are led to their fulfillment by Jesus, God's savior. The Bible is truly a wonderful book to deliver God's message to different people in different times. God also comforts Moses by offering to make of Moses a great nation, and threatening to destroy the unruly Israelites. Moses is pictured as contemplating leaving the tribes to their own devices in the wilderness. He would go off with his dark sons, and become a great tribe through them. Moses is too noble to desert the Hebrews even for this tempting reward of eternal life through his own descendents.

Zipporah had a part to play in this scene of persecution and in Moses' decisions. When the tribal powers objected to her blackness and the blackness of her children, she went back to her father. When things cooled down, she returned with her sons. Exodus 18:2 calls them her sons, rather than Moses' sons, or his sons, which may denote that their blackness set them apart. It is stated that Zipporah's father returned with her and gave Moses advice on how to share the leadership with people in the tribe. This wisdom may have come from Zipporah herself and been clothed with authority by being credited to her father. Moses' wife as an intelligent and gifted woman could see that she and the sons were a threat to the unity and the safety of the tribe. With her to complain about, the tribe would revolt against Moses and be lost in the wilderness. As Jesus became the Passover sacrifice for all people, Zipporah became the sacrificial goat laden with the problems of the tribe, who went out from the camp as an atonement offering. She put herself and the children as of less concern than the good of the

whole community. She returned bringing community building assistance, in the form of the wise words of her father. It is not reported anywhere that either of her sons attempted to assume the commander status of their father Moses. Joshua is groomed for this position, with no objections. He is formally inducted as leader before Eleazar and the whole community (Numbers 27:18-23).

5.7 Zipporah As Savioress

This concerned attitude by the wife of Moses was one instance where she helped the cause of the Jewish race without selfish regard for herself. If Zipporah wished to do so, she probably could have talked Moses into leaving the quarrelsome Hebrews behind, as Moses loved her very much and was glad to follow her advice. Without Moses, the Hebrews might have disintegrated in the wilderness, and the darker colored "Mosites" would have turned out to be God's chosen people destined to bring God's salvation to the world. This woman was willing to diminish herself for her community, even though she experienced rejection from certain members of the group because of her color.

We must keep in mind Zipporah's other saving action, when she performed the priestly rite of circumcision on the road to Egypt. This action by his wife freed Moses so that his life could be dedicated to the service of the Hebrew people. Zipporah's name and lineage are set down in the Pentateuch because she was a very important person. Those who read the Bible from a patriarchal point of view are inclined to dismiss this woman completely and to give all the applause to her husband. We should give credit to both of them, and we should emphasize the holiness and wholeness of their marriage. They were a couple who each comprised the capabilities of prophet, priest, and leader; a couple who gave their all for their community.

5.8 Community In The Old Testament

Moses and Zipporah as leaders, show us God's methods of forming loving community in the Old Testament. Sacrifice and total dedication are required. God inspired this woman and man to form certain community patterns and to set down certain guiding regulations.

Before they were able to lead the Hebrew community effectively, they had to have harmony and support in their community of two. They had to operate from a marriage commitment based on equality and concern; their loving acceptance of each other is reflected in the Song of Songs. They were friends to each other, and not only friends, but they inspired each other to fulfillment. Zipporah was somehow able to confirm her husband's mission to the pharaoh through the circumcision incident of Exodus 4:24-26.

She was also able to give Moses guidance by bringing her father's experience in governing and guiding others, to the Hebrew camp.

Through Zipporah's presentation of the wisdom of Jethro (Exodus 18), the tribes turned from the autocratic leadership of Moses, to the appointment of judges and leaders, who listened to the people in smaller consentaneous groups. Difficult questions were referred to the Holy Spirit working in Moses. In Numbers 11 it is reported that God poured out the Spirit on seventy chosen elders gathered at the Tent of Meeting, so that they could better advise the members of the community. Not only did God inspire those who attended the meeting, but God also inspired two elders who stood outside of the worshipping group. Eldad and Medad, as representatives of those not wholly in accord with the governing body, also were able to prophesy, for the benefit of those they represented. The love of God for the total community, both those incorporated with the Tent of Meeting, and those who stood apart, is shown in the meanings of the names of Eldad and Medad. Eldad has the meaning God is loving, and Medad means Beloved or Be loving. I would like to insert the suggestion that they may have been women elders who felt that their presence at the Tent of Meeting might have been considered presumptuous. God stands with those who stand apart, as well as with the majorities. God respects our differences, and he delights when humans set aside their differences and accept one another in love.

At a certain point in history, the Hebrew tribes consolidated and there was an upsurge of coordinated community, a growth and broadening of the whole human perspective. This consolidation was based on the loving nucleus of two people. Because two people supported each other, and encouraged each other's faith, many other people of their time, and millions of others down through the centuries, were given the benefit of guiding laws and peaceful communities.

Abuses crept in. Those in power used the law to control others, rather than to build the community of love. Fourteen hundred years later we have the author Luke quoting Jesus as saying, "Oh, you Pharisees! You clean the outside of cup and plate, while inside yourselves you are filled with extortion and wickedness"(Luke 11:39). "Alas for you lawyers also because you load on men burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you yourselves do not move a finger to lift"(Luke 11:46). "Alas for you lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge! You have not gone in yourselves, and have prevented others going in who wanted to"(Luke 11:52).

The prophets had been forecasting that there would be God's messenger, the Messiah, who would come to bring loving community to the world.

Jesus Christ personified God's love. Those who heard him remembered his words and deeds and set down his prescriptions for fulfilled community. Even before his time, there were other changes in the way of understanding holy community that took place in the Hebrew culture.

Moses' law was given as God's guiding hand to peaceable community. Inability to keep the law, was described as "missing the mark." Humankind had freedom of choice to comply, or the individual might make poor choices and miss his goal. From the early Genesis theology of a good God creating a good world, other theologies evolved describing the notion of personal sin and societal sin. Besides being a rupture of community, sin became something basically wrong with the human race. Some saw sin as a product of a lesser god named the devil, urging us towards our downfall. Humanity grasps at straws in the wind in order to explain evil and deny responsibility for its actions. We are still searching for the proper combination of love and authority to guide humanity to the ideal community.

NOTES

1 Maurice H. Harris, Hebraic Literature (New York: Tudor, 1936), p. 185, Shabbath fol. 13 col.2.

2 Alexander Crudens, Complete Concordance (Philadelphia: Lippincott, no date), p. 718.

3 Numbers 27:1-11 presents a legal instance for the inheritance of daughters in the Mosaic Code. In practice, the daughters were expected to marry male relatives.

4 King Solomon may possibly be referred to as a shepherd, in the sense of a shepherd of the Lord's people.

5 Herodotus 7:70 describing the Persian army distinguishes between Asiatic Ethiopians and African Ethiopians, confirming biblical recognition of two races.

Chapter VI: THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM
OF SIN

6.1 Cultural Interpretations of Genesis

The whole Bible sings of the marvel of men and women. It tells us what is wonderful about ourselves. We lose some of this wonder when we accept stereotypical interpretations that come about from one culture misunderstanding the culture of another. God's Word as set down in the Bible is a living word and contains new insights and fresh revelations for us who read it today against a backdrop of a changing world. Old wine is good for the old bottles, and new wine should be put into new (Matthew 9:17). The new wine of fresh insight into God's wisdom has always flowed freely to his beloved humanity across every race and culture. God gives new theological inspiration for new times and new seasons. If we read his word prayerfully and carefully, trying to understand what the message was for the people in whose times it was written, and then attempt to reinterpret that message for ourselves today, we will find enriching applications that will lead us to a more fulfilled existence.

The main author of Genesis theologized about the First Cause and came up with a story of our beginnings which she hoped would inspire the people of her day and also people of future times (Isaiah 49:6). As human beings have beginnings and endings, we stretch our minds to try to think of God in his beginnings. The Peaceful author, considering the picture from a time-bound viewpoint, visualized a God with no creation, way back in the dim reaches of the past. She described the allegorical manufacture of the world, but she gave no reasons for this creative urge of God. Next she brought the human on the scene, and in this section, she gave us reasons. Things seemed to happen when an allegorical snake talked, and human beings created with freedom to choose, used poor judgment. Our author was trying to explain why there was evil in the world, when a good God had just made a good creation.

The early theologizing human didn't think that much about evil and sin in himself. It was easy for primitive societies to explain evil as lesser gods acting up. Good gods were usually considered to be the more powerful, so they were able to straighten things out. What was wrong with the world, wasn't so much humanity, as it was these lesser gods. This theory seemed to solve the problem of evil in a fairly satisfactory manner. However, if your tribe became monotheistic, and your religion couldn't admit

to the possibility of any lesser gods, you would have to discard this naughty-gods-make-evil theory and find another explanation. Our author and other theologians of her time were working on this problem. They set aside the notion of other gods, and also, temporarily, the notion of an evil angel. The snake for them may have been a representation of human wisdom, more than it was intended to give any idea of a devil. They decided that humankind itself had the freedom to make evil, and also the responsibility to try to create loving community, to protect against this human-made evil.

Many stories similar to the Adam and Eve story of creation were circulated orally through the Near East. The Moses traditions on our beginnings were restructured by the Peaceful author to be theologically correct, and it is principally to her that we owe the story of the seven days of creation. One of the purposes behind this blessing of the seventh day (Genesis 2:3) was to emphasize to her compatriots in captivity in Babylon the need to keep the Sabbath holy. She was trying to explain to her fellow exiles why they had been displaced from their beloved land. Her message to a weary generation torn with the distress of exile and concerned with this banishment as a punishment for their sins, was that God had created the world and humankind, and that the world and humankind were both good.

Moses or his wife Zipporah, and other pre-Peaceful authors also contributed to Genesis. For authors who contributed before the Babylonian captivity, evil and sin were looked upon quite differently than we view them today. Sin might be thought of as a "missing the mark" which had been set down in the perfections of the law. Evil could come upon a person for following after strange gods, or worshipping the true God in an incorrect manner. Evil could be handed down to you from your parents. Those born lame or blind were considered to have somehow offended God (by their own actions or through the misdeeds of their ancestors) and thus were excluded from usual temple worship (Leviticus 21:18-20).

After the carrying away of the tribes to Babylon, much thought was given to the many just persons who had suffered even though their conduct was exemplary. God's anger seemed to fall on good and evil alike, but Ezekiel, the theologian for his time, affirmed that God still stood beside the just man (Ezekiel 14:12-23). The question of sin as due to man's free choice comes up in the Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18) and was probably much discussed in the exile community. The Peaceful author, the final editor of the Moses' traditions, had listened to all these theological discussions about sin, punishment, and responsibility, and she continued to reaffirm that all things were being taken care of by a good God. She believed that although man had to work and woman had to suffer in childbirth, ultimately one

would come who would get the serpent (or worldly wisdom) under control.

Many varying theological messages can be gotten from the study of this Adam and Eve story. Jewish rabbis and followers of Christianity from the time of the Peaceful author until our own day have come up with fresh life-giving interpretations. Paul and Jesus, as specialists in rabbinical lore, are each credited with a teaching which brings in threads of this creation story. Augustine derives his theory of original sin from it, a shifting of guilt which comforted the people of his day. Freud reads other psychological meanings into it, for a more scientific generation.¹ Some readers are desirous of taking the story literally; others see metaphors and anthropomorphisms. As we are all different, we each get out of every Bible passage only what we have the ability to extract, and what we will accept as reasonable from others who have studied it before us. Individual great thinkers with varying viewpoints, who pull seemingly opposing interpretations out of this passage do not replace or conflict with one another, but are the means whereby we are inspired and can build enriched theologies.² Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there are innumerable possibilities of learning from this early folk tale.

The Adam and Eve story has often been studied from the viewpoint of the first sin of humanity. Another favorite emphasis is its creational aspect. I should like to look at it from the perspective of loving community. What is this story saying about humanity, both male and female? For so long, our first parents have been observed from behind patriarchal glasses. I would like to see the creation story as showing possibilities of human fulfillment, rather than sin. Many books could be written from this fulfillment viewpoint, but I will content myself with only a few observations to open up regions for further discussion.

6.2 Translating The Word "Adam"

Many new readings of inspired literature come about through a clarified translation of a single word. When early Hebrew is translated into Greek and retranslated into English, there are several possibilities of misunderstanding the proper meaning of a word or a phrase. The word for humanity in Hebrew is ha adam. This is easy for a translator to confuse with adam which all by itself, without the ha means man. It is also easy to confuse with the name of a person, Adam, who is introduced as the first man in this story of our early beginnings (not until Genesis 4:25, or perhaps not until 5:1). Pick up your Bible and read Genesis 1:1 to 2:17, and for every word man substitute the word humanity or humankind. The crucial part will read like this:_

"Then God said, `Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish in the sea, the birds of

heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.' God created humankind in the image of himself, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them. God blessed them saying to them, `Be fruitful, multiply...'"(Genesis 1:26-28). Further down in Genesis 2:15 is the information, "Yahweh took humankind and settled one of them in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Then Yahweh gave humankind this admonition, `You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden...'"

Starting with Genesis 2:18, the author had to make a choice as she began to speak of humankind in the singular. This brings up another important difference between our English language, and both Greek and Hebrew, which is usually overlooked by translators. To put this difference as simply as possible, let's take again the English statement, "She sees" (Section 1.4). Translating the Greek letters into recognizable English counter parts, we come up with the Greek word blepei, which means "She sees." There is no pronoun she as that is contained in the verb form blepei. This situation would be perfectly all right and quite usable, except that the English for "He sees" and the English for "It sees" also use the same verb structure blepei. When a translator of the New Testament comes up against the Greek word blepei, he/she automatically translates it as "He sees," unless there are other qualifying words in the sentence that let one know a woman is in the picture. Frequently one can find these other qualifying words, so that the translator can get a comprehensive picture.

However, in Greek and in Hebrew, too, there is a secondary problem with these qualifying words. Suppose we are talking in Greek about a teacher who is a woman. Greek has male nouns, female nouns, and neuter nouns. The English word teacher can be referred back to in a sentence, by using either the pronoun he or she to designate the sex of the teacher. The Greek word for teacher, didaskalos, is a male word and any pronouns used in the sentence to refer back to it do not take into consideration the sex of the person spoken of, but only the gender of the word, which is of male gender. We cannot learn from the Greek language whether the teacher is male or female in its person, unless a specific female name is given, or unless it is explicitly said that this teacher is a woman.

Another example of a male gender noun is the Greek word for disciple, which has to do with a student witnessing to his master's teachings. All pronouns that might refer back to this word disciple must agree with the male gender of the word, even though they may be talking about a female person who has done the witnessing. As the Greek language uses the male gender for words such as teacher, bishop, humankind, ruler, presbyter,

and apostle, a whole story could have been written about a female elder or presbyter or teacher in the first century AD, and it might contain no female pronouns to let translators know that a woman was involved. If this person had a female name, then translators might suspect that this was a woman, and translate the male gender pronouns as she. However, if this church person had a unisex name such as Polycarp, no one would have reason to know if the individual were a male or a female. It is easy to see that proper understanding of one word can make a tremendous difference in a translation.

6.3 Enlarging on The Peaceful Author's Theology

With these renewed warnings about the underlying sexism contained in the Greek and Hebrew languages, let's return to Adam and Eve. We were saying that the author had to make a choice. Perhaps it was not the author but the interpreters in her society who made the choice. The choice appears to be to use the male singular as the original human, and to add to it, the female. It could have been done in the opposite manner, and the story would have been just as realistic. Because of this choice of interpretation, many people have concluded that man is more important than woman. There is no reason to hold up one sex as better than the other, but people choose to believe what they want to believe, and go with what makes them comfortable. Those who are grounded in a patriarchal society, often will hold firmly onto the tenets of that society, as a sort of life boat, or protection against the unknown. Security, for them, consists in going along with the powers that be.

It probably was not the author's belief that man is more important than woman, but these imperfections of society are allowed by the Holy Spirit working through a specific age and culture. The Spirit blesses humankind with the ideas that are the most fulfilling for that culture. As we are human, there are many ideas about the infinite God that we cannot grasp, but as age follows age, it is to be hoped that we come closer to the ideal of love that created us.

The author of this section of Genesis did an excellent job of portraying male-female equality. However, she might have been distressed if she could have looked into the future and known what injustices would occur because of her particular rendering of the Garden of Eden story. Words are such fragile bearers of the message! They are also a wonderful gift that God has given us, for us to use to increase love in the world. Our interpretations can go in either direction. They can further community, or they can make rifts in it, and wound others. Our author did a very inspired job with a difficult topic. She certainly could not have given a female emphasis to the Adam and Eve incident, because then all the males would have suffered.

Genesis 2:18-25 might be more unbiased as follows:

"Yahweh God said, `It is not good that a human being should be alone. I will make this one a helpmate.' So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the human being to see what that one would call them; each animal was to bear the name the human being would give it. The human being gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven, and all the wild beasts. But no helpmate suitable for the human being was found for the human being. So Yahweh God made the human being fall into a deep sleep. And while that one slept, God took one of that one's ribs and enclosed it in flesh. Yahweh God built the rib God had taken from the human being into another human being, similar, yet different, and brought this new one to the original human being. The original human being exclaimed: `This at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh This is to be called a human being equal to myself, for this one is made of myself.'"

Reading this selection in this manner enables one to see why a human being leaves the father and mother and joins to the helpmate, and they become one body. They can become this one body, for they are made of the same original material, the stuff of earth. Not only can we see here a reason for a loving marriage, but because all human beings are made from the same original material, the stuff of earth, we should be able to empathize with one another, and become one loving cooperative community whenever we come into contact with one another.

When the story of the creation of humanity is set down in the above manner, one can see a reason for the writer or the interpreters using the man as the original human being, instead of the woman. If the woman were used, the story of Genesis would bear a striking resemblance to stories of the earth mother goddess androgynously bearing the first male human in her womb. The author of Genesis is stressing that both male and female are formed from the stuff of the earth. They are not chromosomal offspring of a god or goddess. Their resemblance to God is that they are made in God's image, spiritually free, but they are made materially from the dust of the earth.

In the ancient Near East the myth of the mother goddess persisted, as an explanation for the human race. In tilting away from this Great Mother theory, the writer of Genesis is put into the awkward position of getting a woman out of a man. Her allegory of a rib suffices to do this, and successfully imparts side by side equality to male and female. If we continue on and read the rest of the Garden of Eden story with this different, but equal, viewpoint, we will see that the whole emphasis is on the equality of man

and woman before God and before each other. It also destroys the superiority-of-women notion inherent in the Mother Nature version.

Up to this point in the story, man and woman don't know the difference between good and evil, and have no responsibilities. They dwell as thoughtlessly as cows munching the grass in a lush meadow. The snake, as a symbol of wisdom, makes its first pitch to the woman, as wisdom is usually personified as female, such as the goddess Athena of the Greeks. With all this symbolic wisdom lined up in front of him, the man comes off looking a bit pushed to one side, as the less important actor in the scene, but this isn't the reality of the matter. The man is right there on the spot, in the thick of things, side by side with his wife, the way he should be. "She took some of the fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her and he ate it" (Genesis 3:6b), as women are usually the servers of the food in a family situation. The man and the woman are both given a free choice decision, and together, as equals, they leave the Garden.

That's the way it is, isn't it? Each individual has free choice. One can live in blissful ignorance in the Garden of Eden, or one can seek to find out what the world is all about. One can try to puzzle out the purpose for the creation of humanity, and the basis for belief in the existence of God. One can search for answers as to how one should behave, and attempt to take care of one's spiritual and physical needs and those of others. Living life outside the Garden is rough going, but only outside the Garden is there the possibility of fulfillment.

In the Garden the human being can be in a state of blissful ignorance, refusing to admit that the existence of God can never be proved. He unthinkingly accepts any dogmas that are given to him, and feels secure as long as no one gives him reason to question these beliefs. Like a Klu Klux Klan member, he refuses to look beyond the bounds of his narrow vision, and convinces himself that the totality of God is contained there with him, in his narrow confines. Like an animal, he receives as his just due, the largess of nature, and has no concern for others who may be needy near-by. However, wisdom has a way of snaking into these little personal paradises with provocative questions and suggestions that stimulate a human being into responsible actions. A person can develop an elitist attitude of I know God and I'm saved; it's too bad about the rest of the human race who are such sinners. He can imagine himself in a state of bliss where God is taking care of him, and this is a desirable state for an individual. It is good to behave morally and to have personal faith in God, but it doesn't effectively further the process of loving world community. The person can go one step further, and admit that he doesn't really know anything for sure, that faith

is not-knowing. Faith is unreasonable trust in something that can't be proved. That one further step takes the person out of the Garden and puts him in the position of seeker of knowledge. That person is trying to understand humanity and life and the God that may be behind all life. Of that person, God can say, "The human has become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22). Humanity has become partners with God, in God's plan for the earth.

At some point in our evolutionary processes upon the earth, humanity came into existence. The human being could reflect in upon itself, and observe certain things about itself; it could plan its actions, and look ahead to death. At this point humanity "knew that it knew."³ Further along this evolutionary path came the moment when humanity "knew that it didn't really know."⁴ They ate the forbidden fruit, and the inquiring mind was created. They accepted the responsibility for their actions and left the Garden of dependent ignorance. They went out of the Garden together, as they had been created, side by side, made from the same stuff of earth, equal but different. "He banished humanity, and in front of the Garden he posted the cherubs, and the flame of a flashing sword ..." (Genesis 3:24).

6.4 The Fall or The Rising?

Why was this called a fall?

There were two trees in the center of the Garden of Eden. One was the tree of life and the other was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Only the fruit from this second tree was forbidden. Man and woman chose freely to partake of the tree of knowledge. Surely this wasn't a fall!

Many ideas of heaven existed in early communities. Paradise or heaven or the place where God dwelt, was considered to be on the top of the mountain or up in the sky, so humanity's descent from the home of God to terra firma may have been logically described as a descent or a fall. It was not necessarily a departure from something good to something worse. In the paradise of the Greek gods and goddesses, there may have been more quarrels and dirty deeds in heaven, than there were on earth.

Thus humanity in the Garden Story may have progressed from one set of living conditions, to a more demanding set that encouraged development of their abilities. God may have condemned man to tilling the soil, and woman to child bearing when he hustled them out of the Garden, but in Genesis 2:15, the original human (man or woman) was already farming the Garden, and in 1:28, both partners are told to be fruitful, so we can't consider this a terrible penalty (Genesis 3:16-19). Although God curses the snake, the consequences on it aren't too heavy either, for it is already crawling on the ground in Genesis 1:26.

We have been led to believe by patriarchal interpretations through the centuries (such as Augustine's)⁵ that the snake represents the devil, and the passage about women serving their husbands is a direct command from God for beaten wives to accept black eyes joyfully. When this passage was written the snake was considered to be the wisest of all the animals.⁶ It was a symbol of healing wisdom, as in the present day Aesculapian snake-and-cross motif used on physicians' certifications, and as in Numbers 21:9 when Moses fashioned a bronze serpent and commanded his afflicted tribespeople to look upon it and be healed. They were looking to healing wisdom for a cure. The Gospel of John 3:13-15 compared Jesus as healing wisdom to the lifting up of the bronze serpent of Moses. Dan's blessing from his father Jacob (Genesis 49:17) was that Dan should be, serpentlike, a wise judge. Jacob was not wishing something evil on his son. Even Jesus recommended to his apostles that they possess the wisdom of the serpent (Matthew 10:16) yet still be harmless as doves. It should be noted that wisdom is often not harmless when used by reckless humans; scientific knowledge can feed the world or destroy it.

The Peaceful author of this serpent story is not so much emphasizing a God who curses soil and animals and who condemns woman to a second-class citizenship as she is telling us that she has pin-pointed certain things that are wrong with her contemporaneous society. In her Babylonian exile she has thought a lot about these imperfections of community, such as oppression of women and greedy misuse of healing and religious knowledge, and she is explaining the existence of these imperfections through this mythical story of early beginnings.

She is saying that we have these human conditions of oppression and servitude because of the way God made us with freedom of choice. She is telling her society that they should shape up and make better choices. The Garden for her smug elitist tribes people may have been Palestine; the place into which they were cast in order to learn more about loving community, was Babylonia. She is saying to the Hebrews that they wouldn't have been punished by being dragged off to Babylon, if only they had accepted responsibility and made better choices in their beloved homeland. The self-centeredness of the Hebrew community with its patriarchal power base, led to its downfall.

God does not punish us, so much as we bring these consequences on ourselves. It is our own choices that have caused us to be a male-dominated society. We prefer to see ourselves as the chosen and the superior, rather than to practice humble love and justice for the oppressed, as taught by Jesus. The subjugation of women to their husbands is not an order (or a

curse) from God; it is what we have done to ourselves and our community, and the Peaceful author is telling us that this is far from optimum behavior. The Peaceful author affirms that God has made everything good (Genesis 1:3), and she names the malfunctions that humans have brought on themselves by their self-centered actions.

Actually the exile in Babylon was good for the Hebrew people. It turned their hearts back to God. Think of the hours of meditation, the time spent copying the "Book of The Law," the fruitful discussions on God and his purposes, by the Peaceful author and her friends, which never would have taken place in the secure homeland! Perhaps the author saw this growth of her people and thus in her story was commending man and woman for the choice that took them out of the Garden.

The story goes that God cares for us in a beautiful garden where nothing is required of us, but to eat fruit from the trees and to loaf in the sun. Is there any motive for us to learn to care for ourselves and for each other? Adam and Eve were wise to choose the study of good and evil, the problems of good choices and lesser choices; they were wise to accept the pain of child bearing and the toil of wrestling a living from the soil (or God as All-wise, showed his infinite love for us by allowing this situation to develop). In the beginning Adam and Eve were unconcerned about community, about the effect of their choices on one another. Under the snake's prodding (under the guidance of healing wisdom), they chose to eat the fruit, to be concerned with life, and to be responsible individuals. Thanks be to God!

Suppose they had eaten of the fruit of the first mentioned tree, the tree of life (Genesis 2:9)? Suppose we could live forever? If we could live forever, there would be no point to most of the things we do. We could always put off until tomorrow whatever it pleased us to postpone. There would be no requirement to work in the vineyard for our needs or the needs of others, because no need could bring us to the point of death. We would exist forever, meaningless blobs, on the face of the earth. We would exist, but we wouldn't really live. It is the temporary nature of our condition, that makes a human creative and useful to his neighbor. It is our knowledge of finitude that causes us to perform actions that may have infinite directions. If we could have life eternal, by eating of the fruit of the first mentioned tree, it would be a life not worth living. Death gives us reason to live!

Perhaps that is why God created us. In his never-dying, he was denied the fulfillment that comes from being time bound. Through us, he can act in a finite environment. If we could live forever, would there be any need for us to love? Perhaps love needs a time bound situation.

By eating of the fruit of the second tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, humankind progressed from the safe secure spot of no fulfillment. It progressed from being placid cattle eating grass thoughtlessly in the eternal meadow, to thinking beings fighting the treacherous battles of our material everydays. Winning these battles, with the help of our God, gives the human being a sense of fulfillment.

It might be downright boring to live forever and have no challenges. God has given to human beings the choice of being active for the good of humankind, or of selfishly dwelling in Eden admiring our navels. God has offered to us and to succeeding generations the opportunity to be partners with him in the creation of a world unified in love. Leaving Paradise was never a disaster. It was the wonder of humankind accepting the responsibility of being human. It was humankind stepping out on the path of loving community. This microcosm of community is sketched strikingly through the skill of the Peaceful one, as a family of two, Eve and Adam, side by side, rising to challenges. She shows us these prototypes of the human race, going forth to participate in new possibilities of cooperation and empathy.

6.5 Original Sin

Instead of looking at the Garden story as having to do with fulfillment, let's see what it might say about sin. Later day authors were determined to find something wrong with the goings-on in the Garden. Humanity has short comings, and we search around for someone to blame. How convenient to blame what is wrong with the world on legendary ancestors! Anything seems preferable than outright accepting the blame for our failures. Perhaps that is what is wrong with the incident in the Garden. Look what Adam did to Eve! God said, "Why did you do it?" and Adam implied that it was the helpmate who made him do it. If original sin means a typical basic ignoble action that all of us do, blaming someone else is surely that repetitive act. We make laws so that we can point the finger at those who break them, and get a sense of superiority for ourselves. Finger pointing to make ourselves look good is the basic problem of the human ego.

The first sin had nothing to do with sex. God made sex, and it was a good gift, and supposedly there weren't any third parties around to mess up the good relationship that existed between Adam and Eve. The first sin may have been the disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit, but we get the implication that God really admired the couple for daring to try to be wise. If there was any sin, it was the sin of un-love. The human pointed at his helpmate, in order to preserve his own great self-image before God. He displayed no empathy for his helpmate. He was selfish! The human's action

made a rift in the community that God was hoping they would build.

The helpmate's motivation likewise left a lot to be desired. She blamed the situation. We could interpret the snake for her, as the wisdom incorporated in society, and we could excuse her by saying that the ways of her culture were irresistible. Many of us want to believe that we are the products of our society, and therefore can't be expected to act independently of that society. With the woman, we don't want to take responsibility for our actions, particularly if we might find ourselves in conflict with our culture. How many of us float from day to day in the ocean of experience, and let the tides push us around! The formation of loving community requires positive actions on our part. Drifting with the waves leaves the whole thing up to chance. We must form our fundamental beliefs on God's purposes for us, set our sights on the good we hope to create in our lives and the lives of others, and take constructive actions that we believe will fulfill those purposes of God. The woman may have loved her helpmate, but she wasn't about to go out on a limb to make a point about it. She, also, was self-centered.

Augustine may have acquired his notion of original sin from the fact that we all start off life being basically self-centered. However, this self-centeredness has the advantage of keeping the human race alive. Looking at the situation from an evolutionary viewpoint, we might have died out long ago, if we were all willing to give up our lives altruistically in every difficult circumstance. But besides creating us with the urge to self-preservation, God also created all these wonderful possibilities that we have for loving and helping one another. The Genesis author does not lay her emphasis on original sin, but confirms the goodness of God and the goodness of creation. Due to this original blessing of God by God's gift of the earth to us humans, we are free to act responsibly in love and to build the earth into a heaven.

6.6 Jesus On Adam and Eve

Jesus, the Messiah, read Genesis. What did he make of the two trees and the banishment? We know that he was thoroughly cognizant of the allegory of Adam and Eve, because when the Pharisees asked him about divorce, he answered, "Have you not read that the creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one body? They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, a man must not divide"(Matthew 19:3).

The men of Jesus' day ran a patriarchal society, where man was king. If his wife served him a meal he didn't like, the husband could tell her to

get out, and then at his convenience, he could select another woman as a replacement. Some people thought that this was a little hard on the original wife and that divorce should be permitted only for weighty matters, such as a wife committing adultery or otherwise breaking the law. Thus the disputing groups asked Jesus for a decision:_ Could a man divorce his wife for any petty reason?

Jesus saw the plight of the cast-off wife. He saw the equality of the man and the woman in the Genesis story. He saw that the women of his day did not have this equality. He saw that the throw-away wives were denied their right to livelihood, that they were forced into prostitution to acquire food for their stomachs. He answered his questioners by reminding them of the equality of men and women before God and of the loving union that can be created by a coming together of equals. The loving community of two that was held up as an example in Genesis 1, had been reduced by Jesus' contemporaries to an unstable relationship that could be ended by the word of a man. Jesus' conclusion was that it was unseemly for one of the partners to end this partnership, especially when it meant the destruction of the other partner, the woman. There was something totally unloving about this whole Palestinian divorce situation. Moses permitted it in the law because men had such unloving hearts. Jesus turned the tables on his male questioners who felt they had the right to divorce a wife for HER sins. He told them they would be the ones who were considered the sinners. They would be guilty of adultery if they put aside their wife to marry another. He expected men to have loving consideration for their wives. The husbands should accept their wives imperfections, as their wives were required by the Hebrew society to quietly put up with all that was difficult in their men.

The totality of Jesus' message is even more emphatic about the relationships among men and women. It asks for love. It requires that there should be not just a resigned acceptance among men and women, but that both women and men should love, forgive, and encourage one another. As loving friendship exists only between equals, a good marriage requires considerate equality.

6.7 Paul and The Garden

We see that the Bible starts off with an affirmation of the equality of women, and that this positive direction is continued in the teaching of Jesus. This same gallant attitude is found in the writings of Paul. It may waver in the writings that are set down by the disciples of Paul, under his name, as in I Timothy.⁷ It may have been this same disillusioned disciple that slipped an insert in the truly Pauline document of I Corinthians. In I Corinthians 7:10-16

Paul gently affirms the equality of women. In I Corinthians 14 Paul is talking about prophesying, and at verse 33b we are confronted by an insert, that sounds very much like the writer of I Timothy. He changes the subject from prophesying, to women, and insists on their non-equality as in the Jewish synagogue, to prove his point. Then the interrupted text goes back to its discussion of prophesy in verse 36. The truly Pauline writings always emphasize the equality of women with men.

Check this inserted text out in your Bible (I Corinthians 14:33b-35). It is very obvious that it is an insert of unrelated material, and that the true Paul writes affirmatively on women in the earlier chapter seven of I Corinthians.

The real Paul's esteem for women can be seen in his special mention of Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Most translations describe Phoebe as our sister, but the word sister is not the word Paul used. If you were a sister, you were something a little less, not quite an equal, one of the lesser sex. Paul calls Phoebe the Greek word for brother, and puts a feminine ending on it. It could best be translated into English as brotheress. This term means that Phoebe, as deaconess is really one of the guys, an equal, a good friend, on the same footing as any male church person.

The true Paul also gives us an interpretation of the Adam and Eve story in Romans 5:12-21. Keep in mind that Paul is not the author of what seems to be a conflicting interpretation of Adam and Eve in I Timothy 2:13-15. Paul was a Jew who had studied Hebrew law, and he knew all the teachings of the rabbis and their interpretations on Adam and Eve. He probably knew the different versions of the story and was cognizant of the fact that two famous rabbis had taken all the blame for whatever went wrong in Eden, off the man, and laid it all on the woman.⁸ According to these rabbis, woman was evil, a tempting prostitute, little better than an animal. Possibly these rabbis were the offspring of "good Jewish mothers" who pushed their sons into the elite profession which in their day was the rabbinate. The men probably subconsciously resented the push given by these particular women, and their resentment grew into a disregard for all women. The actions of some women, affect some men very adversely.

But Paul wasn't like those particular rabbis. He had many female friends whom he respected. He also had a physical problem, which may have been epilepsy, and he may never have married because he didn't want to inflict the care for his problem on another.

Knowing that Paul was cognizant of certain unkind condemnations of Eve that were current in Jewish teaching, we can only admire his gentlemanliness in Romans 5, where he puts the responsibility for Adam's

actions squarely on Adam. He uses Adam to represent humanity, either male or female, who missed the mark. Thus ha adam's try at community, showed how humankind fared when wrestling with his environment without a clear vision of God. Consequently, to help humankind, God sent the law through Moses to give a clearer picture to humankind of the behavior that would help them to live successfully in community (Romans 5:13, 14a). This was still not enough, for human beings lived in selfishness. They obeyed the law for their own good, but were not too concerned with how the law affected their neighbor. Even today we are like that with our laws. As long as our laws enable us to maintain our property and our well being, we don't worry too much about how these same laws affect the jobless in Harlem.

Paul points out that the law wasn't being successful, so that God gave us the final help towards life and loving community; God sent us Jesus as the man and Messiah who will help us to have true life and to live in loving community with one another. Jesus Christ gives us the opportunity of being put right with God (Romans 5:17). Paul is very respectful of ha adam. He says that this human prefigured the one to come (5:14c). This first ancestor is a person who is accepting responsibility to form a loving community, a person who desires to search out the purpose of life and the wisdom of God. Ha adam broke no societal laws because there were no laws to break, but ha adam was unsuccessful in bringing total loving community on the earth. Moses pointed in the right direction, but his law also failed to bring the millennium. Law can't bring total love and justice, as there is no law that can change hearts.

Jesus came with the message from God on how to change hearts and how to transform the earth into a loving community. Paul feels that Christ was successful (Romans 5:21), but although the world now has the message, the key that unlocks the door, how many of us turn the key in the lock and go through the door?

6.8 Pseudo-Paul on The Garden

Paul writing about 57 AD in Romans 5:12-21, says ha adam (or humanity, both male and female) sinned or missed the mark. He understood the proper nuances of the name Adam. A disciple of Paul wrote a letter of instruction for the early church about 125 AD.⁹ This disciple, known as Pseudo-Paul, blames the sin on Eve (I Timothy 2:14). Both Paul and his disciple do not seem to realize that the concept of sin didn't get a foothold in Hebrew culture until the return of the tribes from Babylon. They both were speaking to the needs of the culture of their separate times. Paul blamed the whole thing on ha adam, or humanity in general. His disciple blamed the whole thing on Eve, because in his culture, two or three generations after Paul, when the

early church was in its growing pains, over-enthusiastic female leadership tending towards gnosticism, was in danger of destroying the credibility of the church. In a patriarchal society male converts would be very edgy about coming into a female-run church with mystical ideas. In the year 125 AD the Holy Spirit found it efficacious to calm down the women, for the sake of the survival of the church in the Graeco-Roman culture. As the carrier of God's message across the centuries, the church had to be a viable institution, accepted by a male dominated society.

I Timothy 2:8-15 starts off rather reasonably. I shall quote it, putting my comments in parenthesis. Verse 8: "In every church service I want the men to pray, men who are dedicated to God and can lift up their hands in prayer without anger or argument." (Obviously, the men of Pseudo-Paul's day tended to be argumentative, just as we find both men and women today who find it difficult to pray without first discussing heatedly as to what would be the best solution to a difficult situation.) Verse 9: "I also want the women to be modest and sensible about their clothes and to dress properly, not with fancy hairstyles or with gold ornaments or pearls or expensive dresses," Verse 10: "but with good deeds, as is proper for women who claim to be religious." (This is a reasonable request.) Verse 11: "Women should learn in silence and all humility." (Both men and women should listen politely to teachers who are instructing them, but for proper learning, there should be a question period for feedback, so that the teacher can see if the student understood the message.) Verse12: "I do not allow them to teach or have authority over men; they must keep quiet." (This is a low blow, but we must assent that women should not have authority over mature men, any more than men should have authority over mature women. The author must have a reason for his emphatic remark, which must have to do with some special problem in the church of his day. He next strives to back up his remark with what some of the people in his culture might accept as sound theology.) Verse 13: "For Adam was created first, and then Eve." (For his present purposes, he chooses to ignore the side-by-side equality of the humans in the Adam and Eve story, and to emphasize his perspective of the time element. He evidently sees himself that the time element is a rather flimsy argument, because he makes a second try.) Verse 14: "And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law." (Because of the problems in his particular church, the author is taking a minor rabbinical thread, and hoping that his fellow church members will agree with his reasoning.) Verse 15: "But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (A man may also attain salvation by raising,

loving, and agonizing over his children.)

It is easy to see that the author of I Timothy had some sort of a problem in his community that required tact and a bit of gentle maneuvering. He probably was convinced that in his particular situation, he was guiltless, and that the woman was working under unChristian and heretical misconceptions. He wanted to encourage this militant woman to be less obvious, as he felt she was somehow deceived.

How are these anti-feminine sentiments of I Timothy to be interpreted by us today? Cultures away from the time of the writing of the I Timothy passage, many of us are bound by the same assumptions as Pseudo-Paul. The unthinking majority assumes the superiority of the male, which was not the stance of Paul, and more importantly, not that of Jesus! Perhaps even Pseudo-Paul is not denying the equality of the female, but is merely striving to maintain a semblance of order in his church. We of today's church are usually not confronted by problems of order. We of today's church are being asked by Jesus to form loving community, to care for the elderly, both male and female, to comfort those men and women wounded by divorce. We are called to restructure society in order to eliminate the need for prostitution, abortion, poverty, drug abuse, and imprisonment.

The message of the Adam and Eve story of the Bible is not that we should concentrate on a policy of discrimination against women and keep them silent and pregnant. The message is that women are equally responsible for the salvation of the earth. The message of Pseudo-Paul may be a plea to have all this restructuring of society done in an orderly fashion.

6.9 God-inspired Messages

This slightly anti-feminine passage of Pseudo-Paul in God's inspired word brings us back to our problem of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether we have an authentic translation. If that is the case, the second question concerns whether or not we are interpreting the culture of the times correctly. A third question we might ask ourselves is whether it is necessary to obey every injunction given by every God-inspired prophet that is set down in God's word. It seems that God enables us to choose what are the best methods for bringing us closer to loving community. Abraham gave us the rite of circumcision, and Moses is credited with food regulations. Both these religious contributions assisted the people of their days to form more workable communities. Paul allows the Gentiles to dismiss both these burdens. New times and seasons bring new insights from the Holy Spirit that go beyond the constrictions placed there by earlier ages. If God's dream for the human race, is loving community, it seems reasonable that better means of achieving this, would be revealed to

people by a loving God as time passed on and as people were able to accept the changes involved.

Jesus, understanding the totality of God's message, spoke to us about the Holy Spirit. He told us that he would not leave us as orphans (John 14:18), but would send his Spirit to tell us what we needed to know to be just, righteous, and whole individuals. In this age we are blessed with a flood of communications on how to live God-fearing lives. We have to decide whom we are going to believe; we want to know who is speaking with God's Spirit, and who is speaking on his own.

I should like to start off with a debatable assumption; that every person in any age who out of a sincere heart asks for God's wisdom on a subject, will be given as much wisdom as that particular human creation can hold. This is because although we are all created from the dust of earth, we each contain a spark of God's Spirit as our birthright. However, God can work only with what we are and have. God must speak in each individual's language and culture. God gave to Moses the best that was available for building a successful community in that day. I don't think that anyone would deny that Moses was a God-inspired man. Paul, also was God-inspired, and led the people of his day towards loving community. In our day there are many God-inspired people giving us advice that comes from sincere hearts. According to their different upbringings and culture, they may give conflicting messages. However, if they will dialogue with each other, what will come out of all these varying opinions will be the formation of loving community that is closer to God's designs than anything we have yet formulated. For optimum community we must keep open to one another's opinions and respect one another's differences, in love.

The ancient Hebrews, when confronted with the problem of which prophet was the true prophet, let time be the test. If the prophesies he made came true, that prophet became the one who was truly inspired. In the meantime, the true prophet may have been stoned to death, because someone disagreed with his theology or because he spoke against the accepted societal norms of the time. Jeremiah predicted the length of the Babylonian exile, so he was considered a major prophet. This does not mean that every word that Jeremiah spoke, was absolutely true for all time.

As we are human beings, none of us can speak the absolutely final word on any subject. If I say, "It is raining," I have made a true statement for a particular time and place, but my statement is certainly not true for all times and all places. People living in the Sahara would not consider me a true forecaster of events. Likewise my theology is restricted to a very small area of the earth. Perhaps it is true in my church for the year 1998, or

perhaps it only holds true in my home, or perhaps it is only effective in myself for a particular day.

So it is with others:— their inspiration comes from a particular time, place, and individual. The God in them strives to communicate with the God in us, and, together, in love, we will find some common meeting ground. We communicate with others whose lives cross our paths. We read their ideas in books. We see them in action in our world. All this information is assimilated into our quest for knowledge of God and enables God to speak in us more effectively.

For those whose life spans do not coincide with ours, we can go back in time by reading the stories they have left behind. Our communication with them is hampered by the barriers of language and culture. We cannot hope to understand the fears and problems of other days, the raids of the mountain men down onto the fertile plains, the Bubonic plague accepted as the design of God, the enslavement of those defeated in battle. The language in which they set down their theologies is communicated by inspired translators, but, again, these translators are imperfect individuals. They are doing the most inspired job they are capable of, but they cannot possibly know all the varied meanings that a given word or phrase can have. Biblical critical scholars have enlightened us with many new interpretations for certain passages that had been incorrectly understood by earlier researchers, but there is still much study to be done.

An interesting example of misinterpretation is Exodus 34:29 which describes Moses as having a horned face after talking on the mountain with God. After famous paintings dramatized Moses' horns on the memory of humankind, fresh translation brought to light that the horns described the radiance of Moses' face, rather than an animal appendage. We should view productions of other famous artists keeping in mind that they are not the final word in theology. We must realize that when we view Michelangelo's grandfatherly type God creating a male humankind on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, that this representation of God is merely an artist's notion, like the feminine version on this page. Neither one is to be engraved on our minds as a truth for all times. Similarly, not many of us have seen an angel, but artists are willing to fancifully portray these messengers of God.

Thus we see that the marvelous tool that is the Bible can occasionally benefit from a cleaning off of the collected dust of the centuries. Reinterpretation of difficult biblical passages is still going on. Sometimes different groups of scholarly translators will come up with varying interpretations of the Bible that serve different aspects of their theology. An example

of slightly conflicting meanings, can be seen if we turn to The Gospel of John, chapter 1, verses 12 and 13. The Jerusalem Bible translates this passage as: "But to all who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to all who believe in the name of him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself."

A slightly different emphasis is found in The Revised Standard Version of the United Bible Societies: "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

The most prominent difference in translation occurs in the phrases "who was born" and "who were born." The "was born" phrase refers back to Jesus; the "were born" refers to all of us as children of God. Other biblical versions display their own choice of emphasis. Having examined the Greek language myself, I can understand the dilemma of the translators. One statement cannot be given preference over the other. In order to harmonize these two particular choices, the translators would have to gather in loving consensus and ask the Spirit to give them the best possible solution.

This example from John 1:12-13 has been given to illustrate that there are many places where God's inspired word is hampered by the humanness of interpreters. We have to accept that there are imperfections, as God's writing instruments— namely, human beings— are imperfect.

We must also accept that we are remarkable instruments for God's use, for we can hear the Spirit speaking in our hearts, we can tell this inspired message to others, we can accept God's word from the translations of others, and we can pray together to the Holy Spirit and receive from a bountiful God that message which is best for our time and our culture. God loves us, and gives us marvelous abilities. As we pursue our non-patriarchal investigation of the Bible, we must keep in mind both our abilities and our imperfections.

NOTES

1 Sharon MacIsaac, Freud and Original Sin (New York: Paulist, 1974), p. 103 ff.

2 Jean Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979) p. 35.

3 Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harpur & Row, 1965).

4 Cypser paraphrase.

5 George Forell, Christian Social Teachings (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966), p. 71, Augustine's Enchiridion, Chapters 23-26.

6 The translation of the Hebrew word in Genesis 3:1, is wisest rather than subtle or clever.

7 Norman Perrin, The New Testament (New York: Harcourt Brace Jova., 1974), p. 7.

8 Maurice Harris, Hebraic Literature (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1936), pp. 23-25.

9 Norman Perrin, loc.cit., p. 7.

Chapter VII: A GOD WHO SEES

7.1 God Sees Women

Men would certainly resent it, if they were told that the only thing they were good for was to produce women, through the restricted use of their sperm (on the order of male bees fertilizing the queen bee). Furthermore, if men proved to be infertile, they would be told that they were valueless, because it would be common knowledge that men didn't have the proper type minds to study or to write or to theologize or to do anything intellectually stimulating. We know that this hypothetical situation would never exist, because men wouldn't let it exist. Why is it that the opposite situation has been allowed to exist when it, too, doesn't stand up to the test of reality? Why do women submit to being the victim of such erroneous beliefs? Women are taught to be victims by their society.¹ They are rewarded for being passive, pretty, productive of sons, and nurturing of others. They are taught to make others happy at the expense of themselves, which may not necessarily be a Christian attitude. Christians are called to be doorways, not doormats.

Do all the women in the Old Testament fit in with this miserable wormlike sub-set of humanity, dragging their pregnant bellies on the ground? Not all biblical females were hampered with such low self esteem. Eve of the Garden story as Mother of all the living, had a prominent place in Jewish folklore. Noah's wife is described in the Book of Enoch as rather assertive. Abraham, as choice patriarch, has several matriarchs associated with him. One of them is Hagar, the Mother of the Arabs. Of course, another is Sarah. The woman, Keturah is somehow related to Abraham. Could she be his daughter? The descendents of Keturah and Hagar are not Jewish, but they are also descendents of Abraham. The true Jew traces his ancestry from Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. Other tribes have their own particular claims on patriarch Abraham.

Hagar was the mother of Ishmael whose name is first mentioned in Genesis 16:11. Ishmael is very likely the first son of Abraham. Abraham may have had daughters, but names of daughters or their births, aren't usually mentioned. Abraham was officially married to Sarah. She was his primary wife, a female relative whom he had married. At some point Abraham farmed out his wife to King Abimelech (Genesis chapter 20). Also the pharaoh of Egypt found Sarah beautiful, so Abraham said to Sarah, "Tell them that you are my sister, not my wife, or they may kill me" (Genesis 12:10-20). The times were comfortable with the fact that one's wife could be distributed in this manner. We like to think of the patriarchs as near perfect

people. However, they were human just like us, and there were customs in their times that we can look back on and find rather wild.

It says in Genesis 16 that seeing Sarah couldn't have any children, she passed over her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham, so that Abraham might have a child by this handmaid. This sounds very noble of Sarah. In actuality, Abraham as the leader of that tribe, had certain rights to all the servant class in that tribe.² Knowing what we know about human beings, we can imagine all sorts of gossip about things that could have gone on in that tribal cluster, and there probably were other subservient females in that group such as possibly Keturah, as well as Sarah's slave Hagar, who were subject to the desires of Abraham. The servant men probably fell in love with different ones of the servant women. These women may have been formally married to someone else, or they may not have been married at all. When the slave woman bore a child, perhaps she knew whose child it was, but could she prove it to the man? Today when women produce offspring, they often don't know who the father is. How could they be sure back in those days? The men weren't sure either. Numbers 5:11-30 deals with the possibly unfaithful wife. She was required to submit to a religiously-run psychological test. Abraham couldn't really be sure that the children of the servant women were his children. He could be more certain about the children of Sarah. No one would be likely to usurp the leader of the tribe with his primary wife, except in the case where Abraham farmed her out for his own safety.³

Let's look at this from Sarah's viewpoint for a moment. Why didn't she get pregnant? We assume that perhaps the women back then, didn't know anything about birth control and the time of ovulation or other facts relating to the best time to get pregnant or not to get pregnant. In the Jewish laws we find purity regulations for the male and the female (Leviticus 15). A woman is impure for two weeks after the start of her discharge. A man is impure for one week. This limits males to sex once a week, and forbids sex to women at what is often their most fertile time. These observations which probably predate Abraham, may have been encouraged into the early Mosaic code by women who had observed certain things about their bodies, and who didn't want to be continually pregnant. If there were a Jewish couple faithful to each other, who followed these purity regulations, they would be lucky to have sex twice a month. No wonder the patriarchs voted themselves the privilege of going to the servant women.

If Sarah obeyed these birth control type regulations, she was highly unlikely to get pregnant until she came up against the time of her menopause and had irregular periods. Then she couldn't practice this form of

birth control any longer, and lo and behold, she became pregnant. The writer of this portion of Genesis makes it sound like Sarah was desperate to get pregnant, and as this writer was a woman setting down a story for a patriarchal society, she was doubtless playing to her audience. According to the patriarchal scheme of things, it was very important to get pregnant, but perhaps the real women, like Sarah, didn't feel that way. No one has ever analyzed the clues we are given to Sarah's personality, or questioned how she really felt. Her lips were always fitted with the expected response, but perhaps she wasn't as anxious to be pregnant as everyone assumed she was. Why should she be, when she knew that her husband could have intercourse with any of the servant women of the tribe, and have offspring by them? Why should she be concerned at Abraham's lament over a lack of legitimate progeny, when she may have known that he had many offspring?

All the descendants of Abraham that are mentioned are male children. At any point in her life, Sarah may have had a female child, and it would not have been noted in the genealogical information. We do not really know the exact relationship of the female Keturah, to the patriarch Abraham, but her descendants are his descendants (Genesis 25:1).

The tradition carries more information about Hagar. She was an Egyptian slave girl (Genesis 16:1), perhaps one of the slaves mentioned as being given to Abraham by the pharaoh (Genesis 12:16). We do not know if her original country was Egypt, or if she had been purloined by the Egyptians from a more distant homeland. She obviously had had a rough childhood, but was still feisty enough to give her mistress a hard time (Genesis 16:4).

Abraham, as a religious patriarch, is described as having conversations with God (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15; Genesis 17). Sarah was around during one of the conversations (Genesis 18:1-15), and Isaac was there to verify another when Abraham attempted to sacrifice his first born son, a common practice in that time (Genesis 22:11-17). (The Muslims claim Ishmael as witness to this would-be sacrifice scene.) We unhesitatingly accept the fact that patriarchs are expected to have communications from God.

Somehow, we do not expect that women should have this same type of communication, yet Hagar, too, is given prominence as a recipient of a theophany although she is only a female slave. When she ran away from her mistress Sarah, the angel of the Lord met her at a spring and advised her to return to her slavery. She is promised, like Abraham, so many descendants that no one will be able to count them (Genesis 16:10). She is amazed that God has spoken to her, and calls this God, "A God Who Sees" (Genesis 16:13). In this supposedly patriarchal society we are given a God

who is interested in the welfare of a lowly slave woman. It makes you suspect that this God Who Sees Women and who is concerned with women, stands for the equality of women.

Hagar was sent away again and had a second theophany (Genesis 21:17). Ishmael was present at this vision. We are assured that God hears the cries of hungry children and of mothers lamenting over their children. God sees women and he sees how the male oriented societies have mistreated them by sending them into the wastelands of the world with short supplies and dependent children. God assures the woman of future possibilities. The single mothers of our society today can feel kinship with Hagar and put their hope in the future that God promises.

7.2 The Lord Has Seen My Trouble

Another female personality in the Bible that we often gloss over, because she is described as somehow ugly or deficient, is Leah. Jacob's parents, Rebekah and Isaac, didn't want him marrying foreign women as his brother Esau had done, so they sent him to Rebekah's male relative Laban. This man welcomed Jacob, took him into his home, and let him help with his household and property. Laban had two daughters, and I guess he had no sons, as none are mentioned. When Jacob came along, as he was a relative, he was in a privileged position to inherit, if he married one of the daughters. Both the young ladies thought it would be a good idea to marry him, as such a marriage would enable them to inherit their father's property. Jacob preferred the younger sister, Rachel. The Bible says that the older one just wasn't as shapely and beautiful (Genesis 29:17). Laban tricked his son-in-law and got him to marry the older daughter first. Actually this wasn't such a bad thing for Jacob, as patriarch, as the older daughter produced lots and lots of sons, whereas the younger may have gotten tripped up by following purity regulations, and was temporarily barren.

Leah was well aware that she was playing second fiddle to her sister Rachel. To live in this unloved and oppressive situation, must have been very difficult. She didn't get along too well with Rachel. She was usually pregnant, and it didn't seem to gain her husband's approval, as she kept hoping that it would. With her first son she had rejoiced, and named him Reuben, meaning "The Lord Has Seen My Trouble." God saw Leah's problems, and gave her the strength to raise six sons, and at least one daughter, Dinah (Genesis 30:21). When her sister Rachel died in childbirth, Leah took on the task of raising Rachel's second son Benjamin.

Leah evidently did a good job of consolidating all the brothers and promoting community in the whole tribe. Other tribal communities in the Near East rose into prominence and disappeared, particularly when they

were displaced into a foreign country. This group of tribal brothers went down to Egypt, raised children, had grandchildren, and great grandchildren, and 400 years later, there still was a tribal unity. Could it be that Leah, as remaining matriarch, supplied the faith in God and the consolidating spirit that kept the community together? One woman who has undergone oppression and thus achieved understanding can influence the lives of many to have great faith in God.

The advice given in many sections of the Book of Sirach, otherwise known as Ecclesiasticus, sounds like it might have come from a woman such as Leah. This book speaks with veneration of the elders and reverently sets down their wisdom. Chapter 3:12-14 sounds very motherly. Only a mother could advise her son to "support your father in his old age, and do not grieve him during his life. Even if his mind should fail, show him sympathy." Only a mother would know how much she loved her son, telling him, "You will be like a son to the Most High, whose love for you will surpass your mother's." Leah and other women like her accepted their difficult situations in life and showed their love for those around them, thus building a unified tribe that carried the message of the One God.

Jesus as a man was able to transmit his message of love and forgiveness to the male dominated community. Leah as a woman transmitted her faith to her offspring. God saw this woman, Leah, and her problem of rejection by others, and God allowed her out of this rejection, to reach a fuller understanding of others. She could help her children, and through them, their children, to empathize with one another. She could encourage them not to reject, as she had been rejected. She could give them her faith that God sees women and men and their troubles, and that God helps.

7.3 Does God Hide God's Face?

Attempting to look at God and humanity from an impartial viewpoint, we might conclude that God sees women as equal to men, and that he loves women as much as he loves men. He gives fulfillment to women who serve him, in the same balance as he does to their male counterparts. Does he give us teachings in his inspired word, the Bible, that tell us that women have less potential for leading God-directed lives? Does it sometimes seem, when women are the topic of discussion in the Bible, that God is looking the other way? Perhaps it is only the individual reader who is looking in the wrong direction. We may find in some sections of the Bible that examples are given of gross mistreatment of women. We must decide for ourselves if these examples are to be applauded and followed, or if they are put there as horror stories to point out evils in society and to discourage imitation.

In Genesis 19 we are presented with the very casual treatment of two