I said: “Why doesn’t Armstrong quote from a major Jewish commentary on Genesis like Sarna's?
He said: “Why don't you quote from *any* Jewish source, rather than simply assert things about the Jews and give us a bald reference citation? At least I gave some substantiation of my opinion.”
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/response-to-steve-hays-further-defense.html
Be careful what you ask for!
At present, Nahum Sarna has written the standard Jewish commentary on Genesis. As he and Chaim Potok say in the introduction to the series:
“In this century, there has been a revival of Jewish biblical scholarship; Israeli and American scholars, in particular, concentrating in the fields of archaeology, biblical history, Semitic languages, and the religion of Israel, have opened exciting new vistas into the world of the Scriptures. For the first time in history, we have at our disposal information and methological tools that enable us to explore the biblical text in a way that could never have been done before. This new world of knowledge, as seen through the eyes of contemporary Jewish scholars and utilizing at the same time the insights of over twenty centuries of traditional Jewish exegesis, is now available for the first time to a general audience in The JSP Torah Commentary."
Moving on to Sarna’s specific comments:
***QUOTE***
THE LEVIRATE OBLIGATION (38:6-11)
The death of Er without a son made Onan subject to the levirate law. Marriage between a man and his brother’s wife is strictly forbidden in the Pentateuchal legislation of Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21. The only exception to the prohibition occurs when the brother dies without a son. According to Deuteronomy 25:5, a man has an obligation to his widowed sister-in-law. This institution is known in Hebrew as yibbum, or “levirate marriage.”
The levirate institution long antedated the Pentateuchal legislation. In fact, it is widely documented in one form or another in several extrabiblical sources. The compendium of laws from the Middle Assyrian Empire (15-14C BCE)…The Hittite laws (14th-13C BCE)…A contract from the town of Nuzi from the middle centuries of the second millennium BCE…
[Thus], she would be assured of livelihood and protection.
The surviving brother became a surrogate for the deceased husband who posthumously gained a child, socially acknowledged to be his progeny and heir.
The callous refusal of Onan to perpetuate the line of his brother may have been due to a lack of sense of duty to the dead. An even more powerful motivation would have been the fact that with the death of the first-born, Onan inherits one-half of his father’s estate. However, should he provide an heir to his brother, his portion would be diminished.
Genesis Rabba 55:5-6 understands that he practiced a primitive form of birth control through coitus interruptus…Clearly, society at this time had made no provision for voluntary renunciation of the levirate duty as is found in Deuteronomy 25:7-9.
The text does not make clear specifically why Onan incurs divine wrath. The development of the narrative favors the explanation that it is due to the evasion of his obligation to his dead brother rather than because of the manner in which he acts. By frustrating the purpose of the levirate institution, Onan has placed his sexual relationship with his sister-in-law in the category of incest—a capital offense. The unusual emphasis given to the particular socio-legal background of the story clearly shows that the point at issue is the levirate obligation and not the general topic of birth control.
N. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (JPS 1989), 266-67.
***END-QUOTE***
Swiissssh!! Nothing but nets!!
ReplyDeleteBig wow. I'm on record repeatedly saying the text had to do with both the levirate law and contraception. I argued that other instances of failure to keep the levirate law did not result in death, so (by reasonable analogy) this one shouldn't have, either. Therefore, I contended that contraception was the likely (primary or immediate) cause.
ReplyDeleteSo what does Sarna say?:
"The text does not make clear specifically why Onan incurs divine wrath."
This being the case, then obviously any speculation as to why he was killed is just that: more or less plausible according to supporting arguments given. But after his tentative admission above, he seems to contradict himself:
"The unusual emphasis given to the particular socio-legal background of the story clearly shows that the point at issue is the levirate obligation and not the general topic of birth control."
First it isn't clear, then it is. Which is it, then? At this point of open possibility, the exegete's prior bias will, no doubt, have an effect on his conclusions. My Catholic views will tend to make me see contraception as the cause, as a matter of natural bias. Those who have no problem with the practice will tend to not see it condemned.
Isn't that rather obvious? I gave my cross-referenced reasons why I take the view that I do, and he gave his. I have the history of both Christian and Jewish moral teaching and exegesis of the Onan passage on my side; he does not.
I think this is significant, but ahistorical types don't care about it. That's their problem, not mine. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit has been active during all the centuries of the Church, not just presently, or from 1517 onwards.
Based on what you cited, the influence of "contemporary Jewish scholars" will almost certainly involve a liberal bias. This work you cite appears to be in the realm of Conservative Judaism. See:
http://www.answers.com/topic/rabbinic-literature
According to a relevant Wikipedia article, "Jewish views on contraception":
"Conservative Judaism, while generally encouraging its members to follow the traditional Jewish views on birth control has been more willing to allow greater exceptions regarding its use to fit better within modern society."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_contraception
That will inevitably color the viewpoint of the commentator on the Onan passage. When the passage itself is not clear in specific meaning (admitted by Sarna on one hand and then taken back with the other), this will particularly be the case, as we all bring predispositions to the text (whether we admit it or not).
This isn't the equivalent of eisegesis: it is simply the nature of how everyone looks at data that is inconclusive in and of itself. We all extrapolate and deduce according to our worldview when it isn't possible to not do so, given the inconclusive vagueness of a biblical text.
Dave Armstrong said...
ReplyDelete"Big wow. I'm on record repeatedly saying the text had to do with both the levirate law and contraception."
This is a throwaway argument. He admits what he cannot deny—that the text is dealing with leviate law—but then attempts to disarm this factor as key to the penalty, which he reassigns to contraception, per se.
"But after his tentative admission above, he seems to contradict himself...First it isn't clear, then it is. Which is it, then?"
No, Sarna doesn't contradict himself. Dave is quoting Sarna out of context. V10, considered in isolation, is unclear, but when considered in relation to levirate marriage in extrabiblical sources as well as the Mosaic law, we can clearly rule out contraception, per se, as the capital offense.
He does not interpret v10 in a vacuum. What is unclear in isolation is clearer "in the development of the narrative" along with the "unusual emphasis given to the particular socio-legal background," &c.
"I have the history of both Christian and Jewish moral teaching and exegesis of the Onan passage on my side; he does not."
This is irrelevant to original intent when exegeting a text from the Bronze Age.
Also, Sarna does appeal to Jewish tradition: Genesis Rabba.
"I think this is significant, but ahistorical types don't care about it."
False dichotomy. Dave is guilty of imposing an ahistorical interpretation on the text by ripping it out of its historical setting.
It's anachronistic to interpret a text from the ANE era in light of post-Biblical developments.
"I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit has been active during all the centuries of the Church, not just presently, or from 1517 onwards."
Irrelevant. The Holy Spirit was active in the inspiration of Gen 38. Moses wrote to be understood by his target audience.
"Based on what you cited, the influence of 'contemporary Jewish scholars' will almost certainly involve a liberal bias."
What it will involve, in what I quoted, is an interaction between "over twenty centuries of traditional Jewish exegesis" and contemporary Biblical archeology, comparative Semitics, &c.
"We all extrapolate and deduce according to our worldview when it isn't possible to not do so, given the inconclusive vagueness of a biblical text."
Which, once again, is not what Sarna said about the passage.
There's a distinction and interrelation between *text* (e.g. Gen 38:10 or 38:6-11), *cotext* (e.g. Lev 18; 20; Deut 25), and *context* (ANE custom of levirate marriage).