Rebecca -> Tamar -> Ruth -> David = the genetic-engineering of a King

[Penelope]

Rereading the The Book of J and comparing it to Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers (with their later additions by other authors of the Scriptures) ... something struck me as interesting:

Yahweh "shows favor" on this individual or "gives his blessing" to that individual.
Yahweh is "pleased" ...

But what is it that pleases Yahweh?

& & &

Ever since the beginning of domestication of plants and animals over 10,000 years ago, humans became pretty smart when it came to cross-breeding grains to produce a stronger strain or breeding herd animals which were stronger or sturdier or produced better wool or more milk. What today we call "selective breeding."

It's not much of a leap for archaic peoples to attempt to figure out how to 'selectively breed' a better breed of tribal leadership. Healthy ("strong"), smart ("cunning"), with a winning personality ("favored").

& & &

Anthropologists tell us that there are two principal ways inheritance is handed down in patrilineal cultures:
- divided evenly between each of the sons (with a shrinking domain as the family multiplies), versus
- the eldest son inheriting the lion-share of the family property (and, with it, the leadership of the family).
With this latter, the younger sons and their families must move on, into new terrain, face dangers, and begin new tribes.

According to Scripture, this appears to have been Abraham's fate. And it is an interesting irony of Scripture that the First Child often got the short straw when it came to inheritance (when it came to receiving his father's "blessing"). Abraham gave his blessing to his Second Son, Isaac. Isaac (thru his wife's ruse) gave his blessing to his Second Son, Jacob. And Jacob (for reasons which are thoroughly unclear to me) gave his blessing to his Fourth Son, Judah.

The Father's deathbed-blessing and Yahweh's blessing, in scripture, appear (most often) to be one and the same. The Father of the family/tribe is handing down its property/leadership to ... not the rightful heir, the First Son ... but to Whichever Son appears to have the best (healthiest, smartest, most charismatic) genes. And Yahweh is rubber-stamping that decision (conferring His Blessing).

Indeed, from Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers - as well as Chronicles - one might logically conclude that Yahweh is "the god of good genes."
(Yahweh as the "selective breeder" of His Chosen People.)

& & &

In his commentary upon the The Book of J, Harold Bloom argues that this - the oldest text of the Bible - was actually written by a woman. Isaac wants to pass on his "blessing" to his eldest (and favorite) son Esau. But Isaac's wife, Rebecca, conspires with Isaac's younger son, Jacob, to obtain the blessing from the dying Isaac by ruse.
(Chapter 60-61.)

Is it just that Jacob is Rebecca's favorite child?
Or rather, that Rebecca is less sentimental than her husband. That she is thinking about the future of the Tribe - in a more hardheaded, realistic way. And to her, Jacob is the better choice ... ?

The ability to be "cunning" is portrayed - here - as a virtue, not a moral failing ... when it comes to breeding a strong tribe. A tribe that is "blessed" with future success.

& & &

Bloom's contention about the female authorship of J is reinforced by the Tamar episode.
(Chapter 83-87.)
Tamar sees genetic strength in her father-in-law, Judah, but weakness in his three sons. (The first two die without giving her a child.) Playing the prostitute, she seduces her father-in-law before her marriage to the third son is legally consummated, then reveals to Judah her ruse. She bears him the twins, Peretz and Zerah.
(At birth: Zerah immerges, partway, from the womb. But Peretz forces his way out first, as if demanding the mantle of birthright.)

According to 1 Chronicles 2:
Peretz beget Hezron,
Hezron beget Ram,
Ram beget Anninadab,
Anninadab beget Nahshon,
Nahshon beget Salma,
Salma beget Boaz,
Boaz beget Obed,
Obed beget Jesse,
Jesse beget David.

Tamar's ruse - ten generations down the road - produced a King.
She was, as it turns out, a wise selective breeder.

And that may well be the point of the story.
(Not just of this episode, but of the whole story of J.)

& & &

Tamar was likely an outsider (Scripture does not say). But she saw genetic strength in the clan she was marrying into.

The same can be said for Ruth, who saw genetic strength in the family of her mother-in-law, Naomi.
(Book of Ruth 1-4.)
So when Ruth's husband died, Ruth chose not to return to her own family, but followed Naomi back to Naomi's clan in Bethlehem. And the two women conspired to make a good match for Ruth. And she landed an aging man but one of good blood, Boaz.
She bore to him Obed, the grandfather of King David.

Genetic engineering of a King.

Which the women of the Bible (strong, cunning, winning women) may have been smarter about (more "blessed" regarding) than the men.

 

[bob x]

I have often remarked that there is serious irony about Biblical literalists of the "Creationist" type fighting against Darwinism, in that the Tanakh ("Old Testament") is a relentlessly Darwinian book. There is scarcely a passage in it hinting about any afterlife rewards or punishments: rather, your reward is that "your seed will be multiplied", or your punishment is that "your line will be cut off". You did not have to tell these people anything about "differential reproductive success": they lived it, and probably could not have imagined anybody thinking the world worked any other way.

 

[bananabrain]

I have often remarked that there is serious irony about Biblical literalists of the "Creationist" type fighting against Darwinism, in that the Tanakh ("Old Testament") is a relentlessly Darwinian book. There is scarcely a passage in it hinting about any afterlife rewards or punishments: rather, your reward is that "your seed will be multiplied", or your punishment is that "your line will be cut off".

that's very amusingly true. i shall use it henceforth.

now, penelope, prepare to be amazed, for i am about to agree wholeheartedly with you for once - except, of course, to point out that the genetic motivation you ascribe to the biblical figures you mention is more understood by us as being due to the *prophetic* faculty in the women concerned and, of course, the action of the Divine Will. you have, unfortunately, not provided any *textual* support for your argument, but it is available, from verse 38:14:

[tamar] sat down at the crossroads that were on the way to Timnah, for she saw that Shelah had grown up, but as for her, she was not given to him for a wife.

to which rashi comments:

At the crossroads, on the road to Timnah. Our Sages, however, explained it midrashically to mean, at the entrance (פֶתַח) [to the residence] of our father Abraham, which all eyes (עֵינַיִם) looked forward to see. [From BT Sotah 10a]

this alludes to the abrahamic covenant, which does indeed mention the myriad of abraham's descendants. rashi further comments:

she made herself available to Judah, for she longed to bear sons from him.

this certainly attributes agency to her. following verse 18:

[tamar]conceived [judah's] likeness

rashi gives us the reason that she did so:

Mighty men like him, righteous men like him. [From Gen. Rabbah 85:9]

it is not a stretch to regard this as a somewhat eugenic motivation, although, as i say, we don't see the motivation as such.

one thing you may not be aware of, however, is that this marriage is not in fact regarded as permitted; judah was not in fact allowed to marry his own daughter-in-law; this (along with jacob's marrying sisters) is excused by the fact that this was before the marriage regulations were given in the Torah. so, on one hand, the male line of the davidic dynasty comes from a dubious liaison. but it doesn't end there - the marriage of ruth and boaz is also somewhat dubious, because ruth, of course, is a moabite and, as you may or may not realise, such a marriage is prohibited, although, strictly speaking, the oral Law restricts the prohibition to moabite men and, of course, the tradition is extraordinarily complimentary about ruth, who is the paradigm of righteous conversion - even her name is the gematria equivalent (606) of the extra commandments she'd have to take on over her noahide 7. however, if you wish to quibble, it seems odd for the Torah to highlight the somewhat less-than-spotless antecedents of the davidic dynasty. if you then add this to the actions of david himself, in that his initial liaison with bathsheba took place under morally problematic circumstances (and resulted in Divine punishment) so even his descendants were not to be considered the result of a lineage that was without reproach, this also adds further question marks over textual treatment of dynastic matters - and don't even get me started on what david's descendants got up to. i am sure bob has interesting insights into why later redactors might not have whitewashed the story even further; why would such stuff be left in if it shows revered biblical figures in a less than perfect light? personally, i don't see a problem - we jews like our sages, prophets, patriarchs - and kings, too - to have healthy, realistic human fallibilities.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

According to the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, Rachab the whore of Jericho, who protected Joshua's spies because she foresaw them to be the winning side, was also in David's lineage. I am sure this was a Jewish story before it got copied into the Gospels, even if it is not in the canon; bb, have you heard that one from some other source?

 

[bananabrain]

i had heard that; the sources are in midrashim on ruth and qoheleth, as well as sifrei 78on bemidbar; this is the one from ruth:

Ten priests and prophets descended from Rahab, upon whom rested the Ruah ha-Qodesh, because she sent the spies away for three days, knowing that they would be safe after that. The following are the priests and prophets: Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Sariah, Machsia, Hanomel, Salom, Baruch, Neriah, Ezekiel and Booza. (Mid. Ruth 2.)

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

Thanks. Salmo (written "Salom" in your list; "Salmon" in Matthew) is the one in David's genealogy (grandfather of Boaz I think?)