Human Birth Accounts in the Hebrew Bible

Who claimed that they grappled? Rather, it is that they were moving around a lot in the womb (Genesis 25), and this raised questions that led to prophecy about them.

The text says:

After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.[c] Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.

I’m curuious what @deuteroKJ says, but that is sufficient ambiguous to not necessarily mean that Jacob was delivered with his arm extended and grasping Esau.

Regardless, it is possible for a baby to present an arm first. It is very dangerous, because it often leads to the baby getting stuck, which is a medical emergency. Still, it is possible to deliver a baby like this. Though, I doubt that arm is grasping the heal of the other baby while the delivery is happening.

2 Likes

Yes, they can. There is a phase where they are pretty close to one another and very active.

1 Like

What about the story of Zerah and Peretz?

Gen 38:27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twins in her womb! 38:28 While she was in labor, one of them put out his hand , and the midwife tied a crimson thread on that hand, to signify: This one came out first. 38:29 But just then he drew back his hand , and out came his brother; and she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” So he was named Perez. 38:30 Afterward his brother came out, on whose hand was the crimson thread; he was named Zerah.

Do you believe that during the birth of Zerah and Peretz,

(1) Zerah stuck his hand out first

(2) Crimson thread was stuck around the hand

(3) That Peretz and Zerah then swapped places in the birth canal such that Peretz ended up being born first???

In addition, have we got any modern day examples of something similar?

A parent, with their story of their twins “being born just like Jacob and Esau” or “just like Peretz and Zerah”!

Regarding “grappling”, it seems clear that the author depicts Jacob grasping Esau’s heel to portray Jacob and Esau competing to be born first, foreshadowing later on the dispute for the firstborn blessing (and in turn, depicting the current geopolitical relationship between Israel and Edom at the author’s time).

The bible itself also describes their prenatal struggle thus

“And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:22–23)

It seems like the author would otherwise be quite anthropomorphising foetuses in utero, to describe them as struggling before they were even born! (Unless, like I said, the author wrote the birth tale for another reason - to describe the relationship between Edom and Israel).

1 Like

The author of Genesis 25:22 did.

1 Like

2 posts were split to a new topic: Vincent Torley on the Virgin Birth

I affirm what the text says, but have not really studied to know precisely what the text says! I’m curious to learn from the exegetes on this one.

In v. 22. “struggle together” (with most EVs) is probably the best translation, but leaves some wiggle room on interpretation. The root means “crush,” and is often something violent and oppressive. But the form in v. 22 is unique (called a Hitpolel, which suggests something reflexive). NIV’s “jostled each other” might be a bit weak, but still gets at a basic meaning. But clearly the author envisions this (probably natural) “struggle” is prophetic for the later (violent) struggle. This is consistent with lots of things in Genesis. (What really happened goes back to other discussions on historical precision. I don’t see why we need to assume some tight mapping; the story is meant to speak to later issues and generations.)

Because of my relative nonchalance, what’s really happening in v. 26 seems like not a big deal. But since you asked: the verb “grasp” is a participle, suggesting ongoing action (“grasping”). But the relative timing (i.e., when did he begin to grasp the heel is not certain). KJV suggests that the grasping came post-birth (but ignores the participle), but most EVs suggest the grasping is happening at the time of birth (e.g., “came out with his hand grasping”). The latter is an interpretation, but in balance probably makes most sense (not medically, but exegetically). But I really don’t know what the fuss is all about (I don’t expect precision in these types of stories. That’s not their objective).

3 Likes

Even if we accept that the story is not precise, assuming we take the narrative to be “historical” in the sense of “being based on actual historical figures and events, even if not precise” (in this case, the historical figures being Jacob and Esau and their parents), do you think that there had to be a “real event” behind the descriptions of Jacob and Esau struggling before birth? For example, is it “precise enough” if Rebekah actually felt some palpitations in her womb during the pregnancy, or does there have to be some real-life equivalent of one twin grasping the heel of the other?

3 Likes

It’s a good question, and I haven’t thought enough about it at this level. From a conservative stance, the technically answer is: it depends on the author’s intent. Then one would need to decide if historicity (as opposed to, e.g., mere etiology) is the intent. My personal presupposition is to assume something historical, though I’m open to being convinced otherwise. But that “something historical” could be as simple as a faint memory of a troubling pregnancy and birth. Even one wants some type of heel grasping, this could’ve been post-birth and retrojected back into the birthing story (I’m thinking out loud here).

2 Likes

I think the quote is:

It is describing the situation of her kids moving around a ton, perhaps more than usual, and perhaps she did not even know she had twins yet.

1 Like

Yep, and when reading the rest of the bible’s comments on the whole thing, it is actually obvious that they are contending. The word “grappled” is perfect.

2 Likes

Funnily enough I read this passage the other day, and spent about 30 sec on wondering about the obstetric question, and another 30 sec on the literary/theological question. So thanks for setting me thinking more deeply.

Unfortunately the last twins I delivered were in 1979, and definitely didn’t include prolapse of a hand. But I can remember some of the wide range of malpresentations twin pregnancies allow, and would hesitate to exclude possibilities based on more common outcomes. I can imagine such an unusual situation being reported in a letter to the BMJ by some country doctor a century ago as “Remarkable case of hand presentation in twin pregnancy.” Weird stuff happens in obstetrics, and an awful lot of babies have been born over the millennia.

Not surprisingly this passage has been dealt with by interested medics - I found one article by a midwife, and this more detailed exploration in the Tyndale Bulletin from 2017, which may be of interest.

But aside from the obstetrics, it’s important to ask why the story is there in Genesis at all. If such a unique birth did occur, it would certainly have been worthy of recording in a family tradition in its own right - but scarcely worth inventing out of whole-cloth for the “final” account in the Torah, since neither Perez nor Zerah play any further part in Genesis.

The episode has some intrinsic importance in establishing Perez as the firstborn of Judah - but that would not normally have been in doubt, unless there was something confusing about the birth of the twins. And, as I said, that progeniture is of minor concern in Genesis.

In the context of Genesis, the parallels with Esau and Jacob as a “conflicted” twin pregnancy might have been of some interest : perhaps the Lion of Judah takes after his father Israel. But again, I doubt one would make up such an account to establish a rather nebulous parallel.

In the broader history of Israel, Zerah is the ancestor of Achan, who “brings trouble on Israel” by stealing devoted items from Jericho, but if you refer that back to this birth account, you have to say “So what?”

More potentially significant is Perez as the ancestor of King David (and of Jesus the Messiah), both of whom have genealogies full of dubious events that would be expected to exclude them from royal honour.God chooses David as his “firstborn” though he is youngest son, and his genealogy reflects that in numerous ways, such as his descent from the Canaanite Rahab and from the foreigner Ruth.

So Perez’s “younger displaces the older” theme, like Jacob’s with Esau, forms a part of the pattern of the royal narrative within the Old Testament as a whole; but has little obvious purpose in Genesis itself. Neither seem to me very good reasons for making up an impossible birth and, more to the point, including it in a highly literary book in which words are never wasted - Genesis is not the letters page of the BMJ.

For those reasons, I’m unwilling to dismiss the essential factuality of the account, whilst agreeing that it would be a highly unusual event. If it were not, it would have been buried in history anyway.

3 Likes

It looks like you have pieced together quite a few motives for a much more mundane explanation of the story of Zerah and Perez.

Zerah was the ancestor of Achan, who apparently sinned and he and his people were to be cherem (put to the ban, destroyed).

Perez was the ancestor of King David.

The mundane explanation of the story of Zerah is to explain the geopolitics of one group who became king and another that was destroyed.

Or do you believe God foreshadows/predestines one group for great things and another as vessels for destruction, by their order of birth?

Or is this kinda like cessationism, where God worked one way in the past, but no longer today?

Except that one has to base that explanation entirely on speculation: David replaced a king from the tribe of Benjamin, and Zerah’s line was not wiped out simply because of Achan (centuries before David). There was no political reason (that we know of) for a king to arise from Judah, and if there was to be rivalry, it would surely be more likely to come from David’s older brothers in the same family, let alone the same clan.

As for your other point, remember that even in Britain today, those destined to be head of state are so destined because of birth order, under a coronation oath founded on the sovereignty of God in government.

It wouldn’t be the first time in the bible where an ancestor was a proxy or vice versa for a descendant.

For example, Noah’s son Ham was the one who saw Noah’s nakedness, but it was Ham’s son Canaan punished for Ham’s transgression.

If Canaan can be cursed because of his ancestor Ham, why could not Achan’s downfall be foreshadowed by Zerah’s birth?

In addition, I read elsewhere in a biblical studies book for example that there are certain characters inserted into various genealogies by those returning from exile so that they could have land/be a priest.

Such non-contemporous changes are not unusual.

It took me a while, but I found it!!

“On his deathbed, David instructs Solomon:
Show favor to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite and let them be among those who eat at thy table; for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom thy brother.
—1 Kings 2:7”

“Here again we see how the biblical narratives use memories of exemplary deeds to negotiate status, honor, and belonging.

The disproportionate amount of space devoted to Barzillai in the David traditions was likely occasioned by political controversies in the post-exilic period. Although not noticed by most biblical scholars, the descendants of “Barzillai the Gileadite” make an appearance in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. Various population groups, some of whom relocated to the Transjordan, could not prove “that they belonged to Israel.” In addition, several of the priests are reported to have “married the female descendants of Barzillai the Gileadite and were called by [i.e., registered under] his name.” After searching unsuccessfully for their names in the genealogical records, they were forbidden to eat the holy food of the priests and “were excluded from the priesthood as ‘unclean’” (see Ezra 2:61–63).6 The name of Barzillai the Gileadite, in other words, discredits Judahite priests (and perhaps other persons) who bear it.

This unusually suggestive text from a post-exilic biblical book reveals one context in which to situate the formation of biblical passages, such as the account of Barzillai. Many in the post-exilic period would have dissented from the exclusivist, Judah-centric approach to the boundaries of Israel, which is promoted by these texts from Ezra–Nehemiah. By constructing and transmitting alternative memories, influential families and clans could defend their place in Jerusalemite society. Thus, Barzillai’s family, or the priests who had married into it, could claim that their ancestor came to David’s aid in a time of war and that the king rewarded the solidarity of this “very great man” by commanding Solomon to make a place for his descendants at his table in Jerusalem. For members of Judahite society and history, it would be difficult to imagine a more enviable honor to report about their ancestors.7

Excerpt From: Jacob L. Wright. “King David and His Reign Revisited.” v1.4. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://books.apple.com/au/book/king-david-and-his-reign-revisited/id741571300

King David and his Reign Revisited is an absolutely amazing enhanced ibook btw, chock full of media, photos, etc. If I could give it 10/5 stars for an ebook, I would. It is gorgeous. Worth its money many times over.

It has great sections on negative and positive war commemorations and explains in detail why, and demonstrates many times throughout for the purposes of this thread that stories were told for non-historical practical reasons, and genealogies edited also for non-historical practical reasons.

That’s plausible, which is why I included it in my original reply. For Achan’s progenitor to be remembered to have “lost his birthright” might possibly be seen as a (weak) providential and prophetic sign. It’s far less of a reason to invent his loss of primogeniture with an astonishing patriarchal birth narrative.

Besides, that’s nothing to do with the dynastic conflict with David’s family you suggested in your last post.

In fact, one of the few references to the sons of Zerah, in Nehemiah 11, shows that not only did the clan continue right up to after the exile, but one of its representatives, Pethaniah, was in an influential position (far from cursed) as “the (Persian) king’s agent in all affairs relating to the people.”

However, unlike the clearly intended parallel story of Jacob and Esau, Zerah is neither blameworthy or praiseworthy in the Genesis episode - and Perez might be seen as either an opportunist, like Jacob, or simply as vigorous (which would maybe be a hint at David).

As my Liberal RE teacher used to say at school, “That’s one theory.” Now for your evidence!

As my Liberal RE teacher used to say at school, “That’s one theory.” Now for your evidence!

Great claims demand great evidence.

Particularly when you understand how, culturally and historically, stories and genealogies were edited for non-historical practical reasons (as demonstrated by the story of Barzillai in my previous comment).

If I told you I could walk, what evidence would you need?

If I told you I could fly, what evidence would you need?

Is there any modern day evidence that twin babies can and have switched places at birth, after crowning?

What about something easier - say a twin grasping the heel of the first twin at birth?

As an MD, I have seen patients claim that they were the Queen of Sheba, a patient claim their dad or uncle or best friend was Satan, a patient claim their fellow inmate was Jesus in the flesh.

Common things happen commonly. The medical saying is, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

Today, the prevalence of Schizophrenia is about 1%, schizoaffective 1%, depression with psychotic features 1%. We also have many people consume hallucinogens.

Given the frequency today of delusions and hallucinations, I don’t doubt historically there were those who were deluded or hallucinated.

How do you know biblical authors didn’t hallucinate?

We already know from the bible that they had hallucinogens - the story of Rachel and Leah tell us, if you believe the passage, that the patriarchs partook of mandrakes, a known hallucinogen.

In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” But she said to her, “Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes also?” Rachel said, “Then he may lie with you tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes.” When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come in to me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night. Genesis 30:14‭-‬16 ESV Genesis 30:14-16 In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” But she said to | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

They are medically improbable to the point of being ridiculous to accept. Telling me to accept it is akin to suggesting I accept a homeopath’s tale of water memory. Ever heard of the bullet baby?

I am not saying Esau and Jacob or Perez and his brother weren’t born, but it seems their births were covered in fictitious tales.

1 Like