Human Birth Accounts in the Hebrew Bible

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

There seems a lot of speculation on political factions and their motives in post-Exilic Jerusalem on the part of Wright. The claim of would-be priests of being descended from Barzillai might have been true, or fictional, but it is also true that Barzillai was part of David’s Jerusalem elite, not the Northern Kingdom that had been in exile a century longer than Judah at the time of Ezra.

The chances of proving Israelite (specifically Aaronic) descent may indeed have been as difficult for them as for the others mentioned in Ezra, so a number of alternative motives are possible, of which the weakest appears to be flying the flag for northern Gilieadites against Judah.

As for the account in 1 Kings, I see no sign of “disproportionate space.” David suffered a major rebellion, and Barzillai risked a considerable amount to support him during his troubles, even though an old man, as the narrative describes. It is quite appropriate for David to remember him in his final admonitions to his heir, and even for the nation to remember him as a hero during the time of the Davidic Kingdom.

If I were a post-exilic author fictionalising David, in a supposed context of dissidents wanting to downgrade David in favour of the other tribes, I would have given a disproportionately small space for Barzillai, to weaken their case. So we need to weave a tale that 1 Kings was written after the exile against the post-exilic Jerusalem regime, yet was somehow accepted when their priests were rejected. Whereas since the Governor was a direct descendant of the House of David, you’d have expected his party to have written it, if anybody.

And for those reasons… it all sounds made up to me!

Why was it so covered?

The Torah is a religious book. AFAIK religious books tend to garnish events with improbable tales. Every other culture did this, so I don’t see why the Jews living in those times wouldn’t adopt a similar practice.

1 Like

On what basis, then, does one accept Moses parting the red sea, but reject Djadjaemankh’s splitting of a lake for Pharaoh Sneferu as written in the Westcar Papyrus? (unless, of course, you also accept Djadjaemankh splitting a lake).

Similarly, on what basis does one accept Moses receiving the commandments on Mount Sinai, but reject Hammurabi accepting his Code of Laws from the Sun God? Hammurabi’s Code of Laws can be found at the Louvre.

Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia.

On what basis do you accept YHWH commanding His people to put to the ban (cherem) the Canaanites, but reject Chemosh commanding the Moabites to put to the ban (cherem) the Israelites, as documented on the Mesha Stele? The Mesha Stele can be found in the Louvre.

It is interesting to note that the Mesha Stele documents that Chemosh only allowed the Moabites to be conquered by the Israelites because the Moabites had sinned against Chemosh (does this ring a bell?)

Lastly, how does one decide which particular biblical aetiological tale to accept?

For example, the bible has two conflicting stories on how the city of Shechem, the capital of Israel came to be, and how Beth-El came to be.

J from Judah, E from Israel

First, there is the matter of the settings of the stories. In Genesis, in stories that call God Yahweh, the patriarch Abraham lives in Hebron.6 Hebron was the principal city of Judah, the capital of Judah under King David, the city from which David’s Judean chief priest, Zadok, came.

In the covenant that Yahweh makes with Abraham, he promises that Abraham’s descendants will have the land “from the river of Egypt to the…river Euphrates.”7 These were the nation’s boundaries under King David, the founder of Judah’s royal family.

But in a story that calls God Elohim, Abraham’s grandson Jacob has a face-to-face fight with someone who turns out to be God (or perhaps an angel), and Jacob names the place where it happens Peni-El (which means “Face-of-God”). Peni-El was a city that King Jeroboam built in Israel.8

Both sources, J and E, tell stories about the city of Beth-El, and both kingdoms, Judah and Israel, made political claims on Beth-El, which was on the border between them.9 Both sources, J and E, tell stories about the city of Shechem, which Jeroboam built and made the capital of Israel. But the two stories are very different. According to the J story, a man named Shechem, who is the original prince of that city, loves Jacob’s daughter Dinah and sleeps with her. He then asks for her hand in marriage. Jacob’s sons reply that they could not contemplate this or any intermarriage with the people of Shechem because the Shechemites are not circumcised and the sons of Jacob are. The prince of Shechem and his father Hamor therefore persuade all the men of Shechem to undergo circumcision. While the men are immobile from the pain of the surgery, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, enter the city, kill all of the men, and take back their sister Dinah. Their father Jacob criticizes them for doing this, but they answer, “Should he treat our sister like a whore?” And that is the end of the story.10 This J story of how Israel acquired its capital city is not a very pleasant one.

The E story, meanwhile, tells it this way: And [Jacob] bought the portion of the field where he pitched his tent from the hand of the sons of Hamor, father of Shechem, for a hundred qesita.11

How did Israel acquire Shechem? The E (Israelite) author says they bought it. The J (Judahite) author says they massacred it.

–Richard Elliot Friedman, “Who Wrote the Bible”

Do you truly believe that two men, Simon and Levi, alone, really destroyed a whole city because of one man, Shechem, raping their sister Dinah?

This is quite easy to answer. Its probable that Satan has the power to manipulate little lakes or even oceans, so its possible that this magician used his ungodly power to split the lake.

A better question that rules out Satan’s involvement would be with regards to the creation of the universe. On what grounds do Christian theologians accept the biblical tale of creation (whether literally or metaphorically), but see others as contrived?

We are also not without clues that the Barzillai story is fictional.

Barzillai the Gileadite

Barzillai is the third member of the group. The earliest portrayal of this figure is likely to be found in the account of David’s return to Jerusalem after Absalom’s death. Various clues suggest that this passage predates the account of the three Transjordanian figures coming out to welcome David with provisions. Since we had already met Barzillai two chapters earlier, we would not expect to have here a descriptive – and in some ways superfluous – introduction to him. This text also tells how the Gileadite notable had been provisioning David during his entire time at Mahanaim. If the other account uses imagery reminiscent of the Exodus tradition (“the people were hungry, weary, and thirsty in the desert”), it must have something to do with the prominent position that an Ammonite occupies in that passage. Here such imagery is absent. We hear nothing about the people who accompany David. Acting alone, Barzillai focuses his attention solely on the king.

–Jacob Wright

Though you’re probably being a bit facetious, it does make one ask the question (if one accepts Satan/magicians doing miracles too) - what level of a miracle does such a thing need to be before only God could do it, rather than Satan/magicians?

While also keeping in mind, the Israelites and their God could also be defeated by Moabites sacrificing to Chemosh. After Elisha pronounced that God would put the Moabites into the Israelites’ hands.

2 Ki 3:18-27.

Though theologically speaking, the Satan in the OT is quite different to how Satan is conceived in the NT. Satan in the OT was God’s prosecutor, and worked on God’s behalf. For example, the role of Satan in the book of Job, and also two passages on the same story, where one states Satan incited David to take a census, and another states God incited David.

I actually said what this would be in the comment you replied to.

Its not surprising and it’s partly why I see the Bible as just one book among many ancient religious writings.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.