Part 3 (1/2)
Did G.o.d Hit Jacob Below the Belt?
GENESIS 32 tells the story of a weird wrestling match between Jacob and somebody-or something. Jacob was on his way back home to Canaan, which he had left over twenty years earlier. He was traveling with his four wives, eleven sons (Benjamin wasn't born yet), and one daughter. It sounds like one of those early Mormon caravans, and like the Mormons, Jacob was fleeing persecution. He had just learned that his brother Esau, whose death threats caused Jacob to leave Canaan in the first place, was coming toward him with four hundred men. In an apparent effort to protect his family, Jacob had placed his wives and children on one side of the River Jabbok and had crossed to the other side to meet Esau. There, quite out of the blue, a ”man” attacked Jacob and wrestled with him all night.
The ”man” was actually a supernatural being of some sort. We know this because he changed Jacob's name to Israel, which means ”he wrestles with G.o.d.” Also, Jacob named the place ”Peniel,” meaning ”face of G.o.d,” because he said he saw G.o.d face-to-face. In addition, a reference to this event in the Book of Hosea says that Jacob strove with an angel.1 In the middle of the match, the supernatural being saw that he was not winning and hit or touched Jacob on the hollow or socket of his hip or thigh. The conclusion explains that this is why Israelites do not eat the body part that is on that socket (and Orthodox Jews still don't).
But scholars have long puzzled over what exactly this body part is. It is typically translated ”sinew” or ”nerve” or even ”muscle.” But it is uncertain just which sinew, nerve, or muscle the story refers to. One common understanding is that the organ in question is the sciatic nerve, which is the longest nerve in the human body, running from the hip to the heel. Other animals have a sciatic nerve running the length of their back legs too. A problem with this view, however, is that there is no special law anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible against eating the sciatic nerve. There is also no obvious reason why the eating of that particular nerve should be prohibited.
Family Jewels A new proposal for which part of Jacob's body was injured in this wrestling match was put forward by S. H. Smith in 1990 in the prestigious British journal Vetus Testamentum.2 Smith's article built on and expanded an earlier suggestion by Stanley Gevirtz, now deceased, who was a longtime respected professor at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles.3 As you might have guessed from the general direction of this puerile handbook, Gevirtz and Smith think the mystery organ is the human wiener. Their arguments (like the arguments made in the ”Adam's p.e.n.i.s bone” chapter) spring from the fact that there is no formal word in the Hebrew Bible for ”p.e.n.i.s.” Instead, the Bible uses various euphemisms. Smith argues that there are three euphemisms in the story of Jacob's wrestling match. The first is the word translated ”hollow” or ”socket.” (We won't tell you what the Hebrew word is because it figures into another chapter and we don't want to ruin the surprise.) Smith a.s.serts that this word is strongly related to a recognized euphemism for the p.e.n.i.s in the Bible, and so he suggests that this word may be one as well. Heck, everything in the Bible is a euphemism for p.e.n.i.s.
The second word is ”thigh” (another Hebrew word we'll save for later), which is used with a wink and a nudge in several other biblical texts. When Abraham commissioned his most trusted servant to travel back to the land Abraham came from to search for a wife for his son Isaac, he called him in and said to him, Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the LORD, the G.o.d of heaven and earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac.4 The ”thigh” here refers to Abraham's p.e.n.i.s or s.c.r.o.t.u.m. His servant swore to him while cupping Abe's goods. (Recall that the Latin root of the word ”testify” also refers to the t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es, because in Rome men swore on their own t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es. That would make jury duty interesting, don't you think?) Abraham wasn't the only one who made someone swear on his gonads. Later on in Genesis, Jacob did the same thing.5 Jacob was dying and didn't want to be buried in Egypt. He made Joseph put his hand under his thigh and swear that Joseph would transport Jacob's body back to Canaan to be buried in the family tomb.
Modern readers probably find all this peculiar. None of the television crime dramas show witnesses taking the stand and swearing on their own groins to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But the reasoning behind swearing on your dearest self makes good sense. Both Abraham and Jacob were near the end of their life. Like most old men, they were thinking a lot about having s.e.x with younger women-just kidding. Rather, each was thinking about his family line, which of course led him to contemplate his family jewels. This sacred organ held a man's power to pa.s.s on his DNA. Since n.o.body knew about DNA in those days, it also represented the fulfillment of G.o.d's promise to make Abraham and his heirs a great nation and to give the land of Canaan to his descendants.
And for Jacob, who was perhaps less concerned about the perpetuation of his family line, since he already had many children, his testes represented his ancestry. He wanted to be taken back to the land of Canaan to be buried with his parents and grandparents in their family tomb, on their family land. Jacob wanted to sp.a.w.n. Ancient peoples felt strongly attached to their family land, which was pa.s.sed down through generations. Jacob did not want to be forgotten or isolated in death. He wanted to be buried in the land G.o.d had promised to him.
Smith also observes that the Hebrew expression translated ”thigh” on several occasions in the Bible literally means ”those who come forth from the thigh” and refers to a person's direct descendants. One of these pa.s.sages gives the number of Jacob's family members who journeyed to Egypt as sixty-six, distinguis.h.i.+ng between those who were his direct descendants (”from the thigh”) and the wives of his sons, who were related to him only by marriage (from someone else's thigh).6 A similar text at the beginning of Exodus sets the number of Jacob's direct descendants at seventy.7 You also see this in the story of Gideon in the Book of Judges, which says that Gideon had seventy sons (not including daughters) and was the father of all of them by many different wives.8 Gideon had one busy ”thigh.”
The third euphemism Smith finds in the Jacob story is rendered ”sinew” or ”nerve.” (This is like shooting fish in a barrel.) This expression is actually two words in Hebrew: gid hannasheh. Both words are relatively uncommon in the Hebrew Bible. Gid occurs five times outside of Genesis 32 and refers to a body part in the nature of a sinew or tendon a.s.sociated with the neck,9 the body in general,10 and the tail or legs.11 In a footnote, however, Smith mentions an instance in later Hebrew where this word refers to the ”membrum virile,” i.e., the p.e.n.i.s.12 Scholars like to put dirty words in Latin, perhaps to try to protect their reputations.
The other word, nasheh, occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible, so its exact meaning is uncertain. But both Smith and Gevirtz suggest that it may derive from the word nefesh (”life”) or the word enosh (”man”), meaning ”sinew of life” or ”male sinew.” Try that one out on your partner tonight.
Combining these three euphemisms, Smith and Gevirtz arrive at the following interpretation. In the course of the ”rumble on the river,” G.o.d (or G.o.d's representative) struck Jacob in the groin, causing Jacob to roll around on the ground in abject pain saying, ”That's not fair!” (we surmise). At the end of the story, the author says this is why the Israelites don't eat the ”male-sinew” or ”life-sinew,” that is, the p.e.n.i.s of animals. The law of the Hebrew Bible doesn't specifically prohibit eating the genitals, probably because it was clearly understood that this was way the heck off limits. And anyway, as we learned before, there's too much bone in animal p.e.n.i.ses to make good eating, unless you are dining on spider monkey, which is illegal and you probably should be jailed.
On All Fours Since Smith a.s.sumes that the words for ”hand” (yad) and ”foot” (regel) or ”feet” are two of the most common euphemisms in the Hebrew Bible, it may be helpful to look at some pa.s.sages where they are generally recognized as dirty words in disguise. One of the best examples is in the Song of Solomon. It reads: My beloved thrust his hand (yad) into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him.13 Whoa. Did we stumble into the Penthouse Forum? The image here is of the male lover opening the door to the female's bedroom, but the double entendre is obvious.
For the euphemistic sense of ”feet,” consider the following two pa.s.sages from the Book of Isaiah: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.14 On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River-with the king of a.s.syria-the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.15 The first pa.s.sage describes a vision of G.o.d that the prophet Isaiah had in the temple. The creatures attending G.o.d, called Seraphs (”burning ones”), were apparently something like angels with three pairs of wings. They flew with one pair, covered their faces with one pair, and covered their feet with the third pair. The latter two actions were signs of reverence in G.o.d's presence. Some have interpreted ”feet” to mean the literal appendages and have pointed to the story of Moses removing his sandals in G.o.d's presence.16 But the comparison doesn't really work, because Moses was exposing his feet rather than covering them. There is no precedent in the Bible-or elsewhere so far as we know-for anyone covering their feet as a sign of reverence or humility. But interpreting ”feet” as a euphemism for the genitals makes perfect sense in view of the sense of modesty commonly a.s.sociated with those organs.
The euphemistic use of ”feet” is even more evident in the quote from Isaiah 7. Here, the prophet was threatening the destruction of the nation of Judah at the hands of an invading army from a.s.syria. The king of a.s.syria is likened to a razor that will ”shave” the countryside of Judah, leaving it barren and empty. The land, therefore, is compared to a man's body. The specific areas to be shaved are the head, beard, and feet. Shaving the head and beard, of course, is perfectly understandable. But the only way to make sense of shaving the feet (unless you're a Hobbit) is to recognize that the word is a euphemism for the pubic region.
There's even one instance of a double double entendre-two euphemisms in one. This is in 1 Kings 12, where the northern tribes of Israel came to Rehoboam to approve him as their king. They asked him, though, to lighten the tax and labor burden that his father, Solomon, imposed on them. He responded by telling them that he would be tougher than his father, and he chose a crude way of putting it. ”My little finger is thicker than my father's loins,” he said.17 The loins, by definition, are the seat of the reproductive organs and can be used to refer specifically to them. What is most interesting about this sentence, however, is that the word ”finger” is not in the Hebrew text. It might be translated as ”my little (one)” or ”my little (member),” or, even better, ”my weenie.” In the same context with the word ”loins,” it is a euphemism for the p.e.n.i.s. Rehoboam is boasting that his p.e.n.i.s is thicker than his father's whole torso. We a.s.sume he was exaggerating.
Equal Opportunity Employment The euphemisms in the Bible aren't used just for male genitals. There are some for female equipment as well. One of these is in a poem in the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) that describes a full frontal view of the female lover beginning with her feet and proceeding upward: How graceful are your feet in sandals, O queenly maiden!
Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.
Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies.
Your two b.r.e.a.s.t.s are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are like pools in Heshbon, by the gates of Bath-rabbim.
Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon, overlooking Damascus.
Your head crowns you like Carmel, and your flowing locks are like purple.18 The translation ”thighs” here doesn't fit very well. The poem compares the thighs to jewels. The Hebrew word translated as ”jewels” is used only one other time in the Hebrew Bible, where it is paralleled with a ring of gold.19 Here the NRSV translates the word as ”ornament.” The parallel indicates that the word in question refers to a small ”jewel” or ”ornament”-about the size of a ring-rather than something the size of a thigh. The ornament in the second pa.s.sage is also made of gold, like the ring.
The comparison with jewels seems to indicate a body part other than thighs in the Song of Solomon poem. And since ”thigh” is used for the reproductive organ in other pa.s.sages, as we saw earlier, it may have a similar meaning in Song of Solomon. Of course, in Song of Solomon it refers to the female organs that are visible from a frontal view. This would also explain why the word in the Song of Solomon poem is in the plural. It probably refers, in other words, to the parts of the female v.u.l.v.a-the l.a.b.i.a-the larger l.a.b.i.a and perhaps the smaller l.a.b.i.a as well. These would be more the size of jewels. They are rounded, as described in Song of Solomon-especially so when a woman is s.e.xually aroused. This interpretation fits the s.e.xual nature of Songs of Solomon, as erotic literature, especially well.
Even though Smith missed the euphemism in Song of Solomon, he did include another female example. In another part of his article, he suggests that the story of Jacob and Esau's birth also contains a euphemism.20 In that story as it is usually read, the twins, Esau and Jacob, wrestled in the womb. Esau was born first. Then Jacob came out second holding on to his brother's heel. Smith proposes that ”heel” here was another euphemism for the male genitals. But he bases this proposal on the fact that it occurs in Jeremiah as an obvious euphemism for the female variety: ”It is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up and you are violated.”21 The image is that of Jerusalem as a woman who is raped. The last expression is literally ”your heels are violated,” which makes little sense unless ”heels” is a euphemism. After all, the skirt would hardly need to be lifted to access the literal heels. What is envisioned as violated are the opposing sides of the v.u.l.v.a. Similarly, Smith reasons, the single form, ”heel,” is a euphemism for Esau's s.e.xual organ in Genesis 25.
As if he needed further support for his colorful reading, Smith cites the poem in Hosea 12, which he thinks brings the two wrestling episodes together: In the womb he took his brother by the ”heel,”
And in his manhood he strove with G.o.d.22 The idea, according to Smith, is that Jacob took over his brother's procreative power and therefore his right to the promise inherited from his grandfather and father, Abraham and Isaac. In the encounter at the Jabbok, however, G.o.d's striking Jacob on his privates was a way of reminding him that he owed his power and fertility not to his own strength or cleverness but to G.o.d's blessing.
Smith and Gevirtz have compiled a pretty convincing case for the existence of a number of different euphemisms in the story of Jacob's wrestling match at the Jabbok. None of the words discussed here is always or necessarily a euphemism for the s.e.xual organs. But then, that's the beauty of euphemisms. They work both sides of the fence.
This is the point that Smith makes in discussing the overall perspective of the Jacob story. None of the euphemisms in that story is an explicit reference to the s.e.xual organs. They are all merely suggestive. But this suggestiveness fits well with the whole story, which is focused on Jacob's role as the heir to the promises given to Abraham and Isaac, on the one hand, and as the progenitor of the nation of Israel through his twelve sons on the other. The story of Jacob is all about family, descendants, and heritage. It is all about the ancestral line that pa.s.ses through Jacob's ”loins,” ”hand,” ”feet,” ”palm,” ”thigh,” ”male sinew,” ”finger,” and ”heel”-which ultimately point to the same special place on Jacob's body.
11.
Did King David Have a Potty Mouth?
AS MOST READERS KNOW, men and dogs love to pee whenever and wherever they can. Modern laws usually prohibit men from whizzing in public, reflecting the strong influence of women in politics these days, but just tag along on any camping or fis.h.i.+ng trip or pay a visit to a construction site and you'll find men unzipping at opportune moments and leaving their marks proudly upon trees, rocks, bushes, and walls-anything that happens to be in their trajectory.
Peeing comes into play in one of the most artfully told stories in the Bible-that of David and Abigail.1 This story takes place against a background of serious strife between David and King Saul. Saul had become jealous and fearful of David's success, so Saul tried numerous times to kill him. David fled into the wilderness, where he surrounded himself with a small army that survived by making raids on foreign villages and undoubtedly peeing on their bushes, trees, and walls too. That's one privilege of belonging to a small army.
A Fool and His Money Our story gets rolling with a man named Nabal who lived in the town of Carmel in the Judean wilderness. Nabal was very wealthy, but he had a nasty personality. As the NRSV puts it, he was ”surly and mean.”2 In fact, the name ”Nabal” means ”fool.” But Nabal's wife was his opposite in character. Her name was Abigail, and she is described as ”clever and beautiful.” How they ended up together, n.o.body knows. Maybe it was one of those unexpected high school matches-the smart girl marrying the stoner, say. Or perhaps she thought she could change him. Come to think of it, not much has changed in several thousand years.
Back at the ranch-Nabal's ranch-it was sheep-shearing time, which meant great celebration. Who doesn't like a full slate of sheep-related festivities? During this high time, Nabal received an envoy from David. Perhaps David was hoping to catch Nabal in a generous mood, swept up in the elan of wool gathering. David's envoy consisted of ten men, and they brought a request for provisions. They needed food. In his message, David pointed out how he and his men had protected Nabal's shepherds and sheep in their wilderness pastures. The request, perhaps familiar to anyone who's been threatened by the local mafia, may have felt like a shakedown to Nabal. But at least it was polite.
Nabal's response was neither polite nor smart. He insulted David, calling him a runaway slave and a vagabond. Perhaps the wool fibers had gone to Nabal's brain. Or perhaps he felt that particular bravado people often feel when surrounded by skinny, quivering sheep. Predictably, his response infuriated David, who gave orders for his men to put on their swords and march against Nabal. Meanwhile, one of Nabal's servants, sensing the danger they were in, called upon Abigail and explained the situation to her. She hurried to load provisions on donkeys and rode off to intercept David before he could kill her husband.
As she approached him, David was swearing to avenge the insult he had suffered from Nabal by killing every man in his household. Abigail dismounted her donkey and bowed down to the ground in front of him. She apologized for her husband and offered David the provisions she had brought. Speaking with great eloquence and not a little flattery, she argued that it was in David's own best interests not to carry out his murderous threats against Nabal. She expressed her confidence that G.o.d would make David king. But, she continued, if David killed all of Nabal's men, many innocents would die, and their blood would be a stain on David's reputation and an obstacle to his future kings.h.i.+p. Abigail ended her speech with a veiled proposal of marriage, asking him to remember her ”when Yahweh has dealt well with my lord.” Abigail's method of approaching David was so smooth that it seems to us that she had probably saved Nabal's bacon before when other business relations.h.i.+ps had gone sour, but that is neither here nor there.
Abigail returned home to find Nabal drunk, so happy was he with the success of sheep-shearing season. She wisely waited until the next morning to tell him what she had done, perhaps to avoid being hurt in a drunken fit of rage. When she told him what she had done, ”his heart died within him; he became like a stone.” Ten days later, he gave up the ghost. Shortly thereafter, David sent for Abigail and married her. He knew a good woman when he saw one.