Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 25th, 2014 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default The Concept of Modesty in the Hebrew Bible

The Concept of Modesty in the Hebrew Bible


Few intellectual positions derived from the Bible; be it of the Christian or Hebrew variety (aka the Tanakh), are more controversial in the modern world than those relating to the concept of modesty. Modesty is by nature a completely subjective idea and some groups prefer women to cover up completely (for example conservative Muslims and orthodox/ultra-orthodox jews), while other groups are quite happy to have no concept of male or female modesty at all (for example the ancient Spartans).

This means that there is no objective rubric as to how 'modest' one garment is and how 'immodest' another is. Thus it is difficult; well actually nearly impossible, to actually qualify what is and is not modest outside of a particular belief system and very specific guidelines within that religious system about how these things are to be understood on a practical basis.

An example of this is found in the Hebrew Bible (or the Tanakh) whence both jews and Christians derive their ideas on this subject.

Let us begin with the subject of male modesty since this; contrary to common belief, is the principle focus of the (Written) Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament in relation to modesty.

In the book of Genesis we read that:

'Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham; the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Ja'pheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”' (1)

Now aside from the implied homosexual incestuous rape by Ja'pheth of his father Noah: (2) we should note that the thrust of this passage is that viewing of the nakedness; i.e. the exposed body or probably more specifically the genitals and buttocks, of another man by a male jew; even if it is hardly his fault (as a literal reading of this passage suggests is the case with Ja'pheth as he hadn't intended to see his father; Noah, naked and in a drunken stupor in his tent), is an abomination untoYahweh and is to be punished by perpetual slavery for the viewer and his children.

The ruling however is not consistent since in the first book of Samuel we read:

'Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.' (3)

Now this passage; as I have discussed in detail elsewhere, cannot but be interpreted as being a reference to King David's homosexual relationship with King Saul's son Jonathan. (4) However ignoring this necessary inference and once again adopting a literal reading of the text: what we have here is Jonathan making a covenant with David (because he loves him) and then stripping himself of his robes and weapons.

In other words Jonathan was standing in front of David stark naked.

Yet Yahweh does not mention this as an abomination or pass judgement on Jonathan or David for it: he certainly doesn't condemn David and his descendants to perpetual slavery. Instead he raises David and his descendants to the status of the royal house of Israel, while blessing Jonathan and David's apparent homosexual relationship by allowing it to continue until Jonathan dies.

This contradictory attitude on Yahweh's part cannot be resolved from the extant Biblical text for the simple reason that both cases are fairly explicit instances of male nudity in front of other male jews, but yet in the first instance it is an abomination unto Yahweh and brutally punished, while in the latter it isn't even commented on and the parties involved continue to be strongly favoured by Yahweh.

The most we can draw from this is that there is no clear precedent for what Yahweh's attitude is on the subject of male nudity to other male jews. Sometimes it is condemned with brutal punishments meted out and sometimes it is accepted without remonstrance.

Isn't Yahweh quite the eternally capricious one?

Now before I move on to the modesty regulation in relation to the grooming and deportment of male jews: I should point out that the reason I am only referring to these regulations applying to jews is that nowhere in the (Written) Torah or Tanakh/Old Testament are these rules extended to those who are not of the Israelites, while these rulings are explicitly given by Yahweh for the members of the tribes of Israel to follow.

Thus we should not; and indeed cannot, apply these ideas relating to modesty further than to jews and the only reason Christians apply these rules to themselves is because one of the fundamental ideas in Christian theology is the supersession of the elect of Yahweh (i.e. Israel) from the jews to the non-jews on the death of Jesus on the cross. Thus accordingly the rules and ideas of the Old Testament are (rather selectively) used by some Christians to justify norms, ideas and policies that they have little to no connection with, becoming less a reasonable theological suggestion and more a bald ideological statement.

Getting back to the subject at hand. We read as follows in the book of Leviticus in relation to the grooming of male jews:

'You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.' (5)

This is then restated slightly later on in Leviticus as follows (specifically relating to Yahweh's priesthood):

'They shall not make tonsures upon their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.' (6)

This; comparatively speaking, is much more explicit than Yahweh's rules on male jewish nudity (and associated homoerotic voyeurism) since it makes it clear that male jews are forbidden to trim their beards ('mar the edges of your beard'/'shave off the edges of their beards'), trim their hair ('you shall not round off the hair on your temples'/'they shall not make tonsures upon their heads'), have piercings ('nor make any cuttings in their flesh') or have any tattoos ('you shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you'/'nor make any cuttings in their flesh').

When we reduce this to its actual meaning it equates male jews; according to Yahweh, not being allowed to shave, have a hair cut or get any piercings/tattoos. Basically the Hebrew Bible is here informing us that jews should look roughly like Rubeus Hagrid from the 'Harry Potter' films if they keep the divinely-ordained male grooming rulings of Yahweh.

In addition to this set of rules designed to give male jews a rather fetching appearance: there are some additional guidelines in relation to their deportment. This is because as we read in following passage from the book of Deuteronomy: the jews had a serious problem with transvestitism in their ranks. (7)

'A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.' (8)

The above is relatively clear cut in so far as Yahweh has ordained special clothes for men and women and that none shall mix them. Except that Yahweh has not actually stated what the clothes that are unique to men and what those unique to women are.

Thus we can see that while the ruling itself is quite explicit: it leaves it up to the reader to interpret what the unique garments for men and women actually consist of. This obviously then makes it completely subjective as to what garments are women and which are for men, which in turn means that although this ruling from Yahweh is clearly intended to deal with transvestites: it doesn't provide any categorical basis to work from, but rather is an explicit but vague ruling on the subject.

All these specific rules for male grooming and deportment go out of the window though when we read the following in the first book of Samuel:

'When they came, he looked on Eli'ab and thought, “Surely the Lord's anointed is before him.” But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord sees not as a man sees; man look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”' (9)

Here Yahweh again directly contradicts himself as he is now telling us that male grooming and deportment don't actually matter at all. Since only (jewish) men look at the external appearances of others, while Yahweh; being the omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe, sees beyond this and bases his estimation of value and godliness based on looking into his heart.

What are we to make of these contradictory rulings; in so far as specific rulings are given but are then simply overridden and explicitly said to be null and void elsewhere, by Yahweh?

The answer is not much, because while you could reconcile these passages by suggesting that 1 Samuel 16:6-7 does not override the others as it is focused on Yahweh's abilities not on worldly forms. It is difficult to see how this can be reasonably justified due to the fact that Yahweh is so explicit in the first book of Samuel in how unimportant external appearance is to him, which perforce requires that all other external forms and regulations should also be rendered null and void.

Thus we can see that if we follow what the (Written) Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament tell us about Yahweh's instructions in relation to male modesty: it either means that jews have no rules and can expose themselves to other male jews at will (essentially the male jews become nudists) or male jews are not allowed to ever expose their genitals and buttocks to other male jews (due to fear of arousing their sexual desires) while not shaving their beards or hair and certainly not getting any tattoos or piercings.

Weird: huh?

Having considered the issue of male modesty in the (Written) Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament we can move on to the much better known subject of female modesty.

Ironically; as intimated above, there is far, far less written about this than male modesty (most of the rules in regard to female modesty in Christianity come from the New Testament not the Tanakh/Old Testament), but what there is itself noteworthy.

Firstly we should note in the book of Proverbs there are several vague admonitions to women to dress modestly and not seduce jewish men. These are as follows:

'And behold, a woman meets him dressed as a harlot, wily of heart.' (10)

'Like a gold ring in a swine's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.' (11)

'Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.' (12)

'Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.' (13)

When we examine these it is clear that their focus is on asserting that beauty in women is dangerous to piety among men, because it lures men away (or distracts them) from the worship of Yahweh. Thus the jewish author of these verses recommends that women not dress provocatively and that they focus themselves on 'fearing the Lord' as opposed to distracting and seducing jewish men with their ways and wiles.

The specific dimensions of this are given later in the book of Isaiah when we read that:

'The Lord said:

Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet; the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.

In that day the Lord will take way the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents, the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets, the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the garments of gauze, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.

Instead of perfume there will be rottenness; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair; baldness; and instead of a rich robe, a putting on of sackcloth; instead of beauty, shame.' (14)

Aside from the fact that this passage sounds like the author's sexual fantasies ('and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts') asserting themselves (i.e. Yahweh stripping all the beautiful women of all their clothes and leaving them naked for his careful visual inspection): what is being described here is the sin of the women of the jews in that they are tempting jewish men away (or distracting them) from the worship of Yahweh and into their beds.

In order to deal with the alleged (sexual) distraction afforded to jews by jewesses: Yahweh decides to strip the jewesses of all their clothes, jewellery, perfume and general finery as well as making their hair fall out so that they are bald and unattractive ('the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion').

Instead Yahweh commands that jewish women wear nothing but sackcloth tightened with a piece of rope (i.e. the garb of penitents) and smell awful ('instead of perfume there will be rottenness') so that they are not able to distract jewish men from paying homage to the omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe. Meanwhile these same jewish men are being killed off at Yahweh's command by non-jews (15) until such time as:

'Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by our name; take away our reproach.”' (16)

Now aside from the obvious polygamous interpretation of this passage: (17) we can see that here the seven jewish women are seeking forgiveness to be able to go back to wearing normal clothes (i.e. non-penitential garb) from their enforced wearing of sackcloth. Yahweh grants this request, but does not stipulate what the return to normal clothes for the jewish women actually means.

Given that the original offence against Yahweh by the jewish women was due to their beauty and wearing of attractive/alluring garments/jewellery/perfumes then it is reasonable to suppose that all those items that the book of Isaiah lists are forbidden to them as they lead male jews astray and thus repeat the offence.

Therefore we may reasonably suppose that jewish women are meant to be bald (as they are allowed no hair), not to use perfume (and thus have a rather unique 'natural' perfume called body odour [remember this all takes place in a hot, dry arid/desert setting]) and not wear any delicate or fine garments or veils.

Instead they are presumably supposed to wear coarse unattractive clothes and possibly (dependent on your interpretation) a full veil to prevent male jews being lured away from the worship of Yahweh and into their beds.

Aside from the fact that this treats jewesses as de facto prostitutes who are borderline nymphomaniacs; which has a significant precedent in the (Written) Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament, (18) this effectively renders female jews in a situation where they are wearing a jewish version of the Islamic forms of 'modest' female dress the hijab or jilbaab.

Now doesn't this suggest that there is a lot more commonality between the much commented on modesty rules in Islam and those found in the Hebrew Bible?

I'd say so!


References


(1) Gen. 9:20-25 (RSV)
(2) For more information see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-in-torah.html
(3) 1 Sam.18:3-4 (RSV)
(4) For more information see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...omosexual.html
(5) Lev. 19:27-28 (RSV)
(6) Ibid. 21:5
(7) For more information see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ten-torah.html
(8) Deut. 22:5 (RSV)
(9) 1 Sam. 16:6-7 (RSV)
(10) Prov. 7:10 (RSV)
(11) Ibid. 11:22
(12) Ibid. 31:25
(13) Ibid. 31:30
(14) Is. 3:16-24 (RSV)
(15) Ibid. 3:25
(16) Ibid. 4:1
(17) For more information see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ish-bible.html
(18) For more information see: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-in-torah.html, http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...tution-in.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...n-ancient.html

----------------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...rew-bible.html
__________________
 
Old July 3rd, 2014 #2
Josie_in_SF
Junior Member
 
Josie_in_SF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 148
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Every important issue has been fashioned into a Hegelian/symbiotic relationship. In short, we have an irrational "anti-sex" attitude from the Bible; coupled with an equally irrational "oversexualized" slut-culture. In this case, both serve as "thesis," with the other "anti-thesis" depending on your position. A true symbiotic relationship. Before you just assume that the Christian view is much less damaging, these are the people who destroyed all of our European fertility cults! Demolished all of our native pagan practices, aka "our true identity!"
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.
Page generated in 0.20463 seconds.