It is interesting, isn't it, that the software engineers at OpenAI decided to program a mediating buffer of wokeness and censorship into ChatGPT, instead of not doing that and reminding users that the results of any query will necessarily reflect content filtered from the open web and clearnet, which is bound to return results that are wild and wooly if not totally crazy.
In fact, I think AI will (if it hasn't already) create a very corrosive effect on our culture when people begin to believe that the information they are receiving is being produced by a sentient, fair, nonpartisan, and even virtuous being.
These are really thought provoking connections. I’ve been reflecting on them for some time now. Reading Deuteronomy 25:11-12 as a symbolic presentation of levirate marriage and Genesis 38 in connection with that, I have been especially drawn to the image of Tamar taking Judah’s staff. Tamar taking Judah’s staff is her taking hold of his genitals. Note in verse 23 that Judah does not want the supposed theft of his staff to be discovered publicly, “lest we be shamed.” It is a response that encourages an understanding of the staff as a token of his nakedness. Deut 25:10 resonates strongly with Judah’s concern here. The consequence of the refusal to provide Levirate marriage was to suffer a symbolic uncovering of nakedness (the loosening of the shoe from the foot) and a public shaming, “His name shall be called… The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” This is exactly the kind of public exposure and shame that Judah fears. Judah provides a note of expiation which is significant in this regard. He says “I sent this kid.” He speaks more than he knows. He is guilt free of the debt he has promised her. The narrative has already noted that Tamar conceived by Judah. He has fulfilled the Levirate duty and so is not under the penalty as it is described in Deut 25:10.
We should appreciate the veiled request that Tamar was making then in v. 17,18. The pledge which she requests of him is not just that she will give him a child, but a child which will inherit in his house and with all the seals of his authority, a prince (the goat itself being a symbol frequently associated with the kingship).
I can see a number of practical insights to be gleaned from Deut 25:11-12 in relation to Levirate marriage. Taking or seizing the genitals of your husband’s assailant, is understood symbolically as forcing levirate marriage upon an unwilling brother. Interestingly the verses just before these, allow for a man not to act as a levir, albeit not without shame. This law then helps to reinforce the point that a widow ought not force a man into a levirate marriage, or at least not without consequence. You note that in the Biblical narrative this is played out symbolically when Tamar’s “firstborn” has a scarlet thread tied around his hand, and the “cutting off” historically occurs when Zarah’s descendant Achan is stoned. The consequence of forcing an unwilling participant into a levirate marriage then is a kind of cutting off of the strength (hand) of the woman. I can see this both as a natural consequence and one which a judge would want to keep in mind as he sought to impose a ruling.
I think the essential point of this law, in relation to levirate marriage, may be to secure the right/authority of the levir-brother above the might of the woman. His authority is not to be superseded in being forced into the levirate marriage, nor when he is within the marriage. As the law against muzzling the ox permits the levir to enjoy the fruits of his labor, this law confirms the privileges and authority of a father and husband on the levir. Where the woman’s might is wielded against it, it must be cut off. She shall not seize his staff.
I start to see connections from here to Eve taking the forbidden fruit, to her declaration “I have gotten a man from the Lord,” to Abraham’s refusal to take even a shoelatchet. The connections are more remote, but maybe in that regard help to point towards something more fundamental. But my response is already too long and I want to make a comment on the significance of Judah dwelling in Chezib and other significant features.
I'm thrilled at the prospect of a Reactionary Humanism series! I majored in cognitive science at Berkeley and the majority of courses exploring the philosophy of mind were...depressing ("Aristotle...teleology...silly anthropomorphizing ancients"). The intellectual and spiritual turmoil that environment created sent me on a search for, among other things, an alternative philosophical frame that I knew existed before I had the words to describe it. Long story short, I ended up finding what I was looking for in the Christian postliberal universe. Excited to hear more of your thoughts, Susannah.
Great photos too
With regard to ChatGPT—
It is interesting, isn't it, that the software engineers at OpenAI decided to program a mediating buffer of wokeness and censorship into ChatGPT, instead of not doing that and reminding users that the results of any query will necessarily reflect content filtered from the open web and clearnet, which is bound to return results that are wild and wooly if not totally crazy.
In fact, I think AI will (if it hasn't already) create a very corrosive effect on our culture when people begin to believe that the information they are receiving is being produced by a sentient, fair, nonpartisan, and even virtuous being.
These are really thought provoking connections. I’ve been reflecting on them for some time now. Reading Deuteronomy 25:11-12 as a symbolic presentation of levirate marriage and Genesis 38 in connection with that, I have been especially drawn to the image of Tamar taking Judah’s staff. Tamar taking Judah’s staff is her taking hold of his genitals. Note in verse 23 that Judah does not want the supposed theft of his staff to be discovered publicly, “lest we be shamed.” It is a response that encourages an understanding of the staff as a token of his nakedness. Deut 25:10 resonates strongly with Judah’s concern here. The consequence of the refusal to provide Levirate marriage was to suffer a symbolic uncovering of nakedness (the loosening of the shoe from the foot) and a public shaming, “His name shall be called… The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” This is exactly the kind of public exposure and shame that Judah fears. Judah provides a note of expiation which is significant in this regard. He says “I sent this kid.” He speaks more than he knows. He is guilt free of the debt he has promised her. The narrative has already noted that Tamar conceived by Judah. He has fulfilled the Levirate duty and so is not under the penalty as it is described in Deut 25:10.
We should appreciate the veiled request that Tamar was making then in v. 17,18. The pledge which she requests of him is not just that she will give him a child, but a child which will inherit in his house and with all the seals of his authority, a prince (the goat itself being a symbol frequently associated with the kingship).
I can see a number of practical insights to be gleaned from Deut 25:11-12 in relation to Levirate marriage. Taking or seizing the genitals of your husband’s assailant, is understood symbolically as forcing levirate marriage upon an unwilling brother. Interestingly the verses just before these, allow for a man not to act as a levir, albeit not without shame. This law then helps to reinforce the point that a widow ought not force a man into a levirate marriage, or at least not without consequence. You note that in the Biblical narrative this is played out symbolically when Tamar’s “firstborn” has a scarlet thread tied around his hand, and the “cutting off” historically occurs when Zarah’s descendant Achan is stoned. The consequence of forcing an unwilling participant into a levirate marriage then is a kind of cutting off of the strength (hand) of the woman. I can see this both as a natural consequence and one which a judge would want to keep in mind as he sought to impose a ruling.
I think the essential point of this law, in relation to levirate marriage, may be to secure the right/authority of the levir-brother above the might of the woman. His authority is not to be superseded in being forced into the levirate marriage, nor when he is within the marriage. As the law against muzzling the ox permits the levir to enjoy the fruits of his labor, this law confirms the privileges and authority of a father and husband on the levir. Where the woman’s might is wielded against it, it must be cut off. She shall not seize his staff.
I start to see connections from here to Eve taking the forbidden fruit, to her declaration “I have gotten a man from the Lord,” to Abraham’s refusal to take even a shoelatchet. The connections are more remote, but maybe in that regard help to point towards something more fundamental. But my response is already too long and I want to make a comment on the significance of Judah dwelling in Chezib and other significant features.
I'm thrilled at the prospect of a Reactionary Humanism series! I majored in cognitive science at Berkeley and the majority of courses exploring the philosophy of mind were...depressing ("Aristotle...teleology...silly anthropomorphizing ancients"). The intellectual and spiritual turmoil that environment created sent me on a search for, among other things, an alternative philosophical frame that I knew existed before I had the words to describe it. Long story short, I ended up finding what I was looking for in the Christian postliberal universe. Excited to hear more of your thoughts, Susannah.