Jews and Incest in the Jewish Bible

[Mike Sullivan]

Karl Radl

The charge that jews are morally perverse or have a differing conception of what is and what is not moral is an old one: dating as it does to the comments on jews by the Greeks and Romans. It is often significantly fleshed out by citing passages from the Babylonian Talmud and occasionally the Zohar, which are held to suggest this.

Aside from the inherently subjective nature of morality and tautological basis of most judgements as to what is moral or immoral. It is important to put the factual case for these beliefs forward and to begin this; as a series of articles dealing with the general theme of jews and morality/immorality, we should begin; as they say, at the beginning.

The beginning for the jews is the Written Torah and the extension of that document with the books of the Prophets and the writings of others, which forms the Tanakh; better known as the jewish bible, in Judaism. Likewise the choice to begin with the subject of incest is derived from its status as one of the oldest of all forms of perceived immorality although at times it has been considered a religious obligation for specific high-status families in some civilizations and cultures.

Now the mentions of incest in the Tanakh are; as it happens, all contained within the confines of Judaism's most holy document: the (Written) Torah or the first five books of the Old Testament.

We first witness comment on the subject of incest in the book of Genesis, which states as follows:

'Now Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through out father.” So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may reserve the offspring through out father.” So they made their father drink wine that might also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-am'mi; he is the father of the Am'monites to this day.' (1)

In the above text it is seemingly clear that Lot; who was a favoured servant of Yahweh, does not know that he has had; or is having, incestuous sexual relations with his two daughters, but it also beggars belief that he could not have suspected something odd was going on (since we are told no men visited Lot and his daughters). Thus we can reasonably suggest that Lot was aware; however tentatively, that he had had sexual intercourse with his two daughters causing them to become pregnant as no other man had visited them.

What is perhaps more damning in this episode from the Torah is that Yahweh actually endorses the whole situation by not condemning it or even noting it as an exception to the moral rule. Further this endorsement of incest occurs as a postscript to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by Yahweh for being depraved and immoral as well as Yahweh turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for turning back to look at her former home.

This then indicates that Yahweh has a rather immoral concept; or possibly espouses situationalist ethics, of what morality is as he on the one hand condemns Sodom and Gomorrah to a holocaust of fire for rampant homosexuality (from which the term 'sodomy' derives), but then turns a faithful servant of his (Lot's wife) into a pillar of salt for daring to look back and then endorses incest between Lot and his two daughters.

Hardly a form of absolute morality: is it?

Conversely it is usually held that the book of Leviticus bans the practice of incest totally as we are told that:

'None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or abroad. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister.' (2)

As well as:

'The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed incest, their blood is upon them.' (3)

This seems final: doesn't it?

Except that there is one glaring omission from the list of crimes listed by the book of Leviticus in relation to incest: intercourse between a father and his daughter when the father has initiated the sexual contact. When the daughter has initiated the intercourse then it is covered, but we are told of every combination of relative possible is forbidden except when a father seeks to have sexual intercourse with his daughter.

This suggests; albeit somewhat tentatively, that this is actually a vindication of the behaviour of Lot and his daughters in the Torah as the author(s) of Leviticus would have been well aware of the story in Genesis. As while in the story of Lot it is the daughters who initiate the sexual contact with their father: that sexual contact is not held to be immoral by Yahweh, but yet it cannot have gone unnoticed to the author(s) of Leviticus that Lot and his daughters were alone in their cave and there was no one else nearby. Accordingly; as Lot doesn't given thanks to Yahweh for the miraculous birth of his two sons/grandsons, then it necessarily suggests that Lot was aware of and endorsed their incestuous parentage.

Thus meaning that the author(s) of Leviticus had to leave one avenue open to allow Lot to be counted among the morally righteous by tactfully removing the logical inference of the story of Lot and his daughters (in relation to Lot acquiescing to the impregnation of his daughters with his own seed [as if it was not known to him then why did it make it into the book of Genesis for a start]) from the official prohibited list, while using a broad injunction to cover all such matters and then being specific about what was covered by it while inexplicably leaving out a father seducing his daughter.

In other words: while the Torah seems to generally condemn incest. It actually endorses it when it is a father seducing his daughter.


References

(1) Gen 19:30-38
(2) Lev. 18:6-11
(3) Ibid. 20:11-12

http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.co ... bible.html