Orthodoxy Requires Binary Reasoning

 

The early Hebrew anticipated that a temple virgin from among their people would conceive by divine overshadowing and bring forth the Righteous Ruler who would overcome death and lead his people to immortality.

Dr. Alice C. Linsley

The word "binary" is a nasty term for many in contemporary society. To insist that the male-female binary set is a fixed order of creation is to draw accusations of homophobia, bigotry, and misogyny. Attempts to impose gender relativity is evident in the insistence that gender is self-defined. We must talk over the loud and intrusive noise of radical gender politics and transgenderism, an expression of self-loathing.

Even among Bible believing people is difficult to have a reasonable and intelligent conversation about binary reasoning because they do not recognize the binary reasoning of Scripture. Beginning in Genesis, the sun and moon are presented as a binary set. A binary set involves two closely related entities which, when observed empirically, reveal that one of the entities is greater than its partner. Genesis 1:16 speaks of the two great lights and notes that the sun is the greater of the two. Likewise, in the male-female set, it is universally true that the human male is anatomically larger and stronger that the female. 

Not all pairs of opposites are binary sets. The element of relativity excludes a pair from the definition. For example, the tall-short contrast is relative to the observer. I am 5 feet 5 inches tall. Standing beside a Watusi warrior, I would appear to be short. However, were I to stand beside a Pygmy, I would appear to be tall.

The binary reasoning of the Bible is based on the early Hebrew priests' acute observation of patterns in creation. It prevents the biblical worldview from slipping into dualism, a view in which the two entities of a set are equal in every way. 

The Binary Feature of the Hebrew Social Structure

A detailed anthropological study of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew reveals gender balance. The social structure of the Hebrew ruler-priest caste was neither patriarchal nor egalitarian. It reveals a balance of authority between males and females. There were male prophets and female prophets, male rulers and female rulers; inheritance by male heirs and inheritance by female heirs, patrilocal residence, and matrilocal residence; and an equal distribution of rights and responsibilities between the "mother's house" and the "father's house."

Hebrew names and titles include patronymics and matronymics. A patronymic is a personal name based on the given name of one's father or a famous male ancestor. These names are identified by the words ben or bar, meaning son or male descendant. In Numbers 13, Caleb is designated Kalev ben Jephunneh. 1 Chronicles 2:19 refers to Hur ben Kalev. An example in the New Testament is the name Bartholomew, and Anglicized version of the Aramaic patronymic Bar-Talmai. Patronymics are common in the Hebrew Bible.

In some cases, high ranking women are identified with a famous male ancestor. One example is Bath-Sheba, Solomon's mother. She was of the royal house of Sheba. This is why one of the entrance pillars of Solomon's Temple commemorates Jachin (Joktan), a name associated with the clan of Sheba. Solomon bowed before Bathsheba, the queen mother, and had her sit on a throne at his right side (1 Kg. 2:19).

In the Hebrew double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways. The cousin bride's prerogative to name her firstborn son after her father insured her ancestry would be honored among her descendants. Lamech the Elder (Gen 4) had a daughter Naamah. She married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their first-born son Lamech after her father.

The Hebrew cousin bride had the prerogative to name her firstborn son after her father.

The Hebrew persons named in the Genesis king lists (Gen. 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36) acknowledge both female and male ancestors (cognatic descent). Cognatic kin are blood relatives who acknowledge both maternal and paternal ancestors. The Hebrew practiced caste endogamy, so all were related by both blood and marriage.

In the biblical texts, women of authority are not named as frequently as men of authority simply because the Hebrew were a caste of ruler-priests and women never served as priests. To be right believing means to uphold the received tradition in full. That tradition never involved females at the altar or men in the birthing chamber.

Women and men have different roles in God's plan and design. The priesthood of the Church emerges from the oldest known priesthood, that of the early Hebrew ruler-priests (4200-2000 BC). It is a received tradition and sacred unto God. Only males offered blood sacrifice at the altars. Women were not permitted in the area where animals were sacrificed. Likewise, men were not permitted in the birthing chambers where women shed blood in childbirth. These distinct types of blood work speak of death and life and the two were never to be confused. Therefore, the blood work of the Hebrew priests and the blood work of the Hebrew women never shared the same space. That received tradition must be preserved because it speaks of divine mysteries.

Gender Balance of the Biblical Narratives

The Hebrew gender balance is evident in the biblical narratives which give equal attention to males and females. The blood symbolism of the Passover associated with Moses has a parallel in the blood symbolism of the scarlet cord associated with Rahab. 

The abusive behavior of drunken Noah toward his sons has a parallel in the abusive behavior of drunken Lot toward his daughters.

The gender balance is evident in the New Testament narratives also. When Jesus was presented in the temple His identity as Messiah was attested by the priest Simeon and the prophetess Anna. 

Men and women are among Jesus’ followers. The women reportedly provided many of the material needs of Jesus and the Disciples. Jesus restored life to Jairus’ daughter (daughter to father) and life to the son of the widow of Nain (son to mother). 

Jesus’ parables in Luke 15 involve a male seeking a lost sheep and a female seeking a lost coin. Paul commends both men and women to the Gospel ministry. Among them are Apollos, Priscilla, and Phoebe, a leader from the church at Cenchreae, a port city near Corinth. Paul attaches to Phoebe the title of prostatis, meaning a female patron or benefactor.

To understand the gender balance of the early Hebrew, we must dismiss the false narrative that their social structure was patriarchal. The traits of a patriarchy do not apply to the biblical Hebrew from whom we receive the earliest elements of the Messianic Faith we call "Christianity." There were Hebrew women of authority. Line of descent was traced through high-status wives, especially the cousin brides. Residential arrangements included neolocal, avunculocal, matrilocal, and patrilocal, and the biblical data reveals that the responsibilities and rights of males and females were balanced, yet distinct.

Related reading: The Authority of Queen Mothers; Features of the Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew; The Cousin Bride's Naming Prerogative; Royal Sons and Their Maternal Uncles; Rebecca Ran to Her Mother's House; Temple Women; Time to Jettison the Marxist-Feminist Hermeneutic

The Bible and Imagined Morality

Alice C. Linsley


The writer of this article, J. Parnell, writes, "The current debate is plagued by a binary lens." That statement needs to be unpacked before the reader can see the flaw in Parnell's thinking. He seems to mean that the discussion of homosex has polarized into two groups. Polarization and a binary worldview are NOT the same thing. 

The biblical stand against homosex, onanism and bestiality is entirely on the basis of a binary worldview. The difference between the binary view and polarization is significant. Contemporary morality would have us believe that both positions - pro and con - are equally valid (though one is more politically correct). This is dualism. In dualism the entities in a binary set are regarded as equal. Think Ying-Yang. On the other hand, the biblical writers understood that one entity in the fixed binary set is objectively observed to be superior to the other. Males are larger and stronger than females. The Sun's light is greater than the refulgent light of the Moon. 

In Genesis we read that God created two great lights in the heavens: the greater (Sun) to rule the day and the lesser (moon) to rule the night. The superiority of the male and the Sun are not value judgments. These represent empirical observation of a universal pattern. The binary worldview is found throughout the Bible and is especially evident in Genesis. Sometimes the binary distinction is rather subtle and easy to miss. Consider, for example, the binary set of hot and cool encounters with God. Abraham was visited “in the heat of the day” by God in three Persons (Gen. 18:1). The binary opposite is “in the cool of the day”, the time of God’s visitation to Adam and Eve in Paradise (Gen. 3:8). We have encounters with God described as hot and cool. We must always pay attention to such distinctions. In the first God has come to punish Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the second God has come to enjoy fellowship with the Man and the Woman. 

Truth in the Bible is told from the perspective of both the male and the female. There are both male and female prophets in the Bible. Deborah judged Israel while sitting under her tamar tree. A tamar is a date nut palm and was associated with the female principle. Many Old Testament women were named Tamar. The prophet or "moreh" consulted by Abraham sat under an oak. This tree was associated with the male principle. There is no murky middle ground. No androgenous authority figure sitting under some fanciful tree.

There are two "passovers" in the Old Testament. The passover associated with Moses involving the lamb's blood streaked on the lintel and door posts. Because of this blood, death passed over these houses. Likewise the scarlet cord hanging from the window of Rahab's house preserved those within the house when death came to Jericho. There is no denying the blood symbolism and no imaginary substitute for it.

The Bible asserts as the foremost distinction the relationship of the Creator to the creation. The Creator transcends the creation. Likewise, the Creator is greater than the creature. Were this not so, there would be no Gospel of Jesus Christ. For He who was uncreated, emptied Himself of his elevated estate to become flesh. This is the meaning of the Greek word kenosis (κένωσις)- to empty oneself. This divine action is embodied in Jesus Christ, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:6-8) The strong Overcomer stoops to save the weak.

Anthropologists observe a distinction also between the blood work of men in killing and the blood work of women in birthing. The two bloods represent the binary opposites of life and death. The blood shed in war, hunting and animal sacrifice fell to warriors, hunters and priests. The blood shed in first intercourse, the monthly cycle and in childbirth fell to wives and midwives. The two bloods were never to mix or even to be present in the same space. Women didn’t participate in war, the hunt, and in animal sacrifices, and they were isolated during menses. Likewise, men were not present at the circumcision of females or in the birthing hut.

The male principle involves insemination, protection of the weaker, expansion and uprightness. It is symbolized in the ancient world by meteorite showers and iron "seeds" covering the surface of the earth, by the Sun's rays shining down, the lengthening of shadows, and the high places (kar, tamana) and the standing stones and sacred pillars. The female principle involves receptivity, birthing, nurturing, fluidity and softness. It is symbolized by water, date nut palms, the swelling of gourds, being overshadowed by the Sun, and milk.

The blurring of the distinction between male and female, between humans and other creatures, and between life and death is forbidden in the Bible. This is why homosex and bestiality were punished by death, and the Israelites were commanded never to boil a young goat it its mother’s milk.

Sex between humans and animals blurs the distinction of human superiority (being made in the image of the Creator). The spilling of semen (onanism) is regarded as an unrighteous deed because this too violates the fixed order in Creation. The seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth. This is the ancient wisdom which observed immutable patterns in nature. It is based on reality, not imagined entities or moral relativism. Such wisdom paved the way for technological advances in the ancient world and empirical science in the modern world.

Related reading: The Importance of Binary Distinctions; Binary Distinctions and Kenosis, Ancient Seats of Wisdom; Stone Work of the Ancient World; Who Laid the Foundations of Science?; The Murky Waters of Insanity

Biblical Anthropology and the Question of Common Ancestry

Alice C. Linsley


Since Biblical Anthropology concerns itself with cultural antecedents and human origins it is natural that a Biblical anthropologist would explore the question of common ancestry as it is posed by Evolution.

If humans and apes (or humans and pigs) share a common genetic ancestry there must certainly be evidence for that in the fossil record. Frankly, I do not see it. Instead, the evidence points to humans appearing suddenly and de novo about 4 million years ago. The Australopithecus afarensis and the more recent Australopithecus africanus show every evidence of being fully human despite the small cranium. I have argued here that, given the totality of other evidence that favors human identity, brain size is a less important indicator than the binary feature of the brain and of primitive thought.

For example, the cerebral hemispheres exhibit strong bilateral symmetry in structure and function. That said, the left hemisphere has some dominant features. The lateral sulcus generally is longer in the left hemisphere than in the right, and Broca's area and Wernicke's area are present only in the left hemisphere in greater than 95% of the population. Thus the human brain exhibits both functional and structural asymmetry in the binary feature.

Levi-Strauss and others have noted that the binary sets are the basis of complex thought about the world and a commonality among primitive peoples. Similarly, computer science demonstrates that great complexity emerges from binary language.

Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors named in the the Genesis king Lists observed binary sets in the order of creation, such as east-west, male-female, day-night, dry-wet, raw-cooked, life-death, and heaven-earth. The regarded one of the entities of the set to be superior in some observable way than the other. The sun is greater than the moon. The male is large and stronger than the female. In other words, the binary feature of which I am speaking entails a greater-lesser aspect which is quite different from dualism.

The Yin Yang is often cited as an example of binary thinking, but as it is understood today it represents dualism. This was likely not the case originally. The yin-yang concept appears to be rooted in a much older binary framework related to the religion of Tian, the oldest name for the Creator in China. Tian means the Most High of the Anu. The Anu or Ainu did indeed hold a binary worldview which was based on their observations of the Sun. The Sun was held to be greater than the Moon, the light greater than the shadow. So in this view too, at least in its origin, there is dominance on one side.

Further, the Ainu whose great shrine city of Heliopolis was the point to which many ancient monuments aligned, appear to have regarded this binary feature as a fixed and unchanging characteristic of Nature. I'm wondering if indeed this is a general pattern in Nature?


Related reading: The Nilotic Origin of the Ainu; African Ancestry of Chinese; The Nile-Japan Ainu Connection; Binary Sets in the Ancient World; A Kindling of Ancient Memory; The Binary Aspect of the Biblical Worldview; Questioning the Common Ancestry Hypothesis; Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Does the Binary Feature Signal Greater Complexity?

Titanokorys gainesi from the front. (Illustration by Lars Fields/Royal Ontario Museum)

The largest known animal of the Cambrian Period lived around 541 million years ago.

The unity of organic life can be explained by several paradigms. Evolution is one of them. In science we must go with the paradigm or hypothesis that best aligns with the physical evidence. Creatures with 2 legs, 2 arms and 2 eyes speaks about the the development of bilateralism (as a precursor to greater complexity and hierarchies). Consider how binary language used in computer science has led to great complexity. Random sequences degrade. Binary sets increase complexity.

The earliest fossils are neither vegetation nor animal. They are largely without bilateral symmetry and binary features. In the Precambrian organisms we find neither bilateralism nor any bivalves. With such features emerges the potential for greater diversity and complexity. Too little attention is given to such signals or triggers in the fossil record.



Shown right: Enalikter aphson, Silurian rocks (425 mgrs), Herefordshire (Dorsal-view)

Alice C. Linsley

Metaphysics, anthropology, and biology seem to agree that the binary feature signals greater complexity. The philosopher Jacques Derrida believed binary sets stimulate the mind to explore more complex levels of meaning, and anthropologist Levi-Strauss discovered that the binary sets of primitive peoples represent complex patterns of thought. If we regard symmetry as a reflection of binary sets, the diversity that emerges in the Cambrian explosion might have been triggered by the emergence of binary and symmetrical features.

Biblical Anthropology delves into the oldest layers of the biblical material looking for information that is anthropologically significant in reconstructing cultural antecedents. This approach has proved extremely useful in gaining a clearer picture of Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors. A fascinating aspect of the biblical worldview is its binary feature, which I discuss here.

The binary worldview found in the Bible should not be confused with dualism. In dualism, the entities of the binary set are regarded as equal. In the binary reasoning, one of the entities of the set is recognized as superior in visible ways to the other. It is universally observed that the human male is larger and stronger than the human female. In the binary set Sun-Moon, the sun is recognized as the greater light (Genesis 1). The light of the Moon is refulgent. It reflects the glory of the Sun. Binary sets in the Bible involve a hierarchy. The binary references are often subtle and missed when one reads the text casually. Hot is not pleasant, but most people find cool pleasant. Consider the distinction between the oak and the palm (tamar). The male prophet at Mamre sat under an oak (representing the masculine principle). Deborah sat under a palm (representing the feminine principle). Moses' people were saved when they put the blood of the lamb on the doors. Rahab's family was saved when she hung a scarlet cord from her window. A mother's milk represents life for her offspring. The distinction between life and death is not to be blurred. Therefore, the people are told not to boil a baby goat in its mother's milk (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26, Deut. 14:21). 

The order of creation as described in Genesis 1 speaks of binary distinctions established by the Creator.  He separates light and dark, the waters above ("firmament") and the waters below, the dry land and sea, and from these distinctions emerges the great complexity and diversity that we see today.

Another binary distinction is between humans and plants. Onanism was forbidden because the seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth.

There is a binary distinction between humans and non-human animals. Bestiality was forbidden as it blurs the distinction between humans and animals. 

I am able to generate this blog post for people to read on their devices is because of binary language. The binary language of computers has brought us a world of great complexity and diversity.

This binary thinking has been studied by other anthropologists, the most famous of whom is Claude Lévi-Strauss who observed binary thinking among preliterate Amazon tribes. In his book, Le cru et le cuit, Strauss explores cultural perceptions of natural/raw-prepared/cooked, and other oppositions within primitive cultures.

Lévi-Strauss dedicated himself to searching for the "underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity." He argued on the basis of his anthropological findings that the primitive mind has the same structures or patterns as the civilized mind. These observations culminated in his famous book Tristes Tropiques, which positioned him as the central figure in the structuralist school.

Levi-Strauss and others have noted that the binary sets are the basis of complex thought about the world. Similarly, computer science demonstrates that great complexity emerges from binary language.

Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors named in the the Genesis king Lists observed binary sets in the order of creation, such as east-west, male-female, day-night, dry-wet, raw-cooked, life-death, and heaven-earth. Further, they observed these binary sets as a fixed or unchanging reality. We might speculate that this fixed binary feature led to the metaphysical conception of the Creator as immutable, but we would be getting ahead of ourselves.

The question is whether there is evidence in the history of biological life on earth for binary features being antecedent to the emergence of greater complexity?

The fossil record certainly suggests that this is the case. The earliest fossils (shown below) are neither vegetation nor animal. They are without symmetry and binary features. In the Precambrian organisms we find neither bilateralism nor any bivalves. Once these features emerge we begin to see greater diversity and complexity (the so-called Cambrian "explosion" which lasted 90 million years).

Diskgama buttonii

Among archaic humans we find both bilateralism and a bicameral brain. Add to this the ability to observe binary sets and ponder relationships. The smallest brained Australopithecus would have noted the distinctions of night-day and raw-cooked. He also would have recognized a mystery in that there are in-between moments. There is that mysterious moment just before dawn and that moment when the food is no longer raw, yet not quite cooked. He would have observed that the Sun always rises over a mountain in the east and casts the mountain's shadow, yet there are no shadows when it is directly overhead. Thus to the binary aspect is added an in-between category and the recognition of something mysterious.

Lucy's brain was small, but with both anatomical and external binary features, she had the basis for more complex thought such as mentioned above. Complexity of thought does not require a large brain. It requires the binary feature of the brain and the ability to observe the binary features of the world in which we live. Computer science has shown the exponential increase in sophisticated processes that come from binary language. The sudden increase in organic diversity in the Cambrian Explosion exhibits suggests that the binary feature was a factor.

Additionally, there is another level of complexity that emerges from recognition of binary sets. It is synecdoche in which totality is expressed by contrasting parts. This is expressed in figures of speech such as: "I searched high and low" or "He worked day and night." These merisms reflect greater complexity of thought, yet synedoche is found in the oldest layers of the Genesis material, as has been observed by Cyrus Herzl Gordon. He notes that the phrase “good and evil”( טוֹב וָרָע ) is a merism and this is verified by the context. The serpent urges Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so that she might become like God who knows everything (Gen. 3:1-5).

Brain size, therefore, is over-estimated in assessments of the complexity of thought among archaic humans. Why not direct attention to the discovery of evidence of recognition of binary features and the emergence of complex thought among archaic humans? This is right up Biblical Anthropology's alley!


Related reading: Theories Abut the Cambrian Explosion; The Binary Aspect of the Biblical Worldview; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Was Lucy Human?; Meat Consumption Three Million Years Ago; Questioning the Common Ancestry Hypotheses, Biblical Anthropology and the Question of Common Ancestry; Symmetry

The Binary Aspect of the Biblical Worldview

By Alice C. Linsley
Special to virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
July 12, 2013

"All my life I have loved edges; and the boundary-line that brings one thing sharply against another."--G.K. Chesterton (Autobiography)

"Limitation as limitation is good. Any limitation makes something, as an outline takes some shape. This is the true and thrilling meaning of the tale of Adam and Eve. God put something forbidden in their garden because without limit things are without form and void. The dark stem of the strange tree threw up all the green and gold. But they clamoured for 'infinity'... They destroyed the outline of Eden. They ate the one thing that kept everything else sacred. Immediately they had everything and therefore nothing."--G.K. Chesterton (From the Notebooks of G.K.C, The Tablet, 4 April 1953)

The Biblical worldview has a binary feature that is expressed in the language of the Biblical writers. This worldview distinguishes the Biblical belief system from Asian dualism. In a dualistic worldview the entities of the binary set are regarded as complementary and equal. This is symbolized by the ying-yang.

In dualism, reality is comprised of opposite but equal principles (male-female, night-day, spirit-matter, heaven-hell, God-man). One entity in the set is no greater than the other. The idea of divine condescension is meaningless in this context, as is the idea of God entering history.


Read it all here.


Related reading: Questioning the Common Ancestry Hypotheses; Biblical Anthropology and Common Ancestry

Ethics and Religious Practices of the Afro-Asiatics

Alice C. Linsley


"Afro-Asiatic" is a general yet useful term in speaking about some of the oldest human populations whose related languages are classified under this term. It identifies a diversity of peoples, castes, societies and territories that have linguistic affinity. Beyond this, there appear to be shared values, common moral laws, and a similar epistemology.

The peoples under consideration lived between 4500 and 1500 BC, although Vedic sources state that the "Saka" ruled several thousands of years longer. The Matsya Purana claims that the world belonged to Kushite Saka for 7000 years. If this is true, we must extend the range of their influence to about 8000 BC.

While the Saka are identified as "Kushites" that term is perhaps less useful than the term Afro-Asiatics. "Kushite" encompasses many Nilo-Saharan peoples and castes, including Biblical figures such as the kings listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10 and 11. A more accurate historical designation is "Nilo-Saharan."

Archaeology, linguistics, molecular genetics, and anthropology have begun to construct a cohesive picture of the Afro-Asiatics. It is generally agreed that their point of origin is the Upper Nile Valley and that they were masterful navigators of the great water systems of the Late Holocene. Using these water systems, sent-away royal sons dispersed and established new territories from the Horn of Africa to India. The earliest "kingdoms" of southern Arabia were ruled by Saka. These are recognized as the ancient seats of wisdom by Biblical writers.

The rulers and sent-away sons built cities on high places with natural water sources and maintained water shrines along great rivers. The shrines were under the direction of a caste of ruler-priests who have been variously called Opiru, Hapiru, and Habiru (Hebrew) in ancient texts. In Genesis these are the Horite ruler-priests whose lineage is presented in Genesis 36 and they are described as having a red skin tone. Likely they are the descendants of Red Nubians.

Red and black Nubians
Detail from a Champollion drawing

Solar symbolism of Horites

In the Mahabharata, Saka-dvipa is identified as the land of the Sakas whose religious practices and cosmology were centered on the solar arc. O-piru in fact refers to attendants or priests at sun temples. The O here is a solar symbol rather than a letter. Not surprisingly, the oldest Afro-Asiatic monuments reveal alignments that express reverence for the sun.

The diffusion of common religious practices and ethical views is most logically explained by the dispersion of Kushite peoples out of Africa. This dispersion, described in Genesis 10, has been scientifically verified.


Bloodshed: The first moral law

Among the ancient Afro-Asiatics there was anxiety about the shedding of blood. They regarded the shedding of blood to be a moral issue of the first magnitude. Blood was conceived as the substance of life, with the power to bring blessings or curses upon those who were responsible for the shedding of blood. Such blood anxiety required the ministrations of mediators such as priests and shamans.

Before the hunting party departed, the priest or shaman offered sacrifice to the spirits of the hunted animals. When someone killed another human by accident, the killer was to provide an animal to be sacrificed in his place and was to pay satisfaction to the victim’s family. If he killed on purpose, he would forfeit his life. All of these decisions were governed by laws that were passed from generation to generation and upheld by the rulers and their advisors.

There was anxiety about the blood shed by women in their monthly cycle and in childbirth. For this reason it was common for women to remain in structures outside the village during menstruation and childbirth. Female family members brought them food and other necessary provisions. After ritual purification, the women returned to their regular routines in the village. Women of the noble classes remained in their chambers where female servants provided all their needs.

Among ancient peoples religious laws governed every aspect of the community’s life. The laws found in Leviticus and in the ancient Vedic Brahmanas are examples. Here we read instructions for how lepers are to be put outside the community and restored to the community after they are healed. Many of the laws govern family relations, forbidding incest and adultery. Others establish rules for the proper treatment of slaves, foreigners, widows and orphans.

The clay tablet of the code of Ur-Nammu from the reign of King Shulgi is dated to 2095-2047 BC It originally held 57 laws which covered family and inheritance law, rights of slaves and laborers, and agricultural and commercial tariffs. This code prescribes compensation for wrongs, as in this example: "If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out one-half a mina of silver." (Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 28, Sep/Oct 2002, p. 30.)


Ethics in the Afro-Asiatic Dominion

The Code of Hammurabi dates to about 1750 B.C. Hammurabi was an Amorite (Semite) who became King of Babylon about the time that Abraham left his father’s house in Harran and settled in the land of Canaan. The ancient capital of Babylon was about 55 miles south of modern Baghdad and it was large city of the Fertile Crescent. Although the city states of the Fertile Crescent shared common ideas and practices, these cities were not unified under a single ruler. Instead they were governed by independent rulers who were often related by marriage. Marriage was a way to form political alliances, and contribute to the preservation of the people’s cultural heritage.

Rulers of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion governed territories extending from the Atlantic coast of modern Nigeria to the Indus River valley of India. They spoke languages in the Afro-Asiatic language family and controlled commerce on the waterways. The Afro-Asiatic world was a river civilization that disappeared when earth’s climate changed. Today central Africa, Palestine, Mesopotamia and India are dry, but 10,000 to 12,000 years ago these areas were wet and fed by rivers many miles wide. The basins of these now extinct or much diminished rivers have been identified by satellite photos. Many of the laws of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion pertain to commerce and water rights.

Rulers controlled the major water systems of the ancient world at a time when Africa and Asia were much wetter. These rulers were owed tribute for maintaining order on the rivers. Royal priests maintained shrines on the rivers where the tribute was collected, a portion being offered to the shrine deity. As the climate changed the landscape of the ancient world, some of the laws changed also. For example, strangers who came to wells or watering holes in now arid lands were no to be harmed or taxed. Wells and public watering holes became, by law, places of immunity. This was all the more necessary since they were frequented by women and children, whose job it was to draw water.


A binary versus a dualistic worldview

The ancient Afro-Asiatics had a binary worldview based on their acute observation of the patterns in nature. The binary worldview hinges on binary sets that are observed by all people at all times and in all places (universal structure/pattern). Binary sets are objective, not subjective.

The French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss believed that the primitive mind and the modern mind are shaped by the same structures. Lévi-Strauss is the central figure in Structuralism. He described structuralism as “the search for unsuspected harmonies” across cultures. He showed that qualities experienced binary opposites, like raw and cooked, reveal a network of abstract relations which form a coherent system of thought or a worldview.

Another example of a binary set is male/female. All humans are born either male or female. The number of incidents of genitally-confused births is very rare and those born with such conditions know their gender. Often their condition can be corrected through surgery and hormone therapy.

Binary sets require that we make distinctions between two seemingly opposite entities. This does not mean that every set of opposites is a binary set, however. Only sets which are universal and objective are binary sets. Tall-short and talent-untalented are subjective and therefore do not represent binary sets.

Among the ancient Afro-Asiatics the key binary sets were: male-female; sun/day-moon/night, heaven-earth, God-Man; and the directional poles east-west and north-south. The ruler was associated with the sun and his skin was sun darkened. His queen was associated with the moon and appeared in public with her skin covered in white power.

In a binary worldview one of the entities in the set is regarded as superior in some way to the other. The entities of the binary have a relationship of dominance and subservience. The sun is greater than the moon because the sun gives light whereas the moon merely reflects the sun’s light. Males are larger and stronger than females. Heaven is more glorious than earth, and God is far greater than Man. This view is different from the dualism that characterizes most Asian religions. Dualism is the belief that reality is comprised of two different yet equal principles: material and non-material, light and dark, good and evil, female and male, etc. The ying-yang symbol does not represent the oldest worldview.

Sometimes the language of a binary set is used to speak of a greater whole. Male and female can refer to all humanity. In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created "the heavens and the earth." This is called a “merism” and it means that God created the whole universe. In Psalm 139, the psalmist declares that God knows "my sitting down and my rising up.” This is to say that God knows all the psalmist's actions. The phrase “good and evil” – as in “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” - is a merism whereby a metaphysical binary set refers to all that can be known. Eve is tempted to eat of this tree so that she might become like God, knowing all things.

In a binary system meaning also is derived from reversals such as switching directional poles or gender associations. Reversal is when the subordinate entity is granted a place of dominance. In ancient mysticism, the reversal of north and south, that is, moving south to the north position, meant that the feminine principle is set in motion. This spoke of fertility, conception, birth and new life.

In Genesis 12:6 we read that Abraham sought guidance from the “moreh” or prophet when he pitched his tent at the Moreh’s Oak. Male prophets sat under firm upright trees such as oaks. These represent the masculine principle. Female prophets sat under soft trees with more fluid motion such as date nut palms. These trees are called "tamars" and they represent the feminine principle. Judges 4:4-6 says, “Deborah, the wife of Lappidoth, was a prophet who was judging Israel at that time. She would sit under the Palm of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites would go to her for judgment."

Genesis 12 places the Moreh’s Oak at the sacred center between Bethel and Ai, on an east-west axis. Deborah's Palm was between Ramah and Bethel, on a north-south axis. Note the reversal of cardinal points and gender associations. This is typical of the binary system of the ancient Afro-Asiatics.

The Tree of Life was said to be in the middle of the garden. If the sacred center is the place where the east-west axis and the north-south axis intersect, we have the image of the Cross.


Afro-Asiatics and the role of morehs or prophets

The evidence of archaeology and anthropology suggests that the water shrine was the place were wisdom and council was sought by Afro-Asiatics and Indo-Europeans. The seers or prophets included female. Themistoclea and Deborah are an examples. They served similar functions in their communities, but their practices and worldviews were different. Themistoclea represents the shamanistic approach and Deborah represents an approach in which consultation of spirits and trace states was forbidden.

The Biblical prophet was forbidden from consulting spirits. Indeed Saul's rejection as king over Israel was due in part to his consulting a medium. The Biblical prophets knew what shamans worldwide know - that the spirits sometimes lie. Therefore they were to consult only the Spirit of God (Ruach) who moved over the waters at the beginning and know all things, and cannot lie.

The Wisdom Tradition of the Bible represents a very ancient approach to epistemology. This is evident is such books as Job, Proverbs, Sirach and Baruch. Wisdom as a feminine principle is sometimes called the “Sophia” tradition. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom and it is based on objective observation of the order of creation.

Likewise, Themistoclea represents an epistemology that wedded experience, reason and the observation of order in Nature. As the prophetess of Apollo at Delphi she would have been a source of much ancient wisdom, including knowledge of the natural world, astronomy, medicine, music, mathematics, animal husbandry and philosophy. She would have offered advice pertaining to the time for sowing and harvests, whether to go to war, and who and when to marry.

Shrine prophets were often deified, either posthumously or during their lifetimes. The Hebrew (habiru) righteous ones were regarded as deified (elohiym). The plural form for deity appears in Genesis 1: In the beginning elohiym created the heavens and the earth. The word also appears in Genesis 6:2, which speaks of the "sons of the elohiym" who took wives from the daughters of men. The plural form relates to the ancient Horites from whom we receive the material in Genesis. They are the origin of Israel's priesthood and why Jews call their ancestors horim.

The Horite ruler-priests were regarded as deified "sons" of God. They served as the wise ones and advised the great kingdom builders of old. As such, they are considered gods, as in Exodus 22:28: "Thou shalt not revile the gods (elohiym), nor curse the ruler of thy people."


Related reading: Ethics and Binary Oppositions; Moral Obligation; Women Prophets and Shamans; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; The Genesis King Lists; The Kushite Marriage Pattern Drove Kushite Expansion

Derrida and Biblical Anthropology

Alice C. Linsley

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) was a North African, multi-lingual Jew who developed a strategy by which he critiqued Western thought in literature, myth and philosophy. He criticized conventional interpretations of texts, legends and myths.

He pioneered the movement known as Deconstructionism in the mid-1960s. In his analysis he employs these interesting descriptors: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, and ontotheology.

Logocentrism emphasizes the primacy of speech/debate in the Western philosophical tradition. This is a variation of "Phonocentrism," the belief that uttered sounds and speech are inherently superior to written language. Phonocentricists maintain that spoken language is the primary and most fundamental method of communication and writing is a derived method of capturing speech.

Phallogocentrism points to the tendency for the male version of the story to dominate in conventional interpretations.

Ontotheology was Derrida’s term for approaching “the center” to which we inevitably must return. Here we encounter Truth/Reality/God/Truth/Logos. Derrida said, “It would be possible to show that all the terms related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence, ... essence, existence, substance, subject, ... transcendentality, consciousness or conscience, god, man, and so forth.”

Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. Derrida’s method involves exploration of contradictions, oppositions, and reversals, and represents dialectical reasoning with a binary framework. 

Derrida ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.

Deconstruction's literary aspect involves finding hidden meanings in the text using imagination or “invention” (Derrida’s term). The philosophical aspect concerns the “metaphysics of presence." Here Derrida borrows from the work of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger who maintained that Western philosophy has consistently granted “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be, and something can be because it is. We might add that "something isn't" is also about metaphysical presence. Such a statement observes or marks negative space. Derrida argues that metaphysics affects the whole of philosophy from Plato onwards. Metaphysics necessarily explores binary oppositions and reveals a hierarchy whereby one of the opposites is perceived to be superior in some way to the other.

 
While Derrida loved word play and poked fun at conventional interpretations, he was never far from Plato when speaking of an absolute or constant metaphysical presence. While language is unstable and meaning has reversals, Derrida demonstrated that these are often two sides of the same linguistic coin. In a sense, Derrida was bringing Western philosophy back to its more ancient Semitic roots. (The oldest known Semitic language is Ancient Akkadian, the language known to Abraham the Hebrew.) The early Hebrew would have recognized that the sacred center is where we find God. For them the sacred spatial center was the mountain top where God and man often communed, and the sacred temporal center was high noon, a time of no shadows (James 1:17). However, for Derrida the center is a function, not God. It is the place to which we must continually return to find the threads of meaning.

 
Derrida believed that Western philosophy had lost the dialect between the binary opposites, consistently granting privilege to one side and marginalizing or ignoring its binary opposite. Studying Western philosophy, one would have to agree. Aristotle has won the day, and Plato has been exiled from the picture. Unlike the Semitic way of thinking which is characterized by "both-and" reasoning, Western thought tends to be characterized by "either-or" reasoning. That is evident in the way Western Christians have been divided on the relationship of faith and works.

However, Derrida did not embrace relativism. He believed that there is a presence or trace that we may regard as fixed. In this, he draws on Plato’s thought. His reversals are a strategic intervention within a constipated Western philosophical system. As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes" (Metaphysics).

 
This reversal of the subordinated term of an opposition is no small aspect of deconstruction's strategy. Derrida's argument is that in examining a binary opposition and reversals, deconstruction brings to light traces of meaning that cannot be said to be present, but which have metaphysical existence. This is not a new idea or even a new approach to meaning. It is consistent with the mystical approaches of the Semitic peoples, and we must remember that Derrida was a North African Arabic-speaking Jew. In a real sense, Derrida’s contribution to Western Philosophy has been to re-introduce the Semitic interpretive approach to meaning.

The value of deconstruction for Biblical Anthropology is its insistence that details matter. Close reading is required to gain understanding. Deconstruction requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” if there is to be valuable criticism.

Deconstruction also involves paying attention to the subordinate voices, which in the Bible are the voices of women. One of Derrida's favorite terms was “supplementarity.” He was correct in his assertion that what is conceived as the marginal object does define the central object of consideration. The social structure of the early Hebrew cannot be understood without gaining a clear picture of the roles, authority, and contributions of Hebrew women. 

Derrida encouraged attention to reversals. These might be reversals of gender roles, reversals of numbers, or reversal of cardinal points.

For example, in 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:1-4 we find the association of the number one with north and the number three with south. Here we read that the altar in Solomon’s temple was to rest on 12 oxen: 3 facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south, and 3 facing east. We note that north heads the list, having the position of priority. Then comes west and then south, and finally east.

3↑ 3←3↓ 3→ 

Deconstruction uncovers an apparent system that assigned numbers and gender virtues to the north, south, east, and west. The number one is assigned to north, and north is associated with the heavens, God’s eternal throne.

When the number 3 is associated with south, fertility, productivity, and peace reign. It is that state of heaven coming down (the advent of God, Messiah's Incarnation). This is evident in the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation. The city has twelve gates and sits on twelve foundation stones (Rev. 21:12-14). Three gates face east, three face north, three face south, and three face west. We may illustrate this as follows

3→ 3↑ 3↓ 3← Notice that the third position faces south.

Notice that there has been a reversal of directions when compared with the “bronze sea” in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:23-26).

3↑ 3←3↓ 3→ 

What are we to make of this? Truely this is something to ponder.

 

After Abraham consulted the prophet (moreh) under the great oak at Mare, he headed south to Beersheba where he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal cousin. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” 

The tamar palm was a feminine symbol among Abraham’s people. It represented the female reproductive organ, and feminine virtues. The tamar palm was the feminine counterpart of the oak tree. The male prophet sat under the Oak at Mamre on an east-west axis, but Deborah sat under a tamar between Bethel and Ramah, on a north-south axis.

What are we to make of this? Again, we have something to ponder, and it appears to speak of something shaped like this +. 

Derrida showed great sensitivity to gender reversals such as this and found that they rendered meaning mostly unobserved by Western philosophers, theologians, and Bible commentators. Long before Derrida, people recognized a binary feature in the order of creation: male-female, light-dark, heaven-earth, etc. Derrida explored this extensively and noted that when a gender role reversal takes place n narratives, the "other" becomes the dominant voice. Normally, the dominant voice is that of the Male Principle, but when the reversal takes place, the Female Principle is in action. There are examples of this in the Bible. For Derrida these alternative interpretations were the rich outflow of deconstruction. 

Related reading: Divide Opinion as Derrida Did; Derrida's Hostility to Phonocentrism; Derrida's Style of Writing; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Gender Reversal and Sacred Mystery; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions; BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Orthodoxy Requires Binary Reasoning; Ethics Forum: Binary Reasoning Informs Christian Morality and Ethics

Hierarchy in Creation: The Biblical view

Were it possible to study DNA from the different peoples listed in Genesis 10, we would find that the majority could be classified in Y-DNA Haplogroups R1a, R1b, and J, and mtDNA Ls, M, N, H, and R and their dispersion is shown on this map.

Dr. Alice C. Linsley


Conceptually, the triangle or pyramid was regarded as the structure of the world by the ancient Afro-Asiatics. They were fascinated by the geometric properties of this shape. This is evident in the construction of pyramids and ziggurats. It is also evident in their multi-tiered cosmology which pictured the Creator at the peak of the heavens.

We find the hierarchical concept in the biblical order of creation, with the Human ranked above the other animals and the animals ranked above the plants. Within these tiers are what Genesis calls the "kinds", each reproducing according to its own kind.  The Creator's design entails boundaries which are generally recognized in reproductive science. These boundaries were largely honored by the Afro-Asiatics.

Onanism was an unrighteous deed because the seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth. Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 A.D. 191).

Bestiality and sodomy are also serious violations of the biblical order of creation. By extension, it was forbidden even to sow two different seeds in the same field, as was the blending of different fibers. The prohibition against mixing types, be they seeds, fibers or blood, upholds the distinction between this side of the boundary and that side, against confusing the holy with the unholy, or blurring the distinction between life and death, as happens when a baby goat is boiled in its mother's milk (forbidden three places in Scripture). Ultimately, the binary distinctions are God's way of ordering our thinking so as to preserve our lives and souls.

Pslam 8:6, which parallels the names Enoch and Adam, provides further evidence of this triangular hierarchy. Kain's first-born son was named Enoch and Seth's first-born son was named Enosh. These are linguistically equivalent names.  The name appears later in Numbers as Hanoch, the first-born son of Reuben. The point is that the names Enoch/Enosh/Hanoch stand for the first-born son in the ruling lines. He is the ruler-designate, and an historical figure. He is paralleled in Psalm 8 with Adam, the First Created Man, to whom the mandate was given to "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth." (Gen. 1:28) This is not a mandate to exploit, as is so often misrepresented by secularists. It is an assertion about the uniqueness of Mankind and our place in the order of creation. 

It is against this conception of the hierarchy in creation that we understand the nature of Eve's sin. She who represents the queen over the created order submits herself to the will of a creature who slithers on the ground. In this the original hierarchy or order in creation became inverted. Instead of listening to the Creator, Eve listened to the serpent, basest of creatures. Instead of taking from the tree of life, she took from a tree that brought death. Death already existed, as evidenced by the extinction of many species even before humans appeared on the surface of the earth. So, Eve's disobedience did not introduce physical death to the world, it brought spiritual death. This is how the Church Fathers understood the Fall. Such death could be overcome only by God acting in time and space.

The First Known Missionary Mandate 

The command to disperse and fill the earth meant that the Hebrew descendants of Adam. Eve, Cain and Seth would go into all the world with their Messian Faith in God father and God Son. Genesis 11 says that the Hebrew ruler-priest caste moved east into Mesopotamia. That has been confirmed through numerous studies in various fields: DNA studies, early migrations, linguistics, ancient texts, archaeology, and anthropology. In Mesopotamia they constructed elevated temples with observation towers. The Bible refers to these simply as "high places." The early Hebrew ruler-priests were known to do this in the service of the early kingdom builders like Nimrod. 

Apparently, life was very comfortable in the fertile plain of Shinar, and the Hebrew were content to ignore the command given to their forefathers to disperse and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28), spreading their Messianic Faith. Genesis 11:1 notes that the people spoke one language with common words/roots. Historically, that too is accurate. They spoke Akkadian, the oldest known Semitic language. Pentecost speaks of the ultimate fulfillment of what God purposes from the beginning. The Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem from many parts of the world heard about Messiah's coming, death, and resurrection, and they took that message to their homelands, some of which were far from Jerusalem.


Related reading: The Hebrew at the Ancient Sun Cities; Abraham the Hebrew; Who Were the Kushites?; The Biblical Meaning of Eve