¹ Goldin, Judah, “The Youngest Son or Where does Genesis 38 Belong,” JBL 96 (1977) 27–44Google Scholar; Alter, Robert, “A Literary Approach to the Bible,” Commentary 60/6 (1975) 70–77Google Scholar.

² “Some Problems in Genesis XXXVIII,” VT 25 (1975) 338–61Google Scholar.

³ “A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man's Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt,” JBZ. 96 (1977) 321–36Google Scholar.

⁴ Gunkel, H., Genesis (HAT 1/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901)377Google Scholar; The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1966) 21Google Scholar; Dillmann, A., Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897) 2. 342Google Scholar; Eissfeldt, O.; The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 40Google Scholar; J. A. Emerton, “Some Problems,” 344; von Rad, G., Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973) 361Google Scholar.

⁵ E.g., Dillman, Genesis, 343; von Rad, Genesis, 358.

⁶ E.g., Alter, “A Literary Approach,” 76; von Rad with qualifications, Genesis, 362.

⁷ Genesis (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) 300Google Scholar.

⁸ Purity and Danger (New York: Praeger, 1966) 4Google Scholar. The anthropologist Edmond Leach has also taken an original socio-structural approach to Genesis 38 but is concerned primarily with the question of exogamy vs. endogamy. He views the marriage between Tamar and Judah as an attempt to “purify” the Judahite line. His theory unfortunately rests on the questionable assumption that Tamar herself was believed to be of pure Israelite blood. See Leach's essay, “The Legitimacy of Solomon,” Genesis as Myth and Other Essays (London: Grossman, 1969) 58–59Google Scholar. For a strong and in many ways justifiable critique see J. A. Emerton, “An Examination of a Recent Structuralist Interpretation of Genesis XXXVIII,” VT (1976) 79–98.

⁹ By “patriarchal” we refer to societies in which the father is the authority in the family; the names of the children bear his name; upon marriage he brings his wife to live in his family home.

¹⁰ One possible exception is found at Ruth 4:3, 9. For a review of scholarly opinion on Naomi's inheritance of Elimelech's field see S. Niditch, “Ruth, Esther, Daniel 1–6,”in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker; forthcoming).

¹¹ We will have occasion to cite various laws preserved in Leviticus and Deuteronomy but will do so with the qualification and realization that dating for individual laws is extremely difficult. The narrative itself provides boundaries as we apply legal formulations to the discussion of Genesis 38. That is, when the biblical source portrays the participants in the story as acting in accordance with certain rules or as judging one another according to certain rules, we feel confident in noting the parallel between their actions and the appropriate legal formulation as preserved in the Bible. For interesting recent discussions of the relationship between law and narrative see Carmichael, Callum C., The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1974)Google Scholar; “A Ceremonial Crux,” JBL 96 (1977) 321–36Google Scholar. Professor Carmichael suggests that certain Deuteronomic laws are later responses to problems raised by biblical narratives, a position we find difficult to accept. See, for example, his discussion of the law of the levirate in Deut. 25:5–10 (“A Ceremonial Crux,” 327–28).

¹² The situation of Jacob and his wives who are long-term members of his father-in-law's household is anomalous. This anomaly, of course, is caused by the disruption in the patriarchal clan itself-that is, by the break with brother Esau over the stealing of the birthright. Jacob and his wives belong at the patriarchal home, and when Jacob leaves Laban, they clearly wish to go with him. They no longer belong with their father, for they have become a part of the Isaac-Jacob line through their marriage and through their children. Their comments to Jacob at Gen. 31:14–16 are especially revealing. When Jacob and they return to the land and make peace with Esau, the social structure is righted and two anomalous situations are eliminated. The use of the Nuzi documents to explain aspects of Jacob's marriage and living arrangements (e.g., Burrows, M., “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Leverite Marriage,” BASOR 77 [1940] 3–5Google Scholar) is increasingly discounted (Seters, J. Van, Abraham in History and Tradition [New Haven: Yale, 1975] 78–85)Google Scholar.

¹³ For a technical definition of the term “liminal” see Turner, Victor, The Ritual Process (Chicago: Aldine, 1969) 94–97Google Scholar. That which is liminal is that which is betwixt and between nearly defined categories. A harlot falls between the two allowable categories for women. She is neither an unmarried virgin, nor a non-virgin wife. This boundary or liminal status is often considered sacred as well as dangerous.

¹⁴ The Book of Ruth presents a number of unresolved problems, not the least of which are its date and the role that Ruth's version of the levirate law should play in that dating. Ruth is a complex work containing a variety of thematic purposes. We do not intend to oversimplify, but merely to point to one key thread which it shares with Genesis 38. Fora thorough review of problems in Ruth see S. Niditch, “Ruth, Esther, Daniel 1–6.”