In her book, The Vanishing Hebrew
Harlot: The Adventures of the Hebrew Stem ZNH (Studies in Biblical
Literature 73; New York: Peter Lang, 2009), Irene E. Riegner examined the term
translated as “harlot” (זנה, ZNH) and demonstrates that, instead of
denoting what we commonly think is a “harlot” (sexually promiscuous woman/temple
prostitute, etc), it is a term that signifies “non-Yahwist religious practices”
operating in opposition to Yahwist praxis and that the זנה complex of religious practice operates in
a powerful, adversarial relationship to the Yahwist complex of religious
practices. Note the following passages discussed by Riegner in support of her
thesis:
Judges 8.27 and 8.33
Judg 8.27
וַיַּעַשׂ
אוֹתוֹ גִדְעוֹן לְאֵפוֹד וַיַּצֵּג אוֹתוֹ בְעִירוֹ בְּעָפְרָה
וַיִּזְנוּ
כָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרָיו שָׁם וַיְהִי
לְגִדְעוֹן וּלְבֵיתוֹ לְמוֹקֵשׁ
and Gideon made it
[the gold rings] into an ephod and he
placed it in his city, in Ofrah, and all Israel “participated in non-Yahwist religious
practices” directed towards it there; and it became a trap for Gideon and for
his household.
Jud. 8.33
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר מֵת
גִּדְעוֹן וַיָּשׁוּבוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים וַיָּשִׂימוּ
לָהֶם בַּעַל בְּרִית לֵאלֹהִים
and when Gideon died
the Israelites turned back and they “participated in non-Yahwist” religious practices directed
towards the baalim; and they set up
for themselves Baal B’rit as their god.
Gideon, an Israelite war hero, created an ephod, a religious object, which the
Deuteronomic historian labels a trap (מוֹקֵשׁ)
and classifies it with זנה. To the Deuteronomic historian,
the ephod represents heterodox
Yahwist praxis, but to Gideon and his compatriots, ti was an acceptable Yahwist
item. Absent from Judg 8.27 are terms signifying non-Yahwist praxis: a
reference to “other gods,” a reference to non-Yahwist rituals and symbols, or a
phrase to indicate a turning way from Yahweh. On the other hand, in Judges
8.33, the Deuteronomic historian links זנה to the baalim,
specifically with Baal B’rit and writes that after Gideon died the Israelites
reverted to the baalim implying that
Gideon’s ephod functioned as a
legitimate Yahwist object. However to the Deuteronomic historian of Judg 8.27
writing centuries after these events may have occurred, Gideon’s Yahwist praxis
is erroneous and the historian includes it with זנה activities . . . the expression זָנָה אַחֲרֵי (Jud 8.33) signifies non-Yahwist
religious practices and deities and Judg 8.27 extends זנה to include
unacceptable Yahwist praxis. This censure of an earlier religious custom
indicates a change in religious sensibility. Nothing in the context of Judg
8.27 or Judg 8.33 places זנה in an environment with
prostitution or with ritual sexuality. (pp. 70-71)
Leviticus 17.7
Lev 17.7
וְלֹא־יִזְבְּחוּ
עוֹד אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם אֲשֶׁר הֵם
זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה־זֹּאת לָהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם
but they must not
ever sacrifice their sacrifices to “goat demons,” that they [masc.] “participate in non-Yahwist
religious praxis” after them; an eternal statute this will be for them for
their generations
In Lev 17.7,
sacrificial ceremonies to the שְּׂעִירִם “goat deities,” are classified as a זנה
activity. The Masculine verb form is used with
this non-Yahwist sacrifice suggesting that either this was a male ceremony or
that men were prominent participants in the ritual. Non-Yahwist sacrifice, not
cultic sexual rituals or prostitution, is the thrust of Lev 17.7.
Leviticus 20.5
Lev 20. 5
וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי
אֶת־פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ
וְהִכְרַתִּי
אֹתוֹ וְאֵת כָּל־הַזֹּנִים אַחֲרָיו לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵי הַמֹּלֶךְ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם
and I, I will put my
face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off and all “the ones participating in
non-Yahwist religious practices” [masc. plural]—“participating in ceremonies
towards” Moloch—from the midst of their people.
Leviticus 20.5 includes sacrifices to Moloch
in the זנה category just as Lev 17.7 incorporated
goat sacrifices. The subject of Lev 20.2-5 sets forth the consequences of
giving one’s off-spring to Molech. The masculine plural participle functioning
as a noun, הַזֹּנִים, incriminates men in these
sacrifices but the masculine form may also encompass women. The possibility
that this is a ritual of child sacrifice mitigates against an interpretation of
ritual sexual activity or prostitution but does support זנה as a category of non-Yahwist
praxis. (pp. 71-72)
Leviticus 20.6
Lev 20.6
וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר
תִּפְנֶה אֶל־הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל־הַיִּדְּעֹנִים לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם
וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־פָּנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא
וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ
and the person who turns to ghosts and the
spirits of the dead, “to participate in non-Yahwist practices directed towards them”;
I will put my face against that person and I will cause him to be cut off from
the midst of his people.
Ceremonies that evoke ghosts and spirits of
the dead are classified as זנה activities and are contrary to proper
Yahwist practice (see also 1 Sam 28.9-11). (p. 77)
Deuteronomy 31.16
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה
אֶל־מֹשֶׁה הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֲבֹתֶיךָ וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה אַחֲרֵי
אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר
הוּא בָא־שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ וַעֲזָבַנִי
וְהֵפֵר אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אִתּוֹ
then this people arose and “participated in
non-Yahwist religious practices directed towards” the gods of the stranger of
the land into whose midst it [the people] is coming towards, and it [the
people] abandoned me and put an end to my covenant . . .
As it did in Num 25 1-3 and Ex 34.15-6, assimilation,
demonstrated by זנה activities, participation in the indigenous religious praxis, signifies
the end of the covenantal relationship between Israel and Yahweh and the demise
of Israel as a Yahwist community and as a coherent ethnic group. The stem זנה,
employed in direct opposition to Yahwist praxis, is associated with אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר־הָאָרֶץ “gods of
the strangers of the land.” These are the deities of the indigenous people who,
according to the Deuteronomist were dwelling on the land prior to Israel’s
entrance. Speaking figuratively as if he were a husband, an oblique reference
to the marriage metaphor, Yahweh says Israel has abandoned him (עזב); Hosea
uses similar language (Hos 2.15, 4.10b). Nothing in this verse or in the
surrounding text, suggests either prostitution or cultic sexual rituals. The
issue is Israelite identity and the continued existence of the group, Israel.
(pp. 87-88)
Jeremiah 2.20, 2.23a, and 2.24
In Jer 2.20, Jeremiah
distinguishes between praxis devoted to Yahweh, designated by עבד, “serve,”
and praxis devoted to Yahweh’s opposite, gods other than Yahweh, designed by
the זנה “non-Yahwist
religious praxis,” and situated זנה praxis at the rural religious shrines:
Jer 2.20
כִּי מֵעוֹלָם
שָׁבַרְתִּי עֻלֵּךְ נִתַּקְתִּי מוֹסְרֹתַיִךְ וַתֹּאמְרִי לֹא (אֶעֱבֹד)
[כִּי עַל־כָּל־גִּבְעָה גְּבֹהָה וְתַחַת
כָּל־עֵץ רַעֲנָן אַתְּ צֹעָה זֹנָה
Indeed from long ago you broke [fem] your
[fem] yoke, tore away [fem] your [fem] chains, and you [fem] said, I will not
serve [or, be a slave]; indeed on every high hill and under every luxuriant
tree you [fem] stoop, “a participant in non-Yahwist religious practices” [fem].
The stems עבד “serve” and זנה “participate in non-Yahwist
religious praxis” though not syntactically equivalent in the above colon, contrast
two modes of worship, a contrast implicit in Jer 3.6, 3.8-9 and 13.27. The stem
עבד may be found with Yahweh or with other
deities . . . but in Jer 2.20, עבד signifies the complex of “proper”
Yahwist praxis—that is, proper to Jeremiah and his community—while זנה signifies its opposite, the complex of
practices and artifacts directed towards a deity other than Yahweh. (pp.
150-52)
This has important ramifications for the Book of Mormon, not just the
Hebrew Bible. How so? Note the following passage, the only instance where “harlot”
appears in the Book of Mormon:
And
now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy
brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his
faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has
he not set a good example for thee? For thou didst not give so much heed unto
my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is
what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and
thy wisdom. And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous
unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of
Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. Yea, she did
steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou
shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. Know ye
not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord;
yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood
or denying the Holy Ghost? For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once
has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which
is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge
of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my
son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness. (Alma 39:1-6)
Riegner’s study of זנה as denoting, not a promiscuous woman, but
someone/something that leads away from religious orthodoxy, adds a lot to the
harlot Isabel. While many Latter-day Saints have understood “the sin next to
murder” to refer to sexual promiscuity, as Michael Ash has shown, this is not
the case, but instead, it is the destruction of spiritual testimony and the
like (see The
Sin "Next to Murder": An Alternative Interpretation). As Isabel
is a “harlot,” that is, one who is an instrumental means of leading to
non-Yahwist religious beliefs and practices, her stealing “the hearts of many”
refers to leading them to spiritual ruin through false religion, not through
sexual immorality. Indeed, a metaphorical understanding of “harlot” fits the
metaphorical language used in the pericope, such as “murdereth” being used in a
metaphorical sense of fighting against the truth of God, not the taking of a
life Riegner’s work on the stem זנה helps makes more sense of the pericope
where the lone instance of “harlot” in the Book of Mormon and strengthens the
proposal of the sin “next to murder” by Michael Ash.
