“There is in the Hebrew Bible, in prose and in poetry, in religious admonition and in secular love songs, a healthy and unabashed outspokenness which, in a sense, constitutes one of the great glories of the Old Testament.”
I quote scholar Edward Ullendorff’s 1979 article “The Bawdy Bible”1 to prepare the reader for some explicit examples of the Bible’s “unabashed outspokenness.” Blame it on Aren Maeir’s article in BAR’s May/June 2008 issue about the Philistines and their trouble with “hemorrhoids.”a The discovery at the Philistine cities of Gath (Tell es-Safi) and Ashkelon of situlae (small vial-shaped flasks) in the form of uncircumcised penises (see photo) led Maeir to propose that the five golden ‘opalim (nowadays the vulgar Hebrew term for hemorrhoids) that the Philistines delivered to Israel as guilt offerings for capturing the Ark of the Covenant were actually golden versions of Philistine phallic situlae (1 Samuel 6:4). As Maeir states in his article, the cultic contexts in which the tiny vessels were found indicate the “symbolic importance of the phallus in Philistine culture.” The Philistines offered Yahweh golden penis-shaped vessels because, theorizes Maeir, God had afflicted them with some form of penile dysfunction.
The Hebrew text may support this: In Hebrew, 1 Samuel 5:9 specifies that God smote the men (’anshe) of the city, not the New Revised Standard Version’s “inhabitants.”
The tale of the golden phalluses is only one of several episodes in 1 Samuel that feature the phallus either literally or in double entendre. Let me try to explain why and how.
First Samuel describes both Israel’s struggle against Philistine domination and “good-guy” David’s struggle with “flawed” King Saul. In the ancient world, arguably the most powerful metaphor for political and military authority was male sexual potency. Even on the individual level, a man’s honor depended on the public perception of his dominance over his women. (Even today the stereotypical drill sergeant goads raw recruits as “ladies” to shame them into becoming potent fighting “men.”)
When the Philistines send the golden penis-jars off to Israelite territory—one for each of the five Philistine cities—an Israelite would understand that Yahweh had asserted his dominance over all Philistia. First Samuel 6:5 even says that Yahweh’s hand (yad) had been heavy upon the Philistines and their gods. The wicked double entendre here is yad; the Hebrew word can also mean penis,2 and so, by extension, the Philistine men (women don’t count here) have been emasculated.
Envisioning a similar scene of submission, Jeremiah 50:37 is a bit more to the point: “A sword against her horses and against her chariots, and against all the foreign troops in her midst, so that they may become women!” The phallic swords in this passage that pierce the foreign troops suggest what the sly prophet means by “become women.”
Furthermore, while the sexual political metaphor was ubiquitous in the ancient world, the phallus took on an added significance in relations between the Israelites and the Philistines. One way the Israelites defined themselves over against the Philistines was by the differences in their penises.3 The Israelites were circumcised and the Philistines, alone of Israel’s neighbors, were not; in 1 Samuel “uncircumcised” and “Philistine” are interchangeable. Circumcision embodied Israelite ethnic identity. How appropriate, from an Israelite’s point of view, that in presenting Yahweh with golden ‘opalim, the traumatized Philistines appeared to surrender the essential symbol of themselves (a bit like surrendering the flag).
A full appreciation of two other episodes in 1 Samuel depends on an awareness of these phallic connotations. First, in 1 Samuel 18:25 King Saul imagines he can eliminate David by tempting him with marriage to his daughter. The catch, in true fairy tale fashion, is the impossible quest. David must produce a dowry of 100 Philistine foreskins. According to the Hebrew text, David more than succeeds and triumphantly delivers 200 foreskins, “which were given in full number to the king” (18:27). I remind my students that David was no mohel (a professional circumciser) and would not have 082bothered to separate the foreskins from his victims’ genitals. David’s phallic feat would suggest to an Israelite audience that (1) David could unman and un-Philistine the Philistines, and (2) beside Saul, passively seated on his throne, David clearly was more of a man (literally; he had 200 extra penises) and by logical extension more qualified to rule Israel.
The other story concerns the death of Saul during the battle on Mt. Gilboa. Already pierced by multiple Philistine arrows and writhing in pain (the verb is also used for labor pains), Saul begs his armor bearer to run him through with his sword “‘so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me’” (1 Samuel 31:4). When the armor bearer cannot bring himself to treat his superior so disgracefully, Saul falls on his own sword. What Saul dreads is emasculation, whether symbolic or literal (the text is ambiguous), at the hands (so to speak) of the uncircumcised Philistines. The Hebrew hints at Saul’s worst imaginings with the sexually suggestive verb, “make sport.” The fact that King Saul manages to die without technically being killed by the Philistines allows him to preserve some degree of honor for himself and for the Israelites he represents. Indeed, when the Philistines find Saul’s corpse, none of the abuse they inflict upon it (1 Samuel 31:8–10) has a sexual subtext.
Over the millennia since 1 Samuel was composed, we humans have yet fully to advance beyond equating male sexuality with power, a way of thinking that most would agree is not “healthy,” to return to Ullendorff’s adjective. On the other hand, Professor Ullendorff wrote his article to promote a richer appreciation of the Biblical text, which is never a bad idea.
“There is in the Hebrew Bible, in prose and in poetry, in religious admonition and in secular love songs, a healthy and unabashed outspokenness which, in a sense, constitutes one of the great glories of the Old Testament.” I quote scholar Edward Ullendorff’s 1979 article “The Bawdy Bible”1 to prepare the reader for some explicit examples of the Bible’s “unabashed outspokenness.” Blame it on Aren Maeir’s article in BAR’s May/June 2008 issue about the Philistines and their trouble with “hemorrhoids.”a The discovery at the Philistine cities of Gath (Tell es-Safi) and Ashkelon of situlae (small vial-shaped flasks) in the […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Edward Ullendorff, “The Bawdy Bible,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 24, no. 3 (1979), pp. 425–456.
2.
For example, Isaiah 57:8 where the NRSV demurely translates yad as “nakedness.” Isaiah 57:8 becomes positively raunchy in Hebrew: NRSV has “your desire (yad) rekindled.” In Canaanite mythology, the “hand” of the god El (from whom Biblical scholars think Yahweh evolved) is—in certain poetic contexts—clearly his penis.
3.
See Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Israel’s History,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 3, (Autumn, 2003), pp. 401–425.
