“Her father seems to know this tune and displays anxiety by desperately trying to keep her man in their home where there is plenty of provision, joy and peace—where his daughter will be safe under his watch.”
I want to respectfully push back against this idea.
Where is the evidence that the father actually truly cares for his daughter? Where is the evidence that the father is trying to protect her from the Levite? Where is the evidence that the father understands that the Levite has mistreated his daughter and may well mistreat her again? Where is the evidence that the father either KNOWS or SUSPECTS that the Levite is a cunning and surreptitious predator?
I don’t believe there is any string evidence for those things.
Rather, there is good evidence that the father is allying himself (Theobro style) with the Levite, in that the father sees his daughter as of less value than the Levite, and less worthy of respect and consideration.
I set out that evidence in my YouTube video on The Levite’s Concubine.
Thanks Barbara, I appreciate the push back. I think the word "Seems" is doing my heavy lifting here. I think how one understands the scene at the father's house is determined more by how one understands the structure of the whole passage and how it frames its meaning. For instance. I do not think the text gives strong support that the father is a villain either. Nevertheless, I think your reading is entirely possible. I will actually talk about the notion of the Levite making "Allies" as well--but I locate that more in chapter 20 than in 19.
What I think is importantly depicted in the "Father's house" scene is notion of how deadly, and how easily the abused can return to their abuser without any real heart change on the latter's part. The evidence I am weighing in this is that in Judges 19, the concubine's only point of agency is displayed in leaving the Levite, and in receiving him to her father's house. The father's house is the only place where she is safe. The moment she leaves, she is once again in danger. I think that angle is really instructive--particularly in settings when the goal of "reconciliation" or "saving the marriage" is allowed to overshadow personal safety.
I recognize that this interpretation might seem to lend itself to a hyper-patriarchal orientation (i.e. that every woman is only safe in her husband or father's home). But I don't think it necessitates that, merely in this instance it was the case. This is why I include the line that even if it was unwise, she was free to go.
I recognize and respect your disagreement, but does that make a little more sense?
Hi Adam, I think this may be another typo:
“the Levite’s lies – he’s a very conniving guy.”
Did you mean “convincing”?
In second thoughts I can see “conniving” is a good fit.
Maybe it could be said that the Levite is both “very conniving” and “very convincing”.
He certainly convinced all the male leaders of the eleven tribes when lied to them in chapter 20.
“Her father seems to know this tune and displays anxiety by desperately trying to keep her man in their home where there is plenty of provision, joy and peace—where his daughter will be safe under his watch.”
I want to respectfully push back against this idea.
Where is the evidence that the father actually truly cares for his daughter? Where is the evidence that the father is trying to protect her from the Levite? Where is the evidence that the father understands that the Levite has mistreated his daughter and may well mistreat her again? Where is the evidence that the father either KNOWS or SUSPECTS that the Levite is a cunning and surreptitious predator?
I don’t believe there is any string evidence for those things.
Rather, there is good evidence that the father is allying himself (Theobro style) with the Levite, in that the father sees his daughter as of less value than the Levite, and less worthy of respect and consideration.
I set out that evidence in my YouTube video on The Levite’s Concubine.
https://youtu.be/lcrkUsq69lk?si=9BYmkGcugW3noDdu
Thanks Barbara, I appreciate the push back. I think the word "Seems" is doing my heavy lifting here. I think how one understands the scene at the father's house is determined more by how one understands the structure of the whole passage and how it frames its meaning. For instance. I do not think the text gives strong support that the father is a villain either. Nevertheless, I think your reading is entirely possible. I will actually talk about the notion of the Levite making "Allies" as well--but I locate that more in chapter 20 than in 19.
What I think is importantly depicted in the "Father's house" scene is notion of how deadly, and how easily the abused can return to their abuser without any real heart change on the latter's part. The evidence I am weighing in this is that in Judges 19, the concubine's only point of agency is displayed in leaving the Levite, and in receiving him to her father's house. The father's house is the only place where she is safe. The moment she leaves, she is once again in danger. I think that angle is really instructive--particularly in settings when the goal of "reconciliation" or "saving the marriage" is allowed to overshadow personal safety.
I recognize that this interpretation might seem to lend itself to a hyper-patriarchal orientation (i.e. that every woman is only safe in her husband or father's home). But I don't think it necessitates that, merely in this instance it was the case. This is why I include the line that even if it was unwise, she was free to go.
I recognize and respect your disagreement, but does that make a little more sense?
Thanks for replying Adam. I will respond more when I’m not so tired! It’s nearly 10pm here for me in Australia.
Hi Adam, I think there is a typo here:
“Sometimes we want this story so bad we over our ears to hear the music change”
Shouldn’t it be “we cover our ears” ?
Thanks for the catch. I've corrected the typo!