Printer Friendly

The biblical 'Omen and evidence for the nurturance of children by Hebrew males.


In the past few years, a feminist perspective has been brought to bear on Biblical texts. Some feminine analysts have accepted the view that a patriarchal focus is best used to interpret Biblical materials and, therefore, have developed critiques delineating narrow, exclusivistic Biblical views, in effect rejecting the validity of these texts for a feminist or inclusive understanding of God's relationship to humans. However, other feminists argue that, rightly viewed, the original texts support a non-sexist equality of religious and social experiences for both males and females. This latter approach has been termed "depatriarchalizing."(1)

Depatriarchalizing analysts have been particularly concerned to demonstrate that, in the Bible, Yahweh is actually depicted (imaged) as mother/female as well as father/male. In this view, Yahweh is "a deity described as one, complete, whole, and thus above sexuality (cf. Deut. 4:4)."(2) Therefore, while, admittedly, this God is often described in masculine-acting terms with masculine pronouns, feminine imagery is also used in the Bible. Several writers have sought to explicate these female and mother images of Yahweh.(3)

As a further refinement on the scholarly debate about the sexual images applied in the Bible to God, it has been proposed that some of the terms used imply a male nurturance mode and are not female images at all.(4) I will seek to develop and support the argument for a masculine-nurturing God image, first philologically, and then from supportive evidence on child nurturance by males as gleaned from sociological, anthropological, primate, and psychological sources.

'Omen As Biblical Male Nurturance

The philological argument for God's male nurturing quality is based primarily on the use of omen in Numbers 11:12. In this passage, Moses is addressing God. Both God and Moses are tired of the murmurings, complaints, and rebellions of the Hebrews during their journey in the desert after being miraculously freed from Egypt, directly hearing from God at Sinai, and being providentially sustained in the desert. But, here, Moses lays the responsibility for the people at God's feet, or more specifically, at God's nurturing male bosom. Moses queries:

Have I conceived all this people? Have I given birth to them that You should say unto me: "Carry them in your bosom like a nursing [father (Father?) - 'omen] carries the suckling child," unto the land which You have sworn to their fathers?

While some feminist scholars wish to assign this description to the motherhood of God (and Moses), philologically, had the Bible intended to convey a mother-nurturing image, a form of 'omenet would have been used, as is, indeed, the case in Ruth 4:16 and 2 Sam. 4:4, where the referents are women. However, here in Numbers 11:12 and in seven other verses, the masculine form is used.(5)

Besides God, other male nurturer referents are the tutors for Ahab's sons (2 Kings 10:1,5); kings (Isa. 49:23); and Mordecai (Esth. 2:7,20). The recipients of nurturance in these passages are Ahab's sons (2 Kings 10:1,5); Esther (Esth. 2:7,20); Israel (Num. 11:12, Isa. 49:23, Lam. 4:5); and the daughters of Israel (Isa. 60:4).


In the above Table, I have summarized the semantic range of meaning for omen as given in several scholarly lexicons. The word is primarily associated with roles and activities focusing on children. The word denotes three actions with young ones - 1) nurturing (suckling), 2) rearing, and 3) educating. It connotes qualities of reliability, trustworthiness, and steadfastness. In the traditional patriarchal model, these qualities of nurturance and sustenance are assigned to women and are not stereotypically associated with strong males. Yet, in these texts, both males and females are described in supportive, caring roles with children. The point to be made here is that the Biblical text is consistent in its use of masculine and of feminine verbs based on the gender of the acting subject. When female nursemaids are referred to, the feminine form, 'omenet, is consistently used. Therefore, when the masculine form, 'omen, is used, child nurturance by males is being stressed. Put another way, in the Bible, nurturing is a masculine as well as feminine attribution.

It is likely that, in these few passages, Scripture recognizes a male nurturing activity with children. Is it possible that males were involved in caring for young children in early Hebrew life, so that such a male nurturing imagery possessed a validity which perhaps was lost later as males assumed a more distant role in child care? Would not male nurturance of children as depicted in the Bible actually be more like the egalitarian and holistic role for males that modern feminists advocate?

To help determine whether Hebrew males could, indeed, have been closely involved in infant and child care and, therefore, be able to understand nurturance as a masculine as well as a feminine quality of God, we need to seek corroborative evidence elsewhere. According to Williamson,

When the results of independently conducted research come together, each aspect lends a ... force to the others and leads to an increased confidence that the conclusions - novel though they may be - may not be too far from the mark.(6)

In this case, supporting evidence may be found in 1)sociological analyses of the Hebrew/Israelite family, 2) descriptions of the fathering role in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, 3) cross-cultural anthropological data, 4) primate studies, and 5) current research on the fathering role.

Sociological Evidence on Hebrew Male Child Nurturing Roles

In answering, "What kinds of evidence beyond philological ones exist to characterize the role of the Hebrew father?" we turn first to sociological analyses of the male role in Hebrew life.

One scholar notes that

males have a closer relationship with their infants when females are monogamous, when both parents live together in nuclear families, when women contribute to subsistence by working, and when men are not required to be [full-time] warriors.(7) [It also axiomatic in anthropology that] child-parent relationships were more encompassing in the [ancient] past than they are now.(8)

Does this apply to Hebrew life? Recent scholarship utilizes sociological understandings to "fill in the gaps" about Hebrew family life. Perhaps the most helpful analysis of gender roles in Biblical Israel to date is that of Meyers,(9) who built on the scholarship of Gottwald.(10) As these sociologically-oriented scholars describe it, early Hebrew life was carried out in the mountainous regions of Canaan in a situation comparable to that of early pioneer families in the United States. Families were involved together in clearing land, in small scale gardening and herding, and in sporadic defense.(11) The Hebrews brought with them both agricultural techniques and tools from Mesopotamia and a religion with a strong matriarchal component.(12) These elements are often associated, in anthropological studies, with more egalitarian relationships between males and females and a greater participation of males in all aspects of child care.

Various recent authors have indicated that the Biblical text supports a view that the Hebrew male shared in nurturing his young children. According to one, "Tenderness toward child life, appreciation of parents for their children, and children for their parents; all these are features of the Bible which the most superficial reader cannot fail to observe.(13) Material such as Samuel's rearing by Eli (1 Sam. 1-4), Jacob's attachment to Joseph (Gen. 37) and Benjamin (Gen. 44:20-34), and David's relationship to Absalom, shown by his grief at his son's death (2 Sam. 18:12-19:8), provide evidence of the father-son bond. The "my son" passages in Psalms, and the instructions in Proverbs concerning the parent (father and mother)-child relationship (e.g., Prov. 4:1-5, 4:20), provide further insights. Other passages show the father to be responsible for discipline (Deut. 21:18-21) and instruction in religious and livelihood matters (Deut. 4:9, 32:7; Ps. 78:1-8). The importance of a child, especially a son, to a father is shown by passages in Psalms which portray a father's joy in his children (Ps. 127:4-5, 128:3, 144:12), and by instances in the lives of righteous persons where God's highest reward for faithful service is children (Ps. 127:3). Examples of children as God's reward occur for Sarah and Abraham (Gen. 17:15-22), Rachel and Jacob (Gen. 30:1-2, 22-24), Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13:1-25), Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4:13-17), and Hannah and Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1-28). These and other passages suggest a strong father-child concern and attachment from the child's conception on. Looking at the Biblical material, one scholar concludes:

[The Bible notes a process whereby] males involved themselves in the responsibilities of caring for children [which could be called an] effemination of the male. In coming to share in the care of children, he came to share in the archaic function of the female. In coming to understand that he was biologically connected with children, he became like a mother.(14)

"Like a mother" brings us full circle to omen as a term depicting a male nurturing role that reflected actual fathering roles of Hebrew males, and could thereby be realistically associated with God, the Father.

The Fathering Role in the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures

Further information about the father-child role can be gained from materials describing other cultures of the ancient Near East, which were extant prior to, and contemporaneous with, Hebrew social development. Typically, almost no attention s given to family and child care relationships in ancient cultures, with analysts preferring to discuss warfare, rulership, economic and religious institutions. Whether such information is really unavailable in the original source materials, or whether this absence reflects a lack of interest for this subject, I am not fully certain. I suspect the latter explanation is operative to some significant degree because of a parallel lack of focus on the fathering role in anthropological data which describes currently existing peoples.

In any event, available materials on the ancient Near East do contain some suggestive information which is reflected in several letters between fathers and their sons. These documents speak to the father's role in providing an education for the son and in giving moral and social direction.

In a Sumerian letter from about 1,900 BCE, the father exhorts his son to continue with his schooling; to work diligently; not to loiter in the streets; to be humble before his tutors, teachers, and overseers; to learn from the past; and to pursue humanistic rather than materialistic endeavors.(15) The male child was directed in his studies by a variety of adult males with whom the child spent most of his time.(16) There was a close, caring relationship between parents and their children, and "the relationship between father and son, in particular, is revealed as close, intimate, and full of understanding."(17)

In Egyptian literature, instructions from fathers to sons regarding education and vocational choices have also been found in writings such as the Vizier Ptah-hotep, Prince hor-dedef, and Amen-en-opet.(18) Other pre-Hebrew documents from Babylonia, Greece, and Ugarit supply similar glimpses of the father-son role.(19) The religious documents of ancient Near Eastern peoples frequently describe the love of God for humans, using the pattern of love between parents and children as the referent.(20)

While the reported evidence is somewhat sketchy, we can conclude that it does suggest that there was a generally close and caring relationship between fathers and their children (sons in particular), and that children respected and revered their parents. Parental care was regarded as a useful model for describing the love of the gods towards humans. However, since none of these documents tells us specifically about the father's role in nurturing infants, we must turn to anthropological and primate data.

Cross-Cultural Anthropological Data on Infant Care by Males

Anthropological data currently available contains some support for the idea that, in tribal societies which have semi-nomadic and horticultural or basic, small-scale agricultural life-styles (like the ancient Hebrew society), males are consistently involved in infant care. In one such tribal, semi-nomadic society, which has survived into the twentieth century, the Montagnais Indians of the Labrador Peninsula, "[f]athers participated in the care and socialization of children with an ease and spontaneity deemed |feminine' in our culture. They were assured even with tiny infants."(21) Moreover, "[m]en were patient with the interruptions of children, even when engaged in important tasks essential to the group."(22) Elsewhere, fathers spent considerable time carrying small children about and playing with them.(23) Fathers are seen bathing, fondling, rocking, singing to, and soothing little ones. Among the Hogbins, a father was seen to "babysit" an infant while the mother went about her lengthy tasks of meal preparation.(24)In this tribe, it is estimated that infants are cared for exclusively by males 14% to 18% of the day.(25) Among the Mistassini,

... when the mother is sitting in a group, the baby is passed around and rocked in the arms of anybody old enough to do so without dropping it. Men and boys show the same fondness for babies as do women and girls.(26)

As a possible parallel to the Biblical notion previously cited that males "give birth" (yld) to children, Arapesh males, as well as females, are said to give birth to and to grow children.(27) In some tribes, the identification with conception, pregnancy and birth, is even ritually carried out, with the male mimicking labor pains while his wife delivers, and, also, going to bed to recover afterwards!

While it is true that not all tribal fathers are involved in child nurturing activities, the anthropological data, of which I've cited only a small sampling, shows some evidence that males in many small scale agricultural tribes are, indeed, intimately involved with nurturing infants.(28) In virtually all tribal societies, the male has responsibility for teaching young children (two to five years of age), particularly male children, to help with crops and herds.(29) By the time they are six years old, most tribal male children are handled exclusively by their fathers as they are prepared for their adult male roles.

Unfortunately, the anthropological data in tribal cultures is too spotty to permit drawing conclusive evidence about the universal role of tribal males in infant nurturance. Many studies do not address infant care issues in detail, so it is unclear whether tribal males are not consistently involved in infant care or whether researchers just did not focus on male nurturing roles and, therefore, did not describe what is actually a common occurrence. In those studies where infant care is discussed, there tends to be evidence of a male nurturing role.

Finding some support for the caring and educational role of fathers with sons in the Biblical and ancient Near East materials, and finding some additional support for an infant nurturing role among tribal males, we will briefly look at what research has concluded on the father-infant role among primates(30) and among modern males.

Primate Evidence on Male Fathering

The evidence on the "natural" role of the male primate in infant care is mixed. The male role ranges from outright hostility through indifference to nearly complete infant care activities. In monogamous species, "fathers commonly care for infants, taking neonates soon after birth, carrying, protecting, and otherwise providing infant care."(31) Primate fathers who do care for infants tend to be highly involved in playing, socializing, carrying, and "babysitting" activities. Some authors suggest that these father-infant interactions are stimulated by the responses of the infants themselves,(32) and have genetic survival value.(33)

Primate behavior indicates that, when it exists, fathers' involvement in infant handling and care is extensive, and that males are more likely to carry out infant care activities in monogamous family structures. As a last source of relevant information, we examine current research on the male-infant relationship.

Evidence from Modern Research on the Father-Child Bond

Partly as a response to issues raised by women's liberation, partly because of the increased work role of women in this country, with a corollary need for the male to assume some child care duties, and partly to answer the concerns of a rising number of single parent fathers, researchers have recently turned their attention to the fathering role.(34) Concerns that males were somehow biologically unfit to nurture small children have been answered by findings which show that about one-fourth of infants (birth to eighteen months) actually prefer their fathers for comfort, and another 20% respond equally well to either parent.(35) Other reseachers have found no sexual difference on a psychophysiological level in male and female responses to babies,(36) in awareness and valuation of a close bond with children,(37) or in the male's ability to provide all aspects of child care except breast feeding.(38) Perhaps most important is the research which shows that benefits of male involvement in nurturing children, especially sons, include higher intellectual growth, school performance, social development, self-esteem, sex role identification, and sense of family integration.(39) And, in the religious realm, males who do not have a close father relationship tend to project their angry feelings about their fathers onto God, hindering their own spiritual growth.(40)

In short, modern research on the male nurturing role indicates not only the biological capability but, also, the social and religious necessity for males to respond in a warm and nurturing manner to their children. All of our sources provide evidence that males can, and do, nurture infants and children, especially sons.

Summary and Conclusions

My analysis has drawn from Biblical, archeological, and social science sources to build a picture which suggests that the Hebrew male was, indeed, likely to have been involved in the nurturing care of infants and children. It is true that the philological case is suggestive rather than compelling, and it is equally true that the social science data builds a circumstantial picture. In addition, some of the materials that I have used are written by feminist-oriented analysts using a sociological approach that is still suspect in Biblical scholarship circles.(41)

However, it seems to me that, taken together, the materials do afford a basis for reasonably concluding that Hebrew males did involve themselves in caring for young children in a nurturing manner that could be applied to the masculine image of God. I believe that Gruber is correct in arguing that God, the Father, is a nurturer. This view does not negate the presence of a motherhood image for God as well, but preserves a more balanced understanding of the range of masculine aspects of both God and of men, males made in His image.


(1.) P. Trible argues her view on the necessity and validity of a depatriarchalizing approach to the Bible in both her article, "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) 41 (1973): 29-45, and in her subsequent book expanding the application, God and the Rhetoric of sexuality (Phila: Fortress Press, 1978). (2.) P. Trible, "Depatriarchalizing," p. 30. (3.) See, for example, M. 1. Gruber, "The Motherhood of God in Second Isaiah," Revue Biblique (RB) 3 (1983): 351-359; M. I. Gruber, "Feminine Similes Applied to the Lord in Second Isaiah," Beer Sheva 2 (1985): 75-84 [in Hebrew], and J. J. Schmitt, "The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother," RB 92 (1985): 557-569. (4.) Although generally in sympathy with a non-patriarchalizing, feminist analysis of the Bible, Gruber has argued against interpreting every nurturing reference to God as being a feminine one. Gruber maintains that at least some nurturing passages refer to a male nurturing model, so that nurturance in the Biblical text is not a matter of sex. While Schmitt believes that Gruber's entire article, "The Motherhood of God," is a debate against Trible's too inclusive interpretation of feminine images for God, Gruber makes his strongest explicit statement in favor of a masculine-nurturing God image in footnote 9 of his article, "Feminine Similes," p. 77. (5.) The other passages using the masculine form of Omen are as follows: 2 Kgs. 10: 1,5; Isa. 49:23; Isa. 60:4, Esth. 2:7,20; and Lam. 4:5. Two additional verses use a masculine term to show God as a birthing one (Isa. 66:8,9). (6.) H. G. M. Williamson, "Laments at the Destroyed Temple," Bible Review 8 (1990): 12-17ff. (7.) J. Henderson, "On Fathering: The Nature and Functions of the Father Role. Part I: Acquiring an Understanding of the father Role," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 25 (1980): 404. (8.) S. Wilson, "The Myth of Motherhood [is] a Myth: The Historical View of European Child-Rearing," Social History 9 (1984): 198. (9.) C. Meyers, "Procreation, Production and Protection: Male-Female Balance in Early Israel," JAAR 51 (1983): 569-593. (10.) See, especially, N. K. Gottwald, "Two Models for the Origins of Ancient Israel: Social Revolution or Frontier Development," in The Quest for the Kingdom of God, eds. H. B. Hoffman, F. A. Sping, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 5-24, and N. K. Gottwald, "Sociological Method in the Study of Ancient Israel," in The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneuties, ed. H. K. Gottwald (Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), pp. 26-37. (11.) Y. Shiloh, in his article, "The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density," Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research (BSOR) 239 (1980): 25-35, describes the agricultural focus of Israelite life, with later urban centers being developed as population grew in ancient Israel. (12.) For a further discussion of the strong role of women in ancient Israel, see S. J. Teubal, Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis (Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press, 1984). (13.) D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (NY: Philosophical Library, 1953), p. 220. (14.) D. Bakan, And They Took Themselves Wives: The Emergence of Patriarchy in Western Civilization (NY: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 14. Also see K. J. Kaplan, M. W. Schwartz, and M. Markus-Kaplan, "The Family: Biblical and Psychological Foundations," Journal of Psychology and Judaism 8 (1984) for an analysis of the Biblical male, whom the authors view as a more balanced personality in contrast to the Greek, machismo, misogynist male model. (15.) S. N. Kramer, A History Begins at Sumer (Phila: U of Pennsylvania Press, 1981), Chapter 3. (16.) In his book, the Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 236-238, Kramer catalogs five titles for male educators with whom the child interacted - 1) the school father, an expert teacher, 2) a big brother, an "assistant teacher," 3) a monitor, an overseer of the child's attendance and participation, 4) a proctor, a disciplinarian, and 5) various men in charge of specific subject areas. The pupil was called a school-son, emphasizing the father-son nature of the educational process. (17.) Kramer, The Sumerians, p. 257. (18.) J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Texts (ANET), pp. 412-424, 432-434. (19.) See, for example, the letter from Elmesu to his father during the time of Hammurabi (J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics V [NY: Charles Scribners, 1925], p. 723); the joy of Aeson in his son Jason and of Telamon in Aiax (Hastings, Encyclopedia, p. 737); the instructions of a farmer to his son (Kramer, The Sumerians, pp. 340-342); the 12 duties of an Ugarit son (KTU 1: 17 1 25-33 cited by J. F. Healey, "The Pietas of an Ideal Son in Ugarit," Ugarit-Forschurgen [1980]: 353-356); and the 11th Dynasty Egyptian letter of an elderly father to his oldest son (J. A. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt [Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 195 1 ], p. 128). (20.) Kramer, The Sumerians, p. 259 and also D. Fensham, "Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant," in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), pp. 121-135. (21.) E. B. Leacock, Myths of Male Dominance (NY: Monthly Review Press, 198 1), p. 227. (22.) E. B. Leacock, Myths, p. 228. This group has been studied for more than 30 years, and has managed to retain its traditional behavior. (23.) For example, see B. O'Laughlin, "Mediation of Contradiction: Why Mbum Women Do Not Eat Cicken," in Women, Culture and Society, eds. M. Z. Rasaldo and L. Lamphere (Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press, 1974), p. 311; W. C. Mackey, "The Adult Male-Child Bond: An Example of Convergent Evolution," Journal of Anthropological Research (JAR) 32 (1976): 59; E. R. Groves and L. M. Brooks, Readings in the Family Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1934), p. 30; J. L. Briggs, "The Creation of Value in Canadian Inuit Society," International Social Science Journal (ISSJ) 31 (1979): 393-403; A. D. de Reichel, "Child-Rearing in a Colombian Village," ISSJ 31 (1979): 408-409. (24.) Mackey, "The Adult Male-Child Bond," p. 60, and see also C. P. MacCormack, "Proto-social to Adult: A Sherbro Transformation," in Nature, Culture, and Gender, eds. C. P. MacCormack and M. Strattern (NY: Cambridge U. Press, 1980), p. 96, and E. B. Leacock, Myths, p. 37. (25.) Mackey, "The Adult Male-Child Bond," p. 60. (26.) Mackey, "The Adult Male-child Bond," p. 59. (27.) M. Z. Rosaldo, "Women, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview," in Women, Culture, and Society, p. 41. (28.) Since the anthropological record in existing publications does not systematically include discussion of the fathering role and activities, additional evidence is available in the Yale University compilation, Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), under Numbers 854 and 855. (29.) For example, see E. Friedl, Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975), p. 82; A. D. de Reichel, "Child-Rearing," p. 412; L. Davids, "Fatherhood and Comparative Social Research," International Journal of Comparative Sociology 13 (1972): 219. An interesting exception to this male-child work education is noted by M. Kithahara ("Living Quarter Arrangements in Polvgyny, and Circumcision and Segregnition Males at Puberty," Ethnology 13 [1974]: 401-413), who finds an association between adolescent circumcision rites and adult male non-involvement in child rearing even for male children. Apparently infant circumcision permits an early male-male bond, which enhances child care roles for adult males. This finding may have some relevance for our speculation about Hebrew child care roles. Since a Hebrew male child is usuallv circumcised on its eighth day after birth, according to Kithahara's thesis, the Hebrews would be likely to have adult males involved in infant care. (30.) In a social science approach to Biblical studies, information from anthropology, archeology, primatology, psychology, and sociology is used in order to develop a picture of social structures among ancient peoples. Primate studies are useful in gaining understanding of early human social structures. Although care must be taken in assuming that primates are exactly equivalent to humans, studies which utilize all sources draw a more reliable picture. For an example of this recent multi-disciplinary methodology, see A. C. Zeller, "A Role for Women in Hominid Evolution," Man 22 (1987): 528-557. (31.) L. M. Fedigan, Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds (Montreal: Eden Press), p. 191. (32.) D. P. Barash, "Some Evolutionary Aspects of Parental Behavior in Animals and Man, American Journal of Psychology (AJP) 82 (June 1976): 210. (33.) For example, see R. L. Trivers, "Parental Investment and Sexual Selection," in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed. B. Campbell (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972); D. P. Barash, "Some Evolutionary Aspects," pp. 195-217; and U. Melotti, "Towards a New Theory of the Origin of the Family," Current Anthropology (Dec. 1981): 625-630. (34.) For a discussion of the factors contributing to a current rise in interest in the father's role, see L. McKee and M. O'Brien, "The Father Figure: Some Current Orientations and Historical Perspectives," in The Father Figure, eds. L. McKee and M. O'Brien (New York: Travistock, 1982), pp. 3-50. For a bibliography of materials on this topic, see S. Price-Bonham, "Bibliography of Literature Related to Roles of Fathers," The Family Coordinator 25 (1976): 489-512. (35.) C. Lewis, "The Observation of Father-Infant Relationships: An Attachment to Outmoded Concepts," in The Father Figure, p. 156. (36.) A. M. Frodi and M. E. Lamb, "A Developmental Study of Psychophysiological and Behavioral Responses," Child Development 49 (1978): 118-188. (37.) M. E. Lamb,"Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development," Human Development 18 (1975): 245-266. (38.) See, for example, G. Mitchell, W. K. Redican, and J. Gromber, "Males Can Raise Babies," Psychology Today 7 (1974): 63-68; F. A. Pedersen and K. S. Robson, "Father Participation in Infancy," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 39 (1969): 466-472; L. McKee, "Father's Participation in Infant Care: A Critique," in The Father Figure, pp. 120-138. (39.) J. F. Popplewell and A. A. Sheikh, "The Role of the Father in Child Development: A Review of the Literature," International Journal Social Psychiatry 25 (1979): 267-28 1; J. T. Landis. "A Re-examination of the Role of the Father as an Index of Family Integration," Marriage and Family Living 24 (May 1962): 122; R. D. Parke and D. B. Swain, "Fathering: It's a Major Role," Psychology Today 11 (1977): 109; D. Riley, "Fathers and Child Rearing," Home Ecology Forum 14 (1984): 19-22. (40.) F.J.White, "Earthly Father/Heavenly Father," Journal of Psychology and Christianity 4 (1985): 76-82. (41.) T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967/1970), especially pages 77-91, discusses the difficulties, hostilities, and denials that are typical reactions to a new paradigm in any field.
COPYRIGHT 1993 American Jewish Congress
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Forster, Brenda
Publication:Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought
Date:Jun 22, 1993
Previous Article:Re'haz: an answer in search of a question.
Next Article:Islam and the halakhah.

Related Articles
Story of the Bible: how the world's best-selling book came to be.
Pedophilic personalities. (Clinical Capsules).
Check with ex before travelling.
Death rituals, ideology, and the development of early Mesopotamian kingship; toward a new understanding of Iraq's royal cemetery of Ur.
Critical reading and feminist reading.
Hebrew Bible and ancient versions; selected essays of Robert P. Gordon.
The Place That I Love.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters