EXCURSUSES<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 1*<\/p>\n
The Cherubim 3:24<\/p>\n
The function of these creatures, as stated in 3:24, is to secure the Garden of Eden from intrusion. \u201cThe fiery ever-turning sword\u201d is an additional and separate deterrent and not a weapon in the hands of the cherubim. The manner in which they are introduced into the narrative shows that they are well known and require no definition. It reflects the unique position of the cherubim in the religious art of ancient Israel.
\nTwo golden cherubim with outstretched wings overshadowed the cover of the Ark in the Tabernacle in the wilderness,1 and from the space between them issued the divine Voice that spoke to Moses.2 Pictorial representations of the cherubim were also worked into the cloth curtains of that Tabernacle.3 The same cherubic motif decorated Solomon\u2019s Temple4 and was envisaged by Ezekiel in his restored temple.5 One of the epithets of God, especially in poetry, is \u201cThe One Enthroned on the Cherubim.\u201d6 Biblical poetic texts also imagine the cherubim bearing the invisible throne of God from place to place.7
\nIn the Tabernacle in the wilderness the cherubim possess one face and two wings,8 but Ezekiel has them as composite figures with four faces and four wings each.9
\nBy the end of the Second Temple period, reliable traditions about their nature no longer existed.10 Their frequent portrayal as beautiful winged children in Renaissance art has nothing to do with biblical notions. If this manner of representation was not inspired by the Greco-Roman Erotes (\u201cLoves\u201d), then it probably owes its origin to the fanciful rabbinic etymologizing of Sukkah 5b and \u1e24agigah 13b, which derives Hebrew keruv from Aramaic ke-ravia\u02be, \u201clike a boy.\u201d
\nArchaeological findings in the Near East have shed some light on the mystery of the cherubim. The name would appear to be connected with the kuribu, the Akkadian term often applied to the composite figures\u2014man-headed bulls with eagles\u2019 wings\u2014that frequently stood outside Mesopotamian temples. These are highly reminiscent of the descriptions in Ezekiel 1:6\u201311 and 10:14. The name seems to derive from Akkadian kar\u0101bu, \u201cto pronounce formulas of blessings, to pray.\u201d The kuribu was an advocate for the faithful before the god and an advisor to the great gods, but it also guarded the entrance to the temple. The motif of the composite human-animal-bird figure is widespread in various forms in art and religious symbolism throughout the Fertile Crescent, and the biblical cherubim would seem to be connected with this artistic tradition.
\nAn examination of the various scriptural passages in which cherubim occur leads to the conclusion that they filled multiple conceptual roles. First, they symbolized the invisible Divine Presence. Then, the emphasis on their perpetually outstretched wings projects supreme mobility and is an artistic presentation of God\u2019s omnipresence. The divine epithet \u201cEnthroned on the Cherubim\u201d expresses His sovereignty. Ezekiel depicts these creatures as composites of man-lion-ox-eagle, and each of the components is king in his respective domain. Finally, they guard over the Ark and its sacred contents inside the Holy of Holies.
\nThe only pictorial representation permitted in an otherwise aniconic religion, the cherubim do not violate the prohibition against the plastic arts decreed in the Ten Commandments. Purely products of the human imagination, they do not represent any existing reality in heaven and earth. Moreover, whether in the Tabernacle of the wilderness or in Solomon\u2019s Temple, they were hidden from public gaze.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 2<\/p>\n
The Chronology of the Flood<\/p>\n
As noted in the Comment to 7:4, two kinds of time reckoning are used in the Flood narrative. That based on precise dates informs us that the Flood lasted exactly twelve months and eleven days, including the first and last days. That based on intervals of days is not a complete system in itself; it does not tell us how many days elapsed after the ark rested on Ararat before the mountain tops became visible or how many days it took after the dove finally failed to return for the earth to be fully dried out. The two modes of calculation are meant to be integrated.
\nIf we now make a calculation taking into account the day formulas, the same result is achieved, provided a month is reckoned as exactly thirty days. This we may conclude since 7:11 and 8:4 state precisely that five months elapsed between the onset of the rains and the grounding of the ark, while 7:24 and 8:3 specify that period to be one hundred and fifty days.
\nThe following computation thus emerges: To the 150 days just mentioned must be added 74 days between the seventeenth of the seventh month (8:4) and the first day of the tenth month, when the mountain tops first became visible (8:5), another 40 days before the release of the raven (8:6\u20137), and a further 21 days for the three forays of the dove (8:10\u201312). This makes a total so far of 285 days, bringing us to the second day of the twelfth month.
\nOn New Year\u2019s day, 29 days later, the waters on earth had begun to dry up (8:13), and it took another 57 days for the ground to be completely dried out by the twenty-seventh day of the second month (8:14). The addition of 29 and 57 to the 285 gives a grand total of 371 days. Taking 30 days to a month, this figure yields twelve months and eleven days, identical with the conclusion based solely upon the date system.
\nOf course, a calendar of the type presupposed here is eccentric, but in the ancient Egyptian calendar the year was, in fact, divided into twelve months of thirty days each. yielding 360 days exactly, with five extra days intercalated at the end of the year. In Babylon, too, in addition to the true lunar calendar, there was a schematic calendar composed of twelve months of thirty days.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 3*<\/p>\n
The Noachide Commandments<\/p>\n
The notion of human responsibility and culpability and the idea of Noah\u2019s righteousness must be grounded on the assumption that there existed a moral code that was regarded as universally binding. This assumption is essential to the biblical concept of the morality of God and the moral responsibility of man; if moral laws had not then existed, how could the generation of the Flood be punished for offenses? What would be the source of its moral obligations? The idea of the existence of a moral law that is binding on all humanity is understood in the eschatological judgment of the earth found in Isaiah 24. Verse 5 there reads: \u201cFor the earth was defiled \/ Under its inhabitants; Because they transgressed teachings, \/ Violated laws, \/ Broke the ancient covenant.\u201d
\nRabbinic theology, sensitive to this problem, insisted on the existence of a divine covenant with the whole human race made through the two fathers of humanity, Adam and Noah. In rabbinic parlance, this covenant is known as \u201cthe commandments given to the sons of Noah.\u201d The term \u201csons of Noah\u201d is simply a designation for the family of man, both before and after the Flood. Because Israel received an additional revelation at Sinai, which immeasurably expanded the obligations uniquely incumbent on the individual Jew, the description \u201cson of Noah,\u201d is, in effect, synonymous with \u201cnon-Jew.\u201d
\nThere is no rabbinic unanimity as to either the number of \u201cNoachide commandments\u201d or their contents; nor is there agreement as to which were given to Adam and which to Noah. The list that enjoys the widest consensus is as follows:1 The prohibitions against (1) idolatry, (2) blasphemy, (3) bloodshed, (4) incest and adultery, and (5) robbery; (6) the injunction to establish courts of law; and (7) the prohibition against eating flesh cut from a living animal. These seven, all of which are given closer definition in respect to their applicability (\u1e24ul. 92a; Yad, Melakhim 9.2ff.), are regarded as comprising the minimal moral imperatives essential to the maintenance of an ordered and wholesome society. Most of them would come under the heading of \u201cnatural law,\u201d that is, they seem to be inherent in human nature and are rooted or founded in reason (cf. Yoma 67b). However, in rabbinic theology the Noachide commandments are revealed law, and the authority behind them is divine, not human. The formulation of Maimonides is: \u201cWhosoever accepts the \u2018seven commandments\u2019 and carefully observes them, is among the pious ones of the nations of the world and enjoys a share of the hereafter\u2014provided that he accepts and performs them because the Holy-One-Blessed-Be-He ordained them in the Torah and informed us through Moses our Teacher that the \u2018sons of Noah\u2019 were originally so commanded.\u201d2 Maimonides then goes on to stipulate that if a non-Jew practices these commandments solely for philosophic reasons he would not be considered among the pious gentiles who merit a share of the hereafter. This distinction in motivation is basic to rabbinic teaching because divine authority is considered to be indispensable to the preservation of a system of morality. The ultimate sanction for the values inherent in these laws is that they constitute the will of God. Rational processes are not regarded as sufficient incentives for right action.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 4*<\/p>\n
\u201cAbram the Hebrew\u201d 14:13<\/p>\n
The designation \u201cHebrew(s),\u201d \u02bfivri(m), is to be found about thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. It can only derive from an original \u02bfiver or \u02bfever, and its form permits a connotation that is either geographic or gentilic\u2014that is, having an ethnic denotation like kena\u02bfani, \u201cCanaanite,\u201d mo\u02beabi, \u201cMoabite.\u201d The former possibility is based on the use of \u02bfever, meaning \u201cthe region beyond,\u201d as used in Genesis 50:10 and Numbers 21:13, so that \u02bfivri is \u201cthe man from the other side.\u201d Such an understanding might be reflected in Joshua 24:2: \u201cIn olden times, your forefathers\u2014Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor\u2014lived beyond the Euphrates.\u201d The Septuagint rendered \u02bfivri in our passage: ho per\u00e1tes, \u201cthe one from beyond,\u201d or \u201cthe wanderer.\u201d Opposed to the geographic interpretation is the associated \u201cMamre the Amorite\u201d in 14:13. This and the vast majority of citations weight the balance heavily in favor of the ethnic nature of the term.
\nThe biblical references to \u201cHebrews\u201d are concentrated within three contexts. The first is the cycle of Joseph stories (Gen. 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32), always having to do with relationships with Egyptians. The second cluster appears in the early chapters of Exodus (chaps. 1\u20133, 5, 7, 9), where again, without exception, \u201cHebrew\u201d contrasts with \u201cEgyptian.\u201d The third collection is in the Book of Samuel (chaps. 4, 13, 14, 29), where the term is invariably in opposition to \u201cPhilistines.\u201d The only other narrative usage is Jonah 1:9, also in a non-Israelite ambience. It will be noted that, apart from this last source, which is most likely a conscious archaism, all citations are pre-Davidic; all refer only to Israelites (including 1 Sam. 13:3, 7; 14:21) in contrast to other peoples.
\nApart from a narrative context, there is the sociolegal term \u201cHebrew slave,\u201d \u02bfeved \u02bfivri, in Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12. This, too, means an Israelite as is proved by the descriptive \u201cyour fellow\u201d (\u02bea\u1e25ikha) in Deuteronomy 15:12 and by Jeremiah 34:9, 14.
\nThe foregoing data overwhelmingly support the view that \u02bfivri is an ethnic term. The alternative geographic explanation is, moreover, discounted by the fact that Abram\u2019s family back home in Mesopotamia \u201cbeyond the river\u201d is not called \u201cHebrew,\u201d but \u201cAramean\u201d (Gen. 25:20).
\nHowever, there are several curious aspects to the biblical employment of \u201cHebrew.\u201d Why does Abram, alone of the three patriarchs, bear this epithet, and why only in Genesis 14:13? Why are the other peoples who are related to Israel and also descended from Eber, grandson of Noah, called \u201csons of Eber\u201d (10:21) but never \u201cHebrews\u201d? And why is the description reserved exclusively for the descendants of Abraham through the line of Isaac and Jacob but not used of the lines of Ishmael or Esau? Not all these questions can be satisfactorily resolved in the present state of our knowledge, but the possible relationship of the Hebrews to a well-documented Near Eastern phenomenon needs to be examined because this latter has often been adduced as evidence to provide a solution.
\nFrom the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E. through the twelfth century B.C.E., cuneiform tablets from Sumer, Babylon, Upper Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Syria-Canaanite area, as well as hieroglyphic texts from Egypt, register the presence of groups of people variously referred to as SA. GAZ, \u1e2bapiru, \u02bfpr(w). and \u02bfpr(w). The meaning of these terms has long been subject to scholarly dispute, but they are all concerned with the same class of people. SA.GAZ is a Sumerian ideograph that is read in Akkadian \u0161agga\u0161u and to which the scribes often attached the gloss \u1e2betbb\u0101tu. \u0160agg\u0161m in Akkadian means \u201ckiller, aggressor, violent person.\u201d In West Semitic languages the same stem denotes \u201cto be restless, ill at ease.\u201d \u1e2aabb\u0101tu means \u201ca robber\u201d as well as \u201ca migrant,\u201d but \u02bfpr, which must be West Semitic, is still of uncertain meaning.
\nThe people referred to by these terms are distinguished not only by extensive geographic distribution but also by considerable ethnic diversity and linguistic variety. They everywhere constitute a recognizable subservient social class, essentially an urban element. They are rootless aliens, deprived of legal rights, who often hire themselves out as professional soldiers of fortune or as slaves. Within the Egyptian sphere of influence, where authority was weak and centralized control lax, this group exhibits independence and aggressive behavior and appears as a socially disruptive element. The phenomenon as a whole seems to be the product of the convulsions that afflicted the Near East in the course of the second millennium B.C.E. By the end of the period conditions became more stabilized, and the \u02bfApiru (\u1e2bapiru) disappear from history.
\nAre the \u02bfApiru and the Hebrews related? Various lines of evidence converge to reject the identity. First, there is no doubt that \u02bfapiru, an adjective, is the correct form of the name, as Egyptian and Ugaritic texts show, and the differences in the vowels and middle consonant between it and \u02bfibri, a gentilic, cannot easily be reconciled. Further, the \u02bfapiru are a social entity, not an ethnic group like the Hebrews. They possess nothing remotely resembling the Israelite tribal system. Extrabiblical sources of the second millennium B.C.E. do not identify \u02bfapiru with Israel, and where Israel is mentioned it is not identified as belonging to the \u02bfapiru. If Abram is an \u02bfapiru, it is surprising that he enlists the support of Amorites in Genesis 14, rather than call upon his fellow \u02bfapiru for help. Even more persuasive is a comparison between the descriptions of the \u02bfapiru in Canaan given in the El-Amarna letters (14th cent. B.C.E.) and the activities of the invading Israelites under Joshua. The \u02bfapiru are never portrayed, like the Israelites, as being invaders from without. They often collaborate with the local Canaanite rulers, absorb local elements into their ranks and defy Egyptian suzerainty over the land. The Israelites, on the other hand, are implacably hostile to the Canaanites, and Egypt never appears as a factor in the Israelite wars of conquest. Significantly, the term \u201cHebrews\u201d is never featured in Joshua and Judges, which report on the Israelite wars of conquest and settlement in the land\u2014precisely those books in which they would be expected to appear were they to be identified with the aggressive \u02bfapiru.
\nThe true origin of the term \u201cHebrew\u201d is still to be determined. Perhaps it came to be used of social elements marginal to a particular society. If it be a self-designation for the people in the formative period of Israelite history, it would explain why it is used exclusively of Israel. At any rate, the term fell into disuse with the founding of the monarchy until it was revived in much later times.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 5<\/p>\n
Pidyon Shevuyim: \u201cRedemption of Captives\u201d 14:14\u201316<\/p>\n
Abram\u2019s intervention to rescue his kinsman provides the paradigm for the mitsvah of pidyon shevuyim, the paramount religious duty to ransom a fellow Jew from captivity. Maimonides powerfully distilled Jewish attitudes and obligations as follows: \u201cThe redemption of captives takes precedence over the feeding and clothing of the poor. There is no commandment as great as that of redeeming captives, for they are among the hungry, the thirsty and the naked, and are in mortal danger.\u2026\u201d1 Any unnecessary delay in fulfilling this obligation is considered as serious as bloodshed.2 Money collected by charitable organizations for other purposes is allowed to be diverted to pidyon shevuyim, for captives have first priority on communal funds.
\nThroughout the Middle Ages, and well into modern times, Jewish communities everywhere established societies for the specific purpose of ransoming Jewish captives. When the burden placed too great a strain on local resources, intercommunal and international Jewish efforts were made in order to pool assets. In the sixteenth century a French traveler expressed amazement that in the course of his itinerary throughout the Balkan and Asian lands he could find no Jewish slaves even though Turkish law permitted Muslims and Christians to enslave Jews. He attributed this situation to the fact that Jewish solidarity \u201cnever permitted one of their people to remain in servitude.\u201d
\nOf course, the untiring efforts made by Jews everywhere toward this end stimulated exorbitant demands for ransom. In theory, this was counteracted by rabbinic injunction restricting ransom payments to the current value of slaves,3 but the unfortunate reality and Jewish sensibilities led to its being honored more in the breach than in its fulfillment. Yet the most distinguished scholar of thirteenth-century Germany, Meir ben Baruch of Rothenberg, remained imprisoned unjustly for seven years until the day of his death rather than allow the community to yield to the excessive ransom demands of Rudolph I, who even refused to deliver up the body for Jewish burial until it was redeemed fourteen years later by a generous Jew for a huge sum of money.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 6*<\/p>\n
Melchizedek 14:18<\/p>\n
The element \u1e63dq is a frequent component of West Semitic names. A Canaanite god \u1e62idqu, referred to in late sources as Sydyk, was connected with the sun god who was the patron of justice. Doubtless, he was the personification of the ideal of righteousness. Melchizedek might thus be another example of this type of \u201ctheophoric\u201d name, a name formed with a divine element. However, many a monarch in the ancient Near East was given, or adopted, the epithet mlk \u1e63dq, \u201crighteous (or rightful) king.\u201d Thus, King Yehimilk (ca. 950 B.C.E.) and King Yehaumilk (5th\u20134th cent. B.C.E.), both of Byblos, Phoenicia, are referred to by that title.1 In Mesopotamian royal inscriptions the corresponding epithet was \u0161ar me\u0161arim (cf., also, the name Sargon = \u0161arru-k\u0113n, \u201cthe king is legitimate\u201d). Melchizedek may therefore not be a proper name but an appellative, one particularly cherished from earliest times by kings of Jerusalem. (In Joshua\u2019s time the monarch of that city was Adoni-zedek, mentioned in Joshua 10:1.) This practice may underlie some prophetic texts dealing with Jerusalem that place special emphasis on tsedeq, \u201crighteousness.\u201d2 Another allusion to the figure of Melchizedek may be present in Psalms 110:4, but the translation of the passage is uncertain since malki-tsedek could as well mean \u201crightful\/righteous king\u201d as be a proper name. In any case, that passage sheds no light on the person of Melchizedek in Genesis 14, except that it might indicate that traditions about him as a prototypal ideal priest were current in popular lore.
\nThe priest-king surfaces again in postbiblical Jewish literature. In the allegorical exegesis of Philo, the first-century B.C.E. Jewish scholar of Alexandria, he becomes a cosmic figure, the personification of the logos.3 To the sectarians at Qumran, he is an eschatological figure.4 Strangely, their midrash about him is independent of the two biblical references to Melchizedek, and the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran does not differ from the Pentateuch in its presentation of the king.5 The New Testament sees him as a semidivine character, a sort of prototype of the founder of Christianity.6 In rabbinic sources he is the righteous priest who takes his place with the Messiahs of David and Joseph and with Elijah.7<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 7*<\/p>\n
\u02beEl \u02bfElyon 14:18\u201320, 22<\/p>\n
This composite divine title is found only once again in the Bible\u2014in Psalms 78:35. It does not appear in the Ugaritic texts, but a variant form \u02bfly occurs as an epithet of the god Baal and means \u201cthe exalted one.\u201d1 From two extrabiblical sources comes evidence that \u02bfelyon was once the name of a separate deity. The Christian historian Eusebius (3rd\u20134th cent. C.E.), in his Praeparatio Evangelica, extensively cites the Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (ca. 100 C.E.), who himself claims to have drawn his information from the writings of an early Phoenician priest named Sanchuniathon, who probably lived in the sixth century B.C.E. Here we are told of two Phoenician deities, El and \u201cElyon called most high.\u201d2 The second source is an eighth-century B.C.E. Aramaic treaty of alliance between two Near Eastern states, discovered in or near the village of Sfire about 16 miles (25.7 km.) southeast of Aleppo. The document contains the names of divine witnesses to the treaty. The respective gods of the contracting parties are listed first, then comes \u201cEl and Elyon\u201d followed by \u201cHeaven and Earth, Abyss and Sources, Day and Night.\u201d3 It is evident that El and Elyon were two distinct gods, very ancient, who must have been intimately associated in some way, although the evidential mythology for this linkage has been lost.
\nThese data have a bearing on the biblical \u02beel \u02bfelyon used of the One God. The compound seems to be an original internal Israelite development. Biblical Hebrew \u02bfelyon is invariably used in poetic texts and exclusively in liturgical contexts. Occasionally, it is an independent divine name, though in each instance it is not entirely solitary but appears in the ambience of another appellative.4 In combination, these phenomena lead to the conclusion that \u02beel \u02bfelyon is of great antiquity since Hebrew poetry, and especially liturgical poetry, is highly conservative and preserves archaic words, phrases, and forms. If \u02bfelyon was once the name of a pagan deity, there is no consciousness of this in the Bible and, like \u02beel, it is simply an epithet of the One God. The fossilized nature of the formula is further supported by the telltale fact that \u02bfelyon, when used of God, never assumes the definite article even though it otherwise does so as an adjective in a secular context. Ancient Hebrew poetry did not use the definite article. Additional evidence for the antiquity of \u02beel \u02bfelyon is supplied by a study of \u02beel itself. As a proper name of God, it belongs to the earliest stratum of the national literature. It fell into disuse, having been displaced by YHVH or \u02beelohim. However, although \u02beel \u02bfelyon only occurs once again, the compound YHVH \u02bfelyon appears in three separate texts,5 and the synonymous parallelism YHVH-\u02bfelyon, occurring seven times,6 far exceeding in frequency that of \u02beel-\u02bfelyon. To these must be added the compound \u02beelohim \u02bfelyon7 and the parallelism of the two.8 All of these forms derive from Psalms 42\u201383, which are known as the Elohistic psalter. The synonymous parallelism \u02beel-\u02bfelyon, on the other hand, is found only five times.9 There is a further peculiarity. Where YHVH\/\u02beelohim-\u02bfelyon occur in parallelism, the word order is invariable, but in two of the \u02beel-\u02bfelyon examples the order of names is reversed. This suggests that the archaic divine title \u02beel \u02bfelyon was displaced by YHVH \u02bfelyon, which became stereotyped. The original compound had so fallen into desuetude that the order of its component elements could be fluid when used in parallelism.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 8*<\/p>\n
\u201cCreator of Heaven and Earth\u201d 14:19, 22<\/p>\n
This divine epithet occurs several times in the Book of Psalms.1 There, however, the Hebrew verb is always \u02bfoseh, whereas here, uniquely, koneh appears. Generally the root k-n-h means \u201cto acquire, to purchase.\u201d The sense of koneh as \u201ccreate\u201d became obsolete and, in later biblical texts, was replaced by \u02bfoseh. The divine title employed by the priest Melchizedek and echoed by Abram (v. 22) is of particular interest because the formula \u02beel qn \u02ber\u1e63, \u201cEl creator of earth,\u201d has turned up in an eighth-century B.C.E. Phoenician inscription from Karatepe2 and in a Neo-Punic (2nd cent. C.E.) text from Leptis, Tripolitania.3 The Hittite name El-Kunirsha seems to be an adaptation of the same title. This god\u2019s consort was Asherah, just as in Ugarit this latter was the wife of El. However, the formula as such has not yet turned up in the Ugaritic texts. It is clear that the Hebrew title of Genesis 14:19, 22 belongs to a widespread liturgical tradition of the ancient Near East, which Israel adopted and modified to its own peculiar monotheism. What is exceptional is the full form of the Hebrew \u201cCreator of heaven and earth\u201d; the \u201cheaven\u201d is never included in any of the extrabiblical examples of the formula so far unearthed. Most likely, the original, widely used divine epithet has been disengaged from its polytheistic connections and has been expanded in a way that comprehends the Israelite conception of God as the cosmic Creator.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 9*<\/p>\n
Ben Meshek-Dammesek \u02beEli\u02bfezer 15:2<\/p>\n
The second half of this verse is replete with difficulties. The Hebrew phrase ben meshek has been traditionally rendered, \u201cthe one in charge of my house\u201d; so Targums, the Vulgate, Saadiah, Ibn Jana\u1e25, and Rashi. The Septuagint takes meshek as a proper name and translates \u201cthe son of Masek my homeborn slave.\u201d Aquila connects it with Hebrew mashkeh, \u201cdrink,\u201d and understands it to mean \u201ccupbearer\u201d; compare Yoma 28b. The Genesis Apocryphon 22.33 omits the word. Possibly, Genesis 24:2 may shed light on the words: \u201cAbraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all that he owned.\u2026\u201d
\nThe two words dammesek \u02beeli\u02bfezer seemingly form a construction that is contrary to biblical Hebrew usage. They have traditionally been construed as \u201cEliezer of Damascus\u201d (so Syriac, Saadiah, Ibn Jana\u1e25, Rashi, Ramban; compare Genesis Apocryphon 22.34) on the following grounds: First, the analogy of 2 Samuel 23:24 \u02beel\u1e25anan ben dodo beitle\u1e25em, \u201cElhanan son of Dodo from Bethlehem\u201d (so Ibn Jana\u1e25); second, the preceding ben, \u201cson of,\u201d serves this phrase as well, that is, \u201c[the son] of Damascus, Eliezer.\u201d The use of singular ben with a place-name may have an analogy in Shamgar ben Anath (Judg. 3:31; 5:6), which probably means \u201cShamgar the Beth-anathite\u201d (cf. Josh 19:38), and in Hadadezer ben Rehob (2 Sam. 8:3, 12), which means \u201cHadadezer of Beth-rehob\u201d (cf. Judg. 18:12).
\nAnother possibility is to take dammesek \u02beeli\u02bfezer as a hyphenated double name like Tubal-cain (Gen. 4:22), the first element of which is incidentally also a place-name (cf. Gen. 10:20). Still other solutions lie in a different approach.
\nThe city of Damascus was probably founded by non-Semites, but the name was etymologized as Semitic Di-ma\u0161k, the first syllable being the relative pronoun. Meshek may therefore be an early name of the city, so that ben meshek would mean \u201cthe one of mesheq,\u201d that is, Damascus (cf. Gen. 14:2f., 7, 17). Support for this theory may well be supplied by a ninth-century B.C.E. Aramaic inscription that refers to br hdd br \u02bfzr m\u015b[k]y[\u02be], \u201cBir-hadad son of \u02bfEzer of Damascus.\u201d
\nStill another interpretation sees dammesek as an Aramaic common noun meaning \u201ca servant.\u201d The Assyrian scribes wrote the name of the city in cuneiform both as dima\u0161k and as \u0161a im\u0113r\u0113-\u0161u. This latter may either mean \u201cdonkey boy\u201d (from Aram, \u1e25am\u0101r, \u201cass\u201d), that is, \u201cservant\u201d; or, more likely, it might result from a confusion with Aramaic \u1e25\u0101m\u0101r, \u201cwine.\u201d The area around Damascus was rich wine country and the name of the city would have been interpreted as Di-ma\u0161k, \u201cthe one of the (wine) drink.\u201d Dammesek would thus mean, \u201cwine-server,\u201d \u201ccupbearer,\u201d or \u201cservant.\u201d<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 10*<\/p>\n
Angelology 16:7<\/p>\n
The bearer of the divine word is described as \u201can angel of the LORD.\u201d Hebrew mal\u02beakh derives from a stem l-\u02be-k, \u201cto send,\u201d which is used as a verb in Ugaritic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Mal\u02beakh, like the Greek angelos, from which the English \u201cangel\u201d is derived, means nothing more than \u201cmessenger.\u201d It is used of ordinary humans, as in Genesis 32:4, Judges 9:31, and 1 Kings 19:2, as well as of spiritual beings. A prophet or priest may also be called \u201can angel of the LORD,\u201d as in Haggai 1:13 and Malachi 2:7. No special importance attaches to angels in preexilic biblical literature. Information about the nature of belief in them is very sparse. They are nameless; they are without any mythological qualities; they enjoy neither individuality nor free will, and there is no hierarchy among them. Their sole function is as the emissary of God to carry out His specific charge.
\nFrom several texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and His angel is often blurred. Hagar is addressed by the angel (16:7\u20138, 9, 11) but she responds directly to God (v. 13). The same interchange of speakers occurs in Genesis 22:11\u201312, 15\u201318 and at the incident at the burning bush in Exodus 3:2, 4. At the Exodus from Egypt it is now God (Exod. 13:21), now His angel (14:9) who goes ahead of the Israelite camp. In the story of Gideon (Judg. 6:11\u201323) God and His angel speak interchangeably.
\nOn the other hand, angels most frequently assume human form so that the individuals to whom they appear are at first unaware of their angelic nature. Such is the case, for instance, in Genesis 18\u201319. The three who visit Abraham are variously described as \u201cmen\u201d (18:1, 16, 22; 19:5, 10, 12, 16) and as \u201cangels\u201d (19:1, 15), and the Sodomites certainly perceive them to be humans (19:5, 9). In the case of the mother of Samson (Judg. 13), the one who appears to her is \u201can angel of the LORD\u201d (v. 3) whom she describes as \u201ca man of God\u201d who \u201clooked like an angel of God, very frightening\u201d (v. 6). When the angel reappears to her husband, Manoah does not recognize him as such (v. 16) until he disappears in the flames on the altar (vv. 20f.).
\nSeveral suggestions have been made to account for the presence of angelology in Israel. Some see a borrowing from Near Eastern mythology in which deities are surrounded by ministers semidivine, semihuman. In Ugaritic the messenger who goes back and forth between the gods is termed ml\u02bek. It is hypothesized that Israel borrowed, refined, and monotheized the notion. Another view regards the angel as the personified extension of God\u2019s will, or the personification of His self-manifestation. A third theory sees the angel as a conceptual device to avoid anthropomorphism. He serves as a mediator between the transcendent God and His mundane world.
\nAngelology largely disappears with the advent of classical prophecy in the middle of the eighth century B.C.E., only to reappear in postexilic times in highly developed and complex forms.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 11*<\/p>\n
\u02beEl Shaddai 17:1<\/p>\n
This is the most common of the several divine names constructed with an initial \u02beel element. Like \u02beel \u02bfelyon, it could be a fusion of an initially independent element shaddai, with \u02beel, or the compound could be original (see Comment to 14:18 and Excursus 7). One way or the other, the distribution of shaddai both with and without the accompanying \u02beel is highly instructive. This divine name appears nine times in the Torah, of which three are in poetic texts (Gen. 49:25; Num. 24:4, 16). All but two of the Bible\u2019s other thirty-nine usages are likewise poetic (Prophets, Psalms, and Job). The prose exceptions (Ruth 1:20\u201321) are more apparent than real since the Book of Ruth possesses a poetic substratum and frequently displays archaisms.
\nThese statistics have an important bearing on the question of the antiquity of usage. The overwhelming appearance in poetic contexts points a priori to a venerable tradition, for Hebrew poetry tends to preserve or consciously to employ early forms of speech. The remarkably high incidence of Shaddai in Job is of particular importance in light of that book\u2019s patriarchal setting. All the true prose usages are concentrated within the Genesis narratives (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25), a fact that is in perfect harmony with Exodus 6:3: \u201cI appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai,\u201d a tradition explicitly assigning the divine name to the pre-Mosaic age. Significantly, of the vast store of biblical personal names, only three are constructed with the element Shaddai. These are Shedeur (=? Shaddai-Ur), Zurishaddai, and Ammishaddai\u2014all appearing solely in the lists of Numbers 1\u20132. Each is the father of a tribal representative at the time of the Exodus. In other words, the divine name Shaddai lost its vitality in Israel with the advent of Moses and was preserved only as a literary relic in poetic compositions. Interestingly, the personal name Shaddai-\u02bfammi\u2014that is, the Hebrew Ammishaddai with its two components inverted\u2014has turned up in a hieroglyphic sepulchral inscription as the name of a petty official in fourteenth-century B.C.E. Egypt. Since it cannot be explained as Egyptian, and because it is written in the syllabic orthography often reserved for foreign words, there is every reason to believe that the name belongs to a Western Semite in Egyptian employ. It is indeed known that Semites served the Egyptian bureaucracy in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C.E. There is thus additional evidence of the use of Shaddai in pre-Mosaic times.
\nThe great antiquity of the name and its obsolescence in Israel in the Mosaic period explain why there are no consistent traditions as to its meaning and why the ancient versions have no uniform rendering. The Septuagint variously has \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cLord,\u201d \u201cAll-powerful,\u201d and \u201cThe Heavenly One,\u201d among others, as well as the transliteration shaddai. The Vulgate has \u201cOmnipotens,\u201d whence the English tradition \u201cAlmighty.\u201d The Syriac has \u201cThe Strong One,\u201d \u201cGod,\u201d and \u201cThe Highest,\u201d as well as shaddai. The Greek rendering hikan\u00f3s; \u201cHe that is Sufficient,\u201d found in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, reflects a rabbinic suggestion explaining the name as a combination of the relative particle sha with dai, meaning \u201csufficiency\u201d (Gen. R. 46:2). The modern conjecture that has gained widest currency connects shaddai with Akkadian \u0161adu, \u201ca mountain,\u201d often used as a divine (and royal) epithet. The name would originally have meant, \u201cThe One of the Mountain,\u201d probably referring to a cosmic mount or corresponding to the divine epithet \u201cThe Rock.\u201d<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 12*<\/p>\n
Circumcision 17:9\u201314<\/p>\n
Although the law of circumcision is included in the priestly legislation of Leviticus 12:3, biblical tradition, as illustrated by Genesis 17:9\u201314, consistently assumes that the rite antedates Sinai. In the days of Jacob, it is so important to the Israelite tribes as to be an essential precondition of marriage with outsiders (Gen. 34:14\u201317). Zipporah, wife of Moses, circumcises her son at a critical moment (Exod. 4:25); and the rite is a prerequisite for participating in the Passover offering before the Exodus from Egypt (Exod. 12:43\u201348). In fact, we are explicitly told that the Israelites who came out of Egypt were circumcised (Josh. 5:4f.). In this connection, the use of a flint-blade knife for the operation (Exod. 4:25; Josh. 5:2f.)\u2014during the Bronze Age\u2014is as much a testimony to the hoary antiquity of the custom as evidence of religious conservatism.
\nNot only is circumcision the earliest institution of Israel, its introduction being assigned by our narrative to the time of Abraham, but the text tacitly implies that it preexisted the patriarch since it is taken for granted that he understands the procedure to be followed even though no specific instructions are forthcoming. This should occasion no surprise because circumcision is widely and independently attested in the histories of divergent cultures stretching from Anatolia to western Sudan, from the Australian Aborigines to the Masai of East Africa, from the Polynesian cultures to the kingdom of Lesotho in southern Africa. Herodotus reported that the Egyptians practiced circumcision \u201cfor the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be clean than comely\u201d (Histories 2.37). A stela from Naga ed-Der in Middle Egypt, written as early as the First Intermediate Period (23rd cent. B.C.E.), carries a report of a mass circumcision ceremony performed on 120 men (ANET, p. 326). A tomb relief from Saqqara, stemming from the Sixth Dynasty (2350\u20132000 B.C.E.) depicts the operation being conducted on boys by mortuary priests (ANEP, no. 629). Various other texts, pictures, and sculptures of naked males, as well as some mummies, all support the prevalence of the rite in Egypt, though it is unknown whether it was restricted to men of a certain class, whether it was obligatory or voluntary, or what its particular significance was. Apart from the Babylonians and Assyrians, most Semites seem to have practiced circumcision. Herodotus mentions Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians, mistakenly believing that these peoples borrowed the rite from the Egyptians (Histories 2.104). In truth, it was practiced in northern Syria during the early third millennium B.C.E. Of all the peoples with whom Israel came into close contact, only the Philistines are derisively called \u201cuncircumcised\u201d (cf. Judg. 14:3; 1 Sam. 4:6; 18:25, etc.), showing them to have been unique in that respect. The story of Dinah and the Shechemites (Gen. 34) is particularly instructive because these people are \u201cHivites,\u201d not Canaanites or Semites. Texts like Jeremiah 9:24f. and Ezekiel 31:18 and 32:22\u201330 clearly attest to the wide diffusion of circumcision among peoples of Transjordan, Phoenicia, and Asia Minor. Clearly, then, the originality of the biblical law does not lie in the fact of the institution itself but in the total transformation of a widespread and ancient ritual.
\nIn those cultures that traditionally practice circumcision, the age at which it is performed may vary widely, but the overwhelming preference is at puberty or as a prenuptial rite. In either case, it takes place at a crucial period in the male life cycle and marks the initiation of the individual into the common life of his group. The biblical shift to the eighth day after birth is a radical break with existing tradition, severing all connection with puberty, marriage, and \u201crites of passage.\u201d This particular dissociation now permits circumcision to be invested with an entirely new and original meaning. The operation owes its sanction not to any natural reason but solely to its being divinely ordained. In the course of its performance, it derives its significance solely from its being the conscious expression of the external, immutable covenant between God and Abraham. Having been performed, it constitutes the ineradicable token of the imposition of that covenant upon every generation of his descendants. The religious life of the Jew begins, therefore, on the eighth day of his birth. Since the circumcision is performed on each individual at that age and is not, as it is frequently elsewhere, a ritual practiced collectively, it underscores the singularity of each Jew\u2019s relationship to God, his personal dedication and obligation as a member of a covenanted community. It is the distinguishing mark of Jewish identity and, more than anything else, has proved to be a powerfully cohesive force in the struggle for national survival.
\nThe history of the observance of the institution among Jews is interwoven with that of the Jewish people itself. In the heyday of Hellenism some Jews tried artificially to efface the signs of circumcision by means of epispasm, that is, by having the prepuce drawn forward to cover up the corona (cf. 1 Macc. 1:15; Yev. 72a). But when the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes proscribed circumcision in 167 B.C.E., Jewish mothers suffered martyrdom for deliberately violating the royal decree (1 Macc. 1:60f.; 2 Macc. 6:10). This kind of resistance was the first sign of the rebellion that culminated in the Maccabean revolt. When the Roman emperor Hadrian (ca. 130 C.E.) made circumcision a capital crime, this became one of the main causes of the Bar Kokhba insurrection (132\u2013135 C.E.). Throughout the ages Jews clung tenaciously to the practice in defiance of ridicule and persecution on the part of Christian authorities and in the full consciousness of its vital role in Jewish self-preservation. It is important to note, however, that circumcision is not a sacrament in the Christian sense of the term but an indispensable obligation of Jewish law, since one born of a Jewish mother is automatically Jewish. It is the status of the mother, not the act of circumcision, that determines the infant\u2019s religious character as a Jew.
\nThe primary responsibility for circumcision devolves upon the father. Since the average Jew is unable to perform the operation in accordance with the requirements of Jewish law, he commissions a trained mohel to act on his behalf. The mohel is selected not solely for his skill and learning but also for his piety. Similarly, the sandek (Gk. synteknos, \u201cgodfather\u201d), who has the privilege of holding the babe on his knees during the operation, is expected to be a God-fearing man. The proper time for fulfilling the mitzvah is as soon as possible after sunrise on the eighth day after birth, even if it is a Sabbath or holy day. Should the birth take place just before sunset, that day is still regarded as one complete day. If, however, the child is born in the twilight period, rabbinic authority must be sought as to the correct time for performing circumcision. If circumcision has been postponed for medical reasons, it may not subsequently be carried out on a Sabbath or holy day. Once postponed, it is also not performed on a Thursday because this might lead unnecessarily to profanation of the Sabbath, which would be the third day after circumcision, when the pain is thought to be most intense and some special treatment might be called for.
\nThe actual rabbinic procedure consists of three parts. First comes the surgical removal of the foreskin with a knife (\u1e25ittukh, milah). Then the inner lining of the prepuce is firmly held between the thumbnail and index finger of each hand, is torn down as far as the corona, and then rolled back completely to expose the glans and the corona (peri\u02bfah). After this, blood is sucked from the wound as a means of disinfection, a rite now often performed with the aid of a swab or glass tube (metsitsah).
\nFrom early times, the terms for uncircumcision and circumcision came to be used figuratively. A mind blocked to God\u2019s commandments has been described as \u201can uncircumcised heart\u201d (Lev. 26:41; Jer. 9:25; Ezek. 44:7, 9), a heart that required \u201ccircumcising\u201d (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4); one unreceptive to God\u2019s word as having \u201can uncircumcised ear\u201d (Jer. 6:10); one impeded in his speech as having \u201cuncircumcised lips\u201d (Exod. 6:12, 30). All these metaphors prove conclusively that circumcision in Israel was no mere formal outward ritual but was invested with a spiritual aspect that betokened dedication and commitment to God.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 13*<\/p>\n
The Cities of the Plain 19:1\u201338<\/p>\n
The sites of Sodom and Gomorrah and their sister cities remain unknown. There are no reliable postbiblical traditions about them. Moreover, the biblical texts themselves appear to yield conflicting information.
\nThe destroyed cities are repeatedly referred to as being located in \u201cthe plain\u201d (Heb. kikkar),1 also called \u201cthe land of the plain\u201d (v. 28) and \u201cthe plain of the Jordan\u201d (13:10f.). The Hebrew term kikkar is of uncertain origin and application, but it is invariably rendered meshra\u02be, \u201cplain,\u201d by the Aramaic Targums. It seems to be either a geographical or a topographical term. The statement that King Solomon cast the bronze vessels for the Temple \u201cin the plain of the Jordan between Succoth and Zerethan\u201d2 refers to the middle section of the Jordan Valley, between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and it seems to imply that the northern shore of the Dead Sea is the southern extremity of \u201cthe plain.\u201d This conclusion is supported by Deuteronomy 34:3. From the summit of Mount Nebo in Transjordan \u201cfacing Jericho\u201d (Deut. 32:49), Moses was able to see \u201cthe Negeb; and the Plain\u2014the Valley of Jericho.\u201d Finally, Lot is said to have been able to view the entire Jordan Plain from Bethel,3 which would have been impossible if the cities were south of the Dead Sea.
\nBut other facts would seem to favor a southern location. We are told that Abraham saw the devastated plain from a vantage point near Hebron.4 Apparently, kikkar is a flexible term and can describe a fan-shaped area, a physical characteristic rather than a specific location. We find mention of a plain in the vicinity of Jerusalem,5 and there is no reason why the term could not also be used for the region south of the Dead Sea. This harmonizes better with the observation in Genesis 13:10 that the plain was \u201cwell watered \u2026 like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt,\u201d for the area around the southern basin of the Dead Sea is blessed with an abundance of fresh water and is fed by several streams. The presence of bitumen in the region, mentioned in 14:10, likewise suits the southern basin or at least the southern shore of the northern basin in which this substance is especially prevalent, while mention of salt in the Sodom and Gomorrah traditions6 suggests a closeness to the salt mountain known as Mount Sodom (Jebel Usdum), which lies near the southwest corner of the Dead Sea.
\nFurther circumstantial evidence might be thought to be provided by the Dead Sea itself. It is today divided into two parts by the Lisan (Heb. lashon), a tonguelike peninsula that juts out from the eastern shore and extends to within two miles of the western shore. The lower, or southern, section comprises only 27 percent of the entire body of water. Because of the considerable difference in depth between the two basins, some 1300 feet (400 m.) average in the north as opposed to a mere 20 feet (6 m.) in the south, there can be no doubt that the latter is of far more recent formation than the former. In other words, the Lisan at one time formed the southern bank of the Dead Sea, a conclusion strengthened by the evidence for the one-time existence of roads along the Lisan connecting the eastern and western sides of the sea. Below the Lisan, therefore, once stretched forth a plain that subsided in historical times due to tectonic disturbances and was submerged by the encroaching waters of the Dead Sea to form the shallow southern basin. It is most plausible that the remark in Genesis 14:3, \u201cthe Valley of Siddim, now the Dead Sea,\u201d refers to this process.
\nWere the \u201ccities of the Plain\u201d situated in this area, and do their ruins now lie below the waters of the southern basin of the Dead Sea? No biblical text supports the notion that the cities were destroyed by flooding. In fact, the several passages that employ Sodom and Gomorrah as a figure of utter destruction and desolation rest upon the presumption of a wasteland of seared ruins and scorched, infertile, salty soil.7 Yet this argument by itself is not conclusive; for while the original catastrophe may have been an earthquake followed by a massive conflagration, a partial collapse of the southern bank may have taken place. The resulting breakthrough of water may have been limited in extent, but in the course of the millennia the sea water would have gradually spread southward until it covered the entire area of the original plain and obliterated whatever remained of the ruined cities.
\nAnother place that has to be taken into consideration in determining the location of the four cities of the Plain is Zoar. Genesis 13:10 shows that it lay to the south of these cities. Its closeness to Sodom is beyond question.8 There is abundant testimony to the existence of continuous settlement at Zoar in biblical,9 Second Temple,10 and talmudic times.11 Eusebius (3rd\u20134th cents.; Onom. 42) and Jewish tombstones from the fifth century provide further evidence of settlement in this region. Many of these sources place Zoar south of the Dead Sea, while the sixth-century C.E. mosaic map from the Byzantine church at Medeba marks it more specifically on the southeast edge. The most likely and most wisely accepted location for Zoar is the fertile area of es-Safi on the Seil el-Qurahi in Jordan, a stream that flows into the Dead Sea. Remains of Roman and Nabatean settlements have been found here, but none from biblical times. The later Zoar is hardly likely to have been the city to which Lot fled, but it must have been situated not too far away to have stubbornly retained the name over the millennia.
\nAs a matter of fact, surveys and excavations during the late 1970s showed that the southern end of the Dead Sea could not have contained cities any time after 3000 B.C.E. On the other hand, on the eastern shore, about one mile east of the Lisan in Jordan, the town of Bab edh-Dhra has been uncovered, and not too far away are the other sites: Safi, Feifa, and Khanazir. These are the only sites in the area of the Dead Sea, and all four were occupied during the Early Bronze Age (3rd millennium B.C.E.). Following their destruction around 2300 B.C.E., they were not resettled until Roman times, more than 2,000 years later. In the present state of our knowledge, these sites would seem to be the most likely locations of \u201cthe cities of the Plain,\u201d but this conclusion raises intractable problems of chronology and text.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 14*<\/p>\n
Beer-sheba 21:32<\/p>\n
In biblical times, Beer-sheba was the most famous of all cities in the Negeb region. The popular phrase \u201cfrom Dan to Beer-sheba\u201d1 indicates that the town constituted the south-ernmost boundary of Judah for all practical purposes.
\nIn the days of Samuel it served as a kind of regional judicial center. The prophet\u2019s own sons functioned there as judges.2 In the period of the monarchy it housed a well-known cult center that became the object of prophetic disapproval.3 The sacred origins of Beer-sheba are traceable to its patriarchal associations. Abraham plants a terebinth there and invokes \u201cthe name of the LORD, the Everlasting God,\u201d following the making of a pact there with Abimelech;4 Isaac receives a revelation, builds an altar, and worships at the site; and Jacob sacrifices there and also experiences a revelation.5
\nInterestingly, patriarchal associations with Beer-sheba are restricted to the well and the cult site. Negotiations over the use of the water facilities are carried on with the king of Gerar! No king, ruler, or inhabitant of Beer-sheba is ever mentioned. There is no suggestion of the existence of any permanent settlement. Only 26:33 refers to a \u201ccity\u201d of Beer-sheba, but this is a redactional note that explains how it got its name, and it has nothing to do with patriarchal activities.
\nThe picture that emerges from the patriarchal narratives is fully in accord with the results of the excavations conducted from 1969 to 1976 at the site of the ancient city, the mound now known as Tell es-Saba\u02bf, situated on the outskirts of the modern Beersheba. These findings have conclusively proved that no Canaanite settlement ever existed here. The earliest Israelite encampment, small and unfortified, derives from the thirteenth-eleventh centuries B.C.E. The city proper, highly fortified, really belongs to the period of the united kingdom under David and Solomon and the later kingdom of Judah.
\nTwo outstanding discoveries made in the course of the excavations are a horned altar and a well cut in the center of the eastern slope of the mound. The subterranean water level of the well is estimated to be at least 115 feet (35 m.) down. Though it is tempting to regard this as the well upon which the patriarchal stories focus, this cannot be proved.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 15*<\/p>\n
The Land of the Philistines 21:32<\/p>\n
Abimelech is previously identified as \u201cking of Gerar.\u201d1 Gerar is now characterized as \u201cthe land of the Philistines.\u201d2 In the parallel story about Isaac, Abimelech is entitled \u201cking of the Philistines,\u201d and he resides in Gerar.3 His subjects are also called Philistines.
\nThese passages have occasioned considerable controversy. The Philistines are never listed in the various biblical registers of pre-Israelite peoples who inhabited the land, such as 15:18. They are not a factor in Joshua\u2019s campaigns. They do not appear in the Tell el-Amarna letters of the fourteenth century B.C.E. In fact, the earliest historical reference to them so far discovered comes from the time of Ramses III. The prst (= peleset) are among a group of peoples referred to by ancient Egyptian sources as the \u201csea peoples,\u201d who invaded the Levant from the Cretan-Mycenaean area at the beginning of the twelfth century B.C.E. They tried to attack Egypt as well, but were repulsed by Ramses III. Groups of the peleset settled at points along the coast of Canaan, and Ramses III and his successors employed them as mercenaries in the service of Egypt. Over time the peleset, or Philistines, took over the various Canaanite cities in the Shephelah, the coastal plain, namely, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron. Organized into a five-city confederation, a \u201cpentapolis,\u201d under the rule of seranim, \u201clords,\u201d they consolidated their hold on the region and became a formidable military force.
\nIn light of what is known of the history of the Philistines, the references to them in the Abraham and Isaac narratives are generally regarded as anachronistic. Yet this conclusion itself raises serious difficulties. An anachronism is a chronological misplacing of events, institutions, concepts, objects, proper names, or place-names. That which is put in the wrong historical time frame must accurately reflect the time from which it is retrojected or into which it is projected. However, the picture of the Philistines in Genesis does not correspond to the realities of the later period.
\nUnlike the depiction of the Philistines in Judges and Kings, these of the patriarchal period do not inhabit the Shephelah but are situated inland in the south. There is no pentapolis with seranim but a king of a single city who acts alone. The king has a Semitic name. Relationships between this people and the patriarchs are governed by formal treaties of friendship, whereas the later Philistines are inveterate enemies of Israel. Unless the Narrator had some particular reason for consciously falsifying history\u2014and no such is forthcoming, especially since the ethnic identity of Abimelech and his subjects is of no significance for the understanding of the story\u2014the references to the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives cannot be anachronisms. No later Israelite writer could possibly be so ignorant of the elementary facts of the history of his people as to perpetrate such a series of blunders, and to no purpose whatsoever.
\nAccordingly, the \u201cPhilistines\u201d of patriarchal times may have belonged to a much earlier, minor wave of Aegean invaders who founded a small city-state in Gerar long before the large-scale invasions of the Levant, which led to the occupation of the Canaanite coast. The Narrator may be using a generic term for the sea peoples. At any rate, the Philistines of patriarchal times adopted Canaanite culture and lost their separate identity.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 16<\/p>\n
The Land of Moriah 22:2<\/p>\n
This place-name is replete with difficulties. The context suggests some well-known locality, for Abraham knows at once where to go. The area is hilly and apparently sparsely wooded. It lies three days\u2019 journey from Beer-sheba on foot, though the direction is not stated. Yet \u201cthe land of Moriah\u201d is never mentioned again in the Bible or in any independent extra-biblical source.
\nStrangely, none of the ancient versions transliterates moriah. The Septuagint renders \u201clofty country\u201d as does the Syro-Palestinian version, and the same appears in the Book of Jubilees 18:2; Aquila has \u201cclearly seen\u201d; Symmachus, Vulgate, and the Samaritan Targum all have \u201cvision\u201d; the Aramaic Targums translate \u201cworship,\u201d and the Peshitta reads \u201cAmorites,\u201d a rendering that is found in the commentary of Rashbam. As a matter of fact, the presence of the definite article in the Hebrew (lit. \u201cthe Moriah\u201d) greatly complicates the possibility of moriah being originally a proper name, since in Hebrew usage the definite article is not attached to proper names.
\nThe derivation of the word is uncertain. Our chapter clearly reflects popular etymology based on r-\u02be-h, \u201cto see,\u201d which appears in verses 4, 8, and 14. It is this that lies behind the ancient versions\u2019 \u201cvision\u201d and probably also explains the Septuagint\u2019s \u201clofty country\u201d\u2014that is, visible from afar. The same association with r-\u02be-h is suggested by the words \u201con Mount Moriah where He appeared (Heb. nir\u02beah) to David\u201d in 2 Chronicles 3:1. It also finds expression in the explanation of R. Judah in Genesis Rabba 55:9 that moriah means \u201cthe place I shall show you (Heb. mar\u02beeh)\u201d
\nA different etymology is implied by \u201cyou fear (Heb. yere\u02be) God\u201d in verse 12, which interprets the term as though it were composed of mora\u02be-yah, \u201cfear of the Lord,\u201d and most likely explains the Targums. Saadiah, too, renders the phrase \u201cthe land of worship,\u201d and R. Jannai in Tan\u1e25uma Va-yera\u02be 46f. says that it is so called because it is \u201cthe place from which fear [of God] emanated to the world.\u201d
\nIt is clear that the narrative reflects both verbs\u2014r-\u02be-h and y-r-\u02be\u2014as popular etymologies for moriah. The assonance in these two provides frequent occasion for word play elsewhere in the Bible;1 it is not unlikely that a similar device is at work here.
\nA third solution involves the stem y-r-h, \u201cto teach,\u201d as suggested by Ta\u02bfanit 16a, Genesis Rabba 55:9, and Tan\u1e25uma Va-yera\u02be 45. Moriah is the place \u201cfrom which teaching issued to the world.\u201d The identification with Jerusalem (yeru-shalem) found in 2 Chronicles 3:1 may also reflect this connection. Hebrew moriah can well be a feminine form of moreh, \u201cteacher.\u201d2 Actually, the fact that there are place-names compounded of moreh, such as \u201cthe terebinth of Moreh\u201d and Gibeath-moreh,3 renders this explanation most attractive, particularly since it has the first and last revelation of God to Abraham take place at sites with similar sounding names, thus contributing to the literary framework within which the biography of the patriarch is encased.
\nJewish tradition associates Mount Moriah with the site of the Temple, the earliest source being 2 Chronicles 3:1: \u201cSolomon began to build the House of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.\u201d The same identification is found in the Book of Jubilees 18:13 and is accepted by Josephus,4 the Targums, and the Talmud (Ta\u02bfan. 16a). Without doubt, verse 14, which mentions \u201cthe mount of the LORD,\u201d is the main justification for the equation. Zion is called \u201cthe mountain of the LORD\u201d in several biblical passages.5 One difficulty is that Jerusalem is not a three-day trek from Beer-sheba, and it would hardly have been necessary to carry a supply of wood to that region. Also, identifying the mount with Jerusalem means that the text cannot be earlier than David\u2019s time. Indeed, the commentary on verse 14 by Joseph b. Eliezer Bonfils (Tsafenat Pa\u02bfneah, 14 th cent. C.E.) explicitly states: \u201cMoses did not write this verse, but the latter prophets wrote it.\u201d
\nNo explanation is given in the narrative for the choice of Moriah as the site of the Akedah. It may then have been a well-known and ancient place of worship. Indeed, there seems to be some testimony for this in the text. First, there is the repeated use of ha-makom (vv. 3, 4, 9), which, as has been noted in the Comment to 12:6, often has the sense of \u201csacred place.\u201d Then there is the undeniable fact that when Abraham tells his servants that they will go up to \u201cthe place\u201d to \u201cworship\u201d (v. 5), it is taken as a perfectly natural thing to do. Further, Abraham builds \u201cthe altar\u201d (v. 9). The use of the definite article, obscured in the English, implies more the restoration of an existing altar than the erection of a new one. This reasoning assumes added force once we realize that this is the only such usage with a definite article in connection with a patriarchal altar not previously referred to. Finally, the descriptive term \u201cmount of the LORD\u201d (v. 14) clearly implies a site with a cultic tradition.
\nThe present state of our knowledge does not enable us to resolve the problems connected with \u201cthe land of Moriah.\u201d We are probably dealing with a name so ancient that its original location and meaning were already lost by the time the biblical narrative was committed to writing.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 17<\/p>\n
The Meaning of the Akedah 22:1\u201319<\/p>\n
It has often been claimed that the story of the Akedah is a polemic against human sacrifice and thus constitutes a turning point in the history of religion, marking the transition from the ritual killing of human beings to animal substitution. Such an understanding of the narrative cannot be supported either by history or by biblical tradition. The story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:3f., the first incidence of sacrifice in the Bible, belies it, for it regards an animal or the products of the soil as the natural constituents of an offering. Similarly, on emerging from the ark, Noah sacrifices animals and birds, as related in 8:20. Isaac\u2019s innocent question (v. 7) on the way to Moriah assumes that a sacrifice to God normally involves a sheep, while substitution of the ram for Isaac is a spontaneous gesture on the part of Abraham, performed at his own initiative and not divinely ordained. Furthermore, animal sacrifice had always been the accepted norm throughout the ancient world. It had to be, in fact, if only because ancient pagans believed that the gods, for their own survival, needed the flesh of animals provided by man.
\nIt is strange that Abraham does not protest the inhumanity of the divine request that he sacrifice his son on the altar. And the story contains no explicit condemnation or repudiation by God of such a practice. A contemporary might have reasonably inferred that only in this instance was the human victim reprieved but that on another occasion the sacrifice might well be consummated. For all these reasons, the claim that the Akedah is a protest against human sacrifice cannot be sustained.
\nAs a matter of fact, no such protest is needed. The Akedah has nothing in common with pagan human sacrifice, which was practiced in order to appease an angry or inattentive deity, as in 2 Kings 3:21\u201327. In such cases, it is the worshipper who takes the initiative. In the case of Abraham, there is no emergency, no impending disaster to be warded off. It is God Himself who makes the request, and it is God who interrupts the sacrifice. In its present form, the narrative is the product of a religious attitude that is already long conditioned to the notion that Israelite monotheism is incompatible with human sacrifice. An undeniable atmosphere of the singular and the unique pervades the episode. God\u2019s request is treated as something utterly extraordinary, something that a person would never think of doing on his own initiative. More than this, it so tries the man of faith that his response is by no means predictable. It is taken for granted that one would normally recoil from such an act as child sacrifice. God\u2019s request is so clearly shocking and unrepeatable that the reader is informed in advance that God is only testing Abraham and does not want the sacrifice for His own needs. Incidentally, it is worth noting that those writers who refer to the \u201ctemptation\u201d of Abraham are employing an obsolete use of the word. In present-day parlance this is a singularly inappropriate description of the episode, which entailed only suffering and anguish.
\nWhy is Abraham tested? Since the time of God\u2019s first call to him in Haran, no experience of his proved that his devotion to God was unconditional and boundless, not influenced by the many glorious promises he received or the wealth he achieved. In this respect, Abraham and Job share a common circumstance, and the adversary\u2019s questioning of the disinterested nature of Job\u2019s piety (Job 1:9) applies equally to the patriarch. Abraham is designated to father a new nation, a nation that is to be endowed with a unique destiny among the family of nations. He must therefore unequivocally prove his worthiness to be God\u2019s elect. The totally disinterested nature of his devotion to God must be established beyond any doubt.
\nIt is this that dictates the abnormality of the test, and it is this very abnormality that explains why God, not His angel, must present it, in contrast to the order to desist. It would not be adequate for Abraham to be asked to sacrifice himself, because he would surely do this in order to preserve his son, and he would still know that the divine promises would be honored. The sacrifice of his son is thus the decisive ultimate test that can be devised.
\nThe Akedah must be seen in this light, and in this light alone. The focus is exclusively upon Abraham. All the rest, from the Narrator\u2019s point of view, is irrelevant and intrusive. That is why we are told nothing about Sarah or about the feelings of Isaac.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 18*<\/p>\n
The Akedah in Jewish Tradition<\/p>\n
The story of Isaac\u2019s near sacrifice on the altar, although not mentioned again in biblical literature, captured the popular imagination and deeply penetrated the religious consciousness of the Jewish people. As the occasion prompted, one or another aspect of the episode acquired special relevance. Thus, from early times the liturgy of fast days, called because of impending disaster, included the following prayer: \u201cMay He who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah answer you and hearken this day to the sound of your cry\u201d (Mish. Ta\u02bfan. 2:4). Here, it is God\u2019s last-minute intervention that seemed to be singularly appropriate to the day. On Rosh Hashanah, when the fate of Israel hangs precariously in the balance because of its sins, the following passage is included in the Musaf, or additional, service: \u201cBe Mindful of Abraham\u2019s binding of Isaac his son on the altar, how he suppressed his compassion in order to perform Your will wholeheartedly. In the same way, may Your compassion overcome Your anger toward us.\u2026 In behalf of his posterity may You this day recall with compassion the binding of Isaac.\u201d
\nSo powerful and enduring is the impact of the Akedah that God is asked, as it were, to emulate Abraham\u2019s superhuman behavior in controlling His emotions. This daring notion has its source in a midrash (Gen. R. 56:15), according to which Abraham is said finally to pour out his soul, reminding God of his uncomplaining, unquestioning obedience despite the obvious contradiction between the Akedah and the previous promises. The old man pleads with God that just as he had suppressed his compassion to perform the divine request, so should God be mindful of the Akedah and be filled with compassion for Israel when it finds itself in adversity or mired in sin.
\nThe reinterpretation of the Akedah in terms of expiation of sin contributed toward its selection as the Torah reading for the second day of Rosh Hashanah (Meg. 31a). The increasing emphasis on this motif, especially in the liturgy, was in all probability the rabbinic response to the teachings of the mystery cults. In opposition to the pagan idea that atonement for the sins of the faithful may be effected through the sacrifice of the god or of his son, the sages stressed the doctrine of patriarchal merit. The willingness of the founding father to sacrifice his son as a proof of his devotion to God created an inexhaustible store of spiritual credit upon which future generations may draw.
\nMore than anything else, however, it was the recurring experience of persecution\u2014from the Hellenistic age down through the Roman oppression, the Christian massacres on an unprecedented scale, and Muslim fanaticism\u2014that secured the prominence of the Akedah as a theme in the Jewish liturgy. Abraham and Isaac became the supreme exemplars of wholehearted loyalty to God and to His Torah, even to the extent of self-sacrifice. Jewish martyrdom derived unfailing inspiration from the Akedah narrative, and medieval poets produced a whole genre of penitential poetry in which the central theme was the Akedah as a metaphor of martyrdom \u02bfal kiddush ha-shem, \u201cin sanctification of the Name of God.\u201d The blowing of the ram\u2019s horn on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:24) was interpreted in terms of the Akedah. Said R. Abbahu, \u201cWhy does one blow a shofar taken from a ram? The Holy-One-Blessed-Be-He said: Blow a ram\u2019s horn before Me so that I remember in your behalf the binding of Isaac son of Abraham and count it to you as though you had bound yourselves (as a sacrifice) before Me\u201d (RH 16a).
\nIn his comment to Genesis 21:19, Ibn Ezra takes note of and rejects a view that Abraham did actually slaughter Isaac. It is the lack of any mention of the boy in that text that seems to have provided biblical support for this curious interpretation, which is well documented in medieval Hebrew sources. These sources feature Isaac being resurrected from the ashes upon the altar.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 19*<\/p>\n
The Hittites of Hebron 23:20<\/p>\n
Any discussion of the historical problem of the Hittites in the Bible must start by differentiating those references in the literature that pertain to the premonarchic period from those that relate to the times of the monarchy. Solomon is said to have exported horses to \u201cthe Kings of the Hittites,\u201d1 and he takes Hittite wives.2 \u201cKings of the Hittites\u201d are feared by an Aramean king.3 In each case, the reference is not to Hittites living inside the country but to foreigners in distant lands. Without doubt, the Neo-Hittite states of Syria are intended. When the Hittite Empire was suddenly destroyed about 1200 B.C.E. by the onslaught of the \u201csea peoples\u201d (see Excursus 15), various city-states that were formerly Hittite vassals asserted their independence. In some cities the old feudal Hittite rulership remained intact and was even reinforced by new settlers who migrated from Asia Minor, so that their previous history and affiliation caused these states to continue to be known as \u201cHittite.\u201d In fact, Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions can be documented in Syria until about 700 B.C.E. The biblical texts simply follow the practice of Assyrian scribes, as is well evidenced in the records of Shalmaneser III4 (859\u2013825 B.C.E.) and Tiglath-pileser III5 (745\u2013727 B.C.E.). Gradually, the designation \u201cHittite\u201d lost all ethnic and political significance and came to apply loosely to all the territory between the Euphrates and the border of Egypt. Sargon II6 (721\u2013705 B.C.E.), Sennacherib7 (704\u2013681 B.C.E.), and Esarhaddon8 (680\u2013669 B.C.E.) include Philistia and the Land of Israel within the appellation \u201cHittites.\u201d The Babylonian Chronicle, in its entry for the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, also includes Jerusalem in this broad category.9
\nThe references to Hittites in those portions of the biblical literature that deal with premonarchic, especially patriarchal, times raise serious historical problems, for we are dealing here with the period prior to the destruction of the Hittite Empire, and existing evidence proves conclusively that Hittite imperial expansion was restricted to the area north of the kingdom of Kadesh on the Orontes. At no time did the Hittite Empire reach into Canaan, nor is there any extrabiblical literary source testifying to the settlement of Hittites in Canaan. The problem is further complicated by the obvious fact that the Hittites of patriarchal times have Semitic names. This is the case with Ephron son of Zohar and with Esau\u2019s wives (26:34; 36:2). Moreover, Abraham is able to converse easily and directly with the Hebronites without need for an interpreter, and there is nothing peculiarly Hittite about them or their customs and legal practices as displayed in Genesis 23.
\nNevertheless, there is a consistent tradition that includes Hittites among the pre-Israelite peoples that inhabit Canaan. In the numerous lists discussed in the Comment to 15:19\u201321, Hittites are prominently featured, occupying either first or second place. The spies sent by Moses from the wilderness to scout the land report on the presence of this people in the hill country;10 and they were still there at the time of Joshua\u2019s invasion.11 The prophet Ezekiel preserved a tradition about an ancient Hittite settlement in Jerusalem.12 These texts clearly exhibit a consciousness of ethnic distinctions, and it is not possible simply to dismiss references to Hittites in Genesis 23 as examples of the loose generic designation for the pre-Israelite inhabitants. That Abraham\u2019s ally Mamre is described in 14:13 as an \u201cAmorite\u201d and that he is connected with Hebron,13\u2014while Ephron is always designated a \u201cHittite\u201d14\u2014certainly suggests once again that Amorite and Hittite are not identical. In fact, if Kiriath-arba\/Hebron is so called because the town was an amalgam of four originally separate units, it is quite probable that Hittites occupied one quarter and Amorites another. The same distinction between Amorites and Hittites appears in Ezekiel 16:3, 45.
\nThe riddle of the presence of Hittites in Hebron and elsewhere in southern Canaan cannot be solved with confidence in the present state of our knowledge. This people most likely constituted one of the non-Semitic elements in the population, perhaps connected with Jebusites or Hurrians. They may well have come originally from Anatolia. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the Indo-Aryan element in the population of pre-Israelite Canaan is well attested by the presence of personal names in the Tell el-Amarna letters and in tablets from Taanach and Shechem. Of special interest is the fact that the ruler of Jerusalem, Abdi-Khepa, bears a name whose second element is that of a Hurrian goddess; there is also a well-known Hittite queen named Pudu-Khepa. Further, Shuwardata, who rules in the Hebron region, likewise bears an Indo-Aryan name. Despite the presence of the Hurrians in Canaan, there is little evidence of the use of the Hurrian language. Similarly, the Semitic language used by the population at Hebron does not prove that they were not of Hittite origin.
\nIn considering the issue of Hittites at Hebron, it is pertinent to note that Hittite jugs have turned up in a tomb at Megiddo in Israel dating to ca. 1650 B.C.E. Hittite hieroglyphic seals deriving from the Late Bronze Age (1600\u20131200 B.C.E.) have been found, as well as Syro-Hittite ivories and jewelry, and the architecture at Hazor has been shown to have been influenced by Syro-Hittite models.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 20*<\/p>\n
\u201cGod of the father\u201d<\/p>\n
A distinctive and characteristic feature of the Book of Genesis is the frequent use of a certain type of divine epithet that is made up of the phrase \u201cGod of my\/your\/his father,\u201d1 often with \u201cAbraham\u201d or \u201cIsaac\u201d2 or both names3 added in apposition to \u201cfather.\u201d In some instances, God is further identified as YHVH.4 This designation appears once again in Exodus 3:6 in God\u2019s self-manifestation to Moses, where it is intended to emphasize continuity. The God who speaks at the Burning Bush is the selfsame One who spoke to the patriarchs. Thereafter in the Torah the epithet becomes \u201cGod of your\/their fathers,\u201d the plural referring to the entire people of Israel.5
\nThe epithet \u201cGod of the father\u201d is not unique to the Bible. It is, in fact, documented over a wide area of the ancient Near East over a long period of time, from the nineteenth century B.C.E. on. In these texts the \u201cgod of the father(s)\u201d sometimes appears anonymously, sometimes with an accompanying personal name. For example, we find \u201cAshur god of my father,\u201d \u201cAshur and Amurrum the gods of our father,\u201d \u201cShamash the god of my father,\u201d \u201cIlaprat god of your father,\u201d an oath \u201cby the name of the god of my father,\u201d an appeal to the king \u201cby the name of (the god) Adad, lord of Aleppo and the god of your father.\u201d
\nThe connotation of this divine epithet is a special, personal relationship between the individual and his god, who is his patron and protector. This designation is particularly appropriate in the patriarchal narratives since they revolve around the lives of individuals. It is highly significant that it is never used in reference to Abraham\u2019s father. This is to be explained by the tradition, preserved in Joshua 24:2, that Terah was an idolator. It indicates that the advent of Abraham constituted a new stage in the history of religion. Similarly, the change from the singular to the plural form, \u201cfathers,\u201d following the commissioning of Moses, registers another historic development.
\nAn examination of the Genesis texts in which the epithet \u201cGod of the father\u201d occurs shows that this particular title is not conditioned by the requirements of the narrative. Its employment is therefore to be explained as a genuine relic from the earliest stage of Israelite religion. This conclusion is reinforced by its being confined to the patriarchal period.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 21<\/p>\n
Jacob: The Moral Issue 27:1\u201328:5<\/p>\n
Jacob as a young man is not portrayed in a favorable light. First he acquires the birthright through his heartless exploitation of his own brother\u2019s misery; then he purloins the patriarchal blessing by means of crafty deception practiced upon his blind and aged father. In both instances, the outcome is legally valid and irrevocable, notwithstanding the unsavory aspects of Jacob\u2019s actions. It is evident that the successful application of shrewd opportunism was well respected in the ancient Near East as it is in contemporary society. The two incidents also appear to betray a thoroughly formalistic conception of law in which the strict outward adherence to certain practices or principles is decisive, irrespective of the true spirit of the law and in disregard of moral considerations. It is remarkable, therefore, that the biblical narrative has succeeded in weaving the stories into the larger biography of Jacob in such a way as to add up to an unqualified condemnation of Jacob\u2019s actions.
\nAs noted in the Comment to 25:23, the function of the divine oracle that Rebekah received during her difficult pregnancy is to disengage the fact of Jacob\u2019s election by God from the improper means that he employed in his impatience to formalize his predestined, independent right to be Isaac\u2019s heir. His claim rests wholly and solely on God\u2019s revealed predetermination, and the presence of the oracle constitutes a moral judgment on Jacob\u2019s behavior.
\nThis clear, if implicit, censure is brought out all the more forcefully in the cycle of biographic tales. Scripture says of Abraham that he died at \u201ca good ripe age, old and contented\u201d (25:8). Isaac is similarly described as dying \u201cin ripe old age\u201d (35:29). But such notice is singularly and revealingly lacking in the case of Jacob. This patriarch can only report that the years of his life have been \u201cfew and hard\u201d (47:9). The reference, of course, is to the unrelieved series of trials and tribulations that dogged his footsteps from the day he deceived his father until the last years of his life.
\nThe quiet, mild, home-loving Jacob, favorite of his mother, was forced into precipitous flight, to be exiled for twenty years. Indeed, the catalogue of misfortunes that befell him reads like the retributive counterpart, measure for measure, of his own offenses. Just as he exploited his brother\u2019s plight, so Laban exploits his. He took advantage of his father\u2019s permanent darkness to misrepresent himself as his elder brother, so Laban makes use of the darkness to substitute the elder sister for the younger. When Jacob admonishes Laban with the accusatory \u201cWhy did you deceive me?\u201d (29:25), he echoes the very Hebrew stem r-m-h used about himself by Isaac to Esau (27:35). The perpetrator of deception is now the victim, hoist with his own petard.
\nWhen Jacob finally makes his escape from Haran and sets out for home after two decades in the service of his scoundrelly uncle, he finds his erstwhile employer in hot and hostile pursuit of him (chap. 31). No sooner has this trouble passed than he feels his life to be in mortal danger once again from Esau (32:4\u201333:16). Arriving at last at the threshold of Canaan, he experiences the mysterious night encounter that leaves him with a strained hip (32:25\u201333). His worst troubles await him in the land of Canaan. His only daughter, Dinah, is violated (chap. 34); his beloved wife, Rachel, dies in childbirth (35:16\u201320); and the first son she bore him is kidnapped and sold into slavery by his own brothers. In perpetrating this inhuman act, the brothers use an article of his clothing in order to deceive their father (37:26\u201333), just as Jacob years before had used Esau\u2019s clothes to mislead Isaac.
\nAll the foregoing makes quite clear Scripture\u2019s condemnation of Jacob\u2019s early moral lapses. An explicit denunciation could hardly be more effective or more scathing than Jacob\u2019s unhappy biography. Nevertheless, expressions of outright censure of Jacob\u2019s behavior are found in prophetic literature. Hosea tells us (12:3) that the Lord once \u201cpunished Jacob for his conduct, \/ Requited him for his deeds.\u201d And Jeremiah warns (9:3): \u201cBeware, every man of his friend! \/ Trust not even a brother! \/ For every brother takes advantage, \/ Every friend is base in his dealings.\u201d It can hardly be doubted that in coupling the term \u201cbrother\u201d with an unusual phrase like \u02bfakov ya\u02bfakov, \u201ctakes advantage,\u201d the prophet intends to signal to the hearer an association with Jacob\u2019s treatment of Esau, a notorious example of such base behavior.
\nAll of the above provide ample evidence that Jacob\u2019s duplicitous behavior with regard to the birthright was totally unacceptable to the biblical Narrator.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 22*<\/p>\n
Bethel 28:10\u201322<\/p>\n
The interpretation of the story of Jacob at Bethel that has enjoyed widest currency in scholarly literature understands its ultimate purpose to be the tracing of the founding of the Israelite temple of Bethel to that patriarch. This view cannot be sustained for several reasons. Were the story a reflex of a living cult at Bethel, one would expect to find mention of some act of worship and a reference to a sanctuary. No allusion to either appears. (As noted in the Comments to verses 17 and 22, the phrase beit \u02beelohim does not mean a sanctuary in this context.) Decisive is the contrast between the building of altars by Abraham and Isaac upon receiving the divine word1 and Jacob\u2019s failure to do so in the present instance. He does erect an altar on his return from Haran (35:7), but again nothing is said of a sanctuary. The fact of the matter is that pastoral nomads have no need of temples.
\nThere is no doubt, however, that the narrative is textured in such a way as to ascribe the initial sanctity of the site to Jacob\u2019s experience. The name of this patriarch is so interwoven with Bethel as to point to a consistent and enduring tradition connecting Jacob with the beginnings of Bethel as a sacred spot in Israel.
\nThe first reference to the place appears in the traditions about Abraham, who is said to have built an altar and to have worshipped YHVH in the vicinity.2 It is unclear whether or not the text has in mind the same locality to which Jacob came, but, at any rate, Abraham did not experience a theophany at Bethel. Only Jacob did. His dedication of a matsevah (\u201cpillar\u201d), his vow, his return pilgrimage and erection of an altar and again of a matsevah,3 the identification of Jacob\u2019s God as \u201cthe God of Bethel,\u201d4 the deathbed recollection of the episode (48:3), the prophet Hosea\u2019s reference to the same event (Hos. 12:5), and the attribution of the coinage of the name to Jacob himself5\u2014all these constitute the ingredients of a tradition of unmistakable authenticity. A survey of the later history of Bethel also points to a tradition of venerable antiquity.
\nBethel is first mentioned as a national Israelite religious center in the period of the judges, when it had already acquired prestige by virtue of housing the Ark of the Covenant and the ministry of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron.6 In Samuel\u2019s day it was a focus of religious pilgrimage,7 and with the secession of the northern tribes after the death of Solomon, King Jeroboam selected Bethel to become the major cult center of the kingdom of Israel in rivalry with Jerusalem.8 In the days of Elisha, a school of prophets functioned there (2 Kings 2:2\u20133), but in the eighth century B.C.E. the Bethel cult earned the outright condemnation of Amos9 as well as of Hosea. The latter, a northerner who was even more severe in his castigations, actually designated Bethel (\u201cHouse of God\u201d) Beth-aven (\u201cHouse of Delusion\u201d).10 Yet even the destruction of the kingdom of Israel in 722\/721 B.C.E. did not put an end to the sanctity of the place. Its priesthood continued to exist for another one hundred years,11 until the Bethel cult center was finally destroyed by King Josiah of Judah in the course of his religious reforms.12 In light of the discredited history of Bethel and its censure at the hands of the prophets, the positive associations of Jacob with the site are highly interesting. They could not have been invented at a late period, nor have the early traditions been expunged or reedited to conform with later events.
\nYet this verdict does not exhaust the subject, for there is much evidence of a varied nature for Bethel as the site of an ancient, pre-Israelite sanctuary. This evidence may be summarized as follows:
\n(1) While the name itself might simply mean \u201chouse of a god,\u201d like Ugaritic btil and Akkadian b\u012bt ili, it is far more likely, on the analogy of other Canaanite place names, that the second element is none other than El, the name of the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon. Beth-el would then follow the well-established pattern of temple names formed by prefacing beit to the god name. Examples are Beth-anath (Josh. 19:38), Beth-azmaveth (Ezra 2:24), Beth-baal-berith (Judg. 9:4), Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 13:17), Beth-choron (Josh. 16:5), Beth-dagon (Josh. 15:41), and Beth-shemesh (Josh. 15:10). In all such cases, the name of the sanctuary gradually encompassed the adjacent or surrounding urban area as well.
\n(2) The city of Bethel is now generally identified with the modern village of Beitin (= Beitil), which lies about 10.5 miles (17 km.) north of Jerusalem and is situated 2,886 feet (880 m.) above sea level. Blessed with an abundance of springs and strategically located at the junction of a north-south highway with an east-west road, the area provided convenient and attractive grazing grounds for pastoral nomads. Archaeological excavations have shown that as early as 3500 B.C.E. a bare mountain top there served as a great open air shrine. In the nineteenth century B.C.E. a temple was erected over it. A stone pillar was discovered there in situ. It is now certain that Bethel was a sacred Canaanite site before and during the patriarchal period.
\n(3) There is plenty of evidence for the existence of a god named Bethel who derived his name from the holy place. The parallelism in Jeremiah 48:13 shows that there were Israelites who worshipped a god of that name: \u201cAnd Moab shall be shamed because of Chemosh, as the House of Israel were shamed because of Bethel, on whom they relied.\u201d Chemosh was the national god of the Moabites,13 and in this context Bethel also must be a deity. In fact, he is explicitly referred to in the list of deities who sanction the terms of the treaty made between King Esarhaddon of Assyria and King Baal of Tyre in the seventh century B.C.E.: \u201cMay Bethel and Anath-bethel deliver you to a man-eating lion.\u201d14
\nThe Jews of Elephantine, Egypt, ca. 400 B.C.E., know of the divinities Eshem-bethel, Herem-bethel, and Anath-bethel. There are also many personal names compounded of the divine element \u201cBethel.\u201d Three examples appear in a sixth-century B.C.E. Aramaic inscription\u2014byt\u02bel\u02bfsny (\u201cBethel made me\u201d), byt\u02belyd\u02bf (\u201cBethel knows\u201d), byt\u02beldlny (\u201cBethel rescued me\u201d)\u2014and several more of the same type occur at Elephantine. A Mesopotamian name in Zechariah 7:2\u2014Bethel-sharezer\u2014has its exact counterpart in Babylonian documents, where it means \u201cMay (the god) Bethel preserve.\u201d
\nIn sum, the existence of a god named Bethel is known from Mesopotamia, northern Syria, Phoenicia, Israel, and Egypt. This fact, together with the foregoing data, leads to the inevitable conclusion that Bethel had a long pagan cultic history behind it in Jacob\u2019s time. To know this is to understand the details of the story of Jacob at Bethel in an entirely new light.
\nWith great subtlety, the narrative dissociates absolutely the sanctity of the place from its pagan antecedents. This is accomplished by the following devices. Although the site is repeatedly termed a makom (vv. 10, 16, 17, 19), which often means a \u201csacred place\u201d and which it was to the Canaanites, Jacob does not go there by design; he stumbles upon it by accident only because nightfall happens to find him there, recognizing nothing of its sanctity and in fact treating it irreverently. The stone he takes for a pillow is any stone, one just lying around; it becomes a pillar only to commemorate the theophany but possesses no inherent sanctity. The event itself, because it happens in this particular place, generates astonishment; yet the place is nameless\u2014it has no prior history for Jacob. Finally, there is the emphasis on the divine name YHVH; it is He who is \u201cstanding\u201d there, who speaks to Jacob, and who identifies Himself as the God who made promises to his forefathers. \u201cSurely YHVH is in this place,\u201d exclaims Jacob on awakening, and it is YHVH from whom he seeks protection. As if further to underscore the dissociation from pagan antecedents, when the patriarch returns from Mesopotamia years later and travels to Bethel, he orders the members of his household to rid themselves of alien gods, to purify themselves, and to change their clothing before approaching the site (35:2). The biblical Narrator ignores the pre-Israelite sacred history of Bethel. The true sanctity of the site commences only with God\u2019s self-revelation to the patriarch. This is the thrust of the Jacob-Bethel narrative.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 23*<\/p>\n
The Twelve Sons and the Twelve Tribes 29:31\u201330:26<\/p>\n
The narrative in 29:31\u201330:26 tells of the birth of twelve sons to Jacob through two wives and two concubines. Eleven are born in the Haran region, and one in Canaan (35:16\u201318). The account is set forth according to a pattern that combines maternal origin, social status, and chronological order, as follows:<\/p>\n
LEAH
\nBilhah (Rachel\u2019s Maid)
\nZilpah (Leah\u2019s Maid)
\nRACHEL
\n1. Reuben
\n5. Dan
\n7. Gad
\n11. Joseph
\n2. Simeon
\n6. Naphtali
\n8. Asher
\n[12. Benjamin
\n3. Levi
\n(35:16\u201318)]
\n4. Judah
\n9. Issachar
\n10. Zebulun<\/p>\n
As was pointed out above in the Introduction to 29:31ff., nothing in the language of the narrative suggests a reference to underlying tribal history; yet there can be no doubt that the sons are perceived to be the eponymous, or name-giving, ancestors of the future tribes of Israel. That is to say, the text exhibits consciousness of the fact that each son is to be regarded as the father of a tribe to which he lends his name. The ordering of births according to wives and concubines parallels the form used for the genealogies of the Arameans in Genesis 24:20\u201324 and of the Edomites in 36:1\u20135, 9\u201318. In the case of these two peoples, where segmented genealogies are featured\u2014that is, where there is more than one line of descent from a common ancestor\u2014the different branches are also attributed to a particular matriarch, whether a full wife or concubine. This design has meaning and function. It expresses various types of affiliations\u2014whether ethnic, cultural, political, geographical, or other\u2014within the larger supratribal organization. Those tribes subsumed under the rubric of a single mother constitute distinct subgroups. Concubine tribes had an inferior status.
\nThis genealogical concept of history\u2014the expression of clan, tribal, and national relationship by ascription to common ancestry back to a single individual\u2014has been discussed in connection with the Table of Nations in chapter 10. In the case of the twelve sons of Nahor in Genesis 22:20\u201324, it was pointed out that many of their names are otherwise known to us as those of places, tribes, and peoples. The same personification of groups was shown to be present in the \u201cline of Ishmael,\u201d who was prenatally destined to be \u201cthe father of twelve chieftains\u201d (17:20). When the names are later listed \u201cin the order of their birth,\u201d they turn out to be those of a confederation of Arab tribes (25:16). As a matter of fact, this tendency to obscure the differentiation between the ancestor and the tribe bearing his name is obvious from the concluding formula in the Testament of Jacob to his sons gathered about his deathbed. The chapter opens with the statement that \u201cJacob called his sons and said, \u2018Come together that I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come.\u2019\u00a0\u201d It closes with the declaration, \u201cAll these were the tribes of Israel, twelve in number, and this is what their father said to them as he bade them farewell, addressing to each a parting word appropriate to him\u201d (Gen. 49:1, 28). The individual and the tribe have become imperceptibly blended.
\nThe patriarchal tribal pattern was characteristic of seminomadic peoples throughout the Near East. As noted, the Arameans and Ishmaelites were a conglomeration of clans, and so were the Edomites (Gen. 36) and Midianites (Num. 25:15). The Mari archives have abundantly illuminated this type of society. They tell of the existence of confederations of Hanean tribes and of Yaminites and of subgroups within each. Intertribal alliances were expressed in terms of brotherhood.
\nWhen viewed in light of the above facts, the Genesis narratives that detail the birth of Jacob\u2019s sons through a schematized arrangement actually constitute an important historic document relative to the evolution of the league of Israelite tribes. Certain stages of development can be discerned. The six Leah tribes must have originated in Mesopotamia and have constituted a separate fraternity that evolved in two distinct stages. The handmaid tribes must have endured a subordinate status. The tribe of Benjamin was the last to join the Israelite league and came into being in Canaan.
\nAccording to our account, Reuben is Jacob\u2019s first-born, and his name consistently heads the biblical lists of the tribes of Israel. The prominent role he plays in the Joseph novella1 echoes his position of seniority and creates the expectation that he will enjoy the leadership of the league of Israelite tribes. Yet such is not the case in the historical sources. During the conquest and settlement, the tribe of Reuben was insignificant. Its territory lay east of the River Jordan, where it felt itself isolated from the main body of Israel.2 The Song of Moses (Deut. 33:6) shows that its very existence as a tribe was at one time in jeopardy. Deborah censured it for its inactivity in a moment of great national crisis (Judg. 5:15\u201317). The backwardness of the Reubenites is illustrated by the fact that as late as Saul\u2019s time, they still maintained their pastoral nomadic existence, and until the exile they continued to be governed by a \u201cchieftain.\u201d3
\nWhat all the above adds up to is that the depiction of Reuben as Jacob\u2019s first-born cannot possibly be a retrojection from later times. It is, in fact, inexplicable unless it accurately represents an early historic reality in which Reuben enjoyed hegemony at least over the five other Leah tribes. Its loss of leadership is reflected in Genesis 35:22, 49:3\u20134, and 1 Chronicles 5:1, and the involvement of the Reubenites in the rebellion against Moses, as described in Numbers 16, may also be part of this process.
\nSimilarly, decisive conclusions about the antiquity of the data in the birth narratives may be drawn from the portrayal of the other three sons in the first Leah group. Simeon is next in line in seniority, but he does not inherit the mantle of leadership. Historically quite unimportant, the tribe did not even merit a mention in the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33) or the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5). It was largely absorbed by Judah, who took over many of the cities assigned to it.4 Nevertheless, our narrative makes Simeon senior to Judah.
\nLevi, too, is here senior to Judah; yet in later times it had no territory and was dispersed throughout Israel. The story of his birth yields not the slightest intimation of all this. In fact, although Levi became a sacerdotal tribe, God is not invoked in explanation of his name, which is given a purely secular meaning. This is exceptional among the six sons of Leah.
\nJudah is also ignored by Deborah, and the early weakness of the tribe is evident from Deuteronomy 33:7. Our text, which has him as the fourth son, clearly reflects the situation prior to the ascendancy of Judah, an event that is reflected in Genesis 49:8\u201312.
\nThe arrangement of the four above-named as Leah tribes must stem from a period when they were politically related. Since their tribal territories were not contiguous, the organizing principle cannot be geographical, and the list must be presettlement. This is further underlined by the association of Issachar and Zebulun with the Leah group. These two had their territories in the north. Nothing that is known of their later history could possibly explain the connection. As to Gad and Asher both being the sons of Leah\u2019s handmaid, here again there is no known history to account for the linkage or for the association of both with the other six. Gad had its territory east of the Jordan, far from Asher, who is situated in the north. Dan and Naphtali did occupy nearby territories in the north, but our scant information about the history of these two tribes prevents us from making any deductions about the reality behind our narrative or as to why Dan is the elder of the two.
\nAll in all, the contrast between what is known of the postsettlement history of the tribes and the reality that can be culled from the present narrative account about the birth of Jacob\u2019s sons unmistakably points to the conclusion that the latter preserves the earliest traditions.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 24<\/p>\n
Jacob\u2019s Struggle with the Angel 32:23\u201333<\/p>\n
This extraordinary episode, related with remarkable brevity, is replete with problems of interpretation. These involve: the imagery, the geographic locale, the purpose of the assault, the identity of the assailant, the significance of the name change, the cohesion of the diverse elements, and the place of the story within the larger narrative unit.
\nThe literary artistry shows every sign of the influence of two dominant motifs common to a broad range of cultures. The river as the scene of the struggle recalls the many tales of river-spirits that fight with humans who seek to cross their abodes. Insofar as rivers frequently prove to be unexpectedly treacherous, they were believed to possess some malevolent power dangerous to human life. Travelers would take good care to propitiate the river-spirit through sacrifice, libation, or other ritual before attempting to ford. Equally widespread is the motif of a demonic being whose power is restricted to the duration of the night and who is unable to abide the breaking of the dawn. An obvious corollary is the opportunity accorded a brave soul to derive profit from the situation by holding on to the demon long enough to bend it to his will.
\nThese motifs are obviously incompatible with Israelite monotheism. They have consequently been refracted and transformed in our biblical narrative. Nothing in the text connects the mysterious assailant with a river-spirit. The stranger does not interfere with the passage of personnel, livestock, and baggage. It is only after these have already crossed the river that he becomes active. It is Jacob alone who is the object of his aggression. Jacob clearly knows nothing of any river-spirit, for the attack is wholly unexpected, and no propitiatory ceremony takes place. The contrast with the folk-tale genre is further accentuated through the absence of any description of the adversary. The usual pattern requires the spirit to assume the form of animals, serpents, and monsters in a constant shift from one guise to another in the course of the struggle. Again, in a complete reversal of roles, it is the mysterious being who injures Jacob; traditionally, the spirit is the one who is punished and wounded by the human defender. The fact that the assailant blesses Jacob proves that it cannot be a demon, for the notion of eliciting and receiving a blessing from a demon is unexampled and inconceivable in a biblical context.
\nIn short, the occurrence of this incident by a river and the sudden attack by a mysterious assailant indicate that popular folk taies provided the literary model for this biblical narrative. But a careful and radical purging of all elements offensive to the monotheism of Israel has taken place.
\nThe geographical locale of the incident is crucial to its understanding. Its true significance lies not in the river ambience as such but in its having occurred exactly at the crossing of the Jabbok. This river is otherwise mentioned in the Bible exclusively as a frontier of Israel, the limit of Israel\u2019s first victory against the kingdoms east of the Jordan after it emerged from the desert wanderings.1 The location at the Jabbok cannot be coincidental; it suggests that the purpose of the assault upon Jacob is to frustrate his return to his homeland, to prevent him from crossing over into the future national territory of Israel.
\nThis raises the question of the identity of the antagonist. Who but Esau would have had such an obstructionist interest? But the wrestler is definitely not Esau himself. Hence, he must stand for Esau in some manner. He is, as it were, Esau\u2019s alter ego. The vocabulary employed in the narrative to identify the strange personage\u2014a \u201cman,\u201d \u201ca divine being\u201d (\u02beelohim)\u2014is that used elsewhere of angels.2 Indeed, the prophet Hosea explicitly describes him as such in Hosea 12:4. The most plausible solution, therefore, is to see in this mysterious being the celestial patron of Esau. This, indeed, is the interpretation given in a midrash.3 Throughout the ancient world, the idea was current that each city-state, each people, had its divine protector. In monotheistic Israel such a notion was intolerable. It therefore became transmuted into a belief in the existence of subordinate tutelary spirits who were part of the celestial host. This notion finds unambiguous expression in Daniel 10:13, 20, and 21, which speak of the celestial princes of Persia and Greece. But it is rooted in much earlier times. Psalm 82 is a classic example, and Isaiah 24:21 reflects the same picture. This idea is behind such passages as Deuteronomy 4:19 and 29:25, which state that God Himself allotted the nations their divinities. An interesting light on this belief is shed by the textual history of Deuteronomy 32:8, which reads as follows: \u201cWhen the Most High gave nations their homes \/ And set the divisions of man, \/ He fixed the boundaries of peoples \/ In relation to Israel\u2019s numbers.\u201d In the last phrase, the Greek version of the Jews of Alexandria has \u201cthe messengers (angeloi) of God\u201d presupposing a Hebrew reading benei \u02beel\/\u02beelohim instead of our received Hebrew text benei yisra\u02beel. Such a Hebrew text actually turned up in Cave 4 of Qumran.
\nIn summation, the mysterious creature who assails Jacob as he is about to cross the future border of Israel is none other than the celestial patron of Esau-Edom, who is the inveterate enemy of the people of Israel. The entire episode foreshadows the impending confrontation with Esau, whom Jacob can now meet with confidence. It is also emblematic of subsequent historic relationships between the peoples of Israel and Edom.
\nIt is this antagonism that makes the blessing, the change of name from Jacob to Israel, all the more meaningful. This act constitutes Esau\u2019s acquiescence in Jacob\u2019s right to the paternal blessings. It acknowledges the promised land to be Jacob\u2019s rightful heritage. It is entirely appropriate that the new name, that by which the future nation is to be known, should be bestowed at the frontier, just as the patriarch overcomes his opponent and can enter that land unhindered.
\nSeen in light of the above, the narrative of the assailant is an integral part of the Jacob-Esau encounter, not an intrusion.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 25*<\/p>\n
The Name \u201cIsrael\u201d 32:29<\/p>\n
The precise understanding of this name is impeded by many difficulties, not the least being that its grammatical structure has no exact analogue among biblical personal names.
\nThe explanation presupposed by the narrative requires a stem s-r-h. This must be taken seriously for the following reasons: the same stem is found in Hosea 12:4; it is also the base of Seraiah, another fairly frequent, if equally enigmatic, name (just as d-l-h is the stem of the analogous Delaiah); the element s-r-h is unlikely to be folk etymology, which invariably explains an obscure term by one in common use, not by one just as arcane\u2014and s-r-h is otherwise unknown.
\nThe meaning \u201cto strive\u201d for this stem is extracted from the context. However, in names formed by a verb combined with \u02beel, the divine element is usually the subject of the action, not its indirect object. Yisra\u02beel, therefore, should properly mean \u201cGod strives,\u201d not \u201cHe strives with God.\u201d
\nNone of the suggestions proposed to explain the verbal element has yielded satisfaction. Until more philological evidence is forthcoming, the true explanation escapes us. It is worth noting that in biblical times there already seem to have been traditions connecting the name yisra\u02beel with either sovereignty or rectitude. Hosea 12:5, in reference to our narrative, says of Jacob va-yasar, which can only derive from s-w-r, a by-form of s-r-r, \u201cto have dominion,\u201d as proven by Judges 9:22 and Hosea 8:4. This suggests that the prophet took the name to mean \u201cHe had dominion over a divine being.\u201d Further support for this interpretation is the word misrah in Isaiah 9:5, 6, which undoubtedly means \u201cauthority.\u201d Just as apt is the poetic use of yeshurun (Jeshurun) as a synonym for Israel in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:15, 26 and Isaiah 44:2. In this last passage it parallels \u201cJacob\u201d (cf. Isa. 40:4). Since the stem y-sh-r means \u201cto be upright, straight,\u201d it forms a perfect antonym of ya\u02bfakav, understood to be connected with \u201ccraftiness, deceit\u201d (Gen. 27:36; Jer. 9:3; Hos. 12:4). If yisra\u02beel is indeed associated with yeshurun, the change of name would express the transformation of character from deviousness to moral rectitude. According to this particular interpretation, found in the Yalkut Reubeni (Gen. 232.29) and in Ramban\u2019s commentary on Deuteronomy 2:10 and 7:12, the name would mean \u201cHe who is upright with God.\u201d
\nAnother explanation, frequent in the writings of Philo and also adduced by Seder Eliyahu Rabba (25[27], pp. 138\u2013139), regards yisra\u02beel as a contraction of ish-ra\u02beah-\u02beel, \u201cThe man who saw a divine being.\u201d This has doubtless been influenced by Genesis 32:31.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 26<\/p>\n
Shechem 34:1\u201331<\/p>\n
Biblical archaeologists now have identified Shechem with the mound known as Tell Bal\u00e2\u1e6da, situated about 1 mile (1.6 km.) east of modern Shechem (Nablus). It is flanked by Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal.1 Already settled in Neolithic times, Shechem is first mentioned in the Egyptian \u201cexecration texts\u201d of the nineteenth century B.C.E., a collection of clay tablets inscribed with the names of towns and their rulers hostile to Egyptian occupation of Canaan. From the same period comes a stela referring to an Asian campaign by King Sen-Usert III (c. 1880\u20131840 B.C.E.), which shows Shechem to have been a large and important city. The El-Amarna letters make clear that in the fourteenth century B.C.E. it was a major city-state, then under the rulership of a certain Lab\u02beayu. Other texts show that Western Semites were the main element in the population at this time.
\nShechem was destined to play a crucial role in the history of Israel. Abraham had made it his first stopping place when he arrived in the land from Haran. Here he received his first theophany and built an altar.2 Jacob had the same experience in Shechem and bought a plot of land there.3 He also buried there the idolatrous appurtenances found in his retinue.4 Joseph set out for this city when he searched for his brothers,5 and he was ultimately buried there.6 Joshua appointed it one of the \u201ccities of refuge\u201d7 and assembled all Israel there for a covenant-making ceremony.8 In the days of the judges, Abimelech tried to set up a monarchy in the city,9 and it became the first capital of the secessionist northern kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam.10
\nBecause of the special role that Shechem played in the history of Israel from earliest times, the narrative of Genesis 34 assumes great interest. It contains several unusual features that suggest traditions of great antiquity. First, there is the contrast that it offers to the generally idyllic biblical picture of peaceful relationships between the patriarchs and the local peoples. Then, too, Levi is here depicted as a secular warrior figure, in contradistinction to the later image of the tribe of Levi, which is dedicated to priestly and religious duties and plays no military role in the wars of conquest. The martial image of Simeon is not in accord with later developments. This tribe lost its independence early, was swallowed up by Judah, and became insignificant.11 It is ignored in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5). The alliance of Simeon and Levi is unparalleled. Strangely, Reuben and Judah, also full brothers to Dinah, are not mentioned by name as being concerned with vindicating their sister\u2019s honor.
\nThese unusual aspects of the narrative militate against a late fictional account. A late author would surely have drawn upon more conventional, familiar material in order to impart to the tale an air of authenticity. It is probable, therefore, that Genesis 34 records an incident that belongs to the prehistory of the Israelite tribes, the period prior to Joshua\u2019s wars of conquest. This is strengthened by the reference to Shechem as a \u201ccountry,\u201d a designation that makes sense only in terms of conditions prevailing in that era, as the Comment to 34:2 demonstrates. Similarly, the ruler\u2019s not being accorded the title \u201cking,\u201d usually given to the heads of the Canaanite city-states in the Torah and in Joshua-Judges, is another indication of authenticity. The Narrator was obviously familiar with a special political reality.
\nIt is to be noted that the narrative speaks only of the fortunes of a family, of individuals within it, not of tribes. But it is difficult to understand the terms of the agreement with the Hivites unless one is dealing with a much larger unit than Jacob and his sons. Given the ages of the latter, how meaningful is the pledge to give their daughters in marriage to the men of the city (vv. 9, 16, 21)? The possibility exists that the characters of the story are really personifications, corporate personalities, much as John Bull and Uncle Sam represent, respectively, the English and American peoples. The actual presence of this phenomenon in the Torah is abundantly illustrated by the Testament of Jacob in Genesis 49 in which the individual and the tribe imperceptibly merge. Seen in this light, Genesis 34 would be an account of an assault upon Shechem by Israelite tribes in a very early period. Such an interpretation is of special interest because, as a matter of fact, the history of that city in relation to Israel is shrouded in mystery.
\nThe Hebrew sources have preserved no traditions about the Israelite occupation of this city by force. The silence is wholly surprising in view of Shechem\u2019s strategic importance as the natural capital of the central hill country lying at the intersection of major arteries of communication. Its unusually large size and its historic role, as evidenced by Egyptian and El-Amarna texts, not to mention the fact that it was the first Canaanite city at which Abraham stopped over when he arrived in the country\u2014the site where he built his first altar, the place where he first received the divine promises of nationhood and territory\u2014make it inconceivable that a successful campaign against this city by Joshua would not have been recorded had it occurred. Confounding matters further is the absence of Shechem from the several notices about still unconquered Canaanite enclaves.12 As a matter of fact, archaeology does not support any devastation of Shechem in the Late Bronze period or early Iron Age, when so many Canaanite cities mentioned in Joshua show signs of violent destruction.
\nDespite all this, we find reports that Joshua built an altar and conducted a solemn national ceremony in the environs of Shechem and that he assembled all the tribes of Israel at that city for a rite of covenant renewal.13 In other words, Shechem is found to be in Israelite hands in Joshua\u2019s day, but how it came to be so is an enigma.
\nIt is not possible to claim that Genesis 34 represents the story of Shechem\u2019s capture, for the clan of Jacob fled the place immediately after the assault. Nor can it be argued that Joshua occupied and rebuilt a city that had all the while been in ruins. This is contradicted by both archaeological research and by our own story that says nothing about the devastation of Shechem itself. The only feasible solution is that Shechem was taken over gradually by peaceful infiltration. Indeed, the story of Judges 9 supports a theory of symbiotic relationship between the Canaanites and Israelites until the city was destroyed by Abimelech in the period of the judges. The archaeological remains testify to the violent destruction of Shechem during the second half of the twelfth century B.C.E. (cf. Judg. 9:45), after which it lay in ruins for about two hundred years.
\nIn sum, the narrative of Genesis 34 has preserved authentic historical traditions deriving from preconquest times. It therefore cannot be used to sustain a theory of the retrojection of later events back into the patriarchal period.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 27<\/p>\n
Ephrath, Rachel\u2019s Tomb, and Migdal-eder 35:16\u201322<\/p>\n
Leaving Bethel, Jacob journeys southward on the north-south longitudinal road that traverses the central hill country. Rachel\u2019s death and burial must have occurred not far from \u201cEphrath\u201d; otherwise its location would have been gauged in relation to a nearer locality. Where is Ephrath? At first glance, the answer is simple: It is identified with Bethlehem in verse 19, in 48:7, and in a host of other texts. Thus, in 1 Samuel 17:12, David is described as \u201cthe son of a certain Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah.\u201d In Ruth 1:2, the two sons of Elimelech, Naomi\u2019s husband, are similarly termed \u201cEphrathites of Bethlehem in Judah.\u201d Micah 5:1 addresses \u201cBethlehem of Ephrath,\u201d and in Ruth 4:11 Boaz receives the blessing: \u201cProsper in Ephrathah and perpetuate your name in Bethlehem.\u201d
\nBut there are difficulties. It is strange that Rachel would be buried in Judean territory, which is where Bethlehem lies, rather than within the Benjaminite or Josephite tribal boundaries. Also, there exists another tradition, in 1 Samuel 10:2, that places Rachel\u2019s tomb \u201cin the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah.\u201d This place is not otherwise known, but the text must refer to somewhere near or on the border, and it locates the tomb, more appropriately, within the territories of the Rachel tribes. Jeremiah 31:14(15) supports this location of the tomb: \u201cA cry is heard in Ramah\u2014Wailing, bitter weeping\u2014Rachel weeping for her children.\u201d
\nThe two traditions would seem to be mutually exclusive. Rabbinic literature made attempts to harmonize them by reinterpretation of the texts, such as in Tosefta Sotah 11:11 and Genesis Rabba 82:10. As far as Jeremiah 31:14 is concerned, it is not at all certain that Hebrew ramah is in fact the locality Ramah, that is, er-Ram, 5 miles (8 km.) north of Jerusalem. It may simply mean \u201con a height\u201d and was so understood by Targum Jonathan, R. Joseph Kara, and Radak\u2014not without good reason, for the place-name otherwise invariably appears with the definite article. But the explicit statement of 1 Samuel 10:2, cited above, cannot be convincingly argued away. It appears to testify to a different tradition from that of Genesis 35:19.
\nIt should be noted, however, that this latter text speaks primarily of Ephrath and only secondarily identifies it with Bethlehem. In Psalms 132:6, which is a poetic summary of the wanderings of the Ark as described in 1 Samuel 6\u20137, we learn that the Ark was at Ephrath. This cannot be Bethlehem; no such fact is otherwise recorded. The parallel clause mentions \u201cthe region of Jaar,\u201d which is certainly the Kiriath-jearim of 1 Samuel 7:1. In other words, there is a tradition that identifies Ephrath with Kiriath-jearim, which lay on the border between Judah and Benjamin, about 8 miles (13 km.) west of the Bethel-Hebron road, close to present-day Abu Ghosh (cf. Josh. 15:9\u201310; 18:14\u201315). Both Bethlehem and Kiriath-jearim are thus identified with Ephrath. Many of the passages cited show that Ephrath was originally an important clan that became dominant in both locales. This is explicitly stated in 1 Chronicles 2:50\u201351, where one descendant of Ephrath is designated \u201cthe father of Kiriath-jearim\u201d and another \u201cthe father of Bethlehem.\u201d
\nThe original tradition about Rachel\u2019s tomb located it in Ephrath, that is, within the area occupied by the clan of Ephrath. More precisely, according to 1 Samuel 10:2, it lay on the Benjaminite border. When Bethlehem came under Ephrathite hegemony it too came to be known as Ephrath, which is how the phrase \u201cnow Bethlehem\u201d came to be appended to the original Ephrath in Genesis 35:19.
\nThis conclusion receives support from Jacob\u2019s next station, Migdal-eder, to which he journeyed after burying Rachel. Had he placed the tomb near Bethlehem, he would have had to reverse his direction, for Micah 4:8 identifies the site with a section of Jerusalem. The same is found in Mishnah Shekalim 7:4. If, however, the tomb lies on the border of Benjamin, then such a turnabout becomes unnecessary.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 28<\/p>\n
The Edomite King List 36:31\u201339<\/p>\n
This list is not genealogical like the others, but it simply details eight kings who ruled in Edom prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.
\nThe register is characterized by a lack of uniformity and by an assortment of anomalies: The length of the monarch\u2019s reign is never given; in four cases the father\u2019s name is recorded, in four not; a place-name is attached to seven kings, but in three instances the formula is \u201cthe name of his city was X,\u201d and in four there is simply the particle \u201cfrom\u201d; no place-name is repeated; with two kings some additional information of a personal nature is brought; remarkably, no king is succeeded by his son, yet the invariable formula \u201cWhen X died, Y succeeded him as king\u201d suggests unbroken continuity.
\nThe royal record inserted here is unique in the Hebrew Bible. It is strongly reminiscent, however, of the several king lists that have come down to us from Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. It may well have been extracted by the Hebrew writer from original Edomite sources. The variations in formulas used, and the lack of uniformity in the type of detail cited, suggest that we have a compilation drawn from more than one Edomite source, not a single homogeneous tradition.
\nIn its present form, the list conveys the impression of a continuous succession of national kings, each reigning from a different center. The absence of dynastic kingship is paralleled in the election of Saul in Israel. Here, too, no provision was made for the passage of the crown from father to son. If, then, we are dealing with a list of consecutive monarchs, the period of time covered by the eight would be between 160 and 200 years, based on the average twenty-to twenty-five-year reigns of ancient Near Eastern kings.
\nThis conclusion raises serious problems. Since Saul ascended the throne about 1020 B.C.E., the Edomite monarchy could not have been founded before about 1200 B.C.E. Yet, according to Numbers 20:14 and Judges 11:17, Moses sends a communication to \u201cthe king of Edom,\u201d and the latest possible date for the Exodus is about 1250 B.C.E.! Of course, the eight kings could have exceeded the average in the lengths of their reigns, and this would take the establishment of the monarchy in Edom still further back in time. The indisputable fact is, however, that Egyptian texts from the thirteenth to the twelfth centuries B.C.E. depict the Edomites as Bedouin, and the region of Seir as the grazing ground of nomads. Thus, Ramses II (ca. 1290\u20131224) claims to have \u201claid waste the land of the Asiatic nomads and plundered Mount Seir.\u201d The report of an Egyptian frontier official from the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. refers to \u201cbedouin tribes of Edom\u201d passing into Egypt. Ramses II (1183\u20131152) boasts about having destroyed \u201cthe people of Seir among the bedouin tribes\u201d and claims to have \u201crazed their tents.\u201d There is not the slightest suggestion of a settled kingdom of Edom in this period. The same picture emerges from recent archaeological excavations in Transjordan. These provide no evidence for sedentary occupation in Edom between the thirteenth and the eleventh centuries B.C.E.
\nThe solution to the problem lies in a proper understanding of the title \u201cking\u201d used in our text. By no means need it imply a settled, unified, national monarchy. The phenomenon of petty tribal kings who held sway over grazing lands within a particular locality is well documented in the ancient world. The Assyrian King List opens with the names of \u201cseventeen kings living in tents.\u201d Royal archives from the city of Mari claim the defeat of \u201cseven kings, fathers of \u1e2aana,\u201d and, further, of \u201cthree Yaminite Kings,\u201d the names being those of seminomadic tribes. In Greece the three tribes that made up the Dorian group and the four Ionian tribes that constituted the Athenian group had tribal kings. The Bible itself testifies to this restricted, tribal use of \u201cking\u201d in that the same five personages who are designated \u201ckings of Midian\u201d in Numbers 31:8 are called chieftains (nesi\u02beim) in Joshua 13:21. It is no coincidence that in Genesis 25:4, Midian is made up of five tribes. Similarly, the king of the Amalekites referred to in 1 Samuel 15:8, 20, and 32 is nothing more than a tribal chief. Throughout its history, this wild people roamed the wastelands of the Negeb and Sinai regions and had no state of its own, only fortified encampments from which forays were made into the settled areas.
\nThus, there is nothing in our Edomite King List that requires the existence of a national, unified kingdom of Edom. The various individuals cited were simply localized tribal chieftains, as were also \u201cthe king of Edom\u201d with whom Moses dealt. This explains why each king is assigned a different territory and why there are no dynasties, just as there were none for the Israelite judges.
\nFinally, the possibility cannot be ruled out that our list, if it is a compilation made from originally distinct Edomite records, refers in reality to tribal kings, many of whom were contemporaneous with one another. The formula that presupposes succession may well be the work of the Hebrew writer, not a part of the Edomite document from which it was extracted. If this is the case, the need to suppose a history of two centuries for the Edomite monarchy is eliminated.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 29*<\/p>\n
Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s Wife 39:7\u201320<\/p>\n
The story of Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s wife echoes a well-known motif in world literature: the married woman who attempts to seduce a young, handsome man who nobly rejects her out of a sense of honor and duty. She then accuses him of having attempted to dishonor her. One is reminded of the Greek tales about Bellerophon and Anteia, Hippolytus and Phaedra, Prixus and his aunt, Peleus and Cretheis, and Tenes and Phylonome. Similar stories occur in the Arabian Nights and The Decameron.
\nOne version that is of special interest here is the Egyptian \u201cTale of Two Brothers,\u201d which is by far the oldest of all and which originated on the same soil that witnessed Joseph\u2019s trials. The earliest surviving manuscript is dated ca. 1225 B.C.E., but the story had a history long antedating this particular papyrus.
\nThe Egyptian tale tells of two brothers, Anubis and Bata, who lived together. Anubis was married, Bata was a bachelor. One day, when the former was not at home, his wife tried to seduce Bata, who virtuously rejected her advances. Knowing well her fate should her husband discover the truth, the guilty wife anticipated events by slandering Bata. The innocent brother was forced to flee from the murderous intentions of Anubis, who followed in vengeful pursuit. Bata finally succeeded in convincing his brother of his innocence. Anubis returned home, slew his wife, and threw her body into the river.
\nIt is certain that this particular story was not the direct source of the tale about Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s wife. However, as an Egyptian literary theme, it may well have influenced the artistic form in which the biblical story has been recorded. A contrasting analysis of the two stories will help clarify the distinctive nature of the biblical presentation and disclose the spirit that animated it.
\nThe \u201cTale of Two Brothers\u201d belongs to a genre of literature intended for entertainment. It is adorned with several mythological elements such as talking cows, the miraculous appearance of a river, the resurrection of the dead, and many others. A particularly repulsive item is the way Bata proves his innocence. He mutilates himself and casts his dismembered limb into the river, where it is swallowed by a fish.
\nAll these aspects of the Egyptian story find no echo in the biblical narrative about Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. It is not an independent tale but a single episode that has been integrated into a larger account. As such, it is recorded with a striking economy of detail and with a restraint that is austere. Potiphar is faceless, lacking in individuality. His wife is nameless. Scripture is silent about her fate, which is usually a prominent feature of the \u201cspurned wife\u201d motif. The focus of the biblical narrative is Joseph\u2019s reaction to her coaxing, an event that is a causal link in the chain of events leading to Joseph\u2019s subsequent rise to power, his reconciliation with his brothers, and their settlement in Egypt.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS 30<\/p>\n
The Genealogical Lists 46:8\u201327<\/p>\n
These lists pose numerous questions. Thus, four sons of Reuben are cited in verse 9, whereas in an incident that occurred about a year earlier only two were mentioned.1 This in itself is not an insuperable problem but it takes on greater significance when seen in light of other facts. Judah is credited with two grandsons in verse 12, a situation that has been shown to be quite impossible at this time (see Comment to 38:1). Even more serious a problem is that of the ten sons of Benjamin listed in verse 21. Such a state of affairs is wholly incompatible with the image of the youthful Benjamin as portrayed in the preceding chapters. The contradiction is even more serious if one remembers that in the parallel lists in Numbers 26 and 1 Chronicles 7\u20138, as well as in the Septuagint version of the present chapter, a few of the names recorded here as those of Benjamin\u2019s sons are presented as those of his grandsons. The conclusion would seem to be inescapable: the data of verses 9\u201325 must have originally constituted an independent genealogical register, and this latter has been incorporated as a whole into the present narrative. In such a general, comprehensive genealogy, Manasseh, Ephraim, and the ten sons (and grandsons?) of Benjamin would all have found their proper place.
\nThis theory about the origin of the lists likewise eliminates the problems presented by the summary and grand totals. Originally, the figure 70 was simply the sum of the individual figures: 33 + 16 + 14 + 7.2 Because 70 is a symbolic number in the Bible, it could also be used to express totality, irrespective of its originally literal application. Its retention when the register was incorporated into our narrative therefore posed no difficulty.
\nThe 33 male descendants of Leah comprise 6 sons, 25 grandsons, and 2 great-grandsons.3 As a list unrelated to the present narrative, it is perfectly natural that Er and Onan should be included for the sake of completeness, even though they died in Canaan before the descent to Egypt. There would also be no reason not to include Hezron and Hamul, Judah\u2019s grandsons, even though they were born in Egypt. Dinah would not have been reckoned within the total of 33 in accordance with the general tendency of biblical genealogies to omit the female side (see Comment to 46:17). The phrase found in verse 15\u2014\u201cin addition to Dinah his daughter \u2026 male and female\u201d\u2014would seem not to have belonged to the original, independent register, which concluded Leah\u2019s genealogy with the summation, kol nefesh sheloshim ve-shalosh (\u201c33 persons in all\u201d).4
\nThe secondary grand total of 66, given in verse 26, is dependent on the phrase \u201cwho came to Egypt.\u201d Er, Onan, Manasseh, and Ephraim are therefore deducted from the total. When the register of Jacob\u2019s descendants was incorporated in its entirety into the account of the migration to Egypt, it was equipped with the introductory and concluding statements of verses 8 and 26\u201327.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
EXCURSUSES EXCURSUS 1* The Cherubim 3:24 The function of these creatures, as stated in 3:24, is to secure the Garden of Eden from intrusion. \u201cThe fiery ever-turning sword\u201d is an additional and separate deterrent and not a weapon in the hands of the cherubim. The manner in which they are introduced into the narrative shows … <\/p>\n