Daily Life of the Patriarchs: The Way It Was [New ed.] 9783034318570, 9783035306750, 303431857X

Citation preview

Shaul Bar

Were the patriarchs real people? Or can we say that many details in the Book of Genesis are fictions that project later romantic ideals of life and faith? To answer these questions the author examines the patriarchs’ daily life, beliefs, and customs to provide provocative and useful insights into the life of the Patriarchs.

Daily Life of the

PATRIARCHS THE WAY

IT WAS

Shaul Bar

Shaul Bar is the Director of the Bornblum Judaic Studies Program at the University of Memphis. He received his PhD from the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures at New York University in 1987. He has taught classes in religion and the Hebrew Bible for more than twenty years, presented hundreds of lectures internationally, and published many articles on the Hebrew Bible. He is the author of A  Letter That Has Not Been Read (2001), I Deal Death and Give Life (2010), and God’s First King (2013).

Daily Life of the Patriarchs

While the literature of the ancient Near East portrays legendary heroes, this is not the case with the biblical narrative, which portrays the patriarchs and matriarchs as fallible human beings. Their story is a multigenerational one of family and the dynamics that exist within. Reading these stories is like hearing the echo of family feuds, which is what makes them timeless.

ISBN 978-3-0343-1857-0

www.peterlang.com

Peter Lang

Shaul Bar

Were the patriarchs real people? Or can we say that many details in the Book of Genesis are fictions that project later romantic ideals of life and faith? To answer these questions the author examines the patriarchs’ daily life, beliefs, and customs to provide provocative and useful insights into the life of the Patriarchs.

www.peterlang.com

Daily Life of the

PATRIARCHS THE WAY

IT WAS

Shaul Bar

Shaul Bar is the Director of the Bornblum Judaic Studies Program at the University of Memphis. He received his PhD from the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures at New York University in 1987. He has taught classes in religion and the Hebrew Bible for more than twenty years, presented hundreds of lectures internationally, and published many articles on the Hebrew Bible. He is the author of A  Letter That Has Not Been Read (2001), I Deal Death and Give Life (2010), and God’s First King (2013).

Daily Life of the Patriarchs

While the literature of the ancient Near East portrays legendary heroes, this is not the case with the biblical narrative, which portrays the patriarchs and matriarchs as fallible human beings. Their story is a multigenerational one of family and the dynamics that exist within. Reading these stories is like hearing the echo of family feuds, which is what makes them timeless.

Peter Lang

Daily Life of the Patriarchs

Daily Life of the Patriarchs the way it was

Shaul Bar

PETER LANG

Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National­ bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http:// dnb.d-nb.de. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Control Number: 2014954862

Cover image: Bosom of Abraham, from Hortus Deliciarum (c. 1180). Photo by Dnalor_01, released under the license CC-BY-SA 3.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons. ISBN 978-3-0343-1857-0 (print) isbn 978-3-0353-0675-0 (eBook) © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2015 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. Printed in Germany

Dedicated to the memory of my childhood friend Jacob Blum Whenever I speak about him My thoughts would dwell on him still. (Jer. 31:20)

Contents

Acknowledgments ix List of Abbreviations

xi

Introduction 1 Chapter 1

Migration 11 Chapter 2

Marriages 31 Chapter 3

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

51

Chapter 4

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

73

Chapter 5

Dreams 91 Chapter 6

The Three Patriarchs

109

Chapter 7

The Matriarchs

129

viii

Chapter 8

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

145

Chapter 9

Death 165 Conclusion 183 Bibliography 189 Index 199

Acknowledgments

To start with, I would like to thank my two readers who read an early draft of the manuscript and offered many perceptive comments and insight. Bob Turner, Circulation Librarian at the Harding School of Theology, who made many suggestions and offered his wisdom. Anna S. Chernak who read the manuscript and offered valuable advice and continuous encouragement. I am grateful as well to Shoshana Cenker who read the final draft of the manuscript and to Tiffany France who worked on the footnotes and bibliography. I want to express appreciation for the resources and to the staff of the Harding School of Theology in Memphis, where Librarian Don Meredith led me to the materials, Associate Librarian Sheila Owen helped me with research, and Evelyn Meredith supported my research with abundant cheer. Special thanks to Hebrew Union College Library in New York City, where Head Librarian Yoram Bitton provided me with all the necessary help, wisdom, as well as friendship, and Librarians Tina Weiss and Leonid Gontar helped with my research. Finally, a special thanks to Lucy Melville, Publishing Director at Peter Lang for her devotion and expertise in transforming my manuscript into this book. Shaul Bar Memphis, Tennessee Sept. 2014

Abbreviations

AB ABD AJSL ANET AnSt ASTI BA BAR BDB BethM BibOr BTB BZAW CAD CBQ COS DDD

Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1992). American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Prichard, James B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. Princeton, 1969). Anatolian Studies Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeologist Reader Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907). Beth Miqra Biblica et Orientalia Biblical Theology Bulletin Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die älttestamentliche Wissenschaft Gelb, Igance J., et al., eds, The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago, 1956–210 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Hallo, William W., ed., The Context of Scripture. 3 vols (Leiden, 1997). van der Toor, Karel, Bob Becking, and Peiter W. van der Horst, eds, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd rev. ed. Leiden, 1999).

xii Abbreviations

EMiqr ExpTim HTR HUCA ICC IDBSup ISBE JANESCU JBL JBQ JCS JDM JEA JETS JJS JNES JNSL JSOT JSOTSup JSS KTU

Encyclopedia-Miqrait – Encyclopedia Biblica, 9 vols. Jerusalem, 1950–1988 Expository Times Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Buttrick, George A., et al., eds, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville, 1976. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI, 1979–1988). Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Cuneiform Studies Judaism Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, eds, Die keilalphabetischen Text aus Ugarit. AOAT 24, Neukirchen Vluyn, 1976.

Abbreviations

PRU RA RHR Tarbiz TDOT VT VTSup WBC WVDOG ZAW

xiii

Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue de l’histoire des religions Tarbiz Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren, eds, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI, 1976Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction

The patriarchal stories in Genesis do not describe typical historical events. There is no description of the nations or wars between them. There are no traces of major national events. It is a story of families and their struggles. Genesis portrays the epic story of a family wandering from one place to another, giving birth to children, enduring conf lict within the family, celebrating life, and mourning death. The main interest of the stories is the fate of the heroes. Comparison with other stories and literature from the ancient Near East shows the unique quality of the stories of the patriarchs. In the ancient Near East literature, we find royal inscriptions of myths about the gods and imaginative, purely fictional stories about legendary heroes. Not so with the Hebrew patriarchs. There is no attempt to idealize them. They are described with all their faults and weaknesses, with stories portraying simple people who are living their daily life. However, there is a power that oversees the events. The interaction and exchange between human players and the divine powers makes Genesis a majestic drama. The question of the composition of the patriarchal stories and their historical value captured the attention of Biblical scholars for centuries. Some authorities do not accept the Biblical accounts of the Jewish patriarchs as authentic, treating those accounts as myths or literary epics. Other authors identify historical facts that were expanded with later additions and revisions. In his Prolegomena to the History of Israel, published in 1878, Julius Wellhausen wrote: “Here [in Genesis] no historical knowledge about the patriarchs, but only of the time when the stories about them arose in the Israelite people; this later age is here and consciously projected in its inner and its outward features, into hoar antiquity, and is ref lected there like glorified mirage.”1 1 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), 318–319.

2 Introduction

Believing that writing was unknown in Syria and Palestine in the second millennium, Wellhausen concluded that an accurate description of the patriarchal period would not be possible. But 10 years after the publication of Wellhausen’s work, the Amarna letters were discovered in Egypt dating to the fourteenth century B. C. E. This proved the existence of writing in the second millennium Syria and Palestine. Although this discovery invalidated Wellhausen’s conclusion, Wellhausen did not modify his claims about the absence of literacy. Following Wellhausen’s lead, Gunkel saw the stories about the patriarchs as sagas or legends. He recognized that sagas could contain historical data, but given the inclusion of imaginative elements, he noted that there would be no way to distinguish between reliable history and fiction. According to his view, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not individual humans but personified tribes.2 The names were simply retrojections of the first millennium tribal names. Once again, archeological discoveries suggest otherwise. The name Jacob was found in an eighteenth-century B. C. E. site at Chagar Bazar in Iraq and in a fifteenth-century B. C. E. list from Egypt compiled by King Thutmosis III. The name Ishmael was found in eighteenth-century text from Mari in Syria, the name Israel was found in thirteenth-century B. C. E. documents from Ugarit and Syria. Newly excavated materials provided ample evidence that the patriarchal stories are indeed historical. In Israel, for example, archeologist Yigael Yadin linked the archeological data of the second millennium with the Torah’s traditions. In the United States, W. F. Albright and N. Glueck took a similar path by correlating the Genesis narrative with this mass of archeological and inscriptional evidence. Albright pointed to the archives of Mari and Nuzi, which set the patriarchs in the first half of the second millennium B. C. E.3 In his evaluation of the book of Genesis Albright said: As a whole the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details and the sketches of personality which

2 H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (Chicago: Open Court Pub, 1907), 1ff. 3 W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1957), 236ff.

Introduction

3

make the patriarchs come alive with a vividness unknown to a single extra biblical character in the whole vast literature of the Ancient Near East.4

This was followed by G. E. Wright and J. Bright. Wright said: “We shall probably never be able to prove that Abraham really existed, that he did this or that, said thus and so, but we can prove is that his life and times, as ref lected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period.”5 A similar view was expressed by Bright’s History of Israel: “One is forced to the conclusion that the patriarchal narratives authentically ref lect social customs at home in the second millennium rather those of later Israel.”6 Furthermore, he added: “We can assert with full confidence that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were actual historical individuals.”7 The hot debate took another turn in the mid-1970s when T. L. Thompson’s Historicity of the Patriarchal Narrative and J. van Seters’ Abraham in History and Tradition rejected the archeological findings and concluded that the historical setting of the patriarchs fit the first millennium. Thompson suggested that the birth of Abraham was “best explained within the Maccabean or post-Maccabean theological framework.”8 This, however, has to be rejected since the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Book of Genesis, which was already developed and established. J. Van Seters dates the stories to the late exilic period. According to Van Seters, the stories in Genesis possess no reliable information of pre-Israelite times, but only to the time of their composition, which is obviously late.9 He mentions, for example, that the patriarchs living in tents are more fitting to the first millennium than the second. However, examination of Egyptian, Sumerian, For Albright statement see: Louis Finkelstein, ed., The Jews, Their History, Culture and Religion (New York: Harper, 1960), 6. 5 G. E. Wright, Biblical Archeology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 40. 6 J. Bright, History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 79. 7 Ibid, 91. 8 T. L. Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narrative (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 15. 9 J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975), 12–122. 4

4 Introduction

and Ugaritic sources shows that people lived in tents in the early second millennium. As a matter of fact, tents are found in all periods, so it is unwise to date the patriarchal area based on tents. Similarly, his argument about the mention of the camels being anachronistic has been refuted with contrary evidence. These scholars failed to deal with all the evidence and did not review the patriarchal data against all periods. They neglected details from the third millennium and some evidence from the early second millennium, stressing the first millennium data instead. As noted by scholars, there are some types of customs that appeared in all periods, making them impractical for dating.10 Today, the leading scholars of the minimalist camp include Thompson, P. R. Davies, and N. P. Lemche. According to them, there were no “biblical Israelites.” In Lemche’s opinion: The simple fact that the ancient Near Eastern sources from the 3rd and 2nd millennia B. C. do not contain a single direct reference to any of the features mentioned in the Old Testament narrative. There is not a single reference to Abraham the Patriarch, or to Joseph and his brothers in Egypt, or to Moses and the Exodus, or to the conquest of Canaan.11

Moreover, according to Lemche: “Modern scholars invented ancient Israel, not because they wanted to invent something new but simply because of a rather naïve reading of scripture.”12 Sperling also shares the view that the patriarchs were unhistorical: The most productive method of interpreting the Torah is to regard it as historical and political allegory, by comparing the Torah with other parts of the Bible and by enlisting the data provided by archeological sources, written and unwritten, I argue that the stories about the wholly fictitious characters Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Aaron, and Moses allude to characters like Saul, David and Jeroboam, who are more firmly anchored in history.13

10 K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in its World (Westmont, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1977), 58. 11 Niels Peter Lemche, “Israel, History of (Premonarchic Period)”, ABD 3:534. 12 Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelite in History and Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 165. 13 S. David Sperling, The Original Torah (New York: New York University, 1998), 28.

Introduction

5

Defense of the archeological findings has been offered by many scholars. A review of archeological and sociological evidence was presented in a collection of essays edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (1983).14 The study defends the historicity of the patriarchs and their early setting of the stories in the second millennium. According to Millard, Abraham lived at the beginning of the second millennium: That Abraham was a real person is … important for all who take the biblical teaching about faith seriously … Without Abraham, a major block in foundation of both Christianity and Judaism is lost; a fictional Abraham might incorporate and illustrate communal beliefs, but could supply no rational evidence. Inasmuch as the Bible claims uniqueness, and absolute of divine revelation, the Abraham narratives deserve a positive, respectful approach.15

Similarly, Kitchen concludes the patriarchal stories are historically reliable and have “roots in the early second millennium B. C.”16 In his latest book, On Reliability of the Old Testament, he argues that patriarchal accounts describe a period that balances well with the cultures and customs of Syro-Palestine of the early second millennium.17 My goal in this book is to rediscover the patriarchs. In other words, I will portray their daily life. In order to achieve this goal I will use the synchronic method, analyzing the texts in the Book of Genesis as they stand and comparing them to the other Biblical texts. This, in turn, will point to the differences between the stories in the patriarchal period to the later stories in the Biblical narrative. I will show that the Book of Genesis has its own characteristics and features, which are not found in later books. The Genesis narrative is not a retrojection of later periods, but it is a blend of reliable memories of people, conditions, and events of the history of

A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman, eds, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983). 15 Alan R. Millard, “Abraham”, ABD 1, 40. 16 K. A. Kitchen, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BAR 21 (1995), 48–57, 88, 90–92, 94–95. 17 K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 313–372. 14

6 Introduction

Israel before Moses. To bolster my study, ancient texts that have survived, such as clay tablets from Mesopotamia and papyri from Egypt, will be examined. Using these texts along with archeological evidence will help us to reconstruct the lives of people in the patriarchal era. Additionally, in order to have a better understanding into the characters and the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs, material found in the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Jewish medieval commentators will be used. The Talmud contains a vast amount of aggadot – stories. The Midrash includes anthologies and compilations of homilies including Biblical exegesis and public sermons. The various sects and currents in Judaism left their mark on it, and almost everything that Jews thought during a period of more than a thousand years can be found there. Though the interpretative methods of the medieval commentators vary, we still find that they compromise between the literal and the Midrashic interpretation of the Biblical text. In addition, they pursue philological-contextual interpretation with a view to reason and science. The first chapter examines the origins of Abraham and the reason for his election by God. Abraham and his family migrated from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran, and from there to the Land of Canaan. What do we know about these places and what was the rationale for their migration? The Bible does not reveal anything about Abraham’s travels from Haran to Canaan or the route he took. Hence, we will try to trace the route he took. In Genesis, Abraham is called Hebrew. Extra-Biblical sources mention a group of people who are called Ḫabiru. Scholars tried to connect the Ḫabiru to the Hebrews and to the Canaan migration. Is there any basis for equating the Hebrews and the Ḫabiru? The Biblical narrative portrays the patriarchal era as a period of wandering. Was there any particular region for their wandering and places of habitation? Furthermore, did the patriarchs have any relationship with the local population? Specifically, did they intermarry with them? On the eve of their entrance to the Land of Canaan the Israelites were instructed to destroy the seven nations of Canaan. The subject of marriage is the focus of Chapter 2. According to the Mosaic Law, the Israelites were prohibited from intermarrying with the local population. So, whom did the Israelites marry? Did the Israelites practice endogamy, marriage within the family or exogamy, marriage outside of

Introduction

7

the family? The practice of bridal price is already mentioned in Genesis. What stands behind it and how was it carried? The purpose of marriage was procreation rather than companionship. Therefore, not surprisingly, the patriarchs were polygamists. The patriarchs also had maid servants, such as Hagar, Zilpah, and Bilhah. What was their function in the family? To die without an heir meant death not only to the person himself, but for his future offspring as well. The answer to this predicament was the levirate marriage that is mentioned in Genesis. We will see if the levirate marriage is different from the later levirate law, which is stipulated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Finally, I will examine some of the typical focal points of the wedding ceremony. The laws were given to the Israelites only after the Exodus from Egypt on Mt. Sinai. Since there was no law or moral commandments, the question arises as to what governed the religious practices and conduct of the patriarchs. Jews and Christians believe that Abraham was the first monotheist; what kind of religion did Abraham and the patriarchs practice? In order to answer this, several customs and practices of the patriarchs will be examined such as building altars, making sacrifices, setting up pillars, praying, swearing, circumcising, and planting sacred trees. Chapter 4 will continue the question of monotheism from Chapter 3. Examination of the book of Genesis reveals that the patriarchs did not worship Yahweh exclusively; they also worshipped El. The deity El enjoyed respect and popularity among the Canaanites. The Book of Genesis mentions that the patriarchs worshiped El Elyon, El Olam, El Roi, El-elohei Israel, El Bethel, and El Shaddai. The patriarchs also worshipped “the god of Abraham,” “the Fear of Isaac,” and “Mighty One of Jacob.” Another phrase that is restricted to the patriarchal stories is “the God of my/your/ his Father,” and with the names Abraham or Isaac or both. The patriarchs also knew of Yahweh and Elohim. Thus, were the patriarchs true monotheists? In order to answer this question, this chapter will take up the question of the different names of God and the form of God’s appearance. I will also examine the role of the angels in the Book of Genesis. There are some texts in which the distinction between God and the angles is not clear. What was the difference between God and the angels, and what kinds of functions did they fulfill?

8 Introduction

In Chapter 5, I will cover the subject of dreams. Examination of the Hebrew Bible reveals that most dreams are found in Genesis. Communication by dreams is one of the main characteristics of the Book of Genesis. In Genesis, God appeared to the patriarchs as well as to the gentiles to deliver his message. In the ancient world, people saw dreams as channels of communication between human beings and divine forces. In sleep, they believed messages that dealt with the future were delivered. I will examine the different forms of dreams that appear in the Book of Genesis and the messages that they contained. While Joseph is called the “dreamer of dreams,” it is Jacob who had three dreams, while Abraham received a vision and Isaac saw God twice (Gen. 26:2; 24). In addition to the patriarchs, God appeared also to non-Hebrews such as Abimelech and Laban. A technique employed by the Biblical narrator to describe his heroes is to compare and contrast them. Using this technique, the narrator points to the virtues and weaknesses of his hero. Characteristics can be revealed through their actions, lack of actions, appearances, gestures, and comments. In the narrative, characters are revealed both by statements made by them or by other characters, in addition to descriptions given by the third-person narrator.18 Our task in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 is to analyze the characters of the patriarchs and the matriarchs. I will point to their strengths, weaknesses, struggles, fears, loves, indiscretions, and cheatings. On the other hand, I will point to their virtues such as righteousness, compassion, love, and justice. Chapter 8 will examine the domestic activities of the patriarchs. The patriarchs lived in tents. The tent is the essence of nomadic life. What kind of functions did the tent have in ancient times besides sleeping quarters? Which type of animals did they use for transportation – camels or donkeys? What kind of food did the Israelites eat? At first, when God created Adam and Eve, he told them: “every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all earth, and every tree with seed in its fruits” (Gen. 1:29). The dress and ornamentation of the patriarchs will be examined. By the time of the 18 R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 116–117.

Introduction

9

patriarchs, dress already provided important social and cultural information about the status and group identity. So what kind of clothes did the patriarchs wear? Did they use different clothes for different occasions? From what kind of material were their clothes made? What kind of shoes or head coverings did they use? Death, the last station of human life, is the content of this book’s last chapter. The Bible employs the phrase to “lie down with one’s father” (Gen. 47:30) as an idiom for death. So, does this allude to the belief that humans are reunited with their ancestors? More so, patriarchs and the matriarchs were buried in the cave of Machpelah, which has the implication that they were reunited after death. In the account of Sarah’s death and burial, Abraham came to mourn and weep her. Are there any additional mourning practices in Genesis? The standard mourning period in contemporary times is seven days. Was it different in the patriarchal period? It was believed that human beings descend to Sheol when they died. In the Hebrew Bible, the concept of heaven and hell did not exist. When Jacob receives the bitter news about his son, he expresses a desire to go down to Sheol (Gen. 37:35). So what was the Bible’s view on Sheol and who descended there? Providing food to the dead or honoring them with a meal was a common practice in the ancient world. People believed that the dead could inf luence the world of the living; they could help the living if the latter attended to their needs, or harm them if they neglected them. Accordingly, do we have any clues to the cult of the dead in the Book of Genesis? We trust that this study will provide a provocative and useful insight into the life of the patriarchs.

Chapter 1

Migration

In 1678 the French Catholic priest Richard Simeon wrote Critical History of the Old Testament. In his book, he explained that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch simply because there are so many historical details that Moses could not have known. A more traditional view was taken by Jean Astruc (1684–1766) who pointed to various sources in Genesis, one of which called the deity Elohim and the other Yahweh. Although he believed that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, Astruc nevertheless argued that Moses had two sources that were combined into the final work. This methodological breakthrough refocused the conversation regarding the composition of the Hebrew Bible. Ultimately it found expression in Julius Wellhausen’s (1844–1918) theory, which came to be known as “Documentary Hypothesis.” In his book, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, he claims that many details in the Book of Genesis are fictions – in a sense that they project later romantic ideals of life and faith upon an earlier history. The Biblical narrative is not an objective account of what happened, it is later writings that ref lects the views of their authors. So who were the patriarchs? This book and the current chapter examine the Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 12–37). These chapters describe the life of the patriarchs and matriarchs who appear as fallible human beings. We will see if these stories represent an earlier period and contain a kernel of historicity. This inquiry will first consider the patriarch Abraham and why God choose him. Abraham and his family migrated from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran, and from there to the Land of Canaan. What do we know about these places and what was the rationale for their migration? Additionally, we will trace the route of their migration. The patriarchs are not mentioned in any of the extra-Biblical documents of the second millennium B. C. E. Therefore, can we date the patriarchal period based on the Bible itself ? In Genesis, Abraham is referred to as a Hebrew and later

12

Chapter 1

in the Joseph cycle, Joseph and his brother are also called Hebrews. Is there any connection between the term Ḫabiru and the term Hebrew? Finally, we will look into the habitation locale of the patriarchs and examine what kind of relationship they maintained with the local population.

The First Monotheist Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, started his spiritual journey in Haran where he received this divine command: The Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, And I will bless you; I will make your name great, And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you And curse him that curses you; And all the families of the earth Shall bless themselves by you. (Gen. 12:1–3)

Ten generations passed from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Abraham when Abraham heard the divine voice. Abraham was 75 years old when God told him to leave Haran and go to Canaan. We are not told why God elected Abraham. This is quite puzzling since Abraham later will receive the promise of the land and the promise of many descendants. What made Abraham worthy of God’s promises and blessings? Conversely, when God chose Noah, it says that Noah was a righteous man: “But Noah found favor with the Lord … Noah was a righteous man” (Gen. 6:8–9). Later, when Moses was chosen to lead his people out of Egypt, no explanation was given for why, of all the people, he was elected. However, the previous chapter details Moses’ righteous deeds when he protected the weak and stood up against evil. Not so with Abraham, as his first 75 years are not recorded. Nevertheless, a hint can be found in the Book of Joshua, which provides an explanation: Then Joshua said to all the people, “Thus said the LORD, the God of Israel: In olden times, your forefathers Terah, father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor – lived

Migration

13

beyond the Euphrates, and worshiped other gods. But I took your father Abraham from beyond the Euphrates, and led him through the whole land of Canaan, and multiplied his offspring. I gave him Isaac” ( Josh. 24:2–3).

Terah and Nahor were idol worshippers, but Abraham was not. At one point, he stopped worshipping idols and started believing in one God. For this reason and only for this reason, God singled him out and bestowed upon him the blessings of many offspring and nationhood. The conviction that Abraham was a monotheist and his forefathers were idol worshippers led to the creation of many legends and interpretations. In the second temple period (200 B. C. E. to 200 C. E.), many traditions were created in order to fill the “gap” as to the origins of Abraham and his beliefs. One of those traditions tells the following: Abraham’s father, Terah was an idol-manufacturer. Once he had to travel, so he left Abraham to manage the shop. People would come in and ask to buy idols. Abraham would say, “How old are you?” The person would say, “Fifty” or “Sixty.” Abraham would say, “Isn’t it pathetic that a man of sixty wants to bow down to a one-day-old idol?” The man would feel ashamed and leave. One time a woman came with a basket of bread. She said to Abraham, “Take this and offer it to the gods.” Abraham got up, took a hammer in his hand, broke all the idols to pieces, and then put the hammer in the hand of the biggest idol among them. When his father came back and saw the broken idols, he was appalled. “Who did this?” he cried. “How can I hide anything from you?” replied Abraham calmly. “A woman came with a basket of bread and told me to offer it to them. I brought it in front of them, and each one said, ‘I’m going to eat first.’ Then the biggest one got up, took the hammer and broke all the others to pieces.” “What are you trying to pull on me?” asked Terah, “Do they have minds?” Said Abraham: “Listen to what your own mouth is saying. They have no power at all! Why worship idols?” (Genesis Rabbah, 38:13).

The Midrash portrays Abraham as the person who discovered monotheism. Abraham realized the futility of worshiping idols that are manufactured by human hands. Abraham believed in one God and rejected the worship of the sun, moon, and stars prevalent in polytheistic religious traditions. This idea is also mentioned in the second century B. C. E. in the Book of Jubilees (12:17–18). The tradition that Abraham’s forefathers were idol worshippers is also evident from their place of habitation. The original homeland, Ur of the

14

Chapter 1

Chaldeans, and Haran were known centers of moon worship. This is probably one of the reasons that the family migrated from Ur to Haran. The city was also part of the international caravan trade. The names of Abraham’s family members points to moon worshipping. The name Sarah is based on the Akkadian sharratu, the female consort of the moon god Sin, the main god of Ur. Nahor’s wife, Milcah’s name, stems from the Akkadian malkatu, which is the title of the goddess Ishtar, who was known as “Queen of Heaven,” daughter of the moon god Sin. Another member of Abraham’s family Laban, Jacob’s uncle, is named from the feminine form of the Hebrew word which means moon. In addition, Abraham’s father’s name, Terah, could be connected to Yerah, also meaning moon.1 We are not told why the family migrated from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran. The city of Ur was an important city and a center of commerce with the countries of the Persian Gulf and the Indus valley. The city is identified with el-Maqayyar in southern Iraq. The epithet Chaldeans is anachronistic since the Chaldeans did not arrive in Babylon until about 1000 B. C. E. By 1960 B. C. E. this city was destroyed. This was a result of the Elamite invasion in addition to the Amorites incursion. A strong Elamite dynasty arose about 2000 B. C. E. that conquered several cities in Babylon, among them, the city of Ur. A poem that laments the destruction of Ur was found on tablets from the Early Post Sumerian period. This is the period between the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the beginning of Kassite rule in Babylonia: “Ur – its weak and (its) strong perished through hunger; Mothers and fathers who did not leave their houses, were covered by fire. The young lying on their mother’s laps, like fish carried off by the waters.”2 Abraham’s family probably migrated from Ur earlier (see below). The period before the destruction of the city is characterized as chaotic and in economic decline as a result of incursions from the eastern nomadic tribes. Therefore, it is possible this tumultuous time led Abraham’s family

1 2

M. Dijkstra, “Abraham”, DDD, 3–5. “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur”, trans. S. N. Kramer, ANET, 459, lines 228–229.

Migration

15

to migrate to Haran.3 The city of Haran was known for its international donkey caravan trade, and in addition, the city of Haran like the city of Ur, was a center for the moon-god cult. So it is possible that economic and religious factors were behind Abraham’s family’s migration.

Dating the Period of the Patriarchs The Biblical Evidence The patriarchs are not mentioned in any of the extra-Biblical documents of the second millennium B. C. E. Thus, dating the patriarchal period is not easy. Typically, scholars examine the archeological findings, onomastics, and social legal custom of the ancient Near East and compare it to the Hebrew Bible. In other words, they try to fit this information into the Biblical data available and from there set the time period of the patriarchs.4 Examination of the Hebrew Bible shows that there are some chronological indications in the Bible itself. According to 1 Kings 1:4, Solomon began the construction of his temple in the fourth year of his reign, about 967 B. C. E., 480 years after the exodus from Egypt. Exodus 12:40 indicates the Israelites stayed in Egypt for 430 years, which means that Jacob and his sons descended to Egypt in 1877 B. C. E. The total sum of the years that the patriarchs lived in Canaan is 215 years. Therefore, Abraham migrated from Haran to Canaan in 2092 B. C. E. There are some difficulties with this analysis for dating the patriarchal narrative, such as the extraordinary long life spans assigned to the patriarchs. Each of the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exceeded 100 years. Moses and Aaron were said to be fourth generation descendants

3 4

S. Yeivin, “Ur”, EMiqr, 1:175. For extensive study to date the patriarchal era see: Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, trans. David Smith (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 257–266.

16

Chapter 1

of Jacob’s son Levi (1 Chron. 5:27–29). The period the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt was 430 years. This is too long for three generations from Levi to Moses and Aaron. In other words, this means it is 143 years per generation. Moreover, Joshua, who was the contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was a 12th generation descendent of Levi’s brother Joseph (1 Chron. 7:20–27). If indeed this is the case, then 11 generations from Joseph to Joshua would average 39 years each. This ambiguity within the text has led scholars to look outside of the Bible for help in dating the events. Any survey of extra-Biblical materials of the period must go through a Mari evaluation. The Mari Evidence Twenty thousand cuneiform texts were found at Mari, most of which are written in Akkadian and include many west-Semitic features. These texts date to the Old Babylonian Period and cast a new light on the entire ancient Near East at the beginning of the second millennium. They contain a wealth of information on geography, history, and religion. Most of the population at Mari was Amorite. The texts are written in a Semitic dialect, which is identical to that spoken by the patriarchs. The Hebrew patriarchs probably spoke this language – indeed their names include Amorites forms. It was noted that the names Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ishmael begin with an i/y prefix, which is called an “Amorite imperfective” name. The names with an i/y prefix found in the Mari archives are dated to the early second millennium. Even names such as Serug (Abraham’s great-grandfather) and Nahor (Abraham’s brother), which are mentioned in the Book of Genesis, appear at the end of the third and beginning of the second millennium B. C. E. in lower Mesopotamia and later in upper Mesopotamia.5 It was pointed out that Amorite imperfective names were used in much later periods, such as the late Bronze era, and related names were found in Elephantine (fifth century B. C. E.) and Palmyrene (first century 5

De Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 191.

Migration

17

B. C. E. through third C. E.) Aramaic.6 However, as Kenneth Kitchen has noted, the i/y names were already known in the third millennium at Ebla.7 More importantly, their usage diminished. Thus he concludes: “This type of name, that of all the patriarchs except Abraham, does belong mainly to the Patriarchal Age … the early second millennium B. C. E. or Middle Bronze Age.”8 The fact that the patriarchs shared the same name and lived in the same area that was unique to that time adds more validity to the stories in Genesis. If the stories were invented at a later time, such as the Babylonian Exile, this usage of name would be unlikely since they had little or no usage in that era. Various dates have been suggested for the Patriarchal Age. One extreme proposal dates it to the Late Bronze age (fourteenth century B. C. E.). This should be dismissed because it allows little time between the migration of Jacob and his sons to Egypt and the Exodus. The other extreme suggestion puts the patriarchal age at the Early Bronze Age (2300 B. C. E.). This proposal depends on linking the destruction of the towns near Bab edh-ra with that of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is described in Genesis 19. However, most modern scholars date the patriarchal narrative to the Middle Bronze Age I (2200–2000 B. C. E.) or Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1700 B. C. E.). During the Middle Bronze Age I, most of the cities had been abandoned, whereas the cities in the Negeb were sparsely populated. This fits the description of Abraham and Isaac who traveled to the southern part of the country to places including Beer Sheba and Hebron. J. Bright suggests that the date of the patriarchs is most suitably situated in the Middle Bronze Age II between the twentieth and seventeenth centuries B. C. E. A similar path is taken by K. A. Kitchen who, after considering all the facts, suggests the period between the twentieth and eighteenth centuries B. C. E. Against equating the patriarchal age with the Middle Bronze Age I, Dever and Clark point out that there were no signs 6 7 8

P. Kyle McCarter, “The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, in Hershel Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel (Washington, DC: Biblical Archeological Society, 1988), 12. Kenneth Kitchen, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BAR 21/2 (1995), 90. Ibid, 92.

18

Chapter 1

of settlement in the major cities visited by the patriarchs such as Dothan, Shechem, Beth El, Hebron, and Beer Sheba. On the other hand, many sites were built in the Middle Bronze Age II, thus the description of their wandering makes sense.9 Bimson has suggested that it is not necessary to choose between the Middle Bronze Age 1 and Middle Bronze Age II periods simply due to the fact that the patriarchal period lasted more than a century. Therefore, the stories about Abraham and Isaac could fit in the Middle Bronze Age I and the Jacob stories in the Middle Bronze Age II.10

From Ur to Canaan At first, the journey of Abraham’s family to Canaan was connected by scholars to the migration of the Amorites. It was believed that during the migration of different groups toward the west, Abraham’s family was among these groups. Recently, however studies showed that the so called Amorite migration is erroneous.11 Archeological findings disproved the notion of a major migration taking place. This still cannot negate the possibility that one family indeed migrated west. The Bible insists that the Israelites were not Canaanites and that they came from a foreign land. Terah, Abrahams father, Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather, and Serug, Abraham’s greatgrandfather are the people and the names of places found near Haran. The name Terah is mentioned in Assyrian sources, which refers to a place called Til (ša) Turaḫi situated on the Balikh River close to Haran and Nahor. 9 10 11

W. G. Dever, and W. M. Clark, “The Patriarchal Traditions”, in J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, eds, Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), 99–101. J. J. Bimson, “Archeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs”, in A. R. Miller and D. J. Wiseman, eds, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 53–89. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press, 2001), 35.

Migration

19

The name Nahor appears in cuneiform as a personal name Naḫarum and as a city Naḫur. Serug is the famous city of Sarugi, which is situated north of Haran on the Balikh Valley. All this suggests that the names were eponymous ancestors of towns on the Balikh River, near Haran. The link between the patriarchs and Abraham’s birth place continued well after his migration to Canaan (Gen. 24:4, 10; 29:4). As mentioned above, the Bible insists that the Israelites were not of Canaanite origin and came from a foreign land. The Israelite nation was formed not on its land but as a result of wandering from one country to another. The Israelites’ forefathers were wandering between the great civilization of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Israel was created from mixing with Aramean’s, Canaanites, and Egyptians. In spite of their wandering, the Israelites did not see themselves as lesser people that came from uncultured places. The Israelite culture was not a product of primitive nomadic people, but it was created in the cosmopolitan city of Ur and later the great civilization of Egypt. According to the Biblical narrative, Abraham’s father Terah took the family from Ur to Haran on his way to Canaan. For this journey, he took Abraham, Lot, and Sari, which are the main characters in the subsequent stories. Nahor and his wife are not mentioned. This is probably because they have a small part in the narrative. It appears that Nahor and Milcah moved to northern Mesopotamia (22:20–24; 24:10). Indeed, that place is called the city of Nahor (24:10). The city of Harran is situated 550 miles northwest of Ur on the left bank of the Balikh River. The name Harran means “route, journey, and caravan.” The name probably is derived from the city’s location as an important station on the main international trade routes from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean Sea. The city is mentioned in the Mari text as the center of Amorite activity. The name is also found in the Cappadocian tablets of the eighteenth century B. C. E. as well as the early Babylonian itineraries. Abraham received the divine call at Haran, but according to Genesis 15:7, God brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Evidently, according to the Biblical narrative, the migration from Ur was part of the divine plan, and Abraham’s family made the detour to Haran and here, for unknown reasons, the journey came to a halt.

20

Chapter 1

At this stage, the Bible tells us that Terah died in Haran. This is peculiar because Terah lived in Haran for another 60 years after Abraham’s migration to Canaan (Gen. 11:32; cf. 11:26). It is strange that at this early stage the Bible recorded his death. This implies he had no role after the family reaches Haran. Alternatively, the Bible mentioned it here, in accordance to its practice, to complete everything it had to say about Terah, and then moved onto Abraham without the need to return to explain what happened to his father. The Bible tells us nothing about Abraham travelling from Haran to Canaan and the route that he took. The story is very laconic unless something important is happening during the journey. However, we can still make some assumptions about Abraham’s travels. Abraham probably left Haran for Aleppo in the spring, which was part of a caravan route. An Arab legend tells that Abraham passed through the city where he found its residents ill and underfed. He milked his white cow and gave its milk to the poor who, as a result, became healthy. Thus, the name of the city is Halab Shahba, which means “to milk the white cow.” From Aleppo Abraham went to Qatna. The first archeological finds at Qatna date to the mid to late third millennium B. C. E., but still this early period is not well represented. In the second millennium B. C. E., trade routes developed connecting Mesopotamia with Cyprus, Crete, and Egypt. Qatna was one of the important stops on this route. The first king of Qatna is mentioned in the Mari archives, his name Ishi-Adad Ishi (“Haddad” or “Adad is my help”), an Amurru or “Amorite.” He was succeeded by his son, Amut-pî-el, who had been governor of Nazala. This was in the time of King Hammurabi of Babylon (1792–1750 B. C. E.). Abraham continued his travels to Damascus along the famous caravan route of Kings Highway. Ancient Damascus was an important stop on the trade routes linking the Fertile Crescent with Egypt. Caravans would pass through Damascus on their way from Assyrian, Babylonia, or the Persian Empires of the Euphrates Valley on their way into Egypt. The city of Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is mentioned in the Book of Genesis in association with the campaign by Abraham to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:15). Later, the city of Damascus would be an important station connecting the northern and western civilizations with Mecca and

Migration

21

the Islamic kingdoms of North Africa. We do not know how far down the Kings Highway Abraham traveled before crossing the Jordan River and entering Canaan. Most likely, he turned westward between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea.

Ḫabiru (Ḫapiru) The Ḫabiru is another group of people that scholars tried to connect to the Hebrews and to the Canaan migration. They lived during the second millennium in the Fertile Crescent. The Ḫabiru were a class of displaced people who originated from urban and tribal sedentary populations. In the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries, they appeared in Cappadocia, Babylon, and Mari, and they were referred to as a band of warriors who served the local rulers. They were mercenaries. Later in Mari, we read about fights where the Ḫabiru appear as bands of robbers who attacked and sacked the local settlements. Similar descriptions are found in the El-Amarna documents (fifteenth-fourteenth centuries B. C. E.), which describe chaotic situations. While the local rulers and Egyptian governors were fighting among themselves, bands of the Ḫabiru robbed and destroyed everything. There is evidence of the migration of tribes and people to Canaan in the first half of the second millennium B. C. E., among them the Hurrian tribes. It is possible that among the Semitic tribes were people who were called Ḫapiru in Akkadian, ʿpr.w in Egyptian,’ prm in Ugaritic. These people who appeared in different places and different periods had several things in common. They are considered outsiders in the places that they lived. They were fugitives from their original societies. They shared a common inferior status. They are not a single ethnic group, which is clear from their names. Most of them are Semites, but they included people of other origins. Their description as fugitives from authority is similar to bands in Israel during the Biblical period ( Judg. 9:4, 26ff; 11:3); especially David’s band (1 Sam. 22:2). Interestingly, the term Ḫabiru ceased to appear in extra-Biblical texts at the same time the term Hebrews disappeared from the Hebrew Bible.

22

Chapter 1

In Mesopotamia, the last time Ḫabiru was mentioned was in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B. C. E. Similarly, the term is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible after the Book of Samuel. The Ḫabiru were mercenaries. Interestingly, Abraham is only referred to as a Hebrew once – in Genesis 14. That one occurrence happens to be when he is fighting. Therefore, it seems plausible that the author is connecting Abraham (the Hebrew) with the mercenaries (the Ḫabiru). The question whether the Ḫabiru can possibly be identified with the word Hebrew is very complicated. A closer examination of the terms Ḫabiru and Hebrews reveals that there is no basis for identifying Ḫabiru and Hebrews on both historical and philological grounds. The development of hapir or ͑pir to ʿibr is without parallel, more so, the difference between the p and b is unlikely in light of the Ugaritic evidence that ʿapiru was of Northwest Semitic origin.12 An alternative solution would be that the name Hebrew (ʿbrî) is related to ʿbr “to cross over from the other side,” as we read in the Book of Joshua: “In olden times, your forefathers Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor lived beyond (ʿbr) the Euphrates and worshiped other gods” (34:3). So, when the people are referred to as Hebrews, it is simply another way of calling them “the ones who came from beyond the river.” A third position suggests that the name Hebrew comes from Eber (ʿēber), which appears in the Table of nations (Gen. 10:21, 25) and Abraham’s genealogy (11:6; 1 Chr. 1:18–19). In other words, Abraham is a descendant of Eber from the line of Shem. The term Hebrew is found in the stories about Joseph and Moses when the Israelites were in Egypt. Later, it appears in the first half of the Book of Samuel when Saul is fighting against the Philistines. In those contexts, the term is used by a non-Israelite when speaking about an Israelite. Thus, it is when the Egyptians and Philistines speak about the Hebrews. In some instances the term is used by the editor to distinguish the Israelite from a foreigner. In the laws dealing with emancipation of the Hebrew slave, the term is also used. The term comes to distinguish an Israelite slave from 12

M. C. Astour, “Habiru”, IDBS, 384; B. J. Beitzel, “Habiru”, ISBE, 2:589.

Migration

23

a slave of foreign origin. It appears that the term Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible refers primarily to an ethnic term.

Place of Habitation The Biblical narrative portrays the patriarchal era as a period of wandering. The patriarchs are depicted as nomads who dwelled in tents and were constantly on the move searching for fresh pasture. Throughout their travels, they wandered to sites in the central mountain region and the Negeb. Due to the climate, they journeyed to the northern part of the Negeb in the winter and spring and to the central mountain area in the summer and autumn. From a geographical point of view, it appears that the patriarchs limited their migration to the area between Dothan and Beer Sheba. This area can be divided into three parts: one from Dothan to Shechem, the second from Shechem to Beth El, and the third from Beth El to Beer Sheba. Using this route, the patriarchs avoided the northern part of the country, the coastal plain, and the Jordan River. These regions of the land were avoided because they were extensively populated with fortified urban centers. The patriarchs were heads of small nomadic groups that had to avoid military confrontations. On the other hand, the central mountain area and the Negeb were less populated and, consequently, without a dominant power. Therefore, not surprisingly, we read about King Melchizedek of Salem, King Abimelech of Gerar, and Hamor the Hivite, which points to the distribution of power in this area. The Bible relates that Abraham lived in Shechem, Beth El, Hebron, Gerar (Gen. 20:1) and Beer Sheba (22:19). Isaac’s places of habitat are connected with digging wells in Gerar (Gen. 26:6), wadi of Gerar (v. 17), Sitnah (v. 21), Rehoboth (v. 22), and Beer Sheba (v. 23). Isaac is wandering in the western part of the Negeb and fights with the Philistines over wells. This description of wandering is similar to the account of David and his people who resided in the western part of the Negeb as the vassal of Achish, the king of the Philistines. As for where Jacob lived, the Bible mentions

24

Chapter 1

locations in the central part of the country on the two sides of the Jordan River: Shechem and Beth El in the west and Mahanaim Penuel and Succoth in the east. In addition, Jacob travels to Hebron and Beer Sheba. Noth suggested that the different places of habitation point to the settlement and organization of the Israelite tribes before their formation to a united kingdom.13 It is hard to draw historical conclusions since those places are referred to by different names that point to different literary traditions. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wandered to the same sites. They traveled to areas that were suitable for their semi-nomadic pastoral economy and convenient to small scale trade. They moved their families and possessions as the seasons dictated. In their travels, they were searching for water and pasture land. Beer Sheba, for example, is a constant stop during their wandering. This is because Beer Sheba in their time was not a city, only a well. The patriarchs depended on those wells for their existence. During their migration, they passed wells that belonged to their fathers. Clearly, this is the case with Isaac: “Isaac dug anew the wells which had been dug in the days of his father, Abraham and which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham’s death; and he gave them the same names that his father had given them” (Gen. 26:18). What emerges from these descriptions is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were semi-nomadic people constantly on the move. In times of famine, they dwelt among the Philistines and the Egyptians. They depended on the good will of the local population. They also spent most of their lives outside the Promised Land. Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldeans and spent some time in Egypt during a famine. The same holds true for Jacob, who spent most of his life in Haran and in his sunset years, lived in Egypt. The only patriarch who did not leave the Promised Land was Isaac. Based on this, the Rabbis formulated the concept of the necessity of living in the Promise Land. The patriarchs were thus strangers and aliens in Canaan. A closer observation of the path of their migration offers inter-relating data. The patriarchs stayed close to the cities, but they did not enter the

13

M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 56–58.

Migration

25

cities or live in them unless they were forced to by famine. The patriarchs stayed close to urban centers where they could barter for the domestic necessities they required. The patriarchs also probably participated in smallscale trade. They were in the first stages of settlement and urbanization and were semi-nomadic people. No major confrontation between the patriarchs and the local inhabitants of the land is recorded in the Book of Genesis. The patriarchs were small in numbers; they were heads of small clans, therefore they maintained peaceful relations with the native Canaanites. Later, the Israelites are instructed to destroy the seven nations of Canaan and not to intermarry with them. On the eve of their entrance to the Land of Canaan, the Israelites are warned: “Beware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land against which you are advancing, lest they be a snare in your midst … You must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for they will lust after their gods … And when you take wives from among their daughters for your sons, their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods” (Exod. 34:12–16).14 The fear against intermarriages, copying the practices of the land, and following their laws were behind the orders the Israelites received in the Book of Deuteronomy: “When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess … you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter” (Deut. 7:1–2). The Israelites were instructed to drive out the natives (Exod. 33:2; 34:11); dispossess them (Deut. 11:23); dislodge (7:1); to annihilate (Exod. 23:23); and doom them to destruction. (Deut. 7:2) In contrast, the picture that emerges from the description of the relationship between the patriarchs and the local natives is completely different. There are peaceful relationships between neighbors. There are no quarrels between Abraham and the local people. The patriarch lives at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite (Gen. 14:13). Abraham has Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner as allies. Later when the news arrived

14 This warning against intermarriages will be repeated later in the Book of Deuteronomy 7:3–4.

26

Chapter 1

about Lot, that he was taken captive, the three allies joined Abraham in a night expedition against the four monarchs from the east. When God revealed to Abraham his plan to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorra, Abraham was pleading with God to save the people who were complete strangers to him. Starting with the Book of Judges and later in the Book of Samuel, the Philistines were the arch enemy of the Israelites. These people, who are referred in Egyptian sources as the sea people, terrorized the Israelites for hundreds of years. This led the Israelites to ask the prophet Samuel for a king who would fight their wars against the Philistines. The Philistines discovered the usage of iron, which gave them a major advantage on the battlefield. Saul, the first king of Israel, fought against the Philistine’s domination throughout his life. In his last battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, he died with his sons. It was only King David who later defeated the Philistines, and they even served in his army. In contrast to the Books of Judges and Samuel, the Book of Genesis portrays peaceful relations between Abraham and the Philistines. The patriarch signs a covenant with Abimelech the king of the Philistines. It is Abimelech who demanded a covenant sealed by an oath. More so, the covenant also includes the future generations (Gen. 21:23). Like his father Abraham, Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, and dwelled in his city of Gerar. Isaac is treated with respect by the Philistines. As with Abraham, Abimelech came with his councilor and Phicol chief of his troops and asked Isaac to sign a pact, “that you will not do us harm, just as we have not molested you but have always dealt kindly with you and sent you away in peace. From now on, be you blessed of the Lord” (Gen. 26:29). It was suggested that the mention of the Philistine in the patriarchal period is anachronistic.15 This is because it was believed that the Philistines

15

On the Philistines in the patriarchal period see: Y. Kaufmann, Toldot HaʿEmunah ‘Yisre’elit ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1956) 2, 304ff; Yehoshua M. Grintz, The Book of Genesis ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 73; S. Abramsky, “The Origin of the Philistines?” Beth Mikra 14 (1962), 103.

Migration

27

arrived to the land of Canaan in a later period. The earliest reference to the Philistines comes from the time of Ramses II at the beginning of the twelfth century B. C. E. However, my position is that there are two waves of migration. The first wave arrived to the land of Canaan in the patriarchal period. The second wave arrived in 1200 B. C. E. after the Philistines were repelled by the Egyptians. More importantly, there are differences between the Philistines portrayal in Genesis and later descriptions in the Bible. The Philistines in Genesis are not organized in five city-states led by Seranim. In Genesis, they live in the area of Beer Sheba in the city of Gerar and are ruled by a king. In the later Books of Judges and Samuel, we read about the five coastal cities. The description of the Philistines in Genesis ref lects an early era when the relationship between the patriarchs and the Philistines was a peaceful one. Their mention in the Book of Genesis is not retrojection of later period but is authentic and ref lects a true historical reality. Peaceful relations existed also with the Hittites. The Hittites treated Abraham with respect. When the patriarch approached them for the purchase of the cave of Machpelah, they referred to him as “the elect of God.” Abraham also treated them with respect and bowed low to them. The Hittite sold Abraham the cave of Machpelah in spite of the fact that he was a resident alien. In ancient times, resident aliens could not purchase real estate. More so, landowners were very close to their land and were reluctant to sell their land, which they saw as an ancestral trust. There is no animosity toward the Egyptians. The land of Egypt was a place of refuge for the patriarchs. During the famine, Abraham and his wife Sari moved to Egypt. Abraham was treated well because of his wife. Only after Pharaoh realized that Abraham deceived him by passing his wife off as his sister did he send him away. Later, Jacob and his sons will follow the footsteps of Abraham moving to Egypt to live there. Joseph will mingle with the Egyptians and will marry an Egyptian woman. In Genesis, Egypt is portrayed as a place of refuge during times of famine. This depiction ultimately would be reversed in the Book of Exodus where the Israelites were enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians. Still, there is no hatred toward Egypt and the Biblical narrator remembered the hospitality of the Egyptians, and thus we read: “You shall not abhor an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land” (Deut. 23:8).

28

Chapter 1

From the time of David, the Arameans were the enemy of Israel; they were military rivals. On the other hand, in the patriarchal narrative, the patriarchs marry and live with their kin the Arameans (Gen. 24 and 29). Jacob marries Leah and Rachel the daughters of Laban the Aramean. As noted, the Bible emphasizes that the origin of Israel was Aramean. Therefore, not surprisingly Deuteronomy 26:5 describes Jacob as “a wandering Aramean.” It is unlikely that the Israelites would trace their ancestral homeland as the native habitat of their enemies unless it had a kernel of historicity. A negative encounter with the local population is recorded in Genesis 34. Simon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah, attacked the city of Shechem and slew all the males. They took all that was in the town, which included f locks, herds, asses, children, and women. This act was done because their sister was defiled. Interestingly in this story, Jacob maintained his silence and rebuked the two brothers many years later on his death bed. What is missing from the story is why the whole city had to be destroyed for the action of one man. What we witness in Genesis is the existence of peaceful relationships between the patriarchs and the local inhabitance of the land of Canaan. These peaceful relationships are in contrast to the later period when the Israelites would be instructed to destroy the seven nations of Canaan. The stories in Genesis are not retrojection of a later period but represent an earlier period when there was no hostility between the Israelite patriarchs and the local population. In summary, our study shows that Abraham was elected because he was a monotheist in contrast to his forefathers who were idol worshippers. Incursion of nomadic tribes from the east led Abraham’s family to move from Ur to Haran. The city of Ur was an important city and was a center of commerce with the countries of the Persian Gulf and the Indus valley. Similarly, the city of Haran was known for its international donkey caravan trade. In addition, both cities were known as a center for moon worship. Examination of the names Laban, Sarah, Milcah, and Terah shows that they are connected with worship of the moon. This indicates that the patriarchal stories fit the location in which they are set. Personal names such as Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ishmael are Amorite imperfect, which attests to

Migration

29

the antiquity of the Biblical narrative. These types of names were known before Israelites emerged as a people appearing in the regions where the patriarchs came from according to the Bible. Even Serug and Nahor are attested in lower and upper Mesopotamia at the end of the third and the beginning of the second millennium B. C. E. The term Hebrew, which is first mentioned with Abraham, is not to be equated with the term Ḫabiru. The Bible uses “Hebrew” as an ethnic term. The patriarchal period lasted more than a century. Therefore, the stories about Abraham and Isaac could fit into the Middle Bronze Age I while the Jacob stories fit in the Middle Bronze Age II. The patriarchs are depicted as nomads who dwelled in tents and were constantly on the move searching for fresh pasture. Genesis does not record any major confrontation between the patriarchs and the local inhabitants. The patriarchs were small in numbers. They were the heads of small clans, therefore, they maintained peaceful relations with the native Canaanites. This is in contrast to later periods when the Israelites were instructed to destroy them. Thus, the stories in Genesis are not a retrojection of a later period. Instead, they represent an earlier period when there was no hostility between the Israelite patriarchs and the local populations. This will lead us to our next chapter were we will examine the subject of marriage. Since the patriarchs maintained peaceful relationships with the local populations, the question arises did they intermarry with them?

Chapter 2

Marriages

After God created man, He said: “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him” (Gen. 2:18). This fitting helper had her creation described in detail (vv. 21–25), in contrast to the creation of man, which is told brief ly. God also brought the women to the man, and as the Midrash says it was like an attendant who leads the bride to the groom, hence celibacy is undesirable.1 In the patriarchal period, it was the parents who initiated marriages, but the patriarchs headed small clans, so whom did they marry? As noted in the previous chapter, the patriarchs had peaceful relationships with the local population, thus the inevitable question is whether or not the patriarchs intermarried with the local population. We have to remember that the prohibition against intermarriage first appeared in Exodus (34:16). This prohibition also appears twice in Deuteronomy (7:1–6; 23:4). Thus, we will begin our inquiry with the examination of the practice of endogamy, marriage within the family and exogamy, marriage outside the family. In ancient times, wives were purchased, therefore, the subject of bridal price will be examined. The purpose of marriage was procreation. Not surprisingly, marriage contracts from the ancient Near East stipulate that a wife who fails to bear children has to provide her husband with a handmaid to perform the task. We will look into this custom. Dying without an heir was a curse. This is why the Biblical law prescribed that if a man dies, it is the duty of his brother to “raise up seed” to the childless deceased brother (Deut. 25:5–6). The practice of levirate marriage is mentioned in the Judah and Tamar story. This story will be compared to the law in Deuteronomy to see if there are any social changes that took place between the patriarchal era and later periods. The last part of this 1

Genesis Rabbah, 18:1.

32

Chapter 2

chapter conveys an accurate picture of the marriage ceremony, as described in Genesis.

Endogamy: Marriage within the Family The first words spoken by God to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) stand behind the idea of marriage. Although these words are a command, they are characterized as a blessing. This blessing was repeated by God to Noah after the f lood and to each of the patriarchs. The Rabbis listed this command “fruitfulness and multiplication,” among the first of the 613 commandments. Examining the pattern of marriages in the Book of  Genesis reveals that at first, the patriarchs tried to preserve their ethnic identity and practiced endogamy, marriage within the family. Nahor married his niece Milcah; Abraham married his half-sister Sarai; Isaac married his second cousin Rebecca; and Jacob married sisters Leah and Rachel, the daughters of his uncle, Laban. Genesis 11:29 tells us that Abraham married Sarai. Interestingly, Sarai’s paternity is absent. Cyrus Gordon suggests that Sarai has no patronymic because she is of divine parentage.2 But more likely, the author withheld this information to maintain the suspense leading up to chapter 20. Sarai was Abraham’s half-sister: “She is in truth my sister, my father’s daughter though not my mother” (v. 12). Abraham and Sarai had the same father but different mothers. The verse does not mention the respective mothers’ names of the wives, but does emphasize their common father, Terah. As did his father Abraham, Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca is also within the family. When Abraham’s servant appears before Rebecca’s family, he stresses the fact that his master sent him specifically to his “family” to his “kindred.” In other words, only one family is qualified as the Nahor branch 2

C. H. Gordon, Homer and Bible (Ventor, NJ: Ventor Publishers, 1967), 41–42.

Marriages

33

of his father’s lineage. Evidently, the sole purpose was to ensure that Isaac would not marry a Canaanite woman but a woman from his father’s family. The practice of endogamy continued also with Jacob, who married Leah and Rachel, his cousins from the House of Bethuel. Before going to Paddan Aram, Rebecca bluntly opposed Jacob’s marrying a Hittite woman: “Rebecca said to Isaac, I am disgusted with my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries a Hittite woman like these, from among the native women, what good will life be to me?” (Gen. 27:46). The mention of the Hittite woman here is a reminder of Esau’s marriages to Hittite women, which displeased his parents. In addition, this is an indirect rebuke of Isaac for his favoritism toward his son Esau. Like his wife Rebecca, Isaac also raised objections to Jacob marrying a Canaanite woman. Before Jacob’s departure to Paddan Aram, Isaac blessed him and instructed him: “… you shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women. Up, go to Paddan Aram, to the House of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and take a wife there from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother” (Gen. 28:1, 2). Jacob did as he was told by his father and married two sisters, Leah and Rachel who were his cousins. The marriage of  Jacob to two sisters points to the antiquity of the narrative. Later in the Book of Leviticus 18:18, we read about a law that prohibits a man marrying a sister of his wife during her lifetime. Interestingly, in spite of the fact the patriarchs were polygamists, Laban tried to limit the numbers of  Jacob’s wives. Evidently this restriction came to protect the status of his daughters (Gen. 31:50). This is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible but was common in Assyrian documents from Cappadocia in contracts from Nuzi and even later among the Jews in Yaeb. In a contract from Nuzi we read the following: “If Wullu takes another wife, he shall forfeit the lands and houses of Nashawi” [his father-in law].3 It is believed that this kind of restriction was applied when the status of the bride was

3

For a prohibition of man to take additional wives: See references in R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 60 no 4; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975), 84.

34

Chapter 2

higher than the groom, or like among the Jews of Yaeb, when the wife was in equal status of the man. Jacob’s marriage ref lects the matriarchal values of his society. In the patriarchal society, the women entered the house of her father-in-law. Not so with Jacob, who joined the House of his father-in-law Laban. This might explain Laban’s claims that Jacob’s family and all the f locks belonged to him. However, there is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible that Jacob was adopted by Laban. More so, Jacob paid for his wife and the lineage went through Jacob, not his wife. It is more likely that Laban’s claims came to counteract Jacob’s allegations and to save face. Parents initiated marriages and selected a wife for their son. Hagar took a wife to her son, Ishmael from Egypt. Abraham did not pick a wife for Isaac but sent his servant with guidelines and instructions to pick a wife from his father’s house. Similarly, Isaac did not pick a wife for Jacob but ordered him to marry a wife from his family. Conversely, Esau picked his own wives who were Hittites. Since Isaac and Rebecca were grieved by his marriage, he went and married Mahalath, his cousin, the daughter of Ishmael. After he raped Dinah, Shechem told his father: “Get me this girl as a wife” (Gen. 34:4). Likewise, Samson tells his parents: “I noticed one of the Philistine women in Timnah; please get her for me as a wife” ( Judg. 14:2). This practice of the parent’s involvement in the marriage of their children is practiced even today in certain societies. Evidently the main idea in ancient times was to marry within one’s own group, such as a clan, tribe, or family. In the Jacob cycle, there is a larger family unit where the patriarch had two wives, two concubines, 12 sons, and a daughter. In contrast, his father Isaac had only one wife and two sons – twins. One of the twins is the heir to the Abrahamic covenant. The small family of Isaac is similar to that of his father Abraham who originally also had two sons. The younger one is the heir of the covenant. It is only later in the genealogy that we find that Abraham had another wife and many descendants that are identified with different ethnic groups. What we witness so far is the practice of endogamy, marriages within the family, which was normative in ancient times. This practice was as a result of unfriendly relations with neighboring tribes or separation from a majority group, which is evident with the patriarchs. The Hebrew patriarchs

Marriages

35

were not concerned about the religion of the women as the rabbis thought. Rather, their concern was to preserve familial ties. The description of the Arameans in the patriarchal narrative is noteworthy. As pointed out above, Isaac and Jacob married Aramean wives. Nahor, the brother of Abraham, is the grandfather of Aram. All of this is highly significant because later on, Aram from the time of David through most of the monarchical period, engaged in wars with Israel. Not so here, in the Book of Genesis, which portrays marriage, harmony, and peace between Israel and Aram.

Exogamy: Marriage Outside of the Family Esau was the first man who married outside of the clan. He was forty years old when he married, the same age that his father Isaac was when he got married. Esau married two Hittite woman, Judith the daughter of Berri the Hittite and Besemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Judith is only mentioned here and not in the second list of  Esau’s wives in Genesis 36:2–3. No offspring of Judith is recorded. Thus, maybe she was barren, prompting Esau to take a second wife. Esau’s marriages caused much bitterness between Isaac and Rebecca since he married two women outside of the clan (Gen. 26:34). After realizing the grievous consequences of his deed and the agony he brought his parents, Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, as his wife (28:9). By marrying Mahalath, he achieved two goals: He married his cousin, thereby preserving his family ties, and he also propitiated his parents, who were grieved by his alien wives. It appears that at first, the practice of endogamy and family heritage was not important to Esau, so he took Hittite wives. Taking a native woman was a disrespectful act because the wife was not part of the family bloodline. Esau’s marriage with the Hittites proved that he was unfit to be the one who was to carry the mission of Abraham. Esau probably married more than three wives, which is indicated by Genesis 36:2–3, which names his genealogy. While the list mentions three

36

Chapter 2

wives, their names and lineage appear to represent another tradition from Genesis (26:34; 28:9). The wives are referred to as “Canaanite women,” which is derogatory. The first on the list is Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite. The second Oholibamah, daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite (36:2), and the third was Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth (36:3). The names Judith, Mahalath, and Oholibamah are found only in one of the two accounts. While Basemath is the only one who is mentioned in both of the two accounts, she has different ancestries. In Genesis 36:3, she is the daughter of Ishmael, and in 26:34 she’s the daughter of Elon the Hittite. In the Hebrew Bible, a person could have more than one name. Therefore, the names in Genesis (26:34, 28:9) and the genealogy in Genesis (36:1–3) may refer to the same woman under different names.4 It is also possible that their names were changed. However, since Basemath has two different ancestries (Hittite and Ishmaelite), it is possible these are two different women named Basemath. The fact that the Bible again mentioned that Esau married wives from among the Canaanites shows that he was unworthy to continue the line of Isaac. The genealogies represent evidence that Esau married Canaanite women to advance the author’s argument that Esau was unfit to carry the blessing. This text should not be read as a literal report of the precise number of Esau’s wives. Still, since Esau received blessings from his father Isaac, the genealogical list points to the fulfillment of those blessings. After the deterioration of the relationship between Jacob and Laban, Jacob was forced to leave Laban’s household. The ties with the family in Aram came to an end, with a complete split being inevitable; Jacob and Laban set the boundaries between them. As a result of the rift, the descendants of the patriarchs no longer returned to Aram. This may help explain Judah’s marriage to a daughter of a certain Canaanite named “Shua” (Gen. 38:2). Her name is not mentioned here. However, elsewhere she is called

4

J. H. Abraham, “A Literary Solution to the name Variations of Esau’s Wives”, The Torah U-Maddah 7 (1997), 1–14; J. H. Abraham, “Esau’s Wives”, JBQ 25 (1997), 251–259.

Marriages

37

“Bath-Shua the Canaanite women” (1 Chron. 2:3). Wenham suggests the verbs “see” and “take” have overtones in Genesis of forbidden taking, so Judah’s marriages may have been based on lust.5 The fact that Judah married a Canaanite woman disturbed the sages, thus we read in the Talmud: “Is it possible that Abraham exhorted Isaac, and Isaac Jacob [not to marry a Canaanite women] and yet Judah went and married one! Rather, the term ‘daughter of a Canaanite’ in this context denotes daughter of a merchant.”6 The sages arrived at this conclusion based on the meaning of the term Canaanite in Hosea 12:8 and Isaiah 23:8. This is also the interpretation of the majority of the versions of Targ. Onqelos. While in Targ, Pseudo Jonathan claims that Tamar was a non-Israelite and that Judah made her a proselyte. It appears that the storyteller in Genesis was not embarrassed by Judah marrying a Canaanite woman. The early origin of the story appears here because later the Israelites were commanded to not intermarry with the Canaanites. Simon also took a Canaanite wife. This is mentioned in Genesis 46:10. Saul, the son of a Canaanite, is listed among Simon’s sons. It is also mentioned in Exodus 6:15, but not in Numbers 26:13 or 1 Chronicles 4:24. The mention of a Canaanite wife ref lects the disfavored view of intermarriage with Canaanites. This verse suggests that Simeon is the only brother who married a Canaanite woman. Therefore, the Torah singles him out for his deed. It is clear that, initially, the patriarchs preserved their ethnic identity and opposed intermarriage with the local population of Canaan, a theme emphasized in the later books of the Bible. This opposition was not based on religion, but rather was a social custom. This explains why endogamy was prevalent up until the time of Jacob. But, later on in the narrative, Judah and Simon marry Canaanite women. This is noteworthy because later, the Israelites were ordered by God to destroy the Canaanites. It indicates

5 6

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 366. TB Pesahim, 50a.

38

Chapter 2

that during the patriarchal era, the Hebrews were mingling with the local population and living peacefully with them.

Bridal Price In our contemporary era, there are two stages to marital relations: engagement and marriage. This was also true in the ancient times. At first, the groom had to purchase the right to receive the bride in marriage, and then he brought the bride to his tent. This aspect of a purchase was no different from purchasing a handmaid or the engagement to a wife. In a later period, we find in the Hebrew Bible a pledge that was said by the groom: “And I will espouse you forever” (Hos. 2:21). In contrast, the Book of Ezekiel mentions an oath and covenant (16:8). The first time the Hebrew Bible mentions the purchase of a wife from her father is with the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca. According to the story, Abraham’s servant gave objects of silver, gold, and garments to Rebecca while he gave presents to her brother and mother. Two types of gifts are mentioned here, one to the bride and the other one to her family. The groom paid the bride’s family to compensate for the loss of the bride’s services and her potential offspring. The girl was a financial asset because she performed important economic functions in her father’s house. She tended the f locks (Gen. 29:6, 9) and went to the well and drew water (Gen. 24:11–16) for the family. The gifts that were given to the bride’s family are called migdanot, which is equivalent to the Akkadian biblum (ceremonial gifts) made to the bride’s family.7 The term is used in the Bible as royal gifts and listed with gold and silver objects (Ezra1:6; 2 Chr. 21:3). It appears that the present given to Laban and his mother was equal to the bridal price.

7

For Migdont see: Shaul Bar, “What did the Servant Give to Rebecca’s Brother and Mother?” Bib 94 (2013), 565–572.

Marriages

39

Payment for the bride is also mentioned in the story of Dinah’s rape. Shechem offered to pay the bridal price mohar. The term mohar is mentioned only three times in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 34:12, Exodus 22:16, and 1 Samuel 18:25. It also occurs in the Ugarit texts and in the EgyptianAramaic contracts of the Jewish community at Elephantine as well as the Rabbinic writings. The term refers to the gift that the father of the groom or the groom himself gave to the father or the guardian of the bride. The amount of the mohar varies from case to case, therefore Shechem said to Jacob and his sons: “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me. Ask me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me” (Gen. 34:11–12). In this case, Shechem is ready to pay far beyond the fixed amount, which shows his intentions to make reparations. Even though the responses of Jacob’s sons were full of guile, it appears that mohar could be dispensed. In other words, marriageable daughters were exchanged: “Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves” (v. 16). This exists among the Arabs, which they call badal, “substitute.” A different kind of substitute for mohar is mentioned in the Jacob cycle. Jacob was a poor man when he arrived at the house of his uncle, Laban. Therefore, he had to work for seven years in lieu of the bridal price. What is interesting is that Laban took the mohar for himself as mentioned in Leah’s and Rachel’s complaint about their father: “now that he has sold us and has used up our purchase price” (Gen. 31:15). The mohar was usually a financial gift to the woman in order to secure her future in case she lost her husband or was cast out. The groom deposited the mohar with the bride’s father or a guardian. In this case, Laban used the equivalent bridal price and did not save it for his daughter. The fact that the mohar was part of the dowry is evident in a later period from the fifth century B. C. E. documents found in Elephantine, where the mohar was handed over to the girl’s father or guardian.8

8

A. E. Cowley, ed. and trans. with notes, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 44–50 no 15; R. Yaron, “Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine”, JSS 3 (1958), 4–5.

40

Chapter 2

As with Jacob, a similar situation is described in David’s case. David had to replace the mohar with military service before his marriage to Saul’s daughters (1 Sam. 18:17–27). Later, he demanded that Michal be handed over to him since he acquired her as his wife for 100 foreskins of the Philistines. Military service is also mentioned with Othniel. Caleb offered his daughter Acsah in marriage to the person who would perform tasks: “I will give my daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath-Sepher” ( Josh. 15:16; Judg. 1:12). Othniel, who was Caleb’s nephew, accomplished this. It appears that military service instead of mohar was a common practice.

Maidservant The purpose of marriage was procreation rather than companionship. Not surprisingly, marriage contracts from the ancient Near East stipulate that a wife who fails to beae children has to provide her husband with a handmaid who will bear for them. This practice of surrogate motherhood is attested to from the third to the first millennium B. C. E. The code of Hammurabi makes a provision for a barren wife to give a salve to her husband so he can have children from her.9 However, in this case, it speaks about a priestess who was not permitted to have children. Documents from Nuzi attest to the practice of a barren woman giving her husband a secondary wife to bear a son, who would become both the heir and the regarded son of the mother. It was not unusual for Sarah to act in this fashion since the Nuzi documents are believed to date to the patriarchal period and denote Hurrian customs.10 From Assyria, a marriage contract stipulates that the wife must buy a slave for her husband if in a period of two years she could

9 10

“The Code of Hammurabi”, trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, 172 no 144, 147. C. H. Gordon, “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets”, BA 3 (1940), 1–12.

Marriages

41

not give birth. When the slave girl has given birth, she is to be sold again. 11 In a document from Egypt, which dates to the first and 18th years of Ramses XI, we read about a couple without children, who acquired a slave girl who gave the husband three children, who were adopted by the wife and became legitimate.12 In spite of the similarity between the Biblical text and cases of surrogacy, in the ancient world, it is unwise to draw any conclusion as to date of the patriarch. We have to remember that even to this day surrogacy is practiced.13 Since the matriarch Sarah was a barren woman and God’s promises remained unfulfilled, Sarah gave Hagar to her husband Abraham. Hagar was probably among the servants that Abraham acquired during his stay in Egypt (Gen. 12:16). Alternatively, it is possible that she was part of the dowry received by Sarah. In the Aggadah, Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh, and after he witnessed the deeds performed on Sarah’s behalf, in his house, he gave Hagar to Sarah, saying: “Better let my daughter be a handmaid in this house than a mistress in another’s.”14 At first glance, it appears as though the author of Genesis approved of Sarah’s actions. But it is more likely to be criticism toward Sarah. The matriarch does not wait for God’s help but takes it upon herself to solve the problem. This is a reminder of Abraham’s previous behavior when in times of crisis, he did not rely on God but passed his wife as his sister. The wording of verses 2–3 suggests the narrator’s disproval and clearly alludes to Genesis 3. In ancient times, slaves would be expected to perform basic tasks, but this is not the case with Hagar. There is not one single passage that describes Hagar performing essential tasks. When Abraham offers a meal to his Angelic visitors, Abraham and the servant boy prepare the meal

11 12 13 14

“Additional Mesopotamian Legal Documents”, trans. J. J. Finkelstein, ANET, 4, 543 no 4. A. H. Gardiner, “Adoption Extraordinary”, JEA 26 (1940), 23–29. For a detailed discussion of the various texts see: T. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), 252–269. Genesis Rabbah, 45:1.

42

Chapter 2

(Gen. 18:7–8). Abraham ordered Sarah to make cakes (18:6). There is no mention of Hagar in the whole episode. Hagar f led from Sarah but returned after the Angel told her to go back. Hagar appears next when Abraham held a feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. In this story, Hagar has no role, she does not take part in preparing the feast, and her character is secondary. She makes an appearance in the story only to escort her son away. Remarkably, Hagar had only one son with Abraham even though she lived with Abraham for 17 years. The sages were puzzled by this, so they suggested that Hagar conceived twice: “He cohabitated with Hagar and she conceived” (Gen. 16:4); and later we read, “The angel of the Lord said to her further, ‘Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son’” (16:11).15 Hagar is referred as shifḥah (maid servant), the etymology of this is obscure. It resembles the Hebrew mispāḥâ.16 Despite their phonetic resemblance, the two nouns are unrelated etymologically. The Bible mentions this term 60 times (26 in Genesis). The patriarch has the ownership of the shifḥah, but within the family she is given to the wife. She always belongs to her mistress. When Sarah casts out Hagar and Ishmael, she turns to Abraham and calls Hagar his ’āmâ (slave woman). The distinction between the two nouns is problematic. The similarity of the two terms is clear in Genesis 30:3–4 and 1 Samuel 1:11, 16, 18; 25:24–41, where both are used interchangeably for the same person. According to the Midrash, as soon as Hagar gave birth, she started to disparage Sarah by saying to the visitors who came to visit Sarah: “My mistress Sarah is not inwardly as she appears outwardly. She pretends to be a women of piety, but she is not, as she has prevented conception in order to preserve her beauty.”17 According to the Code of Hammurabi, a concubine who bore children for her master and dared to

15 16 17

See: Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985), 151. E. Reuter, “‫ ִשְפחָה‬šipḥâ”, TDOT 15:406. Genesis Rabbah, 45:4.

Marriages

43

claim equality with her mistress would be reduced to the slave status and bear the slave mark. The Laws of Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 B. C. E.) say: “If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her (or him) her mouth shall be scoured with one quart salt.”18 In the Hebrew Bible, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the status of the shifḥah with respect to the primary wife does not change. The children of the primary wife were treated more favorably. This is clearly attested to in the Jacob cycle where the shifḥah and her children have the lowest status. Such is the case with Ishmael, although he has the right of inheritance, he and his mother Hagar were cast out because Ishmael endangered Isaac’s hegemony. Genesis 25:1 indicates that Abraham took another wife by the name Keturah. Out of this union six sons were born, the most prominent being Midian. After the death of Sarah, Abraham was already 140 years old. Thus, it is unlikely that he had another six sons. Abraham probably took Keturah many years before Sarah’s death and the birth of Isaac.19 The birth of the children by Keturah completes the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham that he would be a father of many nations (Gen. 17:5). Abraham gives his children gifts and sends them away to the east. The text stresses that Abraham was alive when he sent the sons of Keturah and the gifts show that they did not have any claims to rival Isaac. In the Midrash, Hagar and Keturah are identical.20 The sage pointed to the word again, which appears in verse 1 and literally means: and Abraham again took a wife. In other words, Abraham remarried the wife to whom he had been married before: Hagar.

“The Laws of Ur-Nammu”, trans. J. J. Finkelstein, ANET, 525 no 22. More so verse 6 as well as 1 Chronicles 1:32 refers to Keturah as concubine not as a wife. 20 Genesis Rabbah, 61:4; so Rashi. 18 19

44

Chapter 2

Bilhah and Zilpah In contrast to Sarah who provided her husband Abraham with a shifḥah, it is Laban, the father-in-law who give his daughters handmaids. Thus, Leah received Zilpah and Rachel, Bilhah. When Rachel discovered that she was barren, she gave Bilhah to her husband Jacob so that she might bear children in her place. Jacob already had many children when Rachel presented Bilhah to him. This evidently hurt Rachel, who could not conceive. Rachel was unhappy being childless and was envious of her sister Leah. It was a grave matter for a man to be childless because it left him with no heir. This was also devastating for a woman; to have children was to be a success in life, while having none was considered a failure. Indeed, this kind of feeling was expressed by Rachel to Jacob, “Give me children or I shall die” (Gen. 30:1). Since she could not conceive, she resorted to using a concubine. Out of the union between Jacob and Bilhah (Rachel’s handmaid) two sons, Dan and Naphtali, were born. The names Dan and Naphtali ref lect vindication and a belief in divine favor. Later, it was Reuben, the first born of Leah, who lay with his stepmother Bilhah. Sleeping with the father’s concubine signaled legitimacy and validated succession. In a later period, Ish-boshet rebuked Abner for laying with his father’s concubine (2 Sam. 3:7–8). Absalom slept with his father’s concubine when he was planning to seize the throne. Similarly, Adonijah requested to sleep with Abishag the Shunammite, which Solomon interpreted as a display of treason-like intentions (1 Kgs 2:13–25). In this story, Reuben challenged his father’s authority and was trying to promote his mother’s rights. For his act, Reuben lost his hegemony. Zilpah was given by Laban to Leah on the occasion of her marriage to Jacob. When Leah stopped bearing, she resorted to concubinage, thus giving Zilpah to her husband, Jacob. At this stage, Leah had four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. Evidently, Leah wanted to outdo her sister. Leah was yearning for Jacob’s love, which is clear in the names that she gave to her sons. As a result of the union between Jacob and Zilpah, two sons were born, Gad and Asher. The Genesis genealogies list 16 descendants

Marriages

45

of Zilpah (46:18). Gad had seven children (46:16), while Asher had four sons, one daughter, and two grandchildren, who were the sons of Beriah (46:17).

Levirate Marriage In the ancient Near East, where the focus on progeny was so important, to die without an heir was a curse. Therefore, Biblical law prescribed that if a man dies, it is the duty of his brother to “raise up seed” to the childless deceased brother: “When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty” (Deut. 25:5–6). The earliest mention of the levirate custom shows that it was already an old custom during the days of the patriarchs. Judah, the son of Jacob, had three sons; he took a wife by the name of Tamar for his first born son, Er. The first-born son committed a sin and as a result of it, God took his life. Thus, Judah told his second son, Onan, to join his brother’s wife to fulfill his obligation as a brother-in-law. Onan did not fulfill his obligation to his sister-in-law; he let his seed go to waste. The Bible emphasized that Onan did this on every occasion of intercourse. Onan knew that if he provided an heir to Tamar, he would lose part of his brother’s inheritance. So instead of impregnating Tamar, he wasted his semen on the ground. Onan brought his own death because he did not fulfill his obligation. God was angry with him and took his life. Since the third son, Shelah, was too young, Judah sent his daughterin-law to her father’s house until Shelah grew up. It was Judah’s obligation as the father-in-law to enforce the levirate custom, which is also attested to with the Hittite law. Since years passed and Judah did not fulfill his obligation, Tamar took the initiative by way of deception and enforced the levirate marriage. She slept with Judah and bore Perez and Zerah evidently to compensate Judah for the loss of his two sons. According to the Book

46

Chapter 2

of Ruth 4:18–22 and 1 Chronicles 2:5, 9–15, King David was a descendent from Perez, which shows that this union was blessed. The practice of the levirate marriage preceded the Mosaic Law. It is mentioned in the laws of the Middle Assyrian Empire (fifteenth-fourteenth century B. C. E.) that a widow who has no son should be married by her father-in-law to the son of his choice.21 While in Hittite laws (fourteenth – thirteenth century B. C. E.), if a married man dies: “his brother shall take his wife, then [if he dies] his father shall take her.”22 The text, however, does not distinguish between a childless widow and the one who has offspring. The reason behind the levirate marriage lies in the simple fact that the widow was purchased by the head of the family and she is an integral part of her husband’s estate. She is part of the clan and, therefore, she needs to receive protection and to be assured of a livelihood. The description in the Book of Genesis ref lects a nomadic society where the patriarch was the head of the family. Only in a society where polygyny was permitted could a man marry his childless brother’s widow. The family had to be extended when brothers dwelled jointly in one household with their father, where the brother was available to fulfill his levirate duty. It also has to be patrilineal, because only then it would make sense that a brother would substitute his dead brother and rise up seed for him.23 However, things changed when the Israelites came out of Egypt and settled in the land of Canaan. The Israelites became farmers and town dwellers where family bonds were weakening. Levirate marriage was still held, but the brother-in-law was now given an alternative. He could refuse to marry the childless widow. When the levir (husband’s brother) does not marry the yevamah (sister-in-law), the ceremony of ḥaliẓah takes place. The woman is released from her brother-in-law and is free to marry someone else: But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.”

21 22 23

“The Middle Assyrian Laws”, trans. Theophile J. Meek, ANET, 182 no 33. “The Hittite Laws”, trans. Albrecht Goetze, ANET, 196 no 193. Raphael Patai, Family, Love and the Bible (London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1960), 85.

Marriages

47

The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! And he shall go in Israel by the name of  “the family of the un-sandaled one” (Deut. 25:7–10).

If the brother-in-law refused publically to marry his brother’s childless widow despite the counsel of the town’s elders, the widow was to take his sandal in her hand and spit in his face and curse him for his refusal to fulfill his duty. In ancient times, the sandal was used symbolically to indicate the transfer of rights over property (Amos 2:6). The widow’s action shows that the brother-in-law gave up his right to marry her and honor his dead brother by giving him a son. The act of spiting displays the utmost disdain or contempt. A comparison between the story of Judah and Tamar and this new law in Deuteronomy points to the social changes that took place between the patriarchal era and later periods. In patriarchal stories, the patriarch was the only authority. He had the power of death and life. The brother of the deceased person did not have a choice, he had to comply and marry the childless widow; he did not have any alternative. This is not the case in the law of Deuteronomy, which ref lects life of a later sedentary society. People lived in villages and towns in which elders conducted the affairs of the community and its judicial practices. When disagreement arose, it was no longer decided by one person (the patriarch) but was brought before the elders who sat at the gate of their town. Now, the brother of a man who died childless had the right to refuse to fulfill the levirate marriage although he had to go through a humiliating ceremony in the presence of the elders.

48

Chapter 2

Wedding Ceremony Not much information is found in Genesis about the wedding ceremony. Bringing the bride to the tent of the groom signaled the consummation of the marriage (Gen. 24:67). The bride was blessed before the marriage (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11–12; Tobiah 10:11–12), and the groom probably repeated the blessing during the wedding ceremony. Evidently, the occasion was marked by a feast. When Jacob married Leah, we are told Laban made a feast on that day and invited all the people of the area. The feast most likely included heavy drinking, which might explain why Jacob later could not distinguish between Leah and Rachel. Leah probably also wore a veil, which made it more difficult for Jacob to recognize her. There is evidence from the ancient Near East that veiling was part of the marriage ceremony. The Akkadian sources speak about a bride who, on her wedding day, is called kallatu kutnmtu “the veiled bride.” Other terms that are mentioned include pussumtu “the veiled one” and kallatu “bride.” The Middle Assyrian laws stipulate that the raising of a concubine to the status of a wife depends upon her being veiled in the presence of the court.24 Veiling the bride was the first act that led to the main deed, which was her unveiling. The bride arrived to the groom veiled (sometimes he veiled her himself ) then he unveiled her in privacy.25 The feast of marriage lasted for seven days, which is mentioned already with Jacob’s marriage (Gen. 29:27–28) and also Samson’s marriage ( Judg. 14:12, 17). During the seven days, the friends of the groom and the bride would delight and rejoice with the couple with different games. This ranged from riddles (14:12) to singing and dancing, which is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah several times, “the sound of mirth and gladness, the voice of bridegroom and bride” ( Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11). Psalms 45 is probably

24 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 170. 25 Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Husband Veils a Wife (Hittite Laws, 197–198)”, JCS 27 (1975), 235–240.

Marriages

49

a type of wedding song where the poet encourages the bride to forget her people and her father’s house “and let the king be arouse by your beauty” (Ps. 45:12). The custom to sing songs, which praise the beauty of the bride and the groom, still exists among the Arabs. This is ref lected also in the Song of Songs and is alluded to in Psalms 78:63. The Biblical practice of the seven days of feasting maintained its popularity and is mentioned in Second Temple times (Tob. 11:18) and beyond (Mish. Neg. 3:2). It is continued to present day society and it is known as sheva berakhot. Each day for seven days, seven benedictions are recited over a cup of wine after the festive meal. A new guest is present every day among a minyan (quorum of 10 people). In conclusion, marriage practices during the patriarchal era show that they are ancient. At first, the patriarchs practiced endogamy. However, some of these marriages were forbidden by later laws. Thus, Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), which is prohibited by Leviticus 18:9, 11; 20:17, and Jacob married two sisters (Gen. 29:21–30), which is forbidden by Leviticus 18:18. Later, it was Esau, Judah, and Simeon who married outside of the family. Intermarriage was condemned in Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy. 7:3. The groom had to purchase his wife; he paid the bride’s family to compensate for the loss of the bride’s services and her potential offspring, which is the so-called bridal price. Maidservants were given for procreation on the marriage occasion as a backup for when a woman could not provide an heir. The antiquity of the patriarchal narrative is also evident in the comparison between the Judah and Tamar story and levirate law in Deuteronomy, which points to the significant social changes. In the later period, the brother of a man who died childless had the right to refuse to fulfill the levirate marriage. Since the law was given to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, what kind of religious practices are mentioned in the patriarchal period and how do they differ from the later period? This will be the subject of our next chapter.

Chapter 3

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

The Book of Genesis has neither laws nor moral responsibilities. Only promises of nationhood and posterity were given to the patriarchs by God. Not surprisingly, some scholars claim there is no such thing as a patriarchal period or patriarchal religion.1 The scholars maintain that these stories in Genesis are late retrojections composed during the monarchial period. The Rabbis were also aware of the lack of moral responsibility and lack of law. However, they solved this problem by claiming the existence of divine covenant with the whole human race. According to them, God made a covenant with Adam and Noah. This came to be known as the Noachide Commandments. Nevertheless, some religious customs and practices were already described in the Book of Genesis: building altars, offering sacrifices, setting up pillars, planting sacred trees, praying, and circumcising. In an attempt to reconstruct the religious customs of the patriarchs and assign a precise date to the stories, scholars used extra-Biblical sources. In spite of using similar data, they arrived to contrasting conclusions. Evidently this kind of methodology had some f laws and did not offer an adequate solution.2 One of the main problems is the fact that some of the religious 1

2

J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 318–319; J.  Hoftizer, Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvӓter (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956), 6–30; T. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest For the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1974); J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 220–233. S. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems”, in J. A. Emerton et al., eds, Congress Volume (VTSup, 29; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 320–356; S. M. Warner, “The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources”, JSOT 2 (1977), 50–61; A. R. Millard, “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts”, in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 35–51; J. T. Luke “Abraham

52

Chapter 3

practices and social customs in the Book of Genesis remained unchanged for centuries.3 This in turn led scholars to reevaluate their thinking and methodology. Therefore, in order to identify the religious customs and practices of the patriarchs, we will use a diachronic approach and examine the Biblical text as it stands. In other words, we will identify the patriarchs’ historical beliefs by examining the different religious customs described in the Book of Genesis. In addition, we will compare the customs to later periods in the Biblical narrative. This in turn will help us to see, if indeed, the religious customs of the patriarchs were authentic presentations of their faith during their time or presentation of the later monarchial period.

Altars Genesis mentions building altars quite often. The patriarchs built new altars and afterward they reused the ones they built. Following God’s theophany at the terebinth of Moreh, Abraham built an altar as gratitude for the promise of the land (Gen. 12:7). Abraham built a second altar between Beth El and Ai, where he invoked the Lord by name (12:8). Returning back from Egypt, he stopped at the same altar and invoked the name of God (13:4). A third altar is mentioned in Genesis 13:18 where Abraham, who lived by the terebinths of Mamre in Hebron, built an altar there unto the Lord. There is another instance of Abraham building an altar in the story of the binding of Isaac. However, this altar was a different one; here he

3

and the Iron Age: Ref lection on the New Patriarchal Studies”, JSOT 4 (1977), 35–47; J. M. Miller, “The Patriarchs and the Extra-Biblical Sources: A Response”, JSOT 2 (1977), 62–66. D. N. Freedman, “The Chronology of Israel and the Ancient Near East: A. Old Testament Chronology”, in G. E. Wright, ed., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), 205; M. J. Selman, “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age”, in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 125–126.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

53

built an altar as a result of God’s request to sacrifice Isaac. This fact is more significant because this is the only time that the patriarch made a sacrifice. Abraham built altars before, but there was no mention of sacrifice. It has been suggested that Abraham’s altars were already sacred places.4 This assumption was based on the use of the phrases “the place,” “the Oak of Moreh,” and “the oaks of Mamre.” In other words, this is a testimony to a primitive religion animistic in its nature. However, the word “the place” does not always refer to a holy site. In two instances Abraham built altars at Beth El and Hebron (12:8; 13:18), but there is no mention of theophany. Did he build these altars because he moved to a new place? We should note that he does not always build an altar upon arriving to a new place. It was suggested that he built the altar because he planned to stay there for a longer period. More likely, the altars were built to establish claim to the Promised Land. Indeed, the patriarchs did not build altars outside of the land of Canaan.5 In addition, the altars also served as a place of communion with God, a place of worship. On two occasions Abraham “called upon the name of the Lord,” when he built an altar or when he visited one previously built (12:8; 13:4). Like his father Abraham, Isaac also erects an altar to God and invokes God’s name after receiving a theophany (26:25). He built an altar after he moved to the new place. Later, Jacob will stop at the same site in Beer Sheba on his way to Egypt and use the same altar that his father previously built (46:1). It is possible that building an altar at Beer Sheba also served as a claim to the land of Israel since Beer Sheba was on the border of southern Israel. In addition, since the three patriarchs were connected to the sanctuary in Beer Sheba, this legitimized the sanctuary in later Israel. In the Book of Amos we read that people stopped to receive oracles there (Amos 5:5; 8:14).6 J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), 246; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36. A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985), 153–154. 5 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs ( JSOTSup 277; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 55. 6 Skinner, Genesis, 327. 4

54

Chapter 3

Upon arriving to Shechem, Jacob sets up an altar and calls it “El the God of Israel” (33:20). In contrast to the previous building of altars by the patriarch, this one does not respond to theophany. But it is connected to the promise Jacob made at Beth El: “If God will be with me … then Yahweh shall be my God” (28:20–21). Therefore, Jacob calls the altar El-Elohe-Israel. Returning back to Beth El in the land of Canaan, Jacob built a second altar and named the place El-Beth El (35:7). Here, however, God instructed Jacob to go to Beth El and to build an altar there (35:1). Finally, on the way to Egypt Jacob stopped at Beer Sheba and offered sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac (46:1). It appears that the building of the altars was spontaneous, since there is only one incident where God instructed Jacob to build an altar (35:1). The altars were a place to commune with God, therefore, the patriarchs invoked God’s name. The altars were built on the occasion of the epiphanies, not for sacrifice, but as enduring signs. They served as a sign of gratitude for God’s promises. Segal explained the building of altars as the attachment of spiritual context to the place. Accordingly, the patriarchs built altars where they prayed to God but removed the pagan element, which is symbolized by the sacrifice.7 The custom of the naming of altars or invoking God’s name continued with Moses (Exod. 17:15) and Gideon ( Judg. 6:24) but is not mentioned afterward. Only in one instance, in the binding of Isaac, Abraham made a sacrifice on an altar that he erected (Gen. 22:13). Thus, not surprisingly, the patriarchs did not have priests. Priests will appear in Israel only after the Exodus, with the dedication of Aaron and his son by Moses (Exod. 28–29; Lev. 8–10). Before the existence of priesthood, it was the head of the family who brought sacrifices and blessed the members of his family (Gen. 28:1–4; 48:9–20; 49:3–28). In the Book of Exodus, the first-born lead the community (Exod. 22:28). In 24:5, they are referred to as the “young men of the people of Israel.” But they lost their important role after the story of the golden calf (34:26; Num. 8:2–26). This change is echoed in Numbers 8:18: “Now I take the Levites instead of every firstborn of the Israelite.”

7

M. H. Segal, “The Religion of Israel before Sinai”, Tarbiz 30 (1961), 220–221 (Hebrew).

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

55

Sacrifice The first mention of the patriarchs offering a sacrifice appears in the binding of Isaac story. Accordingly, Abraham took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. Some suggest that the story of the binding of Isaac is a polemic against human sacrifice. The binding of Isaac is a transitional story from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. However, examination of the Biblical narrative does not support this view. Animal sacrifice is already mentioned in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:4); and it was regarded as a natural form of an offering. In the Noah story, we read that after emerging from the ark, Noah sacrifices animals and birds (8:20). Isaac questioned his father Abraham on the way to mount Moriah: “Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” (22:7). This shows that he assumes that a sacrifice to God involves sheep. The substitution of the ram for Isaac was Abraham’s own initiative and not divinely ordained. By offering a sacrifice instead of his son, Abraham showed his devotion and gratitude to God. Human sacrifice was practiced among pagans in order to appease their gods; the initiative came from the pagan worshipers. In our story, it is God who asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and it is God who stops the sacrifice. Human sacrifice did not end with the binding of Isaac. On the contrary, we still read about it in the Hebrew Bible. Jephthah took a vow that if God will deliver the Ammonites into his hands, the first person who will come to greet him back home: “shall be the Lord’s and shall be offered by me as a burnt offering” ( Judg. 11:31). In Jeremiah 7:31, children of both sexes are sacrificed to Yahweh at the Topheth in the valley of Hinnom. The sacrifice, which is described in the binding of Isaac, is typical to the patriarchal narrative. Neither a priest nor established cult is involved. This matter is between the patriarch and God. It is different from later periods where organized sacrifice was offered during festivals and public occasions. The sacrifices functioned as a removal of sin and healing, neither of which are mentioned here. The second time that sacrifice is mentioned is after the pact between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:54). Jacob offers a sacrifice on the Height, before

56

Chapter 3

sharing a meal with his kinsmen. There is no mention of an altar or a priest. This kind of offering was made where the people were camped. It has the characteristics of nomadic origin. The animal was taken from the f lock, and it was not burnt but eaten by the sacrificer and his family. In the ancient world, treaty-making was sealed by a meal.8 When a superior recognized the power of the inferior party, he would seek a treaty from the inferior; the two parties took an oath of non-aggression, which was sealed by eating a meal together.9 Indeed, Genesis 26:30 records the treaty between Isaac and Abimelech, followed by a feast that included eating and drinking. Thus, Beno Jacob pointed out that the story of Jacob offering sacrifice does not speak of a sacrifice, but of fraternization after peace making; a common meal uniting the two parties.10 We should note that this peace making meal also had a religious element; each side swore by his own deity and called him to act as a judge if one of them violated the treaty. The third instance where sacrifices are mentioned is when Jacob is on his way to Egypt. He stopped at Beer Sheba and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac (46:1). Apart from Genesis 31:54, this is the only case of the verb “to offer sacrifice” in the Book of Genesis. It does not mention an altar. This is probably the altar that Isaac constructed (26:25). The sacrifices are termed as ‫( זבחים‬zevahim). This type is different from “burnt offerings” because only a small part of the slaughtered animal was burned while the larger part was eaten at a festive family or communal meal. It could be offered in making vows or an act of giving thanks, but here it has additional meaning. Jacob offered his sacrifices before the Lord appeared to him rather than afterward, which suggests that it might be an incubation. Incubation was a well-known phenomenon in the ancient world. The subject went to a sacred place, offered sacrifices to God, and fell asleep hoping he would be visited by Him in a dream. The content of the dream was supposed to provide advice and guidance. Jacob offered

8 Exod. 24:5–11; Deut. 27:6–7. 9 D. J. McCarthy, “Three Covenants in Genesis”, CBQ 26 (1964), 182. 10 B. Jacob, The First Book of The Bible: Genesis, abridged, edited, and trans. by E. J. Jacob and W. Jacob (New York: Katav, 1974), 216.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

57

sacrifices and requested divine assistance; as a result, the Lord appeared to him and encouraged him. Indeed Josephus’ description of the incident echoes this view: Halting at the Well of the Oath, he there offered sacrifice to God; and fearing that by reason of the prosperity prevalent in Egypt his sons would be so greatly enamored of settling there … and furthermore that having taken his departure into Egypt without God’s sanction his race might be annihilated; yet terrified with all that he might quit this life before setting eyes on Joseph-these were the thoughts which he was revolving in his mind when he sank to sleep. Then God appeared to him and called him twice by name … Encouraged by this dream, Jacob with greater ardor departed for Egypt along with his sons and his son’s children.11

Stones In the Jacob stories, one of the cultic motifs that repeat is the setting up of pillars. On the morning after God appeared to him in a dream at Beth El, Jacob took the stone that had been under his head “and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it” (Gen. 28:18). This is unlike Abraham and Isaac who built altars in response to a theophany. The pillar was an upright piece of stone. In antiquity, there was a widespread belief that the stones were the dwelling places of gods and spirits; the veneration of pillars may represent a survival of that belief. Later, stones symbolized the presence of the deity in a temple, and afterward still served as a memorial to the deity’s appearance in a particular place. These pillars became a symbol of Ball and were associated with the high places of Canaanite religion. Thus, the Bible condemns their usage (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; Hos. 10:1; Mic. 5:12). In the older traditions of the patriarchs, the legitimacy of the pillars is not called into question. The stone that was under Jacob’s head marks the place of the encounter with God. It served as a witness to Jacob’s dream and

11 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 2, 170–176.

58

Chapter 3

to God’s promises to him. Similarly, a pillar is used as a testimonial to the pact between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:45–54). A large stone also served as a memorial of the covenant between Israel and the Lord at Shechem ( Josh. 24:27).12 When Laban made a pact with Jacob, he instructed his kinsman to gather stones and to make a mound. This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible that a pile of stones served as part of a treaty agreement. Usually a pile of stones indicates that it is a burial site and is useful for locating ruins of an ancient city. In addition to setting up the pillar following his dream at Beth El, Jacob also poured oil on top of the stone. Skinner believes this is a trace of a primitive belief of stone worship, where the anointing of the stone was originally a sacrifice to the indwelling numen. He cites an example from Pausanias (X, 24, 6): “On a small stone in a sanctuary of Delphi oil was poured every day.”13 Pouring oil over the stone is frequently associated with the consecration of cultic items (Exod. 40:9–13; Lev. 8:10–12; Num. 7:1). Therefore, it is not a witness but a cult object endowed with divine powers and representing God Himself.14 However, the parallels to Pausanias descriptions are from a later period with a different religious matrix, so it is unwise to make any comparisons. More likely, the pouring of oil over the stone signals a bond between Jacob and God. There is extensive evidence from the ancient Near East about the use of oil in international treaties. It served as a token of friendship and peace. In our story, it connects Jacob with a vow that he has to fulfill. Jacob experienced a second theophany at Beth El when he returned to Canaan. He set up a stone pillar to commemorate the experience. This

12

13 14

See: Skinner, Genesis, 378; C. Houtman, “What did Jacob See in his Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Gen. 28:10–22”, VT 27 (1977), 343; “Sacred Stones Sometimes Considered as the Dwelling of the God or even the God Himself ”, in J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr.19; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 90. John Skinner, Genesis, 380. C. Houtman, “What did Jacob See in his Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Gen. 28:10–12” 343; Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 49–50.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

59

event also featured the offering of a libation and the pouring of oil upon the stone (Gen. 35:14). It is not clear if this is a rededication of the pillar of 28:18 or the erection of a new one.15 In contrast to the earlier story of Beth El, Jacob offers a libation. In the Hebrew Bible, libation is a wine offering. This is the only time that libation is mentioned in Genesis. The libation is poured on the pillar but not on the altar. In the ancient world, libation was at first an offering for the dead, as it is found among the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Arabs.16 However, it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, food offering is found in Deuteronomy 26:14. Sarna suggests that we don’t have a duplication of the early ceremony of 28:18, but simply an added dimension. Hence, Jacob is “rehabilitating the original stela, which is now invested with new meaning.” To bolster his study, Sarna points to an inscription about Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Babylonia: “When the palace shall have become old and ruined, may some future prince restore its ruins, look upon the stele with my name inscribed [on it], anoint it with oil, pour out a libation upon it, and return it to its place.”17 Conversely, Jacob erected a new stone pillar. The author knew about the Beth El story in Genesis 28 but assumed the pillar that Jacob erected did not exist anymore. Thus, the pouring of oil has the same meaning as the rite in 28; it came to establish a contractual bond between God and Jacob.18 In Genesis 35:20, a different meaning for a pillar appears. In this instance, Jacob set up a pillar over Rachel’s grave, where the stone serves as a memorial marker. Much later Absalom sets one up for himself since he had no children (2 Sam. 18:18). This use of stones as memorial markers survives until this day, as evidenced in the practice of people marking the graves of their loved ones with stones. As mentioned, the setting up of pillars was forbidden later because they were considered illegitimate (Deut. 16:22). The last time that the Bible 15 Sarna, Genesis, 242. 16 John Skinner, Genesis, 424. 17 Sennacherib’s Bit Kutalli inscription, col.6, lines 76–79. D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 130. 18 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 169.

60

Chapter 3

mentioned the erection of pillars was with Moses, who set up 12 at Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:4). In this account, they symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. It appears that the distinction between legitimate and idolatrous practices was difficult, therefore the pillars were outlawed.19

Prayers Prayers are mentioned several times in Genesis. The first time that prayer is mentioned is in Abimelech’s dream. God told Abimelech that Abraham would intercede on his behalf and pray for him (Gen. 20:7). In v. 17 Abraham prays to God and God healed Abimelech, his wife, and his slave girls. The prayer is mentioned here but the content of the prayer is not recorded. It was not uncommon for people to pray for one another. Later Moses prayed for his sister Miriam (Num. 12:13). Job prayed to God for his three friends ( Job 42:8). This was also common in the ancient near east when kings prayed for people’s healing and averting of divine judgment. A good example is Mursilis who prayed to remove the plague that had affected his kingdom since the days of his father, Suppiluliumas I.20 In Genesis 24:12–14, Abraham’s servant prays for guidance. This is the first occurrence of a prayer for guidance. The servant starts his prayer with an appeal to God to “keep faith with my master Abraham.” Then he requests a sign from God, “grant me good fortune this day” (v. 12). He wants a sign on the same day. This is the first passage in the Hebrew Bible where God answers a prayer on the same day that it is prayed.21 Recognizing that his prayer was answered, the servant bowed to the Lord, thanking God in a prayer (24:26–27). The action and the prayer in verses 26–27 are parallel Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 162. 20 “Plague Prayer of Mursilis”, trans. Albrecht Goetze, ANET, 394–396. 21 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 145. 19

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

61

to the prayer at the arrival to the well. The prayer itself is simple and starts with praise to God: “Blessed be the Lord,” and is expanded to: “The God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld His steadfast faithfulness from my master.” According to Towner, it is a spontaneous, non-cultic blessing of Yahweh.22 He believes that the usage of the formula, “Blessed be YHWH,” was used in conversation between people, and it was uttered for the benefit of the listener.23 Therefore, the servant was praying in the presence of the girl, and in the following verse may even be addressing her: “For I have been guided on my errand by the Lord, to the house of my master’s kinsmen” (v. 27). No intermediaries are involved in the servant’s prayer; it is a direct call for God’s help. It was followed by a “thanks prayer” to God. The prayers were natural, spontaneous expressions of God’s close relationship with his people. Isaac’s plea to God on behalf of his barren wife is also a form of prayer (25:21). God responded to his plea and consequently Isaac’s wife Rebecca conceived. Isaac, as the head of the family, is interceding on behalf of his wife. Here again the prayer is not recorded but mentioned. The Bible uses the verb (’āṯar) ‫ עתר‬to describe Isaac’s praying. The meaning of the root is “pray, supplicate always to God.”24 Interestingly, the same verb is used to describe Manoah who turned to God after learning about the birth of his son. The root is often used in the plagues account of Exodus. Pharaoh entreats Moses to pray for him so that the plague disappears.25 According to the Hebrew Bible, Rebecca experienced a difficult pregnancy, and so she went to seek divine guidance. Rebecca’s inquiry of the Lord can also be seen as a form of prayer. The Hebrew text uses the word (dārash) ‫“ דרש‬inquire,” which has the meaning of “to consult an oracle,

22 W. Sibley Towner, “‘Blessed be Yahweh’ and ‘Blessed Art Thou, Yahweh’: The Modulation of a Biblical Formula”, CBQ 30 (1968), 388–389. 23 Ibid, 389. 24 BDB, 801; for a general study see: E. Gerstenberger, “‫΄ עָתַר‬āṯar; ‫΄ עָתָר‬āṯār”, TDOT 11 (2001), 458–460. 25 Exod. 8:4, 5, 24, 25, 26; 9:28; 10:17.

62

Chapter 3

to inquire of Yahweh.”26 Elsewhere this involves going to a sanctuary or consulting a prophet. However, no information is given as to the place of inquiry. Rebecca lived at Beer-lahai-roi, the place were Hagar received a theophany, which might have inf luenced Rebecca to go to the same site. Interestingly, the text tells us that Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord. The usage of the divine name Yahweh is not accidental due to Rebecca’s background: she previously belonged to a family of idol worshipers. Therefore, the usage of the divine name Yahweh came to dissociate her action from the pagan cult. The result is a prophetic oracular in which Rebecca is informed that she is carrying twins, each will be a father of a nation, one nation will be stronger than the other, and the older will be a slave of the younger (Gen. 25:23). Before the encounter with his brother Esau, Jacob turned to God in prayer (Gen. 32:11–13). The prayer starts with an appeal to God. Jacob invokes the “God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O Lord,” then he reminds God of the order: “Return to your country and to your kindred, and I will do you good.” This is exactly what God told Jacob in 31:3. It appears that Jacob tells God that he is in the present situation because of his obedience. He then mentions what God has done for him, saying he is not worthy of all the mercies and faithfulness. The petition is preceded by self-deprecation. Similarly, Saul and David both expressed their unworthiness at their selection as King. Verse 12 is the heart of the petition, where Jacob asks, “Please rescue me from my brother” so that he will not kill the women and children. Jacob begs God to avert his brother’s attack when he cites his fear of being annihilated. The prayer ends with a reminder about God’s promise to be with him and to make his descendants numerous (28:14). This prayer is “a model of rhetoric – a principle of which is to persuade the one appealed to that his interests and one’s own coincide.”27 It is also notable that this prayer lacks any confession of guilt.

26

Judgs. 6:29; 1 Sam. 9:9; 1 Kgs. 14:5; 22:5, 8; 2 Kgs. 1:2; 3:11; 8:8; 22:13, 18; 1 Chr. 34:21, 26; Isa. 19:3; Jer. 21:2; 37:7; Ezek. 14:3, 7. 27 Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983), 14.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

63

This corresponds well with the patriarchal era when there was no moral code. This ultimately changes in the covenant at Sinai. When the patriarchs worshiped, they invoked the name of God (Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). The calling of the name is an act of worship. This invocation relates to the Ancient Near Eastern notion of a connection between a person and their name. But the connection is not just lexical; it is symphonic—since the way a name is pronounced has mystical implications on the meaning of that name. In the Book of Genesis there is no suggestion that this form of prayer received a response from God. However, the form “call upon the name of the name of Yahweh” is found outside the Pentateuch only when an answer from the deity was expected (1 Kgs. 18:24; 2 Kgs. 5:11; Ps. 116:14; Isa. 64:6; Lam. 3:55; Joel 3:5; Zech. 13:9), or it is used doxologically (Ps. 80:19; 105:1; 116:13, 17; Isa. 12:4; Zeph. 3:9).28 We can see that prayers in the Book of Genesis were a spontaneous outpouring of the heart. They were individual and tailored for the specific occasion. They were not connected to a specific site or a cult.

Swearing Swearing is another religious act that is mentioned in Genesis. In Abraham’s pact with Abimelech, he asked Abraham to swear to him. In addition, Abimelech asked Abraham not to deal falsely with him or with his posterity (Gen. 21:23). The Hebrew term “deal falsely” is found in the eighth century B. C. E. Sefire treaty, meaning to be guilty of a breach of contractual commitment.29 The act of swearing gave the treaty its authoritative stamp. Similarly, Abraham, in his encounter with the king of Sodom, swears to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth (14:22). The act of swearing was accompanied by lifting up the hands. Even now this tradition

28 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, 378. 29 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscription of Sefire, 107.

64

Chapter 3

can be seen in customs such as raising one hand, while the other rests on the Bible, before testifying in a judicial court.30 Later, the act included the holding of a Torah scroll, phylacteries, or a Bible. Abraham’s servant swears to Abraham by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth (24:3). It has been suggested that this expression is a Hebrew adaptation of an oath formula in which the gods of heaven and earth are summoned to witness an oath.31 It also might be because the mission involves travel to a distant land, that the servant invokes God’s universal sovereignty. In addition, the servant puts his hands under Abraham’s thigh, which is a euphemism for touching the genitalia. According to Vawter, we have here an ancient ceremony, “which reverenced the organ of the generation as the seat of life and symbol of sacredness: the same mentality that found expression in phallic worship and fertility ritual.”32 In the Joseph cycle, we find an oath “by the life of  Pharaoh.”33 Similarly in Israel, we find the practice to swear by the life of the king (1 Sam. 17:55; 2 Sam. 14:19) or by God (1 Sam. 25:26; 2 Sam. 15:21). Joseph uses an oath by Pharaoh to scare his brothers. Scholars tried to date the Joseph story based on the usage of the oath formula, but as Westermann pointed out, “no need to look for Egyptian models for the form; it corresponds to the Israelite oath by the life of the king.”34

30 Exod. 6:8; Num. 14:30; Deut. 32:40; Ezek. 20:23. 31 D. K. Andrews, “Yahweh the God of the Heavens”, in W. S. McCullough, ed., Seed of Wisdom: Essays in the Honor of T. J. Meek (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1964), 45–57. 32 Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 267. 33 For Egyptian oath formula by Pharaoh see: J. A. Wilson, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt”, JNES 7 (1948), 129–156; D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Gen. 37–50) (VTSup 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 233–234. 34 Claus Westermann, Genesis 37–50, trans. John J. Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1986), 109; R. de Vaux, The early History, 309.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

65

Circumcision An important institution in the Jewish religion is the practice of circumcision.35 This custom is first mentioned in Genesis 17:9–14. It serves as a sign of an eternal covenant between God and his people like the rainbow and the Sabbath. In Exodus 4:24–26 circumcision comes to protect the person from the anger of God. The usage of a f lint blade knife for circumcision points to the antiquity of this custom (Exod. 4:25; Josh. 5:2), since this type of knife is from the Bronze Age. Evidently, Abraham did not start the practice of circumcision because he knew what to do. Not surprisingly, the rabbinic legend suggests that it was known before.36 In the Book of Genesis, all the descendants of Abraham are circumcised: Isaac, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah. It is only with the end of the patriarchal period that the circumcision becomes a mark of ethnic difference. Indeed the Hebrew Bible uses a negative tone when speaking of uncircumcised people. According to the Bible, the uncircumcised people included the Shechemites (Gen. 34), and the Philistines. During the wars with the Philistines, the word uncircumcised became a term for the enemy (1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4).37 In the Books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the lack of circumcision is identified with cultic impurity (Ezek. 44:7, 9; Isa 52:1; Exod. 12:48). The prophet Ezekiel threatens the Phoenicians (Ezek. 28:10) and Egyptians (31:18; 32:17–32) with lying among the uncircumcised in their death as well as those slain by the sword, obtaining a special place in the underworld. Circumcision is also mentioned in extra-Biblical sources. According to Herodotus, Egyptians practiced circumcision “for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be clean than comely.”38 A stela from Naga ed-Der 35

For general study on circumcision see: Julian Morgenstern, “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24–26) Once Again”, HUCA 34 (1963), 35–70; idem Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death and Kindred Occasions among the Semites (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1966), 48–66; Robert G. Hall, “Circumcision,” ABD 1:1025–1031. 36 Genesis Rabbah, 42:8. 37 For the term uncircumcised see: G. Mayer, “‫ ָע ַרל‬ʿāral”, TDOT 11:359–361. 38 Herodotus, Histories, 2.37.

66

Chapter 3

in Middle Egypt from 23 B. C. E. gives us a report of a mass circumcision of 120 men. A tomb relief from Saqqara from 2350 B. C. E. depicts an operation on a boy. However, it is not clear if this practice of circumcision was widespread or restricted to a certain class. It is also unknown if it was obligatory or voluntary. Circumcision among the Canaanites is found in the writings of Philo of Byblos: “At the occurrence of a fatal plague, Kronos immolated his only son to his father Ouranos, and circumcised himself, forcing the allies who were with him to do the same.”39 The Hebrews probably adopted the practice of circumcision as they moved into Canaan (Gen. 17; Josh. 5:2–9)40 Israel’s neighbors stopped the practice of circumcision during the second temple period as a result of Persian and Greek cultural inf luence. From that period onward, circumcision became a sign of recognition to Jews and converts to Judaism.

Sacred Trees In the stories about Abraham, Genesis mentions trees such as the terebinth of Moreh (Gen. 12:6) and the terebinth of Mamre (13:18; 14:13; 18:1). In addition, we read that Abraham planted a Tamarisk tree at Beer Sheba and invoked the name of the Lord (21:33). In the ancient world, the phenomena of sacred trees, which are associated with sacred places, were well known. In fact, sacred trees are frequent in Mesopotamian iconography. The trees were a symbol of fertility and associated with the fertility gods. Prayers were addressed to them for help in sickness and for fertile seasons. Branches 39 Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History book 1.33–34; Harold W.  Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Jr. Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 57. 40 According to Sasson the practice began among the NW Semites and then moved to the south where the Egyptians adapted it. According to him, circumcision was known to the inhabitants of North Syria during the early third millennium. See: Jack M. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East”, JBL 85 (1966), 473–476.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

67

and leaves were used as medicine and for other ritual purposes. Oracles were received from the trees, and sometimes it was believed that the tree spoke with a voice. The voice of the tree was the wind in the branches and required a soothsayer to interpret it.41 Later we read that fertility cults were attractive to many Israelites, thus they built altars under trees and worshiped other gods. The Book of Deuteronomy and other Biblical texts condemn the places of worship “on the hills, under every verdant tree” (Deut. 12:2; 1 Kgs. 14:23; 2 Kgs. 16:4; 17:10; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 6:13; Hos. 4:13). Thus, it’s no surprise that the official religion of Israel forbade the planting of trees next to the altar (Deut. 16:21). When Abraham arrived in the land of Canaan he stopped at the terebinth of Moreh (Gen. 12:6). Since the Hebrew word moreh means teacher, modern scholars speculate that it might be a reference to an “oracle giver.” Accordingly, the tree served as a place where oracles could be obtained, which is indicative evidence of primitive tree worship. Gunkel, for example, rendered “oracle terebinth.” According to him, the voice of the tree is perceived in the rustling of its branches and interpreted by the oracle or priest. He points to the giant oak at Dodona where its priest and priestess interpreted the noise of the leaves and the sounds of the spring that f lowed out of its water.42 In the Homeric epic, we read about Odysseus who goes to Dodona “to hear the will of Zeus from the high crested oak of the god.” Because of the size, strength, and longevity, people honored and revered these trees and attributed certain sanctity to them. However, it is more likely that the terebinth of Moreh served as a landmark since the Bible tells us that: “Abraham passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh” (12:6). By mentioning the tree, the Bible gives the precise location of Abraham’s dwelling, “From there he moved on to the hill country east of Beth El and pitched his tent, with Beth El on the west and Ai on the east” (12:8). There isn’t any hint

41 W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1907), 195. 42 Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 166.

68

Chapter 3

that Abraham was engaged in tree worshiping. The only religious act is the building of an altar. In addition to the terebinth of Moreh, Genesis describes terebinths of Mamre. In two passages it appears as a name for Abraham’s dwelling place (13:18; 18:1), which was located at Hebron (13:18). The third passage, 14:13, makes reference to terebinths of Mamre with the personal name “Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and Aner.” As with the terebinth of Moreh, the terebinths of Mamre served as a landmark that designated Abraham’s place of habitation. Trees not only signify the place of habitation; people lived next to them for safety and protection. In the second millennium B. C. E., the ḫapiru bands were very active in areas with considerable woodland. It was very difficult to control this kind of land with the military equipment available in antiquity.43 Abraham follows a similar path. He also lived in rocky areas of the central mountains, which had considerable woodland and a smaller population. There were more woodland areas in the second millennium B. C. E. than there are today. The rocky area with its dense woodland provided good cover. Thus, it is also conceivable that Abraham lived next to trees for safety reasons. It is also possible that Abraham was living next to trees because it gave him protection and cover against harsh weather. According to 18:1, the Oak of Mamre gave him shade. Travelers were resting at midday in the shade of the trees, as we read about the angels who came to visit Abraham (18:4, 8), similarly we read about the man of God who was sitting under the terebinth (1 Kgs. 13:14). As we know, the oak is among the best shade trees in the land of Israel. It typically grows up to 25 feet, and has a thick trunk, heavy branches, and an abundance of leaves. Later, the Bible tells us is that the Israelites worshiped other Gods on mountains and under trees. The reason for choosing trees as the site of a sanctuary was because of the cool shade offered by a dense leafy tree. Indeed,

43 M. B. Rowton, “The Topological Factor in the Habiru Problem,” in H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen, eds, Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Assyriological Studies 16; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965), 375–387.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

69

in the Book of Hosea 4:13 we read: “They sacrifice on the mountaintops, and offer on the hills, under oaks, poplars, and terebinths, whose shade is so pleasant.” The trees that are mentioned are not fruit bearing trees. They were chosen because their shade is good, thus they were deemed to be a proper setting for the worship of idols. Genesis 21:33 is the only place where Abraham plants a tree. We are not told why Abraham planted it. According to Gunkel, Abraham is a cult founder, but we should ask if one can plant a holy tree.44 According to Benno Jacob, the planting of the tree was so that “the tree shall be a permanent memorial of the event.”45 Abraham planted the tree as a marker for the place where he called on his God. Tree planting is similar to altar building and marked the foundation of the great shrine of Beer Sheba. While, according to Radak (Rabbi David ben Joseph Kimḥi 1160–1235), Abraham planted the tree next to the well as a testimony that the well belonged to him, it was a public demonstration of his undisputed ownership of the well. We have to remember that trees were often used to mark the boundary between fields belonging to different owners. By planting the tree, Abraham was claiming the territory as rightfully his, and for which he had made an agreement with Abimelech. Specifications of trees in land sale were common in ancient contracts in all periods. Indeed, the Babylonian Bill of Sale listed trees along property.46 From the second temple period we read that a person that purchased a field with trees in it had a claim for the ground around it.47 The eshel that Abraham planted was probably Tamarix aphylla, which is found in the Negev, but not Tamarix pentadra, which is common to the Sinai Desert. It is a tall tree that requires very little water and is suitable to the sandy soil of the northern Negev desert area. It is noted for its cool shade and ability to withstand heat and dry spells. In addition, it was used as a fuel for cooking. The Bedouin planted this tree because of its 44 Gunkel, Genesis, 233. 45 B. Jacob, The First Book of The Bible: Genesis, 141. 46 Eberhard Schrader, Keilinschriftliche bibliothek (Berlin: Reuter & Reichard, 1889–1915), iv. 101, 161, 165. 47 TB Baba Batra, 82b.

70

Chapter 3

soft branches, which their f locks eat. Thus, it is possible that Abraham, in addition to his demonstration of ownership, planted the tree for shade, fuel, and food for the f locks. It is interesting to note that Abraham’s first stop in the Promised Land was by a tree (12:6). In 13:18 he built an altar by the tree of Mamre. He lived near trees (14:13), and in 18:1 he entertained Yahweh under the trees. Finally, here he plants a tree. Review of the Book of Genesis shows that there is no trace of the patriarch Abraham engaging in any religious rites at these trees. It is only in the later period that we read about the Israelites who worshiped Yahweh on mountains, in the hills, or under any spreading tree (Deut. 12:2; 1 Kgs. 14:23; Jer. 2:20). It was this late Bible reading and later traditions that associated Abraham and sacred trees. Thus, not surprisingly, the Aramaic translators avoided translating the word “tree.” Instead they gave it a different meaning using the word “plain,” which is a f lat land found at the bottom of a valley, in order to avoid any association of Abraham with paganism.48 In conclusion, examination of the patriarchal age shows no regular patterns of worship. They lacked a liturgical calendar and specific places for worship. Their religion developed as a reaction to a developing situation. There were no temples and no priests. Instead, the patriarchs built altars to God as a form of worship and invoked his name. Despite the building of altars, sacrifices are hardly mentioned. Prayers and swearing are a simple spontaneous outpouring of the heart and are not connected to a site or a cult. They were individual and tailored for a specific purpose. The custom of circumcision was an ancient one and was also practiced by the Egyptians. In Genesis, all of Abraham’s descendants are circumcised; it is only later that the Hebrew Bible uses a negative tone while describing the uncircumcised. Trees are mentioned several times in Genesis. However, as we pointed out, they are not sacred trees but only landmarks. It is only later that we read that the Israelites worshiped other gods on lofty mountains, on hills, or under luxurious trees. Reading the Book of Genesis reveals that there is no religious antagonism. There is no mention of conf lict with

48 For further study on the subject of trees see: Shaul Bar, “Abraham’s Trees”, IBS 28/1 (2010), 2–20.

The Religious Customs of the Patriarchs

71

idolatry. More so, there appears to be no major religious differences between the belief of the patriarchs and their neighbors. This difference of beliefs between the Israelites and their neighbors will become more apparent only after the covenant at Sinai. From that point on, Israelites inhabit one side of the world, with Gentiles on the other side. The religious customs of the patriarchs as they appear in Genesis point to a distantly primitive stage of the Israelite religion, which was similar to Israel’s neighbors.49 In Genesis, we have the first steps toward monotheism that developed fully only after Israel received its laws and commandments. Now that we have dealt with the religious customs of the patriarchs, the next stage of our study is to consider whom the patriarchs worshipped. The different names for God and the form of God’s appearance will be examined.

49 For a different view see: John Van Seters, “The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis”, Bib 61 (1980), 220–233.

Chapter 4

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

According to the Talmudic legend, Abraham was a monotheist who destroyed his father’s idols. In Christianity, Paul describes Abraham as the father of all of Israel and a symbol of fidelity to God.1 However, in the Book of Genesis, Abraham and the other patriarchs worshipped different elim such as El Elyon, El Olam, El Roi, El-elohei Israel, El Bethel, and El Shaddai. Interestingly, the god El was also well known in the ancient Near East. In a Canaanite myth from Ugarit he is portrayed as the king of the gods. More so, his characteristics are very similar to the deity that the patriarchs worshiped in the Book of Genesis. The patriarchs also worshipped “the god of Abraham,” “the Fear of Isaac,” and “Mighty One of Jacob.” Thus, it was suggested that the patriarchal gods did not bear their own name but were named after their cult founder, which was typical of nomadic people. This type of name was also found in Nabatean and Palmyrean inscriptions. Another phrase found only in the patriarchal stories is “the God of my/ your/his Father,” with the names of Abraham or Isaac or both, attached to them. This formula is also mentioned in God’s revelation to Moses: “I am, He said, the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3:6). As with previous phrases, the phrase “god of my father” was well known in the ancient Near East over a long period. The patriarchs also knew of Yahweh and Elohim. In contrast to the different phrases that are described above, the name Yahweh relates exclusively to Israel. But according to the Book of Exodus, the patriarchs were not familiar with the name Yahweh (Exod. 6:2–3). Therefore, were the patriarchs true monotheists? In order to answer this question, this

1

Romans 4; Galatians 3:6–16.

74

Chapter 4

chapter will take up the question of the different names for God and the form of God’s appearances.

The Different Names of God The first time the name Yahweh appears is in Genesis 2:4, where the first man invoked the Lord (Yahweh) by name. In other words, monotheism was the first original religion of the human race. Later, according to Genesis 12:1, Yahweh called Abraham to leave his native land. Yahweh was also known to the other patriarchs who built altars to Him and invoked his name. However, this tradition differs from the Book of Exodus, which says that initial revelation of the name Yahweh took place during the time of Moses: “I am Yahweh; I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them” (Exod. 6:2–3). Although it was Yahweh who appeared to the patriarchs, they did not know him by that name. It is noteworthy that all proper names mentioned in the Torah until the time of Moses are not constructed with the divine element based on this name. Thus, names with a prefix yeho/ yo or suffixed yahu/yah started to appear only after the birth of Moses. The Hebrew name of Moses’ mother, Yokheved, is the first of these types of names. According to Exodus, the patriarchs knew God mainly as El Shaddai. El Shaddai is the most common name constructed with the initial El. The epithet Shaddai appears alone or in combination with El. The term El Shaddai appears mostly in poetic texts, which testify to its antiquity, since Hebrew poetry tends to preserve the earliest forms of language.2

2

Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), 51.

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

75

Furthermore, there are only two names in the Hebrew Bible constructed with the element Shaddai: Zurishaddai and Ammishaddai.3 El Shaddai was not the only El that the patriarchs worshipped. All accounts agree that the patriarchs worshipped different Elim. El is common to all Semitic languages as a general term for god. El etymology is uncertain and perhaps derives from a Semitic root, “to be strong.” The patriarchs worshiped God under the name El, thus “El Elyon” (Gen. 14:18–22), “El Olam” (21:33), “El Roi” (16:13), “El-elohei Israel” (33:20), “El Bethel” (31:13; 35:7), and “El Shaddai” (17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:13; 48:3; 49:25). Examination of these titles shows they are connected to certain locales: El Beth El to Beth El, El Olam to Beer Sheba, El Roi to a sanctuary farther south near Kadesh, and El-elohei Israel in the vicinity of Shechem. On the other hand, El Elyon and El Shaddai do not correspond to a place. The mention of the different Elim in Genesis points to an earlier phase of worshipping God. When the first Hebrews moved into Canaan, they found altars and sanctuaries where El was worshiped. Since El had many traits in common with their own clan deity, they identified him with their own God. Indeed, Genesis shows that the characteristics of the Biblical El are very similar to those of El in the Canaanite epics from Ugarit. In these, El is the king of gods. His description resembles the god El that the patriarchs worshiped. El is the creator of the universe, the creator of the human race, and the father of gods and humans. His attributes as kind and compassionate are the same as the Biblical El. He lives on a mountain from which all the fresh water comes to the world. He also lives in a tent and not a temple. In the epics of Kirta and Aqhat, he is the one who provides offspring to the childless couple.4 3

4

Zurishaddai means “My Rock is Shaddai,” and Ammishaddai “My Kinsman is Shaddai.” Both names belong to two Israelites who were born in Egypt. Interestingly the second name was discovered in hieroglyphic inscription from fourteenth century B. C. E. Egypt. See: F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 53. Wayne T. Pitard, “Before Israel: Syria-Palestine in the Bronze Age”, in Michael D. Cogan, ed., The Oxford History of the Biblical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 73–74.

76

Chapter 4

We believe that the Canaanite El was assimilated into the Biblical concept of God at an early stage in the patriarchal narrative. Thus, when Abraham meets Melckizedek, the king of Salem, he uses one of El’s lofty titles, El Elyon, the “God Most High,” for his own God Yahweh (Gen. 14:22). Hagar identifies El Roi the “God of Seeing,” with Yahweh (16:13). Abraham, after he planted a tree at Beer Sheba, uses the epithet El Olam, the Everlasting God for Yahweh. Jacob named his resting place in Beth El, the “House of El” (28:12–19). The fusion between El and Yahweh took place at an early stage; this is probably the reason why there is nothing negative about El, even though he was worshipped by the Canaanites. Conversely, Baal, the Canaanite god of storm and fertility, is condemned time after time in the Hebrew Bible. Baal is the chief rival of Yahweh who led the Israelites astray from their covenant with God. The patriarchs had personal ties with God, which is manifested in titles such as: “the god of Abraham”5 (Gen. 28:13; 31:42, 53), the “Fear of Isaac,” (31:42; 53) and “Mighty One of Jacob” (49:24).6 God was the patron deity of the clan. Therefore, when Laban and Jacob formed a pact, each side invoked his own deity. Laban swore by the God of Nahor, while Jacob by the Fear of Isaac. Alt suggested that the patriarchal gods did not bear their own name but were named for their cult founder. To bolster his claims, Alt pointed to the Nabateans and Palmyreans inscriptions from the first century B. C. E. to the fourth century C. E. The inscriptions describe nomadic people who worshipped “the god of X,” where X was the name of the founder of the cult. However, we should note that the patriarchal period is too remote from the Nabatean period to make a valid comparison. Alt further says that the cults of theses deities were restricted to certain locals and sanctuaries. He concluded that the cult of the “Mighty one of Jacob,” was worshipped among the tribe of Joseph, that “the Fear of Isaac” among the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and “the god of Abraham” in the 5 6

It was suggested that the name was “the Shield of Abraham” on the basis of Gen. 15:1. See: J. P. Hyatt, “Yahweh as ‘The God of My Father’”, VT 5 (1955), 130. “Mighty One of Jacob” appears elsewhere only four times and in poetic text (Isa. 49:26; 60:16; Ps. 13:2, 5; Isa. 1:24). It is similar to the Akkadian divine title bel abāri, “endowed with strength.”

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

77

clan of Caleb and the tribe of Judah. However, as noted by many scholars there is no basis for this theory.7 More likely, the titles that the patriarchs gave to their God were merged by the literary editors into the God of Israel. Their epithets disappeared and they are found under the names such as the “the God of your fathers,” and “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The phrase “the God of my/your/his Father,” with the names Abraham or Isaac or both, are found only in the patriarchal stories and points to the close relationship between the patriarch and God. This epithet is used when God appeared to Isaac: “I am the God of your father Abraham,” (26:24), and to Jacob in his dream at Beth El: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac” (28:13). This formula is also mentioned in God’s revelation to Moses: “I am, He said, the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3:6). The use of the formula here comes to stress continuity between the patriarchs and Moses. There are some instances where the formula, “the God of my/ your father,” is mentioned without the name of the patriarch (Gen. 31:5, 29; 43:23; 46:3; 49:26). Lewy, who was the first to point out the phrase “God of the father,” was well known in the ancient Near East over a long period from the nineteenth century B. C. E. on.8 The phrase god of the father(s) appears with and without accompanying a personal name. Thus we find: “Ashur god of my father,” “Ashur and Amurrum the gods of our father,” and “Shamash the god of my father.” Evidently, the phrase “the God of my/your /his Father,” which is attested to in the patriarchal narrative and in the ancient Near East, came to indicate the close relationship between the individual and his god, who was his patron and protector. It was typical for a nomadic society to look for an intimate god who would guide and protect them. The close relationship between the patron deity and an individual in Israel is also manifested in some of the personal names of the Hebrews.

7 8

M. Haran, “The Religion of the Patriarchs: An Attempt at a Synthesis”, ASTI 4 (1965), 51 no 34; G. J. Wenham, “The Religion of the Patriarchs”, in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 172–173. J. Lewy, “Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien Testament”, RHR 110 (1934), 29–65.

78

Chapter 4

This group of names included names that included an element such as father, brother, and people. In the Hebrew Bible, father, brother, and people are interchangeable with the name of the deity. Names like Abimelech/ Ahimelech, means “My (divine) Father/Brother is (my) King,” Eliezer “My divine Father is a Help (to me),” Eliab “My God is a Father (to me),” and Ammiel “(The God of ) my People is God (to me).” These kinds of names illustrated the kinship and the closeness between the clan and the deity. Interestingly, these names were common until the tenth century B. C. E. but rare after that, which shows they are from ancient times. But Alt was not the only major twentieth century scholar to take an interest in this issue. Frank Moore Cross also developed his own set of ideas and hypotheses to explain the different titles of El. In his work, he analyzed the parallels between the divine epithets of El in Genesis with the characteristics of El from Ugarit and the ancient Near East and arrived at a different conclusion. According to him, the patriarch religion can be described as a form of El religion.9 Titles such as El Elohe Israel and El Elohe Abika are similar to the Canaanite El. Other titles, such as El Olam, El Elyon, and El Shaddai, have characteristics that also point to El. The only exception he finds is with El Shaddai; he believes that its origin is Amorite and was brought by the patriarch from Mesopotamia. For Cross, the different divine names do not point to different gods worshiped by the Hebrews before they adopted Yahwism as Alt suggested. He believes that they are different titles of El through the pre-Mosaic period. He suggested continuity between the patriarchal religion, a form of El religion, and the Yahwism, which were accepted only later by the Israelites. We have to remember that when the patriarchs and the first Israelites came to Canaan they made “the language of Canaan” their own. (Isa. 19:8) Thus, not surprisingly, the terms that they used to describe their God were similar to that of the Canaanites. The patriarchs contextualize their theology to match their situation. So, they select a name for God that matches their particular need at that moment in time. Each name and phrase had

9

F. M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs”, HTR 55 (1962), 225–259; Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 3–75.

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

79

a different meaning and referred to God’s different attributes. For the sages, the ancestors of Israel were true monotheists. Post Biblical traditions feature Midrashim that portray Abraham as a monotheist. Abraham left Mesopotamia because of his zeal for the worship of one true God. Most telling is a Midrash that grapples with the different names of God. According to this Midrash, the different names of God point to different attributes of God: R. Abba. b. Mammel said: God said to Moses: “Thou wishest to know My name. Well, I am called according to My work; sometimes I am called ‘Almighty God’, ‘Lord of Hosts’, ‘God’, ‘Lord’. When I am judging created beings, I am called ‘God’, and when I am waging war against the wicked; I am called ‘the Lord of Hosts.’ When I suspend judgment for man’s sins, I am called ‘Adonai’ for ‘Adonai’ refers to the attribute of Mercy, as it is said: The Lord, the Lord (Adonai, Adonai), God, merciful and gracious.”10

The God of Israel and the Foreign Gods In addition to the God of Israel, the foreign gods are also mentioned in Genesis. At first there is no tension between the God of Israel and the other gods. God judges the gentiles and they know of him. God appeared to Abimelech, king of the Philistine city of Gerar, in a dream by night and warned him. Abimelech responds: “O Lord, will You slay people even though innocent?” (Gen. 20:4). Later in reaction to God’s appearance in his dream, Abimelech acts at once as he was instructed. First thing in the morning he summons all his servants who are “greatly frightened” after hearing his dream (20:8). By returning Sarah with payment to Abraham, Abimelech indicates that he gave full credence to his dream. In response to Abimelech’s rebuke, Abraham acknowledges that there was more “fear of God” in this place than he imagined. There is nothing in the text that

10

Exodus Rabbah, 3:6.

80

Chapter 4

suggests antithesis against the uncircumcised Philistines; this issue appears later in the Hebrew Bible ( Judg. 13–16; 1 and 2 Sam.). The same is found in Genesis 22:22–23, where Abimelech states that God is with Abraham and asks Abraham to swear by God’s name. When Laban invites Abraham’s servant into his home, he tells him: “Come in, blessed of Yahweh” (Gen. 24:31). Later, after the servant recounts his story of his journey and the meeting with Rebecca, Laban and Bethuel responded: “The matter was decreed by the Lord; we cannot speak to you bad or good” (24:50). In other words, when Yahweh spoke, he took the decision out of Laban’s hands. The impression is that both Laban and Bethuel speak of God as if He is their God. Laban also attributed his success to God. He tells Jacob that he knows that God has blessed him because of Jacob (30:28). The prosperity that Laban achieved is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham: that all families of earth will be blessed through him and his descendants. This is one instance where an outsider admits that God’s blessing stems from Abraham’s family and those associated with them (14:19–20; 21:22–23; 26:12–16, 28–29; 39:5, 23). Laban’s knowledge of God is echoed in his dream. In the dream, the Lord warns Laban off and deters him from acting (31:24). Laban later speaks with Jacob and rebukes him for his conduct, while mentioning the warning he has received from God. Laban acts in obedience to his dream. In the covenant between Jacob and Laban, it is Laban who invokes, “May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor their ancestral deities – Judge between us” (Gen. 31:53). It was customary for each party in a nonaggression pact to swear by their own god. Interestingly, Laban invoked two gods, “the god(s) of Abraham” and “the god(s) of Nahor,” which shows that he was a polytheist. Jacob on the other hand swears by the Fear of Isaac. Here again we find that Laban was familiar with the god(s) of Abraham. The first mention of tension between the God of Israel and that of alien gods appears in Jacob’s return to Beth El.11 Jacob orders the people of his household: “Rid yourself of the alien gods in your midst, purify 11 Sarna, Genesis, 239.

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

81

yourself, and change your clothes” (Gen. 35:2). The alien gods were probably part of the spoils found in Shechem or carried by the captives. It might be that they refer to the terafim that Rachel stole from her father (31:19). Verse 4 mentions “rings that were in their ears.” These objects, along with the alien gods, were buried. The rings were not ordinary pieces of jewelry, they were amulets, objects of superstition that were used in false worship (Ho. 2:15; Judg. 8:24)12 Vawter believes that the author had crescent earnings in mind that symbolized moon worship in the ancient Near East.13 Later, earrings were used for the making of idolatrous cultic objects such as the golden calf and an ephod (Exod. 32:2–4; Judg. 8:24–27). The demand for the renunciation of the foreign gods and renewed devotion to God is also attested later in the Biblical narrative ( Josh. 24:14, 23–24; Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:3–4). We have here the first step toward the idea that is expressed later in the Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3).

Theophany When the Bible speaks of God’s revelations, it comes to make man know God. It shows humanity His power, nature, glory, and his wills and plans, and it discloses a message to humans. The vocabulary that describes God’s revelations uses words such as “to see,” “hear,” “perceive,” “to understand,” and “to know.” In the revelation, God tells man about Himself – who He is, about His acts in the past, what He will do, and what He requires them to do. Therefore, God revealed his plans and expectations to Noah and Abraham (Gen. 6:13–21; 12:1; 15:13–21; 17:15–21; 18:17). The revelation is needed because God is transcendent. He is far from man and man cannot see Him or find Him.

12 13

John Skinner, Genesis, 423. Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading, 362.

82

Chapter 4

God spoke and appeared to the three patriarchs. At first, outside of the land of Israel, Abraham only heard God’s voice. God only appeared to him upon arrival in Canaan (Gen. 12:7). To describe God’s theophany, the Hebrew Bible uses the verb (rā’â) ‫“ ראה‬to see.” This verb appears several times in the Abrahamic cycle (12:7; 17:1; 18:1). In Genesis 12 and 17 God appears to Abraham, while in chapter 18 God is joined by angels. Previously, the Bible used the verb “to see,” and again it is used when God revealed himself to Isaac in Genesis (26:2, 24). Jacob, on the other hand, received his revelations in the form of dreams (28:12–18; 31:10–13; 46:1–4). Only in one incident are we told that God appeared to him (35:9). In addition, he had encounters with angels first in his dream at Beth El, then on his way back to Canaan (32:20), and finally in Jabbok where he wrestled with an angel of God (32:25–30). Despite the fact that the Bible describes God’s theophany with “to see,” and “Yahweh let himself be seen,” and “showed himself,” for most cases, there is no attempt to describe the form of appearance – only words that were spoken are mentioned. Evidently, the spoken words were more important than the theophany was.14 It is also possible that describing God’s appearance was too difficult, thus limited to some passages. James Barr suggests that “in the teaching of the Old Testament God is nowhere conceived of as essentially in human form. Rather is he conceived as pure spirit, able to assume a form rather than as having in himself physical form.”15 However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Indeed, in Genesis 18:1 Yahweh manifested Himself to Abraham. The patriarch was sitting at the entrance of his tent when he saw three men coming toward him. It is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible of a trio of heavenly guests. The three visitors appeared to him as human, and there was nothing superhuman about them. The visitors are at first referred to as men. Only in verse 13 does the narrator refer to one of the visitors as Yahweh. The two men leave and Abraham remains with the one identified

14 James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” VTSup 7 (1960), 32. 15 H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956), 75–76.

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

83

as Yahweh (v. 17). The two men who arrived at Sodom in the evening are subsequently referred to as angles (19:1). The fact that God appeared in human form bothered the rabbis, thus the Talmudic sages referred to it as the shekhinah.16 The term was used by the rabbis in place of “God” where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper. The word is taken from such passages that speak of God dwelling in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (Exod. 25: 8; 29: 45–46; Num. 5: 3; 35: 34; 1 Kgs. 6: 13; Ezek. 43: 9; Zech. 2: 14). The term is frequently found in the Targums, predominantly in Targum Onkelos. It appears together with terms such as “noble word” to paraphrase references to God. This was done in order to avoid anthropomorphic implication of Biblical expression. Numbers 12:6–8, however, portrays a different picture of God’s theophany to his servants. God told Aaron and Miriam: “When a prophet of the Lord arises among you, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is trusted throughout My household. With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the Lord.” Moses is a unique prophet since, according to this text, he speaks directly to God, “mouth to mouth” or “face to face.” There is nothing between them when Moses hears God’s voice. Moses sees God’s form in clear view. Nevertheless, even though God is close to Moses, Moses does not see God’s face.17 This is stated in Exodus 33:20: “But He said, ‘you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live.’” In other words, by nature, human beings including Moses cannot directly observe God. Interestingly, in verse 18 we read that Moses requested of God: “Oh, let me behold your Presence!” Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon known as Rambam 1135–1204) understood Moses’ words figuratively: Moses asks for an intellectual perception of God and not what is visible through the senses.18 Ramban, on the other hand understood 16 17 18

For further study see: Shubert Spero “But Abraham stood yet before the Lord”, JBQ 141 (2008), 12–15. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 341–342. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedländer (New York: Hebrew Publishing, 1881), 1.3.

84

Chapter 4

it literally, and accordingly, Moses requested a glimpse of the divine presence. The phrase “face to face,” which is found in Numbers, does not mean to see the other’s actual face but expresses a means of communication with nothing intervening between the two speakers. Indeed, in the following verse in Exodus 33:21 we read that Moses did not see God but only his back. The Midrashim have a similar view, which maintains that Moses did not see God clearly: Rabbi Judah says, “All the prophets saw through nine mirrors, as it is written, ‘like the vision of the vision I had seen, like the vision I had seen when I came to destroy the city, and vision like the vision that I had seen by the Chebar Canal. Forthwith, I fell on my face’ (Ezek. 43:10).19 But Moses saw through only one mirror – ‘in a vision and not in riddles’ (Num. 12:8).” Our sages say that all the prophets saw through a clouded mirror, as it says, “When I spoke to the prophets, I granted many visions [and spoke parables through the prophets].” (Hosea 12:11)20

This homily is based on the principle that prophetic sight is like looking in a mirror that distorts the image somewhat. Moses looked through a single mirror, whereas the other prophets saw an image that had been ref lected nine times, so that the image was greatly distorted. God is beyond description, yet human nature demands that we attempt to describe God. The Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to God but in terms of human understanding. This in turn led men to resort to the language of anthropomorphism. Indeed, this was echoed by one of the leading Karaite scholars, Jacob al-Qirqisani, who wrote in the first half of the tenth century. In his writings, he mentions 37 principles that elaborate the difficult ambiguities of the Hebrew Scripture. In his fourth principle, he deals with the question of anthropomorphism where he points out that God addresses mankind in a manner accessible to their understanding and their own experience; this is what the Talmud means by saying: “The Law speaks with the tongue of man (Baba Metzi’a, 31b)”: 19

R. Judah reaches the number of nine mirrors by adding up each occurrence of “vision” (“vision”=2) and “seen” in these verses. 20 Leviticus Rabbah, 1:14 (ed. Margolioth).

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

85

Thus, when the Creator wished to describe Himself, He described Himself as provided with eyes, because men are familiar with the sense of sight and know from their own experience that its seat is the member of the body which is the eye, not because He really is provided with bodily members. Likewise, when He wished to let them know that no sound is veiled from Him, He described Himself as provided with ears, because among men sounds are perceived by the sense of hearing. The same applies to all matters of this sort.21

A similar view was also expressed by Maimonides: “The Torah speaketh according to the language of man,” that is to say, expression, which can easily be comprehended and understood by all, are applied to the Creator. Hence the description of God by attributes implying corporeality, in order to express His existence; because the multitude of people do not easily conceive existence unless in connection with a body, and that which is not a body nor connected with a body has for them for them no existence.22

Angels Stories about angels’ appearances to humans are typical to the patriarchal narrative and to the Judges’ period. When the Bible needs to describe direct encounters with humans in a dramatic fashion, it uses angels. After the period of the Judges, the appearance of angels diminishes. The last person who received a revelation from an angel was the prophet Elijah. With the development of classical prophecy, the prophet came instead of the angel. Only later in prophetic vision do we again encounter angels, but a new type of angel. The angels are no longer appearing to humans but are seen in visions. The Hebrew word for an angel is mal̕ akh derived from the stem l-̕ -k, to send. In Genesis, it is also used for ordinary human (32:4). Later, a prophet or a priest might also be called “an angel of the Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, Excerpts from Early Literature (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952), 63. 22 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 1.26. 21

86

Chapter 4

Lord” (Hag. 1:13; Mal. 2:7). There is not much we know about them. They are nameless, no individuality or free will, and no hierarchy among them. Their main function is to deliver Gods words, to be emissaries. In Israel, as in the ancient Near East, the angels were part of the royal court; Yahweh was envisioned as a king and the angels served in his royal court (Gen. 28:12; 33:1–2). There are incidents where angels are perceived in human form: therefore the people to whom they appear are not aware of it. Abraham’s three visitors are described as “men” (18:1, 16, 22:19:5, 10, 12, 16). Later, they are described as angels (19:1, 15); but the people of Sodom perceived them to be human (19:5, 9). A similar incident is described in the Samson story where an angel of the Lord appeared to Samson’s mother. She describes him as a man of God who “looked like an angel of God, very frightening” (v. 6). Her husband, Manoah, does not recognize him as an angel at first, but only after he disappears in f lames on the altar (vv. 20f ). There are some texts where the distinction between God and the angels is not clear. In some narratives, the angel appears to be a distinct figure, but later in the narrative it appears as though it is Yahweh and not an angel. The angel speaks to Hagar (16:7–8, 9, 11), but Hagar responds to God (v. 13). The same took place in the binding of Isaac. God commanded the sacrifice of Isaac, and later Abraham is addressed by the angel of the Lord from heaven (22:1ff, 11–18). The angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush (Exod. 3:2), but Moses speaks directly with God in the rest of the story. In the Exodus story, it is God who leads the Israelites (Exod. 13:21); then it is His angel (14:9). So too in the Gideon story, sometimes Gideon speaks with God and sometimes with the angel. ( Judg. 6:11ff ) From this, scholars infer that the angel was not an independent being but a manifestation of Divine power and will. Since the angel is partly identified with God, he is his messenger; therefore, he uses God’s name while speaking. Another possibility is that the phrase “angel of God” is an addition. At first, only the name “God” appeared in the stories. However, the fear that the stories would be perceived as too corporeal caused the addition of the phrase “angel of the lord.” Since this was not done consistently, there are difficulties. Indeed, this view was held by the Maghārrīya, a Jewish sect that f lourished in Egypt and among the Karaites. Accordingly, all the anthropomorphic passages in the Bible are referring to angles, rather

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

87

than to God. More so, it was an angel that created the world and addressed the prophets. In the Jacob cycle, most of his encounters with God are in dreams where we read about encounters with angels. It is not clear, however, what the role of the angels is in those encounters. In Jacob’s dream at Beth El, the angels are going up and down on the stairway (28:12). The ladder and angels are only stage props, whose main function is to lead up to the climax – the appearance by the Lord. Perhaps the angels are scouting out the land and then returning to heaven to report to God. Or perhaps they represent Jacob’s hopes and fears and his prayers that the Lord will protect him. These prayers ascend to heaven where they are answered. Angels are also mentioned in Jacob’s return, where: “Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God encountered him” (32:2). It appears that Jacob’s journeys are marked by the appearance of angels on his way out of Canaan as well as his return. This suggests that they accompanied Jacob during his travels. It is possible that their presence points to divine protection, which is mentioned in Psalms 91:9–11: “Because you took the Lord-my refuge,/ the Most High – as your heaven,/no harm will befall you,/no disease touch your tent./For He will order His angels/to guard you wherever you go.” A third encounter with an angel is recorded in Genesis 32, but this time the text tells that the angel was in a human form. Here, Jacob wrestles with a divine being that is described as a “man” (v. 25). When the dawn broke, he asked Jacob to let go. Why did the man demand this from Jacob? It was suggested that it was a demon whose powers evaporated at daybreak.23 However, we should point out that the mysterious being who wrestled with Jacob is first called a man then Elohim (Gen. 32:24, 28, 30). However, Hosea refers to him as an angel (12:4). Modern scholars suggest that Jacob fought with a demon or river spirit. Those river spirits fought with people who attempted to cross their abodes. Thus, travelers would make sacrifices and libations before trying to cross the river.

23

J. L. McKenzie, “Jacob at Peniel: Gen. 32, 24–32”, CBQ 25 (1963), 73.

88

Chapter 4

In the Midrash, we find the view that this mysterious assailant was the guardian Prince [angel] of Esau.24 The Midrash tries to convey the idea that Jacob, before he overcame a “man” (Esau), defeated “Elohim,” which is the angel who protected Esau. It was customary in ancient times for the two rivals to fight against each other before god; it was considered an ordeal. Similarly, we find rivalry between Rachel and Leah. When Rachel finally overcame Leah, she used similar language to that which Jacob used: “I waged with my sister; yes, and I have prevailed” (Gen. 30:8). The story of Jacob wrestling with a mysterious being evidently has several layers that includes mythical imagery. The story belongs to a very primitive form of Israelite belief. The story was refined later to suggest that the adversary is Yahweh. At the center stands Jacob, who is on the eve of his meeting with his brother Esau. The story is a ref lection of Jacob’s life and his struggles with people and God.25 The “man” with whom Jacob struggles symbolized Esau, Isaac, and Laban. The “man” in the beginning and the end of the story is also God. Jacob faces a moral crisis; he has to face his brother who he had deceived. The story has a combination of psychological and theological elements. Jacob will enter the Promised Land as the father of the Hebrew nation. Jacob’s name is changed to Israel because his old name is associated with deceit. It is a new beginning for the father of the Hebrew nation. Not surprisingly, fear seized him with all the thoughts of deception and struggles surfacing at this crucial moment. In conclusion, the different divine names do not point to different gods worshiped by the patriarchs. On the contrary, the different names for God point to different attributes of God. Since the Canaanite god El had many traits in common with their own clan deity, the patriarchs identified him with their own God. The Canaanite El was assimilated into the Biblical concept of God at an early stage in the patriarchal narrative. What we have in the Book of Genesis echoes primitive tales. Human beings are confronted directly by God. He walks and talks among people. These tales

24 Genesis Rabbah, 77:3; 78:6; Song Rabbah, 3:6. 25 For further study see: Jerome Kodell, “Jacob Wrestles with Esau (Gen 32:23–32)”, BTB 10 (1980), 65–70.

The God/Gods of the Patriarchs

89

were widespread in the ancient world and were found later among the Greeks: “For even the blessed gods, in the image of wandering strangers, assuming any form, often traverse lands and cities so they may see both the sin and the piety of mortals.”26 Later, the Hebrew scribes toned down this concept by interjecting an angel. The fear that the stories would be perceived as too corporeal caused the addition of the phrase “angel of the lord.” This fear is also manifested in the descriptions of God’s appearance in the form of a dream, which will be the focus of our next chapter.

26 Odyssey 17, 485ff; for further study see: Herman Gunkel, Genesis, 193.

Chapter 5

Dreams

In the ancient world, people saw dreams as a channel of communication between human beings and divine forces. They believed that messages that dealt with the future were delivered during sleep. Akkadian sources describe a “god of dreams” whose task it was to send dreams.1 Sometimes, bad dreams and evil signs came from sorcerers who sought to harm a person, but spells and charms could be used to avert them. Egyptians too believed that dreams were from the gods. Therefore, not surprisingly, guidebooks for interpreting dreams from Mesopotamia and Egypt have been found. These books contain instructions and keys for interpretations. Dreams that were left uninterpreted made the dreamer impure, so ceremonies and prayers to remove the evil of the dream from the dreamer were conducted.2 The idea that dreams are from God is also found in the Book of Genesis. At first, however, the patriarchs and humans are confronted directly by God who talks and walks among them. Those tales were widespread in the ancient world. Later, the Hebrew scribes modified this concept by interjecting the concept of angels and describing God’s appearance in the form of dreams. It is believed that anthropomorphism was difficult and embarrassing because it describes God with human qualities. Communication by dreams came to mitigate the directness of anthropomorphism. God became remote there by distancing God from humans. Examination of the Book of Genesis reveals that God appeared to the patriarchs in dreams. He appeared to Jacob three times, to Abraham in a vision (Chapter 15), and to Isaac twice (Gen. 26:2; 24) – the second 1 2

A. L. Oppenheim, “Dream”, EMiqr 3:146. Sally Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dreams Rituals (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 191.

92

Chapter 5

theophany was probably in a dream. In addition to the patriarchs, we read that God appeared to non-Hebrews, such as Abimelech and Laban. Furthermore, we find in the Joseph cycle six dreams: two by Joseph, one by the butler, one by the baker, and two by Pharaoh. Outside of the Book of Genesis the Hebrew Bible mentions only two dreams: one in the Book of Judges and another in the Book of Kings. Only later in the Book of Daniel do we again find a description of dreams. Thus, we can say that the dream phenomenon is a typical characteristic of the Book of Genesis.3 In this chapter we will see what language was used to describe such divine revelations. What topics or themes served to transmit the ritual annunciations, commands, or warnings contained therein? Finally, are there patterns in the dreamer’s reactions to their dreams from which we may draw broader conclusions about the function of such phenomena?

Abraham In Genesis 15:1 God appeared to Abraham in a vision maḥazeh (‫)ַמֲחזֶה‬. The word appears only four times in the Bible (Gen. 15:1; Num. 24:4, 16; Ezek. 13:7) and typically is rendered in English as “vision.”4 A survey of the Biblical uses of the verb ‫ חזה‬and its derivatives indicates, in fact, that it is a technical term denoting the Lord’s revelations to prophets. Its use in other contexts is extremely rare. Because the root ḥ.z.h. ‫ה‬.‫ז‬.‫ ח‬and its derivatives are associated with the divine revelations to the prophets, it seems plausible that the noun maḥazeh is used in similar context. God’s theophany to Abraham starts with an encouraging promise, “Fear not Abraham, I am a shield to you.” “Fear not,” in its various

3 4

On the subject of dreams in the Hebrew Bible see: Shaul Bar, A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001). BDB, 303.

Dreams

93

grammatical forms, appears some 80 times in the Bible as a formula of encouragement and comfort. In the dialogue that ensues between Abraham and the Lord, the latter promises Abraham both an heir and many offspring. Here, Abraham is awake. The Lord takes him outside and tells him to look up and to count the stars. This revelation is both visual and auditory (Gen. 15:1–5). Direct and unmediated, it is typical of the age of the patriarchs.5 Sarna, discussing the topic of revelation, says that it is difficult to know whether the scene described here is a real event or dream theophany.6 Those who opt for the latter option note the nighttime setting of the vision, according to them, the stars are seen during the dream.7 The second dialogue between the Lord and Abraham occurs in vv. 7–21. This colloquy focuses on the promise of the land to Abraham’s descendants, a promise accompanied by the ceremonial slaughtering of animals. God instructs Abraham to take a three-year-old heifer, a threeyear-old she-goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young dove. Abraham cuts them into pieces (except for the bird) and places the pieces in parallel rows.8 Cutting up the animals connotes a sacrificial offering and so does the age of the animals. A three-year-old animal was considered to be the most desirable offering in ancient Israel and the Near East. After all the preparations for the covenant ceremony, which must have taken some time, Abraham stands and waits. Birds of prey swoop down on the carcasses and Abraham chases them away. The appearance of the birds may be a sign that forebodes evil, as we find later (vv. 13–16); here Abraham chases away the evil sign. In Egyptian art, the falcon was the totem bird of, among others, the god Hours with whom the pharaoh was identified.

Claus Westermann, The Promise to the Fathers, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 120. 6 Sarna, Genesis, 113. 7 J. Skinner, Genesis, 278; E. L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alten Testament (BZAW 73; Berlin: Topelmann, 1953), 36, 39. On page 36 Ehrlich refers to this as a vision but on page 39 as a dream. 8 A ceremony parallel to that in our chapter is found in Jeremiah 34:17–19, but there only a calf is used. On the Jeremiah text, see Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “Sin and Judgment in Jeremiah 34:17–19”, JBL 103 (1984), 611–613. 5

94

Chapter 5

The fact that Abraham chases the bird away may allude to the future conf lict in Egypt. The Israelites will be enslaved in Egypt but will depart from the country with vast possessions. Another possibility is that the descent of the birds of prey is a warning sign that the corpse of anyone who violates the covenant will be left as carrion for beasts and fowl. The author proceeds to describe how the sun was about to set. As night approached, Abraham fell asleep. The message to Abraham relates to the future; its theme is both national and personal. For 400 years his offspring will be aliens: enslaved and persecuted. God decreed that the Israelites will be subjugated in Egypt. Only after three generations in that country will the fourth generation return to Canaan. On a personal level, Abraham is told, “You shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a ripe old age” (v. 15). That is, he will not witness the start of their servitude with his own eyes, or even its incipient causes. His descendants, however, will have to wait outside the land until the fourth generation, when the sin of the Amorites reaches its full measure. After Abraham hears this message, the text returns to the present time. The sun has set and the darkness of night begins. In this blackness Abraham sees a smoking furnace or oven and a f laming torch that passes between the pieces of the slaughtered animals. These symbols are the emissaries of the Lord and signs of His presence. As for the nature of the experience described, the question is whether it is a nocturnal vision or a daytime experience, a waking vision or a dream. It seems most plausible that we have here a description of a single revelation that lasted for more than a full day. According to v. 5, Abraham was awake during his conversation with the Lord, for he goes outside, looks up at the heavens, and counts the stars; this indicates that it was night. After his colloquy with the Lord, Abraham cut up the animals, and the bird of prey descended on the carcasses. The preparations for the covenant ceremony took many hours and occupied the entire day after the Lord instructed Abraham what to do. When the sun set, a deep sleep fell upon him and he had a dream in which the Lord conveyed to him His promise of the land. In his dream, Abraham saw the cut up carcasses and the f laming torch passing between them. In other words, what he sees in the dream is direct communication of external waking reality. This reality is thereby understood to have symbolic

Dreams

95

meaning for the future and to herald events that follow Abraham’s merits of the past. In classical prophecy, there is only an associative link between external reality and the vision, with additional elements mixed into the latter. Here, however, the vision is a reproduction of waking reality. It is not a prophetic vision, however, because the notion of an assigned mission is still missing. Abraham’s theophany then has two stages: in the first stage he is awake, but in the second he is dreaming.

Isaac In two places we read that God appeared to Isaac, thus the question arises: Was it in a dream? (Gen. 26:2, 24). In the first incident, the text tells us that God appeared to him. The description here is characteristic of the ancient Near East and to the Biblical narrative where we read about a direct encounter between man and God. This divine revelation is introduced by the Hebrew va-year’ – “the Lord appeared.” The formula “the Lord appeared” is noteworthy because it is distinctive to the Genesis patriarchal narrative and is used three times with Abraham (12:7; 17:1; 18:1), twice with Isaac (26:2, 24), and once with Jacob (35:9). In Isaac’s theophany, God forbade him to go to Egypt. In addition, He reaffirms to Isaac the covenant He made with Abraham. Thus, the promise of the land and promise of many descendants is mentioned here, in addition to the mention of God’s promise “I will be with you” (v. 3). The theophany here is direct and not in the form of a dream, the typical elements of dream phenomenon are missing such as the word dream and the time of the theophany. Conversely, the second theophany occurs at night. In addition, it includes an introductory formula “I am the God of your father Abraham.” Mentioning the time of the theophany is typical to the dream phenomenon, thus we read: “But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night” (Gen. 20:3) or “but God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night” (31:24). Later, we read “that night God came to Balaam” (Num. 22:20). Each time God appears at night to gentiles. The Talmudic rabbis expounded:

96

Chapter 5

“It is like a king who had a wife and a concubine. When he went to his wife, he went in public, but when he went to the concubine, he did so secretly. So, too, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not appear to Gentiles prophets except at night: God came to Balaam at night, to Laban at night, and to Abimelech at night” (Genesis Rabbah, 52, 5). Nevertheless, even when the dreamers are Hebrews, the Bible consistently reports that the dreams are nocturnal. During Jacob’s dream in Beth El, “he came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night, for the sun had set” (Gen. 28:11). Similarly, “at Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night” (1 Kgs. 3:5). Unlike the Bible, however, the ancient Near East seems to have attached no great importance to a dream’s timing. This detail is omitted from most dream narratives in that literature. The self-introductory formula is another typical element of dream theophany. Therefore, when God appeared to Isaac, the text says: “I am the God of your father Abraham” (Gen. 26:24). Similarly, God identifies himself in Jacob’s dream at Beth El: “He said, I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac” (28:13); “I am the God of Beth El” (31:13). Evidently, the inclusion of the Lord’s name is meant to suggest that there is a close relationship between the deity and the dreamer. That is, the deity is the dreamer’s patron and protector. In extra-Biblical sources, too, there are dreams in which the deity identifies himself. For example, in the dream of Thutmoses IV, we read: “I am your father, HarmakhisKhepri-Re-Atum.”9 And in another Egyptian dream, that of Djoser, we read: “I am Khnum, you creator.”10 The other element that is typical to a message dream is the message itself, which refers to the future. Here God tells Isaac: “Fear not, for I am with you, and I will bless you and increase your offspring for the sake of my servant Abraham” (26:24). The message starts with the formula “Fear not,” which occurs numerous times in the Hebrew Bible and also in A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream Book. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, vol. 46 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), 251, section 8, no. 15. 10 Ibid. 9

Dreams

97

Jacob’s dream (28:13 according to the LXX; 46:3). It is also found in extraBiblical sources and it is known as “oracles of assurance.” It was given to a king before battle, for example, King Esarhaddon of Assyria (680–669 B. C. E.) receives an oracle: “King of Assyria, fear not! The enemy of the king of Assyria I deliver to slaughter.”11 The second part of God’s message to Isaac contained a blessing of many offspring, which was given to each of the patriarchs. As for the dream phenomenon, although the word dream is missing from the text, nevertheless the other components such as God’s introductory formula, mentioning night time, as well as the message, are typical to the Biblical dream phenomenon all of which are mentioned here.

Jacob Jacob’s dream at Beth El is unique because its verbal message is complemented by a vision (Gen. 28:12) to which the dreamer himself provides an interpretation (v. 17). It should, however, be emphasized that the link between the meaning of the vision (v. 17) and the verbal message (vv. 13b–15) is indirect. The narrator describes a ladder in the dream; its top reaches to heaven and angels of God are ascending and descending on it. There is a strong argument that the Biblical author was inf luenced by multiple extraBiblical sources. The ladder reminds us of the Mesopotamian ziggurats or sacred towers, which soared dozens of meters skyward and which were often described as having their tops in the heaven.12 Similarly, the angels’ ascent and descent on the ladder in Jacob’s dream parallels those of the Assyrian version of the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal where we read that the gods came down “the long stairway (simmiltu) of

11 12

“Oracles Concerning Esarhaddon”, trans. Robert H. Pfeiffer, ANET, 450. E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 219–220; Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), 193.

98

Chapter 5

heaven.”13 From an account of the angels ascending and descending the ladder (v. 12), the Biblical author reports the appearance of the Lord, who “was standing beside him” (v. 13). The ladder and the angels are only stage props, whose main function is to lead up to the climax: the appearance by the Lord. The promises to Jacob that constitute the heart of the dream (vv. 13–15) include a personal promise (v. 15) as well as others that have more national dimensions – possession of the land and the promise of offspring (vv. 13b–14). From a thematic perspective, God’s promises are quite similar to those that He made to Abraham in Genesis 13:14–16. He will give land to Jacob and his children, who will be like the dust of the earth. When God promises the land to Jacob, the text emphasizes that the reference is to “the ground on which you are lying,” which is appropriate to Jacob’s present situation. Jacob is concerned that he may not see his homeland again; the Lord promises that not only will he do so, but it will become the permanent possession of Jacob and his children in the distant future. On the other hand, the personal promise at the end of the dream has more immediate implications: “Remember, I am with you: I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you” (Gen. 28:15). This pledge is meant to encourage Jacob, who, totally indigent, is now f leeing Esau’s rage and journeying to an unknown land, believing that God has abandoned him. It is obvious that the Lord’s promise to Jacob is appropriate to his personal situation and will be realized in his own lifetime. It should be emphasized that the promise of returning “to this land” is also a recurrent theme in Jacob’s other two dreams (31:13 and 46:4) and highlights Jacob’s bond to his birthplace. And just as the promise of a son is a recurrent theme in the Abraham cycle, the theme of divine assistance and protection is prominent in the stories of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 26:3, 24; 28:15; 31:3; 32:10; 46:3; 48:15, 21; 50:24).

13

A. R. Millard, “The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Genesis xxviii.12, 17)”, ExpTim 78 (1966/67), 86–87; O. R. Gurney, “The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal”, AnSt 10 (1960), 105ff.

Dreams

99

Jacob’s dream in Beth El is marked by an emotional response – astonishment that quickly gives way to fear. His uneasiness in Beth El stems only from his sense of the place and nearness of God: “You shall venerate My sanctuary, I am the Lord” (Lev. 26:2). At this stage, Jacob’s reaction has nothing to do with the verbal message addressed to him by God in the dream. This emotional reaction takes place during the night. Verse 18 proceeds to describe the ritual activity that Jacob performs the next morning. He takes the stone that had been under his head “and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it” (v. 18). In antiquity, there was a widespread belief that stones were the dwelling places of gods and spirits; the veneration of pillars may represent a survival of that belief. Later, stones symbolized the presence of the deity in a temple, and later still, served as a memorial to the deity’s appearance in a particular place.14 In the Book of Joshua, a large stone is a memorial of the covenant between Israel and the Lord at Shechem: “And Joshua said to all the people, ‘See, this very stone shall be a witness against us, for it heard all the words that the Lord spoke to us; it shall be a witness against you, lest you break faith with your God’” ( Josh. 24:27). According to Sarna, this last verse is the key to understanding Jacob’s action. The stone that had been beneath his head is not only a marker; it is also a witness to the dream and God’s promises to Jacob.15 Another ritual activity performed by Jacob is his vow. This resembles other rituals described in the Bible such as those of Jephthah the Gileadite ( Judg. 11:30–31), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:11), and Absalom (2 Sam. 16:8). In each case, someone makes a commitment that, if not fulfilled, will entail certain other actions on his/her part. The condition of Jacob’s vow is symmetrically parallel to his commitments. It should be emphasized, however, that Jacob’s vow is unique because God has already promised him everything he is asking for (Gen. 28:15). The vow, which is a reaction to the verbal 14 Skinner, Genesis, 378; Houtman says that the stone is a cult object endued with divine power and representing God himself. See: C. Houtman, “What Did Jacob See in his Dream at Bethel?” 343; “Sacred Stones Sometimes Considered as the Dwelling of the God or Even the God Himself ”, see: Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscription of Sefire, 90. 15 Sarna, Genesis, 199.

100

Chapter 5

content of his dream, refers to the divine promises to him personally, but not to God’s promises to the nations as a whole. Fokkelman, who noticed this, maintains that, in general, the patriarchs do not respond to divine promises focused on the distant future.16 Genesis 31:10–13 describes another dream theophany visited on Jacob. The text as we have it is corrupt, but it is apparent that we are dealing with two separate experiences that have been arranged. One involves the stratagem by which Jacob made his f locks proliferate. This theophany took place in the narrative past and featured an angel of God with a visual element, supplemented by the angel’s word (v. 12). In the second theophany, however, the God of Beth El appears to Jacob and commands him to rise and leave Laban’s house and return to the land of Canaan – a revelation that refers to the present and immediate future. The message in the second theophany is only verbal. According to our text, the angel who told Jacob the secret of breeding the ewes now addresses him and tells him to go back to his homeland. But some time must have passed between the genetic counseling and the injunction to go back to his homeland. Furthermore, verse 12 is an almost literal reprise of verse 10. The angel tells Jacob to lift up his eyes and see what he has already seen. For this reason, some scholars have proposed inverting the order of the verses.17 After the dream, Jacob acts at once and without hesitation to implement the instructions he received in his sleep. He summons his wives from home and recounts how El Beth El has appeared to him in a dream and commanded him to return to his homeland. As Ramban reads the passage, Jacob is trying to persuade them to accompany him. Jacob could not take his wives away from their father’s house without their consent because they were still part of that household. He describes his dream to them in order to emphasize that this abandonment of their paternal homestead is a divine imperative and that they have an obligation to come with him. Rachel’s and Leah’s response that they are like aliens in their father’s house is tantamount to their consent to leaving. After the conversation with his

16 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), 75. 17 Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 491.

Dreams

101

wives, Jacob sets out immediately (Gen. 31:17). In other words, he does as he was told in the dream. Note that Rachel and Leah do not react to Jacob’s dream vision of the rams but only to the divine injunction to return to Canaan: “Now then, do just as the God has told you” (v. 16). This omission buttresses the argument made above that our text conf lates what originally was two separate dreams.

Incubation People in the ancient world believed that dreams were messages from the gods, therefore, not surprisingly, the Hebrew Bible portrays a type of dream that seems to be invited by the dreamer, who attempts to impose his will on God. In this variation, the dreamer goes to a sacred spot, offers sacrifices to God, and falls asleep hoping that God will visit him. The dream is supposed to provide advice and guidance. This type of dream is called an incubation dream. Incubation dreams are found in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia, incubation is a widespread phenomenon. The dreamers are usually kings and priests, and their dreams are preceded by prayer and sacrifices. In an Akkadian poem, we find an address to the goddess Mamu: “Reveal thyself unto me and let me see a favorable dream. May the dream that I dream be favorable, may the dream that I dream be true, may Mamu, the goddess of dreams, stand at my head; let me enter E-Sagila, the temple of the gods, the house of life.”18 In Egypt, incubation was associated with the diagnosis of diseases and discovery of remedies for them. One of the famous centers of incubation was the well-known temple in the city of Memphis. In the story of Satni,

18

H.  F. Lutz, “An Omen Text Referring to the Action of a Dreamer”, AJSL 35 (1918–1919), 146; R. K. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 34; Ehrlich, Traum, 52.

102

Chapter 5

Mahituaskhit goes to the temple of Imuthes in Memphis to pray to the god. Afterward, she falls asleep in the temple where the god appears to her in a dream and gives her a recipe to cure her barrenness. Crying was also part of the incubation. It is found in the dream of Sethos in the temple of Hephaistos.19 The king cries to his god in his sleep. The deity appears to him in a dream and promises him victory. In addition to incubation, there were Egyptian magicians who could summon dreams by drawing magical pictures and repeating thaumaturgic names. Our knowledge of incubation sanctuaries in Greece goes back to the fifth century B. C. E. The institution spread gradually, until sources for the second century C. E. report that there were more than 400 incubation centers in Greece and the Roman Empire. These temples were dedicated to various gods, some of them Egyptian and others Greek. As in Egypt, the main use of incubation was to find cures for disease. Consequently, many of the temples were dedicated to Asklepios.20 Homer recounts his bravery and skills in medicine, which he learned from Centaur Cheiron. The temples dedicated to Asklepios became the best-known incubation sanctuaries. Asklepios’s birthplace, Epidaurus, was especially prominent among such temples. Sufferers would sleep in the temple and then regain their health, thanks to dreams they had in the temple.21 A good example of dream incubation from the Hebrew Bible is Solomon’s dream at Gibeon (1 Kgs. 3:4). According to the text, Solomon went to Gibeon because that was the site of the great high place. He offered 1000 animals on the altar there, and the Lord appeared to him in a dream. The sacrificial offerings seem to ref lect the emotional need of human beings to honor their God, to placate Him as a condition for receiving His bounty. Similarly, sleeping in sacred precincts is a way of drawing closer to God. Indeed, such places have been consecrated because that is where gods have 19 Herodotus 2, 114; Gnuse, Dream, 29. 20 Carl Alfred Meier, “The Dream in Ancient Greece and its Use in Temple Cures”, in G. E. von Grunebaum and Roger Caillois, eds, The Dream and Human Societies (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1966), 303–319. 21 Strabo, 8.6.15; Pausanias, 2.27.3; L. Edelstein and E. J., eds, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1945), 145ff.

Dreams

103

appeared to mortals. Accordingly, people who went back there believed that if the Lord appeared there once, He would do so again. We should also remember that it is only reasonable to expect that the gods would appear in temples built especially for them. Dream incubation is already found in the Book of Genesis. Jacob on his journey to Egypt stops at Beer Sheba and offers sacrifices, after which the Lord appears to him in a vision by night. The text does not explain why Jacob stopped to pray in Beer Sheba. Perhaps he was afraid to continue his journey because of his frailty and advanced age. Perhaps he was anxious about leaving Canaan to settle elsewhere because his father Isaac had been forbidden to do so (Gen. 26:2). More likely Jacob stopped in Beer Sheba in order to seek divine blessing for his emigration. A closer reading of Genesis reveals that the patriarchs often interrupted their journeys in order to pray (12:8–9 and 28:18). Here, though, we read about a sacrifice to God. The fact that Jacob offered his sacrifice before the Lord appeared to him, rather than afterward, suggests that we have an incubation here: Jacob offered sacrifices and required divine assistance. As a result, the Lord appeared to him and encouraged him. Moreover, Jacob’s arrival at the site of the revelation is not described as a matter of chance. It seems plausible that he was aware of the sanctity of the site. Josephus’ description of the incident reinforces this view.22 Several other Biblical passages, however, have been alleged to be incubation dreams but are less likely to be so. One of these occurred at Beth El, where Jacob went to sleep in a sacred place and the Lord appeared to him in a prophetic dream. Jacob, however, arrived in Beth El purely by chance. He did not know that the place was holy: “Surely the Lord is present in this place, and I did not know it!” (Gen. 28:16). In fact, the place became sacred only after Jacob’s dream. Some also suggest that the story of the angel’s appearance to Hagar (Gen. 21:16–19) fits this genre. Hagar’s weeping and the angel’s initial question, “What troubles you, Hagar?” (v. 17) is paralleled in descriptions of

22

F. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930), 2.170–176.

104

Chapter 5

incubation dreams. Similarly, the angel’s statement to Hagar, “Fear not,” is found in the description of other dreams in the Bible. Finally, “then God opened her eyes” (v. 19) may indicate that Hagar had been asleep. At the same time, it should be noted that this expression is not used to describe waking from a dream in any other Biblical passage and seems rather to indicate that God gave her the ability to comprehend what she had not seen previously. Evidently, Hagar had not seen the well because of her exhaustion, or perhaps God made it break through the ground miraculously.23

Abimelech Abimelech’s dream (Gen. 20:3–7) falls into the category of the admonitory dream. In it, God appears to Abimelech and warns him, “You are about to die.” The reason: “Because of the woman you have taken; moreover she is a married woman.” Abraham is not mentioned by name, but only as the husband of the woman who was taken by Abimelech. He is also referred to as “the man,” “he,” and “a prophet” perhaps to indicate the distance between Abraham and Abimelech. God’s warning is concise and unambiguous. It is phrased in the present tense, as was noted by Sforno (Obadiah ben Joseph ca.1470-ca.1550), who paraphrased it as: “You are going to succumb to a disease that will begin with you because the Lord has closed fast …” Indeed, the chapter concludes with the report that the Lord healed Abimelech and his wife and his slavegirls (v. 17). On the surface, the text seems to be speaking of infertility, but Shadal (S. Luzzatto 1800–1865) believed that the reference was instead to some sort of venereal disease that prevented the king from having sexual relations with his wife and concubines. After Abraham prayed on their behalf, the king and his wives were cured and the latter could give birth.

23 Skinner, Genesis, 324.

Dreams

105

The need for Abraham to intercede is somewhat strange because Abimelech himself conducts a dialogue with the Lord. Why, then, did Abraham have to pray for the king? We can only note tradition ascribed to various prophets: Moses (Num. 12:13), Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:20–22), and Elisha (2 Kgs. 4:33–35) share the ability to make supplications and heal others. We should point out that dream dealing with past events is rare, since dreams are usually future oriented. But the Lord’s warning to Abimelech is in fact meant to keep him from sinning. Hence, He instructs Abimelech as to what he must do to clear his name: return Sarah to Abraham. Then God repeats His earlier warning: “You are about to die” (v. 3). Here, however, the Lord says to him: “You will surely die.” In reaction to God’s appearance in his dream, Abimelech acts at once and without hesitation to do precisely as he was instructed. Evidently, he believed that the dream came from God. Thus, first thing in the morning he summons all his servants, who are “greatly frightened” (Gen. 20:8) when he tells them about the dream. The Lord has punished Abimelech because of his “great sin,” namely, adultery. The same idiom is found in Egyptian documents, as well as in an Akkadian document from Ugarit: “That woman has sinned a great sin against you,” which evidently alludes to adultery.24 Abimelech acts at once to compensate Abraham for the damage to Sarah’s reputation, giving him sheep and cattle and slaves. The paired verbs “took” and “gave” constitute a hendiadys expressing the actions of making a donation. The idiom is common in Hittite and Ugaritic gift documents.25 Sarah also receives financial compensation for the slight to her reputation. As Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir ca.1080–1174) puts it, it is so “that people 24 PRU IV, 139–140; 6–7; Jacob. J. Rabinowitz, “The ‘Great Sin’ in Ancient Egyptian Marriages Contracts”, JNES 18 (1959), 73; W. L. Moran, “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit”, JNES 18 (1959), 280–281; J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 132–133. 25 C. J. Labuschange, “The našŭ-nadānu Formula and its Biblical Equivalent”, in H. S. H. G. Heerman van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A. van Uchelen, eds, Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to M. A. Beek (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 176–180.

106

Chapter 5

will not look at you disparagingly and say, ‘Abimelech treated this woman wantonly,’ because everyone knew that he took her in an honorable way and returned her against her will.” The financial compensation to Sarah is referred to as “covering of the eyes,” that is, a ransom payment to cover over guilt.

Laban Another warning is found in Laban’s dream (Gen. 31:24). As noted previously, dreams play a decisive role in Jacob’s life. When he is a fugitive leaving his father’s house desperate and alone, he hears Gods encouraging promises in a dream (28:15). Many years later, when Jacob is under the thumb of his father-in-law, who had deceived and tricked him, a dream reveals how he can receive his due (31:10–13). Now, when Laban wants to harm Jacob, the Lord warns Laban in a dream to deter him from acting. The dream is described in a single verse: But God appeared to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night and said to him, “Watch yourself lest you say anything to Jacob, good or bad” (31:24). Unlike Abimelech’s dream, the name of the patriarch is mentioned – perhaps because Jacob had spent two decades in Laban’s household and they were intimately acquainted. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 1040–1105), citing the Talmud (BT Yevamot, 63), explains “good or bad” as meaning “the bounty of the wicked is bad for the righteous.” Nachmanides goes further and glosses the message as meaning: “Watch yourself, lest you say to him that you will treat him well if he returns with you from his way, and lest you are frighten of him that you will harm him if he does not come with you, because I have commanded him to return to his land.” The phrase “good or bad” is also found in the response of Laban and Bethuel to Abraham’s servant: “The matter was decreed by the Lord; we cannot speak to you bad or good” (Gen. 24:50). This expression is an example of a merism, the expression of a whole by means of contraries (Num. 24:13; 2 Sam. 13:22; Zeph. 1:12; Jer. 10:5). Some, accordingly, maintain that here it means that Laban should not speak to

Dreams

107

Jacob at all.26 Benno Jacob, by contrast, says that the phrase does not mean that Laban must refrain totally from interaction with Jacob, but only that he must not harm him and must not take anything from him or compel him to return to Haran.27 In fact, according to verse 29, Laban does speak with Jacob and rebukes him for his conduct, while mentioning the warning he has received from God. In conclusion, the dream phenomenon is one of the characteristics of the Book of Genesis. Indeed, most of the dreams in the Hebrew Bible are found in Genesis. It is believed that anthropomorphism was difficult and embarrassing because it describes God with human qualities. Ultimately, communication by dreams came to mitigate the directness of anthropomorphism. God became remote, thus He appeared to the patriarchs in dreams. Our examination of dreams in the Book of Genesis shows that dreams were prophetic and dealt with the future. The meaning is absolutely clear to the dreamer, who responds with clear knowledge, a special frame of mind, or an overwhelming emotion. God speaks to the dreamer in his sleep. The core of the dream is a verbal message, which sometimes is accompanied by visual scenes and often refers to the future. In some dreams, God comes to encourage the dreamer. In others, He cautions against harming a patriarch. In all cases, the dreamer’s reactions indicate that they believe that God is the source of their dreams. In the last several chapters we dealt with the questions of religious beliefs of the patriarchs and the form of God’s appearance. In the next two chapters we will describe the personalities of the patriarchs and matriarchs, with all their strengths and weaknesses. This ultimately will give us a better understanding of who they actually were.

26 A. M. Honeyman, “Merismus in the Biblical Hebrew”, JBL 71 (1952), 12, would render the phrase as “not any word at all.” 27 B. Jacob, The First Book of the Bible: Genesis, 211.

Chapter 6

The Three Patriarchs

The Biblical narrator employs a technique to describe heroes by comparing and contrasting them. Using this technique, the narrator directs the reader to the virtues and weaknesses of his hero. Characters can be revealed through their actions, lack of actions, appearances, gestures, and comments. In the narrative, characters are revealed both by statements made by them or by other characters, in addition to descriptions given by the third-person narrator.1 While the literature of the ancient Near East portrays legendary heroes, this is not the case with the Biblical narrative, which portrays the patriarchs and matriarchs as fallible human beings. In this chapter we will examine the characters Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We will point to their virtues, vices, triumphs, and failures. This analysis will give us a better understanding of who the patriarchs really were.

Abraham Following his time in Canaan, Abraham and his family went to Egypt because of a famine. Before they arrived in Egypt, Abraham instructed Sarah to pose as his sister. Abraham thought that her beauty could endanger his life, her life, or both – since she would be taken to Pharaoh’s harem and he would be killed. A similar story is mentioned later when Abraham again passes his wife off as his sister, but this time at Gerar (Gen. 20). The story is repeated for a third time, again in Gerar, but this time it is Isaac 1

R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 116–117.

110

Chapter 6

who passes off his wife, Rebecca, as his sister. Evidently, there were some traditions about the patriarchs who pass their wives off as their sisters in order to save their own lives. For modern scholars who adhere to the documentary hypothesis, this is a good example of the different sources where each writer was dependent upon the earlier level of tradition. Not so for medieval commentators and the Midrash. According to the Ramban, “Whatever happened to the patriarchs is a portent for the children.” In the Torah we read at length about the patriarchs’ journeys and digging of wells because they serve as lessons for the future. According to the Midrash, Abraham’s trip to Egypt foreshadowed Jacob’s descent to Egypt because of yet another famine. Here, however, we will concentrate on the image of Abraham as it is portrayed in the wife/sister stories. Gunkel for example believed that the story in Genesis 12:10–20 had a “novellistischen” origin. The story came to celebrate the cleverness of the patriarch, the beauty of his wife Sarah and her submission, and God’s help.2 Conversely, a close reading of this story shows that Abraham is portrayed in a negative way. At first glance Abraham appears to be a dishonest person. This evidently bothered the rabbis who believed that it is impossible to think that Abraham would have told a lie. Thus, they wonder: Was she then his sister? She was really his niece! (Gen. 11:29). We have to remember that although the two had different mothers, they shared the same father (20:12). Lineage was traced through the mother, therefore, marriages between children of the same father but not the same mother were permissible. This is called metronymic and is found in the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam. 13:13). We also have to take into account the usage of the word sister, which at this time had additional meanings. The sages said that a man often referred to his female relatives as his sisters (Midrash Hagdol). Interestingly, in Egyptian, “sister” was used both for sweetheart and wife. Scholars pointed out that in a Hurrian society a man could adopt his wife as his sister thus giving her a special status.3

2 Gunkel, Genesis, 173. 3 Speiser, Genesis, 92.

The Three Patriarchs

111

It is possible that Abraham instructed Sarah to mention her privilege as a “sister” so they would be treated with reverence. Another negative feature was Abraham’s conduct. The patriarch put his wife in an immoral situation because Sarah was taken to the Pharaoh’s harem. In exchange, he was compensated because for her. Abraham acquired sheep, oxen, and asses, as well as male and female slaves. Was it greed and financial gains that motivated Abraham to pass his wife off as his sister? According to Medieval commentators, fear was behind Abraham’s actions. Ramban in his commentary says: “Know that our father Abraham inadvertently committed a great sin by placing his virtuous wife in a compromising situation because of his fear of being killed. He should have trusted God to save him, his wife and all he had, for God has the power to help and to save …” Similarly, Nahmanides maintained that Abraham’s sin was that he lacked trust in God; out of fear of the inhabitants, he did not acknowledge Sarah as his wife. Radak, on the other hand, expressed a different view. According to him, Abraham was faced with a real danger and had to choose between two evils. If he would tell the truth, he would be killed and his wife would be living a life of shame and abuse. Abraham is forced to choose between human life and human dignity. Since Abraham’s conduct was shameful, ancient writers tried to rehabilitate his character by adding some new details to the story; they felt that Sarah was taken by force to Pharaoh’s palace, it is written in the Book of Jubilees: So Abraham went to Egypt [and] lived in Egypt five years before his wife was taken from him by force … When Pharaoh took Abraham’s wife Sarai by force for himself, the Lord punished Pharaoh and his household very severely because Abraham’ wife Sarai.4

In the Dead Sea Scrolls there is an attempt to rationalize Abraham’s behavior. In this account Abraham dreamt that:

4

Jubilees 13:11–13.

112

Chapter 6 And I, Abram, dreamt a dream on the night that I entered the land of Egypt, and I saw in my dream a cedar tree and a beautiful, tall palm-tree. Then some people came and sought to cut down and uproot the cedar and to leave the palm-tree alone. But the palm-tree protested, “Do not cut down the cedar, for both of us are from the same root.” So the cedar was spared for the palm-tree’s sake, and it was not cut down. That night I awoke from my sleep and said to my wife Sarah, “I dreamt a dream and I am frightened by this dream.” And she said, “Tell me your dream so that I may know.” And I began to tell her the dream, and I made known to her the meaning of the dream (1Q20 Genesis Apocryphon col. 19:14–19).

In the dream, the cedar is Abraham and the palm tree is Sarah. Thus, Abraham’s life is in danger; he can only be saved if Sarah will say the right thing. If indeed he had a dream, it would be a divine commandment since God delivered messages through dreams. So Abraham’s behavior was not an act of cowardice, but of obedience to God. A different side of Abraham’s character is revealed to the reader after his return from Egypt. Abraham, in spite of his older age and seniority, showed generosity toward Lot following the rift between his herdsman and Lot’s herdsmen over pasture land. He gave his nephew the first choice of grazing land. Abraham wanted to avoid any confrontation with his nephew because as he said to him, “for we are kinsmen” (Gen. 13:8). This resulted in Lot leaving the clan and moving next to Sodom whose beauty attracted Lot. In spite of Lot’s separation from the clan, Abraham was still committed to Lot; he was his guardian. Lot was taken captive and his possessions were plundered in the battle between the confederacies of four eastern kings against five Canaanite kings. Without hesitation, Abraham came to Lot’s aid and rescued him by defeating the kings. Abraham’s rescue of Lot served as the paradigm for the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim, a religious duty to liberate a fellow Jew from captivity. For many generations (and even today) it is a religious duty to ransom a fellow Jew captured by slaves, dealers, robbers, or imprisoned unjustly. The rabbis in the Talmud believed that it is a very important mitzvah.5 It is told that R. Phinehas b. Jair was on a mission to ransom captives, and because of it, a river parted so he could 5

BT Bava Batra, 8a, 8b.

The Three Patriarchs

113

cross it.6 According to Maimonides: “[The duty of ] ransoming captives supersedes [the duty of ] charity to the poor …”7 In addition to rescuing Lot on his return from defeating the kings, we read that Abraham met a mysterious person by the name of Melchizedek, priest-king of Salem, who blessed Abraham.8 According to the Biblical story, Melchizedek provided Abraham with bread and wine. Early Christians used the Melchizedek story as a precursor to the priesthood of  Jesus. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the anonymous author wrestles with the idea of how a non-Levitical priest could assume the priesthood for the New Israel. The answer for the author is clear: Jesus was a priest, to be sure, but not of the tribe of Levi, but instead of the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10). Abraham’s nobility and generosity is manifested in his dealing with Melchizedek. The priest-king Melchizedek brought bread and wine and blessed Abraham. In return, Abraham gave him a tenth of everything – a tithe of all the spoils of war. In Genesis Apocryphon we read: “He gave him a tithe of all the f locks of the king of Elam and his confederates.”9 This has nothing to do with the tithing system in Israel. It was customary to distribute the spoils of war equally among those who participated and those who did not engage in fighting. An ancient law that said that the booty must be divided equally between those who were left behind to guard the camp (1 Sam. 30:24) along with the noncombatants and members of the community (Num. 31:27). In our story, Abraham appears as a noble warrior who restored the plundered goods not only to Lot but also to his allies. Abraham refuses to

6 BT Ḥullin, 7a; TJ. Demai, 1:3. 7 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Matnot Aniyim, 8:10. 8 Salem is the last part of the name Jerusalem and it was believed that Melchizedek was the first king of Jerusalem. He built a sanctuary in Jerusalem which later the temple was built there. Indeed this is already mentioned in the writings of Josephus: “For this reason he was the first to serve as a priest before God and, having been the first to build the temple, gave to the city previously called “Salem” the name Jerusalem [understood in Greek as “Holy Salem”] Josephus, Jewish Wars 6:438. 9 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (2nd ed, BibOr 18a; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 72–73, 177–178.

114

Chapter 6

take a share in the booty. Abraham’s only concern is to divide the booty with his troops and allies. It seems that Abraham’s conduct corresponds to the international treaties of Boghazköi and Ugarit.10 Thus, in the inscription of King Idrimi we read: “I took captives from them and took their property, valuables, and possessions and distributed them to my auxiliaries, kinsmen and friends.”11 The story of Sodom and Gomorra reveals a different facet of Abraham’s character. Abraham is a moral man who argues with God. Abraham speaks on behalf of the people of Sodom and Gomorra who are total strangers. He raises questions at God’s decision to destroy the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. God trusts his loyal servant: “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am on the verge of doing” (Gen. 18:17). Yet, God further says that Abraham instructs his children and his household to do righteousness. In the dialogue that ensues, Abraham entreats God to spare the life of the city and asks God: “Will you indeed sweep away the innocent with the guilty?” Abraham challenges God’s judgment and his decision to destroy the city with its people. This is unprecedented. In the ancient world, people were afraid of their gods and many times complained that they couldn’t understand their ways. This is seen in the poem of  “the righteous sufferer” who complains about the gods and their mysterious ways. In contrast to “the righteous sufferer,” Abraham tries to understand God and his plan to destroy the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham asks for God’s mercy to save the people of Sodom and Gomorrah on the merits of the righteous people. He asks how many righteous people are required in order to spare the whole community. He acts like he was participating in the heavenly court when he is trying to spare the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. In our story, Abraham intercedes on behalf of total strangers. He speaks with God three times (Gen. 15:2, 8; 17:17). Each time he spoke about his own personal welfare. These strangers are unknown to Abraham; still he

10 11

Yochanan Muffs, “Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel”, JJS 33 (1982), 81–107. Edward L. Greenstein & David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi”, JANESCU 8 (1976), 67.

The Three Patriarchs

115

tries to save them. It shows that Abraham was a compassionate person who is aware of the suffering of others. This was observed in the Talmud: “Whoever is merciful to his fellow being is without doubt of the children of our father Abraham; whoever is unmerciful to his fellow beings certainly cannot be of the children of Abraham our father.”12 Interestingly, nowhere in this story does God offer the people the prospect of repentance, this theme will only appear later on in the Biblical narrative. In the binding of Isaac, another side of Abraham’s character is revealed, Abraham’s obedience, devotion, and love of God. This story is the climax of Abraham’s religious odyssey and the ultimate trial of faith. In the story God asks Abraham to offer up his son as a sacrifice, the son that the older Abraham was waiting for so long. Compliance to God’s request meant an end to his future dreams and nullification of the promises of posterity. In the Rabbinic literature, this was the last of the 10 trials to which Abraham was subjected.13 According to Abarvanel (1437–1508), this is the only one of Abraham’s 10 trials that the Torah calls a test. In the other incidents, Abraham completed the trials. He indeed left his homeland, sent away Ishmael, and so on. Here, in our story, it remained nothing more than a test since God did not allow Abraham to slaughter his son. This was also the last theophany Abraham received from God. It was believed that the story was an etiological legend. It came to explain why the custom of sacrifice of a child at a certain place was substituted by a ram.14 Another possibility is that this story was as a protest against human sacrifice.15 12 13

14 15

BT Betzah, 32b. Avot 5:3; There are several versions of what the test was. Following are the list of test given by the Rambam: (i) Abraham exiled from his family and homeland, (ii) the hunger in Canaan after God had assured him that he would become a great nation there, (iii) the corruption in Egypt that resulted in the abduction of Sarah, (iv) the war with the four kings, (v) Abraham’s marriage to Hagar after having despaired that Sarah would ever give birth, (vi) the commandment of circumcision, (vii) Abimelech’s abduction of Sarah, (viii) driving Hagar away after she had given birth, (ix) the very distasteful command to drive away Ishmael, and (x) the binding of Isaac on the altar. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, 239–240. John Skinner, Genesis, 331–332.

116

Chapter 6

The Bible does not say a word about Abraham’s emotional state or his inner feelings. The rabbis say that even though it was hard on him, Abraham did not delay. We read that he woke up early in the morning and saddled the donkey instead of having the servants do it. All of this shows that he was zealously hastening to perform his religious duty, which is why it is customary to perform the circumcision early in the morning.16 They also point out that the love of God causes one to ignore normal rules of personal conduct.17 We believe that Abraham wrestled with his own thoughts and concerns, thinking about God’s command all night long, thus he probably did not sleep and got up early. His activities in the morning point to his psychological state. He saddled his ass, took the two servants and his son Isaac, and split the wood. It is strange that he cut the wood last as it makes more sense to do it first. This illogical order shows that he was preoccupied; he was not thinking straight. He was trying to conceal the true purpose of the journey. He concealed it from his son Isaac. More so, his wife Sarah is not mentioned at all in the chapter. According to Josephus, Abraham concealed it from his wife Sarah and everyone in his household out of fear that she might hinder him from doing God’s service.18 It is strange that Abraham had to saddle the ass and cut the wood; these were the servants’ tasks. Abraham was a wealthy man with high social status; all of this had to be carried out by the servants. The servants do nothing in the whole story; they are simply there. This is not a coincidence; Abraham tries to occupy himself to divert his thoughts from God’s command.19 We can sense that Abraham struggles within himself; he was preoccupied and could not focus. The impression is that Abraham tries to delay the binding by procrastinating. In verse 6 we read: “And Abraham took the wood for burnt offerings and put it on his son Isaac. He himself took the firestone and the knife.” The order of his acts is highly significant. Abraham taking 16 BT Pesahim, 4a. 17 BT Sanhedrin, 105b. 18 Josephus, Antiquities, 1.12.2. 19 Y. Mazor, “Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and Psychological Composition”, Bib 67 (1986), 87.

The Three Patriarchs

117

the knife is suspended until the last moment, as if to say he was delaying and hoping for a miracle. Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) in his commentary on Genesis 22:19 quotes an opinion that Abraham did kill Isaac, therefore, there were no references to Isaac returning with his father, and he was later resurrected from the dead. Ibn Ezra rejected this view as contradictory to the Biblical text. Shalom Spiegel pointed out that such a view was acceptable in medieval writings, probably in order to deny that the sacrifice of Isaac was less than Jesus. He says that the binding of Isaac is a ref lection of the actual conditions in the Middle Ages: In light of the historical reality of the second-century persecution under the Roman Empire, it seemed almost as though something of the splendor and awe of the biblical Akedah story was diminished. Who cares about some ancient far off in time, who was merely thought of as a possible sacrifice on the altar, but who was delivered from danger, whom no misfortune overtook, when right before your eyes, in the immediate present, fathers and sons en masse ascend the executioner’s block to be butchered and burned, literally butchered and burned?20

Not clear is why God had to put Abraham through such an ordeal. God knows everything; so why is He asking Abraham to do such a cruel thing? Maimonides says that God tested Abraham because he knew that he would pass the test. Abraham’s faith would shine like a beacon and be a sign to the nations. The emphasis is not on Abraham’s suffering but on his strength. The fact that this was a test was divulged to the reader at the beginning. This was done in order to remove any misunderstanding that God demands human sacrifice. Since the reader knows that God does not require a human sacrifice the main focus is Abraham. What is left for the reader to see is if Abraham will comply with God’s request or not. God knew how Abraham would respond but wanted Abraham to discover his strength of faith.

20 Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial, trans. Judah Goldin (New York: Behrman House, 1979), 15.

118

Chapter 6

Isaac In comparison to Abraham and Jacob, we have very few details about the second patriarch, Isaac. He is a secondary character and appears mostly next to his father, Abraham, or next to his son, Jacob. The story is weak both in make-up and descriptions of Isaac. Scattered information about Isaac is found in chapters 17–35. His birth is mentioned in chapter 17; his childhood in chapter 21; and his marriage to Rebecca when he was forty years old (chapters 24–25). The birth of his two sons, Esau and Jacob, is recorded in chapter 25. Finally, his death at the age of 120 is mentioned in chapter 35. Isaac is the true heir of the Abrahamic tradition. His name was preordained by God before his birth. At eight days old, he was the first to be circumcised. Since he was the true heir to Abraham, his half-brother Ishmael was expelled with his mother from Abraham’s home. No information is given about his childhood. The only detail that is mentioned is the celebration that was held on the day of his weaning. On that feast day, his brother Ishmael made Isaac the object of laughter. Following the celebration, Ishmael and his mother Hagar were banished. It was Sarah who forced Abraham to take a stand. Her question whether the son of the handmaid will share the inheritance or will even usurp her son put Abraham on the spot. Abraham is distressed, but God tells him to listen to Sarah since, “Through Isaac shall descendants be named” (v. 12). The blessing and divine promises will be transmitted to Israel through Isaac. The brothers are separated and live as neighbors. Ishmael lives in the territory to the east of Canaan. The brothers will unite only later upon the death of their father when they bury him (Gen. 25:9–11). However, in the burial of his mother Sarah, Isaac is not mentioned. This is quite puzzling since, as we pointed out, the two brothers Isaac and Ishmael came together to bury their father Abraham. Isaac was born when his father, Abraham, was 100 years old and his mother, Sarah, was 90 years old. His mother was past the normal childbearing age. Isaac was born to aged parents, thus he received all their love and affection. His parents were yearning for his birth for many years. He was born a quarter of century after the family had migrated to Canaan.

The Three Patriarchs

119

The climax of the Isaac narrative is the story of the binding of Isaac. Even in that story he plays a secondary role because his father Abraham is the main character. As a child he was submissive, which is evident from his silence at his sacrifice. He carries the wood that was supposed to be used at his own sacrifice and walks in silence at his father’s side on the way to mount Moriah. The only time that he speaks is when he asks about the sheep for the burnt offering. Abraham uttered an ambiguous response and Isaac maintained his silence. Abraham appears as the dominant father and Isaac as the archetype of the submissive son. Abraham overshadows his timid son Isaac who has no personality apart from his father. It appears that Isaac was a willing victim. There is no indication in the text that Isaac resisted his father or tried to f lee. Abraham was an old man and Isaac was probably 37 years old; he could have easily escaped. Thus, Josephus in his writings observed: [Abraham tells Isaac that he is to sacrifice himself:] Isaac, however, since he was descendent from such a father, could be no less noble of spirit [than Abraham], and received these words with delight. He said that he never would have been worthy of being born in the first place were he not now to carry out the decision of God and his father and submit himself to the will of both.21

A similar view is found in the writings of 1 Clement: Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he acted righteously and truthfully through faith? Isaac knowing full well what was to happen was willingly led forth to be scarified.22

Christians saw in the binding of Isaac the foreshadowing of the crucifixion: [ Jesus was the fulfillment of ] that which was foreshadowed in Isaac, who was offered upon the altar.23

After the binding, the text says that Abraham returned from Moriah, but there is no mention of Isaac. It is possible that Isaac did not return with 21 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 1:232. 22 1 Clement 31:2–4. 23 Letter of Barnabas 7:3.

120

Chapter 6

his father. The trauma of near death broke the bond between father and son; there was no longer the trust between father and son. This is when Isaac became a man. In his dealing with Abimelech, Isaac stands out as a person in his own right. In previous episodes he was subordinate to his parents and in later episodes to his son. In chapter 26 his character dominates the scene. Isaac took refuge in Gerar because of the famine, and it was here that God appeared to him and told him: “Reside in this land, and I will be with you and bless you” (26:3). In Gerar he is protected by God and from the threat posed by Rebecca’s beauty. He found success there; he sowed the land and reaped a hundredfold the same year. Moreover, God blessed him and he grew richer and richer until he was very wealthy. He also was successful in obtaining water, a precious and vital commodity for life in ancient Canaan. There is a resemblance between chapter 26 and the Mari text regarding the dispute over the ownership of water.24 The Bible describes a quarrel between Isaac’s servants and the herdsmen of Gerar. In order to avoid confrontation, Isaac moved away to look for new resources of water. Isaac maintained a peaceful attitude; he withdrew when hostility arose. This is typical for Isaac, who is a passive character. Later in life, he became old and blind. Old age that is accompanied by poor vision is a sign of approaching death. But Isaac lived many years afterward. The fact that Isaac was blind is also used figuratively in the text to tell the reader that he did not know his sons. He never observed his sons in their daily pursuits. The mention of blindness is foreshadowing the future where Jacob will steal the birthright from his brother. In the story, Isaac is a victim of intrigue devised by his wife and his son Jacob. At first glance it appears that Isaac preferred Esau over Jacob. He probably admired Esau for his skill as a mighty hunter. Not surprisingly, he asked him to hunt for him and prepare for him tasty game. Isaac, because of his old age, wanted to bless Esau. Since he was his oldest son he wanted to practice the custom of primogeniture. Pronouncing blessings requires

24 Izak Cornelius, “Genesis XXVI and Mari: The Dispute over Water and the SocioEconomic Way of Life of the Patriarchs”, JNSL 12 (1984), 53–61.

The Three Patriarchs

121

physical comfort, which is the result of good food and drink. According to Seforno, Isaac wanted to give Esau a chance to serve him so he would be prejudiced on his behalf. Interestingly, from Ugarit we learn that a youth had to undergo an initiation rite into manhood that included hunting and bagging of game.25 In choosing Esau, he elected a son who was the opposite of himself. Esau represents forcefulness and action; he was a hunter, a man of the open field. Isaac, on the other hand, was a quiet, peaceful tent dweller. Perhaps Esau represents everything that Isaac wanted to be, thus by choosing him he fulfilled himself. Through his life, Isaac remained a passive tent dweller. He did not go to find a wife; his servant brought a wife to him. He did not go to war, and when conf lict arose he withdrew. In the story of his binding, he was passive and it appears as though he was bound forever on the altar. Isaac was dominated by his father Abraham, his wife Rebecca, Abimelech King of Gerar, and his sons Jacob and Esau. For most of his life he is led by others and his actions are reactions to the developing situations. He appears with no personality as the one who was known as the son of his father Abraham or the father of his sons Jacob and Esau.

Jacob Jacob was the younger son of Isaac and Rebecca. His father was 60 years old at his birth, which took place after 20 years of a childless marriage. During her pregnancy, his mother received an oracle from God stating that she will have twins where the older shall serve the younger. This oracle was very significant because it justified Rebecca’s role in the deception of her husband. But more importantly, it shows that Jacob was the true heir to the covenant with Abraham and Isaac. Jacob was chosen in the womb before anyone knew what would become of him. 25

Wilfred G. E. Watson, “The Falcon Episode in the Aqhat Tale”, JNSL 5 (1977), 75.

122

Chapter 6

No information is given about Jacob’s childhood except that he emerged from the womb grasping the heel of his brother Esau. Jacob is described as a mild man who stayed in camp (Gen. 25:27). He was the favorite of his mother, while his father showed preference to his brother Esau (25:28). The first two episodes portray Jacob in a negative light. In the first story, he takes advantage of his hungry brother Esau. Jacob purchased the birthright from him in exchange for lentil stew. The first-born son received special honors because he symbolized his father’s power. It is believed that the first-born son receives a double share of his father inheritance. Therefore, it is not clear why Esau sold his birthright for almost nothing. The text further tells us that he despised it (25:34). In other places, the Bible comes to tell us that Esau was a wicked man. This idea is echoed in the Book of Hebrews: “… that no one be immoral and irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal” (12:16). Alternatively, at that time, Isaac was a poor man; therefore, Esau did not think much of the birthright. Still, if Isaac was poor, why did Jacob want the birthright? It is possible that the rights of the first-born and the blessings were tied together; therefore, Jacob went to such great lengths to get it. Interestingly, in the Hebrew language there is a word play of “firstborn” (běkōrâ) and “blessing” (běrākâ). In the second episode, Jacob took advantage of his older father Isaac, who was blind, and stole the blessing from his brother Esau. Jacob masqueraded as Esau to mislead his father to believe that he is blessing his older son Esau. In this episode, Rebecca is the force behind Jacob, she dresses him and pulls the strings that moved Jacob. Jacob recognized the risk that was involved in the plot. If the plan failed, and his father Isaac discovers his identity, he would be the subject of his father’s curse. Thus, Jacob agrees to his mother’s plan only after he is assured by her that the curse will fall not on him but on her. Rebecca is the first person that suggested being the recipient of a curse.26 In this episode, Jacob is cool and calculating; he advances his ambitions on the expanse of his brother Esau. In the end,

26 C. G. Allen, “On Me Be the Curse, My Son!” in Martin J. Buss, ed., Encounter with the Text (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 159–172.

The Three Patriarchs

123

Jacob received the blessing, but his “victory” is bittersweet because Jacob had to run away from his brother, Esau’s, rage. The rabbis tried to justify Jacob’s action by attributing the blame to Rebecca. More so, they felt that Isaac and Abraham fathered unworthy sons.27 They believed that Esau could not be equal to Jacob who was regarded as a model of virtue and righteousness.28 Nevertheless, in the Biblical narrative, Jacob appears as a conniving liar. Indeed, deception is one of Jacob’s traits in his feuds with family members as well as with his foes due to his inferior position (25:29–34; 27:20; 30:31–43; 32:14–22). Not surprisingly, the sympathy of the narrator was with Esau, and the Biblical text describes him crying bitterly. Even in the rabbinic literature Jacob was criticized. Thus, Esau’s “exceedingly great and bitter cry” (27:34) had been punished in the days of Mordecai who also wailed “with great and bitter cry” (Esth. 4:1).29 Jacob’s uncle, Laban, was a suitable match for the liar Jacob. In the Midrash, he is described as “the master of deceivers.”30 He is the embodiment of greed, and according to the Midrash, when he kissed Jacob he did it in order to find out if Jacob had gems hidden on his body or in his mouth.31 From the start, he took advantage of Jacob and stops Jacob’s freeloading at the end of the month. He recognized Jacob’s weakness; his love for his daughter Rachel. He used trickery and deceit, which forced Jacob to labor for Rachel. The trickery practiced by Laban was the retributive counterpart for Jacob’s previous acts of deception. As Isaac was blind and could not see, so was Jacob who could not see at night when Laban substitutes Leah for Rachel. More so, when Jacob tricked his father Isaac, Rebecca covered Jacob with the skin of a kid. Later, the sons of Jacob will deceive him in a similar way. They will slaughter a kid and dip Joseph’s coat of many colors in the blood of that kid, thus making Jacob believe that his beloved son Joseph was devoured by a wild beast. What we have here is measure for 27 28 29 30 31

BT Pesahim, 56a; Genesis Rabbah, 68:11. BT Makkot, 24a. Genesis Rabbah, 67:4. Ibid, 75:5. Ibid, 70:13.

124

Chapter 6

measure, for his deception Jacob was equally deceived and punished. The sense here is that we have poetic justice. Jacob spent 20 years in the service of Laban. In spite of Laban’s trickery, Jacob was blessed. He ended up with a large family. In those years, most of Jacob’s sons were born. The information about the tribes ref lects an early history of the tribes and their formation. Most of his adult years are spent in the house of Laban. During those years, he encountered people that would shape his life and character. Constant pain and a hard life was Jacobs’s companion while he was in the house of Laban. He served Laban faithfully, but his father-in-law deceived him time after time. At first it appears as though he does not mind. However, in the exchange between the two on the eve of his journey back to Canaan, Jacob spells out all of his frustrations with his father-in-law. In Laban’s house, he encounters love. His love for Rachel transformed his character and made him more vulnerable. He married the two sisters and became a father; he learned what it meant to love and to be loved. In spite of the changes and transformations in Jacob’s life, the old Jacob surfaced once again when Jacob used trickery to increase his f lock. Jacob manipulated the pigmentation of the f locks through visual stimulus. The sages, on the other hand, believe that the rods were irrelevant or instruments of divine intervention. Thus, we read in the Midrash: You might ask how it was that Jacob could do this, setting the peeled rods at the troughs so that they [the f locks] would breed in front of the rods, since this would appear to be stealing. The answer is that this was not, Heaven forbid, anything like stealing, for the angel had already spoken to him [as Jacob later says, Gen. 31:11–12]. What Jacob did he did on the angel’s instructions.32

Similarly we read in Genesis Rabbah: R. Ḥunia said: The ministering angels would take [animals] from Laban’s f locks and put them into Jacob’s f locks.33

32 33

Midrash Leqaḥ Tov, Gen. 30:39. Genesis Rabbah, 73:10.

The Three Patriarchs

125

In contrast to the other patriarchs, there are signs of Jacob’s weakening authority as the head of the family. Before f leeing to Canaan, leaving Laban’s house, Jacob consulted with his wives. He needed their consent. He is not the sole person who determines the future of the family. This devaluation in his status is also apparent in the story of the rape of Dinah. Jacob leaves the important decision in the hands of his children where we read, “Jacob’s sons answered” (Gen. 34:13). Thus, it was suggested that the stories about Jacob are coming from a different social and culture strata. They ref lect an earlier primitive experience than those of Abraham and Isaac.34 But more likely, Jacob’s consultation with his wives was a technique used by the narrator. It came to show the reader another side of Laban’s character; a person who exploited his own daughters. It is also possible that it is because of the different facets of Jacob’s evolving personality. As in the story of the deception of his father, it was his mother who pressed him to act. Similarly, here, his wives pushed him to act. In the story of Dinah’s rape, Jacob is led by his sons. Thus, he leaves the decision in their hands. He is passive throughout the chapter. Jacob’s reaction is recorded only after Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, attacked the city of Shechem and massacred every male. Jacob was infuriated with Simeon and Levi for they executed the men of Shechem.35 He was afraid of the revenge from the inhabitants of the land; there is no moral outrage here. One person committed a sin, Hamor, and the whole city is punished. It is only many years later on his death bed that Jacob condemns Simeon and Levi. As in this episode, fear and anxiety about his future and the future of his family appear in future stories about him (27:11; 28:17; 31:2; 32:8; 34:30; 42:35). Fear and anxiety are the main characteristics that describe Jacob’s behavior in any stressful situation throughout his life.

34 35

Zeev Weisman, From Jacob to Israel ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 33, 39 (Hebrew). We should note that the role of Levi is also different from his later functions. The Levites did not participate in wars of conquest; their main function was guarding the tabernacle and its sancta. The tribe did not possess any territory and did not have an association with Simeon. Later Simeon was the military partner of Judah and lived next to it, in the southern part of Canaan.

126

Chapter 6

Parting from Laban is a turning point in the patriarchal narrative since the relations with the family came to an end. Fear seized Jacob when he prepared to meet his brother Esau; he was not sure about his brother’s intentions. This is not the case with Esau. According to the Hebrew Bible: “Esau ran to greet him, He embraced him and falling on his neck, he kissed him and they wept” (Gen. 33:4). It appears that Esau completely forgot his brother’s deception and did not hold any grudge against his brother; he was happy to see and meet him (Lk. 15:20, 32). Jacob, however, still lives in the past. It was probably shame and guilt that surfaced causing his fear of his brother. He could not conceive that his brother forgave him, so he was reluctant to travel with him. What emerges here is a mature Esau who mellowed out and became forgiving with age, while Jacob in spite of his transformation still is fearful and untrusting. After the arrival to the land of Canaan, the rest of Jacob’s life is interwoven with the life of his son Joseph. This is a mature, aged Jacob who loves all his sons and agonized with them through their struggles. Like his father Isaac, Jacob also showed favoritism toward one of his sons. In Jacob’s case it was Joseph, the son of his beloved wife, Rachel. The preferential treatment is expressed by the coat of many colors. Giving Joseph the coat of many colors provoked and increased the resentment toward Joseph in the family. In the Talmud, Jacob’s favored treatment of Joseph is condemned, this is what a father should avoid: to prefer one son over the other.36 It leads to disastrous consequences. The resentment and hatred will increase with the dreams that Joseph had. Jacob took his son’s dreams seriously, thus, he berated Joseph for them. Jacob wanted to relieve the tension between his sons. Still, the Bible tells us that he “kept the matter in mind” (Gen. 37:11). Rashi, in his interpretation, says he waited and watched when it would come to pass. Appearing before Pharaoh, Jacob gave his age at that time as 130 and described his years as having been few and hard (47:7–10). According to the Ramban: “I am not really old I only appear old because I have had a difficult life.” At his uncle’s house, he suffered from trickery that was 36

BT Shabbat, 10b; BT Megillah, 16b; Genesis Rabbah, 84:8.

The Three Patriarchs

127

practiced by Laban. His return to Canaan is accompanied by the fear of meeting his brother Esau. At Shechem, his daughter Dinah was raped. Rachel, his beloved wife, died in labor. Trickery was used by his children who mislead him to believe that his son Joseph was devoured by a wild beast. The sense is that his hard life is punishment for the trickery he used against his brother and father. In conclusion, by contrast to historical legends of the ancient Near East, the patriarchal narrative lacks fantastic details. The patriarchs are described as regular normal human beings; there is nothing superhuman about them. At first glance, Abraham appears to be a dishonest person; he puts his wife in an immoral situation. Later, Abraham’s nobility and generosity are manifested in his dealings with Lot and Melchizedek, and in his attempt to save the people of Sodom and Gomorrah when he intercedes on behalf of total strangers. In the binding of Isaac, another side of Abraham’s character is revealed, Abraham’s obedience, devotion, and love of God. This story is the climax of Abraham’s religious odyssey and the ultimate trial of faith. Subordination is the word that describes Isaac. He was subordinate to his father and mother and in later episodes to his sons. Through his life, Isaac remained a passive tent dweller. For most of his life he is led by others, and his actions are reactions to the developing situations. Jacob is the most complex character of the three patriarchs. Deceptions and deceit are part of his personality when he deceives his brother Esau and his old, blind father Isaac. Later, he will use trickery in the house of Laban to increase his f lock. Fear and anxiety about his future and the future of his family appear in the different stories about him. In spite of Jacob’s hard life and tribulations, Jacob nevertheless was blessed and became the father of the Israelite nation. Thus far, we examined the lives of the patriarchs. In our next chapter we will look into the lives of the matriarchs.

Chapter 7

The Matriarchs

In the previous chapter we looked into the lives of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Biblical narrator described them as regular people who struggled in their daily life and had, weaknesses and virtues. The patriarchs are characterized by dishonesty, deceit, and deception on one hand, with loyalty, nobility, and devotion to God on the other. Thus, did the matriarchs also share the same characteristics as their husbands? Were the matriarchs full partners of their husbands or submissive wives who obeyed their husbands? We will examine the character of Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel to see how similar and different they are from each other and from their husbands.

Sarah Sarah is the first of the four matriarchs. She was Abraham’s wife and is mentioned first in Genesis 11:29. Strangely, her genealogy is not given. Only later in Genesis 20:12 do we read that Sarah was Abraham’s halfsister, the daughter of his father, but not his mother. It is believed that this information was withheld from the reader in order to not ruin the suspense. We only discover this in chapter 20; Abraham had to save himself from embarrassment so he reveals that Sarah was his half-sister.1 Still, it is difficult to reconcile the fact that in Genesis 11:31, Sarah is identified as Terah’s daughter-in-law. Following Sarah’s introduction, the first detail 1

Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary, 87.

130

Chapter 7

that is mentioned is her infertility. This theme recurs with the matriarchs, Rebecca and Rachel, and later with the mothers of Samson and Samuel. In the previous chapter, we mentioned that on two occasions Abraham passed off his wife Sarah as his sister. I questioned his moral behavior in putting Sarah in such a predicament. A question needs to be raised about Sarah’s behavior as well. Sarah was complicit with her husband’s request. Sarah obeyed her husband’s wishes, she did not protest. She was taken to Pharaoh’s royal palace. God saved her by inf licting Pharaoh’s household with plagues. Rashi suggested that God smitten Pharaoh with a skin disease so intercourse became difficult. We believe that Sarah was a willing partner in the deception scheme. In order to save her husband from death and to protect him, she agreed with him and worked with him. Sarah was not a submissive wife as first impressions suggest. She was an independent woman, and when important decisions had to be made (expelling Hagar and Ishmael) she was the force behind Abraham. She was an equal partner to Abraham as the following events exhibit. Years passed by and Sarah was still barren. Sarah lost patience and she resorted to the device of concubinage. It is not clear if Sarah lost hope for having children of her own or maybe she believed that by adopting a child she would become pregnant. We have to remember that in Genesis Chapter 15, God did not tell Abraham that Sarah would be the mother of his offspring. As we mentioned in Chapter 2, there was a custom in the ancient world where the infertile wife provides her husband with a concubine. Sarah provided her husband Abraham with Hagar. Sarah was confident in her relationship with her husband Abraham; she felt that the bond between them was unbreakable. It is interesting to compare Sarah’s reaction of her barrenness to Hannah the mother of the prophet Samuel. Hannah couldn’t bear the thought that she was barren and couldn’t conceive. Her husband tried to assure her that he loved her more than 10 sons. He tried to console her, but she wanted to become a mother and couldn’t cope with the fact that she was barren. Sarah on the other hand accepted the fact, at least at first, that Abraham’s children by her maidservant would be Sarah’s by adoption. In this episode, Sarah is the dominant figure and her actions determine the outcome of the story. Two women, Sarah and Hagar, a wife and

The Matriarchs

131

maidservant, are at the center. The moment that Hagar became pregnant – there is a change in the relationship between the two. Barrenness is regarded as a disgrace. Thus, when Hagar became pregnant, her mistress was lower in her esteem. According to Rashi, Hagar was boasting to the ladies, “Since so many years have passed without Sari having children, she cannot be as righteous as she seems. But I conceived immediately!” While Radak says Hagar assured Abraham’s posterity, she no longer felt subservient to Sarah. Hammurabi’s laws deal with a similar situation when a female slave-concubine, who claimed equality with her mistress because she bore children: “If a man’s slave women, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her (or: him), her mouth shall be scoured with one quart of salt.”2 Hagar’s behavior roused Sarai, who again took the initiative. The slave maid refused to give her mistress due respect. For Sarai, Hagar was an instrument in her scheme that evidently failed. Hagar’s attitude provoked Sarai’s jealousy. Sarai appealed to God to judge between them. She refers to the wrong that was done to her as ḥamas, a term used to describe the sins that promoted the f lood (6:11, 13); and the vicious retaliation by Simeon and Levi (49:5; cf.34:25). According to the Midrash she was blaming Abraham: “You heard me insulted and did not speak up on my behalf.”3 When Hagar was rude to me, you did not take my side. Sarai blames Abraham although it was her idea to give him Hagar. Sarah was jealous of Hagar not because of the child but because her fear that her servant might usurp her place in Abraham’s heart. She allowed Hagar to be an instrument of procreation but not to be a recipient of Abraham’s feelings and love. Abraham tried to appease his wife by reaffirming her authority over Hagar. According to Radak, Hagar is Abraham’s wife, therefore, she is worthy of protection. But for Sarai, she is a servant, thus if she mistreated her, Sarai can do whatever is right. The Hebrew verb vat’anneha implies that Sarai subjected Hagar to physical and psychological abuse. Ramban in his commentary says: “The matriarch sinned by such maltreatment and Abraham too by permitting it.” Abarvanel on the other hand

2 3

“The Laws of Ur-Nammu”, trans. J. J. Finkelstein, ANET, 525 no 22. Genesis Rabbah, 45:5.

132

Chapter 7

says that Sari’s intent was not malicious, but to force Hagar to cease her insulting demeanor. But instead of acknowledging Sarai’s superior status, Hagar f led. In the account of the appearance of the angelic visitors, Sarah is withdrawn into the background. Abraham hosts the angels and prepares a lavish feast for them. The angels inquire about Sarah. When they inform Abraham about Sarah’s pregnancy, she is eavesdropping. She is laughing at the prospect of her being pregnant at an old age. Her reaction indicates disbelief as if such a thing is beyond God’s power. Therefore, God was angry with her and not Abraham. According to v. 12 she was laughing to herself in her head, not audibly. To God’s question, why did she laugh she answers with a lie. She was afraid of God because in this moment, she realized that God was reading her thoughts. Alternatively, she was afraid because she sinned and that her laughter offended the guests. According to the sages, it was God who spoke to Sarah and not the angels. God never spoke directly to any woman but to Sarah in the Hebrew Bible. The message to Sarah was very important; it changed the course of her life. Sarah’s forcefulness and determination are revealed in the explosion of Hagar and her son. Ishmael was Abraham’s legitimate son and was entitled to the rights of inheritance. But Sarah wanted the line of Abraham to continue only through her son Isaac. Thus, she demanded that Abraham cast out the slave-wife and her son. By not even mentioning their names, she was belittling them. Sarah did not want Isaac and Ishmael to share Abraham’s inheritance. Children that were born to a slave-wife could inherit along with the children of the primary wife.4 The laws of Lipit-Ishtar indicate that the father may grant freedom to the slave-women and her children, and by doing so they forfeit their share of the paternal property.5 Sarah was not afraid of the division of the inheritance. What she feared was Ishmael. She was afraid that his physical powers and seniority would drive Isaac away and seize the entire inheritance for himself.

4 5

F. Charles Fensham, “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic”, VT 19 (1969), 317–321; Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 263–267. “Lipit-Ishtar Lawcode”, trans. S. N. Kramer, ANET, 160 no 25.

The Matriarchs

133

Sarah’s demand was very painful for Abraham, who became distressed. Abraham considered Ishmael his son. Only after God confronted him did he comply with Sarah’s order. The line of Abraham would continue through Isaac. God told Abraham to hearken to the voice of Sarah. In many Biblical texts, important decisions about family and children and succession were determined by the women. This is evident here with Sarah and later with Rebecca. It was Sarah’s vision and foresight that determined the continuity of the family. Here, Abraham is subordinate to Sarah. The sages pointed out that the patriarchs were dependent on the superior powers of the matriarchs. They said that Sarah possessed prophetic powers and was one of the seven prophetesses, and her prophetic gifts were even superior to Abraham’s.6 When God changed Abraham’s name he also changed Sarai’s name to Sarah. In the Bible, we find other name changes: Jacob becomes Israel and Hosea ben Nun becomes Joshua. Sarai is the only woman that had her name changed. Changing the name of the patriarch and matriarch signified a new way of life for both of them. Abraham was circumcised and Sarah began the menstruation cycle again. The patriarch and matriarch worked together as a team and were equal partners. Not surprisingly in the Bible, they are mentioned as “Abraham and Sarah,” thus the Bible says “Now Abraham and Sarah were old” (Gen. 18:11). No other patriarchs are depicted in a similar way. Abraham and Sarah became the spiritual forbearers of the Jewish people. Until today, male converts to the Jewish religion are called “sons of Abraham,” and the women “daughters of Sarah.” According to the Midrashim, Sarah’s death was the result of learning about the binding of Isaac. In one version Satan appeared to her and told her that Abraham already slaughtered Isaac or was about to slaughter him.7 In another text, it was Isaac who came and told her all that happened.8

6 7 8

Exodus Rabbah, 1:1. Pirqe De Rabbi Eliezer, ed. G. Friedlander (London: Hermon, 1916), chap, 32. Leviticus Rabbah, 20:2.

134

Chapter 7

Rebecca Rebecca was the second matriarch and the wife of Isaac. She was the daughter of Bethuel and granddaughter of Nahor, brother of Abraham. She is mentioned first when Abraham’s servant was sent to find a wife for Isaac. When he arrived at the well, the servant uttered a prayer for the ideal wife to be hospitable to strangers and kind to animals. The text mentions those characteristics of Rebecca (v. 18, 20). In addition, we find that she was also very beautiful. At that time she was very young, nevertheless she received the stranger with grace and went to great lengths to provide water to all the thirsty animals. She also invited the servant to spend the night at her father’s house and offered a room to stable and feed the camels. After revealing the true purpose of his journey, Laban and Bethuel agreed to the union between Rebecca and Isaac, saying that it was preordained from above. Later, evidently they had second thoughts, because her brother Laban and mother asked her to stay with them a year or 10 months. Where was her father, Bethuel? According to Rashi, he wanted to stop Rebecca’s marriage, so an angel came and slew him.9 They still suggested asking Rebecca if she would go with the stranger. The question itself shows that they were hoping that Rebecca’s young age and fear of leaving to a distant land would make her hesitate. From this we learn that a woman may be given in marriage only with her consent.10 Rebecca goes without delay, despite her age. The Midrash says that she was prompted to give this response by the strongly negative form of their questions. Rebecca never met Isaac, however, she still agrees to the marriage because she was aware of the family ties. Rebecca shows independence and resolution here. She knew that this was what she must do. These characteristics will become evident in the story of the deception of her husband, Isaac, where her assertive traits as a woman will be displayed.

9 10

Rashi from Genesis Rabbah, 60:12. BT Kiddushim, 11a.

The Matriarchs

135

The first meeting between Isaac and Rebecca is short and brief but has a romantic f lavor. The meeting between the two takes place in the field. Isaac arrives from Beer-lahai-roi to Hebron; he awaits the return of the servant. One evening when he was in the field walking, strolling, or meditating, he saw a caravan approaching so he went to meet it. At the same time, Rebecca was sitting on the camel when she saw a man walking toward them. The narrator describes the moment when the bride and the groom see each other at the same time, each “lifted up his/her eyes and saw” (vv. 63–64) the other. Rebecca quickly got down from the camel. Seeing the man approaching the caravan, Rebecca asked about his identity. The servant told her that it was his master. They traveled for many days and Rebecca did not ask about each man they saw, but this one she sensed was special. Her intuition made her realize that he was the man. Therefore, she took her veil and covered herself, evidently as a prospective bride. There is no description of a conversation between Rebecca and Isaac. Rebecca speaks to the servant and the servant speaks to Isaac. The scene concludes with the statement: “Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebecca as his wife. Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death” (Gen. 24:67). Rebecca was a complementary partner to Isaac. Isaac was a person who did not make decisions; he acted as a result of others’ actions. In the binding of Isaac he was passive; he did not show any resistance or protest. He did not even go to seek a wife. Abraham’s servant went instead of him to bring him a wife from a distant land. Rebecca, on the other hand, was decisive and acted when needed. When the children struggled in her womb, she went and inquired of the Lord. She did not wait for her husband to go to seek guidance. More so, she kept to herself the oracle she received from God. Rebecca believed that her husband was a righteous man and his blessing would hold good. Therefore, she did everything to make sure that the right son would receive the blessing. Like her mother-in-law, she was eavesdropping when Isaac summons Esau. She made it her business to know what was going on. She convinced her son, Jacob, to deceive his father in spite of his reluctance. In order to stress the importance of the blessing, she adds the words “with the Lords approval.” These words were not included in the conversation between Isaac and Esau. God would be present and would

136

Chapter 7

seal the blessing. She was afraid that Jacob underestimated the blessing. More so, when Jacob was afraid that his father would discover his deception and curse him, she said that the curse would be upon her. According to Radak: “If he curses you, the curse will effect not you but me, because I asked you to impersonate Esau, but I wish you would listen to me and take that chance.” Rebecca knew that this was the right thing to do because Jacob deserved the blessing not Esau. She received an oracle from God where she was told that the older son will serve the younger son. Thus, she acted without hesitation and with forcefulness. She had complete confidence in the prophecy she received. In contrast to her husband Isaac, who saw his sons in a superficial light, Rebecca saw them as they were – beneath their facade. She saw her brother Laban in the past, and he probably reminded her of Esau. It does not say in the Bible that she did not love Esau or that she hated him. But Rebecca, as the more realistic one, saw Esau’s f laws and his shortcomings.11 Hence, it is no wonder that he sold his birthright and despised it. Rebecca loved her husband and did not want to tell him his assessment was wrong. Thus, Rebecca manipulated him. She knew about Esau’s threat to kill Jacob and the need to send Jacob far away from his brother immediately. However, she needed her husband’s consent to do it. Rebecca did not want to reveal to her husband the true motives because he might find out that she took part in the deception. She wanted to spare his feeling and the aggravation of knowing the truth. Thus, she cites the fact that Hittites are outsiders as a justification for her decision. Rebecca arranged Jacob’s journey to Haran. She took charge to find a wife for Jacob from her own family, just as Abraham sent his servant to seek a wife among his relatives. The death of Rebecca is not recorded in the Bible. No public mourning for Rebecca is mentioned – Abraham was dead, Isaac blind, and Jacob was far away; the only person was Esau who represented the family. Jacob never saw his mother again after his f light to Haran. He found comfort with Rachel as Isaac found comfort with Rebecca. It is only later that we

11

Adin Steinsaltz, Biblical Images, trans. Yehuda Hanegbi and Yehudit Keshet (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 46.

The Matriarchs

137

learn that Rebecca was buried in the cave of Machpelah together with the patriarchs and Sarah and Leah (49:31).

Rachel Rachel was the wife of Jacob and the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. She was the younger daughter of Laban. Rachel was a shepherdess, which was a rarity among the women of Israel. This was not the case among the Bedouin in Sinai as seen in the story of Jethro’s daughters (Exod. 2:16). The first time she is mentioned is when Jacob arrived at the well near Haran. It is love at first sight. Jacob kissed Rachel and broke into tears. It is the only place in the Bible where a man is kissing a woman who is neither his mother nor his wife. The meeting at the well has many similarities to the meeting between the servant and Rebecca. At first, Rachel was passive. It is Jacob who rolled the stone from the mouth of the well and watered the f lock of his uncle, Laban. Only after Jacob told her that he was her father’s kinsman did Rachel tell her father, Laban, about the arrival of his sister’s son Jacob. The first description of Rachel is that she was beautiful and lovely. It appears that this description is redundant, but probably written this way to stress her beauty and character. The text tells us that Jacob loved Rachel. This love remained undiminished even unto her death. This love was transferred to her sons Joseph and Benjamin. Later, Jacob’s love caused jealousy between his sons, which is manifested in the hatred of the brothers toward Joseph. Outside the Book of Song of Songs, not much is mentioned of a love between a man and a woman. Like previous matriarchs, Rachel was a barren woman. The fact that her sister gave birth caused her to be jealous of her sister. She was unhappy at being childless. Leah already gave birth to four sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. Her anger and jealousy were manifested in an outburst to Jacob: “Give me children or I shall die” (Gen. 30:1). This exchange between the two is the only quarrel between the two lovers. It was the suffering of

138

Chapter 7

the childless wife that grew with each son that Leah had. Rachel demanded children – not just one child. Jacob rebuked her and said: “Can I take the place of God” (30:2). The exchange between the two shows how desperate Rachel was, as well as Jacob’s loss of patience. Even though in many instances he had good reason for anger, he controlled himself. This is the only time that Jacob reprimanded one of his wives. Like Sarah, Rachel resorted to the device of concubinage. She gave to Jacob her maid, Bilhah, who gave birth to two sons, Dan and Naphtali. She saw them as her own children. In one incident, she gave her conjugal rights to Leah in return for mandrake that Reuben had collected. This plant played a great role in ancient times, and it was believed to have magical powers. Its fruit smelled strong and looked like a small apple. It was associated with aphrodisiac powers. Aphrodite, the Greek Goddess of Love, Beauty, and Sex, was given the nickname “Lady of Mandrake.” The Bible does not tell us the reason for the interest of the two sisters, but evidently, they shared the folklorist beliefs about the power of mandrake. This magic fruit did not help Rachel, and when she did give birth, it was not because of the mandrake but because “Yahweh remembered Rachel” (v. 22). There is a f law here in Rachel’s character; she resorted to the usage of mandrake and superstition instead of trusting God. She falls to temptations for the mandrake in exchange for Jacob. The f law in Rachel’s character is revealed once again in the story of the theft of her father’s household gods. The Bible refers to it as thievery; even her father’s mistreatment does not justify this action. What is not clear is why Rachel stole the household gods. One reasonable explanation is that that she wanted to conceal Jacob’s escape from her father. If this is true, she was still an idol worshiper since she believed in the household gods. As a result of the theft, she became the object of Jacob’s curse: “Any one with whom you find your gods shall not live” (31:32). She was saved for a short time from the curse, again by deception. Rachel sat on the idols when her father searched for them. She told him that she had her period, and therefore he could not approach her. However, Rachel dies on the journey home to Canaan after giving birth to her second son whom she named Benonim “son of my sorrow,” but Jacob renames him Benjamin “son of the right hand.”

The Matriarchs

139

The traditions about the birth of Rachel’s sons ref lect the Israelite tribal history. Rachel gave birth to Joseph and Benjamin, while her maid Bilhah gave birth to Dan and Naphtali. Two other tribes came through Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh. It is believed that in the process of the formation of the league of 12 tribes, the tribes that were associated with Rachel constituted a separate confederation. Tribes that belonged to the concubine Bilhah had inferior status in the confederation. The birth of Benjamin in Canaan points to a late association of this tribe with the other members in the group. It was Noth and others who suggested that Rachel and Leah were originally “eponymous ancestors” of semi-nomadic tribes that settled in the area that would later become Israel during a different period and in several waves of migration.12 It was hypothesized that Rachel’s tribes were the last wave that came out of Egypt and destroyed Jericho, Ai, and the coalition of kings near Gibeon. These traditions were embraced by the other Israelite tribes and found their way to the literary writings of Exodus and Joshua 1–10. However, we must stress here that there is no proof for these speculations. As Jacob had a special love for Rachel during her lifetime, he also marked his love for her upon her death. He placed a commemorative pillar on her grave to mark her tomb. Rachel is mentioned twice in the Biblical literature: once with Leah in the marriageable blessing of Ruth (4:11) and a second time in Jeremiah where the prophet describes her as weeping in Ramah for her children who were in Exile ( Jer. 31:15). As the symbolic mother of Israel, she is mourning her dead children and no one can give her comfort. Therefore, God speaks to her with the command to not mourn for her children who are not dead and shall return from exile. According to the Midrash, Jacob buried her at Ephrath because he foresaw that the exiles would pass this way on their way to the exile in Babylon. When they passed, Rachel asked God for mercy on them.13 Rachel is the mother who understands pain and anguish as was ref lected in her own

12 13

Manferd Weippert, The settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine, trans. James D. Martin (Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1971), 5–46, esp. 42–46. Genesis Rabbah, 82:10.

140

Chapter 7

life. Her tomb became a place for pilgrimage for all those who mourn and those who pour their hearts out. Rachel symbolizes unfulfilled dreams; she was supposed to be the first wife and became the second wife. It was her sister who gave Jacob son after son. The two important tribes, Judah and Levi, came through her sister Leah. Rachel left dreaming a dream, and when she was close to achieving it as a mother, it was taken away from her. She gave birth to Joseph but then she died when the other son, Benjamin, was born. Rachel was always close to achieving happiness but in the last moment, it was snatched away from her.

Leah Leah was the first wife of Jacob. In the Bible she is described as Rachel’s sister. Her name has several interpretations: “cow,” “strong woman,” or “mistress.” It is possible that the interpretation of the name as “cow” points to the cultural and historical memories for the Leah tribes that were in Canaan longer and had already become cattlemen.14 Leah does not appear independently, but always next to her sister. The first detail about her is that her eyes were weak. It is possible that this refers to their paleness and lack of luster. The Midrash, on the other hand, has a very interesting interpretation: “Because she expected to fall into Esau’s lot, and she wept, because everyone was saying, Rebecca has two sons, and Laban has two daughters. The older [daughter] for the older [son], and the younger [daughter] for the younger [son].”15 Leah was married to Jacob as a result of trickery. Her father Laban substituted her for her sister Rachel on the wedding night. Jacob probably felt resentment toward her for taking part in the deception. Indeed, in

14 15

Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 286. BT Bava Batra, 123a.

The Matriarchs

141

the Midrash we read that Jacob reproached her, saying: “O thou deceiver, daughter of a deceiver, why did you answer me when I called Rachel’s name?” Leah responded, “Is there a teacher without a pupil? I learned from your example. Did you not answer your father when he called Esau?”16 Jacob’s feelings toward Leah are not clear cut. In Genesis 29:30 we read that “he loved Rachel more than Leah.” In other words, he still loved Leah but not as much as he loved Rachel. We have to remember that she gave him six sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon and one daughter, Dinah. Her maidservant, Zilpah, bore another two sons: Gad and Asher. Leah had to fight for Jacob’s affectations; this is evident from the names she gave her children – she wanted to be the preferred wife: “Leah conceived and bore a son, and named him Reuben for she declared, “It means: ‘The Lord has seen my aff liction’ it also means: ‘Now my husband will love me.’” She conceived again and bore a son, and declared, “This is because the Lord heard that I was unloved and has given this one also,” so she named him Simeon. Again she conceived and bore a son and declared, “This time my husband will become attached to me for I have borne him three sons.” Therefore, he was named Levi” (Gen. 29:32–34). Interestingly, in the Jacob cycle, it is the wives who give the names to their children, for Leah’s (29:32–35; 30:11–12, 18, 20) and for Rachel’s (30:6–8, 24; 35:18). It is only Benjamin, whose mother Rachel died in labor, where she called him Ben-Oni, but his father called him Benjamin. Here the women give the children names in contrast to the stories about Abraham and Isaac, where it is the father who gives names to his children. Leah’s longing for her husband’s love is also manifested in the story of the mandrake. Leah gave the mandrake to Rachel in exchange for conjugal rights. Evidently, Jacob spent more time in Rachel’s bed than in Leah’s. The sages pointed out that Rachel was willing to give up Jacob for one night. She belittled his bed, thus she was not buried next to him. Leah on the other hand complains bitterly that Rachel sought to take away “my husband” and also the mandrake of her son. Leah was ready to trade the mandrake for Jacob. Leah was willing to suffer humiliation for the suggestion to her 16

Genesis Rabbah, 70:19.

142

Chapter 7

husband: “You are to sleep with me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (30:16). Leah struggles to win Jacob’s love to be close to him. Because of her misery, God rewarded her with children. Moreover, the two hereditary institutions, the priesthood and the monarchy, are traced to her sons Levi and Judah, respectively. Leah’s love for her husband is constant. She works, struggles, and bears most of his children. It was pointed out in recent studies that the stories of the matriarchs follow a literary paradigm.17 The legitimate wife is contrasted with a second wife who possesses different characteristics. The stories display a constant rivalry and jealousy between the two, which was a result of a polygamous society and barren women. By contrasting the two women, the author could point to the strengths and weaknesses of the two characters. The clash between the two was resolved when one woman expelled the other or one of them died. In our case, Rachel died while giving birth to Benjamin. However, in our story, the clash between the two sisters did not end with the death of Rachel. This rivalry between the sisters had an enduring inf luence on the Jewish nationhood. It continued with rivalry between Leah’s sons and Rachel’s son, Joseph. More so, it was intensified with the enmity between Leah’s tribes led by Judah and Rachel’s tribes led by Joseph’s son, Ephraim. This rivalry repeated itself in the conf licts between the kingdom of Judah and Israel. It was ended only with the disappearance of the tribe of Ephraim. In his prophecy, Ezekiel speaks about the union of the tree of Ephraim and the tree of Judah. This rivalry will continue till the End Days where it is prophesized there will be two messiahs: Messiah Son of Joseph and Messiah Son of David. In contrast to her portrayal in Genesis, Rachel is the weeping mother and Leah is the happy mother of sons. Leah’s relationship with Jacob was more permanent and more complete. It was Leah who was Jacob’s full partner in life and the true wife. The bond between the two was manifested in the bearing of the sons, which was a lasting connection. This lasting

17

A. Brenner, “Female Social Behavior: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‘Birth of the Hero’ Paradigm”, VT 36 (1986), 257–273; N. Cohen, “Sibling Rivalry in Genesis”, Judaism 32 (1983), 331–342.

The Matriarchs

143

connection goes from Leah to her son Judah through the house of David. It was Leah who showed love, fidelity, and continuity and who was the true wife, therefore, not surprisingly, she is the one who was buried next to Jacob.18 In conclusion, the matriarchs share some of the negative traits that their husbands have. Sarah was a willing partner in the deception scheme when Abraham passed her off to Pharaoh’s harem as his sister. Rebecca helped her son Jacob deceive his blind father in spite of his reluctance. Deception and theft are mentioned with Rachel, who stole her father’s household gods and later deceived him. Leah was an equal partner with her father in the deception of Jacob. The matriarchs were not submissive wives as first impressions suggest, they show independence and resolve. They were independent women, and when important decisions had to be made they were the force behind their patriarchal husbands. By their actions the matriarchs determined the future of the Israelite nation. Thus, it was Sarah’s vision and foresight that determined the continuity of the family. Sarah made sure that the line of Abraham would continue through Isaac. Similarly, Rebecca was decisive and acted when needed. She did everything to make sure that the right son, Jacob, would receive the blessing. Leah, although married to Jacob through trickery, was the true wife of Jacob. It was through her that the two most important institutions; the Kingship ( Judah) and the Priesthood (Levi) came about. Rachel, Jacob’s true love, was supposed to be the first wife but became the second wife. She was always close to achieving happiness but in the last moment, it was snatched away from her when she died giving birth to Benjamin. In the last two chapters, we described the traits and characteristics of the patriarchs and matriarchs; we portrayed their profiles with a psychological perspective. But how did they live their daily life? In what kind of environment did they survive? Next, we will describe them in their natural setting, the places they lived, their tents, their f locks, foods they ate, and the clothing they wore.

18

Adin Steinsaltz, Biblical Images, 59–61.

Chapter 8

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

The patriarchs were semi-nomadic people constantly on the move searching for fresh pastures. Throughout their travels in the land of Israel, they wandered to sites in the central mountain region and the Negev. When circumstance demanded, they stayed for longer periods making a pact with the local people to ensure their safety. Their main occupation was keeping f locks and herds, but at times they also sowed and raised crops. Scholars suggest that the patriarchal society was dimorphic.1 In other words, it was tribal groupings that to some extent settled in villages and towns while some stayed on the move with their f locks. Interestingly, such social groupings existed in Mari (1700 B. C. E.). This is significant because in addition to being organized like Mari, many terms from Mari such as pasture land, inheritance, and tribes are found in the Bible. But more importantly, this points to the difference between the patriarchal period and the later monarchial period in Israel. Thus, to have a better understanding of the life the patriarchs lead, we will describe their nomadic ways, such as their places of habitation, their tents, their occupations, their animals, and the kind of animals they used for transportation. At first, people were vegetarians. When God created man He gave him plants for food: “every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all earth, and every tree with seed in its fruits” (Gen. 1:29). Later, after the f lood, God gave the human race the permission to eat meat. So what kind of food did the patriarchs eat? In addition, we will look into their dress codes, their ornamentations, and from what materials they were made. Was apparel already an indication 1

M. B. Rowton, “Dimorphic structures and Topology”, OrAnt 15 (1976), 17–31; “Dimorphic structures and the Problem of the ͑ APIRÛ-͑ IBRÎM”, JNES 35 (1976), 13–20.

146

Chapter 8

of social status in ancient times? Were there different clothes for different occasions, as is the custom today?

Tent Dwellers The basic unit in the patriarchal period was the family. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were the head of a family that included several wives, sons, and the sons’ wives and children, and slaves. As the head of the family, the patriarch possessed the power of life and death. Families that were related by blood formed a clan that was a collection of families. The patriarchs lived in tents. Abraham and the other patriarchs are described as tent dwellers (Gen. 12:8; 13:5; 18:1; 31:25), which suited their pastoral lifestyle. The Bible first mentions the tent in Genesis 4:20 where Jabal refers to the ancestors of those who dwell in tents and amid herds. Even in later periods the Israelites lived in tents during peace (Exod. 16:16; 33:10); and war (1 Sam 17:54). Long after the Israelites settled in the land of Israel and became farmers they still used the word “tent” to mean home. There were some groups that continued to live in tents, among them were the Rechabites who lived in tents as fidelity to the custom of their ancestors ( Jer. 35:7–10). The word tent is used in the Hebrew Bible as a solemn expression. When a battle ended, the soldiers f led to their own tents and cried “every man to his tent” ( Judg. 7:8; 20:8; 1 Sam. 4:10; 13:2; 2 Sam. 18:17; 20:1, 22; 1 Kgs. 12:6; 2 Kgs. 8:21; 13:5; 14:12; 2 Chr. 10:16; 25:22). The tent was made of fabric from goats’ hair and therefore was dark (Song of Songs 1:5). It covered a wooden frame tied with cords attached to the ground with pegs (Exod. 26:7). It was bell shaped and in the middle was the main pole supporting the roof. The door was covered with a curtain (Gen. 18:9). The interior of the tent was very simple. The soil was the f loor inside the tent. They probably covered the f loor with straw or a woolen rug. A piece of leather spread on the f loor served as a table (Ps. 23:5; Isa. 21:5). The tents varied in size depending on the number of the people they were designed to accommodate. Several tents were set together in a cluster

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

147

and they formed a camp. The patriarchs had several tents since they were polygamists – each wife had her own tent. When Isaac married Rebecca he: “Brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah” (Gen. 24:67). Jacob had several tents for his wives. When Laban was searching for the household gods the Bible says: “So Laban went into Jacob’s tent and Leah’s tent and the tents of the maidservants” (31:33). Later, he searched Rachel’s tent. The tent was divided into compartments. A curtain hanging from the center pole divided the tent into two. One part was for entertaining the guests, as when Abraham welcomed the angelic visitors he invited them to his tent. The other side was used for sleeping quarters. Therefore, Sarah was able to overhear the conversations with the three visitors. Coarse straw served as the bed. The patriarchs probably stored their food supply in their tent in pottery vessels. Liquids such as water, milk, and wine were stored in goat skin vessels. In addition to food storage, tents were also used as stables for the animals. Land was not owned in the modern sense, but the nomads claimed territory that they used to pasture their f locks. If they dug a well, they felt that the well and its environs belonged to them. Not surprisingly, disputes occurred over water supplies (Gen. 26:15–22). The patriarchs were in the early stages of settlement and urbanization; they were seminomadic people. They traveled between the areas of Shechem in the north to Beer Sheba in the south. On occasion, they stopped and cultivated the land. The Bible describes Abraham as very wealthy with livestock. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, had sheep and cattle as well. Like his father, Isaac also acquired f locks and herds (Gen. 26:14). Jacob too was a herdsman; in his message to his brother Esau he said that he acquired cattle, asses, and sheep. Jacob’s presents for his brother included 200 she-goats and 20 he-goats; 200 ewes and 20 rams; 30 milch camels with their colts; 40 cows and 10 bulls; 20 she-asses and 10 he-asses. He sends Esau five kinds of animals, both male and female, together there are 500 animals. In the Joseph cycle, the brothers go to graze their father’s f lock near Shechem. When Joseph brings the news to Pharaoh about the arrival of his family in Egypt he says: “The men are shepherds; they have always been breeders of livestock, and they have brought with them their f locks and herds and all that is theirs” (Gen. 46:32).

148

Chapter 8

Since the patriarchs were in a transitional stage, Isaac, in addition to being a herdsman, was also a farmer. Not surprisingly he sowed the land (Gen. 26:12). He probably cultivated grain or barley. Barley is more suitable for dry environments, especially for the Negev area. Isaac was a very successful farmer. The same year of his sowing, he reaped a hundredfold, a most unusual yield for the same year. This description is unique to Isaac. When Genesis describes the wealth of the patriarch, there is no mention of an abundance of crops. The arid land where Isaac lived required keeping a balance between animal husbandry and dry farming. Nomads who would settle closer to sedentary settlements had disputes about water and grazing rights. Nomads from Mari are described as engaging in agricultural activity from time to time. The text from Mari describes the Jaminites as herdsmen, pastoralists, and agriculturalists.2 Gottwald points to the symbiosis of pastoral nomadism and village agriculture.3 According to him, pastoral nomadism and agriculture were carried out by the same community, as well as the same person. Sheep, goats, and asses were typical to pastoral nomads and required annual movements to take advantage of winter pastures or summer upland pasturage. The animals had to return from the steppe to a settled zone where they had their grazing and water resources, so it was natural that many pastoral nomads were also farmers. This description indeed suits Isaac. More so, the combination of agriculture and breeding cattle is found among many Arab nomads and exists among the Bedouin to this day. Farming is also mentioned in the Joseph stories. In one of his dreams, Joseph dreamt about sheaves of corn in the field (Gen. 37:7). Joseph and his brothers are laboring in the fields binding sheaves. According to Ramban, Radak, and Abravanel this is probably an insinuation that grain will make Joseph a ruler. The fact that Joseph knew about farming and farm life will

2

3

J. T. Luke, “Pastoralism and Politics in Mari Period: Are-Examination of the Character and Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on Middle Euphrates, ca.1828–1758 B. C.”, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1965, 75–79, 160–163. N. K. Gottwald, “Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?” In J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler, eds, Rhetorical Criticism, Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburg, PA: Pichwick Press, 1974), 228.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

149

surface when he later advises Pharaoh to store grains in the granaries of Egypt. The image of Joseph and his brothers in agricultural settings is in contrast to the usual description of the brothers as shepherds. Still, we should be cautious since we are dealing here with the world of dreams.

Food At first people were vegetarians. When God created man he gave him plants for food: “Every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all earth, and every tree with seed in its fruits” (Gen. 1:29). Only after the f lood, when man was craving for meat, was he permitted to eat animals as food. This with the condition of having meat without blood since blood symbolizes life. There was a complete harmony between the human race and all animals. It is believed that this harmony will again exist in the messianic period when: “The cow and the bear shall graze, The Young shall lie down together; and the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw” (Isa. 11:7). Wheat and Barley Cereal food was the main part of the diet in Biblical times. Wheat and barley were the two main cereal crops in the land of Canaan. Barley was considered inferior to wheat and was the bread of the poor. It was also fed to the animals (1 Kgs 5:8). It was harvested two weeks before the wheat, and can grow in a semi-arid zone, and barley is more salt resistant. Wheat by contrast needs more water and soil. Thus, grain offerings to the deity were made from the fine wheat f lour. Later in the Mishnah, the exchange rate between wheat and barley is 1:2.4 Josephus says that the rich ate wheat bread while the poor ate barley bread.5 4 M. Kethuboth, 5:8. 5 Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.427.

150

Chapter 8

Wheat and barley could be eaten in different ways. The simple way was by eating the fresh ears or roasting the fresh grain on a fire. Baking bread was time consuming. First, the grain was ground in mortars or between millstones to make f lour. Flour and water were made into dough with a little salt and leaven. The dough was allowed to rise and then was shaped into round f lat cake. The cakes were baked on a f lat hot stone. A simpler way was digging a hole in the ground filling it with stones and setting a fire on top of it. When the stones were hot, the fire was extinguished and they placed the dough on top of the stones. The making of f lour and bread was part of a woman’s daily work. When the angels visit Abraham, he orders Sarah: “Quick, three seahs of choice of f lour! Knead and make cakes!” (Gen. 18:6). Later in the Monarchial period, there were professional bakers (Hos. 7:4; Jer. 37:21). This is also attested in ancient Egypt. According to the Hebrew Bible, Joseph was incarcerated with Pharaoh’s chief baker. 57 varieties of bread and 38 different types of cake are mentioned in hieroglyphic texts. The Bible uses expressions like “bread and wine” (Gen. 14:18; Neh. 5:15.) to indicate abundance. On the other hand, “bread and water” signifies minimal sustenance. When Abraham sent Hagar to the desert, he gave her water and bread. King Ahab imprisoned the prophet Micaiah with orders to feed him: “scant bread and scant water” (1 Kgs. 22:27). Besides meaning “bread grain,” the Hebrew word leḥem has the meaning of food and provision in the Hebrew Bible. In Judaism, a meal begins with a benediction over the bread: “Blessed be Yahweh our God, who brings forth bread from the earth.” Isaac cultivated grain seasonally; Joseph in his dream was dreaming of binding sheaves in the field. Later, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt because he needed grain. Pulses Stew was an important part of the daily diet, mainly because of its highly nutritious benefit. The stew was made of lentils, peas, or beans. It was eaten after being softened by cooking. This plant was cultivated in the ancient Near East. Its color is yellowish red or light brown. When Jacob served it to Esau, he added something that gave it a red color. Elisha served a similar

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

151

stew to the disciples of the prophets, after it was boiled in a pot they were almost poisoned (2 Kgs. 4:38–41). Wine and Milk Bread, wine, and oil are mentioned often in the Hebrew Bible. These three words refer to the agricultural blessings given by Yahweh. Grapes were used in the making of wine. Noah was the first person to plant a vineyard. He was the first person who drank wine and became drunk. Lot’s daughters made their father drink wine, and after he was drunk they slept with him. Jacob served his father Isaac, food and wine when he deceived him (Gen. 27:25). Isaac blessed Jacob with an abundance of new grain and wine (vv. 28, 37). On his death bed, Jacob blessed Judah with an abundance of vines and wine. This was considered to be a common Biblical form of divine favor and prosperity. Joseph’s brothers, in their second visit to Egypt, ate and drank with him (43:34). It is not clear if it was wine or beer they drank. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, beer was the main beverage, however, wine was preferred by the elite. Rashi in his commentary says: “Since the day that they had sold him they did not drink wine, nor did he ( Joseph) drink wine; but on that day they did drink.” It is also possible that the grapes were eaten fresh. Alternatively, the grapes were dried in the sun to produce raisins, which can be preserved for long periods of time. In a document written in 1780 B. C. E., the Egyptian Si-nuhe tells about his journey in Canaan: “Figs were in it, and grapes. It had more wine than water … Bread was made for me as a daily fare, wine as daily provision.”6 The Book of Genesis does not say that drinking wine was beneficial to health. The rabbis, on the other hand, believed that drinking wine in moderation induces appetite, “sustains and makes glad.”7 According to them: “Wine is the greatest of all medicines: where wine is lacking, drugs

6 7

“The Story of Si-Nuhe”, trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, 19–20. BT Berakhot, 35a.

152

Chapter 8

are necessary.”8 They believed that old wine was good for the intestines. According to one story, a rabbi was cured of severe bowel disorder by drinking 70-year-old apple wine.9 It is not clear if during the Biblical period the wine was undiluted or watered down before consumption as was the practice of the Greeks and Romans. Possibly, in Israel, the preference was for undiluted wine. This is displayed by the prophet Isaiah’s rebuke of Judah when he compares Judah’s righteousness to “wine mixed with water (1:22).10 In the ancient world, wine was part of the sacrifice to the gods. Egyptian sources mention wine that was brought in jars as a sacrifice to the gods. In ancient Egypt, wine was considered the drink of the gods. Herodotus describes wine that was brought as an additional gift for the priests. The wine was also used in the cult of the dead. It was given to the dead to warm their hearts. Mesopotamian sources from 3000 B. C. E. mentioned jars of wine that were brought to the gods. The Babylonian would pour wine on a building that they started to construct. Hittites used wine in jars as an omen against witchcraft.11 In Israel, wine was used as a libation offering (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; 1 Sam 1:24). In Genesis 35: 14, Jacob set up a pillar and offered libation on it. Even now wine is used in religious ceremonies. The Kiddush and Havdalah of the Sabbath are performed with wine.12 At the Passover seder four cups of wine must be drunk, two cups at weddings, and one at the circumcision ritual. The drinking of wine at these ceremonies symbolizes the festivity of the occasion. Milk was an important item in the diet of the patriarchs. The most commonly mentioned milk in the Bible is that of sheep and goats. The Israelites were exclusively sheep and goat pastoralists. They used the goat 8 9 10

11 12

BT Bava Batra, 58b. BT Avodah Zarah, 40b. Nathan MacDonald, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 23; M. Broshi, “Wine in Ancient Palestine: Introductory Notes.” In Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls, ed. M. Broshi (JPSup 36; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 161–162. Haim Bienart, “Wine”, EMiqr 3:680. BT Pesahim, 105–6a.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

153

because it could survive in harsh conditions and could live on very little fodder. Goats can go for as long as two weeks without drinking water, and they can replenish the loss of water in a few minutes. In arid or semi-arid climates, a goat may produce as much milk as a cow. Sheep, on the other hand, yield only half as much as goats. More so, they lactate for about three months, while goats can be milked up to five months. The fact that goats, rather than cattle, were the primary suppliers of milk is mentioned in the Talmud: “The goat is for milking, the sheep for shearing, the hen for laying eggs, and ox for plowing.”13 Goat milk is richer in protein and fat and easier to digest than cow’s milk. The native sheep of Israel is the fat-tailed Awassi, which is also found in Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Fat-tailed camel’s milk is also mentioned as early as Genesis (32:15–16). Camel’s milk is rich and strong but not sweet. One of the byproducts of milk is curd. Abraham offered his three visitors milk and curds. It is believed that curds are the thick fatty part of the milk, which known today as yogurt. In addition to milk, as the reader recalls, Abraham offered the visitors a young roasted kid. This bothered the rabbis because of their dietary traditions, which prohibited mixing meat and dairy. It was suggested that the angels ate dairy and meat separately, or they did not eat at all.14 Milk was considered among the finest foods. It was a symbol of abundance – “land f lowing with milk and honey (Exod. 3:8, 17; Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3; Jer. 11.5). In Isaiah, milk is counted among the basic foods such as water, grain, and wine. A similar view is echoed in Sirach 39:26, which mentioned milk as one of the products necessary for human life. In the ancient world milk was served to the gods. It was thought of as a source of vitality and possessor of curative powers. Milk played a role in ancient Egypt, and it was served to the gods and the dead. The Greeks also served milk to their gods; they offered it with honey and water. In Israel, on the other hand, there are no milk offerings. It is possible that this is because man gets milk without real labor unlike that which is involved in products such as grain, oil, and wine, which subsequently are presented

13 14

BT Shabbath, 19b. Genesis Rabbah, 48:14.

154

Chapter 8

as offerings. The only ritual regulation concerning milk is found later in Exodus and Deuteronomy: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother milk” (Deut. 14:21). This prohibition probably refers to some Canaanite custom. As noted above, the Biblical verse was extended into a rabbinic prohibition of eating meat and dairy products at the same time.15 Separate sets of utensils and cookware must be used in preparing and serving milk and meat. Meat Meat was not a popular item in the diet of the patriarchs. The main animals used for meat consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. The patriarchs probably abstained from it because of the shortage of domestic cattle in Biblical times. It was not prudent to slaughter animals that provided for example cheese, curds, and milk. Meat was eaten only on special occasions. When Abraham invited the angels into his tent, he took a calf from the herd. It was a sign of princely hospitality. Similarly, when Saul consulted the medium at Endor, she slaughtered a stall-fed calf. Hunting wild game was popular in ancient times. Isaac liked tasty meat from hunting, therefore he sent his son Esau to hunt for him (Gen. 27:3). Likewise, in the story of Si-nuhe, when he became the ruler of a tribe: “Bread was made for me as daily fare, wine as daily provision, cooked meat and roast fowl, beside the wild beast of the desert for they hunted.”16 Meat in ancient times was eaten mostly on the occasion of sacrifice: half was burned and half was eaten. Roasting and boiling were the main methods of preparing meat. The meat was boiled in water together with vegetables, onions, garlic, leeks, herbs, and spices. There are three cuneiform tablets from Babylon that date from 1700 B. C. E., which describe the preparation of meat dishes. Later, when the Israelites received the laws, there were certain dietary laws. There were animals that were allowed for eating and the manner of their preparation. The animals had to have two characteristics: They chewed

15 M. Ḥullin, 8:14. 16 “The Story of Si-nuhe”, trans. John A. Wilson, ANET, 20.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

155

their cud and had cloven hooves. If they lacked these characteristics, they were forbidden for food. Some birds were permitted for food and some were forbidden. There is no criterion that distinguishes pure birds from impure birds. Water creatures such as fish with fins and scales were permitted for food. Winged insects, which include four types of locusts, were also permitted (Lev. 11:20–23). It appears that consumption of meat was changed during the monarchial period. The archaeological finding from the Iron Age II shows that animals were raised for the purpose of supplying meat. This period corresponds to the f lourishing of the Israelite kingdoms. Large quantities of animal bones were found in archeological excavations. However, we should be cautious with these findings since we can’t tell how much meat was consumed by individuals in ancient Israel. More so, it is unknown how many people ate the meat and over what period of time.17 Condiments Debhash is rendered “honey” in English and is mentioned among the products of the land that the brothers brought to Joseph (Gen. 43:11). It is also possible that debhash was sweet syrup made from dates and grapes that was made thick by cooking, which the Arabs call dibs. It is not clear if debhash was bee honey, cultured or wild. Samson ate wild honey found in the carcass of a lion he had killed ( Judg. 14:8–9). Jonathan, Saul’s son, found honey in the forest and ate it in violation of his father’s oath (1 Sam. 1425ff ). There is no direct evidence from the Hebrew Bible that bees were domesticated in Israel. It is believed that bees were raised in the Hellenistic period. Recently, it has been claimed that beehives were discovered in the tenth century B. C. E. or early ninth century at Tel Rehov.18 In Egypt, bees

17 18

For further study see: Nathan MacDonald, What Did the Ancient Israelite Eat? 61–72. A. Mazar, The Tel Rehov Exacavations–2007; see: (accessed 10 October 2007).

156

Chapter 8

were raised as early as the Old Kingdom. While in Mesopotamia, the first time bees are mentioned is the early eighth century B. C. E. In the stele of Ṣamaš-reš-usur bees are: “Brought down from the mountain of the Habha people, the f lies which collect honey, which none of my predecessors had ever known or brought down … and located them in the gardens of the town GN. (There) they might now collect honey and wax. I (even) knew how to separate honey (from) wax by boiling (the comb) and (my) gardeners know it too.”19 The honey was probably eaten with grain and oil and a milk product. We have to remember that sugar was not invented yet, therefore the honey was the sweetener. The Bible does not mention honey as a medicine. This medicinal usage is known in Mesopotamia for healing diseases of the ears and eyes. Later, it is attested to in the Mishnah and Talmud. According to the Biblical laws, bee’s honey should be forbidden because the honeybee belongs to the class of unclean insects. However, the rabbis permitted its use because, according to them, it is not a product of the bee; it is simply stored in their body.20 On Rosh Hashanah, many Jewish families dip bread or an apple in honey, which symbolizes their wish for a sweet new year. Nuts Pistachio and almond nuts are mentioned among the presents that Jacob sent with his sons as a gift to Egypt. Pistachio is mentioned only once, while the almond is mentioned many times. They were not cultivated but grew wild. The Aramaic name for the almond tree and its fruit is lûz and appears in the Bible only in the story of Jacob’s sojourn in Haran (Gen. 30:37). It has been suggested that since the almond and pistachio were among the

F. H. Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen (WVDOG 4; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903), 11 col. iv. 13–16; v. 1–6. 20 BT Bekhorot, 7b. 19

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

157

delicacies that Jacob sent to Egypt, it is possible that they appeared only in the diets of the wealthy elites.21

Transportation The patriarchs used donkeys and camels for transportation. Perhaps the donkey was already domesticated by 3500 B. C. E. It was the main beast of burden in the ancient Near East. As with the camel, it can survive with significantly less water, though for shorter periods. A donkey can replenish the loss of water in a matter of minutes. It is mentioned already among the gifts the Pharaoh bestowed on Abraham (Gen. 12:16). In the binding of Isaac, Abraham saddled his ass for the journey to Mount Moriah (22:3). After the destruction of the city of Shechem, Jacob’s sons plundered the town seizing f locks, herds, and asses. Finally, on their journey to Egypt, the brothers also used asses (42:26). When the patriarchs moved, they packed all their goods on the backs of the asses. This was done in fabric bags, jars, and water in skin bags. Some of the asses carried the women and children. In the Egyptian painting at Beni-hasan from about 1890 B. C. E., women are depicted having long hair that is clustered together. They are sitting close to two children riding a donkey and one following behind. The ass was considered unclean in ancient Israel and was not used for sacrifice or food. However, in time of famine in Samaria during the siege by Ben-Hadad, there is a description of eating ass (2 Kgs. 6:25). The ass rested on the Sabbath and was not used for labor on that day. When the Israelite’s returned from the exile, the Bible mentions that they brought with them 6,720 asses, 736 horses, 245 mules, and 435 camels, which points to their social value and importance (Ezra 2:66–67; Neh. 7:68–69). In contrast to the horse, which was used for military purposes, the ass was considered a symbol of peace. Thus, the Messiah will appear on an ass, which is a symbol 21

Nathan MacDonald, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? 31.

158

Chapter 8

of peace and humility. Later during the inter-testamental period, Jews were falsely accused of worshiping an ass’s head.22 Similar accusations were leveled toward Christians through the motif of transference.23 The patriarchs also used camels for traveling. It is mentioned first among the gifts that Pharaoh gave Abraham (Gen. 12:16). Abraham’s servant travelled to Mesopotamia with 10 camels (24:10). Jacob also used camels for his travelling (31:17). The one-humped camel was bred in ancient Israel and the surrounding countries. It was used mainly for transportation, especially for long journeys. The camel could travel 40 kilometers a day and was able to survive without water for three days. Later, the Bible mentions camels as instruments of warfare ( Judg. 7:12). King David appointed an official in charge of camels (1 Chr. 27:30). Camels were a sign of wealth, therefore Abraham’s servant went with 10 camels in order to impress the family of the bride to be. It is said that Job had 3,000 and later 6,000 camels ( Job 1:3; 42:12), which indicates his prosperity. The wool of the camel was used for making tent cloths and clothes. Remains of camels are found sporadically at MB and LB sites; only in the Iron Age are they found in significant numbers. It is believed that the domestication of camels was only after 1200 B. C. E. Donkey’s bones, however, are found at most sites from earlier periods, thus it is thought that the donkey, and not the camel, was the primary animal of burden. The camels are also absent from ancient texts. They are not mentioned in Mari text, which describes nomadic life, as well as from text from the old Babylonian period. In the Egyptian text the camels appear as late as the Persian period. However, based on the Biblical testimony, we suggest that despite the limited finding of camels’ remains in the earlier period, the patriarchs indeed used the camels as burden animals. The process of domestication was a lengthy one, so it is likely that wealthy men acquired a few camels as a symbol of prestige. Therefore, this is not an anachronism.

22 Josephus, Contra Apion. ii.7; ii.80. 23 N. Walker, “The Riddle of the Ass’s Head and the Question of a Trigram”, ZAW 75 (1963), 225–227.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

159

Dress and Ornamentation After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit we read: “Then the eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). Since Adam and Eve gain the ability to distinguish between good and evil, they felt the need to cover their naked bodies. By the patriarchal period, cloth was not only used to cover the body but also to protect it from the elements. Dress already provides important social and cultural information about the status and group identity. Dress was highly valued by the Israelites. When Samson offered a prize for solving his riddle it was: “Thirty linen garments and thirty festal garments ( Judg. 14:12). During the conquest of Canaan, Achan desired “a beautiful mantle from Shinar,” as well as of silver and gold ( Josh. 7:21). One of the main reasons clothes were highly valued was because of the hard work and time that was involved in making them. Clothes also indicated a man’s status and lifestyle. For this reason, the Bible lists quantities of clothing given as a gift. Ironically, in the Joseph story, Joseph gave his brothers a change of clothing but to Benjamin, he gave several changes of clothing (Gen. 45:22). There are no specific terms that distinguish men’s clothes from women’s clothes. However, they wore a different set of clothing as the law in Deuteronomy warns that men were not to wear women’s garments (Deut. 22:5). The patriarchs did not wear the same clothes because they used different clothes for different occasions. For everyday activities, nomads who were outside in the hot sun probably used a loincloth made of wool or animal skin. This was worn like a skirt. One style was worn over the shoulder and reached below the knees. Other versions extended from the knees to the ankles with short or long sleeves. For festive occasions, special clothes were used. When Jacob deceived his father, Rebecca took the best clothes from her older son, Esau, and put them on Jacob. Esau, meanwhile, used a different set of clothes for hunting. Jacob, on his return to Beth El, instructed his household and all who were with him: “Rid yourself of the alien gods in your midst, purify yourselves,

160

Chapter 8

and change your clothes” (Gen. 35:2). Usually, laundering is a precondition of purification, but here we find a stricter requirement. During periods of mourning people used a special set of clothing. After the death of Onan, Tamar went to her father’s house wearing her widow’s garb. This mode of dress was characteristic of a widow in mourning. It is unclear, however, how long it was worn. In Tamar’s case, she probably wore it for a longer period as a sign of the unfulfilled levirate obligation. The Sennacherib stele portrays women leaving the city of Lachish while wearing a mantle that is pulled over the head signifying the act of mourning.24 Jacob, upon receiving the news about his son Joseph, rented his clothes and put sackcloth on his loins. This was one of the signs of mourning in ancient times. The sackcloth was probably made of goat hair or camel hair. As mentioned above, clothes also indicated one’s social status. In the Joseph cycle, Jacob loved Joseph best of all his sons. To show his love for him, he made him an ornamented tunic. The Septuagint and the Vulgate translate “a robe of many colors.” Josephus describes it as “a long-sleeved tunic reaching to the ankle.”25 A similar description to Joseph’s ornamental tunic is found in an Egyptian tomb painting at Beni-hasan from about 1890 B. C. E. that depicts a Semitic nomadic clan. The man and woman were wearing multicolored tunics draped over one shoulder and reaching below the knees. The man wears sandals, but the woman, it appears, wears a boot. The clothing is made of wool that has been woven in many colors. The men in the painting are bearded and they have throw-sticks or javelins. One man has a bow and arrow and another man has a lyre. As in the Biblical text, they use a donkey as the beast of burden, and they carry two pairs of goats. The man who is plying the lyre has a water skin on his back. Joseph’s hair was cut and his clothes were changed when he appeared before Pharaoh. Joseph shaved and changed his clothes out of respect for royalty, not to celebrate his release, for Joseph did not yet know if he was to be freed. The Egyptians shaved and cut their hair for hygienic reasons.

24 Mazar, B.; Avi-Yonah, M; and Malamat, A., eds, Views of the Biblical World (Chicago: Jordan Publications, 1959), 2:283. 25 Josephus, Ant. 2.2.I.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

161

The Egyptians’ slaves wore a different cloth. Joseph’s change of cloth also has a symbolic meaning that points to a new beginning for Joseph. The motif of cloth appears several times in the Joseph narrative, and it was a constant factor in Joseph’s misfortune – first the coat of many colors and then Potiphar’s wife, who caught Joseph by his cloth.26 But all of this changed after Joseph interpreted Pharaohs dreams; the king appointed him as vizier. Pharaoh had Joseph dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. The patriarchs used sheep’s wool for making clothes. Sheep shearing is already mentioned in the Jacob story (Gen. 31:19); also later in the Judah and Tamar story at Timnah (38:12). Shearing was hard work done by men. It was a happy occasion that was celebrated by the nomads. In the Hebrew Bible, wool was the most common material for cloth. Cotton was unknown, linen was too expensive for the populace, and camel hair too rough. The sheep were dragged into a pool to wash their f leece. After they were dried, they would shear their wool. According to the Talmud, some sheep were wrapped in covers. This was done in order to keep the wool clean and eliminate the need for a second washing and to minimize these loses of time and water. This process was called “Milat-wool.”27 One of the byproducts of goats was their hair. The value of goat hair was limited because it was too coarse to use for garments. The other reason was its black color, which prevented the use of dye. Wearing a goathair garment indicated that the person was poor and could not afford better or he was in mourning. More typical usage was the making of sacks (Gen. 42:25) and tent fabrics. Rings were used for beauty, especially in the nose and the ears. Abraham’s servant gave Rebecca a gold nose ring weighing a half–shekel and two gold bands for her arms, 10 shekels in weight. Different rings are mentioned when Jacob ordered the men of his household to bury their earrings. It is believed that they were not ordinary pieces of jewelry, but

26 For clothing in the Joseph narrative, see: Victor H. Matthews, “The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative”, JSOT 65 (1995), 25–36. 27 Arye. Ben-David, Talmudische Ökonomie (Hildeshiem, NY: Olms, 1974), 130.

162

Chapter 8

amulets that were objects of superstition that were used in false worship (Ho. 2:15; Judg. 8:24). It might be that the author had crescent earrings of the ancient Near East in mind, which were worn during the worship of the moon god. We should point out that later, earrings were used for the making of idolatrous cultic objects such as the golden calf and decorating an ephod (Exod. 32:2–4; Judg. 8:24–27). Rings were also a status symbol. In addition to robes of fine linen and a gold chain, Joseph received a signet ring from Pharaoh. The ring was a symbol of authority and the title “Royal Seal-Bearer” was well known in Egypt. The transfer of the ring to Joseph enabled him to validate documents in the king’s name. Women were generally not veiled; only under certain circumstances. The story of Sarah in Egypt clearly shows that she was not veiled. On the other hand, Tamar put on a veil to deceive Judah. Rebecca veiled herself when she saw Isaac. As a prospective bride she veiled herself, and by this action she signals to Isaac that she is his bride. Indeed in Akkadian, the bride on her wedding night was called “the veiled bride.”28 The patriarchs wore sandals that were made of leather and fastened with a strap or laces. Sandal straps are mentioned already in the story of Lot’s captivity (Gen. 14:22). As the reader may recall, male Semites in the Beni-Hasan tomb had sandals with straps. To go barefoot indicated poverty (Deut. 25:19); or a sign of mourning (2 Sam. 15:30; Ezek. 24:17, 23); or one was walking on holy ground (Exod. 3:5; Joshua 5:15). Footwear for women was probably different than men’s. The women and children in the Beni-Hasan painting wore shoes that covered the entire foot. Women’s footwear is rarely mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The women and girls on Sennacherib stele are barefoot. There is very little information about headgear in the Hebrew Bible. We know that the priests wore turbans or a cloth miter (Exod. 29:6; Zech. 3:5) and soldiers wore helmets to protect themselves. It is unlikely that the

28 K. van der Torn, “The Significance of the Veil in Ancient Near East”, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz, eds, Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–339.

The Daily Life of the Patriarchs

163

patriarchs went bareheaded in the hot summers. We know that women used headwear, such as turbans, scarves, and veils, to conceal their faces. We believe that the patriarchs also used some type of turban or scarf to protect themselves from the sun. In conclusion, the patriarchs were semi-nomadic people who were on the move looking for fresh pastures. They were at a transitional stage meaning they had herds and sowed the land as well. In pastoral societies, animals were the main source of livelihood and wealth, so tending the animals was an important activity. The patriarchs lived a very simple life; at the center of their social life was the tent that was made of goat hair. The patriarchs had several tents since they were polygamists, where each wife had her own tent. A curtain divided the tent into two parts for sleeping quarters and for guests. In addition, the tents were used for storage, for food supplies, and as a stable for the animals. Cereal food was the main part of the diet in Biblical times. Grains, such as barley and wheat, were gathered and ground into f lour then mixed with water and placed on hot rocks to make bread. Milk was an important item in the diet of the patriarchs. The most commonly mentioned milk in the Bible is from sheep and goats. The animals used for meat consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. However, meat was eaten only on special events such as for entertaining guests, but not on a regular basis. Also available to the patriarchs were stew, honey, grapes, pistachios, and almonds. Donkeys and camels were used for transportation. Indeed, the donkey was the main beast of burden in the ancient Near East. The patriarchs wore different clothes for different occasions such as festivals or mourning. They used sheep’s wool for making clothes. Interestingly, already in such an early period, clothes were an indication of one’s social status. So far we described the lifestyles and beliefs of the patriarchs. Thus, we arrive at the last cycle of human life – death. This final chapter will describe the patriarch’s beliefs about death and afterlife, as well as mourning customs that are mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

Chapter 9

Death

For he who is reckoned among the living has something to look forward to – even a live dog is better than a dead lion … since the living know they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more recompense, for even the memory of them has died. Their loves, their jealousies have long since perished; and they have no more share till the end of time in all that goes under the sun. (Eccles. 9:4–6)

Thus Ecclesiastes, similarly to Egyptian texts, viewed death as something negative and abnormal but part of creation. According to one of the Pyramid texts, death did not exist in the primeval age before the gods made the world and mankind.1 In the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic, “When the gods created mankind, death for mankind they set aside, life in their own hands retaining.” Elsewhere, Gilgamesh says that the human cannot scale heaven because their days are numbered.2 After Adam disobeyed the divine injunction and ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God punished him: “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). The same idea – that human beings come from the dust and ultimately return to the dust – recurs in later books of the Bible: 1

2

For Egyptian views on death see: J. Zandee, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1960); L. V. Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); H. Brunner, Grundzüge der altägyptischen Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983). J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 164–165.

166

Chapter 9

e.g. in Job: “all f lesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” ( Job 34:15); and in Ecclesiastes: “all go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again” (Eccles. 3:20).3 Human life is a journey from dust to dust, ending at the same point it begins, and death is the perpetual nothingness to which all revert when they return to dust. This chapter will raise questions about the concept of death in the patriarchal narrative.4 Whether death really is the final station of the human journey from which there is no return, or whether the Book of Genesis alludes to some form of continuity after death. Thus, we will look into the Biblical idiom to “lie down with one’s father.” In addition, we will examine the concept of Sheol, the cult of the dead and mourning customs.

“Lie down with one’s father” The Hebrew word for death is māwet /môt. The root m.w.t. is common to the Semitic languages and occurs in Egyptian as well. The “ideal” way of dying was for a man to die when he was old and satisfied with his days and years (Gen. 25:8; 35:29); growing and developing until the last day with the mental and physical powers of a lifetime (Deut. 34:7). Longevity was regarded as a great blessing, and it was bestowed by God upon his chosen king. Before dying, it was customary for the patriarch to put the affairs of his house in order. He would gather his sons to convey his will and bless them (Isaac, Jacob). Following death, it was believed that a man was reunited with his ancestors. This is expressed in the Bible by idioms such as “lie down with one’s father” (Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16; 2 Sam. 7:12; 35 times in 1 and 2 Kgs. and 2 Chr.). The Torah employs a similar expression: “He was gathered to

3 4

See also Ps. 103:14; 104:29. On the subject of death in the Hebrew Bible see: Shaul Bar, I deal Death and Give Live: Biblical Perspective on Death (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010).

Death

167

his kin,” regarding Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Aaron and Moses (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; Num. 20:24; Deut. 32:50). All of these expressions stem from the idea that a person is buried in the family tomb where he joins his deceased ancestors. However, according to the Biblical narrative Abraham, Aaron, and Moses were not buried with their forefathers. Despite man’s perishability, there is an element that survives his death. In other words, death is a transition to the afterlife, where one is united with their ancestors. As Sarna pointed out, it was thought that the idea of the afterlife was known in Israel only in a later period, but this is evidently invalid.5 Since it was believed that a man was reunited with his ancestors, all the patriarchs and matriarchs, except for Rachel, were buried in the Cave of Machpelah, which Abraham purchased from Ephron the Hittite. The patriarchs were buried in the ancestral tomb on family-owned land. Since Jacob lived and died in Egypt, his body was brought back to be interred in the Cave of Machpelah (Gen. 50:13). Joseph, on the other hand, was not buried in the cave of Machpelah; he was laid to rest in a plot of land that Jacob had bought in Shechem ( Josh. 24:32; cf. Gen. 33:19). From the time of the patriarchs to the end of the Biblical period, family sepulchers were the desired form of burial. For the Kings of Judah and their families, their wish was to “lie with their father,” to “go with their fathers,” or to be “gathered to their fathers” (2 Sam. 7:12, 2 Kgs. 22:20; 1 Chr. 17:11; 2 Chr. 34:28). The Bible tells us of a second burial that King Saul and his son, Jonathan, were buried in the sepulcher of Kish, Saul’s father (2 Sam. 21:14). Being buried with one’s ancestors is a theme repeated numerous times with the burial of several kings (1 Kgs. 14:31; 15:24; 22: 51; 2 Kgs. 15:38). The desire to be buried in the same grave site of one’s father was so important that Ahitophel went to his city and strangled himself so he would be buried in the sepulcher of his father (2 Sam. 17:23). Similarly, when Barzillai asked King David permission to leave, he said: “Turn back, that I may die in my own city, by the grave of my father and my mother …” (2 Sam. 19:38). On the other hand, it was a curse to not be buried: “Thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulcher of thy fathers” (1 Kgs. 13:22). 5 Sarna, Genesis, 174.

168

Chapter 9

The Bible describes burial with the verb qbr. The root q.b.r. is common to all Semitic languages. Death and burial often appear together, thus we find the consecutive forms: “he died … and was buried.” In addition, the name of the subject and the place of burial are common: “And Abraham breathed his last, dying … His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah” (Gen. 25:8). The burial act was done by the son who carried the line of the family who received the blessing. Abraham was buried by Isaac and Ishmael in the Cave of Machpelah. Isaac was buried by his sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob charged his sons before his death to bury him in the Cave of Machpelah. By mentioning those who were interred there, Jacob wanted to inspire his sons with the importance and significance of the place. The matriarchs were also buried in the Cave of Machpelah. Sarah’s death is recorded first. Abraham buried her. The deaths of Rebecca and Leah are not recorded in Genesis, only that they were buried with patriarchs and the matriarch, Sarah. Who actually buried Rebecca we are not told; it was probably Esau and other family members as Ramban writes in 35:8, the blind Isaac could not participate. As for Leah, Jacob says on his death bed that he buried his wife there. While the death of Rebecca and Leah is not recorded, by contrast the Bible does report the death of Rebecca’s nurse, Deborah, and her burial under an oak tree, which is quite puzzling (Gen. 35:8).6 Interment under a tree may have been a symbolic act intended to perpetuate the memory of the deceased because the tree was a symbol of eternal life.7 Similarly, the citizens of Jabesh Gilead, after cremating the bodies of Saul and his son, “buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh” (1 Sam. 31:13). Cremation was not typically practiced by the Israelites. However, the bodies of King Saul and his sons were cremated in order to prevent the Philistines from further mutilating them.

6 7

For more on the death of Deborah see: Shaul Bar, “The Oak of Weeping”, Bib 91 (2010), 269–274. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead ( JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 115.

Death

169

The only matriarch who was not buried in the Cave of Machpelah was Rachel, who died while giving birth to Benjamin. She was buried where she died, on the way to Ephrathah in Benjamin. Her death resembles that of Deborah, who was buried where she died near Beth El (Gen. 35:8). Later, the leaders of the Exodus generation were also buried where they died: Miriam in Kadesh (Num. 20:1); Aaron on Mt. Hor or Moserah (Deut. 10:6; Num. 33:39); and Moses in Moab near Beth-peor (Deut. 34:6). Rachel’s burial site was marked with a pillar, while Deborah’s by a tree. A pillar or a tree served as a landmark, thus trees are mentioned when Abraham purchased the Cave of Machpelah. Absalom also built a pillar for himself in his lifetime (2 Sam. 18:18). In his case, the pillar ensures that the name of the deceased will not be forgotten. There is no statement in the Hebrew Bible regarding the time allowed between death and burial. It is believed that the dead were buried as soon as possible. In a statement about the execution of a criminal by hanging we read: “You must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess” (Deut. 21:23). From this, it was surmised that other dead as well were to be buried on the same day they died. This custom exists still today among Jews and Muslims.

Mourning Customs In the account of the Sarah’s death and burial, Abraham came to mourn and weep for her; only after that did he address the issue of burying her. Many Biblical passages, in fact, place the misped (lament eulogy) before the interment (Gen. 23:2; 50:10, 13; 1 Sam. 25:1; 28:3; Jer. 22:18; 25:33). In others the order is reversed – first burial and only then the misped (1 Kgs. 14:8; 13:30; Jer. 16:6). The roots s.p.d. and b.k.h., “cry, weep,” describe mourning practices and occur together frequently (Gen. 23:2; 2 Sam. 1:12; Isa. 22:12; Ezek. 24:16; Joel 2:12; Esth. 4:3). In Ugaritic, too, the cognate pair describes

170

Chapter 9

the mourning for Aqhat the son of Danel.8 It appears also in Akkadian and Aramaic.9 A reading of the Bible, however, indicates that in some places s.p.d. is not the same meaning as b.k.h. First of all, s.p.d. may mean beating the breast, as in “beat upon your breasts for the pleasant fields” (Isa. 32:12).10 This sense is also found in the Akkadian verb sapādu “beat the breast.”11 Mourners beat their breast while performing a funeral dance – this dance is apparently what is denoted by the noun misped, as we may infer from two verses: “You turned my lament (mispedi) into dancing” (Ps. 30:12 [11]); and “a time to mourn (sefod) and a time to dance” (Eccles. 3:4). One ancient mourning custom that survives to the present is that the bereaved rend their garments. This practice is mentioned for the first time in the Joseph cycle. When Reuben discovers that Joseph has vanished, he tears his clothe (Gen. 37:29). Jacob does the same thing after he sees Joseph’s bloody cloak (v. 34). After the defeat at Ai, Joshua rends his garments. ( Josh. 7:6). Hezekiah does the same after hearing the Rabshakeh’s ultimatum (2 Kgs. 19:1). Mordechai, when he learns of the decree to exterminate the Jews, also rends his garments (Esth. 4:1). Job tears his robe when he is informed of his children’s death ( Job 1:20). The custom is also documented in extra-Biblical texts, such as during the drought that followed the death of Daniel, where we read that Anath “rends the garment of Daniel the Rapha-man.”12 Today, at a Jewish funeral, a gash of approximately four inches is cut in the mourner’s upper garment, on the left side for parents and on the right side for the other five relatives for whom mourning is mandatory (Lev. 21:1–3). The mourner stands while tearing the garment ( Job 1:20) 8 9 10

11 12

André Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), 19, 171–172; Dennis Pardee, “The A ̓ Qhatu Legend (1.103)”, COS, 1:354. bikītu u sipdu/sipittu see: CAD: B 223–225, bikītu; Targum Sheni on Esther 1:4. The amora Ulla cited this verse as a proof text in his distinction among the various expressions of grief associated with mourning: “Ulla said: [The technical meaning of ] a hesped is [striking] the breast. … [The technical meaning of ] ṭippuaḥ is clapping one’s hands [in grief ], and that of qillus is [tapping] with the foot [in mourning]”, Moed Katan 27b. CAD: S 150–151, Sapādu. “The Tale of Aqhat”, trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, C. i. 35, 153.

Death

171

and recites the benediction that accepts God’s justice. In the past, mourners ripped their garments themselves.13 This act may symbolize a release of tension or it may be a substitute for cutting oneself. Rending the clothes may be a relic of an ancient custom in which mourners bared their chest. Egyptian tomb pictures show bare-breasted women placing their hands on their heads, clapping their hands, or tearing out their hair. Their faces are covered with dust (cf. Ezek. 27:30; Ps. 102:10), they have ropes on their necks (cf. 1 Kgs. 20:31), and their hips are girded with torn black sackcloth. The sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos (twelfth century B. C. E.) is decorated with a relief of four bare-breasted women, two of them with their hands on their head and two of them beating their thighs (cf. Jer. 31:19; Ezek. 21:17). Men stand before the king with their bare right arm. Wearing sackcloth is another widespread custom that is often associated with rending one’s garments. Jacob did so (Gen. 37:34); and after Abner’s assassination, David told the people to tear their garments and wear sackcloth (2 Sam. 3:31). The custom indicated both private and national mourning ( Job 16:15; Lam. 2:10; Esth. 4:1) and sometimes remorse for sin (1 Kgs. 21:27; Neh. 9:1). It can also ref lect a hope for salvation (2 Kings 19:1, 2; Dan. 9:3).14 The neighboring peoples also wore sackcloth as a symbol of mourning, remorse, and repentance – in Damascus (1 Kgs. 20:31), Moab (Isa. 15:3), Ammon ( Jer. 49:3), and Sidon (Ezek. 27:31). So too in extraBiblical sources; when El, the father of the gods, is mourning the death of Baal, he “puts on sackcloth and loincloth,” as does Anat.15 The standard mourning period was seven days, as in Joseph’s mourning for his father: “When they came to the threshing f loor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan, they lamented there with a very great and sorrowful lamentation; and he made a mourning for his father for seven days” (Gen. 50:10). The inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead fasted for seven days after they buried Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31:13). Job’s friends “sat with him on the

13 Sarna, Genesis, 261; Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 340:1. 14 Cf. Judith 4:10; Baruch 4:20. 15 “Poems about Baal and Anath”, trans. H. L. Ginsberg, ANET, g.I*AB(vi): 17, 139.

172

Chapter 9

ground seven days and seven nights. None spoke a word to him for they saw how very great was his suffering” ( Job 2:13). The seven days of mourning was a custom entrenched in the Second Temple period: “Mourning for the dead lasts seven days, but for a fool or an ungodly man it lasts all his life” (Ben Sira 22:12). Judith was mourned for seven days ( Judith 16:24). When Herod died, Josephus writes, “Archelaus paid him so much respect, as to continue his mourning till the seventh day; for so many days are appointed for it by the law of our fathers.”16 In fact, the seven-day period of mourning is of ancient origin; Gilgamesh mourns his friend Enkidu for seven days.17 According to the inscription about the mother of Nabonidus, kings, princes, and foreign governors mourned her for seven days and seven nights.18 The Talmudic sages were not satisfied with the story of Jacob as the source for the seven days of mourning – “Do we learn from events that took place before the Torah was given?” – and offer various other possibilities, including the seven days of the priestly consecration (Leviticus 8) and the seven days of Miriam’s quarantine (Num. 12).19 The Talmud says that after the Torah was given, Moses instituted the customs of seven days of mourning as well as seven days of marriage celebrations. By attributing the custom to Moses, the intended is to give it greater power.20 The Talmud says that the soul mourns the body for the first seven days after death: “A man’s soul mourns for him [after death] seven whole [days]. For it is said, ‘And his soul mourns for him’ ( Job 14:22); and it is written, ‘and he made a mourning for his father for seven days’” (Gen. 50:10).21 Various Midrashim compare the seven days of mourning to other periods of the same duration, including the seven days of Creation and the

16 Josephus, Ant 17, 8, 4. 17 “Day and night I have wept over him./I would not give him up for burial/In case my friend should rise at my plaint/Seven days and seven nights,/Until a worm fell out of his nose” (“The Epic of Gilgamesh”, trans. E. A. Speiser, ANET, Tablet X: ii: 5–9, 89–90). 18 “The Mother of Nabonidus”, trans. A. Leo. Oppenheim, ANET, 562. 19 TJ Makkot, 3:5 (82c). 20 TJ Ketubbot, 1:1. 21 BT Shabbat, 152a.

Death

173

seven days of the marriage feast.22 This seems to be a typological number, given that seven and 30 are basic units of the Jewish calendar. The Talmud divides the seven-day mourning period into two parts. The first three days were characterized by crying and weeping, the last four by other mourning customs. This division was apparently based on the belief that the corpse begins to decompose visibly after the first three days. Until then they tested it to make sure that the person was really dead. All four Gospels indicate that this was done for Jesus. Martha says about her brother Lazarus, “By this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days” ( John 11:39). According to the Talmud, the spirit of the deceased circles around the corpse for the first three days because it wants to re-enter the body. It is only after three days, when the corpse begins to disintegrate, that the soul departs from it definitively.23 This belief explains why the first three days of the mourning period were harsher. In some cases, mourning lasted longer. When Jacob thought that Joseph was dead he “observed mourning for his son many days” (Gen. 37:34). How long this may have been is not specified. The same expression is used for Ephraim after his sons were slain by the men of Gath (1 Chr. 7:22). Daniel mourned for three weeks (Dan. 10:2). The Egyptians mourned Jacob for 70 days, as was their custom (Gen. 50:3); 40 days for embalming and 70 days of weeping. It is not clear whether the 70 days included the 40. According to Herodotus and Egyptian documents of the fifth century B. C. E. and Hellenistic period, the body spent 70 days in niter. Diodorus Siculus refers to 30 days during which the corpse was anointed with oil and spices, and 72 days of mourning for a king.24 From these we may infer that the passage in Genesis refers to 30 days of mourning in addition to the 70 days of embalming, which were also a time of mourning.

Midrash Tanḥuma Bereshit, 222 (ed. Buber); Tanḥuma Vayiqra, 21–22 (ed. Buber); R. Tobia ben Elieser, Lekach-Tov (ed. Buber) (Vilna: Wittwe & Gebruder Romm, 1884), 50:6, 242. 23 TJ Yevamot, 15:3; Leviticus Rabbah, 18a. 24 Sarna, Genesis, 347. 22

174

Chapter 9

Sheol Following death it was believed that human beings descend to Sheol – the concept of heaven and hell did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the question remains whether both righteous and wicked descend to the same place. Some scholars believe that Sheol is reserved for the wicked only.25 Others hold that in the Biblical scheme of things, all human beings descend there.26 In fact, there are righteous individuals in the Bible who envision themselves in Sheol. In the Joseph stories, when Jacob receives the bitter news about his son, he expresses a desire to go down to Sheol (Gen. 37:35). Hezekiah of Judah imagined that he had been consigned to the gates of Sheol (Isa. 38:10). Job, too, imagines himself in Sheol ( Job 17:13–16). There are many passages in the Bible in which believers asked God to deliver them from Sheol because they will not be able to praise and extol Him in Sheol. However, all of the loci mentioned above involve extreme trial, severe loss, and illness.27 Jacob, speaking many years later of his own death, does not use the term Sheol. In other words, when the righteous envision themselves in Sheol, they are talking about premature death or divine punishment, never about a natural death with a full lifespan.28 Examination of the Biblical narrative shows that Sheol always has a negative connotation. It is the place of repose of the wicked. It is associated with unnatural and premature death. When mentioned in the context of

Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), 186; R. Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical Sheol Within the Context of ANE Beliefs”, PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1980, 178–252. 26 J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), vol. I–II, 461–462; R. Laird Harris, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic Texts”, JETS 4 (1961), 129–135; John Gray, I and II Kings (2nd edn Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 102. 27 Philip S.  Johnston, Shades of Sheol (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 81. 28 Ibid, 82. 25

Death

175

the righteous, it involves a premature death, which is understood to be a Divine punishment. Note that the Talmud employs the term Gehinnom for the underworld. According to the Talmudic tradition, only the wicked go there, where they are punished. The fact that Sheol is the place of the wicked might ref lect the existence of a doctrine of posthumous reward and punishment, because only the wicked descend there. Josephus (c. 37–after 100 c.e.) who was one of the chief representatives of Jewish-Hellenistic literature offers a detailed description of Sheol,29 but says that it is the abode of both the righteous and wicked until the Lord restores them to life. In the underworld, the Lord pays the righteous and the wicked their just desserts. The righteous enter on the right side; where there is light and they can enjoy the things that they see. They do not have to work, there is neither excessive heat nor piercing cold, nor are there any briars there. The wicked, by contrast, are sent to the left side, which is that of hell, where there is a perpetual fire for the Day of Judgment. On the Day of Judgment, the verdict for the righteous is “an everlasting fruition; but allotting to the lovers of wicked works the eternal punishment.” After the Day of Judgment the wicked will be consigned to Sheol forever in perpetual f lames. The righteous, by contrast, will merit heaven and earth, enjoy the fruits of the earth and remain eternally young.

Cult of the Dead Providing food to the dead or honoring them with a meal was a common practice in the ancient world. People believed that the dead could inf luence the world of the living. They could help the living if the latter attended to their needs or harm them if they neglected them. The dead ancestors

29

Josephus, “An Extract out of Josephus’s discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades”, in William Whiston, trans., The Works of Flavius Josephus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publisher, 1987), 813–814.

176

Chapter 9

protected the family and were worshiped by its members. The living were expected to honor them and consult them. While f leeing her father’s house, Rachel stole her father’s teraphim. Examination of the Hebrew Bible shows that teraphim were a cultic object that was used to obtain foreknowledge of the future and perhaps as a means of communication with the dead. Teraphim were sometimes coupled with the ephod, another cultic object employed for the purpose of knowledge of the future ( Judg. 17:5; 18:17–18, 20; Hos. 3:4). The Biblical text sometimes refers to teraphim as gods (Gen. 31:30, 32; Judg. 18:24), therefore it is not surprising that some translations render it as “household gods” (NRSV, NEB). One of the functions of these household gods seems to have been protecting the members of the family when they were traveling. Josephus writes about a Parthian widow who secretly brought these household gods to the home of her second husband, a Jewish general in Babylonia: “The images of those gods which were their country gods, common to her husband and to herself: now it was the custom of that country for all to have the idols they worship in their own houses, and to carry them along with them when they go into a foreign land.”30 Rachel, f leeing her father’s house, could not openly take the household gods with her, therefore she stole them so that they would protect her on her journey.31 Another possibility is that teraphim were used to obtain knowledge of the future and were taken on important journeys to indicate the route to be taken. According to the Tanḥuma and Targum Yerushalmi, Rachel stole the teraphim to prevent her father from learning what road they

30 Josephus, Ant, 18, 9, 5. 31 The Greco-Roman world, too, had its household gods or Penates. Aeneas, f leeing burning Troy, takes the civic Penates with him. An Etruscan vase of the fifth century B. C. E. depicts his wife carrying a pillow-shaped object with straps, which evidently contains the sacred vessels of Troy. According to Plutarch (Camillus 20:6), Aeneas stole the “Samothracian images” and guarded them closely until he settled in Italy. The common element in the stories of Rachel and Aeneas is the fact that both take the household gods to protect them when they embark on a voyage to a new country.

Death

177

were traveling and so that she herself could inquire as to the path ahead.32 That is, taking the teraphim would confuse Laban and help Jacob get away. In recent years, scholars have noted three texts from Nuzi that mention the ilānu and the eṭemme, “the spirit of the dead.” From the terminology employed by these texts it appears that they were household gods and they seem to be figurines. The texts emphasize that both the eṭemme and the ilānu had to be safeguarded. On tablets from Emar, a person’s heirs are instructed to continue his domestic cult, including care for the dead ancestors. In two texts, the heirs are required to “call upon my household gods and my dead.”33 According to van der Toorn, the “care for the ancestors linked with the worship of the family deities, both set within the context of the domestic cult.”34 Another interesting point made by van der Toorn is the reference to “revering (palāḫu) and consulting (ša’ālu) the eṭemmu,” an expression that appears in several Assyrian texts over a very long period. He points in particular to the parallel between the Assyrian eṭemme ša’ālu and Hebrew ša’āl ba-terafim (consulted teraphim). The picture conveyed by the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence is that the teraphim were ancestral figurines used for fortune-telling and perhaps for necromancy as well. The latter possibility requires caution, however, because there is no hint in the Bible that they were used for this purpose. The fact that they were eradicated as part of Josiah’s reform, along with the ghost and familiar spirit (ovot and yiddeonim), does not prove that they belong to the same category. Scholars cite Deuteronomy 26:12–14 as an example for the custom of offering food for the dead.35 These verses are part of the declaration to

H. M. Gevaryahu, “In Clarification of the Nature of the Terafim in the Bible”, BethM 15 (1963), 84 (Hebrew). 33 J. Huehnergard, “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar”, RA 77 (1983), 13:6–8; 17:9–12. 34 Karl van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence”, CBQ 52 (1990), 220. 35 H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – A Biblical Complex”, HUCA 44 (1973), 29; T. J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 103–104; Klass Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the 32

178

Chapter 9

be made when a person finished removing all the tithes from his house. It concludes with a prayer that the Lord bless His nation and His land. As part of this declaration, the household must state that “I have not eaten of the tithe while I was mourning, or removed any of it while I was unclean, or offered any of it to the dead” (v. 14). Lewis conjectures that the ban may refer to “offerings made periodically as part of the continuing death cult as well as those offerings presented after the initial interment.”36 The custom of leaving food for the dead or sharing a meal with them may have stemmed from the fear that, if allowed to go hungry, the dead might consume the seed sown in the ground (cf. Deut. 14:22). As for the patriarchal narrative, it was B. Halevi who suggested that this practice of providing for the dead was prevalent among the patriarchs as well. He points to the non-aggression pact between Laban and Jacob. In this pact, Laban set up a stone as a boundary marker swearing to the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor and their ancestral deities. Jacob, on the other hand, swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. He pointed out that the word elohim does not only refer to the God of Israel but to gods in general. It also denotes the spirits of the dead as the woman tells Saul, “I see elohim coming up from the earth” (v. 13; cf. Isa. 8:19). More so, in various extraBiblical texts there is evidence for the use of elohim to refer to the dead.37 So according to Halevi, the sacrifices that Jacob offered were in honor of his dead ancestors. In this way he also explains the sacrifices in Genesis 46:1 when Jacob sacrifices to the God of his father on his way to Egypt.38 However, the treaty between Jacob and Laban was a “non-aggression pact” that was sealed by a meal, which was common in the ancient world. As for

Ancient Near East (Kevelare: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 39, 49, 241, 248. 36 Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 103. 37 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 163; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 49–51, 115. See also Arnold who says elohim “denotes the ancestral dead and not simply ghost or spirit of the dead.” Bill T. Arnold, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel”, CBQ 66 (2004), 203. 38 Benjamin Halevi, “Additional notes on Ancestor Worship”, BethM 64 (1975), 109 (Hebrew).

Death

179

the sacrifices before the decent to Egypt, this was part of the incubation ceremony where, indeed, God appeared to Jacob following the sacrifice. We should also point out that it is possible that the spirit is called elohim because it is the divine part of a human being. More so, as noted already by Radak from his commentary on Samuel, elohim means “a great man” (cf. Exod. 22:8, 27). This reading is plausible – when Moses hesitates to accept his mission to Egypt, the Lord promises to send his brother Aaron with him, and He tells him, “he shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as Elohim” (Exod. 4:16; cf. Exod. 7:1). Another example that Halevi mentions is Jacob’s dream at Beth El. Waking up from his dream, Jacob set up a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He then vowed that if he would return safely he would make a tithe offering at bet ha-elohim – shrine to the deified ancestors. Thus, Halevi suggests that this is the tithe that is prohibited in Deuteronomy 26:14.39 The anointing with oil and the tithe were part of the cult of the dead. However, this tithe appears to be a one-time incident and not an annual commitment. The text does not explain who will receive it and what will be done with it. There is no reason here to read elohim as “spirit of the dead” or “spirit.” Jacob was not near the graves of his ancestors and the place did not have any significance before. Jacob was taken by surprise because he did not expect to have an encounter with God, not to mention his ancestors. Jacob’s mourning for Joseph was believed to be an integral part of the cult of the dead. Accordingly, the seven days of mourning involved the descent to the underworld to bring back the dead or to invoke the ancestral shades. In his sorrow, Jacob expressed his desire: “For I am descending to my son while in this state of mourning” (Gen. 37:35). This description is similar to the ritual in the Ugaritic text where a description of decent to Sheol is described.40 The root y.r.d. is mentioned both in the Jacob story and the Ugaritic text, which often describes descending to Sheol in the Hebrew Bible. So is it a ritual decent to Sheol? This is unlikely since Sheol

39 Ibid, 114. 40 KTU 1.161, 21–22; Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 43–46.

180

Chapter 9

is described as a place of no return in the Hebrew Bible. What is described to the reader is Jacob’s overwhelming grief for the loss of his beloved son, Joseph. It has been suggested that since the patriarchs and the matriarchs were buried in a family tomb, this points to the cult of dead.41 The cave was originally purchased as a burial place for Sarah but later became a family tomb. The dead possessed power and contact with God, thus it was important to visit the burial site to petition the deceased. The site is still a shrine to this day and people still make pilgrimages to the shrine and ask for help from the dead. Nevertheless, there is no hint in the patriarchal narrative that the dead had any contact with God or that people petitioned at the graves. Thus according to Albertz: While the significance attached to the tombs of paternal and maternal ancestors in the patriarchal narratives and formulas like “gathered to his father” (Gen. 25:8f., 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33) still indicate that there was emotional solidarity between the living members of the family and their dead ancestors, there are no references whatsoever in the patriarchal narrative to a regular cult of the dead of the kind evident, for example, in kispu ritual of Mesopotamia, and elsewhere they are scanty (Deut. 26:14).42

To summarize, our study of the Book of Genesis reveals that there is already reference to an afterlife where death is not the last station in a human’s life. This was expressed by the Biblical idiom to “lie down with one’s father.” It was believed that a man is reunited with his ancestors and death is a transition to the afterlife. Thus, all the patriarchs and matriarchs, except for Rachel, were buried in ancestral tombs on family-owned land in the Cave of Machpelah. Sheol is another place for the dead. Jacob, after receiving the bad news about his son Joseph, expressed his desire to go down to his son in Sheol. However, these words were said after a severe loss. A study of later Biblical texts shows that Sheol is mainly the place for the wicked. The fact that Sheol 41 Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, 111. 42 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 38; Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs, 81.

Death

181

is the place for the wicked might ref lect the existence of a doctrine of posthumous reward and punishment, because only the wicked descend there. As for the cult of the dead, in the ancient world people provided food for the dead or honored them with a meal. It was believed that the dead could help the living if the latter attended to their needs or harm them if they neglected them. However, there is no convincing evidence to this practice in the patriarchal narrative. Thousands of years passed since the time of the patriarchs to our days. However, our study shows that practices such as mourning, weeping, rending garments, and seven days of mourning continues to the present and will probably exist in the future for many generations. These unchanged practices further demonstrate how difficult it is to evaluate the historical setting and the time frame of the patriarchal narratives.

Conclusion

Examination of the patriarchal stories reveals they contain a kernel of authentic history. The patriarchs and matriarchs appear as regular people who struggle in their daily lives; Genesis describes their weaknesses and their virtues. The story of the patriarchs is a multigenerational story of a family and the dynamics that exists in the family. Reading these stories is like hearing the echo of family feuds, which is what makes them timeless. The patriarchs are not mentioned in any of the extra-Biblical documents of the second millennium B. C. E. Nevertheless, many details about the patriarchs, such as the origin of the Abrahamic family, Ur and Haran fit the locations that they are set in. These places were known as a center of the moon–god cult. Therefore, not surprisingly names such as Laban, Sarah, Milcah, and Terah showed that they are connected with worship of the moon. Personal names such as Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ishmael are Amorite imperfect, which attests to the antiquity of the biblical narrative. These types of names were known before Israelites emerged as a people appearing in the regions where the patriarchs came from. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are described as seminomadic people. They dwelled in tents and were constantly on the move searching for fresh pasture. Throughout their travels, they wandered to sites in the central mountain region and the Negeb. The patriarchs stayed close to the cities, but they did not enter the cities nor live in them unless they were forced due to famine. There are peaceful relationships between the patriarchs and their neighbors. This is in contrast to later periods when the Israelites were instructed to destroy the seven nations of Canaan and were constantly fighting with the non-Israelites. The stories in Genesis are not retrojection of a later period but represent an earlier period when there was no hostility between the Israelite patriarchs and the local population. The stories about Abraham and Isaac could fit into the Middle Bronze Age I, while the Jacob stories in the Middle Bronze Age II. Despite the peaceful relationship with the local population, the patriarchs did not mingle with them. The patriarchs married within the family.

184 Conclusion

This ultimately will change after the family ties with Mesopotamia were severed. From that point, we read about marriage outside of the family. Although the patriarchs practiced endogamy, some of these marriages were forbidden by later laws. Thus, Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), which is prohibited by Leviticus 18:9, 11 and 20:17; Jacob married two sisters (Gen. 29:21–30), which is forbidden by Leviticus 18:18. Later, Esau, Judah, and Simeon married outside of the family. Intermarriage was condemned in Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy. 7:3. Clearly this testifies to the antiquity of the patriarchal narrative. The patriarchs were polygamists who saw the purpose of marriage as procreation. A wife who failed to beae children had to provide her husband with a handmaid. Sometimes handmaids were given in advance, such is the case with Bilhah and Zilpah. The description of a levirate marriage in the Book of Genesis ref lects a nomadic society; the patriarch was the definitive head of the family. However, things changed when the Israelites came out of Egypt and settled in the land of Canaan. The Israelites became farmers and town dwellers, and family bonds were weakening. Levirate marriage was still held, but the brother-in-law was now given an alternative. He could refuse to marry the childless widow. In matters of religion, few details are given. This is not surprising since the laws were given to the Israelites at the covenant in Sinai. Nevertheless, there are some religious practices that are mentioned already in the Book of Genesis, such as circumcision. Circumcision was a religious rite that marked the covenant between the patriarchs and God. Another practice was the building of altars, never using existing ones. The altars were a place to commune with God, there the patriarchs invoked God’s name. Altars were built on the occasion of the epiphanies, not for sacrifice but as enduring signs. Sacrifices are rarely mentioned. Setting up a pillar stone is mentioned in the Jacob cycle. The setting up of pillars was forbidden in later periods as they were considered illegitimate (Deut. 16:22). Not so in the older traditions of the patriarchs; the legitimacy of the pillars is not called into question. Prayers in the Book of Genesis were a spontaneous outpouring of the heart. They were individual and tailored for the specific occasion. They were not connected to a specific site or a cult. Genesis mentions trees several times. The worshiping of trees in the ancient world is a well-known phenomenon. In Genesis they are not sacred trees, but

Conclusion

185

they served as landmarks. It is only in later periods that the Israelites worshiped other gods on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree. The worship by the patriarchs appears to have no regular pattern in time or space. They lacked a liturgical calendar and had no specific place for worship. Religious institutions did not exist yet, therefore there is no temple or priest, which will appear in later periods. In their capacity as the head of the clan, the patriarchs served as the religious leaders. Reading the Book of Genesis reveals that there is no religious antagonism. There is no mention of conf lict with idolatry in this early period. More so, there are no major religious differences between the belief of the patriarchs and their neighbors. This difference of beliefs between the Israelites and their neighbors will become more apparent only after the covenant at Sinai – from that point on, we find the Israelites on one side and the world of the Gentiles on the other side. Their religion developed as a reaction to a developing situation. So whom did the patriarchs worship? The patriarchal accounts employ numerous divine names, each of which is unique and characteristic to this period. Most of the names contain the element El. In the ancient world El was known as the head of the Canaanite pantheon. Since El had many traits in common with their own clan deity the patriarchs identified him with their own God. The Canaanite El was assimilated into the Biblical concept of God at an early stage in the patriarchal narrative. In the patriarchal narrative, the different names of God point to different attributes of God describing Himself. God is beyond description, however, human nature demands that we attempt a description. The Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to God, but in terms of human understanding. This, in turn, led men inevitably to resort to the language of anthropomorphism. What we witness in the Book of Genesis is an echo of primitive tales – human beings who are confronted directly by God, where He walks and talks among people. These tales were widespread in the ancient world. Later, the Hebrew scribes toned this concept by interjecting an angel and also described God’s appearance in the form of a dream. Angels appear predominately in the Book of Genesis. Later in the Hebrew Bible the angels are no longer appearing to humans but they are seen in visions.

186 Conclusion

Anthropomorphism was difficult and an embarrassment since God is described with human qualities. Communication by dreams came to mitigate the directness of anthropomorphism. In dreams, God became remote because there was a distance between God and his people. The phenomenon of dreams is one of the characteristics of the Book of Genesis. God conveyed his message to the patriarchs by dreams. God appeared to Jacob three times in a dream (Gen. 28:12–18; 31:10–13; 46:2–4); to Abraham in a vision (Chapter 15); and to Isaac he appeared twice (26:2; 24) – the second theophany was probably in a dream. In addition, God appeared in a dream to non-Hebrews such as Abimelech and Laban (20:3–7; 31:24). The messages in the dreams were about the future and came to encourage the patriarchs. By contrast, the messages to Abimelech and Laban contained warnings to not harm the patriarchs. In the ancient world people saw dreams as channels of communication between human beings and divine forces. In sleep they believed that messages about the future were delivered. Not surprisingly, we find in the Hebrew Bible a type of dream that seems to be “invited” by the dreamer, who attempts to impose his will on God. In this variation, the dreamer goes to a sacred spot, offers sacrifices to God, and falls asleep hoping that God will visit him in a dream. The content of the dream is supposed to provide advice and guidance. A good example of this type of dream is Jacob’s dream at Beer Sheba (Gen. 46:1–4). The patriarchs lived in tents, which suited their pastoral lifestyle. The tent is the essence of nomadic life. The patriarchs were semi-nomadic people who had sheep and goats. For their journeys they used asses and camels. Cereal foods were the main part of the diet, which included wheat and barley. Stew was an important part of the daily diet mainly because of its highly nutritious benefit. Wine and milk were the main drinks. The wine was made from grapes, while the milk was mostly sheep’s and goat’s milk. The main animals used for meat consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. The patriarchs probably abstained from eating beef because of the shortage of domestic cattle in Biblical times. They ate meat only on festive occasions. A condiment such as honey is mentioned in Genesis in addition to nuts such as pistachios and almonds. In the patriarchal period, dress already provides important social and cultural information about the status and group identity. The patriarchs wore different clothes for different occasions.

Conclusion

187

For everyday activities, nomads probably used a loincloth made of wool or animal skin to protect them from the sun. This was worn like a skirt. Rings were used for beauty, especially in the nose and the ears. The patriarchs used sandals that were made of leather and fastened with a strap or laces for walking. As for head gear, not much is known, but we believe that the patriarchs also used some type of turban and scarf to protect themselves from the sun. In Genesis there is already reference to continuation after death. This idea was expressed by the Biblical idiom to “lie down with one’s father.” It was believed that a man is reunited with his ancestors. In other words, death is a transition to afterlife. Thus, all the patriarchs and matriarchs, except for Rachel, were buried in the ancestral tomb on family-owned land in the Cave of Machpelah. When they died, it was believed that human beings descended to Sheol. In the Hebrew Bible, the concept of heaven and hell did not exist. When Jacob receives the bitter news about his son, he expresses a desire to go down to Sheol. However, Jacob, a righteous man, was in a state of distress when he spoke. Later, Biblical texts show that Sheol is mainly the place of the wicked. The fact that Sheol is the place of the wicked might ref lect the existence of a doctrine of posthumous reward and punishment, because only the wicked descended there. It was believed that the dead could help the living if the latter attended to their needs by providing them with food, or harm them if they neglected them. However, there is no convincing evidence to this practice in the patriarchal narrative. Mourning practices such as eulogy, crying, and weeping, as well as rending the garments are mentioned. The standard mourning period was seven days, as in Joseph’s mourning for his father. Interestingly, all these customs have continued through to the twenty-first century. As we read in the Book of Ecclesiastes: Only that shall happen, Which has happened, Only that occur Which has occurred (1:9).

Bibliography

Abraham, J. H., “Esau’s Wives”, JBQ 25 (1997a), 251–259. ——, “A Literary Solution to the name Variations of Esau’s Wives”, The Torah U-Maddah 7 (1997b), 1–14. Abramsky, S., “The Origin of the Philistines?” Beth Mikra 14 (1962), 100–123. Albertz, Rainer, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994). Allen, C. G., “On Me Be the Curse, My Son!” in Martin J. Buss, ed., Encounter with the Text (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 159–172. Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). Andrews, D. K., “Yahweh the God of the Heavens”, in W. S. McCullough, ed., Seed of Wisdom: Essays in the Honor of T. J. Meek (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1964), 45–57. Arnold, Bill T., “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel”, CBQ 66 (2004), 199–213. Astour, M. C., “Habiru”, IDBSup, 382–385. Attridge, Harold W., and Robert A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981). Avigad, Nahman, and Yadin Yigael, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea: Description and Contents of the Scroll Facsimiles Transcription and Translation of Columns II, xix–xxii ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1956). Bar, Shaul, A Letter That Has Not Been Read: Dreams in the Hebrew Bible (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2001). ——, “Abraham’s Trees”, IBS 28/1 (2010), 2–20. ——, I deal Death and Give Live: Biblical Perspective on Death (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010). ——, “The Oak of Weeping”, Bib 91 (2010), 269–274. ——, “What did the Servant Give to Rebecca’s Brother and Mother?” Bib 94 (2013), 565–572. Barr, James, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament”, VTSup 7 (1960), 31–38. Beitzel, B. J., “Habiru”, ISBE 2, 586–590. Ben-David, Arye, Talmudische Ökonomie (Hildeshiem, NY: Olms, 1974). Bienart, Haim, “Wine”, EMiqr 3, 675–682.

190 Bibliography Bimson, J. J., “Archeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs”, in A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman, eds, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 53–89. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Brenner, A., “Female Social Behavior: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‘Birth of the Hero’ Paradigm”, VT 36 (1986), 257–273. Brichto, H. C., “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – A Biblical Complex”, HUCA 44 (1973), 1–54. Broshi, M., “Wine in Ancient Palestine: Introductory Notes”, in M. Broshi, ed., Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series 36 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 144–172. Brunner, H., Grundzüge der altägyptischen Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983). Butler, Sally, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dreams Rituals (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998). Cohen, N., “Sibling Rivalry in Genesis”, Judaism 32 (1983), 331–342. Cornelius, Izak, “Genesis XXVI and Mari: The Dispute over Water and the SocioEconomic Way of Life of the Patriarchs”, JNSL 12 (1984), 53–61. Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b. c., ed. with translation and notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Cross, F. M., “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs”, HTR 55 (1962), 225–259. ——, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). Danby, H., ed. and trans., Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933). Dever, W. G., and W. M. Clark, “The Patriarchal Traditions”, in J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, eds, Israelite and Judean History (London: SCM Press, 1977), 70–166. Dijkstra, M., “Abraham”, DDD, 3–5. Draffkorn, A., “Ilāni/Elohim”, JBL 6 (1957), 216–224. Edelstein, L. and E. J., eds, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1945). Ehrlich, E. L., Der Traum im Alten Testament. BZAW 73 (Berlin: Topelmann, 1953). Epstein, I., ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1935). Fensham, F. Charles, “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic”, VT 19 (1969), 312–321. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press, 2001). Finkelstein, J. J., “Additional Mesopotamian Legal Documents”, ANET, 542–547.

Bibliography

191

——, “The Laws of Ur-Nammu”, ANET, 523–525. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Bib Or.19 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967). ——, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. BibOr 18a (2nd ed, Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971). Fokkelman, J. P., Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975). Freedman, D. N., “The Chronology of Israel and the Ancient Near East: A. Old Testament Chronology”, in G. E. Wright, ed., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright (London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), 203–214. Freedman, H., and M. Simon, eds, Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino, 1939). Friedlander, G., ed., Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer (London: Hermon, 1916). Gardiner, A. H., “Adoption Extraordinary”, JEA 26 (1940), 23–29. Gerstenberger, E., “‫΄ ָע ַתר‬āṯar; ‫΄ ָע ַתר‬āṯār”, TDOT 11 (2001), 458–460. Gevaryahu, H. M., “In Clarification of the Nature of the Terafim in the Bible”, BethM 15 (1963), 81–86 (Hebrew). Ginsberg, H. L., trans., “Poems about Baal and Anath”, ANET, 129–142. ——, “The Tale of Aqhat”, ANET, 149–155. Gnuse, R. K., The Dream Theophany of Samuel (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984). Goetze, Albrecht, trans., “Plague Prayer of Mursilis”, ANET, 394–396. Gordon, Cyrus H., “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets”, BA 3 (1940), 1–12. ——, “Abraham and the Merchants of Ura”, JNES 17 (1958), 28–31. ——, Homer and Bible (Ventor, NJ: Ventor Publishers, 1967). Gottwald, N. K., “Were the Early Israelites Pastoral Nomads?” in J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler, eds, Rhetorical Criticism, Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburg, PA: Pichwick Press, 1974), 223–255. Gray, John, I and II Kings (2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970). Greenberg, Moshe, “Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim”, JBL 81 (1962), 239–248. ——, Biblical Prose Prayer (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983). Greenstein, Edward L., and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi”, JANESCU 8 (1976), 59–96. Grintz, Yehoshua M., The Book of Genesis ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983). (Hebrew). Gunkel, Hermann, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997). Gurney, O. R., “The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal”, AnSt 10 (1960), 105–131. Halevi, Benjamin, “Additional notes on Ancestor Worship”, BethM 64 (1975), 101–117 (Hebrew).

192 Bibliography Hall, Robert G., “Circumcision”, ABD 1:1025–1031. Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995). Haran, M., “The Religion of the Patriarchs: An Attempt at a Synthesis”, ASTI 4 (1965), 30–55. Harris, R. Laird, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic Texts”, JETS 4 (1961), 129–135. Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). Herdner, André, Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963). Hoftizer, J., Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvӓter (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956). Honeyman, A. M., “Merismus in the Biblical Hebrew”, JBL 71(1952), 11–18. Houtman, C., “What did Jacob See in his Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Genesis xxviii 10–22”, VT 27 (1977), 337–351. Huehnergard, J., “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar”, RA 77 (1983), 11–43. Hyatt, J. P., “Yahweh as ‘The God of My Father’”, VT 5 (1955), 130–136. Jacob, B., The First Book of The Bible: Genesis, ed., trans., and abr. E. J. Jacob and W. Jacob (New York: Ktav, 1974). Johnston, Philip S., Shades of Sheol (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002). Josephus, F., Jewish Antiquities, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930). ——, “An Extract out of Josephus’s discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades”, in William Whiston, trans., The Works of Flavius Josephus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publisher, 1987). Kaufmann, Y., Toldot HaʿEmunah ‘Yisre’elit. 8 vols ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1956). (Hebrew). Kitchen, Kenneth, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BAR 21/2 (1995), 48–57, 88–95. ——, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Kodell, Jerome, “Jacob Wrestles with Esau (Gen 32:23–32)”, BTB 10 (1980), 65–70. Kramer, S. N, trans., “Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur”, ANET, 455–463. ——, “Lipit-Ishtar Law code”, ANET, 159–161. Labuschange, C. J., “The našŭ-nadānu Formula and its Biblical Equivalent”, in M. S. H. G. Heerman van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A. van Uchelen, eds, Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to M. A. Beek (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 176–180. Lauterbach, J. Z., ed., Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1949).

Bibliography

193

Levine, Baruch A., Numbers 1–20. AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993). Lewis, T. J., Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989). Lewy, J., “Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’Ancien Testament”, RHR 110 (1934), 29–65. Luckenbill, D. D., The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924). Luke, J. T., “Pastoralism and Politics in Mari Period: Are-Examination of the Character and Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on Middle Euphrates, ca.1828–1758 b. c.”, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1965. ——, “Abraham and the Iron Age: Ref lection on the New Patriarchal Studies”, JSOT 4 (1977), 35–47. Lutz, H. F., “An Omen Text Referring to the Action of a Dreamer”, AJSL 35 (1918– 1919), 145–157. McCarter, Kyle P., “The Patriarchal Age.” in Harold Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel (Washington, DC: Biblical Archeological Society, 1988), 1–31. McCarthy, D. J., “Three Covenants in Genesis”, CBQ 26 (1964), 179–189. MacDonald, Nathan, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008). McKenzie, J. L., “Jacob at Peniel: Gen. 32, 24–32”, CBQ 25 (1963), 71–76. Maimonides, M., The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedländer (New York: Hebrew Publishing, 1881). Matthews, Victor H., “The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative”, JSOT 65 (1995), 25–36. Mayer, G., “‫ עַָ ַרל‬ʿāral”, TDOT 11, 359–361. Mazar, A., The Tel Rehov Exacavations – 2007. (accessed 10 October 2007). Mazar, Benjamin, Michael Avi-Yonah, and Abraham Malamat, eds, Views of the Biblical World. (Chicago: Jordan Publication, 1959). Mazor, Y., “Genesis 22: The Ideological Rhetoric and Psychological Composition”, Bib 67 (1986), 81–88. Meek, Theophile J., trans., “The Code of Hammurabi”, ANET, 163–180. ——, “The Middle Assyrian Laws”, ANET, 180–188. Meier, Carl Alfred, “The Dream in Ancient Greece and its Use in Temple Cures”, in G. E. von Grunebaum, and Roger Caillois, eds, The Dream and Human Societies (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1966), 303–319. Milgrom, J., Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976).

194 Bibliography Millard, A. R., “The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Genesis xxviii.12, 17)”, ExpTim 78 (1966/1967), 86–87. ——, “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts”, in A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman, ed., Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 35–51. Miller, J. M., “The Patriarchs and the Extra-Biblical Sources: A Response”, JSOT 2 (1977), 62–66. Miller, P. D., Jr., “Sin and Judgment in Jeremiah 34:17–19”, JBL 103 (1984), 611–613. Miqra’oth Gedoloth [The Rabbinic Bible], commentaries of Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimḥi, & Meṣudoth (New York: Pardes, 1961). Moran, W. L., “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit”, JNES 18 (1959), 280–281. Morgenstern, Julian, “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24–26) Once Again”, HUCA 34 (1963), 35–70. ——, Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death and Kindred Occasions among the Semites. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1966). Muffs, Yochanan, “Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel”, JJS 33(1982), 81–107. Nemoy, Leon, Karaite Anthology, Excerpts from Early Literature (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952). Noth, Martin, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972). Nusner, Jacob, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, An American Translation (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985). Oppenheim, A. L., The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream Book. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, vol. 46 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956). ——, “Dream”, EMiqr 3:143–149 (Hebrew). ——, “The Mother of Nabonidus”, ANET, 560–562. Pagolu, Augustine, The Religion of the Patriarchs. JSOTSup 277 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Pardee, Dennis, “The ’AQhatu Legend (1.103)”, COS 1:343–356. Patai, Raphael, Family, Love and the Bible (London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1960). Pedersen, J., Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1954). Pfeiffer, Robert H., trans., “Oracles Concerning Esarhaddon”, ANET, 449–450. Pitard, Wayne T., “Before Israel: Syria-Palestine in the Bronze Age”, in Michael D. Cogan, ed., The Oxford History of the Biblical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 33–77.

Bibliography

195

Rabinowitz, Jacob J., “The ‘Great Sin’ in Ancient Egyptian Marriages Contracts”, JNES 18 (1959), 73. Redford, D. B., A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Gen. 37–50). VTSup 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Reuter, E., “‫ ִשְפחָה‬šipḥâ”, TDOT 15:405–410. Rosenberg, R., “The Concept of Biblical Sheol Within the Context of ANE Beliefs”, PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1980. Rowley, H. H., The Faith of Israel (London: SCM Press, 1956). Rowton, M. B., “The Topological Factor in the Ḫabiru Problem”, in H. G. Güterbock, and T. Jacobsen, eds, Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Assyriological Studies 16 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965), 375–387. ——, “Dimorphic structures and the Problem of the ͑ APIRÛ-͑ IBRÎM”, JNES 35 (1976a), 13–20. ——, “Dimorphic structures and Topology”, OrAnt 15 (1976b), 17–31. Sarna, Nahum M., Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966). ——, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986). ——, Genesis: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989). Sasson, Jack M., “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East”, JBL 85 (1966), 473–476. Schmidt, Brian B., Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in the Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996). Schrader, Eberhard, Keilinschriftliche bibliothek (Berlin: Reuter & Reichard, 1889–1915). Segal, M. H., “The Religion of Israel before Sinai”, Tarbiz 30 (1961), 215–230 (Hebrew). Selman, M. J., “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age”, in A. R. Miller and D. J. Wiseman, eds, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 91–139. Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC (2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930). Smith, Robertson W., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1907). Sommer, Benjamin D., The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Speiser, E. A., Genesis. AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964). ——, trans., “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, ANET, 72–99. Sperling, David S., The Original Torah (New York: New York University Press, 1998). Spero, Shubert, “But Abraham stood yet before the Lord”, JBQ 141 (2008), 12–15.

196 Bibliography Spiegel, Shalom, The Last Trial, trans. Judah Goldin (New York: Behrman House, 1979). Spronk, Klass, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Kevelare: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986). Steinsaltz, Adin, Biblical Images, trans. Yehuda Hanegbi and Yehudit Keshet (New York: Basic Books, 1984). Talmon, S., “The Comparative Method”, in J. A. Emerton et al., Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems. Congress Volume VTSup 29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 320–356. Thompson, T. L., The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974). Tigay, Jeffrey H., Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996). ——, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). Tobia ben Elieser, Lekach-Tov, ed. Salomon Buber (Vilna: Wittwe & Gebruder Romm, 1884). van der Torn, K., “The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence”, CBQ 52 (1990), 203–222. ——, “The Significance of the Veil in Ancient Near East”, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz, eds, Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–339. Towner, W. Sibley, “‘Blessed be Yahweh’ and ‘Blessed Art Thou, Yahweh’: The Modulation of a Biblical Formula”, CBQ 30 (1968), 386–399. Tsevat, Matitiahu, “The Husband Veils a Wife (Hittite Laws, 197–198)”, JCS 27 (1975), 235–240. Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975). ——, “The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis”, Bib 61 (1980), 220–233. De Vaux, Roland, The Early History of Israel, trans. David Smith (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978). Vawter, Bruce, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977). Von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis, trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961). Walker, N., “The Riddle of the Ass’s Head and the Question of a Trigram”, ZAW 75 (1963), 225–227. Warner, S. M., “The Patriarchs and Extra-Biblical Sources”, JSOT 2 (1977), 50–61. Watson, Wilfred G. E., “The Falcon Episode in the Aqhat Tale”, JNSL 5 (1977), 69–75.

Bibliography

197

Weippert, M., The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine, trans. James D. Martin (Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1971). Weisman, Zeev, From Jacob to Israel ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986). Weissbach, F. H., Babylonische Miscellen. WVDOG 4 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1903). Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885). Wenham, Gordon J., “The Religion of the Patriarchs”, in A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman, eds, Essays on the Patriarchal Narrative (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 161–195. ——, Genesis 16–50. WBC 2 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000). Westermann, Claus, The Promise to the Fathers, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). ——, Genesis 12–36. A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985). ——, Genesis 37–50. A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1986). Wilson, J. A., “The Oath in Ancient Egypt”, JNES 7 (1948), 129–156. ——, trans, “The Story of Si-nuhe”, ANET, 18–22. Yaron, R., “Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine”, JSS 3 (1958), 1–39. ——, Introduction to the Law of Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). Yeivin, S., “Ur”, EMiqr 1, 170–175. Žabkar, L. V., A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Zandee, J., Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1960).

Index

Aaron  4, 15–16, 54, 83, 167, 169, 179 Abimelech  8, 23, 26, 56, 60, 63, 69, 78–80, 95–96, 104–106, 115, 120–121, 186 admonitory dreams  104–106 altars  7, 51–54, 57, 67, 70, 74–75, 184 Amorites  14, 16, 18, 53–54, 94 angels  7, 68, 82, 85–87, 91, 97–98, 124, 132, 150, 153–154, 185 anthropomorphism  84, 91, 107, 185–186 ‘apiru  22, 145 Baal  76, 171 Babylon  14–17, 19–21, 59, 69, 139, 152, 154, 156, 158, 176 Barren  35, 40–41, 44, 61, 102, 130–131, 137, 142 Beer Sheba  17–18, 23–24, 27, 53–54, 56, 66–69, 75–76, 103, 147, 186 Benjamin  137–140–143, 159, 169 Beth El  18, 23–24, 52–54, 57–59, 67, 75–77, 80, 82, 87, 96, 97, 99–100, 103, 159, 169, 179 Bethuel  33, 80, 106, 134 Bilhah  7, 44, 138–139, 184 binding of Isaac  52–55, 86, 115–119, 127, 133, 135, 157 bread  13, 113, 149–152, 154, 156, 163 bridal price  7, 31, 38–39, 49 camels  4, 8–9, 134, 147, 157–158, 163, 186 Canaan  4, 6–7, 11–15, 18–21, 24–29, 33, 36–37, 46, 53–54, 57–60, 66–67,

73, 75–76, 78, 82, 87–88, 94, 100–101, 103, 112, 115, 118, 120, 124–127, 138–140, 149, 151, 154, 159, 183–185 cave of Machpelah  9, 27, 137, 167–169, 180, 187 Chaldeans  6, 11, 14, 19, 24 circumcision  65–66, 70, 115–116, 152, 184 clothes  9, 81, 146, 158, 159–163, 171, 186 Code of Hammurabi  40, 42–43 David, King  26, 46, 158, 167 dead, cult of the  9, 152, 166, 175–181 see also offering food for the dead death  1, 7, 9, 20, 24, 28, 43, 45, 47, 65, 118, 120, 125, 130, 133, 135–137, 139, 142, 146, 151, 160, 163, 165–181, 187 donkeys  8, 157, 163 dreams  8, 82, 87, 91–107, 112, 115, 126, 140, 148–149, 161, 186 see also admonitory dreams; incubation dreams Egypt  2–7, 12, 15–22, 24–27, 34, 39, 41, 46, 52–54, 56–57, 59, 64–66, 70, 75, 86, 91, 93–96, 101–103, 105, 109, 111–115, 139, 147, 149–153, 155–158, 160–162, 165–167, 171, 173, 178–179, 184 El Elyon  7, 73, 75–76, 78 El Olam  7, 73, 75–76, 78 El Roi  7, 73–74, 75–76

200 Index El Shaddai  7, 73–75, 78 Elamites 14 endogamy  6–7, 31–35, 37, 49, 184 Esau  33–36, 49, 62, 88, 98, 118–123, 126–127, 135–136, 140–141, 147, 150, 154, 159, 168, 184 exogamy  6, 31, 35 famine  24–25, 109–110, 120, 157, 183 fear of Isaac  7, 73, 76, 80 Gilgamesh  165, 172, 174 goats  146–148, 152–154, 160–161, 163, 186 God of Abraham  7, 73, 76–77, 80, 178 God of My/Your Father  77 Ḫabiru  6, 12, 21–22, 29, 68 Hagar  7, 34, 41–43, 62, 76, 86, 103–104, 115, 118, 130–132, 150 Haran  6, 11–15, 18–20, 24, 28, 107, 136–137, 156, 183 Hebron  17–18, 23–24, 52–53, 68, 135 herdsmen  112, 147–148 Hittites  27, 34–35, 136, 152 incubation dreams  101–104 Jesus  113, 117, 119, 173 Joseph  4, 8, 12, 16, 22, 27–28, 57, 64, 76, 92, 104–105, 123, 126–127, 137–142, 147–151, 155, 159–162, 167, 170–174, 179–180, 183, 187 Josephus  57, 103, 116–117, 119, 149, 158, 160, 172, 175–176 Joshua  12, 16, 22, 99, 133, 139, 162, 170 Judah  31, 36–37, 44–49, 76–77, 84, 125, 137, 140–143, 151–152, 161–162, 167, 174, 184 Judith  35–36, 171–172

Laban  8, 14, 28, 32–34, 36, 38–39, 44, 48, 55, 58, 76, 80, 88, 92, 95–96, 100, 106–107, 123–127, 134, 136–137, 140, 147, 177–178, 183, 186 laws of Lipit-Ishtar  132 Levi  16, 28, 44, 113, 125, 131, 137, 140–143 Levirate marriage  7, 31–32, 45–47, 49, 160, 184 libation  59, 87, 152 “Lie down with one’s father”  9, 166 Lot  19–20, 26, 112–113, 127, 140, 147, 151, 162 Mahalath 34–36 Maimonides  83–85, 113, 117 Mandrake  138, 141–142 Mari  2, 16, 19–21, 120, 145, 148, 158 meat  145, 149, 153–155, 163, 186 Melchizedek  23, 113, 127 Mesopotamia  6, 16, 19–22, 29, 41, 66, 78–79, 91, 97, 101, 151–152, 156, 158, 165, 180, 184 Mighty One of Jacob  7, 73, 76 Milcah  14, 19, 28 milk  20, 147, 151–156, 163, 183 Miriam  60, 83, 169, 172 Moses  4–6, 11–12, 15–16, 22, 54, 60–61, 73–74, 77, 79, 83–84, 86, 105, 167, 169, 172, 179 Nahor  12–14, 16, 18–19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 76, 80, 134, 178 Negeb  17, 23, 183 Nergal and Ereshkigal  97–98 Noah  12, 32, 51, 55, 81, 151 Nuzi  2, 33, 40, 177 offering food for the dead  177 Onan  45, 160

201

Index Philistines  22–24, 26–27, 40, 65, 80, 168 pillar  7, 51, 57–60, 99, 139, 152, 169, 179, 184 prayer  60–63, 66, 70–71, 87, 91, 101, 134, 178, 184 Reuben  44, 137–138, 141, 170 “righteous sufferer”  114 Ruth  46, 48, 139 sackcloth  160, 171 Samson  34, 48, 86, 130, 155, 159 Samuel  22, 26–27, 39, 42, 130, 178 Saul  4, 22–23, 26, 37, 40, 62–63, 154–155, 167–168, 171, 178 Serug  16, 18–19, 29 Shechem  18, 23–24, 28, 34, 39, 54, 58, 65–67, 75, 81, 99, 125, 127, 147, 157, 167 Sheol  9, 166, 174–175, 179–180, 187 Sodom and Gomorra  17, 26, 114, 127 stones  57–58, 99, 150 swearing  63–64, 80

Tamar  31, 37, 45, 49, 160–162 tents, tent dwellers  3–4, 8, 23, 29, 38, 48, 67, 75, 82, 87, 121, 127, 135, 143, 145, 154, 158, 161, 163, 183, 186 Terafim  81, 177 Terah  12–14, 18–20, 22, 28, 32, 129, 183 Terebinth of Mamre  66 Terebinth of Moreh  52, 66–68 theophany  52–54, 57–58, 62, 81, 83, 92–93, 95–96, 100, 115, 186 Ugaritic  4, 21–22, 105, 169, 179 vegetarians  145, 149 visions  8, 83–85, 91–95, 97, 101, 103, 120, 133, 143, 185–186 vows  55–56, 58, 99, 179 wine  49, 59, 113, 147, 150–154, 186 ziggurats 97 Zilpah  7, 44–45, 141, 184