The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob's Sons (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 9789042936003, 9789042937017, 9042936002

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

90

D. Charles Smith

The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons

PEETERS

THE ROLE OF MOTHERS IN THE GENEALOGICAL LISTS OF JACOB’S SONS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (St Andrews) G. van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

D. Charles SMITH

THE ROLE OF MOTHERS IN THE GENEALOGICAL LISTS OF JACOB’S SONS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2018

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2018 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3600-3 eISBN 978-90-429-3701-7 D/2018/0602/67 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ABSTRACT This work analyzes each occurrence of the lists of Jacob’s sons throughout the Hebrew Bible on both an individual level and from a synchronic perspective that takes the whole of the lists into view. The narrative context of each listing is considered, along with the function that it serves. The conclusion reached is that the presentations of tribal listings derive from a single genealogy that is based on the ranking of the four mothers: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. These positions remained in the family memory even as the importance and power of individual tribes changed over the course of time. Three main types of list arrangements are present: genealogical, wilderness encampment, and geographical. All arrangements are based upon a single genealogical list of Jacob’s twelve sons. Any differences between them can be explained entirely by the function of the individual list. Differences in the listings cannot be used as indicators of specific sitzimLeben or as markers by which to determine the “proto-history” of ancient Israel. A related question asks whether the mothers in the official genealogy, who are depicted in Genesis as playing vital roles and holding crucial positions in the family, are more important to both the narrative and the family in the Hebrew Bible than has traditionally been recognized? The question is then extended as whether this applies to women in general in the Hebrew Bible? The conclusion reached, after surveying additional genealogies and narratives involving mothers/women is a resounding “Yes”! Mothers in particular, and women in general are important contributors to their families, to the Promise, to the advancement of the theological message of the Hebrew Bible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This monograph is a revised version of my dissertation, presented at Claremont Graduate University in 2017. I wish to thank the CBET Series editors at Peeters Publishing, especially Kristin De Troyer, for the opportunity to contribute to the ContributionstoBiblicalExegesisandTheology Series. In addition, much gratitude goes to Ingemar Spelmans for the consistent assistance throughout the process. In a substantial project requiring much time and effort, more than was expected at the onset due the intricacies and complexities that daily living can toss one’s direction, a good many individuals have contributed to the success of this endeavor at various points in time. I will surely fail to mention all. At Claremont, Professors Tammi Schneider, Marvin Sweeney and Kristin De Troyer have provided key stimuli and instruction that has sharpened my scholarship. In addition, I am most grateful for their unending support and willingness to see me through to the end. Prior to Claremont, I must acknowledge the contributions of Professors William C. Williams and Murray Dempster who modeled excellent scholarship combined with keen spirituality to form a solid foundation. To these I should add the many classmates over the years, my friends from Solutions at Arbor Road Church, and my students in various classes, all who have helped to refine my thinking. A good many friends have been companions in the journey of life, in hiking the mountain and desert trails, and as running companions on the city roads at “0-Dark Hundred”. Morris Nylander, David Birdsall, Joe and Susan Arenella, Dustin and Tami Reece, Leigh Sandlin, Stephanie Wood, and Amy Patel, who especially found my ramblings a diversion to the many miles of running. My parents Donald and Mary Smith have supported my endeavors, as have my siblings Melody, Colette and Darrell. I especially have appreciated periodic long conversations with Juan Carlos Gonzalez while staring at Haley’s Comet in the night sky or wondering about the intentions of the coyotes just up the desolate trail. My sons, Clint, Logan, Joshua and Ayden, are due no small gratitude for the time they have lost while dad pursues his dream. Thanks a million! I trust you see that some goals take a very long time to achieve but are worth every ounce of energy. Final appreciation goes to my wife Cheryl who has walked this life with me. I can’t begin to express my appreciation and love for you.

VIII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In researching this study that highlights the vital importance of the Israelite matriarchs of the Hebrew Bible, my thoughts have wandered to the matriarchs who have brought my own family to the place it is today. Grandmothers Virginia Irene Lawrence Woolman, Nellie Alice Haney Risner, and my mother Mary Juanita Risner Smith. To these women of preceding generations must be added newer matriarchs: my sisters Melody Diana Smith Hunt and Colette Joy Smith Gonzalez, and, of course, my dear wife Cheryl Ann Curtis Smith. Each of these women have and/or continue to advocate for their families in multiple ways, they are the firm foundation upon which our families stand, and they seek to do the will of God in faithful devotion. Without these matriarchs our family would be far less than it is today. To God be glory for all He has done!

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER ONE THE LISTS OF JACOB’S SONS IN SCHOLARSHIP . . . . . .

3

Genealogies and Tribal Lists – Summary of Prior Research Short-comings of Previous Research on the Lists . . . . . . An Alternative View of the Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Chapter One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

3 10 25 26

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

29

A. B. C. D. E.

29 30 31 34

A. B. C. D.

. . . .

CHAPTER TWO

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Genealogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Function and Its Effects on Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Genealogies in ANE, Egypt, Syro-Palestine, and the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Evidence of Writers Inventing Genealogies for Narratives . . . G. Conclusions of Chapter Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 45 48

CHAPTER THREE ANALYSIS OF THE GENEALOGICAL DRIVEN LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. B. C. D.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Individual Lists . . Summary Analysis . . . . . . . Conclusions of Chapter Three .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

49

. 49 . 50 . 113 . 130

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X CHAPTER FOUR

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB . . . . . 137 A. B. C. D.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mothers Depicted as Important in the Torah Mothers Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible . . Conclusions of Chapter Four . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

137 137 144 161

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 I. CHART OF GENEALOGICAL TYPE LISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. CHART OF CAMP ASSIGNMENT/DESERT PROCESSIONAL TYPE LISTS III. CHART OF INHERITANCE/GEOGRAPHICAL/TERRITORIAL TYPE LISTS IV. CHART OF TRIBE SEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. CHART OF MOTHER SEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177 183 187 193 197

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 INDEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 MODERN AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

ABBREVIATIONS AKL ANE BA BHS BKL BMOS BZAW CBQ GHD HB JBL JNES MN MT PN RL SamP SKL SN SOD TN VT ZAW

Assyrian King List Ancient Near Eastern BiblicalArchaeologist BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf. Stuttgart: 1983. Babylonian King List Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33) BeiheftezurZeitschriftfürdiealttestamentlicheWissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarteryly The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty. Hebrew Bible JournalofBiblicalLiterature JournalofNearEasternStudies Mother’s Name Massoretic Text Personal Name Rulers of Lagash. Samaritan Pentateuch Sumerian King List Son’s Name Song of Deborah (Judges 6) Tribal Name VetusTestamentum ZeitschriftfüralttestamentlicheWissenschaft

INTRODUCTION This work proves that the lists of Jacob’s sons in their various manifestations derive from a single genealogy. This genealogy is based on the ranking of the four mothers: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. The positions of the four mothers remained in the family memory even as the importance of individual tribes changed over the course of time. This study demonstrates that three main types of list arrangements are present: genealogical, wilderness encampment, and geographical. All arrangements are based upon a single genealogical list of Jacob’s twelve sons. Any differences between them can be explained entirely by the function of the individual list in its specific narrative context. Consequently, the listings of Jacob’s sons are not useful tools to determine the “proto-history” of ancient Israel. The diverse sequences of the sons in the presentations do not advocate a time when a particular son was more or less important than in another list with a differing sequence. Because the official genealogy was frozen and remained unchanged before the narratives were composed, it is unable to provide any information useful for the historian except the original family structure during the lives of Jacob, his wives and sons. Beyond the official family genealogy, two other types of listings are used in the Hebrew Bible (HB): the sequences of the tribes used in the wilderness camp (Numbers) and those of a geographical presentation (mostly Joshua, Judges and 1 Chronicles). These alternatives are intentional rearrangements of the family genealogy designed for their specific purposes. The family genealogy is not changed in these; nor do they present an alternate family genealogy. Toward this end, several important studies are undertaken. Chapter One surveys the way in which the lists of Jacob’s sons have been studied in the past, along with the conclusions, pitfalls and faults of these past studies. Chapter Two investigates the nature of genealogies and how they are used in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. Two major assumptions of past studies have been recently attacked. One, genealogies were invented by the writers to make the narrative seem “more historical”. Two, an existing genealogy was frequently manipulated by an author to advocate a different family system. Both these concepts were debunked by R. Wilson,1 1

R. Wilson in GenealogyandHistoryintheBiblicalWorld(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977).

2

INTRODUCTION

who showed that genealogies were never invented by the writer. Furthermore, copious evidence from Ancient Near Eastern texts indicate that once a genealogy becomes established, the later writers do not change its principle structure. The present study extends Wilson’s research to the entire HB with regard to the listings of Jacob’s sons, so accomplished in Chapter Three. This work also surveys the mothers represented by their sons. Since the official genealogy clearly depicts the importance and priority of some mothers over others, and since the mothers of Jacob’s sons act in intrinsically vital ways in the Genesis narratives, their roles and positions in the family must be more than has traditionally been allowed. The question is then raised, does this apply to other women in the HB? The conclusion reached, after surveying additional genealogies and narratives involving mothers/women is a resounding “Yes”! This portion of the study is conducted in Chapter Four.

CHAPTER ONE

THE LISTS OF JACOB’S SONS IN SCHOLARSHIP A. GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS – SUMMARY OF PRIOR RESEARCH The sons of Jacob, that is, the Tribes of Israel, are given in list form numerous times in the HB. These lists are sometimes demarked in a genealogical format. In other instances, the list comes in a geographical format, generally with the intent to describe the respective territory of each tribe. Numerous studies have looked into some or all the lists. In particular, Alt, Noth, Weippert, and Nakimi and Kallai have undertaken studies for the purpose of realizing the historical beginnings of the tribes. These, and others, have looked at the tribes from a specifically historical-critical view. A. Alt1 did not specifically address the lists of the twelve tribes but his theory of the Israelite settlement in Palestine laid the groundwork for his student M. Noth and the next generation, and beyond, in fact becoming the “ruling hypothesis”2 for many scholars. A short summary is in order. Alt used a multi-faceted approach combining textual witnesses, both HB, especially Joshua and Judges, and extra-biblical texts from Egypt and Palestine, his thorough geographical knowledge of the land, combined with his understanding of the archaeological findings of his era to arrive at the theory that the twelve tribes did not arrive together as depicted in the HB. Rather, some of the tribes joined prior to entry in the land; others may have joined after settlement in the land. To Alt, it was entirely unclear to which group any specific tribe should be assigned. He was equally uncertain the reasons the tribes unified into smaller groups prior to the 1

2

1925-1930. Albrecht Alt. EssaysonOldTestamentReligion (trans. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1066), passim but esp. pp. 165-166. The original essays in the cited volume where he first proposed his views were “Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina” (Reformationsprogamme der Universität Liepzig, 1925) and “Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina” (Reformationsprogamme der Universität Liepzig, 1930). Douglas A. Knight in RediscoveringtheTraditionsofIsrael:TheDevelopmentofthe Traditio-HistoricalResearchoftheOldTestament,withSpecialConsiderationofScandinavianContributions. (SBL Dissertation Series 9. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana Press, 1973), 92-93.

4

CHAPTER ONE

eventual full unification as the “Sons of Jacob”.3 In some cases, the close geographical proximity of certain clans may have encouraged unification. In other cases, a shared ancestor may have been the impetus. On the other hand, both geographical proximity and a shared ancestor may have encouraged unification for other tribes, such as the “sons of Rachel” in Joseph (including Ephraim, Manasseh and Machir) with Benjamin. Alternatively, Judah joined with Simeon, Caleb and Ca`in. In any case, the entry into the land was not at a pin-point time in history by a unified group of twelve tribes as depicted in the book of Joshua. Rather, it was a series of movements over several centuries by smaller bands of pastoralists.4 A. Alt’s theory set the stage for and the basis for M. Noth’s work. M. Noth, in his landmark DasSystemderZwölfStämmeIsraels first published in 1930,5 briefly identified fourteen of the lists. He demarked two systems that were genealogically based. The distinction between the two systems is as follows: Group A6 names “Levi” and “Joseph”; Group B7 omits Levi and Joseph; instead names Manasseh and Ephraim. Both systems totaled twelve tribes but Group B represents, according to Noth, a time of altered political conditions when Levi moved from being a civil to a cultic tribe, and the House of Joseph split into the separate entities of Manasseh and Ephraim.8 He understood Gen. 49 to be the earliest genealogy and its origins were to be located at the beginnings of the Israelite confederacy, his well-known amphictyony (which this work intended to establish). He discerned between form and content. Form was the enumeration of the names. Content was the narrative frame or reports within the list that might indicate clan organization, tribal territories, characteristics or etiological matters. He gave priority to “content” as it inferred matters that led to the specific form. Combining both form and content allowed him to arrive at datable periods in which he projected that each list developed. Finding historical grounding was integral for Noth’s purpose in that the tribal lists served as one tool, or more accurately a “pillar”, in establishing his concept of the Israelite amphictyony.9 3

4 5 6

7

8 9

Full unification around the amphyctiony was worked out and settled by M. Noth, with whom he whole-heartedly agreed. Albrecht Alt. Essays, 175. (rpt. 1930, Darmstadt: Wissenshaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 1980), 198. Gen. 29:31-30:24 + 35:16-18; 35:23-26; 46:8-25; 49:3-27; Ex. 1:2-4; Dt. 27:12-14; Ezek. 48:31-35; 1 Ch. 2:2. The basis of Group A is Gen. 49:3-27. Num. 1:5-15; 20-43; 2:3-31; 7:12-83; 13:14-15; 26:5-51; Josh. chapters 13-19; 21:47; 9-39. The basis of Group B is both Num. 1:5-15 and 26:5-51. M. Noth, System, 23-28. For the gradual development of an Israelite “amphictyony” among scholars leading up to M. Noth, see Chapter 1 in C. H. J. De Geus TheTribesofJahweh:AnInvestigation

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

5

G. Fohrer10 (1966), in refuting M. Noth’s amphictyony hypothesis, posited three forms of genealogical listings. The “First Form”, represented by Gen. 29:31ff and Gen. 49, were to be dated to the period when the last tribe immigrated to the land. This form is arranged by mothers in the sequence Leah – Bilhah – Zilpah – Rachel, except that he advocated an alternative group of twelve tribes as Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah, Dan Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph. With Dinah included and Benjamin missing, he claims this scheme antedates the Gen. 49 scheme and M. Noth’s earliest base listing.11 Based on the birth reports in Gen. 29:31 to Gen. 30:24, he understood this scheme antedated the independence of Benjamin as a tribe, the reason for Benjamin’s birth announcement much later in the narrative, a sort of afterthought or addition.12 The “Second Form”, represented by Num. 1 and 26, replaces Dinah with Benjamin and represents a time early in the period before the state. His “Third Form”, represented by Dt. 33, replaces Levi and Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh. This form he dates to the “second half” of the period just before the state.13 The twelve tribe schema reflects the situation of the people before they became permanently settled. H. Weippert14 (1973) delineated a third system of eight additional tribal lists, all geographically arranged, that were not addressed by Noth. Her analysis looked strictly at those that show Judah and Simeon at the head, Benjamin in the third position and the Asher-Naphtali sequence at the end.15 She noted that the tribes were arranged in a generally southerly to northerly direction with the Transjordan tribes listed after the others. Like Noth, Weippert looked for details that could help identify the point(s) in history when these lists were developed in their particular forms thereby helping to establish some sort of historical basis of Israel. She understood the original array to have only ten tribes: Judah and Simeon were added subsequent to the establishment of the United Monarchy.16  intoSomeofthePresuppositionsofMartinNoth’sAmphictyonyHypothesis.(Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. 1976). 10 TheHistoryofIsrael (trans. Stanley Godman. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1958), 92-93. 11 ibid., 93. 12 But discounted by R. de Vaux in that he viewed the introduction of Dinah as important to the next story, not indicating a separate tribe (The Early History of Israel [trans. David Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978], 719). 13 He is not entirely clear about what he means by “earliest period before the state” and “second half of the period before the state”. 14 “Das geographische System der Stämme Israels,” VT 23 (1973), 76 - 89. 15 Nm. 34:16-29; Dt. 33:1-29; Josh. 21:4-7; 9-40; Judges 1:1-35; 1 Ch. 6:39-48; 49-66; 1 Ch. 12:25-38. 16 ibid., 87 - 89.

6

CHAPTER ONE

R. de Vaux (1970, 1973)17 differentiated the lists into three18 groups: genealogical, tribal and territorial, an alternative method of organization. The genealogical lists19 were based on a systematized tradition of “supposed relationship” with the patriarch Jacob-Israel to preserve the people’s origins20 and were to be dated as the earliest, written by the Yahwist around the time of David or very shortly afterward.21 Tribal lists were those that, despite bearing the name of the eponymous hero/ancestor, were not connected to the namesake. Instead, the tribal lists represented peoples that were independent and who possessed territories of their own at some point. Tribal lists do not include Levi but divide Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh to maintain the twelve total. In addition, Gad is, unexpectedly, in third place.22 The tribal lists are found exclusively in Numbers23 and are to attributed to the Priestly writer, therefore the youngest of the three groups. Territorial lists24 are simply descriptions of the geographical boundaries of each tribe, likely depicting the territory held by each “autonomous” group.25 This group he dated as post-deuteronomistic and falls between the other two groups.26 His approach differentiated between the “Israel-Rachel” group and the “Jacob-Leah” group, although he was not convinced that any particular tribe originated from either of the groups.27 His intent was to explain the historical basis for ancient Israel’s existence in the land by bridging the antithetical gap between the traditio-historical critical position of AltNoth-Weipper”s peaceful infiltration model with the conquest model 17

18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

The Early History of Israel (trans. David Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978). From the original French two volumes Histoireancienned’Israel:DesOriginesà l’InstallationenCanaan (J. Gabalda et Cie, Paris, 1971) and Histoireancienned’Israel: LaPériodedesJuges (J. Gabalda et Cie, Paris, 1973), He differentiated a fourth group he labeled “mixed” consisting of only two very late listings (1 Ch. 12:25-38; 1 Ch. 27:16-22). Since he viewed these as late additions to Chronicles, itself a late work, that have rather confusing groupings, these will not be considered here. (TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 731-732). Birth reports in Gen. 29-30, 35; Jacob’s Blessing in Gen 49; and Moses’ Blessing in Dt. 33. Roland de Vaux,EarlyHistory, 718. ibid., 732-733. ibid., 724-727. Num. 1:5-16; 13:4-15; Num. 1:20-43; 2:2-31; 7:10-88; 10:13-27; 26:5-51 Josh. 13-19; Num. 34; Ezek. 48 ibid., 718. ibid., 733. A Comprehensive View of the Settlement of the Israelites in Canaan,” Perspective 12:1-2 (1971): 29.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

7

argued by the predominantly archaeological viewpoints of the AlbrightBright-Wright school of thought. He proposed that some “tribes” were resident to the land, some peacefully “infiltrated”, others followed as conquerors.28 These various groups eventually combined as a “family”29 and subsequently received their tribal identities when they were assigned a territory, albeit an area in which each was already living.30 In some cases, the merged family battled for territory with the city-dwelling Canaanites.31 R. de Vaux dated the origins of the twelve-tribe system as depicted in the HB to around the beginnings of the monarchy.32 C. H. J. de Geus33 (1976) confronted Noth’s amphictyony by addressing two of the pillars on which it rested: the twelve-tribe system (Chapter II) and the process of sedentarization (Chapter III). In Chapter II, he extensively reviews Noth’s findings of two distinct, genealogical systems (groups “A” and “B”) looking for historical connections that lie behind the tribal systems. He gives primacy first to the texts in Joshua, then Numbers, then other texts. However, the Genesis passages are mostly skipped. The choice of his primacy leads to his critique of Noth’s main distinction between “Group A” and “Group B” drawing attention solely to the passages that discuss 1) the “House of Joseph”, and 2) those which might elucidate whether Levi ever constituted a “secular” tribe, the tribe’s possible identity before taking charge of the temple in Jerusalem according to Noth, and other related issues. In all cases, he sought to find possible historical realities, particularly in response to Noth’s conclusions.34 Notably, in attributing primacy to the Joshua texts, he advanced the swing toward geographically based lists as more “historical” and therefore primary over the genealogically based.

28

29 30 31

32

33

34

de Vaux posits that the “conquerors” were two separate groups, one that was expelled from Egypt and another Moses-led group fleeing Egypt, that met in the wilderness and fused to become a single conquering group (ibid.,25). ibid., 31-32. ibid., 25. ibid., 31-32. He argues the fusion of Jacob-Leah with Israel-Rachel is explained by Jacob’s adoption of Manasseh/Ephraim in Gen. 33:9-13 and Gen. 48. Roland de VauxEarlyHistory, 736. For a critique of R. de Vaux, see C. H. J. De Geus, 71, n. 6a. The Tribes of Jahweh: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’sAmphictyonyHypothesis.(Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. 1976). He viewed H. Weippert’s findings of a third group as “inconsequential” in that it is merely a geographical arrangement based entirely upon M. Noth’s “B” scheme. (The TribesofJahweh, 71). He also discounts de Vaux’s work.

8

CHAPTER ONE

K. Namiki (1976) analyzed twenty-seven35 of the tribal lists, including those found in the “loosely connected” Chronicles, in “Reconsideration of the Twelve-Tribe System of Israel”.36 He confirmed that there were indeed only two types: genealogically and geographically arrangements. His intricate and detailed analysis37 of the structure of the lists paid close attention to the arrangement and sequence of the names within each list. He sought to determine the relationships between the lists so as to arrive at the (admittedly) theoretical processes by which the various lists evolved from the basic (he avoids the term “original”) forms to the altered forms. Noting how and which lists developed from the basic form and any signs of influences between genealogical and geographical groups, suggestions for dating the lists were given. He concluded that the lists exhibit even more artificial characteristics than Noth first proposed.38 Z. Kallai39 (1997) provided a detailed look at all the lists in which he stretched beyond Namiki’s structural analysis of the name sequence. He extended the two-form grouping (genealogical/geographical) to four systems: two genealogical and two geographical. His analysis is detailed and takes a generally synchronic view of the lists noting the possible influences one might have on another. His primary objective was to sequence the underlying structures of the lists in a historical order for the purpose of understanding the proto-history of Israel, a major concern of his in this and a multitude of additional publications.40 His work diverged from the former 35

36 37 38 39 40

He did not consider the Song of Deborah because it is 1) “too convoluted” to use as a historical marker and, 2) unclear whether the names in the Song were intended to be tribal names or personal names. AnnualoftheJapaneseBiblicalInstitute. 2. (Tokyo: Yamamoto Shoten, 1976): 29 – 59. See his detailed charts on pp. 53 – 59. ibid., 52. “The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel,” VetusTestamentum. 47:1 (1997): 53 – 90. The focus of most of his life-long research including his dissertation The Tribes of Israel: A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible (Hebrew University, 1963, Hebrew), AllotmentsoftheTribesofIsraelandtheirBoundaries (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1963, Hebrew), TheNorthernBoundariesofJudah:FromtheSettlementof the Tribes until the Beginning of the Hasmonaean Period (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960, Hebrew). His shorter article, “The Reality of the Land and the Bible” in DasLand IsraelinBiblischerZeit:JerusalemSymposium1981a.d.Georg-AugustUniversity. (ed. Georg Strecker. 1983, 76-90), explains his view that the diverse genealogical indications within the tribal structure provide important keys to the various stages in the tribal history. In HistoricalGeographyoftheBible:TheTribalTerritoriesofIsrael (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986) he utilized the various geographical lists and geographically-oriented narratives to reconstruct the tribal territories of ancient Israel at various points in time. The festschift StudiesinHistoricalGeographyandBiblicalHistoriography:Presented to Zechariah Kallai. (Eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Leiden Boston, and Köln: Brill, 2000) contributes a good number of articles along the same path.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

9

studies, which take a primarily literary approach, in that he advanced a more purely geographical point of view. He argued that all lists, both genealogical and geographical, stem from a base form that is fundamentally geographical. He saw the variations in the lists as indicators of geographic conceptions as connected to distinct historical realities. For instance, the listing of Dan in the south indicates an earlier reality while the listing of Dan in the North (both in Judges) indicates a later time after the tribe relocated. On a broader scale, he argued that differences in the Joshua and Judges lists depict the process of moving toward final settlement.41 The lists, being representatives of historical realities, could be employed as one tool to reconstruct the ancient history of Israel. The common link of these studies is the search for historical evidence in order to identify the time the tribes of Israel were created or joined as a “family”, and subsequently, to more fully develop the history of ancient Israel. The lists are seen as evidence to determine the various SitzimLeben at different points in the history of Israel; as markers of the points in the writing and/or redacting of the HB as different sons (tribes) were pushed to the forefront by means of position in the lists. In some cases, the priority of one tribe over the other is seen as a result of a physical reality (e.g., the tribe became larger). In other cases, the priority is seen as an attempt by the author/redactor to push that tribe to a more honored position. These are investigations that prioritize historical-critical issues and focus on the tribal names and the role the tribal names played in joining the Israelites as a people. Inherent to all these studies, to some degree, is M. Noth’s argument that the twelve-tribe system is an artificial arrangement designed to gather disparate peoples into a unified whole ultimately called “Israel”. All these studies work from the premise that the family genealogy was invented by the narrator(s), although differences exist as to what degree the invention was based on some sort of historical reality. Noth’s amphictyony concept is dead42 yet his notions on the tribal systems still prevail. Other studies have looked at the lists of Jacob’s sons from other perspectives. J. Chinitz (1996) dealt briefly with fourteen43 of the sixteen 41 42

43

“A Note of the Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel,” VT 49:1 (1999): 126. So declared by especially C. H. J. De Geus and H. Chambers (“Ancient Amphictyonies, Sic et Non” in ScriptureinContextII, eds. William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983, 39-59) who searched other avenues to reconstruct the tribal unity preceding King Saul. Gen, 29-30; 35:18 (Birth Reports); Gen. 35:23-26; 46:8-27; 49:3-27; Ex. 1:1-5; Nm. 1:5-15; 1:2-43; 2:3–31: 7:12-78; 13:4-15; 26:5-50; 34:19-28; Dt. 27:12, 13; 33:6-24.

10

CHAPTER ONE

lists that occur in the Pentateuch.44 He noted that the sequence of the sons varies with each list and is dependent upon merit, numbers, specific functions, chronology, by mothers, or location in the desert encampment. He briefly analyzed each list and provided a rationale for the sequence in which the sons are arranged, often citing rabbinic traditions. In some cases, he provided a good analysis, though limited, yet he did not look at the lists synchronically and the role they play in the overall structure. In addition, he offered no overview of the lists and how they may or may not relate to each other (except for a comparison between Nm. 2 and 7). Further, the study is limited: only Pentateuchal lists were investigated. A number of studies have looked at individual tribes (or sons). For instance, Reuben has received attention from F. Cross45 and U. Schorn.46 Benjamin, particularly Saul and the emergence of Israel, has received attention from N. Na`aman.47 S. Gervitz has published a number of studies48 on individual sons in Jacob’s Blessing in Gen. 49. He dated the “Blessing” from the time of Jeroboam I as an expression of a northern poet who passes judgment on the various political entities (i.e., tribes) and the role each played in the dissolution of the United Kingdom.49 Since each of these are studies of individual sons or of specific eras, they are not of much assistance to understanding the lists on a larger scale. B. SHORT-COMINGS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE LISTS I will approach problems with previous studies of the tribal lists from two angles: 1) the method is designed to only see the formal historicalcritical issues of the lists; and 2) the mothers behind the twelve tribes and their matriarchal roles in the lists are virtually ignored. 44 45 46

47

48

49

“The Listings of the Tribes of Jacob,” JewishBiblicalQuarterly 24:1 (1996): 36 – 42. “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 (1998): 46-65. RubenunddasSystemderZwölfStämmeIsraels:RedaktionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchgen zurBedeutungdesErstgeborenJakobs (BZAW 248. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 1997). “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Part 1),” (ZAW 121 [2009]: 211-224) and “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Continued, Part 2),” (ZAW 122 [2009]: 335-349). The Reprimand of Reuben” (JNEAS 30:2 [1971]: 87-98); “The Issachar Oracle in the Testament of Jacob” in Erezt-Israel:Archaeology,HistoricalandGeographicalStudies25 (Nelson Glueck Memorial Volume. Israel Exploration Society. 1975, 104-112); “Adumbrations of Dan in Jacob’s Blessing on Judah,” (ZAW 93:1 [1981]: 21-37); “Asher in the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis XLIX 20),” (VT 37:2 [1982]: 154-163). “Simeon and Levi in ‘The Blessing of Jacob’,” Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981): 93-128.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

11

1) The methodology of former studies is reliant upon two foundational principles. The first posits that the genealogies were invented to enhance pre-existing narrative segments.50 J. Wellhausen and his generation, in the late nineteenth century, had a generally dim view of the patriarchal genealogies as late, artificial, some perhaps containing some scant historicity, but mostly of little connection to any real historical situation.51 In the early 20th Century, scholars adjusted this view slightly to allow for the possibility that biblical genealogies might contain some historical matter.52 However, M. Noth, employing contemporary anthropological and archaeological studies, essentially altered the conversation in that he allowed that “primary” tribal lists represented real social conditions. Yet, he continued to maintain that the tribal genealogies were largely artificial creations, dating roughly from the United Monarchy era,53 that were joined to older narrative segments. The intent of the artificial genealogies was to unify mostly unrelated and independent tribes into a single “family”.54 This theory suggested that separate groups, some resident to the land, others foreign, merged over a protracted time to become the “Sons of Jacob” and the pre-existing, smaller groups were explained along matriarchal lines by a later author.55 Several examples will suffice. The oldest tradition was the tribal group he called the “Sons of Leah’ consisting of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun. Some time later, the tribe of Benjamin came to join, followed by the “House of Joseph”. These two became the “Sons of Rachel”. The “concubine” tribes of Asher, Dan and Naphtali joined earlier than Joseph; Gad about the same time. He based this assessment on Gen. 49, “collections of aphorisms”, and the geographic proximities of the particular groups to each other. A similar outlook can be seen in R. Smend’s analysis of the tribes named in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) in which he worked from the premise that the six primary Leah tribes (not including the sons of Zilpah) 50

51

52

53

54 55

R. Wilson GenealogyandHistoryintheBiblicalWorld(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977), 5. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient History (New York: Meridian Books: 1957), 318ff. R. Wilson “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” in IStudiedInscriptionsfrombeforetheFlood:AncientNearEastern,Literary,andLinguisticApproaches toGen.1-11 (eds. Richard Hess and David Tashio Tsumura. Winona Lake: Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 202. This is a reprint of JBL 94:2 (1975): 169-189. K. Namiki points out that the absolute origin is difficult to pin down. Nevertheless, it is “obvious” that the development started during the monarchy and extended through post-exilic times (Reconsideration, 49-50). De Geus, 211. See Part 1, System, 3-60.

12

CHAPTER ONE

had some sort of pre-existing connection, as did Joseph and Benjamin (Rachel’s sons). Only later did the Leah and Rachel groups combine under the father figure “Jacob”.56 G. Fohrer suggested that four waves of immigrants entered and these waves corresponded to the assigned mothers: Leah from the south, Zilpah and Rachel from Southeast Transjordan, and Bilhah from an unknown direction. These four waves are to be distinguished from other groups he labeled as “Moses” and “Caleb”57 who assimilated with the other four upon arrival.58 S. Mowinkel59 understood Rachel and Leah tribes as essentially geographic distinctions: eastern and western, although the separate developmental histories of both were complex, more so for the Rachel group. He argued that three sets of oral histories merged to become the Rachel tribes: Jacob, Joseph, and Rachel. The common ground of these stories was the northeastern Jordan area.60 Jacob stories featured prominent locales in the region and in Mesopotamia. The Joseph stories combined Jacob’s regional burial traditions and his life in Egypt, then connects Jacob and Joseph as “father” and “son”. In time, Ephraim and Manasseh are attributed as Joseph’s “sons”. The “Rachel-Cult”, centered at her grave, became Jacob’s wife. Much later, Benjamin, “Son of the South” is added as a son of Jacob since the major group was known in the region and, as somehow connected to the peoples mentioned in the Mari documents, from the Mesopotamian direction. On the other hand, the Leah tribes were from western Palestine geographical areas and so were grouped together as sons of another “wife”.61 S. Mowinkel thought both groups came together by the time of the monarchy, with the Rachel tribes earlier than the Leah tribes.62 A. Lemaire pieced together narrative accounts, especially in Judges, supported by archaeological data to arrive at a picture comprised of two groups, the “bene-Jacob”from Mesopotamia and the“bene-Israel”from Egypt, who ultimately joined together, as depicted in the Shechem story (Josh. 24 and parallels).63 56 57 58

59 60 61 62

63

JahwekriegundStämmeband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1963), 71ff. He refers to Num. 13-14 and Joshua stories. TheHistoryofIsrael (trans. Stanley Godman. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1958), 61. We must note that he dates these waves much earlier, the 14-13th Centuries, than other scholars with the result that “Israel” becomes a unified group much earlier. “’Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme’,” (BZAW 77 [1958]), passim. ibid., 146. ibid., 148. ibid., 148. He posited that Bilhah and Zilpah groups were also geographically arranged groups who were added close to the time of the monarchy (ibid., 148). “Aux Origines D’Israël: La Montange D’Ephraïm et Territoirre De Manassé (xiiixie siécle av. J.–C.),” in LahistoireProtod’israël:Del’exodeàlamonarchie. (Paris:

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

13

Alternatively, C. H. J. De Geus argued that “Joseph” and “Levi” were very late tribal designations, certainly no earlier than the monarchy, and came about after both the other tribes of Jacob.64 Opting for an even later date, U. Schorn posited that the idea of twelve genealogically related tribes developed after the fall of the Northern kingdom as a means to bring identity in the loss through an ideal Israel.65 This historical-critical principle itself rests upon A. Alt’s concept of a pre-existing inhabitation and peaceful66 infiltration mode rather than a conquest mode67 and plays a pivotal role in the second foundational principle (discussed below) in that it disallows any genealogy to be dated earlier than the monarchy68, although it is allowed, to varying degrees,69 that the concepts behind the genealogies may reflect earlier memories.70 M. Noth’s distinction was between “primary” genealogy (System A), one that predated the narrative, and “secondary” (System B), one that had no independent existence outside the narrative. Consequently, the genealogies of Genesis and Exodus are secondary and artificial, although the names individually may have some historical viability.71 Contrarily, C. H. J. De Geus marks System B older than A since System A is not a “real” genealogy but merely a list of eponyms that came into existence after 722.72 Since the genealogies of “Israel” are deemed a late creation of the writer(s) designed to connect various pre-existing, independent narrative segments, they do not represent any historical family connections in the past life of

64 65

66

67 68

69 70

71 72

Les éditions du Cerf, 1990), 263-283. His view is similar to S. Mowinkel’s (Rahelstämme, 132) except he makes a larger case for the Mesopotamian connection and does not connect the Rachel stories. TheTribesofJahweh,71. Rubenund dasSystemderzwölf StämmeIsraels:Redaktionsgeschichtliche UntersuchungenzurBedeutungdesErstgeboregenJakobs (BZAW 248. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 1997), 282-283. G. Mendelhall argued in favor of pre-existing inhabitation of peasants but non-peaceful in that they rejected and revolted against the Canaanite city-states. In his theory, the mixed group of peasants, some with tribal affiliations, others purely independent, united under a religious movement that was to become Israelite religion. See “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BA 25:3 (1962), 66-87. For consequences, expansions and revisions of this model, see De Geus, 164-171. But see H. Cazelles, 280, who dates the joining of “Israel” and “Jacob”, separate descendants of Abraham, to the time around the Hyksos-Hurrian-Aramaen movements. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory,5. Z. Kallai dates all existing genealogies to no earlier than the monarchy but views the family as a comprehensive unit preceding settlement in the land (“The Twelve-tribe Systems, 55). See also Galil and Weinfeld (StudiesinHistoricalGeographyandBiblical Historiography: Presented to Zechariah Kallai. Eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill, 2000], ix). R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory,5-6. TheTribesofJahweh.See his lengthy discussion pp. 71-108 and summary pp. 210-211.

14

CHAPTER ONE

what was to become “Israel”. Yet, we should not assume apriori that a “primary” genealogy is historically accurate but a “secondary” artificial. We must examine the sources and functions behind the genealogy.73 The results of these investigations rely heavily upon historical geography, source criticism and traditio-critical methods of research74, as is to be expected considering the influence of Alt, Noth, etal. Sourcecritical methods contribute to the analyses in that the separate narrative segments, dated to a variety of authors and eras, were considered to be joined with connecting phrases. Genealogies were thought to be one of these links used by the writers in some cases. Furthermore, the fact that genealogies were more commonly found in passages deemed “late” (no earlier than Davidic era) by source-critical analyses75 lent credence to the arguments.76 The second foundational principal posits that each list represents a geographical, social, and political reality at specific historical point in time. Studied from a predominantly historical-critical point of view, each list becomes a means to identify the SitzimLeben of the passage. This methodological principal finds its roots in late-19th Century anthropological studies among Arabian tribes where it was observed that genealogies were employed to express social and political relationships between tribes. Biblical scholars extrapolated that the genealogies merely reflected the social conditions present when the texts were written. Thus, the biblical genealogies are deemed to be accounts of tribal origins and interrelationships77 that contain accurate information profitable to mark tribal movements.78 The lists taken in totality would allow for a more complete picture of the real history of Israel. 73 74 75

76 77 78

R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 202. R. de Vaux, “Comprehensive,” 23. See, for example, M. Johnson’s (The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: with a SpecialReferencetotheGenealogiesofJesus. 2nd ed. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 1988) survey in which the most frequent use of genealogies are as a literary function in the “Priestly” sources concerned with exhibiting a movement within history toward a goal under the guidance of God. (pp. 80-81). Other genealogies in the Pentateuch have only been preserved in the Jahwest source (p. 4). U. Schorn’s work is primarily based on source-critical analysis where the dating of the specific passages leads her to see the twelve-tribe system, and Reuben in particular, as a post-northern kingdom destruction era attempt to unify the remaining peoples under the name “Israel”. RubenunddasSystem, passim. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 3. ibid., 2-3. ibid., 6.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

15

The goal for most previous analyses of the lists (Alt to Noth to Kallai) is to seek what Z. Kallai calls the “proto-history” of ancient Israel.79 The tribal genealogies are understood to be an integral part of the territorial description of the land80 that allows the researcher to reach back into the dimly lit proto-history based on which names are included, the sequences of the names and how the names are grouped. These factors are deemed critical to establishing the historical picture behind the list and, subsequently, to assign a date to the list. Given that the lists are a primary tool employed to reconstruct the proto-history of ancient Israel, it is vital to sequence the lists in chronological order. This first requires identification of the “primary” list(s), then the “secondary” list(s) can be drawn from those. Such ordering allows reconstruction of the Sitz im Leben of various points in time. M. Noth influenced the field by differentiating between “primary” and “secondary” as described above. Determination of primary versus secondary is based on a variety of criteria but heavily weighted on formal historical-critical and/or source critical considerations.81 More recent analyses make a distinction at the macro level between geographically and genealogically based lists. K. Namiki82 and Z. Kallai83 represent the organizational pinnacle of the method in that they assigned preference to geographically arranged lists under the methodological assumption that the geographically based lists represent an established, historically tangible point84 while the genealogically based lists represent pre-historical and, therefore, indiscernible realities.85 Z. Kallai extends the theory further in that he sees the genealogical lists as reflecting the settled condition of the tribes in the land after the conquest86 and after the “family” was created. Hence, genealogically based lists are considered derivations of the geographical.

79 80

81

82 83 84 85

86

The Twelve-tribe Systems, 55. Z. Kallai “The Reality of the Land and the Bible” in DasLandIsraelinBiblischerZeit: JerusalemSymposium1981a.d.Georg-AugustUniversity. (ed. Georg Strecker. 1983): 76. See especially U. Schorn (RubenunddasSystem)who is heavily reliant upon earlier source-critical analyses that lead to her conclusions. Reconsideration, 33. Z. Kallai, The Twelve-tribe Systems, 58. ibid., 87. See also C. H. J. De Geus who holds that System B lists are geographical summaries of holdings (210-211), Z. Kallai, The Twelve-tribe Systems, 87.

16

CHAPTER ONE

A number of criteria are employed to assist in the chronological sequencing of the various lists. One criterion for dating is the presence or absence of names, both place and personal. Identifiable place names have been used to date the geographical lists. Territorial terms can assist in determining the historical situation.87 M. Noth88 argued that the place names in Num. 26 demand its origination during the period of the Judges. K. Namiki89 considered it earlier, C. H. J. De Geus argued for a bit later: the “commencing monarchy” when Benjamin had been nearly absorbed into Ephraim and Simeon into Judah.90 S. Mowinkel, noting that place names are not necessarily coincident with the date of the list, disconnected the names from the genealogy altogether.91 Personal names can have a similar effect. M. Noth regarded that Num. 1:5-15 originated during the Judges Period on grounds that it was the only point when the names can be connected to the land, a notion disputed by D. Kellermann.92 Simeon is missing from Moses’ blessing in Dt. 33, a result, according to K. Namiki, of the tribe’s lost independence and integration into Judah when the list was written.93 Yet, one questions how Simeon’s “lost independence and integration” caused the writer of Deuteronomy to “forget” him yet, he is never forgotten in any other list, including those in the much later Ezekiel and Chronicles. A similar charge could be leveled against C. H. J. De Geus’ claim that Reuben and Simeon were “lost” and integrated into other tribes.94 A distinction is made between Levi as a “civil” tribe and a “cultic” tribe. M. Noth regarded passages where Levi is depicted as a “civil” tribe earlier than passages denoting Levi as a “cultic” tribe.95 K. Namiki argued that, since Gen. 49 retains Levi as a civil tribe rather than a priestly tribe, it is considered as an older genealogy, though he never sufficiently makes his case.96 Contrary, Z. Kallai insists the religious and cultic designation is not the progenitor of the group but a manifestation.97 S. Mowinkel, on 87 88 89 90 91 92

93 94 95 96 97

Z. Kallai, The Reality of the Land and the Bible, 82. DasSystem, 122-132. Reconsideration, 30. TheTribesofJahweh, 149, n. 111. ‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme’, 139. “Die Priesterschift von Numeri 11 bis 1010,” BZAW 120 (1970): 155-159. See discussion in K. Namiki, Reconsideration, 31, 42. Reconsideration, 45-46. TheTribesofJahweh, 149. DasSystem, 35, n. 1 Reconsideration, 31. The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel, 55.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

17

the other hand, argues that Levi (and Simeon) only came into existence with the creation of the amphictyony or even later, the Davidic monarchy.98 A second criterion for dating is the total number of tribes. M. Noth (and most scholars) stated only those lists with twelve or six sons (as one group within the twelve) are primary99; those with a different tally were secondary.100 G. Fohrer argued for an earlier scheme of eleven sons plus Dinah, based on the Genesis narratives (especially the birth reports in Gen. 29 and 30) in which Dinah plays an important role whereas Benjamin is a late arrival.101 For others, ten tribes was the original number. H. Weippert held that the original number was ten, ascribing Judah and Simeon as later additions to the group.102 K. Sparks argues that the Song of Deborah,103 and the earliest form of Gen. 49 and Dt. 33 (before Judean redactions)104 as evidence. A third criterion for dating is the specific sequence of names in the list. Two aspects of this criterion appear: position at the head of the list and priority of place within the list. Position at the head is seen to indicate a time when the first-named is understood to be the most powerful of the clan. Therefore, in Numbers where Judah appears first when the tribe leads the desert procession, these passages must be dated well into the monarchy insofar as they are of a “contrived, Post-Davidic” origin since they depict Judah taking Reuben’s position as the head of the family, something that only happened when the political center was controlled by the House of David.105 This argument is cited simply because Judah’s name appears first in the lists with no consideration of the narrative surrounding these lists.106

98

99 100 101

102 103

104

105 106

‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme’, 138. Interestingly, he dates the Simeon-Levi saga in Gn. 38 to the pre-historical period (ibid., 146). TheHistoryofIsrael, 91-93. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory,5. “Altes Testament – »Amphityonie« und »Bund«?,” Studien zur Alttestamentlichen TheologieundGeschichte (1946 – 1966). BZAW 115 (1966), 78-83. “Das geographische System der Stämme Israels”, VT 23 (1973), 87 - 89. EthnicityandIdentityinAncientIsrael:ProlegomenatotheStudyofEthnicSentiments andTheirExpressionsintheHebrewBible (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 109-121. “Genesis 49 and the Tribal List Tradition in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 115 (2003), 327347. Z. Kallai, The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel, 58. A good deal of circular reason surrounds these arguments: e.g., Source Criticism assigns them to “P” as part of the priestly connection to the Davidic sponsor; the list is assigned to after Davidic monarchy because it is “P” and advocates Judah over Reuben.

18

CHAPTER ONE

The other aspect assigns tremendous priority and importance on specific name sequences within the lists. M. Noth forwarded the notion that any change in sequence reflected a different era when the tribes may have intermingled or otherwise changed status relative to each other.107 Methodologically, it is held that the first name is more important. When the names are reversed, the list is seen to represent a different period and political situation. This allows passages to be sequenced in time. M. Noth and K. Namiki discuss several examples: the Ephraim-Manasseh (E-M) sequence, the Zebulun-Issachar (Z-I) sequence, and the Asher-Naphtali (A-N) sequence. M. Noth108 held the “original” sequences to be E-M and Z-I while others109 argued for the opposite. Both sides use source-critical and historical-critical based arguments yet the underlying assumption is that the sequence of the names is a positive indication of time identifiable with a specific Sitz im Leben. For example, K. Namiki posits that, “though Num. 1 retains the old personal names it is of a later date than Num. 26 since Num. 26 hastheoriginalManasseh–Ephraimorder”110 (emphasis mine), a notion contrary to A. Mayes who saw the Ephraim-Manasseh order reflective of the historical situation.111 Indeed, K. Namiki’s intricate arrangement of the lists is based partly on these very criteria. However, this is only speculation and it is based on, at best, wispy evidence. Manasseh is the elder so it is presumed he must come before Ephraim, although no valid argument explains the reasoning. P. Williams takes the identical approach in his discussion of the Reuben-Gad reference. Observing that six of the seven references place Gad in front of Reuben, he wonders whether Gad gained more prominence than Reuben, the primogeniture.112 In certain cases the altered sequence is determined as a result of both power and geography. For instance, A. Kuschke suggests the reason for Gad being attached to Judah’s group (in Numbers) was because he was geographically isolated from the other handmaiden’s tribes.113 However, no other 107 108 109

110 111 112

113

See K. Namiki’s fuller discussion, in Reconsideration, 39. DasSystem, 18-28. Koichi Namiki, Reconsideration, 30 – 32. See also A.D.H. Mayes IsraelinthePeriod oftheJudges (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 29. London: SCM Press, LTD, 1974), 23. Reconsideration, 30-31. IsraelinthePeriodoftheJudges, 19. “Israel Outside the Land: The Transjordan Tribes in 1 Chronicles 5,” Windowsinto OldTestamentHistory:Evidence,Argument,andtheCrisisof‘BiblicalHistory’. (Eds. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordan J. Wenhem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 152, n. 20. “Die Jagervorstellung der priesterschriftlichen Erzählung,” ZAW (63:1-2 [1951]), 97.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

19

reasons for an altered sequence have been entertained, particularly the role the narrative plays, where it is found, and its impact upon the list. K. Namiki summarized the state of affairs when he argued that dating any of the lists can only be accomplished relative to the other lists, not by any other standard.114 I find the criteria for dating is flawed insofar as it is based on the faulty premise that name sequences reflect positive or negative positions of rank in the family. Priority of position is assumed to indicate priority of power within the family, although such a premise has never been proven and the overreaching theory has only been assumed and never firmly established. The very process hinges upon the hotly contested determinations of which genealogy is the oldest and the order of its variations. If we are unable to securely establish which list is the “base”, how is it possible to make the sort of claims regarding dating and SitzimLeben that have been forwarded? Is it possible to determine the age of a list based on textual evidence alone, such as supposed JEDP arrangements or some other speculative criterion, when those data have never received any absolute scholarly consensus? Attempts to identify “primary” versus “secondary” list(s) or the “earliest” list(s) generally fail due to the problematic and inherently faulty criteria for determining what is “original” or “earliest”. Indications for dates are varied, yet inconclusive and without consensus.115 Partly to blame is Noth’s definitions of “primary” and “secondary” in that they do not allow for all the possible relationships between genealogy and narrative.116 R. Wilson helpfully clarifies the definition of “primary” as a genealogy that existed asagenealogy outside the present narrative.117 Primary genealogies have names closely associated with each other, although each name does not need an independent narrative tradition of its own. On the other hand, secondary genealogies are comprised of names that are originally associated each with its own individual narrative tradition and these names/ traditions were artificially arranged into the genealogy intending to connect their chief characters.118 Nevertheless, R. Wilson’s clarification of 114 115

116 117 118

Reconsideration, 38. The reader is directed to the multiple and complex discussions including C. H. J. De Geus (TheTribesofJahweh), Andrew D. H. Mayes (IsraelinthePeriodoftheJudges). It should be noted that these discussions are intended to challenge M. Noth’s concept of the amphictyony by means of knocking down his pillar built upon the formations and dating of the lists. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 201. ibid., 201. See the fuller discussion, outside the scope of our discussion, in R. Wilson, ibid., 5.

20

CHAPTER ONE

definitions has yet to be implemented to any degree and, in fact, alters the discussion radically, as shall be discussed below. With this, we turn to the second problem relative to studies on the lists of Jacob’s sons. 2) Roles of the mothers behind the twelve tribes are given little to no attention. While considerable ink is devoted to the “eponymous fathers”, nearly completely overlooked in all investigations are the four mothers behind those sons. What little attention is given is typically for the purpose of understanding why the disparate tribes are put together in the first place. M. Noth posited the maternal arrangements were purely artificial and not connected to historical reality. He separated the issue of the four mother figures as a matter of early beginnings to be disconnected entirely from the tradition of the twelve tribes.119 S. Mowinkel concluded that the four mothers were secondarily connected to the twelve sons after Judah became preeminent120 as a means to combine the whole group.121 M. Sweeney understands the conflict between Leah and Rachel to reflect tensions among the Israelite tribes, particularly during the 9th and 8th Centuries BCE when struggles between the southern Judah kingdom and the northern Israel kingdom were especially high as Judah attempted to break free of its vassal status.122 Source-critical analyses123 identifes the Jacob and Joseph narratives as of northern Israel in origin replete with important northern sites such as Bethel, Mahanaim, Shechem, Penuel, and Sukkot.124 The Jacob and (probably Joseph narratives) at its foundation and origin in its earliest form125 is a political and theological composition 119 120 121 122

123

124 125

M. Noth, System, 7. ‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme’, 150. ibid., 136. Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 75. ibid., 73-74. For source critical analyses, see especially the work by Anthony F. Campbell and Mark O’Brien in SourcesofthePentateuch:Texts,Introductions,Annotations. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), based on M. Noth’s earlier work as the underlying analysis, which organizes the various Pentateuchal narratives first into individual sections (e.g., Jacob narratives, Joseph narratives, Exodus, etc.). The sources of each section are recorded separately into “E”, “J”, “P” stories, to which additional redactions are identified. The analyses facilitate identification of issues, motives and underlying themes of each source. ibid., 74 “The Jacob Narratives: An Ephraimitic Text?,” CBQ (2016): 238. In this article, M. Sweeney marks the recent move to reconsidering J. Wellhausen’s understanding of sources based entirely upon divine names, and, particularly for this study, the sequence of J as a primary source that was supplemented by E. Instead, it is argued that E (of northern Israel origin) was the primary document to which J material was brought in afterward.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

21

of northern Israel126 based on four general groups of detectable characteristics: 1) Jacob as founder of the Bethel Sanctuary, located in the tribal territory of Ephraim, to which no religious critique is leveled in stark contrast to that which dominates in the Deuteronomistic History, specifically the harsh accusations against Jeroboam I in the Book of Kings;127 2) the portrayal of the twelve sons of Jacob as the ancestors of the tribes of Jacob128 and the recognition that, from an Ephraimitic perspective, the Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah sons are in marginal areas of the land;129 3) Jacob himself is identified as visiting and conducting vital actions in important northern Israel (Bethel [Luz] and Shechem), Transjordan (Gilead, Mahanaim, Penuel, Succoth), and Aram (Padan-aram) sites;130 and 4) the manner in which the Jacob narratives mythologize northern Israel’s history as they appear to recount their relations with Edom (i.e. Esau) and Aram (i.e. Laban) during the late 9th Century into the early 8th Century BCE.131 From the Ephraimitic, or northern Israel perspective, only the Rachel tribes are of any great significance. The children of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah are on the fringes, both geographically and politically, in relation to Ephraim and Manasseh, who are identified as the sons of Joseph, the beloved son of Jacob. M. Sweeney points out that Reuben is in the Transjordan and lost to Moab in the 8th Century, Simeon, located on the border of Judah/Philistia, disappears at some point during monarchic times, Levi never owned any territory, Judah was in the southern Hill Country, while Zebullon and Issachar lived far to the north beyond the Jezreel Valley. Likewise, Bilhah’s sons Dan and Naphtali are quite far off in the northern fringes. Similarly, Zilpah’s sons Gad (Transjordan) and Asher (lost to Phoenician control as early as Solomon’s era) are much removed from the center of the northern Israel power brokers, specificially Ephraim and Manasseh.132 In contrast to the Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah tribes, the Jacob and Joseph narratives act as commentaries that push to the fore Joseph and Benjamin, that is Rachel’s sons, as the leading tribes of Israel.133 The birth reports accent Joseph and Benjamin: Joseph as the father of the most powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Benjamin, from which the first royal house (Saul) derived.134 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

ibid., 245. ibid., 245-246. ibid., 246. ibid., 247. See below for additional comment. ibid., 248-249. ibid., 249-251. ibid., 247. M. Sweeney, Tanak 74-75. ibid., 70-71, 74

22

CHAPTER ONE

The Joseph narratives additionally speak to Judah’s culpability in Joseph’s near-murder and eventual sale into slavery. In contrast to Leah’s questionable sons, the Joseph narrative shows the maturing of the arrogant, spoiled younger Joseph to an older Joseph as an ideal character whose wisdom is sought by others, whose leadership saves the family, and who offers forgiveness to those who have harmed him (i.e., his brothers).135 In sum total, the Jacob and Joseph narratives are ultimately concerned with emphasizing that it is Joseph’s sons, particularly Ephraim and Manasseh, who are and should be the leaders of Israel.136 Subsequent redactions attempt to alter the importance of certain sons over the others, as did the E source for Rachel’s. Once the original Ephraimitic narratives (“E”) moved south after the fall of northern Israel in 722 BCE, Judean interests (“J”) can be seen in certain narratives in the apparent attempt to place Jacob in traditionally Judean areas such as Beersheba, recount the burial of beloved Rachel in traditionally Judean territory, and Isaac’s final days in the Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) area, thereby connecting Jacob as an important character in the southern perspective. On the other hand, certain narratives question the full worth of Jacob. The inclusion of Dinah/Shechem episode simultaneously defames Shechem as a worthy cult location and portrays Jacob as an inept father unwilling to protect his daughter’s honor, 137 both factors in favor of a Judean outlook. From the Judean perspective, this is one of several points suggesting that another party other than Jacob should be ruling over Israel. The Dinah/ Shechem episode serves a third action: to demote, as it were, Simeon and Levi, Leah’s second and third sons, from contention as suitable rulers138 by virtue of their immoral, rash murders of the city’s men.139 Reuben, the firstborn is demoted via the narrative that explains how he had sexual relations with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. This leaves Judah in the prime spot as potential leader. The final narrative outcome of the combined redactions140 shows Jacob as a “somewhat flawed” character who needs the aid of the Judean leadership and cultic services of the Levitical priesthood.141 Nevertheless, from this perspective, the various narratives 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

ibid., 77-79. ibid., 77. M. Sweeney, Jacob 252-253. ibid., 253. M. Sweeney, Tanak 74. E, J, and P. M. Sweeney, Jacob 254.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

23

indicate competing interests as to which one of Jacob’s sons should be the leader of the family. However, for each of the above assessments, one must question why were mothers indicated in the first place? Why do the eponymous sons need mothers at all? Why was it deemed important to the narrators to divide the twelve sons of Jacob into four groups, each assigned to a specific and named mother? Again, the methodological questions have dictated the outcome. The historical-critical, and occasionally source-critical, considerations override all other means of viewing the texts. Some see mother-son connections as a result of the historical and geographical connections between the tribes. For instance, Simeon is nearly subsumed into Judah therefore both are “sons of Leah”. Issachar and Zebulon are listed together reflecting their close geographic proximity. Levi and Judah are connected via the temple as religious leader and sponsor. Drawing upon possible Akkadian meanings of the eponymous mothers’ names142 as indications of two distinct groups, H. Cazelles hypothesized the separate Leah and Rachel families were the first to become sedentary and link together.143 G. Fohrer144 argued that Benjamin was a formerly independent tribe that joined after the other eleven based on the fact that his birth report comes as a sort of afterthought.145 Z. Kallai deems it plausible that the two separate birth reports of Leah’s sons [Reuben-Simeon-Levi-Judah] and [IssacharZebulun] are intended to recall the geographical separation of the two Leah groups. In this way, he employs the geographical features to explain the origins of two formerly unrelated groups before joining the “family”.146 Yet, this seems to place tremendous stress on the function of the birth reports and completely ignores the story of the two sisters’ competition. These associations do not always line up. Reuben and Judah belong to Leah yet are otherwise not connected.147 Benjamin is politically attached

142 143

144 145 146 147

Leah = littu(“cow”); Rachel = “ewe”. “The History of Israel in the Pre-exilic Period,” TraditionandInterpretation:Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Study (ed. G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 280-281. Altes Testament, 78 – 83. But discounted by Noth in that he viewed Dinah as a later insertion. The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel, 56. Z. Kallai (The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel, 56) states that “strong family ties” existed between Reuben and Judah. However, he gives no support and I am unaware of any connections between the two beyond the family of Israel.

24

CHAPTER ONE

to Judah, yet distinct from Joseph (Ephraim/Manasseh), even though they share the same mother, the darling of Jacob. Manasseh is split between two distinct geographical regions yet considered the same tribe at all times. No satisfactory explanations of these contradictions exist. More helpful are other suggestions. Kallai, who admits the grouping of the tribes by mothers is difficult to understand because of the lack of data,148 posits that the eponymous mothers were equal to eponymous fathers as a function of the historiographer’s notion of Israel.149 He offers that the birth reports might express a stage prior to entry in the land.150 K. Namiki considered the mothers as an indication of primary versus secondary priority observing that the tribes are oriented in terms of lineage and status of the mothers. Lineage divides between two mothers: Leah and Rachel. Status is distinguished between “lawful wives” and “handmaids”.151 This observation is helpful to determine the rank and status of the children but does nothing to explain why the mothers are named or why the narrative places the mothers in a high place of importance. Furthermore, the apparent ranking of Jacob’s sons has no real significance once the family is in Egypt. The question comes around again: why are the mothers so important? Increasing numbers of studies have focused on the women, particularly those in Genesis where mothers play leading rules in the narratives.152 Others have investigated women and women’s roles in the HB and ancient Israelite society in general.153 These studies are illuminating and, indeed, 148 149 150

151

152

153

ibid., 55. ibid., 55. “The Reality of the Land and the Bible” in Das Land Israel in Biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem Symposium 1981 a.d. Georg-August University. (ed. Georg Strecker. 1983): 88. Reconsideration, 36. This resulted in K. Namiki’s basic classification system developed according to the four mothers he designating as “L”, “R”, “l” and “r” (Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah). Such as S. Teubal, SarahThePriestess (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1984), S. Jeansonne, TheWomenofGenesis:FromSarahtoPotiphar’sWife (Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 1990), T. Schneider, Mothers of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2008), Sarah Shectman, “Rachel, Leah, and the Composition of Genesis”, The Pentateuch. (eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. (FAT 78). Tübingen: Morh Seibeck, 2011, 207 – 222), C. Conybeare, TheLaughterofSarah (New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2013). The field is vast and growing exponentially. Several contributions include C. Myers, DiscoveringEve:AncientIsraeliteWomeninContext (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), G. Emmerson, “Women in Ancient Israel,” in TheWorldof AncientIsrael:Sociological,Anthropological,andPoliticalPerspectives:Essaysby theMembersoftheSocietyforOldTestamentStudy (ed. Robert E. Clements. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 371-394), E. Solvang, A Woman’s Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their InvolvementintheHouseofDavid (JSOT Supl. 349. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

25

will inform the fourth chapter of this work. However, these do not address the issues of why the genealogical lists are arranged according to the mothers or why the mothers remain vital beyond the Genesis stories. What seems to be missing is any sort of understanding as to why the mothers are vitally important in Genesis, equal to even the patriarchs. In the studies of the tribal lists, the genealogical connections of the mothers are assumed, at least as a literary function, and a possible historical-critical function, but very few scholars discuss the mothers or their roles, especially Leah’s primacy. Studies connecting the mothers to the lists are virtually non-existent. Are we missing something by only looking at the tribal lists as a means of establishing a (admittedly) hypothetical proto-history or as an indicator of certain periods in the Israelite history, e.g., the United Monarchy? Are the mothers’ and the sons’ lineages more important that we have allowed? Do the methodological criteria so foundational to research obscure the possibility that all lists, both geographical and genealogical, may be more connected than allowed? C. AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF THE LISTS M. Noth’s concept of the genealogical lists as composed by late narrators is, for the most part, the general consensus of scholarship. It is the platform on which the historical-critical assessments outlined above are constructed. Indeed, to this perspective it is “clear” that the genealogical lists were composed from the geographical point of view154 to bolster the narrator’s message. However, R. Wilson’s work on genealogies155 arrives at two important conclusions regarding genealogies in the Near East. First, there is no evidence that genealogies were invented to enhance a narrative in the Near East. Not in modern oral genealogies or those in the extant ANE literature.156 No examples of any ANE genealogy can be found where the genealogy provides structure to a larger narrative, to link smaller units, or acts as the “skeleton” of a narrative. Consistently in the ANE examples, a genealogy was added to an already-structured text157 when that text was

154 155

156 157

Press, 2003). T. Finlay, TheBirthReportGenreintheHebrewBible (Tübingen: Mohr Siebaeck, 2005). K. Namiki, Reconsideration, 33. He examines representative ANE genealogies encompassing the entire region (Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syro-Palestine, Egypt) and time (earliest written to Pre-Islamic), a course required with such a large body of written materials. GenealogyandHistory, 132ff. ibid., 135.

26

CHAPTER ONE

narrative in nature.158 Even more importantly, no evidence can be found that a genealogy was invented as a result of a narrative tradition.159 Second, many genealogies, both extra-biblical and biblical, show little to no fluidity160 when the function of the genealogy is taken into account. Any apparent fluidity is not significant and does not represent different sources or origins of the genealogies. R. Wilson’s analyses of limited161 HB genealogies show they fit the same model. He found no evidence that the HB tribal lists were created for the benefit of the narratives. In fact, just the opposite; the rigid form and consistency of the sequence specifically points to an established order prior to the narratives.162 It is true that the formulation of the tribal lists attests to the fundamental position these genealogies attained and that the tribal system became fundamental to the historiographer’s notion.163 The question at hand is when did this occur? Noth, and others, and have it backwards: the lists are not late, artificial concoctions of the narrator; they precede the narratives. R. Wilson’s work proves that any attempt to date the lists based on the presence of certain names and the sequences of those names to arrive at a proto-history is ill conceived because the principle differences in the various lists can be explained entirely on grounds of function. This, in my opinion, is the reason why no consensus in dating the lists has been reached. We must look to the narrative function of each list first, then we can determine whether the list exhibits any significant fluidity. D. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE The two major groups of lists first arranged by Noth distinguish between Group A: those with [Levi/Joseph] versus Group B: those with [Ephraim/ Manasseh]. Noth concluded that the two groups represent different periods 158

159 160

161

162 163

Genealogical lists that are merely a string of names with no accompanying narrative are somewhat different and will be dealt with in Chapter Two. The various king lists come to mind (e.g., Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Rulers of Lagash). Still, these are not artificially derived by the writers of the lists and cannot be tampered with, except to add one’s name to the end. The pre-existing names are unchangeable. The list itself predates the new format. See R. Wilson, ibid., 132-133. ibid., 132-135. A fuller discussion of the characteristics of genealogical and important terms including “fluidity” and “function” will follow in Chapter Two. He analyzes a limited number of genealogies in Genesis: The Table of Nations, Esau’s toledoth and the birth stories of Jacob’s children. ibid., 192ff. Z. Kallai, The Twelve-tribe Systems, 88-89.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

27

and separate sources. Although his thesis has been subsequently expanded and/or revised, his ideas have held sway over scholarship since. The historical-critical methodological underpinnings and the drive to understand the historical picture of ancient Israel have clouded the picture while another vantage may open a better understanding. Rather than deriving from separate sources and periods of time based on disparate family groups merging over time, as argued by Noth, etal, differences in the lists can be accounted for entirely on the functions, that is, the purpose for the list being inserted into the narrative. These functions and how they impact the lists will be explored in Chapter Three. While there is considerable attention given to the “eponymous fathers” (since their names appear in the tribal lists), nearly completely overlooked in all investigations are the four mothers. What little attention is given is usually for the purpose of understanding why the disparate tribes came together in the first place. What seems to be missing is any sort of understanding as to why the mothers are so important, particularly in Torah. One can especially voice this concern when mothers in Genesis are vitally important, even equal to the patriarchs. In the studies of the tribal lists, the genealogical connections to the mothers are assumed but very few discuss the mothers or their roles, especially in light of Leah’s primacy. In this regard, the studies are extremely thin. The mothers behind the lists will be explored in Chapter Four. Certainly the lists point to a unified understanding of “Israel”. Do they push an agenda that unified disparate groups under a common “family” or does the unification stem from an pre-existing shared family taking into consideration that the names in the lists must predate any narrative, as it manifests in the texts? Does the North/South dichotomy hold up under these lists? Is the Judah/South point of view given too much weight by scholars or not enough? Do the lists, and especially the mothers behind the sons, argue for more important/less important factions within the “family” or vice-versa? Chapter Two will explore the nature and functions of genealogies and lists driven by genealogical matters. Chapter Three offers a detailed analysis of the tribal lists of Jacob’s sons in the Hebrew Bible. Chapter Four will explore the connections of the mothers to the lists of Jacob’s sons.

CHAPTER TWO

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE A. INTRODUCTION In Chapter One, reference was made to two important conclusions when looking at genealogies in the ANE and how they compare to genealogies in the Hebrew Bible. One is that almost no fluidity exists in the tribal lists when the function of each list is taken into account. This matter will be addressed fully in Chapter Three. The other is that no evidence can be found that genealogies or tribal lists were invented for the sake of a narrative. It is clear that genealogies play a fundamental position in these lists and in the underlying structure of the narratives surrounding them. It is now the task to review the ANE evidence supporting these conclusions in preparation for a detailed analysis of the genealogical listings of the sons of Jacob/Israel (Chapter Three). This will be accomplished by first defining the terminology used to describe genealogies, then delineating the characteristics of genealogies and the role that function plays when a genealogy is employed. A few examples from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Hebrew Bible will illustrate these characteristics and functions. A brief review of evidence for genealogies invented by narrators will conclude the chapter. Much of the evidence and conclusions on genealogies have been thoroughly established by R. Wilson in several publications1 and by M. Johnson in his study on the purpose of biblical genealogies,2 supplemented by 1

2

GenealogyandHistoryintheBiblicalWorld(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977). His focus is mostly on Mesopotamia examples, with a few from SyroPalestine and Egypt up through the Hellenistic period. Also, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” in IStudiedInscriptionsfrombeforetheFlood:Ancient NearEastern,Literary,andLinguisticApproachestoGen.1-11 (eds. Richard Hess and David Tashio Tsumura. Winona Lake: Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 200-223. This is a reprint of JBL 94:2 (1975): 169-189. “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ Interpreting Biblical Genealogies,” BA (42:1 [1979]: 11-22). ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies:withaSpecialReferencetotheGenealogies ofJesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

30

CHAPTER TWO

K. Sparks’ study on ethnicity.3 In each, an analysis of certain Biblical genealogies has been conducted. Here, I gather their foundational labors with additional examples from the HB.

B. DEFINITIONS Defining a limited number of genealogical terms will ensure the common understanding of technical terminology as it relates to genealogies and tribal lists. This short list is not intended to be exhaustive, nor to cover the entire range of meanings and usages found within each term. The definition is brief; the specific characteristics and functions of genealogies will be described in the next section. The definitions fall into two categories: types and features. Types List: A serial document, organizing the items in a representative, functional order.4 A genealogy is a specialized list. Genealogy: A written or oral expression of the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestors.5 Two primary forms: linear and segmented. LinearGenealogy: A genealogy that expresses only one line of descent from a given ancestor.6 SegmentedGenealogy: A genealogy that expresses more than one line of descent from a given ancestor.7 Also called “collateral”.8 Lineage: A genealogy that stretches back in time, sometimes to include both living and dead. A lineage can also be viewed as moving proleptically forward in the case of a new lineage.9 3

4

5

6 7 8

9

EthnicityandIdentityinAncientIsrael:ProlegomenatotheStudyofEthnicSentiments andTheirExpressionsintheHebrewBible (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1998). Georg W. Coats in Genesis, With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL 1, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983), 318. Similar is Rolf P. Knierim and Georg W. Coats in Numbers (FOTL IV. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), 349. Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 9. Similar is Simon J. De Vries in 1and2 Chronicles (FOTL XI. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 430. Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 9. ibid., 91. Simon J. De Vries in 1and2Chronicles (FOTL XI. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 430. Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory,21.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

31

Register: A name list containing the membership of a particular entity.10 Muster Role: A type of register that is a listing of fighting men, often with tallies, rankings, and appellations, recorded in preparation for battle.11 General Features Fluidity: A change in sequence or some other minor alteration in the lineage.12 Function: Role the genealogy plays in its oral or narrative context. Telescoping: A type of omission in which certain generations are not cited in the recitation. Typically, the closest relatives are named, along with the founding generations. The middle generations are omitted for brevity’s sake but can be recalled when required.13 Depth: Describes how many generations back or forward are expressed.14 Segmentation: Also called “branching” by some anthropologists. Expresses more than one line of descent from a given ancestor.15 Similar to a “segmented” genealogy but refers to a portion of a genealogy, rather than the whole.

C. CHARACTERISTICS OF GENEALOGIES The primary feature that distinguishes a genealogy from other sorts of lists is the kinship relationships expressed between the named individuals.16 The relationships are important as the genealogy intends to recount the history of a group and provide validation in some manner to the group.17 The primary function is to define social, political and economic relationships within the society.18 The genealogy may be expressed in a narrative or as in a list. R. Wilson calls the first a “genealogical narrative” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Georg W. Coats, Genesis, 319. Simon J. De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 432. Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory,27. ibid., 33. ibid., 18-37. ibid., 91. ibid., 9. Rolf P. Knierim and Georg W. Coats, Numbers, 346. P. McNutt in ReconstructingtheSocietyofAncientIsrael (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox and London: SPCK, 1999), 76-77.

32

CHAPTER TWO

where the focus is on the kinship relationships expressed within the narrative.19 This is to be distinguished from a narrative that simply contains a genealogy. On the other hand, a “list” can be expressed internally and kinship terms may appear between the names (e.g., “x, son of y, son of z”) or kinship terms may be external to the list proper, but are implied (e.g., “sons of x, y, z”).20 In some cases, the kinship terms are omitted but the nature of the list21 and its position in the narrative assumes the relationships. R. Wilson also distinguishes between a “primary” genealogy, one that exists independently of the narrative, and a “secondary” genealogy, one which takes both names and kinship relations from earlier narratives, or in which the earlier narratives contain the names but the relationships are supplied by the compiler, or the names come from a previous, independent list and have the kinship terms supplied by the compiler.22 The formal characteristics of a genealogy are 1) segmentation: must have at least two lines of descent, either in a segmented or a linear form, 2) depth: at least two generations forward or backward from the principle name. In the case of linear forms, the depth is the principle feature. 3) fluidity (see below), and 4) some sort of internal structure, usually in the form of a list or a narrative.23 The structure may fluctuate according to the way the lineage functions in different situations so as to properly express the lineage.24 For example, a lineage may be expressed from the contemporary individual back to the ancestors thereby highlighting the living individual (or the subject of the narrative). On the other hand, the lineage may begin with the ancestor and work toward the present generation (or narrative subject) thereby emphasizing the long-established lineage from an important ancestor. Not all genealogies exhibit all characteristics. For instance, the various king lists of Mesopotamia are strictly linear with no segmentation. Fluidity is an important characteristic that applies to our investigation of the lists of Jacob’s sons in the Hebrew Bible. As has been noted, the lists exhibit two primary forms: those with Levi/Joseph and those with 19 20 21

22 23 24

Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 9. ibid., 10. The “Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty” (GHD) has no associated kinship terms to connect the names. We know from other king lists that they were considered to be subsequent sons. See R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 107-109. ibid., 201-202. See fuller discussion in Robert R. Wilson, ibid., 18-37. ibid., 27.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

33

Manasseh/Ephraim. The fluidity (although seldom technically recognized as “fluidity”) in the genealogy has generally been ascribed as an indication of different times and/or sources. However, other possible reasons for fluidity, as brought on by the genealogy’s placement in the narrative or by the overt narrative statements, are seldom taken into account in the discussions, if at all. Fluctuations in a given genealogy can occur for a number of reasons. These should be briefly explored as they have import to our analyses of the lists. Simply put, fluidity is a change in the established genealogy. Fluidity may be non-existent or very high. Three major types can be observed in genealogies in general: change in kinship relationships between the names, additions of names, and disappearances of names.25 Changes in kinship relationships can occur when a name moves from one generation to another, or the kinship relationship of one name to another changes (e.g., “son” to “grandson”). In the latter case, the reason could be simply that the order of presentation and the relationships expressed may not be considered important. On the opposite spectrum, the relationship changes might reflect true-to-life alterations in the structure and lineage, particularly when one lineage becomes more powerful than another or it looses power to the point of being “demoted” in the family structure. The second form, addition of names into the genealogy, can occur for several reasons. Natural growth of the family via children, etc. is most obvious, but unrelated individuals or segments can be added via adoption or other filial processes. The third principle form of fluidity, disappearance of names, is somewhat more complicated. R. Wilson is quick to clarify that names that are absent/changed from a genealogy is a separate phenomenon from what he calls “structural amnesia” in which only a portion of the genealogy is cited due to circumstances of the occasion.26 Rather, the absence is brought on by formal issues. One frequent reason is “telescoping” in which the (typically) middle or (sometimes) earliest names are dropped for the purpose of shortening the recitation. These names are not “lost’ but can be recalled when needed. Another common reason for the disappearance of a name in some societies occurs when the leader assumes an official, inher25 26

ibid., 30-35. ibid., 32-33. A HB example of “structural amnesia” is found in Ex. 6:14-27 where the “Heads of the Fathers’ Households” are named. Reuben through Simeon are recited, but the recitation stops at Levi : the other sons of Jacob are absent. Instead, the genealogy turns deep into Levi’s branch. The other sons of Jacob are not “forgotten” (indeed, they are named elsewhere): the circumstances of the narrative do not require their recitations at this point. See full discussion on this passage in Chapter Three below.

34

CHAPTER TWO

ited name. In these groups, the chief or other leader takes on the inherited name upon assumption of the role. The chief’s birth name may (or may not) disappear from the genealogy. Only a full understanding of the society and a careful analysis of the genealogy can sort out this “confusion”. A third reason is that certain names/segments cease having any function within the family and so are dropped.27 In light of these characteristics of fluidity when applied to the case of Jacob’s sons, only one has traditionally been commonly applied: the change in power of one tribe over the other, therefore a change in the given structure of the genealogy. Whether this is applicable to the lists, especially with regard to the presence/absence of Levi/Joseph and Manasseh/Ephraim, must wait for further analysis in Chapter Three. One additional aspect of genealogies must be considered before exploring examples: function and its effects on presentation.

D. FUNCTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON PRESENTATION The function of a genealogy in its narrative context is perhaps the most important consideration. Genealogies tend to be preserved only when they have some sort of function.28 R. Wilson’s investigation into various Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts found no indication that a scribe incorporated a genealogy into a text simply because the genealogy was available; the genealogy had to be compatible with the function of the text29 and was deemed vital to enhance or support the message being communicated. The genealogical form employed by the writer cannot be separated from its function. In fact, form is often influenced by the function.30 Three distinct functions of genealogies have been identified in ANE literature: domestic, politic-jural, and religious/cultic.31 A genealogy in a domestic setting functions to mark a continuous lineage, and/or to establish social and authority relationships within the family.32 It is primarily an expression of blood relationship33 that ultimately derives from tribal

27

28 29 30 31 32 33

Among the reasons are when a person has no descendants thereby making the line functionally obsolete (ibid., 33). ibid., 128. ibid., 135-136. ibid., 18. Following the investigation of R. Wilson, ibid., 38-55. ibid., 38-41. C. H. J. De Geus in TheTribesofJahweh, 149.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

35

circles as a means for the history and validation of the tribal unit.34 It is a memory device for keeping track of relationships among individuals and groups and for ranking them in terms of inheritance and succession rights.35 Personal names are an important aspect of the function,36 as are settling domestic disputes and validating authority roles,37 particularly in tribal and non-urban societies where kinship relationships determine an individual’s status, rights, and obligations by virtue of the kinship ties that link him/her to other people.38 The second function, the politico-jural, occurs when genealogies are used to legitimate royal39 and professional office holders.40 Establishment and maintenance of social order within a technical framework is its purpose, along with securing individuals as rightful owners of inherited offices.41 One aspect of the politico-jural function of a genealogy is the geographic arrangement of property. In such cases, the genealogical presentation accurately reflects the geographical arrangement of peoples and groups. In turn, a group may use its physical presence in a geographic area to justify its lineage.42 The third function of a genealogy is that of religious/cultic. Similar to royal genealogies, cultic genealogies 34 35 36 37 38 39

40

41 42

Rolf P. Knierim and Georg W. Coats in Numbers, 346. P. McNutt, Reconstructing, 77. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 132. ibid., 38-41. ibid., 18. For instance, the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions cite genealogies as a tool to connect the ruler to the royal ancestors who preceded, with the intent to legitimize his rule (R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 69). ibid., 132. Scribal families have attested genealogies that connect to early, famous practitioners of their professions. Late Babylonian scribes and even some Selucid era scribes connected themselves to Sin-liqiunninni, evidently the most famous scribe from the Kassite period (once placed during the time of Gilgemesh, and even said to be the author of the Epic of Gilgemesh). Similarly, Ur-nanna, another ancient scribe, is cited as an ancestor (ibid., 117). ibid., 38-41. ibid., 43. G. Mendenhall took the evidence that geography sometimes plays a role in developing kinship relations to argue that the “Benjamites” of the Mari documents were a large, socially complex group whose identity derived from its considerable territorial range, rather than an ethnically related group descended from a single ancestor. He declared that it is “hardly likely that genealogical descent actually produced this or any other tribe in antiquity.” (“The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine”, BiblicalArchaeologist [25:3 (1962)], 70). He took the further step to claim that it would be “naïve” to assume that all twelve tribes of Israel were lineal descendants of “immigrants from Northeast Syria” thereby stating there was no basis for any unity of the twelve tribes before Moses (ibid., 85-86). This line of argument, based on a rarity at best (geography as the primary unifying genealogical pillar), applied to a group of people we know little about and reapplied to the tribes of Israel, is full of assumptions and presents virtually no evidence in either direction.

36

CHAPTER TWO

establish membership in religious societies (priesthoods,43 etc.) and occupancy of continued religious offices. The religious/cultic function also comes into play when the text is addressed to a deity, or when the purpose has in some manner a religious or ceremonial end. Evident in the ANE literature are genealogies that express important connections in the ancestor cults, especially those aimed at the deceased ancestors.44 Divine kingship, the royal cult of connecting the living king to the first ruling deity, fits in the religious/cultic function. The effects of function on an established genealogy are such that the structure of the lineage(s) may fluctuate to adjust to the way the lineage functions in different situations so as to properly express the genealogy.45 Indeed, the function of a list typically explains the fluidity of the list. In the case of the two primary forms of Jacob’s sons, one should ask whether the function determines the presentation (names issued and sequence)? If so, demanding that some political situation is behind the presentation would be an incorrect conclusion. Before answering this question, we should look to a few examples of how genealogies are presented and used in Mesopotamia and Egypt, particularly with the effects of function on fluidity in mind. In addition, several cases from the Hebrew Bible will be observed.

E. EXAMPLES OF GENEALOGIES IN ANE, EGYPT, SYRO-PALESTINE, THE HEBREW BIBLE

AND

It is not the intention of this work in its presentation of how genealogies were employed in the world of the Hebrew Bible to be exhaustive or even to take a detailed approach to the presented texts. This has been accomplished by those who have published the referenced texts, and by R. Wilson, M. Johnson and K. Sparks (among others), who have investigated the roles and functions of genealogies. Rather, we shall pay particular attention to how function works in the presentation and how it affects the fluidity of the presented genealogy. In addition, we shall note on how the genealogies are employed in the texts, particularly to determine whether genealogies pre-date the narratives or are invented to support the narrative. 43 44 45

See R. Wilson’s examples in GenealogyandHistory, 119. ibid., 44-55, 132. ibid., 27.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

37

1. Examples in Modern Arab Oral Genealogies The genealogies in the HB carry a generally domestic function in that they are apparent indicators of family ties. Since domestic genealogies are rather scarce in the extant ANE literature, scholars have sought examples in modern Arab tribal genealogies as potential surrogates.46 This use of modern tribal examples has its acknowledged pitfalls. Nevertheless, our understanding of the use of genealogies has been aided by their examples. Most Arab tribal groups display some tendency to maintain their genealogy in either oral or written form. Telescoping is evident in some groups in their apparent disconnect to the oldest ancestors, for even tribes with “superb memories” seldom recite lineages beyond ten to fourteen generations.47 However, the modern Arab only need trace his own genealogy back to a point where he can then connect it to one of the written genealogies, which will in turn allow him to continue his lineage to the original ancestor. He is not free to invent a genealogy or make capricious changes to the existing genealogy.48 Only rarely will the elders invent a genealogical connection and this only when a specific and dire situation requires such action.49 In special cases, elders will establish a genealogy on the basis of contemporary social relations under the presumption that existing relationships are the result of historical kinship links that are then expressed in the lineage genealogies.50 On rare occasions, the accepted genealogy is successfully challenged with the result that an alternative appears.51 K. Sparks references the modern Arab Tiv tribe who continue the oral recitation of the tribal genealogy.52 The genealogies function to explain relationships within and without the tribe, to define who can marry, who can help bewitch and who can protect from witchcraft. He observes that the genealogies are stable but allow some fluidity to explain special situations, to allow for and reinforce some change in the society that has already taken place, or on occasion, to invent familial connections to avoid a specific conflict in the society. 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

One of the first published studies is W. Robertson Smith’s 1885 publication of Kinship&MarriageinEarlyArabia (New Edition. ed. Stanley A. Cook. The Netherlands: Oosterhout N. B., 1966). See discussion and examples by R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 21. ibid., 22. ibid., 28. ibid., 28. ibid., 40. EthnicityandIdentityinAncientIsrael:ProlegomenatotheStudyofEthnicSentimentsand TheirExpressionsintheHebrewBible (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 20.

38

CHAPTER TWO

2. Examples in Ancient Mesopotamian Written Genealogies R. Wilson surveys two types of attested Sumerian and Akkadian genealogies: royal inscriptions and a few other types from the ruling class, and non-royal, consisting primarily of the scribal families from the Kassite period forward.53 A few general characteristics can be named. In the written genealogies surveyed, the longer examples exhibit telescoping but virtually no other fluidity.54 In the royal inscriptions, short genealogies of one or two generations are typical. Longer royal genealogies stretching to three or more generations for an individual (mostly appearing for the Assyrian kings of the 14th Century BCE) are more frequent during periods of political instability or are used by certain kings to legitimate their expansion into other realms and to convince the rulers of those realms to accept their suzerainty.55 Importantly, the king lists56 demonstrate a scribal system that began with the SumerianKingList57 and varied little in the subsequent king lists.58 Minor fluctuations in name placement and spellings are found, along with major changes in which city and/or king took the final stage.59 However, the structure of the lists is the same. Even the (relatively) late AKL-A follows the identical scribal system despite the fact that it works in reverse (last to beginning).60

53 54 55

56

57

58

59

60

GenealogyandHistory, 57. ibid., 65. ibid., 64, 70. R. Wilson points out that kings who use genealogies as tools against their conquerors are all Middle Assyrian: Ashur-uballit I (1365-1330), Adad-Nirari III (12031198) and Tiglath-Pelizer I (1114-1076). Dates from A. Kuhrt A. Kuhrt in TheAncient NearEast (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), Vol. II, 351. The Mesopotamian king lists do not fit in R. Wilson’s strict definition of a “genealogy”. They do, however, contain “genealogical fragments” that record lines of ancestors (GenealogyandHistory, 72). The Sumerian King List (SKL) is a product of c. late 19th Century BCE but purports traditions reaching to the beginning of time (A. Kuhrt, TheAncientNearEast, Vol. I, 29). E.g., TheAssyrianKingList (AKL), TheBabylonianKingList (BKL), Genealogyof theHammurapiDynasty (GHD), RulersofLagash (RL), etc. The issue of ruling city and/or king is the only major change in the various king lists. SKL establishes the set form by declaring how kingship was lowered from heaven, moved from one city to another over the course of time, finally landing in Isin, where it belonged. RL seems to defy the preeminence of Isin, insisting that kingship belonged to Lagash, since it (intentionally?) omits Isin. These two examples follow the identical format; only the relevant names are different (R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 80-85). ibid., 72-114. Even in certain details the scribes were in agreement. The number and order of the ante-diluvian cities is nearly identical, with only a few deviations. On the other hand, the ante-diluvium kings were less fixed (ibid., 80).

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

39

As an example of function determining the form and content of a genealogy, one might compare the GHD61 with the AKL-A.62 GHD duplicates the material found in the AKL-A (and AKL-B, as well) but with some critical differences. Of consequence to this discussion are the palus in Lines 29-32, additions in GHD that are not present in AKL (A or B). These palus list additional tribal groups (Amorites, Haneans and Gutium). An additional phrase states: “the palu not recorded on this tablet”. While these additional peoples, represented by the palus, do indicate a different genealogy than evident in AKL, the function of the text leads to a conclusion that a different genealogy was not intended nor was the given genealogy altered to fit a different time frame or political reality. The explanation is found in the different functions of the two texts. The AKL is designed to strictly record the unbroken succession of kings. Its only concern in reciting genealogies is the names of those kings, nothing else. On the other hand, GHD is a ritual text and its function is to invoke the favor of the king’s deceased ancestors (the palus), which, by necessity, must include those from the very beginning of time. In such a situation, it is deemed absolutely critical to avoid antagonizing any ghost (of an ancestor) by failing to mention its name or the names of its dynasty. Therefore, all possible ancestors of groups ruled by the Hammurapi Dynasty must be included lest disaster befall the kingdom. Thus, the additional names and the allinclusive line “not recorded on this tablet” just for safe measure. The additions to GHD do not represent a different genealogy, a different political reality, or a different source or time of writing. Instead, the function of the GHD demanded additional names to protect the kingdom from possible harm.63 Another example provided by R. Wilson is a comparison of AKL with various royal inscriptions.64 AKL, iii lines 1-10, recites the descendants of Enlil-naִsir, listed in an unbroken succession, each the son of his 61

62

63

64

TheGenealogyoftheHammurapiDynasty. Published by J. Finkelstein “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” JCS (20 [1966): 95-118). A. Malamat makes comparisons between GHD, AKL and certain HB genealogies in “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS (88:1 [1968]: 163-173). The letter behind the abbreviations (such as AKL-A) refers to formal categories, not specific texts. See R. Wilson’s discussion in GenealogyandHistory, 113. K. Sparks also compares GHD with AKL-A stating that in the AKL tribal connections were long forgotten in the string of names (EthnicityandIdentity, 47). However, the tribal connections are not the concern of king lists. Rather, the unbroken string of succession, so no need to recite tribal connections. For royal inscriptions, see G. Barton in The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929).

40

CHAPTER TWO

predecessor. Yet, when compared to the nearly identical genealogies issued in the various royal inscriptions, a rather different picture emerges in that at least one “son” in AKL is a “brother” in the inscriptions, and some “sons” are assigned as offspring of a different ruling king. These differences represent the first type of fluidity described above: changes in kinship relations. The initial assumption is that either AKL or the royal inscriptions have rearranged the genealogical relationships or presented a warped genealogy. However, when the functions of both documents are taken into account, a different conclusion is reached. The forms of the genealogy are different because the functions are different. The AKL intends to trace the unbroken sequence of kings who ruled. The idiom of “son”, a critical and formulaic element of sequence, is required to present this unbroken sequence, thus the formal listing of the AKL.65 On the other hand, the royal inscriptions intend to legitimate the rulers who cite them. Therefore, the correct kinship relationships must be accurately cited. 3. Examples in Ancient Egyptian Written Genealogies Genealogies in Egypt are rather sparse. Lengthy examples do not appear until the 22nd Dynasty, and these predominately from the powerful priestly families66 in Thebes who shared ruling power over Egypt with the pharaoh, who acted from Tanis. This was a time of great political confusion.67 The intent is apparently politico-jural, to support claims of power, but may also be religious/cultic in that they are connected to the Egyptian mortuary cult. The absence of any significant genealogies prior to the 22nd Dynasty,68 along with the fact that they do not trace lineages before the 21st Dynasty,69 indicates that genealogies were not kept before the 1st Millennium BCE. Evidently, Egyptian priests at this point determined it was important to maintain the dogma that their genealogies stretched back into antiquity.70

65

66 67 68

69

70

For discussion, see R. Wilson in “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research” in IStudiedInscriptionsfrombeforetheFlood:AncientNearEastern,Literary,and Linguistic Approaches to Gen. 1-11 (eds. Richard Hess and David Tashio Tsumura. Winona Lake: Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 216. ibid., 216. A. Kuhrt in TheAncientNearEast, Vol. II, 623. The 22nd Dynasty is generally dated to 945-773 BCE following conventional dating (ibid., Vol. II, 624). The 21st Dynasty is generally dated to 1069-945 BCE following conventional dating (ibid., Vol. I, 205.). For further discussion, see R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 127-128.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

41

4. Examples of Hebrew Bible Genealogies A few Hebrew Bible examples of function affecting form can be observed. This discussion will not entail all possible examples. M. Johnson’s work on HB genealogies advanced the study of HB genealogies in two important ways. He began the task of detailed analysis of the literary structure of the genealogies. He also called attention to the diversity of genealogical functions within HB literature, in which multiple functions exist at the literary level.71 He summarizes a number of functions of HB genealogies, three of which are pertinent to our discussion. First, they demonstrate the existing relationships between Israel and neighboring peoples, both connections and distinctions.72 Second, they link together previously isolated narrative units via a coherent and inclusive genealogical system. The toledoth is the first clear attempt at this.73 Third, genealogies that link an individual with a pedigree to early ancestors generally do not seem to legitimate the person. Rather, they intend to show the relationship of the person to the tribe and to the nation as a whole, thereby establishing his status within the whole.74 Still a genealogy can act to legitimate a person, especially one with an important office by virtue of his/her position within the family/ clan.75 The Hebrew Bible contains two major blocks of genealogical material: 1) Genesis records the primeval history, the patriarchs and peoples related to the early family of Abraham. 2) 1 Chronicles 1-9 repeats much of the Genesis material and adds considerably more.76 Some of the additional information supplied by Chronicles can be attributed to the new generations added since the narratives in Genesis. However, the reason that newer generations are included is more than to simply fill in empty spaces in the family tree. In Chronicles, genealogies play the important function to connect the former Israel to the post-exilic Israel through the years of “national calamity”.77 This function explains the multiple types of sources used in 71 72

73 74 75

76 77

R. Wilson, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research”, 204. So also the earlier ancestors’ connections to Lot (Gn. 19:36-38); Nahor (Gn. 22:20-24), Keturah (Gn. 25:1-6), and Ishmael (Gn. 25:12-16). ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 77. ibid., 77-78. ibid., 79. e.g., Ezra in 7:1-6, so indicated by the narrative itself with the phrase “it was this Ezra who came up from Babylon. He was a scribe accomplished in the Torah of Moses…” (v. 6). Also Aaron and Moses in Ex. 6 (See Chapter Three of this work). R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 137. M. Johnson, ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 80. The specifics of this issue will be explored in Chapter Three.

42

CHAPTER TWO

Chronicles to connect the eras. Here we see on a larger scale over multiple chapters of how the function influences the presentation of the genealogies and lists expressed in 1 Chronicles. Other individual genealogies are found within the HB such as David’s connection to Ruth/Naomi (Ruth 4:18-22), Elkanah’s in 1 Sam. 1:1 (designed to introduce Samuel), and the many royal genealogies issued in the royal succession reports. Each functions to establish the identity of the individual to whom the genealogy leads or begins. They are included in the text as supplemental information, not simply because they existed and the writer felt compelled to include them. Nor are they invented by the author/redactor for the purpose of the narrative. The genealogies in Ezra-Nehemiah play a similar role, albeit to a level distinct to Ezra-Nehemiah. The genealogies in Ezra-Nehemiah intend to connect the main subject to ancestors, like other HB examples, but the genealogies additionally function to establish and preserve the homogeneity78 of the “true” Judahite, the “true” Israelite. Therefore, long lists of names leading to an identifiable, pre-exilic Israelite are presented.79 Here we see that the function of the text dictates how the genealogy is presented. We can observe how function alters the presentation of a genealogy in several examples in the HB. One such example is the genealogies presented in Gn. 46:8-25 and Ex. 1:1-5. Both name the sons of Jacob/Israel and both cite tallies of “those who came to Egypt”. Yet, a number of differences exist in names included, name placements, and descriptive kinship terms. Gn. 46 lists the “sons of Jacob” under the rubric “the sons of SN” (e.g., “The Sons of Reuben”, etc.). It organizes the genealogy according to mothers, listing each son/daughter under the mother. This organizational scheme is highlighted by the count for each mother in the sequence [Leah’s six – Zilpah’s two – Rachel’s two – Bilhah’s two],80 concluding with two tallies of the entire family: one without Joseph’s members (v. 26) and one including his (v. 27). Dinah, daughter of Jacob by Leah, is named as integral to the genealogy. This citation functions as a complete accounting of the family members who went into Egypt. Exodus 1:1 contains the identical names of Jacob’s twelve sons (cited directly rather than “the sons of SN”) but has two major differences: 78 79

80

ibid., 80. Ezra-Nehemiah is overt in its purpose, as noted in the individuals who cannot demonstrate an absolute connection to the prior era (cf. Ezra 2:62-63). Leah, v. 15; Zilpah, v. 18; Rachel, v. 22; Bilhah, v. 25.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

43

1) only the twelve sons are named: no wives, no grandsons, etc., and no Dinah. 2) The sequence of the twelve sons varies from Gn. 46 in that the sons follow the order of [Leah’s six – Benjamin only (Rachel’s) – Bilhah’s two – Zilpah’s two]. Joseph (Rachel’s) is last. In genealogical terminology, both factors represent fluidity in the genealogy. The question is whether the two passages represent two different genealogies or is the fluidity a result of their different functions? The answer is the latter: function. This is detected when looking at the two major differences: who is named in the genealogy and the sequence of the named individuals. Gn. 46 functions to account for the family who immigrated to Egypt by naming sons, grandsons, etc.: the entire group. The sequence of names is controlled by the necessity of providing sub-tallies for each mother, so expressly named. Zilpah and Bilhah, intentionally connected to their mistresses as gifts from Laban, are positioned after their mistresses. This forces the sequence of names cited to be [Leah – Zilpah – Rachel – Bilhah]. The two tallies of the entire family, one without Joseph and one including Joseph, serve to enumerate the complete family who traveled to Egypt, indicating that not one family member was left in Canaan. From a narrative perspective, Dinah has an important role in the narrative of Genesis (the Shechem event in Gn. 34, and Jacob’s forthcoming deathbed speech in Gn. 49) so she is included in the genealogy. More importantly from a genealogical perspective, she is a member of the family and must be included: she too went to Egypt. Ex. 1:1 plays an entirely different role in the narrative. Its function is to introduce the audience to the family members so that the story of the family’s escape from Egypt back to Canaan can commence. This role is indicated by the quick transition from introducing the “Sons of Israel” to the story at hand in v. 8. The names of the various members of the family are unnecessary, so omitted. Since the tallies by mothers are not a part of the function, the sequence reverts to the “standard” sequence first reported in Gn. 35:22b-26, with the exception of Joseph. Joseph, expressly stated, “was (already) in Egypt” (v. 5), so accounting for his change in sequence. Dinah, like the mothers and other subsequent generations, has no role in the Exodus story so she is omitted. Thus, the fluidity of these two genealogical presentations is determined by their respective functions, not by some alternate genealogy. Two features of both presentations show that a single genealogy has been transferred from another pre-existing source. One is the aforementioned tallies. The other is the ancestor’s name “Jacob” that appears in both genealogies. Although “Israel” is used in the surrounding narratives

44

CHAPTER TWO

(in both Genesis and Exodus) as the preferred name of the ancestor, “Jacob” is the name of the genealogy. In both situations, the narrator deemed it improper to change the ancestor’s name. A second example of fluidity affected by the function can be seen when comparing the two occurrences of the genealogical listing, “The Father of Gibeon”, one in 1 Ch. 8:29-40, the other in 1 Ch. 9:35-44. Several orthographic differences exist81, along with several name omissions and additions82. These amount to little significance. An addition in the first occurrence (8:29-40) is of consequence, specifically vv. 39-40, not present in Chapter 9. Here we note an additional lineage (the six sons of Esheq, the brother of the just-listed Azel in v. 38), along with a note referring to the military capability of Ulam, Esheq’s first-born, and a kinship connection to the ancestor Benjamin. The function of each citation explains the “fluidity” between these two. In the case of Chapter 8, the topic of the previous genealogies is the military prowess, sometimes expressed in terms of geographic possessions, of the named tribes. The additional lines and connection to the ancestor Benjamin match the presentation of the other tribes of this section.83 On the other hand, Chapter 9 has an entirely different function: to introduce the line of King Saul. His rule over Israel is the topic of 1 Ch. 10. The narrator deemed it critical to cite (again) the identical genealogy of Saul’s ancestry and descendants but unnecessary to repeat the military prowess of Benjamin’s tribe. A third example of function affecting fluidity comes with the fortunate case of a genealogy that appears three times. David’s sons “born to him in Jerusalem” are listed in 2 Sam. 5:14-16, 1 Ch. 3:13-16, and 1 Ch. 14:4-7. The thirteen names are the same, allowing for slight orthographical differences. They are arranged in the identical sequence. However, 1 Ch. 3 has a few additions to the text not found in Samuel or 1 Ch. 14. Compare the differences below (primary differences in italics): 1 Ch. 3:5-8 And these were those born to him in Jerusalem: Shima, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, four,ofBath-shuathedaughterof Ammiel. 81

82

83

Mostly name spellings (8 versus 9): ‫( זָ ֶכר‬v. 31) = ‫( זְ ַכ ְריָ ה‬v.37); ‫( ִשׁ ְמ ׇאה‬v. 32) = ‫ִשׁ ְמ ׇאם‬ (v. 38); ‫( ַתּ ְא ֵר ַע‬v. 35) = ‫( ַתּ ְח ֵר ַע‬v. 41); ‫הוֹע ָדָּה‬ ַ ְ‫( י‬v. 36) = ‫( יַ ְע ָדה‬v. 42; reading with multiple manuscripts over MT’s ‫)יַ ְע ָרה‬. 8:29-40 omits names found in 9:35-44: Ner (v. 36); Miqloth (v. 37). 8:35 has Ahaz, not listed in 9: 41. The military capabilities of the Transjordan tribes (Reuben, Gad, Half-Manasseh) are cited in 5:18-22; of Asher in 7:40; of Issachar in 7:11-12. The geographic holdings of Levi are in Chapter 6; Cisjordan Manasseh’s are cited in 7:28-29.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

45

And Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphelet, nine. All these were the sons of David, besides the sons of the concubines; and Tamar was their sister. 1 Ch. 14:4-7 And these are the names of the children whom he had in Jerusalem: Shammua and Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama and Beeliada and Eliphelet. 2 Sam. 5:14-16 And these are the names of those that were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet.

If we compare the contexts in which each is found, we can see that two different functions exist: one for 1 Ch. 3 and another for 2 Samuel and 1 Ch. 14. 1 Ch. 3 is in a passage that lists David’s sons according to their mother, both for those in Hebron (vv. 1-4) and in Jerusalem (vv. 5-6). Hence, its recitation is sure to connect some of the sons to a mother. This is a purely genealogical recitation to make domestic connections between mothers and sons. The Samuel passage, on the other hand, does not give the sons born in Hebron. Rather, the children born in Jerusalem follow a section that touts the successes of David: 1) chosen king of “all Israel” (vv. 1-5), 2) captures Jerusalem (vv. 6-9), 3) a statement that “David became greater and greater (v. 10), 4) capped with the king of Tyre building a house for David (v. 11). These successes of David are followed by what all great kings then do: 5) take more wives and concubines and have more children (v. 13). The writer of Samuel inserts the citation as a means to name some of his children born of his success. The 1 Ch. 14:4-7 passage functions in the identical manner as the Samuel passage except that the exploits of David are given in more detail compared to 2 Samuel (particularly, the bringing the Ark of The Covenant into Jerusalem). F. EVIDENCE OF WRITERS INVENTING GENEALOGIES FOR NARRATIVES Some evidence suggests that genealogies are invented as a tool to support a narrative. Behind Mesopotamian and probably HB traditions lies an apparent need to connect to an ancient ancestor. This is first noticeable in the OB Period where connections are made to Amorite forefathers for political and social purposes.84 Thus began a tendency to cite forefather 84

R. Wilson, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” 206-207.

46

CHAPTER TWO

traditions in the narratives that were preserved for rather long periods of time.85 The connection to the forefathers can be recognized in the HB patriarch stories that connect Abraham to the same Amorite groups86 of the ancient lands and even portray the patriarchs as living in tents87 much like the ancient kings of the Amorite groups. Abraham himself is the ancestor of three Semitic tribal confederacies (Ishmael, Esau, Jacob) and is an immediate relation to another old-area confederacy: Nahor.88 Some support may be found in contrasting the pre-Islamic Arab genealogies with the early classical (Islamic) ones. The former are seldom segmented and most reach to only four or five generations and none extend beyond twelve generations.89 This is in direct opposition to those of the Islamic period in which extensive and highly segmented genealogies determine to connect the contemporary person (whose genealogy is being cited) to the time of the Prophet Mohammed. A transition between the eras seems apparent in that the emphasis changed. Due to the disparate tribal nature of the pre-Islamic social structure, some layers early in the Islamic period are geographical groupings rather than political or domestic lineage configurations.90 This apparent need in the Islamic period to connect to the time of the Prophet, along with the gathering of lineages by any means (kinship, geographical, or political) in order to do so, may shed some light on the HB “creation” of genealogies. To this discussion, the issue of ethnicity might be added. Ethnicity is correlated to kinship in that it is a “phenomenon of genetic perception, a shared ancestry”.91 K. Sparks reviews a number of points to define “ethnicity”. Common ancestry is, of course, the most frequent developer of a group’s understanding of its ethnicity. However, additional factors can create a shared ethnicity including shared cultural traits such as language, religion, customs and a shared history.92 Basic group identity, especially in reference to “others”, which might be exclusive of kinship,93 also can lead to a 85 86 87 88 89

90 91 92

93

K. Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 217. R. Wilson “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research”, 206-207 K. Sparks in EthnicityandIdentity, 49. M. Johnson in ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 24-25. R. Wilson in “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ Interpreting Biblical Genealogies”, BA (42:1 [1979]), 18. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 130-131. K. Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 18. A modern example might be the “Arab” who on the larger level views itself (and is viewed) as a single ethnic group, despite being of rather diverse in origins, political views, nationalities and even ethnicities. K. Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 2-5.

GENEALOGIES AND TRIBAL LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

47

shared ethnicity, as can being from the same geographic area94 or the shared experience of oppressive social contacts.95 Yet, the question still remains whether this evidence actually points to genealogies in the ANE invented for the sake of a narrative. The extant ANE documents show otherwise. Whether the ancients favored a forefather tradition or not, the genealogies expressed in the examples had already been set before the writing commenced. In the various king lists, beginning with SKL, no evidence can be seen that the genealogies originated from some external source. Yet, at the same time the genealogies are set and unalterable. Even where gaps in the supplied genealogy exist, scribes did not feel compelled to invent information to “round out” the data.96 The Mesopotamian royal genealogies continue through thousands of years unchanged, except for the addition of new entries, or to advocate a different center of power. Yet even in these, the pre-existing names cannot be altered. Later kings do not fabricate a genealogy to legitimate their rules; they simply add their name to the list. In ANE examples, once a genealogy is set, it seems unconscionable to alter it. The Egyptian Mortuary examples described above also demonstrate that genealogies are inserted into existing historical narratives rather than the narrative being built around the genealogies or by connecting the genealogies97 in a string to create a narrative. The question transferred to the HB narratives and associated genealogies then becomes, are they narrative creations invented by the writers or pre-existing entities that are employed by the writers? From the various lists not associated with Jacob’s sons, we find no hint that writers invented names to fit the narrative. At least in some cases it is certain that preexisting lists are inserted into the narratives. The long genealogical blocks in Erza-Nehemiah are clearly transposed from some other source. The fact that nearly identical genealogical blocks appear in Ezra and Nehemiah, for different narrative functions,98 shows that the lists were in existence 94

95 96 97

98

For instance, the statement “I am Canadian” indicates the shared geographical residence and/or claim to the national identity but the filial kinships of “Canadians” are not shared. K. Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 17. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 82. ibid., 129. The method used by the high priests at Thebes is rather unique. Each erected for himself a wooden statue as a marker of his office. By the 5th Century BCE, 345 of these existed thereby allowing the current high priest to trace his lineage by literally walking down memory lane (ibid., 128). The narrative function in Ezra is to show who traveled to Jerusalem. The function in Nehemiah is to start Nehemiah’s registration of the people already in Jerusalem.

48

CHAPTER TWO

prior to the text’s creation, not as an invention of the author. The Chronicler utilizes all sorts of pre-existing lists: muster roles, genealogical records, land inheritance records, royal succession reports, etc. to bolster the narrative. Along with Mesopotamian and Egyptian voices, perhaps we should not too quickly discard (or embrace) the Jacob traditions as inventions of a creative narrator or as a witness to early Israel.99

G. CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER TWO ANE evidence shows that once a genealogy became established, the writers were not free to alter it. It could be added to, it could be rearranged, kinship terms could be adjusted for a correct presentation. However, the genealogy was not to be changed. Furthermore, absolutely no evidence exists that writers invented genealogies. In fact, the opposite is the case: writers employed existing genealogies even when they did not quite “fit” the narrative. In consideration of the HB genealogies listing Jacob’s sons, it is wise to consider the function of each list for it may explain the fluidity, rather than a political or social situation.100 Before any genealogical list is used to make a claim on the historical situation, anthropological evidence must be tallied to check whether the claim is real or conjectural.101 This approach should be taken when analyzing the listings of Jacob/Israel’s sons, particularly the major two groups of Levi/Joseph and Ephraim/Manasseh. As encouraged by R. Wilson, each individual genealogy must be assessed for form and fluidity before one can make claims about its historiographic value. Will taking into account function alter the outlook on the lists of Jacob’s sons? Chapter Three takes up this investigation.

99 100 101

K. Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 41. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 134. ibid., 222.

CHAPTER THREE

ANALYSIS OF THE GENEALOGICALLY DRIVEN LISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE A. INTRODUCTION This chapter will investigate the various lists in the HB where the sons of Jacob/Israel are cited. In most cases, the full count of twelve is evident. However, a few are abbreviated, including Ex. 6 (List 6) and 1 Ch. 9:2-34 (List 24). These “short” lists have some helpful information so we should not ignore them. The sequence of the lists analyzed will be according to their canonical appearance in the MT, beginning with Torah, proceeding to the Former and Latter Prophets, then concluding with the Writings (Ketuvim). Several other viable options are possible, such as grouping by style, leading son, type of narrative in which the list is located, etc. These other options may prove useful as secondary or synchronic analysis tools. However, it seems presumptuous to make these organizational determinations at the outset, before any study of the lists is performed. Afterward, any determinations as to why and how the lists are used in a specific narrative style or by certain writers in various periods of time, for instance, can be made. In so doing, any preconceptions regarding the listings, especially those of prior scholarship, can be avoided. In this way, the Biblical text will be the controlling factor throughout the process.1 The chosen approach, therefore, is not entirely synchronic, but results in closer to historical genealogical perspective. This study is not strictly form critical insofar as the various listings are in most cases not a “genealogy” according to a strictly form-critical definition. They are, however, formulaic lists that follow certain patterns, even when stretched over numerous chapters, as is the cases of Joshua and Chronicles, for instance. Each listing will be analyzed by looking at five criteria: context, function, listing; mother sequence, son sequence, observations. An explanation for each criterion is in order: 1

Robert R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 17.

50

CHAPTER THREE

Context: The overall narrative in which the listing is contained. This is critical if we wish to understand why the list is included and what role it might play. Function: Function explains the purpose of the list in this passage. What role does the list play and why is it put into this particular location? Listing: The sons will be listed in chart format for easier analysis. Three headings will be given: son, birth order, mother. In cases where designations such as “tribe” or “sons of…” is part of the presentation, such will be included in the chart. Other notations will occasionally be added. MotherSequence: The order in which the mothers appear as indicated by their sons. In some cases, this will be vitally important; other instances, inconsequential. SonSequence: The order in which the sons appear. As with the mothers, it will be critical in some cases, insignificant in others. Observations: A commentary on the particular details of the list including which sons are omitted (if any), sequences, technical terminology and/ or formulae that may impact our analysis, and any other details that should be highlighted. Critically important, the “Observations” will attempt to tie together the other criteria of the inquiry (context, function, etc.) into some sort of overall understanding. Each criterion when viewed together will illuminate the overall picture. Function is not entirely observable without noting the context, for example. Comparisons to other lists will be kept to a minimum in the initial analysis: synchronic analysis will occur afterward.

B. ANALYSIS

OF INDIVIDUAL

LISTS

1. Birth Reports (Gn. 29:31-30:34 and 35:16-18) Context: The birth of Jacob’s sons is set within the overall account of Jacob’s adventures away from Canaan.2 Eleven sons are born while in Paddan-Aram. The narratives before and after the eleven sons establish Jacob as a powerful man. Benjamin arrives much later on the trek homeward sometime after the family has left Bethel. The narratives preceding Benjamin’s birth are Jacob’s separation from Laban, meeting Esau and the messenger of God, the Dinah/Shechem event, the dispensing of foreign deities in his household, and several family notices. The narratives following Benjamin’s birth report are a synopsis list of the Sons of Jacob (see List 2), the death of his father Issac, and the toledoth of Esau. 2

Set in Isaac’s toledoth.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

51

Function: These chapters describe the birth of each son of Jacob: the first eleven in chapters 29-30, Benjamin in chapter 35. However, it is not the sons who are the protagonists but the two mothers, Leah and Rachel who are the focus of the birth reports. In fact, it is the depiction of the two mothers and what each seeks and who each relies upon for aid, that is the driving force of the narrative and the naming of the sons.3 Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Leah

1

Simeon

Leah

2

Levi

Leah

3

Judah

Leah

4

Dan

Bilhah

5

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Gad

Zilpah

7

Asher

Zilpah

8

Issachar

Leah

9

Zebulun

Leah

10

Joseph

Rachel

11

Benjamin

Rachel

12

MotherSequence: Leah-Bilhah-Zilpah-Leah-Rachel SonSequence: By birth order, as the narrative reports each son. Observations: The sons of Jacob play no role in these birth reports. It is their mothers who are the primary focus. This being the birth reports of each son, the mother sequence does not play a critical role in the listing, except for the fact that Leah has four sons before any other of the mothers has a single child. As the primary wife, this may be significant, especially 3

Leah’s desire is for her husband to love her, as is noted by the names she chooses for her first four sons (Tammi J. Schneider in MothersofPromise:WomenintheBook ofGenesis [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2008], 71-72). Furthermore, she is reliant upon the family (and Biblical) Deity for her aid (ibid., 77). Rachel, appositionally, has all the love she needs from Jacob. She wants babies to keep up with her sister (ibid., 82). She is not portrayed as relying or communicating with the Deity (ibid., 93).

52

CHAPTER THREE

in the light that she feels unloved by her husband and relies upon God for aid. It may also be significant that Rachel has no children from her own womb until the final two. 2. Twelve Sons of Jacob (Gn. 35:22b-26) Context: In a group of family matters in Ch. 35: just after Benjamin’s birth report (v. 18), including the report of a name given by mother (Ben‘oni) but changed by father (Ben-yamin), the death and burial of Rachel (vv. 19-20), the family’s move to another location (v. 21), the Reuben/ Bilhah scandal (v. 22a). The list is followed immediately by additional family matters: meeting with Father Isaac and his death (vv. 27-29). Ch. 36 contains the toledoth of Esau. Function: Serves to establish Jacob’s sons upon re-entry to the land. Listing: The list presents the sons by mothers as indicated in the chart. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Leah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Reuben

Leah

1

Simeon

Leah

2

Levi

Leah

3

Judah

Leah

4

Issachar

Leah

9

Zebulun

Leah

10

First-born of Jacob

Rachel ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Joseph

Rachel

11

Benjamin

Rachel

12

Dan

Bilhah

5

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Gad

Zilpah

7

Asher

Zilpah

8

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel’s ‫ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬

Zilpah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah’s ‫ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

53

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah SonSequence: According to mother, then birth order. Observations: This list specifically names the sons according to mothers by use of the phrase “the sons of MN:”4 Leah (v. 23), Rachel (v. 24), Bilhah, ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ַחת‬Rachel (v. 25) and Zilpah, ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ַחת‬Leah (v. 26). Primary and secondary wives first (Leah-Rachel), then the maids’ sons. Bilhah’s sons precede Zilpah. Possible reasons for Bilhah’s position before Zilpah could be that 1) her position changed after Rachel’s death.5 2) It may be simply that her sons were older, thereby presenting Bilhah/Zilpah sons in birth order. On the other hand, 3) it may be that Leah’s (Leah and her ‫)שׁ ְפ ׇחה‬ ִ enclose the group. The text itself makes no indications. In any case, this list sequences the mothers by rank: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah, understanding the difficulty of ranking Bilhah/Zilpah. G. Coats6 sees this list “totally isolated” in its context and that no apparent logic calls for a list of Jacob’s sons at this point, except to (possibly) reiterate Reuben’s first-born status after reporting his escapade with Bilhah (vv. 21-22a). On the contrary, this list fits in the story line perfectly. Consider the main narrative points, preceding and following: v. 1 v. 2 v. 5 v. 9

God instructs Jacob to move to Bethel Jacob instructs his household to put away foreign deities Arrives at Bethel and offers a sacrifice God appears to Jacob where he blesses him, changes his name, promises to multiply his family and gives him the land promised to fore-fathers Abraham and Isaac v. 16 Benjamin is born, Rachel dies and is buried v. 22 Notice that Reuben lies with Bilhah ======List of Israel’s Sons here====== v. 27 Jacob visits Father Isaac. Ch. 36 toledoth of Esau

This list functions as synopsis of Jacob’s family before Father Isaac dies. To reach that point, the narrative moves through important steps: Jacob reaffirms his commitment to God, who in turn recognizes Jacob’s recommitment 4 5

6

MN = “Mother’s Name” While Rachel was alive, she is called Rachel’s ‫( ִשׁ ְפ ׇחה‬Gn 29:29; 30:4, 7) and once ‫ׇא ׇמה‬ by Rachel herself (Gn. 30:3). On one occasion after Rachel’s death she is called Jacob’s ‫( ִפּ ֶילגֶ שׁ‬Gn. 35:22). However, the next list, just verses away (35:22, 25), calls Bilhah, ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ַחת‬Rachel. Is this list utilizing a formalized naming pattern? On the other hand, Gn. 37:2 calls both Bilhah and Zilpah “wives” of Jacob. We have no further references to Bilhah in which a title is assigned. Thus, it would be difficult to claim that Bilhah outranked Zilpah in the family hierarchical structure. Genesis,243.

54

CHAPTER THREE

by blessing him, changing his name, and reiterating the promises made to his ancestors. The final step needed to complete the family’s security before Isaac’s death was the birth of Benjamin. Now, the “sons of Israel” can be reported. The family is set for the next stage: Jacob’s toledoth (37:2). 3. The Names of the Sons of Israel who went to Egypt (Gn. 46:8-25) Context: This list is set in the story of Jacob reuniting with his beloved son Joseph, itself in the larger narrative of the family moving to Egypt. Function: Enumerate the family members who moved to Egypt. Listing: The sons are organized by mother (see discussion below) and are so separated in the chart. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Leah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Levi ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

3

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Dinah

Leah

First-born of Jacob

his daughter Zilpah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

given to Leah

Rachel ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Naphtal ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

given to Rachel

MotherSequence: Leah-Zilpah-Rachel-Bilhah SonSequence: Birth order under mother. Observations: Only “Reuben, his first born” (v. 8) is directly named among the sons of Jacob. Following Reuben, the list cites the grandsons

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

55

of Jacob via the statement “the sons of PN7 are”, with PN being one of the sons of Jacob. Thus, we have a list that names the grandsons of Jacob (and in the case of Judah, the great-grandsons) organized by his sons and the (grand)mothers. The organizational system is by mother as is indicated by the summary statements following each group: “these are the sons of Leah…thirtythree” (v. 15), “these are the sons of Zilpah…sixteen” (v. 18); the twiceoccurring “sons of Rachel”8 (v. 19) and “these are the sons of Rachel… fourteen” (v. 22), “these are the sons of Bilhah…seven” (v. 25) and, finally, two full counts of “all the persons going to Egypt…sixty-six” and, after naming (again) the sons born to Joseph in Egypt, a revised count of “seventy” (v. 27). Furthermore, this list is clear as to why Zilpah follows Leah and Bilhah follows Rachel. The reason is stated in the summary of each woman: for Zilpah it is “…Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, she bore these to Jacob” (v. 18). For Bilhah, the identical format “…Bilhah whom Laban gave to Rachel his daughter, she bore these to Jacob” (v. 25). The connection of each ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ׇחה‬is directly to her mistress. The re-organiztion of Zilpah and Bilhah under their respective mistresses does not alter the given genealogy in any way.9 This listing picks up where the story in Gn. 34 left off. It is not only Joseph who goes to Egypt but the entire family.10 Dinah, daughter of Jacob, is included in the genealogy as an integral part of the family, not just so that the number count is accurate.11 The surrounding narrative uses the name “Israel” for the ancestor, including in the header: “These are the names of the sons of Israel”. Quite differently, “Jacob” is the only name appearing in the actual list. This is true regardless of whether the subjects are children, grandchildren, wives or mothers. This, in part, leads to the notion that this list is an older family genealogy repurposed for this narrative. The list itself appears to be a fixed genealogical record employed by the narrator. The details of the genealogy must not be altered (in this case, the name “Jacob”) even though it has been used in a narrative where the name “Israel” is preferred. The list acts as a bridge12 between the patriarchs in Canaan to the family in Egypt. It gives formal expression to the process that brought Jacob and his family to Egypt.13 The list impresses on the reader that the Jacob’s family is organized and counted. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

PN = “Personal Name”. v. 19 does not state “these are the sons of Rachel”, merely “the sons of Rachel”. Robert Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 189. George W. Coats Genesis,298. ibid., 298. ibid., 298. ibid., 298.

56

CHAPTER THREE

4. Jacob’s Blessing (Gn. 49) Context: Set within the final days of Jacob/Israel, Gn. 47:27-31 relates the family’s prosperity in Egypt and the oath taken by Joseph to return his father’s bones to the family burial cave. Ch. 48 relates the details of the Jacob-Joseph encounter, the blessing bestowed upon Ephraim and Manasseh, each grandson receiving a full portion of the inheritance thereby marking Joseph as receiving the first-born’s double portion. In this chapter (49), Jacob/Israel speaks to each of his sons. The chapter concludes with Jacob demanding to be returned to the family burial cave and, finally, his death. The following chapter (50) relates Joseph’s sadness and his fulfilled oath to return Jacob to the family burial cave. Function: Relate Jacob/Israel’s final words to his sons.14 Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Leah

1

Simeon

Leah

2

Levi

Leah

3

Judah

Leah

4

Zebulun

Leah

10

Issachar

Leah

9

Dan

Bilhah

5

Gad

Zilpah

7

Asher

Zilpah

8

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Joseph

Rachel

11

Benjamin

Rachel

12

My first-born

MotherSequence: Leah-Bilhah-Zilpah-Bilhah-Rachel. This list sandwiches Zilpah’s sons between Bilhah’s. Son Sequence: Leah’s natural sons are named first according to birth order, except Zebulun and Issachar are in reverse birth order. Dan (#5) follows, then Gad and Asher, all in birth order. Rachel’s natural sons, also in birth order, conclude the list. 14

ibid., 311.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

57

Observations: The Leah and Rachel groups, both consistent with the earlier presentations in their arrangements,15 open and conclude the sayings, with the Bilhah/Zilpah sons in between. This is the only listing that places Rachel’s at the end.16 Except for Zebulun-Issachar, all sons are listed in birth order under mother, including Bilhah’s sons despite being separated by Zilpah’s sons. The Zebulun – Issachar sequence is in three places: here, Moses’ Blessing (Dt. 33, List 16), in the land allotment listings of Moses’ pre-conquest “Register of Tribal Leaders for Land Allotment” (Nm. 34, List 14) and the land divisions in Josh. 19 (List 17). The Bilhah son sequence (Dan/Naphtali) is broken, so accomplished by placing Zilpah’s between them. Massoretic divisions mark sayings: petuchah after Reuben, setumah after Simeon/Levi, Judah, Zebulon, Issachar, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, and Joseph. Simeon and Levi are combined into a single saying as “brothers”.17 Dan (rather lengthy) and Gad have separate sayings but are not demarked by setumah. The eleven18 sayings to each tribe vary in content (nature of the “blessing”) and address (direct or indirect).19 Some receive a good word (Judah,20 Joseph, Asher21), some a bad (Simeon/Levi, Issachar, Naphtali22), some good and bad (Reuben, Dan, Gad), Benjamin could be interpreted either way. Zebulun’s describes his dwelling area23 with no positive/negative assessment.24 15 16

17

18

19 20

21

22

23 24

ibid., 308. The “Extended Genealogical Listing of Israel’s Sons” in 1 Ch. (List, 23, upcoming), places Benjamin, a Rachel son, as its final entry. However, this is the second entry for Benjamin in Chronicles. Other reasons for placing Benjamin last may be identifiable. S. Gevirtz re-vocalizes to reach “eagle-owls” (“Simeon and Levi in ‘The Blessing of Jacob’ (Gen. 49:5-7),” HUCA 52 [1981]), 97. Simeon and Levi are one. G. Goats sees “eleven” as problematic in the historical-critical search for the source of the “original” tribal sayings of the different tribes that were combined to create Jacob’s final address (Genesis, 308). This is only problematic if one holds tightly to the (unsubstantuated) theory that these were once independent sayings and that we need to locate the sources of the “original” sayings in the proto-history of Israel. George W. Coats, Genesis,309-310. E. Good makes an interesting case for interpreting Judah’s statement as irony and therefore a “bad” report (“The ‘Blessing’ On Judah,” JBL 82 [1963]), 427-432. M. Mowinkel carries the traditional view that Judah is elevated above his brothers (“‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leahstämme’”, 139). Another common argument is to date Judah’s statement as a late addition to the sayings thereby leaving Joseph as “unequivocally blessed” (Robert Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 195, n. 126). But see S. Gevirtz who interprets it as a poor assessment (“Asher in the Blessing of Jacob [Genesis XLIX 20],” VT 37:2 [1987]), 161. If S. Gevirtz interpretation is accepted (“Naphtali in ‘The Blessing of Jacob’,” JBL 103/4 [1984]) 520. George W. Coats, Genesis, 309-310. The Issachar statement has topographical references (resting place, pleasant land) but not territorial.

58

CHAPTER THREE

Reuben, Judah, and Joseph are addressed directly (second person). The others are addressed in the third person. The conclusion in v. 28 states “all these are the tribes (‫ )שׁבט‬of Israel, twelve”, the narrator’s identification that the sons named in the blessing are the twelve tribes of Israel. Two other points of note: first, the name “Israel” is found elsewhere in Gn. 49 in parallel with Jacob in v. 2 and in reference to Joseph (v 24). Both these refer to the ancestor Jacob. Different is the parallel use of “Jacob” and “Israel” in the Simeon/Levi statement (v. 7). Both are preceded by the preposition (i.e., ‫)בּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל בּיַ ֲעקֹב‬ ְ as if “Israel” is a place rather than a person. Dan’s statement employs the “Tribes of Israel” (v. 16). Second, in all cases, ‫ שׁבט‬is found to the exclusion of ‫מטה‬. 5. The Names of the Sons of Israel Who Came into Egypt (Ex. 1:1-5) Context: The opening words of Exodus describe the man Israel and his sons who had come to Egypt. Function: To introduce the sons of Israel/Jacob who “came to Egypt” so as to begin the story of departing Egypt. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Leah

1

Simeon

Leah

2

Levi

Leah

3

Judah

Leah

4

Issachar

Leah

9

Zebulun

Leah

10

Benjamin

Rachel

12

Dan

Bilhah

5

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Gad

Zilpah

7

Asher

Zilpah

8

Joseph

Rachel

11

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah – Rachel25 25

But see “observations” below.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

59

SonSequence: Birth order within mother. Observations: Joseph is intentionally not in this list proper as is stated in v. 1 “these are the sons … who came to Egypt”, followed by the explanation that “Joseph was in Egypt” (v. 5). One might expect this list to be identical to Gen. 46:8-25, “The names of the sons of Israel who went up to Egypt” (List 3), and it nearly is. There are two differences: the placement of Joseph, and ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬does not precede each name. These two differences are related to the varying functions of the two reports. The Genesis listing has a fuller genealogical account of Jacob’s family including names (sons, daughter and grandsons) and number counts for each mother and the total counts of the entire family, one without Joseph’s sons and the final with Joseph’s sons. Exodus includes the final count (v. 5) but its focus is not on the mothers or the specific details of their children. Rather, Israel’s immediate sons alone are named in order to connect the Genesis family with the Exodus family as an introduction to the story of the family escaping Egypt. The mother sequence is somewhat different than Gn. 46 (List 4) in that the “wives” are listed first (Leah – Rachel), then Bilhah and Zilpah. Gn. 46:8-25 (List 3) clarifies its mother sequence as intentional in that Zilpah and Bilhah are each directly connected to her mistress. This list omits much of the additional information (grandchildren, wives, number counts for each mother) and cites only the sons. Still, the sons are kept in birth order sequence within the mothers, thereby retaining the family genealogy. 6. Heads of their Fathers’ Household (Ex. 6:14-27) Context: Following the call of Moses from the wilderness, the previous narrative turns to God’s instruction to Moses that he demand from Pharaoh to “Let my people go.”. Before Moses approaches his own people and Pharaoh, the narrative lists the “heads of the house of their fathers” by name. “Their fathers” (v. 14) refers to the “Sons of Israel” (v. 13). Upon conclusion of the genealogy, the narrator repeats that it was Moses and Aaron who went to Pharaoh, at YHWH’s command (v. 26), to demand their release (v. 27). Ex. 6:28 and Ch. 7 recount YHWH’s conversation with Moses to speak with Pharaoh a third time. Function: To cite the qualifications of Aaron and Moses as legitimate leaders.

60

CHAPTER THREE

Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Levi ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

3

First-born of Israel

MotherSequence: Leah (alone) SonSequence: Only Leah’s first three are cited. Observations: The clans (‫)מ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ִ of three tribes are named: Reuben (v. 14), Simeon (v. 15) and Levi (v. 19). The genealogy moves deeper in Levi’s line, naming his descendants along with their ‫תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬.26 Levi’s genealogy cites additional information. In addition to the ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬listings, Levi’s sons receive their ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬here in Exodus 6:16, the first such designations since Jacob.27 With the ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬comes additional information, just as it did for those to whom a ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬is issued in Genesis. Notable is that Levi’s genealogy extends to include the mothers of all members from Amram forward leading to Aaron and include his sons’ wives (or stated differently, the mothers28 of his off-spring) extended to Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, a total of five generations from Levi. The wives of Levi and his sons are not cited. (In fact, these four mothers are not mentioned anywhere in the HB.) This is the first time since Genesis that either ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬and/or ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬29 have arisen. Furthermore, they are linked to genealogies here in Exodus, as they were in Genesis. Significantly, this ‫תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬ designation here in Exodus is directly connected to Nm. 1:20-27 (List 8) where Jacob’s other sons receive their ‫תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬. This should be viewed as a linguistic connector between Genesis, Exodus and Numbers. Three different word phrases are utilized in Ex. 6:14-27 in reference to Levi and his descendents. The introduction (v. 19) names Levi’s sons using the phrase ‫י־לוִ י‬ ֵ ֵ‫“ ְבּנ‬these are the sons of Levi”. After naming the grandsons, the phrase “these are the mispahot of the Levi” (‫)מ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת ַה ֵלּוִ י‬ ִ 26 27

28

29

See Ex. 6:17, 19, 24, 25. Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8) likewise cites the ‫ תּ ְֹלדוֹת‬and‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬of the “sons of Reuben”, the “sons of Simeon”, etc. rather than Jacob’s sons themselves. T. Finlay points out that, in adding the three birth reports of the direct ancestresses of Phinehas in Ex. 6, the writer saw great importance in providing as much information as possible about his lineage (TheBirthReportGenreintheHebrewBible [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005]), 100. The full spelling is ‫תּ ְֹלדוֹת‬. I use the defective spelling since most passages referred here do so.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

61

appears (v. 19). The conclusion to the list (v. 25b), five generations from Levi, uses the phrase ‫אשׁי ֲאבוֹת ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם‬ ֵ ‫“ ָר‬these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites”.30 Each phrase is preceded by the demonstrative ‫ֵא ֶלּה‬ (“these”) suggesting that these are technical genealogical terms referring to particular generational groups. This genealogy leads to 1) Phinehas, who receives the most detailed information; and 2) the Sons of Korah, the important cult worship leaders. The question arises, why this genealogy extends to Phinehas? If Moses and Aaron are the intended target, as indicated in the passage, would it not be sufficient to stop the genealogy with them? Does the inclusion of Phinehas bring more legitimacy to Moses/Aaron? Is this the extent of the genealogy known to the writer? Since Phinehas is the last high priest mentioned in Torah, and is the one who enters Canaan, does the narrator deem it sufficient (or necessary?) to conclude with him? The function of this genealogy in its context is to cite the qualifications of Aaron and Moses for the task to which they are about to begin: to lead Israel out of Egypt.31 It is this function that explains why the list ends with Levi: to cite the qualifications of Aaron and Moses. This is an example of “structural amnesia” (discussed in Chapter 2) for only a portion of the genealogy needs to be cited to meet the need of the function. This function connects the list with Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7) where the leaders from the other tribes are named. Interestingly, the author deemed it important to first cite Reuben and Simeon’s descendants (tribal leaders) before naming Levi’s. Is this the beginning of an older tribal genealogy called (perhaps) “Heads of their Fathers’ Households” utilized by the writer? This list is connected to two lists in Numbers. 1) Leadership choice: The chosen leader from each tribe: Moses and Aaron (Ex. 6) with the other tribal leaders to assist them (List 7; Nm. 1:5-16). 2) Descendant Listings: the ‫מ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬/‫ֹת‬ ִ ‫ תּ ְֹלד‬of the grandchildren and beyond (List 8; Nm. 1:20-54). 7. Military Registration of the Sons of Israel (Num. 1:5-16) Context: Numbers 1-4 organizes the group of refugees into a “sanctuary camp”.32 The opening verses of Chapter One are critical to understanding this list. At the beginning of the Book of Numbers, dated two years after 30 31 32

SamP uses ‫ ַה ֵלּוִ י‬here, matching v. 19, See v. 26-27. Won W. Lee in PunishmentandForgivenessinIsrael’sMigratoryCampaign (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 74.

62

CHAPTER THREE

coming out of Egypt. God directs Moses to appoint a leader from each tribe. This was to be accomplished via a census in which the able fighting men over twenty years old were numbered and arranged according to their families and the “houses of their fathers”. The results of this census follow in vv. 20ff (List 8). The narrative section ends with the declaration “these men who were designated by names” and “all the assembly gathered by the numbered families” (vv. 17-19). Function: Cite the name of the leader (‫ )רֹאשׁ‬from each tribe (‫)מּ ֶטּה‬ ַ who were to stand with Moses and Aaron. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Leah

1

Simeon

Leah

2

Judah

Leah

4

Issachar

Leah

9

Zebulun

Leah

10

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Benjamin

Rachel

12

Dan

Bilhah

5

Asher

Zilpah

8

Gad

Zilpah

7

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Ephraim Manasseh

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilphah – Bilhah Son Sequence: For Leah, Rachel and Bilhah, sons are given in birth order. Zilpah’s are given in reverse birth order (younger – older). Observations: Levi is absent. This should be expected for two reasons: function and narrative. First, and the only required reason from a literary standpoint, the function of the list is to name the leader appointed to each tribe. For Levi, this was accomplished in Ex. 6:16-25 where Moses and Aaron were named as the tribal leaders.33 The list specifically states these chosen men are to “stand” with Moses and Aaron (v. 5). Second, but less 33

Levi is the only tribe with two leaders, perhaps due to Moses’ reluctance to lead without his brother’s assistance (Ex. 3:10ff).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

63

critical to function, the narrative later states that a command had been issued not to count the Tribe of Levi,34 at least at this time.35 Joseph is named (v.10; actually “sons of Joseph”) and his two sons are issued separate leaders for each. This is the first time that Ephraim and Manasseh are in a genealogical list. It is the first time that either is given any sort of place within the family structure. Hence, it is by no mistake that Joseph is cited first, then his sons: these two belong to him. This first genealogy with Ephraim and Manasseh acts as the introductory bridge to subsequent lists, which omit Joseph, naming only his sons. Why are separated leaders given to each “half” of Joseph? Simply due to the physical reality that two separate tribes existed and each must be assigned a leader. This precedent is set by Jacob in Gn. 48, although “Joseph” remains the son listed in the family genealogy. This is the first indication we have that “twelve” is not the guiding reason for the two separate lists of Levi/Joseph versus Ephraim/Manasseh. Rather, the guiding principle is to account for the physical existence of each group and place each group in its correct position. Levi has already been given his place around/within the now-completed tabernacle as a “protective cordon”.36 Joseph is not a single physical entity but two: Ephraim and Manasseh. This list works directly from the family genealogy to name the military leader37 from each of the tribes who is responsible to Moses/Aaron. Because of the function – naming leaders – the list must extend past the twelve sons to include Ephraim and Manasseh due to the physical requirement of assigning a leader from each group. As such, this list combines the genealogy function with the practical, physical existence function. Important genealogical terms that connect this list to the family include ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬and ‫בּית ׇאבוֹת‬. ֵ These words also connect this passage with Ex. 6:1625, where, in fact, this genealogical listing began, albeit with an odd order governed by the narrative function. 34 35

36

37

vv. 47-53. I say “less critical” because two separate commands to count the Tribe of Levi are found in Chps. 3 and 4. Notably, these instances lack any references to military language (“army”, “division”), clearly intended in the Nm. 1 registration. Jacob Milgrom in StudiosinLeviticalTerminology,I:TheEncroacherandtheLevitethe Term‘Aboda (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1970), 9. George E. Mendenhall identifies that the leader of each group is responsible to lead and supply troops for battle from his specific family/tribe/group. The individual had social and political authority, the supply of fighting men was an ancillary responsibility typically assigned by a higher authority, a person such as Moses (“The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” JBL 77:1 [1958]), 52-66.

64

CHAPTER THREE

8. Israel’s Army Register and Tribal toledoth (Nm. 1:20-54) Context: This list in Nm. 1:20-54 immediately follows the previous genealogically driven list (List 7) declaring the results of the census according to the tribal families. Chapter 2 uses this listing to assign campsite locations to each named tribe. Chapter Three and Four specify the Levitical census, assignments and duties. Function: Cite the number of fighting men and the ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬from each tribe. Listing: The tribal designation (‫)בּנֵ י‬ ְ is the first title given. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

First-born of Israel

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Manasseh ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

MotherSequence: Leah – Zilpah – Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah – Bilhah SonSequence: This is a new sequence in the HB in that Gad (a Zilpah son) interrupts the six Leah son sequence. Other than Gad moving from eleventh to third position, it follows precisely the genealogy in the prior narrative (vv. 5-16; List 7). Observations: The intent is to assign a location for each tribe to encamp around the tabernacle. That precise location of each tribe’s camp will come in Chapter 2 (List 9). This list and narrative (vv. 50-53) gives the reason for the list, reviews the results of the census of fighting-age men, and instructions for the tribe of Levi regarding this census. The list is organized according to each son of “Israel”, whose descendants are then organized according to “their ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬belonging to their ‫ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

65

belonging to their “‫ ָאבֹת‬38 ‫”בּית‬ ֵ as numbered by the names of their ‫גֻּ ְלגְּ ֹלת‬. The format follows the instructions issued in v. 2. It appears to be an official record utilizing a set of near-identical formulae. The formula is set for Reuben but varies slightly for the first three entries (ReubenSimeon-Gad), after which it does not deviate. MT uses petuchah to divide between each tribe’s report. A petuchah also separates the first report (Reuben’s) from the preceding narrative and another demarks the last report (Naphtali’s) from the following narratives. The formulae are: Reuben: [male] ‫ֹלתם‬ ‫תּוֹלד ׇֹתם ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם ְל ֵבית ֲאב ׇֹתם ְבּ ִמ ְס ַפּר ֵשׁמוֹת ְלגֻ ְלגְּ ׇ‬ ְ 39REUBEN‫ְבּנֵ י־‬ 41 [count] REUBEN ‫יהם ְל ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֶ ‫ְפּ ֻק ֵד‬

40

Simeon: adds ‫ ְפּ ֻק ָדיו‬between “‫”אב ָֺתם‬ ֲ and “‫”בּ ִמ ְס ַפּר‬ ְ [male] ‫ֹלתם‬ ‫תּוֹלד ׇֹתם ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם ְל ֵבית ֲאב ׇֹתם ְ]פּ ֻק ָדיו[ ְבּ ִמ ְס ַפּר ֵשׁמוֹת ְלגֻ ְלגְ ׇ‬ ְ SIMEON‫ְבּנֵי־‬ [count] SIMEON ‫יהם ְל ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֶ ‫ְפּ ֻק ֵד‬

Gad and the rest: omit “‫ֹלתם‬ ‫”לגֻ ְלגְּ ׇ‬ ְ [male] {‫ֹלתם‬ ‫}לגֻ ְלגְּ ׇ‬ ְ ‫תּוֹלד ׇֹתם ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם ְל ֵבית ֲאב ׇֹתם ְבּ ִמ ְס ַפּר ֵשׁמוֹת‬ ְ SN‫ְבּנֵ י־‬ [count] SN ‫יהם ְל ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֶ ‫ְפּ ֻק ֵד‬

Levi is absent from this list but can be explained entirely due to the dual function of this list: 1) to record the number of fighting men from each tribe and 2) to announce the ‫ תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬of each tribe. Regarding the first, the narrative specifically explains that the tribe of Levi was not to be counted (vv. 47-53), at least for this purpose.42 In the case of the ‫תּ ְֹלד ֹת‬, Levi’s was issued in Ex. 6:14-2343 it need not be repeated. Joseph is named as son but the narrative specifies his two sons (grandsons of Jacob) individually under his heading so indicated by the double entry “sons of Joseph, sons of Ephraim” (v. 32) followed by “sons of Manasseh” (v. 34). Note the MT inserts petuchah between Ephraim and Manasseh (between v. 33 and 34). In total, this does not make a thirteen-tribe list but remains at eleven, omitting Levi. Importantly, the explicit naming of Joseph and his sons functions as a bridge between 38 39 40 41 42

43

‫ תבֹאָ‬spelled defective here versus the full spelling in the previous list in 1:5-16. Reuben’s adds “Israel’s first born” between “Reuben” and “‫”תּוֹלד ׇֹתם‬. ְ Shortened for space. Full is “each male twenty years and older who goes to war” Numerical count of the tribe’s fighting men. Two separate registers of the Tribe of Levi will come in chapters 3 and 4, Both clearly avoid the military component. The Ex. 6 toledoth belongs to Levi and must be separated from the toledoth belonging to Aaron and Moses located in Nm. 3.

66

CHAPTER THREE

the genealogically driven lists and the practical function lists to follow. Hereafter, the functional lists assume this bridge and do not always make the deliberate connection of Joseph and his sons.44 This list introduces what will soon become the standard camp arrangement. It is significant, and typically overlooked, that it follows the standard family genealogy by starting with the sequence Reuben-Simeon. Indeed, the Leah tribes are named first, then Rachel tribes, followed by Bilhah/ Zilpah tribes. Only Gad, a Zilpah tribe, interrupts the standard family genealogy. The group sequence (called “camp” later) will be identified in Ch. 2 (with the “Camp Judah” named first) but that adjustment is only made after the standard genealogy is issued first. The statement in v. 52, “the sons of Israel shall camp, each one by his own camp, and each man by his own standard, according to their armies”, prepares the reader for the “camps” and specific assignments later in Ch. 2. The sequence of genealogical lists in Nm. 1 (Lists 7, 8) makes clear that the subsequent order beginning in Ch. 2 is for a practical reason (camp placement, see discussion below) and does not intend to alter the family genealogy by exalting one son over/against another. We must take the sequence of lists and the context in which they come as a serious indication of authorial intent. This order becomes the standard form for all wilderness movement and encampment throughout the remainder of Numbers. Although the subsequent listings in Ch. 2 and elsewhere do not make the direct connection of the standard genealogy of Reuben first, etc., nor make the direct connection of Joseph to his sons, this list sets the precedent and all other lists rely on and assume this list as the official form. This is the reason it is introduced prior to the camp assignments in Chapter 2. 9. Camp Location and Wilderness Procession Assignments (Nm. 2) Context: Follows the results of the census for fighting men in Ch. I (List 8). Chapters 3 and 4 issue the census and assignments for the Tribe of Levi, Chapters 5 and 6 explain additional sacred ceremonial issues. Function: Organize the Assembly of Israel via: 1) assign each tribe to a “camp” and its position around the tabernacle,” 2) identify the leader 44

Alternatively, one could interpret that Joseph is connected to Ephraim but not Manasseh in that no grammatical phrase directly connects Manasseh to Joseph. However, taking all the genealogical lists together, the list fits the standard “sons of Joseph” followed by “sons of Manasseh” and “sons of Ephraim” (or in opposite order) next to each other under Joseph.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

67

and number of fighting men of each tribe, 3) enumerate the total number of fighting men from each “camp”, and 4) specify the “camp” marching position in the wilderness procession. Listing: The text clearly enunciates the five groups (via setumah). The chart below follows suit. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Camp Judah

Judah ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

10 Camp Reuben

Reuben ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

2

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

7

The Levites ‫ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬

Leah

3

Camp The Levites Camp Ephraim

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Rachel

11.2

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

11.1

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

12 Camp Dan

Dan ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Bilhah

6

Mother Sequence: Leah – Leah/Zilpah – [Leah] – Rachel – Bilhah/ Zilpah/Bilhah. The intent appears to be to keep the mothers’ sons in the same groups as much as possible. Thus, “Camp Judah” has only Leah sons, “Camp Ephraim” has only Rachel sons. Although “Camp Reuben” contains Gad, the eldest son of Zilpah, she is Leah’s maid, thereby maintaining the close bond. “Group Dan” has only maid sons, still a logical grouping. SonSequence: According to birth order within camp, except for Ephraim/ Manasseh (yet previously identified under Joseph, who is in the proper sequence). The Ephraim-Manasseh sequence has precedence: two prior lists in Numbers (1:5-16, List 7 and 1:20-54, List 8) set Ephraim before Manasseh. Gn. 48 narrates the cause of the younger Ephraim over his

68

CHAPTER THREE

elder brother. Thus, this must have been considered the correct sequence within the Joseph clan.45 It should be noted that the Bilhah-Zilpah-Bilhah sequence of Camp Dan matches the introductory and archetype List 7 (Nm. 1:5-16), except that Gad has been moved to Camp Reuben. Observations: The list adheres to a formula that identifies four important elements for each tribe. These are: 1) location the “camp” is to pitch its tents in relation to the Tent of Meeting, 2) the camp’s name, the tribes assigned to the camp, identify a leader and the number of fighting men in each tribe, 3) a total summation of the number of fighting men from each camp, and 4) the camp’s marching position in the desert procession. Only Levi breaks this formula (see discussion below). The formula and wording used for each “camp” is identical and is as follows: 1) Camp Location Specified46 2) Camp Name Specified47 [Namesake Tribe] ‫ֶדּגֶ ל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬ a) Namesake Tribe and Leader Identified48 PN‫ ֶבּן־‬PN [Namesake Tribe] ‫וְ נָ ִשׂיא ִל ְבנֵי‬ Namesake Tribe army and division number cited49 [amount]+‫וּפ ֻק ֵד ֶיהם‬ ְ ‫וּצ ׇבאוֹ‬ ְ “and the camps next to it” ‫וְ ַהחֹנִים ׇע ׇליו‬ b) Tribe 2 and Leader Identified50 PN‫ ֶבּן־‬PN [Tribe 2] ‫וְ נָ ִשׂיא ִל ְבנֵ י‬ Tribe 2 army and division number cited51 [amount]+ ‫וּפ ֻק ֵד ֶיהם‬ ְ ‫וּצ ׇבאוֹ‬ ְ and c) Tribe 3 and Leader Identified52 PN‫ ֶבּן־‬PN [Tribe 3] ‫וְ נָ ִשׂיא ִל ְבנֵ י‬ 45

46

47 48

49 50

51 52

Although two lists in Numbers, Nm. 26:5-51 (List 13), the “Second Generation Army Register” and Tribal Allotment Register in Nm. 34:16-29 (List 14) set Manasseh before Ephraim. “to the east, toward sunrise” for Camp Judah (v. 3), “to the south” for Camp Reuben (v. 10), “to the west” for Camp Ephraim (v. 18), and “to the north” for Camp Dan (v. 25). Camp Judah (v. 3), Camp Reuben (v. 10), Camp Ephraim (v. 18), Camp Dan (v. 25). “Tribe of Judah”, “Sons of Judah” (v. 3), “Tribe of Reuben”, “Sons of Reuben” (v. 10), “Tribe of Ephraim”, “Sons of Ephraim” (v. 18), “Tribe of Dan”, “Sons of Dan” (v. 25). Judah, v. 4; Reuben, v. 11; Ephraim, v. 19; Dan, v. 26. “Tribe of Issachar”, “Sons of Issachar” (v. 5), “Tribe of Simeon”, “Sons of Simeon” (v. 12), “Tribe of Manasseh”, “Sons of Manasseh” (v. 20; “Tribe of Asher”, “Sons of Asher” (v. 28). Issachar, v. 6; Simeon, v. 13; Manasseh, v. 21; Asher, v. 28. “Tribe of Zebulon”, “Sons of Zebulon” (v. 7), “Tribe of Gad”, “Sons of Gad” (v. 14), “Tribe of Benjamin”, “Sons of Benjamin” (v. 22), “Tribe of Naphtali”, “Sons of Naphtali” (v. 29).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

69

Tribe 3 army and division number cited53 [amount]+‫וּפ ֻק ֵד ֶיהם‬ ְ ‫וּצ ׇבאוֹ‬ ְ 54

3) Total number of divisions in the Camp cited [amount]+ [Namesake Tribe] ‫ל־ה ְפּ ֻק ִדים ְל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬ ַ ‫ׇכּ‬ 55 st nd rd 4) Camp’s Position in the Assembly’s procession ‫[ יִ ָסּעוּ‬1 , 2 ,3 , Last] Each camp is demarked in MT with a setumah indicating that the Masoretes understood the division and counts of the five groups to be five separate entries. The first organizational criterion is the cardinal direction to which the group is assigned in relation to the Tent of Meeting, beginning with “to the east, towards the sunrise” (Camp Judah, v. 3), followed by “towards the south” (Camp Reuben, v. 10), then “to the west” (Camp Ephraim, v. 18), and finally “to the north” (Camp Dan, v. 25.) This is in conjunction with the narrative explaining List 8 (see above), which assigned the tabernacle environs to the Tribe of Levi. This new listing places each of the tribes in a circle surrounding the tabernacle, with the Levites in the middle. The reason for the cardinal direction criteria becomes immediately apparent as a preparation for marching through the wilderness. This second organizational criterion is stipulated at the end of the formula with “Camp Judah”, which is to “set out first” (v. 9), “Camp Reuben” second (v. 16), followed by the Levites56 carrying the tabernacle (v. 17), then “Camp Ephraim” (v. 24), and finally “Camp Dan” to follow last (v. 31). The formula information located between the campsite location and the procession order criteria are the specifics for each Camp: identifying three tribes, assigning a leader/chief/general to each tribe, giving the number of fighting men for each tribe, and, finally, the total number of fighting men for each Camp. All matters are specific, detailed and clearly enunciated via the formula. Joseph is absent in this list. Instead are Ephraim and Manasseh, who are assigned locations to pitch tents. Levi is included but his part does not follow the formula. The Tent of Meeting and the Levites in v. 17, demarked on both sides by setumah, is said to “set out” just as the other camps, “each man according to their standards”. A single line addresses “The Levites”, 53 54

55

56

Zebulon, v. 8; Gad, v. 15; Benjamin, v. 23; Naphtali, v. 30. See v. 9 for Camp Judah, v. 16 for Camp Reuben, v. 24 for Camp Ephraim, and v. 31 for Camp Dan Camp Judah “first” (v. 9), Camp Reuben “second” (v. 16), Camp Ephraim “third” (v. 24), and Camp Dan “last” (v. 31). Not “the Tribe of Levi”, simply “The Levites”.

70

CHAPTER THREE

does not identify them as “The Sons of Levi” or the “Tribe of Levi”, and gives none of the same information as the other Camps. Instead, v. 33 states that the Levites were not to be counted and divided into divisions among the Sons of Israel. This seems to be an indication that Levi would be divided in a different manner, as in fact occurs in Ch. 3-4. Additionally, the tribe has already received its general camp location in Ch. 1: surrounding the tabernacle. The exact and detailed camp location assignments and duties of each Levitical family (where they are identified as “Sons of Levi” in 3:15) will be addressed in Chps. 3-4, followed by more precise locations within the Assembly procession in Ch. 10 (List 11). For now, the Levites are simply identified as having a place in the procession after Camp Reuben. Levi is not forgotten, merely set aside until further instruction. “Camp Judah” is first named in this listing. Standard historical-critical analysis57 explains the reason for Judah heading the list as indicative of the time of composition. That is, the list reflects a point when the Tribe of Judah was more powerful than all others: specifically, the monarchy. Yet, the text itself nullifies this notion in several ways. First, R. Wilson58 points out this list is identical to 1:20-54 (List 8) except that Camp Judah is named first rather than Camp Reuben;59 all else remains the same: the tribes named in the same sequence, etc. Second, “CampJudah” is not the same as the “TribeofJudah”, although the “Camp” includes the tribe.60 This is clearly enunciated in the text via the formula that identifies the whole group (“camp’), specifically names each individual tribe within the group, along with tribal details (leader and army count). After specifics of the three individual tribes are given, the formula repeats the camp name, issues a total number of warriors for the entire “camp”, and follows with the group’s position in the desert processional. The function of the listing has never been taken into account. The purpose for Camp Judah being in the lead position overrides the idea that the list reflects a time when the Tribe of Judah was most important. The function of this list is to set up campsite location (E-S-W-N) and procession order (first, second, etc.). Campsite location is critical if the procession 57 58 59

60

Discussed above in Chapter One. Robert Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 188. The list in Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8) does not call the groups “camps”, nor does the organization of the list indicate groups of three. In fact, MT demarks the separation of each tribe by placing a petuchah between each tribe. This differs from Nm. 2 where a setumah separates the camps from one another. Nm. 1:20-54 does, however, place the tribes into the identical order found in Nm. 2, but in a genealogical sequence beginning with “Reuben, the First-born of Israel” (v. 20). Also for “Camp Reuben”, “Camp Ephraim”, and “Camp Dan”.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

71

is to move out efficiently. In the case of an eastward-moving procession, the eastern campsite must move first or block the other camps. (Whether the remainder of the camp followed N-S-W or S-W-N may not be of such consequence unless some geographical obstacle existed.) In any case, an orderly start and end to the procession is imperative. This matter will be addressed in detail in Ch. 10 (see List 11) when the assembly makes it first move since arriving at Sinai. The reason for “Camp Judah” being placed at the head of the procession, and therefore on the east side, is not specified by the text. One might speculate that, following standard military procedure, the advance group is largest, the rear is a bit smaller, and the flanks are the smallest. According to the given numbers, Camp Judah is the largest group. Nevertheless, this too is speculative and we should not place too much in its argument. The intent is to protect the tabernacle, carried in the middle of the entire procession. The principle function of this list is to divide the entire assembly (excluding Levi) into four groups, each group called a “camp” in the text. The “camp” becomes a crucial identifying label applied to the four different groups.61 In Nm. 2, the term identifies the four groups into which the entire assembly of Israel (excluding Levi) is organized. The “Camp” is not the namesake tribe (Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, Dan), but the whole three-tribe unit, which functions under a single “standard”.62 No indication is made that the named tribe is more important than the others, although Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan are the eldest in each of their respective “camps”. The term “Camp Judah” (Camp Reuben, etc.) from this point and throughout Numbers (where all these references appear) refers to the whole three-tribe unit, not only the individual tribe from which the name is derived. 10. Tribal Leaders Present Offerings to Dedicate the Altar (Nm. 7:12-83) Context: This chapter refers to the event in which the altar was dedicated in Ex. 40.63 It enumerates the offerings presented by each tribal 61

62 63

The term should be defined. “Camp” is a direct translation of ‫מ ֲחנֵ ה‬, ַ the title assigned to the groups lead by Judah (v. 3), Reuben (v. 10), Ephraim (v. 18), and Dan (v. 25). The term has a moderately narrow range of uses, typically referring to a group such as travelers or soldiers, etc. who encamp someplace while en route to a destination, or when engaged in warfare. ‫דּגֶ ל‬.ֶ Judah v. 3; Reuben v. 10; Ephraim v. 18; Dan v. 25. Won W. Lee, PunishmentandForgiveness, 77-78.

72

CHAPTER THREE

leader on the tribe’s appointed day. Between Nm. 2 and 7 several nondated actions occurred which serve as helpful background to the dedication of the altar. Nm. 3 provides the toledoth of Aaron and Moses (stated in this sequence), assigns the entire Tribe of Levi (‫)מ ֵטּה ֵלוִ י‬ ַ to Aaron as assistants in cultic matters, the tribe for the first-born of all Israel, and specifies four details of each of Levi’s sons: number of males one month and older, camp location, leader,64 and precise cultic duties. Nm. 4 specifies the priestly and levitical duties when moving camp (along with another census of males ages thirty to fifty-five. Nm. 5 deals with several issues of cultic defilement (skin, “sins of humanity”, possible unfaithful wife). Nm. 6 explains the rules for the Nazarite vow. Though seemingly disparate, each of these topics prepares the path for a safe and successful dedication of the altar by the leader of each tribe. Function: Give the assigned day each tribe, via its leader, is to present a dedicatory offering. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

4

First Day

Issachar

Leah

9

Second Day

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Third Day

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

Fourth Day

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Fifth Day

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

Sixth Day

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11.2

Seventh Day

Manasseh ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel

11.1

Eighth Day

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Ninth Day

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Tenth Day

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Eleventh Day

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

Twelfth Day

MotherSequence: Leah – Zilpah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah – Bilhah 64

‫ית־אב‬ ָ ‫נְ ִשׂיא ֵב‬, vv. 24, 30, 35.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

73

Son Sequence: According to birth order within “Camp”, except for Ephraim/Manasseh. Observations: Levi is missing from this list, explainable in that Levi is the group administering and receiving the sacrifices in discussion. The demonstration that each leader presented a sacrifice in dedication of the altar acts in several ways. First, it shows that each tribe is participating in the cult activities as a unified group, under its tribal name. Second, this is the first demonstrated act of the leaders “standing” with Moses and Aaron. They may not be allowed into the places where the Tribe of Levi works (as priests and/or Levites) but they can and must offer sacrifices and dedicate the altar. This is the “Camp Assignment and Wilderness Processional List” first introduced in Ch. 2. This format becomes the standard “Wilderness Procession” list and is utilized whenever each specific tribal group acts in camp affairs. 11. Camp Departs from Mt. Sinai (Nm. 10:11-28) Context: This list is in the opening narrative that explains the first movement away from Mt. Sinai in the “second year, second month, twentieth day”. The family has been stationed at Mt. Sinai since Ex. 19. Nm. 10:11-12 is the opening to the programmatic statement for Israel’s departure from Mt. Sinai.65 The opening verses of Chapter 10 explain the construction and usage of the trumpets in a variety of circumstances. For our purpose, we make note of the trumpets to administer an orderly departure of the camps in vv. 5-6, which specifies that the eastern camps are to depart first, followed by the southern camps after the second blast.66 Function: Describe the first processional as it breaks camp, moves through the wilderness and resets in a new location. Listing: The narrative places the twelve tribes into four camps, as reflected below.

65 66

Won W. Lee, PunishmentandForgiveness, 90. This part of the narrative (and its instructions) does not seem to be a precise manual of departure procedures; merely a summary.

74

CHAPTER THREE

Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Camp Judah ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫מ ֲַחנֵ ה ְבנֵ י־י‬

Judah ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Leah

3.1

Levi

Leah

3.3

Levi

Gershon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

66

Merari ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Camp Reuben Reuben ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

The Kohites (‫)ה ְקּ ׇה ִתים‬ ַ

Leah

3.2

‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְר‬

Levi Camp Ephraim

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11.2

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵי‬

Rachel

11.1

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

‫י־א ְפ ַריִם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבנ‬

Camp Dan Dan ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

‫י־דן‬ ָ ֵ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבנ‬

MotherSequence: Leah – Leah/Zilpah – Rachel – Bilhah/Zilpah/Bilhah SonSequence: According to birth order within group, except for Ephraim/ Manasseh and the Levi families who fill specific assignments. Observations: This list is the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional. It matches Nm. 2 (List 9), except this occasion is the actual (and first) departure from camp. Thus, a series of actions describe the movement. The form is very specific and standardized. Each cardinal group introduced by the phrase ‫ל־צ ׇבאוֹ‬ ְ ‫[ ְל ִצ ְבא ׇֹתם וְ ַע‬group name] ‫דּגֶ ל ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבנֵ י־‬,ֶ followed by 67

Gershon/Merari fall within the Judah group section according to the Massoretic understanding in that MT places setuma between Gershon/Merari and the Reuben Group (v. 17). Likewise, Kohath is part of the Reuben Group as indicated by the setuma placed between the Reuben and Ephraim camps (v. 21). I have so indicated in the chart.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

75

the leader’s name from each of the three member tribes in the format “PN, bene PN over his army”. Camp Judah is told be “first” (v. 13), and Camp Dan is to be the “rearguard” (‫)מ ַא ֵסּף‬ ְ for the entire procession (v. 25). In between Judah and Dan the other camps and three groups of Levi’s clans move as instructed.68 The wording and organization is nearly identical to Nm. 2. The only exception is the addition of the word “sons” between “camp” and the name of the tribe at the introduction of each group. Camp Reuben is an exception: it matches Nm. 2 exactly. However, several additions and changes to the arrangement of the cultic personnel exist, as explained in the intervening chapters on cultic personnel responsibilities and camp locations (v. 18). These changes do not affect or influence the overall sequence or purpose of listing. In fact, one could explain the first occasions of this list as a summary regarding Levitical families. This is a natural result of the function of this list: to describe the breaking of camp and trek to the next stop. 12. Names of the Spies (Nm. 13:4-16) Context: The people have moved twice since the long encampment at Sinai. Nm. 10:33 describes the first procession, a three-day journey. Nm. 12:16 shows a movement out of Hazeroth to the Paran Wilderness. The intervening narratives speak of Mariam’s leprosy episode, seventy elders chosen to assist Moses and the complaining people. The narrative following this list (13:17 to 14:1-45) relates the outcome of the exploration team and the people’s refusal to enter the land. Subsequent chapters lay out some legal codes once the land has been possessed. This pericope marks a time of looking toward the new land. Function: To name the chosen leader from each tribe who was to explore Canaan.

68

Gershon and Merari branches transport the tabernacle structures (v. 17), while the Kohath branch transport the sacred objects (‫ה ִמּ ְק ָדּשׁ‬, ַ v. 21). The order is designed to allow for the tabernacle to be erected and ready by the time the sacred objects arrive in camp. On the differences between the levitical counts in Nm. 3 and 4, along with the specific duties of each levitical family branch see Jacob Milgrom in StudiesinLevitical Terminology,I:TheEncroacherandtheLevitetheTerm‘Aboda (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1970).

76

CHAPTER THREE

Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

2

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

9

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

11.2

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

12

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

10

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

11.1

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Bilhah

6

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

7

“‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬Joseph”

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah – Bilhah – Zilpah Son Sequence: Leah’s elder four in birth order, minus Levi, with Issachar pushed up to fourth spot, two of Rachel’s in mixed order (Ephraim – Benjamin), followed by Leah’s sixth (Zebulun). Rachel’s again (Manasseh) then Bilhah’s in birth order but alternating with Zilpah’s sons who are in reverse birth order. Observations: Formula for each tribe is “for the tribe of SN, PN son of PN” Levi is missing, though not explained in the text. Possible reasons: 1) his cult responsibilities, 2) “spying” or “exploring” is a military function and Levi has no military function, at least according to the registers in Nm.1, and 3) ultimate purpose of the trek is land inheritance, which Levi does not receive. This sequence is rather different than any previous list in multiple ways to the point that K. Namiki labels it “inexplicable”.69 First, the sequence within the mother follows birth order70, as in previous lists (except that 69 70

Reconsideration, 69. Taking into account that Ephraim precedes Manasseh in all Numbers lists except 26:551 (List 13).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

77

Zilpah’s sons who are in reverse birth order).71 Second, although the overall scheme follows the mothers’ ranks in the family (Leah – Rachel – handmaidens), Zebulun (Leah’s sixth) is separated from his full brothers by Ephraim and Benjamin, both Rachel’s sons. 3) The sequence of handmaiden sons BZBZ is unique. Heretofore, the sequence has either been BBZZ or BZZB, even in the Camp Order/Procession form when Gad is moved to Camp Reuben. 4) Rachel’s sons are separated from each other: Joseph (represented by Ephraim) then Benjamin, but separated from Manasseh by Zebulun. 5) Ephraim and Manasseh are separated, a feature unique to this list in the HB. Ephraim and Manasseh are elsewhere always sequenced together, even in the geographically driven lists.72 This list is the only genealogical type73 in which Joseph is the footnote. Normally, his sons are the footnote. Joseph is directly connected to Manasseh74 but not Ephraim, who is separated from Manasseh by two tribes. Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8) connects Joseph to both. Here we have something different: Joseph is explicitly connected to Manasseh but not Ephraim. Still, Ephraim is in the correct birth-order position sequenced before Benjamin, so perhaps the son marker is intended to cover Ephraim too. Considering the slightly odd sequence of younger Leah and Rachel sons, this is not certain and the question arises as to why Joseph is attached to Manasseh only.75 13. Israel’s Second Generation Army Register (Nm. 26:5-51) Context: Set in a new time (after the plague) and place (next to the Jordan opposite Jericho), the command is given to recount the men qualified for military service. Since the last census (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8), the generation that left Egypt has died, a plague wiped out some of the new generation, and the family is positioned to enter the new land. The subsequent chapters deal with land distribution and inheritance rights, of which this list is the foundational document. 71 72

73

74 75

The Asher – Gad (reverse) sequence only occurs here and Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7). As will be seen in the upcoming analyses, the geographically driven lists typical distinguish between the Transjordan and Cisjordan Manasseh groups. Nevertheless, Cisjordan Manasseh is always sequenced next to Ephraim. Only two other genealogically driven lists mention Manasseh and Ephraim: Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7) and Dt. 33 (List 16). 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (List 27) does not mention Joseph, only Ephraim and two separate Manassehs. v. 11, ‫יוֹסף ְל ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ֵ ‫ל ַמ ֵטּה‬.ְ On the other hand, a textual-critical question might be at hand when one considers that Issachar’s official is named “Yigal, son of Joseph”. Is it possible that “Joseph” for Ephraim was dropped or some other confusion resulted?

78

CHAPTER THREE

Function: List the number of military-aged men from each son and their families for the purpose of land distribution (cf. vv. 53-56). Listing: Name Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Mother Birth Order Comments Leah

1

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

“Reuben, first-born of Israel”

Manasseh ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

MotherSequence: Leah –Zilpah – Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Zilpah – Bilhah SonSequence: birth order within mother’s rank Observations: This list is a near duplication of Nm. 1: 20-54 (List 8) and matches the sequence of Jacob’s sons exactly. Both censuses are executed at God’s command, structured in an almost identical form, and are followed by the census of Levi.76 The only difference is within Joseph: Manasseh precedes Ephraim here. However, this list leaves no doubt as to Joseph’s connection to his sons so indicated by the encapsulated opening77 and closing.78 Other minor differences are found in the listing of descendants for each son of Jacob. The format for each tribe is different but both are logical with the function in mind. In some cases, the genealogies are extended to include the newer generations, primarily to name those who are mentioned either in earlier narratives (e.g. Dothan and Abiram, v. 8) or subsequent narratives (e.g. Daughters of Zelophehad, Ch. 27).79 76 77 78 79

Dennis T. Olson in TheDeathoftheOld, 86-87. ‫יוֹסף ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם ְמנַ ֶשּׁה וְ ֶא ְפ ָריִם‬ ֵ ‫בּנֵ י‬, ְ v. 28. ‫י־יוֹסף ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם‬ ֵ ֵ‫א ֶלּה ְבנ‬, ֵ v. 37b. One or two generations out from the tribal namesake is the norm. Reuben goes out three generations to reach Dathan and Amiram. Manasseh extends to five to reach the

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

79

Levi is missing from this list but as the function is identical to that of the first military registration (List 8; Nm. 1:20-54), this should be expected. Indeed, vv. 57-62 register the families of Levi corresponding exactly to the first registration in Nm. 3, albeit in a summarized form, and without the various commands of God issued to Moses for explanation and organization. In comparing this list with Nm. 1:20-54, the importance of function becomes evident. The impetus behind the two censuses is to count the capable military men. The reason for needing a census is different. The first registration (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) has references to “army/armies”. This registration lacks any mention of military references but retains the ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬references as found in the first80. The first registration led to campsite assignments and procession order (in Nm. 2, List 9). The function of this list is to organize the family for impending land distribution and leads (eventually) to inheritance/territory assigned to each family member. Each member is to receive an allotment: the number of members is required to determine the number of allotments necessary. This inheritance function is further illuminated by 1) the statement that Levi was not to inherit land (v. 62), and 2) the lengthy Daughters of Zelophehad narrative in Ch. 27.81 14. Register of Tribal Leaders for Land Allotment (Nm. 34:16-29) Context: This chapter is part of a number of inheritance actions taken in preparation for entering Canaan. Still camped on the eastern banks of the Jordan opposite Jericho, a leader from each of the nine and one-half tribes (‫)מ ֵטּה‬, ַ is identified who is to accept the appointment of the tribe’s land according to the lottery (v. 13). The Transjordan tribes have already taken their allotment by remaining on the eastern side (vv. 14-15). Now the Cisjordan tribes must accept their allotments. The priest Eliezer and Joshua administer the lottery (v. 17). The remainder of the chapter is the list of men, one from each tribe, who are to represent his tribe in the lottery. The following chapters relate the Levitical inheritance and Cities of Refuge (Ch. 35) and a corrective action taken for the Daughters of Zelophehad (Ch. 36).

80

81

Daughters of Zelophehad. Levi (in the second half of the chapter) extends more than four (a connection problem exists within Levi’s families) to reach Aaron’s sons. The first registration (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) has references to “army/armies”. This registration lacks any mention of military references but retains the ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬references as found in the first. Here I must disagree with D. Olson that the function of this list is to show how the people had multiplied in the second generation via the addition of sub-clans (TheDeath oftheOld, 87). True, the family grew but that is not the point of the list.

80

CHAPTER THREE

Function: Name one man from each tribe to represent his tribe in the land allotment. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Bilhah – Rachel – Leah – Zilpah – Bilhah SonSequence: no particular order Observations: Reuben, Gad and Levi are missing. The narrative (vv. 14-15) explains that Reuben and Gad, along with the “Half Tribe of Manasseh”82 took their inheritance in the Transjordan. Since the function of this list is to name the representative from each tribe for the soon-tobe-held lottery, it should be expected that these tribes are absent. Levi is not to inherit land and his absence too should expected. Still, Levi is partly represented in that the High Priest is co-administrator of the lottery (v. 17). Joseph is expressly named, then his two sons are cited (v. 23) following the identical form in both examples in Nm. 1.83 Manasseh is called a “half tribe” (‫)ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֲ only on the Transjordan side. The Cisjordan tribe receives the designation ‫י־מנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ֵ‫מ ֵטּה ְבנ‬. ַ 84 This sequence is new to the Torah, notwithstanding the omitted Transjordan tribes. Judah precedes Simeon, followed immediately by Benjamin. 82 83 84

“‫”ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ֲ cf. Nm. 1:10 (List 7) and Nm. 1:32, 34 (List 8). cf. vv. 14 and 23. Note, however, that v. 13 counts the Cisjordan tribes as “nine and one-half”. Only twice is Cisjordan Manasseh designated “half-tribe”: 1 Ch. 12:24-41 (List 26) and 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (List 27). Both are connected to Davidic era records.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

81

Zebulun/Issachar are separated from the other Leah tribes by Dan and the Rachel tribes. At first glance, some parts share attributes with other lists. The Judah/Simeon sequence is in the Judges account (List 18) in their joint land conquering feats.85 Likewise, Benjamin is attached to the Judah/ Simeon account in Judges 1. A similar notion may be reflected in the Joshua lottery account in which Benjamin receives the first lot (Josh. 18:11-28), followed by Simeon, whose lot is taken out of Judah’s portion (Josh. 19:19). Dan, coming very early in this list, is cited next to Rachel tribes (and before the other Bilhah/Zilpah tribes) in Ezekiel’s gates description (48:32; List 21) and in the Chronicler’s introductory “These are the Sons of Israel” (1 Ch. 2:2; List 22).86 Indeed, the overall grouping, though not exact sequencing,87 in this list is standard in Joshua (List 17) and Judges 1 (List 18), particularly with three groups of 1) Transjordan, 2) Judah/Simeon and Joseph, and 3) others. We should look to those lists for explanation of these particular sequences. The three-part grouping is relayed by three different formulae employed. 1) Transjordan: No representatives are named to the Transjordan tribes since their territory had already been chosen. The formula for Reuben and Gad is ‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬+ definite article + SN + adjectival “ite” = ‫ראוּבנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבנֵ י ׇה‬ 88 and ‫י־הגָּ ִדי‬ ַ ֵ‫מ ֵטּה ְבנ‬. ַ 2) Judah, Simeon and Benjamin employ the form “‫מ ֵטּה‬+SN ַ for tribe and add the representative’s name in the form PN benPN” (Judah and Benjamin) and PN benePN (Simeon). Thus: “‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬SN, PN ben(e)PN”.89 3) ‫ נָ ִשׂיא‬is added to the other tribes. So, “‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬beneSN, ‫ נָ ִשׂיא‬PN benPN”.90 Joseph is not labeled a ‘tribe”. Instead, Manasseh and Ephriam, a third formula,91 are set under Joseph using the form ‫יוֹסף ְל ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֵ ‫”בּנֵ י‬ ְ …‫י־מנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ֵ‫”בנ‬ ְ (v. 23) followed by “‫י־א ְפ ַריִם‬ ֶ ֵ‫”וּל ַמ ֵטּה ְבנ‬ ְ (v. 24). This indicates that Joseph is the official genealogical son of Jacob/Israel.

85

86

87

88 89 90 91

It may also be reflected in the Joshua lottery account in which Benjamin receives the first lot (Josh. 18:11-28), followed by Simeon, whose lot is taken out of Judah’s portion (Josh. 19:1-9). This placement may represent the story of Dan’s tribal land acquisition in Jg. 18 (Abraham Malamat in “The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern”, Biblica 51:1 [1970], 1). Dan is in a different position in both Joshua and Judges, Issachar is missing altogether in Judges v. 14. Half tribe Manasseh does not have the adjectival “ite” ending. Thus: ‫ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ֲ vv. 19-21. Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, vv. 22-28. “‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬beneSN, ‫ נָ ִשׂיא‬PN benPN” (vv. 23, 24).

82

CHAPTER THREE

15. Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Dt. 27:11-14) Context: The list is set amongst various statutes on numerous subjects. The preceding chapters (25, 26) discuss statutes for daily living and cultic actions. The following chapters (28, 29) continue the blessings and curses theme of the present section. The list is preceded by instructions to carry stones from the Jordan River crossing and to write upon them the Torah. In addition, an altar, with attendant sacrifices, is to be erected on Mt. Ebal (vv. 5-6). Finally, Moses instructs half of the tribes to stand on Gerizim to “bless the people” (‫ת־ה ׇעם‬ ‫ל ׇב ֵר ֔ך ֶא ׇ‬,ְ v. 12) and other half to stand on Mt. Ebal “against the curse” (‫ל־ה ְקּ ׇל ׇלה‬ ַ ‫ע‬, ַ v. 13). The subsequent curse formulae (vv. 15-26) are to be recited loudly by the Levites and echoed by the entire congregation. The time and place remains on the Jordan River opposite Jericho before the group crosses. The actions of this chapter are to be carried out after crossing the Jordan, immediately upon entry to the land.. Function: To assign each tribe a place on either Mt. Gerizim to bless the people or Mt. Ebal to stand against the curse. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Mt. Gerizim (to bless the people)

Simeon

Leah

2

Levi

Leah

3

Judah

Leah

4

Issachar

Leah

9

Joseph

Rachel

11

Benjamin

Rachel

12 Mt. Ebal (to stand against the curse)

Reuben

Leah

1

Gad

Zilpah

7

Asher

Zilpah

8

Zebulun

Leah

10

Dan

Bilhah

5

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

83

Mother Sequence: Gerizim: Leah – Rachel. Ebal: Leah – Zilpah – Leah – Bilhah Son Sequence: Gerizim: birth order by Mother. Ebal: Leah’s and Zilpah’s by birth order; Bilhah’s in reverse birth order. Observations: This is a genealogically driven list. The twelve sons are named, including Levi and Joseph (and no mention of Ephraim and Manasseh). Since the function of the exercise (gathering for the blessings and curses recitation) pertains to the family in its entirety, the whole family is to be in a represented position. Levi, in this exercise, is not responsible for maintaining the cult. Rather, Levi must also join lest he negate his portion in the covenant. Similarly Joseph is named since the exercise does not involve a physical presence of his two tribes. The order is different than any other list. Many attempts to explain the reason for each tribe’s assignment on either Gerizim or Ebal, along with the sequence of tribes on each side have been issued, to little success.92 Possible explanations can be grouped into four categories: Familial relationships, “good” versus “bad” son, population, and geographical influence. The first category notes the familial relationships. For one, it is observed that Gerizim has only Leah and Rachel; Ebal has mostly Zilpah and Bilhah but also Leah. Generally, primary wives are represented on Gerizim, handmaiden wives are represented on Ebal. Yet, the presence of Reuben and Zebulun negate any organization by mothers as a fully adequate explanation. To further complicate the analysis, typical combinations are excluded. The frequent Asher/Naphtali combination is on the Ebal side but they are separated in the listing by two other tribes. The common Issachar/ Zebulun combination is altogether broken in that they are on opposite mountains. One might suggest that Issachar was named to one side, followed by Zebulun to the other but this would only apply for the Issachar/Zebulun combination. It does not apply to the other combinations.

92

Roland de Vaux points out that it has not been elucidated (Early History of Israel, 723).

84

CHAPTER THREE

The “camp/procession” order used in Numbers (Lists 8, 9, 10, 11, 13) does not offer any help. Some are together (Reuben/Gad, Judah/Issachar, Rachel tribes) but other parts of some are excluded (Simeon is not with Reuben/Gad, Zebulun is separated from Judah/Issachar). The Dan/Asher/ Naphtali group is entirely on Ebal but the order is different and the trio’s sequence is broken by Zebulun. In short, the typical combinations of tribes are not the organizational structure behind the listing. The second category that attempts to explain the Gerizim/Ebal sequence understands Gerizim as the “good” tribes, Ebal as the “bad” tribes. In comparing the positive or negative positions taken in Jacob’s Blessing (Gn. 49, List 4), the result is quite mixed. Of the “positive” Gerizim side, only Judah and Joseph (2/6) receive positive statements by Jacob. Of the “negative” Ebal side Asher, Zebulun and Naptali (3/6) receive positive rather than negative statements by Jacob. Even more telling, Moses’ final blessing (Dt. 33) casts all tribes in a positive light.93 A positive or negative stance in either of these “blessings” cannot be the organizational engine. Most importantly, the “good” versus “bad” analysis is faulty at its core. The Gerizim group is not “good” and Mt. Ebal “bad”. Both are positive: Gerizim is to bless the people while Ebal is to stand against the curse. It’s a sort of team with both offense and defense. The third category looks to some geographical influence. Kallai says generally geographic,94 K. Namiki, sees the order corresponding to a “supposed counter-clockwise mentioning of the boundary lines in the Deuteronomistic works” in Joshua, Samuel and Kings.95 Any geographical explanation ultimately fails. Certainly some tribes are geographically associated such as Simeon-Judah-Joseph-Benjamin, Reuben-Gad, Asher-ZebulunNaphtali. However, on each side, at least one tribe throws off the scheme. On Gerizim, Issachar does not fit with the others; on Ebal, ReubenGad does not fit with the northern group, nor does Dan fit with any other others.96 93

94 95 96

Dan is likened to a lion whelp who leaps out. This could be a positive or negative statement. The statements on Reuben and Judah each have a negative portion but neither are against the tribal name itself and both are hopeful statements that the situation will improve. “The Twelve-tribe Systems of Israel”, 69-70. Reconsideration, 40. Dan seems to fit until one carefully looks at his territorial descriptions in Joshua, Judges and Kings: it is all southern locations. See N. Na’aman’s detailed border analysis in BordersandDistrictsinBiblicalHistoriography (Jerusalem: Simor, Ltd., 1986), 105-117,

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

85

One might observe that Ebal has the more distant tribes, including two Transjordan tribes and Gezirim has tribes that are nearest to the later Jerusalem cult center. Yet, Issachar, right in the middle of the list, is far away. However, the altar is to be set up on Mt. Ebal (v. 4) negating a connection to a future Jerusalem cult. Additionally, the Joseph and Issschar tribes had no association with the Jerusalem cult after Solomon. Any attempt to explain the reason for the sequence and mountain chosen cannot be explained by later geographical positioning. A fourth category is the population assigned to each side. Using the last issued census data in Nm. 26,97 Gerizim has 317,700 males; Ebal has 251,000. Other factors such as number of (uncounted) women and children, available geographical space on each mountain, etc. might have been in play at the time but this information is not stated by the text. We must abandon any population theory as the organizational engine since we have no supporting data. Balancing the number of people on each side may not have been the driving factor. The problem with any of these attempts is that the text itself simply offers no explanation. The narrative is terse: six on Mt. Gezirim, six on Mt. Ebal, the Levites call with a loud voice to each man of Israel (v. 13). Absolutely relevant to the narrative is that all the tribes participate in the exercise. 16. Moses’ Farewell Blessings (Dt. 33) Context: The preceding chapters issued warnings. The pericope immediately prior reiterates God’s refusal to allow Moses into the land. Now, Moses’ final words before his death. The blessing opens and closes with praise to God and his deeds on behalf of Israel. The next (and last) chapter of Deuteronomy narrates the death of Moses. Function: Moses’ “blessing” over the “Sons of Israel”.

97

and 184. Dan in the north is only explained in the Judges 18 narrative describing Dan’s conquest of Laish and a footnote in Josh. 19:47 explaining that some of Dan’s descendants went north. A logical decision since Nm. 26 is the final count. The family is said to be in the same geographic position (next to the Jordan opposite Jericho) and at the same general time (final preparations to cross into the promised land).

86

CHAPTER THREE

Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Leah

1

Judah

Leah

4

Levi

Leah

3

Benjamin

Rachel

12

Joseph

Rachel

11

Zebulun

Leah

10

Issachar

Leah

9

Gad

Zilpah

7

Dan

Bilhah

5

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Asher

Zilpah

8

Ephraim, Manasseh named in last line of Joseph’s poem.

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Leah – Zilpah – Bilhah – Zilpah SonSequence: Reuben, first but otherwise not in birth order for Leah or Rachel. Zilphah’s and Bilhah’s are in birth order. Observations: Immediate observations are 1) the glaring absence of Simeon (!),98 2) Levi is named, 3) Joseph is named with Ephraim and Manasseh directly connected to him, and 4) Issachar does not receive the standard introduction. He is attached to Zebulun’s saying by contrasting Zebulun’s explorations with Issachar’s tents. (v. 19).99 5) The sons are addressed directly (i.e., “to Dan, he said”, rather than “to the sons” or the “tribe”). Although this chapter contains the “Blessing of Moses”, it is not presented as a direct quotation of Moses’ speech in the same format used in Jacob’s Blessing (Gn. 49, List 4). Rather, it is a quotation of what Moses said about each tribe in the voice of a third party, to which are added a remembrance of Moses’ actions on behalf of Israel. An analysis of the chapter illuminates this: 98

99

In regard to Simeon’s absence, most commentators follow the historical-critical argument that Simeon was no longer an independent tribe when the poem was written, having been subsumed into Judah. See for instance, K. Namiki (Reconsideration, 45-46). v. 19. The text is not absolutely clear whether Zebulun, Issachar or both are engaging in the subsequent actions.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

1 2-3 4-5 6-25 26-29

87

Introduction of Moses’ Blessing Moses’ praise of YHWH directed to YHWH100 Moses’ actions toward “us, the Assembly of Jacob”. Sayings by Moses to Individual Tribes Moses’ praise of YHWH spoken to Israel.101

This understanding is illuminated by the formulaic introduction employed to each in the form “and to SN, he said” (‫ ׇא ַמר‬SN ‫)וְ ִל‬.102 Hence, Moses’ speech does not begin in v. 2 and continue throughout the chapter. Rather, each saying is a separate poem directed to the individual son/tribe. The Massoretic punctuation inserts a setumah between each tribal saying. Conspicuously, setumah does not divide between Dan and Naphtali, although the syntax does.103 Three exceptions in the formula: 1) Reuben, in first position, has no formal introduction. His poem in v. 6 launches immediately, apparently in the voice of the speaker (not Moses) in vv. 4-5. 2) Judah’s saying, in second position, adds the demonstrative and the verb tense switches to the imperfect consecutive.104 Considering that the previous imperfect consecutive in the chapter105 presents the Moses speech (v. 2), this imperfect consecutive appears to reintroduce Moses’ words after the vv. 4-5 (and v. 6?) break. The use of the perfect for Levi and subsequent tribal sayings would fit syntactically. 3) Issachar is not introduced separately (see above). Certain tribal statements include geographical references. The poem for Zebulun/Issachar speaks of drawing wealth from the seas (v. 19), Naphtali is to possess sea and south,106 and Dan “leaps from The Bashan” (v. 22). 100 101

102

103 104 105

106

The 2ms suffix in vv. 2-3 refers to YHWH. The 2ms suffix in vv. 26-29 refers to Israel. Whether the voice in this section is Moses or the third party of vv. 4-5 (and v. 1) is debatable. I take it as Moses’ in light of the change to whom the 2ms suffix is directed. Specifically, conjunction + preposition le + PN with perfect 3ms (‫ רַמׇא‬PN ‫)ִל ְו‬. Issachar only has the conjunction (v. 18). Considering Issachar is part of Zebulon’s statement (so also interpreted by the Massoretes within the setumah break), this is to be expected. See the situation of Dan and Naphtali in 1 Ch 7:13. ‫אמר‬ ַ ֹ ‫וְ זֹאת ִליהו ָּדה וַ יּ‬ Imperfect consecutives are found elsewhere in the chapter. However, these play an entirely different grammatical role: specifically, to continue the thought expressed in the statement in the previous verse. Hence, v. 5 adds to the work of Moses begun in v. 4; v. 21 adds an additional statement about God to the expression in v. 20; v. 27b supplements the phrase about the “Ancient (Eternal) God” (‫ )אלהי קדם‬in v. 27a; and finally, v. 28 tells of the goodness come to Israel as a result of God’s protection described in v. 27. These imperfect consecutives do not advance the narrative, as do those in vv. 2 and 7. v. 23. The less common word ‫ ָדר ֹום‬is used for “south”.

88

CHAPTER THREE

These suggest a roughly geographically organization from Reuben westward to Judah then north toward the subsequent tribes, assuming the tribal boundaries laid out in Joshua and allowing for reasonable adjustments. Yet, several problems exist. First, Dan does not fit in its southern description adjacent to Judah/Ephraim/Benjamin extending to the coast from Benjamin.107 It might fit in the understanding that some of Dan’s tribe conquered Laish, renaming it “Dan”.108 Also, Dan’s “leaping from The Bashan” is inconsistent with his normal areas. Second, Levi is without territory in that it is distributed throughout the land. However, Levi is responsible for the cult, which was stationed at Shechem prior to the Davidic Monarchy and later in Jerusalem. Jerusalem would continue the general directional movement; Shechem would not. While geography may have influenced the presentation, and even that cannot be held too tightly, it is not the driving organizational engine. The genealogical emphasis of this list is unmistakable. Except for the absent Simeon109, all sons are named. Ephraim and Manasseh appear, but only under Joseph. Furthermore, Jacob’s sons are addressed directly by name, rather than “the sons of” or “the tribe of”. The format of the chapter highlights the genealogy. The introduction (v. 1) states the following words are how Moses blessed the “sons of Israel”. The introductory poem contains the parallel phrases “the assembly of Jacob”110, the “heads of the people”111 and “altogether the Tribes of Israel”112 (vv. 4, 5). These work in harmony with the closing Praise to YHWH; words that are directed to Israel addressed in the second, singular person (vv. 26-27). The speech ends with the parallel references to secured status of Israel/Jacob.113 Enclosed within the opening and closing are the eleven, called out, each by name. The eleven named are the “Sons of Israel”. This is the genealogy of Jacob/Israel.114 107

108

109

110 111 112 113 114

See the territorial description in Josh. 19:40-48. Also, Josh. 21:23-24, the locations of the Levitical cities assigned to Dan, all located in the southwestern area, and the territorial description in Jg. 1:34-36. Described in the Jg. 18 story. A single line in Josh. 19:47 explains that “some” of Dan went north. Much discussion concerns the number of tribes reported in Moses’ Blessing, most of which involves a great deal of textual reconstruction. For instance, K. Sparks removes Judah and Levi as “late additions” then joins the separate Ephraim/Manasseh sayings to Joseph’s to reach a ten tribe assembly (EthnicityandIdentity, 269-270). v. 4. ‫ְק ִה ַלּת יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫אשׁי ָעם‬ ֵ ‫ָר‬ v. 5. ‫יַ ַחד ִשׁ ְב ֵטי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ v. 28. It could be added that the poem insures the connection of Jacob to Israel via the aforementioned references in vv. 4, 5, 28. To these should be added v. 10 where Levi teaches ‫“ ִמ ְשׁ ׇפּ ֶטים‬to Jacob” and ‫תּוֹרה‬ ‫“ ׇ‬to Israel”.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

89

17. Land Allotments in Joshua (Joshua 13 – 21) Context: Joshua 13 is a major break in the book as indicated by the waw-disjunctive phrase “Now Joshua was old” (v. 1). Following a statement that explains the unfinished inhabitation of the land (vv. 2-6), the narrative turns to resolving the land assignments. This action is accomplished over eight chapters (13-21) and is viewed schematically as: 13:1-7 Command to Joshua to Apportion the Remaining Land 13:2-6 Detailed list of unconquered areas 13:8-33

Description of Land Already Apportioned by Moses in Transjordan 13:8-13 Geographical Summary of Transjordan Lands 13:14 No Portion for Levi 13:15-31 Detailed Geographic Description of Transjordan Lands 13:15-23 Reuben’s Lands 13:24-28 Gad’s Lands 13:29-31 “Half-Tribe of Manasseh’s” Lands 13:32 Concluding Statement of Transjordan Lands 13:33 Reiteration of No Portion for Levi 14:1-19:51 Allotment to Tribes in Canaan (Cisjordan) 14:1-5 Introductory Statements 14:6-15:63 Judah’s “Lot” (Taken by Conquering) 16:1-17:18 Joseph’s “Lot” 16:1-3 Geographic Summary of Joseph’s Boundaries 16:4-17:13 Lands of the “Sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim”115 16:5-10 Ephraim’s Lands 17:1-13 Manasseh’s Lands 17:14-180 “Sons of Joseph” lot is extended (by force, from Canaanites) 18:1-10 Narrative of Shiloh Meeting, Land Survey for Seven Tribes with no land 18:11-28 Benjamin’s Lands 19:1-9 Simeon’s Lands (“Second Lot”) 19:10-16 Zebulun’s Lands (“Third Lot”) 115

Manasseh precedes Ephraim in the statement (16:4) but the order is reversed in the land descriptions.

90

CHAPTER THREE

19:17-23 19:24-31 19:32-39 19:40-48 19:49-50 19:51 20:1-9

Issachar’s Lands (“Fourth Lot”) Asher’s Lands (“Fifth Lot”) Naphtali’s Lands (“Sixth Lot”) Dan’s Lands (“Seventh Lot”) Special Allotment Given to Joshua, Son of Nun Concluding Statement on Tribal Allotment Designation of Refuge Cities

21:1-42 Cities for the Levites and Their Clans 21:1-3 Introductory Narrative 21:4-18 Lot Summaries, Levite Clans 21:4-5 Kohath Lot Summary 21:6 Gershon Lot Summary 21:7 Merari Lot Summary 21:8 Levitical Clan Summary 21:9-19 Aaron Family Lot – Detailed (“First Lot”) 21:9-16 Detailed Aaron Lot in Judah and Simeon 21:17-18 Detailed Aaron Lot in Benjamin 21:19 Summary of Aaron’s Lot 21:20-26 Kohath Family Lot (non-Aaronite clans) – Detailed 21:20-22 Detailed Kohath Lot in Ephraim 21:23-24 Detailed Kohath Lot in Dan 21:25 Kohath Lot in “Half-Tribe of Manasseh” 21:26 Summary of Kohath’s Lot 21:27-33 Gershon Family Lot – Detailed 21:27 Detailed Gershon Lot in “Half-Tribe of Manasseh” 21:28-29 Detailed Gershon Lot in Issachar 21:30-31 Detailed Gershon Lot in Asher 21:32 Detailed Gershon Lot in Naphtali 21:33 Summary of Gershon’s Lot 21:34-40 Merari Family Lot – Detailed 21:34-35 Detailed Merari Lot in Zebulun 21:36-37 Detailed Merari Lot in Reuben 21:38-39 Detailed Merari Lot in Gad 21:40 Summary of Merari’s Lot 21:41-42 Summary Statement on the Cities for the Levites 21:43-45

Concluding Statement that all the Land was allotted and Possessed

Function: A detailed, geographic description of each tribe’s land holdings and cities.

91

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

Listing: The text distinguishes four groups amongst the twelve tribes: the Transjordan group, two (Judah/Joseph) who conquered for their lot, the seven remaining tribes, and the Levite Clans. The chart represents the groups via titles spacing. The introductory title for each tribe is specified. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Chapter/Verse

TRANSJORDAN Reuben ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

13:15-23

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

7

13:24-28

Manasseh ‫ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט‬Rachel

11.1

‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬

13:29-31

CONQUERING Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

4

14:6; 16:63 15:1, 20

Rachel 11

14:6-15:63 16:1-17:18

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬ 114

16:5-10 11.2 11.1 “First-born of Joseph” (17:1) 17:1-13

SEVEN LOTTERIES Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

18:11-28

Simeon,

Leah

2

19:1-9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

19:10-16

Issachar,

Leah

9

19:17-23

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

19:24-31

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

19:32-39

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

19:40-48 LEVITE CLANS

Levi

Leah

3

20:1-21:42

Levi Clans distinguished

Mother Sequence: Transjordan are Leah-Zilpah-Rachel. Conquering group by birth mother (Leah-Rachel). Mothers in the Lottery tribes should be considered inconsequential due to the luck of the draw. However, it is interesting that the sequence is Rachel – Leah – Zilpah – Bilhah.

116

Manasseh precedes Ephraim in the statement (16:4) but the order is reversed in the land descriptions.

92

CHAPTER THREE

Son Sequence: Transjordan group by birth order. Conquering group by birth order. Lottery group by pick. In Levi’s, the Kohite clan is first with the Aaron descendants (priests) taking precedence, followed by the remaining Kohite clans. Levi’s other sons Gershon, then Merari follow in birth order. Priestly clans (Aaron) are clearly preeminent, then birth order is followed. Observations: Prior to observations regarding mothers/sons and the overall listing, several remarks should be made concerning the nature and characteristics of these extended descriptions of territories. First, Joshua does not constitute a “list” in the technical sense of the word. The chapters, while sometimes comprised of smaller lists of individual territories, etc., are merely accounts and descriptions of the holdings of each tribe. Yet, the broader purpose of the various accounts and descriptions, when viewed synchronically, is to account for each and every tribe of Jacob/Israel. In this sense, the combined chapters act in a similar manner as a technical list. Second, as all text-critics of Joshua know, the condition of MT Joshua text is quite the mess, as is evident is in other HB manuscripts and the versions. The primary discrepancies are found in the place-names from the standpoint of both orthography and arrangement within the chapters. For example, the Septuagint transmits two major texts117 concerning the “lottery” tribes in 15:21-16:62 (portions of Judah), 18:22 – 28 (Benjamin) and 19:1-45 (Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan). However, the text traditions only show differences within any individual tribe. The overall presentation and placement of the sons of Jacob/Israel remains identical in these textual traditions. This surely indicates some form of solid tradition, despite any differences within each tribe. Third, The territorial descriptions are quite varied.118 Judah (ch. 15) and Benjamin (ch. 18) contain detailed boundary and city lists. Ephraim (ch. 16) and Cisjordan Manasseh (ch. 17) have detailed southern boundaries, Ephraim alone has a detailed northern boundary: Manasseh is related in general terms only. Simeon and Dan have only a list of cities. The Galilee area tribes are a “fragmentary, confused mixture” of boundary lists and city names. The Transjordan tribes of Reuben and Gad are a mixture of boundaries and cities while Half-Manasseh is described in 117 118

Represented in CodexAlexandrinus and CodexVaticanus, respectively. Following the analysis of Y. Kaufman in The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (trans. M Dagut. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1953), 7-8. For similar analyses, see N. Na’aman in Borders and Districts and Z. Kallai in Historical Geography of theBible:TheTribalTerritoriesofIsrael (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, and The Hebrew University and Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

93

the most general of terms only. The Transjordan group bears a stamp of its own. Rather than the clear city and border demarcations found in the Cisjordan, distinct territories bearing the names of the principle cites (Bashan, Sihon Havoth-Giliead, etc.) are referenced.119 Dan’s description is entirely in the central area bordering Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim. Naphtali is not assigned a northern border,120 supporting the idea that the writer did not use any sources that placed Dan in the north.121 Only one statement in all of Joshua refers to Dan’s conquest of Laish (19:47), which Y. Kaufman labels the last event known in Joshua.122 Now, we may record several observations in the extended territorial lists of Joshua. Our first observation is that the tribes are divided by the narrative into four groups:123 1) the “Transjordan” tribes consisting of Reuben, Gad, and “Half-Tribe Manasseh”, 2) the “conquering” tribes of Judah and Joseph (consisting of Ephraim and Manasseh), 3) the “lottery” tribes (the seven remaining excluding Levi), and 4) the Levitical families. The organizational principle is by time of inhabitation. The Transjordan inhabited first, followed by Judah and Joseph. The remaining tribes (called the “lottery” tribes above) are described by the narrative to inhabit their lands “when Joshua was old” (13:1); a much later time. Finally, the levitical families are allotted cities in the final step. Within each of the four groups, different organizing principles are evident. The Transjordan tribes are sequenced by birth order or a geographical south to north movement. Both work. The conquering tribes, Judah then Joseph, are in birth order.124 Chance of the draw controls the Lottery tribes. Last in the narrative sequence is the Tribe of Levi. Aaron’s priestly branch takes precedence, then the “rest of the Kohites” (the clan from which Aaron derives). The Kohites are followed by the clans from Levi’s other sons Gershon and Merari, a birth order sequencing.

119 120 121 122 123

124

Y. Kaufman, ConquestofPalestine, 26. N. Na’aman, BordersandDistricts, 90. Y. Kaufman,ConquestofPalestine, 18. ibid., 7. H. Cazelles also recognized four groups but a solely geographical arrangement: Transjordan, Central, Southern and Northern Cisjordan (The History of Israel in the Pre-Exilic Period, 284-288). An alternative guiding principle may exist for the Conquering tribes: time when land conquered. It may be that Judah subdued its territory first, then Joseph. Although not indicated in the narrative, this is the idea presented in Judges. We abstain from pushing the theory too hard since the Joshua narrative makes no such claim.

94

CHAPTER THREE

The order of the tribes mentioned within the levitical assignments should be noted, as the presentation is purely geographical. The “Cities of Refuge” (20:1-9) sequence is Naphtali, Ephraim, and Judah (v. 7), then Reuben, Gad, Manasseh (v. 8). This appears to be north to south on the Cisjordan side, then south to north on the Transjordan side. The presentation of the priestly cities (20:9-42) is more complicated. Assuming the territories described in the chapters, the sequence of the priest cities generally move from east to west, swinging toward the north, each tribal territory adjacent to the next until Issachar. Thereafter, the list backtracks to Issachar then to Asher then Zebulun to Reuben to Gad. Thus, neither sequence follows the order of tribes in the earlier narratives (chs. 13-19). In the final analysis, the Joshua land division chapters are certainly based on the family genealogy of Jacob’s twelve sons. The book of Joshua ensures that all the tribes are named, and all tribes’ territories are described, even when available information was scanty.125 Although grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim appear, they are placed under the Joseph heading thereby connecting directly to their father. It is Joseph who is the son of Jacob/Israel. Levi is presented in the form of his descendants, organized according to his sons and their clans. The issue of land inheritance drives the function of this lengthy narrative and influences the order of presentation. Nevertheless, the family genealogy is presented. 18. Judges 1 Context: The Book of Judges opens by explaining the actions of the Israelites after the death of Joshua. Judges 2 issues a reminder of the covenant made during Joshua’s time, a notice that Joshua and the generation living during his time had passed. It then sets the tone for the remainder of the book: the Israelites abandoned God. In its canonical context, Judges intends to follow the Book of Joshua as indicated by its introduction. In relation to the lists, it does not repeat verbatim the information given in the Book of Joshua, although it follows a near-identical tradition (to be discussed below). Function: Explain the actions of the tribes after the death of Joshua. The list is designed to bridge the Joshua-era generations to the subsequent generations who abandon God (beginning in Judges 2). 125

Graeme Auld in Joshua and 1 Chronicles, 135-136.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

95

Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments CONQUERING TRIBES

Judah

Leah

4

Simeon

Leah

2

Benjamin ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel

12

Joseph ‫ֵבּית־‬

Rachel

11

Manasseh

Rachel

11.1

Ephraim

Rachel

11.2

Zebulun

Leah

10

Zilpah

8

Also referred to as “Judah ‫”בּנֵ י‬ ְ “did not take possession” “Did Not Take Possession Tribes”

Asher Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Also referred to as simply “Dan”

MotherSequence: Leah – Rachel – Leah – Zilpah – Bilhah SonSequence: Judah/Simeon (Benjamin); Joseph; Manasseh-EphraimZebulun-Asher-Naphtali-Dan. Observations: The narrative explains the actions of “Israel” in the years after Joshua’s death. The group inquires of YHWH as to who should be their leader; the response was “Judah”. This leads to a description of the military exploits of Judah and Simeon, acting together, in three separate sections: vv. 2-7; 8-15; 16-20. The next section (vv. 22-29) relates the military exploits of “The House of Joseph”. The final section explains the (non) actions of six tribes. Several tribes are absent in Jg. 1: Levi, Issachar, Reuben and Gad. Levi is simple to explain in that Levi was not to possess territory, only cities. Since Judges is not concerned with Levitical matters or really even with specific territorial matters, Levi is not included. Reuben, Gad, along with the unmentioned “Half-Tribe of Manasseh” are located in the Transjordan. The Transjordan tribes are nearly ignored in Judges126 and do not appear in this passage related to land possession. 126

The Song of Deborah has the only reference to Reuben of the entire book. Gad and the Gilead/Gileadites (traditionally understood as Transjordan Manasseh) feature prominently in the Japhteh story in Jg. 10-12. The Gileadite Jair judged Israel for twentythree years (Jg. 10:3-5). Yet, the examples are never identified as “Manasseh” in the

96

CHAPTER THREE

Issachar is another, more difficult problem. Below is a comparison of Judges and Joshua, which appear to follow an identical tradition, albeit the Judges narrative is significantly abbreviated due to the purpose of the book. Issachar would fit perfectly into the scheme but is not named. Why? Cannot be a “forgotten” tribe or “non-existent” tribe in that Issachar is named elsewhere in the book.127 The tradition is the same as in Joshua (see discussion below) but lacks Issachar. The second observation is that the “House of Joseph” is not explicitly associated with Manasseh and Ephraim. His sons follow immediately after the “House of Joseph” has been presented. but only in the group of tribes who did not possess certain cities/areas. Manasseh and Ephraim are entered separately (vv. 27-29).128 This may connect them but not necessarily. Third, a pattern can be observed in Judges that is present also in Joshua. This is the separation between Conquering Group 1 (Judah/Simeon), Conquering Group 2 (House of Joseph), and the non-conquering groups in roughly geographical order. Consider the following: Judah/Simeon Judah Simeon Benjamin Joseph Manasseh Ephraim

Judges 1:2-20

1:21 1:22-26

Joshua

Ch. 15 19:1-9 18:11-28 Ch. 16-17 17:1-13 16:5-10

Other Tribes Manasseh Ephraim Zebulun Issachar Asher Naphtali Dan

1:27-28 1:29 1:30 Absent 1:31-32 1:33 1:34-36

19:10-16 19:17-23 19:24-31 19:32-39 19:40-48

Transjordan

Not Named

Ch. 13

127 128

book. The only other reference to Manasseh in Judges refers to the Cisjordan part of the tribe (Gideon account in Jg. 6-7). Abimelech is a “man of Issachar” (10:1). Issachar also named in the SOD (5:15). MT separates the “House of Joseph” conquests from the Manasseh and Ephraim statements via petucha (v. 26); a setumah separates the Manasseh from Ephraim statements (v. 28).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

97

Thematically, Judges and Joshua agree in the concept that the Judah and Joseph groups proactively conquer territory but the others simply move into uninhabited areas. Especially in the Judges narrative, the statements explicitly demark the cities not possessed by the named tribes (including Benjamin). The order of presentation is nearly identical. A difference is apparent for Manasseh and Ephraim in that Judges does not show them conquering, but only gives the cities they did not inhabit. Contra Joshua, which describes the two as proactively conquering territories (17:17). Joshua and Judges both carry the tradition that Manasseh and Ephraim did not conquer certain named cities.129 Other than the absent tribes (Transjordan and Issachar), three differences exist between Judges and Joshua. One is the placement of Simeon. Judges describes Simeon as joining Judah in conquering territory. In Joshua, Simeon, the first lottery pick, is given territory within the larger boundaries of Judah. For Judah/Simeon, the narrative is different but the tradition behind the narratives seems to be identical. Second is Benjamin, who, in Joshua, is allotted territory between “the Sons of Judah and the Sons of Joseph” (18:11). Judges represents the same tradition in that Benjamin is part of Judah’s narrative (if the setumah is observed) and set in the narrative between Judah and the House of Joseph (1:21). Third is the label put on Joseph. Judges refers to him as “The House of Joseph” (v. 22); Joshua refers to his descendants as “Sons of Joseph” (16:1). Manasseh and Ephraim are not associated with Joseph in Judges, but are directly connected to him in Joshua under his moniker and their groups are called the “Tribe of Manasseh” and the “Sons of Ephraim”, respectively. 19. Song of Deborah (SOD, Jg. 5:14 – 23) Context: This celebratory song immediately follows the Israelite victory over Jabin, King of Hazor (Jg. 4). Ch. 6 launches another episode of Israel “doing evil in the sight of YHWH” and is therefore clearly demarked from the Song. Function: Laud the victorious actions of YHWH, Deborah, Barak, Jael, and participating tribes.

129

Cf. Judges 1:27-29 with Josh. 16-17.

98

CHAPTER THREE

Listing: Positive (+), negative (–) assessments noted in the comments column. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Ephraim

Rachel

10.2

+

Benjamin

Rachel

12

+

Zebulun

Leah

10

+ also listed later

Issachar

Leah

9

+

Reuben

Leah

1

–

Dan

Bilhah

5

–

Asher

Zilpah

8

–

Zebulun

Leah

10

+? also listed earlier

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

+?

Machir

+

Gilead

Meroz

–

–

MotherSequence: Rachel – Leah –Bilhah – Zilpah – Leah (repeated) – Bilhah SonSequence: No particular scheme detectable. See geographical note below. Observations: Missing from this listing is Simeon, Levi, Judah, Gad, Manasseh, Joseph. Eleven groups are named, Zebulun twice. “Non-tribes” are Machir, Gilead, and Meroz. Machir and Gilead are elsewhere considered to be sub-units of one of the tribes: Benjamin130 and/or Manasseh131 for Machir, Gad and Manasseh split Gilead.132 The formal treatments of Machir and Gilead match the other “tribes” so however we determine the others to be (locale or tribe), these should agree. While geographic areas are named in the SOD, K. Sparks makes a strong case that the names in the Song are more than simply geographical regions in that far too many “social modalities” are expressed.133 On the other hand, the SOD may not be intended 130 131

132

133

2 Sam. 9:4-5; 17:27 Much more for Manasseh: Gn. 50:23; Nm. 26:29; 27:1; 32:39-40; 36:1; Dt. 3:15; Josh. 13:31; 17:1, 3; 1 Ch. 2:21-23; 7:14-17. The traditions reflect that Gilead was divided between Manasseh and Gad (cf. Dt. 3:1112; Josh. 20:8; 21:36; 22: 9ff), probably based on the geography, so understood by previous Canaanite kingdoms who held two different parts (cf. Josh. 12:1-5 tradition). EthnicityandIdentity, 115.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

99

as a “tribal list” since the word “tribe” is not used in the text.134 Meroz was probably a city,135 rather than a tribe or region. The proximity to the battle is the reason for being included. Much discussion in the literature revolves around whether the Song only names tribes in existence at the time of writing,136 whether the “non-tribes” such as “Gilead” should be understood as a tribe,137 or whether Judah/Simeon were viewed in the contemporary point as either non-existent or “foreign”.138 Each name is accompanied by a descriptor of some sort. For the groups that helped, the descriptor relates something about the tribe’s leaders: connection to past warriors (Ephraim), kinsmen (Benjamin), commanders/ lawmakers139 (Machir); scribes (Zebulun), relentless chasers (Issachar); a people willing to sacrifice life (Zebulun, Naphtali). Alternatively, the negatively portrayed groups are described as staying at home: with the sheep (Reuben); relaxing by the Jordan (Gilead); on ships and the beach (Dan, Asher). Positive statements (groups who helped) are: Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulun (twice mentioned); Naphtali. Negative statements (groups who did not help) are: Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, Meroz. The song is geographically oriented as is indicated by the order of names. It begins with the southern-most areas of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Machir, heads northward to Zebulun and Issaschar. The tribes who did not assist are listed, beginning in the southern Transjordan with Reuben, then Gilead, westward all the way to the coast for Dan and Asher. The list, switching again to the helpful tribes, concludes by heading inland (eastward) to Zebulun and Napthali, nearest to where the battle took place on and around Mt. Tabor (Jg. 4). Finally, Meroz, an unidentified city or town (likely nearby if the battle scene language is taken into account) is condemned for not coming to assist. The SOD is a triumphal song that lauds the actions of a few: YHWH, Deborah, Jael, Barak, and the participating armies, especially Zebulon and Naphtali in whose territories the battles were fought. However, the issues of the exact number of tribes, who is to be identified as “Israel” (or not), whether the “non-tribes” are regions, peoples or something else, whether 134 135

136

137 138

139

ibid., 297. Wording is ‫ י ְֹשׁ ֶביה‬with the fs pronominal suffix, likely referring to Meroz’ status as a city. Kenton Sparks argues that the cultural identity of “Israel” consisted of the ten tribes named in the song (ibid., 116). See A. D. H. Mayes, IsraelinthePeriod, 30. A. D. H. Mayes sees Judah, Simeon, and Manasseh as existing tribes but were geographically cut off from the named tribes by superior Canaanite forces, thereby making them unavailable to assist. Levi and Gad were non-existent (ibid., 104-105). ‫ְמח ְֹק ִקים‬

100

CHAPTER THREE

the missing tribes are indicative of another cultural group or not in existence does not affect the present analysis. The function of the Song, lauding YHWH, the leaders and armies, and again YHWH – in that order – limits the included names to a specific geographical region. 20. Ezekiel’s Land Assignments (Ezek. 48:1-29) Context: The last chapter of Ezekiel describes Ezekiel’s tribal allotments in his vision of the restored land. It follows a multi-chapter description of New Jerusalem. The next topic is the gate names of Jerusalem (see List 21 below). Function: Give the names of the tribes (v. 1) and their districts (v. 29). Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Dan

Bilhah

5

Asher

Zilpah

8

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Manasseh Rachel

11.1

Ephraim

Rachel

11.2

Reuben

Leah

1

Judah

Leah

4

Jerusalem Central Benjamin

Admin

Rachel

12

Simeon

Leah

2

Issachar

Leah

9

Zebulun

Leah

10

Gad

Zilpah

7

Area

MotherSequence: Mothers are in an order unlike any other list. The tribes north of Jerusalem and the administrative allotment appear to be in ascending order according to the mother’s rank: handmaiden tribes – Rachel – Leah. Stated in reverse, the rank of the mother increases closer to Jerusalem. This concept does not work for the southern half. The question arises whether mother’s rank had any import to Ezekiel’s assignments? R. de Vaux notes that Leah’s and Rachel’s are nearest to the sanctuary, the

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

101

handmaiden sons are on the extremities.140 In any case, there is still a genealogical push behind the grouping by mothers.141 SonSequence: No apparent principle governing the sequence. The text offers no clues to this arrangement or its governing principle. Without further information, we should refrain from additional suggestions. Observations: The text works from a clear geographical direction of north to south as indicated by the opening phrase (Israel’s northern territorial boundaries) and closing phrase (Israel’s southern territorial boundaries). The land is divided into thirteen districts, twelve assigned to each of the tribes, the thirteenth assigned to the administrative and cult center of which Jerusalem is the headquarters. Ephraim and Manasseh are each given a separate district (vv. 4-5). Joseph is unnamed. Ezekiel clearly demarks the new territorial boundaries for his utopian142 vision of Israel’s tribes. The assigned tribal districts generally show little, if any, connection to the historical tribal allotments as described in the book of Joshua, depicted in the various narratives throughout the HB, or elsewhere. No border descriptions similar or vaguely reminiscent to Joshua exist in Ezekiel. Still, tribal districts are important so indicated by the formulaic statement given to each tribe indicating the tribe’s name and North/South boundaries. The east-west borders of each tribe are described as “from the east side to the sea-side”.143 Only north-south connections are made between each tribe. Thus, most scholars see each district to extend the full east-west length from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River,144 although the river is not named. Transjordan territory is not included in Ezekiel’s vision. The size dimensions of the tribal districts are not given, only their north/south connection to adjacent tribes. The central district is comprised of the cult center, the city ruler’s area and the common grounds for the city workers. Contrary to the tribes who receive a short, identical formulaic statement,145 detailed dimensions and border descriptions for each of the various constituents are issued for the central district. As noted in the chart above, the cult/administrative district falls in between the Judah and Benjamin areas. 140 141 142 143 144 145

TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 731. His other suggestions, such as Reuben is pushed away from the sanctuary because of his incest, are speculation. ibid., 731. ibid., 733. Taking “‫ת־יָמּה‬ ‫”פּ ַא ׇ‬ ְ as “sea side”. Could also be “west side”. ibid., 730. ‫ ֶא ׇחד‬SN ‫ד־פּ ַאת־יָ ׇמּה‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ְפּ ַאת ָק ִדים ַע‬SN ‫ וְ ַעל גְּ בוּל‬TN. The exceptions are Dan (v.1) as the first tribe named, Benjamin (v. 23) as the resumption of the list after the cult/ administrative description.

102

CHAPTER THREE

Levi and the cult are assigned a potion of the central district. Although Levi is not listed in the same formulaic manner as the others, his territory is described in more detail than the others. This indicates that Levi is part of the tribal system and is to be included in the family genealogy. 21. The City Gates of New Jerusalem (Ezek. 48:30-35) Context: The end of Chapter 48 and the Book of Ezekiel, immediately following the tribal districts (see List 20 above). Function: Name the twelve gates to the city according to the names of the tribes of Israel (v. 31). Listing: The text assigns the gates according to the cardinal directions North-East-South-West. The chart represents this. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments NORTH Reuben Leah 1 Judah Leah 4 Levi Leah 3 EAST Joseph Rachel 11 Benjamin Rachel 12 Dan Bilhah 5 SOUTH Simeon Leah 2 Issachar Leah 9 Zebulun Leah 10 WEST Gad Zilpah 7 Asher Zilpah 8 Naphtali Bilhah 6

MotherSequence: Grouped by mothers. Leah’s are North and South; Rachel’s are East; Zilpah’s are West; Bilhah’s fill in the third spots for Rachel and Zilpah. It is unclear whether any significance is to be ascribed to this particular arrangement vis-à-vis mothers and cardinal directions. SonSequence: Birth order within each cardinal direction, except North side (Judah between Reuben and Levi).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

103

Observations: Not comparable to any geographically organized list or the camp/procession order. The pericope is formulaic: the twelve gates are divided into the four cardinal directions North – East – South – West. Each side measures 4500 cubits, has three gates, and each is named “Gate PN, one” in sequence.146 Levi and Joseph included; Ephraim and Manasseh are not. This is the family genealogy naming the twelve tribes147 of Israel. The gates represent the sons; no territory or placement is needed. 22. “These are the Sons of Israel” (1 Ch. 2:1-2) Context: Set within the genealogies extending back to Adam and assorted lists of 1 Chronicles, Ch. 2:1-2 introduces the sons of Israel. The first half of Chapter 1 cites generations from Adam to Abraham, the chapter’s clear destination. The second half of the chapter details Abraham’s descendants in three major groups: Ishmael (vv. 29b-31), “Sons of Keturah, pilegesh of Abraham” (vv. 32-33), then Isaac’s son Esau and his descendants (vv. 43b-54). Ch. 2:1-2 continues with the “Sons of Israel”. Chapters 2:3 through Chapter 9 detail the descendants of the twelve sons of Israel. Chapter 10 launches the narratives concerning the kings of Israel. Function: To name the “Sons of Israel”. Listing: Name Mother Birth Order Comments Reuben Leah 1 Simeon Leah 2 Levi Leah 3 and Judah Leah 4 Issachar Leah 9 and Zebulun Leah 10 Dan Bilhah 5 Joseph Rachel 11 and Benjamin Rachel 12 Naphtali Bilhah 6 Gad Zilpah 7 and Asher Zilpah 8 146

147

The cardinal direction each set of gates faces is stated; the sequence is not. Whether the gates run left to right or vise versa cannot be determined and several options can be derived. However, the stated sequence is of importance to Ezekiel. “Tribe” in Ezekiel is ‫( שׁבט‬48:1; 23, 29); ‫ מטה‬is not employed.

104

CHAPTER THREE

Mother Sequence: Leah’s first (all), followed by one from Bilhah, Rachel’s two – another of Bilhah, Zilpah’s two. SonSequence: Birth order within the mother. Observations: The Chronicler calls the group the “Sons of Israel” rather than Jacob. This follows from 1:34 where the sons of Isaac are listed as “Esau and Israel”.148 Interesting order in that Rachel is encased in Bilhah. Dan preceding Rachel’s is unique among the genealogical lists but does occur once in Numbers (34:16-29, List 14) and is certainly not a “textual accident”149 even if a suitable explanation is not forthcoming.150 Some note that Dan is the first son attributed to Rachel, therefore his importance affords him the first spot.151 Clearly, Leah’s are primary and fit the standard genealogical listing. Dan’s placement after Benjamin would have put the mothers in a descending sequence (assuming Bilhah outranks Zilpah, a matter not certain). Yet, this is not the case. The conjunction attaches Levi to Judah, Issachar to Zebulun, Joseph to Benjamin, and Gad to Asher. Is this merely a grammatical feature to assist the reading? Or, does the conjunction indicate some connection between the two names being “joined”? Is it significant that Levi and Judah are typically connected in the history as state sponsor and cult leader? Joseph and Benjamin are the only sons of Rachel? Issachar/Zebulun are the younger sons of Leah and Gad/Asher (both sons of Zilpah) are often found together? Are any of these suggestions significant or is the conjunction merely a narrative helper? This is the family genealogy with Levi and Joseph. The subsequent chapters will include Manasseh and Ephraim when territory is described. However, here it is the sons of the father. 23. Extended Genealogical listing of Israel’s Sons (1 Ch. 2:3-8:40) Context: The “Sons of Israel” in 2:1-2 (List 22), introduces the lengthy genealogies in 2:3 through Chapter 8. Ch. 9 and following supply additional lists, recount the reign of Saul and progress to David. 148

149 150 151

The Chronicler never calls the patriarch “Jacob”, only “Israel”. The only two instances of “Jacob” appearing in Chronicles are in a single direct quotation of David’s song of praise when he brings the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem (1 Ch. 16:13, 18. Cf. Ps. 105, 2 Sam. 3). Roland de Vaux, TheEarlyHistory, 720. contra S. McKenzie in 1–2Chronicles (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 69. 1Chronicles:ACommentary (Ed. Thomas Krüger. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 80.

105

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

Function: Connect the ancient family members (Israel and twelve sons) to the generations leading to the monarchy and then to the postexilic community. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Chapter/Verse

Judah

Leah

4

2:3 – 4:23

Simeon

Leah

2

4:24 – 43

Reuben

Leah

1

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

‫ ְבנֵ י ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט‬Rachel

11.1

First-born of Israel

5:1 – 10 5:11 – 17

‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬

5:23 – 24

Manasseh Levi

Leah

3

5:27 – 6:66

Issachar

Leah

9

7:1 – 5

Benjamin

Rachel

12

7:6 – 12

Naphtali

Bilhah

6

Manasseh

Rachel

11.1

Ephraim

Rachel

11.2

Asher

Zilpah

8

7:30 – 40

Benjamin

Rachel

12

8:1 – 40

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

7:13 7:14 – 19

‫יוֹסף ֶבּן־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ְבּנֵי‬

7:20 –29 (7:29)

MotherSequence: Mixed up. Leah’s are the general focus of the chapters 2-6. The others are the general focus of chapters 7 and 8. However, the mothers are not the organizing factor (see discussion below) and little significance should be placed on this general observation. Son Sequence: Appears to generally follow the geographic plan of Joshua and Judges in that it presents four groups: Judah/Simeon – Transjordan tribes (Reuben, Gad, Half-tribe of Manasseh) – Levi – the others. The Joseph block is presented differently from Joshua in that Manasseh and Ephraim are independent of Joseph who is a footnote (1 Ch. 7:29). The movement from Judah/Simeon to the Transjordan is facilitated by the narrative of Simeon, which describes how some of his descendants

106

CHAPTER THREE

took over Mt. Seir in the territory of Edom.152 Benjamin’s second entry, the final genealogy in the family, leads to Saul and his descendants, the narrative topic of 9:35-10:14. Observations: Chronicles, like Joshua, presents the genealogical lists over many chapters. A few notes should be registered before making observations. There are a few differences in how Chronicles makes the presentations in comparison to Joshua.153 In Joshua, the presentation was consistent in terms of formula, span of time involved, form, and style. Not so in Chronicles. Formulae vary significantly, even those used for the same tribe presented in the same chapter.154 Time markers vary from the “ancestors,155 to “the time of David”,156 to an “Exile Returnee Census”.157 In the case of Judah, Levi and Benjamin, the accounts and lists are lengthy and detailed; for most others, brief. Adjacent lists often have very different structures, forms; even different spellings for the name of the same individual. These factors are indicative of the variety and numerous sources employed by the Chronicler, who did not attempt to reshape or homogenize the sources,158 including Numbers and Joshua, along materials from the monarchy, exilic and post-exilic.159 M. Johnson makes a critical observation in this regard. Only four tribes are described with no military allusions in their descriptions: Judah, Levi, Manasseh and Ephraim. Together, he notes, these formed the “core” of “Israel, north and south.160 The sum total of all the genealogies was employed by the Chronicler to keep “close contact”161 with the ancient tribal family, “The Sons of Israel”. Now to the observations. 152

153

154 155 156 157 158

159

160 161

Presumably, after Hezekiah, if the logic of the text is followed, “still live there to this day” (1 Ch. 4:43). G. Auld addresses the possible “dialogue” between Chronicles, which relied heavily upon an existing version of Joshua, and the present edition of Joshua, which made a few revisions in response to the newly created “Chronicles” (Joshua and 1 Chronicles, 132-140). See, for example, the above discussion of Benjamin in Ch. 8. Esp. Judah in Ch. 3 and Levi in Chs. 5-6 (Eng. Ch. 6 only). Issachar (7:1-5); Benjamin (7:6-12); Asher (7:30-40). 9:1-34, The upcoming List 24. Peter J. Williams in “Israel Outside the Land: The Transjordan Tribes in 1 Chronicles 5”, WindowsintoOldTestamentHistory:Evidence,Argument,andtheCrisisof “BiblicalHistory” (Eds. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordan J. Wenhem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 149. Marshall D. Johnson, ThePurposeofTheBiblicalGenealogies, 56. For this reason, I think that K. Namiki’s characterization of many lists in Chronicles as “free compositions” is incorrect (Reconsideration, 44. ThePurposeofTheBiblicalGenealogies, 69. Koichi Namiki, Reconsideration, 35.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

107

Dan162 and Zebulun163 are absent. Naphtali is supplied with a unique moniker: “Sons of Naphtali, Sons of Bilhah” (7:13). Transjordan Manasseh has a unique formation with “sons” coming before the “half-tribe” designation rather than after.164 Three tribes garner much more attention: Judah (100 verses), Levi (81 verses), and Benjamin (47 verses). The details supplied to these are more voluminous and of greater diversity of styles. Benjamin appears twice: in 7:6-12 and all of Ch. 8. Ch. 7 gives military roster counts for three separate descendants (vv. 7, 9, 11). These are likely from the time of David. Rather different in style and substance, Ch. 8 presents Benjamin in two parts: vv. 1-28 and 29-40. Vv. 1-28 begins with the tribal father (Benjamin) and his sons (vv. 1-2), continues with the sons of Benjamin’s first-born Bela` (vv. 3-5). However, v. 6ff moves to the exilic time and beyond. It appears to be Benjamin descendants who lived in and around Jerusalem after the return. In contrast, 8:29-40 connects Benjamin, through Gibeah, to Saul, first king of Israel, and his descendants. Saul is the subject of 9:35-10:14.165 Benjamin (the first appearance in 7:6-12) and Naphtali are joined into a single section. No setumah or petuchah separates the two as in all others. 162

163

164 165

The lack of genealogical entries for Dan and Zebulun is a serious issue for commentators. One would expect Dan to be near Naphtali and, indeed the text at 7:12 seems rather confused. In fact, the Versions are perplexed on how to deal with it. Much emendation and speculation revolve around the short statement of Naphtali, the only tribe without its own introduction, and the reference to “sons of Bilhah”, including names that resemble Dan’s descendants elsewhere. Most commentators conclude that Dan’s genealogy and part of Napthali’s has accidentally fallen off for one reason or another. Thus, Dan is often inserted into the commentary translations. For fuller analyses of the multiple issues, see the summary of major arguments up through 2008 in James T. Sparks (TheChroniclersGenealogies:TowardsanUnderstandingof1Ch.1-9 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 209-212. The problem with all attempts to reposition Dan into the genealogies is that no textual evidence of any sort, from any manuscript or version, from any period whatsoever, exists. Zebulun is more difficult. Perhaps the Benjamite listing in 7:6-11 was originally assigned to Zebulun (Marshall K. Johnson, ThePurposeofTheBiblicalGenealogies, 50. Also Sara Japhet in TheIdealogyoftheBookofChroniclesandItsPlaceinBiblicalThought [Trans. Anna Barber. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989], 280, n. 61.) The expected place would be next to Issachar (Thomas Willi in Chronik [NeukirchenVluvn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991], 234). It has been suggested that Zebulun may have dropped by scribal error (Steven S. Tuell in FirstandSecondChronicles [Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 2001], 29) or overlooked by the Chronicler (Sarah Japhet, I&IIChronicles, 169). I consider this unlikely since Zebulun is not forgotten in 2:1-2. Here “SN-‫”בנֵ י ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט‬, ְ normally SN-‫ח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְבנֵ י‬. ֲ 1 Ch. 9:35 – 40, a nearly identical genealogy to 8:29-40, will be discussed below in List 24.

108

CHAPTER THREE

The listings of three tribes are military counts “from the time of David”: Issachar, Benjamin (first genealogy in 7:7, 9), and Asher. All three are formulaic in wording and organization, in contrast to the other tribal lists. “Manasseh” comes in two distinct forms and genealogies. The first Manasseh genealogy (in 5:23-26) is the Transjordan. The group is called the “Sons of the Half-Tribe of Manasseh” (‫)בנֵ י ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ְ 166 Alternatively, 7:14-19 names the “Sons of Manasseh” (‫י־מנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ֵ‫)בנ‬, ְ specifically listing those who descended from “Machir, the father of Gilead”. This Manasseh group is in Cisjordan and precedes Ephraim’s genealogy in the narrative, thereby indicating that the phrase “Sons of Joseph, Son of Israel” (7:29) refers to both Manasseh and Ephraim. The geographical presentation advances the Chronicler’s view that the people named in the genealogies were indeed the ancestors of the contemporary people who were to inhabit all the land.167 24. Leaders of the First Returnees who Lived in Jerusalem (1 Ch. 9:234) Context: 1 Ch. 9:1 statement that “all Israel was registered…then Judah was deported to Babylon” acts as a conclusion to the numerous genealogies and lists in the previous chapters. The section following (9:35-44) cites King Saul’s lineage and heirs. Ch. 10 recounts the death of Saul, Ch. 11 begins the history of King David. Function: Name individual leaders and their responsibilities who lived in Jerusalem. Listing: Name

Mother Birth Order Comments Israel

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ and Manasseh

Leah Rachel Rachel

4 12 11.2 11.2

Priests Levites and Temple Ministers

Leah Leah

3 3

166

167

‫ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם‬ ‫ַהנְּ ִתינִ ים‬

Note that 1 Ch. 12:38-39 continues this Transjordan group with the identical monikers and separation from the other parts of Israel, in general, and Manasseh, in particular. Marshall K. Johnson, ThePurposeofTheBiblicalGenealogies, 57-58.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

109

MotherSequence: Leah-Rachel-Leah SonSequence: Judah – Benjamin – Ephraim and Manasseh-Levi Observations: Only a few tribes here, cited as the first returnees from exile. 9:2 summarizes the topic: three groups were the first to dwell in the land. These three are called “Israel”, “the priests”, “the Levites and temple ministers”.168 The pericope then details the three different groups. 9:3 begins those of “Israel” who lived in Jerusalem, distinguishing between “the Sons of Judah”, “the Sons of Benjamin”, and “the Sons of Ephraim and Manasseh”.169 The priests living in Jerusalem is the next concern in vv. 10-13, and then the Levites in vv. 14-32. Verse 33 adds the “singers” (‫)ה ְמשׁ ְֺר ִרים‬, ַ who lived in the temple but provides no other information, particularly individuals’ names. V. 34 could be a conclusion to the Levite section but yet it is distinguished from the previous verses with the wawdisjunctive.170 The link seems to be that the members of vv. 33-34 lived in Jerusalem and had the correct pedigree. The phrase “and from the…” (‫)וּמן־‬ ִ is the organizational key. It marks when the subject moves to a different group of people. Within each detail, names are detailed by citing the pedigree of the person in the format PN, son of PN (in reverse genealogy, most recent to oldest). A total count of each tribe concludes. Of particular note is the absence of any names or counts for “Ephraim and Manasseh”, despite being the third part of the aforementioned “Israel”. 25. Those Who Joined David at Ziqlag (1 Ch. 12:1 – 23) Context: 1 Ch. 11 explains that David became king of all Israel and includes several lists of his various military warriors. Ch. 12 continues 168

169

170

“Temple ministers” is a rendering of ‫נְ ִתינִ ים‬. Levites and ministers should be connected as a single group (rather than separate) based on 1) the conjunction that connects the two, the only one in the phrase. 2) The phrase “from the…” distinguishes between the three parts of “Israel” (v. 3), the priests (v. 7), and the Levites (v. 14). No such distinguishing phrase separates the Levites from the temple ministers. 3) The responsibilities discussed in vv. 14-32 are those of both Levites and “temple ministers”. 4) The “temple ministers” came from the Levitical families (rather than “Israel” or “the priests”. However, note that “Levi” is not named in this pericope. The “priests”, “Levites”, and “Temple ministers” have traditionally been connected to Levi, thus I cite “Levi” as the son. However, this is not connected in the text. “Priests” and “Temple ministers” may not be necessarily from the patriarch Levi. Ephraim and Manasseh are viewed in this passage as a single entity. This is shown by the waw-conjunction and by the phrase “and from the sons of…” (‫ן־בּנֵ י‬ ְ ‫)וּמ‬ ִ that is utilized to mark the separate groups here in the introduction and later in the listing. See discussion. The Massoretes saw a break between the cult section (priests and levites) and v. 34, as indicated by the setumah dividing v. 32 from v. 33.

110

CHAPTER THREE

the theme of his assumptioin of power by first naming those who joined him (and defected from Saul) at Ziqlag, then those who joined at Hebron (see List 24). Function: To name the fighting men who defected from Saul. Listing: MT employs setumah and petuchah as an organizational tool. The chart reflects the petuchah between the four divisions. Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Saul’s kinsmen from Rachel Benjamin

12

vv. 2-8

Gadites

Zilpah

7

vv. 9-16

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ and Judah

Rachel Leah

12 4

vv. 17-19

Manasseh

Rachel

11.1

vv. 20-23

MotherSequence: Rachel – Zilpah – Rachel – Leah – Rachel SonSequence: Saul’s kinsmen (Benjamin), Gad, Benjamin and Judah, Manasseh Observations: Only four tribes named: Benjamin (twice), Gad(ites), Judah and Manasseh. Since these named individuals were defectors from Saul, it is understandable why all tribes are not named. In fact, not all members of these tribes defected to David. The listing is quite brief, naming a few military conquests of certain individuals. It is not surprising that the tribes in this list are all of southern (Cisjordan and Transjordan) areas as those were the nearest to David’s operation. Manasseh in this passage is likely the Cisjordan part if reference to the “Half-tribe of Manasseh” later in the chapter is any indication. 26. Those Who Joined David at Hebron (1 Ch. 12:24 – 41) Context: Continues with the theme of David’s coronation and assumption as King of all Israel. The previous list (25) named those who joined David while Saul was still alive. This pericope lists all who joined him and made him king of all Israel. Chs. 13 – 29 deal with David’s actions as king, especially with respect to the cult. Function: To show that all tribes were in support of making David king of all Israel.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

111

Listing: Name Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ The Levites ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Half-Tribe of Manasseh Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Zebulun Naphtali The Danites Asher The Reubenites The Gadites Half-Tribe Manasseh

Mother Birth Order Comments Leah 4 Leah 2 Leah 3 Rachel 12 Rachel 11.2 ‫ֵמ ֲח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ Rachel 11.1 Leah 9 Leah 10 Bilhah 6 Bilhah 5 Zilpah 8 “Across the River” Leah 1 Zilpah 7 ‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬ Rachel 11.1

Mother Sequence: Leah (3) – Rachel (3) – Leah (2) –Bilhah (2) – Zilpah – Leah/Zilpah/Rachel. SonSequence: A geographical perspective is most logical, starting from the nearest to David [Judah/Simeon/Levi] radiating northward. The [IssacharZebulun-Naphtali] sequence and placement is likely a set order, if v. 41, consisting of the identical sequence of the three, is understood in the same way. The Transjordan tribes appear as an independent block, as indicated by the MT setumah between v. 37 and 38 and the single number for their warriors (v. 38). Observations: All tribes present, except Joseph (but represented by Ephraim and Manasseh?). The MT clearly demarks this pericope by the use of petuchah and setumah. Petuchah separates the entire pericope from the preceding between v. 23 and 24, likewise v. 12:41 and 13:1. Each tribe is divided by a setumah (including one after the introduction in v. 24). The only tribal exception is the Transjordan block of [Reuben-Gad-Half/Tribe of Manasseh], itself understood as a single entity of those “beyond the Jordan”. A distinction is made in the listings in that some tribes are preceded with bene and others are not. The bene tribes are Judah, Simeon, Levi, Benjamin, Ephraim, Issachar. The non-bene tribes are Half-Tribe of Manasseh, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Asher. To be added are the “ite” tribes: “the Danites”,

112

CHAPTER THREE

the Transjordan block [“Reubenites, Gadites, Half-Tribe of Manasseh”]. The levitical families of Jehoiada and Zadok are not tagged either way. This list appears to be a repurposed census of military registration. The number counts and the “prepared for battle” statements are not necessary to its present function but are included anyway. In addition, several statements in and around the listing show its new function. Each has the same purpose: to show that all Israel agreed wholeheartedly to make David king. These are: 1) the opening statement “turn over Saul’s kingdom to David according to the command of YHWH (v. 24), 2) reference that Saul’s kinsmen had only just then decided to join David (v. 30), 3) “gathered by names to coronate David” (v. 32), 4) the comment that Issachar’s chiefs “knew to discern the times to know what Israel should do” (v. 33) and, 5) the conclusion statement after the list (v. 39) referencing the hearts of Israel to make David king. 27. Leaders of the Tribes Appointed by David (1 Ch. 27:16-34) Context: 1 Ch. 23 – 27 entail a large variety of administrative appointments and organizational structures put into place by David in preparation for turning the kingdom over to Solomon (cf. 23:1-2). The final administrative action is the selection of an individual to oversee each tribe. In Ch. 28, David assembles his appointments from all the administrative posts. Function: To name the palace overseer (‫)שׂר‬ ‫ ׇ‬of each tribe. Listing: Name Mother Birth Order Comments Reubenites Leah 1 Simeonites Leah 2 Levi Leah 3 Judah Leah 4 Issachar Leah 9 Zebulun Leah 10 Naphtali Bilhah 6 Ephraim ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel 11.2 Half-Tribe Rachel 11.1 ‫ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ Manasseh ‫ֲח ִצי ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה גִּ ְל ׇע ָדה‬ Half- the Rachel 11.1 Manasseh of Gilead Benjamin Rachel 12 Dan Bilhah 5

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

113

MotherSequence: all Leah’s first, Bilhah (1), all Rachels, Bilhah (1), Zilpah (1) SonSequence: Leah’s in birth order, Rachel’s in birth order (Joseph – Benjamin), but Ephraim-Manasseh in reverse birth order. Others, no particular order. Observations: Gad and Asher are absent. Manasseh has two entrees: the “Half-Tribe Manasseh” and “Half of the Manasseh of Gilead”.171 The second phrase is unique to the HB. As in other geographically arranged lists, Ephraim appears next to Manasseh. Two have the “people” ending: “Reubenites” and “Simeonites”. Ephraim is referred to as “beneEphraim”. All others adhere to the form le + SN (e.g., ‫בוּלן‬ ֻ ְ‫)לז‬. ִ The format for each chosen leader is PN benPN. The exception is an additional qualifier for Levi in the phrase PN ben PN leAharonZadoq.172 Setumah is employed between the sons, except for Judah-Issachar, Zebullun-Naphtali, Ephraim-“Half-Tribe Manasseh. Setumah separates the two Manassehs. The Massoretes understood this as a “list”. In reference to the Transjordan group, it is unclear what the overseers in this chapter have in connection with the overseers appointed specifically over “the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the Half-Tribe of Manassites”173 in 1 Ch. 26:32. C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS We shall now make summary observations with the totality of the lists in view. Appendices I - V present the summary in chart forms: Identification by Type (I, II, III), Tribe Sequences by Type (IV), and Mother Sequences (V). This should aid the reader in a synchronic view of the listings, and for comparative reference. 1. Three types of listings containing “the Sons of Jacob/Israel” are evident. These types can be best classified as genealogical, “Camp Assignment/ 171

172

173

Exact form is ‫ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬and ‫ח ִצי ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה גִּ ְל ׇע ָדה‬, ֲ respectively. Numerous other HB manuscripts have ‫ ֵשׁ ֶבט‬in the second Manasseh. v. 17. Roland de Vaux’s claim that Aaron is treated “almost like a tribe” is mistaken (Early History of Israel, 732). At this point, all Chronicles listings that include Levi have the priests separately delineated. See also the extended genealogies in 1 Ch. 5:276:66 (List 23), 1 Ch. 12:27, 28 (List 26) and even the short list of early exilic returnees (1 Ch. 9:2-34, List 24) makes the distinction explicit: Aaron is one clan of the tribe of Levi. ‫ראוּבנִ י וְ ַהגָּ ִדי וַ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ַה ְמנַ ִשּׁי‬ ֵ ‫ׇה‬

114

CHAPTER THREE

Desert Processional”, and Inheritance/Territorial/Geographical. A description of each type is in order. a. GenealogicalLists174 i. Description The genealogical type names the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel, including Levi and Joseph. The genealogy is used when family affairs are of utmost importance. It is the only form employed until Numbers 1:20 (when the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type is introduced). It reappears at crucial points when the narrative needs to reference the family. The genealogy is repeated when the family moves (Gn. 46:8-25, List 3) and when a vital person dies (Jacob in Gn. 49, List 4 and Moses in Dt. 33, List 16). The family genealogy is reiterated at important junctures in the family history such as when a new chapter in the family history is opened (Ex. 1:1, List 5), or the family story is retold (1 Ch. 2:1-2, List 22). Numbers 1:5-16 (List 7) uses the family genealogy as the base structure to the wilderness camp organization and to establish the connection of Joseph to his sons Manasseh and Ephraim, who then take their places in camp and later in the land. Numbers returns to the family genealogy before addressing land inheritances (the spies in Nm. 13:4-16, List 12). Deuteronomy calls on the entire family, Levi and Joseph included, to re-commit itself to YHWH’s covenant once the family has entered the promised land (Dt. 27:11-14, List 15). The importance of remembering the family genealogy may explain why this type is, in sheer number, the most frequently employed of the three. In fact, the family genealogy is so important to Ezekiel (48:30-35, List 21) that the twelve gates of New Jerusalem are named in honor and remembrance of the twelve sons. ii. Identified lists: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27.175 iii. General Characteristics: α. The twelve sons are named, including Levi and Joseph. Manasseh and Ephraim are named in four cases: two place Manasseh and Ephraim as footnotes to Joseph.176 Nm. 13:4-16 (List 12) has Ephraim unattached to Joseph but attaches Manasseh. Only in “David’s Appointed Leaders 174 175 176

Refer to Appendix I. But, see discussion to follow on List 27. Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7) and Dt. 33 (List 16).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

115

of the Tribes” (1 Ch. 27:16-34, List 27) are Ephraim and Manasseh completely devoid of any mention of Joseph.177 Certain lists do not contain all the sons. In all but two instances, the omission can be explained on grounds of function. The instances where function explains the missing son are: 1) Joseph is absent in Ex. 1:1 (List 5), which names those “who came into Egypt”. Joseph was already in Egypt and did not need to be included. 2) The partial genealogy in Ex. 6:14-27 (List 6) establishes the qualifications of Moses and Aaron as leaders via their genealogy. The function of the list only requires that Reuben through Levi be named. In fact, Numbers returns to this genealogy in Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7), to complete the genealogy for the other sons. 3) Levi was not included in the military census in Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7) yet he is provided his own census and assignments in a nearby account that serves the identical function. The separate listing is due to Levi’s different assignment (cultic) in the family. 4) Levi does not send a spy since he would not inherit land (Nm. 13:4-16, List 12). 5) The Song of Deborah (Jg. 5:14-23, List 19) lauds the participation (or denounces the nonparticipation) of the battle warriors. In that the battle was a localized event, the more distant tribes were not involved. Sons missing in two of the thirteen genealogical lists cannot be explained on grounds of function. 1) Absent Simeon in Moses’ Farewell Blessings (Dt. 33, List 16) is jolting. Numerous attempts to explain this revolve around two fields: Simeon was not a tribe when written for a variety of reasons178 or the compiler had no oracle for Simeon.179 2) “Leaders of the Tribes Appointed by David” (1 Ch. 27:16-34, List 27) lacks Asher and Gad.180 β. The primary sequence of the sons is standardized once the births are reported in Gn. 29:31-30:34 and 35:16-18 (List 1). It is established in Gn. 35:22b-26 (List 2) and does not deviate.181 The mothers dictate 177 178

179 180

181

This might be explained by the source used by the Chronicler. Roland de Vaux suggests Simeon disappeared as a tribe before Dt. 33, perhaps a result of the Jacob condemnation in Gn. 49 (TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 720). ibid., 723. 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (List 27) lacks two features exhibited by other genealogical listings: the direct connection of Joseph to his sons, and the full compliment of Jacob’s twelve sons. A few additional features are odd, such as the “ite” designations of the “Reubenites” and the “Simeonites”. The passage seems to be a combination of geographically-based groups that follow a genealogical scheme. One wonders how much this reflects its original function and setting. Two exceptions: Gezirim/Ebal in Dt. 27: 11-14 (List 15) and Ezekiel’s Gates (48:30-35, List 21). Also, the order in Gn. 46: 8-25 (List 3) appears to deviate from the set genealogy, but does not. See discussion to follow.

116

CHAPTER THREE

the order. Leah’s six come first in 7/9 genealogically driven lists.182 Only two exceptions: Rachel’s precede Zebulun and Issachar alone in Moses’ Blessing in Dt. 33 (List 16), and Rachel’s precede Zebulun alone in the spies of Nm. 13:4-16 (List 12). Leah’s eldest four (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah) are never superceded. The matter is certain: Leah’s sons take precedence in the genealogy and she is the primary wife. Rachel’s children fall in second position in 6/9 cases. The exceptions are: Dan, a Bilhah son, comes before Rachel’s in 1 Ch. 2:1-2 (List 22), Naphtali, a Bilhah son, precedes Rachel’s in David’s Appointments (1 Ch. 27:16-34, List 27), and Jacob’s Blessing places Rachel’s at the end. However, in this latter instance, Rachel’s sons, particularly Joseph, are designed to end the blessing. We should consider this instance no different: Rachel’s are still in second position.183 As in the case of Leah, minor intrusions do not interrupt the fact that Rachel’s take second position and she is the secondary wife. One difference to note between Leah and Rachel: Leah’s take primary position by force of their mother’s rank. In contrast, Rachel’s are, though still in second position, controlled by the narrative context184 and how Leah’s are presented within that context. The sequence of the handmaiden sons is not so standardized. The more frequent is Bilhah-Bilhah-Zilpah-Zilpah (BBZZ), four times,185 followed two times by BZZB,186 once by the reverse ZBBZ,187 and once by BZBZ.188 One might venture to claim that, if mother’s rank is at play, Bilhah outranks Zilpah. This is not necessarily demanded by the totality of genealogical sequences as they are inconsistent in this matter. Nevertheless, the Bilhah/Zilpah children as a whole are put into third position. As with 182

183

184

185 186 187 188

I count thirteen genealogically driven lists. Four are left off this “nine”: the birth reports (Gn. 29:31-30:34 & 35:26-18, List 1), the two “exceptions”, Mts. Gezerim/Ebal (Dt. 27:11-14, List 15) and Ezekiel’s Gates (48:30-35, List 21), and the partial genealogy in Ex.6:14-27 (List 6). I am hesitant to keep Rachel in second position in Jacob’s speech. It may be that Rachel is pushed into first position, if the statements to the sons are taken into account, rather than strictly following the name sequence. Joseph receives the most honorable statement and the entire speech leads to him. Leah’s principle three (Reuben, Simeon, Levi) are negative and, if E. Good’s analysis is accepted, Judah is also negative (“The ‘Blessing’ On Judah’, JBL 82 [1963], 432.) The surrounding narratives emphasizing the Joseph stories and Jacob’s professed love and favor of his son support the observation. Nevertheless, these are quite possibly narrative adjustments to an unalterable genealogy. Tammi J. Schneider in MothersofPromise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 91). She observes this for the genealogies in Genesis, the focus of her study. This observation is to be extended to the genealogies throughout the HB. Gn. 35:22b-26, List 2; Ex. 1:1, List 5; 1 Ch. 2:1-2, List 22; 1 Ch. 27:16-34, List 27. In some cases, another son interrupts the sequence. Gn. 49, List 4; Nm. 1:5-16, List 7. Dt. 33, List 16. Nm. 13:4-16, List 12.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

117

Rachel, their presentations are controlled by the narrative context, Leah’s rank, and to a lesser degree, Rachel’s presentation. Two lists brightly illuminate the mothers’ rankings: Twelve Sons of Jacob (Gn. 35:22b-26, List 2) and Names of the Sons of Israel Who Went to Egypt (Gn. 46:8-25, List 3). Gn. 35 acts as the official introduction and genealogy of Jacob’s family. It divides and specifies the sons by mothers in the order Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah. Critically, Bilhah and Zilpah are expressly connected to their mistresses via their title “‫”שׁ ְפ ָחה‬. ִ Similarly, Gn. 46:8-25 (List 3) is the first introduction when the family is connected to Egypt. Leah and Rachel are positioned in first and second positions, respectively. Zilpah and Bilhah are connected to their respective mistresses by the identification that Zilpah was as a gift to Leah; Bilhah a gift to Rachel. These two genealogies make clear that Leah is primary, Rachel is secondary, Zilpah and Bilhah rank only because of their mistresses.189. This ranking of the children by the mothers holds through all the genealogically driven lists. Without exception, Leah controls the presentation of genealogical listings. The two exceptions, Gezirim/Ebal in Dt. 27:11-14 (List 15) and Ezekiel’s Gates (48:30-35, List 21), should be brought into the discussion in that they defy the standard sequencing. Neither list supports absolutely the rankings of the mothers,190 yet they are both clearly genealogically organized lists.191 However, it is conspicuous that sons are arranged by mothers in both occasions. Mt. Gezerim has only Leah and Rachel tribes: Ebal has Bilhah/Zilpah and two Leah tribes. Ezekiel’s gates have Leah’s on the north and south sides, Rachel’s on the east, Zilpah/Bilhah’s on the west. There is little support for mothers’ rankings in these two lists but may indicate some desire to keep the standard mother groups intact. γ. A secondary sequencer (after mother) is apparent: birth order. In only four cases is some birth order reversed: Zebulun/Issachar in both speeches: Jacob’s in Gn. 49 (List 4) and Moses’ in Dt. 33 (List 16). Moses’ Farewell Blessing (Dt. 33, List 16) reverses Benjamin/Joseph, Asher/Gad in Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7), Judah/Levi in Ezekiel’s Gates (48:30-35, List 21). Yet even in these four cases, the other names fall in birth order. The functions of the exception lists do not explain the reversed sequences.192 189

190 191 192

The separation of the mothers is supported by the story of Laban searching for his stolen gods (Gn. 33). It describes Laban checking four tents: Jacob’s, Leah’s, Rachel’s and the joint Bilhah/Zilpah tent (v. 33). The story makes clear that the wives each possessed their own tent; the ‫ ֲא ׇמהֹת‬shared a tent. Contra K. Namiki, Reconsideration, 40. Roland de Vaux, TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 723. Notable that 3/5 cases are in a speech?

118

CHAPTER THREE

b. CampAssignment/DesertProcessionalLists:193 i. Description The “Camp Assignment/Desert Processional” type is used only in Numbers. It is based entirely on the family genealogy as indicated by a three step narrative process. First, the standard genealogy is stated (Nm. 1:5-16, List 7). Second, the family genealogy is slightly rearranged (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8), after military-capable men are counted,194 into an order that introduces the four-groups-of-three-tribes arrangement but does not separate them into camps or call them “camps. This becomes the basis for all camp types. Third, the tribes are divided into four camps and assigned locations around the Tabernacle (Nm. 2, List 9). The Camp Assignment/Desert Processional does not replace the family genealogy: it rearranges the family into a physical military type encampment. The family genealogy reappears when the situation warrants (see discussion above). The narrative process makes clear that the Camp Organization/Desert Processional type is needed for practical reasons and has nothing to do with primacy of a particular son at some supposed time in history. The function of the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type is two-fold: to organize the camp into pre-determined, tribally arranged campsites based on positions around the sanctuary, the conceptual “center”,195 if not the physical center, of the entire assembly. The second aim of the function is to establish the marching sequence of the tribes when the family travels through the wilderness. The four sides of the camp have nothing to do with a Babylonian conception of the world in four quadrants (E-S-W-N) or what is “commonly” found in the priestly writings.196 Rather, it is a strictly functional arrangement set in place to fulfill a physical necessity. W. Lee correctly identifies the camp arrangement as a military campaign with both quadrangle (encampment) and linear (marching sequences) placements for each tribe.197 The Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type is the primary organizational system whenever additional issues are addressed such as sacrifice maintenance and future land assignments. This type reflects an adjustment in the camp situation that, once organized, must allow for the physical presences of Manasseh and Ephraim, Joseph’s sons, who 193 194 195 196 197

Refer to Appendix II Won W. Lee in PunishmentandForgiveness, 98. ibid., 94. Both ideas proposed by K. Namiki, Reconsideration, 41. Won W. Lee, PunishmentandForgiveness, 98.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

119

must be positioned somewhere within the camp. Numbers does give any reason Joseph is represented by his two sons. ii. Identified lists: 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 iii. General Characteristics Camp Order/Desert Processional type comes in two formats. The principle form, well known in the literature, occurs twice: Nm 2 (List 9) and Nm. 10:11-28 (List 11). The structure is twelve tribes divided into four groups or “camps” of three tribes each. The name of the “camp” is taken from the first-named tribe of the group. The “camp” is not the same as the tribe. Thus, for example, “Camp Judah” is not the tribe of Judah, but the combined tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. The formula used in Nm. 2 (List 9), the first time the “camps” are so named and arranged, makes this clear. The formula states the camp name, the cardinal direction in relation to the Tabernacle, details three tribes in three separate entrees, and a total count of the “camp”. This formula is not repeated in the second occurrence (Nm. 10:11-28, List 11) since it has been established. We must take into account the narrative sequencing rather than pulling the lists out of context. An adjusted list of the principle form is the third example: the altar dedication sacrifices in Nm. 7:12-83 (List 10). This list does not have “camp” designation, nor does it arrange the tribes into groups of three. Yet follows the sequence of the campsite location lists (Lists 9, 11) precisely. The action required of the participants is by tribe, not the assembly as a whole. The tribes are named individually for a specific task organized via the Camp Order/Desert Processional sequence, i.e., the campsite placements. Function of the activity arranges the listing. The “camp” designation is unnecessary and is dropped. The lack of “camp” furthermore indicates that the tribes are independent from each other and that “camp” is merely an organizational tool. The secondary form of the Camp Order/Desert Processional type appears twice: Israel’s Army Register and Tribal toledoth (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) and the Second Generation Army Muster (Nm. 26:5-51, List 13). Both are identical in sequence, format and the inclusion of Joseph.198 The first instance connects the family genealogy to the “camp” tribes, especially in 198

The only sequential difference between the first and second registers is the order of Manasseh-Ephraim.

120

CHAPTER THREE

regard to Manasseh and Ephraim. The second instance connects the two Exodus generations. Both these lists must allow for Ephraim and Manasseh to participate (see below). The obvious difference in the Camp Order/Desert Processional type in comparison to the purely genealogically driven lists is the presence of Manasseh and Ephraim, along with the absence, in 3/5 cases, of Levi. Manasseh and Ephraim have a physical presence in the assemble and must be placed somewhere in the camp, their warriors must be numbered and their leaders must offer sacrifices. It is this physical presence that forces the function of the listings to accommodate them. Numbers does not attempt to explain the reason why Manasseh and Ephraim stand rather than a unified “Joseph”; it simply makes the necessary adjustment. Numbers intentionally ties Joseph to his sons via the formula of the listings. This begins with the genealogically driven list presented in 1:5-16 (List 7) where Joseph is named first, then Ephraim and Manasseh (v. 10). This is repeated verbatim in the very next list (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) of the army registration and tribal toledoth (v. 32). These two lists, at the beginning of the narrative, establish without doubt that Manasseh and Ephraim belong to Joseph. Subsequent lists do not need to repeat this connection. Only once is the connection repeated: the second-generation army register (Nm. 26:5-51, List 13), intentionally matching the form used in the firstgeneration army muster in Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8). The direct connection of Joseph to his sons in this type makes it clear that the genealogy of Jacob/ Israel has not changed. The “twelve sons of Jacob” remain the same: Joseph is his son, not Manasseh or Ephraim.199 The Camp Organization/ Desert Processional type adjusts for the physical presences of Manasseh and Ephraim as separated clans but does not alter the family genealogy. Levi is altogether another matter. He only appears in two: Camp Location and Wilderness Procession Assignments (Nm. 2, List 9) and Camp Departs from Mt. Sinai (Nm. 10:11-28, List 11). In both, Levi is assigned to cultic responsibilities either in camp placement (List 9) or marching sequence (List 11). The other three instances of this type lack any mention of Levi. This absence, however, can be explained entirely on the functions of these three instances. In the cases of the first (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) and 199

The Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial type continues to declare the Joseph/ Manasseh/Ephraim connection. See. Nm. 34:16 (List 14), Josh. 16-17 (List 17), Jg. 1 (List 18), and one instance in 1 Ch. 7:29 (List 23). The constant referral to Joseph negates C. H. J. De Geus’ theory that “Joseph” was a late idea that developed from the more ancient designations of “Ephraim” and “Manasseh” (TheTribesofJahweh, 79).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

121

second generation (Nm. 26:5-51, List 13) army musters, Levi is not to be counted in the same manner as the other tribes, nor is he to be assigned a camp location like the others. Still, he is not omitted. In the first case, Levi’s camp location and processional sequence is detailed200 and in both instances he is counted and recorded separately.201 Nm. 7:12-83, the remaining list where Levi is absent, is the occasion of the dedicatory sacrifices to be offered by each tribe. Here too, Levi is not absent. He is the one responsible for conducting the ceremonies. In every instance of the Camp Organization/Desert Procession type, Levi is present and accounted for. Levi is not omitted from the family genealogy. c. Inheritance/Geographical/TerritorialType202 i. Description These are of a geographical nature usually describing territorial and/or inheritance locations. In some cases, boundaries are identified. In others, census-type counts are recorded. In all cases, the tribes are presented in some sort of geographically organized manner.203 The locations of the tribes usually determine the sequence in which they are presented, at least to some degree. Joshua (List 17) and 1 Chronicles (List 23) are lengthy, stretching over multiple chapters as the various tribal territories are described. The others are shorter descriptions or just a list. ii. Identified Lists:204 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 iii. General Characteristics The nine geographically arranged listings are divisible into two groups: five in the standard format and four in what is best characterized as exceptions due to their particular functions. The standard format type shall be presented then the exceptions. The first observation is the separation of the Transjordan block of tribes in a formulaic phrase “Reuben, Gad, and the Half-tribe Manasseh”, or similar. This block is first recognized in Nm. 34 (List 14), the only Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial type in Torah. In all but one instance, the 200 201 202 203

204

Nm. 3:15-39; 4:1-20. Nm. 3:15-39 and Nm. 26:57-63. Refer to Appendix III. This is true of the conquering groups versus the others in that their respective territories are separated geographically. See discussion to follow. See discussion of List 27 under a. Genealogical Lists.

122

CHAPTER THREE

Transjordan Block is cited as a unified entity separated, geographically and organizationally, from the other tribes. The separation could be cited first205, in the middle206, or at the end.207 Only in Judges 1 (List 18) is the Transjordan Block unmentioned. The Transjordan tribes appear to be irrelevant in Judges. The second observation is that Judah in is first position in all cases, except the single instance when preceded by the Transjordan Block.208 Judah is followed by or combined with Simeon, except in Joshua.209 Moreover, the Judah/Simeon combination is joined or followed by Benjamin except in the lengthy and diverse Chronicles genealogies.210 Another organizational factor may be at work: the time when the tribe took possession of its territory. The Transjordan Block, the Judah group and the Joseph tribe are depicted in the Joshua and Judges narratives as actively and immediately, conquering their respective territories, in comparison with the others who delay action. This tradition, and the fact that they are each in relatively close geographical proximity, is perhaps the reason for separating the three groups in the listings and the particular sequencing. It is not arranged by prestige of the tribes.211 Several observations can be made regarding Joseph. 1) Joseph is demarked as the father of Manasseh and Ephraim on two of five occasions. It may be of consequence that the two with this feature are the Numbers and Joshua listings; each account introducing land inheritance/possession concerns. Manasseh and Ephraim only appear as footnotes to their father. Judges seems to disconnect Manasseh/Ephraim from Joseph but this is uncertain.212 Chronicles makes no connection of Joseph to Manasseh and Ephraim; Ezekiel does not mention Joseph in his land division, but does 205 206

207 208 209 210 211

212

Nm. 34 places the block before the listing (List 14), Josh. 13:15-31. 1 Ch. 5:1-24 (List 23) sets the block immediately after the Judah and Simeon sections and before the others. 1 Ch. 12 (List 26) adds the block at the end of those who joined David at Hebron. Joshua (List 17). Nm. 34 (List 14) names the Transjordan block before the listing. Joshua sets Simeon as the first lottery pick, so fifth in sequence (19:1-9). List 23. Benjamin appears twice: fifth position (7:6-12) and eleventh (8:1-40). So K. Namiki, though he admits the prestige is not strictly fixed (Reconsideration, 48). As discussed above, Judges does not put Manasseh/Ephraim in the same section as “The House of Joseph”. Rather, the sons are put into the section of groups that did not take possession of named cities. However, Manasseh/Ephraim are the first in the group, coming immediately after Joseph. Joshua presents a nearly identical approach, only with his sons directly connected in the text. This leads to the conclusion that Judges separated the story in order that the message of failure was louder.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

123

in his gate names. 2) The Joseph group falls in position immediately following Judah (or the Judah Group) in three instances, and only after Dan in another. 3) Regarding the sequence of Manasseh-Ephraim, the more common is Manasseh-Ephraim; the reverse Ephraim-Manasseh is presented only in Judges (List 17) and Chronicles (List 24213 and List 26). Another observation is that two Manassehs are recognized: Transjordan Manasseh is called “Half-Tribe Manasseh”.214 Cisjordan Manasseh is simply called “Manasseh”, except in three instances where some form of “half” is employed: the similar descriptions of Levitical cities in Joshua215 and Chronicles,216 along with “Those who joined David at Hebron”.217 Several minor observations can be noted regarding the standard format. Dan typically falls in last position, or near last position. The lone exception is Nm. 34:16-29 (List 14) where he comes in fourth position between Benjamin and Joseph. This may be of consequence in that all the subsequent territorial descriptions where borders, cities and other locations can be identified are located in the southern area adjacent to Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim territories.218 Consequently, the only description of Dan in the north, and a non-genealogical one at that, is the Judges 18 narrative describing Dan’s move to the north and conquest of Laish, renaming it “Dan”. Perhaps only part of the tribe moved north.219 213

214 215

216

217

218

219

1 Ch. 9:3 possibly considers M-E a single entity with the label “‫וּמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫”בּנֵ י ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם‬ ְ rather than “sons of Ephraim and sons of Manasseh”. Always ‫ח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬, ֲ except Nm. 34:14 uses ‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬for “tribe”. Josh. 21:5, 6 call both Cisjordan and Transjordan “‫”ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ֲ Josh. 21:25 calls Cisjordan “‫”מנַ ֶשּׁה ַמ ֵטּה ַמ ֲח ִצית‬ ְ while 21:27 calls Transjordan “‫”ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ֲ Cf. 1 Ch. 6:55-56 below. 1 Ch. 6:55-56. Cisjordan is called “‫;”מּ ֲח ִצית ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ַ Transjordan is called “‫ֲח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה‬ ‫”מנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ְ Cf. Joshua 21 above. 1 Ch. 12:32, List 26, ‫ח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬. ֲ Transjordan Manasseh is also called “half-tribe” but uses a different word for “tribe” (‫ח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬, ֲ v. 38). Joshua and Judges give borders, etc. that are located in the southern area. No northern sites are referenced. The only “northern” connection is “the Amorites”, traditionally located near/in the northern areas eventually connected to Dan. However, the “Amorites” may not be limited to that region. SOD refers to Dan on the coast. Dan is absent in the extended listings in Chronicles (List 23). Dan’s location in 1 Ch. 12:24-41 (List 26) cannot be determined as no geographical information is cited. If the tribal area of Dan in David’s list is relatable to Solomon’s Second District, then List 26 should also locate Dan in the southern area. For details see Nadav Na’aman in Bordersand Districts, 105-117, 184. The other lists I have identified as Inheritance/Geographic/ Territorial types (20, 21, 24, 25) do not tell us anything about Dan’s geographical location. Reflected in that Samson and family lived in the southern area, also reported in Judges 13-16 (ibid., 116).

124

CHAPTER THREE

Levi is not forgotten in the Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial Type. He appears in three;220 but his absence in the other two221 can be explained by the function. Lastly, Zebulun-Issachar-Asher-Naphtali seems to be a standard sequence, appearing in all but the Chronicles lists where all the tribes are presented in a rather different order. Now, to address the four exceptions outside the standardized format. They are SOD (Jg. 5:14-23, List 19), Leaders of the First Returnees (1 Ch. 9:2-34, List 24), Those Who Joined David at Ziqlag (1 Ch. 12:123, List 25), and Ezekiel’s Land Assignments (Ezek. 48:1-29, List 20). We shall deal with the Chronicles lists together, as they both represent limited depth in the genealogical scheme. 1 Ch. 9 (List 24) only records the leaders who were the first to return from exile and who lived in Jerusalem. The numbers of people recorded are miniscule222, as are the tribes represented. In fact, the tribes named are traditionally in close proximity to Jerusalem. It may be that this group of returnees came from the same area of Babylon and originally were from the local area before the exile. We should not take this list into account for the broader picture. Its limited scope and function do not allow it to tell us much. Similarly, the list of those who joined David at Ziqlag (1 Ch. 12:1-23, List 25) is limited in scope. It only records those who defected from Saul at a specific time and locale. A portion of the list records those from Saul’s own family who defected. It would be unexpected that “all Israel” would defect from Saul while he still lived. Therefore, we should not take this list into consideration for the larger summary. The Song of Deborah (Jg. 5:14-23, List 19) is another matter. This song of triumph rejoices in the defeat of an enemy, praises those who helped and castigates those who didn’t. The tribes who appear are cited in a geographical manner roughly circling the region where the battle occurred. For this reason, I have registered this list as geographically driven rather than genealogically. Despite the numerous references to Israel and the “God of Israel”, this list does not intend to be a genealogical reference to all the tribes of Israel. In fact, “tribe” is not even used in the song. Rather the names are addressed directly; no “tribe”, no “sons”.223 Ezekiel’s vision of the new land is entirely different than any represented understanding of possession or inheritance in the HB. Intentionally so, in fact! The function of his listing of the new land may be the same as 220 221 222 223

Josh. 21 (List 17), 1 Ch. 5-6 (List 23), and 1 Ch. 12:27-29 (List 26). Nm. 34 (List 14) and Jg. 1 (List 18). Counts given are 1646 non-cultic personnel and 1972 cultic workers, total = 3618. Kenton Sparks, EthnicityandIdentity, 297.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

125

Joshua/Judges (inhabiting the land) but the manner in which it is achieved and how the new land is administered are quite different. Thus, we should not look at his list for some sort of standardized formatting. We can, however, observe that his vision includes Ephraim and Manasseh as independent tribes/clans. Additionally, Levi is included in the new land, but only depicted in the various descriptions and functions of the cult. H. Cazelles224 makes a different assessment in that he organizes the four groups entirely on geographical regions: Transjordan, Central, Southern, and Northern Cisjordan. Giving preference to Judges as the “most historical” source, he takes into account an amalgamation of Biblical tribal references to reach this assessment. Certainly geography has some influence for some of the groupings are geographically adjacent. The Transjordan tribes, Judah-Simeon-Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh are all in their respective regions. Arranging the narrative by geographical regions may have been in the mind of the writers. Still, two other aspects must be taken into consideration that turns away from a purely geographically arranged presentation. These are the time and method the land is acquired and whether God’s command to “take possession” was followed. Three groups actively pursue their respective territories: the Transjordan group, the Judah group (alternatively with Simeon or Benjamin) and the Joseph group.225 Alternately, the other tribes are depicted as acquiring their territories at a later point and in a far more passive manner. Although geography drives the presentation, it is the family genealogy that is ultimately being presented. The geographically arranged lists retain the family genealogy but are presented in a form that supports their functions: describing the possessions and inheritances of the family in the land and how they came into the hands of the different tribes. The three major blocks of territorial descriptions (Joshua, Judges, Chronicles) ensure that the entire family is described as possessing the land.226 The difference sequences of tribes in the Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial lists do not alter the inherent genealogy of the family nor do they reposition the ranks of individual tribes within the family.

224

225

226

“The History of Israel in the Pre-Exilic Period” in Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. (ed. G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 284-288. Notice that this is always the “Joseph” group, never the “Ephraim and/or Manasseh” group. In each presentation, Ephraim and Manasseh are nothing more than footnotes to Joseph. True, even in the case of Chronicles, which, despite not issuing genealogical material for Zebulun and Dan, both are named multiple times in the overall presentation.

126

CHAPTER THREE

2. The Sequencing of Sons Over all Types The sequence of sons in the lists within each type have been notated. For the most part, the sequences are fairly standardized within type. Still to answer is whether some sort of sequencing standard is noticeable that extends over the three types. The answer is no, except in the case of Ephraim/Manasseh. Some individual combinations appear: IssacharZebulun, Asher-Naphtali-Dan (not necessarily in the exact order). The fact that these combinations (minimally) cross over between types may better be explained that they are each closely related in age (birth order) and mother and in relative geographic proximity to each other.227 Manasseh and Ephraim are sequenced according to the function of the list. The E-M order is used in genealogical (Lists 7, 12, 16, 27) and after the camp is arranged (Lists 8, 9, 10, 11). M-E is used in the Inheritance/ Geographic/Territorial format (Lists 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23).228 At first glance, it might seem reasonable to assign the E-M sequence to a genealogical concept and the M-E to a geographical concept. Yet, the Inheritance/ Geographic/Territorial examples feature Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim fall under his land description. Perhaps revealing is the Joshua section on Joseph (16:1-17:18). Joseph’s sons are introduced in the order ManassehEphraim (v. 4) but Ephraim’s description is given first (16:5-10) then Manasseh’s second (17:1-13). Later in the same narrative, Joshua is reported to say “to the House of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh” (17:17), thereby repeating the E-M sequence. These examples show that there is some fluidity in the presentation of M-E. Returning to sequences of all the sons, the function of each type is the driving force behind the sequencing. In the case of the genealogically arranged type, it is the mother’s rank, followed by birth order within the mother. For the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type, it is the four “camps” of three tribes. In the geographical type, it is a combination of geographical location, along with how and when the land was occupied. There is no attempt to position one tribe above the other in a political or social sense. The scholarly researches of the past 227

228

Two Davidic era lists may show influence of the contemporary way of sequencing the tribes, at least for the Zebulun-Naphtali combination as it only appears twice: the genealogically arranged 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (list 27) and in the geographically arranged 1 Ch. 12:24-41 (List 26). The only exception in the Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial is “Those who Joined David at Hebron” (1 Ch. 12:24-41, List 26). The Davidic era lists are chronologically very close and probably explain this exception. Cf. 1 Ch. 27:16-34, List 27, classified as “genealogical”. The tribal designations match with List 26.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

127

that attempted to so demark each of the different combinations229 have failed to consider the function and the narrative surrounding the listings thereby leading to faulty conclusions and messages unintended by the ancient writers. 3. Narratives Cognizant of the Different Generations The texts appear to be aware of the different generations that are being presented and are intentional in the way the different generations are recorded. This is more pronounced in the texts that cover multiple generations, and especially in Numbers. The understanding of different generations is reflected in the three ways in which the tribes are represented. While the differences are more frequent in the genealogically driven lists, they are evident across, and within, the three types. The first generation, that is, the immediate sons of Jacob/Israel, do not receive any special designation: they are listed under their names only or simply called “the sons of Jacob” (or similar). In canonical order, these are Lists 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 21, 22. Notable for each is a direct reference or speech to the son himself,230 or an introduction of the family in the narrative that encases the sons of Jacob/Israel.231 The next generation (Jacob’s grandchildren) has but one example: Gn. 46:8-25 (List 3), in which the offspring of the sons of Jacob are numbered. The term is “SN ‫”בּנֵ י‬. ְ The Exodus-era generations become far more intricate. A transition from “Jacob’s sons” to the “Tribes of Jacob” is evident. Exodus has the first example (6:14-27, List 6) but discussion should begin with the Numbers examples for this is where the model is established and then employed in the Exodus case. As was noted above, Numbers 1-2 transitions from the family genealogy to the “Camp Assignment/Desert Processional” arrangement via a three step narrative process. The same process also makes the transition from “son of Jacob/Israel” to “tribes of Jacob/ Israel”. The first genealogy in Nm. 1:5-16 (List 7) cites a leader from 229

230

231

See, for instance, K. Namiki’s discussion with M. Noth’s ideas on who should take precedence; Ephraim or Manasseh, Issachar or Zebulun, and which texts reflect the “original” order and when either tribe had enough political clout to over-ride the other to assume first position. Imbedded in the discussions are questions of sources (E or P) and how the sources can be used to determine the ancient political situation. (Reconsideration, 31-33). Birth Report (Gn. 29:31-30:34 & 35:16-18, 35:16-18, List 1), Jacob and Moses “Blessing” (Gn. 49, List 4 and Dt. 33, List 16)), Ezekiel 48:30-35 (List 21). Gn. 35:22b-26 (List 2); Ex. 1:1-5 (List 5); 1 Ch. 2:12 (List 22).

128

CHAPTER THREE

each “tribe” (v. 4) that is to stand with Moses. The genealogy cites each man according to the patriarch’s name (Reuben, Simeon, etc.). The next listing (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) cites the census counts according to the “sons of SN”. The next listing (Nm. 2, List 9) arranges the groups into camps (‫)מ ֲחנֵ ה‬ ַ and tribes (‫)מ ֵטּה‬. ַ Finally, Nm. 10:11-28 (List 11) adds the designation “‫”בּנֵ י‬, ְ ְ thus SN ‫( ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְ ְבּנֵ י‬Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, Dan) or SN ‫( ַמ ֵטּה ְ ְבּנֵ י‬others). Schematically, the transition looks like: SN > SN ‫ > ְ ְבּנֵ י‬SN ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְ ְבּנֵ י‬ Coupled with this linguistic change are two technical terms in the first Numbers list (1:5-16, List 7): “clans“ (‫)מ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ִ and “fathers’ household” (‫)בּית ֲאבֹת‬. ֵ These two work in conjunction with “tribe” (‫ ַמ ֶטּה‬in Numbers). A third technical term “generations” (‫)תּוֹלד ֹת‬ ְ is applied in the next list (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8). The complete phrase becomes ‫תּוֹלד ׇֹתם ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּח ׇֹתם‬ ְ ‫ל ֵבית ֲאב ׇֹתם‬,ְ and is applied to each tribe. The result is the move from referring to the sons of Jacob/Israel to the descendants of his sons. Now back to Ex. 6:14-27 (List 6): here can be seen that the transition takes place within the genealogical statement. The sons of Reuben, Simeon and Levi are connected to the “their fathers’ household” (‫)בּית ֲאב ׇֹתם‬ ֵ but the generations following (in Levi’s branch only) add the “generations” category (‫)תּוֹלד ֹת‬. ְ The Inheritance/Geographic/Territorial lists employ a mix of tribal designations. The first case in Numbers (34:16-29, List 14) uses SN ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ exclusively, likely since it represents a single point in time. The other lists in this type are quite mixed. Joshua 13-21 (List 17) employs SN ‫ ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬for Reuben, Judah, Benjamin, Asher, and Dan. For Gad, Half-tribe Manasseh (Transjordan), Manasseh (Cisjordan) only “tribe” is attached to the name.232 Simple SN ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬is connected to Ephraim, Zebulun and Naphtali. No designation is attached to Simeon and Issachar. The Chronicles extended genealogies begin with Jacob’s sons, continue to the subsequent generations in varying degrees for all but Gad and Half-tribe Manasseh.233 Judges uses SN ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬for Judah, Benjamin and Dan, the exclusive case of ‫ ֵבּית‬is applied to Joseph, all others are referred to by the tribal name only. Lastly, the “people’ designation “ite” is employed sporadically in the three “David” lists in Chronicles.234 232 233

234

SN ‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬but once SN ‫שׁ ֶבט‬. ֵ Only later generations are apparently recorded for these two. Gad’s genealogy begins at the point when the group lived in the territory and onward. Half-tribe Manasseh begins with “the fathers’ household” forward. 1 Ch. 12:1-23 (List 25), 1 Ch. 12:24-41 (List 26); 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (List 27).

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

129

If the different generations are recognized, we may need to reassess the concept held by some, such as K. Sparks,235 who see two competing protohistory traditions (the “Exodus” group of ancestors, and the “Joshua” ancestors) that merge into the present history. If the narratives recognize the difference between the “fathers”236 of the Exodus from the more ancient “fathers” of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and from Jacob’s immediate sons, this view of the “proto-history” would be difficult to defend. Additionally, reassessment of whether a “tribe of Joseph” ever existed may be in order. It is true that Joseph is seldom called a “tribe” in the HB. His descendants are called “‫י־יוֹסף‬ ֵ ֵ‫”בּנ‬ ְ or “‫יוֹסף‬ ֵ ‫”בּית‬. ֵ Scholars such as R. de Vaux argue that, “we may be certain that there never was a tribe of this name”.237 Of course, he means that no such son of Jacob ever existed, and that no people called “Joseph” existed. Instead, he argues that only at a later time (he assigns to the Davidic era) the separate groups of Ephraim and Manasseh were put under the rubric of “Joseph”. Whether his argument holds true for Ephraim and Manasseh originally as unrelated groups is an entirely separate matter that could be contested. His argument is accurate in the sense that “tribe” is seldom assigned to Joseph. Yet, the “tribe” designation is applied for the first and only time to the immediate sons of “Israel” in Gn. 49:28. It is otherwise used only from the Exodus period and later. At this point, Ephraim and Manasseh are given the designation yet remain in the rubric “sons of Joseph”. Whether Joseph was a son of Jacob cannot be determined solely by the lack of “tribe” designation. He is always in the purely genealogical citations of the Jacob’s son. The fact that the lists and narratives are keenly aware of the difference between the “sons of Jacob” and the “tribes of Jacob” mitigates against any argument that Joseph was never a “son of Jacob”. 235

236

237

Ethnicity and Identity, 160-162. Georg Fohrer saw three: Form 1, organized by mothers and without Benjamin in Gn. 29:31ff (List 1) and Gn. 49 (List 4); Form 2, seen in Nm. 1:20-52 (List 8) and Nm. 26:5-51 (List 13), derived from a group that always lived in Palestine; and Form 3, Dt. 33 (List 16), represents a “Moses” group that came out of Egypt (History of Israelite Religion, 92-93). These two groups merged with another group “The House of Joseph” at some point to become “Israel” (ibid., 70, 74). The three groups are represented in the four mothers in the family genealogy (ibid., 93-94). See also Sigmund Mowinkel “’Rahelstämme’ und “Leastämme’, 146-150 and André LeMaire, LaProtoHistoireD’Israël:Del’exode álamonarchie, 283-288. Marshall K. Johnson makes a case for the meaning of “heads of the fathers” in Chronicles as military commanders. He questions whether the same is true for Numbers considering the military census of Nm. 26 (ThePurposeofTheBiblicalGenealogies, 63-66). If so, it would alter my argument slightly but the generations would still be differentiated. TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 737.

130

CHAPTER THREE

D. CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER THREE 1. Based on a singular genealogy: twelve sons of Jacob/Israel as presented in the birth announcements in Gn. 29:31-30:34 and 35:16-18. It is not derived or invented from any narrative tradition,238 nor is the genealogy the product of a religious or cultic conception.239 In fact, the opposite: the pre-existing, established genealogy was employed by the narratives for literary and theological purposes.240 Furthermore, it has nothing to do with any geographical positioning of the tribes241 nor can it be connected with any political system described at any point in the HB. It is exactly as it appears: a genealogy expressing descent and relationships.242 A single construction243 that antedates all narratives. All genealogically driven listings follow the singular genealogy, with two exceptions: 1 Ch. 27:16-34 (List 27) lacks Gad, Asher, Joseph, but includes Ephraim and Manasseh. This single instance, a “Davidic era document”, and the geographically arranged Davidic era listing in Chronicles (1 Ch. 12:24-41, List 26) display characteristics somewhat different than the others. This may explain the absent sons.244 Moses’ Blessing (Dt. 33, List 16) is the only genealogical list that omits one of the twelve (Simeon) with no viable explanation.245 The steadfastness of the family genealogy indicates that it had clout, perhaps leading to canonical authority.246 238 239 240 241 242 243 244

245

246

Robert Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 189. Zechariah Kallai, The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel, 55. Robert Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 193. ibid., 191. G. Fohrer, HistoryofIsraeliteReligion, 93. Zechariah Kallai, The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel, 55. Roland de Vaux suggests that a twelve tribe system is considered the standard for the Chronicler and the Chronicler manipulates the tribes, sometime dropping a name or two, to reach the required “twelve” (TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 731-732). In addition, the change from a tribal to a imperial political system make reflect the oddities of the Davidic era lists (ibid., 736). Kenton Sparks interprets Dt. 33 as a northern Rahmen psalm (vv. 1-3; 26-39) to which has been inserted the independent tribal blessings (Ethnicity and Identity, 267-268). He understands the ten tribe setup as original: Levi’s poem is a 7th century addition that made it into the BMOS, Simeon was not a tribe until the 6th century, long after Dt. 33’s composition (ibid., 326). He argues that the ancient tridents adjusted the tribal list tradition in an on-going effort to account for new groups, passing of old groups, all the while preserving a certain number, ten or twelve (ibid., 271-272). He adds that the Blessing of Moses was incorporated into the record by the Deuteronomistic Historian (ibid., 270). The problem I see is that none of the genealogies “forget” or ignore Simeon, except here (and possibly SOD, which he takes into account). Conta Roland de Vaux (TheEarlyHistoryofIsrael, 723) who suggests that the family genealogy lacked the canonical authority it might have had if it represented a living institution.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

131

2. The narrative determines the format, the names included from the set genealogy and the sequence of those names. The alternate sequence of tribes and inclusion of Manasseh/Ephraim instead of Joseph in the Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial type does not alter the inherent genealogy of the family nor does it re-work the supposed ranks of individual tribes within the family. It is based on the same “eponymous heroes”, the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel.247 The differing sequences of these secondary types remain founded upon the identical, unaltered family genealogy. In the case of the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type, it is significant, and typically overlooked, that its first introduction (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) follows the standard family genealogy in that the Leah tribes are named first, then Rachel tribes, followed by Bilhah/Zilpah tribes. Only Gad, a Zilpah tribe placed in Camp Reuben, interrupts the standard family genealogy. The reason for Gad’s position in Camp Reuben is not given – organization for none of the camps is explained, for that matter.248 The function of this type demands that all tribes have a location around the Tabernacle and be placed in a marching sequence to effectively move the camp. This includes Manasseh and Ephraim who are considered tribes, yet under Joseph’s cover. In the case of the Inheritance/Geographic/ Territorial type, the issues of land acquisition and geographic locations within the land, coupled with how and when the land was acquired, drive the presentation of the tribes. In both Camp Assignment/Desert Processional and Inheritance/Geographic/Territorial types, the physical presences of Joseph’s two clans, viewed as separate, must be adjusted for by providing each clan (Manasseh and Ephraim) spots in the camp, the marching order, and in the land itself. Despite the presence of Manasseh and Ephraim, Levi and Joseph are not dropped or forgotten from the family genealogy. In the case of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim never take the place of Joseph in the family 247 248

Contra Roland de Vaux, ibid., 723. Although the text does not given reasons for its particular arrangement, scholars have done so. A. D. H. Mayes states that Judah is placed at the head of the procession, the “place of honor” leaving Reuben in the south, the only position left (Israel in the PeriodoftheJudges, 17), as if the south was a dishonorable spot or Reuben had no choice but to accept some left-over scrap. Gad is placed in Reuben’s camp, he says, to keep Judah away from Reuben for the Priestly Writer would not have “tolerated” such a situation where Judah was presented as inferior to Reuben (ibid., 21). This sort of analysis introduces numerous conjectures simply not communicated in the text, one of which is that the namesake camp tribes are entitled to special honor by virtue of being the camp leader. Nowhere in the Pentateuch do the namesake tribes receive special treatment.

132

CHAPTER THREE

genealogy. In all cases, the function of the list determines whether Levi and Joseph appear or, in the case of Joseph, he is substituted when the grandsons’ physical presences require placement in the family system. This begins with the first Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type in Nm. 1, but not before the narrator specifies that Ephraim and Manasseh are Joseph’ sons and are to take his position. This is explicitly accomplished in the first occasion in Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8) via the introduction of Joseph (PN ‫)ל ְבנֵ י‬ ִ that is identical to the other sons of Jacob but then introduces Ephraim (v. 32) and subsequently Manasseh (v. 34) via the identical phrase. The physical presences of Manasseh and Ephraim demand placement in the camp system and, later, in the land allotment. Each canonical book always introduces Ephraim and Manasseh by first naming Joseph, then his sons, thereby making the explicit connection between father and sons. This is seen in Numbers, as I just noted, and in Josh. 16-17 (in List 17).249 It is reiterated in the Chronicles 2:1, the book’s official introduction to Israel’s sons. In addition, Joseph is sometimes named with Ephraim and Manasseh even though the narrator has already made the introduction. Nm. 34:13-19 (List 14) cites Joseph first, then Manasseh and Ephraim, 1 Ch. 7:14-29 (List 23) works in reverse by first noting the actions of Manasseh (vv. 1419) and Ephraim (vv. 20-28) then connects them to “Joseph, son of Israel” (v. 29). Are these remnants or relics from older, “re-purposed” lists that clarified the position of Manasseh/Ephraim vis-à-vis Joseph? In any case, it is clear from the combined witnesses of the narratives that Joseph is not to be discarded from the family genealogy even though he never has land or participates in any cult action under his direct name. Manasseh and Ephraim replace Joseph only in physical property and action situations; not as a “son of Jacob/Israel”. In the case of Levi, he does not always appear in the same listing as the others but is always found in an adjacent narrative that fulfills the identical purpose as the main group. These are cases where the functions of the lists demand Levi be omitted. In Numbers, Levi is counted twice for separate purposes, his three branches are assigned different camp locations, the procession duties are distinguished between four groups of the tribe (Gerson, Merari, Kohites, and Aaron’s specific branch of Kohites), as are the multiple cult duties and responsibilities. Likewise, in Joshua, 249

The only exception is found in the SOD (List 19), which names only Ephraim with no mention of Manasseh or Joseph. The nature and style of the victory song (not a genealogy or narrative) may offer an explanation. If so, the earlier discussions on exceptions to the Leah-Rachel sequences would be effected positively.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

133

Levi is provided a full description of his territorial holdings, in the form of cities and neighboring fields, demarked by the four groups of his tribe. Levi is blatantly present in the family actions of census and territory allotments, except under a separate rubric. In fact, he is provided a greatly enhanced set of instructions in comparison to the others. Regarding Noth’s, etal, “List A” and “List B”, we must discard these distinctions as he, and subsequent scholars, have defined them. The two groups do not represent two different sets of “twelve tribes”, but are indeed a single,250 twelve-tribe “system”.251 The two groups contain different sets of names (Levi/Joseph, Ephraim/Manasseh) because the function of each narrative demands a different listing to cover the purpose of the narrative. 3. Any list outside its narrative context, both immediate and larger, is meaningless: it is merely a list of names. The names in the list may be identifiable to the outside observer but the reason for the list in its present usage is not identifiable. Much like an archaeological artifact outside its context: it is just a piece of pottery, perhaps a work of art but without any significance. Speculations can be made but such are merely suggestions with no verifiable evidence. Scholars who have pulled the lists out of the context have arrived at mistaken conclusions regarding the tribes and Israel’s genealogy. 4. Genealogies serve to link major periods and connect the family in different eras. The genealogy in Genesis links to Exodus252, to Numbers, and to the Joshua era (as depicted in Joshua and Judges). The Chronicler uses the family genealogy to connect the earliest generations to the Davidic era and even to the post-exilic era.253 In reverse, the genealogy connects all the people of “Israel” to related ancestors, all sons of the same father.254 250

251

252 253 254

Contra Georg Fohrer who saw three: Form 1, organized by mothers and without Benjamin in Gn. 29:31ff (List 1) and Gn. 49 (List 4); Form 2, seen in Nm. 1:20-52 (List 8) and Nm. 26:5-51 (List 13), derived from a group that always lived in Palestine; and Form 3, Dt. 33 (List 16), represents a “Moses” group that came out of Egypt (History of Israelite Religion, 92-93). These two groups merged with another group “The House of Joseph” at some point to become “Israel” (ibid., 70, 74). The three groups are represented in the four mothers in the family genealogy (ibid., 93-94). See also Sigmund Mowinkel (“’Rahelstämme’ und “Leastämme’, 146-150) and André LeMaire (“Aux Origines D’Israël: La Montagne D’Ephraïm et la Territoirre De Manassé (xiiixi siécle av. J-C)” in LaProtoHistoireD’Israël:Del’exodeálamonarchie. (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1990), 283-288. “System” should now be considered a misleading moniker. There is no “system” but a single family genealogy that is reiterated. Marshall D. Johnson in ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 78. ibid., 80. Georg Fohrer, HistoryofIsraeliteReligion, 93.

134

CHAPTER THREE

5. The family genealogy was established and “frozen” in place at a point before the biblical narratives were recorded. By taking a synchronic view of the lists over the various types of presentations, we find little deviation. Regardless of the shifting power and preeminence of the various sons or branches of the family over the course of centuries, the set genealogy remained the same. Especially notable is Reuben as first-born. Certainly, Judah took preeminence in the Davidic monarchy yet Reuben’s place is not overridden. The generally equal status of all tribes is the theme pushed by the stories in Exodus onward through the conquest (and to include the cultic and legal statutes), the pre-monarchal accounts, especially those surrounding Samuel, extending to the prophets, early and late, who ascribe to the idea of equality255 of all members of Israel. Reuben’s first-born status remained intact despite the narrative distances placed between him and his rank. In Genesis, Joseph is given first-born status via the narratives, in the Joseph stories, especially the Gn. 48 episode where Jacob transferred the double-portion to Joseph via Ephraim and Manasseh. There, Jacob explicitly denied Reuben his firstborn status256 and gave it to Joseph in his death-bed speech (Gn. 49). The Chronicler echoes this transfer to Joseph,257 noting that Judah nevertheless (and illegitimately?) overpowered Joseph. In Moses’ sayings (Dt. 33), it is hoped that Reuben will be saved from extinction, perhaps describing a point in time when the tribe had nearly vanished.258 The general scholarly consensus is that Reuben disappeared as a coherent tribe sometime in Israelite history.259 Nonetheless, Reuben’s first-born status is reiterated at certain crucial points: the move to Egypt (Gn. 46:8-25, List 3), twice in the wilderness260, and once by the Chronicler to introduce the next round of genealogies (1 Ch. 5:1-2).

255

256 257 258

259

260

“Equality” entails the even status of each individual before God and the right of each individual to have fair access to the land and, therefore, “the good life”. “Equality” does not indicate that some individuals will not have more power in the society by nature of their social position and/or office. Rather, both those with and without power have the equal opportunity to live under God’s covenant and so experience the covenantal blessings. Stanley Gevirtz in “The Reprimand of Reuben”, 98. Frank Moore Cross in “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 (1998), 47. ibid., 47. While I do not accept the use of the lists to reconstruct the “proto-history” of Israel, especially the sequences, certain statements may reflect historical realities. M. Sweeney in Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 80. The first (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8) and second (Nm. 26:5-51, List 13) generation military censuses.

ANALYSIS OF THE LISTS

135

Beyond Reuben, the remainder of the genealogy is frozen, as well. The order of sons is established, with only minor deviations. The set order fluctuates depending upon the type of presentation as determined by function. Within the types, little deviation is evident. In short, the authors indicate that the family genealogy must not be altered and must be presented in a prescribed order. 6. The genealogical listings show unequivocally that the mothers, represented by their sons, have separated degrees of importance. The fact that Leah’s sons always come first in the genealogy indicates that Leah is primary. Rachel is secondary as shown by the position her sons are listed. Bilhah and Zilpah share the third position. This three-part ranking of the mothers is never overturned,261 although it becomes of less consequence as the narratives and the centuries progress. While the Genesis narrative strongly and overtly repeats this multiple times, one surprising result of this study is that the ranking system continues through every genealogically driven list in the HB. The Camp Location/Desert Processional type, holds to this principle. The function of this type changes the order and mix of the tribes but still Leah’s sons have two camps, Rachel’s have one and handmaiden’s have one. Naturally, the number of camps is determined by the number of tribes but the form and namesake tribe of each “camp” pushes the mother ranking. The namesake “camps” are Reuben and Judah (Leah), Ephraim (Rachel) and Dan (Bilhah). The first occurrence of this type is Nm. 1:2054 (List 8) and puts Reuben in first position in recognition to his primogeniture status. This order becomes the standard form for all wilderness movement and encampment throughout the remainder of Numbers. Although the subsequent listings in Chapter 2 and elsewhere do not make the direct connection of the standard genealogy of Reuben first, etc., and do not make the direct connection of Joseph to his sons, the list sets the precedent and all other lists rely on and assume this list as the official form. This is the reason it is introduced prior to the camp assignments in Ch. 2. We must take the narrative context in which they come as a serious indication of authorial intent.

261

This is in opposition to R. Wilson who argues that the point of the narrative and genealogies in Genesis is to push Rachel into primary position. (GenealogyandHistory, 191-192.) It may be that the Joseph story exalts his character, and certainly Jacob gives Joseph the best blessing, but the genealogical listings and their narrative contexts undeniably set Leah as primary wife.

136

CHAPTER THREE

Lastly, the narrative returns to the set family genealogy at points of critical family survival, thereby reasserting the proper line. Numbers 13:4-16 (List 12) names the twelve sons in the first look at the new land. Dt. 27 (List 15) demands every individual join with the tribe in reasserting the covenant. Moses’ farewell blessing names the family. Chronicles (1 Ch. 2:1-2, List 22) cites the correct genealogy before continuing to the next generations. The established genealogy is not lost to Ezekiel (48:30-35, List 21). Since the family genealogy is frozen with the mothers and sons delineated in ranks, yet these ranks play no part in the later narratives of the HB, particularly from the Exodus on, what, if anything, does this tell us about the earlier roles of the mothers?

CHAPTER FOUR

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB A. INTRODUCTION In the search for the proto-history of Israel, Z. Kallai considers the “eponymic fathers” (twelve sons) to represent the historiographers’ notion of the proto-history of Israel.1 Little to no discussion is given to the idea that it may be the “eponymic mothers” who are the driving force behind the lists. The preceding chapters have identified that the rankings of the mothers play a crucial role in the presentation of the genealogy. This conclusion was reached by proxy in that the sons represent the mothers. The mothers themselves have not been surveyed directly. This is the aim of the present chapter. The primary objective is to investigate the presentation of women in the HB genealogies and genealogical narratives. A woman’s position may vary: mother, wife, sister, etc. Yet, for one reason or another, the genealogy deemed her important to name. Once the genealogies have been gathered, related questions should be posed, including: Where in the HB are mothers important to the narrative? Genesis immediately presents itself but there are others. Do women play important societal roles in the HB? Certainly, bearing children is absolutely vital to the well being of a people and rightfully honored in society. Yet, are other roles considered of high importance to the point of including a woman in the genealogy? The focus is upon mothers, and women to some degree, and their actions on behalf of their families, in particular, and how they are portrayed in the narratives. B. MOTHERS DEPICTED AS IMPORTANT IN THE TORAH The narratives in the books of Moses, the Torah, will be discussed as one unit. One reason for doing so is the overall narrative presents the books as sequentially connected to each other. A formal, structural reason 1

Z. Kallai, The Twelve-tribe Systems, 59;

138

CHAPTER FOUR

should be considered, as well. The toledoth, first introduced as a formal structure in Genesis, continues into Exodus and Numbers. As such, the toledoth formally connects Exodus and Numbers to Genesis. Genesis gives the toledoth of various individuals with Jacob receiving the last one. Levi is assigned a toledoth in Ex. 6. The first part of Exodus is primarily concerned with the actions of Levi’s family members, Moses and Aaron, who lead the family out of Egypt. The second part of Exodus is concerned with construction of the mishkan and establishing the systems of worship, culminating with the grand finale: God inhabits the mishkan. Leviticus also concerns the tribe of Levi insofar as it gives the cultic statues to be instituted, for which Levi is responsible. From the standpoint of the toledoth, it makes sense to give Levi’s toledoth at the start of Exodus. Numbers continues the toledoth structure in Chapter 1 by providing the toledoth for the remaining eleven sons of Jacob. Hence, by Nm. 1, the toledoth of all members of the family (Jacob and twelve sons) have been given and the family is established as a complete unit. It is not until this point in the narrative that the order of the family genealogy undergoes shifts to account for the new situation: wilderness organization and the splitting of Joseph into separate Manasseh and Ephraim groups. A final toledoth is issued in Nm. 3:1, a narrowing of the focus from all the tribes to only Aaron and Moses.2 The toledothstructure is one narrative means to organize the multiple families and generations of people in Genesis through Numbers. As was seen in Chapter 3, Exodus and Numbers make a clear distinction between the twelve sons of Jacob and the tribes of Jacob/Israel. The toledoth is a structural device that contributes to this distinction. 1. Genesis The Genesis narratives feature a great many women, mostly mothers. Surely this is due to the amount of narrative devoted to establishing the family beginnings. Yet, this could be accomplished with little reference to mothers, as the Chronicler does in 1 Ch. 1.3 In great contrast, Genesis mothers are principle characters in the narratives. T. Schneider establishes 2

3

Matthew A. Thomas in ThesearetheGenerations:Identity,Covenant,andthe‘Toledoth’ Formula (New York: T & T Clark, 2011), 129. The Chronicler reiterates much of the genealogical material in Genesis 4-5 and 10-11, yet omits a great deal of information. Quite a few mothers are named in Genesis whereas the Chronicles listing gives only has two women: a mother, Keturah (Abraham’s wife after Sarah’s death in 1:32) and Mehetabel, a wife of an Edomite king (her mother and,

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

139

that it is the mothers that are important in the family in Genesis in deciding the destiny of children.4 The primary role of the matriarchs in Genesis is to determine who will inherit the promise of the Israelite Deity5 and to shape their families’ destinies.6 Mothers are not mere bearers of children. The totality of the Genesis narrative makes clear that the right mother and wife are critical,7 not just the father, for determining a character’s destiny. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of Abraham’s lengthy (in time and narrative) search for a son to inherit the promise. The discovery through the process is that it is Isaac, Sarah’s son, not just any son of Abraham, who is chosen.8 The correct mother theme continues to Isaac and Jacob. The women’s stories in Genesis relay the importance of marrying the right woman in order to secure a person’s, and ultimately the family’s destiny.9 The “right” woman is not only one who has the proper pedigree.10 She is one who works on behalf of her family, and sometimes God.11 She bears children, provides an alternative solution to an heir when she is barren,12 she protects her children even when (usually) the father does not know or

4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

possibly, grandmother are named in her pedigree, 1:50). It is not clear why the Chronicler names these particular women. MothersofPromise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2008), 217. ibid., 16. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi in “B’reishit/Genesis Introduction,” The Torah: A Women’s Commentary. (Eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. New York: Women of Reform Judaism, Federation of Temple Sisterhood: UJR Press, 2008), 2. Sarah Shectman in “Rachel, Leah and the Composition of Genesis,” in ThePenteteuch. (Eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT78. Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 2011), 202. Esther Fuchs in “Another View,” TheTorah:AWomen’sCommentary (Eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L Weiss. New York: URJ Press and Women of Reform Judaism, 2008), 105. Tammi J. Schneider in “Another View,” The Torah: A Women’s Commentary (Eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. New York: UJR Press, 2008), 105. Pedigree seems to be of importance only for Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, and Esau’s three wives, who are not of the correct pedigree. Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah achieve proper “pedigree” by virtue of their connection to their respective mistresses. For Jacob’s sons, on the other hand, proper pedigree for their wives seems of little concern to the narrator, and may be absolved of the demand to marry Terahite women by the break in family ties due to the Laban/Jacob treaty at Mitzpah in Gn. 31:51ff (Sarah Shectman, Rachel, Leah, passim), though his children may have been confused as to proper actions (Tammi J. Schneider, MothersofPromise, 136, 138, 143). So Rebekah’s actions to ensure that Jacob receives the first-born blessing rather than Esau (ibid., 51). e.g., Sarah/Hagar (Gn. 16); Rachel/Bilhah (Gn. 30). This is a critical action required by the mothers. T. Schneider notes that most of the matriarchs in Genesis are barren (ibid., 96).

140

CHAPTER FOUR

ignores the will of God.13 On one occasion, she protects her deceased husband’s lineage from certain dissolution when her male family members fail to uphold family obligations.14 Hagar secures a wife for Ishmael15 thereby ensuring survival of her family. The Genesis narrative portrays mothers as entreating God on behalf of themselves to procure offspring,16 or attempting to entice divine favor to ensure the continued success of their lineage.17 Another factor should be considered that adds to the importance of the mothers, both of which expand beyond Genesis into other parts of the HB: the birth report. First introduced in Genesis in Gn. 4:1, it appears throughout the HB when notable persons are born (or to notable parents). The results of T. Finlay’s18 study on the birth announcements lend two additional points of support for the importance of mothers in the HB. First, the inclusion of mothers in the birth reports contrasts sharply in comparison to the relative absence of mothers in other ancient Near Eastern birth reports.19 Second, and especially remarkable, are the etymological speeches delivered by mothers in the HB birth reports that explain the reason for the child’s name and the mother’s interpretation of the birth’s significance cited in her own words.20 This speech is given almost exclusively by the mother. T. Finlay observes that out of twenty-two etymological speeches in birth reports, twenty-one are spoken by women.21 By any measure, this is a loud and meaningful voice given to mothers in the HB. 13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20 21

Sarah protects Isaac’s status from Hagar and Abraham in Gn. 21; Rachel protects Jacob from Isaac’s attempt to give Esau the blessing. Referring to Tamar, whose brother-in-law (Onan) and father-in-law (Judah) failed to meet their obligations to her husband Er, Judah’s first-born son (Gn. 38). Hagar expressly “takes” a wife for Ishmael (Gn. 21:21), an unsual action for a mother (Tammi J. Schneider, MothersofPromise, 113). Rebekah is the only matriarch who directly inquires and hears from God. In the cases of Sarah, Leah and Rachel, God “hears” and responds with pregnancy (ibid., 51). Nevertheless, these mothers interpreted their pregnancies as a response from God. Rachel’s theft of the teraphim (Gn. 31:19) could be interpreted as her attempt to secure divine protection over her offspring. The issue is complex in that the text is unclear why she takes them, what she intends do with them, and in what manner she regards them. See fuller discussion by T. Schneider in MothersofPromise, 84-86. From the narrator’s perspective, her actions are wrong on every level, eventually ending her life. The point here is that she appears to be acting on behalf of herself and her family, even though it fails. Timothy Finlay in The Birth Report Genre In the Hebrew Bible (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). ibid., 42. ibid., 41. Eve (2), Sarah (2), Leah (8+1); Rachel (4); Mid-wife of Tamar (1); Pharaoh’s daughter (1); Hannah (1); Wife of Phinehas (2) (ibid., 248, n. 15), The lone exception is Moses (Ex. 2:22), a text designed to diminish Zipporah (ibid., 239-241).

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

141

Third, and formally connected to the mother’s speech, she is (most frequently) the person who names the child. The first example occurs immediately in Genesis and sets the pattern: Eve names her son Cain22 and gives the etymological speech:23 T. Finlay supplies the details on the birth reports:24 9× 1× 1× 4× 2× 18/19× 5×

Father names child Father renames child after mother dies (Benjamin, Gn. 35:18) Both parents name child (Isaac and Rebekah, Gn. 25:25) God names child No name given to child Biological mother names child25 Adoptive mother names child26

Several points can be made regarding some of these categories. Of the nine instances where the father names the child, one is a passage that works hard to downplay Moses’ wife Zippporah.27 In five others, the Versions indicate naming by the mother, perhaps reflecting a different textual tradition.28 We should also note that other Hebrew manuscripts also have Zipporah, rather than Moses, name the child.29 Abraham names Ishmael and Isaac but the text is rather complicated, perhaps indicating some discomfort or confusion by the narrator when reporting that Abraham, rather than Sarah, named the two.30 This leaves but one of the nine occasions when a father names the child on solid foundation.

22

23 24 25

26

27 28

29 30

The birth report of Eve’s second son Abel differs significantly in that no one names him and no speech is given. Furthermore, his name (‫)ה ֶבל‬ ‫ ׇ‬means “vanity, futility”, a foreboding sign of his future (ibid., 79). No speech, no etymology, no progeny: his name perhaps indicates the waste of his life. The question arises whether in the HB no progeny is ‫?ה ֶבל‬ ‫ׇ‬ ibid., 79. ibid., 35-36. Eighteen is the official number. One additional case (so nineteen) if Gn. 29:34 included. The context of Gn. 29:34 “demands” that the mother names the child, but the text is unclear (ibid., 35). “Adoptive” mother in two cases (Gn. 30:6, 8) refers to the ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬of Rachel, two cases refers to Leah’s ‫( ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬Gn. 30:11, 13). The sole instance of a child named by someone who is not a born of a ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬is Moses, so named by Pharoah’s daugher (Ex. 1:10). Ex. 2:22. ibid., 241. Gn. 25:26; 38:3, 29, 30; 1 Sam. 12:25 (ketib). See Timothy Finlay in TheBirthReport Genre, 35. See BHS note on Ex. 2:22 ibid., 96-110.

142

CHAPTER FOUR

When God names the children in Isaiah and Hosea, it is for a specifically prophetic intention. God names and issues the etymological speeches to symbolize an aspect of the estranged relationship between Himself and Israel.31 In any case, the prophet/father does not name the children.32 In the two cases where a child goes unnamed, one dies near birth (2 Sam. 11:27), in the other instance (2 Kg. 4:17), no names of either mother or child are in the narrative. The outcome of T. Finlay’s study is clear: it is the mother’s prerogative to name her children, including those born to her via a surrogate such as her ‫שׁ ְפ ָחה‬. ִ 33 Thus, two major aspects of the birth reports, etymological speeches and naming, depict women in this familial role as much more important than fathers. The mothers of Genesis are depicted as partners34 with God in building, maintaining and progressing the Family of Promise. Mothers continue to play in important role in genealogies beyond Genesis. 2. Exodus T. Schneider sees the role of mothers in securing the family success found in Genesis continuing into Exodus with the depiction of the women surrounding the Hebrew slavery narrative and the birth of Moses.35 The only males in Ex. 1:15 – 2:10 are Pharaoh,36 the unnamed father of Moses and the infant Moses. Ex. 1:5-2:10 positions women center stage:37 midwives defy civil authority and save children, an unnamed mother hides her son, a sister keeps a watchful eye on her infant brother and then offers assistance to a stranger, a royal daughter has compassion for a baby, names him adopts and raises him. The mother who hid her son is subsequently hired to nurse him, all the while knowing she would eventually loose the boy. Several individuals are identified in the story, most are not named: “King of Egypt” (1:15, 17, 18), a man and a “daughter of Levi” (2:1), a woman/ wife who bears a son (2:2), a sister (2:4), a daughter of Pharoah (2:8), and 31

32 33 34 35 36

37

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld in Just Wives? Stories of Power and Survival in the Old TestamentandToday (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 93. Timothy Finlay, TheBirthReportGenre, 35-36. ibid., 35. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, B’reishit, 3. Personal communication. “Pharaoh” (1:11, 19, 22), “King of Egypt” (1:15, 17, 18), and “new king” (1:8) likely refer to the same person. Ex. 2:1-15 is reminiscent of narratives in Genesis in that the characters are depicted with multiple action words. In the story, the only action by an adult male is to “take” a wife. This sets in motion the next 14 verses of females acting to save the boy, who will ultimately save the family (as God’s helper).

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

143

the baby named Moses in 2:10. Two named women, Shiphrah and Puah, are midwives in Ex. 1:15. For resisting the King of Egypt’s cruelty, for their brave, treasonous, treacherous actions on behalf of their family, God built for them “houses”.38 The women of Ex. 1:15-2:10 make great sacrifices, ignore threats to life, risk being ostracized,39 possible death, or solve problems of enormous magnitude. It is these women who save the family from certain destruction. Joseph saved the family from starvation; the women in Ex. 1 save the family from certain annihilation. Levi’s toledoth in Ex. 6 was discussed in Chapter Three in terms of its genealogical form. Contained within are three birth notices that cite mothers in the line of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron and eventual high priest. Only missing in this list are the wives of Levi and the wife of his second son Kohath.40 T. Finlay sees the birth notices in this context as rather superfluous for they are unnecessary to show kinship relations of the males in Aaron’s line. They were included to provide as full a listing as possible.41 In this genealogy it was deemed critical to indicate the mothers in Phinehas’ lineage. The one remaining mother in Exodus receives contrasting treatment.42 Zipporah, the wife of Moses, is seemingly on the wrong side of the narrative. Already noted above is the confusion in non-MT Hebrew manuscripts and in the Versions whether or not she names her son Gershom. She criticizes Moses and the Israelite mandate of circumcision (Ex. 4:25, 26), the sole matriarch in the HB to do so. She is said to be “sent away” by Moses (Ex. 18:2), possibly referring to divorce, and the two children Gershom and Eliezer are called “her sons” in Exodus (4:26; 18:3).43 To these might be added that Moses’ sons have no role elsewhere in the Pentateuch, suggesting that they were suspect.44 The text may diminish her character as a “good” mother via the negative portrait.45 38

39

40 41 42 43

44

45

Ex. 1:15. S. Tuell says this may be an indication of matriliny in the HB in that at least two Israelite families trace back to a woman (FirstandSecondChronicles, 28-29). So the daughter of Pharaoh, who might have been cast out or even executed for defying the Pharaoh’s orders (William E. Phipps in AssertiveBiblicalWomen [Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press, 1992], 37). These two women do not appear anywhere in the HB. Timothy Finlay, TheBirthReportGenre, 100. At least in MT. See discussion above. However, it should be noted that the naming verb in Ex. 18:3 (‫)א ַמר‬ ‫ ׇ‬is masculine. Also, the etymological statement for both sons (Ex. 18:3,4) recounts Moses’ experiences, not Zipporah’s. The sons and their descendants are cited in a genealogy dated to the time of David (1 Ch. 23:14-23) indicating they were included in “Israel”, at least by the Chronicler. Much of this paragraph is a result of personal communication with Tammi Schneider. Many thanks!

144

CHAPTER FOUR

3. Numbers Several observations can be made from Numbers. The genealogy in Num. 1:20ff does not list any mothers. In fact, other than the tribal leader’s name (e.g., “Reuben”), no other descendants are named. This is due to the function of these listings: to enumerate the results of the census taken earlier in the chapter.46 The census of the living members in the wilderness is the new accounting system for the family members. Yet importantly, the results are put into the standard order of Leah’s children first, followed by the lesser ranking mothers. Elsewhere, a few women make appearances: Zelophehad’s five daughters Mahelah, No`ah, Haglah, Milcah, and Tirsah are named when they approach Moses to secure the inheritance rights of their father (Nm. 27:1).47 These are not “mothers”, but this is beyond the function of this particular narrative. The citation of their names is important for the inheritance records established at this point in the narrative. However, in Nm. 36:11, reference is made to the daughters as “wives” in relation to inheritance. This could indicate motherhood. Despite not being “mothers”, they act as mothers do to protect and advocate for their family. The point of the land division is to ensure that each member has suitable and sufficient land on which to ensure the family’s survival and prosperity. This is encoded into the hope of the Promised Land, particularly that “each man will have his own vineyard”, the statutes, especially the principle behind the Years of Jubilee when land is to be returned to the original family, and similar ordinances. Without land, Zelophehad’s family is doomed to servitude at best, death is an eminent possibility, loss of the clan line is a certainty. The actions of Mahelah, No`ah, Haglah, Milcah, and Tirsah save the clan. In the process, the statutes are adjusted thereby saving future clans from a similar fate. The daughters enter the record as heroes.

C. MOTHERS ELSEWHERE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE This section addresses how mothers are presented in the remaining books of the HB, organized into three groups: 1) short examples from 46

47

Attention will be given to this passage in this regard for included is the standard phrase attached to each tribe is ‫בוֹתם‬ ‫ית־א ׇ‬ ֲ ‫“( ֵב‬house of their fathers”), a phrase more common in the later narratives. The daughters are also named in Nm. 26:33; 27:1; 36:11; Josh. 17:3.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

145

Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Amos; 2) the royal narratives in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles; and 3) the genealogies in 1 Ch. 1-9. Such a grouping is largely artificial, yet is a useful organizational tool loosely based on content and narrative presentation. A second methodological action requires explanation. It is mothers this study is focused upon. However, this section will expand the topic to women in general for the simple reason that in these narratives a woman is not always called a “mother” yet her actions and/or depiction within the text may include both. The topics discussed below are applicable to mothers. The discussion below is not exhaustive but highlights as representatives a few important points that add to our understanding of the mothers behind the tribes of Jacob/Israel. 1. A Few Examples from Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Amos Joshua has but two references to a woman, neither of whom are called “mother”. This should come as little surprise insofar as the first half of the book describes conquest; the second with inheritances at the tribal level.48 Individuals, male or female, are generally named only when a specific role is being narrated, such as in the case of Achan (Josh. 7). The first woman named is Rahab, called a “harlot woman” (‫)א ׇשּׁה זוֹנָ ה‬ ִ and “Rahab the Harlot” (‫)ר ׇחב ַהזּוֹנָ ה‬. ָ 49 The spies promise to save her and “her father’s house” from the impending conquest if she will help them escape (Josh. 2:1-21). Though not a mother, she exhibits similar actions as some mothers in Genesis. She seeks protection for her household (vv. 12-13). She recognizes the Israelite Deity and works on His behalf (2:9-11). For her actions, she, “her father, her mother, her brothers, all that she had and all her relations” are rescued and incorporated into Israel (Josh. 6:22-25).50 The other woman named in Joshua is Achsah, daughter of Caleb, wedded to Othneil. In the story (Josh. 15:16-19)51, Achsah has two primary actions: 1) she attempts to persuade her husband to request land from her 48

49 50

51

Except for Caleb, whose property is designated at the individual level in recognition for the good spy report (Nm. 13:30; Josh. 14:6-15; Jg. 1:20). Josh. 2:1 and 6:17, 25, respectively. Interestingly, the New Testament genealogy of Jesus (Mt. 1:5) cites Rahab as the mother of Boaz, thus a matriarch in the line of David. Perhaps she was a mother after all? The identical story appears in Jg. 1:11-15, with a minor word change in Achsah’s demand speech. See note below.

146

CHAPTER FOUR

father (v. 18). 2) She emphatically demands52 that her father give her springs to water the dry land in which she now lives (v. 19).53 With these actions, she secures land and water for her offspring.54 She uses her available skills to achieve her goal.55 In the book of Judges women, a few who are identified as “mothers”,56 are depicted more as narrative foils to the male characters, especially the judge figures, through which the men are tested.57 T. Schneider assesses the overall role of women as “benchmarks” by which the male characters are evaluated. The male characters often receive negative evaluations in the text because of the women in their lives, most commonly due to the more positive presentation of the women’s characters and actions in contrast to the men’s. Deborah, called “a mother in Israel” (Jg. 5:7) succeeds when the male leader Barak is too afraid to try. Jael outwits Sisera, bravely and treacherously driving a tent peg through the enemy general’s head (Jg. 4:21). Although Judges provides a limited amount of information by which to evaluate the women/mothers, the impact the women had on the actions of the men is of critical importance in the book.58 The sons of Gideon force their half-brother Abimelech, son of another woman, out of the family. Later, he takes advantage of his mother’s relatives to seize power (Jg. 9:1-5). Similarly, Jephthah, cast out by other family members because he was the illegitimate son of a prostitute, uses the situation to his advantage (Jg. 11:1- 11). For these two, the tragic flaw of their lives is due, in part, to the irregular status of their mothers. This contrasts 52

53

54

55

56

57 58

Josh. 15:19 employs the emphatic, ms imperative ‫ה־לּי‬ ִ ָ‫“ ְתּנ‬give me!”, from the relative neutral ‫נתן‬. Jg. 1:15 uses the emphatic, ms imperative ‫ה־לּי‬ ִ ‫ ׇה ׇב‬from ‫יהב‬, typically used in far more demanding situations, including Jacob’s “give me my wife! (Gn. 29:21). This story may reveal more about the continued relation between father and daughter after her marriage then simply a land/water acquisition. Marie-Therese Wacker discusses David Ben-Gurion’s application of the Caleb/Achsah passage to modern irrigation of the Negev (“Feldherr und Löwensohn: Das Buch JoshuaAneeignet durch David Ben-Gurion,” TheBookofJoshua (Ed. Ed Noort, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, Massachusetts: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2012), 624-625. Tammi Schneider in Judges (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 17. T. Schneider interprets the text to state that her husband Othniel did not ask for land as she wished (ibid., 16). In either case, her actions absolutely secured the well-being of herself and (eventually) her family. Only a handful of women in Judges are identified as “mother” and even fewer are named. Several mothers are depicted in some relationship to their children (e.g., Samson’s in 13:2-14:6 and Michah’s in 17:2-3); others are only referred to and never seen (e.g., Abimelech’s mother, in 8:31; 9:1, 18 and Jephthah’s in 11:1-2). In the case of the latter, the situations of their pregnancies are suspect (ibid., 16, n. 49). Deborah is a “mother in Israel” (Jg. 7:2) but her actions are not related to her motherhood. Tammi Schneider in Judges, 289. ibid., 288-289.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

147

sharply with the mother of Micah (Jg. 17:1-6) who is able to save her son from certain death because of her “regularized” status.59 In the Book of Ruth, Naomi, the mother/widow and Ruth the widow, work together in a symbiotic relationship, each providing what only each could give: Naomi, her wisdom and experience, Ruth, her youth and ability to act.60 Working together in the cultural system in which they lived, they secured the future of their family in the face of famine, heartache and death. Amos 4:1 calls the wealthy wives of Samaria “Cows of Bashan”. These women are not called “mothers”, yet they are certainly “wives” who speak to their husbands (4:1) and will be led with other women/wives in a death procession (4:3). With regard to their households, these women are acting in quite the positive manner. They own large mansions, control vineyards and other farming endeavors. They rent out properties to others. In most ways, they compare favorably to the “ideal wife/woman” depicted in Pr. 31. The problem for Amos is that they are oppressing the poor, the destitute, the widows and orphans, to supply their opulent lifestyles. This, says Amos, is breaking covenant with YHWH. These women are not the “ideal” wife/woman of Pr. 31; Amos defines a “good” wife/woman as more than simply one who provides and advocates for her household when so doing accosts the community. In the case of the “Cows of Bashan,” their actions result (in concert with other people’s actions) in destruction to their families. 2. Samuel and Kings Samuel and Kings are best approached together as the topics and overall genres are similar and represent a single emphasis: the kingship of Israel. A good number of royal women are depicted in the narratives in Samuel and Kings. Although the women are not the major emphasis of the two books, women are featured in the narratives, especially in their contacts with the men who are primary actors. In the books of Samuel, A. Westbrook counts no less than thirteen stories in which women play a significant role in telling the story of David,61 predominantly to contrast 59

60 61

Susan Ackerman in Warrior,Dancer,Seductress,Queen (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 184. William E. Phipps AssertiveBiblicalWomen, 60. “And He Will Take Your Daugthers…” Woman Story as Didactic Narrative in the BiblicalAccountofDavid (Dissertation. Claremont Graduate University, 2010), 76.

148

CHAPTER FOUR

the good that he sometimes was and always could have been, to the bad that he often chose.62 In fact, much of the ambiguity in the characterization of David within Samuel comes as a result of the stories of his relationships and contacts with women.63 These narratives present to the audience the use and abuse of power within organizational structures.64 Furthermore, they highlight a “dramatic” presentation of the negative aspects of the early monarchy and its effect on the peoples who live under the kings.65 The stories intend for the reader to think about consequences of royal behavior on the individuals directly in the path of the leader, but also impacting the community at large.66 These women are no mere caricatures. No! Rather, these major contributors to David’s story are rich, detailed portraits of women’s actions, thoughts and intentions vital in communicating the message to the reader.67 Clearly, the biblical text is interested in what these women had to say and, though they often did not have the power to effect positive change on David, their voices are nonetheless powerful witnesses. Another factor notable in many of the women in Samuel and Kings is the power and importance some are shown to have in deciding who is to become king, maintaining a stable and successful monarchy, and ensuring a continuous dynasty. E. Solvang’s work68 contributes a number of salient points that are applicable to this study. First, the royal women of Judah are portrayed in the narratives as essential actors in and representatives of the Judean monarchy whose participation is deemed necessary, integral, and legitimate.69 Their role is not always directly connected to the king himself. Women are not strictly royal baby makers, especially in light of the evidence that few actually filled this function at all. Instead, the women were responsible for domestic and international relations, national defense issues, economic development, cultic leadership in some cases, and the peaceful transition from one generation to the next.70 Women are full participants in the success of the monarchy. E. Solvang states: 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70

ibid., 63-64. ibid., 63-64. ibid., 2-3. ibid., 69. ibid., 64. ibid., 77. AWomen’sPlaceisintheHouse:RoyalWomenofJudahandTheirInvolvementin theHouseofDavid (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). ibid., 6. ibid., 3.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

149

“it is no exaggeration…to state that without royal women there would be no dynastic rule. This is not just because there would be no son to inherit, but because the structures of international relations, economic productivity, social service, and cultic devotion are dynamic and familial, not exclusively hierarchical and male”.71

Second, the royal women do not act in these forums strictly by force of personality, nor are these rare initiatives of a few “exceptional” women. Instead, such roles are expected and demanded as royal women responsible for their duties.72 The institution of the monarchy required their full participation through personal relationships and activities that kept the monarchy functioning properly. Proper training within the ranks of the women and by the older women was executed for the younger generations. The importance of women and their roles are further solidified when observing the third point: the regnal notices in Kings, which name the queen mother (‫ )גִּ ִב ָירה‬in nearly all instances.73 The notices cite three individuals: father, succeeding son, and son’s mother (i.e., queen mother). The queen mother is an innovation unique to Judean kings, not present in either the Northern regnal reports or in any ANE royal reporting.74 The citation of the queen mother does not legitimate the new king but marks the transition to the new political situation from the old “house” to the new “house”.75 She is the most powerful woman and is responsible for the entire administration of the royal women, and had authority over a fair group of males assigned to her. She is “visible, influential & active”.76 The queen mother in the regnal notices is a “regular reminder” of the presence of royal women from generation to generation even when the narrative does not speak of women.77 Fourth, the HB never evaluates women on the basis of their gender but on their actions. This is no different than any other character in the narratives: a person is judged positively when aligned with the will of God, negatively when opposed. Michal, daughter of King Saul and first wife of David, is evaluated positively when she acts against 71 72 73

74 75 76 77

ibid., 49. ibid., 20-21. For the exception, intended by the Biblical writer, see E. Solvang’s discussion (ibid., 167-172). ibid., 79 ibid., 84. ibid., 84 ibid., 173.

150

CHAPTER FOUR

her father’s interest in favor of God’s78 by aligning her political loyalty with David.79 Abigail thwarts David’s attempt to murder her husband Nabal, thereby exposing his rash, stupid action as unfit and immoral for an (upcoming) Israelite king who rules under YHWH’s covenant.80 Jehosheba, a royal daughter (2 Kg. 11:2ff), demonstrates through her act of saving, hiding and raising Joash that she is on the correct side of the Davidic monarchy and its covenant with YHWH. She realigns the House of David with the House of YHWH.81 These three women are not judged favorably because they are women but because they are the saviors of God’s selected man/house: Michal and Abigail save David from certain destruction;82 Jehosheba saves the entire Davidic Monarchy. On the opposite spectrum of evaluation, Maachah, queen mother during the reign of Asa, was removed because of her allegiance to Asherah (1 Kg. 15:13). More harshly criticized is Athaliah, queen mother of the deceased Ahaziah (2 Kg. 8:26), who is judged “evil” because she turns the House of David against the “House of YHWH” in total apostasy.83 For this action, she is executed (2 Kg. 11:15-16). Still, these two women are not removed because they are women but for their actions in betraying the Covenant of YHWH. Fifth, motherhood is deemed critically important in the narratives. Although generating royal heirs is not the only activity of all royal women, it remains a primary activity for some. In the larger picture, motherhood is a key political role, a channel for preserving the future of the monarchy through progeny, education, succession and leadership.84 In the narratives, royal mothers are depicted as affecting the success and failures of their sons. Bathsheba ensures that Solomon is king over his brothers (1 Kg. 1). Rehoboam’s Ammonite mother explains the apostasy of Judah during his reign (1 Kg. 11:21ff). The bad influence of Ahaziah’s mother is acknowledged in his assessment (2 Kg. 8:26-27). Asa saves himself and the kingdom from his destructive mother when he removes her (1 Kg. 15:14).85 Royal mothers advance or hinder the divine work through their actions. 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

ibid., 92. 1 Sam. 19:11-17, ibid., 87. ibid., 96-97. ibid., 161. ibid., 98. ibid., 156. ibid., 119. ibid., 84.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

151

In the cases outlined above, these women act in ways that bring significant changes to the development of Judah’s monarch for good or bad.86 As in the cases of the mothers of Genesis, a son’s success or failure may be determined by who his mother is and what she does. The royal women of Judah’s monarchy may provide a parallel to the mothers of the Tribes of Jacob. While the families depicted in Genesis are not a “monarchy”, they are best described as a “great house” run by a “great (big) man”. Certainly, the households of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not small, nuclear families, nor are they an extended family with a few dozen people. They are large groups: Abraham can mount an army of 300 trained men born to his house to save his nephew Lot (Gn. 14:14). The size of Isaac’s and Jacob’s houses are never given; one could surmise they are similar. The structures and administration to run such a household is likely similar to running a monarch. In the vast administration of a monarchy, the king, a male, is the chief symbol of power and the senior royal official but all power does not derive from him.87 So too, the symbol of power in the “great house” is the man/husband/lord but does he hold all power? Do the wives/mothers play a similar role to the royal women and exercise similar power? The depiction of the “Good Wife” in Pr. 31 may indicate so, if observed from this perspective. Does a good wife/woman/mother manage her house with persuasion, authority and wisdom, as Abigail does in confronting and stopping David?88 3. Mothers in The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9 Chronicles is fraught with genealogical difficulties and must be approached carefully. The sporadic nature of the listings has troubled scholars and brought a good many speculations that have, in turn, influenced interpretations of other Hebrew Bible lists.89 Yet, M. Johnson argues convincingly that the Chronicler did not have true genealogical records from all tribes. To fill in the gaps, the Chronicler supplemented the pre-existing 86 87 88 89

ibid., 173. ibid., 3. ibid., 96-97. For detailed discussions of the various issues in Chronicles, see the commentaries of Sara Japhet (IandIIChronicles,H.G.M. Williamson (1and2Chronicles), Ralph Klein (1Chronicles), along with the monograph by James T. Sparks (TheChronicler’s Genealogies).

152

CHAPTER FOUR

HB narratives (mostly Genesis and Numbers) with available non-Biblical genealogical records and other sources, particularly the Davidic royal records and various military service records.90 Therefore, Chronicles should not be used to correct or interpret the other HB records or to argue for earlier/later tribal realities: such an action would disregard both the original and present functions of these lists. The fluidity of some tribal lists may indicate perceived changes in status for groups beyond the Torah-listed names, although it is difficult to know since, in many cases, we have only Chronicles as another source. Illuminating for our study is that a change of style in genealogical method is detectable. M. Johnson points out that the oldest genealogies representing the earliest generations after the Exodus recount mothers, with proper lineage, for some but not all of the twelve tribes. In 1 Ch. 2 – 9 we see that: Tribes with mothers listed: Napthali, Manasseh, Judah, Benjamin Tribes with no mothers: Levi, Simeon, Reuben, Gad, Issachar, Ephraim,91 Asher Zebulon and Dan are not listed in Chronicles.92

Careful analyses of the various lists employed by the Chronicler indicate a specific reason for mothers being included in some of the lists yet excluded in others. This reason lies directly as a result of the original function of some lists in opposition to the others. This points to a specific caution that must be raised when considering the sources of Chronicles 1-9: the Chronicle’s re-employed existing sources whose original function may be different than the function intended by the Chronicler. That is to say, whatever function the list played in its original setting from which the Chronicler pulled, may or may not be the same intended by the Chronicler. Therefore, we must take notice of two possible functions for each list: 1) the overall function of the Chronicler, that is the purpose for including the genealogies in 1 Ch. 1-9, and 2) a given genealogy’s original function, if determinable. This shall be addressed in two steps.

90 91

92

ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 55. However, notable daughters/sisters are mentioned for both Ephraim and Asher. See below. See discussion of absence of Zebulun and Dan in Chapter Three. Regardless of how one interprets the data, no names include women.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

153

a. TheChronicler’sPurposeforGenealogiesin1–9 The Chronicler begins with Adam and works forward in time, reaching a culmination at the post-exilic community in Ch. 9. The intention is to show the election of Israel.93 Written from a post-exilic viewpoint, the question was, “Who was, and what makes up ‘Israel’?” Certainly, the three predominant groups – Judah, the Levites and Benjamin, with so many returnees, were “Israel”. However, the Chronicler, using the various genealogies and lists, aimed to include all the tribes94 and in so doing, establishes that all are part of “Israel”.95 Despite the history of certain groups – the rejection of the northern Kingdom or the distrust of the Transjordan tribes, even the Exile – rejoining the family is possible.96 The genealogies define the community of “Israel”.97 They establish the ethnic, geographical and chronological setting of the people98 and portray “Israel” as a unified,99 single, functioning ethnic body100 organized under a tribal system.101 The presentation of generations from Adam to the post-exilic additionally serves a chronological purpose. It demonstrates to the post-exilic community that it stems from an unbroken succession of a particular people.102 It connects the post-exilic Israel to the pre-exilic Israel,103 and beyond to the beginnings of the family, especially poignant in the longer lists of the Levites104 and Judah, and via the reiteration of Gn. 46 in the introductory genealogy for most of the tribes. The connection to the contemporary culminates in the “all Israel” statement made in 1 Ch. 9:1. The listings, coupled with the numerous place names105 (towns, land holdings, etc.) also present a theology of land retention to the new 93 94

95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103 104

105

H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 2. Notwithstanding the absence of genealogical material from Zebulun and Dan. Both are included in the introduction of 2:1-2. Simon De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 22, Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles, 280-281. Peter B. Dirksen in 1Chronicles (Leuven and Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005), 15. Paul Hooker in FirstandSecondChronicles(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 48. Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 8. Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 61. Sara Japhet in TheIdeologyoftheBookofChronicles, 279. Simon De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 15. H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 2. Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 60. In the case of Levi, the Chronicler makes a point to demonstrate the continuity of the post-exilic cultic members to the wilderness tabernacle members (Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 115). Steven S. Tuell, FirstandSecondChronicles, 27.

154

CHAPTER FOUR

generation.106 Ownership of the land belonged to Israel from the ancient past and it now belongs to the present generation, even if not entirely inhabitable. The message of the Chronicler was that all the named tribes were “Children of Israel”.107 Chapters 1-9 serve as an introduction to the narratives that follow in the remainder of Chronicles.108 The genealogies act as a narrative substitute to provide a historical, theological and literary background to the people whose stories are to come,109 all with the hope of a better future for all Israel.110 b. TheCharacteristicsoftheIndividualTribalListsin1–9 To achieve the presentation of “all Israel”, the Chronicler used a variety of sources, none of which had this function in its original setting. As discussed above, multiple sources are employed111 in this effort to represent every tribe. In fact, “genealogy” is a misnomer in many of the lists in 1-9 since but a few are true genealogies; many are simple lists. For this reason, the term “genealogical” in respect to Chronicles must be viewed as a descriptive term, rather than a formal genre.112 In fact, a wide variety of genres are found: true genealogies, military muster lists, lists of pasturelands, inter-tribal skirmish boundaries, and more.113 The inclusion of the various sources bolstered the Chronicler’s account with “factual” data thereby infusing it with authority and validity.114 The difficulty for this study, and indeed any study of the genealogies in 1 – 9, is the disparate nature of the “genealogies”. Within some tribes, particularly the longer lists in Judah,115 Levi and Benjamin,116 a variety of genres are pushed together, sometimes without any specific connection to each other.117

106 107 108 109 110 111

112 113 114 115

116 117

James T. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 180. Peter B. Dirksen, 1Chronicles, 16. Sara Japhet, TheIdeologyoftheBookofChronicles, 278-279. Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 60. Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles:ACommentary, 48. See discussion by H.G.M. Williamson in 1 and 2 Chronicles, 2ff and most recent commentaries for extended discussions of the Chronicler’s sources. Simon De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 15. H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 45. Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 41. Steven S. Tuell in First and Second Chronicles, 27. See also Sara Japhet’s careful analysis of Judah’s (IandIIChronicles, 103-104). H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 83-84. Simon De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 38.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

155

Names and events are mentioned without any direct connection to their context.118 Disconnected family lineages, repeated lineages, various levels of importance119 are all factors involved in the lists one must address. In addition, both linear120 and segmented lineages121 can be adjacent to each other,122 sometimes with no immediately apparent connection. Further exasperating any analysis is the fact that the listings represent multiple time periods. References are made to the family beginnings (Genesis to Numbers), to pre-monarchal (Saul) and monarchal (Saul, David, Hezekiah, Jotham, and Jereboam). The exile of the Transjordan tribes and Judah are referenced, as are exilic and post-exilic groups. Most are old; only a few extend into the lifetime of the Chronicler.123 Despite the wide variety of genres and the disparate eras referred to within the listings, the overall picture is not as chaotic as it appears. J. Sparks has observed that each segment of the genealogies in 1-9 is well situated in its individual tribal unit. None appears out-of-place. No indications exist that one or another has been grafted in and does not fit. The individual tribal genealogies themselves give all indications that each of the respective branches is fully assimilated into its respective tribe.124 The Chronicler has assembled the lot into a new whole125 weaving them into a “genealogical narrative”.126 c. OriginalFunctionsoftheTribalLists With such variety of genres utilized by the Chronicler, what is needed is to identify the original functions of the various lists. This will assist 118

119

120 121 122 123

124

125 126

Peter J. Williams in “Israel Outside the Land: The Transjordan Tribes in 1 Chronicles 5,” (WindowsintoOldTestamentHistory:Evidence,Argument,andtheCrisisof“Biblical History,” Eds. V. Philip Long, David W. Baker and Gordan J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 153. Frank Michaeli in LesLivresdesChroniques,D’EsdrasetDeNéhémie (Neuchätel, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1967), 71. son of A, son of B, son of C, etc. sons of N are ABC, sons of A are DEF, sons of D are GJK, etc. Frank Michaeli, LesLivresdesChroniques, 72. For references to each, see the discussions of J. Sparks in TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 13; H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 83-84; and S. Japhet’s on each genealogy and in her discussion of sources (IandIIChronicles, passim). The Chronicler’s Genealogies, 14. His point is not that disconnections do not exist but, rather, a simple reading of the individual tribal genealogies makes sense. One must look very closely to find “problems”. Steven S. Tuell, FirstandSecondChronicles, 41. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 9.

156

CHAPTER FOUR

the investigation into the question why women are in some genealogies and not others. As outlined in Chapter Two of this work, the function of a genealogy determines who and why individuals are named. J. Sparks, informed by the work of R. Wilson’s distinctions of genealogical functions, has sorted the Chronicles listings into three functions: politico-jural, cultic/religious and domestic. A short survey of the first two is in order, then a more extended look into the domestic function. i. Political-Jural and Cultic/Religious Functioning Lists The politico-jural function deals with military, civil authority, and land holdings such as settlement areas. References are made to heads of families and military leaders around whom the society is organized in times of conflict, and military muster lists.127 The tribes of Simeon, Issachar, Benjamin in Ch. 7, and Asher128 are politico-jural genealogies.129 The tribes that appear in Chapter 7, in fact, are mostly politico-jural genealogies connected to130 or taken from131 military census lists. In the case of the Transjordan tribes (1 Ch. 5:3-26), settlement areas, and conquests, also polico-jural foci, play an ancillary role under the primary role of military registrations. The cultic-religious function can only be applied to Levi and his is strictly that.132 Within his listing are concerns of a clerical nature: families of the various cultic orders, their activities and settlement areas.133 Genealogies are strictly confined to the affiliations of the three families of Levi. No events or activities of a domestic or politico-jural nature are intended. Rather, Levi’s genealogy is only concerned with the tribe’s right to conduct the cult and, tangentially, Levi’s right to occupy assigned cities.134 Women in the genealogies of these politico-jural and cultic/religious genealogies are nearly absent: six daughters in Simeon (4:27), one in Levi (5:27 [Eng. 6:3]), and two sisters in Asher (7:30, 32), to which can 127 128

129 130 131 132 133 134

Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles:ACommentary, 217-218. See below for fuller discussion of Asher, including whether his should be reassigned as a domestic genealogy. James T. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 215-216. H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 82. M. Johnson, ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 55. James T. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 216. Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 145-146. ibid., 164.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

157

be added the reference to Bilhah in Naphtali’s (7:14). Yet, the role played by the women named in Simeon and Levi is very limited: the six unnamed daughters (and sixteen sons) of Shimei (Simeon’s descendant135) explain the large expansion of that particular branch of Simeon as opposed to the other Simeon branches who had few offspring. Immediately following this remark, the various habitation areas of Simeon are described in two different eras, David’s and Hezekiah’s (1 Ch. 4:31, 41). Hence, the daughters act here only as a means to explain the size of the tribe’s holdings. Simeon’s is strictly a politico-jural function. Asher’s genealogy (7:30-40) is more complicated. His will be discussed below with the domestic genealogies. In the case of Levi, women are absent altogether, except for the strictly formulaic phrase “Aaron, Moses, and Miriam” when the genealogy reaches their father (5:27 [Eng. 6:3]). Males occupy the cult system; Levi’s genealogical recitation is strictly to define the office holders of the cult. In total, no women in any of the politico-jural or cultic/religious functioning genealogies are described in terms of familial connections or tribal interactions. Taking into account the functions at the root of these listings, this is not surprising. ii. Domestic Functioning Lists An entirely different picture emerges when observing the listings J. Sparks identifies as having a domestic function: Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh of Ch. 8 and Benjamin. These listings are primarily comprised of segmented genealogies. They contain accounts of marriages, conceptions, deaths, etiological statements explaining children’s names.136 Male familial terms such as “father”, “son”, “brother” appear, just as they do in the non-domestic lists, although with somewhat less frequency.137 It is the large number of female familial terms that leap from the citations. Consider the chart below, adapted from J. Sparks,138 indicating the feminine familial terms appearing in the twelve tribal citations:

135 136 137

138

Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles:ACommentary, 146. J. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 216. Except for Levi’s, which employs (“son of…“) some 116 times, more than any other tribal citation, as its major recitation tool (ibid., 219). Table 8.1, ibid., 219.

158

CHAPTER FOUR

Feminine Familial Terms in the Chronicles Genealogies ‫ָאחֹות‬

‫ֵאם‬

‫ִא ׇשּׁה‬

Simeon

‫ַבּת‬

‫ִפּ ֶילגֶ שׁ‬

‫ְבּכוֹר‬ (of woman/ all)

‫ילד‬ (of woman/ all)

1

Rueben

0/3

Gad

1

Manasseh (TransJor) Benjamin (Ch. 7) Naphtali Asher

2

0/1

Levi Judah

5

Manasseh (Cisjordan)

2

9

8

3

2

1

1

Ephraim

1

9

Benjamin (Ch. 8)

3

1

4

16

21

2

1

2

2

15

19

Total of All

7

Total Politico/ Cultic Total Domestic

7

2

0/1

0/21

0/10

17/51139 2/4 1/2

4

4

0/3

0/14

0/17

20/93

0/4

0/22

0/14

20/71

The citations of Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh (Cisjordan) and Benjamin contain significantly larger numbers of references to women, particularly in their roles as family members. Judah’s contains named wives (‫)א ׇשּׁה‬, ִ 140 141 142 143 unnamed wives, along with named and unnamed ‫פּ ֶילגֶ שׁ‬. ִ Daughters 139

140 141 142 143

Three in 1 Ch. 3:1-9 are masculine nif `al verbs but the sons are directly assigned to their mothers (wives of David). 1 Ch. 2:18, 24, 26, 29; 3:1-3, 4:5, 18. 1 Ch. 2:21, 35; 4:18, 19. 1 Ch. 2:46, 48. 1 Ch. 3:9.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

159

(‫)בּת‬ ַ are regularly named,144 but also are generally acknowledged without naming,145 as are several groups of sisters.146 Mother (‫)אם‬ ֵ and daughterin-law (‫)כּ ׇלּה‬ ַ also appear in Judah’s records. Similar observations can be made for Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, although on a much smaller scale since their genealogies are significantly shorter than Judah’s.147 A reevaluation of Asher’s citation adds to this picture. As identified above, the overall function is politico-jural as indicated by land holdings and military registrations. However, imbedded is a domestic genealogy. The Chronicler’s method in citing the tribal genealogies148 is to start with the family listings that apparently are based on Gn. 46 (List 3) and/or Nm. 26 (List 13). These earlier citations act as the introduction to the tribe, to which the Chronicler adds later source materials, if available, to bolster the tribal “genealogy”. In the case of Asher, the secondary materials were later generations149 and military muster registrations. The end result is a politio-jural functioning genealogy. However, the original function of the introductory genealogy taken from Gn. 46 is domestic. Thus, familial connections are recited. In the case of Asher, Serah appears in this older source since she is intrinsic to the domestic function. She is called “sister” (of Asher’s sons, 7:32) here and in Gn. 46:17. Nm. 26:46 labels her “daughter”.150 In both cases, she is Asher’s daughter. The other “sister” Shua` (1 Ch. 7:32), is the great, granddaughter of Asher found only here151 as no other genealogy of Asher describes this part of Asher’s line. The phenomenon of so many women in domestic genealogies cannot be attributed to the larger size of the domestic tribal citations compared to the polito-jural, although size should be taken into account. The phenomenon is absent in Levi, a cultic-religious functioning genealogy, whose listing is larger than all but Judah’s. Rather, the very nature of the domestic genealogies is intrinsically different from the other two types. The issues of 144 145 146 147

148

149

150 151

1 Ch. 2:49; 3:2, 5; 4:18. 1 Ch. 2:3, 21, 34, 35. 1 Ch. 2:16; 3:9, 19; 4:3, 19. See James Spark’s fuller analysis of the women in the domestically functioning genealogies (TheChronicler’sGenealogies, passim). Except Naptali’s, whose citation is severely abbreviated. See discussion of Naphtali, along with the absence of Dan and Zebulun in Chapter Three. Chronicles 7:30-40 traces six generations in succession past Asher, then another generation that is disconnected to the former (Ralph Klein 1Chronicles, 239). Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles:ACommentary, 237-238. Gn. 49 and Nm. 26 only cite the children of the tribal leader. The generations following, including Shua`, are from an unknown source (Sara Japhet IandIIChronicles, 185.)

160

CHAPTER FOUR

domestic genealogies revolve around the workings of family:152 marriages, children, connections between family branches, the genetic explanations behind the tribe occupying different geographical areas,153 the identification of professional guilds that operate as extensions of the clan, identifying and legitimizing tribal interactions154 and individuals within the family, and yes, women as mothers, daughters and sisters; these are the matters of importance to domestic genealogies. A few other examples in Chronicles can be added. Keturah (1 Ch. 1:32) is said to “bear” named sons attributed to her. It is clear in the context that these particular sons are not to be included as members of the family “Israel”,155 evidently on account of mother Keturah. Mehetabel (1 Ch. 1:50), the wife of Hadad, is given daughter and granddaughter status via a pedigree.156 She has no listed children. The reason for the Chronicler including her information, when most of the other women are omitted, is unclear. iii. Summary of Chronicles Genealogies Considering the grand scheme of the genealogies in Chronicles, it is clear that, when domestic genealogies are cited, mothers are intrinsic to the recitation. This is especially evident when the genealogy notes significant events such as delineating major branches in the lineage, important children whose mother must be identified,157 significant women who must be recognized, etc. Through the process of telescoping, not all people in the family make the recitation; it would be simply too long. Nevertheless, the important junctures in the family and personas, including women in varying roles, must be included. The genealogies of Chronicles, when 152 153

154 155

156 157

James T. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 221-222. Sara Japhet notes that the Manasseh genealogies in 7:14-19 offer an answer to why the tribe was divided between the Transjordan and Cisjordan: Machir settled in the east, his sister Hammolechet settled in the west (IandIIChronicles, 179). Simon De Vries, 1and2Chronicles, 40. She is only one of two women mentioned in Ch. 1. Clearly the Chronicler’s purpose for Ch. 1 is significantly different than the Genesis recitation from which it is sourced. The abbreviated nature of the genealogies leave off all other women named in the genealogies of Genesis except for Keturah and Metred, wife of Hadid, the daughter Mezhab, a descendant of Esau (1:50). Since full recounting of the genealogies of Genesis was not intended, why make a special note of Keturah and her children? See commentaries for suggestions (Ralph Klein, 1 Chronicles, 58, 73; 78-79, Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles:ACommentary, 61-65, and H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, 43-44. Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles, 78-79. This is likely the intent behind identifying David’s offspring according their mothers in 1 Ch. 3:9ff (Ralph Klein 1Chronicles, 116.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

161

function is taken into account, portray the same picture as Genesis and elsewhere: mothers are vitally important to the family of Israel. Mothers too, it appears, are avid and legitimate participants in the progress of Israel.158 Perhaps most telling in the domestic genealogies is the connection of mothers with their children. In many cases, the mothers are the very organizational system of the clan. This is notable for the Genesis listings, as described in Chapter 3 in this work. It is common in the Chronicles listings. Manasseh’s genealogies (7:14-19) identify the offspring according to mothers,159 as do Benjamin’s (Chs. 8, 9). Judah’s is entirely controlled by mother/offspring connections in that the whole of Chs. 2:3-4 is organized around the leading fathers of each Judah branch, of which each is ultimately organized according to the leading fathers’ wives and which offspring derive from each wife. David’s genealogy, within Judah’s, names an “unprecedented” number of women who are cited in their own right.160 The conclusion to be reached in surveying the Chronicles genealogies is that, when the original function of the sourced genealogy is domestic in nature, mothers, or at least women, must be cited. In many cases, the mothers are drivers of the family genealogies and are behind much of how the tribe is organized.

D. CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER FOUR 1. The Chronicles’ listings show four points. First, they are another indication that the contents of an existing list must not be changed. One can repurpose the listing but not alter it. Second, in the Chronicler’s desire to represent “all Israel”, genealogies from nearly all tribes are cited, not only those in the large group of returnees represented by Judah, Ephraim/Manasseh and Benjamin. The Chronicler’s point: all tribes were “Israel”. 158

159 160

P. Hooker (FirstandSecondChronicles, 40) notes that three times in Ch. 7 women are highlighted for their actions on behalf of their tribes, and by extension, Israel: Hammolechet, Ma`achah, and the daughters of Zelophehad, the builders of the clan (Manasseh 7:14-18) and Sheerah of Ephraim (7:24), a builder of cities, the only woman in the HB to receive recognition for doing so (Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 61). Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 178. Steven S. Tuell, FirstandSecondChronicles, 28.

162

CHAPTER FOUR

Third, the Chronicler introduced each tribe (except Naphtali) by reciting the tribal genealogies from (mostly) Gn. 46 and, sometimes Nm. 26. The introductory genealogy was supplemented with geographical sources from Joshua161 and other available sources. The military muster lists are relatively short and lack any women, as one would expect. However, the longer listings (except Levi’s) are of a domestic nature: these feature mothers prominently. In the domestic realm, mothers, sisters, daughters are important members and are included as integral to society. Fourth, it may be that change is detectable in the importance of mothers in genealogical listings between the older generations and the later. The earliest genealogical listings, especially those of and similar to Genesis through Numbers, are typically organized by mother and her offspring. After some point in time, the genealogies seem to change to the form [father-son-son-son-son] or [son-father-father-father-father, etc.] frequently seen in post-Exilic, Persian Period writings. This later form is used in the generations closest to the Chronicler and represents the genealogical method of the Chronicler’s time (and is identical to that in Ezra-Nehemiah and beyond to Rabbinic). The two genealogical forms are representative of two distinct methods: the older included mothers, the younger cite only the father-son connections. It should be noted that these “older” timeperiods are in a time far past the “eponymic fathers” (later than Exodusperiod generations) and any considerations of “tribal realities” and geographic proximities to recreate the tribal connections are irrelevant. Rather, the importance of the mothers as an older concept may be represented by these listings. This method of genealogical form appears to be the more ancient and is indicative of the importance of the mothers. This is not necessarily indicative of the importance of mothers perse; only whether it remained important to list the mother in the genealogy. This will require further research.162 Did the earlier/earliest generations consider matriarchal connections as primary whereas generations closer to or after the postPersian period (to throw out a targeted but random time) and beyond consider the fathers primary? Is there a shift in the roles, and therefore importance, of mothers ingenealogies if men no longer have multiple wives and thus the family branches are not described in terms of matrilineal connections? Certainly, a matriarch’s lineage is connected to the heir in the early generations in Genesis.163 T. Finlay has identified patterns in 161 162

163

M. Johnson, ThePurposeoftheBiblicalGenealogies, 56. Especially in light that the most extensive genealogies naming women are in Judah and are connected with the monarchy. This fact may skew the data. Sarah Shectman, Rachel, Leah, 208.

THE MATRIARCHS BEHIND THE SONS OF JACOB

163

the birth reports that seem to differentiate between children born to a wife contrasting those born to a pilegesh.164 If the children born to mothers of differing ranks are distinguished in the wording of a birth report, could this point to more differences that we are not aware of? Does the data support a matriarchal system that was superceded by a patriarchal system?165 These questions cannot be answered here but are important. 2. At its very core, the HB is concerned with the Hebrew Deity and the covenant between the YHWH and Israel. Because of this overall focus, much of the HB has little to say about “mothers” in the same way it has little to say about “fathers” or “children”. Most books of the HB do not address these individuals, except in terms of the covenant and its stipulations and corrections to breaking the covenant. Thus, the information must be gleaned from texts which have another focus: receiving the covenantal inheritances in some, breaking covenant with YHWH in some, the ups and downs of monarchy as it relates to covenant in others. Nevertheless, mothers come into the picture when appropriate to the message being relayed. It would be a mistake to construe the scarcity or absence of mothers as demeaning their roles or persons simply because they are female. In fact, all individuals, male or female, adult or child, come into the narrative only when appropriate to the message. 3. The mothers of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus are primary characters because the family is the issue at hand. Not a nation, not a people; a family.166 Relative to a family, mothers are indispensable. Not just as child bearers, but also as administrators, as child instructors,167 as important determiners of the children’s future. The examples provided show that mothers are the backbone of the family. This is especially noticeable when the man/husband/father character is defying God’s will, either accidentally or knowingly: Sarah for Abraham, Rebekah for Isaac, most of the “judges”, Michal and Abigail for David, to name a few. The mothers of Genesis ensured the family’s survival generation to generation by their deeds, and by far more than thedeed itself. The women in Exodus; Shiphrah, Puah, Jochebed, and Miriam protected and brought a 164 165

166

167

TheBirthReportGenre, 95. So suggested by S. De Vries (1and2Chronicles, 78). S. Tuell questions whether the older system favored a matrilineal tradition (FirstandSecondChronicles, 28-29). True, a people and nation arise out of the family, as is the point of Exodus. Nevertheless, the family is the basis for the people and the nation. W. Phipps says Jochebed, the mother of Moses, did much more than nursing him. She taught him the ways of his people and implanted in her son the urge help his people (AssertiveBiblicalWomen, 37).

164

CHAPTER FOUR

family to a nation. Deborah and Jael in Judges, Michal and Jehosheba in Kings were saviors at critical points in Israel’s history. To these examples could be added Hannah for her son Samuel (1 Sam. 1), who sets up her son to be the voice of God regarding the entire monarchy,168 the mother of Samson (Jg. 13), the Shunammite woman (2 Kg. 4) for the positive effect on their children and, in some cases, the success of Israel. In other cases, a mother’s voice “cries out for justice” for her family and in so doing, depicts the will of God against evil.169 Finally, E. Solvang states that the HB narrative of Samuel/Kings is “locked into the symbolic significance of the male heir” but also clearly presents “women as significant actors in and symbols of the same monarchy”.170 This statement can be equally applied to the mothers of the twelve tribes. The narratives may be framed by patriarchal concerns, of heirs and inheritances, but the “rich, central portraits of its female characters stand out regardless”.171 The women’s stories in Genesis belie any claim that privileges males at the expense of females.172 It may be that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the heirs to the promise, but their mothers and wives are equal contributors to their success and to the success of the Promise. The “family” is not only males and male concerns; it is allinclusive. The women of Genesis represent the Biblical understanding of humans as God’s partners in maintaining God’s good world;173 so too throughout the HB. The narratives are clear in this matter. The mothers behind the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel are critical to their survival and, subsequently, to the survival of what will be “Israel”.

168

169

170 171 172 173

In that Samuel’s prophetic voice uttering the words of God regarding the detrimental effect a monarchy would have over Israel. So Rizpah in 2 Sam. 21. See A. Westbrook’s interpretation of Rizpah’s action as a scathing critique of David (AndHeWillTake, 332). ibid., 160. Timothy Finlay, TheBirthReportGenre, 324. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, B’reishit. 2. ibid., 3.

CONCLUSIONS Conclusions to this study are in three general categories: the characteristics of the genealogy of Jacob/Israel, the time it was established, and the role of the mothers behind the genealogy. Regarding the first category, the characteristics, several points are evident. First, the listings of “the Sons of Jacob/Israel” can be classified in three main groups based on function: genealogical, Camp Assignment/Desert Processional, and Inheritance/ Territorial/Geographical. The genealogical type names the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Napthali, Gad, Asher. It is cited when family affairs are of utmost importance. It is restated at crucial junctures including family relocation, death of an important member, new chapters in the family story, new generations, and when the family story is retold to a new audience (e.g., 1 Ch. 2:1-2). The other types (Camp Assignment/Desert Processional and Inheritance/Territorial/Geographical) are based on the genealogical type. All twelve sons are named, unless the function calls for a shortened list, as in Ex. 6:14-27 where the genealogy stops with Levi, whose descendants are the intended target. There is but one genealogy of Jacob/Israel. In the genealogical type, the sequence of the twelve names has little variation. Exceptions nearly always can be explained by the function of those lists in the narrative. The primary sequence of the sons is standardized after the birth reports (Gn. 29:31-30:34 and 35:16-18, List 1) and established in Gn. 35:22b-26 (List 2). It does not deviate, except twice (see below). Two aspects organize the sons’ presentation in the genealogy: mothers and birth order. The primary organizing factor is by the four mothers who dictate the order: Leah first, Rachel second, Bilhah and Zilpah follow. The presentations of Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah are dependent upon Leah’s presentation. Rachel’s presentation influences Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s. Bilhah may outrank Zilpah but the data are inconclusive: the narratives place the two mothers in an equal position. A combination of Bilhah’s single-occurring pilegesh title (Gn. 35:22) and her sons more frequently appearing before Zilpah’s may edge her above Zilpah. After the mother’s rank, the secondary sequencer is birth order within each mother’s sons. A few outliers exist: Gezirim/Ebal in Dt. 27:11-14 (List 15) and Ezekiel’s Gates (48:30-35, List 21). Neither list supports the rankings of the mothers but do support some organization by the mothers.

166

CONCLUSIONS

The Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type is exclusive to Numbers. Its function is to organize the camp into a systemized, efficient operation suitable for camping around the Tabernacle and for marching from site to site. It is the primary organizational system whenever additional camp issues are addressed such as sacrifice maintenance and future land assignments. It is based on the family genealogy and is introduced via a three-step process that directly connects the official genealogy to the contemporary reality of a large group of people, the camp. This process a) states the official genealogy (Nm. 1:5-16, List 7), (Nm. 1:20-54, List 8), b) arranges the twelve tribes into four groups of three tribes each, c) names the four “camps”, assigns a tenting location within the larger camp and a position in the desert procession for each tribe (Nm. 2, List 9). Other than rearranging the presentation of the tribes, the camp type closely resembles the genealogical type. The glaring difference is the presence of Manasseh and Ephraim. Numbers does not attempt to explain the reason why Manasseh and Ephraim stand rather than a unified “Joseph”; it simply makes the necessary adjustment to their physical presences. Manasseh and Ephraim never take the place of Joseph in the official genealogy: they are granted locations to camp and marching positions. Manasseh and Ephraim’s presences in the wilderness camp set the precedence for territorial inheritance. The Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial type is geographical in nature, usually describing territorial and/or inheritance locations, sometimes identifying borders, sometimes repeating census-type counts. In all cases, the tribes are presented in some sort of geographically organized manner.1 The locations of the tribes usually determine the sequence in which they are presented, at least to some degree. Additionally, the sequence of tribes is partly controlled by when and how each tribe took possession of its territory.2 Joshua (List 17) and 1 Chronicles (List 23) are lengthy, stretching over multiple chapters. Judges is more of a summary. Three groups are usually represented: a) the Transjordan block of tribes in a formulaic phrase “Reuben, Gad, and the Half-tribe Manasseh”, or similar. This block is first recognized in Nm. 34 (List 14), the only Inheritance/Geographical/ Territorial type in Torah. In all but one instance, the Transjordan Block 1

2

The Transjordan tribes are not always cited first, despite the fact that they possess first. In these cases, other narrative concerns push the Transjordan block to a different position in the presentation. See. Nm. 34:16 (List 14), Josh. 13-21 (List 17), Jg. 1 (List 18), and one instance in 1 Ch. 7:29 (List 23). The constant referral to Joseph negates C. H. J. De Geus’ theory that “Joseph” was a late idea that developed from the more ancient designations of “Ephraim” and “Manasseh” (TheTribesofJahweh, 79).

CONCLUSIONS

167

is cited as a unified entity separated, geographically and organizationally, from the other tribes. b) Judah (sometimes with Simeon) and Joseph are depicted as conquering tribes, and c) the remaining tribes, who are portrayed as delayed in taking their territories in Joshua and Judges. The Camp Organization/Desert Procession and Inheritance/Geographical/ Territorial types retain the official genealogy but are presented in formats that support their distinctive functions. The variations in sequences do not alter the family genealogy nor do they reposition the ranks of individual tribes within the family. The function of each type is the driving force behind the sequencing. For the genealogically arranged type it is by mother’s rank, followed by birth order within the mother. For the Camp Assignment/Desert Processional type, it is the four “camps” of three tribes positioned around the tabernacle and in marching from site to site. In the Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial type, it is a combination of geographical location, along with how and when the tribe occupied its land. The alternate presentations are not attempts to position one tribe above the others politically, or socially, or to rewrite the official genealogy. The scholarly researches of the past have failed to consider the function and the narrative surrounding the listings thereby leading to faulty conclusions and misinterpreted messages unintended by the ancient writers. Second, the notion of Levi/Joseph versus Manasseh/Ephraim is a false construction. Levi is not missing from the Camp Organization/Desert Procession and Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial types; he is reassigned to other narratives because his role is different from the other tribes. Levi is responsible for all matters of the cult: the sacrifices, the various ordinances, protecting its sanctity, disassembly, transporting and reassembly of the Tabernacle during marches. Levi’s presence is extensive, often with longer narratives than the others. He is simply put into separate narratives on account of his special status and responsibilities. In every instance, his “absence” from the official listings is due to scholarly oversight by virtue of looking at the lists separated from their contexts. Joseph, too, is present: he is linked to his sons via the formula of the listings in Numbers, Joshua, Judges and Chronicles. At each important juncture, and in each book, the official genealogy cites Joseph first, then Manasseh and Ephraim as “his sons” in some formula. Subsequent lists do not need to repeat this connection, unless a new narrative situation arises that calls for a restatement, such as the second generation army register (Nm. 26:5-51, List 13) that reiterates the family genealogy for a new generation and emulates the form used in the first-generation army muster in Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8). The Camp Organization/Desert Procession and Inheritance/Geographical/

168

CONCLUSIONS

Territorial types adjust for the physical presences of Manasseh and Ephraim but do not alter the official genealogy. The direct connection of Joseph to his sons in this type makes it clear that the genealogy of Jacob/Israel has not changed. The “twelve sons of Jacob” remain the same. Joseph is his son: not Manasseh, not Ephraim.3 Third, despite the clear rankings of the sons by their mothers, and despite the fact that this ranking is reflected in the genealogy that appears throughout the many generations and narratives from various eras, the Exodus and Numbers narratives level the twelve tribes to an equal status. Regardless of Reuben’s first-born status, Jacob’ elevation of Joseph to first-born statuts in his final words (Gn. 48:22; see also his blessing in Gn. 49:22-26), despite the lengthy Joseph narratives in Genesis, which some have argued to push Joseph to the higher status, and despite the Saul and Davidic houses in the monarchies; all the tribes are placed on equal footing starting in Exodus. Numbers on through the remainder of the HB narratives keep the twelve on an equal level. This includes Chronicles as the principle reason for the geologies in Chapters 1 – 9. The mothers’ ranks are important for the first generations and so frozen in the genealogy. Family history remembers the rankings, expressed through the genealogy, but this is no longer of primary importance for the family. Rather, it is the covenant with YHWH that is extended to all tribes equally. At some point, the dynamics of inheritance are extended to all Jacob’s sons therefore legitimating all4 as inheritors of the promise. Fourth, the “official” number of Israelite tribes is to be separated from the “sons of Jacob/Israel”. Scholars have argued for decades about the importance of the number “twelve”, “six”, or “ten” as the perfect representation of “Israel”. Much ink has been spilled on the importance to the writers of keeping twelve as an explanation of why Levi and Joseph are dropped to accommodate Manasseh and Ephraim. It has been argued that 1 Chronicles presents 13 ½ tribes5 or at the “end of the tribal system” fourteen tribes existed.6 Much hand wringing and wrangling of texts have argued for “ten” tribes or attempts to reconcile the twelve-tribe notion with the realities of more or less in the narrative presentations. These miss the point: Jacob’s sons are always twelve: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher. These are always and the only the sons of Jacob. The presentation does need 3 4 5 6

Sarah Shectman, Rachel, Leah, 208. Koichi Namiki, Reconsideration, 45. ibid., 50-51. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 191.

CONCLUSIONS

169

to show exactly “twelve” tribes for that is a separate moniker from the sons. The presentation does not need to eliminate a son at the expense of another: Levi/Joseph versus Manasseh/Ephraim, two separate Manasseh’s or one. The function of the narrative may demand either or all. This does not negate or change the genealogy. Regarding the second category, the time when the genealogy was established, it is clearly evident that it precedes any of the narratives. This is shown in several facts. First, ANE evidence shows that once a genealogy became established, the writers do not change its principle structure. Additional generations can be added, it can be shortened or recited in reverse, kinship terms could be adjusted for a different presentation or for a new social situation. However, the principle names and positions must not be altered. The lists of Jacob’s sons throughout the HB, and the various lists, both genealogical and otherwise, in 1 Ch. 1-9 fit this pattern. Second, no examples of genealogies have yet been identified that were invented solely for the sake of a narrative. Not in any extended documents in Mesopotamia, Egypt or the regions between, the HB included. It is a mistake to assume that the twelve names were drawn from the narratives because the names are not literary creations, but represent actual tribal groups.7 The blood relationship of the twelve brothers forges the group in to a single people8 even after the group was no longer a functioning single entity. Third, the opposite is the case. Writers employed existing genealogies even when they did not “fit” the narrative. An existing genealogy or list might be incorporated into a new narrative. In some cases, the older source fits nicely within its new context. In other cases, the list does not fit in the new narrative context at all. 1 Chronicles 1 – 9 is the supreme example of lists taken from diverse sources with multiple original functions that are employed in a new narrative context with a new function. Fourth, the genealogy of Jacob/Israel was set before the narratives were written. It is frozen in its present form and utilized even in narratives that represent political realities that are not represented in the genealogy (e.g., Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah as “brothers”). R. Wilson made this claim in 1977 for the limited HB genealogies he surveyed. His statement is to be applied to all the others. The same twelve sons of Jacob/Israel are cited at every occasion when the list is a genealogical function. There is no deviation. Fifth, “Jacob” is the name of the ancestor of the twelve sons as is indicated in the “frozen’ genealogies, even in narratives that prefer the name 7 8

G. Fohrer, HistoryofIsraeliteReligion, 94. R. Wilson, GenealogyandHistory, 134.

170

CONCLUSIONS

“Israel”. Only in Chronicles, is the name “Jacob’ completely overridden in the genealogy. These conclusions lead to a number of methodological actions that are imperative when approaching genealogies in the HB. It is necessary to consider the function of a list before assessing what its fluidity may or may not indicate in regard to a specific historical, political, cultic, domestic or social situation.9 Narrative and anthropological evidence must be tallied before deciding whether a claim is justified.10 A list outside its narrative context, both immediate and larger, is meaningless: it is merely a group of names. The names in the list may be identifiable to the outside observer but the purpose for putting the names together and in any particular sequence is not identifiable. Speculations can be made but are unverifiable without additional evidence. The narrative or storyline determines which type of list is used. The number of people, the names included and the sequence of the names are determined by the narrative context. Not a single listing in the HB was intended to be a stand-alone document. We should not interpret any list as such. Using a list, and its particular sequences without taking into account the context to seek out the “proto-history” of ancient Israel will, and has lead to false conclusions. The narrative surrounding the list and the function of the list must be considered if one is to correctly understand the list, the reasons for the names included and the particular sequence of names. Scholars must abandon the practice of comparing the different presentations of the genealogy as a tool to uncover the political Sitz im Leben behind the sequences of the names. It is a futile project for the reason that the sequences are set by the function, not by the supposed political situation represented by the sequencing. This is, in fact, why consensus has yet to be reached in this matter. Regarding the third category of conclusions of this study, the role of the mothers in and behind the genealogies, several points can be made. First, mothers, indeed women in various roles, show up more frequently when the genealogical function is domestic in nature. Mothers are drivers of the family genealogies and are behind much of how the tribe is organized. In the domestic genealogies and narratives, mothers, sisters, and daughters are important members and are included as integral to the society. 9 10

ibid., 222. A. Westbrook points out that Hannah begins the book of Samuel with a hymn of thanksgiving (AndHeWillTake, 80).

CONCLUSIONS

171

Second, the mothers of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus are primary characters because the family is the issue at hand. Not a nation, not a people; a family. Relative to a family, mothers are indispensable. Not just as child bearers, but also as administrators, as child instructors, as important determiners of the children’s future, and if the narrative is taken seriously, the husband’s success. In the narratives, mothers are the backbone of the family, and affect their families even when their presentation sits in the background. The mothers of Genesis ensured the family’s survival from one generation to the next. The women in Exodus protected and brought a family to a nation. Deborah and Jael in Judges, Michal and Jehosheba in Kings were saviors at critical points in Israel’s history. The royal women of the Judean monarchy are depicted as administrators and actors vital to the success or failure of the dynasty. The lack of mothers/women as important actors in the “promise” is quite the fallacy, as is becoming more obvious from the increasing number of studies that highlight roles played by women in the HB. The “promise” of many children made to Abraham is extended to the promise of a land to the Exodus generations, re-extended as hope to the Post-Exilic generations. Throughout the generations of Jacob/Israel women appear as actors in securing and advancing the Promise. The mothers in Genesis and Exodus, individual mothers and women in different narratives, the royal women of Judah; these women are not hidden away in some sort of protected enclave where they have little influence in affairs beyond child rearing. No! Many play vital roles on behalf of their families, many exert strong influences, some positive, others negative, on behalf of the greater community “Israel”. More than a few advance the cause of God. At a minimum, two books (Judges and Samuel) in the HB put women as positive characters whose actions question and even decry the wicked actions of the male characters. Far from being some down-trodden, “barefoot and pregnant” slave of the husband/master, the HB relays the message that, at least these women and perhaps many more, are vital contributors to their communities, to the power structures of their world, to the fulfillment of YHWH’s promise and covenant. David is not the only composer of praises to God: Miriam, Deborah and Hannah offer their thanksgivings.11 This is not to minimize the lesser position and power women had in the HB world: it is to suggest that we ought to continue looking with renewed interest and refocused lenses at what the texts have to say. 11

Or some combination thereof. This from Ezra 9:1.

172

CONCLUSIONS

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THIS STUDY MIGHT ENCOURAGE This study was based upon the MT. The question immediate presents itself whether all Hebrew manuscripts hold to the same genealogy. In particular, the Samaritan Pentateuch would be a fruitful study for, if so, it would indicate the official genealogy antedating the Samaritan/Jerusalem schism. Left unexplored in this work is the rather obvious absence of any official genealogy in the Deuteronomistic History. Beyond the multiple chapters of Joshua and the brief introduction to Judges, these both territorial descriptions based on the official genealogy, the official genealogy is conspicuously absent. Is this due to other authorial concerns unrelated to and aside of the genealogy or something more programmatic? Does the Book of Joshua, in its present location between Deuteronomy and Samuel/Kings, act as the family introduction in a similar manner to 1 Chronicles 2-9? Concerning Manasseh, do the various designations (“Half-tribe Manasseh”, “Half of Manasseh”, “Half of the Tribe of Manasseh”) indicate generational differences or some similar significance? Are they merely rhetorical devices or indicative of an ancient understanding of the separate groups of Manasseh at different points in time? In what texts are they used and is it possible to determine when or why the various designations arose? In most cases, the “half-tribe” moniker only refers to the Transjordan Manasseh. Similarly, does a narrative, time, or some other difference demark between the use of ‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬and ‫ ֵשׁ ֶבט‬in the tribal designations? Does a North/South dichotomy hold up under these lists? Is the Judah/ South point of view given too much weight by scholars or not enough? Do the source-critical analyses of J, E, and P offer any benefit to the understanding or, perhaps fall apart under the weight of the data surrounding the official genealogy. In particular, it seems difficult to explain on sourcecritical grounds the primogenitor status of Reuben as first-born when, from all indications, the tribe was historically very small, had virtually no power, and lost any sense of being a coherent tribe very early on. Nevertheless, Reuben is always first-born in the official genealogy, he is always listed first, he is only “demoted” via narratives. Regarding the role and importance of woman, one might survey the attitudes towards mothers in the various statutes and ordinances in the law codes of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in addition to the Levitical codes. The Genesis narratives are clear that wives/mothers of the early generations must not come from the local women, that is, the Canaanites. This is

CONCLUSIONS

173

generally regarded as a potential inheritance problem. The mandate changes with the agreement between Laban and Jacob. At the Exodus and in subsequent generations, numerous warnings to avoid Canaanite women are issued, particularly from the “abominable“ peoples: “Canaanites, Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites”.12 Despite the various warnings to avoid these groups, it is widely noted that a great many “foreign” women appear in the Chronicles domestic genealogies.13 Manasseh’s is replete with Aramaen mothers,14 Egyptian and Canaanite mothers are in Judah’s15 and Asher’s,16 Benjamin has multiple foreign mothers. Most interesting is the acceptance of these “foreign” women and the absence of any critique whatsoever from the Chronicler against either the mothers or the children who are born to these mothers. In more than a few cases, major branches come of these mothers. This is in stark contrast to Ezra 9 – 10. The question arises as what is the difference between the two attitudes and why? Surely it must be admitted that Ezra is the outlier even taking into account the various warnings. Finally, at the beginning of this work, the question was posed whether the intense roles and importance of mothers in Genesis crossed in to other parts of the HB. The answer can now be given as a resounding YES! It may be that the mothers are sometimes hidden behind the major episodes of the HB. Nevertheless, mothers are present and acting on behalf of their families, on behalf of their communities, and indeed, even on behalf of God.

12

13 14

15 16

See for instance, Sarah Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 84-85; H.G.M. Williamson in 1and 2Chronicles, 2; Ralph Klein, 1Chronicles:ACommentary, 140; James T. Sparks in TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 255. Sara Japhet, IandIIChronicles, 177-178. Foreign mothers in the House of David is not surprising considering the number of diplomatic marriages involved in a dynastic ruling house. The lack of any critique by the Chronicler is the surprise to commentators. Steven McKenzie, 1-2Chronicles, 224. James T. Sparks, TheChronicler’sGenealogies, 255.

APPENDIX

12

11

10

9

8

7

Bilhah

Zilpah Zilpah

Naphtali

Gad Asher

Absent:

Bilhah

Rachel

Benjamin

Dan

Rachel

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 52

8

7

6

5

12

11

10

9

4

3

2

1

Zilpah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

First-born of Jacob

Leah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Mother Birth Order Comments

Joseph

Zebulun

Issachar

Judah

Levi

Simeon

Reuben

Name

2. Twelve Sons of Jacob (Gn. 35:22b-26)

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent:

Rachel

Leah

Issachar

Benjamin

Zilpah

Asher

Leah

Zilpah

Gad

Rachel

Bilhah

Joseph

5

Bilhah

Dan

Naphtali

Zebulun

3

4

Leah

Leah

Levi

Judah

6

2

Leah

Simeon

1

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Name

1. Birth Reports (Gn. 29:31-30:34 and 35:16-18)

Genealogical Type Lists

APPENDIX I

Leah’s ‫ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬

Rachel’s ‫ִשׁ ְפ ָחה‬

26/01/18 09:53

Zilpah

Rachel

Rachel

Bilhah

Bilhah

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Naphtal ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

6

5

12

11

8

7

10

9

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

given to Rachel

given to Leah

his daughter

First-born of Jacob

Absent:

Rachel

Rachel

Joseph Benjamin

Bilhah

Zilpah

Asher Naphtali

Zilpah

Bilhah

Gad

Dan

Leah

Leah

Zebulun Issachar

Leah

Leah

Levi Judah

Leah

Leah

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 54

28/03/18 15:54

My first-born

26/01/18 09:53

APPENDIX I

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 56

12

11

6

8

7

5

9

10

4

3

2

1

Mother Birth Order Comments

Simeon

Reuben

Name

4. Jacob’s Blessing (Gn. 49)

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent:

Zilpah

Leah

Dinah

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

4

3

Leah

Leah

Levi ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

2

Leah

1

Leah

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Mother Birth Order Comments

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Name

3. The Names of the Sons of Israel who went up to Egypt (Gn. 46:8-25)

178

Bilhah

Bilhah

Zilpah

Zilpah

Rachel

Dan

Naphtali

Gad

Asher

Joseph

11

8

7

6

5

12

10

3

3

Leah

Levi ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

First-born of Israel

Bilhah Zilpah Zilpah Bilhah

Asher Gad Naphtali

1

6

7

8

5

12

11

10

9

4

2

Ephraim Manasseh

26/01/18 09:53

Absent: Levi (Funct., present in next chapters)

Rachel

Dan

Rachel

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Benjamin

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Zebulun

Issachar

Judah

Simeon

Reuben

Name

7. Military Registration of the Sons of Israel (Num. 1:5-16)

26/01/18 09:48

179

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 62

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 58

1

2

Leah

Leah

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Name

6. Heads of their Fathers’ Household (Ex. 6:14-27)

Absent:

Rachel

Benjamin

9

Leah

Leah

Issachar

Leah

Judah

Zebulun

4

Leah

Levi

2

Leah

Simeon

1

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Name

5. The Names of the Sons of Israel Who Came into Egypt (Ex. 1:1-5)

GENEALOGICAL TYPE LISTS

7

6

“‫ ַמ ֵטּה‬Joseph”

Bilhah Bilhah

Dan Naphtali

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 82

Absent:

Leah

Zilpah

Zilpah

Leah

Rachel

Rachel

Leah

Leah

Leah

Leah

6

5

10

8

7

1

12

11

9

4

3

2

Mt. Ebal (to stand against the curse)

Mt. Gerizim (to bless the people)

Mother Birth Order Comments

Zebulun

Asher

Gad

Reuben

Benjamin

Joseph

Issachar

Judah

Levi

Simeon

Name

15. Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Dt. 27:11-14)

26/01/18 09:50

APPENDIX I

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent: Levi (funct.)

Zilpah

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

8

Zilpah

Bilhah

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

5

Bilhah

10

11.1

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

12

Rachel

Leah

11.2

Rachel

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Rachel

9

Leah

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

4

Leah

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

2

Leah

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

1

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Name

12. Names of the Spies (Nm. 13:4-16)

180

Bilhah

Bilhah

Zilpah

Dan

Naphtali

Asher

8

6

5

7

9

10

11

12

3

4

1

Ephraim, Manasseh named in last line of Joseph’s poem.

Absent:

Mother Birth Order Comments NORTH Reuben Leah 1 Judah Leah 4 Levi Leah 3 EAST Joseph Rachel 11 Benjamin Rachel 12 Dan Bilhah 5 SOUTH Simeon Leah 2 Issachar Leah 9 Zebulun Leah 10 WEST Gad Zilpah 7 Asher Zilpah 8 Naphtali Bilhah 6

Name

21. The City Gates of New Jerusalem (Ezek. 48:30-35)

26/01/18 09:51

181

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 102

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent: Simeon

Zilpah

Gad

Rachel

Joseph

Leah

Rachel

Benjamin

Leah

Leah

Levi

Issachar

Leah

Judah

Zebulun

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben

Name

16. Moses’ Farewell Blessing (Dt. 33)

GENEALOGICAL TYPE LISTS

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

26/01/18 09:51 100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 112

Absent: Gad, Asher, Joseph

Name Mother Birth Order Comments Reubenites Leah 1 Simeonites Leah 2 Levi Leah 3 Judah Leah 4 Issachar Leah 9 Zebulun Leah 10 Naphtali Bilhah 6 Ephraim ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel 11.2 Half-Tribe Rachel 11.1 ‫ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ Manasseh ‫ֲח ִצי ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה גִּ ְל ׇע ָדה‬ Half- the Rachel 11.1 Manasseh of Gilead Benjamin Rachel 12 Dan Bilhah 5

27. Leaders of the Tribes Appointed by David (1 Ch. 27:1634)

26/01/18 09:51

APPENDIX I

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 103

Absent:

Name Mother Birth Order Comments Reuben Leah 1 Simeon Leah 2 Levi Leah 3 and Judah Leah 4 Issachar Leah 9 and Zebulun Leah 10 Dan Bilhah 5 Joseph Rachel 11 and Benjamin Rachel 12 Naphtali Bilhah 6 Gad Zilpah 7 and Asher Zilpah 8

22. “These are the sons of Israel” (1 Ch. 2:1-2)

182

4

Leah

Leah

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

5

8

Rachel

Bilhah

Zilpah

Bilhah

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

10

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

First-born of Israel

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Manasseh ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

8

Bilhah Zilpah Bilhah

Dan ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬ Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬ Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Absent: Joseph

5

Rachel

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

6

12

11.1

Rachel

11.2

3

7

Rachel

The Levites ‫ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬

2

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

1

10

9

4

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah Zilpah

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Leah

Leah

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬ Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬ Reuben ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah

Camp Dan

Camp Ephraim

Camp The Levites

Camp Reuben

Camp Judah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Name

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent: Levi (funct., present in next chapters)

6

12

11

Leah

Rachel

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

9

2

7

Leah

Zilpah

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

1

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Name

8. Israel’s Army Register and Tribal toledoth (Nm. 1:20-54)

9. Camp Location and Wilderness Procession Assignments (Nm. 2)

Camp Assignment/Desert Processional Type Lists

APPENDIX II

2

7

11.2

11.1

12

Leah

Leah

Leah

Zilpah

Rachel

Bilhah

Zilpah

Bilhah

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Manasseh ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel

Rachel

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Twelfth Day

Eleventh Day

Tenth Day

Ninth Day

Eighth Day

Seventh Day

Sixth Day

Fifth Day

Fourth Day

Third Day

Second Day

First Day

Rachel Bilhah Zilpah Bilhah

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ Dan ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬ Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Absent: Joseph

Rachel

Leah

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵי‬

Zilpah

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ The Kohites (‫)ה ְקּ ׇה ִתים‬ ַ Rachel

Leah

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Ephraim ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Leah

Merari ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Reuben ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה‬

Leah Leah

Gershon ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬66

Leah

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

6

8

5

12

11.1

11.2

3.2

7

2

1

3.3

3.1

10

9

4

‫י־דן‬ ָ ֵ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבנ‬

Camp Dan

‫י־א ְפ ַריִם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבנ‬

Camp Ephraim

Levi

‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְר‬

Camp Reuben

Levi

Levi

‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫מ ֲַחנֵ ה ְבנֵ י־י‬

Camp Judah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ְבּנֵ י‬

Name

11. Camp Departs from Mt. Sinai (Nm. 10:11-28)

16:02 Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates28/03/18 the absence is intentional.

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 72

Absent: Levi (funct.), Joseph

6

8

5

1

10

9

Leah

Issachar

4

Leah

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Name

10. Tribal Leaders Present Offerings to Dedicate the Altar (Nm. 7:12-83)

184 APPENDIX II

CAMP ASSIGNMENT/DESERT PROCESSIONAL TYPE LISTS

185

13. Israel’s Second Generation Army Register (Nm. 26:5-51) Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Reuben ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

7

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Asher ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

“Reuben, first-born of Israel”

Manasseh ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Absent: Levi (funct.)

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 78

26/01/18 09:50

APPENDIX III Inheritance/Geographic/Territorial Type Lists 14. Register of Tribal Leaders for Land Allotment (Nm. 34:16-29) Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

4

Simeon ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

2

Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

11

Zebulun ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

Issachar ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

9

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

Naphtali ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Absent: Transjordan tribes (Reuben, Gad, Half-Tribe Manasseh) and Levi, both funct.

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

188

APPENDIX III

17. Land Allotments in Joshua (Joshua 13 – 21) Name

Mother Birth Order Comments

Chapter/Verse

TRANSJORDAN Reuben ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

1

13:15-23

Gad ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬

Zilpah

7

13:24-28

Manasseh ‫ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט‬Rachel

11.1

‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬

13:29-31

CONQUERING Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Judah ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Joseph ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

4

14:6; 16:63 15:1, 20

Rachel 11

14:6-15:63 16:1-17:18

Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Manasseh ‫ַמ ֵטּה‬ 114

16:5-10 11.2 11.1 “First-born of Joseph” (17:1) 17:1-13

SEVEN LOTTERIES Benjamin ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Rachel

12

18:11-28

Simeon,

Leah

2

19:1-9

Zebulun ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

10

19:10-16

Issachar,

Leah

9

19:17-23

Asher ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Zilpah

8

19:24-31

Naphtali ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

6

19:32-39

Dan ‫ַמ ֵטּה ְבּנֵ י‬

Bilhah

5

19:40-48 LEVITE CLANS

Levi

Leah

3

20:1-21:42

Levi Clans distinguished

Absent:

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 91

26/01/18 09:50

5

6

11.2

Also referred to as simply “Dan”

“Did Not Take Possession Tribes”

“did not take possession”

Bilhah

Leah

Zilpah

Bilhah

Leah

Leah

Leah

Rachel

Rachel

6

10

8

5

1

9

10

12

10.2

–

+?

+? also listed earlier

–

–

–

–

+

+ also listed later

+

+

+

Mother Birth Order Comments

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent: Levi, Judah. Simeon; Manasseh, Gad, Joseph +, - indicates a postive/negative helper.

Meroz

Naphtali

Zebulun

Asher

Dan

Gilead

Reuben

Issachar

Zebulun

Machir

Benjamin

Also referred to as “Judah ‫”בּנֵ י‬ ְ

Absent: Zebulun, Levi (funct.), Transjordan tribes (Reuben, Gad, Half-Tribe Manasseh)

Bilhah

Dan ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

8

Zilpah

Bilhah

Leah

Zebulun

Asher

Rachel

Ephraim

Naphtali

10

Rachel

Manasseh

11.1

11

Rachel

Joseph ‫ֵבּית־‬

2

12

Leah

Simeon

4

Benjamin ‫ ְבּנֵ י‬Rachel

Leah

Ephraim

Name

19. Song of Deborah (Jg. 5:14-23)

CONQUERING TRIBES

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah

Name

18. Judges 1

INHERITANCE/GEOGRAPHIC/TERRITORIAL TYPE LISTS

189

Zilpah

Bilhah

Asher

Naphtali

Leah

Leah

Reuben

Judah

Leah

Zilpah

Gad

7

Leah

11.2 8

Rachel Zilpah Rachel

Ephraim Asher Benjamin

Absent: Zebulun, Dan

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 100

26/01/18 09:50

12

11.1

Bilhah Rachel

Naphtali

6

12

9

3

11.1

7

1

2

4

Manasseh

Rachel

Issachar Benjamin

Leah

Levi

Manasseh

‫ ְבנֵ י ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט‬Rachel

Leah Zilpah

Gad ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

Leah

Simeon Reuben

Leah

‫יוֹסף ֶבּן־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ְבּנֵי‬

Bilhah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬

‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬

First-born of Israel

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah

Name

8:1 – 40

7:30 – 40

7:20 –29 (7:29)

7:14 – 19

7:13

7:6 – 12

7:1 – 5

5:27 – 6:66

5:23 – 24

5:11 – 17

5:1 – 10

4:24 – 43

2:3 – 4:23

Chapter/Verse

23. Extended Genealogical listing of Israel’s Sons (1 Ch. 2:38:40)

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent:

9

Leah

Issachar

Zebulun

10

2

Leah

12

Rachel

Simeon

Admin

4

Benjamin

Jerusalem Central

11.2

Rachel

Ephraim

1

11.1

Manasseh Rachel

6

8

Area

Bilhah

Dan

5

Mother Birth Order Comments

Name

20. Ezekiel’s Land Assignments (Ezek. 48:1-29)

190 APPENDIX III

Leah Leah

Priests Levites and Temple Ministers

3 3

4 12 11.2 11.2

‫ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם‬ ‫ַהנְּ ִתינִ ים‬

Israel

7

11.1

12 4

vv. 20-23

vv. 17-19

vv. 9-16

vv. 2-8 26/01/18 09:51

Absent: Joseph

The Reubenites The Gadites Half-Tribe Manasseh

Name Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Simeon ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ The Levites ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Half-Tribe of Manasseh Issachar ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Zebulun Naphtali The Danites Asher

Mother Birth Order Comments Leah 4 Leah 2 Leah 3 Rachel 12 Rachel 11.2 ‫ֵמ ֲח ִצי ַמ ֵטּה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ Rachel 11.1 Leah 9 Leah 10 Bilhah 6 Bilhah 5 Zilpah 8 “Across the River” Leah 1 Zilpah 7 ‫ֵשׁ ֶבט‬ Rachel 11.1

26. Those Who Joined David at Hebron (1 Ch. 12:24 – 41)

Absent: Names missing in the list if not shortened. “Funct.” indicates the absence is intentional.

Absent: Judah, Simeon, Reuben, Levi, Ephraim, Naphtali, Dan, Zebulun, Asher, Issachar

Rachel

Manasseh

Zilpah

Rachel Leah

Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ and Judah

100194_Smith_CBET90_03_Chapter 3.indd 108 Gadites

12

Mother Birth Order Comments

Saul’s kinsmen from Rachel Benjamin

Name

25. Those Who Joined David at Ziqlag (1 Ch. 12:1 – 23)

Absent: Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan, Gad, Asher

Leah Rachel Rachel

Mother Birth Order Comments

Judah ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Benjamin ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ Ephraim ‫ְבּנֵ י‬ and Manasseh

Name

24. Leaders of the First Returnees who Lived in Jerusalem (1 Ch. 9:2-34)

INHERITANCE/GEOGRAPHIC/TERRITORIAL TYPE LISTS

191

1

4

6

7

2

3

4

9

10

11

Simeon

Levi

Judah

Issachar

Zebulun

Joseph

9

5

6

7

8

Dan

Naphtali

Gad

Asher

3

8

7

12

11

10

9

6

5

4

3

2

1

Gn 46

4

9

8

10

7

12

11

5

6

4

3

2

1

Jacob

5

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Ex 1

6

3

2

1

Levi

7

6.2 6.1

9

10

11

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Nm 1

12

10

12

11

9

6

7

4

3

2

1

8 5

Spies

Tribe order based on the first “these are the sons of Jacob” in Gn. 35:22b-26 (List 2).

12

11

10

8

5

2

12

Benjamin

Manasseh Ephraim

3

1

Reuben

1

2

Gn 35

1

Birth

List Tribe1

Genealogically Arranged Type1

6

5

4

3

2

1

Tribe Sequences By Type

APPENDIX IV

15

7

9

8

12

11

10

G-E

16

5.2 5.1

11

8

10

9

4

5

6

7

2

3

1

Moses

11

10

12

6

5

4

9

8

2

3

7

1

Gates

21 Ezek.

22

12

11

10

7

9

8

6

5

4

3

2

1

1 Ch 2

27

8/9 7

6

11

10

5

4

3

2

1

David

194

APPENDIX IV

Camp Assignment/Desert Processional Type List Tribe2

8

9

10

11

13

Army Nm. 1:20-54

Campsite Nm. 2

Altar Nm. 7

1st Move Nm. 10

2nd Army Nm. 26

Reuben

1

4

4

6

1

Simeon

2

5

5

7

2

Gad

3

6

6

8

3

Judah

4

1

1

1

4

Issachar

5

2

2

2

5

Zebulun

6

3

3

3

Joseph

7

Ephraim Manasseh

2

3

6 7

7.2 7.1

8 9

7 8

10 11

M E

Benjamin

8

10

9

12

8

Dan

9

11

10

13

9

Asher

10

12

11

14

10

Naphtali

11

13

12

15

11

Levi

funct.

7

funct

4-5; 93

Funct.

Tribe order based on the first appearance of this type in Nm. 1:20-54 (List 8). Key: Shaded areas indicate the tribes are treated as a group. “Funct.” indicates when a tribe is absent by design of the function. Levi’s families march between camps. Gershon and Merari clans after Camp Judah (thus, fourth and fifth positions); the Kohite clan after Camp Reuben (thus, ninth position).

195

TRIBE SEQUENCES

Inheritance/Geographical/Territorial Type “Regular” List Tribe4

14

17

18

“Special” 23

26

19

24

25

20

Nm. 34 Josh. 13-21 Judge 1 1 Ch. 2-8 Hebron SOD Return Ziqlag Ezek. Land

Judah

1

2

1

1

1

Simeon

2

5

2

2

2

Benjamin

3

4

3

6/11

4

2

Dan

4

10

8

10

8

– 6 5

– E- 1

8

4/10

12

5

7

5

11

5

Joseph Manasseh Ephraim

3 5.1 5.2

4 3.2 3.1

4.1 4.2

– 8 9

5

1

4

7 10

2

1/3

9 1

– M- 4 E- 3

M- 5

M- 4 E- 5

Zebulun

6

6

Issachar

7

7

Asher

8

8

6

10

11

9

2

Naphtali

9

9

7

7

9

11

3

Reuben Gad ½ Manasseh

funct

1

funct

3

12

Levi

funct

11

funct

4

3

R- 6 G- 2

4

Additional Names in SOD: Machir 3 Gilead 7 Meroz 12

4

Tribe order based on the first occurrence of this type in Nm. 34:16-29 (List 14). Key: Shaded areas indicate the tribes are treated as a group. “Funct.” indicates when a tribe is absent by design of the function.

R- 6 G- 13

8

APPENDIX V Mother Sequences Leah Mother1 List Genealogical Type 1 – Birth 1, 4 2 – Gn. 35 1 3 – Gn. 46 1 4 – Jacob 1 5 – Ex. 1 1 6 – Levi 1 7 – Nm. 1 1 12 – Spies 1, 3 15 – Gerizim/Ebal G: 1 E: 1, 3 16 – Moses 1, 3 21 – Gates 1, 4 22 – 1 Ch. 2 1 27 – David 1 Camp Assignment Type 8 – Army Nm. 1:20ff 1, 3 9 – Campsite Nm. 2 1, 3 10 – Altar (Nm. 7) 1 11 – 1st Move (Nm. 10) 1, 3 13 1, 3 2 Inheritance/Geographical 14 – Nm. 34 1, 5, 8 17 – Josh. 13-21 1, 4, 6 18 – Jg. 1 1, 3 23 – 1 Ch. 2-8 1, 2, 5 26 – Hebron 1, 3, 6 19 – SOD 24 – Return 25 – Ziqlag 20 – Ezekiel 1

2

2, 5 1, 3 4 5, 7

Zilpah

3 4 2 3 4

Rachel

Bilhah

5 2 3 4 2

2 3 4 2, 4 3

4 6, 8

2 2, 4 E: 2 G: 2 4, 6 2 5 2 5 3 3

3, 5 5, 7 E: 4 5 3, 6 2, 4 2

2, 6 2, 6 2, 5 2, 6 2, 6

4 4 3 4 4

5, 7 5, 7 4, 6 5, 7 5, 7

6, 9 2, 7 4 3, 9 5, 7

2, 4, 10 3, 5 2 4, 6, 8, 10 2, 8

3, 7 8 5 7 4 3, 6

2 2

1 2 1, 3, 5 4, 6

4

1, 3

Sequence of the mothers in the chart set on their initial introduction via Laban in Gn. 29, esp. 29:24 (Zilpah) and 29:29 (Bilhah). Transjordan group in larger, bold font.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACKERMAN, Susan. Warrior,Dancer,Seductress,Queen. New York: Doubleday, 1998. ALBERTZ, Ranier. “The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1-34): A Contribution to the Penteteuchal Discussion,” ThePentateuch. eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. (FAT 78). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 243-256. ALT, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Originally published in two parts as “Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Pälestina”, Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig, 1925. and “Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Pälestina”, Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig, 1930. AULD, Graeme. “Joshua and 1 Chronicles,” StudiesinHistoricalGeographyand BiblicalHistoriography:PresentedtoZechariaKallia. eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VT Sup 81. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, 132140. BARTON, George A. The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929. CAMPBELL, Anthony F. and Mark O’Brien. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions,Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993, CAZELLES, H. “The History of Israel in the Pre-Exilic Period,” Tradition and Interpretation:EssaysbyMembersoftheSocietyforOldTestamentStudy. Ed. G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, 274-319. CHAMBERS, Henry E. “Ancient Amphictyonies. sic et non,” Scripture in ContextII. eds. William Hallo, James C. Moyer, Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983, 39-59. COATS, George W. Genesis,withanIntroductiontoNarrativeLiterature. (FOTL 1). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983. CROSS, Frank Moore. “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100 (1998): 46-65. DE GEUS, C. H. J. The Tribes of Yahweh: An Investigation into some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976. DE VAUX, Roland. “A Comprehensive View of the Settlement of the Israelites in Canaan,” Perspective. 12:1-2 (1971): 23-33. —. The Early Years of Israel. Trans. David Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. DE VRIES, Simon J. 1 and 2 Chronicles. (FOTL XI) Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989. DEMSKY, Aaron. “The Chronicler’s Description of the Common Border of Ephraim and Manasseh,” StudiesinHistoricalGeographyandBiblicalHistoriography:PresentedtoZechariaKallia. eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. Vetus Testamentum Sup 81. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, 8-13.

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DIRKSEN, Peter B. 1Chronicles. Leuven and Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005. ESKENAZI, Tamara Cohn. “B’reishit/Genesis Introduction,” TheTorah:AWomen’s Commentary. eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. New York: Women of Reform Judaism, Federation of Temple Sisterhood: UJR Press, 2008, 1 – 4. FINKELSTEIN, J. “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” JCS 20 (1966): 95-118. FINLAY, Timothy D. TheBirthReportGenreintheHebrewBible. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. FOHRER, Georg. “Altes Testament – »Amphityonie« und »Bund«?,” Studien zur Altestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1946-1966), BZAW 115 (1966): 78-83. —. HistoryofIsraeliteReligion. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972. FUCHS, Esther. “Another View,” The Torah: A Women’s Commentary. eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. New York: UJR Press, 2008, 105. GALIL, Gershon and Moshe Weinfeld. “Preface,” StudiesinHistoricalGeography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallia. eds. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VT Sup 81. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000, ix-x. GELB, I. J. “Two Assyrian King Lists,” JNES 13 (1954): 209-230. GEVIRTZ, Stanley. “Adumbrations of Dan in Jacob’s Blessing on Judah,” ZAW. 93:1 (1981): 21-37. —. “Asher in the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis XLIX20),” VT 37:2 (1987): 154163. —. “Naphtali in ‘The Blessing of Jacob’,” JBL 103:4 (1984): 513-521. —. “Simeon and Levi in ‘The Blessing of Jacob’,” Hebrew Union College Annual. 52 (1981): 93-128. —. “The Issachar Oracle in the Testament of Jacob,” Erezt-Israel:Archaeology, HistoricalandGeographicalStudies25.NelsonGlueckMemorialVolume. Israel Exploration Society, 1975, 104-112.l —. “The Reprimand of Reuben,” JNES. 30:2 (1971): 87-98. GOOD, Edwin M. “The ‘Blessing’ on Judah: Gen. 49:8-12,” JBL 82 (1963): 427432. GOTTWALD, Norman. TheTribesofYahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979. HENDEL, Ronald. TheJacobCycleandtheNarrativeTraditionsofCanaanand Israel. Altanta: Scholars Press, 1987. HOOKER, Paul. FirstandSecondChronicles.Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. JACOBSEN, Thorkild. The Sumerian King List. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. JAPHET, Sara. IandIIChronicles:ACommentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. —. TheIdeologyoftheBookofChroniclesandItsPlaceinBiblicalThought. Trans. Anna Barbar. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989. JEANSONNE, Sharon. TheWomenofGenesis:FromSarahtoPotiphar’sWife. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

JOHNSON, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: with Special ReferencetotheGenealogiesofJesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. KALLAI, Zechariah. HistoricalGeographyoftheBible:TheTribalTerritoriesof Israel. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University and Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. —. “The Reality of the Land and the Bible,” in DasLandIsraelinBiblischer Zeit.Jerusalem-Symposium1981a.d.Georg-AugustUniversity. ed. Georg Strecker. 1983, 76-90. —. “The Twelve-Tribe Systems of Israel,” VT. 47:1 (1997): 53-90. KAUFMAN, Yehezkel. TheBiblicalAccountoftheConquestofPalestine. trans. M Dagut. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1953. KLEIN, Ralph. 1Chronicles:ACommentary. Ed. Thomas Krüger. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. KNIERIM, Rolf P. and George W. COATS. Numbers. (FTOL IV) Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005. KNIGHT, Douglas. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of theTraditio-Historical ResearchoftheOldTestament, withSpecialConsiderationofScandainavainContributions. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana Press, 1973. KUHRT, Amélie. TheAncientNearEast. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. KUSCHKE, Arnulf. “Die Lagervorstellung der priesterschirftlichen Erzählung,” ZAW. 63:1-2 (1951): 74-105. LANGDON, Stephen. DienuebabylonischeKönigsschriften. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1912. LANDSBERGER, Benno. “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’,” JCS. 8 (1954): 31-45, 47-73, 106-133. LEE, Won. W. Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. LEMAIRE, André. “Aux Origines D’Israël: La Montagne D’Ephraïm et la Territoire De Manassé (xiii-xic siècle av. J. –C.),” LaProtoHistoireD’Israël:De l’exodeàlamonarchie. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1990, 183-292. MALAMAT, Abraham. “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88:1 (1968): 163-173. MAYES, A. D. H. IsraelinthePeriodoftheJudges. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 29. London: SCM Press, 1974. MCKENZIE, Steven. 1-2Chronicles. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004. MC NUTT. Paula M. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox and London: SPCK, 1999. MENDENHALL, George E. “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” Journalof BiblicalLiterature. 77:1 (1958): 52-66. —. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BiblicalArchaeologist. 25:3 (1962): 66-87. MICHAELI, Frank. LesLivresdesChroniques,D’EsdrasetDeNéhémie. Neuchätel, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1967. MILGROM, Jacob. StudiesinLeviticalTerminology,I:TheEncroacherandthe Levite the Term ‘Aboda. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1970.

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MOWINKEL, Sigmund. “‘Rahel-Stämme’ und ‘Leastämme’,” BZAW. 77 (1958): 129-150. NA’AMAN, Nadav. BordersandDistrictsinBiblicalHistoriography. Jerusalem: Simor, Ltd., 1986. —. “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Part 1),” ZAW 121 (2009): 211-224. —. “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Continued, Part 2),” ZAW 121 (2009): 335-349. NAMIKI, Koichi. “Reconsideration of the Twelve-Tribe System of Israel,” Annual oftheJapaneseBiblicalInstitute. Vol. 2: 1976, 29-59. NOTH, Martin. DasSystemderZwôlfStämmeIsraels. reprint 1930. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980. —. The History of Israel. Translated by Stanley Godman. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958 OLSEN, Dennis. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. PFEIFFER, George. ThePatriarchalAge. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961. PHIPPS, William E. AssertiveBiblicalWomen. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press, 1992. SAKENFELD, Katherine Doob. JustWives?StoriesofPowerandSurvivalinthe OldTestamentandToday. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. SCHNEIDER, Tammi J. “Another View,” TheTorah:AWomen’sCommentary. eds. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. New York: UJR Press, 2008, 105. —. Judges. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2000. —. MothersofPromise. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. SCHORN, Ulrike. RubenunddasSystemderzwölfStämmeIsraels:Redaktionsgeschichliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Erstgeborenen Jakobs. BZAW 248. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyten, 1997. SHECTMAN, Sarah. “Rachel, Leah, and the Composition of Genesis,” ThePentateuch. eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. (FAT 78). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 207-222. SMEND, Rudolf. Yahwekrieg und Stämmebund. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. SMITH, W. Robertson. Kinship & Marriage in Early Arabia (New Edition. ed. Stanley A. Cook. The Netherlands: Oosterhout N. B., 1966. SOLLBERGER, Edmond. “The Rulers of Lagas,” JCS 21 (1967): 279-291. SOLVANG, Elna K. AWomen’sPlaceisintheHouse:RoyalWomenofJudahand Their Involvement in the House of David. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. SPARKS, James T. TheChronicler’sGenealogies:TowardsanUnderstandingof 1Chronicles1-9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. SPARKS, Kenton L. Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to theStudyofEthnicSentimentsandTheirExpressionintheHebrewBible. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1998. —. “Genesis 49 and the Tribal List Tradition in Ancient Israel,” ZAW. 115 (2003): 327-347.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

STEINBERG, Naomi. KinshipandMarriageinGenesis:AHouseholdEconomics Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. SWEENEY, Marvin A. Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the JewishBible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. —. “The Jacob Narratives: An Ephraimitic Text?,” CBQ 78 (2016): 236-255. THOMAS, Matthew A. These are the Generations: Identity, Covenant, and the ‘Toledoth’Formula. New York: T & T Clark, 2011. THOMPSON, Thomas. TheHistoricityofthePatriarchalNarratives. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974. TUELL, Steven S. FirstandSecondChronicles. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 2001. WACKER, Marie-Theres. “Feldherr und Löwensohn: Das Buch Joshua-Aneeignet durch David Ben-Gurion,” The Book of Joshua. ed. Ed Noort, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, Massachusetts: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2012, 609-647. WELLHAUSEN, Julius. ProlegomenatotheHistoryofAncientIsrael. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. WESTBROOK, April. “And He Will Take Your Daughters…” Woman Story as DidacticNarrativeintheBiblicalAccountofDavid. Dissertation. Claremont: Claremont Graduate University, 2010. WILLI, Thomas. Chronik. Neukirchen-Vluvn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. WILLIAMS, Peter J. “Israel Outside the Land: The Transjordan Tribes in 1 Chronicles 5,” Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and theCrisisof“BiblicalHistory”.eds.V.PhilipsLong,DavidW.Baker,and GordanJ.Wenhem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, 147-160. WILLIAMSON, H.G.M. 1and2Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans and London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982. WILSON, Robert R. “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’ Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies,’ BiblicalArchaeologist. 42:1 (Winter 1979): 11-22. —. GenealogyandHistoryintheBiblicalWorld. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977. —. “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” I Studied InscriptionsfromBeforetheFlood:AncientNearEastern,Literary,andLinguistic ApproachestoGen.1-11. eds. Richard Hess and David Tashio Tsumura. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994, 200-223. (Reprint of JBL 94:2 [1975]: 169-189.).

INDEXES

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Ackerman, Susan 147 n. 59 Alt, Albrecht 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, Auld, Graeme 94 n. 125, 106 n. 153 Barton, George A.

39 n. 64

Campbell, Anthony F. 20 n. 123 Cazelles, H 13 n. 68, 23, 93 n. 125, 125 Chambers, Henry E. 9 n. 42 Coats, George W. 30 n. 4, 31 n. 10, 31 n. 17, 35 n. 34, 53, 55 n. 10, 57 n. 19, 57 n. 23 Cross, Frank Moore 10, 134 n. 257

Hooker, Paul

153 n. 97, 161 n. 158

Japhet, Sara 107 n. 163, 151 n. 89, 153 n. 98, 153 n. 10, 154 n. 108, 154 n. 114, 158 n. 115, 155 n. 123, 156 n. 133, 159 n. 151, 160 n. 153, 160 n. 155, 161 n. 159 173 n. 12, 173 n. 13 Jeansonne, Sharon 24 n. 152 Johnson, Marshall D. 14 n. 75, 36, 41, 41 n. 77, 46 n. 88, 106, 106 n. 159, 107 n. 163, 108 n. 167, 129 n. 236, 133 n. 252, 151, 152, 156 n. 131, 162 n. 161

De Geus, C. H. J. 4 n. 9, 7, 7 n. 32, 9 n. 42, 11 n. 54, 13, 13 n. 67, 15 n. 85, 16, 19 n. 115, 30 n. 33, 120 n. 199, 166 n. 2 De Vaux, Roland 5 n. 12, 6, 7, 7 n. 28, 7 n. 32, 7 n. 34, 14 n. 74, 83 n. 92, 100, 104 n. 149, 113 n. 172, 115 n. 178, 117 n. 191, 129, 130 n. 244, 130 n. 246, 131 n. 247 De Vries, Simon J. 30 n. 5, 30 n. 8, 31 n. 11, 153 n. 95, 153 n. 101, 154 n. 112, 154 n. 117, 160 n. 154, 163 n. 165 Dirksen, Peter B. 153 n. 96, 154 n. 107

Kallai, Zechariah 3, 8, 8 n. 40, 13 n. 70, 15, 16, 16 n. 87, 17 n. 105, 23, 23 n. 147, 24, 26 n. 163, 84, 92 n. 118, 130 n. 239, 130 n. 243, 137 Kaufman, Yehezkel 92 n. 118, 93 Klein, Ralph 151 n. 89, 153 n. 95, 154 n. 110, 156 n. 127, 157 n. 135, 159 n. 149, 159 n. 150, 160 n. 155, 160 n. 156, 160 n. 157, 173 n. 12 Knierim, Rolf P. 30 n. 4, 31 n. 17, 35 n. 34 Knight, Douglas 3 n. 2 Kuhrt, Amélie 38 n. 55, 38 n. 57, 40 n. 67 Kuschke, Arnulf 18

Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn n. 34, 164 n. 172

139 n. 6, 142

Lee, Won W. 61 n. 32, 71 n. 63, 73 n. 65, 118, 118 n. 194

Finkelstein, J. 39 n. 61 Finlay, Timothy D. 25 n. 153, 60 n. 28, 140, 141, 142, 143, 162, 164 n. 171 Fohrer, Georg 5, 12, 17, 23, 129 n. 235, 130 n. 242, 133 n. 250, 153 n. 254, 169 n. 7 Fuchs, Esther 139 n. 8

LeMaire, André 12, 129 n. 235, 133 n. 250 Malamat, Abraham 39 n. 61, 81 n. 86 Mayes, A. D. H. 18, 18 n. 109, 19 n. 115, 99 n. 137, 99 n. 138, 131 n. 248 McKenzie, Steven 104 n. 150, 153 n. 99, 153 n. 103, 153 n. 104, 154 n. 109, 161 n. 158, 173 n. 15 McNutt, Paula M. 31 n. 18, 35 n. 35 Mendenhall, George E. 13 n. 66, 35 n. 42, 63 n. 37 Michaeli, Frank 155 n. 119, 155 n. 122 Milgrom, Jacob 63 n. 36, 75 n. 68

Galil, Gershon 8 n. 40, 13 n. 70 Gevirtz, Stanley 57 n. 17, 57 n. 21, 57 n. 22, 134 n. 256 Good, Edwin M. 57 n. 20, 116 n. 183

208

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Mowinkel, Sigmund 12, 13 n. 63, 16, 20, 57 n. 20, 129 n. 235, 133 n. 250 Na’aman, Nadav 10, 84 n. 96, 92 n. 118, 93 n. 120, 123 n. 218 Namiki, Koichi 8, 11 n. 53, 15, 16, 16 n. 92, 18, 19, 24, 24 n. 151, 25 n. 154, 76, 84, 86 n. 98, 106 n. 159, 106 n. 161, 117 n. 190, 118 n. 196, 122 n. 211, 127 n. 229, 168 n. 4 Noth, Martin 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 n. 34, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19 n. 115, 20, 20 n. 123, 23 n. 145, 25, 26, 27, 127 n. 229, 133 O’Brien, Mark

20 n. 123

Phipps, William E. 143 n. 39, 147 n. 60, 163 n. 167 Sakenfeld, Katherine Doob 142 n. 31 Schneider, Tammi J. 24 n. 152, 51 n. 3, 116 n. 184, 138, 139 n. 9, 139 n. 10, 139 n. 12, 140 n. 15, 140 n. 17, 142, 143 n. 45, 146, 146 n. 55 Schorn, Ulrike 10, 13, 14 n. 75, 15 n. 81 Shectman, Sarah 24 n. 152, 139 n. 7, 139 n. 10, 162 n. 163, 168 n. 3 Smend, Rudolf 11 Smith, W. Robertson 37 n. 46 Solvang, Elna K. 25 n. 153, 148, 149 n. 73, 164 Sparks, James T. 107 n. 162, 151 n. 89, 154 n. 106, 155, 155 n. 123, 156, 156 n. 129, 156 n. 132, 157, 160 n. 152, 173 n. 12, 173 n. 16

Sparks, Kenton L. 17, 30, 36, 37, 39 n. 63, 46, 47 n. 95, 48 n. 99, 88 n. 109, 98, 99 n. 136, 124 n. 223, 129, 130 n. 245 Sweeney, Marvin A. 20, 20 n. 125, 21, 22 n. 137, 22 n. 139, 22 n. 141, 134 n. 259 Thomas, Matthew A. 138 n. 2 Tuell, Steven S. 107 n. 163, 143 n. 38, 153 n. 105, 154 n. 115, 155 n. 125, 161 n. 160, 163 n. 165 Wacker, Marie-Theres 146 n. 54 Weinfeld, Moshe 8 n. 40, 13 n. 70 Wellhausen, Julius 11, 20 n. 125 Westbrook, April 147, 164 n. 169, 170 n. 10 Willi, Thomas 107 n. 163 Williams, Peter J. 18, 106 n. 158, 155 n. 118 Williamson, H.G.M. 151 n. 89, 153 n. 93, 153 n. 102, 154 n. 111, 154 n. 113, 154 n. 116, 155 n. 123, 156 n. 130, 173 n. 12 Wilson, Robert R. 1, 2, 11 n. 50, 11 n. 52, 13 n. 69, 13 n. 71, 14 n. 73, 14 n. 76, 17 n. 100, 19, 25, 26, 26 n. 158, 29, 30 n. 5, 30 n. 6, 30 n. 9, 31, 31 n. 12, 32, 32 n. 19, 32 n. 21, 32 n. 23, 33, 34, 34 n. 31, 35 n. 36, 35 n. 39, 36 n. 43, 37 n. 47, 38, 38 n. 55, 38 n. 56, 38 n. 59, 39, 39 n. 63, 40 n. 65, 40 n. 70, 41 n. 71, 41 n. 76, 45 n. 84, 46 n. 86, 46 n. 89, 46 n. 90, 47 n. 96, 48, 49 n. 1, 55 n. 9, 57 n. 20, 70, 130 n. 238, 130 n. 240, 135 n. 261, 155 n. 126, 156, 168 n. 6, 169

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES Genesis

2, 7, 13, 17, 24, 25, 26 n. 161, 27, 41, 43, 44, 59, 60, 116 n. 184, 133, 134, 135 n. 261, 137, 138, 139, 139 n. 12, 140, 141, 142, 142 n. 37, 145, 151, 152, 155, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 171, 172, 173 4:1 140 4-5 138 n. 3 10-11 138 n. 3 14:14 151 16 139 n. 12 19:36-38 41 n. 72 21 140 n. 13 21:21 140 n. 15 22:20-24 41 n. 72 25:1-6 41 n. 72 25:12-16 41 n. 72 25:25 141 25:26 141 n. 28 29 197 n. 1 29:21 146 n. 52 29:24 197 n. 1 29:29 53 n. 5, 197 n. 1 29:31-30:24 5 29:31-30, 4 n. 6, 5, 6 n. 19, 9 n. 43, 35:16-18 17, 50-52, 115, 116 n. 182, 127 n. 230, 129 n. 235, 130, 133 n. 250, 165, 177, 193, 197 29:34 141 n. 25 30 139 n. 12 30:3 53 n. 5 30:4, 7 53 n. 5 30:6, 8 141 n. 26 30:11, 13 141 n. 26 31:19 140 n. 17 31:51ff 139 n. 10 33 117 n. 189 33:9-13 7 n. 31 34 43, 55

35 35:5 35:18 35:19, 20 35:21-22a 35:22 35:22b-26

52, 53, 117 42, 43 9 n. 43, 52, 141 52 52, 53 52, 53 n. 5, 165 4 n. 6, 9 n. 43, 43, 52-54, 115, 116 n. 185, 117, 127 n. 231, 165, 177, 193, 193 n. 1, 197 35:25 53 n. 5 35:27-29 52 36 52, 53 37:2 53 n. 5 38 17 n. 98, 140 n. 14 38:3, 29, 30 141 n. 28 46 42, 43, 59, 153, 159, 162 46:8-25 4 n. 6, 9 n. 43, 42, 54-55, 59, 114, 115 n. 181, 117, 127, 134, 159, 178, 193, 197 46:15 42 n. 80 46:17 159 46:18, 22, 25 42 n. 80 47:27-31 56 48 7 n. 31, 56, 63, 67, 134 48:22 168 49 4, 4 n. 6, 5, 6 n. 19, 7, 9 n. 43, 10, 16, 17, 43, 56-58, 84, 86, 114, 115 n. 178, 116 n. 186, 117, 127 n. 230, 129 n. 235, 133 n. 250, 134, 159 n. 151, 168, 178, 193, 197 49:22-26 168 49:28 129 50 56 50:23 98 n. 131 Exodus

13, 20 n. 123, 44, 60, 120, 133, 134, 138, 142, 143, 163, 163 n. 166, 168, 171, 172

210

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

1 1:1

143 42, 43, 114, 115, 116 n. 185 1:1-5 9 n. 43, 42, 43, 58-59, 127 n. 231, 179, 193, 197 1:2-4 4 n. 6 1:8 43, 142 n. 36 1:10 141 n. 26 1 :11, 19, 22 142 n. 36 1:15 142, 143, 143 n. 38 1:15-2:10 142, 143 1:17, 18 142, 142 n. 36 2:1 142 2:1-15 142 n. 37 2:2, 4, 8 142 2:10 143 2:22 140 n. 21, 141 n. 27, 141 n. 29 3:10ff 62 n. 33 4:25, 26 143 6 41 n. 75, 49, 60 n. 28, 61, 65, 65 n. 43, 138, 143 6:13 59 6:14-27 33 n. 26, 49, 59-61, 62, 65, 65 n. 43, 115, 116 n. 182, 127, 128, 165, 179, 193, 197 6:16 60 6:16-25 62, 63 6:17, 19, 24, 25 60 n. 26 6:26, 27 61 n. 31 6:28 59 7 59 18:2, 3 143 18:3, 4 143 n. 43 19 73 40 71 Leviticus

172

Numbers

1, 6, 7, 17, 18, 60, 61, 66, 71, 76 n. 70, 84, 106, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 127, 128, 129 n. 236, 132, 133, 135, 138, 144, 152, 155, 162, 166, 167, 168, 172 5, 18, 63 n. 35, 70, 80, 132, 138. 193, 197 127

1 1-2

1-4 1:2-43 1:2-52 1:4 1:5-15 1:5-16

1:10 1:20 1:20-27 1:20-43 1:20-54

1:32, 34 1:47-53 2

2:3-31 2:24, 30, 35 3 3:1 3:15 3:15-39 4 4:1-20 5 6 7 7:10-88 7:12-78 7:12-83 10 10:5-6 10:11-12 10:11-28

61 9 n. 43, 70, 70 n. 59 133 n. 250 128 4 n. 7, 9 n. 43, 16 6 n. 23, 61-63, 64, 65 n. 38, 66, 67, 68, 77 n. 71, 77 n. 73, 114, 114 n. 176, 115, 116 n. 186, 117, 118, 120, 127, 128, 166, 179, 193, 197 80 n. 83, 141 n. 26 114 60 4 n. 7, 6 n. 23 60 n. 27, 61, 62, 64-66, 67, 70, 70 n. 59, 77, 78, 79, 79 n. 80, 84, 118, 119, 120, 128, 129 n. 235, 131, 132, 133 n. 250, 134 n. 260, 135, 144, 166, 167, 183, 194, 194 n. 2, 197 80 n. 83, 132 63 n. 34 10, 64, 66-71, 70 n. 59, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 84, 118, 119, 120, 128, 129 n. 235, 135, 166, 183, 194, 197 4 n. 7, 6 n. 23, 9 n. 43 72 n. 64 63 n. 35, 65 n. 42, 65 n. 43, 66, 70, 72, 75 n. 68, 79 138 70 121 n. 200, 121 n. 201 63 n. 35, 65 n. 42, 66, 70, 72, 75 n. 68 121 n. 200 66, 72 66, 72 10, 72, 194, 197 6 n. 23 9 n. 43 4 n. 7, 71-73, 84, 119, 121, 184, 194, 197 70, 71, 73 73 73 73-75, 84, 119, 120, 128, 184, 194, 197

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

10:13 10:13-27 10:17 10:18 10:21 10:25 10:33 12:16 13-14 13:4-15 13:4-16

75 6 n. 23 74 n. 67, 75 n. 68 75 74 n. 67, 75 n. 68 75 75 75 12 n. 57 4 n. 7, 6 n. 23, 9 n. 43 75-77, 114, 115, 116, 116 n. 188, 136, 180, 193, 197 13:17-14:1-45 75 13:30 145 n. 48 19:1-9 122 n. 209 26 5, 16, 18, 85, 85 n. 97, 129 n. 236, 159, 159 n. 151, 162 26:5-51 4 n. 7, 6 n. 23, 9 n. 43, 68 n. 45, 76 n. 70, 77-79, 84, 119, 120, 121, 129 n. 235, 133 n. 250, 134 n. 260, 159, 159 n. 151, 162, 167, 185, 194, 197 26:8 78 26:28 78 n. 77 26:29 98 n. 131 26:33 144 n. 47 26:37b 78 n. 78 26:46 159 26:53-56 78 26:57-62 79, 121 n. 201 26:62 79 27 78, 79 27:1 98 n. 131, 144, 144 n. 47 29 197 n. 1 29:24, 29 197 n. 1 32:39-40 98 n. 131 34 6 n. 24, 57, 121, 122 n. 205, 122 n. 208, 124 n. 221, 166, 195, 195 n. 4, 197 34:13 79, 80 n. 84 34:13-19 132 34:14 80 n. 84, 123 n. 214 34:14-15 79 34:16 120 n. 199, 166 n. 2 34:16-29 5 n. 15, 68 n. 45, 79-81, 104, 120 n. 199, 123, 128, 187, 195, 195 n. 4, 197 34:17 79

211

34:19-28 34:23 35 36 36:1 36:11

9 n. 43 80 n. 84 79 79 98 n. 131 144, 144 n. 47

Deuteronomy 3:11-12 3:15 25, 26 27:11-14

16, 85, 172 98 n. 132 98 n. 131 82 82-85, 114, 115 n. 181, 116 n. 182, 117, 136, 165, 180, 193, 197 4 n. 6, 9 n. 43 85 82 5, 6 n. 19, 16. 17, 57, 77 n. 73, 84, 85-88, 114, 114 n. 176, 115, 115 n. 178, 116, 116 n. 187, 117, 127 n. 230, 129 n. 235, 130, 130 n. 245, 133 n. 250, 134, 181, 193, 197 5 n. 15 88 9 n. 43 88 88 n. 113

27:12-14 27:13 28, 29 33

33:1-29 33:4, 5 33:6-24 33:26, 27 33:28 Joshua

2:1 2:1-21 6:17, 25 6:22-25 7 12:1-5 13 13-19 13-21

1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 n. 57, 49, 81, 81 n. 87, 84, 84 n. 96, 88, 92, 93, 93 n. 124, 94, 96, 97, 101, 105, 106, 106 n. 153, 121, 122, 122 n. 212, 123, 123 n. 218, 125, 133, 145, 162, 166, 167, 172 145 n. 49 145 145 n. 49 145 145 98 n. 132 96 4 n. 7, 6 n. 24, 94 4 n. 7, 6 n. 24, 89-94, 121, 122, 122 n. 208, 124 n. 220, 128, 166, 166 n. 2, 188, 195, 197

212 13:1 13:15-23 13:15-31 13:24-28 13:29-31 13:31 14:6-15:63 14:6 14:6-15 15 15:1 15:16-19 15:19 15:20 15:21-16:62 16-17 16:1 16:4 16:5-10 16:63 17:1, 3 17:1-13 17:17 18 18:11 18:11-28 18:22-28 19 19:1-9 19:1-45 19:10-16 19:17-23 19:24-31 19:32-39 19:47 19:40-48 20:1-21:42 20:1-9 20:8 20:9-42 21 21:4-7 21:5, 6 21:9-34 21:23-34 21:25

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

93 91, 188 122 n. 205 91, 188 91, 188 98 n. 131 91, 188 91, 188 145 n. 48 92, 96 91, 188 145, 146 146 n. 52 91, 188 92 91, 92, 96, 97 n. 129, 120 n. 199, 126, 132, 188 97 89 n. 115, 91 n. 116 91, 96, 126, 188 91, 188 98 n. 131, 144 n. 47 91, 96, 126, 188 97, 126 82, 92 97 81, 81 n. 85, 91, 96, 188 92, 96 57 81, 81 n. 85, 91, 96, 122 n. 209, 188 92 91, 96, 188 91, 96, 188 91, 96, 188 91, 96, 188 85 n. 96, 88 n. 108, 93 88 n. 107, 91, 96, 188 91, 188 94 98 n. 132 94 124 n. 220 4 n. 7, 5 n. 15 123 n. 215 4 n. 7, 5 n. 15 88 n. 107 123 n. 215, 123 n. 216

21:27 21:36 22:9ff 24

123 n. 215 98 n. 132 98 n. 132 12

Judges

1, 3, 9, 81, 81 n. 87, 84 n. 96, 93 n. 124, 96, 97, 105, 122, 123, 123 n. 218, 125, 128, 133, 145, 146, 146 n. 56, 164, 166, 166 n. 2, 167, 171, 172 5 n. 15, 81, 81 n. 87, 94-97, 120 n. 199, 122, 122 n. 212, 123, 124 n. 221, 166 n. 2, 189, 195, 197 96 145 n. 51 146 n. 52 145 n. 48 96, 97 97 96 96 n. 128 96, 97 n. 129 96, 96 n. 128 96 96 88 n. 107, 96 94 97, 99 146 146 11, 96 n. 127, 97-100, 115, 123 n. 218, 124, 132 n. 249, 189, 195, 197 96 n. 127 97 96 n. 126 146 n. 56 146 n. 56 146 146 n. 56 95 n. 126 96 n. 127 95 n. 126 146 n. 56 146 164

1

1:2-20 1:11-15 1:15 1:20 1:21 1:22 1:22-26 1:26 1:27-29 1:28 1:29, 30 1:31, 32, 33 1:34-36 2 4 4:21 5:7 5:14-23

5:15 6 6-7 7:2, 3 8:31 9:1-5 9:1, 18 10-12 10:1 10:3-5 11:1, 2 11:1-11 13

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

13:2-14:6 13-16 17:1-6 17:2, 3 18

146 n. 56 123 n. 219 147 146 n. 56 81 n. 86, 85 n. 96, 88 n. 108, 123

1Samuel

1 1:1 12:25 19:11-17 2Samuel 3 5:1-16 5:14-16 9:4-5 11:27 17:27 21 1Kings 1 11:21ff 15:13 15:14 2Kings

48:31-35 48:32

4 n. 6, 102-103, 114, 115 n. 181, 116 n. 182, 117, 123, 127 n. 230, 136, 165, 181, 193, 197 4 n. 6 81

42, 44, 84, 134, 145, 147, 148, 164, 170 n. 10, 171, 172 164 42 141 n. 28 150 n. 79

Hosea

142

Amos 4:1, 3

145 147

Psalms 105

104 n. 148

45, 84, 134, 145, 147, 148, 164, 171, 172 104 n. 148 45 45 98 n. 130 142 98 n. 130 164 n. 169

Proverbs 31

147, 151

Ruth 4:18-22

145, 147 42

Ezra 2:62, 63 7:1-6 9-10 9:1

42, 42 n. 79, 47, 47 n. 98, 162 42 n. 79 41 n. 75 173 171 n. 11

Nehemiah

42, 47, 47 n. 98, 162

21, 84, 84 n. 96, 145, 147, 148, 149, 164, 171, 172 150 150 150 150

4 4:17 8:26 8:27 11:2ff 11:15

84, 145, 147, 148, 149, 164, 171, 172 164 142 150 150 150 150

Isaiah

142

Ezekiel 48 48:1 -29

16, 101, 102, 103 n. 147 6 n. 24 100-102, 122, 124, 190, 195, 197 103 n. 147

48:1, 23, 29

48:30-35

213

1Chronicles 1, 6 n. 18, 8, 16, 41, 42, 49, 57 n. 16, 103, 104 n. 148, 106, 106 n. 153, 106 n. 159, 113 n. 172, 121, 122, 123, 123 n. 218, 124, 125, 125 n. 226, 128, 129 n. 236, 130, 130 n. 244, 145, 151 n. 89, 152, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173 1 103, 138, 160 n. 155 1:1 138 1:32, 34 80 n. 83, 104, 138 n. 3, 160 1:50 139 n. 3, 160, 160 n. 155 1-9 41, 145, 151, 152, 153, 154, 166, 168, 169 2-6 105 2-9 103, 152, 172

214 2:1-2

2:2 2:3 2:3-4:43 2:3-8:40 2:3-9:37 2:12 2:16 2:18 2:21 2:21-23 2:24, 26, 29 2:34 2:35 2:46, 48 2:49 3 3:1-3 3:1-9 3:2, 5 3:5-8 3:9 3:13-16 3:19 4:3 4:5, 18 4:18 4:19 4:24-43 4:27 4:31, 41 4:43 5 5:1, 2 5:1-10 5:1-24 5:3-26 5:11-17 5:18-22 5:23, 24 5:23-26 5:27 5:27-6:66

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

103-104, 107 n. 163, 114, 116, 116 n. 185, 132, 136, 153 n. 94, 165, 182, 193, 197 4 n. 6, 81 159 n. 145 105, 161, 190 57 n. 16, 104-108, 121, 123 n. 218, 166, 190, 195, 197 103, 152, 172 127 n. 231 159 n. 146 158 n. 140 158 n. 141, 159 n. 145 98 n. 131 158 n. 140 159 n. 145 158 n. 141, 159 n. 145 158 n. 142 159 n. 144 44, 45, 106 n. 155 158 n. 140 158 n. 139 159 n. 144 44 158 n. 143, 159 n. 146, 160 n. 157 44 159 n. 146 159 n. 146 158 n. 140 158 n. 141, 159 n. 144 158 n. 141, 159 n. 146 105, 190 156 157 106 n. 152 106 n. 155 134 105, 190 122 n. 206 156 105, 190 44 n. 83 105, 190 108 156, 157 105, 106 n. 155, 113 n. 172, 124 n. 220, 190

6 6:39-48 6:49-66 6:55, 56 7 7:1-5 7:6-11 7:6-12 7:7, 9 7:11 7:11, 12 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:14-17 7:14-18 7:14-19 7:14-29 7:20-29 7:24 7:28, 29 7:29 7:30-40 7:30, 32 7:40 8 8:1-28 8:1-40 8:29-40 9 9:1 9:2-34

9:3 9:35-40 9:35-44 9:35-10:14 10 11 12 12:1-23

44 n. 83 5 n. 15 5 n. 15 123 n. 215, 123 n. 216 105, 107, 156, 158, 161 n. 158 105, 106 n. 156, 190 107 n. 163 105, 106 n. 156, 107, 122 n. 210, 190 107, 108 107 44 n. 83 107 n. 162 87 n. 103, 105, 107, 190 157 98 n. 131 161 n. 158 105, 108, 160 n. 153, 161, 190 132 105, 190 161 n. 158 44 n. 83 105, 108, 120 n. 199, 166 n. 2, 190 105, 106 n. 156, 157, 159 n. 149, 190 156, 159 44 n. 83 44, 105, 106 n. 154, 107, 157, 158, 161 107 105, 122 n. 210, 190 44, 44 n. 82, 107, 107 n. 165 44, 104, 124, 153, 161 108, 153 49, 106 n. 157, 108-109, 113 n. 172, 123, 124, 191, 195, 197 123 n. 213 107 n. 165 44, 44 n. 82, 108 106, 107 44, 103, 108 108, 109 109, 122 n. 207 109-110, 124, 128 n. 234, 191, 195, 197

INDEX OF HEBREW BIBLE REFERENCES

12:24-41

12:25-38 12:27, 29 12:32 12:38-39 13-29 13:1 14 14:4-7

80 n. 84, 110-112, 122 n. 207, 123, 123 n. 218, 124 n. 220, 126 n. 227, 126 n. 228, 128 n. 234, 130, 191, 195, 197 5 n. 15, 6 n. 18 113 n. 172, 124 n. 220 123 n. 217 108 n. 166 110 111 44, 45 44, 45

16:13, 18 23-27 23:1-2 23:14-23 26:32 27:16-22 27:16-34

28

215

104 n. 148 112 112 143 n. 44 113 6 n. 18 77 n. 73, 80 n. 84, 112-113, 115, 115 n. 180, 116, 116 n. 185, 126 n. 227, 126 n. 228, 128 n. 234, 130, 182, 193, 197 112

2Chronicles 145, 170

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, earlyJewishandearlyChristianTraditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a MillenniumofJewishFuneraryEpigraphy(300BCB-700CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings8,14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, SacredHistoryandSacredTextsinearlyJudaism.ASymposiumin HonourofA.S.vanderWoude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a MantologicalWisdomAnthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, NewTestamentTextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, EssaysontheDiatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline SpeechesoftheActaApostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, TheTriumphofElohim,FromYahwismstoJudaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, TheDesignationoftheIndividual.ExpressiveUsageinBiblicalNarrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, OldTestamentQuotationsintheFourthGospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, JohanninePerspectivesontheDeathofJesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, TheHiddenHeritageofDiasporaJudaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), TheImageandtheBook, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’sServantPoemsAccordingtotheSeptuagint.AnExegetical andTheologicalStudy, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., GlossaryofGreekRhetoricalTerms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, EchoesofEden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, JeremiahinPropheticTradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’sDiscourseinFirstCorinthians8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, ListeningtoTrypho.JustinMartyr’sDialogueReconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’CorporateUnitywithChristinEarlyChristianSoteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), TheSayings GospelQinGreekandEnglishwithParallelsfromtheGospelsofMarkandThomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, TheLanguageofBelonging.ARhetoricalAnalysisofKinshipLanguage inFirstCorinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, JaphethintheTentsofShem.StudiesonJewishHellenisminAntiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasionand DissuasioninEarlyChristianity,AncientJudaism,andHellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, PaultheMissionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bibleandmidrash.TheStoryof‘TheWooingofRebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, TextualCriticismandtheSynopticProbleminHistoricalJesusResearch. TheSearchforValidCriteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and- AnswerLiteratureinContext, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, FreedomintheGospel.Paul’sExemplumin1Cor9inConversation withtheDiscoursesofEpictetusandPhilo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudien zudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological InvestigationoftheCosmicChristologyinCol1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, DreamsandScriptureinLuke-Acts.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “HappytheOneWhoMeditatesonWisdom”(SIR.14,20).Collected EssaysontheBookofBenSira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), TheInterpretationofExodus.StudiesinHonourofCornelisHoutman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), TheTrialandDeathofJesus.EssaysonthePassion NarrativeinMark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, InSpiritandTruth.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:19-26andaTheological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, TransformationsintheSeptuagint.TowardsanInteractionof SeptuagintStudiesandTranslationStudies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis38)vonderAntikebiszurReformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), VocesBiblicae.SeptuagintGreekanditsSignificance fortheNewTestament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, OntheTrailoftheSeptuagintTranslators.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism andtheEarlyChurch, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), ProphecyaftertheProphets?TheContributionoftheDeadSeaScrollstotheUnderstandingofBiblicalandExtra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), FeastsandFestivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), AnthropologyintheNewTestamentanditsAncient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, TranslatedHallelujehs.ALinguisticandExegeticalCommentaryonSelect SeptuagintPsalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), QumranandtheBible.StudyingtheJewishandChristian ScripturesinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus,theEschatologicalTemple.AnExegeticalStudyofJn2,13-22in theLightofthePre70C.E.EschatologicalTempleHopesandtheSynopticTemple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, ReadingZechariahwithZechariah1:1–6astheIntroductiontotheEntire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), ImageryintheBookyofRevelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), TheQumranLegalTextsbetweenthe HebrewBibleandItsInterpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersionPeriod, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, PropheticMinistryinJeremiahandEzekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), GreekScriptureandtheRabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), WhatisBible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law,Prophets,andWisdom.OntheProvenanceofTranslatorsandtheirBooksintheSeptuagintVersion, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis22andIsaiah53inAncientJewishandEarlyChristianWritings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, TheEarliestNon-MysticalJewishUseofΙαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studies intheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus.AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudyofHilasmos andAgapein1John2:1-2and4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, ThreeVersionsofEsther.TheirRelationshiptoAnti-SemiticandFeminist CritiqueoftheStory, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, SeeMe!HearMe!Divine/HumanRelationalDialogueinGenesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, FromProphettoPriest.TheCharacterizationofAaroninthePentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, StudiesinJohn’sGospelandEpistles.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe.ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, ADivineRoundTrip.TheLiteraryandChristologicalFunctionofthe Descent/AscentLeitmotifintheGospelofJohn, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, BetweenIsraeliteReligionandOldTestamentTheology.EssaysonArchaeology,History,andHermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, StudiaHierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah1and10inLightofTextandReceptionHistory, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “OhGodofBattles!StealMySoldiers’Hearts!”AStudyoftheHebrew andGreekTextFormsofJeremiah10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of AuthoritativeTexts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), TheEpistletotheHebrews.Writingatthe Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, TheRationaleforAniconismintheOldTestament.AStudyofSelect Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “WithAllYourSoulFeartheLord”(Sir.7:27).CollectedEssayson theBookofBenSiraII, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-HerodianPeriods, Leuven, 2018

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706