The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives (Jsot Supplement Series, 257)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

257 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The World of Genesis Persons, Places, Perspectives

edited by Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 257

Copyright © 1998 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 19AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-875-1

CONTENTS Preface

PHILIP R. DAVIES Genesis and the Gendered World Abbreviations List of Contributors

7 16 19

Part I THE WHOLE EARTH

ELLEN VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth: Primaeval History in a New Perspective

22

Part II THE WOMEN'S STORY

JOHN GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam (Can I have my Apricot as well as Eating it?)

50

NINA RULON-MILLER

Hagar: A Woman with an Attitude

60

SUSANNE GILLMAYR-BUCHER

The Woman of their Dreams: The Image of Rebekah in Genesis 24

90

ANTHONY J. LAMBE Genesis 38: Structure and Literary Design

102

RAFAEL FRANKEL The Matriarchal Groupings of the Tribal Eponyms: A Reappraisal

121

The World of Genesis

6

Part III THE MEN'S STORY

SCOTT B.NOEGEL A Crux and a Taunt: Night-time then Sunset in Genesis 15 JACK R. LUNDBOM Parataxis, Rhetorical Structure, and the Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

128

136

JOHN GOLDINGAY

The Place of Ishmael

146

BARBARA GREEN, OP The Determination of Pharaoh: His Characterization in the Joseph Story (Genesis 37-50) Index of References Index of Authors

150 172 177

PREFACE Genesis and the Gendered World The world of Genesis is, among so many other things, a world of gender: 'male and female he created them', says ch. 1. But, according to the Christian myth, Genesis 3 tells how the woman, made from the man, betrayed him and his god by listening to the serpent-devil, and inflicting on all humans thereafter the burden of an original biologically transmitted OS (Original Sin) virus. The Jewish interpretation of this story chooses to avoid an Original Sin that needs a heavenly redemption, preferring to see in the story the propensity of women to tempt men to disobey god; but just as the wisdom of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible enjoins men to shun the Bad Woman, so it represents also Wisdom itself as a virtuous woman and praises the wife who is virtuous, by which is undoubtedly meant the role of loyal housemaker, child-bearer and adornment to her husband. Neither Judaism nor Christianity (and among the world religions they are not unique in this) has done much to amend what its myths portray as an inequality going back almost to creation. For following her own judgment (something regularly condemned in the Bible) she, and her entire gender, were punished by being subjected to the male, a fate inscribed in the order of creation. Perhaps a mere story should not be held entirely to blame for a condition that may be due to a wider and more complicated network of causes; but the use of the Eden story to sanctify this inequality through a primordial divine dispensation has played a significant role in intensifying and prolonging an inequality of gender. An inequality, indeed, that the remainder of Genesis colourfully illuminates. The male gender assumes all credit for the process of procreation, with begettings upon begettings of fathers and (nearly always) sons. The storyline of Israel's ancestors also focuses on the patriarchs, despite some colourful supporting parts for their females, and towards the end of the book, Joseph shows Adam what he should have done, by rejecting the offerings of Potiphar's unnamed wife (surely a much more

8

The World of Genesis

interesting subject for a modern fictional biography than almost any other biblical character), refusing to betray his (male) master (this time a mere Egyptian official) and thus exhibiting those qualities of self-control that justify a man in controlling females. Throughout, the male deity behaves according to his gender, dealing preferably with his mates and disposing of the females as he sees fit, particularly with regard to their procreative role. There is, of course, more to Genesis than gender, but gender pervades the whole book nevertheless. In the world created in Genesis the separation of male and female is like the separation of light and darkness, day and night, summer and winter, engraved in the order of things. And it is mostly the gendered world of Genesis that the essays in this book celebrate or at least invoke, though not all of them were necessarily written with this in mind, and some confront the question of gender only obliquely. This book is not a collection of explicitly gender studies. Indeed, the various contributions were not written for such a volume at all. They were submitted—and accepted—as articles for JSOT. But, as with a previous volume on the prophets,1 they have been published, with the authors' consent, as a collection. Accordingly, authorial intent (for what that is worth these days) has been overlaid to a degree by editorial intent. The stories of Genesis treated and told by the authors have been divided into women's and men's stories and the theme of gender has thus been interwoven where it was not originally explicit. Regardless of the plot of this preface, the individual articles deserve to be recognized as having their own agendas, however much they may be interpreted in the canonical context that publication in a single volume accords to them. If gender is the common thread that has been sewn in, they nevertheless present a variegated pattern of interests, techniques and approaches. The first essay, by Ellen van Wolde, is gendered in a broader way than many of those that follow. She argues that the theme of Genesis I'll is not the human race but the earth itself (perhaps a similar argument can be advanced for the book of Revelation, so often chiastically paired with Genesis?). But among her perceptions is that the relationship between 'adam and '"damd (human and earth) corresponds to that between

1. Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (JSOTSup, 144; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).

Preface

9

'U and 'iSSd (m'an and woman), namely between management (my italics) and the giving of life. This reinforces, of course, the gendering of earth (whether >adamda or 'eres) as female, and shows the extent to which ecology lends itself readily as a gender issue, the earth having been a battered wife (by humans of both genders) for longer than we can collectively remember (and certainly long before the rise of the modern world). After all, as van Wolde reminds us, in Genesis the earth has a face too. And the one we see in our days is a rather scarred one, though still quite beautiful in places. The thought (which van Wolde offers for our reflection) that Yahweh may care rather more for the earth than for humans is not only suggested by the flood, but recurs elsewhere in the Bible, if only fleetingly (see Lev. 26.34-35). The first of the 'women's stories' is also a radical theological essay, both in its postmodern hermeneutics and its autobiographical genre. The story of Eve, as told to John Goldingay, raises questions not specifically about gender roles (though she does wonder where Adam was when she needed him most) but about evil, truth, divine competence, intent, reliability and the purpose and function of a scriptural canon. If Eve wanted to have her apricot and eat it, if she was originally captivated by the sheer sensuality of the fruit (as Gen. 3.6 says) as well as its offer of wisdom, why cannot the (post)modern exegete do the same to the fruit of scripture? Goldingay argues that, by playing with a text that has been given for just that purpose, one may learn more than by taking it as expressing univocal truth (and supposes that is also the true function of scripture). Whether he would claim that he is advocating a feminine rather than a traditionally masculine hermeneutics I do not know, but his choice of Eve as the mouthpiece of an approach to biblical theology that is non-dogmatic, non-referential, non-rational and a proponent of a deity who is anything but traditionally patriarchal to my mind genders it. (But let it not be forgotten how dogmatic and determinate many feminist readings of biblical texts are as well.) Nina Rulon-Miller' s strongly feminist reading is not dogmatic or determinate, but she brilliantly characterizes the story of Hagar as 'the primeval Handmaid's tale' (and as she notes, Margaret Atwood's novel contains Gen. 30.1-3 as an epigraph). But Hagar's abuse (at the hands of both Sarah and Abraham) has been perpetuated by Paul and, thanks to him (or his pseudepigrapher), by generations of later interpreters; she is seen to be, as a modern Bible Dictionary dubs her, 'infected' with an

10

The World of Genesis

'attitude'—a charge, surely, to guarantee her a place as a modern feminist hero. This particular feminist reading psychoanalyses male responses ('fatal attractions') to Hagar as the 'lost Eden of Egypt'; and even Yahweh himself, suggests Rulon-Miller, cannot resist 'whoring after Egypt', after this archetypal 'foreign land/woman'. The figure of Hagar constitutes, on this reading, the centre of a world of 'sexual excess' that goes beyond the patriarchal family to the entire biblical Israel and the hated Baal who was so much loved by it that it lost its own land. The story of Hagar gives rise to an exploration of the sexuality of Abraham's household, a subject that Rulon-Miller rightly suspects of having been out of bounds to previous (male) biblical scholarship (men like talking about sex less than women). Did Abraham and Sarah practise sexual relations? Or was Abraham impotent, or sterile, or both? Was Isaac really Abraham's own son, or Yahweh's (see Gen. 21.1-2)? Hagar emerges from this study not merely as a victim, however, but as a resourceful and powerful single parent, the recipient of no alimony, and continuing to attract the attentions of Yahweh who, nevertheless, finally deserts her as he bonds with the patriarch instead. Paul emerges as another 'homosocially bonded patriarch' and one obsessed with controlling human sexuality—thus responsible for a good deal of Christian misogyny. A different kind of reading, inspired by the strategies of Wolfgang Iser rather than Mieke Bal (as in the previous essay), is of the image of the 'ideal woman' Rebekah. Here, Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher offers a close analysis of the text of Genesis 24, which she analyses on various levels: word, illocutionary unit, dialogue and utterance, with the narrating voice at the highest all-inclusive level. The analysis takes, first of all, three terms—Rebekah, girl and woman—and plots their distribution over the sixty-seven verses of the chapter. The results suggest that TON (woman) 'is not an acting person within this story, but rather a theme', or a role. The occurrences of n"!!J2 (woman of marriageable age), on the other hand, build up a dynamic portrait of a real individual, and the tension in the central meeting between servant and Rebekah is generated precisely in the question whether the imagined mi?] matches the real mitt. Finally, 'Rebekah', which occurs mainly towards the end of the story (and exclusively only in the final verses) subsumes both the expected n£K and the character of the mi?3 in a single identity. And thereafter, Rebekah becomes the main protagonist.

Preface

11

Thus, a 'differentiated and reflected introduction of Abraham's successor' is developed by the narrator, in ways that reflect how she is seen, acted upon, and acts; and yet the character remains never fully revealed, allowing the readers' own ideals to be read into the characterization. Genesis 24 is the story of the quest for a woman, by the male patriarch, his male servant and ultimately the reader. Whether a consciously feminist reader will wish to mimic the quest and succumb to the narrator's strategy is perhaps a matter of deliberate reading strategy, and this controlled reading of a biblical character can be fruitfully compared with the equally controlled reading of a male character in the last essay of the volume. The study of Genesis 38 by Anthony Lambe exploits yet another approach, influenced by Todorov's analysis of plot according to which a stable situation becomes unstable, and is finally restabilized, though without regaining exactly its original stability. Accordingly, Judah's journeys 'down' and 'up' frame the structure of this chiastic narrative, which is divided into five (usually chiastic in themselves) phases, of which the axis (and third phase) is v. 12a, the death of Judah's wife. The structure implies that the nadir of order and stability is here reached, for her death is more serious than that of her sons, precluding further births and thus the survival of the family. Lambe's intricate anatomy of the narrative presents Genesis 38 as an 'ideal narrative' in Todorov's terms, exhibiting a remarkably subtle and balanced architecture, in which Tamar succeeds not only in asserting her own rights to have a child, but also, despite an apparently disruptive act in terms of the familial mores, succeeds in recreating that family and thus restoring equilibrium. The study completes a series of three portraits of women in Genesis whose dynamic personalities and functions, investigated through quite different hermeneutical techniques, undercut or at least compromise the patriarchal ideology that informs the family narratives of Genesis 12-50. The last essay in this section deals with the matriarchs in the narrowest sense, the mothers of the sons of Jacob, Leah and Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah. It is also the one historical essay in the volume, in which Rafael Frankel argues that the assignation of tribes to mothers reflects their geographical situation and not their history of settlement (as suggested in most previous discussion of the problem). Frankel argues that the reason why Issachar and Zebulun are assigned to Leah and not to either of the secondary wives is that there existed a special relationship

12

The World of Genesis

between Lower Galilee and Judah from the end of the eighth century onwards. Both Manasseh and Josiah, kings of Judah, are reported to have married women from towns in Lower Galilee (a rare occurrence). How far is this issue really about gender? Whether or not Frankel's theory of an ethnic difference between Samaria (non-Jewish) and Lower Galilee (Jewish) from the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians onwards and right into the Hasmonaean period is valid, the discussion offers an example of the use of gender as a political metaphor, whether by royal marriage or by genealogical encoding. Gender relations, including the symbolization of women, are not confined to the family but invade the discourse of geopolitics too. The final part of this volume, the men's story, deals with aspects of the patriarchal narratives: two essays on Abraham, one on Ishmael and one on the pharaoh in the Joseph story. Scott Noegel focuses on a simple problem in Genesis 15: how can Abraham see the stars before the sun sets (cf. vv. 5 and 12)? And here the first point to note is that, while women's stories in Genesis inevitably comprise their relationships with men, the men's do not. In all the cases studied in this section, the issue is on relations between males rather than between males and females. Gender studies, however, do not merely confine themselves to female-male relations, but also to the constructions of female and male identities and negotiations. Femalefemale relationships are rarely highlighted in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Ruth-Naomi-[Orpah] is a very important exception). By contrast, male relationships are as numerous as the stars (well, almost), and of course these include all dealings involving the deity. Noegel's elegant solution to the age-old problem of whether the incident in Genesis 15 happens in daytime or at night rests on a convention of male-to-male communication in which the protagonist taunts (gently or otherwise) the other with a challenge that he cannot meet: 'are you able to...?' It is these words that Goliath throws at the army of Israel, the Rabshakeh at the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Elihu at Job, Balaam at Barak and Sennacherib at Hezekiah. These are all cases of male ritual preparatory to martial (or, in the case of Elihu/Job and Yahweh/ Abraham, verbal) combat. Such sparring is characteristic of a great deal of male interaction outside as well as inside the Bible. Noegel's suggestion that here too the male Yahweh is (however lightly) taunting Abraham, as he elsewhere taunts Job, fits very well within the context

Preface

13

of the relationship they have built up between them.2 Whether the (male) author is also challenging the (male) reader is a further question that Noegel raises. That a male readership is implied here goes without saying: what female would write (or want to read) about two males deciding how many children the wife/ wives of one of them shall have? Male banter is also the topic of Jack Lundbom's paper on Genesis 18, an account of yet another quarrel between the Senior Patriarch and his deity, which is interpreted here as affording an excellent illustration of the paratactic style of biblical Hebrew narrative. Of course, the topic of this male conversation is again about the procreation of children, and this time Sarah is present, making, on Abraham's instruction, cakes for his three (male) visitors. These visitors ask Abraham where Sarah is, and on learning that she is in the tent, they proceed to tell the husband (not the wife) of her (unlikely) pregnancy. Sarah overhears and laughs to herself; Yahweh (for in the well-known crux, the three have now transformed into one) asks Abraham (not Sarah) why she laughed. Later Sarah denies such behaviour—whether to Yahweh or Abraham is not clear. But here is a wonderful cameo of conversational gender-propriety. Whether or not wives should overhear males' plans about their own motherhood, they may not be directly addressed by them on the issue (does any male in the Bible ever ask his wife about such things?), and certainly she should not laugh, even privately. It is something so indiscreet, or perhaps so threatening to a male ego, that it must be denied! Abraham can laugh for the same reason, but that constitutes a quite different matter! After this prelude, the males move on to other business, of less interest to the spectating wife: the destruction of a city. As Lundbom aptly notes, this conversation typifies 'the sort of bargaining carried on today in Near Eastern bazaars'. Together with several earlier commentators, Lundbom recognizes that beneath the exalted rhetoric of divine justice lies a concern on Abraham's part to save only members of the family of Lot, a man whose sexual mores subsequently emerge with little credit, such that even a patriarchal society might deny him the attribution of 'righteous'. But curiously (or not) a long tradition of male exegesis has exonerated Lot (even praising his hospitality!). However, since 2. I have explored this relationship in some detail in Whose Bible Is It Anyway? (JSOTSup, 204; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), Chapter 5, 'Male Bonding: A Tale of Two Buddies' (for a shorter version, see 'Abraham and Yahweh—A Case of Male Bonding', Bible Review 11 [1995], pp. 24-33, 44-45).

14

The World of Genesis

for Lundbom Lot has amply demonstrated his lack of righteousness, Yahweh saves him (and only him) out of mercy and not because of the pleadings of Abraham. The abrupt ending of the story nevertheless leaves the resolution uncertain. The paratactic character of the prose leaves the reader free to judge Lot's character, as well as Abraham's and Yahweh's motivation. Whether Yahweh will, can, or must be just remains open. The history of scholarship on the character of Lot, of course, displays a highly gendered aspect. (And what of his wife? Nowhere has it been asked whether the spouse of such a character would prefer to stay in a disintegrating Sodom than spend the rest of her life with a man of dubious sexual morals. But she would not have the choice.) John Goldingay's second contribution to this volume points to the story of Hagar and Ishmael (ch. 16) as the centre of a large chiastic structure in Genesis 12-22. Is this episode nevertheless a false climax, even a diversion? The contrast between Ishmael and Isaac in 17.19-21 seems too prominent for such a conclusion; both here and in ch. 21 Ishmael takes the edge off Isaac. In fact, argues Goldingay, Hagar and her son complicate the Abraham-Sarah-Isaac story very considerably. He also points to the ready identification with Sarah and Isaac by, for example, 'middle-class, male, Euroamerican interpreters' while thirdworld women, exemplified by Elsa Tamez, bond rather with Hagar. At the centre of a story ostensibly about universal blessing (Gen. 12.3) lies a family conflict that will lead to a conflict between their descendants as nations and, as it happens, between religions also. Why, asks Goldingay, do Gentile readers not want to identify with Ishmael, even if not substituting him for Isaac, as the Muslims? Perhaps, as Rulon-Miller earlier suggested, Paul's denigration of Hagar has something to do with it. At all events, a gendered reading of Hagar and her son can be extended to an ethnocentric reading in which privilege, status and exclusivity are read out of a text that leaves open (indeed, provokes, in Goldingay's view) quite a different focus. The final paper constitutes a female reading of a male character (Joseph's Pharaoh), as Barbara Green anatomizes 'a tentative tyrant, a pliable potentate, a determined despot'; in other words, this is a study of male authority uncertainly exercised. Such a treatment can, in fact, be compared with somewhat similar portraits of uncertain royal authority elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (the Exodus Pharaoh, of course, and also various monarchs in Daniel and Ahasuerus/Xerxes in

Preface

15

Esther). The manner in which this Egyptian male character is delineated by the narrator is carefully analysed: with definite attributes; through the reactions of others; by analogy; by symbolization; and finally through his own lack of self-awareness. Certain aspects of Pharaoh's authority emerge overtly from Green's analysis: the power of the Egyptian ruler, however much it is shown to be subordinated to divine designs, is also often dependent on relatively powerless human subjects, even jailbirds. He is personally incapable of administering his own kingdom, though he can make life-and-death decisions quite easily, even arbitrarily. He is distressed at the dreamed prospect of potency swallowed up by impotency. Indeed, he 'seems to decree himself almost unnecessary'. In short, he is 'determined' in both senses, forcefully implementing the guidance of others. But the characterization is only completed, of course, by the reader, and the essay concludes with an elegant reflection on the question of textual (in)determinacy: is it, like Pharaoh, only apparently determined upon its meaning, and in fact determined by the reader? How much freedom does the narrator allow her, and how much does she take? Is her reading of a 'little man in a big job' 'not substantially incorrect'? Of course, any reader will respond to Pharaoh according to her experience of men in power. But should we 'reduce our insight to cattle and corn', or have we the bravery to read ourself in Pharaoh, asks Green (and will gender prompt or restrict this possibility, one may add?). Thus the reader who commences by describing Pharaoh's 'distant self through a carefully planned grid of narrative analyses risks finding herself, or himself, not just conforming this ruler to the stereotype with which we feel comfortable but, less comfortably, blending with this character. However carefully drawn the portrait, and however controlled our reading, in our interpretative strategies we may find ourselves less 'determined' than we think. The world of Genesis is, of course, a modern world, since it is always constructed by modern readers. The stories, of women and men, in this volume are the stories of the modern authors and the modern readers. The creation of the world, and of the human species, is ongoing and in the images of the text are reflected, indeed shaped, our own self-images, male and female. Philip R. Davies

ABBREVIATIONS AB ANET BASOR BOB

BKAT

BWANT BZAW CAD

Anchor Bible James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

Beihefte zur ZAW

NRT NTS OIL

Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1964-) Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Theology and Mission Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament Ludwig Koehler et al. (eds.), Hebraisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969-1995) Hebrew Bible International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953) King James Version Linguistica biblica New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New Jewish Version La nouvelle revue theologique New Testament Studies Old Testament Library

PJ

Paldstina-Jahrbuch

CBQ

CurTM DBAT

HALAT HB ICC JBL

IPS JSOT JSOTSup

JTS KB KJV LB NICOT NIV NJB NJV

Abbreviations RED REB RevThom RSV RTL R TPP SBLDS SEA THAT

ThWAT

TD VTSup ZAW

17

Revell Bible Dictionary Revised English Bible Revue thomiste Revised Standard Version Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de philosophic SBL Dissertation Series Svensk exegetisk arsbok Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971-76) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Theology Digest Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Ellen van Wolde Tilburg Faculty of Theology, The Netherlands John Goldingay Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California Nina Rulon-Miller Drew University, Madison, New Jersey Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher University of Innsbruck, Austria Anthony J. Lambe St Lawrence, Newfoundland, Canada Rafael Frankel University of Haifa, Israel Scott B.Noegel University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Barbara Green, OP Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, Berkeley, California Jack R. Lundbom Clare Hall, Cambridge

This page intentionally left blank

Part I THE WHOLE EARTH

FACING THE EARTH: PRIMAEVAL HISTORY IN A NEW PERSPECTIVE Ellen van Wolde The story of beginnings in Genesis 1-11 is so often studied that it is surprising one might still feel a need to write about it. It is because our methods are like windows, enabling us to look at the text from different angles or perspectives, that we can discover over and over again in the familiar forms new aspects of meaning. While the standard view on Genesis 1-11, as a story of creation, fall and increasing failures of humankind, has been valuable for ages, it has come under attack in recent decades by people looking through synchronic windows. Especially Genesis 2-3, traditionally seen as the story of fall, is more and more accepted as a story about human relationships to the earth or as a story of maturation.1 But still the complete primaeval history in Genesis 1-11 is generally considered to be a story of the beginning of humankind or the prologue to the patriarchal history. The thesis I will defend here is that the story is less human-centred than is usually presupposed. The main theme of Genesis 1-11 is, as I will try to show, the origin and growth of a network of relationships among the created phenomena. In this network human beings are one factor, probably an important factor indeed, but not its central focus. To substantiate my thesis, I will concentrate on Gen. l.l-2.4a, 2.4b-3.24 and 11.1-9. The Story of Creation in Genesis l.l-2.4a The story of creation in Gen l.l-2.4a2 starts in impressively poetic style. The alliteration and iconic image evoke in the reader's mind a 1. For a recent bibliography, see L.M. Bechtel, 'Genesis 2.4b-3.24: A Myth about Human Maturation', JSOT61 (1995), pp. 3-26. 2. Discussion about the ending of the story of creation in 2.4a or 2.4b is still going on. (For a survey of positions taken in this century, see T. Stordalen, 'Genesis

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

23

picture of the creation: DTl^N N~Q rP2JN"Q. The act of creating, its subject and its object are painted with one brush. The totality of what will be created is expressed by the words j"~)Km Q'QEJn, the heaven and the earth. Will be created, because 1.1 does not tell us about the realization of the creation at that narrated moment. Since in Genesis 1 God's speaking is the instrument of creation, and no word is yet heard, it is more likely that 1.1 precedes creation. This is confirmed by the account of the creation of heaven in 1.8 ('God made the firmament. And God called the firmament heaven.') and by the account of the creation of the earth in 1.9 ('God said: "Let the dry land appear". And God called the dry land earth.'). It follows, therefore, that the first verse as a narrator's text constitutes a kind of caption of the entire story, and expresses at the outset the main thought of Genesis 1 . The ending of the story of creation in 2.4a expresses the same theme:

1.1 2.4a

A comparison between the initial and final verses show that three components are central in this story: the aspect of time (rr£JN~Q and rvn^in), the creating act (K~Q and Dtf ~Qm), and the object of creation: the heaven and the earth (jHNiTnNl D^rrntf). While the opening verse introduces the beginning of the coming events, the final verse resumes these events as 'begettings'; what starts with God's creation is finally resumed as 'in their being created'. These verses point the reader to what is to be considered as the main framework of the story: the creation of the heaven and the earth. The announcement of the theme in 1.1 is not followed by the first stage of creation, but by a depiction of what the situation prior to creation looked like: 2,4. Restudyinga Locus Classicus', ZAW104 [1992], pp. 163-77.) Five characteristics make it, in my opinion, plausible that 2.4a is the final verse of the story: (1) the naming of the main character God in Gen. l.l-2.4a as QTl'PN and in Gen. 2.4b-3.24 as DTI^N miT; (2) the description of the action of creating as K~n in 2.4a and as n&U in 2.4b, and (3) the representation of the object of creation as D'Q&n jHNm (with definite articles and in this order) in 2.4a and as Q"Q£h fHK (without definite articles and in a different order) in 2.4b; (4) the temporal adjunct DT3 in 2.4b which marks the beginning of a new episode or textual unit; (5) the form DtODrn in 2.4a, a niphal infinitive of N"Q with the suffix D~, which describes the creation activities as completed. One may therefore conclude that the narrative of Genesis 1 begins at 1.1 and ends at 2.4a.

24

The World of Genesis

1.2a 1.2b 1.2c While the earth's initial situation is characterized by emptiness (inn mm) in 1.2a,3 the second clause (1.2b) presents a Dinn wrapped in darkness. This word Dinn (related to the general Semitic term tiham, primaeval ocean) refers to the unspecified waters or immeasurable expanse of water existing before the creation of heaven made a division between the waters above and the waters below. This is shown in 1.6 when God makes a firmament or solid expanse, ITpn, 4 that establishes a division between the waters above and the waters below, and this firmament is called D^Qd, a plural form that shows great resemblance to D^Q, waters. The first syllable of D^QEJ might even point to -2J as an abridged form of "IBJN or 'that which relates to' the D'ft. 5 Thus, word and text express the same motion: the D^DE? separates the D^ft above from the D^Q below. Before this D'Q^ existed, there was only a vertical mass of water, the Dinn which is characterized by a lack of light.6 The clause in 1.2b is therefore a description of what existed before the heaven, D^QCD, came into being.7 The third clause, 1.2c, introduces the third factor, the 3. The term inn occurs 20 times in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning of 'desert' or 'desert-like place', 'emptiness' or 'nothingness'. The term 1!"Q occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, always in combination with liTD (here, Isa. 24. 1 1 and Jer. 4.23), and also refers to emptiness and void. For a discussion, see C. Westermann, Genesis (BKAT, 1.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), pp. 142-44, and D. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation (JSOTSup, 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 30-43. 4. irp~i (according to BDB and HALAT, from V Up "I, 'to spread', and, according to ThWAT, from V pp~i, 'to be thin', 'to make thin'), refers to the 'extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)' (BDB), 'das Breitgeschalene (Metall-) Platte; Firmament, das feste Himmelsgewolbe' (HALAT). 5 . This does not imply an etymological relationship between D*Q{0 and D"Q (i.e. a causal relationship in the historical process of the Hebrew language system or paradigm), but a functional one (i.e. a contextual relationship in the actual text or syntagm). For theoretical background information, seeE. van Wolde, 'A Text-Semantic Study of the Hebrew Bible, Illustrated with Noah and Job', JBL 113 (1994), pp. 19-35. 6. Cf. Westermann, Genesis, p. 146; THAT, II, p. 1030; BDB, pp. 1062-63 and T.A. Perry, 'A Poetics of Absence: The Structure and Meaning of Genesis 1.2', JSOT5S (1993), pp. 2-11. 7. Cf. Tsumura, Earth and Waters, pp. 45-83.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

25

hjmi facing the waters. Here the word ^ET^, 'upon the face of shows that, apart from water (both the horizontal waters that cover the earth and the vertical waters that exist before heaven emerges) there is nothing, just the spirit of God. In this initial situation, the DTJ^N m~l alludes to God before he starts creating, because from the moment God begins to speak or create, he is called DTI^N. In short, 1.2 shows us the initial situation as a 'not-yet' situation: the earth is empty, there is no heaven, only a mass of water lacking light, and God is merely active as m~l D^n^K, not yet as a speaking, seeing, dividing, creating, generating or name-giving DTl'PK. Gradually the reader comes to realize how skilfully the first two verses of Genesis 1 have been structured. 1. 2.

in a beginning the earth the heaven God

God created was was was

the heaven and the earth not-yet distinct not-yet present not-yet creating

This is the primaeval situation: no 'nothing', nor a chaos that needs sorting out, but a situation of 'before' or 'not-yet' in view of what is coming. Even God is not yet the creator God, but is an indefinable spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters. These are the main actors of the story to come. From 1.3 onwards the creation of the heaven and the earth starts and develops until it is finished and summarized in 2.4a. The Hebrew syntax presents this clearly, as 1.3 opens with the first of a series of wayyiqtol forms presenting the narrative chain of actions which makes up the process of creation, each link opened by the wayyiqtol l phrase DTI^N ~IQNV1. It starts with God's creation of light, and by this act the most elementary condition of life is created. He separates this light from the already existing darkness, and day and night come into being. In succession God's creation of the firmament and its naming as 'heaven' (1.6-8) are narrated, as well as the appearance of the earth, its naming and the sprouting of vegetation (1.9-12), the lacks of 1.2a and 1.2b thus being removed. Thereafter once again God deals first with the heaven and then with the earth. 1.14-19 presents God's creation of the equipment of the heaven with sun, moon and stars; their tasks as rulers of the day and night and the festivals on the earth are directly connected with their creation. The equipment of the earth and the seas with animals and human beings is immediately followed by the allocation of their tasks: the animals and human beings have to multiply and fill

26

The World of Genesis

the waters, the air and the earth respectively, while the human beings are commanded to exercise dominion over the animals and the earth (1.20-28). The creation turns out to be not only a generation of life, but also an assignment of functions by which the created phenomena are related to each other. This programme becomes especially clear in the last part of the story, where God gives the earthly vegetation as food to all inhabitants of the earth, human beings and animals (1.29-30). Here he speaks for the very first time not in a volitive form, but in an indicative in the first person (not in the plural as in the cohortative of 1.26, but in the singular). He opens with the word if]!"!, by which he explicitly enters into contact with the addressees and calls on them to join his perspective. After he has made everything and has ensured the continuance of everything through jussives and imperatives, God gives something to his creatures: 'See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. And to all the animals on the land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the green plants for food' (1.29-30). In order to underline the completeness of this gift, seven times God uses the word ^D, 'every' or 'all'. Now the network of all created phenomena is completed. The immense attention usually paid to 1.26-28 demands some additional comment on the place of the human beings in this network. Very often one of the first arguments used to underline the humancentredness of the story is the fact that in Genesis 1 the human being is made as the last creature. One infers from this that the human being is the climax of creation: in this creature creation reaches its culmination, possibly even its goal. The same fact happens to occur in the story of paradise, where the woman is made as the last creature. Then, of course, one has to infer that the story of paradise tells how creation finds its climax and ultimate end in the female creature! Illogically, one usually draws the opposite conclusion there. The second and main argument of human rulership is based on the content of 1.28 and the tasks of the human being. This makes up part of the well-arranged context of Genesis 1, in which every newly made creature is presented with its own task or function. The opening of the divine commands to the human being in 1.28 starts with God's blessing: •)QK''1 DTT^N DDK ~pm. It is very similar to the formula applied to the animals: -IQK1? DT^R DHK fa-l (1.22). The first assignment the

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

27

human being receives in 1.28a is to be fruitful, multiply and fill. It is exactly the same as the one given to the animals in 1.22. The only difference is that the human beings are asked to fill the earth, while the fishes have to fill the sea and the birds the air. The two following tasks proposed in 1.28bc differ, however: the human beings have to subdue (£QD)8 the earth and rule over (n~n)9 the animals. Earlier in the story, in 1.16, God has directed the heavenly bodies, moon and sun, and given them the task to ^EJQ,10 to exercise dominion over the day and the night on earth. This word denotes a ruling activity as strong as the words 2HD and rn~l used for the human beings in 1.28. It is astonishing though that after reading 1.16 regarding the sovereignty of the sun and moon over the days and festivals on earth, people conclude that these planets are in the earth's service. Reading 1.28 or 3.16 (with the same word ^EJQ expressing the relationship between man and woman), one draws the conclusion not that the human beings are in the earth's service, but the earth is in the humans' service (and the woman in man's service)! One deduces from 1.28 that God commands the human beings to subject the earth to their will and to make it the object of their desires.11 The structure of Genesis 1 makes clear, however, that the assignment of dominion both to the planets and to the human beings are expressions of a reciprocal relationship between the created phenomena: the planets fulfil their ruling function in relation to the light and therefore life on earth, and analogically the human 8. 'Subdue' or 'bring into bondage' (often of conquest of the land). See BDB, p. 461; KB, p. 423; HALAT, p. 439; ThWAT, IV, pp. 53-60. B.W. Anderson, 'Creation and Ecology' (in B.W. Anderson [ed.], Creation in the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1984], pp. 152-71), stresses that the meaning of 2DD must be analysed in the context of Genesis 1(-11). 9. 'To have dominion', 'rule', 'dominate' (BDB, pp. 921-22; HALAT, IV, p. 1110; ThWAT, VII, pp. 351-58). It is a general term to describe all kinds of exercising dominion—from kings to ordinary people, from slaves to enemies—and is almost synonymous with ^D (ThWAT, , V, p. 74; VII, p. 352). 10. 'To rule', 'have dominion', 'reign', usually with a human subject e.g. of man over woman, slave over property, woman over people, kings; also with God as subject; only here with inanimate subject. See BDB, p. 605; HALAT, II, p. 612; ThWAT,, V, pp. 73-77. It is synonymous with ~[^Q, also with mi. 11. See KB, p. 423; Westermann, Genesis, ad loc.; R. Rendtorff, '"Subdue the Earth": Man and Nature in the Old Testament', TD 27 (1979), pp. 213-16; L.A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup, 96; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1990), pp. 33-35.

28

The World of Genesis

beings fulfil their ruling function in relation to the earth and the animals on earth. This dominion is both relative (as we can infer from the restricted human dominion over birds and fishes, over lions and microbes) and relational, because it is based on interdependency. As sovereigns of the earth and the animals, people are at the same time dependent on the sun, the air, the waters and the plants of the earth. Dominion and dependency go hand in hand and are actually part of all existent phenomena. A network of created phenomena is therefore built up by these relationships and the story sometimes stresses one aspect and sometimes another. One cannot just read one aspect of the complete network and neglect the other parts. In conclusion I would say that the creation story in Genesis 1 is not solely about the creation of humankind, nor about the creation of the earth, nor even about the way human beings should behave on the earth. It is primarily focused on God's creation of heaven and earth, on the population and continuation of the 'inhabitants' of the heaven and of the inhabitants of the earth. Genesis 1 shows that humankind occupies a place within the whole of heaven and earth: an 'own place' for humanity, just as sun, moon and stars occupy their own places in the sky and the fish have their own position in the sea. This creation story is not about human beings dealing with the universe, but about the universe itself in which all elements are interrelated. The Story of Paradise in Genesis 2.4b-3.24 The story of paradise starts, as did the story of creation, with an indication of time: nto DVD 'On the day YHWH God made earth and heaven' (2.4b). It is striking that the openings of these two stories are quite similar. Both start with a time indicator, rvGnfcO and DV3 respectively, followed by a verb form referring to the act of creating, and DTO, by the subject, DTI4?** and DTT^N mrr, and by the object, D^QEJil and D^QIZJl ]HN. This correspondence gives rise to the idea that 1.1 (and the following story) concentrates on the beginning of the creation process, and 2.4b (and the following story) refers to one moment or period of time or one day in this creation process. Could this simple impression be true? A possible anwer will be given at the end of this study of Gen. 2.4b-3.24. The next verse in the story of paradise is built up like the second verse of the creation story in Genesis 1, describing the initial situation as a 'not-yet' state:

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

29

2.5a 2.5b

2.5c 2.5d

The condition of the earth is characterized as 'not yet' filled with vegetation (twice D")CD). The causes of this lack are given in 2.5cd: 'Because God had not let it rain on the earth, and there was no human being to till the ground'. In 2.6 one of these two deficiencies is removed: an IN irrigates the whole surface of the ground.12 From the words n'pir jHNrrp one might infer that this IN refers to subterrestrial water, and because it moistens the whole surface of the ground: a translation of "IN by 'flood' could be possible. This word IN functions, as the great similarity in sounds shows, in close relationship with DIN and riQlN. These terms are related, in that the nQ"IN will produce vegetation only if IN and DIN are active on the nQ"IN. After the water supply has been arranged, and the earth is moistened, only the human being is missing. It is therefore still impossible for the earth to bring forth vegetation.13 Against this backdrop, the story of the garden begins in 2.7, as is shown by the wayyiqtoll form, which is the first in the chain of such

12. In the literature, discussion of the meaning of ~IK has concentrated on comparison with other Semitic languages: M. Dahood ('Eblaite i-du and Hebrew 'ed Raincloud', CBQ 43 [1981], pp. 534-38) argues on the basis of the similarity with the Eblaite idu, that IK refers to a raincloud. H. Gunkel (Genesis iibersetzt und erkldrt [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922], pp. 5-6) and E.A. Speiser (Oriental and Biblical Studies [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967]) hold that "IK derives from the Accadic edu, meaning flood or river; W.F. Albright ('The Predeuteronomic Primeval History [JE] in Gen 1-11', JBL 58 [1939], pp. 91-103), U. Cassuto (From Adam to Noah. I. Genesis 1.1-6.8 [Jerusalem, 1961], p. 104) and M. Saeb0 ('Die hebraischen Nomina 'ed und 'ed—zwei sumerisch-akkadische Fremdworter?', ST 24 [1970], pp. 130-41) believe that it derives from the Sumerian id, meaning flood or flood deity. Whatever might be etymologically true, the semantic content of IK in this specific context is mainly based on the strong relationship between earth, water and human being, as is shown by the striking similarity between IK, D~IK and HOIK. 13. The text seems to make a distinction between the entire earth, pK, and the cultivated or to-be-cultivated soil or ground, i~!Q~!K. After the description of the opening situation in 2.5 and 2.6, the text no longer speaks of the entire earth, j*~iK, but only of the HQ1K, the part of the earth to be cultivated.

30

The World of Genesis

forms with God as subject.14 Immediately God forms ("IK") the human being from dust of the earth (HQlNiTp "1DJJ) and blows breath of life into its nostrils. The link between the DIN and nftlN is apparent: the earth is described as dependent on the human being for its vegetation in 2.5d and now the human being is made of earth matter; and there still is, of course, the obvious similarity in form between D~IN and nQIN. All that remains to be done is to place this human being on the earth to cultivate it, and that would be the end of the story. However, events take a different turn. God plants a garden in Eden and places the human being in this garden (twice in 2.8 and 2.15) to till and protect it. As for the earth, nftIN, outside the garden, this as yet lies fallow: there is no tiller present and consequently there is no crop. For the time being the story continues inside the garden. The end of the story is formed by verses 3.17-24, in which the deficiency that existed in the beginning is removed: i~IQlN now receives DIN as its tiller. If in the intermediate period the earth was linked to the human being only within the garden, it now establishes contact with the human being outside the garden. 3.23 sums this up well: 'So YHWH God sent him/her from the garden of Eden, to till the earth from which (s)he was taken'. Instead of the easy task of tilling and protecting the garden, the human being is required to accomplish the much more arduous task of tilling the earth. The trees that grew independently in the garden of Eden are replaced by crops that are dependent on human attention. The mutual dependence of human being and earth has increased considerably: the earth is cursed because of humankind, so strong is its relationship. The human being is dependent on the vegetation yielded by the earth, as the earth is dependent on being tilled by the human being in order to sprout this vegetation. And finally, the human being will return to the earth, from which he or she was taken. The relationship between human being and earth has developed throughout the story; it marks both the beginning and the end of the story and is the framework in which the garden episode is set.15 14. In Genesis 2.7-23 YHWH God is the subject of all wayyiqtol forms; all actions are presented by the narrator as performed by him. At the end of Genesis 2, a wayyitol form is used at one point to describe a human action: DlNi! "IQ^'I (2.23). 15. In recent decades a growing number of authors have come to see the relation between human being and earth as at least one of the main themes of Genesis 2-3. They include: J.T. Walsh, 'Genesis 2.4b-3.24: A Synchronic Approach', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 161-77; B.P. Naidoff, 'A Man to Work the Soil: A New Interpretation

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

31

The garden story itself also offers some important evidence for an earth-oriented reading. It is indeed remarkable that in the paradise situation, where God is the only actor, he creates all the conditions for departure from the garden. God himself creates the tree of knowledge; he himself issues the interdiction upon eating from the tree that he has placed exactly in the middle and therefore must focus all attention on itself; he himself introduces this prohibition, something negative, in a situation that had been completely positive up to that moment; he even introduces the sanction of death in a garden that had up till then been identified with life only; he himself creates the animals, with the snake being the craftiest (cf. 3.1), as helpmates for the human being, and he indeed will later assist in infringing the ban; he himself creates the woman whose looking and longing for insight is the main actor in transgressing the prohibition. Is not all this enough ground for drawing the conclusion that it was God's design that the human being (after a first stage in the garden) should leave the garden in order to ~Q£> the nQ~TN? This would mean that, not only in the frame-story but also in the garden story, God's actions are concentrated on the earth and the place of the human beings on earth, rather than on the human beings in the garden. Subsequently the question arises why in the text so much attention is paid to God's prohibition upon eating from the tree of knowledge and upon the relationship between man and woman. These two aspects seem to falsify the above-presented hypothesis about the earth-orientedness of God's actions. To start with the relationship between man and woman: the necessity of differentiating the undivided human being, made out of the dust of the earth and entirely linked to the earth, is expressed by God in 2.18. Then woman is built up from the side of the human being. Once this is done, the human being, from being one and undifferentiated, has become differentiated and plural. In its relation with woman, nCJN, the human being no longer refers to itself as DIN, that is, as a being differentiated from the riQlK, but as tfTN, as a being differentiated as man and woman (2.23). The human being turns out to be a relational creature: as a human being it derives its identity from the relation with the earth, as a male human being he derives his identity of Genesis 2-3', JSOT 5 (1978), pp. 2-14; W. Vogels, 'L'etre appartient au sol. Gen 2,4b-3,24', NRT 105 (1983), pp. 515-34; E. van Wolde, A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2-3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 25; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989).

32

The World of Genesis

in relation with a woman and as a female human being she derives her identity in relation with a man.16 In the beginning, this man and woman are very close, as is demonstrated by 2.25: 'They were both naked, D*QT"IIJ, but they did not feel ashamed'. But changes are coming soon. In the verse immediately following (3.1), the serpent is introduced as ?, 'knowing' or 'shrewd'. The similarity between the words 'naked', , and 'shrewd', DT1U, points to a certain relatedness in content.17 This is confirmed in 3.7: at the very moment the woman and the man eat from the tree of knowledge their eyes are opened, and they know that they are naked, DQTU. The parallellism between 2.25 and 3.7 is obvious. Before the eating they were both naked and ignorant, after it they both know of their nakedness. They have acquired an awareness, a discriminating power. This awareness resulted from the eating of the tree of 'the knowledge of good and bad' (im 1DCD Dinn ftf). 1818 The verb I?T generally denotes a practical and existential knowledge that can concern objects as well as persons,19 and the terms irn DIE represent the two halves of the merism good and bad and therefore figure as a whole. So purely denotatively, that is, on the basis of the terms in the language code, im DltD Din refers to a general discriminating power, a knowledge based on experience or perception that comprises everything. This denotative meaning gets its more specific or connotative meaning in the contexts in which it occurs. The noun-group im HICD ITP occurs only three times elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: in Deut. 1.39, 2 Sam. 19.36 and Isa. 7.15-16. Deut. 1.39 deals with children: 'and your sons, who at the moment do not have knowledge (yiqtol of in*) of good and bad'. Here it refers to small children who do not have an adult 16. Cf. W. Vogels, 'It is not good that the "Mensch" should be alone; I will make him/her a helper fit for him/her (Gen 2,18)', Eglise et Theologie 9 (1978), pp. 9-35. 17. As such UTS is naked (3.10, 11) and its plural form is DQTJJ (see 3.7); D.T\9 is shrewd (3.1) and the plural form is D^QIIU. In 2.25 this plural of DTID is used as a plural of DTJ), to make a relation visible between being naked and knowing or shrewd. 18. Several exegetes such as H.J. Stoebe ('Gut und Bose in der jahwistischen Quelle des Pentateuch', ZAW 65 [1953], pp. 188-204), Westermann (Genesis, ad loc.), and W.L. Humphreys (The Tragic Vision and the Hebrew Tradition [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985]) state that im IT1CD has no ethical connotation and translate it by 'good and bad'. In connection with the tree of knowledge, however, the old translation 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' invariably recurs. 19. Cf. ITP with human objects: 'to be acquainted with a person' or 'to know a person carnally'.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

33

knowledge, who are not able to discern. In 2 Sam. 19.36 the old Barzillai says: 'I am eighty years old. Am I still able to make a distinction (yiqtol of I?T) between good and bad?' This suggests that he, because of old age, has lost a certain knowledge. Isa. 7.15-16 states twice of the boy coming to age: 'he will eat butter and honey, till he knows (infinitive of J^T) to reject bad and choose good'. In all these three cases where JTil D1CD UT occurs, it refers to a discriminating power that is characteristic for adults; it is twice connected with the transition from childhood to adulthood and maturity, and once from adulthood to old age.20 It is probable that DH1 31tD in*1 in Genesis 2-3 has the same meaning. By eating from the tree of knowledge the man and the woman become aware of their differences and acquire insight, Plin, which turns out to be the start of their adult life. The acquisition of discriminating knowledge functions consequently as a prerequisite for adulthood. One might infer from this that in Genesis 2-3 the eating from the tree of knowledge and the woman's and the man's becoming aware of their nakedness represents their growth towards maturity.21 Immediately after the

20. This is confirmed by the occurrence of im 110 UT in the Qumran Rule of the Congregation (IQSa [lQ28a] 1.16-11): 'And this is the rule for all the armies of the congregation, for all native Israelites. From his youth they shall educate him . . . during ten years he will be counted among the boys. At the age of twenty years, he will transfer to those enrolled to enter the lot amongst his family and join the holy community. He shall not approach a woman to know her through carnal intercourse until he is fully twenty years old, when he knows good and evil. Then she shall be received to give witness against him about the precepts of law and to his place in the proclamation of the precepts' (italics mine; translation from: F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994], p. 126). The noun-group J2~n 31CD 5)7* is here also connected with the transition from childhood to adulthood and maturity; it refers to adult age, with sexual intercourse as its main characteristic. Cf. G.W. Buchanan, 'The Old Testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', JBL15 (1956), pp. 114-20. 21. Various authors in the twentieth century, such as S.R. Driver (The Book of Genesis: With Introduction and Notes [London, 1904]), Gunkel (Genesis ubersetzt und erkldrt)) and U. Cassuto (From Adam to Noah [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961]), have recognized in Genesis 2-3 a growth towards maturity. Cassuto is the most explicit on p. 114: 'Before they ate of the tree of knowledge, the man and his wife were like small children, who know nought of what exists around them; and it is precisely in connection with small children that we find a similar expression in Deut. 1.39'. See also L.M. Bechtel, 'Rethinking the Interpretation

34

The World of Genesis

woman and man gain this knowledge, God talks for the very first time of childbirth in 3.16. Adulthood is implying procreation; the content of 3.16 stresses, however, not the pleasures of childbirth, but the pain of pregnancy and childbirth. Mature life seems to be filled with ambiguity: knowledge and procreation combined with pain, dominion combined with desire, as God's verdict to the woman in 3.16 shows: although the man will be the master of the woman, still her (sexual) desire is for him. In the next verses, 3.17-19, God presents another characteristic of adulthood: the laborious tilling of the earth. His description of the human relationship with the earth demonstrates how the relationship between the man and the woman corresponds to the relationship between human being and earth. This correspondence can be summarized as: DIN : HOIK = 2TN : H27N = management: giving life

The woman is responsible for childbirth or life giving, as the earth is responsible for producing vegetation or life. The man has authority over the woman, as the human being has authority over the earth. In other words, God presents the relationships that make up adult life, demonstrating how all are part of one network of relationships. In this network the human being is dependent on the earth, for it is its beginning and its end and in the time between beginning and end it is the human's food supply. As a man the human being is dependent on the woman for she is the one who bears new life. The woman as a human being is described as dependent on the earth because the earth is also her beginning and her end and source of food; but as a woman she is dependent on the man's management of the earth and fulfilment of sexual desire.22 The earth is dependent on the human being's tilling in order to be able to produce vegetation. The dependence of the woman on the man can therefore not be separated from the man's dependence on the woman, nor can it be separated from the relation of mutual dependence between human being and earth. Moreover it should be added that the relation between the human being and the earth takes of Genesis 2.4b-3.24', in A. Brenner (ed.), Feminist Companion to Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 77-117. 22. For a more detailed study of the function of the two trees in relation to continuous and eternal life and its relationship to (the names of) God, see E. van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11 (Biblical Interpretation Series, 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 32-47.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

35

priority, as it forms the framework of the relation between man and woman. Procreation and adulthood of the human beings eventually works out in favour of the earth: a continuous tilling of the earth is, from an earthly perspective, necessary. Therefore the acquisition of procreative abilities of the man and the woman is a condition to be fulfilled to establish a continuous relationship with the earth. Not only is continuation required, from the point of view of the earth, but a larger number of tillers as well. The surface of the earth needs more than two farmers to produce vegetation. And, last but not least, the earth demands adult, responsible workers, not only self-oriented persons. The human process of growth makes both an extensive and a continuous tilling of the earth possible. Why did God prohibit the human beings from eating from this tree, when they reach adulthood by eating from it and will consequently be able to till the earth continuously? Is this prohibition not counterproductive for his main concern for the earth? I think that an answer is provided by the text, in a very important verse, namely 2.24. Here the narrator interrups his neutral presentation of the story and directly addresses the reader: 'Therefore a man will leave his father and mother, and will cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh'. Both the opening words p~^r and the yiqtol form of the verb 3TIT referring to a general statement, as well as the words 'father and mother' occurring in the text at a moment where in the story only two human beings exist, make visible the extraordinary communicative position of this verse. The terms 1QN1 TDK refer in this narrator's comment to the parents. These persons are generally characterized by two features: they are the originators or initiators of a man's life and his educators.23 The second word HTIT is very important here: a man will leave his father and mother to stand on his own two feet. While 'his father and his mother' mark a man's infancy, the term 'leaving' expresses the transition from childhood to a more independent form of living. The third component of 2.24 is intitQ pTT and in« "Ifen1? I'm, which refers to a man's maturity when he clings to his wife and they can become father and mother in their turn. In other words, in 2.24 the narrator offers his view of the process of a man's growing up and presents it directly to the reader. Before this verse God is presented as the initiator and educator of the human being: he exists prior to the 23. It is remarkable that this direct narrator's discourse only presents the man's or male human being's perspective, unlike the story text itself.

36

The World of Genesis

human being (2.4b-6), is at the beginning of its life (2.7) and provides it with opportunities and capacities (2.8-23), and confronts it with restrictions and prohibitions. God is therefore behaving analogously to the parents of 2.24. The word HUT functions as an important sign: as a man leaves his father and mother to become independent, so the human being will leave God by means of a transgression of the prohibition to become independent. The general truth of leaving is apparent in 2.24 both from p~*7J? as well as the yiqtol form of 3TIT. The human being 'has to' take the step towards independence itself. Freedom, like power, is something that cannot be given; it can only be taken.24 Perhaps one could speak of a 'necessary disobedience' in this context. This disobedience is not only necessary from the perspective of the man (or the woman), but also from the perspective of the parents and God, because both raise the human being to independence. The narrator of 2.24 makes this very clear: only by leaving his parents can a man become independent and ensure offspring together with his wife. Thus 2.24 sketches in a nutshell a man's process of development in the same way as Genesis 2-3 presents the human process of maturation in more detail: the garden of Eden (2.7-25) represents this harmonious period of infancy, 3.1-7 represents the transition period to maturity, and 3.8-24 the adult life of the human beings: they have got their procreative capacity, the knowledge of good and bad, which turns out to be the paradigm of maturity par excellence. The delight that was so characteristic of childhood has in adulthood been replaced by toil and pain, life without labour in the garden by an industrious life on the earth outside the garden; a life for its own sake has been replaced by a life in close relationship with the earth, from which the human being is taken; a life without children has been replaced by a life with children, which makes a continuous tilling of the earth possible; and, finally, a life without death has been replaced by a life with death. The human being has grown up, the earth is the beneficiary. The conclusion of this study also has implications for the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3, because the story of paradise turns out to be closely connected with the previous creation story.25

24. See D.E. Burns, 'Dream Form in Genesis 2.4b-3.24: Asleep in the Garden', 750737(1987), pp. 3-14. 25. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp (The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible [London: SCM Press, 1992]) who, starting from a diachronic position,

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

37

Genesis 2-3 has to be regarded as an elaboration of one day in the account of creation in Genesis 1, namely vv. 26-28. While Genesis 1 pictures the totality, that is, the creation of heaven and earth, Genesis 2-3 zooms in on one aspect: the relationship between the man and the woman within the framework of the relationship between human being and earth. It is like a film or picture: one detail in Genesis 1 is blown up. The human being (D~IK), in its being male or female in 1.27, is pictured in an elaborated story in Genesis 2-3, in which DIN becomes 2TK and rTOK. The commands to be fruitful and multiply are described as the result of a maturation process of the man and the woman in the garden of Eden. The command to master the earth, jHKirnN CQD, is specified by the cultivation of the HOIK in 3.17-19. The human being is presented both as the one responsible and as the one who is dependent on the earth. These details show the mutual relationship between human being and earth, in which the relationship between the man and the woman is incorporated. The Story of Dispersion in Genesis 11.1-9

After the expulsion from the garden of Eden, the cultivation of the earth begins. New people are born—Cain and Abel—and their story shows how the relationship between brothers is partly determinative of their relationship to the earth. After them other generations of people are born. The opening of their genealogy in 5.1-2 refers explicitly back to 1.26-28: it indicates that the earth is gradually being filled and God's assignment to the human beings to fill and master the earth is being realized. Then, suddenly, the chain of multiplication is disrupted. The story of the flood in Genesis 6-9 starts with an explanation of how the spread of humanity over the face of the earth entailed a spread of evil and destruction on the earth. It is care for the earth that makes God decide for a destruction of everything on earth. All the details of the first verses (6.5-13) point this out: the word jHK occurs eight times in six verses, which shows that the earth is central in God's concern. The creator, who has made the earth with people, is now confronted with people who are destroying the earth. God reacts with a corresponding action, as is shown in the use of the same word nn$, 'destroy' or arrives at a similar conclusion. He states that the 'Yahwist' is to be considered as a supplementer of an earlier 'Priestly' document.

38

The World of Genesis

'ruin': The earth was destroyed before God's face' (6.11), 'God saw the earth, and look, it was destroyed' (6.12) and 'God said: "I shall destroy them along with the earth'" (6.13). With the slogan 'save the earth, remove human beings', God sets to work. A kind of anti-creation story follows: in Genesis 1 the initial state was a boundless surface of water, both vertically and horizontally. In it, the heaven is distinguished as a vault between the vertical waters, and the earth is distinguished as the dry land that appeared between the waters under the heaven. In Genesis 6-9 these distinctions are done away with again. God opens the fountains of the deep and the sluice gates of heaven and the waters come to submerge the earth both from below and from above. Everything disappears under a boundless mass of water. It is a kind of return to the primal state. Only the heaven and the earth continue to exist, all creatures perish. Above all the beginning and end of the story illustrate God's intention: 'YHWH saw that all thoughts that the human being formed in its heart were sheer evil, all the days of his life' (6.5). And 'YHWH said: From now on all the days of the earth. .. shall not cease to exist' (8.22). No longer shall the days of the human beings be determinative for God, but the days of the earth. This is the transformation the story presents. While at the beginning of the flood story the bad behaviour of humans was the inducement for God's decision to sweep away all life on earth by a flood, at the end of the flood story he decides that the bad behaviour of humans will no longer have that influence on the continuation of life on earth. Seed-time and harvest-time, summer and winter, day and night will continue to exist, all the days of the earth (8.22). The continuation of the earth is assured, and this is independent of the behaviour of the human beings. God confirms this new situation with a covenant (9.8-17). He utters the word JT~n seven times, an indication that this is a complete and comprehensive covenant act. Six times he mentions the covenant with all living creatures on earth, not only with the human beings. Although plants will still be eaten by animals, and animals by other animals and human beings, the life-giving principle or 2?S] in both animals and human beings has to be respected. It is not just a matter of a covenant between God and the human family as represented by Noah, but of a covenant between God and anything that lives on earth. This is affirmed by the sign of this covenant: a bow that arches the whole earth.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

39

After this confirmation to the entire earth, a short episode follows, starring the drunken Noah and his sons in 9.18-29, which prepares for the subsequent genealogy in 10.1-32. The spread of humankind starts again, now divided into nations according to their ancestor Sem, Ham or Japhet. Here the descendants of Noah's sons are described as the forefathers of all nations on earth. The individuals who fill the earth are ordered into linguistic or cultural groups of peoples. This list immediately precedes the story of the dispersion of the human beings over the earth in Genesis 11.1-9. This story is the last one to be analysed here. The narrative starts in 11.1 with: 'The entire earth was of one language and one speech'. This is fascinating, because the previous chapter (Genesis 10) told us of the many different languages and peoples. My thesis is that the same relationship as the one existing between Genesis I and Genesis 2-3 could be discovered here: Genesis 10 gives the general survey, while Genesis 11.1-9 elaborates one aspect, viz. the reason why human beings are dispersed in language-groups and languages. People in the twentieth century in western cultures are used to thinking chronologically: tell first the thing that happens first, then the next one, etc. This is our way to present events systematically. It is not the only way of course: one may as well start with the general survey, and than concentrate on one aspect. It is very probable that in Genesis 1I1 this kind of systematization is presented. The story of the dispersion opens with two TH clauses (11.1-2). The first verse indicates the situation preceding the events that follow. It relates the story to the antecedent time, the time preceding the narrative. The story itself starts with TP1 in 11.2 and is continued in a chain of wayyiqtoll forms that indicates the main narrative line: 'It occurred as they migrated from the east, they found a valley, they settled there, they said to one another, YHWH came down, YHWH said, YHWH dispersed'. The last verse (11.9), however, stands outside the narrative chain, since it contains no wayyiqtol form and since it opens with p"1?!). Here the narrator communicates more directly with the reader: 'therefore they called its name Babel'. The framework of the story is thus formed by 11.1 relating the story to come to 'once upon a time' in the past, and 11.9 relating the story to the present time of the narrator and reader. This framework gives a particular direction to the text. The subject of the first verse is fHKiT'PD, the entire earth, and in the last verse YHWH's activity is twice directed to f

40

The World of Genesis 1. 9. 9.

the entire earth YHWH confuses the language of YHWH disperses them over

is one language the entire earth the entire earth

Human beings are the subjects of language: they speak, listen and communicate in language. It is significant that the text refers to language and calls the earth its subject, as if the earth is able to speak. This sign points to the earth as the main subject and to the attention the text pays from the beginning to jHtfiT^D. Another important feature is that the narrative has JHKiT^D as the first word and as the last word: it seems to imply that the entire earth forms this text's frame of reference. One might conclude that in the framework of the story v. 1 indicates the situation at the beginning and v. 9 the final situation of the entire earth.26 In this framework reference is made to the changing situation of the earth. The change is brought about by the actions in the embedded story (11.2-8) which extend in two chains of narrator's text and embedded discourses. The narrative is formed by the chain of wayyiqtol forms which begins in 11.2 and ends in 11.8. While the subject of v. 1 was described as 'the entire earth', the narrative in v. 2 begins with a subject that is neither introduced nor described in more detail than 'they'. The reference is undoubtedly to the people, but it is striking that they are not presented with a personal or collective name, but with an undifferentiated third person plural: 'they found', 'they settled'. It is only in the transition from the discourse of the 'they' (human beings) to the discourse of God that there is a single verse in the narrative (11.5) in which the narrator first specifies this 'they' with a 26. There is a certain tendency to describe the stylistic structures in narrative texts in the Hebrew Bible in antithetical or chiastic structures. With regard to Genesis 11.19 some different proposals concerning the chiastic structure of Genesis 11.1-9 are made by Y.T. Radday, 'Chiasm in Tora', LB 19 (1972), pp. 12-23; Radday, 'Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative', in Chiasmus in Antiquity (ed. J.W. Welch; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981), pp. 50-117; I.M. Kikawada, 'The Shape of Genesis 1-11', in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor ofJ. Muilenberg (ed. J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974), pp. 18-32; J. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 17; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), pp. 11-45, esp. p. 20; P. Auffret, 'Essai sur la structure litteraire de Gn 11,1-9', in La sagesse a bdti sa maison: Etudes de structures litteraires dans I'Ancien Testament et specialement dans les Psaumes (OBO, 49; Fribourg/Gottingen: Editions Universitaires, 1982), pp. 69-90; G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 135-47.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

41

generic name: literally 'the sons of humanity', DlKi"! "33. The narrator says of these 'sons' that they built, 133. In this part of the sentence the 13- sound in 133 refers back to the 13- sound in the word 'us', 13^ (11.4, bis), while there is agreement between the 3 and the ] sounds. By means of the connection between ""33 and 133 the narrator draws an explicit relationship between the sons of the human beings and their building for 'us'. After the narrator has drawn this relationship, in the rest of the text, that is both in the discourse and in the narrative, the human beings are again always referred to as 'they' or 'them' (11.68). In short, unlike the framework of 11.1 and 11.9, in which 'the entire earth' occurs three times, the narrator, with one exception in which he emphasizes human beings and their building for themselves, presents the active subjects as 'they' and thus as subjects that are not marked or specified like 'the entire earth'. Within the chains of the narrative three character texts or discourses are situated: the first discourse in 11.3a, the second in 11.4, both with 'they' as speaking subject, and the third in 11.6-7 with God as speaking subject; the people speak to one another and God speaks to himself. These three discourses show similarities: they contain cohortatives preceded by a hortatory word: mn, ]il, nni?. The human discourses include four mutual exhortations, which all have one aim: 'So that we may not be dispersed over the face of the entire earth' (11.4). This is the only time that in the discourses the subject of the framework jHRrr^D recurs: the people want to ensure that they will not be dispersed over the entire earth. In opposition to being scattered over the entire earth the humans set up an 'us'-oriented action: 'not us over the entire earth'. According to most people the story of the Tower of Babel is concerned with sin and punishment, guilt and repentance. In fact this interpretation of the story is based on two elements from 11.4a: the people's intention to build a tower with its top in the heavens and their wish to make a name for themselves. The word-combination 'a tower with its head in the heavens' (D^OED 1CJK"I ^130) means in that vision that the tower is an expression of the human desire to become divine; the sin is hybris.21 But in Genesis 1-11 the term D^QEJ does not (until now) refer 27. J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930), p. 229; A. Richardson, Genesis 1-11: The Creation Stories and the Modern World View (London: SCM Press, 1953), p. 126; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, pp. 14-20; J.M. Sasson, "The Tower of Babel" as a Clue to the

42

The World of Genesis

to the place where God is living: it is a part of the created universe. And the terms D'DBfa B?R"l in combination with towers or large edifices occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as figurative language to describe edifices of impressive high proportions (Deut. 1.28; 9.1).28 These data, the occurrences of D'W in Genesis 1-11 and of Q^QCD EJKH in Deuteronomy, make it very plausible that Gen. 11.1-9 describes a tower that is so large that its top reaches high in the air.29 11.5 confirms this: the top of the tower seems not to reach to heaven, since God has to descend to it from his home or resting place. The other argument used, that the intention to make a name for themselves is an indication of the human desire to compete with God, is nowhere affirmed: the narrator gives no evaluation of whether making a name for oneself is bad or not.30 What could this wish for a name mean in this context? To determine this, we have to return to the first verses in the text. The story opens in 11.2 with a description of the human actions. These actions are spatially oriented: they move in the east, to the land Shinar, to a valley, so the direction of their movements becomes increasingly closely identified. Finally, they settle there, D& (Sam), and build a city and a tower on this spot, which indicates an even narrower focus of place. On that spot they express their ideal: by remaining in this place and according themselves a name D$ ($em), they will not be dispersed over the entire earth (11.4). The name and the place Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History', in G. Rendsburg et al. (eds.), The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon (New York: Ktav, 1980), pp. 211-19; R. Couffignal, 'La tour de Babel: Approches nouvelles de Genese xi, 1-9', RevThom 83 (1983), pp. 59-70; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 239-42; W. Vogels, Nos origines: Genese 1-11 (Ottawa: Novalis, 1992), pp. 11-37. 28. Cf. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J.H. Marks; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), p. 149; D.E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975), pp. 27-28; V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-177 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 261-72. 29. From a comparative perspective one may point at the Neo-Babylonian text on the building of the tower of E-temen-an-ki, in which the same formula is used: 'Marduk ordered me to construct the tower with the top reaching the heaven'. See also the account of the building of Babylon's temple in Enuma elish 6.60-62 (ANET, p. 69): 'The first year they molded its bricks. And when the second year arrived they raised the head of Esagila toward Apsu.' Cf. E.A. Speiser, Genesis (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 75-76. 30. Cf. Westermann, Genesis, p. 548.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

43

refer to the human beings themselves, because the earth is not given a name ($em), nor the place or the tower. The unity of language (11.1) evidently leads to a desire for a single spot, Sam (11.2), and to a desire for a single name, Sem (11.4). The one place is actually represented by the one name: D£J (Sam) stands for D2J (Sem). In response to this striving for one place and one name, God goes into action and sets himself in motion. He expresses his opposition in word and deed: in 11.7 he expresses his intention of confusing their language 'there', D£J, and consequently he disperses them there 'from there', D&Q (11.8). And the result is obvious: instead of one place (Sam) and one name (Sem) for the human beings, the place has received a name; 'her name' is Babel. And the word rtQ$ (Semah)) shows how the one language and the one place come together in that place, since in this word there is both the a -sound of Sam and the e- sound of Sem. In other words: while the asound dominates in Semah, this word is still a form of the word Sem. The name Babel carries the same connotation too: it is a single name which expresses confusion, and, by implication, non-singularity. If we bear this semantic line in mind, the speech and behaviour of God in 11.6-8 become clearer. In his speech God is concerned with the unity of language and in his action with the unity of place. This mixture of activities makes the text possible semantically by means of the fact that Sem and Sam are made equivalents, both by the characters in the text, viz. the human beings and God on the one hand, and by the narrator on the other. God opposes in his discourse in 11.6-7 this unity. In 11.6a, his very first speech, he reacts with: 'Behold, one people, one language for all'. Twice he uses the word 'one' and he responds to the aim expressed by the people in their own speech: '... that we may not be dispersed'. God is opposed to the unity, a unity of language that is not the consequence of human action, since that belonged to the earth's original situation (11.1). This statement of God does not therefore refer back to 11.4, nor to the tower, nor to the city. One might even ask whether in 11.6a God is reproaching anyone. He is stating a fact: they are one people and all have one language. But it looks as if the action of the humans in 11.3-4 causes God to realize for the first time the consequences of the fact of 11.1: 'This is the beginning of their actions and now nothing will restrain them from what they want to do' (11.6). God regards this situation as just the beginning: this 'one language for all' will lead to an increasingly focused concentration on 'us' by the human beings. Perhaps it is superfluous to mention that

44

The World of Genesis

neither the narrator in his narrative, nor the humans in their discourses, nor God in the discourse, speak of a human ambition that is directed against God. There is simply nothing of the kind in this text. The text does, however, say that the people, who are united by a single language, strive for keeping this unity and not for dispersion over the entire earth. In the second part of his direct speech, God expresses his plan: 'Let us go down and confuse their language, so that they may no longer understand one another' (11.7). Against the 'us' of the cohortative of the people, God places the 'us' and the cohortative of himself. God directs his first action against the single language: he wants to confuse (^n) the language. In the subsequent execution of the action (which comes to us in the narrator's words in 11.8), it is not stated that God confuses the language, but that he disperses (pD) the human beings over the entire earth. In his speech God thus takes aim against unity of language and in his action against unity of the land. In 11.9, finally, both aspects return in this action of God's: God confuses (^3) the language of the whole earth and disperses Cps) humanity over the whole earth. In short, in the framework of the story the changed/changing situation of the earth is referred to. This change is brought about by the action and the spoken text of the characters in 11.2-8. Here the humans strive for more unity of place and language, as is depicted by one surface area, one city, one tower and one name, and God subsequently strives for plurality or not-unity: not one language, but many languages, not one place, but a dispersion over the entire earth. With this second series of actions of God, the final situation is arrived at: a multiplicity of languages and people, dispersed over the entire earth. In Jewish tradition, from a very early date there are tendencies to read Genesis 11 as indeed the 'story of dispersion'.31 Unlike the Christian tradition, where human sin against God is given the primary emphasis, one could better argue in line with exegetes in the Jewish tradition for an interpretation of Genesis 11 as a story about the variety of languages on earth and the dispersion of human beings over the earth. Still, I would like to carry the change in orientation a step further. All exegetes, Jewish and Christian, are 'human-centred' in their exposition of this story. But it is important, I would say, that God's attention seems 31. From Josephus (Ant. 1.4) down to exegetes in the twentieth century, such as B. Jacob (Das erste Buck der Tora: Genesis ubersetzt und erkldrt [Berlin: Shocken Verlag, 1934], p. 301) and Cassuto (From Adam to Noah, p. 226).

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

45

to be directed towards the entire earth. There are four indications in support of this view of the text. The first is the fact that alongside the word fl^rr^D (five times) we find the prefix "'DEr^tf three times in combination with flNiT^D: the concern is that the human beings should be dispersed over the entire surface of the earth. A second indication is that the humans are mentioned both by the narrator and by the storycharacter God as 'they': people are only the undifferentiated inhabitants of the earth. Only the earth is specified and is presented as many as five times as an independent subject, while the human beings stay in the shadow of the earth. A third indication is that the human strivings seem not to be directed vertically but rather horizontally: the human beings do not want to reach into heaven but to stay together on the earth in one place. The city and the tower are the representatives of this horizontal ambition. In part this is evident from the fact that the concluding verses of Gen. 11.1-9 give no attention at all to the tower or to the vertical. 11.8 says that the people 'ceased their building of the city'; the tower is not even mentioned any more. In 11.9, too, all attention is focused on the city and the name Babel, and there is no mention of the tower. A fourth indication is the lack of sin. Christian exegesis often supposes that the people are punished for the sin of building the tower by their dispersion over the entire earth. But in Genesis 11 the dispersion is not presented as a punishment. Differentiation, from the point of view of the earth, is not a punishment for sins committed, but a necessity.32 It is as if the obstacle to dispersion, the single language, is removed because God now sees the consequences for the earth that the action of the people will have: the dispersion of the people is entirely in line with the earth's interests. In fact, God is promoting a vital element that belongs to creation ('be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'), but here not from a human perspective but from the point of view of the earth. God asserts here the rights of the earth. Conclusion Primaeval history is often read as a description of the earliest history of humankind, but Genesis 1-11 is less human-centred than is presupposed. Its main theme is the creation of heaven and earth, and the 32. See also recent studies of B.W. Anderson, 'Unity and Diversity in God's Creation: A Study of the Babel Story', CurTM 5 (1978), pp. 69-81; Kikawada, The Shape of Genesis 1-11', p. 32; Turner, Announcements, pp. 30-33.

46

The World of Genesis

network of relationships between the creatures in the created universe. In this network humankind is only one factor, an important factor indeed. But the story of creation and the story of paradise, flood and dispersion show that God does not necessarily share the human perspective, but also, and perhaps more often, the perspective of the earth. The earth cannot be restricted to an environment that human beings have to live in; it is not only a product of human beings, not only another word for the human world, but has its own rights. This implies that one cannot restrict the earth's perspective to the human one. Probably this can be made clear by a comparison with feminism. Once feminism had made clear that women are subjects on their own, with their own points of view and perspective, it could no longer be accepted that women's being as a subject has to be restricted to the space or responsibilities given to them by male human beings. It is the same point I want to stress here with regard to the earth. The earth cannot be restricted to the 'human environment'. Being in a relationship with the earth does not mean that the human beings determine that what suits them is the best for the earth. Genesis 1-11 states not only thematically, but also expressis verbis, that the earth has its own face. The term 'the face of the earth' occurs 14 times: six times with pKH (1.29; 7.3; 8.9; 11.4, 8, 9) and eight times with naiNn (2.6; 4.14; 6.1, 7; 7.4, 23; 8.8, 13).33 The earth has not only a face, but once a mouth as well (4.11), where the earth opens its mouth to take the blood from the murdered brother. These are visible signs of the earth's being described as a subject. But the main point is that God is in Genesis 1-11 not only presented as the divine being who shares the human perspective, but is acting on behalf of the earth: he shares from time to time the earth's perspective. This earthly perspective is sometimes cooperative with that of the human beings, but other times opposite to that of the human beings. This is made clear in the story of the flood and in the story of dispersion. In the first case the human desire is negative, because their longing for evil and destruction is opposite to the earth's interests, and God shares the view of the latter. In Gen. 11.1-9, however, the human desire is positive, that is, even in our modern evaluation we are inclined to consider it as good that the human beings are striving to be social and commu33. With reference to the f~)Sn it is always the face of the entire earth that is mentioned (flKH'^D ""ET^S);; with reference to the nmtfn twice 'the face of the earth' and six times 'over the face of the earth' (noiNn "3a~^) is used.

VAN WOLDE Facing the Earth

47

nicative, that they want to be one and united; there is nothing wrong with that, from the human point of view. Nevertheless it turns out to have negative consequences for the earth and God acknowledges here the earth as a subject in its own right. In Genesis 1-11 God is presented as the divine being acting on behalf of the earth and the entire creation, and not only as the defender of the human subject. After a period when the part of humankind in the primaeval history has been overstressed, it is time for readers of Genesis 1-11 to re-balance, and finally face the earth.

This page intentionally left blank

Part II THE WOMEN'S STORY

POSTMODERNIZING EVE AND ADAM (CAN I HAVE MY APRICOT AS WELL AS EATING IT?) John Goldingay

I

Imagine Eve reflecting on the implausibility of the account of their origins which Adam has given her. Adam told me, she says to herself, that God proscribed the goodand-bad-knowledge tree, yet knowledge of good and bad will be an unequivocally proper thing every time it appears in the Hebrew Bible, so how could that be right?1 It sounds more the kind of prohibition that an enemy of God would make. And what am I to make of Adam's claim that God said we would die when we ate of the tree? After all, a knowledgeable fellow-creature spilled the beans about the tree: we would not die if we ate from it. We would become like God. Which is what God had intended, and is what God said happened when we did eat from the tree. And when we did eat, we did not die in any sense which it is reasonable to attribute to the straightforward Hebrew word for 'die'.2 Adam is 900 years old next week, and still very much alive. 1. A priest needs to be able to classify the gifts people offer as good or bad (Lev. 27.12, 14). The Israelite spies are to determine whether the land is good or bad (Num. 13.19). Adults are people who know good and bad as children do not (Deut. 1.39; Isa. 7.15-16). The covenantal community is to perceive the difference between life and what is good, death and what is bad, so that it can choose the former (Deut. 30.15; cf. Amos 5.14-15). David has the capacity of the angel of God to discern good and bad (2 Sam. 14.17). Solomon prays for the same discernment, and Yahweh is pleased and grants it, though we also might be tempted to suspect an irony there (1 Kgs 3.9). 2. In a recent systematic consideration of the question, 'Did the Serpent Get it Right?' (JTS NS 39 [1988], pp. 1-27), R.W.L. Moberly answers, 'No, the serpent did not'. Dr Moberly's key claim is that 'dying' is here a metaphor applying to the quality of human life (see p. 16). But his parallels (Deut. 30.15, 19; Prov. 5.5-6, 20-23;

GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam

51

Indeed, Adam told me that our mortality would come from lack of access to a different tree, though he needed to attribute to God what sounded a rather sad resentment in arranging this: 'O dear, they've become as clever as us, we'd better take action to stop them becoming as eternal as us'. So Adam's version of what God said to him is quite implausible, which has had me for centuries wondering why Adam said it or why God said it. It would be easy to imagine why it might have been invented by someone who wanted to subvert belief in the kind of blessing God whom Adam and I knew. But if God said that, or was willing for Adam to tell me that God said it, what was going on? Was it a test, the kind of action that fitted the nature of the God who will give Abraham and Sarah a son and then tell Abraham to kill him, the God who will allow another enigmatic character to have Job's family killed to see how Job will react? Such stories resonate with an important feature of life and of God that Adam and I know about, that people's experience has its moments of impossible demand, unbearable loss, or senseless accident (or, in some ways worse, its moments of devastating and irretrievable mistake). That may be uncomfortable enough with regard to life east of Eden (or it may not: I am glad our Scriptures will look such terrors in the face, because I would rather have their God who does strange things but is clearly in control than Christianity's God who will be very nice but not very efficient). Adam's account of the way things began makes matters worse by declaring that this is how things were within the Garden itself. Not only was there work there to spoil paradise; there were theological enigmas. There was a God who made prohibitions that seemed not to be ultimately intended, threats that were not to be kept, and economies with the truth regarding where disobedience would lead. God's dark side as we experience it east of Eden provokes dark thoughts about God within Eden: does God's being willing for Adam to tell the story this way mean God was saying, 'Yes, do think these dark thoughts about me'? To put all that a slightly different way, I wondered whether God might have been saying things that we were expected not to accept. After all, teachers succeed not by giving their pupils all the answers on a plate (or a fruit tree) but by making them think things out for themselves. Teachers ask questions, wonder out loud, tell jokes, exaggerate, 7.21-27) fail to justify this understanding (see Deut. 30.18 and the actual content of the Proverbs passages).

52

The World of Genesis

speak ironically. They use these very serious forms of speech to seek to be provocative and to encourage people to think. They assume that they may be most effective when they are not merely providing answers but stimulating questions. Does God tell stories, seek to provoke, say things that are only half-meant, speak ironically, rejoice to be a little paradoxical and not obviously coherent because people learn better if they figure things out for themselves, provide people with variegated, even contradictory, resources and free them to get on with discerning the truth? Might God's words to Adam have been designed for Adam to question, designed to jolt the two of us into thinking out what God was really like, because God is clearly not like this? God is not the sort of person who prohibits access to a key resource, who wants to keep us like children rather than like adults, who asks for obedience without thought to commands without reason, or who keeps special gifts such as good-and-bad-knowledge for people such as kings and denies them to ordinary people. God is not the sort of person who has to try out patently unworkable ideas before arriving at a sensible one, who says one thing and does another, or who regards scrumping (stealing fruit from someone's garden) as mortal sin. So God speaks as if inclined to behave in all those ways, to jolt us into seeing this. To put it positively, turned upside down God's words (and our experience of God) suggest that God planned the world as a place for people to grow to adulthood and responsibility, and provided every opportunity for them to do that, but people prefer childhood and dependence. God designed humanity from the beginning as male and female, so that only when the world has both does it have humanity complete and God imaged, this being all part of a carefully thought-out creative project. When human beings fail to behave like adults, God does not then intervene with a bolt of lightning. God continues to treat people as adults, leaving them with the consequences of their decisions. God is really rather relaxed about humanity's un-wisdom, as long as we do not start hurting each other. God is a person in whom word and deed are one; there is no inconsistency between the two. God is not into Thou shalt not'. All that is the opposite to the surface meaning of God's words to Adam, and of how things turned out. So was Adam having me on (for some positive reason)? Was God having Adam on? Am I having you on? Or did Adam mean it, but is he an unreliable narrator, a bit like Forrest Gump—honest, but limited

GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam

53

in what he saw? Was the experience of an apparent fall downwards designed to make us believe in a fall upwards? There was surely a sense in which we were not in an ideal state in the Garden. We needed to grow up. I wondered that all the more when God later told us the broader story of the creation of the world—the week's work it took to bring everything into being. That story gave us a very different picture from the one Adam gave me. It was a picture of a God who is very organized, with whom word and deed are one, and who always speaks positively. Its humanity is designed to image God and to rule the world for God, and men and women are created together to do this standing side-by-side. The picture ends with a job well done, God enjoying a sabbath's relaxation, and everyone living happily ever after. It's a nicer picture, but of course the trouble is that my experience seems to say, Just a minute. When I look at creation and at the way things work out in the world and at men and women, it seems much more random than that, much more serendipity, much less neat, with God and life much more ambiguous and mysterious, much more like Adam's story. In particular, God seemed hopelessly romantic about the relationship between men and women. Even at its best, it is a relationship born in blood and mystery, and (worse) a relationship based on the need of one party for the other, a relationship that issues in jealousy and one in which the needy party is the physically stronger party, and that is a recipe for trouble. Here are these two creatures who are different from each other and are drawn into a relationship that has built into it the inevitability of misunderstanding. And our experience with the snake and with God afterwards certainly seems to deconstruct the idea that sabbath rest brings the story to a neat end. Not that I think that that had really got much to do with the 'fall' and the invention of sin. It was those two first sons of ours, whose mothering brought such grief and pain to me, as God said they would, who first heard the words 'fall' and 'sin'. Indeed, along with God's story about creation, their story about sin forms a significant bracket around our story about Eden. The other two stories offer contexts of interpretation for our story. You mustn't read ours in isolation from those— or read them in isolation from ours. Each of the three puts questions to the other two and puts questions to the way people are inclined to hear the other two. It's Cain's and Abel's story (I grieve again every time I utter their names) that offers a more straightforward account

54

The World of Genesis

of the nature of Yahweh, the God who wants people to understand, not to remain in ignorance, challenges them to take responsibility for their destiny, and is concerned about matters such as violence rather than scrumping. It is when worship leads to resentment, assault and death that we are in the realms of sin and fall, but that is too uncomfortable, so when people listen to the story, they evade it. Whereas God wanted audiences to learn from all three stories—especially where they are in tension with each other. Well now, when Eve told me her story, it went on to give me the woman's angle on a number of other aspects of what happened in Eden, but at the time she wasn't thinking in terms of a short paper at the Society for Old Testament Study, so we will have to leave her there,3 except for the close of it, because we need that to explain my title. Putting together a feminist and a rabbinic observation about the story,4 she asks, when I was having my tutorial with the snake and partaking of some refreshment, What was Adam doing? Why wasn't he protecting me? He was there all the time, as you will see if you read the story, but he says nothing, and in his version of the story he doesn't tell you what he was doing. I will now tell you. He was asleep. You know what men are like afterwards. But a woman wants to talk, afterwards. And I was thirsty. So I just fancied an apricot or two. 'Apricot?', you ask. Well, there were no apples about in the Middle East then. Nor were there any jaffas in Jaffa yet. The favourite fruit of lovers is in Hebrew tappuachh (Song 2.3, 5; 7.8 [9]; 8.5). People long thought this was the apple, and I guess that was how they came to introm were most duce the apple tree into the Garden of Eden. But tappuchim likely apricots, a much more refreshing fruit, gold 'n' gay (see Prov. 25.11). So that's one reason why I was a pushover for the snake after Adam had lapsed into unconsciousness. I had to talk to somebody, and my throat was as dry as a bone. Well, you may or not believe all that. You may decide that I am an unreliable narrator. As I said, there are lots of ways in which the more I think about what happened, and what I myself remember of it, and what I had to rely on Adam for—the more I puzzle over it, the more 3. This essay originated as a paper to the Society for Old Testament Study. ( 4. For which see P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978; London: SCM Press, 1991); P. Morris and D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden (JSOTSup, 136; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam

55

puzzled I get. The story is ambiguous at lots of points, but it does not seem to be a disaster if I do not solve all these problems. I am helped by thinking about them even when I do not reach definitive answers. The story still functions to shape me as someone who belongs to God, even (especially) when it is ambiguous or puzzling. II

That reading of Genesis 2-3 was not devised as a postmodern one, but I realized that it is. First, it is playful rather than solemn. This is not to say it is not serious. Indeed, it is much more serious than many solemn but trivial studies of aspects of the text or attempts to access earlier stages of its history. It is concerned to set up a serious dialogue between our world and the Bible's world. There may be a number of reasons why interpretation becomes playful. One that interests me is that we sometimes joke when under pressure, when pain is not far away. Interpretation is a risky business if you take your texts seriously. It involves hazarding precious convictions about what this text means, and in the case of postmodernist interpretation about whether it means. It involves the possibility of discovering that it means something I wish it did not mean. Secondly, it is open, not closed. I leave open the answers to questions such as why God tells Adam not to eat of the tree. Postmodernism discourages the assumption that there is such a thing as the sense, the meaning, of any story; stories (and anything else) are indeterminate, by the nature of being texts, but this hardly implies that anything can mean anything. In this particular case, I leave the answers to certain questions open because the text itself does. Closed texts and closed readings present a ready-made meal to the reader, like lectures that tell people the questions and the answers. Open texts and open readings present the reader with the ingredients for several possible meals which the reader might cook (though not any possible meal), like a lecture at which the hearers have to work and from which they therefore likely learn. They involve the audience in the communication process, and make it a more effective one. Postmodernism is more interested in process or performance than in finished work. In connection with that interest in process, there is a message in the medium. Among other things, Genesis 2-3 handles some of the grim enigmas of being human—why is God such a mystery, why is life so

56

The World of Genesis

Kafkaesque, why are relationships so painful? If we are to learn how to handle life in such aspects, it will not solely be by a text giving us straight answers to these unanswerable questions, but by its helping us to live with them, to live with mystery, uncertainty, and an absence of answers. It is the openness of the text that makes that possible.5 Postmodernism rejoices in the participation that this openness facilitates, which is hindered by the contrary virtue of distance, and it encourages the concern with sense rather than reference that it implies. Thirdly, my reading deconstructs Genesis 1-4 rather than seeing it as one whole. It does this not in the source-critical sense, though it is an interesting fact that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 and perhaps Genesis 4 are likely of different historical origin. It does it in a more substantial sense, seeing the three as point-by-point offering different visions of creation, God, and humanity, in different ways in sharp tension with each other, yet none of them dispensable, none of them exclusively true, or false except if taken as the whole truth, each bringing out into the open the truth that another denies, and all capable of stimulating thought. They deconstruct each other. And as Brian Keenan put it in a television interview, once Humpty Dumpty has been broken you cannot put him back together again because there are too many pieces now. Deconstruction enables us to see more of how Genesis 1-4 as a whole has rich and varied things to say, of the kind that implicitly acknowledge and invite us to come to terms with the complexity of reality and the inappropriateness of simple views on God and life; but interpreters tend to simplify these down. So deconstruction aids the reading of the text. Historically and rhetorically, Genesis 1 'enfolds' Genesis 2-3, incorporates it in a smothering embrace and attempts to prevent our reading it on its own.6 But it fails. By allowing chs. 2-3 to follow, it allows itself to be deconstructed by them, though it cunningly also puts or leaves Genesis 4 after them so that this chapter in turn deconstructs chs. 2-3 and our interpretation of them (as having to do with sin and fall) by means of its more straightforward account of the nature of Yahweh. But I fall into the trap of looking for design and intention in the text; to be postmodern is to accept chance and to deal 5. Cf. R.M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 224-25. 6. See Fowler's comments on Matthew and Luke in relation to Mark, Let the Reader Understand, p. 62.

GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam

57

with actual text rather than hypothetical intention. And as I have implied, I do not suggest that Genesis 4 provides the 'answer', has the real authority; postmodernism believes in anarchy rather than hierarchy. Fourthly, this is a reading of Genesis that could not have been offered before the last few decades. Offering new interpretations of old texts may suggest the assumption that everyone misunderstood them for two or three millennia until the 1990s when their truly modern meaning could emerge. If we are supposed to learn from Genesis the lessons I have been suggesting, can we really believe that the author (human or divine) not only failed for millennia to get the point home but instead succeeded in providing people with a text capable of being heard with the opposite meaning? In itself that seems entirely believable. It would be all of a piece with the general failure of God's creative project as the Bible pictures it and with God's success only in providing humanity with opportunities and resources to misuse. On the other hand, it may not be exactly a question of continuing misinterpretation. Adam and Eve have always been understood in the light of interpreters' questions and by the methods of the interpreters' day, whether (within the Christian tradition) it was Paul or Augustine or Calvin or Scopes or von Rad or Brueggemann. The nature of a story is to leave certain things said but certain things unsaid, and to leave its hearers constraints (the story cannot mean anything) and also scope for imagination. Fifthly, and most obviously with all our work on texts such as Genesis 1-4, this is a reading that presupposes that the stories are imaginative tales rather than historical accounts. That presupposition continues to be opposed, and I imagine always will be. Many conservative believers reckon it essential that the text has the external referents that they believe it 'obviously' claims to have. A fundamental facet of postmodernism is a doubt whether any statements are as safe as that. It is this conviction that makes postmodernism post-modern, for central to modernism are the convictions that there is objective reality and that reason, objective, critical scientific method, can access it. The second proposition, at least, has become questionable. The point is made with particular clarity by Francis Watson in an anti-postmodern book, Text, Church, and World,17 which declares that the historical-critical emperor has no clothes. Historical-critical study by its nature generates only

7.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995; see p. 58.

58

The World of Genesis

perpetual indecision about the questions it seeks to handle. We talk about progress but the impression of progress is an illusion. Modern study of Scripture has entrusted the task of interpretation to our reason. In its own nature Scripture is as concerned with the imagination and the will and it is people who bring their imaginations and wills to it who are most likely to indulge in productive dialogue with it. One of the most significant developments in the study of Scripture in my scholarly lifetime has been the renewing of Ignatian meditation, a study of Scripture that unconsciously goes back behind Hans Frei. It invites people to envision Scripture when they read it, to enlist all the senses in living the scene, in the conviction that the senses are not a hindrance to understanding but an aid to understanding. And then it invites them to put their imagination into the service of discerning a course of action in the world, a critical, historical course of action. There is fantasy involved, but fantasy in the service of participation in the actual story so that finding oneself there can issue in change.8 If my reading is in such ways a postmodern one, can I have my apricot and eat it? Can I play the postmodern game and then return to the seminary unsullied? If I were a hard postmodernist, I would be committed to the view that there is no truth, that texts cannot refer to some reality such as God even if there were such a reality. I am not sure whether anyone is a rock-hard postmodernist. The Observer reviewer and literary critic Valentine Cunningham has produced a swashbuckling tour deforcee on 'postmodernity, texts, and history', entitled 'In the Reading Gaol' (the title is to be pronounced both 'redding', as in the town name, and 'reeding'). He summarizes as the argument of the book that the 'amalgamation of word and world is the condition... of all writing'.9 A systematic reading of the Old Testament in particular as exclusively self-referring or as exclusively a story about language is a metaphorical reading. Every generation of scholarship is tempted to the view that its critical framework or hermeneutical method is (at last) the right one to unlock the secrets of its subject, nay to give access to the riddle about the meaning of life. One might expect postmodernism to be the one 8. See R.J. Egan, 'Jesus in the Heart's Imagination', in Ignatian Prayer (The Way Supplement, 82 [1995]), pp. 62-72. 9. In the Reading Gaol: Postmodernity, Texts, and History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994), p. 10. He instances the way Charles Dickens's Hard Times does connect with the real world of nineteenth-century England (p. 129).

GOLDINGAY Postmodernizing Eve and Adam

59

exception to this rule, but like liberalism in general, it is tempted to resist the application of its own principle to itself. Yet in order to be true to itself it must not turn the conviction that there is no metanarrative into the sole metanarrative. I do not see how a hard postmodernist can indulge in conversation. But we discover how useful is any approach to interpretation by suspending disbelief and seeking to go the whole distance with it, because that is the way to discover what we can learn through it. We can only discover its boundaries by transgressing them (we are back to a metaphorical reading of Genesis 2-3 as a story about language). But at the end of the game of chess in which we may risk not only pawns but even rooks or a queen for the sake of a successful outcome, after every game of interpretation all the pieces come back onto the board for future games.10 As a result of my suspending belief and/or disbelief, it may be that what I learn will explode the worldview with which I came to the project; that is a common enough experience in biblical studies. Or perhaps it may modify it. If postmodernism has not so far destroyed my conviction that God is there and that language can have meaning (but of course I could not go back to the seminary if it did, so perhaps I cannot let it), reading Genesis 2-3 postmodernly has changed my convictions about the ways in which the Bible may be expected to speak and the ways in which God may be expected to speak. Or rather, it is not postmodern theory that has done that, but the biblical text when I was able to take it more seriously, more literally, with the help of postmodern technique. I now see that the God who was happy to have Genesis in the holy book acts like a teacher who offers pupils a varied selection of reading material and invites them to make sense of reality in the light of the selection. The teacher has not affirmed any of it in isolation, except in the sense of implying that it has the capacity to lead people on. If Genesis 2-3 is rather ambiguous in its response to questions to which we would like some straight answers, this is because God believed we might be helped by its being like that. As a learner I discover what I think only by saying it; and as a teacher I may be more effective in the figments of imagination that I share than in the familiar truths that I repeat. This paper may even be an example.

10. I adapt a metaphor from R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1973), p. 44.

HAGAR: A WOMAN WITH AN ATTITUDE* Nina Rulon-Miller

The Hebrew term describing Hagar's attitude toward Sarah is qalal, 'to be slight' [sic] or 'tocurse'. Yet Hagar's actions were self-defeating. They led to harsh treatment by her mistress and apparently infected Ishmael with her attitude. Revell Bible Dictionary Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. Genesis 16.11

The story of Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid, is a story for our time. Hagar is a homeless woman, an abused woman, and a surrogate mother; her story is the primeval Handmaid's Tale.2 In the Bible, Hagar's story ends twice: once in Genesis 21 and again in Galatians 4 with 'Paul',3

* My epigraph is from the Revell Bible Dictionary (1990: 460). Biblical citations are from the King James Version (KJV) unless otherwise specified. I have also used the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) (1985), the New Jewish Version (NJV) (1988), the Revised Standard Version (RSV) (1973), the Revised English Bible (REB) (1989), and the New International Version (NTV) (1984). 1. Sarah and Abraham are called 'Sarai' and 'Abram' until Gen. 17, when Yahweh changes their names. I use their new names throughout this essay. 2. M. Atwood'schilling novel, The Handmaid's Tale (1986), opens with an epigraph from Gen. 30.1-3: 'And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel. .. said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. . . And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.' 3. I use 'Paul' because, although traditional scholarship considers seven of the fourteen 'Pauline' letters authentic (see Goulder 1987: 479), biblical scholars are now arguing that much of this material was written long after the historical Paul. See, for instance, Doughty (1995), a study of Phil. 3 that argues the deutero-Pauline character of this letter. However, my interest is in the legacy 'Paul' has left us.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

61

whose reading of it is 'infected' with an 'attitude'4 that prevails in the popular reception of her story today. It is sadly ironic that Hagar, who rises from abused and exiled slave to defiant and independent woman in Genesis, will be exiled once again to ignominy and erasure in Galatians. According to Yahweh, Hagar's son Ishmael, the child of her surrogate motherhood for Abraham and Sarah, was to grow into a 'wild ass of a man' (Gen. 16.12 NJV). According to the New Jerusalem Bible, 'Ishmael's descendants are Arabs of the desert who are as intractable and vagrant as these wild creatures [asses]' (my emphases).5 And, according to most people who remember Hagar's story at all, Hagar's son Ishmael 'persecuted' his half-brother Isaac, thus bringing about Sarah's wrath and Hagar's and Ishmael's banishment to the wilderness. For many readers of the Bible, this event founds the primeval and continuing enmity between the Arabs and the Jews. Indeed, the Bible seems to encourage such an interpretation as it continues to Paul's Galatians, where the popular legend of Ishmael's tormenting Isaac appears to have originated6: 'If Ishmael hadn't persecuted Isaac, we wouldn't be at war', one of my acquaintances asserted during the war in the Persian Gulf. This essay is a feminist reading of Hagar's story in Genesis 16 and 21 and the stories of Yahweh, Sarah and Abraham, which intertwine and profoundly influence hers. In the discussion below, I will explore 4. I borrow these words from the Revell Bible Dictionaryy (1990: 460), quoted in the epigraph above. 5. NJB (1985: 35 n. 16e). I find it astounding that the New Jerusalem Bible uses the present tense to describe the 'intractable and vagrant' 'Arabs of the desert'. 6. 'But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so is it now' (Gal. 4.29). H.D. Betz (1979: 249-50 [250 n. 116]) notes that 'The tradition that Ishmael "persecuted". .. Isaac is not found in the Old Testament [sic]'. However, 'we find traces of it in Jewish haggadah, where Gen. 21.9 ("he jested, played, teased [metzahek}"} was interpreted in a hostile way'. As K. von Kellenbach (1994: 123) points out, the use of the term 'Old Testament' portrays Judaism 'as a quaint ancestor of the church. Judaism is rendered invisible and disappears from Christian discourse. As Christianity's foundation [as a 'prologue' to the 'New Testament'] it can alternately be claimed or rejected, redeemed or denounced, appropriated or repudiated.' I agree with von Kellenbach and, therefore, when I refer to such discourse in this essay, I use quotation marks around 'New Testament' and 'Old Testament' and mark each citation of the words 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' with sic.

62

The World of Genesis

the theme of 'sexual excess' (Revell 1990: 100) in Genesis 12-21 and Galatians 5 and the conflicted masculine response to female sexuality shared by Yahweh and Abraham, their biblical narrator(s),7 and, later, Paul, a response that is the inevitable corollary of male homosocial bonding. 8 1 will argue that Hagar represents for them all both the lost Eden of Egypt and the danger of its seductive allure. My reading of the story of Hagar is deeply indebted to Mieke Bal (1987, 1988a, 1988b), whose brilliant analyses of stories in the Hebrew Bible and exhilarating recovery of the often apparently marginal female characters in these tales have been an inspiration.9 My reading of Yahweh the literary character is similar to Harold Bloom's, who finds him a comic figure, 'an imp' and 'an embarrassment' to J's Hellenistic revisionists, who sought to 'dehumaniz[e] divinity', to 'allegoriz[e] away a Yahweh who walked and who argued, who ate and who rested, who possessed arms and hands, face and legs' (1990: 15, 24). Bloom's Yahweh is 'outrageous', 'scandalous', 'wayward and uncanny', and 'alltoo-human, even childlike... ' (1990: 199, 12, 26). I, too, find Yahweh childlike, and all-too-human, prone to temper tantrums, indecision, vanity, jealousy. His great dilemma seems to me to be an anguished indecision about which people he should choose for his 'inheritance' (Isa. 19.25). By the time we meet him, Yahweh has chosen the Israelites, but, like them, he cannot resist whoring after Egypt. Hagar is Egypt. She represents for Yahweh and the Israelites, and their narrators, 'the foreign land' that is 'a geographical correlative for. .. sheer female otherness' (Alter 1981: 52). In order to appreciate Hagar's story, we first need to investigate the significance of Egypt for the Israelites, Yahweh and the biblical narrators. 7. Biblical scholars identify several different writers in the Hebrew Bible (see, for instance, Friedman 1987). However, I have chosen to read the text as we have received it, as an integral book, compiled and edited by redactors, whose decisions and choices have given us the book 'the Bible' we have today. 8. For a discussion on male homosocial bonding, see Sedgwick 1985. 9. In her 'different' reading of the Bible, Bal examines 'what language and literature can do to a culture, specifically to its articulation of gender'. For Bal, 'the enhancing of difference [is] a means of deconstructing the dominance of malecenteredness in the reading of these highly influential texts. . . ' (see 1987: 1-4). My intent is to deconstruct these stories of patriarchy, to ask 'impertinent questions' that disrupt the 'dominance of male-centeredness' in the Bible. I borrow the term 'impertinent questions' from J. Gallop, who uses it to describe L. Irigaray's approach to Freud. See Gallop 1991: 426.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

63

In Genesis, and, indeed, throughout the Hebrew Bible, Egypt holds a special allure, both for the Israelites and for Yahweh. Although the Israelites often recall their years of enslavement in Egypt with dread, and the prophets predict that God will visit dire punishments on Egypt, Egypt is never completely rejected in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, the Israelites also often yearn for Egypt (e.g. Exod. 14.12; 16.3; 17.3), and Isaiah predicts that God will eventually reconcile himself with both Egypt and Assyria, along with Israel: 'The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance'" (Isa. 19.25 NIV). If we take Isaiah at his word,10 God would continue to agonize over his choice of the Israelites 1,000 years after his primaeval communing with Abraham. But, 'Egypt my people'? Yahweh chose the Israelites for his people, not the Egyptians. 'Assyria my handiwork'! Assyria was a constant military threat to Israel. Furthermore, it represented everything Yahweh's chosen people were striving to reject: as the Revell Bible Dictionary reports, 'The Assyrians worshipped a variety of gods and goddesses. .. Texts suggest a heavy use of alcohol, naming a great variety of beers and wines. .. Prostitution flourished, and sex was practised openly in the streets and parks, as well as in the privacy of established brothels... ' (1990: 103).n The message in the Hebrew Bible is that, rather than Assyria, Yahweh's 'handiwork' is the Law and his people living under the Law. Surely, God's handiwork was not to include drunkenness, prostitution, or sex in the streets, all anathemas for 'Israel's strict sexual morals' (Fokkelman 1987a: 41) and stringent standards of right 10. And I do take Isaiah at his word. I read the Bible as an integral book, cover to cover, with a beginning and an end, accepting its 'history' literally and taking each character and narrator at his or her word, yet always asking 'impertinent questions'. 11. Since some of my readers have questioned my use of this unscholarly text, an explanation seems in order. I have deliberately used the Revell Bible Dictionary because I wish to confront and critique its reception of the Bible, for instance, its typological reading of the 'Old Testament'; its troubling, and sometimes dangerous, advice (e.g. after censuring Hagar's 'attitude', the editors, quoting Peter, advise readers that it is better to 'Do good and bear up under the pain of unjust suffering' [p. 460]); and its distaste for human sexuality (see, e.g., pp. 492-93, where the editors, invoking Paul, assure homosexuals that they may hope for a'cure' for their 'perversion' through 'repentan[ce]'). Nonetheless, I am indebted to the editors of Revell for inspiring my title and for alerting me to the theme of 'sexual excess' in Genesis. Whenever I have used Revell to report factual or historical material, I have checked for accuracy in more scholarly Bible dictionaries.

64

The World of Genesis

behavior. As J.P. Fokkelman observes, '[T]he world from which Israelite belief wished to disassociate itself [was] a world characterized by natural religion, fertility rites, cyclic thinking, and sacred prostitution; a world in which the idea of creation as the product of divine intercourse was a commonplace' (1987a: 41). However, the Israelites experienced great difficulty disassociating themselves from this world. According to the Revell Bible Dictionary, they suffered from a chronic 'fatal attraction' to the Canaanite gods and goddesses, especially the 'highly sexed' Baal and Asherah, god and goddess of fertility, whose worship 'involved sexual excesses intended to stimulate rain and quicken the ability of people and animals to reproduce' (1990: 117, 100). Indeed, as Fokkelman reminds us, 'the overriding concern of the entire' Hebrew Bible is toledot, or 'begetting': '[T]he lives of the protagonists Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph are presented within the framework of the begettings of their fathers' (1987b: 41). This excessive begetting is a 'sexual excess', or an excessive sexuality, conjured again and again by Yahweh in his obsessive foretelling of the awesome multiplication of seed he will provide for his favored ones. Both Abraham and Hagar are told more than once that their seed will multiply 'exceedingly'. Yahweh promises Abraham that he 'will make [him] exceedingly fruitful' (Gen. 17.6), 'like the dust of the earth' (Gen. 13.16), like the 'stars in the sky' (Gen. 15.5). 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly', Yahweh tells Hagar. He 'will greatly increase [her] offspring. And they shall be too many to count' (Gen. 16.10). As for Hagar's son Ishmael, Yahweh 'will make him... fruitful and multiply him exceedingly' (Gen. 17.20). I would suggest that this 'sexual excess' is a remnant from the world of Baal and Asherah, so recently and, it seems, only partially, discarded by Abraham and his 'seed'. As the Bible reports, Terah and Abraham had 'served other gods' (Josh. 24.2), the fertility gods of both their home of origin in Sumerian Ur and of Haran, where they lived until Terah's death and Yahweh's call to Abraham to follow him and monotheism (Gen. 12.1).12

12. Haran, where Abraham and his father settled after they left Ur, was 'an important center for the worship of the moon god Sin. .. Ur, an important urban center in Sumerian times, was the center of worship of the moon god in Southern Mesopotamia' (Harper's Bible Dictionary 1985: 373). Genesis reports Abraham's birthplace in two different locations, 'Ur of the Chaldees', in southern Mesopotamia, and 'AramNaharaim', in northwestern Mesopotamia

RULON-MILLER Hagar

65

Gerda Lerner observes that 'The cult of Asherah in Canaan. .. coexisted for centuries with the cult of Yahweh and... is frequently condemned in the Old Testament. . . ' (1986: 159). Lerner suggests that 'the extraordinary persistence of fertility and goddess cults' may indicate 'female resistance to the predominance of male god figures. There is as yet no hard evidence to prove this speculation, but it is difficult to explain the persistence of these female cults in any other way' (1986: 159). I would propose an additional explanation for the persistence of these cults: perhaps it was male 'resistance', male desire for and vulnerability to women, that prevented the total rejection of these sensual goddesses. But, for patriarchal monotheism to triumph, the powerful alluring female had to be subdued, if not rejected. One solution seems to have been to degrade her erotic allure, to transform her from sensual goddess to seductive whore. As Lerner has suggested, the Israelites' 'preoccupation with fighting the cult of Baal and Asherah. .. may explain... the pervasive use of woman-the-whore as a metaphor for the evils of sinning society' (1986: 177). The prophets later took up this theme, begun in Genesis, that 'equated the sinfulness of Israel with "whoring"', thus establishing the 'patriarchal sexual metaphors [that] became firmly embedded in religious thought' (Lerner 1986: 166). These metaphors repeatedly implicate Egypt in Israel's whoredoms. Ezekiel, for instance, bitterly condemns Israelite 'whoredom brought from the land of Egypt' (Ezek. 23.27) and lists the many punishments in store for Israel. God will tell Israel, 'I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure. .. I will even gather them round about against thee, and I will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness' (Ezek. 16.37). Hosea, too, speaks of the vengeance that will be visited upon Israel, the whore who 'came up out of the land of Egypt': 'Let her... put away her whoredoms. .. and her adulteries. .. Lest I strip her naked. .. and make her as a wilderness. .. ' (Hos. 2.15,2-3). Before she was taken to Canaan, Hagar may have worshipped the Egyptian goddess Isis, who, with her brother-husband Osiris, had much in common with the Canaanite goddess Anath and her brother-husband Baal (Teubal 1990: xxix), or perhaps she worshipped 'Hat-Hor, the great cow-goddess who was claimed by pharaohs to have suckled them' (Teubal 1990: 34). These Egyptian deities were a threat to Yahweh: just (Gen. 11.27-32). See Harper's Bible Dictionary (pp. 373, 1107) on the scholarly debate concerning the association of Haran with Ur of the Chaldees.

66

The World of Genesis

as he condemned the Canaanite gods, God proclaimed that he would bring judgment on 'all the gods of Egypt' (Exod. 12.12). Yet God's chosen people had prospered in Egypt: the Israelites' 400-year sojourn there allowed them to 'multiply exceedingly', from Joseph and his family to a population of two or three million, with 603,550 men over twenty (Num. 1.46). The Hebrew Bible relates several other positive experiences with Egypt for the Israelites. For instance, an Egyptian pharaoh gave Jeroboam sanctuary, and Solomon married a pharaoh's daughter. Indeed, as the editors of the NJB state in their 'Introduction to the Wisdom Books', The highest praise the Bible can give to Solomon is that his wisdom excelled the sons of the East and the wisdom of Egypt [1 Kings 4.30]' (NJB: 749). And, as we shall see, although their visit to Egypt brought great trouble to Canaan, Sarah and Abraham found both wealth and justice there. The narrator of Genesis 13 also reveals a yearning for Egypt when he relates the story of Abraham's and Lot's parting in Canaan. He tells us that, given the choice of where he'd like to live, Lot chose the land to the east, on 'the plain of Jordan'. The narrator reports that this land was 'well watered everywhere'; indeed, he says that it was 'even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt' (Gen. 13.10). Yet, in the same sentence, the narrator reminds us that this was also the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, which the 'Lord destroyed' soon after Lot's arrival (Gen. 19), thus evoking the biblical theme of Egypt as both an alluring paradise lost and a wicked and depraved land. Sarah and Abraham traveled to Egypt because there was 'a famine in the land' (Gen. 12.10), a phrase that foreshadows another Egyptian sojourn of mixed blessings when Joseph and his family arrived three generations later. Although Egypt was clearly a dangerous place for Sarah, who had to submit to her exchange to Pharaoh there, Abraham fared quite well on this sojourn. Indeed, Sharon Jeansonne suggests that Abraham's request to Sarah that she pose as his sister was the crux of a premeditated scheme on Abraham's part to acquire wealth, goods, and slaves from Pharaoh (1990: 7, 16).13 Whether he foresaw that 13. See Gen. 12.11-13: 'And it came to pass, when [Abraham] was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.'

RULON-MILLER Hagar

67

Pharaoh would indignantly return his 'sister' with atoning gifts, or merely hoped to share in the bounty Pharaoh would shower on a beautiful new wife, Abraham appears to have expected to prosper in Egypt. As it happened, Pharaoh was horrified when he discovered that Sarah was married to Abraham. His indignant lecture to Abraham suggests that Pharaoh, unlike Abraham, condemned adultery, and that he understood Abraham's God better than Abraham himself.14 Indeed, Egypt is depicted as far more upright than Israel in these passages. Pharaoh shames and accuses the silent Abraham: What is this that thou hast done unto me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had (Gen. 12.18-20).15

Whom should a righteous Yahweh prefer, the virtuous Pharaoh or the shamed schemer Abraham? Yet, God remains with Abraham, and, fourteen verses later, he will visit him again in Canaan to renew his promise of land and seed (Gen. 13.14). Abraham left Egypt in a hurry, but he took with him 'all that he had': 'sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels' (Gen. 12.20, 16), an entourage that most likely included Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid. Hence, the mixed Egyptian blessings the Israelites' founding father brought back to Canaan: Hagar's arrival will mark the beginning of Abraham's favored seed's troubled relationship with the Arabic people, for, despite his near death in the desert in Genesis 21, Hagar's son Ishmael survived to 14. See also Jeansonne 1990: 5, 17. 15. See also Jeansonne 1990: 7. There is a lively controversy in biblical scholarship about whether or not Pharaoh and Sarah actually had sexual intercourse. In any event, it seems clear that Pharaoh understood Yahweh's plague-warning against adultery. The narrator reports in Gen. 12.15 that Sarah 'was taken into Pharaoh's house' after his 'princes. . . commended her before Pharaoh'. I suggest that the repeated use of the verb 'to take', including Pharaoh's command to Abraham that he 'take her' and go away, indicates at the least a certain preoccupation with the notion that Sarah was 'taken' in Pharaoh's house. Yet, Jeansonne points out that 'the more explicit "I went in unto her" is used in the Bible to indicate actual sexual intercourse, while "took her to me as a wife" is ambiguous' (1990: 7). Similar questions arise concerning Sarah's relationship with Abimelech when she is exchanged in Gerar. However, I would argue that the real questions are: Why does the writer choose to be ambiguous in these episodes? Is Sarah's sex life a taboo topic in the Bible?

68

The World of Genesis

multiply his seed to twelve Arabian tribes who were in continual conflict with their Israelite neighbors. Hagar's story is related in Genesis 16 and 21, enmeshed in those of Abraham and Sarah. We have already taken note of Abraham's entry into Genesis. Sarah is introduced in 11.29 along with Milcah: they are the wives of Terah's surviving sons, Abraham and Nahor. Milcah is given the usual biblical genealogy: we find that she was the daughter of Haran. However, no father is named here for Sarah, a striking omission. Robert Alter has taught us to be alert to deviations in type-scenes and formulaic repetitions in the Hebrew Bible.16 A question thus arises: Why does Sarah lack a genealogy? Its omission effectively thwarts all attempts to substantiate Abraham's sister-claims in Egypt and Gerar. 17 Is this a deliberate omission, designed to block impertinent questions about Abraham and Sarah? I suggest that there is a connection between Sarah's missing genealogy and the ambiguity enveloping the tale of her being taken in(to) Pharaoh's house as Abraham's sister. For Mieke Bal, textual problems that generate confusion, gaps and silences inevitably provide rich opportunities for interpretation. Yet she finds that traditional Bible criticism often commits 'reading fallacies' 'lead[ing] to a position that participates in the repression of women' (1987: 6). For example, in her critique of the story of Bathsheba in 1 Samuel, Bal writes of the motifs of male solidarity and concealment in this tale (1987: 29-30) and of the confusion that arises because of the many 'possible meanings' that can be gleaned from the story. Bal finds in this confusion a 'symptom' of 'a deep intuitive identification between. .. men', 'based on the common interest men have when facing 16. Alter (1981: 100, 102) mentions, for example, the effect 'when some sort of reversal of an initial impression is intended through the substitution, suppression, or addition of a single phrase, or through a strategic change in the order of repeated items'. Indeed, 'one must be alert even to the shift of a single word in what may at first seem a strictly formulaic pattern'. 17. Several commentators have striven to validate Abraham's claims, but there is nothing in Genesis to support them. For instance, Speiser (1964: 91-92) argues for the validity of Abraham's sister-wife stories, but, like Jeansonne (1990: 119 n. 3), I am not convinced. Speiser bases part of his argument on the fact that Gen. 20.12 'describes [Sarah] indirectly as the daughter of Terah, but not by Abraham's own mother'. However, this is not reliable evidence since this 'description' was offered by Abraham, already under suspicion of lying about his 'sister'. See Jeansonne (1990: 122 nn. 34, 38) for a brief discussion on critical opinion regarding the sister-wife problem.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

69

women... the unconscious complex of the fear of women. .. [is a] confession, so shameful in itself [that it] needs, of course, to be firmly censored' (1987: 32-34). There is also considerable confusion embedded in Sarah's story. Indeed, concealment and repression seem to lurk within this tale, although here the concealers are not only the male characters, but also the narrators, and, until recently, the story's critics. As he introduces Sarah, the narrator announces, 'But Sarah was barren; she had no child' (Gen. 11.30). This is, of course, the worst thing that could happen to a woman in primaeval patriarchy, surely even more awful for the woman whose husband was to be the founding father of the chosen people. For instance, Sharon Jeansonne challenges this assumption when she suggests that the pregnant Hagar's disdain for Sarah arises from Hagar's triumph in proving that it is Sarah, rather than Abraham, who is sterile (1990: 35). However, feminist readers have recently questioned Sarah's barrenness. Mieke Bal has argued: It is commonly assumed that in the Bible barrenness is always blamed on the woman and that men are presupposed to be both potent and fertile. I question this assumption: [Sarah's laughter, indicating her subversive doubt in Gen. 18.12] is one case that leaves room for the marginal but persistent acknowledgment of the opposite view. Here, like elsewhere, I contend that the insistence on the one view—that barrenness is the woman's fault—addresses, and is an attempt to repress, the opposite possibility— that the men are impotent (1988: 266 n. 10).

However, most commentators accept the narrator's assertion that it is the 'barren' Sarah who is sterile. After all, this is her epithet in Genesis 11-16. But, as Meir Sternberg has remarked, 'the epithet is a ticking bomb, sure to explode into action in the narrator's (and God's) own good time' (1985: 339). Could the explosive in Sarah's epithet be the secret of Abraham's sexual dysfunction? Mieke Bal briefly discusses the story of Abraham and Sarah in Death and Dissymmetry. She notes that in situations in the Bible where a deity ' "closes the womb" of the woman. .. the husband is powerless and acknowledges this ([e.g.] Genesis 18:12; 30:2; I Samuel 1:8)' (1988: 73). Bal, characteristically, uses this 'opposition between the powerful deity and the powerless men' for some deconstructive word-play: 'Replacing the word "power" by its latinate synonym turns powerless husbands into impotent men, and the powerful deity into the potent father' (1988: 73). Calling this word-play 'a strategic and temporary move' (1988: 265 n. 7), Bal continues:

70

The World of Genesis There are passages where this joke becomes slightly more serious. In the case of Abram/Abraham, the formulation of Sarah's doubt holds an explicit sexual meaning that is as often considered as dismissed but that questions Abraham's potency quite clearly: 'After I am waxen old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old, too?' (1988: 73).

Bal concludes with an endnote: Those critics who painstakingly argue that 'ednah [pleasure] here means something other than sexual pleasure are in good company; the divine speaker of the next sentence also tries to forget this particular challenge of the man's potency' (1988: 265-66 n. 8).18 In the discussion below, I enthusiastically take up Bal's 'joke', and will demonstrate that her different, if playful, reading can effect more than a 'temporary move'. The absence of the husband in biblical annunciations can be interpreted as 'a sign of an unsuccessful sexual relationship between husband and wife' (Bal 1987: 41). Bal observes, 'Whether or not this omission [of the husband] may be considered a form of censorship, the nonsexual conception seems a problem to all recipients' (1987: 41). I would suggest that there is 'a sign of an unsuccessful sexual relationship between husband and wife' in Sarah's laugh. As she waited, properly subservient, in the tent, Sarah overheard Yahweh telling Abraham, 'Sarah thy wife shall have a son'. As we have seen, she then 'laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?' (Gen. 18.12).19 Sarah's laugh is intriguing, because it is 'within herself that she laughs, recalling Helene Cixous' laugh of the Medusa and Luce Irigaray's polymorphously erotic woman.20 Has Sarah been pleasuring herself during all those years with her impotent, or, perhaps, disinterested husband? Sharon Jeansonne suggests that Sarah's laugh is a sign of Abraham's abiding lack of desire for her: 'One possibility [for the meaning of the phrase "have pleasure"] is that Abraham never responds sexually to Sarah' (1990: 23). Jeansonne notes that 'By using the phrase "have 18. In this 'next sentence' Yahweh censures/censors Sarah as he substitutes her 'have pleasure' with 'bear a child': he asks, 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am too old? Is anything too hard for the Lord?' (my emphasis) (Gen. 18.13-14). 19. Although Abraham is visited by three 'men' in Gen. 18, most commentators agree that they represent Yahweh, and that, as the scene progresses, one of them actually is, or becomes, Yahweh himself. 20. See Cixous 1991 and Irigaray 1991.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

71

pleasure", instead of the more direct "have a child", the narrator is able to imply the several consequences of [Sarah's] experience' (1990: 24). But, as both Bal and Jeansonne observe, Yahweh immediately censors Sarah's statement. He sternly asks, 'Why did Sarah laugh, and say, "Shall I indeed have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too awesome for YHWH?' (Gen. 18.14) (my emphasis).21 Sarah's laugh 'within herself must have been silent, yet Yahweh hears her laugh, and censures/censors her for it, although neither he nor most critics find anything untoward in Abraham's laugh in the previous chapter. Indeed, in Genesis 17 Abraham presumably laughed out loud, and at the same news: 'Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?' (17.17). Why is Sarah censured, but not her husband?22 It seems to me that Sarah is caught between men here, as she is indeed caught within the confines of the tent. I would suggest a third interpretation of Sarah's laugh: incredulity. Her laugh may express her thought that it would be 'too awesome' even for Yahweh to cure Abraham's impotence or his life-long lack of desire for her. Does Sarah speak/laugh a shameful secret? Is that why Yahweh is so sharp with her? Mieke Bal notes that the 'motif of late conception with God's help is quite frequent in the Bible'. She finds two variants in this type-scene: 'the late conception of a previously sterile woman' and 'the (asexual? [sic]) conception by God, in the absence of a husband' (1987: 41). Abraham's annunciation scene in Genesis 17 introduces yet another variant. This announcement is made to the husband, not to the woman, unless it was intentionally transmitted to Sarah by hearsay as she dutifully remained in the tent. And, as we have seen, Abraham has heard this news before: Yahweh has already delivered it to him alone in Genesis 15 and 17. It seems clear that Abraham has not told Sarah about the earlier divine messages. Why not? Could it be that he does not, or cannot, respond to Sarah sexually, and does not want her pestering him for intercourse at this late date?23 Does Abraham try to put Yahweh off

21. Jeansonne's translation (1990: 23-24). 22. See Jeansonne (1990: 121 nn. 27-28) for a brief discussion of the critical discourse concerning Sarah's laugh, much of it appallingly sexist. 23. If Abraham was impotent or simply asexual in his younger days with Sarah, he seems to have recovered after her death when he married Keturah (Gen. 25.1-2).

72

The World of Genesis

when he asks, 'What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless?', and suggests as a substitute Eliezer, born in his house, and apparently his adopted heir (Gen. 15.2-3)?24In Gen. 17.18, Abraham again attempts to convince Yahweh to accept an alternate: Ishmael. Why does Abraham haggle with God about his progeny? Does he offer these substitute sons so that he can continue to avoid Sarah?25 As a woman in primeval patriarchy, Sarah's most important function is to bear a son. She is clearly desperate. So desperate that she decides to hand over her handmaid to Abraham, so that she 'may obtain children by her' (Gen. 16.2). Yet Sarah, who seems so shrewd and purposeful as she acts on her decision, apparently neglected to consider the consequences of such an exchange. Handing one's handmaid over to He had many children with Keturah, apparently without any assistance from Yahweh. Abraham also had several children with 'concubines' at this time (Gen. 25.6). 24. P. Calvocoressi mentions Eliezer in Who's Who in the Bible (1987: 7): until the birth of Isaac, Abraham had 'no legitimate heir, although he had a son Eliezer bora of a slave'. According to Jeansonne (1990: 34), Eliezer was Abraham's adopted son. 25. In her discussion of the reception of the story of Boaz, another elderly and heirless man, Mieke Bal observes that 'works of art conceived after this source text give a more interesting account of possible readings' than traditional biblical criticism has offered (1987: 72). For instance, Victor Hugo, in 'Booz endormi' (a poem in Hugo's La legende des siecles, 1859), focuses on an often neglected detail in Ruth 3.10, where Boaz blesses Ruth for choosing him, rather than one of the younger men of the town. Hugo's poem 'stresses feelings that [Ruth 3.10] only touches upon: Boaz's fear of old age, of losing his sexual potency and attractiveness. . . ' Hugo's Boaz dreams of an 'enormous oak that. .. grows out of his belly, loaded with posterity' (Bal 1987: 71). In Bal's reading, Boaz's mighty oak recalls both 'the ladder also seen in a dream, by Jacob', and the Tree of (Sexual) Knowledge in the Garden of Eden: indeed, Boaz's tree is the Tree of Erection, and his dream is a dream of impotence anxiety (1987: 71, 85). Abraham, too, is associated with images of trees. The first time Yahweh appears to him to promise him land and seed, Abraham responds by building an altar at Moreh (Gen. 12.7). He builds another at Mamre after Yahweh's second promise of land and seed (Gen. 13.18). Both Moreh and Mamre are distinguished by their trees (Gen. 12.6, 18.8 RED). Could erecting these altars amid these trees be Abraham's acting out of his own impotence anxiety, or his lack of sexual knowledge? Is he wondering how he will ever be able to fulfil Yahweh's plans for him? After his negotiations with Abimelech over possession of the well at Beersheba, indeed, after the births of Ishmael and Isaac, Abraham plants a grove of trees (Gen. 21.33). Now that his seed has begun to multiply, does Abraham feel potent, potent enough to sow an entire forest?

RULON-MILLER Hagar

73

one's husband to acquire children was not uncommon in biblical days. Several texts have been discovered describing such events. For instance, the Code of Hammurabi mentions the possibility of a handmaid's subsequent 'infected attitude':26 'a priestess can elevate a slave woman to a wife of her husband, and, if the slave acts arrogantly, the priestess can demote her, but not sell her' (Jeansonne 1990: 120 n. 16). The existence of such rules suggests that the arrogant behavior of pregnant handmaids was not unusual. Yet, Sarai made her decision and apparently had little difficulty convincing Abraham to cooperate: he 'hearkened to the voice of Sarai' and 'went in unto Hagar' (Gen. 16.2, 4). Hagar seems to have conceived immediately, and, 'when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes' (Gen. 16.4). On a first reading it seems odd that Sarah blames Abraham for Hagar's attitude: Sarah accuses him with, 'My wrong be upon thee... the Lord judge between me and thee' (Gen. 16.5). Clearly, Sarah understood that it was Yahweh's will that she remain childless: she told Abraham, 'The Lord hath restrained me from bearing' (Gen. 16.2). Her plan to use Hagar as a surrogate mother subverted God's plan; surely it must have been Sarah who committed the 'wrong'. Furthermore, to her disgrace, already knowing the pain of exchange, Sarah made her handmaid undergo the same experience. Although we might be willing to grant Sarah's maneuver to the co-option of a woman in patriarchy, we still must wonder what she is complaining about. Sarah herself admits to Abraham, 'I myself put my maid in your bosom' (Gen. 16.5 NJV). However, as Jeansonne points out, the Hebrew word for 'wrong', hamasi, 'always has violent connotations. .. By the choice of this word, the narrator emphasizes the egregious wrong done to Sarah' (1990: 20). Furthermore, Sarah's phrase, 'The Lord judge between me and thee', 'is used of God to decide controversy, and it is important to note that the one who invokes it is normally judged by the narrator to be innocent' (Jeansonne 1990: 20). It seems, then, that it is Abraham who has done wrong. But what has he done? He has 'gone in unto' Hagar, the Hebrew phrase indicating unequivocal sexual intercourse.27 Had Sarah neglected to consider the consequences of this act? Is she bitter and jealous because Abraham does not 'go in unto' her? Was his sexual disinterest or impotence cured by Hagar? I would suggest that Abraham was able to become sexually aroused by Egypt if not by 26. See n. 4 above. 27. See n. 15 above.

74

The World of Genesis

Israel. As we have seen, whoring after Egypt is wonderfully arousing in the Bible.28 Let us return to J.P. Fokkelman's remarks concerning toledot and the residual belief in divine intercourse during the patriarchal age (1987b: 41) and to Mieke Bal's observation that 'the nonsexual conception seems a problem to all recipients' (1987: 41). Bal has also argued that such problems often offer opportunities for examining the insecurities of patriarchy (1987: 5). What can we do with this problem? The Bible explicitly states that Sarah's impregnation was accomplished by Yahweh, not Abraham: 'And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived... ' (Gen. 21.1-2). Yet, most commentators assume that Abraham was the natural father of Isaac; indeed, both Yahweh and Abraham appear to share this assumption, as their conversations before and after Isaac's near death by sacrifice attest (Gen. 22.2, 16). The narrator also seems to agree as he writes of this father and son (Gen. 22.3, 6, 13). Surely, all three are repressing the truth, both from us, and from each other. As Sarah well knows, it is Yahweh who 'closed her womb', an activity in which he indulges repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. Has he also prevented Sarah from experiencing sexual intercourse? Has this 'wayward and uncanny' god (Bloom 1990: 12) wanted to keep Sarah for himself all this time? As we have seen, it was not only the Israelites who had a 'fatal attraction' for 'sexual excess' (Revell 1990: 117, 100). I suggest that the 'all-too-human' Yahweh (Bloom 1990: 26), after considerable conflict over Hagar, and certain difficulties with his choice of Sarah, revealed in his last-minute rescues after allowing her exchange in Egypt and Gerar, chose Sarah for his matriarch and impregnated her himself to begin the multiplication of his seed and the guarantee of his 'inheritance' (Isa. 19.25). However, choosing between Hagar and Sarah, Egypt and Israel, was clearly difficult for Yahweh. As Phyllis Trible has observed, he appears to welcome and warm to Hagar in his initial transactions with her (after all, she is shiphca, a young and fertile virgin, no doubt most pleasing to this 'highly sexed' deity) thus raising her—and our—expectations for her prosperous future (see Trible 1984: 30 n. 9, 14-15). Yet, stage by stage, Yahweh distances himself from Hagar, leaving her in the end to wander in the wilderness, homeless with her child, her only 28. Seep. 64 above.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

75

consolation Yahweh's vow that Ishmael's seed will multiply and his hardly encouraging promise that the boy will grow to be a contentious and difficult man (Gen. 21.18; 16.12). Yahweh first reveals his ambivalence during Hagar's annunciation scene, a scene that is in many ways similar to Abraham's. For, although he at first appears to be an angel, Hagar too is visited by Yahweh.29 Indeed, his words to her are echoed, sometimes verbatim, in his next conversation with Abraham. And, like Abraham's, Hagar's annunciation differs from the model type-scene. The husband is surely absent, indeed, Hagar has no husband. Furthermore, Hagar is already pregnant: although Yahweh's angel announces, 'Behold thou art with child' (Gen. 16.11), this is hardly a revelation. She—and we—already know that she has conceived. Indeed, Hagar's experiences in Genesis evoke, although with a 'difference' (Bal 1987: 4), most, if not all, of Robert Alter's seven 'commonly repeated biblical type-scenes': an annunciation, an encounter with the future betrothed at a well, an epiphany in a field, an initiatory trial, danger in the desert, the discovery of a well, and the testimony of a dying hero (see Alter 1981: 51). As we have seen, Hagar's annunciation differs from the normative type-scene: she is already pregnant and is alone when she meets her divine visitor. Furthermore, although a well is involved in Yahweh's second visit to Hagar (Gen. 21.19), the well appears for the sustenance of Ishmael rather than as a sign of a future sexual liaison. Perhaps Yahweh chose to enact the well typescene with Hagar as he continued to wrestle with his difficult choice of a matriarch: was he still considering the Egyptian handmaid in Genesis 21. However, although, having taken the text 'at its word', we now understand Yahweh to have been Sarah's impregnator, it is clear that Hagar's was Abraham, absent though he was from her annunciation scene. Hagar also experiences two 'epiphanies', although they take place in the wilderness rather than 'in a field'. Her 'initiatory trial' occurs when 'Sarah dealt [so] hardly with her' that Hagar 'fled from her face' (Gen. 16.6), or perhaps even earlier when she was given to Sarah and Abraham in Egypt.30 Hagar faces 'danger in the desert' when she runs 29. Although, at first, the conversation in Gen. 16 seems to be between Hagar and 'the angel of the Lord', in v. 13 the narrator reports that Hagar 'called the name of the Lord that spake unto her' (my emphasis). See also Bloom 1990: 202. 30. There are other possible 'initiatory trials' for Hagar. For instance, how did she

76

The World of Genesis

away from Sarah. And, as we have observed, she also discovers a well, at least one is discovered to her by Yahweh, and she makes immediate use of it to save Ishmael's life. The only type-scene Hagar appears to have missed is the 'testimony of a dying hero'. If the 'hero' in her story is Ishmael, we find his only testimony is the usual formulaic genealogy, listed before the report of his death in Genesis 25. Indeed, we hardly hear again of this wild-ass man who was to be so contentious in his adulthood. But perhaps the hero is Hagar herself. We are not made privy to her dying testimony, but we do know that she became an independent woman, living alone and free with her son in the wilderness. Indeed, Hagar is the only woman in the Bible to choose a wife for her son, and one from her native Egypt at that. And she has surely become a hero for black feminists today, as Delores Williams's recent Sisters in the Wilderness (1993) attests. As Phyllis Trible has observed, Hagar's situation seems fairly auspicious when she flees from Sarah to the wilderness. In the first place, she 'take[s] command of her own life' by running away from her mistress (Trible 1984: 13). Furthermore, the wilderness of Shur seems a hospitable place for Hagar: it is near her native Egypt, and, unlike Moses, who wandered in the same desert, Hagar finds water there on her own (Gen. 16.7). Finally, Hagar meets God in the wilderness, surely a good omen, one which seems better still when Yahweh addresses her by name: he is the only character in the story to do so. Hagar's fortunes seem to be rising. Yet, as Trible notes, Yahweh qualifies his personal greeting to Hagar by adding the epithet that denotes her subjection, 'maid of Sarah', while the narrator continues to omit her name entirely (1984: 15). Trible marks several other parallels between Hagar's and Moses' experiences, and finds it painfully ironic that, although Hagar's situation in the wilderness is more like that of the Israelites of Exodus than like their Egyptian oppressors', Yahweh does not rescue her as he will the Israelites: 'By contrast, the deity identifies here not with the suffering slave but with her oppressors. Hagar knows banishment rather than liberation' (Trible 1984: 22).31 feel about being given to Abraham? Did she consider it an elevation of her status? Did she 'have pleasure' with him, or was it an ordeal, even a rape, as D. Williams (1993: 4) suggests? 31. In Anti-Judaism in Feminist Religious Writings (1994: 88-89), K. von Kellenbach writes of the pervasive anti-semitism in Christian feminist writings. For instance, although von Kellenbach agrees with womanist theologian Delores Williams,

RULON-MILLER Hagar

77

Yet, Hagar surely seems to have been selected for special blessings: she is the first woman in the Bible to receive an annunciation, and is the only person, male or female, to name God. She calls him 'El-roi', 'God is seeing' (KJV), or 'God of a vision' (REB): 'And she called the Lord who spoke to her, "You are El-roi", by which she meant, "Have I not gone on seeing after he saw me!'" (Gen. 16.13 NJV). The meaning of the Hebrew here is 'uncertain' (NJV 23 n. d-d), but it is generally understood to indicate that, unlike most people who look at God, Hagar was not struck dead. Furthermore, in contrast to Abraham, who fell on his face before Yahweh (Gen. 17.3), and Sarah, who was 'afraid' during Yahweh's visit (Gen. 18.15), Hagar shows absolutely no fear of the Lord. Indeed, she shows no particular deference whatever for her divine visitor, although she obeys his command to return and submit to Sarah's abuse. Hagar's speech to Yahweh is natural, direct, and spirited. She answers his questions in a matter-of-fact manner, and seems enthusiastic, even triumphant, when she tells him the name she has created for him. However, Yahweh will continue to wax ambivalent about his Egyptian handmaid. Although, as we have seen, he does keep his promise to multiply her seed, even generating it in perfect symmetry to the twelve tribes of Israel, they will not prosper, doomed as they 'are' to their 'intractable' and 'vagrant' life in the desert (NJB 35 n. 16e).32 And, shortly after Hagar's first epiphany, Yahweh grants Abraham his sixth, renewing their covenant with yet another promise of exceeding seed (Gen. 17.2), in almost the exact words of his recent vow to Hagar in Gen. 16.10. Yahweh again seems to be shuttling back and forth between Egypt and Israel, still conflicted about his choice of a people. Yet, once again, he chooses Abraham. And here, effecting a double distance from Hagar, who lacks not only a covenant but also a penis, Yahweh cuts his who argues in Sisters in the Wilderness 'that the God of Abram and Sarai is implicated in the mistreatment of Hagar', von Kellenbach finds 'the suggestion. . . potentially anti-Jewish'. Von Kellenbach argues that such assertions wrongly suggest 'that the Hebrew God is uniquely allied with slavery and patriarchy', and that 'Hagar's Egyptian heritage is less compromised by such oppressive practices'. Von Kellenbach cautions Christian feminist critics against scapegoating the ancient Israelites as the founders of patriarchy and slavery. She urges these critics to shun 'reformulations of God language [that] project unwelcome features of patriarchal theology and christology onto Judaism'. As von Kellenbach reminds us, it is important to remember that the ancient Israelites invented neither patriarchy nor slavery. 32. See n. 5.

78

The World of Genesis

uncanny circumcision covenant with Abraham, with much talk of male flesh and foreskins. All the males of Abraham's household, slave and free, are to carry this mark of solidarity with the Lord (Gen. 17.1013). This homosocial bonder excellence effectively and finally eliminates Hagar/Egypt from the competition.33 Hagar's tenuous rise to power and independence diminishes quickly once she returns from her voluntary exile in the wilderness. Yahweh corrects her naming of him on his very next visit to Abraham (Gen. 17.1). He announces himself to his chosen one with 'I am El Shaddai', which means 'God Almighty' (NJV 23 n. a), rather than Hagar's 'Elroi', thus effecting yet another censuring/censoring between men of an assertive woman. Furthermore, although Yahweh had instructed Hagar to name her son 'Ishmael', or 'God heeds' (NJV 23 n. b), when the child is born it is Abraham who names him (Gen. 16.15). As Trible has observed, Abraham's fatherhood is celebrated in these passages rather than Hagar's maternity (1984: 19). Yahweh's growing indifference to Hagar reaches its peak when she weeps in the desert over the dying Ishmael. Hagar 'lift up her voice and wept', but Yahweh hears and responds to Ishmael's crying, not Hagar's (Gen. 21.16-17). Furthermore, Yahweh and the narrator continue to focus on Ishmael during this episode. We find that Yahweh will watch over Ishmael as he grows up (Gen. 21.20), and we listen with dismay as Yahweh transfers his promise of exceeding seed from Hagar to her son (Gen. 21.18), leaving Hagar to fend for herself. But, what else can be expected of a homosocializing Patriarch? When there is another male 33. See Eilberg-Schwartz 1990: 141-76. Eilberg-Schwartz identifies, in both ancient Israelite and present-day African circumcision rites, homoerotic ceremonies of male bonding between adult males and their young initiates, rituals designed to deny and erase men's connections with women. There is also talk of 'cutting' in Gen. 17. Patriarchy requires the subjugation of women, but it also depends on a hierarchy of men. Yahweh may be threatening those who disobey him with castration: he says they will be 'cut off from [their] people', having 'broken' the covenant (Gen. 17.14). Ironically, as Freud has observed (1967 [1937]: 29-30), circumcision may have originated in Hagar's homeland: 'No other people of the eastern Mediterranean, as far as we know, has followed this custom; we can assume with certainty [from paintings and sculpture] that the Semites, Babylonians, and Sumerians were not circumcised.' By subjecting Abraham and his male progeny to the rite of circumcision, Yahweh ensured that the ancient Israelites would carry forever the memory of Egypt inscribed on their bodies.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

79

around to collude with, the woman will be diminished. Indeed, Yahweh had already transferred this promise to Abraham, when he consoled him for the departure of Hagar and Ishmael with 'And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed' (my emphasis) (Gen. 21.13), not because he is Hagar's. However, we can at least rejoice with Phyllis Trible in Hagar's defiance: Hagar has not lost her independent spirit, her 'attitude'. Although Yahweh has transferred his promise of descendants from Hagar to Ishmael, and, furthermore, from Ishmael to Abraham, 'In her last act [choosing an Egyptian wife for Ishmael], Hagar guarantees that these descendants will be Egyptians. Thus the mother suggests for herself a future that God has diminished' (Trible 1984: 27). In Lethal Love, Mieke Bal names three 'archaic faults' committed by men against women: 'the split' men project onto women 'between love and fertility, which is also that between sexuality and maternity'; 'the fault of being afraid of women, and of institutionalizing that fear'; and the 'still more archaic fault committed against women: the denial of responsibility' for what they have done to women (1987: 86). A 'different' reading, a feminist reading, reveals all of these faults in the network of patriarchs who surround Hagar in Genesis. They will resurface with a vengeance in Paul's Galatians. At the beginning of this essay I suggested that the popular 'attitude' toward Ishmael's 'vagrant and intractable' Arabic descendants is an 'infected' one. I further suggested that the writers and editors of Genesis inaugurate this attitude as they tell of Yahweh's primeval preference for the Israelites, and of his continual rejection of Egypt. However, I have also demonstrated that the writers reveal that Yahweh, and they themselves, never completely turn away from Egypt. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the attitude of God—and of the writers and editors— toward Egypt remains ambivalent: Egypt's ultimate rejection is continually deferred. However, in Galatians, Paul performs a reading of Genesis that eliminates all ambivalence and puts an end to deferral. Furthermore, he leaves for posterity the 'attitude' toward Egypt, or 'Arabia', that persists today. As I indicated above, when I speak to some of my acquaintances about Hagar, they frequently 'remember' that her son Ishmael 'persecuted' Isaac in Genesis. Although many are enthusiastic readers of Paul, they do not seem to be aware of his legacy until they re-read Galatians at my suggestion.

80

The World of Genesis

Paul, too, seems to be unconsciously influenced by his reading of the Bible. Hans Dieter Betz has remarked that Paul tends to play 'with words of similar root and sound' (1979: 265). I would suggest that Paul also tends to play—and play around—with themes and stories. In Galatians, Paul, of course, writes of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, but he also takes up several other themes from Genesis. For instance, he presents his own version of 'sexual excess' (Gal. 5.19). He also dwells on the themes of natural sons as opposed to adopted ones (Gal. 4.5; Gen. 15.2); heirs as opposed to slaves (Gal. 4.1; Gen. 17.18); knowing God and being known by him (Gal. 4.9), as Hagar saw and was seen by God (Gen. 16.13); the notion of confronting a person 'to his/her face', as Paul did to Peter (Gal. 2.11), and as Hagar did to Sarah before she 'fled from her face' to the wilderness (Gen. 16.6); the notion of 'building up' (Gal. 2.18), as Sarah wished to be 'built up' through Hagar's child (Gen. 16.2);34 'mocking' (Gal. 6.7; Gen. 21.9); and 'persecution', both Paul's own of Christians and Ishmael's alleged persecution of Isaac (Gal. 1.13; 4.29). Paul may have gleaned the words 'mocking' and 'persecution' from Gen. 21.9's metzahaq, a term that has caused much critical debate. The KJV of this passage reads: And the child [Isaac] grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac (my emphasis) (Gen. 21.8-10).

However, rather than the KJV's 'mocking' for metzahaq, the NJV uses 'playing', as do the NJB, the REB, and the RSV. In her discussion of this textual problem, Savina Teubal argues, 'Conventional interpretation of the passage, that it is Sarah's maternal jealousy that excites her and prompts her cruel demand, is subverting a significant issue': The biblical verb (m)s-h-k used by Sarah as the motive for her demand is unclear and difficult to translate. It is variously rendered 'playing', 'mocking', or 'amusing'. Noneof these terms can justify Sarah's banishing Hagar and her son from Hebron. .. The Hebrew term is used in Genesis 19:14, 26:8, and 39:17, as well as 21:9. Each of these verses are contained in passages related to sexual activity. In Genesis 26:8 the term is used in 34. IbbdnS, 'I shall be built up', is a metaphor for having children in the Hebrew Bible (see Teubal 1990: 138).

RULON-MILLER Hagar

81

reference to the 'conjugal caresses' between Rebekah and Isaac. . . The term is. . . used in Exodus 32:4-6. .. again in a [sexual] context: While Moses is on the mountain. .. 'the people. .. sat down to eat and drink, and then to make merry (letzahek)'. . . Rashi comments that "This implies incest (uncovering of nakedness as is stated in Genesis 39:17 [sic])" (Teubal's emphases) (1990: 136-37).

Teubal suggests that the sexual connotation in Genesis 21 's metzahaq concerns 'sexual maturity' and indicates that Sarah is disturbed because Ishmael is now old enough to marry, whereas Isaac is not (1990: 137).35 Teubal invites further speculation on metzahaq in an endnote. Disagreeing with Claus Westermann, who finds Ishmael 'playing with her son Isaac', Teubal observes, 'The Bible records Sarah seeing Hagar's son "playing"; nothing is said about who he was playing with. .. I prefer the interpretation given by Rabbi Aqiba, who bases his decision on a comparison with Genesis 39:17, stating, "The word 'making sport' [metzahek] bears only one meaning, namely, fornicating"' (Teubal's emphases) (1990: 184 n. 26).36 Thus, in light of Rashi's, Westermann's, and Aqiba's interpretations, Ishmael stands accused of not only simply 'playing' in the presence of, or with Isaac, an act that may have been considered above his station by Sarah; but also of masturbating before Isaac for his younger brother's 'amusement', or, perhaps, in a hostile show of dominance; or, of masturbating, even, indeed, of sodomizing his infant sibling. Paul, who, by his own admission, has been a relentless 'persecutor' himself (e.g., Gal. 1.13), chooses to read metzahaq as 'persecuted' (Gal. 4.29). Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to continue the defamation and erasure of Hagar and her 'seed' in Galatians. Seizing upon the heir/slave, natural son/adopted son, and inheritance/covenant themes in Genesis, Paul, in a brilliantly obfuscating rhetoric, writes of heirs and slaves (Gal. 4.1-3), offspring and seed (Gal. 3.16), wills and covenants (Gal. 3.15 REB) and their special significance for Christianity. After presenting several false premises, which he shrewdly supports with his customary—and misleading—'because' or 'so [therefore]', 35. Teubal (1990: 137-38) argues that Sarah considered Ishmael's sexual maturity a threat to Isaac's inheritance of her sacred matriarchal line. 36. 'Making sport' is a translation of letzaheq, the term Potiphar's wife uses in Gen. 39.17 when she accuses Joseph: 'The Hebrew servant . . . came in unto me to mock me'. The NJV translation is The Hebrew slave. . . came to me to dally with me'. Teubal cites Westermann 1985: 339.

82

The World of Genesis

Paul concludes that he and the Christian Galatians are, like Isaac, the natural 'sons' and rightful 'heirs' of God, rather than mere adopted sons or children of slaves such as Eliezer and Ishmael (Gal. 4.6-7). Explaining that the Hagar-Sarah story is 'an allegory' (Gal. 4.24), Paul asserts that Hagar and Sarah represent 'two covenants; the one from Mt Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mt Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all' (Gal. 4.24-26). Indeed, in Galatians Hagar becomes the notorious 'flesh' (Gal. 4.23), 'the filth and decay imputed by Christianity to all female physicality and sexuality' (Fisher 1989: 94) for which we still thank Paul today, while Sarah represents the 'Spirit': '[H]e who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise' (Gal. 4.23). To cement his case, Paul relies on the authority of 'scripture'. (Mis)quoting Sarah, whose authority in Genesis seems dubious at best, Paul writes, '[WJhat saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman' (Gal. 4.30). As he concludes this section of his letter with his characteristic, decisive, yet invalid, 'So then', it logically follows for Paul that he and his Christian 'brethren' 'are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free' (Gal. 4.31). Paul's evocation of 'the flesh' in Galatians is fraught with gaps, silences and confusion similar to those we encountered in Genesis. The Revell Bible Dictionary (1990: 388) reports that the meaning of 'flesh' changes from the 'Old Testament' to the 'New' through Paul: Paul gives sarx [flesh] new theological content. While the Hebrew Bible basar [flesh] views human beings as mortal—frail and limited—the Greek sarx presents human beings as fatally flawed. In Paul's letters, 'flesh' implies sin's corruption. .. The New Testament [sic] teaching implicit in 'flesh' is that sin has infected every human capacity.

Preoccupied once again with 'fatal flaws', 'sin' and 'infection', the Revelll editors here suggest that the Hebrew Bible misunderstands 'flesh' as 'human frailty', and that it stands corrected in Paul's 'new' theology. For Paul, 'the flesh' includes 'illicit sexual activities', 'moral impurity', 'licentiousness', 'strife', 'jealousy', 'outbreaks of rage', 'drunkenness', 'and things like these', while its opposite, 'the Spirit', is defined as '[l]ove, joy, peace, magnanimity, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

RULON-MILLER Hagar

83

humility, self-control' (Betz 1979: 283-84, 33).37 'Self-control', clearly a problem for the temperamental and impulsive Yahweh, seems also to have been a problem for Paul.38 Although not as conspicuous in Galatians, Paul's volatile temper is much in evidence in some of his other letters, for instance, 1 Corinthians, where he seems just barely able to control himself.39 His list in Galatians of 'works of the flesh' include '[a]dultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness' (5.19), all transgressions in 'sexual excess'. The way to go, says Paul, is selfcontrol; indeed, one must 'crucif[y] the flesh with the affections and lusts' (Gal. 5.24). In Galatians, Paul continues to reveal his preoccupation with 'the flesh' through his repeated references to circumcision. He uses the word 'circumcision' or one of its cognates 16 times in this letter. Paul's obsessive concern with circumcision might explain why Gore Vidal was moved to portray him as a lewd and leering homosexual in his provocative Live from Golgotha (1992). Although we need not accept Vidal's fantasy, we certainly can identify Paul as a homosocially bonded patriarch like his primeval counterparts, Yahweh and Abraham. As he informs us in Corinthians, Paul prefers the single life to marriage (1 Cor. 7), and he clearly enjoys the company of his male friends, for instance, Timothy, who 'became Paul's constant companion' (NJB 1827 n. 16a). Although Paul himself apparently circumcised Timothy (Acts 16.3), Paul warns the Galatians that those who 'constrain you to be circumcised' only wish to 'make a fair shew in the flesh' (Gal. 6.12), or, to 'look good in the flesh',40 and to 'glory in your flesh' (Gal. 6.13), thus presenting the converted Jews as exhibitionists and voyeurs, rather

37. Betz here paraphrases Gal. 5.19-23. 38. Several scholars have attributed Paul's volatile temperament to illness. For instance, the physician D. Landsborough (1987: 662) points to the 'ecstatic religious auras' experienced by many epileptics that often lead to 'excessive and inappropriate religious expression'. Landsborough suggests that Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' (2 Cor. 12.7) was 'a recurring unpleasant motor disturbance' during pre-seizure auras. See also S. Sutherland (1990): 'Malfunctioning in a small area of the brain can not only cause epilepsy but can render someone highly religious. .. [I]t also takes away sexual desire'. 39. Paul appears to begin this letter with the intention of remaining reasonable and gentle, but his temper soon gets the better of him, and he often resorts to sarcasm and contempt as he addresses his erring Corinthians (e.g. 1 Cor. 1-5). 40. Betz's translation (1979: 6).

84

The World of Genesis

than zealously devout men who believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation. It seems to me that Paul protests too much as he vows, 'Godforbid that I should glory [in the flesh]': if Paul will 'glory' at all, it will be only 'in the cross' (Gal. 6.14). Indeed, I find a repressed eroticism in Paul's obsession with circumcision: it seems to me an eroticism tinged with terror. For, as Freud has taught us, circumcision is a symbolic castration (e.g., 1989 [1932]: 778). I would suggest that Paul recalled Yahweh's veiled threat of castration to Abraham in Genesis 17 as he composed his letter to the Galatians, where he appears to associate 'cut[ting] off (5.12), 'bit[ing]', and 'devouring]' (5.15) with circumcision and sarcastically recommends that his circumcisionparty opponents might as well 'go the whole way' and castrate themselves (5.12).41 As I have suggested above, in Galatians Paul practices each of Mieke Bal's 'archaic faults' committed by men against women (1987: 86).42 First, he perpetrates and perpetuates the age-old 'split' 'between sexuality and maternity' by separating the motherhoods of Hagar and Sarah into the flesh and the Spirit: Hagar/Sinai, the assertive and seductive Egyptian, is rejected along with her seed, while Sarah, the virtuous and subservient Israelite, is exalted, along with hers. Although he is far more subtle in Galatians than in some of his other letters, Paul also exhibits here 'the fault of being afraid of women, and of institutionalizing that fear', as he deplores 'the flesh', a problem for men who, like Ishmael, might wish to 'play' with themselves or with other men, but even more problematic when they become involved with female flesh. As for Bal's 'still more archaic fault committed against women', men's 'denial of responsibility' for what they have done to women, I would argue that Paul 'denies' this through remarks such as 'There is no male or female' (Gal. 3.28), and in his recommendation for sexual equality in marriage (1 Cor. 7.3-4), statements that have inspired many readers to exonerate him from his far more frequent 41. The threat of castration seems to have been too much for the KJV editors, who translate Gal. 5.12, 'I would they were even cut off which trouble you'. The NJB also shies away from Paul's recommendation of castration, although they give a trenchant 'snapping' and'tearing one another to pieces' for the KJV's 'bit[ing]' and 'devouring] one another'. The RSV also seems to avoid the issue with: 'I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!' The REB gives a more graphic translation: Those agitators had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves!' 42. See p. 79 above.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

85

misogynistic remarks on the subject(ion) of women.431 suggest, rather, that Paul is responsible for fostering and furthering the oppression of women, most notoriously in 1 Cor. 11.3, 7-8, 14.34-35 and 1 Tim. 2.11-14, but also in Galatians 4, where he institutionalizes for posterity the pernicious myth that founds women's eternal double-bind. In Galatians, after reducing both Hagar and Sarah to their roles as seedbearers, Paul transforms Hagar's maternity into a figure of debased sexuality and banishes her once again to the wilderness of the margins of history, while he imprisons Sarah into the sanctified maternity of a madonna. Women continue even today to contend with the whoremadonna split that Paul has assigned them, while men still struggle with 'the painful burden of ambivalence, of admiration and contempt' for women that is the legacy of 'Christian morality' (Bal's emphasis) (Bal 1987: 104). But there is more. Paul also promotes and perpetuates the enmity between the Arabs and the Jews incited by Yahweh through Hagar and Sarah in Genesis. Paul not only separates and classifies the two women according to his reading of their personalities and sexualities, but also according to their nationalities. Sarah and Isaac, or Israel, are exalted as the sacred foundation of Christianity, while Hagar and Ishmael, or 'Arabia', are despised and rejected. In his re-reading—and re-writing—of Genesis, Paul seems to have identified with Yahweh. He unabashedly considers himself 'set apart' (Gal. 1.15 REB), more like God or Christ, or perhaps an angel, than like the mere humans to whom he writes (Gal. 1.1, 8). We have already noted the impulsiveness and volatility Paul shares with the God of 43. For instance, Schiissler-Fiorenza (1992: 232-33) offers surprisingly positive readings of Paul's outrageous teachings on women. She finds that Paul merely 'appears to limit the active participation of wives in the "affairs of the Lord"' (my emphasis): '[T]he text [1 Cor. 14.34] does not say that wives should subordinate themselves either to the community leadership or to their husbands. It asks simply that they keep quiet and remain subdued in the assembly of the community.' This 'simple' request, however, reduces the Corinthian women to silence and invisibility during their congregational meetings. Furthermore, it is based on the assumption that women cannot perform scriptural interpretation without the counsel of men: women must wait until they can 'ask their husbands at home' (1 Cor. 15.35). Commentators who would exonerate Paul often remind us that his instructions to women dealt with specific problems in specific churches and were not intended as universal truths. However, whatever the author's intent, his writings have been used again and again to support and continue the oppression of women.

86

The World of Genesis

Genesis. In addition, like Yahweh, 'the master of polarities' (Fokkelman 1987b: 60), Paul seems driven by an urge to divide and classify. For instance, in his interpretation of 'the Abraham tradition', '[W]hat rabbinic tradition held together, Paul rigorously separated... The dualistic wedge between the "believers" and the "observers of the Torah" is then translated as the juxtaposition of the people "according to the Spirit" and the people "according to the flesh"... Again, Paul separates what Judaism joined together...' (Betz 1979: 31). Paul also resembles, and, perhaps, imitates Yahweh in his preoccupation with order and control. For example, one of Paul's exhortations to the erring Corinthians is 'Let all things be done decently and in order' (1 Cor. 14.40)—like Yahweh, Paul is constantly absorbed in attempts to control a wayward people. As Fokkelman reminds us, God's very first acts in the Bible are to make order out of chaos as he divides 'elementary entities such as light and darkness, earth and sea' (1987a: 60). Indeed, as Fokkelman has also observed, God tells Egypt through Moses 'I will put a division between my people and thy people [Exod. 8.23]': 'In Exodus the division between Egypt and Israel becomes definite' (1987a: 60). Yet, we should recall that God also revealed in Exodus that he wished to be known as much by Egypt as by Israel: '"I am YHWH" is proclaimed five times to Egypt (7.5, 17; 8.22; 14.4, 18) and five times to Israel (6.2, 6, 7, 8, 29)' in this book (Fokkelman 1987a: 64). Furthermore, as we have seen, 1,000 years after his adventures with Hagar, Sarah and Abraham, God would still yearn for Egypt (Isa. 19.25). I wonder what God would say if we could conjure him up today. Would he continue to condone, indeed to incite, the continuing enmity among his 'people'? In this secular age, where we no longer commune with Yahweh at wells, groves, and tent-sides, it is not difficult to imagine a God who finally has rejected all of his people, Arabs and Israelis, Jews and Christians, alike. If God has finally made good his promise to abandon his wayward people, indeed, if God is dead, then we are on our own. We might begin by reading 'his' book differently.

RULON-MILLER Hagar

87

REFERENCES Alter, R. 1981

The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books).

Alter, R., and F. Kermode (eds.) 1987 The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Atwood, M. 1986 The Handmaid's Tale (Boston: Houghton). Bal, M. 1987 Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). 1988a Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 1988b Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre and Scholarship on Sisera's Death (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Betz, H.D. 1979 Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Bloom, H. 1990 The Book ofj (New York: Grove-Weidenfeld). Calvocoressi, P. 1987 Who's Who in the Bible (London: Viking-Penguin). Cixous, H. 1991 [1975] 'The Laugh of the Medusa', in Warhol and Herndl 1991: 334-49. Doughty, D.J. 1995 'Citizens of Heaven', NTS 41: 102-22. Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 1990 'The Fruitful Cut: Circumcision and Israel's Symbolic Language of Fertility, Descent, and Gender', in The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press): 141-76. Fisher, S. 1989 'Taken Men and Token Women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knighf, in S. Fisher and J. Halley (eds.), Seeking the Woman in Late Medieval and Renaissance Writing: Essays in Feminist Contextual Criticism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press): 71-105. Fokkelman, J.P. 1987a 'Exodus', in Alter and Kermode 1987: 56-65. 1987b 'Genesis', in Alter and Kermode 1987: 36-55. Friedman, R.E. 1987 Who Wrote the Bible? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

88 Freud, S. 1967 [1937] 1989 [1932]

The World of Genesis Moses and Monotheism (trans. K. Jones; New York: Vintage). 'Anxiety and Instinctual Life', in The Freud Reader (ed. P. Gay; New York: Norton).

Gallop, J. 1991 [1982] 'The Father's Seduction', in Warhol and Herndl 1991: 413-31. Goulder, M. 1987 'The Pauline Epistles', in Alter and Kermode 1987: 479-502. Irigaray, L. 1991 [1997] 'This Sex Which Is Not One', in Warhol and Hemdl 1991: 350-56. Jeansonne, S.P. 1990 The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar's Wife (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Kellenbach, K. von 1994 Anti-Judaism in Feminist Religious Writings (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Landsborough, D. 1987 'Saint Paul and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy', Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 50: 659-64. Lerner, G. 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy (New York: Oxford University Press). Revell 1990 Revell Bible Dictionary (New York: Wynwood). Schiissler-Fiorenza, E. 1983 In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad). Sedgwick, E.K. 1985 Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press). Speiser, E.A. 1964 Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Stemberg, M. 1985 The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Sutherland, S. 1990 'What your Brain Is Up To', New York Times, January 14, late edition, section 7.18. Teubal, S.J. 1990 Hagar the Egyptian: The Lost Tradition of the Matriarchs (San Francisco: Harper). Trible, P. 1984 Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Vidal, G. 1992 Live from Golgotha (New York: Random House).

RULON-MILLER Hagar

89

Warhol, R.R., and D.P. Herndl (eds.) 1991 Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press). Westermann, C. 1985 Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg). Williams, D. 1993

Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk (Maryknoll: Orbis Books).

THE WOMAN OF THEIR DREAMS: THE IMAGE OF REBEKAH IN GENESIS 24 Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher

'Look! Rebekah is coming out!' Accompanied by this surprised exclamation, Rebekah enters the spotlight of biblical narration (Gen. 24.15). By this point, however, quite a lot of expectations have been accumulated so that from the very beginning the story of this woman greatly anticipates being that of the 'ideal woman'. The question of what is characteristic of the ideal woman for Abraham's son Isaac is traced throughout Genesis 24 at some length, and her portrayal is multifarious. The image the readers may create depends on their interaction with the text. In the communication process of reading, readers are guided by the text but at the same time they shape the text, adding their subjective expectations and imaginations. While reading a text the reader has to follow the text closely. Starting from the smallest elements (letters, words. . . ) readers perceive the text, fill the gaps and blanks with their own knowledge, connect it with the text they have already read and create expectations for the continuation of the text.1 Furthermore, readers have to accept changes of focus, bringing one aspect to the front and leaving others in the background; they have to adjust their imaginations and in this way, guided by the text, they create a text world.2 It is the aim of this analysis to show how the text guides its readers and what dazzling images of the ideal woman it offers, out of which readers may create their own image of Rebekah.

1. Thus the perception of a text does not take place separately for every textual layer, but in close combinations. Compare the research of psycholinguistics, describing the process of understanding as bottom-up process (T. Dijkstra and G. Kempten, Einfiihrung in die Psycholinguistik [Bern: Huber, 1993], pp. 35-64). 2. Cf. W. Iser, Der Akt des Lesens (VTB, 636; Munich: Fink, 3rd edn, 1990), pp. 161-69.

GlLLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

91

For a textual analysis that endeavours to trace this interlocked process of perception, imagination and expectations it is required that a text be analysed on different textual and communicational levels (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Textual levels

Before the combinations and interactions of different text levels can be described, the characteristics of every level have to be analysed. A word is taken as the smallest unit. An overview on this level of textual perception shows the inventory that the text is constructed with, points out those sections of a text that bring new information or repeat information, and further, it gives first hints how the themes of a text are distributed. At the next level are illocution units that are small but complete communicationn units3 independent of the communicational context in which they are uttered.4 These illocution units are analysed with regard to the predication,5 the aspects that may be added,6 the actants,7

n

3. Thus the illocution units may consist of just a word, or a complete sentence. For a closer description of these illocution units, see H. Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen: Arbeitsbuch zur Hermeneutik und Methodik der Bibelinterpretation (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), pp. 37-40. 4. As every biblical verse usually consists of more than one illocution unit, the illocution units of a single verse are numbered with lower case letters, e.g. Gen. 24.1 is numbered: la, Ib, Ic. 5. The first differentiation refers to static (indicating a given state such as an identity, or classification) vs. dynamic (showing an action) predications. Cf. Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen, pp. 49-51. 6. Every predication may be modified by various aspects, such as imagination, initiative, valuations, etc. Cf. Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen, pp. 59-64. 7. Within the model of a dependency grammar the constituent parts of a phrase are the verb and, depending thereupon, the actants. Cf. T. Lewandowski, Linguistisches Worterbuch (UTB, 1518; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 5th edn, 1990), I, pp. 35-36.

92

The World of Genesis

as well as the illocutionary acts. With reference to the communicationsituation these illocution units can be combined into dialogues and further into utterances, a more far-reaching combination of illocution units on the communication level of the narrating voice. Similar to the analyses of the single illocution units, where words or groups of words form the constituent parts, on this textual level entire illocution units are considered as constituent parts of an utterance; and so an illocution unit may function as an actant, may just add an aspect to the main predication, and so on.8 Each fact the narrating voice states can thus be specified in detail and hence a varying number of illocution units constitutes one utterance. The analyses of these levels lead to a close description of the textual elements that guide readers through the text and indicate the possible points of attachment for interpretations. In the following presentation these analyses are evaluated for the image of the perfect woman that fills the hopes and dreams throughout Genesis 24.9 On the level of the single words,10 three terms referring to 'a woman' become obvious: a woman, a girl, and Rebekah. The distribution of these words indicates that the text starts with the theme of a woman, is varied throughout the text and ends with Rebekah (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Distribution within Genesis 24.1-67 of the words: woman, girl, Rebekah

8. Cf. Schweizer, Biblische Texte verstehen, pp 82-85. 9. For a detailed description of every level of analysis, cf. S. Bucher-Gillmayr, 'nKX1" nfp?l roni Eine textlinguistische Untersuchung zu Gen 24' (Doctoral Thesis, Innsbruck, 1994). 10. For a detailed analysis of this level, see S. Bucher-Gillmayr, The Interaction of Textual Signs and Reader Response: The Meaning and the Meanings of a Text', in Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium Bible and Computer: Desk and Discipline, Amsterdam 15-18 August 1994 (Paris; Editions Honore Champion, 1995), pp. 241-54.

GlLLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

93

A Woman— The distribution within the text shows primarily two sections with frequent occurrences of n$K: the first dialogue between Abraham and his servant (vv. 2a-8c) and the same dialogue narrated by the servant (vv. 37a-41d). Thus the image of a woman presented within this story is quite in harmony. Considering the single illocution units in which the woman is-mentioned, the first thing to notice is that there are no references to the woman. 11 Regardless of whether she occurs as an object or subject within an illocution unit, the woman is always explicitly mentioned. This gives a first hint that new is not an acting person within this story but rather a theme. Looking at the actions she performs, we see that the woman is primarily mentioned within dynamic predications together with the aspects of looking forward: there is something she will do or something that will be done to her and someone is envisioning that event. Furthermore, there are six illocution units adding the aspect of initiative, so the woman is expected to do something or someone is expected to do something to her.12 The context of these statements is a dialogue between Abraham and his servant about a woman (vv. 2a-8c). Abraham wants his servant to find a suitable woman for his son Isaac, and together they outline the attributes this woman has to have. Abraham starts his instruction with a negative statement: 'that you will not take a woman for my son from the women of the Canaanites among whom I am living', thereby introducing an obvious possibility, but as a negated possibility.13 Following 11. There are no pronouns that refer to the woman, nor any connecting verb forms (like wayyiqtol). 12. This tendency is supported by the analysis of the illocutionary acts; again the future aspect dominates. 13. Here the theme of the prohibition of marrying women that do not belong to one's own people is introduced in the book of Genesis for the first time. Diebner and Schult interpret this element of the story against the background of the situation in Israel in the fifth century BCE, the qehal haggold, and the severe rules against mixed marriages. See B. Diebner and H. Schult, 'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975), pp. 2-10 (5-6). Cf. also A. Rofe, 'An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebeccah', in E. Blum and C. Machholz (eds.), Die hebrdische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (Festschrift R. Rendtorff; Neukirchen-Vluyn; Neukirchner Verlag, 1990), pp. 27-39 (36-37).

94

The World of Genesis

this prohibition Abraham tells his servant what he has to do: To my own country and to my own kindred you must go and take a woman for my son Isaac'. Prohibition and charge show a chiastic structure,14 emphasizing the contrast and further the importance of this order. Thereby a valuation is given to 'a woman'; there is a positive as well as a negative choice.15 The theme of the land however remains neutral. In the following words, the servant adds a new element to this reasoning, thereby shifting from a woman to the woman (v. 5b). This indicates that the question of the servant is a continuation of Abraham's thoughts, assuming that he is going there to find a woman: 'What if the woman is unwilling to come with me to this country?' The solution suggested by the servant, 'I certainly will take your son back to the land you came from' (v. 5c-e), is vehemently rejected by Abraham,16 but the doubt is taken seriously, and the willingness of the woman to go to a foreign land is added as one of the necessary attributes the ideal woman must have (v. 8a-b).17 There is yet another important element that becomes obvious by Abraham's rejection. The missing valuation concerning the land (vv. 3b-4b) is completed. Now the valuation that determines this dialogue and subsequently determines the image of the expected woman is clearly set out: negative the women of the Canaanites the far-off land of Abraham's family

positive the women of Abraham's kindred the land of the Canaanites

14. The elements are: woman-land : land-woman. 15. To differentiate between the possibilities the expression m is used, referring to the family/people that the woman belongs to. This kind of reference is maintained throughout Gen. 24. Corresponding to this, the introduction of Rebekah is combined with a short genealogy; she even introduces herself in this way (v. 24b). 16. Rofe connects this again to the social circumstances of the fifth century BCE, when because of the bad economic situation many people left Canaan and emigrated to the richer areas of the Persian empire. See Rofe, 'An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebeccah', p. 37. 17. Regardless whether such an autonomous decision by a woman corresponds to social reality, the outline of the ideal woman is a conceptualization of the best woman demanding that she will go voluntarily. As an example of an interpretation that tries to bring this portrayal into relation to the social facts of the fifth century BCE, see B. Diebner and H. Schult, 'Alter und geschichtlicherHintergrundvonGen 24', DBAT 10 (1975), pp. 10-17 (13-14). They suggest that such a reservation is a concession to social reality, since the severe rules against mixed marriages could not be fully observed.

GlLLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

95

The woman is expected to be from Abraham's kindred, and she has to go to the foreign land voluntarily. These demands set out by Abraham recall his own history. Like Abraham (Gen. 12.1-4) this woman will have to leave her country and kindred and start out into an unknown future. 1188 In addition—once more corresponding to his own experience—Abraham expects YHWH to lead the mission he entrusts his servant with and consequently to guide the imagined woman. 19 So, it becomes clear that Abraham hopes to receive, in the person of this woman, an appropriate successor. The same situation is reported once more in the exhaustive report of the servant describing his mission and the events of his journey so far for Rebecca's family (vv. 37a-41d). If this narration was just intended for the ears of the family, the narrating voice could skip it, as well as Rebecca's narration at the house of her mother before (vv. 28b, 30a), but the detailed narration, which is far from being a plain repetition of the events, offers new insights for the readers as well. Within this long narration the servant slightly shifts the focus and adjusts his portrayal skilfully to the intention of the actual communication. If the single illocution units are compared to one another, the two sections prove to be quite similar. Starting with the woman as object, an order and then a future action is formulated. This is followed by a statement where something the woman might/will do comes into question. Within these illocution units there is just one difference: compared to v. 5b, v. 39b has no initiative element—which makes an important difference within the narration. Verse 5b sees the reason for not acting within the woman ('if the woman will not want to go'), whereas v. 39 just says 'if the woman will not go', saying nothing about the reason why. Although Abraham's order remains the same, the image of the desired woman fades and grants more latitude for an interpretation within the present situation and the family of Abraham. Special attention is due to the last occurrence of the woman (v. 67c). Noticeable are the change from dynamic to static predications, and for 18. Cf. E.J. vanWolde, 'Telling and Retelling', in J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (Oudtestamentische Studien, 34; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 227-44 (235-36). 19. Abraham's imagination of the woman corresponds to his own characterization within Gen. 24. He is not portrayed as a lively person, but much more as an example: despite all difficulties he trusts in YHWH and faithfully believes in his support.

96

The World of Genesis

the first time the illocutionary acts are representative statements reporting facts. This indicates that the theme of H!2JK, the planned and hopedfor image of a woman, has become reality. In conclusion it is reported: 'and she (Rebekah) became his woman'. A Girl— As Abraham's servant arrives at his destination in Mesopotamia, he rests at a well outside the town. Instead of describing the situation for the readers the narrating voice reports the thoughts of the servant (vv. 12b-14), he consults YHWH about what to do next. With these words of the servant another image of the expected woman emerges before the eyes of the readers. So the servant's thoughts are far from being coherent; he jumps from one thought to another and tries hard to find some criteria to recognize the right woman.20 In his imagination he refers to the woman as mitt, a young woman of a marriageable age, which is a more precise and adequate description for the hopedfor woman. The servant describes an everyday situation, the women coming out of the town to draw water from the well (v. 13c). The action that will reveal the suitable nil;] is her generous care for the servant and his camels, but there is no word of Abraham's family or of the woman's decision. Contrary to n$K, there are frequent references for mi;]21 which help to draw a realistic picture of the girl and give readers the impression that this girl is regarded as a real person. The predications, within which mitt is mentioned, are mostly dynamic; there are various actions she performs. Both future and initiative aspects are added, indicating that the girl is expected to do something. As a girl enters the scene, 20. The servant tries to translate the abstract theme of ntEN to a concrete situation. This becomes obvious in his speech: he addresses his words to the 'God of my master Abraham' (v. 12c) and he does not ask for anything for himself, but only for 100 for Abraham (vv. 12e, 14). New within his reasoning is the assumption that YHWH has already chosen the right woman for Isaac. This element is stressed by Roth, who identifies one of the main themes of this story as 'the good wife—a gift from the LORD' (W. Roth, The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24', CBQ 34 [1972], pp. 177-87 [184]). 21. References are made by pronouns as well as by verb forms of which she is subject.

GILLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

97

the only static predication concerning iT~!P3 is found in v. 16a, describing the girl as very beautiful. But she is not only a beauty—the waterjar on her shoulder indicates that she is one of the girls coming out to draw water from the well—which is the situation the servant was looking for. To make her appearance just perfect the narrating voice adds one more detail for the readers only: the girl is a virgin. The meeting between the servant and the girl (vv. 15c-25b) is described at length. It is initiated by the servant but its maintenance depends on the girl. The single actions she performs are shown in great detail22—especially information referring to the speed of her actions23 and some aspects concerning the duration of the actions are added.24 Short dialogues structure the meeting and for the first time there are several utterances describing the same scene;25 thus readers are given a vivid description of the events at the well outside the town. The tension dominating this scene has its origin in the comparison between the imagined and the real woman—do they match? Readers are encouraged to pay close attention in order to create an image of this girl, but they have little possibility of adding their own imagination or ideas to that image. Summing up, it may be said that mU3 creates the second outline of an expected woman within this story; it is the servant's concept for recognizing the right woman. In his imagination the suitable woman

22. Teugels interprets this description as a characterization of Rebekah. She concludes that Rebekah is a person 'who acts rather than speaks'. Cf. L. Teugels, '"A Strong Woman, Who Can Find?" A Study of Characterization in Genesis 24, with Some Perspectives on the General Presentation of Isaac and Rebekah in the Genesis Narratives', JSOT 63 (1994), pp. 89-104 (97). I think that this is to come to a premature conclusion. The description does not centre on Rebekah herself but on the correspondence of mi?] with the imagined woman. 23. See vv. 18d, 20a; the girl does everything in a hurry. 24. The action is going on: '. . . and hurrying again. . . ' (vv. 20c, 20d), or ending: 'when she had finished. . . ' (v. 19a). 25. The following utterances describe the meeting between the servant and the girl: utterance 15a-16f 17a-18c 18d-18f 19a-21c 22a-25b

content of the main predication The girl goes to the spring and fills her jar. The servant contacts the girl. The girl lets the servant drink from her jar. The girl draws water for the camels. The servant gives the girl a golden ring and bracelets.

98

The World of Genesis

for his master's son has to be the ideal woman for any man; she is not only ready to help, she even anticipates his wish and gladly fulfils it.26 The theme of mitt does not remain a mere concept; the outline drawn within the imagination of the servant is filled vivaciously by the girl Rebekah. Later in the story mitt is used once more as a reference to Rebekah (vv. 55b-c, 57b-c). At this crucial point within the story, the final decision of whether Rebekah will go to Canaan and become the wife of Isaac, the usage of mitt indicates that two concepts touch: the concept of mitt that has already been fulfilled and the concept of ndtf that is yet to be decided. Rebekah The first occurrence of the name Rebekah is followed by mere informational statements. The illocution units in v. 15d-e introduce her to the readers: they are told her name and her family origin—she really is a woman of Abraham's family.27 After Rebekah has entered the scene, the pronouns and verbs referring to mi?] and to Rebekah can hardly be distinguished. Since the identity of the girl coming out of the town is known only to the readers she is Rebekah to them, but she remains a girl in the eyes of the servant.28 For him she is just the right girl; for the readers the identity between the imagined girl and Rebekah becomes obvious.29 But it is not before conformity between the imagined and the real girl becomes evident that Rebekah reveals the secret of her birth for the servant, too. She answers the servant's urgent question in detail and slowly (vv. 23a-25b), and specifies her lineage emphasizing the female line.30

26. As the servant identifies the criteria for a suitable girl, he fills the general outline of ntEK with a distinct androcentric view of a suitable woman. 27. In Gen. 22.22-23 Rebekah is introduced as a relative of Abraham. As she is the only daughter mentioned in this genealogy she receives special attention. 28. The text blurs this distinction by using almost exclusively pronouns and verb forms to refer to the girl or Rebekah. 29. So readers realize the tension emerging from this differing amount of knowledge. Will the servant recognize this woman by his criteria? Or is Rebekah just one woman from Abraham's family but not the one chosen by YHWH? 30. Cf. I. Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Gen 12-36 (BZAW, 222; Berlin; de Gruyter, 1994), p. 47.

GILLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

99

Although she does not mention Abraham it is obvious for informed readers that she belongs to Abraham's kin.31 However, the main occurrences of the name Rebekah within Genesis 24 are from v. 45 onwards, first in the servant's report to Rebekah's family.32 Some small differences cause the focus of the servant's representation of the events at the well to shift again. In his narration the servant replaces the girl he meets at the well with Rebekah. For the ears of the family he states very clearly that Rebekah is the hoped-for girl.33 Correspondingly, the reaction of the family answers the servant's expectations: 'Look (here is) Rebekah before you, take her and go' (v. 51a-d). But still it is not before v. 58 that Rebekah is exclusively referred to by her name. There she is asked (v. 58c) and she decides (v. 58e) that she is willing to follow Abraham's servant, and thus she makes clear that she is not only the girl the servant hoped for, but also the woman imagined by Abraham. She fulfils both concepts: that of mi>] and that of TON. Nevertheless Rebekah becomes the centre of the imagination of others once more. Only now her own family express their vision of Rebekah. The hopes of the family become obvious in the form of a blessing; they wish Rebekah great prospects: 'Our sister,34 may you be the mother of a thousandfold crowd, and may your seed take into possession the gate of their enemies' (v. 60c-e). Here again the readers may notice a striking parallel to Abraham.35 Now it is Rebekah, as the new ancestress, who carries that blessing into the next generation. Within the last part of this story, the departure and journey back to Canaan, Rebekah acts as an independent person. It is Rebekah who begins the journey back to Canaan (v. 61a-c). For the first time in this narration an action of Rebekah is simply reported, without anticipation, 31. See Gen. 11.29; 22.23. Furthermore, readers can learn this from the servant's response. He praises YHWH 'because YHWH has guided me to the house of my master's kinsmen' (vv. 27-28). 32. Especially within vv. 45-57. 33. In 43d he also changes the term mj)3 into nQ^U, a young woman of standing. With respect to the family, the servant indicates in his report that he was not just waiting for any girl, but for a girl of a respected family. Cf. K. Engelkern, Frauen im alien Israel: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche und sozialrechtliche Studie zur Stellung der Frau im Alien Testament (BWANT, 130; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990), pp. 62-63. 34. The division of this blessing into illocution units considers ^Pin^i as vocative and therefore as an autonomous illocution unit. 35. Abraham receives a very similar blessing in Gen. 22.17-18.

100

The World of Genesis

and her actions are formulated concisely and clearly.36 Furthermore this event is narrated first as Rebekah's departure and only subsequently as the departure of the servant (v. 61d-e). This indicates a change in the mode of narrating: Rebekah becomes an autonomous figure within the story. It is primarily Rebekah who arrives in the Negeb. Here readers are allowed to watch a scene from the viewpoint of Rebekah. Now it is her opportunity to ask and to estimate the new situation. Rebekah responds to this situation by taking her veil and covering herself (v. 65e-f). She, who throughout the narration has been a valuable object, seen with the eyes of somebody else, now withdraws herself from the immediate grasp of others. At the end of the story a last glance at Rebekah is reported once more from the viewpoint of someone else. Focusing on Isaac, the narrating voice emphatically sums up the happy ending: ' . . . and he loved her and was consoled for the death of his mother'. Conclusion The concatenation of the three portrayals of the ideal woman n$N and Rebekah—constitutes the tension within the narration of Genesis 24. It is not some spectacular plot that unfolds before the eyes of the readers, but a differentiated and reflected introduction of Abraham's successor. The readers are closely guided throughout the text by the narrating voice. Looking at the unfolding of the events they have to change their point of view together with the narrating voice, and thus the previous images of the hoped-for woman form the background of every new portrayal. Starting with the outline of
GILLMAYR-BUCHER The Woman of their Dreams

101

mainly remains the woman of someone else's dreams—and so readers are invited to add their own imagination and picture Rebekah as the woman of their dreams.

GENESIS 38: STRUCTURE AND LITERARY DESIGN Anthony J. Lambe Genesis 38 provides one of the best examples of what Simon Bar-Efrat calls the Bible's 'smaller literary wholes'.1 As a smaller literary whole it possesses a distinct structural unity and design. This study, therefore, is interested in exposing its total literary design, on which its total literary effect rests. I shall rely on some of Tzvetan Todorov's insights into the nature of plot structure. The plot of Genesis 38 follows the pattern of an 'ideal narrative' and consists of five phases of development: An ideal narrative begins with a stable situation that some force will perturb. From which results a state of disequilibrium; by the action of a force directed in a converse direction, the equilibrium is re-established; the second equilibrium is quite similar to the first, but the two are not identical. Consequently there are two types of episodes in a narrative: those that describe a state (of equilibrium or of disequilibrium) and those that describe a transition from one state to another.2

Such an overarching structure shapes the entire narrative (Fig. 1).

1. S. Bar-Efrat, 'Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative', VT30 (1980), p. 159. 2. T. Todorov, Poetics of Prose (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), p. 111. Naomi Steinberg has used the work of Todorov to analyze the structure of the narrative plot in the family stories of Genesis. Her study shows the purpose of 'genealogy' and its relationship to the narrative. The narratives are seen as resolving a 'disequilibrium' which is mentioned in the genealogy preceding the story. See The Genealogical Framework of the Family Stories of Genesis', Semeia 46 (1989), pp. 41-50.

LAMBE Genesis 38

103

Figure 1. Overarching Structure of Genesis 38

Parallel Structure of Genesis 38 The overarching structure of Genesis 38 expresses a pattern of descent and ascent that configures the entire narrative, covering five phases of development according to Todorov's scheme. In v. 1 Judah 'went down' (yarad) to Adullam on a journey from his brothers. In v. 12, Judah 'went up' ('aid) to Timnah. The verbs suggest first a movement downwards (to death and instability), and then a movement upwards (to life and stability). In other words, Judah's journeys structure the plot. They create an inverted design consisting of two major divisions which in turn comprise two subdivisions (phases) pivoting at phase 3. Phase 3 acts as the turning point or 'axis of symmetry' in the five-fold structure. This descent/ascent pattern also supports the dynamic movements of phases 2 and 4 of Todorov's scheme. The descent represents the 'force' that disturbs the initial equilibrium and creates disequilibrium, while the ascent represents the 'force' acting in the opposite direction which moves to equilibrium. These forces form a structural dynamic and dialectical tension that create a symmetrical design. Parallels between the corresponding phases can now be investigated in an effort to elucidate their structural symmetries. These exhibit relatively static phases 1 and 5 (A and Al) and dynamic phases 2 and 4 (B and Bl).3 When phases 1 and 5 are examined, a semantic connectedness 3.

A. Berlin states that 'parallelism. . . consists of a network of equivalences

104

The World of Genesis

is evident through the relationships created by the parallel words that are aligned in the columns. Phase 1: Gen. 38.1-6

Phase 5: Gen. 38.27-30

'brothers' ('ahim)* (v. I)4 'name' (Seni)* (vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) 'bear' (yalad) (vv. 3, 4, 5)

'brother' ('ah)* (vv. 29, 30) 'name' (sem)* (vv. 29, 30) 'give birth' (yalad)* (v. 27); 'be in labour' (yalad)* (v. 28) 'this one came out first' (zeh ydsd' ri'Sona) (v. 28) 'take' (Idqah)* (v. 28)

'firstborn' (bekor) (v. 6) 'take' (laqah)* (vv. 2, 6)

Table 1: Parallels between Phases 1 and 5 The parallel relation between the words 'bear', 'give birth', 'be in labour', and 'deliver' (all yalad) connect with the principal theme of the story, primogeniture. It is through conception, labour and delivery that progeny are begotten and the line continued. In phase 1 Shua's daughter gives birth, while in phase 5 it is Tamar. All children born, however, are Judah's off spring. Furthermore, it is the birth of progeny that establishes the stable condition of equilibrium in phases 1 and 5 (A and Al). Another parallel between phases 1 and 5 is the birth of sons. In phase 1, Judah fathers three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah; in phase 5 he fathers a 'twin' Zerah and Perez. In phase 1 the three sons are born one after the other in orderly procession, but in phase 5 Peretz supersedes his twin Zerah in the womb. It is the 'firstborn' (A: v. 6) or the one who 'came out first' (Al: v. 28) who claims a birthright whose destiny is intimately connected to God's purpose for his people. Through the firstborn (in the covenantal family) the blessing is fulfilled and the continuity of the line consummated. and/or contrasts involving many aspects and levels of language (semantic, lexical, phonological, grammatical). Moreover, by means of these linguistic equivalences and contrasts, parallelism calls attention to itself and the message which it bears. Parallelism embodies the poetic function, and the poetic function heightens the focus of the message' (The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], p. 151). 4. The asterisk * represents words that do not appear in the Hebrew text in the form as they are written here, but nevertheless contain the root of the word. The Hebrew version of Gen. 38 is based on my own translation of the original text.

LAMBE Genesis 38

105

The repetition of 'name' ($em) creates a lexical and semantic parallel on the theme of identity. This theme has a special relationship to the key themes of primogeniture and the Levirate law. The sons born of the unnamed daughter of Shua at the beginning are degenerate and fail to create offspring. Their names are blotted out of existence. The twin sons born of Tamar, by contrast, create offspring and their names continue the line. It is Perez, in fact, that furthers the line leading to David. Another parallel between A and Al consists in the words 'brothers' (v. 1) or 'brother' (vv. 29, 30). Brotherhood is one of the more important relationships in the family stories of Genesis. Here, as elsewhere, these relationships consist of both discord and concord. The three brothers born in phase 1 soon come into conflict and complicate the action in phase 2. In phase 5, a more subtle example of conflict is Perez's supersession of Zerah in the womb for the birthright. Finally, the repetition of the verb 'take' (laqak) creates another parallel which relates intrinsically to the main theme. In phase 1 it denotes marriage (betrothal), both in Judah's taking the daughter of Shua as his wife and in his taking (finding) a wife (Tamar) for Er for the purpose of continuing the family. In phase 5 it denotes the midwife's 'grasping' of Zerah's hand to bind a scarlet thread upon it. Both uses of the word connect Tamar and Judah to Zerah. The double usages furnish an irony: the wife that Judah takes for Er, who is childless by Er, becomes the woman who bears his child Zerah. In essence, phases 1 and 5 (A and Al) create coherence and symmetry through semantic parallels and linguistic repetitions. This symmetry shows clearly how structure can illuminate the main theme, primogeniture. Phases 2 and 4 are antithetical and dynamic, characterized by the descent/ascent pattern, towards disequilibrium and then equilibrium. Table 2 illustrates the subtle semantic differences existing between these two movements. Phase 2: Gen. 38.7-11

Phase 4: Gen. 38.12b-26

God and Justice: retributive, overt and swift (vv. 7-10) Tamar's and Onan' s cohabitation: repetitious/no conception, 'went into' (bo')(vv. 8, 9) Onan 'knew' (ydda') (v. 9) Onan breaks the Levirate law (v. 10)

God and Justice: creative, covert, and progressive (vv. 12b-30) Tamar's and Judah's cohabitation: single/conception (bo') (vv. 16, 19) Judah 'knows' (yada1) (v. 16) Tamar fulfills Levirate law (vv. 12a-26)

106

The World of Genesis

Er and Onan are 'evil' (ra') (vv. 7, 10) Judah's deception of Tamar (v. 11) Injustice to Tamar (v. 11) Tamar goes to her father's house at Adullam as a 'widow' ('alemanah). She is told by Judah to 'remain' (yaSab) there, so she 'went' (hdlak) there and 'dwelt' (ydSab) (v. 11).

Tamar is 'righteous' (saddiq) (v. 26) Tamar's counter-deception (vv. 14-23) Justice for Tamar (v. 26) Tamar 'sits' (ydSab) by the gate of Enaim towards Tinman as a 'harlot' (zona) (v. 14). Later she 'goes' (hdlak) away (v. 19).

Table 2. Parallels between Phases 2 and 4

First, an explicit contrast exists between the change in Tamar's location, clothes, and role in phase 2 to phase 4, indicated by a clear repetition of verbs and actions. In phase 2 (B: v. 11), Tamar 'went' (hdlak)* to her 'father's house in Adullam', but rather than 'remain' (yaSab)* or 'dwell' (yaSab}* there permanently as a 'widow' ('almdnd) as Judah intends, she chooses to leave. In phase 4 (Bl: v. 14) she takes off her 'widow's garments' (bigede 'almenutah\ assumes the role of a harlot (zond), and sits (ydSab)* at the gate of Enaim. Immediately after this she 'goes' (hdlak)* (Bl: v. 19) away, resuming her role as a widow. The change from widow's to harlot's garb reveals a change from a family role to one on the fringes of society, ironically a role used to rebuild the family. Tamar moves from the celibate passivity of a widow to the sexual activity of a harlot. She cannot conceive a child as a widow (or wife), but only as a harlot. The change of clothes, role and location between phase 2 and 4 relates the change in Tamar's destiny, at the same time as showing the antithetical structure and symmetry of the episode. Another contrast is Onan's and Judah's sexual relations with Tamar. In phase 2 Judah commands Onan to 'go into' (bo'*)* (B: v. 8) Tamar, and later in phase 4 he asks Tamar if he can 'come into' (bo')* (Bl: v. 16) her. The contrast is between Judah's command (imperative form) to Onan to create progeny and to fulfill the duty of the levir, and a request (polite form with the particle of entreaty, no,') merely for pleasure. The text states that Onan, 'whenever he went into' (bo ')* Tamar (B: v. 9) 'destroyed his semen on the ground'. When Judah 'went into' (bo')* (Bl: v. 18) Tamar, however, she 'conceived'. Judah's command to Onan to produce offspring for Er is never consummated, and is done merely for pleasure, while his polite request for pleasure leads to offspring. Furthermore, the sexual unions between Tamar (passive receptor of intercourse) and Onan are repetitive and always end without pregnancy, while the sexual union between Tamar (active initiator of

LAMBE Genesis 38

107

intercourse) and Judah occurs only once and results in pregnancy. By comparison, primogeniture left in the hands of the fearful father and 'evil' sons (B: vv. 7, 10) is unproductive, but in the hands of 'righteous' Tamar (Bl: v. 26) it is productive. Their negative response to the Levirate law threatens primogeniture, while her positive response fulfills it. One of the clearest parallels between the phases lies in the deception and counter-deception motif. Tamar is deceived by Onan each time that he cohabitates with her, for Tamar expects Onan to be responsible to the Levirate law (v. 10). Judah also deceives Tamar, for he does not give her to Shelah in accordance with the Levirate law (B: v. 11). In response to this, Tamar follows suit with a counter-deception resulting in her pregnancy (Bl: v. 23). Moreover, the place where Tamar realizes that Judah has deceived her is the gate of Enaim—the same and strategic place where she deceives Judah into impregnating her. The gate of Enaim (bepetahh 'enayim), literally meaning the 'opening of the eyes' (v. 14), acts as a symbolic axis. It suggests Tamar's realization of Judah's deception, and, as a sexual euphemism, the means by which she deceives Judah. In essence, Onan's and Judah's deceptions of Tamar undermine primogeniture, but Tamar's deception of Judah fulfills it. It is clear that two forms of justice also surface in phases 2 and 4. In phase 2 it is retributive: God sees that Er is evil and that Onan's actions are evil, so he takes their lives. This indicates that God may endorse the Levirate law, or at least punishes 'evil' with death as a punitive form of retributive justice. In phase 4 justice occurs at a deeper level of the narrative fabric, as creative or transformative. It begins when Judah sends Tamar to her father's house, fails to give Tamar to Shelah in accordance with the Levirate law, and is heightened when she is brought out to be burned for adultery (Bl: v. 24). This is overcome when Judah recognizes these injustices and deems Tamar righteous. Tamar, in fact, carries out the intent of the Levirate law and becomes pregnant, thereby furthering Judah's line. A sharp contrast is drawn between the sons and Tamar to reinforce the two forms of justice. Er and Onan are 'evil' (ra')* (B: vv. 7, 10) and Tamar is 'righteous' (saddlq] (Bl: v. 26); their justice is retributive while Tamar's justice is transformative and creative. A parallel, in connection with the theme of justice, also lies in the signification of God. In phase 2 God can see into the hearts of humans, thus perceiving evil in the hearts of Er and Onan. For this, God takes

108

The World of Genesis

away their lives. In phase 2, therefore, God is signified as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient and his justice overt, swift, direct and retributive. In phase 4, however, God's presence is covert and his justice is progressive, indirect and creative. In the biblical worldview, God's presence, purpose and agency are actualized through the Law in history. Here it is realized through Tamar's responsibility to the Levirate law.5 Tamar is no puppet or automaton. She freely responds to the intention of the Levirate law.6 One final contrast exists between Judah and Onan and hinges on the verb 'know' (yada')*. The motive behind Onan's disobedience of the Levirate law is that he 'knew' (B: v. 9) the offspring produced would not be his but Er's. Ironically, his 'knowledge' causes his and Er's lines to be destroyed. Judah, however, 'did not know she was his daughter-in-law' (Bl: v. 16). In the recognition scene, however, the word hakker-nd' '(ac)knowledge' is used. Here Judah acknowledges his evil by recognizing Tamar's righteous action for observing the Levirate law. In the same scene, the narrator states that Judah 'did not know' (Bl: v. 26) her again. This means not only that Judah will never know her again sexually, but, in a more important way; that she is righteous for putting the survival of the family above herself. The contrast reflects overall a deeper irony still: Onan never realizes nor knows his evil but Judah does. This knowledge leads Judah to reverse his sentence of death upon Tamar, which coincides with a more fruitful 'life' in the birth of offspring. Onan's knowledge, meanwhile, leads to the 5. R. Alter writes that 'God's purposes are always entrammeled in history, dependent on the acts of individual men and women for their continuing realization' (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981], p. 12). 6. In close connection with these two opposing forms of justice, therefore, are displayed two modes of God's revelation or action in the destiny of humans. What befalls the evil is divine retribution. Thus the fate of Er and Onan is death. What befalls the righteous is transformation and creative justice. Thus the destiny of Tamar (and later Judah in the Joseph story) is towards life and reconciliation. Judah realizes his evil and deems Tamar righteous, whereupon she is justified and reconciled to the family (v. 26). She is reconciled not only through her righteousness, but also through offspring, the ultimate physical bond between her and Judah and the crowning element of the plot. In essence, God's mediation (purpose) is activated by Tamar through her responsibility to the Law. God thereby plays a role in her destiny, and in some subsidiary sense in the destiny of Judah. Tamar obtains the right of primogeniture and becomes the channel of the seed of Judah. She is the mother and progenitrix of the line of Judah while Judah is the progenitor.

LAMBE Genesis 38

109

'death' of Er's line, himself, and his own line. A contrasting pattern emerges: Onan-knowledge-death; Judah-knowledge-life. In summary, the contrasts in equivalence between phases 2 and 4 show a parallel symmetry, a tensional structure and a clearly demarcated narrative design. As we have seen, the parallel symmetry existing between phases 1 and 5, and 2 and 4 formulates motifs and themes into a web of interconnected meaning. Surface and Plot Structures of the Phases It is clear that the narrative's five phases are structured into patterns that create symmetries between units such as episodes and scenes7 and convey a meaningful design that order, condense and focus on important thematic concerns, to manipulate subtle disclosures of motivation and characterization, and to emphasize settings and events in the storyworld.8 The next step is to examine how the phases flow together to create a logical sequence, causality and unity, and to understand the relationships created between characters, events and settings that make up the narrative's story-world. Phase 1: Genesis 38.1-6 Introduction 1. And at that time Judah went down from his brothers and turned in to a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. A 2. There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; he took her and went into her. B 3. And she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. X 4. Again she conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. B1 5. Yet again she bore a son and called his name Shelah, and she was in Chezib when she bore him. Al 6. And Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7. Bar-Efrat labels various kinds of patterns as 'parallel' (aa), 'ring' (axa), 'chiastic' (abba), and 'concentric' (abxba). These patterns are ways in which episodes, scenes, and dialogue are shaped and structured within biblical narrative. The use of these patterns will give some key insights into how the episodes and scenes in Gen. 38 are structured and shaped. See 'Some Observations', p. 170. 8. See M. O'Callaghan, 'Structure and Meaning in Genesis 38: Judah and Tamar', Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 5 (1981), pp. 72-88, for his insights into chiastic and concentric patterns. I have found a number of different patterns in the episodes of the narrative that reinforce the five-fold structure of the plot as I have elucidated it.

110

The World of Genesis

Phase 1 contains one episode arranged in a concentric pattern (ABXBA), communicated entirely through narration, and preceding the introduction that begins with Judah's departure from his immediate family circle and journey down to Adullam. In A Judah immediately 'takes' a wife (the nameless daughter of Shua) and creates a family, and in Al, as part of his patriarchal responsibility, 'takes' a wife (the named Tamar) for Er. The expectation seems to be that Er, the firstborn, will carry on the family where Judah left off. Both A and Al contain a betrothal—the first step in the process of begetting progeny, while the entire centre portion (BXB1) shows the process of Judah and his wife building a family. The whole reveals the main theme: the betting of progeny for the continuity of the family into the next generation, or simply primogeniture, evident in the location and verbal repetition of 'conceived', 'bore' and 'calledhis name', and ending with the birth of sons. This same verbal repetition in the combination B and B1 describes the births of Er and Shelah. Their births surround a description of Onan's birth, positioned at the centre X for a definite purpose: to give notice that Onan will be a significant figure in the next scene. Onan will fail to fulfill the Levirate law and threaten primogeniture. Plot. Phase 1 of the narrative plot, vv. 1-6, constitutes a state of 'equilibrium', in which the characters of the story are exposed and introduced in a way that focuses attention on them in a series of family relationships: father, mother, sons, brothers, father-in-law, daughterin-law and so on. The reader, therefore, is firmly situated in a story about the establishment and continuity of a family—the basic building block of the human order. The story begins with the motif of a sojourn in a foreign land when Judah leaves his brothers and 'goes down' to Canaan, takes a Canaanite wife there and creates a family. Alter has commented succinctly that 'Judah sees, takes, lies with a woman; and she, responding appropriately, conceives, bears, and—the necessary completion of the genealogical process—gives the son a name'.9 In v. 6 Judah finds a wife for Er, his firstborn (bekor), intensifying the crux of the whole phase and narrative—the begetting of family and its continuity into the future. Alter states that 'nothing is allowed to detract our focused attention from the primary, problematic subject of 9.

Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 6.

LAMBE Genesis 38

111

the proper channel for the seed'.10 In the first phase the continuity of the family is fulfilled by Judah and his wife, the daughter of Shua; the phase ends with the request that Er is to do likewise through his wife Tamar. The object of phase 1, therefore, is what J.P. Fokkelman describes as 'life-survival-offspring-fertility-continuity'.11 Phase 2: Genesis 38.7-11 A B

X B1 Al

7. ButEr, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. (depth) 8. Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go into your brother's wife and consum mate the marriage of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother'. (surface) 9. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. (depth) So whenever he went into his brother's wife he destroyed his seed on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother, (surface) 10. And what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord killed him also, (depth)

Phase 2 begins with an episode again shaped in a concentric pattern (ABXBA). The combination A and Al is composed of narrations recounting God's omniscient view into Er's and Onan's evil hearts and his subsequent retribution.12 The combination B and Bl alternates between speech and narration and comprises Judah's command of the Levirate responsibility and Onan's failure to fulfill it. In B Judah requests that Onan should produce an heir in his brother's name, but in Bl we are given the antithesis: rather than create an heir for Er, Onan destroys his seed on the ground, and as a result no offspring are produced. The hinge on which the episode turns, however, is at the centre X. This focuses on the motivation behind Onan's recalcitrant actions 10. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 6. 11. J.P. Fokkelmann, 'Genesis', in The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 41. 12. The reader is aware that just as Er's line is blotted out of existence in A, likewise, in Al, Onan is slain by God for his evil actions. This parallelism gives the impression thatEr has committed a similar crime to that of Onan. Although no explicit reference is given, we do know that he has not produced any offspring or descendants. This alone, like Onan's self-serving actions, threatens the continuity of the family. Furthermore, the root ('wr)*, from which the name Er is derived, can mean 'to be exposed or bare'. This alludes to the biblical motif of 'nakedness', which is often linked to pagan elements and is abominable in the Lord's sight. The reader understands that the Lord's negative response towards Er is not arbitrary, but suggests a judgment of abomination, and is the reason, at least partially, behind his death.

112

The World of Genesis

through a form of telescoped inside view (interior speech).13 Because he 'knew' that the offspring would not be his, but Er's, he destroys the seed that would lead to the continuity of Er's line. Contrasts also exist between what happens from God's perspective ('in the eyes of the Lord') in A and Al, the character's reported speech and actions in B and Bl, and the telescoped inside view of the character's motivation at the centre X. There is a movement from depth (thoughts) (A and Al) to surface (speech and actions) (B and Bl) and to depth (thoughts) again in X. A X Al

11. Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, 'Remain (ydSab)* a widow in your father's house until my son Shelah grows up'; (surface) for he feared he would die, like his brothers, (depth) So Tamar went and dwelt (ydSab)* in her father's house, (surface)

The final episode in phase 2 is structured by means of a ring pattern (AXA) which frames Judah's dismissal of Tamar from his house and Tamar's departure to her father's house, both of which envelop the motivation behind Judah's actions at the centre X. The symmetry lies in the repetition of similar elements constituting Judah's command in A and its execution by Tamar in Al. Judah dismisses Tamar but she is assured before she leaves that she will be given to Shelah when he matures to the age to accept the responsibility of the Levir. The motivation for Judah's command at the centre X is given through a form of a telescoped inside view. Judah's simple ignorance of the facts, however, coupled with a subjective fear provokes him to act in a way that threatens continuity. By sending Tamar to her father's house, he sends away the only womb in the family from which progeny can be born. Additionally, there is a corresponding pattern of disclosure which alternates from direct speech to narration. Like the last episode there is a movement from the surface in the combination A and Al to depth in X. Overall, this episode reveals a careful design that shows subtle characterization, a distinct symmetry that focuses on the main theme (primogeniture) and a pattern that presents its key tension (a threat to continuity). Plot. Phase 2 consists of a transitional phase or descent, corresponding to Gen. 38.7-11. Here, a dynamic 'force' disturbs the initial state of

13. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 7.

LAMBE Genesis 38

113

equilibrium and comprises the actions and attitudes of Judah and his sons, having the effect of disrupting family order and equilibrium. The phase begins with the narrator's report that Er's life has been taken by God (v. 7). The repetition of the word 'firstborn' connects the first and second phases and reminds the reader of Judah's search for a wife for Er, his firstborn. It is clear that Er has not produced any offspring with Tamar and this may be the reason for God's judgment of death upon him. His evil could be seen as a failure to carry out the responsibility of the 'firstborn' and produce progeny. After Er's death, Onan is required to carry on his deceased brother's name by marrying and impregnating Tamar in accordance with the Levirate law,14 but he does not fulfill his responsibility and destroys his semen on the ground; for this action his life is taken by God. His act of destroying his life-fluid upon the ground prefigures symbolically his own death. Onan seems to value his own pleasure above the continuity of his brother's name. As Jeansonne writes, 'the choice of Sihet (destroyed) underscores Onan's selfish exploitation because it connotes corruption and ruin'. 15 It also reflects the kind of self-determination (self-law) that leads Onan not to fulfill the 'life-enhancing' Law, but to deliberately destroy 'life'. In the next episode Judah continues to threaten his own line. He seems to have connected the deaths of Er and Onan with Tamar. But unlike God who sees into the son's evil hearts, Judah is ignorant of his own son's evil, thereby failing to recognize the true reason for their deaths. Judah is thus irresponsible for sending Tamar to her father's house, an action that alienates her, severs bonds in the family, and furthers a potent breakdown of the family. His command threatens 'lifesurvival-offspring-fertility-continuity', for Tamar contains the womb from which the grandchildren of Judah were to be born, for the moment sealed off—in effect, left barren. 14. As G.W. Coats writes, 'If a man who lives with his brothers in his father's family leaves a childless widow, his brothers have the responsibility for producing a male heir (cf. Deut. 25:5-10). The explicit purpose is to preserve the dead husband's name for future generations. . . Implicit in the custom is protection for the widow's inheritance rights with the father-in-law's family' ('Widow's Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38', CBQ 34 [1972], p. 462). 15. S.P. Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis: FromSarah's to Potiphar's House (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 102.

114

The World of Genesis

The steady erosion and disintegration of the family, distinct at this point, has progressed with intensifying sharpness. The cumulative effect of evil, self-centredness, irresponsibility, ignorance and fear creates a dynamic that threatens family continuity, order and equilibrium. At the end of phase 2, therefore, the reader's impression is that the future of Judah's family is in doubt. Phase 3: Genesis 38.12a (axis) 12a.

In the course of time, Shua's daughter, the wife of Judah, died.

Phase 3 reflects the pivot point of the overall descent/ascent pattern shown as the vertex on fig. 1. There is no surface-structure pattern to analyze at this stage in the narrative, and this absence reinforces formally the breakdown and lack of order in the family. Here the plot reaches its nadir of death and discontinuity and in phase 4 immediately follows an ascent towards its zenith of life and continuity. Plot. In Phase 3 of the narrative structure (Gen. 38.12a), a phase of scant but significant detail, the order, stability and equilibrium of the first phase, dismantled through the negative forces (father's and son's actions and attitudes) in the second phase, are brought to culmination. Here, the family is threatened further with the death of Judah's wife —a more ominous death than those of Judah's sons, for the value and loss of her womb is paramount. Here the arc of tension mounts, for now there is no womb in the family in which to plant fruitful seed. The future of the family, at this point, is jeopardized, and a more radical need for progeny to ensure primogeniture arises. Phase 4: Genesis 38.12b-26 A Al

12b. And when Judah was consoled, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend the Adullamite. 13. And Tamar was told, 'Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep'.

Phase 4 begins with a parallel pattern (AA1) that frames Judah's journey to Timnah and the disclosure of this journey to Tamar. This knowledge is crucial for her plan of action. Other subtle changes in the parallel sections are also meaningful. 'Father-in-law' defines a relationship between Judah and Tamar that raises and heightens the moral sense of their meeting. The change from

LAMBE Genesis 38

115

'sheepshearers' to the verbal phrase 'to shear his sheep' has the purpose of indicating that Judah is ready to integrate with society (through sheepshearing and its festivities) after his mourning. A

B

X

Bl Al

14. And she put off her widow's garments, put on a veil, and, wrapping herself up, sat at the gate of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah, for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. 15. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face [16] and he turned in to her at the roadside. And he said, 'Come, let me come into you', for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. a She said, 'What will you give me, that you may come in to me?' [17] He answered, 'I will send you a kid from the flock'. x And she said, 'Will you give me a pledge, till you send it?' [18] And he said, 'What pledge will I give you?' a' She replied, 'Your signet, your cord and your staff that is in your hand'. So he gave them to her, and he went into her and she conceived by him. 19. Then she arose and went away, and, taking off her veil, she put on her widow's garments.

This more complex episode in phase 4 is structured through a concentric pattern (ABXBA). The key dialogue at the center X is subdivided into a ring pattern (axa) and constitutes the heart and highest point of intensity in Tamar's plan.16 It reinforces a very carefully constructed deception. Here the dialogue decelerates the narrative and reinforces the importance of the center portion, the question, 'Will you give me a pledge?' The anonymous Tamar asks this question to arouse Judah into giving her his credentials—the verification of his identity. She knows that a kid will not be proof enough to identify the man by whom she is potentially to be impregnated. The combination a and a' comprise the symmetrical question-answer format of payment and pledge: they ask questions that lead to the reception of a promise of the kid as payment and the receipt of a pledge against it. Judah's request for pleasure in B is consummated in B1 after negotiations have been settled, but, in a reversal of his expectations, Tamar becomes impregnated. Here the polite request (with the particle of entreaty, nd'} 16. See an identical concentric pattern in Gen. 32.22-32 with a ring pattern of dialogue at the centre and framed by narration, as elucidated by Fokkelmann, 'Genesis', pp. 51-52.

116

The World of Genesis

in the first-person qal imperfect form of 'come into' (bd')* in direct speech contrasts with the narrator's account in the third-person qal imperfect form 'went into (bo')*. The A and Al combination contains Tamar's brisk actions, switching from widow to harlot and to widow again, indicated by the reverse repetition of synonymous verbs, clothing, actions and locations. The narrative arrangement of this episode is symmetrical in other ways. The combination A and Al creates an envelope of actions articulated through narration; B and Bl creates an alternation of dialogue and actions, the former expressed in speech and the latter in narration. The business negotiations at the nucleus (axa') are also pre-conditions for the remainder of Tamar's plan. The next two episodes deal with the retrieval of the pledge (vv. 20-23) and the recognition of the pledge (vv. 24-26). A B X B1 Al

20. When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he did not find her. 21. And he asked the men of the place, 'Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim by the wayside?' And they said, 'No cult prostitute has been here'. 22. So he returned to Judah, and said, 'No cult prostitute has been here'. 23. And Judah replied, 'Let her keep the things as her own, lest we be a laughingstock; behold, I sent this kid and you did not find her'.

The third episode in phase 4 constitutes another concentric pattern (ABXBA). The key words 'kid', 'send', 'give' and 'pledge' connect with the nucleus (axa') of the previous episode. The combination A and Al integrates the failure of the Adullamite to find Tamar to give her the kid and receive back their pledge (insignia) with Judah's decision to let her keep it. The narrator's and Judah's accounts in A and Al are summaries of what takes place in the middle portion, moving from narration to speech. B focuses on the Adullamite's question of 'where' the cult prostitute may be found, while Bl states the Adullamite's verbatim repetition of the answer to Judah. The dubious answer from the men to the Adullamite, 'No cult prostitute has been here', comes at the centre X of the concentric pattern. What the pattern essentially reflects is a play of perspectives or series of viewpoints dealing with the identity of Tamar. A and Al reflect Judah's view through the narrator, B and Bl reflect the Adullamite's view and X reflects the men of the

LAMBE Genesis 38

117

place's view: Judah-Adullamite-men of the place-Adullamite-Judah.17 The narrator refers to Tamar as 'the woman', and Judah refers to her as simply 'her', although he is responding to the Adullamite's designation 'cult prostitute'. The narrator also intimates the 'wifely' status of Tamar when he refers to her as 'iSSa. This creates a sense of irony, for Judah looks for his 'wife' who in fact is his estranged, concealed daughter-in-law, his son's wife. Earlier Judah had understood the woman to be a 'harlot', so interpreting the veil. From the Adullamite's perspective, however, the veil signifies a cult prostitute. The local men's negative reply that 'no cult prostitute was here' means, from their perspective, that no cult prostitute existed at the gate of Enaim. The reader's view is the clearest, however. He or she knows the identity of the woman while the characters' knowledge remains ambiguous. This play of perspectives invariably creates ambiguity and tension, while amplifying what seems to be the main intent of the episode: the deception, mysteriousness and allusiveness of the woman.18

17. O'Callaghan, 'Structure', p. 84. O'Callaghan points out the play of perspectives here but fails to show any connection to scenes prior to or after this episode. 18. It should also be remembered that the narrative is structured quite cleverly: the enigmatic designation 'cult prostitute' comes between two episodes (vv. 14-19 and vv. 24-26) in phase 4 which refer to Tamar as a 'harlot'. There accrues a heightened sense of distance between the Hebraic and pagan cultures through the semantically loaded words zond and qedeSd. Accordingly, a contrast between two horizons of meaning comes into view. The contrast is between what seems to be the world of the 'harlot' from Hebraic culture and identity and the 'cult prostitute' of pagan culture and identity. (Keep in mind that zond can also mean 'common whore', and qedeSa can mean both 'holy one' or 'consecrated person'.) This kernel of the plot (vv. 2023), therefore, obliquely announces a crucial difference between the harlot, or zond, and the cult prostitute, or qede$d. The zond can be understood in the mundane sense, with the role that is located on the fringe of society. The qede$d, on the other hand, can be understood in the cultic sense, with a role located at the centre of (pagan) society in the cult or temple. The former is Hebraic and the latter is pagan. Both words operate to support two different worldviews or perspectives but it is in the biological or sexual sense that they connect (and therefore cause confusion). These perspectives highlight the different understandings of the two worlds and dramatize the fact that Judah stands for the most part on the threshold between the two before crossing over into the pagan one. Later (v. 26) Judah is symbolically re-initiated back into the Hebraic heritage when he recognizes his insignia, which is simultaneously juxtaposed with the realization of his injustice to Tamar and his breaking of the Levirate law.

118

The World of Genesis A

24.

Al

25.

B Bl

26.

About three months later Judah was told, Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot and is with child by harlotry'. And Judah said, 'Bring her out and let her be burned'. As she was being brought out, she sent word to her faither-in-law saying, 'By the man whom these belong I am with child'. And she said, 'Identify whose these are, the signet, the cord and the staff, (surface) Then Judah recognized them and said, 'She is righteous rather than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah'. And he did not know her again, (depth)

The climax of the plot registers with a double-parallel pattern (AABB) in tandem arrangement, built on an equivalence of synonymous elements in continuous sequence. The combination A and Al repeats the key statement that Tamar is pregnant. The verb 'brought out' (v. 25) describes her coming out publicly, while foreshadowing her delivery of twins.19 Also in A Judah is about to burn Tamar for adultery, and at the same time unknowingly destroy the children who will propagate his line. Here Judah focuses on Tamar's crime, but strictly these children have been conceived through an incestuous relationship. The contrast between the relational epithets 'father-in-law' and 'daughter-in-law' heightens the irony of the predicament. Judah, the father, is about to burn his children and the mother of his children, his daughter-in-law. The whole situation dramatizes poignantly a deeper irony still: Judah's ignorance. It is not until B and Bl that Judah learns the identity of Tamar and that he is the offspring's father. He realizes that Tamar is 'carrying life' in her womb—life that he fathered. The spectre of 'death' in A and Al, therefore, is heightened through its juxtaposition with the recognition scene. In B and Bl there is Judah's recognition (anagnorisis, in classical rhetorical terms)20 of Tamar as 19. The verb ydsd', 'bring out', repeated twice here, corresponds to the verbs used to describe each of the sons' births later (vv. 29, 30). 20. A. J. Cuddon states that anagnorisis ('recognition') is a 'term used by Aristotle in Poetics to describe the moment of recognition (of truth) when ignorance gives way to knowledge. According to Aristotle, the ideal moment of anagnorisis coincides with peripeteia (q.v.), or "reversal of fortune'" (Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory [New York: Penguin Books, 1991], p. 38). See also S. Haliwell, Aristotle's Poetics (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1986), pp. 164, 212.

LAMBE Genesis 38

119

the harlot, the recognition that she is carrying his offspring, his reversal (peripeteia) ) of the death sentence and Tamar's vindication. The link between the two parallels is based on the reversal from death to life. Plot. Phase 4 of the plot constitutes the major portion of the narrative (Gen. 38.12b-26) and consists primarily of a dramatic, premeditated plan put into action by Tamar, which re-establishes equilibrium. When Tamar realizes that Judah is not going to keep his promise of marrying her to Shelah, she takes her destiny into her own hands and designs a strategem to rectify the violation of her basic rights according to the Levirate law. Before sexual intercourse is allowed, business-like arrangements are made through formal negotiations. Tamar is promised a payment of a kid for her services and requests Judah's seal, cord and staff as a receipt against the payment. She will use them later to verify the identity of the owner and therefore link the father to his progeny. Judah charges Tamar with adultery but realizes his injustice, saying, 'She is righteous rather than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah' (v. 26). Judah reverses his death sentence upon Tamar, bringing this moment of high tension to a dramatic and forceful conclusion: the decision of life over death. Tamar thus overcomes her situation, saving her own life and the lives of Judah's progeny inside her womb. She fulfills the primary intention of the Levirate law by obtaining her rights to have a child, but she also bears offspring for the survival of the family. Phase 5: Genesis 38.27-30 Introduction A B

X

Bl Al

27. When the time came for her delivery, there were twins in her womb. 28. And when she was in labor, one put out a hand; And the midwife took it and tied on his hand a scarlet thread, [29] saying, 'This one came out first', but he drew back his hand. And behold, his brother came out and she said, 'What a breach you have breached [made] for yourself!' And she called his name Perez. 30. And afterwards his brother came out who had on his hand the scarlet thread; and his name was called Zerah.

Phase 5 again shows a concentric pattern (ABXBA) and reflects a condition of equilibrium. The introductory birth announcement and the

120

The World of Genesis

subsequent births bring the theme of primogeniture to a fitting conclusion. Interestingly, the reader can see that the birth of Zerah is interrupted, coming in two stages represented in the parallels A and Al and B and B1. His hand in A indicates that he is to be born first until his brother Perez supersedes him. The combination B and B1 indicates the scarlet thread bound on Zerah's hand, showing that he was about to be the firstborn before Perez 'burst forth', ousting Zerah from the birthright. The scarlet thread reveals Zerah's name, 'dawning', which suggests the scarlet-coloured sky at the birth of a new day (paradoxically a birth that was temporarily eclipsed). The words 'this one came out first' are ironic in light of the fact that Perez interrupts Zerah's natural birth, making him come out second. The birth of Perez is at the centre X and is prefaced with the word 'behold' (hinneh), in the poetic form meaning 'see'or 'notice'. This draws attention to a portentous moment in the story: the birth of progeny, or more specifically, the birth of the forefather of King David. Plot. Phase 5, Gen. 38.27-30, resolves the ascent of the plot that began in phase 4. The quintessential fulfillment of the thematic chain, lifesurvival-offspring-fertility-continuity, is consummated in the births of Perez and Zerah, and primogeniture plays the key role in rehabilitating order and equilibrium. Conclusion Following the scheme proposed by Todorov this study demonstrates that Genesis 38 is an 'ideal narrative'. The symmetries pointed out in the examination of the parallel and surface structures show an architecture of subtle and surprising complexity. Overall, the analysis of structure or 'form' has brought to light the 'content'. This study also confirms that Genesis 38, through both the dynamics of its broad structural patterns and its fine structural articulations, is clearly an integrated literary whole. From the elucidation of its total literary design, Genesis 38 can be included with other narratives that reflect the various, rich and unique subtlety of the Bible's narrative art.

THE MATRIARCHAL GROUPINGS OF THE TRIBAL EPONYMS: A REAPPRAISAL* Rafael Frankel

In this article I intend to re-examine the origin and significance of the grouping of the tribal eponyms, Jacob's sons, according to their mothers, the matriarchs Leah and Rachel and the concubines Zilpah and Bilhah (Gen. 29.32-35; 30.1-24; 35.23-36). A commonly held concept is that these groupings reflect the early history of the tribes and specifically, events from the stage when the tribes entered the Land of Israel. I wish here to suggest a different approach and to propose that these groupings represent primarily a geopolitical situation of a much later period. It is usual to identify the 'Leah tribes' with Judah and the 'Rachel tribes' with Israel. In addition scholars have combined this division with a model by which the tribes entered the land in two waves, the Rachel tribes via Jericho (Josh. 2-6) and the Leah tribes via Bezek (Judg. 1.1-8). An anomalous element in the matriarchal grouping of the tribal eponyms is the fact that Issachar and Zebulun are the younger sons of Leah (Judah) and not of Rachel (Israel) as the geographical position of their tribal territories in Lower Galilee (Josh. 19.10-23) would have led one to expect. Various attempts have been made to explain this anomaly within the framework of the same model. Rowley1 and Noth2 suggested that the six Leah tribes were the first to enter the land and that when later the Rachel tribes occupied the central regions of the country the Leah tribes * This article appeared in Hebrew in BeitMikra 139 (1994), pp. 306-309. 1. H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1948 (London: Geoffrey Cumberledge, 1950), pp. 3-10. This passage includes a summary of the views of other scholars. 2. M. Noth, The History of Israel (London: A. & C. Black, 1960), pp. 88-90.

122

The World of Genesis

split into a southern group (Judah and Simeon) and a northern group (Issachar and Zebulun). Albright suggested the opposite.3 He was of the opinion that the Rachel tribes, the House of Joseph, entered the land first and that the Leah tribes came later. Albright did not deal specifically with the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun. Mazar however who portrayed the events in a manner similar to that put forward by Albright explained that the Leah tribes entered the land in two groups, one going to the south and the other to the north.4 There is no supporting evidence for these models, however, neither in the written sources nor in the archaeological finds and the difficulties involved in including the groupings of Leah's younger sons and those of the sons of the concubines in the model as a whole raises the question as to whether it is not preferable to seek a completely different and more satisfactory explanation for these passages in Genesis. It would appear that the key to understanding these passages is in the fact that the tribal territories of the two younger sons of Leah and the four sons of the concubines are geographically all situated in peripheral regions. They include all the five Galilean tribes, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan5, as well as Gad, which was apparently the southernmost of the tribes in Transjordan.66 Therefore, similarly to several other geneological lists in the Bible, the matriarchal groupings should be regarded as primarily geographic or geopolitical in character. Striking examples of other geneological lists that are primarily 3. W.F. Albright, 'Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest', BASOR 58 (1935), pp. 10-18, esp. 15-17 and nn. 13, 21. 4. B. Mazar, "eres yisrd'el. (8) dibre ydmim (The Land of Israel. [8] History)', inE.L. Sukenik (ed.), Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950), I, pp. 667741, esp. 694-95 (Hebrew). 5. In the descriptions of the tribal territories in Joshua 13-19 the territory of the tribe of Dan is in the south and not in Galilee. Na'aman has explained, however, the historiographical reasons for not including a northern territory for Dan (N. Na'aman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography [Jerusalem: Sinor, 1986], pp. 4647) and there is no doubt that in the region of the city of Dan there was a tribe of that name (Josh. 19.47; Judg. 18.27-29; 2 Chron. 13). 6. The territory of Gad as described in Joshua is situated to the north of that of Reuben. Other sources however show that the tribe lived further south: the list of the cities of Gad, Num. 32.34-36; Joab's census, 2 Sam. 24.5; the Mesha Stele, line 10 'then the men of Gad had settled in the land of Attaroth from of old' (J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973], p. 76).

FRANKEL The Matriarchal Groupings of the Tribal Eponyms

123

geographic in character are the Mappa Mundi in Genesis 10 and the geneological lists of the tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26.28-34; Josh. 17.14; 1 Chron. 7.14-18), the geographical character of which we learn from the Samaria Ostraca.7 If this is so, the fact that Issachar and Zebulun are Leah's younger sons should not be regarded as showing that these two tribes and the southern tribes were of common origin but rather as showing that there was a special relationship between the region of Lower Galilee and the region (or the Kingdom) of Judah. The allocation of two tribes to each concubine was apparently primarily a matter of symmetry but here also there is a certain geographical logic. The territory of Asher the son of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid, is adjacent to that of Zebulun, Leah's son, while that of Gad., Asher's brother, is near the territories of Leah's other sons in the south. The territories of Naphtali and Dan, the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid, are neighbours in northern Galilee near the territory of half Manasseh, Rachel's grandson, in Transjordan. It is now possible to attempt to understand the manner in which the groupings as a whole reached their present form. It must be stressed that the tribal eponyms are of two types dividing into two groups of six. The first group consists of the two sons of Rachel and the first four sons of Leah. These are the only eponyms to appear by name in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis and their matriarchal grouping, while clearly representing Israel and Judah, are also without doubt connected to earlier traditions, some of which are incorporated in these narratives. The second group consisting of the two younger sons of Leah and the sons of the concubines do not appear as individuals in any of the patriarchal narratives and were apportioned to matriarchal groupings according to the geographical and geopolitical conceptions of the writer. It is significant that the positions of the tribal territories although similar to those in Joshua 13-19, are not identical (5.6), showing that these two sources are not directly connected. A cardinal question that arises is: what political picture is reflected in the fact that Issachar and Zebulun are the sons of Leah? The first clear evidence we have of a special relationship between Judah and Lower Galilee is from after the Assyrian conquest of the northern parts of the country. Such a relationship is reflected in the fact that 7. G. A. Reisner, C.S. Fisher and D.G. Lyons, Harvard Excavations at Samaria I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1924), pp. 227-46; Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible (London: Burns & Gates, 1968), pp. 315-27.

124

The World of Genesis

'several people from Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun' came to Hezekiah's great Passover but not of Ephraim (2 Chron. 30.11). Even if this passage is not historical it shows the viewpoint of the writer. Of greater significance are the marriages of Manasseh and Josiah to daughters of men of Jotbah and Rumah, both towns in Lower Galilee (2 Kgs 21.19; 23.36), the only marriages known to us of Judaean princes to women from outside Judah apart from Joram's marriage to Athaliah the Israelite princess. This special relationship between Lower Galilee and Judah was explained by Tadmor88 as being the result of the difference between the Assyrian conquest of Galilee carried out by Tiglath Pileser III in 732 BCE and their conquest of Samaria carried out by Sargon II and Shalmaneser V in 722-721 BCE. In both cases Israelites were sent into exile but the difference was that while foreign peoples were settled in Samaria, in Galilee no such settlement took place. This resulted in the ethnic makeup of the population in the two regions being different, a situation that apparently continued into later periods. While very little is known about Galilee in the Persian and early Hellenistic period there is clear evidence that there was a Jewish population in Galilee before the Hasmonaean conquest,9 and it is extremely difficult to explain the very marked difference between Jewish Galilee and Samaritan Samaria of later periods except as deriving from the situation that existed already at the end of the First Temple period.10

8. H. Tadmor, The Conquest of Galilee by Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria', in H.Z. Hirschfeld (ed.), The Land of Naphtali (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967), pp. 62-67, esp. 67 (Hebrew). 9. 1 Mace. 5.15, 21-23; also the fact that Alexander Yannai was educated in Galilee (Josephus, Ant. 13.12.1) and the fact that Asochis and Sepphoris were already large Jewish cities at the time of Ptolemy Laterus's attack (Josephus, Ant. 13.12.4-5; War 1.4.2). 10. The size and character of the Jewish presence in Galilee before the Hasmonaean conquest has been a matter of dispute. Among those I have followed in the views expressed here are: A. Alt, 'Die Umgestaltung Galileas durch die Hasmonaer', PJ 35 (1939), pp. 64-82; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), I, p. 223; G. Fuks, The Jewish Settlement in Galilee from the Assyrian Conquest till the Annexation of Galilee to the Hasmonaean State', Beit Mikra 26 (1981), pp. 93-97 (Hebrew). An example of the opposite view is: B. Bar Kochba, 'Manpower, Economics and Internal Strife in the Hasmonaean State', in Armees etfiscalite dans le monde antique. Actes de collogue national, Paris 14-16 Octobre 1976 (Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 936; Paris: CNRS, 1977), pp. 191-94.

FRANKEL The Matriarchal Groupings of the Tribal Eponyms

125

Conclusions I have attempted to show that the matriarchal groupings of the tribal eponyms reflects a geopolitical situation, one element of which conforms to a situation that arose after the Assyrian conquest and reached full expression in even later periods.

This page intentionally left blank

Part III THE MEN'S STORY

A CRUX AND A TAUNT: NIGHT-TIME THEN SUNSET IN GENESIS 15

Scott B. Noegel

In Genesis 15 we are faced with a peculiar problem. Following Abraham's vision in which Yahweh calms his fears and promises him an heir, Yahweh offers this challenge: 'Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them'. He then adds, 'So shall your offspring be' (15.5). In v. 12, however, the narrator informs us that the sun had not yet set.1 The crux is one of sequence: either it is night or it is day. Oddly, few have commented on the blatant 'dischronologized' order.2 Of those who have noticed, the contradiction has been met primarily from two camps. On the one hand, for those of the school of higher criticism, the dischronologization is the result of mixed sources. In his commentary to Genesis, E.A. Speiser explained the problem that 'it is nighttime in v. 5 but still daylight in 12', as illustrative of the 'marked departures from the usual manner of J', for which he cautiously suggested the hand of E.3 In this he seems to have adopted the view of John Skinner.4 In the other camp are those who justify the contradiction on the basis that Aristotelian logic is not applicable to the ancient Near 1. For a discussion on the chronological problem, see G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 71. 2. I have adopted this term from W.J. Martin, ' "Dischronologized" Narrative in the Old Testament', in Congress Volume (VTSup, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), pp. 179-86; for an example of a lack of treatment of the problem, see C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), p. 226. More recently it has been ignored by D.A. Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS, 139; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). See my review of the latter in Journal for the Association of Jewish Studies 21 (1996), pp. 367-69. 3. E.A. Speiser, Genesis (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p. 114. 4. J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1910), p. 281, ascribes v. 5 to J and v. 12 to both J and E.

NOEGEL A Crux and a Taunt

129

Eastern mindset, that is, that the ancients were not bothered by such anachronisms.5 While some support for this view may be garnered from the Talmud—mira im«ai mpin ]"« 'there is no early or late in the Torah'6—it is clear that v. 12 bothered the sages, though typically they offered ingenious solutions. Rashi was inclined to take v. 12 metaphorically as 'alluding to the afflictions and darkness of the diasporas'.77 Rambam, elaborating on Rashi, also took it as a prophetic metaphor for the diaspora. In an attempt to harmonize the passages, Ibn Ezra opined that the verse 'tells us that he (Abram) took for himself all these things (the birds) on the day after the (day) in which he awoke from the prophetic vision'.8 V. Hamilton finds support for Ibn Ezra's view in that 'v. 11 has mentioned birds of prey, who hunt their victims during the day, thus implying that Abram's vision has moved into its second day'. 9 Abrabanel,10 after explaining the chapter as depicting Abram's departure from astrology, sighed: Oh that I knew whether it were day or night. For if it were day, then the stars could not have been visible, and if it were night, there is the difficult [verse] 'And the sun set' (v. 26).11

To Abravanel this passage was a hopeless paradox. Nevertheless, we may gain clearer insight into the crux by examining other biblical passages and their contexts which employ what will be termed the 'im tukall 'if you are able' construction.12

5. N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1984), does not address the issue. For a similar treatment, see also Martin, '"Dischronologized" Narrative', pp. 179-86. 6. b. Pes. 6b.

7.

8. 9. V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 434. For a similar opinion, see J.C.L. Gibson, Genesis (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), I, p. 53. 10. I would like to thank Bernard Grossfeld of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, for pointing out this comment to me.

11. 12. Syntactically, the construction is an indirect question, though its usage lacks

130

The World of Genesis

The phrase 'im tukal 'if you are able' is rather rare in the Bible, occurring elsewhere only four (or five) times: Gen. 13.16; 1 Sam. 17.89; 2 Kgs 18.23-24 (= Isa. 36.8); and Job 33.5. A brief comparison of these passages yields a striking similarity in contexts and usage, which bears upon our understanding of the crux in Gen. 15.5. Gen. 13.16 (God to Abram): I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one is able ('im-yukal 'iS) to count the dust of the earth, then your offspring too can be counted.

1 Sam. 17.8-9 (Goliath to Israel): Choose one of your men and let him come down against me. If he is able ('im-yukal)) to combat me and kill me, we will become your slaves; but if I am able ('im "*ni 'ukal) to combat him and kill him, you shall be our slaves and serve us.

2 Kgs 18.23-24 (=Isa. 36.8) (Rabshakeh to the Jerusalemite inhabitants): Come now, make this wager with my master, the king of Assyria: I'll give you two thousand horses if you are able (im-tukal)) to produce riders to mount them. So how could you refuse anything even to the deputy of one of my master's lesser servants, relying on Egypt for chariots and horsemen?

Job 33.5 (Elihu to Job): If you are able ('im-tukal), answer me, prepare for the contest, take your stand.

Two passages should be added to our comparison, Num. 22.38 and 2 Chron. 32.13, though they employ the construction interrogative he plus verb ykl instead of 'im tukal. Num. 22.38 (Balaam to Balak): And now that I have come to you, am I able (haydkol 'ukal) to speak freely?

I can utter only the word that God puts in my mouth.

2 Chron. 32.13 (Sennacherib to Hezekiah): Were the gods of the nations of the lands able (hayakol ydkelu) to save their lands from me? appreciable study. See, e.g., its omission in B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

NOEGEL A Crux and a Taunt

131

A comparison of the passages produces three points of commonality. First, in each of the passages, the implied answer to the indirect question is 'no'. In Genesis, Abram obviously is unable to count the grains of sand that weigh so heavily in his promise. In 1 Samuel, the overly self-confident Goliath mocks Israel fully expecting that the Israelites will be unable to supply a champion to defeat him. This is brought out both by the emphatic T (>ani) which he adds when proclaiming 'but if / am able to combat him', and by the terror-stricken reaction of Saul and the Israelites in the next line (17.11). The condescending remarks of the Assyrian military commander Rabshakeh in 2 Kings and Isaiah also imply that the Israelites are unable to produce chariot riders, hence their need for Egyptian support. Elihu's challenge to Job betrays his cocky and self-assured belief that he, and not Job, is correct. Even if we include the passages employing hayakol (Num. 22.38; 2 Chron. 32.13) we see that the implied answer to the rhetorical question is 'no'. Another point that these passages have in common is their contexts of taunting and tests of faith. As we are told already in Gen. 15.1, Abram must believe in God's promise of children and land, neither of which he possesses at the present. It is clear from the use of the verbs 'defy' (herapti) in 1 Sam. 17.10 and 'scorn' (wayyibzehu) in 17.42, that Goliath'stone is one of taunting and mockery.13 The daunting words of Rabshakeh (2 Kgs 18.23-24 [= Isa. 36.8]) also are poised to create fear and procure the surrender of Hezekiah's Jerusalem. Zophar's remarks (Job 11.2), Job's comments (19.3; 21.3; 30.1), andElihu's boast (32.1721) illustrate that each of Job's friends has retorted tauntingly to his trial. Similarly, in Num. 22.10 we are told explicity that Balaam's intention is to curse Israel. One may add to this Sennacherib's boast in 2 Chronicles, which obviously is meant to intimidate. The third aspect shared by these passages is one that bears most importantly upon our crux in Gen. 15.5: each prepares the reader for an unexpected twist of events. For Abram, this twist comes in the form of an unfolding drama in which Abram must question whether Lot, Eliezer or Ishmael will succeed him before Isaac eventually is born. The unexpected turn of events in 1 Samuel arrives when the small and ruddy boy David slays the expected victor Goliath. Rabshakeh meets his surprise when Yahweh thwarts his conquest by smiting eighty-five thousand of his contingent (2 Kgs 19.35). In the book of Job, God eventually 13. Waltke and O' Connor (Introduction, p. 322) note that David's reply in 1 Sam. 17.26 contains the interrogative language of insult.

132

The World of Genesis

vindicates Job and rewards him doubly after reprimanding his friends: 'You did not speak correctly of me as did my servant Job' (Job 42.7). In Numbers the reader unexpectedly finds Balaam blessing Israel instead of cursing it. Similarly, Sennacherib's taunts, despite their selfassuredness, are brought to shame when God annihilates the Assyrian army. The shared features and contexts above illustrate that the biblical writers employed the 'im tukal and hayakoll constructions for a specific function, namely, to set up the reader for an unexpected turn of events which hitherto have been thought impossible. Therefore, as Gen. 15.5 contains the expression 'im tukal, one should expect to find in the pericope this construction's common features. To demonstrate this I turn now to where we began, with Yahweh's promise: 'Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And he said unto him, 'Thus will your seed be' (15.5).

The first point of commonality was that the implied answer of the indirect question 'im tukal 'if you are able' is 'no'. That this is the case has not been argued. Scholars and exegetes frequently have noted Abram's inability to count the stars, explaining it on the basis of their innumerability. However, if we keep in mind the tauntful, testing nature of the 'im tukal construction and that the sun does not set in the story until v. 12, a question naturally arises. What makes God's request to count the stars a test? The question is made even more poignant by the fact that we are not told that Abram ever attempted to count them. (Indeed, the medieval portrayal of Abram mentioned above, as one who rejected astrology, cannot be reconciled if he had numbered them!) It is here where the third aspect of the 'im tukal construction, its use as a foil to play unexpectedly upon the reader, comes into focus revealing the obvious, albeit overlooked solution to the crux: Abram could not number the stars because it was daylight! Support for this reading comes partly from the word Samayim, which though typically rendered in our verse as 'heaven(s)', that is, as the astral heavens, because of the mention of stars in the same verse,14 also can mean 'daytime sky'.15 For example, following Elijah's defeat of the prophets of Baal, we are told that 'the sky (samayim) grew black 14. The JPS, and KJV all have 'heavens', while the NIV has 'heaven'. 15. Though the NIV translates Samayim as 'sky', it is doubtful that it was based on the solution to the crux suggested here.

NOEGEL A Crux and a Taunt

133

with clouds' (1 Kgs 18.45). If it were nighttime, the sky would have been dark already. Compare also the story of the battle of Ai in which the narrator explicitly informs us that it is morning (Josh. 8.14) before telling us that Joshua's troops 'saw the smoke of the city rising to the sky (ha$$amayemdy)' (8.20). Additional examples could be cited.16 Further support for this interpretation comes from the importance that Abram's faith is given in the pericope. According to Edwin Good, 'the thematic unity of the Abram story is woven about the thread of promise'.17 The theological message that Abram's faith rested solely on Yahweh's promise is central to the narrative.18 As the narrator puts it: 'He believed in Yahweh and he reckoned it to his merit' (15.6).19 Had Abram seen stars, his faith would not have been based on the promise alone, but on a sign, a reading that Rashi, Abravanel and others have rejected on the basis of their understanding of this chapter as depicting Abram's departure from astrology. However, if we hold that he was unable to see any stars because they had not appeared yet, the supposed discrepancy vanishes and the significance of the divine promise and depth of Abram's faith are revealed. He was to trust on the promise alone. Additional evidence in favor of this reading comes from a parallel divine promise concerning possession of the land in the very next verse (15.7). Here Yahweh promises Abram that he will inherit the land he sees before him. Yet, we are told soon afterwards that the land is inhabited by no less than ten different tribes (15.20). Thus, he is promised both progeny and land, which at that time were not visible realities. Again, Abram is called upon for blind faith. A final piece of evidence may be garnered by addressing the issue of style. It will be noted that Genesis 15 is not the only place in the Bible where the reader is duped into forming a hasty conclusion. When Laban deceives Jacob by placing Leah instead of Rachel as his wife, the audience also is caught up in the trickery of the event (Gen. 29.23-25). Similarly, in search of the next king of Israel, Samuel leads us through the family of Jesse from son to son to son. We are told that he almost 16. E.g. 2 Kgs 2.1; 2.5; Job 35.5. 17. E.M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981), p. 89. 18. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 230 notes: 'God's covenant with Abram and Abram's faith appear as the kernel of what the Bible says about him'. 19. With Sarna, Genesis, p. 113.

134

The World of Genesis

anointed Eliab but that Yahweh stopped him, and that he also hesitated before Abinadab and Shammah (1 Sam. 16.6, 8, 9). Only after Samuel examined six of the seven sons does the realization become possible that David will be king. If we are not pursuaded to follow faulty assumptions, as we were with Jacob and Samuel, we often are spared essential facts for extended periods of time in order to build suspense.20 In this way, as Joel Rosenberg tells us,21 the narrator of 2 Samuel 6 keeps hidden the intended destination of the ark until it entered the City of David. Regarding the ironic suspense of our story, Edwin Good remarked: The irony of the episode arises out of the theme of God's promise of the land to Abram. The first time Abram arrives in Canaan, the promise is given (ch. 12.7), and it is reiterated when he and Lot separate (ch. 13.1417), in the covenant ceremony (ch. 15.7, 16, 18-21), and in the promise related to the circumcision (ch. 17.8). The land is Abram's by promise. Yet he must bargain with a Hittite over a purchase of a piece of it for a burial ground.22

It is in this vein that we also should view both the ironic use of the 'im tukal expression in Gen. 13.16 and the withholding of the sunset in Genesis 15 until v. 12. As for the former, the author has added the phrase 'if you are able' in order to dupe the reader into drawing a false analogy, to wit, that just as the grains of sand were innumerable in Gen. 13.16 due to their abundance, so too are the stars in 15.5. As for the latter, the author withheld knowledge of the sunset so that the reader would pause and contemplate the promise before coming to realize that it was then beyond any empirical verification. In the light of the linguistic and comparative evidence, it is clear that Genesis 15 does not contain a chronological problem, nor does it bear witness to a tangled weaving of various sources and/or editors, but rather it is the device of a clever storyteller. The effectiveness of the author's trick may be due in part to the existence of a commonly used simile of people as stars. For example, in Deut. 1.10, 10.22, 28.62 20. L. Alonso Schokel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica, 11; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988), pp. 163-64; M. Steinberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), pp. 309-20. 21. J. Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. 117. 22. Good, Irony in the Old Testament, p. 97.

NOEGEL A Crux and a Taunt

135

and Isa. 40.26, the population of Israel is likened to stars in the sky. Thus it is possible that the author of Gen. 15.5 played on this expression.23 This fits well with the author's exploitation of the reader's assumption that Samayim means 'night sky' instead of 'day sky',24 and the reader's foreknowledge that Abram later will have children and possess land. Indeed, the author of Gen. 15.5 created the puzzle and provided a clue to its resolution.25 The supposed contradiction is meant to be glaring, to make us think twice about the divine promise. It probably would please the author of our pericope to no end to find out that the puzzle has been successful for centuries.

23. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, pp. 221-22. 24. It is possible that the author deliberately used the verb nbt 'behold' to throw the reader off track, as its Akkadian cognate nabatu 'to shine' frequently is used in reference to illuminaries of the night sky (CAD, Nl, p. 23, s.v. nabatu). Cf. Rashi's connection of the verb with stars in Gen. 15.5. 25. In case the reader missed the device, the author reminds us in v. 17 that the sun had set completely.

PARATAXIS, RHETORICAL STRUCTURE, AND THE DIALOGUE OVER SODOM IN GENESIS 18* Jack R. Lundbom

I

Erich Auerbach in his classic work, Mimesis (1953),1 contrasted the epic styles of Homer and the Bible and concluded that the Greeks and Hebrews had very different ways of comprehending and representing reality. From the 'recognition scene' of Odysseus in Book XIX of the Odyssey, Auerbach came to characterize Greek epic style as essentially 'hypotactic',22 that is, in direct discourse as well as in narrative more generally, descriptions are commonplace and in them is much detail. Syntactic connections between narrative parts create a kind of framework, with the result that nothing remains in obscurity, everything is clear—even story-line interruptions end up bringing persons, things and incidents together logically and in a flowing manner. Feelings and thoughts are also externalized, making an epic type of all foreground. Hypotactic style has no background, says Auerbach, nothing hidden or unexpressed, 'never. .. a form left fragmentary or half-illuminated, never a lacuna, never a gap, never a glimpse of unplumbed depths'.3 Without background there is also no suspense. Even interruptions, instead of setting up tension, relax it because of where they are placed or how they integrate into the narrative as a whole.

* This paper was read to the Cambridge Old Testament Seminar on 22 November, 1995. The research was supported by a grant from New Covenant Research Inc. 1. Trans. W.R. Trask; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 323. 2. The term 'hypotaxis', and Auerbach's contrasting term for Hebrew epic style, 'parataxis', are introduced later; see Mimesis, pp. 70-75, 99-122. 3. Auerbach, Mimesis, pp. 6-7.

LUNDBOM The Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

137

The biblical passage used for contrast was the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. Auerbach concluded from this narrative that Hebrew epic style is essentially 'paratactic', that is, a style typified by economy of detail, and what detail there is functions indirectly to express such things as resolve, obedience or one's moral position in relation to God. There are no characterizations of persons. Syntactic connections between narrative parts are few in number, or else non-existent, and those which do appear are of such a rudimentary sort that much is left in obscurity. Feelings and thoughts of persons are not externalized, that is, motives are lacking and purposes remain unexpressed. Speeches by persons are often fragmentary. In the Genesis 22 passage we meet with that 'heavy silence' between Abraham and his son as they walk to the mountain of sacrifice. Hebrew epic is all background, says Auerbach, which allows it to teem with suspense and convey mystery with exceptional facility. The latter capacity works to good advantage when it comes to speaking about God, for 'the [Hebrew] reader knows that God is a hidden God'.4 Auerbach finds parataxis in other Old Testament narratives, for example, those about Saul and David. In this essay I should like to discuss the well-known dialogue between Yahweh and Abraham over the fate of Sodom in Gen. 18.23-32, a passage embodied in narrative (Gen. 18-19) similar to Genesis 22. Here we might expect to find more paratactic style of the type described by Auerbach—economy of detail, loose syntactic connections, feelings and thoughts not externalized, purposes left unexpressed, rich background, suspense, etc.—and because of the argument, an opportunity is afforded to test for parataxis in direct discourse, largely unavailable in Genesis 22, where Auerbach found only that 'heavy silence' between Abraham and his son. Auerbach's classic distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis has been picked up by Chaim Perelman in his discussion of argumentation.5 Perelman says that hypotaxis is the argumentative construction par excellence because it creates frameworks, controls the audience by forcing it to see particular relationships, and restricts what interpretations may be considered. Its inspiration comes primarily 'from wellconstructed legal reasoning'. Parataxis, on the other hand, 'leaves 4. Auerbach, Mimesis, p. 15. 5. C. Perelman andL. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), pp. 157-58.

138

The World of Genesis

greater freedom, and does not appear to wish to impose a particular viewpoint'. Perelman also believes that enumeration, in some of its uses, exemplifies the paratactic construction. Parataxis is deserving of more consideration in evaluating biblical argumentation. If we moderns tend to think hypotactically, as we seem to, we are likely left with an uneasy feeling when encountering many a biblical argument—much the same as in reading biblical narrative— that something is missing. Something usually is missing, which is precisely the point. Parataxis doubtless accounts for our inability to recognize a genuine dialectic in the Old Testament, what with thoughts not sufficiently externalized, connections in the argument not there, and all the rich background admitting other interpretations.

II Genesis 18-19 forms a unit that preserves stories about renewing the covenant promise to Abraham that Sarah will bear a son (18.1-15), and about the destruction of the Gentile cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (18.16-19.28). These stories are said to have been reworked by the Yahwist who includes them—along with Genesis 22—into his rendering of patriarchal history.6 We can only speculate about earlier forms the stories may have taken. In my view, one of the three visiting men (SeloM >ana$im) in 18.2, two of whom are called '(divine) messengers' (mal'dkim) in 19.1 and 15, 6. The documentary hypothesis, of course, enjoys no consensus of support at the present time; see R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 160; N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 20-26, 133-38. J. VanSeters retains it in the main, but rejects a tenth-century dating of J; in his view the Sodom story in its present form is nevertheless the work of the Yahwist (J); cf. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975),p. 151; idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwistas Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 258-60. Older scholars attributing Gen. 18-19 to the Yahwist include I.E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900), II, pp. 25-28; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), pp. 29899, 306; G. von Rad, Genesis (OTL; trans. J.H. Marks; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), p. 199; and E.A. Speiser, Genesis (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p. 130. S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1967), p. 119, considered the present passage to be one of the noteworthy specimens of the Yahwist's style.

LUNDBOM The Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

139

originally carried on the discourse with Abraham and Sarah about Sarah bearing a child in old age. As it is now, he speaks only in 18.10, with Yahweh taking over the discourse in 18.13-15. Verse 14 looks to be a duplicate of v. 10 as both speak about a return visit in the spring. The spokesman for the three may have spoken the soliloquy in 18.1719 as well, after which divine thoughts are revealed to Abraham in vv. 20-21; otherwise all or a portion of this discourse has been added.7 The spokesman seems also to have been the one originally carrying on the dialogue with Abraham over the fate of Sodom (18.23-32). Since three men appear at the beginning of the story, and only two arrive in Sodom (19.1), we may assume one has remained behind to speak with Abraham (18.22),8 He may proceed to Sodom after the dialogue is over (18.33); we cannot say. Also, an earlier form of the story appears to have the men acting as agents of destruction (19.13: 'for we are about to destroy this place'). It is unnecessary to posit a pre-Yahwistic version of the story in which three gods visit human beings. 9 Three divine messengers, perhaps, but not three gods. The story now, with its present Yahwistic overlay, has Yahweh speaking to Abraham and Sarah about Sarah bearing a son, Yahweh pondering whether to make Abraham privy to his Sodom plans, and then telling him (18.17-21), and Yahweh carrying on the dialogue with Abraham over Sodom's fate. When all is over, Yahweh is the one who rains fire and brimstone on the wicked

7. Since Wellhausen, vv. 17-19 have been considered a soliloquy added by the Yahwist; cf. Skinner, Genesis, p. 298; von Rad, Genesis, p. 204; and Speiser, Genesis, p. 135. Van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition, p. 213), however, sees no reason to consider the verses redactional. 8. In 18.22b the text originally read, 'but Yahweh remained standing before Abraham'. Later Jewish tradition altered this reading to 'but Abraham remained standing before Yahweh' (already in the LXX). The reason for the change (a tiq soph) was that Abraham, having inferior status, could not show proper respect if Yahweh was said to be standing before him; cf. von Rad, Genesis, p. 206; Speiser, Genesis, p. 134. If, however, an earlier form of the story had a man/messenger standing before Abraham, the problem of respect would likely not have arisen. Van Seters (Prologue to History, p. 259) says that only two of the three men proceed to Sodom with Yahweh remaining behind to carry on the dialogue with Abraham. But what happens to the third man? 9. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities (Kampen: Kok, 1990), pp. 23-26.

140

The World of Genesis

cities (19.24). An earlier summary statement has God (ha'el)lQ overthrowing the wicked cities (19.25)—another doublet. Here, as elsewhere, the Yahwist brings Yahweh down to earth where he stands before people (18.22 prior to the tiq. soph.), talks to them directly, and goes his way once the conversation is finished (18.33). For other Yahwistic theology, see 18.1; 19.13-14, 16, 27. The story in its final form provides clear evidence of parataxis, for example, the shifts between 'men', 'messengers' and 'Yahweh'. These strike the modern reader as poor editing, resulting in a narrative that is inconsistent and possibly even incoherent. But from another point of view more background is created. In that background, for example, is the messenger whom Yahweh eclipses by assuming or supplementing the discourse that he carried on. The modern reader loses sight of his presence, but he is there. What the modern reader needs is a hypotactic construction, such as, 'Yahweh, speaking through the messenger, said... ' This, to some extent, is compensated for in later midrash. In Genesis Kabbah (L 2)11 Michael is the messenger announcing the news to Abraham and then departing, Gabriel the messenger sent to destroy Sodom, and Raphael the messenger going down to Sodom to rescue Lot. This midrash (LI 2) also attributes Yahweh's statement about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 19.24 to Gabriel. Ill

Now to the celebrated dialogue, which is our primary concern. Here one finds more parataxis: economy of words and action, thoughts and feelings unexpressed, and enumeration that helps to build suspense while at the same time serving to correct Abraham's misperceptions. The bargaining taking place is for the entire city of Sodom (18.26), even though Abraham speaks only on behalf of the righteous.12 It is the 10. Modern English versions, here and in v. 8, emend MT ha'el ('the God') to hd'eleh ('these'). 11. Midrash Kabbah: Genesis I (ed. and trans. H. Freedman; London: Soncino, 1951). 12. Collective and individualistic thinking in the dialogue is discussed by von Rad, Genesis, p. 208. See also von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D.M.G. Stalker;Edinburgh: Oliver&Boyd, 1962), I, pp. 394-95; and G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D.E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968), p. 151. Van Seters (Abraham in Tradition and History, p. 214) recognizes that Abraham is bargaining for the whole of Sodom, but says the emphasis in vv. 23-32

LUNDBOM The Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

141

sort of bargaining carried on today in Near Eastern bazaars.13 As will be seen more clearly in a moment, it is really kinsman Lot and his family who are uppermost in Abraham's mind, for they are settled in Sodom and a destruction of the city will mean their destruction. Abraham rescued them once before (Gen. 14). Any anxiety over Lot is entirely unexpressed, however, but it is there and must not be overlooked or judged peripheral in the dialogue.14 The fate of Lot and his household stands behind the very first question Abraham asks of Yahweh, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?' (18.23). Throughout the dialogue Abraham takes the initiative, posing questions that Yahweh in turn answers. Yahweh does not answer every question, only those containing specific numbers for saving the city. Neither of the big questions posed at the beginning of the dialogue is answered (vv. 23, 25b). One at least is rhetorical. Both, in any case, are left for the audience to ponder. In the sequence of questions about the number of righteous required to save the city we see a rhetorical structure unfolding, one which will assist the audience in making the interpretation the narrator intends. The numbers are reduced from 50 to 45, then to 40, then to 30, then to 20, and then to 10, which Abraham promises will be his final proposal. But to judge from the deferential language and temerity expressed thus far, we wonder if it will be. In bargaining of this sort it is not over until it's over. We know Abraham cannot reduce the numis on individual responsibility, a theme prominent in Ezekiel and at the beginning of the exilic period. His supposition that the verses have in mind 'the specific salvation of the righteous one, Lot' narrows the focus too much; see discussion following. 13. Or 'just another bout of male bargaining'; so P.R. Davies, 'Abraham and Yahweh—A Case of Male Bonding', Bible Review 11 (1995), p. 32. 14. H. Gunkel in The Legends of Genesis (trans. W.H. Carruth; New York: Schocken Books, 1964), p. 60, says the narrator, in reporting Abraham's return the next morning to the place overlooking Sodom (19.27-28), wishes to impress upon the hearer that Abraham is there thinking certain thoughts, although he does not tell us what those thoughts are. The same might be said of Abraham prior to the dialogue, a point which has already been made; see L. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 79-81, 109; D.J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), p. 73; and Davies, 'Abraham and Yahweh', p. 32. Von Rad (Genesis, p. 207) believed that before the dialogue Abraham was not concerned with saving Lot (nor Sodom).

142

The World of Genesis

her once more by 10, for that would bring him to zero, but he could make a reduction by 5. Genesis Kabbah ((XLIX 12), in fact, quotes a tradition which says that Abraham wanted to descend from 50 to 5, but God told him, 'Back up!', that is, do not make so great a jump. From a rhetorical point of view he could end with a decrement of 5 because he began that way. We know Hebrew rhetoric has a proclivity for balancing the end with the beginning. The audience, in fact, might be anticipating precisely this. If he did make such a reduction, the numbers would decrease in the following manner: 50 people

-5 45 people

-5 40 people

-10 30 people

-10 20 people

-10 10 people

[-5] [5 people]

[-5]

Abraham does not reduce the magic number to 5. To do so would be to bargain for a number lower than the sum of Lot's household, which consists of 6 people: Lot, his wife, two daughters and two men engaged to the daughters (called 'sons-in-law'). At 10 it is still possible for everyone in Lot's household to be righteous; at 5 it cannot be. This has to be why Abraham does not go below 10, even though Genesis Kabbah gives other reasons, one of which is that Abraham thought Lot's family to consist of 10 people (XLIX 13; L 9): Lot, his wife, four daughters and four sons-in-law—two married and two engaged to be married. The Hebrew of 19.14 will not support such a reading,15 nevertheless, it is significant that the midrash ties in the final offer with the number of members in Lot's family, which gives support to the idea that Abraham is thinking of them as the righteous for whom all of Sodom should be spared. The narrator will go on to tell us just how righteous Lot's house15. The midrash reads 19.14: 'And Lot went out, and spoke to his sons-in-law and those who were taking his daughters' (italics mine).

LUNDBOM The Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

143

hold is. Abraham, of course, cannot be expected to anticipate Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to the crazed men of Sodom,16 jesting sons-inlaw who do not want to leave an evil city, Lot's disobedient wife, and the incest carried out later by the daughters with their father (19.3038). Similarly, he cannot know the mercy Yahweh will show to Lot and members of Lot's household. Nevertheless, the narrator makes it clear to us, the audience, that Abraham has overestimated the righteousness of Sodom, and underestimated the justice and mercy of Yahweh. I say this because I believe the narrator in his sequel wants to tell us that not a soul in Sodom—including Lot—was righteous, and but for Yahweh's mercy neither Lot, his wife, nor his daughters would have been spared (19.16).17 The summary statement of 19.29 says it was because God remembered Abraham—not particularly high praise for Lot. If no one in Sodom can be said to have been righteous, then the whole of Genesis 18-19 comes into line with Jer. 5.1-8 where just one righteous person is sought in Jerusalem, but not found. The dialogue breaks off with no resolution, no communique announcing that a settlement has been reached.18 Yahweh's acceptance of Abraham's final proposal is the last thing to be said. After that the text says tersely, 'And Yahweh went his way when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place' (18.33). This lack of 16. This act is said to be a reflection of oriental hospitality, according to which a stranger coming under one's roof is protected at all cost (so Skinner, Genesis, p. 307; von Rad, Genesis, p. 213; and R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel [New York: McGrawHill, 1965], I, p. 10). Because of his hospitality Lot is considered to be a righteous man (Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis, p. 107; J. Morgenstern, The Book of Genesis [New York: Schocken Books, 2nd edn, 1965], p. 126; T.D. Alexander, 'Lot's Hospitality: A Clue to his Righteousness', JBL 104 [1985], pp. 290-91). Nevertheless, the offer of virgin daughters to sex-crazed men would certainly offend the Hebrew sense of morality generally, and that of the Yahwist particularly who is conceded to have an acute consciousness of sin (e.g. Gen. 3). On the former, see Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis, pp. 80-81. The incident here in Genesis 19 is strikingly similar to the one in Judges 19 concerning the Levite, his concubine, and the men of Gibeah who were judged wicked enough and to have created enough of an offense against all Israel that a war between Israel and the Benjaminites was the result (Judg. 20). 17. Van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition, pp. 217-20) says the 'secondary motifs' in 19.17-38 are not independent of the primary theme, and attempts should not be made to isolate them in a now-unified ch. 19. 18. Contra von Rad, Genesis, p. 209, who says the conversation does not end with an open question.

144

The World of Genesis

resolution and concluding silence means that the audience is left to answer for itself the large questions raised at the beginning of the dialogue, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?' and 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?' Leaving big questions for the audience to answer is what happens also in Jer. 5.1-8, where the all-important question is whether Yahweh will pardon Jerusalem.19 Finding in the whole of Lot's household no one who is righteous forces a re-examination of well-entrenched readings of this story that: 1. 2. 3.

focus on the perverted 'men of Sodom', as embodying all that is wicked in the city; heap disproportionate judgment on Lot's wife, whose disobedience is explicit; and single out Lot as Sodom's only righteous inhabitant.

Later Jewish tradition reckoned Lot to be righteous because of his hospitality toward strangers. Already in Wis. 19.17 the hapless men of Sodom are contrasted with 'the righteous man' Lot. Christians too have kept pace in venerating Lot. In 2 Pet. 2.6-8 Lot is said not only to have been righteous himself, but to have been 'vexed in his righteous soul day after day' because of the licentious wicked in the city. A seventh-century monastery and basilica dedicated to Saint Lot was discovered in 1990 at Deir 'Ain 'Abata in Jordan, near the Dead Sea, which archaeologists believe was a site of pilgrimage. A Byzantine Greek inscription left behind by three pilgrims reads, 'Lot please bless us'.20 A cave room in the north aisle of the basilica may also have been presented to pilgrims as the actual place where Lot took refuge with his daughters.21 Generous estimations of Lot continue into the present

19. See my article, 'Jeremiah and the Break-Away from Authority Preaching', SEA 56 (1991), pp. 7-28. 20. Reported in The Chicago Tribune, December 14, 1992, Section 1, p. 3; see Konstantinos D. Politis, 'Excavations at Deir 'Ain 'Abata', ADAS 34 (1990), pp. 37788; 35 (1992), pp. 281-90; idem, 'Excavations at the Monastery of Aqios Lot at Deir 'Ain 'Abata', LA 40 (1990), p. 475; cf. B. MacDonald, The Southern Ghors and Northeast 'Arabah Archaeological Survey (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs, 5; Sheffield: J.R. Collis and the University of Sheffield, 1992), pp. 97-104; 'Deir 'Ain 'Abata', in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, I, pp. 336-38. 21. Konstantinos D. Politis, 'Excavations at the Monastry of Saint Lot at Deir 'Ain 'Abata', ADAS 37 (1993), p. 506.

LUNDBOM The Dialogue over Sodom in Genesis 18

145

day,22 lauding his hospitality and minimizing the immoral treatment of his daughters and intemperate behavior that allowed the daughters to later return the favor. All of this, no doubt, has developed as a result of Auerbach-defined parataxis in the argument and narrative in Genesis 18-19.

22. So, e.g., Loader (A Tale of Two Cities, pp. 36-38), who overstates the virtue of Lot's hospitality and understates the vice of giving up virgin daughters to gangrape. To be repulsed by the latter is not pious moralizing; see n. 16.

THE PLACE OF ISHMAEL John Goldingay

In his Bible Lives1 (the second word is meant to be pronounced both ways) Jonathan Magonet offers an illuminating chiastic reading of Genesis 12-22. My purpose in this note is to push that reading further, not without deconstructing it. Magonet begins from the rabbinic observation that Gen. 12.1 and Gen. 22.2 both have God bidding Abra[ha]m lek leka, 'go for yourself, 'get yourself, to the land God will show him or to the mount God will tell him of. Only here does this phrase appear in the Bible, and it invites the reader to link the two chapters it introduces. Now the first of these journeys is followed by a meeting with the Pharaoh in Egypt where Abram passes off his wife as his sister, and the second is preceded by a meeting with Abimelech in Gerar where he does the same. The first meeting is in turn followed by a story of Lot in Sodom needing rescue, and the second is preceded by a parallel story. The first rescue is followed by the sealing of a covenant between God and Abram, and the second is preceded by such a sealing. Between the two sealings is the story of Ishmael's birth, which Magonet describes as a 'false climax' (p. 29) and which requires further allusion to Ishmael before the sequence comes to an end. The chapters thus outline as follows: 12a The call; blessing promised 12b Abram in a foreign land; wife-sister motif 13-14 Lot in danger; Sodom 15 Covenant 16 Hagar and Ishmael 17 Covenant 18-19 Lot in danger; Sodom 20 Abraham in a foreign land; wife-sister motif 21 Hagar and Ishmael 22 The call; blessing confirmed 1.

London: SCM Press, 1992.

GOLDINGAY The Place of Ishmael

147

This outline is most illuminating, and in particular provides a convincing alternative approach to the 'strange duplication' in the stories which have provoked source-critical approaches. The difficulty with it is that it is too unequivocal. Can the centre of a chiasm be a false climax? No doubt in principle it could; the chiasm form could be used rhetorically to 'mislead' the reader, on the way to offering some other perspective than the obvious one. Now Magonet notes the significance of Abram's 'listening' to Sarai in ch. 16; it is the verb used of Adam in the Garden. The verb is a pointer to an ambiguity in the chapters, but it is hardly enough to judge the chiasm's centre a false one, especially as God later tells Abraham to do it again (21.12). Rhetorically or dramatically it is simply not the case in Genesis 12-22 that 'the centre of the stage belongs to Isaac' (Magonet, p. 30). Isaac shares it with Ishmael. Centre stage was Isaac's destiny, but before his birth his father gave it away. Similar questions are raised by Gordon Wenham's understanding of these chapters in his commentary Genesis 16-50.2 The birth of Ishmael is a 'diversion' (p. 13), while ch. 17 is a 'watershed' and 'climax' (p. 16). It is certainly true that ch. 17 'improves' on ch. 15, but this does not make it a climax. It need do no more than reflect the fact that these two stories are a pair, and one expects the second of a pair of stories to go beyond the first; this aspect of the nature of Hebrew parallelism can apply to pairs of stories as well as to pairs of cola in a line. If one is to identify a 'watershed' in the Abraham story, Magonet's analysis surely establishes that it is ch. 16 that straddles the ridge and marks the point where the waters divide either side. Like Magonet, Wenham draws attention to literary features of the text that complicate his explicit analysis of it. Near the close of ch. 17, and thus at a highpoint, comes God's fifth and final speech with its 'well-ordered palistrophic structure' (p. 26)—in which Ishmael is central: 19a Sarah will bear a son for you, Isaac 19b I will establish my covenant with him 20 But I will bless and multiply Ishmael 21 a I will establish my covenant with Isaac 2 Ib Sarah will bear him for you

2.

Dallas: Word Books, 1994.

148

The World of Genesis

Not only is the large-scale chiasm 'disturbed' by Ishmael at its centre; a small-scale chiasm in the chapter which allegedly forms a 'climax' is also 'disturbed' by Ishmael at a highpoint. When we come to the out-of-pattern ch. 21 we find that this further story dominated by Ishmael is also the chapter that relates Isaac's birth—though it relates this so-vital event more briefly than its duplicate story of Ishmael that follows. Walter Brueggemann observes that it is thus 'peculiarly understated'.3 In turn, Wenham also notes (pp. 99100), there is a close parallel between chs. 21 and 22 which means that the story of Abraham's abandoning of Ishmael anticipates the story of Abraham's offering of Isaac. The effect is to put more emphasis on the horror and the wonder of the first story and to take the edge off both the horror and the wonder of the second. What is going on here? I have two questions in mind. What is going on in a narrative that has this complicated, ambiguous shape; and what is going on when insightful exegetes miss what I suggest is a prominent feature of its dynamic? The narrative reflects and advertises the fact that the birth of Isaac could not in the event be the uncomplicated joy it might have been. At the centrepoint and climax of the narrative is an episode in which the whole threatens to abort. Elsa Tamez has described Hagar as 'the woman who complicated the history of salvation'.4 Tamez implicitly accepts a similar reading of Genesis to Magonet's: 'in reading the stories of Sarah and Hagar... we generally identify ourselves with Sarah. First, because the stories are so constructed as to lead the reader to such identification. .. ' (p. 6). It is by distancing herself from the reading that the text invites and by looking at it from the perspective of thirdworld women that we are able to perceive Hagar's significance. My point is that this perception is actually invited by the text itself. That Hagar complicates the history of salvation is reflected in the way she complicates the rhetoric of Genesis 12-22. The chapters would be much neater without her and her son. But once Sarai has allowed the two of them into it, they will not be elbowed out, and the chiasm cannot come to its end without another story about them. There are two stories about Hagar and Ishmael as there are two about Abraham 3. See his Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), p. 180. 4. See New Eyes for Reading (ed. J.S. Pobee and B. von Wartenberg-Potter; Geneva: WCC, 1986; Quezon City, Philippines: Claretian, 1987), pp. 5-17. ET from the Spanish in Media Development 31.2 (May 1984).

GOLDINGAY The Place of Ishmael

149

and the blessing, two about Abraham passing off his wife as his sister, two about Lot and Sodom, and two about the covenant. Of course a variety of considerations (class, race, and sex to begin with) have made interpreters fail to perceive the point. It is Tamez's identification with oppressed women in the third world that enables her to see something there in the text, to reconstruct the familiar version of the history of salvation (p. 17)—not because the text needs rewriting but because its interpretation does. But it is also noteworthy that the narrative's middle-class, male, Euroamerican interpreters have been committed Jews and Christians (nothing wrong with that: I write as a committed Christian middle-class European male). That leads into a paradox. Magonet describes the call of Abram as a 'most particularistic act' designed to achieve a 'most universalistic hope, blessing for all humanity' (pp. 27-28). Yet the very sharing of centrestage by Ishmael and Isaac expresses the same tension between particularism and universality as the words of promise do; but Magonet's analysis does not recognize that. Conversely, the Christian interpreters might have been expected to see anything that points to an openness to people outside the ancestors of Israel (such as themselves). The fact that they do not do so perhaps reflects the influence of the Christian Jewish appropriation of the narrative by New Testament writers such as Paul who were in a position to identify with Isaac and had no need to identify with Ishmael. For whatever reason, Paul does invite his readers to identify with Isaac (Gal. 4.21-31). For more than one reason, Gentile readers may also want to identify with Ishmael, but they tend not to do so. Jewish and Christian exegetes have both missed a key feature of the text that would please them if they saw it, but the exegetical traditions of their respective confessions have made them unable to recognize it. Incidentally, is it significant that the chiasm squeezes out the death of Sarah (Gen. 23) and the finding of Rebekah (Gen. 24)?

THE DETERMINATION OF PHARAOH: His CHARACTERIZATION IN THE JOSEPH STORY (GENESIS 37-50) Barbara Green, OP

The determination of Pharaoh is the subject of this inquiry in three senses: his consistent if bumbling resolve to take charge and do well by his people; his narrative characterization as not only powerful but also highly responsive to the suggestions and manipulations of others; and the graded leeway given readers in interpreting and understanding both Pharaoh and ourselves. I will suggest and demonstrate that Joseph's Pharaoh acts in the story like a tentative tyrant, a pliable potentate, a determined despot. I will show how such a portraiture is accomplished by the same blend of confident narrator assertion and surrender of control to characters. And I will offer a grid that shows several sizes of responsibility which readers may appropriate to be both bound and free to construct the Egyptian leader in this story. It is in each case a matter of positive and negative space, apparent power and discernible weakness. That Pharaoh is a character in the Joseph story who acts with energy and dispatch scarcely needs to be pleaded. His summons for a main scene in the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) comes some thirteen years and eightynine verses into the long narrative; and though his most prominent moment comes in chs. 40-41, he lingers for the rest of the performance and sustains not only presence but consistency.1 The main goal of the 1. Pharaoh's role in the 14 chapters of the Joseph story is more persistent than might be thought, and the pertinent material falling outside Gen. 40-41 can be summarized briefly. Some references to him are simply in the mouths of others: Pharaoh is referred to as the employer of Potiphar in Gen. 37.36 and 39.1, as having a special jail in 39.20. Joseph invokes his name as guarantor of an oath when first addressing his brothers (42.15) and as the one for whom he divines with the ostensibly stolen silver cup (44.18). The narrator characterizes Joseph's weeping as loud enough to be heard at Pharaoh's palace (45.2). Joseph explains that God has made him a father to Pharaoh in 45.8. The five episodes where Pharaoh's character is more visible and developed

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

151

whole narrative of Genesis 37-50 is to get Jacob's family positioned outside the land of Canaan and surviving, reflecting on that experience and struggling to return there; the immediate objective of the two Pharaoh-dominated chapters (4CM-1) is to get Joseph into position as vice-ruler of Egypt so that his family will be able to take refuge there. Joseph must, unlikely though it seem, position himself or be positioned so as to provide for the good of his family. Joseph's dreams have started the repositioning, but it takes Pharaoh's determination to place Joseph in the position from which he will rescue his family, indeed the world. The plot of these chapters shows Pharaoh housing Joseph in his jail, imprisoning two other dreamers for whom Joseph has responsibility, thus necessitating his interpreting their dreams. But then Pharaoh himself dreams and feels inadequate to the moment. He calls for interpreters, is sufficiently desperate to accept assistance from his jail and finally to appoint as vicar the single person who is able to help him not only with dream interpretation but with management advice. Pharaoh acts decisively but he also requires help. His power is patent, but he is also manipulated in ways he seems not to suspect. As we review Pharaoh's story actions in more detail, we will note not simply the character but the characterization. How, specifically, does the narrator choose to draw this man? I will suggest that the narrative portraiture achieved with five narrative techniques or choices is able to be classified in terms of what is controlled and what is delegated.2 First, the narrator himself names and characterizes Pharaoh with definite attributions and assessments. Secondly, the leader's character is further fleshed out as other personages are shown to react to him both are his inviting Jacob and family to Egypt and supplying transportation (45.16-21, subsequently referred to by the narrator in 46.15); his part in the settling of the family inEgypt(Gen. 46.31-^7.6); his receiving Jacob (Gen. 46.7-12); his non-response to the continuing impact of famine in his land, though it swirls around his name (Gen. 47.13-26); and his response to Joseph's request for permission to bury Jacob in Canaan (Gen. 50.1-6). 2. Narratologists have some standard and useful ways of organizing the devices for characterization, tending to divide them on the basis of whether information is given directly or indirectly. Two good and complementary studies of character can be found in S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art and the Bible (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), chapter 2, and J. Phelan, Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression and the Interpretation of Narrative (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). Semeia 63 (1993) is devoted to the subject as well, and debates a number of excellent questions about literary characterization.

152

The World of Genesis

in terms of what they fear of his power and in what they think they can get him to do. They tiptoe fearfully or plan confidently, based on their assessment of their boss's zones of reaction. Thirdly, the narrator draws Pharaoh by analogy, showing in a number of ways that he resembles both menials and main actor in the Joseph story. Fourthly, Pharaoh is shaped within the symbolism of the dreams, in their paradoxical blend of fat and thin, voracious and vanishing elements. Finally, fifthly, Pharaoh is most shockingly but perhaps most subtly characterized by his total lack of self-awareness of his paradoxical blend. He is thus highly vulnerable and very human. Both portrait and portraiture are the product of similar technique. Those techniques schematically asserted, the main detail of the character and the literary artistry is explored here, and in story order. But we may anticipate that the determination of Pharaoh is a readers' project as well as a 'writer's' choice. In addition to the specific ways in which the narrator crafts the character, the information is offered to us along a spectrum requiring our various-sized participation. The character and narrator, powerful in many ways, become to some extent putty in the hands of readers, who complete the lines in one way or another, with self-knowledge or without it. The determination of Pharaoh, then, is a product of collaboration among his own conscious and unconscious powerful self, the highly skilled narrator of this long tale and his other story characters, and savvy readers. It is now the exercise or play of that huge power, oddly blended with weakness, that we begin to watch the way in which the king of Egypt governs. Narrative Portrait and Portraiture of Pharaoh By the time we arrive at Genesis 40, the narrator has already introduced him as the ruler of Egypt, as Potiphar's boss, and as having a jail for his own prisoners (37.36-39.1, 20). His particular title 'Pharaoh', his more generic designation as king of a mighty land,3 and his needing his own jail for political prisoners convey the implication of a very powerful status. The narrator continues the delineation of Pharaoh's character by noting that he has been 'sinned against' by servants and that he is consequently angry (40.1). The content of what they did is 3. R.E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), p. 151, observes that pronouns never replace these titles.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

153

not recounted and thus becomes irrelevant to the story; whether the sinning was really offensive as well as offending is also not specified, and is made not to matter. That Pharaoh is king of Egypt, that he has enough servants to have a head steward and head baker, and that he has a jail for his own prisoners make it adequately clear that offense taken is more important than offense intended or offered. He seems, at first, very much in charge of his realm. The result of the intersection of Pharaoh and these two servants is that they join Joseph in jail (40.3). Though at a remove from his presence, the Pharaoh will dominate the story line, as his men now dream of him. Joseph'sown pair of dreams, the two slightly different ones dreamed by one individual and interpreted by two character sets (Gen. 37.5-7, 9), have, at least since their occurrence, been in motion. The new dreams, which (like Joseph's) we must wait to hear, result in changed positions (downcast faces) which Joseph reads and queries (40.7). The numerical and kinetic detail does not distract us from the fact that the two prisoners are dreaming about their powerful master and about their ways of serving him. The first dream to undergo recital and response is the chief steward's; it involves numbers (three branches on a vine) and describes fastforwarded growth, concluding with the proffering of the vintage. The dream visits several moments: the vine, its branches, successive budding of blossoms into clusters, of clusters into grapes, the squeezing of grapes into cup, and finally the cup of wine proffered to Pharaoh (40.911). Joseph reads the meaning in terms of change of position and raising of the head, restoration in this instance.4 Pharaoh, powerful, will soon be making a choice. Asking a favor, Joseph says, 'Remember me. .. make mention of me (zkr) to Pharaoh... ;' and he explains how it is that he happens to be on site: 'gunnob gunnabti me'eres hd'ibnm: I was in fact stolen from the land of the Hebrews; I have done nothing to have been placed in this pit' (40.14-15). And the narrator has, in the middle of this dream sequence, also given us more characterization. Joseph seems to hope or expect, even to suggest, that if Pharaoh knew of the unjust imprisonment, the great man would free him, would be fair, merciful. Nothing said so far prompts such confidence. Pharaoh 4. D. Marcus, '"Lifting Up the Head": On the Trail of Wordplays in Genesis 40', Prooftexts 10 (1990), pp. 17-27, discusses various facets of the expression that occurs at 40.13, 19, making a case for an idiom best translated as 'review, remember, heed', becoming grisly when a prepositional phrase is attached.

154

The World of Genesis

acts for reasons unknown, or for reasons affecting himself. It is not at all likely that Pharaoh will help Joseph, even should he hear of him. Next, on the basis of the good interpretation rendered to his companion's revelation, the baker decides to offer his own dream for pronouncement. This second dream also involves numbers and 'food processing'. Three baskets of food, though prepared for Pharaoh, are rather now nibbled by birds instead of being offered to him (40.16-17). Joseph's interpretation technique is similar to his previous one, picking up on the number three, indicating that it also stands for days. But disastrous outcome, choice of Pharaoh, is indicated at the end of three days rather than reinstatement. A similar pun about position of the man's head is also used, but this time it is about head removal from the shoulders (40.18-19). We can see that this set of dreams, in addition to centering on the number three, on changes of position, and on food, highlights first food for Pharaoh—starting with vines and ending with a glass of wine— and then food taken fromm Pharaoh—birds eat up what was collected for him in baskets. These two employees of Pharaoh are dreaming about— and the third future employee interpreting—more destinies than just their own.5 The changes of position, which we learn are only two rather than the hoped-for three, come about through the agency of Pharaoh. It is not said that the powerful man had inquired into the circumstances of the original sin of his servants, or that he had rethought his own quick action. It is the occasion of his own birthday that prompts his fresh decisions regarding the steward and the baker. For an arbitrary reason (the date), arguably for an ego- and power-centered reason (his own birthday), Pharaoh acts on life and death issues. We can begin to see his responsiveness to events outside his control. Whimsical mercy is not the same as justice. But the birthday decisions also show that Pharaoh is fulfilling the dreams that his servants had of him, dreams whose interpretations Joseph has explained all flow from God. Pharaoh is amenable to the 5. D. Seybold, 'Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative', in K.R.R. Gros Louis, J.S. Ackerman and T.S. Warshaw (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), I, p. 65, offers interesting commentary about the dreams: that two dreams he interpreted came true may suggest that the ones he dreamed will do so as well. On the other hand, Seybold's reasoning may come uncomfortably close to the baker's.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

155

promptings of God, is manipulated to some extent by the decisions and articulations of his servants. He is thus made to look powerful and powerless simultaneously, mighty enough to have servants, flimsy enough to be pushed around by them. And, quite important, malleable Pharaoh is also shown to be clueless, completely unaware of what is guiding his actions.6 His pharaohish decisions to jail and unjail, execute and reprieve are shown as pitiful in relation to the real prompts to those actions. Pharaoh's actions are determined in realms beyond Egypt. The episode is not over, of course, since now a further variation on dream processes occurs, perhaps nearly as key a moment as was Joseph's first dreaming. Pharaoh is not only dreamed about but becomes a dreamer himself, receiving intimations of his domain losing potency. These dreams are emphasized and dominate the chapter. The narrator's characterization of Pharaoh continues to move along. Though the narrator relates these dreams, the vantage position is the dreamer's: the use of hinneh ('behold') indicates that, though the narrator will tell them, the reception angle is that of Pharaoh.7 Pharaoh is positioned at the Nile, since it is involved and he by implication.8 He shares in, and is responsible for, its power, the fertility of Egypt. Once again the dreams are about number, position and food.9 The demarcation between the first and second dream is marked by Pharaoh's 6. M.V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991) characterizes the king (Xerxes) of the Esther story in a not dissimilar way: '. . . Xerxes' soul is exposed. But the exposure of Xerxes' soul takes little work—just simple statements of unnuanced pleasures and angers. We are informed that Xerxes was angry. .. , that his anger subsided. . . , that he was pleased. . . His psychology is easily read by the people in the story too. His [various courtiers] are all able to bend him to their wills. . . ' (p. 171). Fox later observes that the combination of power and 'so little invested in its employment' is in fact terrifying (p. 175). Our Pharaoh is not thoughtless in quite the way Xerxes is, but his benignity cannot be automatically construed as a reliable or stable commodity. 7. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1985), reminds us that the effect of narrative use of hinneh is to give us the subject's perspective (pp. 255-56). 8. E. Lowenthal, The Joseph Narrative in Genesis (New York: Ktav, 1973), observes that cows grazing along the Nile, wandering down and up, would not be so unusual a sight as it might seem to us (p. 41). The rising kine is not the startling moment in the dream. 9. Sternberg thinks (p. 395) that biblical dreams are not psychological and internal but external, projecting a divine scenario for the future. I see that they are surely about

156

The World of Genesis

awakening (41.4), as is the second marked by his realizing that it was a dream (41.7). The Pharaoh sees parot (cattle) and stalks of grain both eat and be eaten; and though there is intra-species eating, the thin do not gain by eating their fat comrades. The dreams indicate that God has deemed Pharaoh suggestible, a good candidate for oneiric revelation. As Joseph's reputation for interpretation is established in the successful doing, so is Pharaoh's dreamworthiness demonstrated as he acts in accord with what he is given to dream. But then Pharaoh, like and likened to his servants, is discouraged over lack of key to the dreams' meaning. But unlike them, since he is powerful while they were powerless, Pharaoh can summon likely interpreters, which he does: hartummim and hakamim (magicians and wise men) attend him. He recites his dreams (outside our hearing for the moment), but all this display of apparent power is to no avail. Pharaoh is unable to commandeer interpretation. The skilled narrator again draws him simultaneously powerful and powerless, caught between systems. Pharaoh's steward, whom Joseph had instructed on this very problem, advising, 'Do not interpretations belong to God?' (40.8), is prompted, evidently, to recall not only the advice but the advisor. So now, only because a servant finally remembers 'today', does the powerful man get the needed assistance (41.9-13). The servant, clearly, strives to give his information in such a way as to please and not offend Pharaoh. His rhetorical strategy signals at least his estimation of the one man in the audience he needs to reach. How the steward chooses to portray the way the ruler treated his servants will be key moments to mention respectfully, as will also be his current inability to avail himself of a decent interpreter. We also hear another reflection by a character on what has happened to him in the past, again one of the main goals of the discourse of the story. So the steward relates for Pharaoh, perhaps for himself, and for us how he happened to sin. The sin with which he begins, however, is not the one committed against Pharaoh noted by the narrator in 40.1 but rather his sin of forgetting to intercede for his benefactor, once he was in a position to do so. Without explaining the omission he has just mentioned, the steward re-angles the episode, suppressing the detail of the original offenses committed by himself and the baker, the reasons any of them the future and that they come from God, but I hesitate to exclude (on the basis of Steinberg's sense of biblical ideology) their refracting many other features of life as well, such as the depth experience of the subject.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

157

happened to be in jail, lest, perhaps, it set the capricious magnate off again; rather, the steward concedes Pharaoh's viewpoint, that he was angered. Next the man hurries to what is now the most relevant moment: when the jailed miscreants each dreamed on a given night, an incarcerated Hebrew offered two individual interpretations of the simultaneous dreams, and each interpretation came true. The steward avoids drawing any attention to the absent baker; nothing would be gained and much risked. If the steward's objective in this speech is to help Pharaoh (and possibly himself), then he needs to stress the qualifications of the interpreter without too much emphasis on the fact that all of them were in jail, two of them at an angry Pharaoh's order. He needs to avoid any unfortunate implications regarding Pharaoh's decisions, perhaps rather to compliment his employer on fortuitous anger. He must also take care not to suggest that Pharaoh is impotent or easily pushed around. Yet the very care that the servant must take in suggesting the obvious remedy testifies to his awareness of both the huge power of the king of Egypt and the patent lack of it. All of Pharaoh's commandings are less effectual than the words of his two surviving jailed servants. So what we see is by contrast: Pharaoh, though he have all Egypt under his sway and even his own jail to fill with those who displease him, is dependent on a brace of jailed underlings for the information he needs. And indeed the dreaming ruler is stimulated to act, again not pausing even to speak (41.14). A succession of verbs characterizes well the actions of those who scurry off to do what Pharaoh wishes. He seems, again, both pivotal and erratic, acting from self-interest as another sentence is commuted; he seems also very suggestible, clearly desperate for help. He continues to resemble his servants: Potiphar who reacted wordlessly in regard to Joseph (39.19-20) and who (along with the head jailer) promoted him on the basis of his God-assisted achievements. All three Egyptians are unified in recognizing Joseph's qualities. Pharaoh is not superior to his servants and assistants, for all his status. Those who bring Joseph onto the scene seem to consider it important, haste notwithstanding, that Joseph be given new clothes and be shaved, his appearance changed again. When Pharaoh meets him, he looks neither like a Hebrew nor like a prisoner (41.14).10 Perhaps the intent of the messengers is to save face for Pharaoh, to minimize any 10. Lowenthal observes that Egyptians are clean-shaven, Hebrews more likely to be bearded (p. 49).

158

The World of Genesis

indignity he might feel in needing to open his jail to get a dream interpreter; perhaps it is to provide Joseph with confidence and suitable accoutrements as he makes his way into the presence of the powerful ruler. Neither beneficiary seems particularly needful of the special effort. In the lengthy encounter between the two (41.15-45), Pharaoh's character continues to emerge. His first words continue to signal the anomaly of his position: powerful enough to have had dreams, but unable to find an interpreter of them. He blurts out this situation of need, even of dependency, at once: 'A dream I have dreamt (halom hdlamti}, but an interpreter lacked for it; but I, I heard of you: "you hear a dream and can interpret it'" (41.15). Undoubtedly Pharaoh is accustomed to making his needs known to those who can meet them; yet the nakedness of this exposition seems ingenuous on his part, particularly in the presence of failed advisors. That is, he seems very honest about the failure of the whole Egyptian court to function effectively on the matter of his dreams. Joseph's first response is a correction for the Pharaoh, analogous to the instruction he made to the two jailed servants when they lacked dream interpreters. Interpretations come from God; dreams too. Joseph appears cool here and not particularly diplomatic, Pharaoh over-eager. Joseph's advising of Pharaoh begins before the great man has even divulged the dreams. The interpreter also commits God to a Sim response for Pharaoh, perhaps to take the sting out of the rebuke to Pharaoh's inept theologizing self. In any case, the divulging comes quickly, Pharaoh evidently encouraged rather than discouraged by Joseph's admonition. Pharaoh himself now recounts his own dreams (41.17-24). We are thus in a position to compare his conscious reflection on them with what we heard in Pharaoh's head, since now the dreams are reruns for us.11 As expected, the versions are substantially the same. But Pharaoh makes some emphases now that he is awake, now that he has articulated the dreams to other potential interpreters. We saw him waken between dreams but did not know to what he was reacting. His fresh stresses are instructive and have also the effect of making us less disinterested in the repetition than we might be otherwise.

11. Gen. 41.17-20 reports 41.1-4, and 41.22-4 reports what we heard at 41.5-7. Steinberg catalogues them more closely on p. 399, drawing out some different points from those I offer.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

159

Pharaoh is shown in awe at parts of his dreams, notably the ugliness of the second set of cows (not our sort of cows, he observes) and the thinness that endures even after they have dined on their fat fellows. He is remembering what he dreamed and exploring it. There is not simply verbatim repetition but incipient interpretation. In the second dream it is again the thinness of the shocks of wheat that he remarks, adding an adjective to the description we heard before. In both cases, it is the negative that has caught his attention. Does he exaggerate or dramatize the thinness? By calling attention to it, as if it fascinated him beyond all else, he exposes his desperation to find an interpreter. Is Pharaoh more worried by the thinness than impressed by the fatness, more impressed by vulnerability and decline than by any initial position of strength? In fact, it is the very characterization of the dreaming ruler that is emerging in these chapters. The juxtaposition of apparent power swallowed up by impotence seems to distress him, understandably. It is the portrait the narrator has been sketching of him. Pharaoh brings his own unsuspected depths closer to the light of day and frightens himself. The Pharaoh/parSt wordplay is not wasted on the careful listener. Pharaoh concludes his recital with the same point that began it: no explainer for me, no maggid. Joseph reiterates his same viewpoint: the deity is the needful one who will h haggid/clarify (41.24-25). Pharaoh looks dumb here, even deaf. But we also can see that he has been the recipient of revelation, if only he can get the key to it. Scripted, he struggles to discern what is directing him. And Joseph offers the dream interpretations (41.25-33). Lest we suspect that Pharaoh is slow, requiring two dreams where otherwise one might suffice, we are instructed that the dream doubling is God's emphasis and urgency. Joseph next shifts from interpretation to policy, recommending what Pharaoh needs to do in response to the dream and its interpretation. Unlike other court advisors, Joseph does not take undue care that Pharaoh's self-image of grandiosity be safeguarded. Beyond speaking to the king in the third rather than the second person, which is fairly standard court etiquette (at least in the Bible), Joseph does not cater to Pharaoh's position. Put a good man in charge, he advises, and let him save food for the second set of years, lest the dream come as horribly true as it looked (41.33-36). Joseph is blunt, as if unwilling to gamble that Pharaoh will cue in without being instructed. The dream interpreter's advice is far more direct than the self-deprecating explanation of

160

The World of Genesis

dreaming steward. Joseph is anything but awed by Pharaoh, who seems most attentive and polite while receiving theology lessons as well as practical advice. We have thus seen the whole continuum: the dream events, the dream recital, the interpretation of them—specifically and in general, the policy, the implementation. Only one decision—two at most—remain to the powerful ruler of Egypt: whether to heed, whom to appoint. Before moving to that moment, however, the narrator shows us something else about the pharaoh. The actual information generated by the interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams is, of course, terrible. Our attention has already been drawn to the horror of the seven 'bad ones' by Pharaoh's own reaction, recalling his dreams, to the emaciated cows and the blighted wheat. The only mitigating factor is lead time: God, through dreams and interpretations, has disclosed information and advice that will help Egypt be barely able to stave off devastation of the whole world. But the ddbdr, the narrator says, the thing was pleasing to Pharaoh and of course to his courtiers, who seem eager to anticipate and meld with his whim when they can do so. The word can doubtless be resumptive of the information and policy suggestions, yet we may note that there is no shock registered over the horror of what is to come, simply relief at the availability and clarity of the information. 'Pleased' seems an insufficient reaction to all that Pharaoh has learned. This is not the portrait of a great leader. It is an insightful sketch of a swimmer, floundering in a strong tide, tossed a line. As Joseph finishes his list of what Pharaoh ought to get underway or to delegate (41.36), it might seem as if Joseph is hinting for employment for himself. Such a suspicion does not seem to occur to Pharaoh. That Joseph creates a position and then fills it is not something Pharaoh scrutinizes. Joseph probably seems a likely appointee to a biblical reader, long-familiar with the storyline. But the foreign slave, jailed for a supposed indiscretion and disloyalty in his previous posting, should not seem so readily qualified to the ruler who keeps a jail just for such prisoners. Yet because Pharaoh is so desperate and so dependent, so determined by events he scarcely discerns, it becomes the obvious move. 'Can we find anyone else like this one... ?', Pharaoh asks those in attendance (41.38). It is perhaps not a surprise that no one contradicts his clear assumption, but is it slightly disconcerting that no one verbally supports it? In any case the story does not linger over it, and the man moves quickly to answer his own question (41.39).

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

161

So Pharaoh, responsive to all the dreams of the narrative—his own, his servants', and Joseph's,12 jumps the man fresh from jail up to a position over all save himself. The narrator, who has taken time to get to this point but who has rehearsed it and readied us for it with Joseph's earlier employment record, stresses it in a variety of ways. Pharaoh, as noted previously, asks a question which he answers himself; he then makes Joseph's qualification the basis for the appointment over house and people. And Pharaoh, again unconsciously echoing his servant Potiphar, excepts one thing only from Joseph's command—not his food or his wife but the throne (41.40). The exception enhances the rest of the delegation of power. Then, in case Joseph has not understood, or perhaps to convince himself and his court, Pharaoh reiterates: 'See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt' (41.41). Pharaoh's puffy and bombastic announcement can scarcely conceal his own massive reliance on the man before him who woke up that morning in jail, and his own substantial though less tangibly acknowledged dependence upon God. Whether Pharaoh senses the first is not clear; people in powerful positions are not known for recalling or referring to their own vulnerability. And Pharaoh cannot possibly know about God's plans, which are for Joseph to continue to 'remember', and for us. Pharaoh gives Joseph his own ring, clothes him in linen garments, puts a chain of gold around his neck. And the second-in-command chariot to which Joseph now has the keys will ensure that his identity and status are made visible, even audible, everywhere (41.42-3). Pharaoh, perhaps reluctant to finish the portentous pronouncement, perhaps unwilling to leave his own position unclear, announces that since—or though—he himself is Pharaoh, no one can make a move in Egypt without Joseph's consent. If Pharaoh is once more throwing his weight behind Joseph's authority, or if he is rather reminding any listening

12. As before, our angle is slightly broader than that of the characters as we continue to reflect upon interpretation. The collaboration among characters seems to be working more effectively, with little resistance and friction. The characters are moving resolutely along in the tides of narrative. The impetus of the dream texts is bearing the characters along as they participate in it, with their varying degrees of consciousness. We, perhaps even more clearly than Joseph, can see the cooperation between Pharaoh and God, unmindful though one of the participants be. Since we are now witness to six dreams, we can detect repeating elements. The dreams are consistently about position, about timing, about numbers, about food; and there is a pattern of powerlessness displaying potency.

162

The World of Genesis

that his weight does remain behind Joseph, the redundancy reminds the reader that Pharaoh knows little about why Joseph is in position and whose authority has placed him there. Though co-operative with the dreams, Pharaoh is ignorant of their most fundamental reality; and though feeling powerful in his realm or wanting to appear so, he is in fact a messenger boy in another's determined designs. Pharaoh seems to decree himself almost unnecessary, and so he will be for a long way into the next part of the story. He has done the one needful thing: respond to his dreams and to the skill of their interpreter. Pharaoh the character, 'determined' to save his realm from catastrophe, acts; his choices are shown by the narrator to rise both from his position of power as king of Egypt and from his subliminal suggestibility to others' determinations. So Pharaoh's characterization is determined by the needs of the plot and directed partially by himself and managed to some considerable extent by other characters. It is time to consider the role of the reader in shaping Pharaoh, the extent to which he is determined from outside the text. Readers' Construction of Portraiture of Pharaoh The third and perhaps most controversial level of the Egyptian's determination is the more theoretical realm of textual determinacy/ indeterminacy. The question has been framed recently as follows: To what extent and in what manner do texts determine and control their own interpretation and to what extent and in what manner is meaning determined by factors lying outside the text and in the reading process?'13 Without entering into protracted discussion of the relevant issues implied by the formulation, I would like to posit here a short spectrum to which there may be general agreement, a continuum that 13. R.B. Culley, 'Introduction', Semeia 62 (1993), p. vii. I am not sure the question as stated is very adequate. I do not see in the issue any refinement of the meaning of 'determined'; it may be equivalent of 'controlled', though I think that may be too strong a word. The phrasing of 'their own interpretation' seems onesided for the mutual process most contributors seem to assume, as does 'determined by factors outside the text and in the reading process' seem more cleanly segmented than may be appropriate. In the same issue, R. Cooper, 'Textualizing Determinacy/ DeterminingTextuality', p. 13, argues that determinacy of meaning refers to the multilevelled process whereby meaning (paraphrasable content that can be more or less consensually agreed upon) can be posited within and elicited from a limited linguistic field.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

163

eliminates the two extremes of viewpoint that conceive of meaning as somehow 'in' and controlled by the text or constructed almost exclusively by the reader. It will help us to ask for the third time, how is Pharaoh determined? A character (Pharaoh, in this case) is construed by a reader into some kind of pattern or paradigm from many sorts of textual possibilities, at least some of which express the intentionality of the authors (real and implied). The reader construes, attentive to both the external referentiality of the text (insofar as its complex factors are available to her) and also to its internal linguistic relations (to the extent that they seem relevant); the reader also interprets or selects from the many textual possibilities in relation to her own choices and competencies, some of her own reasons known to her, some undoubtedly concealed.14 The determining of Pharaoh is a matter of collaboration between certain narrative offerings extending from the text and the selection and arrangement of them which, in a manner of speaking, extends back into the text. The process is so reciprocal that a polarized 'in' and 'out' becomes meaningless. An author cannot control the effects of language, so as to pin down a character definitively, nor can any reader claim extensive sovereignty over what she may see while reading. The encounter between text and reader is a process, its result not static and fixed at either pole, really; the reader will surely change over time and with additional knowledge and experience, while the text is so filled with features that the possibilities for fresh combinations are virtually unlimited.15 Using this general hypothesis as a heuristic aid, I will show an instance of how such a transaction among partners may work.

14. Several contributors to Semeia 63 (1993), an issue devoted to characterization, can be located along this short spectrum, though I appreciate that they differ on a number of other points. F.W. Burnett, 'Characterization and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels' (pp. 1-28); D. McCracken, 'Character in the Boundary: Bakhtin'slnterviduality in Biblical Narratives' (pp. 29-42); I.N. Rashkow, 'Response: In our Image we Create him, Male and Female we Create them: The E/Affect of Biblical Characterization' (pp. 105-13); M.M. Thompson, '"God's Voice you Have Never Heard, God's Form you Have Never Seen": The Characterization of God in the Gospel of John' (pp. 177-204). Also helpful were E.S. Malbon, Text and Contexts: Interpreting the Disciples in Mark', Semeia 62 (1993), pp. 81-102, and A. Berlin, The Role of the Text in the Reading Process', Semeia 62 (1993), pp. 143-49. 15. R.B. Robinson, 'Wife and Sister through the Ages: Textual Determinacy and the History of Interpretation', Semeia 62 (1993), p. 125.

164

The World of Genesis

Though the direct/indirect criterion can be useful, it tends to obscure the fact that even when we are given information directly, we still are invited and have the responsibility to decide how to construe it. There is significant difference between being told (directly) that Pharaoh was troubled (41.8) and being shown (indirectly) evidence of it in his speech (41.15-24); we still need in both cases to receive, shape and determine what we are told, whether it comes as direct or indirect information. In virtually no case are we excused from significant challenges in interpretation. The Pharaoh whom we meet, shaped as he is by and within the plot elements, still needs significant manipulation by us each time we read. Though completed, in a sense, when being read, Pharaoh's shape and shaping are never terminated, both resisting any totally adequate rendering and also slipping back into some sort of fluidity between reading performances. Let us consider here another spectrum of five points—with others implied—showing the narrator handing this time not characters but readers increasingly greater responsibility for interpretation, via the linguistic text. That is, the narrator reels out this tale, deciding at every turn what-sized leeway to grant the reader in reconstructing Pharaoh. The reader, influenced by her own training, social location, experience and sensitivity—and making some preferential choices as well—will take such cues and respond. I will proceed from what is more narrator-determined to what is more reader-constructed but show that in no case is the textual information particularly unambivalent. As the narrator comes, in my schema, to consign greater freedom to the reader— and the reader to claim such a role—I will stress more explicitly the creativity demanded of her. Since much of the detail has been given above, the points will be suggested here with attention to simply my readerly construction. In what we may call a first type of character information, clear narrative facts are given about Pharaoh: the man has a title, some servants, a jail, many advisors; the ruler of Egypt can bestow on others rings, chains (gold and other), names, wives, chariots, life and death. All of these elements make him powerful; and, permeating the story, they speak their message to us constantly. But, paradoxically, we are also shown the head man utterly reliant on these same inferiors to feed and water him, to advise him, ultimately to manage his most famous crisis. His jail, receptacle for those he dismisses, is also the training ground for his saviors, that possible only after all his free entourage lets him

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

165

down. The strength and weakness, factually given, make inroads on each other, as a reader correlates them. A second set of narrator information, more inferential, involves the route from Pharaoh's administrative style to his character. His actions disclose him as imperious, arbitrary, hasty, supersensitive, solipsistic, self-absorbed, unfair, unwise, heedless of implications. He projects a leader unmanageable, uncontrollable. Similarly we assess his power as we watch his servants tiptoe around him at least verbally, phrasing carefully, anticipating (whether awake or asleep) his needs and wants, strategizing so as not to ignite his anger but simultaneously able to get what they want and need from him. We can read the character of the leader by the hobbled functioning of the system that can be made to work; but we see something perpendicular at the moment that the careful anticipation no longer works. Pharaoh's volatile power is undercut by the confidence of one man, speaking bluntly and striding boldly across the grass of the royal sensitivity to arrive safely at the objectives that are best for all. A single speech from Joseph brings the powerful one to heel, convinces him of the necessity, which is correct, to delegate huge responsibility compactly to the control of one man. Pharaoh's propensity for those who cater to him nervously is ignored with impunity and with success. The leader of a bureaucratic apparatus, feeling temporarily out of control himself and simultaneously let down by others, impatient and fearful of the drift, hands major responsibility to the one person before him who has not been stymied by what has blocked the rest. It is a bull's eye for one who normally flails. His very unrelationality works efficiently as a channel for the ones who manage his choices. Pharaoh's power is vast and hollow. Handed both the narrator's factual assessments and managing the reflected assessments from the characters, we can understand our own reader's part in the process. If my construction of certain of these features into a sense of Pharaoh as a little man in a big job, making his own self-important moves in a game orchestrated largely by others at story and discourse levels, is not substantially incorrect, and if it is derived from a network of specific textual features as I claim, then perhaps its opposite is ruled out. That is, is it possible to read Joseph's Pharaoh as powerful and decisive, obdurate against the machinations of others, a self-starting and auto-pilot craft? I cannot see that such a reader construction suits the textual cues of Genesis 40-41; it would be an inadequate reading, at very least. Quasi-factual and fairly clear

166

The World of Genesis

inferential narrative information set the edges within which a reader needs to work. The text rules some interpretations in and some out of court. Though paradoxical, the characterization offered of Pharaoh can be shaped into an unstable coherence. Readers, like courtiers, can count on some firm places on which to step, can rely on some support beams in construction. As the virtually inexhaustible set of character attributes comes into use to compose Pharaoh, especially when traits combine and cluster around him, possibilities for filling in the sketch will multiply geometrically. Though some assessments will be fuller or more keenly-observed than others, many valid readings wil.1 be possible. But not all. Parenthetically, a reader can query, as I myself have done while working on this essay, what circumstances draw this pattern to my attention so persistently? Literary theory can answer for some, though not all, of my insight on this point of leadership that is simultaneously insecure and smug. As we move from the primarily narrator-given descriptions to Pharaoh's own direct speech, we anticipate (with our third type of information) ever-greater responsibility in our reading. Pharaoh pontificates confidently, bombastically, but only to echo what has just been suggested to him. And he sabotages his own assertions. Referring uninhibitedly to his great power, he simultaneously proclaims it inadequate. As he verbally peels off some of his sovereignty as perquisites for his vicar, Pharaoh both preens himself in its detail and permits it to disclose his own near-redundancy. His proclamation of Joseph's position as greatest of all except his own only calls the latter into doubt, given the circumstances of the speech. Pharaoh loves to make announcements that others have written out for him, imparting more than he seems to hear. We are, as it were, asked to listen to one message superimposed over another. The paradox represented by Pharaoh's slippery speech about his power becomes much more complex to discern and diagram. That is, each given aspect of the characterization is undercut by its opposite, again leaving a vast and ever-widening space for reader interpretation. We have to decide, each of us, how the interlocking elements are to be weighted. We need not name this device anything particularly contemporary or see it as philosophically arcane—though there may be more to observe as well. The process into which we must enter while reading Pharaoh involves our making sense of the jumbled characteristics of his human and literary behavior, bringing whatever skills

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

167

we may have. The very multiplicity of the factors, especially when combined and acting somewhat at cross-purposes, makes the text 'unstable', richly indeterminate. The possibility of rather different readings of the character increases here as the data is more layered. The baroque gestures of this particular human being, the fact that he has more apparent avoirdupois to divest than do many, need not distract us from what is operative here. But his oxymoronic patter is endemic, I believe, to our species. Pharaoh is here just larger and louder than we seem to ourselves to be. As we move along into the wider end of the reader-responsibility spectrum, we consider the symbolic language of the dream transactions and their contribution to characterization, the fourth facet of composition that opens up from Pharaoh's general suggestibility. Dreaming of food, numerable items, and slippery position, troubled and seeking interpretation, the king struggles around the same track on which his servants jog. But, Pharaoh also resembles Joseph, dreaming and interpreting, sharing responsibility for the survival of all the earth. Pharaoh's servants, appropriately nervous about his huge and arbitrary power, dream of themselves serving him—well or poorly; as they dream, so does he, suggestible, respond. His once-jailed steward, reinstated to his position of catering to Pharaoh's thirst, is in a position to make just the needed suggestion at just the right moment— risking but able to avoid his monarch's displeasure, so great is his monarch's need. Running out of free magicians and wise men, Pharaoh is simple and desperate enough—sufficiently receptive—to spring from jail a man with good references, a man waiting there for someone to find and read his resume. God, too, may find this creature almost ridiculously easy to influence: Pharaoh hardly delays to act on the pair of dreams he receives. More forthcoming than the two jailed Egyptians, who needed to be prompted to disclose their dreams, and certainly more voluble than the young Joseph, Pharaoh readily takes in and then hands out his dream texts; or perhaps it is more appropriate to see that he blends ingredients from disparate domains and brings forth his insight in artistic language. He seems almost a caricature, reminds us perhaps of a megaphone for God's will, until we recall and understand that the single most crucial imperative in the whole Joseph narrative is to remember and continue to interpret dreams. Then we re-evaluate Pharaoh, who does just that in the relatively brief time that he is given by the

168

The World of Genesis

narrator. Selected as a recipient of revelation, so to speak, Pharaoh begins at once the process of understanding it more deeply. What the four 'Egyptian dreams' portend, from the micro-level of the two individual heads to the more macro-level of the diminishment of Pharaoh's once-capacious granary, comes true: true as interpreted by Joseph, as executed by Pharaoh, and as intended by God. Pharaoh is coping not only with domestic dreams but with those of Joseph as well. If the whole Joseph story can be compressed to a single imperative, it is to remember and reinterpret. Pharaoh manages it much better than certain of the more likely candidates. His dreamworthiness here, his receptivity to divine promptings, is a major element in Pharaoh's characterization but nonetheless offered to the reader with great subtlety. Responsive to this paradoxical web of obduracy and suppleness, each reader needs also to assess, probably repeatedly, whether this blend of power and weakness is benign or malign, droll or dangerous, sympathetic and pitiful or very terrifying. Rabbinic commentary credits this Pharaoh as being the Torah's image of a good monarch;16 perhaps that is true in a slow field,17 but Michael Fox's more recent sketch of Esther's Xerxes notes that tremendous structural power vested in a personally weak person can make a terrible combination. The point here is that as readers, we will bring a vast range of experience to the making of such a judgment, a judgment requested of us by the artistic text. It is not, unfortunately, difficult to think of leaders whose profile this one recalls, whether long ago or recent, on the international or the local scene. We may have worked with such persons. How we will react, once we have recognized the lineaments, will vary, from person to person and from time to time in our lives.18 If we find Pharaoh humorous or harmless here and now, we may become uneasy later when the famine effect worsens, even in Egypt. In circumstances when there are decent people in the Joseph position, especially if it is filled by us 16. Lowenthal, The Joseph Narrative, p. 56. 17. Presumably the contenders include not only the pharaoh(s) of Exodus but the rulers to the south of Canaan involved with the first two early ancestral couples (Genesis 12, 20, 26), the mysterious monarchs of Genesis 14 who captured Lot, Balak of Moab (Num. 22-24), the kings who opposed the Israelites' journey back to Canaan: Sihon and Og of the Amorites (Deut. 2). 18. There are many variations imaginable that would be gender-specific, ethnically influenced, or class-determined. That I am not making those variables prominent here does not mean they are not potentially very significant.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

169

or our sort, such a Pharaoh may be desirable, bearable; but if malign persons play the Joseph role to this sort of authority figure, it can be frightening. If we have suffered in some of the administrative palaces of such persons, we will distrust all of them. Identifying the features of the textual portrait and discerning the particular skills of portraiture do not dictate our response to the character. Our leeway is huge. Finally, as we read the royal dreamer's texts against the multiple backgrounds of the developing plotline, we must also take responsibility for reading the dreaming. To start with what is clearest: the dreams in these last fourteen chapters of Genesis are clearly offered as God's insistent nudges, as spurs to human action. But they are more than faxes from God. In each case the dreams are woven from strands of the characters' narrative lives. Joseph, the steward, the baker and Pharaoh all dream of what is going on in their lives, such as we know them. And diverse though their lives may be, they all dream about position, numbers, food, and about ostensible weakness overtaking strength. Each set of dreams is thus sent by God to hustle along the plot activity but also to show something about the characters themselves, perhaps about human character itself. So Pharaoh, dreaming of cows and corn, is also bringing to consciousness the blend of power and weakness. We see him flinch at his dreams as he turns them over, since they cut uncomfortably close to the bone, whether he recognizes it consciously or not. We are challenged to stand with him and consider that the images which horrify him—the thin pointlessly and wastefully consuming the fat, powerlessness overtaking potency—are symbols of his own vulnerability and proclaim not only the diminishment of his own political power but the unravelling emptiness of himself as well. Pharaoh seems to glimpse the former but not the latter, perhaps even to bury the latter as he rushes to shore up the former. His dreams are political but they are also psychological and spiritual: the man is not in control of his own realm. I can think of no leader who would recognize him- or herself in this portrait; no one says, I am powerful but clueless, humble but bombastic, self-effacing but sovereign at the controls of fertility. No one wishes to acknowledge such a reading, or at least to accede to it. The portrait is not uncomplicatedly linked to self-knowledge of any of us. But though we may not read ourselves directly, still as we watch our character reading his own character, glimpsing and disclosing the thin but greedy cows of our own species, we may respond uneasily, as he

170

The World of Genesis

did too. At first finding Pharaoh absurd, thinking his figure reflected in his dreams is a caricature of anything that resembles ourselves, we may pause. So, finally, the deepest challenge to our creative and diverse capacites as interpreters of character comes when reading Pharaoh reading dreams. As, or insofar as, we, reading watch him reading, we may be caught blindsided into a reading of ourselves as well. He may see less of himself in his dreams than we do. But just as he sees mostly cows where we see him, we risk seeing only him rather than our human selves as well, our propensity to reduce our insight to cattle and corn. Once we see the dreams as not only heaven-sent but as churned up from various human realms as well, a new set of mirrors approaches us. Like any skillfully made caricature, it shows some incisive outline through the exaggeration of what is also true. Any reader of herself in such a sketch can, with some integrity, maintain a safe and more dignified distance; or, if she is brave, she can see the skill of the depiction and then respond.19 The dreams about reversal of position, about strength and weakness, about the mystery of human responsiveness to divine tides, though integral to the Joseph story and vital for building its particular potentate, are challenging beyond it as well. If the story of the exodus from Egypt is arguably the fundamental pattern of the whole biblical narrative, then the Joseph story, its action propelled by the dreams, poses the question of why the going-out was necessary. The dreams in the Joseph story refer obliquely to an untold story, to an unnamed danger that makes escape even in Egypt a necessity. What is the danger lurking that makes Egypt a refuge, even if only for a time? What is the 19. T. Docherty, Reading (Absent) Character: Towards a Theory of Characterization in Fiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 86, says: 'The way to the freedom of the reader. .. does not come from sympathy with a subjective personality in the fiction. .. but comes instead from the empathy demanded by the impersonal modes in which the reader impersonates many positions and in-forms his or her subjectivity by losing identity as a nameable self. . . ' If I understand the point, I find it (mutatis mutandis)) highly appropriate for this text of Genesis 37-50 as well as for post-modern fiction. R.M. Fowler, 'Response: Characterizing Character in Biblical Narrative', Semeia 63 (1993), p. 112, asks: 'In reading the Bible, we try to shape the text and its characters until it is the kind of setting in which we can gratify our wishes and defeat our fears. In other words, readers effect characters who in turn affect readers.' That is surely part of what occurs, but I am not sure his sentence exhausts the possibilities.

GREEN The Determination of Pharaoh

111

secret of human potency and coherence, whether at the mundane, geopolitical, or spiritual levels that unwinds so easily? Disintegrates so felicitously? Distant though his ancient, dreaming self may seem to post-moderns, we may awaken to find him closer than we thought possible, desirable. The pharaoh of Genesis 40-41 is hardly a major figure of literature, accustomed to minute analysis by commentators, critics and theorists. But having started with his title and ended with his dreams, we find him a good subject for the discussion of textual determinacy. Pharaoh as a character is shown determined to act. He is, simultaneously, shown determined primarily by forces outside his own knowledge or governance. The narrator sketches the linguistic facets of these features, reserving some for his own articulation and delegating others to his characters. But the most creative performance of them is the project of readers, collaborating with the amusing portrait and the brilliant portraiture. In some cases the choice is more narrow, in other cases much more spacious. We ourselves may feel in control of our interpretation, determiners of our own decisions, but we also are influenced in our interpretations by many factors that lie behind the horizons of which we are aware. We begin by reading Pharaoh's distant self but end up much closer, as we risk entering the dream texts, our role of reader blending with the character we are reading. Our challenge in reading a carefully drawn character is in no way diminished by the precision of the drawing; quite the reverse. 'Determined' seems too stiff a word for the process in which we are involved.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES BIBLICAL BOOKS Genesis

1-17 1-15 1-11

1-4 1 1.1-6.8 1.1-2.4 1.1 1.2 1.3

1.6-8 1.6 1.8 1.9-12

.9

.14-19

.16

.20-28

.22

1.26-28 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29-30 1.29 2-3

2

2.4-3.24 42, 129 42 2.4-6 2.4 8, 22, 29, 34, 39, 41, 2.5 42, 45-47 2.6 56,57 2.7-25 7, 23-28, 36- 2.7-23 39,56 2.7 29 2.8-23 22 2.8 23, 25, 28 2.15 24,25 2.18 25 2.23 25 2.24 24 2.25 23 3 25 3.1-7 23 3.1 25 3.6 27 3.7 26 3.8-24 26,27 3.10 26,37 3.11 26 3.16 37 3.17-24 26,27 3.17-19 26 3.23 46 3.38 4 22, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 4.11 39, 55, 56, 4.14 59 5.1-2 24 6-9

22, 23, 28, 30, 34, 36 36 23,25 29,30 29,46 36 30 29,36 36 30 30 31,32 30 35,36 32 7 36 31,32 9 32 36 32 32 27,34 30 34,37 30 143 56,57 46 46 37 37,38

6.1 6.5-13 6.5 6.7 6.11 6.12 6.13 7.3 7.4 7.23 8.2 8.8 8.9 8.13 8.22 9.8-17 9.18-29 10 10.1-32 11-16 11 11.1-9 11.1-2

11.1 11.2-8

11.2

11.3-4 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6-8 11.6-7 11.6

46 37 38 46 38 38 38 46 46 46 109 46 46 46 38 38 39 39, 123 39 69 44,45 22, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46 39 39-43 40,44 39, 40, 42 43 41 41-43, 46 40,42 41 41,43 43

Index of References 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.27-32 11.29 11.30

12-50 12-36 12-22 12 12.1-4 12.1 12.3 12.6 12.7 12.10 12.11-13 12.12 12.13-14 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.18-20 12.18-19 12.19 12.20 12.21 12.22 13 13.10 13.14-17 13.14 13.16 13.18 14 15

15.1 15.2-3 15.2 15.5

15.6 15.7 15.12

44 40, 43-46 39.41,44-46 65 68,99 69 11 133, 135 14, 146-48 168 95 64, 146 14 72 72, 134 66 66 146 146 67, 146 67, 146 146 67 146 147 67, 146, 147 62, 146, 147 146 66 66 134 67 64, 130, 134 72 141, 168 12, 71, 128, 133, 134, 138, 147 131 72 80 12, 64, 128, 130-32, 134, 135 133 133, 134 12, 128, 129, 132

15.16 15.17 15.18-21 15.21 15.26 16-50 16 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.10 16.11 16.12 16.12 NJV 16.13 16.15 17 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.6 17.8 17.10-13 17.14 17.17 17.18 17.19-21 17.19 17.20 18-19 18 18.1-15 18.1 18.2 18.8 18.10 18.12 18.13-15 18.13-14 18.14 18.15 18.16-19.28

134 135 134 134 129 147 14, 61, 68, 75, 147 60 72, 73, 80 73 73 75,80 76 64,77 75 75 61 75, 77, 80 78 60, 71, 78, 84, 147 78 77 77 64 134 78 78 71 72 14 80 64 137, 138, 143, 145 13,70 138 140 138 72, 140 139 69,70 139 70 71,139 77 138

173 18.17-21 18.17-19 18.20-21 18.22 18.23-32

18.23 18.25 18.26 18.33 19 19.1 19.13-14 19.14 19.16 19.24 19.25 19.27-28 19.27 19.29 19.30-38 20 20.12 21

21.1-2 21.8-10 21.9 21.12 21.13 21.16-17 21.18 21.19 21.20

21.33 22

22.2 22.3 22.6 22.13 22.16 22.17-18

22.22-23 22.23 23

139 139 139 139, 140 137, 139, 141 141 141 140 139, 140, 144 143 138, 139 140 80, 142 140, 143 140 140 141 140 143 143 168 68 60, 61, 67, 68, 75, 81, 148 10, 74 80 80 147 79 78 75,78 75 78 72 137, 138, 148 74, 146 74 74 74 74 99 98 99 149

The World of Genesis

174 24

24.1-67 24.1 24.2-8 24.3-4 24.5 24.8 24.12-14 24.12 24.13 24.15-25 24.15-16 24.15 24.16 24.17-18 24.18 24.19-21 24.19 24.20 24.22-25 24.23-25 24.24 24.27-28 24.28 24.30 24.37-41 24.39 24.45-57 24.45 24.51 24.55-57 24.58 24.60 24.61 24.65 24.67 25 25.1-2 25.6 26 26.8 29.23-25 29.32-35 30.1-24 30.1-3 30.2

10, 11,90, 92, 94-96, 99, 100, 149 92 91 93 94 94,95 94 96 96 96 97 97 90,98 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 98 94 99 95 95 93,95 95 99 99 99 98 99 99 99, 100 100 95 76 71 72 168 80 133 121 121 9,60 69

32.22-32 35.23-36 37-50 37 37.5-7 37.36-39.1 37.36 38

38.1-6

38.1 38.2

38.3 38.4

38.5 38.6 38.7-11

38.7-10 38.7

38.8 38.9

38.10 38.11 38.12-30 38.12-26

38.12 38.13 38.14-23 38.14-19

38.14 38.15 38.16

115 121 150, 151, 170 152 153 152 150 11, 101, 103, 104, 109, 120 102-104, 109, 110 103-105 104 104, 109 104, 109 104, 109 104, 109, 110 102, 103, 105, 111, 112 105 106, 107, 111, 113 105, 106, 111 105, 106, 108, 111 105-107, 111 106, 107, 112 105 102, 103, 105, 114, 119 11, 102, 103, 114 114 106 117 106, 107, 115 115 105, 106, 108

38.18 38.19 38.20-23 38.20

38.21 38.22 38.23 38.24-26 38.24 38.25 38.26 38.27-30 38.27 38.28 38.29 38.30 39-48 39.1

39.17 39.19-20 39.20 40-41 40

40.1 40.7 40.8 40.9-11 40.13 40.14-15 40.16-17 40.18-19 40.19 41.4 41.5-7

41.7 41.8 41.9-13

41.14 41.15-45 41.15-24

41.15 41.17-24

106 105, 106, 115 116, 117 116 116 116 107, 116 116, 117 107, 118 118 106-108, 117-19 102-104, 119, 120 104, 119 104, 119 104, 105, 118 104, 105, 118, 119 152 150 80,81 157 150, 152 150, 151, 165, 171 152 152, 156 153 156 153 153 153 154 154 153 156 158 156 164 156 157 158 164 158 158

Index of References 41.17-20

41.22-24 41.24-25 41.25-33 41.33-36 41.36 41.38 41.39 41.40 41.41 41.42-43 42.15 44.18 45.2 45.8 45.16-21 46.7-12

46.15 46.31-47.6 47.13-26 50.1-6

158 158 159 159 159 160 160 160 161 161 161 150 150 150 150 151 151 151 151 151 151

7.17 8.22 8.23 12.12 14.4 14.12 14.18

16.2 16.3 16.7 16.8 16.29 17.3 32.4-6

Deuteronomy 1.10 1.29 1.39 2 9.1 10.22 25.5-10 28.62 30.15 30.19 Joshua 2-6 8.14 8.20

13-19

Exodus 1.5

22-24 22.10 22.38 26.28-34 32.34-36

86 86 86 86 66 86 63 86 86 63 86 86 86 63 81

Leviticus 26.34-35 27.12 27.14

9 50 50

Numberas 1.46 13.19

66 50

17.1-4 19.10-23 19.47 24.2

168 131 130, 131 123 122

134 42 32, 33, 50 168 42 134 113 134 50 50

121 133 133 122, 123 123 121 122 64

Judges 1.1-8 18.27-29 19 20

121 122 143 143

Ruth 3.10

72

1 Samuel 1.8 16.6 16.8 16.9 17.8-9 17.10 17.11

17.26 17.42

69 134 134 134 130 131 131 131 131

175 2 Samuel 14.17 19.36 24.5

50 32, 33 122

7 Kings 3.9 4.30 NJB 18.45

50 66 133

2 Kings 2.1 2.5 18.23-24 19.35 21.19 23.36

133 133 130 131 124 124

7 Chronicles 7.14-18

123

2 Chronicles 13 30.11 32.13

122 124 130, 131

Job

11.2 21.3 30.1 32.17-21 33.5 35.5 42.7

131 131 131 131 131 133 132

Proverbs 5.5-6 5.20-23 7.21-27 25.11

50 50 51 54

Song of Songs 2.3 54 2.5 54 8.5 54 7.8[9] 54

The World of Genesis

176 Isaiah 7.15-16 19.25 19.25 NIV 24.11 36.8 40.26

32, 33, 50 63, 74, 86 62 24 130, 131 135

Jeremiah 4.23 5.1-8

24 143, 144

Ezekiel 16.37 23.27

65 65

Hosea 2.2-3 2.25

65 65

Amos 5.14-15

50

Wisdom of Solomon 19.17 144 1 Maccabees 5.15 5.21-23

124 124

Acts 16.3

83

1 Corinthians 1-5 7 7.3-4 11.3 11.7-8 14.34-35 14.34 14.40 15.35

83 83 84 85 85 85 85 86 85

2 Corinthians 12.7 83 Galatians 1.1 1.8 1.13 1.15REB 2.11 2.18 3.15REB 3.16 3.28 4 4.1-3 4.1

85 85 80,81 85 80 80 81 81 84 60, 82, 85 81 80

4.5 4.6-7 4.9 4.21-31 4.23 4.24-26 4.24 4.29 4.30 4.31 5 5.12 5.15 5.19-23 5.19 5.24 6.7 6.12 6.13 6.14

80 82 80 149 82 82 82 61,80,81 82 82 62 84 84 83 80,83 83 80 83 83 84

Philippians 3

60

1 Timothy 2.11-14

85

2 Peter 2.68

144

Josephus Ant. 1.4 13.12.1 13.12.4-5

44 124 124

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Qumran

!QSa[lQ28a] 6-11

33

Talmud b. Pes. 6

129

Midrash GenR. 49.12 49.13 50.9 50.2 51.2

142 142 142 140 140

War

1.4.2

124

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackerman, J.S. 154 Aharoni, Y. 123 Albright, W.F. 29, 122 Alexander, T.D. 143 Alt, A. 124 Alter, R. 68, 75, 108, 110-12 Anderson, B.W. 27, 45 Atwood, M. 9, 60 Auerbach, E. 136, 137, 145 Auffret, P. 40 Bal, M. 10, 62, 68-72, 74, 79, 84, 85 Bar Kochba, B. 124 Bar-Efrat, S. 101, 109, 151 Bechtel, L.M. 22, 33 Berlin, A. 103, 163 Betz, H.D. 61, 80, 83, 86 Blenkinsopp, J. 36 Bloom, H. 62, 74, 75 Blum, E. 93 Brenner, A. 34 Brueggemann, W. 57, 148 Buchanan, G.W. 33 Bucher-Gillmayr, S. 92 Burnett, F.W. 163 Burns, D.E. 36 Calvocoressi, P. 72 Carpenter, I.E. 138 Cassuto, U. 29, 33, 44 Cixous, H. 70 Clines, D.J.A. 8, 141 Coats, G.W. 113 Collins, J.R. 144 Cooper, R. 162 Couffignal, R. 42 Cuddon, A.J. 118

Culley, R.B. 162 Cunningham, V. 58 Dahood, M. 29 Davies, P.R. 8, 13, 141 Dickens, C. 58 Diebner, B. 93, 94 Dijkstra, T. 90 Docherty, T. 170 Doughty, D.J. 60 Driver, S.R. 33, 138 Egan, R.J. 58 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 78 Engelkern, K. 99 Fischer, I. 98 Fisher, S. 82 Fohrer, G. 140 Fokkelman, J.P. 40, 41, 63, 64, 74, 86, 111, 115 Fowler, R.M. 56, 170 Fox, M.V. 155, 168 Frankel, R. 11 Freud, S. 62, 78, 84 Friedman, R.E. 62 Fuks, G. 124 Gallop, J. 62 Gibson, J.C.L. 122, 129 Gillmayr-Bucher, S. 10 Glatt, D.A. 128 Goldingay, J. 9, 14 Good, E.M. 133, 134 Goulder, M. 60 Gowan, D.E. 42 Green, B. 14, 15

178

The World of Genesis

Gros Louis, K.R.R. 154 Gunkel, H. 29, 141, 143 Haliwell, S. 118 Hamilton, V.P. 42, 129 Harford-Battersby, G. 138 Hirschfeld, H.Z. 124 Hugo, V. 72 Humphreys, W.L. 32 Irigaray, L. 62, 70 Iser, W. 10, 90 Jacob, B. 44 Jeansonne, S. 66-73, 113 Kellenbach, K. von 61, 76, 77 Kempten, G. 90 Kikawada, I.M. 40, 45 Lambe, A. 11 Landsborough, D. 83 Lerner, G. 65 Lewandowski, T. 91 Loader, J.A. 139, 145 Longacre, R.E. 152 Lowenthal, E. 155, 157, 168 Lundbom, J. 13 MacDonald, B. 144 Machholz, C. 93 Magonet, J. 146, 147, 149 Malbon, E.S. 163 Marcus, D. 153 Martin, W.J. 128 Martinez, F. Garcia 33 Mazar, B. 122 McCracken, D. 163 Moberly, R.W.L. 50 Moor, J.C. de 95 Morgan, R. 59 Morgenstern, J. 143 Morris, P. 54 Na'aman, N. 122 Naidoff, B.P. 30 Noegel, S. 12, 13 Noth, M. 121

O'Callaghan, M. 109, 117 O'Connor, M. 130, 131 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 137 Perelman, C. 137, 138 Perry, T.A. 24 Phelan, J. 151 Pobee, J.S. 148 Politis, K.D. 144 Rad, G. von 42, 57, 138-41, 143 Radday, Y.T. 40 Rashkow, I.N. 163 Reisner, G.A. 123 Rendsburg, G. 42 Rendtorff, R. 27, 138 Robinson, R.B. 163 Rofe, A. 93, 94 Rosenberg, J. 134 Roth, W. 96 Rowley, H.H. 121 Rulon-Miller, N. 9, 10 Saeb0, M. 29 Sarna, N. 129, 133 Sasson, J.M. 41 Sawyer, D. 54 Alous-Schokel, L. 134 Schult, H. 93, 94 Schiissler Fiorenza, E. 85 Schweitzer, H. 91, 92 Sedgwick, E.K. 62 Van Seters, J. 138, 139, 143 Seybold, D. 154 Skinner, J. 41, 128, 138, 143 Speiser, E.A. 29, 42, 68, 128, 138, 139 Steinberg, N. 101 Stern, M. 124 Sternberg, M. 69, 134, 155, 156, 158 Stoebe, H.J. 32 Stordalen, T. 22 Sukenik, E.L. 122 Sutherland, S. 83 Tadmor, H. 124 Tamez, E. 14, 148, 149 Teubal, S. 80, 81

Index of Authors Teugels, L. 97 Thompson, M.M. 163 Todorov, T. 101, 103, 120 Trible, P. 54, 74, 76, 79 Tsumura, D. 24 Turner, L.A. 27, 45, 141, 143 Vaux, R. de 143 Vidal, G. 83 Vogels, W. 31, 32, 42 Vos, G. 128 Walsh, J.T. 30 Waltke, B.K. 130, 131

179

Warshaw, T.S. 154 Wartenberg-Potter, B. von 148 Watson, F. 57 Wellhausen, J. 139 Wenham, G.J. 40, 42, 147, 148 Westermann, C. 24, 27, 32, 42, 81, 128, 133, 135 Whybray, N. 138 Williams, D. 76 Wolde, E.J. van 8, 9, 24, 31, 34, 95

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 50 51 52 53 54 55 86 87

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

George W. Coats (ed.), Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs Thomas H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, II Elaine R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult James D. Martin & Philip R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane George C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment Steven J.L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis Martin Noth, The Chronicler's History Paul M. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study Jeremiah Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition Thomas L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose David J.A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl & Stanley E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield Rodney K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel Frank H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology Yehuda T. Radday & Athalya Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative David J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do To Help? And Other Readerly

Questions to the Old Testament Rick Dale Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve K. Lawson Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing 99 R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs 100 Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History 101 Peter R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age 102 Michael D. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II 103 Bryant G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages 104 Paul R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains 105 Pietro Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible 106 Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World 107 Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law 108 Paula M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society 109 David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach 110 Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites 111 J. Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel 112 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job 113 Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law 114 Dan Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs 115 Victor Hurowitz, / Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings 116 David M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-19233 (trans. David E. Orton) 117 Philip R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. I. Persian Period 118 Raymond Jacques Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem 119 David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation 120 R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah 95 96 97 98

121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

147 148 149

Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography ofJudah Loveday Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead Baruch Halpern & Deborah W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel Gary A. Anderson & Saul M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel John W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography Diana Vikander Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past Thomas P. McCreesh, OP, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah Lynn Holden, Forms of Deformity Mark Daniel Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective Roger Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua Gordon F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 Paul Morris & Deborah Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden Henning Graf Reventlow & Yair Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson James W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East Frederick H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation J. Cheryl Exum & David J.A. Clines (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis Gosta W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East Philip R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll & Philip R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of

150 151 152 153 154

155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 Joel Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community (trans. Daniel L. Smith Christopher) A. Graeme Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson Donald K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 Marc Brettler & Michael Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday Jeffrey A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge John W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J. Clinton McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History George W. Coats, The Moses Tradition Heather A. McKay & David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Subversions of Biblical Narratives Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Tar gums in their Historical Context Raymond F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman & Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown & Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach Tamara C. Eskenazi & Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. II. Temple and Community in the Persian Period Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls

177 178

185

David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development Steven L. McKenzie & M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth John Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith John C. Reeves & John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew

186

Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of

187

Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual

188

Robert H. O' Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment Steven W. Holloway & Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom Henning Graf Reventlow & William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book ofHosea Jon Davies, Graham Harvey & Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators Mark Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines & Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible

179 180 181 182 183 184

Mythology Esther

Integrity 189 190 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202

203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 221 228 229 230

Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway ? David J. A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible M0gens Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies & Mark Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context Roy F. Melugin & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha Richard D. Weis & David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara

231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 248 249 250

Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah ReExamined Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (with contributions by Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith) Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel K.L. Noll, The Faces of David Henning Graf Reventlow, Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete Lester L. Grabbe, Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin (eds.), Beyond the River: New Perspectives on

Transeuphratene 251 252 253 254 255 257

Flemming AJ. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms William Johnstone, I and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 1:1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations William Johnstone, I and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives